O'
m
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
$
55
V
\
IU
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402 - Price $17.80 Per Set of Five Vola. (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 derigueur.
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. RUCKBLSHAUS
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 SimpMns, Janis Collier, Wm. Lee Rawls, Peter J. McKenna,
James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy Mott, Thomas H. Rawls,
John D. Whittaker, 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
IX
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
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
§1857b-(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 ei seg. (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
Lib 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
Lie 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
-------
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, 80 Stat. 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. 42381-42395; 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. HEP. 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,
92dCong., 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)I. (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 Prom 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,
70AStat. 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)J 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
526-703 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.O. 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-J.U6, 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,
86Stat. 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)]. (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
(S) 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),
86Stat. 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., 2d Sess. (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 * 2376
(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.F.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 1189
l.lk(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970,)
Page
General statement 1
Hearings 4
Discussion of intent 4
Research relating to fuels and vehicles 4
Grants for support of air pollution programs 5
Interstate air quality agencies 6
Research relating to air pollution effects 7
Air quality control regions 8
Air quality criteria and control techniques 9
National air quality standards and goals 9
Implementation plans 11
State standards and plans to achieve greater air quality control 15
New source standards of performance 15
National emission standars—selected air pollution agents 18
National emission standards—hazardous air pollution agents 20
Federal enforcement 21
Control of pollution from Federal facilities 23
Establishment of standards 23
Prohibited acts—Injunction proceedings—Penalties 28
Certification and production model testing 28
Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine compliance testing 29
State grants 31
Records and reports 31
State standards 32
Used vehicles 32
Registration and regulation of fuels and fuel additives 33
Development of low-emission vehicles 35
Definitions 35
Applicability 35
Emergency powers 35
Citizen suits 36
Appearance 39
Federal procurement 39
Employee protection 40
Judicial review 40
Mandatory licensing 42
Policy review 43
Authorizations 44
Noise pollution 45
Individual views:
Hon. Robert J. Dole 47
Hon. Edward J. Gurney 50
Section-by-section analysis 52
Changes in existing law 68
-------
1190 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
SEPTEMBER 17,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BYED of West Virginia (for Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee
on Public Works, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 4358]
The Committee on Public Works, to which the bill (S. 4358),
to amend the Clean Air Act as amended, was referred having con-
sidered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment.
An original bill (S. 4358) is reported in lieu of S. 3229, S. 3466,
and S. 3546 which were considered by the Committee.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The committee bill would restructure the methods available to
attack a critical and growing national problem of air pollution.
The legislation reported by the committee is the result of deep
concern for protection of the health of the American people. Air
pollution is not only an aesthetic nuisance. The Committee's con-
cern with direct adverse effects upon public health has increased
since the publication of air quality criteria documents for five
major pollutants (oxides of sulfur, particulates, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons and oxidants). These documents indicate that the
air pollution problem is more severe, more pervasive, and growing
at a more rapid rate than was generally believed.
The new information that carbon monoxide concentrations at
levels damaging to public health occur in Chicago more than 22
percent of the time, and that other cities have similar problems
with carbon monoxide and other pollutants, intensified the com-
mittee's concern to authorize a massive attack on air pollution.
This bill is designed to provide the basis for such an attack.
[p.1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1191
Although the nature of the attack will differ from region to
region, one objective will be the same: Air quality standards pro-
tective of the health of persons must be achieved within the 3-year
period of the approval of plans to implement ambient air quality
standards. The right of States to set more stringent standards
of air quality has been preserved. Maintenance of existing high
quality air is assured through provision for maximum control of
new major pollution sources.
The protection of public health—as required by the national
ambient air quality standards and as mandated by provisions for
elimination of emissions of extremely hazardous pollution
agents—will require major action throughout the Nation. Many
facilities will require major investments in new technology and
new processes. Some facilities will need altered operating pro-
cedures or a change of fuels. Some facilities may be closed.
The requirements for State action will be broadened. And the
obligation on polluters will be greatly increased. What has been
a program focused on uniquely critical areas, underfunded and
inadequately manned, will become truly national in scope and
will require an immediate increase in personnel and funding.
Implementation of standards will require other changes in
public policy:
Land use policies must be developed to prevent location of
facilities which are not compatible with implementation of
national standards.
Transportation policies must be developed or improved to
assure that the impact of pollution from existing moving
sources is reduced to the minimum compatible with the needs
of each region. Construction of urban highways and freeways
may be required to take second place to rapid and mass
transit and other public transportation systems. Central city
use of motor vehicles may have to be restricted.
Fuel policies must be developed to provide for use of clean
fuels in urban areas. Development of control technology for
fuel combustion byproducts must be accelerated. Greater use
of natural gas for electric power generation may be required.
And, to the extent that low sulfur coal and oil are available,
they may be required for generating stations and home heat-
ing units in critical areas. Fuel import policies may need to be
reevaluated.
If the Nation is to continue to depend on individual use motor
vehicles, such vehicles must meet high standards. The bill
-------
1192 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
recognizes that a generation—or ten years' production—of motor
vehicles will be required to meet the proposed standards. During
that time, as much as seventy-five percent of the traffic may have
to be restricted in certain large metropolitan areas if health
standards are to be achieved within the time required by this bill.
In the Committee discussions, considerable concern was ex-
pressed regarding the use of the concept of technical feasibility as
the basis of ambient air standards. The Committee determined
that 1) the health of people is more important than the question
of whether the early achievement of ambient air quality standards
protective of health is technically feasible; and, 2) the growth of
pollution load in many areas, even with application of available
technology, would still be deleterious to public health.
[p. 2]
Therefore, the Committee determined that existing sources of
pollutants either should meet the standard of the law or be closed
down, and in addition that new sources should be controlled to
the maximum extent possible to prevent atmospheric emissions.
The committee also was concerned that public participation, a
unique feature of the Air Quality Act of 1967, should be preserved.
The national air quality standards concept should not restrict
effective citizen action. Not only does the bill assure an opportun-
ity for a region to adopt standards more restrictive than the
national standard, but public hearings on implementation plans
also must be held. More importantly, the committee believes that
public participation should not be limited to the development of
standards and plans.
The proposed legislation emphasizes the need to accelerate en-
forcement action. To assure that Federal and State agencies ag-
gressively pursue their responsibilities and to supplement their
capacities, the bill provides a right of citizen action to seek en-
forcement of the provisions of the act. Actions to abate violations
of timetables, of implementation schedules, of mission require-
ments, of performance and emission standards and of prohibitions
can be initiated by the public.
The bill would provide other important tools to protect public
health and to assure effective implementation of the purposes of
the Act. By providing authority to prohibit the emission of pollut-
ants which present a clear hazard to health, the bill shifts the
burden of proof to the polluter to identify safe emission levels.
Extensive research must be carried out to accelerate knowledge
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1193
of pollution effects and control methods. New motor vehicle
engines must represent substantial improvements over existing
systems. The sale of fuels which would hinder effective, economic
emission control systems can be prohibited.
Under the provision which would require mandatory licensing
of pollution control techniques, technology (not otherwise avail-
able) that is developed to control emissions from either moving
sources or new or hazardous sources would be available to any
polluter.
The extent of Federal involvement in the development and
maintenance of air pollution control programs would be broad-
ened. The pace and degree of enforcement will be quickened.
The bill, for the first time, would establish a Federal capability
to evaluate the problems of environmental noise and requires
legislative recommendations to the Congress. While noise is not
an "air pollutant" in the classic sense, it is a growing environ-
mental problem which is national in scope and requires intensified
evaluation and greater understanding. By authorizing the estab-
lishment of an Office of Noise Abatement Control, the bill would
provide the proposed Environmental Protection Agency with a
capacity to deal with this growing problem.
The committee emphasizes that the act, the deadlines proposed,
and the new programs authorized will be without meaning unless
supplemental manpower (doubling present staffing of National
Air Pollution Control Administration) and supplemental funding
(an increase of at least $44 million over the present budget re-
quest) are provided in this fiscal year.
Failure by the Executive Branch to request and Congress to
approve these needed increases will substantially impair imple-
mentation of this
[p. 3]
legislation and make both the executive and legislative branches
subject to charges of lack of commitment.
Within a short period, the pressures for additional staff and
funds will also be felt by the States. Should the States fail to
respond to that pressure, the deadlines established by the Act
would require broader Federal involvement in regional and State
programs.
In sum, this bill would extend the Clean Air Act of 1963 as
amended in 1965, 1966, and 1967 to provide a much more intensive
and comprehensive attack on air pollution. It would establish that
-------
1194 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the air is a public resource, and that those who would use that
resource must protect it from abuse, to assure the protection of
the health of every American.
HEARINGS
Following enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution held 13 days of oversight
hearings in 1968 and 1969 on the progress and problems associ-
ated with the control of air pollution. The subjects covered included
interstate air pollution compacts, air quality criteria, and a field
hearing on air pollution problems in St. Louis, Missouri. In ad-
dition, 2 days of joint hearings were held with the Senate Com-
merce Committee on alternatives to the internal combustion
engine.
On December 10, 1969, Senator Muskie introduced S. 3229, the
Air Quality Improvement Act and Senator Montoya introduced
Amendment No. 501 on fuels regulation on February 18, 1970.
The Administration bill, S. 3466, the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1970, was introduced by Senator Scott on February 18, 1970.
Senator Muskie introduced S. 3546, the National Air Quality
Standards Act on March 4, 1970. Subsequently, 11 days of hear-
ings were held in Washington, D.C. Three additional days of
hearings were held in joint session with the Commerce Committee
on legislation related to low-emission alternatives to the internal
combustion engine (S. 3072).
In total, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution held 15
days of oversight hearings in 1968 and 1969, and 15 days of legis-
lative hearings in 1970.
DISCUSSION OF INTENT
SECTION 104. RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
The Air Quality Act of 1967 provided increased emphasis on
research relating to fuels and vehicles. This provision included
two special features not contained in the general research author-
ity of section 103 of that act. First, appropriated funds were to
remain available until expended, providing needed flexibility in
the planning and scheduling of research and development and
demonstration projects. Second, a legal basis was established for
supporting demonstration projects involving the construction and
installation of pollution control equipment in profit making facil-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1195
ities in order to gain maximum benefit from expertise in the
practical application of technology.
The amendments to section 104 contained in the bill, as re-
ported, would provide increased emphasis on (1) fuel cleaning
prior to combustion; (2) new and improved methods for com-
busting fuels which result in decreased atmospheric emissions;
(3) methods for producing synthetic or new fuels which have a
lower combustion potential for
[p. 4]
creating air pollution; and (4) increased efforts to develop and
demonstrate alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
The legislation also would provide authority to make fleet pur-
chases of low emission vehicles for research, development, and
testing purposes which would involve purchase of 300 or more
cars of a particular design, subject to actual operation and testing.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration has developed
a 6-year plan (fiscal 1970 to 1975) which contemplates expendi-
tures of $89.1 million for the development of low-emission alter-
natives to the internal combustion engine. This plan includes both
the control of emissions from conventional motor vehicles, and
the development of unconventional low pollution motor vehicles.
New authority for purchase of cars for research, development,
and testing is intended primarily to facilitate this program.
The current research and development effort for controlling
emissions from stationary sources has emphasized flue gas treat-
ment and fuel cleaning (removal of contaminants from fuels be-
fore use). Increased emphasis should be placed on fuel cleaning as
a method for reducing atmospheric emissions.
The Committee also intends that increased emphasis be placed
on improving fuel combustion efficiencies. Although flue gas con-
trol technology offers a potential for improvement, the long-term
answers may lie in magnetohydrodynamics, fuel cells and other
energy conversion processes which emit less pollution per unit of
fuel or per unit of energy.
The Committee recognizes that variations in the choice of fuels
among different regions may offer a potential for reducing air
pollution levels. However, fuels with a minimal adverse impact
on the environment—such as natural gas and low sulfur fuels—
may only be available in limited quantities. The bill therefore
would authorize the development and demonstration of methods
to produce synthetic or new fuels for both stationary and moving
sources which will result in decreased atmospheric emissions.
-------
1196 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The bill would authorize $450 million to carry out the provisions
of this section: $125 million for fiscal year 1971; $150 million for
fiscal year 1972; and $175 million for fiscal year 1973. Appropri-
ations at that level could substantially accelerate the nation's
capacity to reduce air pollution and to achieve and maintain high
ambient air quality.
SECTION 105. GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION PLANNING AND
CONTROL PROGRAMS
The Committee expects that the grantmaking authority in sec-
tion 105 will be used to make three-to-one support (three-to-two
in the case of maintenance support) grants available to States
where the States are initiating or operating regional air pollution
control programs. The intent is to enable States to qualify for the
same degree of Federal support now available to intermunicipal
and interstate agencies engaged in regional air pollution control
activities. State-operated regional programs should supplant mu-
nicipal or intermunicipal programs only in those cases where it
is clearly advantageous, from the standpoint of effective air pol-
lution control and efficient utilization of resources.
[p. 5]
There are a number of ways a State agency could establish such
regional programs, and States should use their own administra-
tive and organizational structure to achieve this purpose in a
manner most suitable to their respective needs. In at least one
State, Massachusetts, State supported regional programs are
operating for the Boston and Springfield metropolitan areas. The
Federal grant support to these programs would, however, be made
to the State agency which in turn would fund the regional pro-
gram; the employees of such regional programs are to be con-
sidered State employees.
Acting under section 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, the adminis-
tration has formulated a plan for assigning Federally-employed
personnel to State air pollution control agencies for periods of up
to two years. The purpose of the plan is to help States build up
their manpower resources. After a two-year assignment, each
Federal employee in this program would be available for State
employment, presumably in the same agency to which he had
been detailed. The authority for the Department to make such
personnel assignments would be retained; the additional provision
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1197
in section 105 would authorize the Department to make such
assignments in lieu of cash awards under a grant.
It is the intent of the Committee, that as a condition for Federal
grant support, air pollution control agencies either applying for,
or receiving such support shall vigorously attack air pollution
problems within their area of jurisdiction and effectively coordi-
nate their efforts with those of the Federal air pollution control
program. In order to achieve such performance in programs re-
ceiving Federal support, the Secretary would be authorized to sus-
pend or deny such assistance until the performance of such pro-
gram is adequate.
SECTION 106. INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY AGENCIES
Section 106 of the 1967 act authorized Federal support of up to
100 percent of the costs of interstate air quality planning pro-
grams for 2 years in order to expedite the development of regional
control programs in interstate areas. The purpose of this pro-
vision was to provide a mechanism for planning in a coordinated
fashion throughout regions where, except for State boundaries,
the problems of air quality control are common.
It was hoped that planning agencies such as Councils of Govern-
ment and regional planning commissions would be used. These
agencies now function in some areas to provide consistency of ap-
proach between States and among local jurisdictions on a number
of common problems, and were expected to perform a similar
function for air quality planning.
The Committee is disappointed that the provisions of Section
106 have never been implemented, and that no interstate planning
agency has been activated. The success of future regional efforts
in air quality control requires sound planning and coordination of
planning efforts on a comprehensive, regional basis. The bill, there-
fore, would retain the planning provision, but would delete the
authority for the Secretary to establish Federal regional com-
missions to plan for implementation of air quality standards. The
rigid timetables proposed by this legislation would obviate the
value of this authority.
[P. 6]
SECTION 107. RESEARCH RELATING TO AIR POLLUTION EFFECTS
The Committee believes increased research is needed on the
public health and welfare effects of air pollution agents—particu-
526-703 O - 73 - 3
-------
1198 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
larly long-term effects. This effort should be directed toward the
accelerated development of more comprehensive air quality
criteria.
The protection of the public health and welfare requires defini-
tive knowledge of the causal relationships between exposure to air
pollution agents—singly or in combinations—and health or wel-
fare under varying environmental conditions. Knowledge of the
relationship between the exposure to many air pollution agents
and acute and chronic health effects is sufficient to develop air
quality criteria related to such effects. Our knowledge of some
of the chronic effects involving extended exposure over a period
of years is limited. Increased research activities should concen-
trate in this area.
Concern for health effects must extend beyond "normal" seg-
ments of the population to effects on the very young, the aged, the
infirm, and other susceptible individuals. Research efforts also
must be directed toward improving knowledge of the causal re-
lationships involving impacts on socio-economic conditions, vege-
tation, and materials.
The legislation would provide for an accelerated research pro-
gram to improve knowledge of the contribution of air pollution
agents to the occurrence of adverse effects on health.
The Committee anticipates that attention will be given to the
following areas:
(1) The contribution of air pollution agents to the etiology
of disease, including the health significance of physiological,
toxicological, and biochemical effects;
(2) The additive and synergistic effects of exposure to air
pollution agents;
(3) The health and welfare significance of the storage and
accumulation of air pollution agents and their metabolites in
human organs and tissues;
(4) The influence of air pollution agents on the impair-
ment of human functions, increased accidents or absenteeism;
(5) The contribution of age, ethnic, social, occupational,
smoking and other factors to susceptibility to air pollution
agents; and
(6) The development of models to predict the public health
and welfare effects of exposure to air pollution agents, singly
or in combination.
The bill also would provide for the furtherance of knowledge
on welfare effects, including effects on vegetation, animals, wild-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1199
life, buildings, structures, and materials. This research effort
should extend into welfare effects and aesthetics in their broadest
definition, including the economy, visibility, weather, and climate.
Because prospective studies on the long-term effects of air pol-
lution often extend beyond normal contract periods, and in order
to maintain a continuity with respect to such epidemiological,
clinical, and laboratory studies, the bill would provide contract
authority for periods up to 10 years. For the purpose of carrying
out this specific contract research, the bill provides an authoriza-
tion of $15,000,000.
The ongoing research on health and welfare effects carried out
under section 103 should not be replaced, but should be supple-
mented by this
[P-7]
authority. It is important that health research activities author-
ized by this Act supplement research in other agencies. Careful
evaluation of proposed research projects should precede funding
to avoid duplication.
SECTION 108. AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
The Committee intends that the proposed revision of the pro-
cedure for the designation of air quality control regions will pro-
vide for early completion of this process. The new provisions
would not eliminate the requirements for delineation of regional
boundaries on the basis of factors that have a significant bearing
on the implementation of air quality standards, such as meteor-
ological, topographical, and urban-industrial factors which in-
fluence the distribution and concentration of pollution agents.
Ambient air standards designed to protect the health of persons
must be implemented throughout the entire territory of every
State. However, to attempt to do so through application of a single
implementation plan for an entire State would overlook the fact
that various sections of a State often may require substantially
different emission control strategies. Each strategy must insure
attainment of a quality of ambient air designed to protect the
health of persons in all parts of the area to which the strategy is
applied.
Accordingly, the bill would provide 90 days for the Secretary to
complete designation of air quality control regions in interstate
and major intrastate air pollution problem areas. This period is
considered to be a sufficient time for completing the designation of
-------
1200 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
air quality control regions for the 91 areas already proposed for
such designation. It is also considered to be sufficient time for the
Secretary to designate additional air quality control regions cover-
ing interstate areas or any intrastate areas where there are major
air pollution problems associated with particular concentrations of
population and industry.
It should be noted that this 90-day period would produce no
delay in the establishment and implementation of ambient air
quality standards, since it would coincide with the period for the
promulgation of national ambient air quality standards for pollu-
tion agents for which criteria have been issued. Moreover, any
area of a State not included in an air quality control region
designated by the Secretary during this period would automatical-
ly be considered an air quality control region for the purposes of
the Act. In each State, the area not included in air quality control
regions designated by the Secretary could be subdivided by the
State into two or more air quality control regions. This step,
which would take no additional time, would be accomplished as
part of the State's plan for implementation of the national air
quality standards and would be subject to review by the Secretary
at the time that implementation plans are submitted for approval.
It should be emphasized that the provision for subdivision of
States into regions is included in the bill to insure that factors
bearing on effective implementation of air quality standards such
as meteorology, topography, and urban-industrial concentrations
will take precedence over mere administrative convenience. In
other words, while it is considered necessary that areas not cov-
ered by the Federal designation process shall be designated as air
quality control regions without further delay, it is also considered
essential that States, in cooperation with the Secretary, make a
determination as to whether
[p. 8]
such areas ought to be subdivided to effectively implement air
quality standards.
SECTION 109. AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
This proposed legislation would require acceleration of the is-
suance of air quality criteria and information on control tech-
niques as an integral part of the system for adoption of ambient
air quality standards and implementation plans,
Pollution agents which would be subject to the provisions of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1201
this section would be those which are emitted from widely dis-
tributed air pollution sources and generally present in the ambient
air in all areas of the Nation.
Air quality criteria for five pollution agents have already been
issued (sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocar-
bons, and photochemical oxidants). Other contaminants of broad-
national impact include fluorides, nitrogen oxides, polynuclear
organic matter, lead, and odors. Others may be added to this
group as knowledge increases. The bill would require that air
quality criteria for these and other pollutants be issued within
13 months from enactment. If the Secretary subsequently should
find that there are other pollution agents for which the ambient
air quality standards procedure is appropriate, he could list those
agents in the Federal Register, and repeat the criteria process.
Reports on control techniques, as under existing law, would be
issued simultaneously with the publication of criteria. The Com-
mittee recognizes that the States will continue to need this infor-
mation to develop meaningful programs for implementation of
ambient air quality standards on a regional basis.
The Committee believes that criteria and control technology
documents shoud be periodically reviewed and re-issued to ensure
currency. In addition, control techniques information should be
periodically modified to reflect information developed under sec-
tions 104 and 113.
The Secretary would also be required to issue information on
control techniques for air pollution agents for which emission
standards are to be established under Section 114 and Section
115 and for which new source standards of performance are to
be established under Section 113. It is expected that the Secretary
would provide documentation, as appropriate, on the control tech-
niques, methods, processes, or systems available for the purpose
of complying with such emission standards or standards of per-
formance.
The Committee does not intend that the recommended control
techniques documents should lock in existing technology. As was
pointed out by Dr. Aaron Teller, "the inhibition of innovation is
the most dangerous consequence of this language. Air pollution
control requires a new and unique technology."
The Committee intends that the information provided pursuant
to this section should serve as guidance to States, not as limita-
tions on control technology innovation.
-------
1202 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SECTION 110. NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND GOALS
This section would provide for publication and promulgation of
national ambient air quality standards at a level which will pro-
tect the health of persons. In setting such air quality standards
the Secretary
[p. 9]
should consider and incorporate not only the results of research
summarized in air quality criteria documents, but also the need
for margins of safety. Margins of safety are essential to any
health-related environmental standards if a reasonable degree of
protection is to be provided against hazards which research has
not yet identified.
Following the publication of any proposed national ambient air
quality standard, the Secretary would provide up to 90 days for
the receipt and evaluation of comments. Since the issuance of air
quality criteria would precede the promulgation of such national
standards, and since expert advisory committees would continue
to be consulted in the preparation of air quality criteria, 90 days
is considered sufficient time for the presentation and evaluation
of additional information and opinions that may have a bearing
on the national ambient air quality standards.
Although the option of adopting ambient air quality standards
more stringent than the national health minimum for any air
quality control region is preserved for the States, the Secretary
would be required to set a national minimum standard of air
quality which will protect the health of persons regardless of
where such persons reside. This mechanism is recommended by
the committee to expedite the establishment and implementation
of ambient air quality standards.
In requiring that national ambient air quality standards be
established at a level necessary to protect the health of persons
the Committee recognizes that such standards will not necessarily
provide for the quality of air required to protect those individuals
who are otherwise dependent on a controlled internal environ-
ment such as patients in intensive care units or newborn infants
in nurseries. However, the Committee emphasizes that included
among those persons whose health should be protected by the
ambient standard are particularly sensitive citizens such as bron-
chial asthmatics and emphysematics who in the normal course of
daily activity are exposed to the ambient environment. In estab-
lishing an ambient standard necessary to protect the health of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1203
these persons, reference should be made to a representative sample
of persons comprising the sensitive group rather than to a single
person in such a group.
Ambient air quality is sufficient to protect the health of such
persons whenever there is an absence of adverse effect on the
health of a statistically related sample of persons in sensitive
groups from exposure to the ambient air. An ambient air quality
standard, therefore, should be the maximum permissible ambient
air level of an air pollution agent or class of such agents (related
to a period of time) which will protect the health of any group
of the population.
For purposes of this description, a statistically related sample
is the number of persons necessary to test in order to detect a
deviation in the health of any person within such sensitive group
which is attributable to the condition of the ambient air.
Within 30 days after enactment the Secretary would be re-
quired to publish proposed national air quality standards for those
pollutants covered by existing air quality criteria (sulfur oxides,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and photo-
chemical oxidants). Since these criteria have been available for
some time, it is realistic to expect that proposed national stand-
ards for these five pollution agents would be published within the
30-day period. Proposed national air quality standards for pollut-
ants for which criteria would be issued
[p. 10]
subsequent to enactment would be published simultaneously with
the issuance of such criteria. These pollutants would include nitro-
gen oxides, lead, polynuclear organics, odors, and fluorides.
National air quality standards are authorized because the Com-
mittee has recognized that protection of health is a national prior-
ity, but the Committee also recognizes that man's natural and
man-made environment must be preserved and protected. There-
fore, the bill provides for the setting of national ambient air
quality goals at levels necessary to protect public health and
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of air pol-
lution—including effects on soils, water, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, visibility, climate, and economic
values. To implement this provision the sections of existing law
relating to the issuance of air quality criteria have been modified
to require that air quality criteria documents include, to the extent
practicable, information on any known or anticipated adverse
-------
1204 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
effects of air pollution, including such effects on all the environ-
mental and economic values listed above. Those criteria which
have been issued as well as those planned for January of 1971
must be revised to include this information. Until such revisions
are made, the Secretary should publish interim guidelines to as-
sist the States in developing plans for the implementation of goals.
The Committee is aware that there are many gaps in the avail-
able scientific knowledge of the welfare and other environmental
effects of air pollution agents. As indicated in the discussion of
section 107, the Committee expects that the Department will inten-
sify research on environmental and other economic effects of air
pollution. A great deal of basic research will be needed to deter-
mine the long-term air quality goals which are required to protect
the public health and welfare from any potential effects of air
pollution. In the meantime, the Secretary will be expected to
establish such national goals on the basis of the best information
available to him.
The bill would not require the attainment of the air quality
goals within a specified time period. Nevertheless, it is the Com-
mittee's view that progress in this direction should be made as
rapidly as possible. In areas where air pollution levels are already
relatively low, the attainment and maintenance of these goals
should not require an extended time period. In areas where current
air pollution levels are already equal to, or better than, the air
quality goals, the Secretary should not approve any implementa-
tion plan which does not provide, to the maximum extent practi-
cable, for the continued maintenance of such ambient air quality.
Once such national goals are established, deterioration of air
quality should not be permitted except under circumstances where
there is no available alternative. Given the various alternative
means of preventing and controlling air pollution—including the
use of the best available control technology, industrial processes,
and operating practices—and care in the selection of sites for new
sources, land use planning and traffic controls—deterioration need
not occur.
SECTION 111. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
The establishment alone of ambient air quality standards has
little effect on air quality. Standards are only the reference point
for the analysis of the factors contributing to air pollution and
the imposition
[p. HI
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1205
of control strategy and tactics. This program is an implementa-
tion plan.
The Committee recognizes that the implementation plan is the
principal component of control efforts for pollution agents for
which national standards are established. It is this program which
must be effective if the Nation is to achieve the quality of air
which the bill would mandate in a relatively short period of time.
The implementation plan provision in the bill has its origin in
existing law. The Committee recognized that because the proposed
bill would require a great deal in a short period of time and be-
cause the brevity of the provision in existing law has led to uneven
and inadequate interpretation, the character of an implementa-
tion plan must be specified and the alternative methods of achieve-
ment listed. The Committee bill would require that a rigorous
time sequence be met in the development of the implementation
plan and would provide for the substitution of Secretarial author-
ity if the State plan, or a portion thereof, is inadequate to attain
the quality of ambient air established by the nationally promul-
gated ambient air quality standard.
The bill would provide that within nine months after the date
of promulgation of any national ambient air quality standard,
each State would have to adopt and submit to the Secretary for
each air quality control region or portion thereof in such State
a plan which would provide for the attainment of the national
ambient air quality standard within three years after the date
of approval of such plan, or after the date of promulgation if
the Secretary established such plan or any portion thereof.
The Committee bill, based upon experience gained under exist-
ing law, would require that each State, after reasonable notice
and a public hearing, adopt a plan for the implementation of
standards at least as stringent as the national ambient air quality
standards. Any implementation plan could be developed for a
region only after participation by the public. Public participation
can only be meaningful if there is reasonable notice and full dis-
closure of information prior to public hearings. The Committee
expects that appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, citizens
and affected industry groups will consider the development of the
implementation plan the central element of this aspect of the
legislation.
The Committee bill would establish certain tools as potential
parts of an implementation plan and would require that emission
requirements be established by each State for sources of air pol-
-------
1206 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
lution agents or combinations of such agents in such region and
that these emission requirements be monitored and enforceable.
In addition to direct emission controls, other potential parts of
an implementation plan include land use and air and surface
transportation controls. These should insure that any existing or
future stationary source of air pollution will be located, designed,
constructed, equipped, and operated, and that moving sources will
be located and operated so as not to interfere with the implemen-
tation, maintenance, and enforcement of any applicable air
quality standard or goal.
The Committee acknowledges that this would require each
region to make difficult judgments about the siting of facilities
which may emit pollution agents, including decisions to prohibit
Section 113, would con-
[p. 12]
tribute to a violation of regional air quality standard. These
factors would necessitate long-term decisions about the character
of the growth and development of such region.
In air quality control regions where present air quality is below
the standard, rigorous restrictions must be placed on existing
sources to provide a margin for future growth, or only pollution-
free growth, development and expansion will be possible.
This section would also provide for intergovernmental coopera-
tion in the development of air quality programs which at the
minimum must prevent facilities in one State from contributing
to the violation of ambient air quality standards in an adjacent
State, whether or not the adjacent State is part of the same air
quality control region.
The Committee has added provisions that would require the
States to develop enforceable information, recordkeeping, and
monitoring requirements similar to those which the Secretary
would be authorized to establish in the bill.
The Committee recognizes that during the next several years,
the attainment of required ambient air quality in many of the
metropolitan regions of this country will be impossible if the
control of pollution from moving sources depends solely on emis-
sion controls. The Committee does not intend that these areas be
exempt from meeting the standards. Some regions may have to
establish new transportation programs and systems combined
with traffic control regulations and restrictions in order to achieve
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1207
ambient air quality standards for pollution agents associated with
moving sources.
The Committee realizes that changes or restrictions in trans-
portation systems may impose severe hardship on municipalities
and States, and it urges that agencies of the Federal Government
make available any relevant program assistance to the States and
regions to meet these obligations. The highway program, various
housing and urban development programs and other sources of
assistance should be examined in this connection.
The implementation plan section of the proposed bill would
specifically provide that, to the extent necessary, each region de-
velop motor vehicle inspection and testing programs for which
it is eligible to receive assistance under section 208 of the proposed
bill. The Committee believes that this is an extremely important
provision, because used vehicles, particularly those manufactured
before 1970, are among the most significant sources of air pollu-
tion. It is also a class of air pollution sources for which the regions
and States have better opportunities to control.
In considering alternative means of controlling emissions of air
pollution agents from used vehicles, the Committee was unable to
develop a feasible national system. The Committee rejected ideas
ranging from the imposition of a retroactive installation obliga-
tion on automobile manufacturers to a Federal subsidy program.
Section 211 of the Act provides for Secretarial certification of
used car emission control devices and systems in order to protect
the public from sham or inadequate devices and systems. Follow-
ing the certification of such devices, the regions and States would
be encouraged in the development of implementation plans to
adopt requirements for the installation of such devices. The Com-
mittee believes at this time that regulations relative to the retro-
active application of emission control devices and methods is man-
ageable only at the State and regional
[P. 13]
level and expects and hopes that the regions and States will be
innovative in this area.
As pointed out in the discussion of section 211, used vehicles
contribute substantially to air quality deterioration. The States
would be expected to act to improve used vehicle performance and
should consider requiring the installation of certified control de-
vices or systems or, at least, the tuning of used vehicles before
resale.
-------
1208 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Under this Section the Secretary would be required to approve
the implementation plan only if it specified the boundaries of the
region to which such plan applies. This requirement is necessary
to provide review of the adequacy of implementation plans for
regions which the Governor may have sub-divided pursuant to
the air control region designation provisions of section 108.
In order to insure achievement of air quality necessary to pro-
tect the health of persons within the period specified in the bill,
time constraints would be placed on the Secretary's review and
approval authority. The bill recognizes that the Secretary must
have the authority to replace all or any portion of any implementa-
tion plan submitted by a State where attainment of the nationally
ambient air quality standard within the time required is not
provided. The bill would provide that the Secretary must approve
or reject any implementation plan submitted by a State within
four months of the date required for its submission. If he rejected
the plan or any portion of it he would have to promulgate an
alternative plan or portion thereof within an additional two
months.
The Committee recognizes that pursuant to provisions of the
1967 Act many States are developing or have developed imple-
mentation plans for designated air quality control regions. To the
extent possible these plans should not be disrupted. Therefore, the
bill would specifically provide that implementation plans and am-
bient standards developed under existing law shall remain in effect
until such time as the Secretary determines that all or any portion
of such standards or plans are inadequate to meet the new obliga-
tions placed upon these regions. If the Secretary made such a
determination, he would be required to make recommendations to
the appropriate State or States of changes needed to meet the
additional requirements of the Act. If such State or States failed
to make the proposed revisions in existing implementation plans,
the Secretary would be required to promulgate the necessary
changes.
The Committee also recognizes that it is possible that an imple-
mentation plan approved or promulgated by the Secretary may
later be found inadequate to attain the national ambient air
quality standard (s). Whenever information reveals that an ap-
proved or promulgated implementation plan is inadequate, the
Secretary would be required to act to revise such plan. Because
such revision may delay implementation beyond the three year
deadline the Committee bill would provide that the Secretary may
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1209
extend the period of time required for attainment of the national
ambient air quality standard for one year.
Finally, the Committee would recognize that compliance with
the national ambient air quality standards deadline may not be
possible. If a Governor judges that any region or regions or por-
tions thereof within his State will not meet the national ambient
air quality standard within the time provided, the bill would
authorize him—one year
[p. H]
before the deadline—to file a petition against the United States
in the District Court of the United States for the district where
such region or portion thereof is located for relief from the effect
of such expiration.
The Committee proposes to have such actions brought before
the District Court constituted as a three-judge court with such
actions taking precedence on the docket over all other causes
and directing that they be expedited in every way.
The Committee expects that an extension of time would be
granted only as a last alternative. Therefore, the bill would pro-
vide that the court could grant relief in the paramount interest
of the United States and in the public interest and general welfare
of the persons in such region only after finding that substantial
efforts had been made to protect the health of persons in such
regions, and that means to control emissions causing or contribut-
ing to the failure had not been available for sufficient time or
that the failure was a result of a Federal facility operating under
an exemption granted by the President. The bill would restrict
relief to one-year extensions of the deadline. Nothing in this sub-
section should affect any provision or obligation pursuant to any
implementation plan which is not the subject of the request for
extension. The Secretary would be required to make changes in
the implementation plan to bring the region into compliance with
the applicable standard or standards within the year extension
granted by the court.
The severe time limitations in the bill for filing an implementa-
tion plan for ambient air quality standards may limit the capacity
of States to act simultaneously on plans for national ambient air
quality goals. The bill would provide that the Secretary may
extend for 18 months the period for submission of any portion
of any implementation plan. The development of the portion of the
implementation plan for the achievement of an air quality goal re-
-------
1210 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
quires different and more extensive analysis than that required
to establish an implementation plan to achieve national ambient
air quality standards. Therefore, the Committee bill would pro-
vide an additional period for such development for those regions
where it is needed.
SECTION 112. STATE STANDARDS AND PLANS TO ACHIEVE GREATER
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
Section 112 would restate the intent of Section 109 of the Air
Quality Act of 1967 which provided assurance that States, local-
ities, intermunicipal and interstate agencies may adopt standards
and plans to achieve a higher level of ambient air quality than
approved by the Secretary. The section would be revised to pro-
vide that such States, localities, intermunicipal and interstate
agencies may adopt such more restrictive standards and plans and
may establish timetables which achieve standards in a shorter
period of time than required by Section 111 of this Act. The
authority preserved by this section would apply to all aspects of
the legislation except where the Congress has specifically pre-
empted authority to act.
SECTION 113. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The provisions for new source performance standards are de-
signed to insure that new stationary sources are designed, built,
equipped, operated, and maintained so as to reduce emissions to a
minimum.
[p. 15]
The performance standards should be met through application
of the latest available emission control technology or through
other means of preventing or controlling air pollution. The maxi-
mum use of available means of preventing and controlling air
pollution is essential to the elimination of new pollution problems
while cleaning up existing sources.
As used in this section, the term "available control technology"
is intended to mean that the Secretary should examine the degree
of emission control that has been or can be achieved through the
appication of technology which is available or normally can be
made available. This does not mean that the technology must be in
actual, routine use somewhere. It does mean that the technology
must be available at a cost and at a time which the Secretary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1211
determines to be reasonable. The implicit consideration of eco-
nomic factors in determining whether technology is "available"
should not affect the usefulness of this section. The overriding
purpose of this section would be to prevent new air pollution
problems, and toward that end, maximum feasible control of new
sources at the time of their construction is seen by the committee
as the most effective and, in the long run, the least expensive ap-
proach.
Major new facilities such as electric generating plants, kraft
pulp mills, petroleum refineries, steel mills, primary smelting
plants, and various other commercial and industrial operations
must be controlled to the maximum practicable degree regardless
of their location and industrial operations. It should be empha-
sized, however, that these examples are not intended to limit the
Secretary's latitude in prescribing new source standards per-
formance. While the examples cited are relevant examples of
sources which would be subject to this provision, the Secretary
would be expected to test and prescribe standards for any other
categories of major stationary sources from which emissions
would cause or contribute to endangerment of public health and
welfare. New stationary sources which the administration has
advised the committee to expect would be subject to the provisions
of this section to include:
Cement manufacturing;
Coal cleaning operations;
Coke byproduct manufacturing;
Cotton ginning;
Ferroalloy plants;
Grain milling and handling operations;
Gray iron foundries;
Iron and steel operations;
Nitric acid manufacturing;
Nonferrous metallurgical operations (e.g. aluminum re-
duction, copper, lead, and zinc smelting) ;
Petroleum refining;
Phosphate manufacturing;
Phosphoric acid manufacturing ;
Pulp and paper mill operations ;
Eendering plants (animal matter);
Sulfuric acid manufacturing;
-------
1212 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Soap and detergent manufacturing;
Municipal incinerators; and
Steam electric powerplants.
[p. 16]
The Secretary has authority to add to this list if he finds that
other new sources fall within the requirement of this section.
"Standards of performance," a term which has not previously
appeared in the Clean Air Act, refers to the degree of emission
control which can be achieved through process changes, operation
changes, direct emission control, or other methods. The Secretary
should not make a technical judgment as to how the standard
should be implemented. He should determine the achievable limits
and let the owner or operator determine the most economic, accept-
able technique to apply.
The bill contains provisions for certification of compliance with
new-source performance standards. It should be emphasized that
the bill would provide for certification at the time a new facility
begins operation, not prior to operation. The complexities of pre-
dicting emissions performance on the basis of blueprints and
specifications make it undesirable to provide for preconstruction
certification. However, preconstruction review of proposed plans
for new facilities is desirable, since it would enable the Secretary
(or States, where certification authority is delegated) to render
advice and assistance to affected parties without making a com-
mitment to grant certification. More importantly, standards
of performance imply a result, not a technical judgment. There-
fore, preconstruction certification would be inconsistent with this
approach.
Industrial firms would be required to increase efforts to insure
that new plants and equipment perform in accordance with the
promises and commitments made by plant designers and equip-
ment builders. New-source standards would thus provide maxi-
mum incentives to expand technology to insure adequate margins
of safety.
The committee recognizes that the construction of major new
industrial facilities in some regions may conflict with implementa-
tion plans for national air quality standards and goals—even
where such new facilities are designed, equipped, and operated
so as to comply with applicable Federal standards of performance.
This is most likely to occur in places where existing levels of air
pollution are excessive. Accordingly, the bill would provide that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1213
new-source certification procedures must include preconstruction
review of the location as well as the design of affected new facili-
ties so that certified new sources would not hinder the imple-
mentation of air quality standards and goals.
Standards of performance should provide an incentive for in-
dustries to work toward constant improvement in techniques
for preventing and controlling emissions from stationary sources,
since more effective emission control will provide greater latitude
in the selection of sites for new facilities. Therefore, it should be
clear that standards of performance are not static. The Sec-
retary would be directed to review and promulgate new or modi-
fied standards whenever new technology processes or operating
methods become available. When sufficient staff and funds are
available, the review and modification should take place as fre-
quently as possible to avoid having new plants comply with out-
dated standards.
New stationary sources subject to standards of performance
established under this Act would be expected to be in compliance
with those standards throughout their operational life. If greater
control of stationary source emissions is necessary at any time
to insure compli-
[p. 17]
ance with air quality standards in a particular air quality control
region, the bill would require that new requirements be imposed
by a State or locality on any sources in that region, including
those sources already built and operated in compliance with the
Federal standards of performance. In such instances, however,
it is expected that States would allow a reasonable time for im-
provements to be made.
Finally, it should be noted that the bill would require the Sec-
retary to delegate the certification function to any State which
adopts a certification procedure which the Secretary finds meets
the requirements set forth in this section. It is expected that every
effort will be made to have States assume this responsibility.
Some States, however, may have to adopt new legislation to
meet the requirements of section 113 (d) (1). The Committee sees
no reason why the Secretary should not permit a State to per-
form as much of the work involved in certification as it can under
its existing State law until such time as the State has adopted
the necessary enabling legislation. It should be clear that when
certification authority is delegated, the Secretary would retain
526-703 O - 73 - 4
-------
1214 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
unrestricted enforcement authority. However, it is expected that
the Secretary would take enforcement action only where a State
does not meet its obligations.
SECTION 114. EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SELECTED AGENTS
Knowledge and experience gained under the Air Quality Act of
1967, particularly through the development of criteria documents,
has revealed that pollution agents and combinations of such
agents fall into three general categories. The first of these cate-
gories are those pollution agents which are emitted from diverse
stationary and moving sources into the ambient air and which are
generally detectable through monitoring devices and systems.
These pollution agents are those for which the criteria documents
are to be issued and for which national ambient air quality stand-
ards and implementation plans are to be established.
The second category of air pollution agents includes those
which are hazardous to the health of persons as defined in sec-
tion 115.
The third category of pollution agents includes those agents
which are not emitted in such quantities or are not of such a char-
acter as to be widely present or readily detectable on a con-
tinuous basis with available technology in the ambient air. The
presence of these agents is generally confined, at least for de-
tection purposes, to the area of the emission source. The infor-
mation available at this time indicates that the following list
of substances are most likely to be considered as the agents to
be covered under this section:
Arsenic, chlorine gas, hydrogen chloride, copper, man-
ganese, nickel, vanadium, zinc, barium, boron, chromium,
selenium, pesticides, radioactive substances.
The bill would limit the imposition of emission standards for
these selected air pollution agents to those categories of station-
ary sources which are subject to standards of performance under
section 113. Available information indicates that these pollution
agents are generally emitted from the stationary sources that
would be subject to performance standards.
The Committee recognizes that the timing of the control of
such pollution agents should be left to the discretion of the Secre-
tary. It is
[p. 18]
expected that knowledge with respect to some selected pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1215
agents would justify immediate application of emission standards,
while knowledge with respect to others may not justify the same
urgency. Therefore, the bill would establish a framework which
would provide that the Secretary may initiate the development
of emission standards for .such selected pollution agents at any
time following the date of enactment. In any event, the Secretary
would be required to publish an initial list of agents for which
a control under this authority is appropriate within 180 days
after enactment of this section. It is expected that the Secretary
would select for earliest action those agents on the list which
clearly affect the public health. The Committee intends that the
Secretary establish a sequence for the setting of emission stand-
ards for the remainder over the next several years.
However, the Committee emphasizes that some pollution agents
included in this list could become subject to the ambient air
quality standards or hazardous substances provisions when new
information is developed.
Emission standards developed under this section would be
applied to existing stationary sources. However, the Committee
recognizes that certain old facilities may use equipment and
processes which are not suited to the application of control tech-
nology. The Secretary would be authorized therefore to waive the
application of standards established under this section to such
stationary sources which have short life expectancies after
requiring the application of the maximum technology which could
be applied to such facilities and after determining that continued
emissions would not jeopardize public health.
The bill would provide that emission standards established
under this section shall become effective on a date specified but
not to exceed 24 months from the date of such promulgation.
Consistent with the provisions of other sections, owners and
operators of stationary sources to which emission standards
would apply would be responsible for furnishing information
relating to emissions, and be required to install, use and maintain
monitoring equipment for the purpose of determining compliance
with emissions standards. Costs of such monitoring equipment or
methods should be borne by the owner or operator.
In this section the bill also would incorporate provisions
designed to acquire and make available to the public information
regarding compliance with the applicable emission standards. The
Committee believes that the public right to know what is being
emitted overrides the proprietary character of such information.
-------
1216 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
The committee intends that information other than emission data
should be confidential only after a showing by the owners and
operators that such records, reports or infornation would divulge
trade secrets or secret processes entitled to protection under
section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
The bill would provide that violations of emission standards
established under this section be enforced through the general
enforcement provisions of section 116. However, it is provided
that the Secretary should delegate enforcement authority to any
State which develops an enforcement framework which the Secre-
tary determines adequate to implement the purposes of this
section. It should be noted that nothing in such delegation shall in
any way affect the Secretary's authority and obligation to act
at any time to enforce violations of such emission standards.
[p. 19]
SECTION 115. EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AGENTS
The proposed new section 115 would authorize the Secretary to
prohibit emissions or to establish standards applicable to
emissions of air pollutants "whose presence, chronically or inter-
mittently, in trace concentrations in the ambient air, either alone
or in combination with other agents, causes or will cause, or
contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible or incapacitating reversible damage to health."
On the basis of information presented to the Committee, it is
clear that the above definition will encompass a limited number
of pollutants. Asbestos, cadmium, mercury, and beryllium have
been identified as pollution agents which could be subject to
emission prohibitions or standards to be established under section
115. It would be the Secretary's responsibility to determine
whether there are additional pollutants (including any of those
expected to be subject to section 114) which also should be
covered under section 115.
In writing a relatively restrictive definition of hazardous
agents, the Committee recognized that a total prohibition on
emissions is a step that ought to be taken only where a danger to
health, as defined, exists. It should be noted that emission stand-
ards for pollutants which cannot be considered hazardous (as
defined in section 115) could be established under section 114.
Thus, there should be no gaps in control activities pertaining
to stationary source emissions that pose any significant danger to
public health or welfare.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1217
This section, would establish an administrative procedure to
regulate and control the emission of such hazardous materials.
Under this procedure, the Secretary would be authorized to
designate from time to time those air pollution agents or combina-
tions of agents which present a hazard to the health of persons
as indicated by available material evidence. Following designation
the Secretary would be required to publish a proposed prohibition
of emissions of such agents or combination of such agents from
any stationary source.
The Committee recognizes that some of these hazardous pollut-
ants, such as cadmium and beryllium, are present in nearly all
raw materials. Thus, beryllium and cadmium appear as trace
impurities in steel making and other raw material processes, in
addition to the processing at beryllium and cadmium plants.
Recognizing that complete control of beryllium from steel plants,
for example, may not be necessary or practicable, the Committee
has provided the Secretary with authority to differentiate among
categories of sources in establishing prohibitions under section
115.
After public hearings and within six months of the publication
of such proposed prohibition, the Secretary would be required to
promulgate such prohibition, unless he found on the basis of a
preponderance of the evidence, that the air pollution agent was
not, in fact, hazardous to the health of persons—or that a greater
than zero emission could be permitted without presenting a hazard
to health.
The bill would provide that any prohibition should become
effective upon promulgation and that any emission standard for a
hazardous substance established under this section should become
effective no later than 180 days after such promulgation.
The Committee recognizes that the violation of a prohibition
or emission standard for any substance which is hazardous to the
health of persons requires an expeditious enforcement procedure.
Conse-
[p. 20]
quently, the bill would provide that upon evidence of any viola-
tion the Secretary should bring suit for immediate abatement,
including a permanent injunction or restraining order, in the
United States District Court in the District in which the source
is located.
-------
1218 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SECTION 116. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
The Clean Air Act as amended recognizes that the primary
responsibility for control of air pollution rests with State and
local government. While section 116 would restructure the enforce-
ment authority available to the Secretary, the Committee does not
intend to diminish either the authority or the responsibility of
State and local governments. As is clear in sections 111, 113 and
114 the States would be expected to have or to obtain adequate
authority to ensure that the provisions of the act are enforced.
The Committee recognizes, however, that the authority available
under existing law has not been adequate to move quickly to
abate violations of standards. The Committee also recognizes
that the provisions of existing law, although less than adequate,
have not been used to the fullest extent practicable. The new
authority provided in section 116 would provide the Secretary
with the necessary tools to act swiftly to abate violations of the
provisions of this Act. The Secretary should not interfere with
effective State action and should take into consideration any
recommendations for abatement action which have resulted from
existing enforcement procedures.
If the Secretary should find that a State or local pollution
control agency is not acting to abate violations of implementation
plans or to enforce certification requirements, he would be
expected to use the full force of Federal law. Also, the Secretary
should apply the penalty provisions of this section to the maximum
extent necessary to underwrite the strong public demand for
abatement of air pollution and to enforce compliance with the
provisions of the Act.
If the Secretary and State and local agencies should fail in
their responsibility, the public would be guaranteed the right to
seek vigorous enforcement action under the citizen suit provisions
of section 304.
Because attainment of ambient air quality is possible only
through the enforcement of precise and objective emission con-
trols the Committee bill would delete the enforcement require-
ment for the abatement of violations of the air quality standard.
The precise and objective emission controls "subject to enforce-
ment" would include but not be limited to emission requirements,
emissions standards, standards of performance, prohibitions of
emissions, schedules and timetables of compliance and other
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1219
requirements for recordkeeping and the installation of monitoring
equipment.
The bill would also delete the cumbersome conference and
hearing procedures in the existing law. Such administrative pro-
cedures were appropriate when criteria did not exist and when
evidentiary-gathering devices were needed to relate pollution to
ambient air quality. The new formula proposed would authorize
the Secretary to issue orders requiring the abatement of any
violation of any performance standard, emission standard, or
implementation plan, including violations of emission require-
ments and schedules of compliance. The Secretary would be
authorized to issue such an order when he determined that
[P- 21]
a State had not satisfactorily administered its enforcement au-
thority under its implementation plan or when there was a viola-
tion of Federal standards.
In view of the need for streamlined and expedited enforcement
procedures, the Committee intends that the judgment of the
Secretary in this instance shall not be reviewable.
In the event that the violation alleged were of an emission
control requirement, the time specified in such order for the
initiation of abatement action could not exceed 72 hours from the
time such order was received. The Secretary would be required
to furnish copies of abatement orders to appropriate State
enforcement personnel. In the event an order were issued to a
corporation, the orders should also be served to appropriate
corporate officers.
Any order issued by the Secretary should remain in effect until
such time as the Secretary determines that the violation no
longer exists and gives written notice of such determination to the
violator. The Secretary would have an obligation to review efforts
taken pursuant to any order to assure that the order will be
withdrawn when compliance is achieved.
If any order issued by the Secretary is not met within the time
specified, or if the efforts to abate a violation are unsatisfactory,
the Secretary would be authorized to bring a civil action for
appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction
or restraining order, in the District Court of the United States
for the district in which the alleged violation occurred or is
occurring. Failure or refusal to comply with an order would be
punished, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $25,000.
-------
1220 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The Committee recognizes that an owner or operator who is
issued a compliance order by the Secretary should be able to
challenge such an order without being required to refuse to
comply with it, thus risking criminal and civil penalties. There-
fore, the bill provides that voluntary compliance would not
preclude the owner or operator from initiating an action in the
Federal district court to challenge such an order.
In addition to providing for enforcement of promulgated and
approved standards, implementation plans, and other emission
controls, the bill would authorize the enforcement of correlative
and necessary procedural requirements such as furnishing or
providing access to information, data and reports, and require-
ments for the installation of monitoring equipment, or denial of
access to copying of records. The expense of installing monitoring
equipment required by the Secretary would be borne by the
owner or operator of any pollution source. The Secretary would
also be given authority to make investigations of buildings,
structures, monitoring equipment or other facilities subject to
emission requirements, emission prohibitions, and waivers of
structures, monitoring, equipment or other facilities subject to
standards of performance as established under the Act. Authority
to enter after presentation of proper credentials would be pro-
vided.
The Committee recognizes that sanctions under existing law
have not been sufficient to encourage compliance with the provi-
sions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Committee proposes to
increase significantly the penalties for knowing violations of
provisions of the Act. A conviction for a knowing violation would
be subject to a penalty of $25,000 per day or imprisonment for
one year or both.
[p. 22]
If conviction is for a second knowing violation, the penalty
could be increased to $50,000 per day of the violation or by
imprisonment for two years or both. In addition, civil penalties
would be added for knowing violation of the procedural require-
ments of the Act such as recordkeeping, report filing, information
availability or falsifying, tampering with, or rendering inaccurate
monitoring devices.
The Committee believes that if the timetables established
throughout the Act with respect to ambient air quality standards
necessary to protect public health are to be met, the threat of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1221
sanction must be real, and enforcement provisions must be swift
and direct. Abatement orders, penalty provisions, and rapid access
to the Federal District Court should accomplish the objective of
compliance.
SECTION 118. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
This section would require every Federal agency with control
over any activity or real property, to provide national leadership
in the control of air pollution in such operations.
Evidence received in hearings disclosed many incidents of
flagrant violations of air and water pollution standards by
Federal facilities. The Committee believes that lacK of Federal
leadership has been detrimental to the clean air effort. The
Federal Government cannot expect private industry to abate pol-
lution if the Federal Government continues to pollute at will. This
section requires that Federal facilities meet the emission stand-
ards necessary to achieve ambient air quality standards as well
as those established in other sections of Title I.
The Committee recognizes, however, that it may be in the
paramount interest of the United States that a plant or facility
not achieve full air pollution control within the time required.
Therefore, the bill would provide plant-by-plant exceptions, on the
basis of a statement by the President, for a period of no more
than one year.
New one-year extensions could be granted on the basis of a
subsequent statement by the President. The President would be
required to report each January to the Congress on any such
exception during the preceding year, together with a detailed
explanation of the need to grant such exceptions.
No exception could be granted due to lack of appropriations,
unless the Congress specifically rejected a request for funds that
appeared as a line item in the Budget request.
SECTION 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
Title II of the Clean Air Act has been revised to provide addi-
tional authority to the Secretary to regulate sources of pollution
which move or may move in interstate commerce, or which
contribute to endangerment of the health and welfare of the
people of the United States.
With the exception of the statutory determination set forth in
section 202 (b) which requires that the automobile, the major
-------
1222 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
moving source of pollution, meet a rigid timetable and a high
degree of emission control compliance, the Secretary would be
provided flexibility to act to abate emissions from new and
existing aircraft, new and existing vessels and boats, new and
existing diesel engines for railroads, and new and existing trucks
and buses and other commercial vehicles.
[p. 23]
The existing law requires the Secretary to establish standards
on the basis of economic and technological feasibility. The pro-
posed bill would require the Secretary to make a judgment on the
contribution of moving sources to deterioration of air quality
and establish emission standards which would provide the
required degree of control. The Secretary is expected to press for
the development and application of improved technology rather
than be limited by that which exists. In other words, standards
should be a function of the degree of control required, not the
degree of technology available today.
The regulatory authority in section 202 (a) would be essentially
the same as existing law, except that prior to promulgating
standards the Secretary would be required to consult with advisory
committees and other technically competent groups, to the maxi-
mum extent practicable, to develop the broadest possible base
for the development of standards.
The authority contained in section 202 is expanded by this
bill to include authority to set air pollution emission standards
for aircraft, vessels, commercial vehicles, and vehicles such as
locomotives and self-propelled agricultural equipment. Under this
new authority emissions standards may be set for new and
existing commercial vehicles, vessels, and aircraft.
Standards for vessels and locomotives are appropriate because
their use characteristically involves interstate travel, with large
numbers of them congregating in ports and yards in or near
areas of high population and air pollution concentration.
A similar problem of concentration exists with regard to
aircraft. While operations of aircraft at major airports do not
make a significant contribution to total ambient levels of pollution
in urban areas, they pose a serious problem in the vicinity of
such airports.
Based on emission characteristics of aircraft engines presently
in use, increased ambient levels of nitrogen oxides and particulates
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1223
in the vicinity of an airport with about 2 million operations a year
will result from air traffic alone.
The authority provided in section 202 (a) would continue to be
available to the Secretary to establish standards for light duty
motor vehicles (passengar cars) during the period prior to and
following the effective date of the standards established by
subsection (b).
It is expected that section 202(a) authority would be used for
regulation of particulate emissions. No present measurement
techniques exist to evaluate or establish standards for such par-
ticulate emissions. Such standards cannot be established on the
basis of 1970 vehicles as required by subsection (b) because
measurement techniques will not exist until 1972. At such time
as measurement methods are developed the Secretary would be
expected to establish standards for particulate emissions under
202 (a) authority.
Subsection (b) is a departure from existing methods for pre-
scribing emission standards for moving sources of pollution. In
1964, the Senate Committee on Public Works considered legisla-
tion which would have established, in Federal law, the standards
of emission performance then applicable to vehicles to be sold in
California. The automobile industry argued that writing stand-
ards into Federal law would not be appropriate because Califor-
nia's problem of automotive air pollution was unique and that
different degrees of control for different pollutants would be
needed to deal with problems in other areas of the nation.
[p. 24]
The 1965 Clean Air Act Amendments provided the Secretary
with the maximum flexibility to meet potentially differing needs,
but the 1965 statute clearly indicated that the Secretary's stand-
ards should be based on the needs of the worst area of the Nation
—not the average—and that technology should be pressed as
rapidly as possible to overcome the extended time lapse between
application of emission controls and replacement of the entire
vehicle population.
Since enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, the accelerated
pace of air quality criteria development, evidence on the principal
pollution problem areas and the principal pollutants has been
published.
Those criteria documents indicate that the health levels of
pollution agents associated with vehicle emissions were exceeded
-------
1224 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
substantially in many major cities. Information provided the
Committee by the Administration indicated that, under the
existing new vehicle emission control program (and without
regard to the steps which would be taken pursuant to Title I of
this Act) it would be 1990 before ambient levels of motor vehicle
related pollutants would be brought down to the level necessary
to protect the health of persons. This conclusion is based on the
following data:
A. The ambient standard necessary to protect the public
health from carbon monoxide is 8-10 parts per million (ppm).
This compares with ambient air in Chicago measured at 44 ppm.
The 1970 Federal emission standard for automobiles for carbon
monoxide is 23 grams per mile (existing test procedure). To
achieve the public health ambient standard would require emission
controls placed on automobiles permitting emissions of only 5
grams per mile, a figure which represents the 1980 emission
requirement as proposed by the Administration. To achieve
sufficient replacement of automobiles with autos having the
emission controls meeting 1980 standards will take an estimated
ten years.
B. The ambient air health standard for photochemical oxidants
(hydrocarbons) is 0.06 ppm. To achieve such ambient standard
would require a reduction of hydrocarbon emissions from auto-
mobiles from the 1970 standard of 2.2 gm/mile to an emission
level of 0.2 gm/mile. This last figure is the approximate equivalent
of the proposed 1980 emission standard.
C. The ambient health standard for nitrogen oxides is antici-
pated to be about 0.10 ppm. This compares with an ambient
condition found in most metropolitan areas of 0.50 to 0.60 ppm.
To achieve the health standard would require a reduction from
the proposed 1973 emission standard of 2.0 grams per mile to
an emissions requirement for automobiles of 0.45 gram per
mile, or approximately the proposed 1980 standards.
The following summary document provided by the National
Air Pollution Control Administration indicates the degree of
reduction of emission that would be necessary to meet health
standards.
DERIVATION OP 1980 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION GOALS
The National Air Pollution Control Administration has
estimated that new motor vehicles must achieve a minimum
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1225
reduction of emissions from a no-control baseline (pre-1968
models) of the following orders of magnitude to insure
attainment of health-related air quality levels:
[p. 25]
Percent
Carbon monoxide 92.5
Nitrogen oxides 93.6
Hydrocarbons 99.0
The derivation of these emission goals was explained in
detail in a paper presented in June 1970 at the annual meet-
eng of the Air Pollution Control Association (D. S. Barth
et al., Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Goals for Carbon
Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and Nitrogen Oxides based on
Desired Air Quality Levels).
This statement presents a simpler explanation of the deri-
vation of the above motor vehicle emission-reduction goals.
Based on data contained in air quality criteria documents
already issued (for carbon monoxide and photochemical
oxidants) or in preparation (for nitrogen oxides) and on
requirements for margins of safety, it has been concluded
that the following ambient air quality levels must be at-
tained to insure protection of public health:
Carbon monoxide, 9 ppm/8-hour average.
Photochemical oxidants, 0.06 ppm/1-hour average.
Nitrogen dioxide, 0.10 ppm/1-hour average.
The motor vehicle emission reductions needed to insure
attainment of the above ambient air quality levels are a
function of existing ambient air levels of carbon monoxide,
oxidant precursors (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides), the
relationship between oxidant precursor levels and oxidants,
and anticipated growth in motor vehicle emissions (resulting
from increases in the numbers and use of motor vehicles).
Motor vehicle emission standards must permit attain-
ment of the health-related air quality levels throughout the
Nation. The highest levels of carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and nitrogen oxides currently measured are as
follows:
Maximum Ambient Air Levels Related to Direct Health
Effects
Carbon monoxide: 44 parts per million/8-hour average,
Chicago.
-------
1226 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Nitrogen dioxide: 0.69 parts per million/1-hour average,
Los Angeles.
Maximum Ambient Air Levels of Oxidant Precursors
Hydrocarbons: 5.3 parts per million/6 to 9 a.m. average,
Los Angeles.
Nitrogen dioxide: 0.62 parts per million/6 to 9 a.m.
average, Los Angeles.
(These hydrocarbon and nitrogen dioxide measure-
ments are associated with Los Angeles peak values for
oxidants. )
The strategy employed to calculate needed reductions in
hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides emissions was as follows:
A sufficient reduction in nitrogen oxides emissions to insure
[p. 26]
attainment of the health-related nitrogen oxides ambient
air level; then, assuming attainment of the health-related
nitrogen oxides level, a sufficient reduction in hydrocarbon
emissions to insure attainment of the health-related photo-
chemical oxidant level.
Based on these considerations, equations calculating
needed reductions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and
nitrogen oxides emissions were developed. The equations
make allowances for anticipated growth in emissions and
for natural background levels. The calculations produced
the required percent reductions. These reductions assume
that all stationary sources which contribute to the presence
of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxides
in the ambient air could be reduced by a like percent.
Given a ten-year car life, the health related air quality
levels could be attained in 1990 if all new cars produced
after 1980 achieved the calculated emission-reduction goals.
An earlier target date for meeting the emission-reduction
goals would permit earlier attainment of the indicated air
quality levels.
NAPCA's advanced power systems research and develop-
ment program, as currently planned, is structured to pro-
duce, by 1975, two second-generation prototypes capable of
meeting the 1980 emission-reduction goals.
Battelle Memorial Institute has estimated that well-de-
signed, unconventional power plants could meet the following
emission limitations:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1227
Type
Natural gas-piston
Steam (rankine)
280-hp gas turbine-regenerating
Stirling
Hybrid turbine
HC'
1.2
.1
... . .4
.04
.04
CO i
3.0
.4
.3
.2
.3
NO'
0.6
.3
.8
3.0
.8
i Grants based on 1970 7-model cycle.
Note: Symbols^HC (hydrocarbons), CO (carbon monoxide), and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide).
On the basis of information and hearings in 1964, 1965, 1967,
and 1970, the committee concluded that 1975 would be the earliest
possible date for application of the proposed standards.
This decision was based on recognition that technology may
not be available to meet these standards within the next year and
that the regular lead time which, in 1964, the industry indicated
would be two years, should be supplemented by an additional
period for the development of the control technology required to
meet these standards.
The Committee recognized that even the lead time provided
might not be adequate to tool up both technologically and mechan-
ically for the standard, and therefore adopted an amendment of-
fered by Senator Cooper providing a procedure whereby the dead-
line of model year 1975 or January 1, 1975 (the Committee recog-
nizes that model years often begin in September of the preceding
year) could be extended for one year only if after a hearing
the Secretary determined that technology was not available, or
had not been available to the appli-
[P. 27]
cant for a sufficient period of time, that the applicant had made
a bona fide effort to meet the deadline, and that an extension
was necessary for the general welfare of the United States.
The Secretary would have a responsibility to determine whether
a one-year extension would be necessary. The burden of proof
would be on the industry but the Secretary must use the results
of his research, his investigations and his studies, as well as
any additional information he may wish to subpoena from the
industry, to assure that the technology not only is not available,
but could not have been made available in time to meet the dead-
line. Whether or not the Secretary should determine to suspend
the deadline, his decision would be subject to judicial review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
through a procedure set forth. The Court in reviewing the Secre-
-------
1228 LEGAL COMPILATION—ADR
tary's decision can affirm or reverse only after independently
finding that a suspension is essential to the public interest and
general welfare of the United States; that all good faith efforts
have been made by the applicant; and that the applicant has estab-
lished that the technology, processes or other alternatives have
not been available for a period of time necessary to achieve com-
pliance. The industry could challenge his decision not to extend
and other interested parties could challenge his decision to ex-
tend the deadline. In any event such a challenge would not delay
the application of the statutory standard beyond January 1,
1976, and 1975 model vehicles would be required to meet any
interim standards which the Secretary determined to be tech-
nologically practicable.
The Secretary's determination as to interim standards would be
reviewable, but such review should not operate as a stay of
those interim standards.
PROHIBITED ACTS—INJUCTION PROCEEDINGS—PENALTIES
Sections 203, 204, and 205 would be, for practicable purposes,
repetition of existing law, with the changes necessary to reflect
the extension of the Act to other moving sources of pollution and
to increase the civil penalty from $1,000 to $10,000.
SECTION 206. CERTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION MODEL TESTING
Section 206 has been revised, at the request of the Administra-
tion, to provide the Secretary with authority to test representa-
tive samples of motor vehicles on the production line to assure
that production line vehicles are meeting the same degree of
emission controls for which prototypes were certified prior to
production. The Committee interpreted the existing law as pro-
viding the Secretary the necessary authority to carry out this
purpose. However, because the Secretary is of the opinion that
he does not have authority to test production-line vehicles and
revoke certification for failure to conform with specific standards
the Committee at the request of the Secretary has elaborated the
original intent of the Congress. If the Secretary should find that
production line vehicles are not meeting the standard for which
certified, the Secretary could revoke certification for any vehicles
not delivered by the manufacturer and could withhold certification
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1229
for those vehicles until he was satisfied that compliance with the
standard would be achieved.
[p. 28]
The Secretary's decision would be reviewable. An accelerated
process of review would be provided in order to facilitate re-
certification and continue delivery of new vehicles.
SECTION 207. VEHICLE AND VEHICLE ENGINE COMPLIANCE TESTING
Section 207 would represent a significant departure from prior
provisions for control of vehicle emissions. At the present time
compliance with national emission standards for vehicles and en-
gines is determined on the basis of whether the average of a
class or model complies with the standard. Section 206 continues
this procedure. Under section 206 prototype models would be certi-
fied as to compliance with standards and production-line sample-
testing would be authorized to assure that the average of the
models coming off the production line conforms to preproduction
certification.
Under section 207, each production line vehicle would be re-
quired to comply with applicable emission standards. Each vehicle
would be required to comply with standards for a 50,000-mile life-
time. The manufacturer would be required to warranty the per-
formance of each individual vehicle as to compliance with emis-
sion standards. The dealer would not carry any obligation under
this provision.
This section would provide two methods to determine whether
or not individual cars will perform to the emission standard.
First, the Secretary woud be provided with the authority to test
representative samples of vehicles on the road and, if he found
that a representative sample of a model or class fails to continue
to comply with the standards within the 50,000-mile period, he
could require the manufacturer to recall that model or class for
the purpose of correcting any nonconformity.
The second compliance testing method would be triggered by
the development of a quick test procedure. The Secretary would
be required to develop a test which could be quickly and uniform-
ly applied to individual vehicles on the production line and on
the road to determine whether or not those vehicles comply or
continue to comply with the standards for which they were certi-
fied. The quick test would have to be correlated with the pre-
526-703 O - 73 - 5
-------
1230 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
certification test procedure. It would have to be a test which
could be applied in a reasonable period of time related to the
normal time for a regular vehicle inspection. A quick test should
avoid unnecessary slowdown of production lines, unnecessary
consumer inconvenience, while providing a method to determine
whether individual vehicles on the road are continuing to meet
the standards for which they were certified.
The need to assure individual vehicle compliance became evident
after sample-testing of vehicles on the road (both from California
and nationally) revealed deterioration from conformance with the
standard.
According to testimony of the National Air Pollution Control
Administration:
The more complete data confirm that slightly more than
one-half of the cars tested failed to meet either the hydro-
carbon or the carbon monoxide standard. For one model,
more than 80 percent of the cars tested failed one or more
tests. Due to the small number of cars, these emission data
[p. 29]
were not extrapolated to 50,000 miles; however, on the basis
of the California data one would expect that the emissions
would tend to increase to some extent with increased mileage
accumulations.
This bill would require the American people to make a sub-
stantially greater investment in motor vehicles to assure that air
quality standards are implemented. This investment would be
defensible only if the emission control systems continued to con-
form to standards for the lifetime of the vehicle. Substantial de-
terioration from the emission standard would mean that the
manufacturer was not designing emission control systems which
meet the intent of this legislation. It would mean that air quality
standards in regions throughout the Nation would not be effective-
ly maintained, and it would mean that potentially billions of
dollars of consumer investment would be to no purpose.
The Committee has no reason to believe that emission controls
would be inexpensive. The automobile industry has indicated that
achievement of the 1975 standards set by the bill would be costly—
whether such standards were achieved through cleaning up the
internal combustion engine or through development of an alterna-
tive power source.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1231
The manufacturers informed the Committee that they would
not be able to guarantee conformity with emission standards for
the anticipated 10-year life of a vehicle. The committee bill pro-
vides that 50,000 miles would be the maximum that a vehicle
would be required to conform to the standards for which it was
certified. The Committee bill would provide that a manufacturer
may require reasonable evidence of proper maintenance of a
vehicle and must provide written instructions on maintenance,
adjustments, service and operation. The Committee hopes that,
if the motorist complied with these instructions, emission controls
would not deteriorate after 50,000 miles to the extent that ambient
air quality would be impaired. The Committee further expects the
manufacturer to endeavor to either improve the quality control of
emission systems or explore better ways to assure continued com-
pliance beyond 50,000 miles of use.
The warranty required by this section would not become effec-
tive until 90 days after enactment of this Act. This delay would
be needed so that the manufacturer could prepare instructions for
the motor vehicle purchaser. The Committee expects these instruc-
tions to be reasonable and uncomplicated. They would have to be
approved by the Secretary. During such time as the warranty pro-
vision is effective, vehicles manufactured after that date would
be required to comply with present standards. Vehicles manu-
factured in future years would have to be warranted to comply
with such standards as may be applicable.
The Committee intends that the public should be made aware
of the actual cost, not the manufacturer's price of any air pollu-
tion control equipment and warranty. While the Committee
recognizes that separation of specific costs for air pollution control
may be difficult, it is quite likely there would be a marked increase
in cars in 1975. To the extent that such costs are attributed to
the control of air pollution emissions the Committee intends that
those increases be the actual cost of the air pollution systems
involved.
[p. 30]
The Committee also recognizes the difficulty in any recall pro-
vision of notifying the owners of vehicles. The burden would be
placed on the manufacturer to notify both the initial and subse-
quent purchasers of vehicles. The Committee expects that the
manufacturer would not only depend on the files of the franchise
-------
1232 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
dealer, but would, to the extent practicable, use State motor
vehicle department registration files to obtain the names and ad-
dresses of subsequent purchasers of cars. By establishing a 50,000
mile, no year lifetime for the purpose of warranty, the Committee
did not intend to relieve the automobile manufacturers of their
responsibility to notify owners of older cars. The 50,000-mile
period can be assumed to be 4 to 5 years and the manufacturer
should be expected to notify any owner of a vehicle that is five
years old or less as to failure to continue to perform to the stand-
ard. A decision not to require the manufacturer to repair the
vehicle could be made after notice and after finding that the
vehicle had exceeded the 50,000-mile warranty period.
SECTION 208. STATE GRANTS
Section 208 of the proposed bill is similar to section 209 of
existing law except that under the new section 208 grants for the
development of vehicle emission devices and systems and inspec-
tion and testing programs could be made to agencies other than
air pollution control agencies. A limitation in existing law hin-
dered making such grants to agencies in charge of general motor
vehicle inspection programs, the logical agencies (in most cases)
to perform emission inspections.
The Committee expects the Secretary to assist in training in-
spectors as soon as methods required by section 207 are developed
to test individual vehicles. Effective State emission testing and
inspection programs will be essential to effective implementation
of ambient air quality standards and to assurances that vehicles,
once delivered to the ultimate and subsequent purchasers, continue
to conform to the standards for which they were certified.
Funds made available under this program should supplement
existing funding programs for air pollution control and should not
be limited by the maintenance-of-effort provisions of Section 105.
SECTION 209. RECORDS AND REPORTS
Section 209 of the Committee bill is substantially similar to
section 207 of existing law except the trade secrets protection
language would be modified to place the burden of showing the
need for confidentiality on the person filing the report with the
Secretary.
The Committee believes that requiring the person filing records
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1233
and reports to prove the need for proprietary protection would
avoid abuse of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code
and facilitate the availability of information related to air pollu-
tion to the public. In addition the Committee bill would exempt
emission data from proprietary protection. The Committee
believes public knowledge of emissions overrides the private in-
terest in proprietary information.
The purpose of 18 U.S. Code 1905 is to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure by Federal employees of data obtained in connection
with any authorized Federal activity which would, if divulged,
reveal trade secrets or secret processes. It is not aimed at pre-
venting the disclosure
[p. 31]
of such data by Federal agency officials as part of their duty to
effectively control and prevent air pollution. Moreover, the Com-
mittee believes that it is not in the public interest for data re-
lating to the quantity and quality of the emissions to be considered
confidential. The public has a right to know who is polluting the
atmosphere and in what amounts.
SECTION 210. STATE STANDARDS
This section would create a Federal preemption in order to pre-
vent a multiplicity of State standards for emissions control sys-
tems on new motor vehicles as required by section 202, or the
regulation of fuels as provided in section 212. This preemption
would extend to all new vehicles, commercial vehicles, airplanes,
and vessels.
The Committee nevertheless recognized that there may be un-
usual instances when the State would have to require a standard
of emission control for a vehicle that would exceed the controls
provided by this legislation.
The proposed legislation would continue the requirements that
the Secretary waive application of this preemption provision for
any State which adopted emission control standards on new
vehicles prior to March 30, 1966. The only State to apply such
controls is California.
For any other State to obtain an exception to preemption, it
would have to prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary that a
more stringent standard was necessary and essential to the
-------
1234 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
achievement of ambient air quality standards in regions within
its jurisdiction.
It should be noted that the Committee anticipates that the need
for such a variance would, with the exception of California, be
useful primarily for the control of emissions from commercial
vehicles.
In addition, the Committee bill would provide, without excep-
tion, for Federal preemption over the prohibition or control of the
sale and use of fuels registered pursuant to section 212.
Nothing in this section would infringe the ability of a State or
community to regulate the use of any vehicle once it has been
purchased.
SECTION 211. USED VEHICLES
The Committee recognizes that for some years to come used
vehicles (including cars manufactured prior to the 1975 model
year) will be a major source of automotive emissions. The Com-
mittee could not find an effective way to assure control of these
used vehicles, many of which are totally uncontrolled and others
of which are only partially controlled by Federal standards effec-
tive in 1968 and subsequent years.
The Committee decided that it is necessary to develop emission
control devices which could be retrofitted for these vehicles. Such
used car control devices and systems would be submitted to the
Secretary for certification as to compliance with used vehicle emis-
sion standards which he would promulgate. Once such devices
had been certified, States with difficult problems could examine
the value of requiring used vehicles operating within that State
or region to install such devices or systems. This may be an
effective tool for assuring continued compliance with air quality
standards, especially since the automobile industry cannot guaran-
tee new vehicle performance beyond 50,000 miles.
[p. 32]
As was pointed out in the hearings, one of the difficulties in the
control of used vehicles is the way in which the car is maintained.
The Committee expects that those regions with difficult pollution
problems associated with motor vehicle emissions will include in
implementation plans a procedure to assure that a major tune-up
will take place when a motor vehicle changes hands. This alone
will greatly reduce the impact of the used car on air quality.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1235
In certifying devices under this section, the Secretary would
have to consider both the technological practicality of the used
car device, as well as the economic cost. In many instances the used
vehicle to which a device would be added would be very low in
value.
SECTION 212. REGULATION OP FUELS
Air pollution is a byproduct of the combustion of fuel. The Com-
mittee therefore considers it appropriate to expand the existing
authority requiring registration of fuels and to establish a pro-
cedure for regulating the sale of fuels to the extent that the com-
bustion or evaporation of such fuels may adversely affect imple-
mentation of the Act.
Under the procedure that would be established by the Com-
mittee bill, the Secretary could designate any fuel that is used
for vehicles. Once designated, the fuel would have to be registered
by the Secretary prior to sale. If such fuel had not been registered
by a date established by the Secretary, the fuel could not be
introduced into commerce. Violation of this provision would sub-
ject the fuel manufacturer to a fine of $10,000 per day.
The bill would authorize a system under which the Secretary
shall seek and receive information to assist him in determining
the potential effect of a particular fuel on the public health and
welfare or on operation of an emission control device.
The manufacturer of a designated fuel would have to notify the
Secretary of a fuel's commercially identifiable name, the manu-
facturer of any additives used in the fuel, the purpose of such ad-
ditive, and the concentrations of such additives.
While additives themselves would not be controlled directly by
this provision, the manufacturer of fuel additives would have to
provide the Secretary, on request, with information on the chemi-
cal composition of the additive, analytical techniques needed to
detect its presence, the recommended concentrations of such ad-
ditive, and the recommended use of the additive.
To establish a system to facilitate expeditious registration of
fuels, the Secretary would be required to prepare a system of test
procedures and protocols that any fuel manufacturer could expect
to undertake prior to registration. It is the Committee's belief
that such procedures would assist the Secretary in identifying any
health or welfare effects in the use of the fuel.
Should these procedures be ineffective, the Secretary could
-------
1236 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
request added information from the manufacturer on the effects
of emissions and evaporation of the fuel.
Once the manufacturer had satisfied these requirements, the
Secretary would be required to register the fuel for sale.
The Committee bill also would provide a procedure under which
the Secretary might either prohibit or control the sale of a fuel.
There are two basic reasons to regulate the sale of a fuel. First,
the combustion or evaporation of such fuel from any engine may
produce
[P. 33]
an emission that is a direct endangerment to the public health.
Second, the fuel may have an adverse effect on the general wel-
fare or on an emission control system or device.
In matters related to public health and welfare, the Commit-
tee's concern is with the effect of the actual emissions from the
tailpipe, not with the composition of the fuel. The combustion of
the fuel in its intended environment—inside an engine with
proper emission controls—would be the proper criterion for the
Secretary to use in judging the health and welfare effects of that
fuel.
The Committee believes that an endangerment to health would
be of such importance that the Secretary might prohibit or control
the sale of such fuel. Adverse environmental effects would fall in
the category of general welfare. Since the nature of the general
welfare is less well-defined than the public health, the Committee
believes it essential that the Secretary hold a public hearing on
any proposed prohibition or control relating to public welfare.
Another reason for prohibiting or controlling the sale of a fuel
involves its effect on an emission control device or system. The
most obvious example that came to light in hearings is the effect
of leaded gasoline on a catalytic muffler. Such mufflers have been
proposed to control emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon mon-
oxide from vehicle engines. The effect of lead on catalysts can re-
duce the effectiveness of such mufflers by up to 90 percent. Since
the use of catalytic mufflers may be essential for compliance with
standards established under section 202, the Committee has
adopted language permitting the Secretary to control fuels in
order to facilitate the use of emission control systems.
The Committee believes that automotive and petroleum in-
dustries should be given the greatest possible latitude in develop-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1237
ing an effective low emission technology. Therefore, before the
Secretary made any decision to prohibit or limit the use of a fuel
to facilitate emission control, he would be required to hold public
hearings and make and publish a finding that such a prohibition
is necessary. The Secretary would have to find that such a pro-
hibition or control on fuels benefits the public either by enabling
use of a more effective emission control system than would other-
wise be available, or by providing a less costly emission control
system if two systems of equal effectiveness are developed. The
cost would be determined by comparing systems and fuel costs
over 50,000 miles of vehicle use. In addition, the Secretary would
have to find that such a prohibition or control would not cause
the use of any other fuel(s) that would produce emissions en-
dangering the public health or welfare to the same or a greater
degree.
The Committee anticipates that the Secretary may not deem it
necessary to prohibit altogether the sale of a particular fuel to
facilitate the operation of emission control systems. He may wish
instead to limit use of such fuels or place limits on additive con-
centrations in the fuel.
At one time the Committee considered language that would give
the Secretary only the authority to "prohibit" a fuel's introduction
into commerce. After evaluation, the Committee decided that such
authority should also be extended to the "control" of a fuel's intro-
duction into commerce. This authority to "control" the use of fuels
is intended to give the Secretary greater flexibility than the au-
thority to "prohibit." For instance, the Committee expects that
the
[p. 34]
Secretary may find it advisable to permit the continued sale of
leaded gasolines to allow for the efficient and economic operation
of automobiles presently on the highway, even if he finds it neces-
sary to control fuels to assure the availability of non-leaded
gasolines for other purposes.
The purpose of this provision would be to achieve maximum
control of auto emissions at a minimum cost.
This section would also empower the Secretary to subpoena
relevant witnesses and records, and would require that manu-
facturers make available any data not considered confidential.
-------
1238 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SECTION 213. DEVELOPMENT OF LOW EMISSION VEHICLES
Section 213 would authorize the Secretary to establish special
low emission vehicle standards for research and development
purposes. This provision is designed to coincide with legislation
enacted by the Senate earlier this year sponsored by Senator
Magnuson. Senator Magnuson's bill, S. 3072, would stimulate the
development, production and distribution in interstate commerce
of low-emission motor vehicles.
Authority for the Secretary to prescribe low emission standards
and certify vehicles and engines which meet those standards is
essential to effective implementation of S. 3072. More importantly,
this provision would provide the Secretary with additional infor-
mation needed to determine, as required by Section 202 (b),
whether or not technology is available to meet the standards pre-
scribed by that section.
SECTION 214. DEFINITIONS
The definitions are self-explanatory. Additional definitions have
been added to include those moving sources of pollution which
would be added by this amendment to the Clean Air Act.
SECTION 215. APPLICABILITY
This section would provide that certain specific provisions of
this Title should be applicable 90 days after enactment in order
to provide the manufacturer with the time necessary to develop
and implement the provisions of the bill.
SECTION 303. EMERGENCY POWERS
The bill would continue emergency powers contained in section
108 (k) of existing law to deal with imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health. However, to reflect the new or-
ganization of the bill and to make clear the intent that such
powers apply to the entire Act, the authority would be provided
in title III. In addition, the language has been modified to conform
to the description of air pollution agents or combination of such
agents which now appears throughout the Act.
The Committee believes that this emergency authority is neces-
sary to provide for immediate, effective action whenever air pollu-
tion agents reach levels of concentration that are associated with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1239
(1) the production of significant health effects, (2) incapacitating
body damage, or (3) irreversible body damage in any significant
portion of the general population. The term "significant portion"
[p. 35]
is not intended to exclude sensitive elements of society such as
asthmatics, but only those groups of particularly susceptible per-
sons for whom other precautionary measures should be taken.
Secondly, the emergency situation exists whenever there is any
perceptible increase in the mortality rate.
It is understood that the Secretary has prepared contingency
plans and procedures to implement this authority which include
a system of alerts. The Committee recognizes the importance of
such contingency planning in section 111 of the bill, and would
require such contingency planning as a part of the implementa-
tion plan for every air quality control region.
The levels of concentration of air pollution agents or combina-
tions of agents which substantially endanger health are levels
which should never be reached in any community. When the pre-
diction can reasonably be made that such elevated levels could
be reached even for a short period of time—that is that they are
imminent—an emergency action plan should be implemented to
reduce emissions of air pollution agents and prevent the occur-
rence of substantial endangerment.
During the consideration of this legislation, metropolitan
regions on the eastern seaboard experienced a severe air pollution
episode which suggested the use of 108 (k) authority under exist-
ing law. In answer to an inquiry as to the actions taken during
the episode, the Secretary reported to the Committee that a com-
bination of the pollutant levels experienced and the generally
responsible actions of State and local officials made action under
subsection 108 (k) unnecessary. The Committee is not satisfied
with existing State and local air pollution alert strategies. Rec-
ommendations that children not run to and from school and that
events be suspended are not a substitute for reducing pollution.
The Committee believes that air pollution alerts authority should
include plans which provide for the immediate reduction of non-
essential operations which contribute to an episode situation.
The Committee expects the Department to continue to refine
emergency procedures under section 303 of this bill and to assist
the States and municipalities in the development and execution
of such procedures.
-------
1240 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SECTION 304. CITIZEN SUITS
The Committee has established a provision in the bill that would
provide citizen participation in the enforcement of standards and
regulations established under this Act. The provision in the pro-
posed bill is carefully restricted to actions where violations of
standards and regulations or a failure on the part of officials to
act are alleged.
Section 304 would not substitute a "common law" or court-
developed definition of air quality. An alleged violation of an emis-
sion control standard, emission requirement, or a provision in an
implementation plan, would not require reanalysis of technological
or other considerations at the enforcement stage. These matters
would have been settled in the administrative procedure leading
to an implementation plan or emission control provision. There-
fore, an objective evidentiary standard would have to be met by
the citizen who brings an action under this section.
Government initiative in seeking enforcement under the Clean
Air Act has been restrained. Authorizing citizens to bring suits
for viola-
[p. 36]
tions of standards should motivate governmental agencies charged
with the responsibility to bring enforcement and abatement pro-
ceedings.
In order to further encourage and provide for agency enforce-
ment, the Committee has added a requirement that prior to filing
a petition with the court, a citizen or group of citizens would
first have to serve notice of intent to file such action on the
Federal and State air pollution control agency and the alleged
polluter. Each citizen or group would have to include facts in such
notice in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
The Secretary should prescribe such regulations as soon as pos-
sible after enactment, and such regulations should reflect sim-
plicity, clarity, and standardized form. The regulations should not
require notice that places impossible or unnecessary burdens on
citizens but rather should be confined to requiring information
necessary to give a clear indication of the citizens' intent. These
regulations might require information regarding the identity and
location of alleged polluter, a brief description of the activity
alleged to be in violation, and the provision of law alleged to be
violated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1241
The Committee has provided a period of time after notice be-
fore a citizen may file an action. The time between notice and
filing of the action should give the administrative enforcement
office an opportunity to act on the alleged violation.
It should be emphasized that if the agency had not initiated
abatement proceedings following notice or if the citizen believed
efforts initiated by the agency to be inadequate, the citizen might
choose to file the action. In such case, the courts would be expected
to consider the petition against the background of the agency
action and could determine that such action would be adequate to
justify suspension, dismissal, or consolidation of the citizen peti-
tion. On the other hand, if the court viewed the agency action as
inadequate, it would have jurisdiction to consider the citizen
action notwithstanding any pending agency action.
The Committee emphasizes that if the alleged violation is a
failure to comply with an administrative enforcement order, a
violation of a standard of performance, or a prohibition or emis-
sion standard, there would be no waiting period following notice.
It is the Committee's intent that enforcement of these control pro-
visions be immediate, that citizens should be unconstrained to
bring these actions, and that the courts should not hesitate to
consider them.
Section 304 would provide that a citizen enforcement action
might be brought against an individual or a government agency.
As recognized under section 118 of the bill, Federal facilities
generate considerable air pollution. Since Federal agencies have
been notoriously laggard in abating pollution and in requesting
appropriations to develop control measures, it is important to pro-
vide that citizens can seek, through the courts, to expedite the
government performance specifically directed under section 118.
The standards for which enforcement would be sought either
under administrative enforcement or through citizen enforcement
procedures are the same.
The participation of citizens in the courts seeking enforcement
of air quality standards should not result in inconsistent policy.
The Clean Air Act should achieve objective standards against
which to
[p. 37]
measure air quality. There should be no inconsistency in the
enforcement of such standards. Whether abatement were sought
-------
1242 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
by an agency or by a citizen, there would be a considerable record
available to the courts in any enforcement proceeding resulting
from the Federal and State administrative standard-setting pro-
cedures. Consequently, the factual basis for enforcement of stand-
ards would be available at the time enforcement is sought, and
the issue before the courts would be a factual one of whether
there had been compliance.
The information and other disclosure obligations required
throughout the bill are important to the operation of this provi-
sion. The Secretary would have a special duty to make meaningful
information on emitting sources available to the public on a timely
basis.
The provision is drawn to avoid problems raised by class action
provisions of the Federal rules of civil procedure, specifically by
Rule 23. Section 304 does not authorize a "class action." Instead,
it would authorize a private action by any citizen or citizens
acting on their own behalf. Questions with respect to traditional
"class" actions often involve: (1) identifying a group of people
whose interests have been damaged; (2) identifying the amount
of total damage to determine jurisdiction qualification; and (3)
allocating any damages recovered. None of these points is ap-
propriate in citizen suits seeking abatement of violations of air
quality standards. There would be no jurisdictional amount re-
quired in section 304 nor is there any provision for the recovery
of property or personal damages. It should be noted, however,
that the section would specifically preserve any rights or remedies
under any other law. Thus, if damages could be shown, other
remedies would remain available. Compliance with standards
under this Act would not be a defense to a common law action
for pollution damages.
Concern was expressed that some lawyers would use section
304 to bring frivolous and harassing actions. The Committee has
added a key element in providing that the courts may award costs
of litigation including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees,
whenever the court determines that such action is in the public
interest. The court could thus award costs of litigation to defend-
ants where the litigation was obviously frivolous or harassing.
This should have the effect of discouraging abuse of this provision,
while at the same time encouraging the quality of the actions
that will be brought.
The courts should recognize that in bringing legitimate actions
under this section citizens would be performing a public service
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1243
and in such instances the courts should award costs of litigation
to such party. This should extend to plaintiffs in actions which
result in successful abatement but do not reach a verdict. For
instance, if as a result of a citizen proceeding and before a verdict
is issued, a defendant abated a violation, the court may award
litigation expenses borne by the plaintiffs in prosecuting such
actions.
Enforcement of pollution regulations is not a technical matter
beyond the competence of the courts. The citizen suit provision is
consistent with principles underlying the Clean Air Act, that is the
development of identifiable standards of air quality and control
measures to implement such standards. Such standards provide
manageable and precise benchmarks for enforcement.
The Committee bill would provide in the citizen suit provision
that actions will lie against the Secretary for failure to exercise
his duties
[p. 38]
under the Act, including his enforcement duties. The Committee
expects that many citizen suits would be of this nature, since
such suits would reduce the ultimate burden on the citizen of
going forward with the entire action.
SECTION 305. APPEARANCE
The Committee recognizes that this legislation would put great-
ly increased burdens on the administering agency. Constant legal
assistance would be required in legislative interpretation, admin-
istrative procedure, review of implementation plans, information
acquisition, and enforcement. The Secretary would need a staff of
supporting attorneys. Good administration dictates that such as-
sistance be immediately available to the Secretary.
Therefore, the bill would authorize the Secretary to appoint
attorneys to appear and to represent him in actions instituted
under the Clean Air Act. The Committee believes this necessary
for three reasons. First, the timetables imposed by the bill would
require that full time legal assistance be available to assure com-
pliance. Second, new enforcement procedures would require the
development of competence and expertise if the Act were to be ad-
ministered and enforced fairly and expeditiously. Finally, failure
to comply with enforcement within the time required would
-------
1244 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
necessitate immediate action in Federal District Courts to seek
compliance with such order.
SECTION 306. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
The Committee considered proposals offered by Senator Muskie
and by Senator Cook to assure that the Federal Government does
not patronize or subsidize polluters through its procurement prac-
tices and policies.
Section 306 would make any person or corporation who fails to
comply with a court order issued under this Act or who is
convicted of a knowing violation of any schedule or timetable of
compliance, emission requirement, prohibition, emission standard,
or standard of performance, ineligible for a Federal contract for
any work to be done at the polluting facility. This ineligibility
would continue until the Secretary certifies that the facility is in
compliance with the court order or the provisions of the Act.
This section would be limited, whenever feasible and reason-
able, to contracts affecting only the facility not in compliance,
rather than an entire corporate entity or operating division.
There might be cases where a plant could not participate in a
Federal contract due to a violation but another plant owned by
the same company might bid and transfer work to the first plant.
This type of action would circumvent the intent of this provision.
In this case, the company's second facility should also be barred
from bidding until the first plant returns to compliance.
There would also be instances where a second plant within a
corporation was seeking a contract unrelated to the violation at
the first plant. In such a case, the unrelated facility should be
permitted to bid and receive Federal contracts.
It is anticipated by the Committee that the Executive Branch
will, in the near future, publish new Federal contract guidelines
that will
[p. 39]
enable the Federal Government to suspend or revoke a contract
once the contracting party is found to be in non-compliance with
the air pollution standards or other requirements of this Act.
This executive action would be specifically mandated by section
306(c).
The effectiveness of this section would depend on fast, accurate
dissemination of information. All Federal agencies would have to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1245
be rapidly apprised of any abatement order or conviction which
would bar a facility from eligibility for Federal contracts. The
Secretary would also have to act expeditiously to certify that a
facility had achieved compliance, and notify all Federal agencies
of that fact. Delays in reporting such information, leading to
inaccurate public disclosures, would quickly render this section
unworkable.
SECTION 307. EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
Every worker who is called upon to testify or who gives infor-
mation with respect to an alleged violation of a pollution law by
his employer or who files or institutes any proceeding to enforce
a pollution law against an employer fears that he will be subject
to discrimination. Congress has recognized this problem in the
field of labor relations and has prohibited such discrimination in
the National Labor Management Relations Act.
Section 307 of the bill is patterned after that Act and a similar
provision in Public Law 91-173 relating to the health and safety
of the Nation's coal miners. Under this section employees and
union officials could help assure that employers do not contribute
to the degradation of our environment.
The section would prohibit discharges or discrimination and
would provide an administrative procedure under which the
employee or his representative could seek redress for any violation
of this prohibition. The Secretary of Labor would have to investi-
gate such charges and issue findings and a decision which would
be subject to judicial review. If the Secretary should find a viola-
tion, he would have to issue orders to abate it, including, where
appropriate, the rehiring of the employee to his former position
with back pay. Also, the person committing the violation could
be assessed the costs incurred by the employee to obtain redress.
This provision would safeguard the rights of employees, but it
should not encourage employees to frivolously allege violations
since the employee would have to pay the costs of the proceedings
unless the violation is proved.
SECTION 308. JUDICIAL REVIEW
One of the uncertainties in the existing Clean Air Act is the
availability or opportunity for judicial review of administratively
developed and promulgated standards and regulations. Moreover,
the effect on the general program of a review itself is not clear.
526-103 O - 73 - 6
-------
1246 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
Administratively developed standards, rules and regulations
under the Act and under this bill would clearly affect the interests
of persons. The courts are increasingly adapting this test to what
administrative actions are reviewable. In several recent cases
[Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin (C.A. No. 23,813,
May 28, 1970) ; Barlow v. Collins (397 U.S. 159, 167 (1970)) ;
Abbott Laboratories V. Gardiner (387 U.S. 136, 140-41 (1967))]
the Courts have held that even in
[p. 40]
matters committed by statute to administrative discretion, pre-
clusion of judicial review "is not lightly to be inferred ... it re-
quires a showing of clear evidence of legislative intent." (E.D.F.
v. Hardin, supra, p. 7.) The courts have granted this review to
those being regulated and to those who seek "to protect the public
interest in the proper administration of a regulatory system en-
acted for their benefit." (E.D.F. v. Hardin, supra, p. 6.) Since pre-
cluding review does not appear to be warranted or desirable, the
bill would specifically provide for such review within controlled
time periods. Of course, the person regulated would not be pre-
cluded from seeking such review at the time of enforcement inso-
far as the subject matter applies to him alone.
Because many of these administrative actions are national in
scope and require even and consistent national application, the
provision specifies that any review of such actions shall be in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. For
review of the approval of promulgation of implementation plans
which run only to one air quality control region, the section places
jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which
the affected air quality control region, or portion thereof, is
located.
In order to maintain the integrity of the time sequences pro-
vided throughout the Act, the bill would provide that any review
sought must be filed within 30 days of the date of the challenged
promulgation or approval. It would be further provided that the
filing of a petition does not operate as a stay of the application
of the promulgation or decision for which review is sought, unless
the party seeking such review is able to demonstrate to the court
that there is a substantial likelihood that such party will prevail
on the merits and that the interests of the public will not be
harmed by such stay. It should be noted that the provision re-
stricting stays would apply not only to actions brought pursuant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1247
to this section, but also to any review of an administrative action
pursuant to this Act or under any provision of law.
In this section, and in two other provisions of the bill, section
115 and section 202(b) (4) the Committee directs any court re-
viewing any administrative promulgation or decision to presume
that the findings of the Administrator related to the matter
subject to review are correct. In adopting this position offered by
Senator Baker, the Committee proposes to clarify for purposes of
this Act the value, or weight, given to administrative findings and
decisions by the reviewing court.
The Committee does not intend by this language to provide a
statutory provision that establishes administrative promulgations
or decisions as conclusive and thereby effectively extinguishing
the right of review. Rather, the presumption of correctness es-
tablished is rebuttable by proof that the administrative promulga-
tion or decision is not supported by a preponderance of its
evidence. It should also be noted that evidence regarding any
exclusion or emission of relevant material from the administra-
tive record may be adduced to challenge the sufficiency of the
administrative record.
The committee recognizes that it would not be in the public
interest to measure for all time the adequacy of a promulgation
of any standard or regulation by the information available at the
time of such promulgation. In the area of protection of public
health and environmental quality, it is clear that new information
will be developed and that such information may dictate a revi-
sion or modifica-
[p. 41]
tion of any promulgated standard or regulation established under
the act. The judicial review section, therefore, provides that any
person may challenge any promulgated standard, regulation, or
approved or promulgated implementation plan after the date of
promulgation whenever it is alleged that significant new infor-
mation has become available.
New information may become available at some future date
which indicates that a particular pollution agent or combination
of agents is hazardous to the health of persons and therefore
should be added to those pollution agents subject to the provisions
-------
1248 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
of section 115. Conversely, new information may become available
indicating that a pollution agent for which a prohibition had
been established under section 115 is not hazardous to the health
of persons. If the Secretary failed to act in either event, the
promulgation could be challenged.
SECTION 309. MANDATORY LICENSING
The scope of the Clean Air Act Amendments contained in the
bill, as reported, would require the development of new devices,
techniques, and procedures to meet the obligations placed on those
persons whose activities result in the emission of air pollution
agents. In particular are the stringent demands which would be
made on industry in implementing the standards of performance
required of new stationary sources under section 113, the emission
control and prohibition requirements for hazardous substances
under section 115, and the automobile and other moving source
emission controls required by section 202. Only the stringency of
these sections justifies the inclusion of the provisions of section
309 in the bill.
The Committee recognizes that there is a great discrepancy in
the technical capabilities of the various producing entities in any
given industry and that many companies are not large enough
or broadly based enough to have their own research facilities to
develop the needed controls. In order to prevent the Clean Air Act
requirements from creating competitive disadvantages which well
might result in increased concentration of control of production
facilities in the hands of a few large companies, the Committee
has established the framework in section 309.
The procedure for mandatory licensing established by this
section would make available to any party who can show a need
to know to have access to any patents, trade secrets, or know-how
necessary to achieve compliance with Sections 113, 115, and 202
of this Act.
The language in no way is designed to give large manufacturers
production rights to the inventions, trade secrets, or discoveries of
others. The purpose is to guarantee to all producers in a given
field an adequate supply of technology with which to meet the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1249
statutory obligations which would be imposed by the bill as
reported.
Section 309 has been carefully drawn to clearly indicate that
the Secretary would only provide access to patents, trade secrets
or know-how when such devices, technology or procedures are not
otherwise available to parties requesting assistance. The intent of
section 309 is to prohibit anyone from refusing to make available
discoveries or inventions which would assist in the control and
abatement of air pollution.
[P. 42]
The proposed bill does not provide specifically that any pro-
prietary information made available to the licensee be used solely
in connection with the licensed use, but it should be understood
that any license granted in accordance with the Secretary's order
under the provisions of this section would contain reasonable pro-
visions to prevent the use by the licensee of any such know-how
or trade secrets for any purpose other than to carry out the pur-
poses of the Secretary's order.
In actual operation, this provision would enable the Secretary to
require any patent, trade secret, or know-how to be made available
to any person who must have access to such patent, trade secret,
or know-how in order to comply with the provisions of the Act.
The bill would provide that a reasonable royalty must be paid by
the recipient to the owner of such patent, trade secret, or know-
how, and, in the event of a dispute over the character of the
royalty, such dispute would be resolved in accordance with the
procedures of the American Arbitration Association.
The Committee expects that the Secretary in carrying out his
duties under this section would exercise the greatest amount of
care so as not to abuse either property rights or in any way en-
courage restraint of trade. Consequently, the Committee expects
that the Secretary will draw upon, and frequently consult with,
the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice as he carries
out his responsibilities under this section.
The Committee has received many representations from many
companies that they would otherwise be unable to comply with the
provisions of the Act because of the lack of technological capabil-
-------
1250 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ity. It should be emphasized that the Committee intends that the
authority contained in this section should be exercised very care-
fully and very strictly by the Secretary. The Committee further
expects that the Secretary will develop procedures and regulations
for obtaining information and for applying for the benefits of
this section and for the evidentiary requirements before the
Secretary will require that such patent, trade secret, or know-how
will be made available to the applying person.
SECTION 310. POLICY REVIEW
Early this year the President signed P.L. 90-190, the National
Environmental Policy Act. One of the important provisions of
that Act is section 102(c), requiring every agency of the Federal
Government to evaluate carefully the environmental impact of
proposed activities. The Environmental Policy Act requires that
all relevant factors relating to the environmental effects of pro-
posed activities be included in a "detailed statement" which fol-
lows the proposed activity through the administrative and legis-
lative process. Although the "detailed statement" may be reviewed
by the Council on Environmental Quality, the Act does not assure
that Federal environmental agencies will effectively participate
in the decision-making process. It is essential that mission-
oriented Federal agencies have access to environmental expertise
in order to give adequate consideration to environmental factors.
In order to remedy this situation, the Committee bill would
require that any detailed statement which contains any matter
related to duties and responsibilities granted to the Secretary
pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the Noise Pollution and Abate-
ment Act be reviewed
[p. 43]
by the Secretary for his analysis of the statement with respect
to public health and welfare and environmental quality. If the
Secretary should determine that a detailed statement is inade-
quate, he would refer the matter to the Council on Environmental
Quality for a determination and recommendation to the President.
The Council's determination and recommendation would be made
public.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1251
Mission-oriented agencies often lack the expertise to give ade-
quate evaluation to the environmental impact of their own activ-
ities. The Committee bill would therefore require that the
activities or proposed regulations of any agency or department
of the Federal Government be reviewed by the Secretary for
analysis of those matters within the scope of authority pursuant
to the Clean Air Act and the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act
of 1970.
The Committee intends that these procedures be expeditious
and not become an obstruction of the flow of proposals and activ-
ities in the Federal Government.
SECTION 317. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
In developing the figures included in section 317 providing for
authorizations of appropriations for the next three years to
implement the bill as reported, the Committee considered ex-
perience with the Air Quality Act of 1967 and further consulted
with the Administration for estimates of resources needed to
implement the proposed amendments.
Appropriations for the 1967 Act have been approximately one-
half the amount authorized. This lack of funding has lessened the
effectiveness of the Air Quality Act. The authorization for fiscal
year 1969 was $185 million, the amount appropriated was $88.7
million. For fiscal year 1970 the amount authorized was $179.3
million, and $108.8 million was appropriated. The bill reported
from Committee would provide an authorization of $275 million
for fiscal year 1971—the budget request is for $106 million.
This pattern cannot continue if the Congress and the Federal
Government are to retain credibility with the American people.
The authorization figures contained in the bill represent the best
estimate of the Committee in consultation with the Administra-
tion, of what will be required to implement its provisions.
The following table is an estimate developed by the Adminis-
tration referring only to resources necessary to implement the
proposed amendments and excludes authorizations necessary to
implement the research authority contained in section 104.
[p. 44]
-------
1252 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ESTIMATE OF RESOURCES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS '
TO CLEAN AIR ACT AS CONTAINED IN SENATE BILL
(Dollars in thousands]
Fiscal year 1971 Fiscal year 1972 Fiscal year 1973
Air quality monitoring.. _
Production car testing.. ... .
National emission standards
Fuels/fuel additives regulation _
Control program assistance:
(1) Technical assistance
(2) Control program grants
(3) State vehicle inspection grants
Mobile source standards ..
Used vehicles
Instrumentation
Fuels conversion
Vehicle R/D _.
Federal facilities and procurement .
Position
85
30
107
20
254
26
2
7
16
4
1
3
15
Amount Position
$3,700
1,070
2,210
980
6,100
12,900
2,500
655
1,275
1,200
500
750
500
205
80
130
30
402
12
29
11
16
20
2
3
35
Amount Position Amount
$3,750
3,330
3,300
1,100
11,170
6,300
32,500
660
1,800
5,800
1,000
750
1,200
205
100
130
30
410
16
50
12
19
20
10
3
50
$3,750
3,900
3,300
1,100
11,415
8,000
75.COO
240
1,800
5,800
10,000
1,000
1,700
Subtotal1 570 34,340 975 72,660 1,055 127,005
Forward planning estimate; implement current
legislation 1,141 112,018 1,450 160,506 1,755 186,100
Subtotal cost to implement new legislation.. 1,711 146,358 2,425 233,160 2,810 313,105
Effects research, sec. 107 30 3,000 110 5,000 120 7,000
Grand total 1,741 149,350 2,535 238,160 2,930 320,105
1 Excludes sec. 107 effects research.
The Committee bill includes a provision amending section 301
of existing law to provide the Secretary with authority to procure
personal services through contract without reference to the Civil
Service laws and the Classification Act of 1949. This provision
alone would not, without full funding of the authorizations con-
tained in section 317, provide for adequate manpower. However,
it would remove one serious obstacle.
In 1967 it was indicated that to fully implement the 1967 Act
the National Air Pollution Control Administration would need
1,900 employees in fiscal year 1970. Actual employment at the
beginning of fiscal year 1970 was 1,024, or 876 less than the
stated need. By mid-fiscal year 1970 the National Air Pollution
Control Administration's employment had fallen to 971, or 929
below the stated need.
In fiscal year 1968 NAPCA's employment was 1,070; in fiscal
year 1969 employment was 1,065 (a decrease of 5), at the begin-
ning of fiscal year 1970 the employment was 1,024 (a decrease
of 46 from the 1968 level), and by mid-1970 employment had
dropped to 971 employees (a decrease of 99 from the 1968 level).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1253
The availability of manpower, with adequate funding, can pro-
vide effective implementation of this act. The committee expects
that past trends will be reversed and that required manpower will
be made available to implement the program.
[p. 46]
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF SENATOR ROBERT J. DOLE
On February 10, 1970, President Nixon, in the first Presidential
message to Congress on the environment, proposed far-reaching
legislative and administrative initiatives to restore and preserve
our precious natural resources. The President pointed out that
we have "too casually and too long abused our natural environ-
ment." He emphasized that "the time has come when we can
wait no longer to repair the damages already done, and to
establish new criteria to guide us in the future."
A major portion of the 37-point program proposed by the
President was devoted to air pollution. He accurately described
air as "* * * our most vital resource, and its pollution * * *
as * * * our most serious environmental problem."
The bill reported from committee is in response to this challenge
and is the result of bipartisan efforts by committee members and
the executive branch. It contains elements of legislation introduced
by Senator Muskie, chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, as well as aspects of legislation introduced by
Senator Scott, minority leader, on behalf of the administration.
Specifically, the following Presidential administrative and legisla-
tive recommendations for control of air pollution are contained
in the bill:
1. More stringent motor vehicle emission standards.
2. More effective procedures for insuring that motor
vehicles meet the low pollution standards.
3. Authority to regulate fuels and fuel additives.
4. Financial support for research and development of un-
conventional pollution-free power sources.
5. National ambient air quality standards, with the States
required to prepare implementation plans for meeting these
standards.
6. Accelerated designation of interstate air quality control
regions.
-------
1254 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
7. Establishment of national emission standards for pollu-
tants which are extremely hazardous to health and for new
facilities which could be major contributors to air pollution.
8. Extension of Federal authority to seek court actions
against both interstate and intrastate air pollution.
9. Court authority to impose increased fines for violation
of emission requirements.
While I am in substantial agreement with the bill as reported, I
feel there are certain provisions which could be improved, and one
in particular merits discussion. We have established the 1975
model year as the deadline for achieving a 90-percent reduction in
automobile emissions from specified 1970 levels, The committee,
recognizing that there might not be sufficient time for the
industry to meet this standard, provided for a 1-year extension of
the deadline by the Secretary, subject to judicial review. However,
I believe a combination of
[p. 471
administrative and congressional action would be more consistent
with the intent of Congress; and, at the appropriate time, I intend
to introduce an amendment in the form of a substitute for section
202 (b) (4) to provide automobile manufacturers an opportunity
to petition the Secretary for a 1-year extension of the 1975 dead-
line. If the Secretary, who possesses the expertise and fact-finding
authority, finds the extension to be in the public interest, and
also finds that all possible good faith efforts to meet the standards
have been made, and the technology is not available, he must
recommend to Congress a 1-year extension. The Congress, with
a complete record of information available to it, will then be in
a position to determine if the Secretary's recommendations are
in the public interest. Congress has made a policy judgment in
establishing the 1975 deadline, and it is only logical that Congress
should have the authority to review that policy decision on the
basis of social, health, and economic considerations, which might
become apparent as that deadline approaches.
By the terms of the amendment, Congress would be given the
final opportunity to act, thus placing the responsibility where it
should be. The procedure is similar to that employed in the
executive reorganization acts and would be more expeditious than
depending on court action with the potential for delay incumbent
in that process.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1255
COMPLETE TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Amend section 202(b) (4) to read as follows:
"(4) (A) Within 24 months but no later than 12 months before
the effective date of standards established pursuant to this sub-
section any manufacturer or manufacturers may file with the
Secretary an application for a public hearing on the question of a
suspension of the effective date of such standards for one year.
Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary shall promptly
hold a hearing to enable such manufacturer or manufacturers and
any other interested person to present information revelant to
implementation of the standards.
"(B) In connection with any hearing under this subsection, the
Secretary may sign and issue subpoenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and administer oaths. 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 refusal
to obey a subpena served upon any person under this subpara-
graph, 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 to appear and give testimony before the Secretary or to
appear and produce documents before the Secretary, or both, and
any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by
such court as a contempt thereof.
"(C) Within 6 months after such receipt of the application for
suspension, the Secretary shall, if he finds upon the preponderance
of evidence adduced at such hearing that a suspension is essential
to the public interest and the general welfare of the United States,
that all possible and good faith efforts have been made to meet the
standards established by this subsection, and that effective control
technology, processes, operating methods or other alternatives
are not available or have not been available for sufficient period
to achieve compliance
[p. 48]
prior to the effective date of such standards even with the full
application of section 309 of this Act, recommend to Congress
that (i) the effective date of such standard be suspended for a
period of only one year, and (ii) the emission standard that
should be applied during any such suspension which standard
-------
1256 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
shall reflect the greatest degree of emission control possible
through the use of technology available.
"(D) The findings and recommendations required by this sub-
section shall not be subject to judicial review. Such recommenda-
tions shall be effective as law at the end of the first period of 60
calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date
on which the recommendation is transmitted to it unless, between
the date of transmittal and the end of the 60-day period, either
House passes a resolution stating in substance that the House
does not favor such recommendation.
" (2) For the purpose of this subsection:
"(i) Continuity of session is broken only by an adjourn-
ment of Congress sine die; and
"(ii) The days of which either House is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain are excluded in the computation of the 60-day period.
"(E) Nothing in this subsection shall extend the effective
date of any emission standard established pursuant to this
subsection for more than one year."
Adoption of the above amendment will provide a responsible
answer to a difficult problem. If Congress, in a declaration of
national policy, establishes stringent emission requirements for the
automobile industry, it should assure congressional review of
that policy judgment in the event that compliance with those
standards is not possible.
My State of Kansas is fortunate that it does not face so many
of the severe problems of air pollution confronting more intensive-
ly industrialized States. Passage of this bill will assist in remedy-
ing the problems which do exist and insure the preservation of the
high quality of air Kansas presently enjoys. Specific pollutants
present in the Kansas City air quality control region will be
subject to action by both Kansas and Missouri within 3 years.
Under this bill, we can continue to encourage the location of
new industry in Kansas and other rural and unspoiled regions
without fear of polluting the high quality of air found there. At
the same time, national standards for new stationary sources will
not place some States at a comparative disadvantage affecting
industry decisions on plant locations.
I join my colleagues in unanimously reporting this bill and ask
them to join me in seeking passage of the above amendment.
BOB DOLE
[P. 49]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1257
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD J. GURNEY
I wish to express my support of S. 4358, the National Air
Quality Standards Act of 1970. There can be no denying that the
problem of air pollution must be dealt with in the strongest pos-
sible manner and given the same scrutiny, attention, and high
priority that we have given other urgent national problems.
The problem of air pollution and its effect on the health of our
people has been generally recognized by most sectors of our
society as a major domestic issue, ranking along with crime,
poverty, and economic problems. Dealing with a problem of such
magnitude requires the teamwork of effective congressional and
administrative action, an all-out effort on behalf of every Ameri-
can citizen. With such high stakes involved, I would hope that
everyone concerned will respond to this problem accordingly. As
the President said in his February message on the environment:
"I have sent to this session of Congress a sweeping set of pro-
posals to clean up our Nation's air and water and to make our
land more livable. * * * The time has come when we can wait no
longer to repair the damage already done, and to establish new
criteria to guide us in the future * * *"
There are a number of complex sections in this bill, and I feel
that the Public Works Committee has worked hard to come up
with an effective, workable piece of legislation. Special credit
should go to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. But,
the bill as reported out of the committee contains some features
which trouble me.
I am particularly concerned about two portions of the bill: (1)
the establishment in the bill of a figure for emission pollution for
motor vehicles for January 1, 1975, and (2) the method of judicial
review of a request for temporary relief from this deadline as set
forth in the bill.
The spelling out in the bill of a standard for motor vehicle emis-
sion is unique. Setting of other standards for pollution emission
by other sources is left up to the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, which is surely sensible since his aids and the ex-
perts on pollution are possessed of the required expertise.
I fear that the spelling out in the bill of auto emission standards
and mandating them for January 1, 1975, is open to the criticism
that it is arbitrary. Earlier in the year, auto industry heads met
with the President and pledged the attainment of new and strin-
-------
1258 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
gent antipollution standards by 1975; at the same time, a still
more stringent goal roughly halving these 1975 requirements was
proposed for achievement by 1980. This bill simply cuts both
time and standards in half by substitution of the year 1975 for
the year 1980.
Although I do not sit on the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, I am advised that no hearings were conducted on the
matter of whether the 1980 goals can be met by January 1, 1975.
In fact,
[p. 60]
the auto industry had no inkling of a 5-year advance of goals
until the full committee began its markup.
Several top auto officials have stated that the standards estab-
lished in the bill are impossible of attainment for January 1, 1975.
I do not know whether or not this is true, and neither does any
other member of the committee.
Even so, I think that the January 1, 1975 deadline can be left in
the bill, provided there is a sensible way to review whether this
standard can be met and a means for relief if it is found that it
cannot be met.
As the bill is now written, a manufacturer or manufacturers
may apply to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
within 24 to 12 months before the effective compliance date of
January 1, 1975, requesting a 1-year extension of this date. Within
6 months of receipt of such application, the Secretary will be
required to issue a decision. This decision would then be subject
to judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ot
Columbia Circuit and further, if necessary, by the Supreme Court.
I suggest this court review is cumbersome and time consuming.
The court will have no technical knowledge of this extremely com-
plex subject.
I would suggest that this section be changed to keep this de-
cision-making process totally within the jurisdiction of the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and that the Secretary
have the authority to make two 1-year extensions, instead of only
the 1 year as the bill now provides.
It is the intent of the committee in the bill as written, that the
Secretary, after consultation with appropriate advisory commit-
tees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1259
and after hearing the comments of interested persons, shall set
emission level standards for moving sources.
Further, it is the Secretary who shall be responsible for the
primary review of such standards and their implementation and
it is the Secretary who, in the final analysis, shall have the
authority, under the bill, to change these standards. I think it is
not unreasonable, therefore, to presume that the Secretary having
been charged with such great responsibility, is in the best position
to make a final determination as to any need for a suspension of
the compliance date, which we have set. As a matter of fact, the
pollution experts within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare have been working closely for some time now, in a
supervisory and enforcing role, with the automotive industry.
I do not think that a suspension would be lightly or casually
granted by the Secretary. But, if such a suspension is deemed
necessary (after an exhaustive administrative proceeding at
which all points of view are heard, considered and digested) there
would appear to me to be no valid reason to subject such a good
faith finding by the Secretary to the further scrutiny of courts.
In fact, a further court review might delay unnecessarily the
enforcement provisions of the bill.
EDWARD J. GURNEY.
[p. 51]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1
This section provides that the short title is the "National Air
Quality Standards Act of 1970."
SECTION 2
Subsection (a) amends section 104(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act
to provide that the Secretary of HEW shall conduct research on
the removal of air pollution agents or combinations thereof from
fuels prior to their combustion; on improving the efficiency of
fuels combustion so as to decrease emissions of pollutants into
the air; and in developing and producing synthetic or new types
of fuels which, when combusted, result in substantial reduction
of emissions of pollutants into the air.
-------
1260 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
Subsection (b) amends section 104 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act
by adding to that section a provision which requires the Secre-
tary to provide grants to pay part of the costs, as determined by
him, of programs designed to develop low emission alternative
propulsion sources for the present internal combustion engine.
Subsection (c) amends section 104 (c) of the Clean Air Act by
extending the authority for research on fuels and vehicles
through the end of fiscal year 1973. It authorizes appropriations
totalling over a 3-fiscal year period $450 million.
SECTION 3
Subsection (a) amends section 105 (a) of the Clean Air Act
by adding a new paragraph. Under this paragraph the Secretary
may pay up to 75 percent of the costs of planning, developing,
establishing, or improving regional air quality control programs
and up to three-fifths of the cost of maintaining such programs.
Before making such grants, the Secretary must determine that
the regional program is operated by the State air pollution agency
and is applicable to the entire air quality control region; that the
State has adequate regulatory authority, including effective en-
forcement tools, to abate and control air pollution from all
sources, including moving sources, in such region; that the State
program does not supplant any such program of any municipality
or a group of them unless the Governor determines that the public
interest requires it; that non-Federal matching funds for the
region will not be reduced, and that Federal grants will be in
addition to other funds available to the State agency; and that
there is an adequate and effective State program of coordination.
Subsection (b) adds to section 105 of the Clean Air Act two
new subsections.
[p. 62]
The first authorizes the Secretary to reduce grant payments
when the grant recipient is detailed personnel of the Public Health
Service under section 301 (b) of the Act to aid in implementing
the Act's objectives.
The second directs the Secretary to withhold grant funds under
section 105 of the Act where he determines that a program of
any air pollution control is and will continue to be under-staffed
or under-funded.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1261
SECTION 4
This section strikes from section 106 of the Clean Air Act sub-
section (b) relating to the designation or establishment of air
quality planning commissions and makes other technical changes.
SECTION 5
This section repeals the present sections 107 through 109 of the
Clean Air Act and substitutes new sections 107 through 109 to
the Act.
Section 107
The new section directs the Secretary to give special emphasis
to research on the effects of air pollution agents or combinations
thereof on public health and welfare to improve knowledge of the
contribution of such agents to the occurrence of adverse effects
of health and the short- and long-term effects of such agents on
the total human environment.
It directs the Secretary to conduct epidemiological studies of
the effect of such agents on mortality and morbidity; to conduct
clinical and laboratory studies; to utilize the facilities of existing
scientific laboratories and research centers of other Federal
agencies where such facilities are reasonably available for such
purposes; to utilize the authorities of section 103(b) of the Act
for such research; and to consult with other Federal agencies to
avoid unnecessary duplication of research and studies.
The new section authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts
for up to 10 years even though funds beyond the first year of the
contract may not yet be appropriated. Authorization up to $15
million is authorized for such long-term contracts. This author-
ization sum is in addition to other sums appropriated under the
Act.
The new section makes available for the benefit of the general
public all developments from research, demonstrations, experi-
ments, or other such work carried out, contracted for, sponsored,
or authorized under the Act after this section is effective.
Section 108
Section 108 provides for the designation of air quality control
regions. Within 90 days after enactment, the Secretary must
designate all those interstate and major intrastate air quality
control regions which are not yet designated under the Act which
526-703 O - 73 - '
-------
1262 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
he believes are necessary and appropriate for such designations.
The designations must be based on administratively practicable
jurisdictional boundaries, the need to encompass in the region
entire areas of significant urban industrial concentrations, the
existing levels of ambient air quality, and
[p. 53]
other factors that will lead to prompt and effective implementation
of ambient air quality standards for that region. Regions desig-
nated prior to the effective date of this subsection are continued,
but those regions and the new ones must be reviewed at least
every 5 years and, if appropriate, modified. Any State or portion
thereof not included in a designated region shall be considered
a region for the purpose of the Act. In such cases the Governor
of a State may subdivide such non-designated region into two or
more regions to facilitate the development of effective implemen-
tation plans.
Section 109
This new section directs the Secretary to publish (initially 30
days after enactment) a list of air pollution agents or combination
thereof for which air quality criteria will be issued. He can add
to the list periodically. The agents on the initial list must include
all those pollution agents or combinations of agents which have;
or can be expected to have, an adverse effect on health and wel-
fare and which are emitted from widely distributed mobile and
stationary sources, and all those for which air quality criteria are
planned.
Twelve months after such initial list is published, the Secretary
must issue air quality criteria for those listed agents.
The Secretary must also issue information on air pollution con-
trol techniques.
This section continues in effect those air quality criteria and
information on pollution control techniques published prior to
this section.
This section provides that such criteria and information shall
be published in the Federal Register and be available to the public.
SECTION 6
This section redesignates the present sections 110 and 111 of
the Clean Air Act as sections 117 and 118, and adds to the Act
seven, new sections.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1263
Section 110
This section directs the Secretary to publish in the Federal
Register proposed national ambient air quality standards for any
air pollution agent or combination thereof for which air quality
criteria were issued by him prior to the enactment of this section.
After allowing a reasonable period for the public to submit
written comments only on such standards and for consideration of
such comments, the Secretary must finally promulgate them with
modifications if needed. Such promulgation must occur not later
than 90 days after they are proposed.
In regard to such pollution agents for which such criteria are to
be issued after enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
publish together with the issuance of such criteria, such standards
in the same manner as just described.
Such standards shall be the ambient air quality standards which
must be attained and maintained to protect the health of persons.
When national ambient air quality standards are proposed the
Secretary must also publish national air quality goals necessary to
protect the public health and walfare from any known or antici-
pated effects associated with the presence of such agents in the
ambient air.
Standards and goals are effective on promulgation.
[p. 54]
Section 111
Whenever ambient air quality standards and goals are promul-
gated under section 110 of this Act, each State must, after public
hearings, develop, adopt, and submit to the Secretary, within 9
months, plans to implement, maintain, and enforce such standards
and goals in each air control region, or the portion thereof located
in such State. Such public hearings shall consider more restrictive
standards, unless a separate public hearing to consider more re-
strictive standards is provided. The Secretary must approve or
disapprove the adopted plans within 4 months after the 9 month
period.
The Secretary shall approve a plan if, among other things, it
provides for the attainment of the standards within 3 years, in-
cludes emission requirements and schedules of compliance, in-
cludes provisions for monitoring devices, includes effective pro-
cedures, including land use and air and surface transportation
controls and permits, to insure that all air pollution sources will
-------
1264 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
not prevent or interfere with the attainment and maintenance of
such standards and goals, and provides that the State has ade-
quate personnel, funding, and authority to carry out and enforce
the plan, including emergency powers comparable to section 303
of the Clean Air Act.
Where a region covers two or more States, the plan of both
States must be compatible.
The Secretary may extend the time to submit portions of a
plan dealing with ambient air quality goals where he believes
there is a good faith effort to comply, but the extension shall not
be more than 18 months.
If a State does not adopt and submit a plan for an air quality
control region within the period prescribed, or if the Secretary
disapproves a plan, the Secretary must promptly prepare and
publish proposed regulations setting forth a plan for the ap-
propriate air quality control region. Where the State fails to hold
a public hearing concerning the adoption of a plan for that region,
the Secretary must provide an opportunity for such hearing on
the proposed regulations. In publishing such regulations, the
Secretary shall invite written comments unless a public hearing
is required. Within 6 months after the date established for a State
to submit adopted plans, the Secretary, if a State has not done
so, must finally promulgate such regulations which shall there-
after be the plan for that region until the State adopts and
submits a plan and such plan is approved. Regulations published
and promulgated by the Secretary must be consistent with the
criteria set forth in subsection (a) (2) of this section.
This section provides that standards and plans adopted by any
State and approved by the Secretary prior to enactment of this
section will continue in effect unless the Secretary determines?
that they are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, is amended
by this bill, and will not achieve air quality within the time
prescribed. If he so determines, he must notify, within 90 days
after standards are promulgated under section 110 (a) (1), the ap-
propriate State or States and specify the areas which are deficient.
If the State does not adopt, after public hearings, such necessary
changes and within 6 months after such notice, the Secretary
shall promulgate by regulation such changes which will thereafter
be effective.
Whenever the Secretary or his representative finds from new
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1265
information developed after a plan is approved that the plan is
not or
[p. 55]
will not be adequate to achieve promulgated ambient air quality
standards he must notify the appropriate States and give them
an opportunity to respond to the new information. If the State
fails to respond or makes an inadequate response within 90 days
after notice, the Secretary shall publish, and finally promulgate,
revisions to the implementation plan of that region. The revision
can include a revision in the time established to attain national
standards, but, if the revision involves an extension of that time,
such extension shall not be for more than a year. Further, such
extensions shall not affect any emission requirement, timetable,
or schedule of compliance unless one of them is the subject of
revision.
Not later than 1 year prior to the end of the period established
to attain ambient air at the quality established by any nationally
ambient air quality standard, the Governor of a State in which
an air quality control region is wholly or partially located may
petition the appropriate Federal District Court for relief from the
effect of the expiration of such period on that region or some part
of it or on a person or several persons in the region. If the
region is an interstate one, other affected Governors may also
intervene in opposition to or in support of the petition. The
petition must be heard and decided by a three judge court and
their decision may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Provision is made for the District Court to re-arrange its docket
of cases in order to give priority to the petition. Where the Secre-
tary is not automatically a party to the action, he must intervene
to present evidence and argument on the merits of the petition.
Others may also intervene at the court's discretion.
This section limits the powers of the court in granting relief by
establishing clear criteria for it to follow in reaching its decision.
The section established that the paramount interest of the Nation
is achieving ambient air quality to protect health. Thus, relief
can only be granted if the court clearly determines it essential to
the public interest and the general welfare of persons in the
affected region. The court must find that substantial efforts have
been made by the State or States and others in the region to
protect the health of persons in the region and that means to
achieve the standards are not available or have not been available
-------
1266 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
for a sufficient period to achieve compliance, or that such failure
is primarily caused by the failure of the Federal Government to
control emissions from a facility granted an exemption by the
President under section 118 of the Act. The court may grant an
extension for 1 year, although further 1-year extensions are
possible on the filing of new petitions each time and the holding of
new hearings and the making of new findings.
If the court grants an extension the Secretary is required to
make necessary modification in the applicable implementation
plan to achieve compliance within the year grace period.
Court extensions shall not affect compliance with emission re-
quirements, timetables, schedules of compliance, or other portions
of an implementation plan unless they are the subject of the
specific court order extending the time.
Section 112
This section makes it clear that the States may adopt for any
air quality control region and are encouraged to do so, as their
needs demonstrate, stricter ambient standards or plans, or emis-
sion standards to maintain a higher level of air quality or to
achieve that quality in a shorter period of time.
[p. 56]
Section 113
The various terms used in this new section are defined. This
section directs the Secretary to publish, within 90 days after
enactment and periodically thereafter, a list of categories of sta-
tionary sources which shall be subject to standards of perform-
ance.
Within 120 days after such list is published, the Secretary must
publish proposed regulations establishing Federal standards of
performance and give the public an opportunity to present written
comments thereon. After considering the comments and, if ap-
propriate, making modifications in the regulations, he shall, with-
in 90 days after such publication, promulgate such standards.
Such standards are effective upon promulgation. The Secretary
may distinguish between classes, types, and sizes within each
category.
This section and the standards developed thereunder will apply
to new sources owned and operated by the United States.
It provides for the promulgation of regulations concerning the
certification of compliance with any standard of performance and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1267
for the issuance of such certifications by the Secretary. Each
State may establish its own certification procedure which is at
least equal to that established by the Secretary. In such cases,
the Secretary shall delegate certification to the State. The Secre-
tary retains unrestricted enforcement authority.
This section directs owners or operators of new sources to keep
records, make reports, install and use monitoring equipment, and
provide information to the Secretary to insure compliance with
this section, and to permit authorized personnel to have access to
and copy records as needed. Except for emission data, the Secre-
tary may consider such records, reports, or information confi-
dential only if the owner or operator shows, to the satisfaction
of the Secretary, that any such information, if made public, would
disclose proprietary information. Matters not directly related to
such information would not be eligible for confidential treatment
in accordance with section 1905 of title 18 of the United States
Code. Such confidentiality, however, will only extend to that
portion of the information that would so reveal such process or
secret.
This section makes it unlawful to operate a new source without
a certification, to operate any certified source in violation of the
standards, or to fail to comply with recordkeeping requirements.
It authorizes injunctions and civil penalties for such violations.
Section 114
This new section defines the terms "selected air pollution
agents" and "owner or operator" as used in this section.
The section directs the Secretary to compile and publish within
180 days after enactment and periodically thereafter a list of air
pollution agents or combinations thereof for which he believes
emission standards are appropriate. Thereafter, he will periodi-
cally publish regulations establishing emission standards for such
agents. The objective of the regulation is to insure that emissions
of such pollutants will not endanger public health. The emission
standards shall be effective not later than 24 months after pro-
mulgation.
The section authorizes the Secretary to waive the application
of any such standard to any stationary source. To obtain the
waiver, the Secretary must find that the source has achieved
maximum air pollu-
tP- 57]
-------
1268 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tion control using control techniques currently feasible at the
time of application, and that the health of persons will not be
adversely affected. The Secretary must publish his findings and
his decision on a waiver application is subject to judicial review.
The section contains recordkeeping and limited confidentiality
provisions similar to those found throughout the Act.
Provision is made for enforcement and sanctions for violation
of the provisions of the section.
States which develop adequate enforcement procedures for
such standards shall be delegated enforcement authority.
Section 115
This new section directs the Secretary, within 90 days after
enactment and periodically thereafter, to publish a list of air pol-
lution agents or combination thereof which are hazardous to the
health of persons as that term is denned in subsection (b) of
this section and which shall be subject to an appropriate pro-
hibition or emission standard developed under such section.
Within 180 days after he publishes each such list, the Secretary
must publish a proposed prohibition of such emissions from any
stationary source and hold a hearing thereon within 30 days after
such publication. Not later than 6 months after such publication,
he must promulgate such prohibition and enforce it as provided
in this section. But, if the Secretary finds, based on a preponder-
ance of evidence on the record compiled at such hearing, that the
agent is not so hazardous, he shall immediately publish an emis-
sion standard for such agent in accordance with the provisions of
section 114 of the Act. If he finds based upon such evidence that
the agent is itself hazardous to health but a departure from the
proposed prohibition will not be hazardous to health, he shall
publish an emission standard for such agent.
Provision is made for enforcement of such prohibition and
emission standard and for recordkeeping and limited confiden-
tiality provisions similar to those found throughout the Act.
Section 116
This new section prohibits and provides for the enforcement of
any violation by any person, as that term is defined in section 302
of the Act, of any applicable implementation plan, including any
emission requirements forming a part of that plan, or any emis-
sion standard or standard of performance, or procedural require-
ment established under the Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1269
Whenever there is a violation of any element of an implementa-
tion plan, and the Secretary finds that the State wherein the
violation occurs is not administering its plan in the manner con-
templated by this Act, as determined by him, the Secretary or his
representative shall issue an abatement order. No similar finding
is required for violations of standards of performance under sec-
tion 113 of the Act or emission standards under section 114.
Where the person issued the order violates an emission require-
ment or standard or standard of performance, the time stated
in the order to initiate abatement, the violation must not exceed
72 hours; otherwise the time required for initiation of abatement
shall be stated in the order. Copies of all orders are sent to the
appropriate State air pollution control agency. Where the person
violating the prohibition is a corporation, the corporate officers
must also
[p. 58]
get a copy of the order. The order remains in effect until the
Secretary or his representative finds that the violation has been
abated.
This section authorizes the Secretary or his authorized repre-
sentative to conduct appropriate investigations to carry out the
purpose of this Act.
This section directs the Secretary to institute civil actions to
enforce such orders when there is no compliance with such order.
The court shall not stay any such order unless it finds that the
public interest would not be affected by such a stay and that there
is a substantial likelihood that the violator will prevail on the
merits.
This section also provides criminal sanctions for certain know-
ing violations of the act.
SECTION 7
This section amends redesigned section 118 of the Clean Air
Act.
Section 118
This section directs that all Federal agencies shall comply with
the requirements of the Act just as a nonfederal agency or in-
dividual must do in the administration of any real property or
facility and in the conduct of any activity. Except for new sources
-------
1270 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
subject to standards of performance under section 113, the Presi-
dent may grant exemptions for executive branch agencies where
it is in the paramount interest of the United States, so long as
the exemption is not due to lack of appropriations, unless specific
appropriations were requested by him and the Congress specifical-
ly failed to provide the funds. The exemptions cannot exceed one
year. Exemptions for agencies of the legislative and judicial
branches must be by Act of Congress.
The Governor, the Attorney General, or any citizen of any
State affected by a failure of a Federal agency to comply with the
provision of this Act may seek to enforce this requirement under
section 304 of the Act.
SECTION 8
This section amends sections 202 through 212 of the Clean Air
Act.
Section 202
This revised section directs the Secretary to prescribe regula-
tions establishing standards governing the emission of all known
pollution agents from vessels, aircraft, commercial and new non-
commercial vehicles and their engines which cause or contribute
to air pollution which endangers the public health or welfare.
Such emissions standards must be based on the degree of emis-
sion control needed to protect the public health and welfare and
the implementation of ambient air quality standards without any
reference to the power source or the propulsion system.
Any regulation issued or proposed under title II of the Act
prior to enactment of this revised section shall continue in effect
until revised by the Secretary.
The regulations establishing these standards must be published
in accordance with 5 U.S. Code 553 which means that the public
must be given a reasonable opportunity to express their views
through the submission of written comments. After considering
these comments, the Secretary must promulgate the regulations
with modifications, if appropriate.
[p. 59]
This section provides that the Secretary periodically review
regulations, standards, etc., and, revise them when appropriate.
The effective date o* the regulations will be prescribed therein
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1271
after considering, solely from a technical standpoint, what mini-
mum time is needed to achieve compliance.
This section provides that 1975 models of new light duty
vehicles or new light duty engines or those produced after
January 1, 1975, must, for purposes of certification, comply with
emission standards established by the Secretary for certain air
pollution agents. Such compliance shall mean, at a minimum, a
reduction of the emissions for 1970 model year vehicles or engines
of 90 percent. Such emission standards shall be based on measure-
ment techniques to be established 180 days after enactment by
the Secretary. The Secretary shall determine, and publish his
determination as soon as possible after enactment, vehicles and
engines which fall into the category of "light duty."
Five years and one day after criteria are published for air pol-
lution agents for which no emission standards were in effect prior
to enactment of this bill, new light duty vehicles or engines shall,
for purpose of certification, comply with emission standards es-
tablished by the Secretary. Such standards must, at a minimum,
represent a 90 percent reduction from the average of such agents,
as measured from 1970 models. The Secretary must publish such
standards at the same time as he promulgates national ambient
air quality standards. He must afford an opportunity for written
comment. Ninety days thereafter, he must promulgate such stand-
ard finally unless he finds during this period, and publishes such
finding, that a more or less stringent emission standard is neces-
sary to achieve and maintain the national standard in any region.
In such case, he shall promulgate the revised final vehicle emission
standard. Such emission standards shall be based on measure-
ment techniques established by the Secretary within 90 days after
criteria are published.
Provision is made for suspending the effective date of standards
required by this subsection for one year only. To obtain relief from
the effective date, a manufacturer must apply for it within 24
months, but not later than 12 months before the standard is to be
effective. The Secretary must hold a public hearing on the request
and may permit interested citizens or agencies to intervene. The
filing of a request does not stay the effect of the standard.
The Secretary must act on the request for suspension within
six months. The Secretary, based on the hearing record, may de-
cide to grant the request if he determines and publishes it that the
suspension is essential to the public interest and the general wel-
-------
1272 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
fare, the manufacturer has clearly demonstrated that a bona fide
attempt to comply with the emission standards was made, and
that the manufacturer has established at the hearing by a pre-
ponderance of evidence that effective control technology, process-
es, operating methods, or other alternatives are not available or
have not been available Icng enough to achieve compliance. If the
Secretary grants the manufacturer's request for relief, he must
also promulgate interim standards which will require application
of the best available technology to achieve the greatest degree of
emission control possible.
Provision is made for judicial review of the Secretary's decision
at the request of the manufacturer or other citizens or agencies.
The
[p. 60]
court is bound by the same criteria as the Secretary. Such review
does not stay the effective date of a standard.
If and when new power sources or propulsion systems for
vehicles are developed and submitted for certification to determine
their pollution effect, the Secretary must determine that they will
not cause or contribute to a violation of a national ambient air
quality standard.
Regulations concerning aircraft and vessels will require con-
sultation with the FAA and the Coast Guard. The Secretary of
Defense may exempt public vessels and aircraft from the require-
ment for a period of one year.
Section 203
This revised section extends the prohibitions now in the Act to
vessels and aircraft and their engines and to owners or operators
of vessels, aircraft, commercial or new non-commercial vehicles
and their engines. It also prohibits, except for maintenance or
repair purposes, the removing or rendering inoperative of devices
or other elements installed on vessels, aircraft, or vehicles and
their engines prior to delivery to an ultimate purchaser, or during
use.
The Secretary can exempt certain vessels, etc., for research, in-
vestigation, study, demonstration, or training purposes only.
The revised section also extends the provisions of the Act con-
cerning admission of new vehicles and their engines into the
United States to new vessels and aircraft and their engines.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1273
Section 204
This section continues with some technical changes to the pres-
ent provisions of the Act concerning injunctions. It adds to this
section a requirement that the Secretary delegate this authority to
any State that has effective authority and will use it to enforce
under this title of the Act.
Section 205
Except for some technical changes, this section is not substan-
tially changed.
Section 206
Under this revised section, provision is made for testing or ar-
ranging for such testing of new vessels and aircraft or their
engines, or a class thereof (in addition to vehicles and their
engines as now required by this section) as submitted by a manu-
facturer, including an importer, to determine if they conform to
the regulations. If they do, a certification of conformity is issued.
Testing and certification of vessels will be done by the Coast
Guard for the Secretary. Testing and certification of aircraft
will be done by the FAA. The Defense Department will conduct
testing for military vessels, aircraft, and engines. The Secretary
must develop and publish regulations for testing and after written
comment shall promulgate them.
The Secretary must also establish for manufacturers methods
and procedures for testing and to determine the relationship of
test results to the section 202 regulations, and labeling require-
ments for all engines and for vehicles.
The Secretary can at any time test each vessel, vehicle, aircraft,
or their engines subject to section 202 regulations and an issued
certificate, while such are in the custody and control of the
manufacturer. If such
[p. 61]
tests reveal a failure to conform to such regulations, the Secretary
must immediately notify the manufacturer, including importers,
thereof. He may then suspend or revoke the certification until he
finds that the class of vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or engines thereof
manufactured do so conform and reinstates the certificate by
notice.
When a manufacturer is notified of such suspension or revoca-
tion or the denial of such certification, he may appeal to the
Secretary with 30 days thereof and request a public hearing.
-------
1274 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
Such an appeal will not stay such action. The Secretary then must
make a finding of fact and issue a decision which is subject to
judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. The findings of the Secretary shall be presumed correct.
Again the appeal does not automatically stay the suspension.
To enforce Title II of the Clean Air Act, authorized representa-
tives of the Secretary may enter any facilities of a manufacturer
or dealer where vessels, vehicles, aircraft, and engines are manu-
factured, assembled, or constructed or held for introduction into
commerce or held for sale or resale after such introduction to
inspect them.
Every manufacturer must provide, at the time of delivery,
dealers and the ultimate purchaser a certificate that the vessel,
vehicle, aircraft, or engine conforms to the regulations.
Section 207
This revised section provides for the testing of new vehicles or
new vehicle engines, or both, by the manufacturer before delivery
to the dealer or the ultimate purchaser to assure that they will
conform to the certificate issued for the lifetime emissions of such
vehicle or engine. Before any certificate is issued for such vehicles
or engines a manufacturer must have a testing program. The
Secretary will establish by regulation methods and procedures for
such testing.
This section also establishes a manufacturer's warranty pro-
gram regarding systems or devices installed to control or reduce
emissions of air pollution agents. The warranty must accompany
each new vehicle or new vehicle engine together with written
instructions for necessary maintenance by the ultimate purchaser.
The warranty shall also extend on behalf of subsequent pur-
chasers. A tag shall also be affixed to each new vehicle and new
vehicle engine. The actual cost, not the retail price, to the manu-
facturer of emission control devices or systems, including their
installation costs, and the warranty thereof shall be disclosed
prior to delivery to the dealer to the public by the manufacturer.
Failure to do so subjects the manufacturer to the enforcement
provisions of title 15 of the U.S. Code section 1233 which shall
be utilized by the Secretary.
Where the manufacturer finds defects in a new vehicle or engine
during the time of the warranty and such defect causes or will
cause a nonconformity with the certification or regulations, he
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1275
must notify the ultimate purchaser or subsequent purchasers
thereof of the defect within sixty days. The notice will state the
defect, and the remedy to be taken at no cost to the owner. Copies
of the notice must be sent to the Secretary at his request.
Where the Secretary descovers defects through testing, in-
spection, studies, or otherwise he shall immediately notify the
manufacturer and publish the notice in the Federal Register,
within 30 days thereafter. The Secretary shall provide an op-
portunity for anyone to present
[p. 62]
views either in writing or at a hearing. Within 60 days after
the notice is issued, the Secretary shall order the manufacturer
to notify the ultimate purchaser and subsequent purchasers of
the defect, unless based on the record, the Secretary finds that
the class or category of new vehicles or new vehicle engines is in
conformity with the regulations and certification and publishes
his finding in the Federal Register.
Section 208
This revised section authorizes the Secretary to grant to the
States up to two thirds of the cost of developing and maintaining
effective vehicle emission device systems inspection programs and
emission testing and control programs. These programs must be
consistent with the highway safety program of the Department
of Transportation and the grants, when made for a State vehicle
inspection program, must be applied to air pollution control only.
Section 209
This section requires the making of reports and providing of
information to the Secretary by a manufacturer. Whenever the
person providing such information clearly shows, to the satisfac-
tion of the Secretary, that the disclosure of it for any purpose to
the public would directly result in harm to such person because
it would involve the divulging of proprietary information, the
Secretary shall afford that particular information confidentiality
in accordance with the purposes of 18 U.S. Code 1905. This pro-
vision for confidentiality shall not apply to emission data. Further,
even where confidentiality is granted, all such information may
be disclosed to those Federal employees concerned with carrying
out this Act or when relevant to a proceeding under the Act.
-------
1276 LEGAL COMPILATION—AER
Section 210
The provisions of this section, with the exception of some
technical changes to include within its scope vessels and aircraft
and their engines, are nearly identical to the present section 208
of the Act. However, provision is added for the States to impose,
after hearings, and a confirming determination iby the Secretary,
more restrictive standards required to implement national ambi-
ent air quality standards. Further, this section makes clear that
a State could, if necessary to achieve and maintain compliance
with national ambient air quality standards, control, regulate,
or restrict under its law, the use, operation, or movement of air-
craft, vessels, or vehicles.
Section 211
This new section directs the Secretary to promulgate promptly
Federal standards of performance for used vehicles emission
control devices or systems to reduce air pollutants from used
vehicles. Promptly thereafter, he must publish regulations for
certifying and warranting such devices or systems. In so doing,
he must consider technical feasibility of installing and maintain-
ing such devices or systems. After a reasonable time for written
comments, he shall promulgate such standards and they shall be
effective immediately.
Once promulgated manufacturers and importers of such devices
or systems can only sell or offer for sale, or import into commerce,
devices or systems which conform to a device or system tested
and certified by the Secretary. Provision is made for enforcing
this requirement.
[P. 63]
Section 212
This section continues the present provisions of section 210 of
the Clean Air Act concerning the registration of fuels and fuel
additives, but adds to those provisions requirements concerning
the regulation of such fuels.
The Secretary may prohibit the use of any fuel in commerce
which may provide emissions that, he finds, would endanger the
public health. In other cases, he shall, after hearings, prohibit
their use in commerce if he finds it necessary to achieve effective
emission control or to achieve an economic alternative in emis-
sion control or to protect the general welfare. The Secretary can-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1277
not prohibit the use of any fuel if he finds that it would cause
the use of a substitute that would produce the same or greater
danger.
Section 213
This new section provides for the establishment of standards of
low-emission vehicles and their engines not subject to section
202 (b) of the Act and for the testing and certifying thereof.
Section 214
This new section defines various terms used in title II of the
Clean Air Act.
Section 215
This section makes certain provisions of title II of the Clean Air
Act, as amended by this bill, applicable to vehicles and vehicle
engines manufactured 90 days after enactment of this bill.
SECTION 10
This section adds a new subsection to section 301 of the Act
which provides that hereafter contracts under the Clean Air Act
may be entered into without regard to the civil service laws and
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, insofar as the con-
tracts involve the procurement of personal services.
SECTION 11
This section redesignates sections 303 through 310 as sections
311 through 318 and inserts after section 302 eight new sections.
Section 303
This section, with some technical changes, continues the pro-
visions of section 108 (k) of the present Clean Air Act providing
authority for emergency abatement.
Section 304
This new section provides jurisdiction in the Federal district
courts, without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the
amount of controversy, to hear and decide civil actions instituted
by any citizen or class of citizen to enforce or require enforce-
ment of certain provisions of the Clean Air Act, including: any
applicable schedule or timetable compliance, emission require-
ment, standard of performance, emission standard, or prohibition
526-703 O - 73 - 8
-------
1278 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
estabished under the Act. The actions may be brought against
any person, as that term is denned in section 302 (e) of the Act,
where there is an alleged violation of any of its provisions, or
against the Secretary where he fails
[p. 64]
to enforce any standards or orders established under the Act or
to compel him to exercise any duty imposed on him under the
Act.
The section does not, however, affect in any way whatever reme-
dies such citizens or class of citizens might have under statutory
or other law, nor does it provide for damage or nuisance actions.
Before instituting a citizen action to abate a violation, however,
the petition must give notice to the Secretary, his representative,
if any, the appropriate State agency, and the violator of the
violation and allow at least 30 days thereafter to permit them to
abate the violation. If the Secretary, his representative, or a
State does institute proceedings to abate within this time, they
must prosecute them in good faith and with deliberate speed to
meet this notice requirement or the citizen is free to initiate his
action. Actions to abate a violation of an order or certain specified
provisions may be instituted without such notice. If the Secretary
is not a party to the proceeding, he may intervene.
The court may award costs of litigation to either party when-
ever the court determines such an award is in the public interest
without regard to the outcome of the litigation.
Section 305
This new section provides for the appearance of the Secretary's
legal staff in legal proceedings under this Act.
Section 306
This new section requires that a person cannot enter into a
procurement contract where such contract would involve the per-
formance of work at a plant owned or operated by such person
which is the subject of a conviction for a knowing violation under
the Act. Such ineligibility shall continue until there is compliance.
Provision is also made for the President to issue in six months
procedures to insure compliance with the Act in regard to grants
and loans or contracts entered into, by Federal agencies.
Section 307
This section is based on provisions of the Labor Management
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1279
Relations Act, 1947, which prohibit certain unfair practices
against employees by employers, including the discharge or dis-
crimination of such employees, when they file charges or testify
under that Act.
This section also prohibits an employer from discharging or
discrimination against any employee or his representative who
takes any measure to enforce or assist in the enforcement of this
Act or carry out the purposes of this Act. It establishes a pro-
cedure to protect the employee who, for example, testifies at any
proceeding under this Act.
Section 308
This section provides for judicial review of any promulgated
ambient air quality standard or goal or prohibition, emission
standard, or performance standard, or waiver granted under
section 114 of the Act, or of any approved or promulgated im-
plementation plan. The forum for such review is the U.S. Court
of Appeals. The petition for review can be filed by any person
or class of persons who believes that such promulgation, waiver
or approval should be modified in any way, but such petition
must be filed within 30 days after the date of such promulgation,
waiver, or approval. Thereafter such review
[p. 65]
is only possible whenever significant new information has become
available. Administrative findings or determinations made after
proper proceedings provided under this Act shall be presumed
correct, but may be rebutted.
The initiation of such a review will not result in any stay unless
the party requesting the stay clearly shows to the court that
there is a substantial likelihood of his prevailing on the merits and
that the public interest will not be harmed in any way. Such
review is subject to review by the Supreme Court.
Section 309
This section provides authority for the Secretary to order the
owner of a patent, trade secret, or know-how to make such avail-
able at a reasonable royalty to any person who clearly demon-
strates that without such assistance he will not be able to comply
with the requirements of this Act. When so provided, provision
must be made to prevent any disclosure to a third person, and
for keeping and inspecting records. If the conditions relative to
these items are violated, the license may be cancelled and there-
-------
1280 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
after the licensee cannot use or disclose such acquired know-how
or trade secrets. No exemptions from antitrust laws, judgments,
orders, or decrees are to be implied from this section.
Section 310
This new section provides for the review by the Secretary of
detailed statements prepared under section 102 (C) of Public
Law 91—190, and proposed regulations of any Federal agency,
where they relate directly or indirectly to any matter or duties
arising under this Act. When the Secretary finds any such state-
ment or regulation unsatisfactory, he shall refer it to the Council
on Environmental Quality for a determination and recommenda-
tion to the President, which shall be made public.
SECTION 12
This section provides authorization of appropriations under
the Act.
SECTION 13
This section adds to the Clean Air Act a new title concerning
noise pollution.
Section 401
This section provides that the short title of the new Title IV of
the Act is "Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970."
Section 402
This section directs the Secretary of HEW to establish an Office
of Noise Abatement and Control in HEW. The Secretary is then
directed to carry out through that office an investigation and
study of noise and its effect on the public health and welfare,
including its effect on wildlife, domestic animals, and personal and
real property.
The purpose of the study and investigation is to identify and
classify causes and sources of noise, to determine the effects of
noise at various levels, to determine the projected growth of noise
levels on urban areas, the effects on wildlife and real and personal
property, the effects of sporadic extreme noise compared to con-
stant noise and the
[p. 66]
effect of sonic booms on real and personal property. The Secretary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1281
is directed to hold public hearings, and to conduct necessary re-
search, experiments, demonstrations and studies.
The Secretary must report his findings and results to the
President and the Congress one year after enactment, together
with his recommendations for legislation or other action to pro-
tect the public health and welfare from noise pollution. Where a
Federal agency is conducting or sponsoring an activity resulting
in noise which the Secretary determines to be a public nuisance
or is otherwise objectionable, such Federal agency must consult
with the Secretary for the purpose of developing appropriate
means to abate such noise.
Section 403
This section would authorize a total appropriation of $30 mil-
lion for the study and investigation and for the new office.
[p. 67]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL,
AS REPORTED
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted in enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
"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, in-
-------
1282 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
eluding 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
governments; and
"(4) that Federal financial assistance and leadership is
essential 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
development 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 opera-
tion of regional air pollution control programs.
"COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES AND UNIFORM LAWS
"SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative
activities by the States and local governments for the prevention
and control of air pollution; encourage the enactment of improved
and, so far as
[p. 68]
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 pollu-
tion, 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 1283
"(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)
cooperative 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
unless 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, which relates to the control and abatement of air
pollution in an air quality control region, shall provide for partici-
pation 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 re-
search 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..
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 con-
duct 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 recommending 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 caus-
ing or contributing to the pollution is located;
"(4) establish technical advisory committees composed of
recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution to assist
-------
1284 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
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—
[p. 69]
"(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
agencies, 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
organizations, and to individuals, for purposes stated in sub-
section (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
organizations;
"(1) 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 informa-
tion pertaining to air pollution and the prevention and con-
trol thereof; and
"(8) develop effective and practical processes, methods,
and prototype devices for the prevention or control of air
pollution.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1285
"(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).
"(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
problem of substantial significance may result from discharge or
discharges into the atmosphere, he may call a conference concern-
ing this potential air pollution problem to be held in or near
one or more of the places where such discharge or discharges are
occurring or will occur. All interested persons shall be given an
opportunity to be heard at such conference, either orally or in
writing, and shall be permitted to appear in person or by repre-
sentative in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secre-
tary. 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 108(a), he shall send
such findings, together with recommendations concerning the
measures which he finds reasonable and suitable to prevent such
pollu-
[p. 70]
tion, 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 recom-
mendations 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.
RESEARCH RELATING TO RULES 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—
-------
1286 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(I) conduct and accelerate research programs directed to-
ward development of improved, low-cost techniques for—
(A) control of combustion byproducts of fuels,
(B) [for] removal of potential [pollutants] air pollu-
tion agents or combination of such agents from fuel prior
to combustion,
(C) [and for] control of emissions from the evapora-
tion of [fuels;] fuels,
(D) improving the efficiency of fuels combustion so as
to decrease atmospheric emissions, and
(E) producing synthetic or new fuels which, when com-
busted, result in decreased atmospheric emissions;
(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 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 industry-
wide application of preventing or controlling discharges into
the air of various types of pollutants; [and]
(B) part of the cost of programs to develop low emis-
sion alternatives 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
[(B)] (D) carrying out the other provisions of this section,
without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes
(31 U.S.C. £29; 41 U.S.C. 5) : Provided, That research or demon-
stration 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 con-
tracts 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 para-
graph in excess of $1,500,000;
tp. 71]
"(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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1287
point where they can be demonstrated on a large and
practical scale;
"(4) construct, operate, and maintain, or assist in meet-
ing 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 Secre-
tary 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, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $90,000,000, and for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $45,000,000.] For the pur-
poses of this section there are authorized to be appropriated (1)
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $125,000,000, (2) for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $150,000,000, and (3) for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $175,000,000. Amounts appro-
priated pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until
expended."
-------
1288 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF 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
air 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, establish-
ing, or improving and up to three-fifths of
[p. 72]
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 authorized 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 assur-
ances that such agency provides for adequate representation of
appropriate State, interstate, local, and (when appropriate) in-
ternational, interests in the air quality control region.
(3) Before approving any planning grant under this subsec-
tion 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 welfare 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 establishments, population and naturally occurring
factors which shall affect such standards.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1289
Secretary is authorized to make grants to any State air pollution
control agency in an amount not to exceed three-fourths of the
cost of planning, developing, establishing, or improving, and
grants to any such agency in an amount of not to exceed three-
fifths of the cost of maintaining, a regional air quality control
program within the meaning of this subsection if the Secretary
determines that—
(A) such regional program is operated by such State
agency and is serving or will serve an air quality control
region within the meaning of this Act;
(B) such State agency has adequate authority to abate
and control air pollution from all sources in the area served
by such regional program;
(C) such regional program will not supplant any air pol-
lution control program established by any municipality or
group of municipalities unless the Governor of such State
determines that it is in the public interest to supplant such
air pollution control programs;
(D) development, establishment, improvement, or mainte-
nance of such regional program will not result in a reduction
of non-Federal matching funds available for air pollution
control activities in the area served by such regional program,
and that such grants shall supplement, not supplant, any
other funds available to such agency; and
(E) such State agency has made adequate provision for
coordination of such program with the related activities of
any municipal, intermunicipal, or interstate programs serv-
ing all or any portion of such air quality control region.
[p. 73]
(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
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
-------
1290 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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 of funds ap-
propriated 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.
(d) The Secretary, with the concurrence of any recipient of a
grant under this section, may reduce the payments to such re-
cipient 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 recipi-
ent 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 Secretary, 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.
(e) If the Secretary determines that the program of any
agency eligible for a grant pursuant to this section is inadequately
staffed or funded to implement the requirements of this Act in
any region, he shall withhold from such agency all or any portion
of the funds which would be otherwise made available pursuant
to this section. Such funds as would have been available to such
agency shall be available to the Secretary to implement the pur-
poses of this Act in such State or region.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1291
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)J this title, the Secre-
tary is au-
[p. 74]
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 coordinating effectively the
enforcement 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 Secretary 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.
C(b)(1) Whenever the Secretary deems it necessary to expe-
dite 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,
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
designee who shall serve as Chairman, and adequate representa-
tion of appropriate State, interstate, local and (when appropri-
ate), international, interests in the designated air quality control
region.
[(3) The Secretary shall, within 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
employee thereof, or of any political subdivision thereof, shall,
while engaged in the work of the Commission, receive compensa-
-------
1292 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tion 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
intermittently.
[AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS, CRITERIA, AND CONTROL
TECHNIQUES
[SEC. 107. (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,
atmospheric areas of the Nation on the basis of those conditions,
including, but not limited to, climate, meteorology, and topog-
raphy, 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 des-
ignate air quality control regions based on jurisdictional
boundaries, urban-industrial concentrations, and other factors in-
cluding atmospheric areas necessary to provide adequate imple-
mentation of air quality standards. The Secretary may from time
public health and welfare and after consultation
[P. 75]
with appropriate State and local authorities, revise the designa-
tion of such regions and designate additional air quality control
regions. 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 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 with the consultation pro-
cedure and other provisions of this section and, if necessary,
modified and reissued. Such issuance shall be announced in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1293
Federal Register 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
combination of agents, including, but not limited to, atmospheric
conditions, 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 welfare.
[(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 in-
formation 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), which
information shall include technical data relating to the technology
and costs of emission control. Such recommendations shall in-
clude such data as are available on the latest available technology
and economic feasibility of alternative methods of prevention
and control of air contamination including cost-effectiveness
analyses. Such issuance shall be announced in the Federal Regis-
ter and copies shall be made available to the general public.
[(d) The Secretary shall, from time to time, revise and re-
issue 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. 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
526-703 O - 73 - 9
-------
1294 LEGAL COMPILATION — Am
action except as otherwise provided by or pursuant to a court
order under subsection (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, 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 implementa-
tion, 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 sub-
section (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 stand-
ards applicable to such State.
[(2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B)
establish 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 petitions for a revision in such standards, the Sec-
retary may after reasonable notice and a conference of repre-
sentatives of appropriate Federal departments and agencies, in-
terstate agencies, States, municipalities, and industries involved,
prepare regulations setting forth standards of air quality con-
sistent 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1295
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 stand-
ards.
[(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 Sec-
retary. Each State which would be affected by such standards
shall be given an opportunity to select a member of the hearing
board. Each Federal department, agency, or instrumentality
by the
[p. 77]
Secretary shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the hearing board and not less than a majority of the hear-
ing 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 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 authorized by section 5703, title
5, of the United States Code for persons in the Government serv-
ice 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 con-
ference 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
-------
1296 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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 promulgated by the Sec-
retary, the standards shall take effect on receipt by the Secretary
of the hearing board's recommendations. If the hearing board
recommends modifications in the standards as published or pro-
mulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall promulgate re-
vised regulations setting forth standards of air quality in accord-
ance 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 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 vio-
lation, 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—
[(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 Gen-
eral to bring a suit on behalf of the United States in the
appropriate 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
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
[p. 78]
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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1297
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 review of the stand-
ards and to determination of all other issues relating to the al-
leged violation. The court, giving due consideration to the practi-
cability and to the technological and economic feasibility of com-
plying with 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.
[(5) 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) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the application
of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this section
would be otherwise applicable.
[(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
control 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 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 persons only in the State in which the discharge or discharges
-------
1298 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(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
[p. 79]
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 of-
ficials of all affected States, also call such a conference whenever,
on the basis or reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to be-
lieve 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 jurisdic-
tion 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 rea-
son 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 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 con-
ference of such agency or agencies. The Secretary shall invite
the foreign country which may be adversely affected by the pol-
lution to attend and participate in the conference, and the rep-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1299
resentative of such country shall, for the purpose of the con-
ference and any further proceeding resulting from such con-
ference, 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
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. The Secretary
shall deliver to such agencies and make available to other in-
terested parties, at least thirty days prior to any such conference,
a Federal report with respect to the matters before the con-
ference, 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 gen-
eral 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 information. The Sec-
retary shall provide that a transcript be maintained of the pro-
ceedings 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
[p. 80]
pollution subject to abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of
measures taken toward abatement of the pollution; and (C) na-
ture 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
of such pollution is not being made and that the health or wel-
fare of any persons is being endangered, he shall recommend to
the appropriate State, interstate, or municipal air pollution con-
trol agency (or to all such agencies) that the necessary remedial
action be taken. The Secretary shall allow at least six months
-------
1300 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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 pollu-
tion originated, before a hearing board of five or more persons
appointed 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 Secretary shall be given an opportunity to select one mem-
ber of such hearing board, and one member shall be a repre-
sentative 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 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 present evi-
dence to such hearing board.
[(2) On the basis of evidence presented at such hearing, the
hearing board shall make findings as to whether pollution re-
ferred 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 recom-
mendations 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 in-
cludes any such municipality, together with a notice specifying a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1301
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—
[p. 81]
[(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 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.
[ (h) The court shall receive in evidence in any suit brought in
a United States court under subsection (g) of this section a trans-
script of the proceedings before the board and a copy of the
board's recommendations and shall receive such further evidence
as the court in its discretion deems proper. The court, giving due
consideration to the practicability of complying with such stand-
ards as may be applicable and to the physical and economic feasi-
bility 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 sub-
section (f) 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
-------
1302 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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 Government 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 Sec-
retary 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 confer-
ence has been held with respect to any such pollution the Secre-
tary 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 prescribe, and shall be filed with
[p. 82]
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 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 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 appli-
cation 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,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1303
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 encnangerment 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 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.]
Research Relating to Air Pollution Effects
Sec. 107. (a) In carrying out research pursuant to this Act, the
Secretary shall give special emphasis to research on the short-
and long-term effects of air pollution agents or combinations of
such agents on public health and welfare. In the furtherance of
such research, he shall conduct an accelerated research program—
(1) to improve knowledge of the contribution of air pollu-
tion agents to the occurrence of adverse effects on health,
including, but not limited to, behavioral, physiological, toxi-
cological, and biochemical effects; and
(2) to improve knowledge of the short- and long-term
effects of air pollution agents on the environment, including
effects on soils, water, vegetation, manmade materials, ani-
mals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate as well as ef-
fects on esthetic, recreation, and economic values.
[p. 83]
(b) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secre-
tary shall, as may be necessary—
(1) conduct epidemiological studies of the effects of air
-------
1304 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pollution agents or combination of such agents on mortality
and morbidity;
(2) conduct clinical and laboratory studies on the immuno-
logic, biochemical, 'physiological, and the toxicological effects,
including carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects of
air pollution agents or combination of such agents;
(3) utilize, on a reimbursable basis, the facilities of exist-
ing Federal scientific laboratories and research centers;
(4) utilize the authority contained in section 103 (b) (1)
through (4) of this Act; and
(5) consult with other appropriate Federal agencies to as-
sure that research or studies conducted pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be in addition to, and not duplicative of, research
and studies of such other Federal agencies.
(c) In entering into contracts under this section, the Secretary
is authorized to contract for a term not to exceed ten years in
duration. For the purposes of this subsection, there are authorized
to be appropriated $15,000,000. Such amounts as are appropriated
shall remain available until expended and shall be in addition to
any other appropriations under this Act.
(d) No research, demonstrations, experiments, or other such
work shall be carried out, contracted for, sponsored, or authorized
under this Act after the effective date of this subsection, unless
all information, uses, products, processes, patents, and other de-
velopments resulting from such work will (with such exception
and limitation, if any, as the Secretary may find to be necessary
in the public interest and he publishes his finding) be available
to the general public.
Air Quality Control Regions
Sec. 108. (e) For the purpose of implementing applicable am-
bient air quality standards and for administrative and other
purposes, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate State
and local authorities, shall, within ninety days after enactment of
this section, designate any interstate and major intrastate air
quality control region which he deems necessary and appropriate.
Any such designation shatt be based on jurisdictional boundaries,
urban-industrial concentrations, existing levels of ambient air
quality, and other factors necessary to provide for effective im-
plementation of ambient air quality standards. The Secretary
shatt immediately notify the Governor or Governors of the af-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1305
fected State or States of such designation. Any area of any State
which is not a part of a region designated by the Secretary pur-
suant to this Act, including regions designated prior to enactment
of this subsection, shall be considered an air quality control re-
gion for the purpose of this Act. The Governor of a State may
subdivide such areas into two or more air quality control regions
for the purpose of developing implementation plans pursuant to
this Act.
(b) All designations of air quality control regions made pur-
suant to this Act shall be reviewed periodically and modified, if
necessary, by the Secretary, after consultation with the appro-
priate State and local authorities in the affected region and in
any States and regions
[p. 84]
adjoining the State or affected region, to insure the application
of the most effective and timely means of protecting and enhancing
air quality. In no event shall such review be less frequent than
once every five years.
Air Quality Criteria and Control Techniques
Sec. 109. (a) (1) The Secretary shall, within thirty days after
enactment of this section and from time to time thereafter, pub-
lish in the Federal Register a list of air pollution agents or com-
bination of such agents—
(A) which have, or may be expected to have, an adverse
effect on public health or welfare,'
(B) the presence of which in the ambient air results from
numerous and diverse mobile or stationary sources,' and
(C) for which air quality criteria requisite for the protec-
tion of public health and welfare are planned.
The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate advisory
committees and Federal departments and agencies and within
twe7ve months after such publication, develop and issue to the
States such criteria.
(2) Such criteria shall accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifi-
able effects on public health or welfare which may be expected
from the presence of an air pollution agent or combination of such
agents in the ambient air, in varying quantities.
(3) Such criteria, to the extent practicable, shall include infor-
mation on—
-------
1306 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(A) those variable factors ivhich of themselves or in com-
bination with other factors may alter the effects on public
health and welfare of any air pollution agent or combination
of such agents, including, but not limited to, atmospheric
conditions;
(B) the types of any air pollution agent or combination of
such agents which, when present in the atmosphere, may in-
teract to produce an effect on public health and welfare; and
(C) any known or anticipated effects associated with the
presence of any air pollution agent or combination of such
agents in the ambient air, including, but not limited to, effects
on soils, water, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wild-
life, weather, visibility, and climate, as well as effects on
economic values.
(b) (1) Simultaneously with the issuance of criteria, the Secre-
tary shall, after consultation with appropriate advisory commit-
tees and Federal departments and agencies, issue to the States
and appropriate air pollution control agencies information on pol-
lution control techniques, which information shall include data re-
lating to the technology and costs of emission control. Such infor-
mation shall include such data as are available on available tech-
nology 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) The Secretary shall also, from time to time, issue informa-
tion on pollution control techniques for air pollution agents or
combinations of such agents subject to the provisions of sections
114 and 115 of this Act.
[p. 85]
(c) Any air quality criteria or information on air pollution con-
trol techniques issued under this Act by the Secretary prior to the
enactment of this subsection shall continue in effect. The Secre-
tary shall from time to time review, and, as appropriate, modify,
and reissue any criteria or information on control techniques
issued pursuant to this Act.
(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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1307
National Air Quality Standards and Goals
Sec. 110. (a) (1) Within thirty days after the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal
Register, in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of the United
States Code, proposed national ambient air quality standards for
any air pollution agent or combination of such agents for which
air quality criteria have been issued prior to the date of enactment
of this section. He shall, after a reasonable time for interested
persons to submit written comments thereon, promulgate such
proposed national ambient air quality standards with such modi-
fications as he deems appropriate. Such promulgation shall occur
no later than ninety days after the initial publication of such
proposed national ambient air quality standards.
(2) With respect to any air pollution agent or combination of
such agents for which air quality criteria and information and
control techniques are issued subsequent to enactment of this sec-
tion, the Secretary shall publish, simultaneously with the issuance
of such criteria and information, proposed national ambient air
quality standards for any such pollution agent or combination of
such agents. The procedure provided for in paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall apply.
(3) National ambient air quality standards, proposed and pro-
mulgated to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, shall be
ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of
which are necessary to protect the health of persons. Such stand-
ards shall be revised, as necessary, in the same manner as promul-
gated.
(b) Simultaneously with the initial publication of proposed na-
tional ambient air quality standards pursuant to subsection (a)
of this section, the Secretary shall publish proposed national
ambient air quality goals the attainment and maintenance of
which are necessary to protect the public health and welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the pres-
ence of such air pollution agent or combination of such agents in
the ambient air, including, but not limited to, adverse effects on
soils, water, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, ivildlife,
weather, visibility, and climate, as well as effects on economic
values. Such national ambient air quality goals shall be published
and promulgated in the same manner as prescribed in subsection
(a) of this section for proposed national ambient air quality stand-
ards. Such goals shall be revised as necessary, in the same manner
as promulgated.
-------
1308 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Implementation Plans
Sec. 111. (a) (1) After the promulgation of national ambient
air quality standards and national ambient air quality goals, or
revisions thereof under section 110 of this Act, for any air pollu-
tion agent or
[p. 86]
combination of such agents, each State shall, after reasonable
notice and public hearings, adopt and submit to the Secretary,
within nine months after such promulgation, a plan for imple-
mentation, maintenance, and enforcement of such standards and
goals in each air quality control region designated or established
pursuant to this Act. Unless a separate public hearing is provided,
each State shall consider adoption of ambient air quality stand-
ards which are more restrictive than the national ambient air
quality standards at the hearing required by this paragraph.
(2) The Secretary shall, within four months after the date re-
quired for such submission, act to approve or to disapprove such
plan or portion thereof. The Secretary shall approve such plan, or
any portion thereof, if he determines that it—
(A) provides for the attainment of such national ambient
air quality standards within three years from the date of
approval of such plan;
(B) includes emission requirements, schedules and time-
tables of compliance, and such other measures as necessary
to insure attainment of any applicable ambient air quality
standard and goal;
(C) includes provision for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures neces-
sary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient
air quality and, (ii) upon request, make such data available
to the Secretary;
(D) includes, to the extent necessary, appropriate pro-
cedures, including, but not limited to, land-use and air and
surface transportation controls and permits, for insuring that
any source of air pollution agents or combination of such
agents ivill be located, operated, and for other than moving
sources, designed, constructed, and equipped in such a way
that such sources will not interfere with implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of any applicable air quality
standard and goal;
(E) contains adequate provisions for intergovernmental
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1309
cooperation, including measures necessary to insure that
emissions of such agents or combination of such agents from
sources located in one air quality control region will not cause
or contribute to a violation of such air quality standards or
prevent attainment of such air quality goals in any other air
quality control region or portion thereof;
(F) provides (i) that any person who owns, leases, oper-
ates, or controls any stationary source subject to the pro-
visions and requirements of such implementation plan shall
be required to furnish to the appropriate State agency period-
ic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions of any air
pollution agent or combinations of such agents from such
source, and (ii) that such reports shall be correlated by the
State agency with any emission requirements or standards
established pursuant to this Act which reports shall be part of
the public record and available at reasonable times for public
inspection;
(G) provides necessary assurances that the State will have
adequate personnel, funding, and authority to carry out such
implementation plan, including requirements for installation
of monitoring equipment and methods on sources subject to
emis-
[p. 87]
sion requirements; periodic reporting on the nature and
amounts of emissions; and authority comparable to that in
section 303 of this Act, and contingency plans to implement
such authority as determined by the Secretary;
(H) provides, to the extent necessary, for a program of
periodic inspection and testing of motor vehicles, as author-
ized by section 208 of this Act;
(I) provides for revision, after public hearings, of such
plan from, time to time as may be necessary to take account
of revisions of such ambient air quality standards and goals
or availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
achieving such standards and goals; and
(J) identifies the air quality control region to which such
plan applies including the boundaries of such region if it is
one resulting from, a subdivision under section 108 (a) of
this Act.
(3) Each approved plan, or portion thereof, for implementa-
tion, maintenance, and enforcement of such standards and goals
526-703 O - 73 - 10
-------
1310 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
shall be the implementation plan applicable to such air quality
control region.
(b) The Secretary may, wherever he determines necessary,
extend the period for submission of any portion of any plan for
implementation of any national ambient air quality goal, for a
period not to exceed eighteen months from the date otherwise
required for submission of such plan.
(c) The Secretary shall, after consideration of any State hear-
ing record promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations set-
ting forth such a plan, or portion thereof, for such quality air
control region if (1) a State fails to submit, for any air quality
control region, or portion thereof, a plan for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of ambient air quality standards
and goals within the time prescribed, or (2) the plan, or portion
thereof, submitted for any such region is determined by the
Secretary not to be in accordance with the requirements of this
section. If such State held no public hearing associated with adop-
tion of an implementation plan, the Secretary shall provide op-
portunity for such hearing within such region on any proposed
regulation for such region. The Secretary shall, within six months
after the date required for submission of such plans, promulgate
any such regulations unless, prior to such promulgation, the
subject State has adopted and submitted a plan which the Secre-
tary determines to be in accordance with the requirements of this
section. A plan promulgated by the Secretary for any air quality
control region shall be the plan applicable to such region in the
same manner as if such plan had been adopted by the subject State
and approved by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section and shall remain in effect until such State submits a plan
and it is approved under this section.
(d) Ambient air quality standards and implementation plans
adopted by States and submitted to the Secretary pursuant to this
Act prior to enactment of this section shall remain in effect, unless
the Secretary determines that such air quality standards and
implementation plans, or portions thereof, are not consistent with
the applicable requirements of this Act and will not provide for
the attainment of national ambient air quality standards in the
time required by this Act. If the Secretary so determines, he shall,
within ninety days after
[p. 88]
promulgation of any national ambient air quality standards pur-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1311
suant to section 110 (a) (1) of this Act, notify the appropriate
State or States and specify in what respects changes are needed
to meet the additional requirements of this Act, including require-
ments to implement ambient air quality goals. If such changes
are not adopted by the State or States after public hearings and
within six months after such notification, the Secretary shall pro-
mulgate such changes pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.
(e) (1) Whenever, the Secretary or his authorized representa-
tive finds new information developed from surveys, studies, in-
vestigation, or reports, or any information otherwise made avail-
able to him, that, in any air quality control region, an approved or
promulgated implementation plan will be, or has been, substantial-
ly inadequate to achieve national ambient air quality standards
promulgated pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall notify the
appropriate State or States of such new information and shall
allow the appropriate State or States an opportunity to respond.
If such State or States fails to respond within ninety days after
receipt of such notice, or if such response is inadequate, the
Secretary shall revise and promulgate such plan within four
months, in accordance with provisions of section 553 of title 5 of
the United States Code. Such revision may include an extension of
the period required to obtain the quality of air established by any
national ambient air quality standard established pursuant to this
Act, except that such extension shall not exceed one year. No
further extension shall be granted pursuant to this provision and
no extension shall affect any emission requirement, timetable, or
schedule of compliance adopted as a part of the plan subject to
revision unless such requirement, timetable, or schedule is the
subject of such revision.
(2) Any revised plan promulgated pursuant to this subsection
shall be the plan applicable to such region in the same manner as
if such plan had been adopted by the State and approved by the
Secretary pursuant to this section.
(/) (1) No later than one year before the expiration of the
period for the attainment of ambient air of the quality established
for any national ambient air quality standard pursuant to section
110 of this Act, the Governor of a State in which is located all
or part of an air quality control region designated or established
pursuant to this Act may file a petition in the district court of the
United States for the district in which all or a part of such air
quality control region is located against the United States for re-
lief from the effect of such expiration (A) on such region or por-
-------
1312 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tion thereof, or (B) on a person or persons in such air quality
control region. In the event that such region is an interstate air
quality control region or portion thereof, any Governor of any
State which is wholly or partially included in such interstate
region shall be permitted to intervene for the presentation of
evidence and argument on the question of such relief.
(2) Any action brought pursuant to this subsection shall be
heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance
with the provisions of section 228J> of title 28 of the United States
Code and appeal shall be to the Supreme Court. Proceedings be-
fore the three judge court, as authorized by this subsection, shall
take precedence
[p. 89]
on the docket over all other causes of action and shall be assigned
for hearing and decision at the earliest practicable date and ex-
pedited in every way.
(3) (A) In any such proceeding the Secretary shall intervene
for the purpose of presenting evidence and argument on the ques-
tion of whether relief should be granted.
(B) The court, in its discretion, may permit any interested
person residing in any affected State to intervene for the presen-
tation of evidence and argument on the question of relief.
(.4) The court, in view of the paramount interest of the United
States in achieving ambient air quality necessary to protect the
health of persons shall grant relief only if it determines such relief
is essential to the public interest and the general welfare of the
persons in such region, after finding—
(A) that substantial efforts have been made to protect the
health of persons in such region; and
(B) that means to control emissions causing or contribut-
ing to such failure are not available or have not been available
for a sufficient period to achieve compliance prior to the
expiration of the period to attain an applicable standard; or
(C) that the failure to achieve such ambient air quality
standard is caused by emissions from a Federal facility for
which the President has granted an exemption pursuant to
section 119 of this Act.
(5) The court, in granting such relief shall not extend the
period established by this Act for more than one year and may
grant renewals for additional one year periods only after the
filing of a new petition with the court.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1313
(6) The Secretary, in consultation with any affected State or
States, shall take such action as may be necessary to modify any
implementation plan or formulate any new implementation plan
for the period of such extension.
(7) No extension granted pursuant to this section shall effect
compliance with any emission requirement, timetable, schedule of
compliance, or other element of any implementation plan unless
such requirement, timetable, schedule of compliance, or other
element of such plan is the subject of the specific order extending
the time for compliance with such national ambient air quality
standard.
State Standards and Plans to Achieve Greater Air Quality
Control
Sec. 112. Nothing in this title shall be construed as preventing
a State, political subdivision thereof, intermunicipal or interstate
agency from adopting, within the time provided in sections 110
and 111 of this Act, or revising after such time, ambient air
quality standards and implementation plans, including emission
requirements, to implement an air quality program which will
(A) attain and maintain a higher level of air quality than is
specified in any national ambient air quality standard promul-
gated pursuant to this Act, or (B) attain and maintain the level
of air quality specified in any national ambient air quality stand-
ard within a shorter period of time than required by this Act, or
from adopting with the time
[p. 90]
provided in section 114 or section 115 of this Act, or revising after
such time, emission standards more stringent than those estab-
lished by the Secretary.
New Source Standards of Performance
Sec. 113. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) "stationary sources" means those buildings, struc-
tures, facilities, or installations which, regardless of location,
emit or may emit any air pollution agent or combination of
such agents in amounts which cause or contribute to the
endangerment of the public health and welfare;
(2) "new source" means any stationary source, the con-
struction or modification of which is begun on or after the
-------
1314 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
effective date of any standard of performance established
under this section applicable to such source;
(3) "construction" means any placement, assembly, or in-
stallation of facilities or equipment (including contractural
obligations to purchase such facilities or equipment) at the
premises where such equipment will be used, including pre-
paratory work at such premises;
(4) "modification" means any construction (other than
pollution abatement facilities as determined by the Secre-
tary or appropriate State agency) which may alter the nature
or may increase the amounts of air pollution agents or com-
bination of such agents emitted by a stationary source; and
(5) "owner or operator" means any person who owns,
leases, operates, controls, or supervises a new source.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall, within ninety days after the en-
actment of this section and from time to time thereafter, publish
in the Federal Register a list of categories of stationary sources
which shall be subject to standards of performance established
under this section.
(2) Within one hundred and twenty days after the publication
of such a list or revision thereof, the Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register proposed regulations, in accordance with
section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, establishing
Federal standards of performance for new sources. Such stand-
ards shall reflect the greatest degree of emission control which
the Secretary determines to be achievable through application of
the latest available control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives. The Secretary shall afford inter-
ested persons an opportunity for written comment on such pro-
posed regulations. After considering such comments, he shall
promulgate, within ninety days after such publication, such stand-
ards with such modifications as he deems appropriate and shall
notify the States of such promulgation. The Secretary may from
time to time revise such standards following the precedure re-
quired by this subsection for promulgation of such standards.
(3) Standards of performance or revisions thereof shall be-
come effective upon promulgation.
(4) The Secretary may distinguish among classes, types, and
sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of establish-
ing such standards.
[p. 91]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1315
(c) Prior to publishing any lists or regulations pursuant to this
section the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable
within the time provided, consult with appropriate advisory com-
mittees, independent experts and Federal departments and
agencies.
(d) The provisions of this section shall apply to any new source
owned and operated by the United States.
(e) (1) The Secretary shall, within ninety days after enactment
of this section, promulgate regulations, in accordance with section
553 of title 5 of the United States Code, establish a procedure
for certification of compliance with any standard of performance
promulgated pursuant to this section. Such procedure shall in-
clude—
(A) provisions for preconstruction review of the locations
and design of any new source;
(B) provisions for performance tests within a reasonable
time after commencement of operation of any new source;
(C) methods to identify violations and enforce compliance
with such standards of performance; and
(D) methods to insure that any such new source shall not
prevent implementation of national ambient air quality stand-
ards or national ambient air quality goals promulgated under
this title.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, upon
application by any owner or operator of any new source the
Secretary shall, within ninety days after application for certifica-
tion, act on such application. If the Secretary determines, in ac-
cordance with the provisions of this section, that such source
complies with the applicable standards of performance promul-
gated under this section he shall certify such source.
(f) (1) Each State may develop and submit to the Secretary
a procedure for certification of compliance with any standard of
performance for any new source located in such State. If the
Secretary finds the State procedure is at least equal to the re-
quirements established pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
he shall delegate certification authority provided in this section
to such State for other than new sources owned and operated by
the United States.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Secretary from
enforcing any applicable standard of performance promulgated
pursuant to this section, including suspending any State certifica-
tion granted pursuant to this section.
-------
1316 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(g) Every owner or operator of a new source subject to stand-
ards established under this section shall (1) establish and main-
tain such records, make such reports, install, use, and maintain
monitoring equipment or methods, and provide such information
as the Secretary may reasonably require to enable him to deter-
mine whether such source is in compliance with this section and
regulations established thereunder, and (2) 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, and to inspect any such monitoring equipment or
method. Except for emission data, upon a showing satisfactory
to the Secretary by such owner or operator that such records,
reports, or information or particular part thereof, if made public,
would divulge trade secrets or secret processes of such owner or
operator, the Secretary shall consider such record, report, or
information
[p. 92]
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 reve-
lant in any proceeding under this Act.
(h) (1) After the effective date of standards of performance
promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
(A) for any owner or operator to operate any new source
without certification issued under this section; or
(B) for any owner or operator of any certified new source
to operate such source in violation of any standard of per-
formance applicable to such source; or
(C) for any owner or operator to fail or refuse to permit
access to, or copying of, records or to fail to make reports,
or to fail to install, use, or maintain, monitoring equipment or
methods, or provide information required under this section.
(2) The district courts of the United States shall have juris-
diction to enjoin violations of paragraph (1) (A) or paragraph
(1) (C) of this subsection. In any action to restrain violations,
subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a district court
in any district may run into any other district.
(3) Any owner or operator who violates paragraph (1) (A) or
paragraph (1) (C) of this subsection shall be liable to a civil
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1317
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense which shall be
assessed by the Secretary after an opportunity for a public hear-
ing. Each day of violation shall be a separate offense.
(4) Any violation of paragraph (1) (B) of this subsection
shall be subject to abatement pursuant to section 116 of this Act,
If any owner or operator of a certified new source does not initiate
abatement within seventy-two hours as provided in any order
issued pursuant to section 116 (a) (2) of this Act to abate such
violation, the Secretary shall suspend any applicable Federal or
State certification. Failure to suspend operation of such source
after such suspension shall be considered a knowing violation for
purposes of section 116 of this Act and shall, upon conviction,
subject the owner or operator to a fine of at least $5,000 for each
day of operation after such suspension.
National Emission Standards—Selected Air Pollution Agents
Sec. 114. (a) For the purpose of this section the term—
(1) "selected air pollution agent" means any air pollution
agent or combination of such agents which is not subject to
the provisions of sections 109 and 110 or 115 of this Act, and
which has or may be expected to have an adverse effect on
public health and the presence of which, in the ambient air,
results from emissions from categories of stationary sources
as defined pursuant to the provisions of section 113 of the
Act; and
(2) "owner or operator" means any person ivho owns,
leases, operates, controls, or supervises a stationary source.
(b) The Secretary shall, within one hundred and eighty days
after the enactment of this section and from time to time there-
after, compile
[p. 93]
and publish in the Federal Register a list of selected air pollution
agents or combinations of agents for which he deems that emis-
sion standards are appropriate under this section in order to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
(c)(l) The Secretary shall from time to time publish in the
Federal Register, in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of the
United States Code, proposed regulations establishing emission
standards for such air pollution agents or combination of such
agents included in such list. Such standards shall be designed to
insure that emissions of such pollution agent or combination of
-------
1318 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
agents from any such stationary source shall not endanger public
health. The Secretary shall afford interested persons an opportu-
nity for written comment on such proposed regulations, and, after
considering such comments, shall promulgate, within one hundred
and twenty days after such publication, such emission' standards
with such modifications as he deems appropriate. The Secretary
may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories
of such sources for the purpose of this section.
(2) Any emission standard promulgated pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised in the same
manner as initially promulgated.
(3) Such standards shall become effective on the date specified
in such promulgation, but in no event more than twenty-four
months after such promulgation.
(4) The Secretary may, upon application filed by any owner or
operator, waive, subject to such terms and conditions as he may
prescribe, the application of any emission standard established
under this section to any stationary source of such owner or
operator if he finds, and publishes his finding, that such source
has achieved the greatest degree of air pollution control currently
technically feasible and that the health of persons is not adversely
affected by such waiver. Such waiver shall be subject to the review
provision of section 308 of this Act.
(d) Prior to publishing any lists or regulations pursuant to
this section the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable
within the time provided, consult with appropriate advisory com-
mittees, independent experts and Federal departments and
agencies.
(e) After the effective date of the standards promulgated under
this section, every owner or operator of a stationary source to
which such standards apply shall (1) establish and maintain such
records, make such reports, install, use, and maintain monitoring
equipment or methods and provide such information as the Secre-
tary may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether
such source is in compliance with this section and the standards
established hereunder and (2) upon request of an officer or em-
ployee duly designated by the Secretary permit such officer or
employee, at reasonable times, to have access to and copy such
records, and to inspect any such monitoring equipment or method.
Except for emission data, upon a showing satisfactory to the
Secretary by such owner or operator that such records, reports, or
information or particular part thereof, if made public, would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1319
divulge trade secrets or secret processes of such owner or operator,
the Secretary 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,
[p. 94]
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.
(/) (1) Beginning on and after the effective date of any emis-
sion standard promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful
for any owner or operator to operate any stationary source in
violation of such standard.
(2) Beginning on and after the effective date of any emission
standard promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful for
any owner or operator of a stationary source subject to such
standard to fail or refuse to permit access to, or copying of, rec-
ords, or to fail to make reports, or to fail to install, maintain, and
use monitoring equipment or methods, or provide information re-
quired by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
(g) Any violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (/) of this
section shall be subject to abatement pursuant to section 116 of
this Act.
(h) Any owner or operator who violates paragraph (2) of
subsection (/) of this section shall be liable to a civil penalty of
not more than $5,000 for each offense which, after an opportunity
for a hearing, shall be assessed by the Secretary.
(i) Any failure of such owner or operator, to comply with an
order issued pursuant to section 116(a) (2) of this Act shall be
considered a knoiving violation for purposes of section 116(b)
of this Act, and shall, upon conviction, subject such owner or
operator to a fine of at least $5,000 for each day of operating after
such suspension.
(/) (1) Each State may develop and submit to the Secretary a
procedure for enforcement of any emission standards established
under this section for any stationary source located, in any State.
If the Secretary finds the State procedure is adequate to imple-
ment the purposes of this section he shall delegate enforcement
authority provided in this section to such State.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Secretary
-------
1320 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
from enforcing any applicable emission standard promulgated
pursuant to this section.
National Emissions Standards—Hazardous Air Pollution
Agents
Sec. 115. (a) (1) The Secretary shall, within ninety days after
the enactment of this section and from time to time thereafter,
publish in the Federal Register a list of those air pollution agents
or combination of such agents which available material evidence
indicates are hazardous to the health of persons and which shall
be subject to a prohibition or emission standard established under
this section.
(2) Within one hundred and eighty days after the publication
of such list, or revision thereof, the Secretary, in accordance with
section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, shall publish a
proposed prohibition of emissions of each such agent or combina-
tion of agents from any stationary source together with a sum-
mary of such evidence and a notice of a public hearing within
thirty days. As soon as possible after such hearing, but not later
than six months after such publication, the Secretary shall pro-
[p. 95]
mulgate such prohibition, unless, based upon a preponderence of
evidence adduced at such hearing, he finds within such period
and publishes his finding—
(A) that such agent is not hazardous to the health of
persons; or
(B) that a departure from such prohibition for stationary
source will not be hazardous to the health of persons.
(3) If the Secretary finds under paragraph (2) (A) of this
subsection that such agent is not hazardous to the health of per-
sons, he shall immediately publish an emission standard in ac-
cordance with the procedures established under section 114 of this
Act.
(4) If the Secretary finds under paragraph (2) (B) of this
subsection that a departure from such prohibition for any station-
ary source will not be hazardous to the health of persons, he shall
immediately promulgate an emission standard for such agent or
combination of agents for any such stationary source to protect
the health of persons.
(5) When proposing or promulgating any prohibition or emis-
sion standard under this section, the Secretary shall designate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1321
the category or categories of stationary sources to which the pro-
hibition or emission standard shall apply.
(6) Any prohibition or emission standard established pursuant
to this section shall become effective upon promulgation.
(7) Prior to publishing any lists or regulations pursuant to this
section the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable
within the time provided, consult ivith appropriate advisory com-
mittees, independent experts and Federal departments and
agencies.
(b) For purposes of this section, an air pollution agent which
is 'hazardous to the health of persons' is one whose presence,
chronically or intermittently, in trace concentrations in the
ambient air, either alone or in combination with other agents,
causes or will cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or
an increase in serioiis irreversible or incapacitating reversible
damage to health.
(c) After the effective date of any prohibition or emission
standard promulgated under this section, every owner or operator
of a stationary source subject to such prohibition or standard shall
(1) establish and maintain such records, make such reports, in-
stall, use, and maintain monitoring equipment or methods and
provide such information as the Secretary may reasonably require
to enable him to determine whether such source is in compliance
u)ith this section and the prohibition or standards established
hereunder, and (2) 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, and to
inspect any such monitoring equipment or method. Except fot
emission data, upon a shoiving satisfactory to the Secretary by
such owner or operator that such records, reports, or information
or particular part thereof, if made public, would divulge trade
secrets or secret processes of such owner or operator, the Secre-
tary shall consider such record, report, or information or par-
ticular portion thereof confidential in accordance ivith 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 or employees of the United States concerned with carry-
ing out this Act or when relevant in any proceeding under this
Act.
[p. 96]
(d) Upon evidence of a violation of any prohibition or emission
standard established pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall
-------
1322 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
bring a civil suit on behalf of the United States against the owner
or operator of such source which causes or contributes to such vio-
lation for immediate abatement, including a, permanent or tem-
porary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate
order, in the appropriate United States district court for the dis-
trict in which such stationary source is located or in which the
owner or operator thereof has his principal office or resides. Each
court shall have jurisdiction to provide such relief as may be
appropriate. In any such action, the findings of the Secretary
under subsection (a) of this section shall be presumed correct.
(e) Any prohibition or emission standard promulgated pursuant
to this section shall be subject to review, and if appropriate, re-
vision in the same manner as initially promulgated.
Federal Enforcement
Sec. 116. (a) (1) The violation of any implementation plan, in-
cluding any emission requirements therein, or any emission stand-
ard, or standard of performance established pursuant to this Act
is prohibited.
(2) Whenever, on the basis of surveys, studies, investigations,
reports or any information otherwise made available to him, the
Secretary or an authorized representative of the Secretary finds
(A) that any person is in violation of, or is causing or contribut-
ing to a violation of, an implementation plan, including any emis-
sion requirement therein, and that, in the judgment of the Sec-
retary, a State has not satisfactorily administered its implemen-
tation plan, particularly the requirements of section III (a) (2)
(G); or (B) that any person is in violation or is causing or con-
tributing to a violation of standards of performance established
under section 113 of this Act; or (C) that any person is in vio-
lation of an emission standard established under section 114 of
this Act; he shall promptly issue an order in writing to such per-
son requiring such person to initiate abatement of such violation
as soon as possible and within a time to be prescribed therein. In
the case of a violation of any emission requirement, emission
standard, or standard of performance, such time shall not exceed
seventy-two hours from the receipt of such notice. A copy of the
order shall be sent to the State air pollution control agency of the
State or States in which the violation occurred, or is occurring,
and, in any case where the order issued is to a corporation, to ap-
propriate corporate officers. All such orders shall state with rea-
sonable specificity the nature of the violation. Nothing in this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1323
section shall affect the authority of the Secretary pursuant to
section 303 of this Act.
(3) For the purpose of (A) establishing any ambient air qual-
ity standard, prohibition, emission standard, or standard of per-
formance pursuant to this Act; or (B) making any investigation
under this Act of any building, structure, monitoring equipment,
or other facility subject to any air quality standard, implementa-
tion plan, emission requirement, prohibition, emission standard,
waiver, or standard of performance established under this Act,
the Secretary or his authorized representative shall have a right
of entry to, upon, or through such building, structure, or facility,
upon presentation of his credentials. The Secretary shall, when
appropriate, require any person who owns,
[p. 97]
leases, operates, or controls such building, structure, or other fa-
cility to install, use and maintain monitoring equipment and
methods and to sample any emission subject to emission require-
ments, emission standards, or standards of performance in ac-
cordance with such methods, at such locations, at such intervals,
and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe and to report
such samples to the Secretary as he may prescribe and such report
shall be public.
(4) The Secretary shall institute a civil action for appropriate
relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, in the dis-
trict court of the United States for the district in which a person
subject to any implementation plan, emission requirement, emis-
sion standard, or standard of performance established under this
Act is located or resides or is doing business, whenever such
person—
(A) violates or fails or refuses to comply with any order
issued under paragraph (2) of this subsection (any such
order shall be in force unless and until the court determines
that the interests of the public are best served by staying
such order and that there is a substantial likelihood that
such party will prevail on the merits of the matters sub-
ject to review); or
(B) violates or fails or refuses to comply with any re-
quirement established under section 113, 114, or 115 of this
Act; or
(C) refuses to furnish any information, data, or reports or
refuses to install, maintain, or use monitoring equipment
-------
1324 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
or methods required by the Secretary or appropriate State
agency in furtherance of the provisions of this Act; or
(D) refuses to permit access to, and copying of, such
records as the Secretary determines necessary in carrying
out the provisions of this Act.
(5) Any person subject to an order issued pursuant to para-
graph (2) of this subsection and who undertakes compliance
with such order shall not be foreclosed from instituting in the
United States district court for the district in which the alleged
violation occurred an action against the Secretary to challenge
such order.
(b) Any person (A) who knowingly violates any schedule or
timetable of compliance or emission requirement included in any
implementation plan, or (B) who knowingly violates any (i)
emission standard established under section 114 of this Act, or
(ii) prohibition or emission standard established under section
115 of this Act, or (C) who knowingly violates any standard of
performance under section 113, or (D) who knowingly violates
or fails or refuses to comply with any order issued under this
section, shall, upon conviction, 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 viola-
tion committed after the first conviction of such person under
this subsection, 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.
(c) 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 renders inaccurate
any monitoring device or method required to be maintained 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.
[p. 98]
PRESIDENT'S AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD AND ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
SEC. [110] 117. (a)(l) There is hereby established in the De-
partment 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 Presi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1325
dent, 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 public and private agencies, or-
ganizations, or groups demonstrating an active interest in the
field of air pollution prevention and control, as well as other in-
dividuals 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 othe± advisory
commitees 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 im-
plementation 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 com-
mittees. 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.
526-703 O - 73 - U
-------
1326 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(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 meeting of
the Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Sec-
retary, 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
[p. 99]
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsis-
tence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5 of the United States
Code for persons in the Government service employed intermit-
tently.
[COOPERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION
FROM 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 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 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 Secre-
tary for such discharge, such permits to be issued for a specified
period of time to be determined by the Secretary and subject to
revocation if the Secretary finds pollution is endangering the
health and welfare of any persons. In connection with the issua-
ance 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 permits and compliance therewith.]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1327
Control of Pollution From Federal Facilities
Sec. 118. (a) Each agency of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the Federal Government (1) having juris-
diction over any real property or facility, including any vehicle or
vessel, which it owns and operates, or (2) engaged in any activity
resulting, or which may result, in the discharge of air pollution
agents or combinations of such agents, shall provide leadership
in carrying out the policy and purposes of this Act and shall com-
ply with the requirements of this Act in the same manner as any
person must so comply in the administration of such property,
facility, or activity. Except for new sources subject to standards
of performance under subsection (c) of section 113 of this Act,
the President may exempt any such property, facility, vehicle,
or vessel of any such agency of the executive branch from such
compliance if he determines it to be in the paramount interest
of the United States to do so. No such exemption shall be granted
due to lack of appropriation unless the President shall have spe-
cifically requested such appropriation as a part of the budgetary
process and the Congress shall have failed to make available such
requested appropriation. Any exemption shall be for a period not
in excess of one year, but additional exemptions may be granted
for periods of not to exceed one year upon the President
[p. 100]
making a new determination. The President shall report each
January to the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of
this section granted during the preceding calendar year, together
with his reason for granting each such exemption. Exemptions for
agencies of the legislative or judicial branches shall be by act of
Congress.
(b) The Governor, the attorney general or any citizen of any
State in which any Federal property, facility, or activity is located
may seek to enforce the provision of this section pursuant to sec-
tion 304 of this Act.
TITLE II—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS ACT
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "National Emission
Standards Act."
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
[SEC. 202. (a) The Secretary shall by regulation, giving ap-
-------
1328 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his
judgment cause or contribute to, or are likely to cause or to con-
tribute to, air pollution which endangers the health or welfare
of any persons, and such standards shall apply to such vehicles
or engines whether they are designed as complete systems or in-
corporate 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 regula-
tions which date shall be determined by the Secretary after con-
sideration of the period reasonably necessary for industry com-
pliance.]
Sec. 202. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section:
(1) The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe, as soon as
practicable and in accordance with the provisions of this section,
standards applicable to the emission of all known substances of
any kind or description from any class or classes of (A) vessels,
aircraft, commercial vehicles and new noncommercial vehicles,
and (B) vessel, aircraft, commercial vehicle, and new non-com-
merciaLvehicle engines, which in his judgment cause or contribute
to, or are likely to cause or to contribute to, air pollution which
endangers the health or welfare of any persons. Such standards
shall apply to such vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or engines whether
they are designed as complete systems or incorporate other devices
to prevent or control such pollution.
(2) Consistent with the requirements of subsection (b) of this
section, any such standards for the control of emissions from new
vehicles and new vehicle engines shall be established without re-
gard to the source of power or the propulsion system used to ob-
tain such emission reduction.
(3) Regulations or standards issued by the Secretary under this
title prior to the enactment of this section shall continue in effect
until revised by the Secretary consistent with the purposes of this
Act
[p. 101]
(4) Regulations shall be published, in accordance with section
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1329
553 of title 5 of the United States Code, in the Federal Register
and interested persons shall be given an opportunity to submit
written comments thereon. After considering such comments, the
Secretary shall promulgate such regulations with such modifica-
tions as he deems appropriate consistent with the purposes of this
section. The Secretary shall from time to time review and, when
appropriate, revise such regulations in accordance with this
section.
(5) Any regulation promulgated under this section and re-
visions thereof shall become effective on the date or dates specified
in such regulations, which date or dates shall be determined by
the Secretary after consideration of the period reasonably neces-
sary from a technical standpoint of compliance.
(6) Prior to publishing any list or regulation pursuant to this
section the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable
within the time provided, consult with appropriate advisory com-
mittees, independent experts and Federal departments and
agencies.
(b) (1) Beginning with model year 1975 or after January 1,
1975, any new light duty vehicle or any new light duty vehicle
engine, as determined by the Secretary, shall be required, for
purposes of certification under this Act, to meet emission stand-
ards established by the Secretary for those air pollution agents
for which emission standards were in effect prior to the date of
enactment of the National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970,
which at a minimum, shall represent a 90 per centum reduction
from allowable emissions for 1970, model year vehicles or engines.
(2) Beginning on the first day of the fifth year following pub-
lication of criteria for air pollution agents for which no emission
standards were in effect prior to the date of enactment of the
National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, any new light duty
vehicle or any new light duty vehicle engine, as determined by
the Secretary, shall be required, for purposes of certification under
this Act to meet emission standards established by the Secretary
which at a minimum represent a 90 per centum reduction from
the average of such pollution agents as actually measured from
1970 model year vehicles or engines. The Secretary shall publish
the emission standards required by this paragraph for such pol-
lution agents simultaneously with promulgation of applicable na-
tional ambient air quality standards. The Secretary shall promul-
gate such emission standards in final form within ninety days,
unless during such period and after opportunity for comment he
-------
1330 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
finds that a departure from such standards is necessary to achieve
and maintain national ambient air quality standards in any air
quality control region. If the Secretary makes such a finding, he
shall immediately promulgate in final form revised standards
which will achieve and maintain national ambient air quality
standards in any air quality control region.
(3) Emission standards established by the Secretary to im-
plement the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall be based on measurement techniques which shall be estab-
lished within one hundred and eighty days after enactment of this
subsection and, for paragraph (2), not later than ninety days
after publication of appropriate criteria.
[p. 102]
(4) (A) Within twenty-four months, but no later than twelve
months before the effective date of any emission standard estab-
lished pursuant to this subsection, any manufacturer or manu-
facturers may file with the Secretary an application requesting a
suspension of the effective date of such standard for one year
only. Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary shall prompt-
ly hold a public hearing to enable such manufacturer or manu-
facturers to present information relevant to the implementation
of such standard. The Secretary, in his discretion, may permit
any interested person to intervene to present information relevant
to the implementation of such standards. The filing of such an
application under this paragraph shall not operate as a stay of
such standard.
(B) In connection with any hearing under this subsection, the
Secretary may sign and issue subpenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and he shall administer oaths. 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 refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person under this
subparagraph, the district court of the United States for any
district in which such person is found or resides or transacts busi-
ness, 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 Secretary or
to appear and produce papers, books, and documents before the
Secretary, or both, and any failure to obey such order of the court
may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1331
(C) Within six months after receipt of the application for such
suspension, the Secretary shall issue a decision granting or re-
fusing such suspension. The Secretary shall grant such suspension
only if he determines that (i) such suspension is essential to the
public interest and the general welfare of the United States, (ii)
all good faith efforts have been made to meet the standards estab-
lished by this subsection, and (Hi) the applicants have established
by a preponderance of the evidence that effective control tech-
nology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives 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,
even with the full application of section 309 of this Act. If the
Secretary grants such suspension, the Secretary shall, at the
same time, promulgate interim standards for emissions which
reflect the greatest degree of emission control which is achievable
by application of technology which the Secretary determines is
available for such vehicle for the year for which the relief has
been granted.
(D) Any decision issued, or interim standard promulgated,
pursuant to this paragraph shall be subject to judicial review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
upon the filing in such court within thirty days from the date of
such decision of a petition by the manufacturer or manufacturers
or any interested person thereby 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
Secretary and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in
such court the record upon which
[p. 103]
the final decision complained of was issued, as provided in section
2112 of title 28, United States Code. The court shall hear such
petition on the record made before the Secretary. The findings of
the Secretary shall be presumed correct. The court shall affirm a
decision of the Secretary to grant a one-year suspension or reverse
a decision not to grant such suspension only after determining
that (i) such suspension is essential to the public interest and the
general welfare of the United States, (ii) all good faith efforts
have been made to meet the standards established by this sub-
section, and (Hi) the applicants have established by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that effective control technology, processes,
operating methods, or other alternatives are not available or have
-------
1332 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
not been available for sufficient period of time to achieve compli-
ance prior to the effective date of such standards, even with the
full application of section 309 of this Act. The judgment of the
court shall be subject to review only by the Supreme Court of the
United States upon a writ of certiorari or certification as pro-
vided in section 1254 of title 28, United States Code.
(E) The commencement of any proceeding under subpara-
graph (D) of this paragraph shall not operate as a stay of any
decision of the Secretary, or any interim standard promulgated by
the Secretary, unless and until the court determines that the
interests of the public are best served by a stay of such decision
or interim standard and that there is a substantial likelihood that
the appellant will prevail on the merits of the matter subject to
review. Proceedings before the court, as authorized by this sub-
section, shall take precedence over all 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.
(F) Nothing in this subsection shall extend the effective date
of any emission standard established pursuant to this subsection
for more than one year.
(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit
the Secretary from exercising his authority under subsection (a)
of this section.
(6) In the event a new power source or propulsion system for
new vehicles or new vehicle engines is submitted for certification
pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall determine, prior to certi-
fication, that such source shall comply with the requirements of
this subsection, and shall not cause or contribute to a violation of
national ambient air quality standards.
(c) The Secretary shall, before publishing any regulation or
revisions thereof, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, con-
sult with (1) the Federal Aviation Administrator with respect to
aircraft and aircraft engines in order to assure appropriate con-
sideration of aircraft safety and (2) the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating with respect to vessels
and vessel engines in order to insure appropriate consideration
of vessel safety and navigation. The Secretary of Defense may
exempt, for a period of not to exceed one year, military vessels and
aircraft from the application thereto of such regulations upon
determining that such exemption is necessary for the purpose of
national security. He shall notify the Congress of such exemption.
[P. 104]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1333
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 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
information, 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.
[(b)(l) 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
determination 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 ap-
plicable 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
-------
1334 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ara
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 standards of the Secretary of Health,
Education, 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).]
[p. 105]
Sec. 203. (a) The following acts and the causing thereof are
prohibited—
(1) (A) in the case of a manufacturer of new vessels, new
aircraft, new vehicles, new vessel engines, new aircraft
engines, or new vehicle engines for distribution in commerce,
to sell or to offer to sell or to deliver for introduction into
commerce any such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine, or (B)
in the case of any person, the importation into the United
States of any such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine, which
is manufactured or imported after the effective date of regu-
lations promulgated under section 202 which are applicable
to such vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine, unless it is in
conformity with such regulations (except as provided in sub-
section (b) of this section) and section 206 of this Act;
(2) in the case of an owner or operator of a vessel, aircraft,
or commercial vehicle, or a vessel, or commercial vehicle, or
aircraft engine, the use in commerce of such vessel, aircraft,
vehicle, or engine after the effective date of such regulations
which are applicable thereto, unless it is in conformity with
such regulations (except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section) and section 206 of this Act;
(3) 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 this title; or
(4) for any person to knowingly remove or render in-
operative other than for purposes of maintenance, repair or
replacement, any device or element of design installed on or
in any such vessel, aircraft, or vehicle or such vessel, aircraft,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1335
or vehicle engine in compliance with such regulations prior
to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser or during
its term of use, other than to install a device or system certi-
fied pursuant to section 211.
"(b) (1) The Secretary may exempt any new vessel, aircraft,
or vehicle, or new vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engine, from the
requirements of subsection (a) of this section upon such terms
and conditions as he may find necessary, for the purpose of
research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training.
(2) A new vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, or a new vessel, aircraft,
or vehicle engine imported, or offered for importation, by any
person in violation of subsection (a) shall be refused admission
into the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary may, by joint regulation, provide for deferring final
determination as to such admission and authorize the delivery of
such a vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine offered for import to
the owner or operator 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 vessel, aircraft,
vehicle, or engine will be brought into conformity with the stand-
ard, requirements, and limitations applicable to it under this
title. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, if such vessel, aircraft,
vehicle, or engine is finally refused admission under this para-
graph, cause disposition thereof in accordance with the customs
laws unless it is exported, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury within ninety days after the date of
notice of such refusal or such
[p. 106]
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 purchaser, of a new vessel, aircraft,
vehicle, or engine that fails to comply with applicable standards
of the Secretary.
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 C(a)-3 of this title.
[(b)] Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by
and in the name of the United States. In any such action, subpenas
-------
1336 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
for witnesses who are required to attend a district court in any
district may run into any other district.
(6) // the Secretary determines that any State has adequate
authority to restrain violations of section 203 of this title, he shall
delegate to such State any such enforcement authority under this
title, except that nothing in this subsection shall operate to pro-
hibit the Secretary from also acting at any time to restrain such
violations.
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.]
Sec. 205. Any person who violates section 203 (a) of this title
shall be subject, upon conviction, to a civil penalty of not more
than $10,000. Any such violation of paragraph (1), (2) or (4)
of section 203 (a) of this title shall constitute a separate offense
with respect to each vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or engine subject to
its requirements.
CERTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION MODEL TESTING
[SEC. 206. (a) Upon application of the manufacturer, 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 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 regulations the Secretary shall issue a certificate of con-
formity, 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 substantial-
ly the same construction as the test vehicle or engine for which
a certificate has been issued under section (a), shall for the pur-
poses of this Act be deemed to be in conformity with the regula-
tions issued under section 202 of this title.]
Sec. 206. (a)(l) The Secretary shall test or require to be
tested, in such manner as he deems appropriate, any new vehicle,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1337
or new vehicle engine, or class thereof, submitted by a manu-
facturer to determine
[p. 107]
whether such vehicle, or engine conforms with the regulations
prescribed under section 202 of this title. If such vehicle, or engine
conforms to such regulations, the Secretary shall issue a certificate
of conformity upon such terms and conditions, and for such period
as he may prescribe.
(2) The Secretary shall develop and publish in the Federal
Register, after consultation with, as appropriate, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, and the Secretary of Defense and other
interested Federal agencies, regulations simultaneously with those
published under section 202 of this title, in accordance with sec-
tion 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, concerning the test-
ing of such vessels, aircraft, and such vessel or aircraft engines.
Such regulations shall provide, among other things, such technical
data and other information as shall be required in conducting such
tests. The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for interested
persons to submit written comments thereon. He shall thereafter
promulgate such regulations with such modifications as he deems
appropriate and such regulations shall become effective upon
publication.
(3) Any such vehicle or vehicle engine sold by such manu-
facturer which is in all material respects substantially the same
construction as the test vehicle or vehicle engine for which a
certificate has been issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection
and is in effect, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be
in conformity with the regulations issued under section 202 of this
title, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and
section 207 of this Act.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall establish and inform the manufac-
turers of (1) methods and procedures to be used in making tests
under this section; and (2) methods and procedures to be used in
determining the relationship of test results to applicable regula-
tions established under section 202.
(2) In order to determine whether any new vessels, vehicles,
or aircraft, or new vessel, vehicle, or aircraft engines under the
control or custody of a manufacturer conform with the regula-
tions with respect to which a certificate of conformity was issued
the Secretary is authorized to test or require testing of any such
-------
1338 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or engines, or class thereof, while in the
control or custody of the manufacturer.
(3) If, based on such test, the Secretary determines that such
vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or engines do not conform with the
regulations with respect to which the certificate of conformity was
issued, he shall notify the manufacturer and he may by notice
suspend or revoke such certificate in whole or in part. Such sus-
pension or revocation shall apply in the case of any new vessels,
vehicles, or aircraft or any new vessel, vehicle, or aircraft engines
manufactured for sale after the date of such notification (or manu-
factured before such date if still in the control or custody of the
manufacturer), and until such time as the Secretary finds that
such vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or engines manufactured by the
manufacturer conforms to such regulations. If, during any period
of suspension or revocation the Secretary finds that such vessels,
vehicles, aircraft, or engines or class thereof, conforms to such
regulations, he shall by notice reinstate such certificate.
[p. 108]
(4) (A) Within thirty days of receipt of notice of such sus-
pension or revocation under this subsection or denial of a request
for certification under subsection (a), the manufacturer may file
with the Secretary an application for a public hearing for review
thereof. Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary shall
promptly hold a hearing to enable such manufacturer to present
information relating thereto. The filing of an application for re-
view under this paragraph shall not operate as a stay of such
suspension, revocation, or denial.
(B) In connection with any hearing under this subsection, the
Secretary may sign and issue subpenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and administer oaths. 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 refusal to
obey a subpena served upon any person under this subparagraph,
the district court of the United States for any district in which
such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon ap-
plication 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 Secretary or to appear and
produce documents before the Secretary, or both, and any failure
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1339
to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as
a contempt thereof.
(C) Any decision issued by the Secretary under this subsection
shall be subject to judicial review by the United States court of
appeals for the circuit in which such manufacturer resides or has
his principal place of business, or the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia, upon the filing in such court
within thirty days from the date of such decision of a petition by
any person aggrieved thereby praying that the decision be modi-
fied or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of the petition shall
forthwith be sent by registered or certified mail to the Secretary
and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in such court the
record upon which the final decision complained of was issued,
as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. The
court shall hear such petition on the record made before the Secre-
tary. The findings of the Secretary shall be presumed correct. The
court may affirm, vacate, or modify any decision of the Secretary
and, when appropriate, issue such process as may be necessary,
or may remand the proceedings to the Secretary for such further
actions as it may direct. The judgment of the court shall be subject
to review only by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
a writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of
title 28, United States Code. The commencement of a proceed-
ing under this subparagraph shall not operate as a stay of the
final decision of the Secretary, unless and until the court deter-
mines that the interests of the public are best served by a stay
of such final decision and that there is a substantial likelihood that
the petition as will prevail on the merits of the matter subject
to review.
(D) For purposes of enforcement of this title, authorized rep-
resentatives of the Secretary, upon presenting appropriate cre-
dentials to the manufacturer, his agent in charge, or dealer are
authorized (i) to enter, at reasonable time, any factory, ware-
house, establishment, or other facility of such manufacturer or
dealer, in or at which such vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or engines
are manufactured, assembled,
[p. 109]
or constructed, or are held for introduction into commerce or are
held for sale or resale after such introduction; and (ii) to inspect,
at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, such factory,
warehouse, establishment, or other facility and the vessels, air-
-------
1340 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
craft, and engines therein. Each such inspection shall be com-
menced and completed with reasonable promptness.
(F) Every manufacturer of such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or
engine shall furnish to the dealer or, if appropriate, to the ultimate
purchaser at the time of delivery thereof by such manufacturer a
certification that such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or engine conforms
to all applicable standards issued under this title. Such certifica-
tion shall be in such forms as to be clearly visible and shall be
permanently affixed thereto.
(c) With respect to vessels and vessel engines, the testing,
certification, and related actions required by this section shall be
conducted by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating pursuant to laws administered by him. With
respect to aircraft and aircraft engines, the testing, certification,
and related actions required by this section shall be conducted by
the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958, as amended. With respect to vessels and aircraft and
the engines thereof being manufactured for the Department of
Defense, that Department shall conduct the testing, certification,
and related actions required by this section.
Vehicle and Vehicle Engine Compliance Testing
Sec. 207. (a) Every manufacturer of a new vehicle or new
vehicle engine, or both, subject to the regulations issued under
section 202 of this title, shall, prior to the delivery thereof to the
dealer, or if appropriate, the ultimate purchaser, test or cause to
be tested such vehicles or engines in accordance with good engi-
neering practices and such regulations as the Secretary may pre-
scribe under this section, to ascertain that such vehicles or engines
will conform to the applicable certificate issued under this title for
the lifetime emissions of such vehicle or engine. No certificate
shall be issued for such vehicles or engines under this title unless
the manufacturer has such a testing program.
(b) The Secretary shall establish methods and procedures for
making tests under this section and inform the manufacturers
with respect thereto by regulation promulgated in accordance
with section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code. Such regula-
tions adopted by the Secretary prior to enactment of the National
Air Quality Standards Act of 1970 shall continue in force until
modified by him consistent with the purposes of this section.
(c) Every new vehicle or new vehicle engine introduced in com-
merce for sale or resale shall be warranted by the manufacturer to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1341
be designed, built, and equipped so as to conform with applicable
regulations issued under this title, and shall further be warranted
to remain in conformity with such regulations for the lifetime of
such vehicles or engines if properly maintained, serviced, and
operated. Operation for fifty thousand miles shall be taken as the
basis for the lifetime of a vehicle engine under this section.
As a condition to the obligation of manufacturers to correct de-
ficient performance, manufacturers may require the ultimate pur-
chaser and subsequent purchasers of such vehicles or engines (a)
to provide
[p. 110]
reasonable evidence of the time when such vehicles or engines
were first placed in regular service and (b) to provide reasonable
evidence that 'prescribed maintenance, adjustment, and service
requirements and schedules have been observed. The manufacturer
shall furnish with each vehicle or engine written instructions
for the proper maintenance, adjustment, operation, and service
by the owner or operator. Such warranty shall apply to the vehicle
on behalf of the ultimate purchaser and subsequent purchasers
thereof. In addition, the manufacturer shall include on a label or
tag permanently affixed to such vehicle or engine such information
relating to control of vehicle emissions and compliance with this
Act as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation. The actual
cost to the manufacturer of such systems or devices and installa-
tion thereof and warranty shall be disclosed in accordance with
the provision of the Act of July 7, 1958 (15 U.S.C. 1231-1233).
(d) (1) The Secretary shall conduct, or cause to be conducted,
such inspections, tests, studies, research, and investigations as
may be necessary to determine whether any class of vehicles or
engines continue to conform to the regulations prescribed under
section 202 of this Act after such vehicles or engines have been in
operation for such period or number of miles as the Secretary may
deem appropriate. Any such inspection of a vehicle or engine, 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
program.
(2) If through testing, inspection, studies, or other investiga-
tion of statistically representative samples of any class or category
of vehicles or vehicle engines, or by other means, the Secretary
determines that such class or category of vehicles or engines,
526-703 O - 73 - 12
-------
1342 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
operated under proper maintenance and use, do not conform to
the regulations prescribed under section 202 of this Act, or the
certification issued under this title, he shall immediately notify
the manufacturer thereof of such determination of nonconformity.
The Secretary shall publish such notice and, with reasonable
specificity, information concerning his determination of noncon-
formity in the Federal Register as promptly as possible. The
Secretary shall within thirty days after such notice is issued afford
the manufacturer and other interested persons an opportunity to
present their views and evidence in support thereof at a public
hearing or in writing, with regard to such determination of non-
conformity. The Secretary shall, within a reasonable time, but
in no event more than sixty days from the date of notice of non-
conformity, order the manufacturer to provide prompt notification
of such nonconformity to the ultimate purchaser and, if known,
subsequent purchasers of all such vehicles or vehicle engines in-
cluded within the class or category unless the Secretary, on the
basis of all the facts and evidence in the public record of such
proceedings, shall conclude that the class or category of vehicles
or engines is in conformity with the regulation and certification
and publish such conclusion together with the reasons therefor in
the Federal Register as promptly as possible.
(e) (1) Every manufacturer of vehicles or engines subject to
the provisions of this section shall furnish notification of any
defect in such vehicle or engine produced by him, which he dis-
covers during
[p. HI]
the term of any warranty required by this title, and which he
determines, in good faith, causes or will cause such vehicle or
engine to be in nonconformity with such certification or regula-
tions, to the ultimate purchaser or subsequent purchaser thereof
(where known to the manufacturer) within a reasonable time not
to exceed sixty days after discovery of such defect.
(2) The notification required by this section shall be—
(A) by any expeditious process, which, for those purchas-
ers who do not initially respond must include notice by
certified mail to the last-known address of the ultimate pur-
chaser of such vehicle or engine, and to any subsequent pur-
chasers, if known, to whom has been transferred any warranty
required by this title;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1343
(B) by certified mail to the dealer of such vehicle or
engine; and
(C) by such other expeditious and reasonable means of
informing purchasers thereof not known to the manufacturer.
(3) The notification to such purchasers provided for in this
subsection shall contain a clear description of the nonconformity,
a statement of measures to be taken to remedy such nonconform-
ity, and a commitment of the manufacturer to cause such noncon-
formity to be remedied at no cost to the owner.
(4) The manufacturer shall furnish, at the Secretary's re-
quest, copies of such notification to him.
(/) The United States district court shall have jurisdiction to
restrain violations of this section or any order of the Secretary
issued under this section.
[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 Transpor-
tation 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.]
State Grants
Sec. 208. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to
appropriate State agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of the
cost of developing and maintaining effective vehicle emission de-
vices and systems inspection and emission testing and control pro-
grams, 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
[p. 112]
-------
1344 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(2) no such grant shall be made unless the Secretary of
Transportation has certified to the Secretary that such pro-
gram is consistent with any highway safety program de-
veloped pursuant to section 402 of title 23 of the United
States Code.
(b) Such grants shall be in addition to, and shall not supplant,
existing funding programs of a State for air pollution control.
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 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 sec-
tion shall authorize the withholding of information by the Secre-
tary or any officer or employee under his control, from the duly
authorized committees of the Congress.]
Sec. 209. (a) Every manufacturer of a vessel, vehicle, aircraft,
or vessel, vehicle, or aircraft engine subject to the provisions of
this title shall establish and maintain such records, make such re-
ports, perform such tests, 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 re-
quest of an authorized representative of the Secretary, permit
such officer or employee at reasonable times to have access to
and copy such records.
(b) Except for emission data, upon a showing satisfactory to
the Secretary by the person filing such records and reports that
such records or reports or portion thereof, if made public, would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1345
divulge trade secrets or secret processes of such person, the Sec-
retary shall consider such records or reports or portion thereof
confidential in accordance with the purposes of section 1905 of title
18 of the United States Code, except that suah records or reports
may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned with
carrying out this Act or when relevant in any proceeding under
this Act
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] commercial vehicles, new noncom-
mercial vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or commercial vehicle, new non-
commercial ve-
to- 113]
hide, vessel, or aircraft engines subject to this title, or to control
or prohibit for the purpose of emission control, the sale or use of
any fuel or fuels which are registered in accordance with section
212(a) of this Act, except where such State demonstrates, after
public hearings, to the satisfaction of the Secretary that more
restrictive emissions for vehicles or engines are required to im-
plement national ambient air quality standards for any air quality
control region within such State. Except to implement such more
restrictive standards, no State shall require certification, inspec-
tion, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions
from any commercial vehicle, new noncommercial vehicle, vessel,
or aircrafe or commercial vehicle, new noncommercial vehicle,
vessel, or aircraft engine as condition precedent to the initial
retail sale to an ultimate purchaser, titling (if any), or registra-
tion of such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or engine.
(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 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 extraordi-
nary conditions or that such State standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202 (a)
of this title.
-------
1346 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(c) Nothing in this title shall preclude or deny to any State
or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to control,
regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of [regis-
tered or licensed motor vehicles.] any aircraft, vessels, or regis-
tered or licensed vehicles, particularly such controls, regulations,
or restrictions necessary to achieve compliance with national
ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality
goals established pursuant to title I of this Act.
Used Vehicles
Sec. 211. (a)(l) As soon as possible, after the enactment of
this section, the Secretary shall promulgate Federal standards
of performance for emission control devices or systems designed
to prevent or reduce air pollution emissions from used motor
vehicles.
(2) As soon as possible after promulgation of the standards
required in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall develop and publish
in the Federal Register, in accordance with section 553 of title 5
of the United States Code, regulations providing for certification
and warranty of such devices or systems. Such regulations shall
consider the technical feasibility of installing and maintaining
in proper condition such devices or systems or used vehicles or
engines or classes thereof. The Secretary shall afford a reasonable
opportunity for interested persons to submit written comments
thereon and, after consideration thereof, shall promulgate such
regulations which shall become effective upon promulgation.
(b) (1) No manufacturer of a device for application on used
vehicles shall sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for in-
troduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United
States for sale or resale, any such device manufactured after the
effective date of the
[p. 114]
standards and regulations promulgated under this section unless
such device is in all material respects substantially the same as a
test device certified under this subsection.
(2) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary shall
so certify a used vehicle device if he determines, in accordance
with the provisions of this paragraph, that it meets the appro-
priate standards and regulations promulgated under this section.
The Secretary shall test or require such testing of the device as
to standards of performance and for such other purposes as may
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1347
be appropriate. If the Secretary determines that the device is
satisfactory after consideration of the design, installation, opera-
tion, reliability, material, or other appropriate factors, he shall
certify the device. Any device manufactured by such manufacturer
which is in all material respects substantially the same as the
certified test device shall be deemed to be in conformity with the
appropriate standards and regulations established under this
section.
(c) After the effective date of standards and regulations promul-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for the manufacturer of any device subject to such
standards and regulations to sett or offer for sale, or to distrib-
ute for sale any such device unless it is in all material re-
spects substantially the same as the appropriate test device
certified pursuant to this section; or
(2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a device
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate
purchaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any
certified device or element of design of such device; or
(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or
copying of records or to fail to make reports or provide
information required under this section.
(d) The district courts of the United States shall have juris-
diction to restrain violators of subsection (c) of this section.
Actions to restrain such violators 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 dis-
trict may run into any other district. In case of contumacy or
refusal to obey a subpoena served upon any person under this
subsection, the district court of the United States for any dis-
trict in which such person is found or resides or transacts busi-
ness, upon application by the United States and after notice to
such person, shall have jiirisdiction to issue an order requiring
such person to appear and give testimony or to appear and pro-
duce documents, and any failure to obey such order of the court
may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
(e) Any person who violates clause (2) of subsection (c) of
this section shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000 for each violation. Each violation shall be a separate
offense. No penalty shall be assessed until the person charged shall
have been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on
such charge. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the
-------
1348 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
amount agreed upon in compromise, the gravity of the violation,
and the demonstrated good faith of the person charged in at-
tempting to achieve rapid compliance, after notification of a
violation, shall be considered by said Secretary.
[p. 115]
[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-
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 ad-
ditive; 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 recom-
mended range of concentration of such additive, if any, the recom-
mended 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 Sec-
retary shall register such fuel additive.
[(c) All information reported or otherwise obtained by the Sec-
retary or his representative pursuant to subsection (b), which in-
formation contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter re-
ferred 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 of the United States concerned with carrying
out this Act or when relevant in any proceeding under this title.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1349
Nothing in this section shall authorize the withholding of informa-
tion 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
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.
Q(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.]
Regulation of Fuels
Sec. 212. (a) The Secretary may by regulation designate any
fuel or fuels for use in vehicles and engines and, after such date
or dates as may be prescribed by him, no manufacturer or proces-
sor of any
[p. 116]
such fuel may introduce such fuel into commerce unless the Sec-
retary has registered such fuel in accordance with subsection (b)
of this section.
(b) (1) For the purpose of registration of fuels, the Secretary
shall require—
(A) the manufacturer of such fuel to notify him as to the
commercial identifying name and manufacturer of any addi-
tive contained in such fuel; the range of concentration of
such additive or additives in the fuel; and the purpose-in-use
of such additives; and
(B) 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 (A) of this paragraph,
the description of any analytical technique that can be used
to detect and measure such additive in fuel, the recommended
range of concentration of such additive, and the recommended
purpose-in-use of such additive, and the chemical structure of
such additive or additives.
(2) The Secretary shall issue test procedures and protocols to
-------
1350 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
determine potential public health effects, including, but not lim-
ited to, carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic effects, and may
require that manufacturers of fuels and additives submitted for
registration to conduct tests consistent with such procedures and
protocols. The results of such tests shall not be considered confi-
dential.
(3) The Secretary may also require the manufacturer of any
fuel or fuel additive to furnish such 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
on the emission control performance of any vehicle or vehicle en-
gine, or the extent to which such emissions affect the public health,
(4) Upon compliance with the provision of this subsection,
including assurances that the Secretary will receive changes in the
information required, the Secretary shall register such fuel.
(c) (1) The Secretary 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 introduction into commerce of any fuel or fuels for use in
vehicle engines if the combustion or evaporation of such fuel pro-
duces emissions which endanger the public health or welfare, or
if such emissions prevent operation of effective systems for the
control of emissions from any vehicle or vehicle engine which the
Secretary finds would otherwise conform to standards promul-
gated pursuant to section 202 of this Act.
(2) Except for fuels the combustion or evaporation of which
produce emissions that endanger the public health, the Secretary
shall, after public hearings and prior to controlling or prohibiting
the introduction into commerce of any fuel, find and publish such
finding that control or prohibition of such fuel is necessary for
the achievement of an effective program of emission control to
meet the standards established by section 202(b) of this Act or
that such control or prohibition is necessary to achieve an eco-
nomic alternative in emissions control over the lifetime of the ve-
hicle as established in section 207 of this Act, or that such control
or prohibition is necessary for the effective use of an emission
control device certified pursuant to section 211
[p. 117]
of this Act, or that such control or prohibition is necessary to
protect the general welfare.
(3) The Secretary shall not prohibit the use of any fuel unless
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1351
he finds, and publishes such finding, that such prohibition would
not cause the use of any other fuel which will produce emissions
which will endanger the public health or welfare to the same or
greater degree.
(4) In obtaining information under this subsection the Secre-
tary may sign and issue subpenas for the deposition of relevant
persons and the production of relevant records, reports, and docu-
ments, and administer oaths. In case of contumacy or refusal to
tary may sign and issue subpoenas for the deposition of relevant
obey a subpoena served upon any person under this paragraph,
the district court of the United States for any district in which
such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon appli-
cation by the United States and after notice to such person, shall
have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such a person to ap-
pear and give testimony before the Secretary or to appear and
produce documents before the Secretary, or both, and any failure
to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as
a contempt thereof. Upon a showing satisfactory to the Secretary
by the person filing or submitting such information that such in-
formation or portion thereof, if made public, would divulge trade
secrets or secret processes of such person, the Secretary shall con-
sider such information or portion thereof confidential for the pur-
poses of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, except
that such information may be disclosed to other officers or em-
ployees of the United States concerned with carrying out this Act
or when relevant in any proceeding under this title. The Secretary
shall make available any such information which is not so con-
sidered confidential and which will contribute to scientific or public
understanding of the relationship between the components of such
fuels and their contribution to the problem of air pollution.
(d) Any person who violates subsection (a) or (b) of this sec-
tion 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 Secretary may, upon application
therefor, remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for in this
subsection and he shall have authority to determine the fact upon
all such applications.
(e) Regulations issued under this section and section 211 shall
be published in the Federal Register, in accordance with section
-------
1352 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
553 of title 5 of the United States Code, and shall afford interested
persons a reasonable period to submit written comments thereon.
[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 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
location, and the con-
[p. 118]
taminant 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 stand-
ards; 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.]
Development of Low-Emission Vehicles
Sec. 213. In order to encourage research and promote the de-
velopment of low-emission vehicles the Secretary is authorized to—
(1) prescribe special low-emission standards for any class
or classes of vehicles or engines not subject to section 202(e);
(2) provide testing procedures to determine if vehicles
and engines meet such standards; and
(3) certify vehicles or engines meeting such standards as
low-emission vehicles or engines for the purpose of this sec-
tion.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1353
[DEFINITIONS FOR TITLE II
[SEC. 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 dis-
tribution 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 vehi-
cle 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 en-
gine for purposes other than resale.
[p. 119]
[(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.]
Definition
Sec. 214. For the purpose of this title, the term—
(1) "vessel" means every description of self-propelled
watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of
being used, as a means of commercial transportation in water;
(2) "vessel engine" means an engine used for the propul-
sion of a vessel and located either therein or separated there-
from, but is intended for such use, and includes all parts, ap-
purtenances, and accessories thereof;
-------
1354 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(3) "aircraft" means any contrivance now known or here-
inafter invented, used, or designed for navigation of, or flight
in, the air;
(4) "aircraft engine" means an engine used, or intended
to be used, for propulsion of aircraft and located either
therein or separated therefrom, but is intended for such use
and includes all parts, appurtenances, and accessories thereof;
(5) "vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle designed
for transporting persons or property on a road, street, park-
way, or highway or on rails, or for agricultural use;
(6) "vehicle engine" means an engine used for the propul-
sion of a vehicle or motor vehicle and located therein or sep~
arated therefrom, but is intended for such use, and includes
all parts:, appurtenances, and accessories thereof;
(7) "new" when applied to a vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, or
vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engine means that the equitable
or legal title thereto has not, under applicable law, been
transferred to an ultimate purchaser, except that, with re-
spect to vessels, aircraft, or vehicles, or vessels, aircraft, or
vehicle engines imported or offered for importation, such term
shall mean a vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, or vessel, aircraft,
or vehicle engine imported into the United States on or after
the day following the date of enactment of this paragraph;
(8) "ultimate purchaser" means the first person who in
good faith purchases a new vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, or a
new vessel, aircraft, or vehicle engine for purposes other than
resale;
(9) "commercial" means any business activity of any kind
or description by any person engaged in trade or commerce;
(10) "manufacturer" means, except in section 212, any
person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new
vessels, aircraft, or vehicles, or new vessel, aircraft, or ve-
hile engines, or importing such vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or
engines for resale, or who acts for, and is under the control of,
any such person in connection with the distribution of such
vessels, aircraft, vehicles, or engines, but shall not include
any dealer;
(11) "owner or operator" means any person who owns,
leases, operates, controls, or supervises a vessel, aircraft, or
vehicle or engine thereof;
[p. 120]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1355
(12) "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, trans-
portation, or communication among the several States, or be-
tween a place in a State and any place outside thereof, or
within the District of Columbia or a possession of the United
States, or between points in the same State but through a
point outside thereof;
(18) "dealer" means any person who is engaged in the
sale or the distribution of new vehicles or new vehicle engines
to the ultimate purchaser.
Applicability
Sec. 215. The amendments made by sections 206(b)(4.)(F),
207(c), 207(d), and 207(e) shall apply in the case of vehi-
cles and vehicle engines manufactured after the ninetieth day
after the enactment of this section.
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 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 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 sec-
tion 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.
(d) Contracts made under this Act may be made without re-
gard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended, 5 U.S.C. 5101, et seq. as they relate to the procure-
ment of personal services.
-------
1356 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DEFINITIONS
SBC. 302. When used in this Act^-
(a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health,
Education, 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;
tP-121]
(3) A city, county, or other local government health au-
thority, or, in the case of any city, county, or other local gov-
ernment 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,
partnership, association, State, municipality, and political sub-
division of a State.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough,
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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1357
Emergency Powers
Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary, 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 per-
sons, and that appropriate State or local authorities have not
acted to abate such sources, may bring suit on behalf of the United
States in the appropriate United States district court to imme-
diately restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged
pollution to stop the emission of air pollution agents or combina-
tion of such agents causing or contributing to such pollution or to
take such other action as may be necessary.
Citizen Suits
Sec. 304- (a) (1) In furtherance of the purposes of this Act to
protect the public health and welfare and control air pollution,
the district courts of the United States shall have original juris-
diction, regardless of the amount in controversy or the citizenship
of the parties, to enforce, or to require the enforcement of, any
applicable schedule or timetable of compliance, emission require-
ment, standard of performance, emission standard, or prohibition
established pursuant to this Act. Civil actions for such enforce-
ment, or to require such enforcement, may be brought by one or
more persons on their own behalf, (A) against any person, in-
cluding, but not limited to, a governmental instrumentality or
agency, where there is alleged a violation by such person of any
such schedule, timetable, emission requirement, standard of per-
formance , emission standard, or prohibition, or (B) against
[p. 122]
the Secretary where there is alleged a failure of the Secretary to
exercise (i) his authority to enforce standards or orders estab-
lished under this Act; or (ii) any duty established by this Act.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of such per-
sons as a class or as individuals under any other law to seek en-
forcement of such standards or any other relief.
(3) Prior to instituting any suit, under this subsection, such
person or persons shall, by certified or registered mail or personal
service, notify (A) the Secretary, (B) an authorized representa-
tive of the Secretary, if any, in the field office responsible for the
area in which the alleged violation occurs, (C) an authorized
representative of the air pollution control agency of the State in
-------
1358 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
which the alleged violation occurs, and (D) the person, or persons
alleged to be in violation of such alleged violation. Such notice
shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secre-
tary as to content and specificity. No such suit shall be filed unless
such person or persons shall have afforded the Secretary, his rep-
resentative, or such agency, at least thirty days from the receipt
of such notice to institute enforcement proceedings under this
title to abate such alleged violation; except any action under this
section to abate a violation of (i) an order issued by the Secretary
pursuant to section 116, (ii) clause (A) or (B) of section
113(h)(l), (Hi) section 114(f)(l), or (iv) section 115, may be
undertaken, after notice, without regard to the time limitations
of this subsection. In any such action, the Secretary, if not a
party, may intervene as a matter of right.
(b) The court in issuing any order in any action brought pur-
suant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of litiga-
tion, including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, when-
ever the court determines such action is in the public interest.
Appearance
Sec. 305. In actions instituted under this Act, attorneys ap-
pointed by the Secretary shall appear for and represent the Secre-
tary, as provided in section 516 of title 28 of the United States
Code.
Federal Procurement
Sec. 306. (a) Any person (1) required to comp'y with an order
issued by a Federal court pursuant to this Act who fails to comply
within the time period specified in such order, or (2) convicted by
a Federal court for a knowing violation of any applicable schedule
or timetable of compliance, emission requirement, prohibition,
emission standard, or standard of performance, shall be ineligible
to enter into any contract with any Federal agency for the pro-
curement of goods, materials, and services to perform such work
at or with any facilities subject to such action by the court which
are owned, leased, or supervised by such person. Such ineligibility
shall continue until the Secretary certifies compliance with such
order, or that the condition giving rise to the violation has been
corrected.
(b) The Secretary shall establish procedures to provide all such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1359
Federal agencies with the notification necessary for the purposes
of subsection (a) of this section.
[p. 123]
(c) In order to further 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 one hundred and eighty days
after enactment of this section cause to be issued an order (A)
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 (B) 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 exemp-
tion.
(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.
Employee Protection
Sec. 307. (a) No person shall discharge or in any other way
discriminate against or cause to be discharged or discriminated
against any employee or any authorized representative of em-
ployees of any alleged violator by reason of the fact that such em-
ployee or representative has filed, instituted, or caused to be filed
or instituted any proceeding under this Act, or has testified or is
about to testify in any proceeding resulting from the administra-
tion or enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
(b) Any employee or a representative of employees who be-
lieves that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated
against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section
may, within thirty days after such violation occurs, apply to the
Secretary of Labor for a review of such alleged discharge or dis-
crimination. A copy of the application shall be sent to such person
who shall be the respondent. Upon receipt of such application, the
Secretary of Labor shall cause such investigation to be made as
-------
1360 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
he deems appropriate. Such investigation shall provide an oppor-
tunity for a public hearing at the request of any party to enable
the parties to present information relating to such violation. The
parties shall be given written notice of the time and place of the
hearing at least five days prior to the hearing. Any such hearing
shall be of record and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of
the United States Code. Upon receiving the report of such investi-
gation, the Secretary of Labor shall make findings of fact. If he
finds that such violation did occur, he shall issue a decision, in-
corporating an order therein, requiring the person committing
such violation to take such affirmative action to abate the viola-
tion as the Secretary of Labor deems appropriate, including, but
not limited to, the rehiring or reinstatement of the employee or
representative of that employee to his former position with com-
pensation. If he finds that there was no such violation, he shall
issue an order denying the application. Such order issued by the
Secretary of Labor under this sub-
[p. 124]
paragraph shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with
this subsection. Violations by any person of subsection (a) of this
section shall be subject to the provisions of section 116(a)(4).
(c) Whenever an order is issued under this paragraph, at the
request of the applicant, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of
all costs and expenses (including the attorney's fees) as deter-
mined by the Secretary of Labor to have been reasonably incurred
by the applicant for, or in connection with, the institution and
prosecution of such proceedings, shall be assessed against the per-
son committing the violation.
Judicial Review
Sec. 308. (a) Any interested person may file a petition against
the Secretary for review (1) of any promulgated national am-
bient air quality standard, goal, prohibition, emission standard,
standard of performance, waiver granted pursuant to section
114(c) (4) of this Act, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia or (2) of any approved or promulgated
implementation plan including any emission requirement therein,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit.
Such petition shall be filed within thirty days from the date of
such promulgation or approval, or after such date whenever it is
alleged that significant ueiv information has become available,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1361
praying that such promulgation or approval be modified or set
aside in whole or in part. Any determination or finding of the
Secretary, subject to challenge under this subsection, shall be pre-
sumed correct. The court shall provide such relief as may be
appropriate.
(b) The commencement of a proceeding under this subsection
shall not operate as a stay of such standard, goal, plan, including
any emission requirement therein, prohibition, emission standard,
standard of performance, or ivaiver, unless and until the court
determines that the party requesting such stay shows that there
is a substantial likelihood that such party will prevail on the
merits of the matter subject to review and that the interest of the
public will not be harmed by such a stay.
(c) The judgment of the court shall be subject to review only
by the Supreme Court of the United States upon a writ of cer-
tiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28 of
the United States Code.
Mandatory Licensing
Sec. 309. (a) Whenever the Secretary determines in accordance
with the provisions of section 554 of title 5 of the United States
Code that the implementation of the requirements of section 113,
115, or 202 of this Act requires a right or rights under any United
States letters patent or any trade secret or knoiv-how not other-
wise reasonably available be made available to others to facilitate
compliance with such sections, he shall order the owner of such
patent, trade secret, or know-how to grant to each applicant mak-
ing written request therefor a nonexclusive, nontransf err able
license under any such patent, patent application, trade secret, or
know-how. For the purpose of this subsection, know-how shall
include technical information known to the owner thereof relat-
ing to control technology, processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives, including ivritten manuals, blueprints, drawings,
and specifications.
[p. 125]
(b) No license granted pursuant to subsection (a) shall in-
clude any restriction, except:
(1) reasonable royalties may be charged;
(2) reasonable provisions may be made to prevent the dis-
closure of know-hoiv or trade secrets to third persons;
(3) reasonable provisions may be made for periodic roy-
-------
1362 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
alty payments by the licensee and inspection of the relevant
books and records of the licensee by an independent auditor
or other person acceptable to both licensor and licensee, who
shall report to the licensor only the amount of the royalty
due and payable;
(4) reasonable provisions may be made for cancellation
of the license upon failure of the licensee to make the reports,
pay the royalties, permit the inspection of his books and rec-
ords, or for disclosure of knoiv-how or trade secrets to a third
•person as hereinabove provided;
(5) reasonable provisions may be made to prevent further
use or disclosure by the licensee, in the event of cancellation,
of know-how or trade secrets acquired by the licensee pur-
suant to such license.
(c) If the owner of any United States letters patent, patent
application, trade secret, or know-how and any applicant for a
license thereunder pursuant to subsection (a) are unable to agree
upon reasonable royalties to be charged under such license or
upon any other provision which may be included in such license
pursuant to subsection (b), any such disagreement shall be re-
solved by arbitration under the rules and procedures of the
American Arbitration Association then in effect.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant an ex-
emption from the antitrust laws of the United States or any
judgments, orders, or decrees issued thereunder.
Policy Review
Sec. 310. (a) The Secretary shall review any matter relating
to duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to this Act con-
tained in any (1) detailed statement prepared by any agency or
Department of the Federal Government pursuant to Public Law
91-190, and (2) proposed regulations published by any agency or
Department of the Federal Government pursuant to any statutory
authority.
(b) In the event the Secretary determines that such detailed
statement or such proposed regulations is unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality,
the matter shall be referred to the Council on Environmental
Quality for a determination and recommendation to the President
which shall be made public.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1363
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. [303] 311. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of
this section, this Act shall not be construed as superseding or lim-
iting the authorities and responsibilities, under any other provi-
sion of law, of the Secretary or any other Federal officer, depart-
ment, or agency.
[p.126]
(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] 312. (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
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] 313. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating
programs 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 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-
-------
1364 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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 re-
evaluation 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. He
shall report the results of such investigation and study to the
President and the Congress not later than July 1, 1969.
[p. 127]
ADDITIONAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS
SEC. [306] 314. 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
Congress on measures taken toward implementing the purpose
and intent of this Act including, but not limited to, (1) the prog-
ress and problems associated with control of automotive exhaust
emissions and the research efforts related thereto; (2) the devel-
opment of air quality criteria and recommended emission control
requirements; (3) the status of enforcement actions taken pur-
suant 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
techniques; (7) the development of quantitative and qualitative
instrumentation to monitor emissions and air quality; (8) stand-
ards 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1365
LABOR STANDARDS
SEC. £307] 315. The Secretary shall take such action as may be
necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by
contractors or subcontractors on projects assisted under this Act
shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailng 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, 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 subsec-
tion, 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 19, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C
276c).
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [308] 316, 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 effected
thereby.
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. [309] 317. 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.] 1970, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30,1971, $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30,1972, and $325,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1973.
[p. 128]
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [310] 318. This Act may be cited as the "Clean Air Act."
TITLE IV—NOISE POLLUTION
Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the 'Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970.'
Sec. 402. (a) The Secretary shall establish within the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare an Office of Noise Abate-
-------
1366 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ment and Control, and shall carry out through such Office a full
and complete investigation and study of noise and its effect 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 Secretary shall hold
public hearings, conduct research, experiments, demonstrations,
and studies. The Secretary shall report the results of such investi-
gation and study, together with his recommendations for legisla-
tion 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 Secretary determines amounts to a public nuisance or is other-
wise objectionable, such department or agency shall consult with
the Secretary to determine possible means of abating such noise.
Sec. £03. There is authorized to be appropriated such amount,
not to exceed $30,000,000, as may be necessary for the purposes
of this title."
[p. 129]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1367
l.lk(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1783. 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1970
December 17, 1970—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17255]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17255)
to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective pro-
gram to improve the quality of the Nation's air, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do rec-
ommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment
* * *
[P. 1]
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
Senate to 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, submit the following statement in explanation of
the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recom-
mended in the accompanying conference report:
The Senate struck out all of the House bill after the enacting
clause and inserted a substitute amendment. The committee of con-
ference has agreed to a substitute for both the House bill and the
Senate amendment. Except for technical, clarifying, and conform-
ing changes, the following statement explains the differences be-
tween the House bill and the substitute agreed to in conference.
-------
1368 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Existing law and the House and Senate versions of the bill all
provide that the Clean Air Act is to be carried out by the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare. During the period in
which the committee of conference was considering the bill, all of
the functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
under the Clean Air Act were transferred, pursuant to Reorgani-
zation Plan Numbered 3 of 1970, to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Accordingly, all references to
the Secretary in the bill, in existing law, and in the statement
of Managers have been changed to "Administrator," and pro-
visions have been added authorizing the transfer of personnel
of the Public Health Service to the new agency.
SECTIONS 103 AND 104. RESEARCH
The House bill would make no change in the present provisions
of the Clean Air Act relating to fuel and vehicle research. The
Senate amendment would make several changes in section 104 and
would add a new section 107 which would call for special empha-
sis on research relating to effects of air pollution. In regard to
section 104, the Senate amendment would provide (1) new author-
ity for research directed toward development of methods of
improving the efficiency of fuels combustion and producing syn-
thetic or new low-pollution fuels, and (2) new authority for
awarding of grants and contracts for part of the cost of pro-
grams to develop low-emission alternatives to the internal com-
bustion engine and for payment of the cost of purchasing motor
vehicles and engines for research and development and testing. In
the proposed new section 107, the Administrator was directed
to give special emphasis to research on the short-term and long-
term effects of air pollutants, and was authorized to enter into
long-term contracts to carry out such research. Proposed new
section 107 also would require the Administrator to consult with
other Federal agencies to insure that research conducted under
such section does not duplicate their research programs.
[p. 42]
The conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with
respect to section 104 and includes (as a new subsection to exist-
ing section 103) the provisions set forth in proposed new section
107.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1369
SECTION 105. GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF AIR POLLUTION PLANNING
AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
The House bill would make no change in existing section 105 of
the Clean Air Act. The Senate amendment would make several
changes, the principal one being that State agencies would be
eligible for the higher levels of Federal grant support currently
available only to interstate and intermunicipal agencies. State
agencies would eligible for such greater support only in those
instances where the grant funds are to be used for a State-operated
regional air pollution planning or control program. The Senate
amendment would add two other new provisions to section 105.
One of these provisions would authorize a reduction in payments
to grantee agencies in cases where Federal employees are detailed
to such agencies. The other new provision would authorize the
withholding of grant funds from any agency found by the Admin-
istrator to be inadequately staffed or funded to meet its responsi-
bilities under the Clean Air Act.
The conference agreement includes the Senate provision to
provide greater support to state agencies and authority to detail
Federal employees but deletes the provision for withholding grant
funds. The conferees recognize that the Administrator has general
authority under section 113 to act where a state is not carrying
out its enforcement responsibilities.
SECTION 106. INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY AGENCIES OR COMMISSIONS
The House bill would delete section 106 of the Clean Air Act.
The Senate amendment would retain the provisions for Federal
funding of interstate air quality planning programs but would
eliminate the existing authority for the Administrator to establish
interstate air quality planning commissions.
The conference substitute would modify the Senate amendment
to make clear that such Federal grants would be for the purpose
of developing implementation plans for designated interstate air
quality control regions.
SECTION 107. AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
Under the House bill each State was declared to be an air quality
control region for purposes of attaining ambient air quality
standards. Interstate air quality control regions designated under
existing law and interstate regions designated after enactment of
this legislation would also be air quality control regions.
-------
1370 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Under the Senate amendment, existing interstate and intra-
state regions would be retained, and the Administrator could
designate new interstate and intrastate regions. Any part of a
State not included in a designated region would be an air quality
control region, but could be subdivided into two or more regions.
The conference substitute makes it the primary responsibility
of each State to assure air quality within the entire geographic
area comprising such State by submitting an implementation plan
for such
[p. 43]
State for achieving air quality standards. All interstate and intra-
state regions designated prior to enactment of this legislation
would remain in effect. The Administrator retains authority to
designate interstate and intrastate regions and is authorized to
approve the establishment by the State of instrastate regions.
SECTION 108. AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The House bill did not change the substance of the provision
of existing law which requires the issuance of air quality criteria
and information on control techniques. The Senate amendment
proposed to establish a deadline by which criteria for certain pol-
lutants would have to be issued and provided the Administrator
with authority to establish a consulting committee to advise him on
control technology.
The conference substitute substantially adopts the provisions
of the Senate amendment.
SECTION 109. NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Under the House bill the Administrator had 30 days after enact-
ment in which to propose national ambient air quality standards
for each pollutant or combination of pollutants for which criteria
had been issued under existing law. Such proposed standards were
to be published 30 days after the issuance of the criteria for any
other pollutant or combination thereof. After allowing a reason-
able time for comment on proposed standards, the Administra-
tor was to promulgate the standards with appropriate modifica-
tions. In addition, States were authorized to adopt more stringent
air quality standards than the national standards established by
the Administrator.
The Senate amendment declared that national ambient air
quality standards and goals were to be issued by the Administra-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1371
tor. The standards were to be adequate to protect the health of
persons. The goals were to be adequate to protect the public
health or welfare from any adverse effects.
The Senate amendment called for the Administrator to pro-
mulgate proposed standards within 90 days after initial publica-
tion. Standards were to be proposed simultaneously with the is-
suance of criteria for pollutants (or combinations thereof) for
which criteria had not been issued under existing law. Proposed
national ambient air quality goals were to be published simul-
taneously with the publication of the proposed standards.
The Senate bill required that each State consider adoption of
more stringent air quality standards than the national standards
at its public hearing on the proposed implementation plan, unless
a separate hearing was held for that purpose. The Senate bill
permitted States, political subdivisions thereof and other specified
governmental agencies to establish more stringent standards
than the national standards or shorter deadlines for their at-
tainment than three years.
The conference substitute follows the Senate amendment in
establishing deadlines for the development of national ambient
air quality standards. The Senate amendment was modified to
provide for primary and secondary standards, the former relating
to public health and the latter to public welfare.
[p. 44]
SECTION 110. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Under the House bill after promulgation of a national ambient
air quality standard, each State was to hold public hearings and
adopt a plan to implement such standard (or the more stringent
State standard). The Administrator was to approve the plan if it
assured achievement of the standard within a reasonable time
and contained adequate provision for State enforcement, inter-
governmental cooperation to attain standards, and revision of the
plan under specified circumstances.
The House bill authorized the Administrator to propose a plan
applicable to any State, if it failed to submit an acceptable imple-
mentation plan within the allotted time. The plan was to be pro-
mulgated 30 days after publication, unless the State adopted an
acceptable plan or the Governor petitioned the Administrator
for a hearing.
Under the Senate amendment each State was to hold public
hearings and adopt a plan to implement the national ambient air
-------
1372 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
quality standards (or the more stringent State standards) and
national ambient air quality goals. The Administrator was re-
quired to approve the plan if he found that it provided for at-
tainment of the standard within three years from the date of
approval of the plan. The Governor of a State, however, was
authorized to petition the Federal district court to extend for a
year the period for attaining a standard. The court could grant
relief only upon specified showings and each one-year extension
could be granted only after the filing of a new petition and making
the required showings. Under the Senate bill implementation plans
would also have to provide for necessary land-use and transporta-
tion controls, intergovernmental cooperation to attain standards
and goals, periodic reports on emissions from specified sources,
and certain other requirements.
The conference substitute follows the Senate amendment in
establishing deadlines for implementing primary ambient air
quality standards but leaves the States free to establish a reason-
able time period within which secondary ambient air quality
standards will be implemented. The conference substitute modifies
the Senate amendment in that it allows the Administrator to grant
extensions for good causes shown upon application by the Gov-
ernors.
SECTION 111. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
SECTION 112. NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Under the House bill, the Administrator would establish emis-
sion standards for classes of new stationary sources, emissions
from which may contribute substantially to endangerment of
public health or welfare. In setting such standards, the Adminis-
trator would consider economic and technological feasibility. The
Administrator was also authorized to exempt certain sources or
classes of sources for reasons specified in the bill. For standards
relating to emissions which are extremely hazardous to health,
the Administrator could by regulation prohibit new sources of
such emissions from being constructed or
[p. 45]
operated, although he could grant specific exemptions. For stand-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1373
ards relating to other emissions, the regulations were to require
that new sources of such emissions be designed and equipped to
maximize emission control insofar as technologically and eco-
nomically feasible. The House bill also authorized States to en-
force emission standards under this provision if they adopt an
adequate enforcement plan. If no such plan was adopted, the
Administrator would establish the enforcement plan.
Under the Senate amendment, the Administrator was to publish
a list of categories of stationary sources and standards of per-
formance applicable to such new sources. The standards of per-
formance were to be based on the greatest emission control pos-
sible through application of latest available control technology.
The Administrator was also required to establish a system of pre-
construction review and certification of Design and location of
new sources in order to assure attainment of primary and second-
ary ambient air quality standards. States were authorized to con-
duct the certification upon submission of acceptable procedures to
the Administrator. New sources would be prohibited from operat-
ing without certification or in violation of any applicable standard
of performance. Under the Senate amendment if a standard of
performance were violated, the Administrator could issue an
abatement order and failure to initiate abatement within 72
hours would result in suspension of the certificate and subject
the owner or operator to criminal penalties for operation there-
after.
The Senate amendment also provided in a separate section for
the publication of a list of air pollutants (or combination thereof)
which are hazardous to the health of persons. Pollutants "hazard-
ous to the health of persons" were defined as those whose presence
in trace concentrations in the ambient air will cause or contribute
to specified types of damage to health. The Administrator was
directed to publish proposed regulations prohibiting emissions of
such pollutants from any existing or new stationary source and,
after public hearing, he was to promulgate such regulations,
unless upon a preponderance of the evidence, he found that the
pollutant was not hazardous to the health of persons or that some
amount could be emitted without endangering the health of per-
sons. After making either of these findings, the Administrator
was to publish an emission standard for such pollutant applicable
to designated stationary sources.
Under the conference substitute the Administrator is directed
to meet specified deadlines in publishing a list of categories of
stationary sources which contribute significantly to air pollution,
-------
1374 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in issuing proposed Federal standards for new sources in such
categories, and in finalizing such standards after receiving com-
ments by interested persons. The conference substitute does not
contain the pre-construction review and certification procedure
provided for in the Senate amendment. New sources would be
held to establish standards of performance, and violations of such
standards would subject the owners of such sources to abatement
actions under Section 113.
The conference substitute requires the Administrator, within
specified deadlines, to publish a list of hazardous pollutants, to
issue proposed emission standards for such pollutants, and to
finalize such standards after public hearings. Emission levels must
provide an ample margin of safety to assure public health pro-
tection. New sources emitting such pollutants may be constructed
only if they
[p. 46]
meet the standards. Standards would apply to existing sources,
but the Administrator may grant a waiver for up to two years
for those existing sources where such period is necessary for
installation of control equipment and where during such period
the health of persons is protected from imminent danger by other
means. Moreover, the President may exempt any new or existing
stationary source for a two-year period if he finds that necessary
technology is unavailable to implement standards, and that opera-
tion of source is required for reasons of national security. The
President may extend national security exemptions for one or
more two-year periods, but must report to Congress each exemp-
tion or extension.
SECTION 113. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 114. INSPECTIONS, MONITORING, AND ENTRY
SECTION 116. ABATEMENT BY MEANS OF CONFERENCE PROCEDURE
The House bill amended section 108 by authorizing the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare, to request the Attorney
General to bring suit to abate intrastate as well as interstate air
pollution where a State failed to enforce its implementation plan,
and, in a new section 112 provided for Federal enforcement of
Federal emission standards for stationary sources. Each of the
two sections provided for court assessment of penalties against
polluters, and authorized entry into and inspection of suspected
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1375
polluters' facilities by DHEW investigative personnel for pur-
poses of enforcement. The Senate bill established a new section
116 directing the Secretary to issue an abatement order to any
person in violation of a State implementation plan requirement
not being enforced by the State, and to a person in violation of
any Federal stationary source emission standard or limitation re-
quired under section 113 or 114 of the Senate bill. Section 116
further provided for the institution of civil actions by the Secre-
tary to obtain compliance with abatement orders, with require-
ments under section 113, 114, or 115, and with inspection and
monitoring requirements imposed in Title I, and authorized sub-
stantial fines and imprisonment for knowing violations of emis-
sion standards and limitations, knowing failure or refusal to
comply with an abatement order, or knowing falsification or
misrepresentation in required reports, records, or monitoring
data. Also under section 116, the Senate authorized entry and
inspection by DHEW personnel of buildings, facilities, and moni-
toring equipment for purposes of setting standards and enforcing
them. The Senate's proposed new sections 113 and 114 also pro-
vided for assessment of civil penalties by the Secretary for viola-
tion of standards imposed thereunder.
The conference substitute retains the enforcement provision of
existing law for abatement of international pollution problems
and abatement against certain sources of pollution not covered by
these amendments. Past enforcement action and requirements
are preserved.
The conference substitute follows the House bill relating to
enforcement in areas of primary State responsibility and the
Senate amendment where primary Federal responsibility exists.
In case of a violation of any requirement of a State implementa-
tion plan, the Administrator is to notify the State in which the
violation occurs as well as the
[p. 47]
violator. If the violation extends beyond the thirtieth day after
notification, the Administrator may issue an order requiring
compliance by such person or may bring court action against
such person. In case of a State failure to enforce a plan, the Ad-
ministrator shall notify the State. If the State's failure to enforce
such plan extends beyond the thirtieth day after notification, the
Administrator is to give public notice of such finding and there-
upon, until the State resumes enforcement of plan, the Adminis-
trator may enforce the implementation plan either through an
-------
1376 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
order requiring any violator in such State to comply or by bring-
ing court action against any such violator.
In case of a violation of a Federal standard of performance for
new stationary sources or a Federal emission standard for
hazardous pollutants, the Administrator may enforce such stand-
ards either through an order requiring any violator to comply
or by bringing court action against any violator. Under sections
111 and 112, the Administrator has authority to delegate enforce-
ment authority to the States to enforce these Federal standards
concurrently with the Federal Government.
Knowing violations of an order issued by the Administrator or
of State implementation plan requirements (where the violator
has received notice) or of Federal standards of performance for
new sources or of Federal emission standards for hazardous emis-
sions shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $25,000 per
day of violation or by imprisonment for not more than one year.
For second or subsequent violations the fine is not more than
$50,000 and imprisonment for not more than two years.
The provisions of the conference substitute with regard to in-
spections, monitoring and entry follow substantially the provi-
sions of the Senate amendment.
SECTION 116. RETENTION OF STATE AUTHORITY
Except with respect to standards for moving sources, the
States' authority to adopt and enforce standards applicable to air
quality and emissions is retained in the conference substitute.
The conference substitute retains the provisions of the Senate
amendment which requires (to the extent practicable within
the time provided) consultation with advisory committee prior to
carrying out certain functions required by Sees. 108, 111, 112 and
202.
SECTION 118. CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL FACILITIES
The House bill and the Senate amendment declared that Federal
departments and agencies should comply with applicable stand-
ards of air quality and emissions.
The conference substitute modifies the House provision to
require that the President rather than the Administrator be re-
sponsible for assuring compliance by Federal agencies.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1377
SECTION 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS
The House bill did not amend the provisions of existing law re-
lating to the establishment of standards for new motor vehicles.
The Senate amendment deleted the requirements that such stand-
ards be based on
[p. 48]
a test of technical and economic feasibility, and provided statutory
standards for passenger cars and required that such standards be
achieved by a date certain. The Senate bill also provided that the
statutory deadline could be extended for not more than one year
if the Administrator made a series of specified findings. The Sen-
ate bill also authorized the Admisitrator to set standards of emis-
sion performance for vessels, commercial vehicles, and aircraft.
(The House bill treated aircraft emissions in a different section.)
The conference substitute follows substantially the Senate
amendments. The Administrator is directed to establish emission
standards for pollutants from new motor vehicles or engines
which are likely to endanger the public health or welfare. Such
standards are to be applicable for the useful life of the vehicles
or engines. The statute specifies that "useful life" shall be a period
of use of at least five years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs
first. Administrator shall prescribe regulations to implement this
definition. The effective date of the standards is to depend on the
period necessary to develop the requisite technology giving ap-
propriate consideration to the cost of complying by such date.
Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions from light duty
vehicles for 1975 model year and thereafter are to be reduced at
least 90 per centum over 1970 standards for these pollutants.
Oxides of nitrogen emissions from light duty vehicles for the
1976 model year and thereafter are to be reduced by at least 90
per centum over the actual emission of these pollutants from 1971
model vehicles which were not subject to Federal or State stand-
ards for such emissions.
Any manufacturer may apply to the Administrator within
specified time limits for a one-year suspension of the statutory
time limits, and the Administrator is to issue interim standards
if he approves such application. Such interim standards are to
reflect the greatest degree of emission control which is achiev-
able by application of technology determined by the Administra-
tor to be available, giving appropriate consideration to the cost
of applying such technology within the time available to manu-
-------
1378 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
facturers. The Administrator is to take into consideration whether
the manufacturer has met statutory requirements relating to
public interest, public health and welfare, availability of tech-
nology, and good faith efforts to meet standards.
The Administrator is to undertake to enter into appropriate ar-
rangements with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
study of the feasibility of meeting statutory deadlines for the
1975 and 1976 model years. In entering into such arrangements,
Administrator is to request the Academy to submit its first report
not later than July 1, 1971. The Administrator is directed to use
the authority granted to him to furnish to the Academy any in-
formation requested by it.
SECTIONS 203-205. ENFORCEMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION
STANDARDS
The House bill revised the enforcement provisions respecting
motor vehicle emissions to prohibit sale of new motor vehicles
and engines without complying with the House warranty and
labeling requirements. The Senate amendment revised these pro-
visions to prohibit rendering emission control systems or devices
inoperative after sale of the vehicle or engine, to remove the
exemption for vehicles or engines manufactured for export, and to
increase the maximum penalty
[p. 49]
for violations of the enforcement provisions from $1,000 to $10,000
per vehicle.
Sec. 203 generally follows the provisions of the House bill ex-
cept that prohibited acts are added relating to recall (Sec. 207) or
knowing removal of devices by the manufacturer or dealer. Also,
vehicles intended solely for export must comply with Federal
emission standards unless the importing nation has differing re-
quirements affecting motor vehicle emissions or has advised that
no such requirements exist at this time. Penalties provided in
Sec. 205 follow the Senate amendment.
SECTIONS 206-207. COMPLIANCE WITH MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION
STANDARDS
The provisions of the House bill and the Senate amendment
revising the procedures under existing law for prototype testing
and authorizing production line testing of new motor vehicles
and engines were essentially the same, except that the Senate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1379
amendment required compliance testing of each vehicle prior to
delivery. In addition, the Senate amendment required semiannual
publication of the results of prototype and assembly line testing,
and disclosure by manufacturers of the actual cost of emission
control devices and systems.
The House bill required manufacturers to warrant that vehicles
or engines they produce are of substantially the same construction
as the prototype vehicle with respect to which the certificate of
conformity was issued. The Senate amendment required (effective
90 days after the Administrator establishes feasible testing
methods and procedures) that manufacturers warrant that
vehicles and engines will conform with applicable emission stand-
ards throughout their useful life (set at 5 years or 50,000 miles)
if maintenance and certain other requirements are met.
The Senate amendment also authorized the Administrator, if
he determined that any class or category of vehicles or engines
did not conform with applicable emission standards, to require
manufacturers to notify purchasers of such nonconformity. More-
over, if a manufacturer discovered such nonconformity during the
term of any warranty required under the Senate amendment, he
was required to notify purchasers of the nonconformity and to
remedy such nonconformity at no cost to the owner.
The conference substitute adopts substantially the provisions
of the House bill relating to prototype and production line testing
and the provisions of the Senate amendment relating to compli-
ance after sale and warranty. The Administrator would be re-
quired to test, or require to be tested, any new motor vehicle
or engine submitted by any manufacturer to determine whether
such vehicle or engine meets Federal emission standards. If such
vehicle or engine conforms, Administrator shall issue certificate
of conformity for a period not to exceed one year. Additionally,
the Administrator would be required to test any emission system
incorporated in an automobile submitted by any person (who
need not be an automobile manufacturer) to determine whether
such system meets the statutory emission standards prescribed
by section 202. He is to inform automobile manufacturer, the
National Academy of Sciences, and th^ public of the results of
such tests. The Administrator may test (or prescribe tests to be
performed by the manufacturer) all or a sample of vehicles or
engines on the assembly
[p. 50]
line to determine whether such vehicles or engines actually con-
-------
1380 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
form with applicable emission standards. If the Administrator
determines that such vehicles or engines do not conform, he may
suspend or revoke certificate in whole or in part. Such suspension
or revocation shall apply to vehicles manufactured after date of
notification (or if manufactured prior thereto, to vehicles still in
the hands of the manufacturer). Such suspension or revocation
shall continue until the Administrator finds that vehicles or en-
gines conform. During the period of suspension or revocation, the
Administrator may issue certificate of conformity applicable to
those vehicles or engines which he has found actually conform to
emission standards. An administrative hearing, with judicial re-
view, is provided.
The Administrator's employees may conduct plant inspections
or inspect records upon presentation of appropriate credentials.
To assist prospective purchasers, the Administrator is to make
available to the public comparative test results.
The Administrator is required to establish methods for testing
vehicles and engines in actual use to determine their compliance
with emission requirements during their useful life (5 years or
50,000 miles, as defined by the statute).
The provision for warranty follows the Senate bill except, in
addition to establishing test procedures, the Administrator must
find that inspection facilities or equipment are available to enforce
individual vehicle compliance. Also a warranty will not become
effective for a vehicle unless failure to comply with a standard
subjects the purchaser to sanctions. Proper operation and mainte-
nance are a precondition to the manufacturer's obligation. In
addition to the performance warranty, the conference substitute
calls for a defect warranty for materials and workmanship.
If the Administrator determines (on the basis of inspections or
studies) that a substantial number of any class of vehicles or
engines, although properly maintained and used, do not meet the
emission standards during the useful life of such vehicles or
engines, he shall notify the manufacturer of such nonconformity,
and he shall require the manufacturer to submit a plan for
remedying such nonconformity. In the case of properly used and
maintained vehicles and engines, this is to be done at the expense
of the manufacturer. If a manufacturer disagrees with such deter-
mination the Administrator shall afford the manufacturer and
other interested persons an opportunity to present their views at
a public hearing. Unless, upon such hearing, the Administrator
withdraws such determination, he shall, within 60 days after
completion of the hearing, order the manufacturer to notify pur-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1381
chasers. The Administrator shall prescribe regulations concerning
notification procedure. Any cost obligation incurred by any dealer
is to be borne by the manufacturer and transfer of such cost
obligation through franchise or any agreements from a manu-
facturer to a dealer is prohibited.
If a manufacturer's advertising makes any statement respect-
ing the cost or value of emission control devices or systems, such
statement must set forth the cost or value attributed to such
devices or systems by the Secretary of Labor (through the Bureau
of Labor Statistics). The manufacturer shall furnish such writ-
ten instructions for maintenance and use of any vehicles and
engines by ultimate purchasers as are necessary to assure proper
functioning of emission control devices
[p. 51]
or systems. The manufacturer must indicate by a permanently
attached label that the vehicle or engine is covered by a certificate
of conformity.
SECTION 208. STATE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS
The Senate amendment modified section 208 of existing law to
expand the authority of States to adopt and enforce emission
standards for new motor vehicles and engines. The House bill did
not change existing law.
The conference substitute follows the House bill by retaining
the provision of existing law.
SECTION 211. REGULATION OF FUELS
Existing law (sec. 210 of the Clean Air Act) provides for
registration of fuels and fuel additives delivered for introduction
into commerce. The House bill amended this section to authorize
the Administrator to establish standards respecting the physical
or chemical properties of any fuel or fuel additive by specifying
limitations on (or providing for elimination of) ingredients (in-
cluding additives) or on the physical or chemical characteristics
of any fuel or class of fuels if either (1) emission products from
the fuel or fuel additive endanger public health or welfare, or
(2) the fuel or fuel additive will significantly impair performance
of an emission control device or system in general use (or likely
to be in general use) on a significant number of motor vehicles or
motor vehicle engines. Such standards must be based on specific
-------
1382 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
medical, scientific, economic, and technological findings specified
in the House bill.
The Administrator's authority under the House bill was ap-
plicable to all types of fuels, whether used in stationary sources
or in motor vehicles, except that it did not apply to aviation fuel
or additives thereto.
The Senate amendment amended the fuel registration provisions
to expand the Administration's authority in this area, and in ad-
dition authorized him to control or prohibit the introduction into
commerce of any fuel for use in vehicle engines if the combustion
or evaporation of such fuel produces emissions which endanger
the public health or welfare, or if such emissions prevent opera-
tion of effective systems for the control of emissions from any
vehicle or vehicle engine which the Administrator finds would
otherwise conform to applicable emission standards. The Adminis-
trator was required to hold public hearings and make certain
findings before establishing a control or prohibition under this
provision. Regulation of motor vehicle fuels by States and
political subdivisions for purposes of emission control was pre-
empted by the Senate amendment.
Under the conference substitute the Administrator may control
or prohibit manufacture or sale of any motor vehicle fuel or fuel
additive if any emissions therefrom will endanger the public
health or welfare, or if emission products of such fuel or additive
will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emis-
sion control device or system which is or will be in general use.
Existing provisions of law relating to registration of fuels and
fuel additives are retained with some revisions.
[p. 52]
Before controlling or prohibiting manufacture or sale, the Ad-
ministrator is required to consider specific technical and cost
factors. Automobile manufacturers are required to furnish to the
Administrator any information developed concerning 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 emis-
sion control device or system.
No State may prescribe or enforce controls or prohibitions re-
specting any fuel or additive unless they are identical to those
prescribed by the Federal Government or unless a State imple-
mentation plan under sec. 110 includes provision for fuel or ad-
ditive control and such plan is approved by the Administrator as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1383
being necessary for achievement of national air quality standards.
These restrictions will not apply to California.
A civil penalty of $10,000 per day is provided for violations of
the provisions relating to fuels and additives.
SECTION 210. STATE GRANTS
The House bill made no changes in existing law under which
the Administrator may make grants to State air pollution control
agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of the cost of developing
uniform motor vehicle emission device inspection and emission
testing programs.
Under the Senate amendment, such grant authority would be
broadened (1) to cover the costs of maintaining, as well as devel-
oping, such programs and (2) to include emission control pro-
grams as well as device inspection and emission testing programs.
The Senate amendment also provided that grants under section
210 would be in addition to, and not supplant, existing funding
programs of a State for air pollution control.
The conference substitute provision is the same as that in the
Senate amendment except that (1) the language providing that
section 210 grants must be in addition to existing State funding
programs is deleted, and (2) such grants to any State are made
subject to the condition that the State program includes pro-
visions designed to insure that emission control devices and sys-
tems on vehicles in actual use are not disconnected or rendered
inoperative.
SECTION 212. DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES
The Senate amendment contains provisions not in the House
bill under which the development of low-emission vehicles would
be encouraged by requiring such vehicles to be purchased for use
by agencies of the Federal Government if the cost of such vehicles
would not exceed 150 per centum (200 per centum in the case
of vehicles powered by new inherently low-polluting propulsion
systems) of the retail price of any class or model of motor vehicle
for which such low-emission vehicles are a certified substitute.
Under the Senate amendment, such certifications would be made
by a Low-Emission Vehicle Certification Board composed of the
heads of designated interested Federal agencies, and two members
appointed by the President. The Board may certify any class or
-------
1384 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
model of motor vehicles only if a certification application has been
filed in accordance with
[p. 53]
regulations prescribed by the Board, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency determines that the vehicle
concerned is a low-emission vehicle, and the Board determines
that such vehicle is suitable for use as a substitute for vehicles
in use at that time by Federal agencies. The Senate amendment
authorized an annual appropriation of not to exceed $50,000,000
for paying additional amounts for low-emission vehicles pursuant
to, and for carrying out the purposes of section 212.
The conference substitute substantially incorporates the pro-
visions of the Senate amendment. One significant change relates to
the definition of low-emission vehicles. Under the Senate pro-
vision, a low-emission vehicle is defined as any motor vehicle
which produces significantly less pollution than the class or mode]
of vehicle for which the Board may certify it as a suitable substi-
tute. Under the conference substitute, the definition of a low-
emission vehicle takes into account the applicable emission stand-
ards which will be applied with respect to newly-manufactured
motor vehicles under section 202 by providing that a low-emission
vehicle is one which (1) emits any air pollutant in amounts sig-
nificantly below new motor vehicle standards applicable under
such section 202 at the time of procurement to that type of vehicle;
and (2) with respect to all other air pollutants, meets the new
motor vehicle standards applicable under such section 202 at the
time of procurement to that type of vehicle.
The conference substitute would reduce the authorizations in
the Senate bill as follows: $5 million for the remainder of fiscal
year 1971 and $25 million for fiscal years 1972 and 1973.
SECTION 241. AIRCRAFT EMISSION STANDARDS
Under the'House bill (in a separate part of title II of the
Clean Air Act) the Administrator was required to prescribe, as
soon as practicable, standards applicable to the emission of any
substance from aircraft or aircraft engines which in his judgment
would, or likely would, cause or contribute to air pollution which
endangers the health or welfare of any persons. The Administra-
tor was required to consult with the Federal Aviation Administra-
tor before prescribing such standards. The House bill required
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1385
prescribing such standards, to consider technological feasibility
and economic costs; to include such requirements with respect
to manufacturers' warranties on aircraft emission control systems
as are necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act; and to
make any such standard effective with respect to any class of
aircraft or aircraft engines on such date as the Administrator
determines appropriate after taking into account such period of
time as may be reasonably necessary for compliance. The House
bill also provided that the Federal Aviation Administrator would
apply such emission standards in the certification and inspection
of aircraft and aircraft engines pursuant to his authority under
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Under the House bill, the
States were preempted from adopting or enforcing any emission
control standard with respect to aircraft or aircraft engines to
which the Federal standards would apply.
[p. 54]
Under the Senate amendment aircraft and aircraft engine emis-
sions were treated in a manner substantially similar to that in the
House bill with the exception that the Administrator was not
required to consider technological feasibility and economic costs in
prescribing emission standards and that new aircraft and aircraft
engines were subject to certification and compliance procedures
similar to those which would be applied to new motor vehicles
and new vehicle engines under section 202 of the Senate amend-
ment.
The conference substitute requires that the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency set forth, after a 180-day
study of the effect of aircraft emissions or air quality, and the
availability of emission control technology, and after public hear-
ings in regions where air quality is most affected by aircraft
emissions, standards for such emissions to take effect after such
time as the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation, deems necessary to develop and apply requisite
technology. The Secretary of Transportation is required to en-
force these standards, and States and political subdivisions are
prohibited from adopting or enforcing aircraft emission standards
unless they are identical to standards prescribed under this legis-
lation.
SECTION 244. AVIATION FUEL STANDARDS
The House bill amended the Federal Aviation Act to provide for
-------
1386 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the establishment of standards for aviation fuels for the purpose
of controlling or reducing aircraft emissions. The Senate amend-
ment included no comparable provision.
The conference substitute follows the House bill except that the
fuel standards are to be recommended by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration is required to prescribe such
recommended standards.
SECTION 303. EMERGENCY POWERS
The House bill retained the provision of existing law (Sec. 108
(k)) relating to direct action by the Administrator to seek an
injunction to abate pollution which presents an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to public health without regard to location
of the source or sources of such pollution. The Senate amend-
ment retained substantially the same authority but placed it in
a new section.
The conference substitute follows the Senate amendment.
SECTION 304. CITIZEN SUITS
The House bill did not include a provision for citizen suits. The
Senate amendment authorized citizen suits against violators,
government agencies, and the Administrator to seek abatement of
such violations or for enforcement of the provisions of the Act.
Notice of thirty days was required except in certain instances.
Discretionary authority was provided to the court to grant reason-
able attorney and expert witness fees. Other rights to seek en-
forcement of standards under other provision of law were not
affected.
[p. 55]
The conference substitute retains provisions for citizen suits
with certain limitations. Suits against the Administrator are
limited to alleged failure to perform mandatory functions to be
performed by him. Suits against violators, including the United
States and other government agencies to the extent permitted by
the Constitution, would also be authorized. Prior to commencing
any action in the district courts, the plaintiff must have provided
the violator, the Administrator and the State with sixty days
notice. If an abatement action is pending and is being diligently
pursued in a United States or State court, such action cannot be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1387
commenced but any party in interest may intervene as a matter
of right.
No delay following notice is required where there is an alleged
violation of a hazardous emission standard or of an order of the
Administrator. The conference substitute also provides that
actions respecting violations by stationary sources are to be
brought in the district in which the source is located and estab-
lishes that, in any action, the Administrator may intervene as a
matter of right.
The courts' discretionary authority to award costs, as provided
in the Senate amendment, is retained. In addition the courts'
discretionary authority to require filing of bond if a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction is sought is noted.
The right of persons (or class of persons) to seek enforcement
or other relief under any statute or common law is not affected.
SECTION 305. APPEARANCE
The Senate amendment provided authority for the Administra-
tor to represent himself in court rather than relying on the At-
torney General. The House bill did not contain a similar pro-
vision.
The conference substitute provides the Administrator with
authority to represent himself in a court action if, after notice,
the Administrator determines that the Attorney General will not
act, or will not act soon enough.
SECTION 306. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
The Senate bill amended the Act by adding a new section 306
declaring that any person not in compliance with a Federal court
order issued pursuant to the Act or convicted by a Federal court
for a knowing violation of an emission standard or limitation
under the Act would not be eligible to enter into procurement
contracts with Federal agencies, until such time as the Secretary
certifies that the person has come into compliance. The section
also directed the President to issue an order instructing Federal
agencies to effectuate the purpose and policy of the Act in enter-
ing into contracts, and in making grants and loans, but further
authorized the President to exempt a particular contract, loan, or
grant from all or part of the provisions of the section where
necessary in the interests of the United States. The House bill
contained no comparable provisions.
-------
1388 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
The conference substitute is more limited than the Senate pro-
vision. It provides that persons convicted of a knowing violation
of standards or limitations sha.ll be ineligible to enter into Federal
contracts until the Administrator certifies that the violation has
been corrected. The remainder of the conference substitute follows
the Senate amend-
[p. 56]
ment by requiring the President to issue an order requiring Fed-
eral agencies (1) to assist in the implementation of this Act and
(2) to establish sanctions for non-compliance. Authority is pro-
vided to exempt contracts, loans, and grants in the paramount
interest of the United States from such sanctions for reasons of
national security. Such exemptions and other efforts to implement
the Act are to be reported to the Congress.
SECTION 307. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Senate bill inserted a new section 308 in the Act to es-
tablish guidelines and specify forums for judicial review of
certain actions of the Secretary provided for under the Act and
the proposed amendments, and provided that commencement of
such proceedings would not stay applicability of any standard,
requirement, limitation, or waiver which was the subject of the
Secretary's action. No comparable provisions appeared in the
House bill.
The conference substitute includes provisions relating to sub-
penas, specifies the courts in which certain appeals may be pros-
ecuted, and the circumstances under which additional evidence
may be order by the courts to be taken by the Administrator.
SECTION 308. MANDATORY LICENSING
The Senate amendments contained provisions for the manda-
tory licensing of patents, trade secrets, and know-how whenever
the Administrator determined that the achievement of standards
established under specified sections of the Senate amendments re-
quired the utilization of such patents, trade secrets or know-how.
The House bill did not contain comparable provisions. The con-
ference substitute is limited to patents. It would authorize the
Attorney General (rather than the Administrator) to certify
to a U.S. District Court that conditions specified in the section
(relating to (1) the need for using the patent to achieve emission
limitations required by this Act, (2) the absence of alternative
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1389
methods to achieve such emissions, and (3) resulting lessening
of competition or monopolization) exist and may seek a court
rule requiring licensing on such reasonable terms and conditions
as the court may determine.
SECTION 401. NOISE POLLUTION
The Senate bill added a new Title IV to the Act, which directed
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish an
Office of Noise Abatement and Control for the purpose of in-
vestigating and identifying the sources of noises and effects on
public health and welfare, and to report to the President and
Congress within one year of enactment the results of the in-
vestigation and study. The Senate amendment also provided a
specific authorization of $30 million to carry out Title IV. The
House bill made no .provision respecting noise.
The conference substitute follows the provisions of the Senate
amendment.
[p. 57]
SECTION 309. AUTHORIZATIONS
The House bill would authorize appropriations of the following
amounts:
Fiscal Year
Sec.104
Sec. 309
Total
1971.
1972.
1973
$75,000,000 125,000,000 200,000,000
100,000,000 150,000,000 250,000.000
125,000,000 200,000,000 325,000,000
Total.
300,000,000 475,000,000
775,000,000
The Senate bill would authorize appropriations of the following
amounts:
Fiscal Year
1971
1972
1973
Total. ....
Sec. 104
$125,000 000
150,000 000
175,000,000
450,000 000
Sec. 309
150 000,000
250,000,000
325,000,000
725 000,000
Total
275,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
1 175 000,000
It should be noted that the Senate bill would redesignate section
309 as section 317.
In addition, the Senate bill would authorize appropriations of
526-703 O - 73 - 15
-------
1390 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
$15 million under the proposed new section 107 (long-term con-
tracts for research on effects of air pollution) ; $30 million under
Title IV for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control; and $50
million annually for low emission vehicle procurement.
The conference substitute adopts the House amount for Fiscal
Year 1971 for Sec. 104 and Sec. 309—a total of $200 million. For
Fiscal Year 1972 the conference agreement provides for a total of
$350 million of which $125 million is for research on fuels and
vehicles. For Fiscal Year 1973 the authorization is $150 million
for research under Section 104 out of a total of $450 million. In
addition the conference substitute retains $15 million for long
term contracts for air pollution effects research under Section
103, $30 million for funding the Office of Noise Abatement in the
Environmental Protection Agency, and $55 million for low emis-
sion vehicle procurement, $5 million of which is authorized for
Fiscal Year 1971 and $25 million each for Fiscal Years 1972 and
1973.
SECTION 310. POLICY REVIEW
The Senate amendment provides a statutory requirement that
the Administrator review and comment on environmental impact
statements required by Public Law 90-190 (The National En-
vironmental Policy Act). The Senate amendment also required
the Council on Environmental Quality to review any determina-
tion of environmental impact and make a recommendation to the
President. The House bill had no such provision.
The conference agreement follows substantially the Senate
version. The Administrator is instructed to review and comment
on Federal actions which affect the environment and make such
comments public
[p. 58]
upon completion of the review. The conference substitute elimi-
nates the requirement that the Council, make a public recom-
mendation to the President.
HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
JOHN JARMAN,
PAUL G. ROGERS,
WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
ANCHER NELSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 59]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1391
l.lk(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970)
l.lk(4)(a) June 10: Considered and passed House,
pp. 19200-19244
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
OP 1970
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1069 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as
follows:
H. RES. 1069
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.
17255) to amend the Clean Air Act to pro-
vide for a more effective program to improve
the quality of the Nation's air. After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and shall continue not to exceed two hours,
to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, the bill shall be read for amend-
ment under the five-minute rule. It shall be
in order to consider the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce now printed in the bill as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule, and all points of order
against the provisions beginning on page 52,
line 1 through page 53, line 4 of said com-
mittee substitute are hereby waived. At the
conclusion of such consideration, the Com-
mittee 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 amend-
ment adopted in the Committee of the Whole
to the bill or committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one mo-
tion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
QUILLEN], pending which I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1069
provides an open rule with 2 hours
of general debate for consideration of
H.R. 17255, Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970. The resolution also
provides that it shall be in order to
consider the committee substitute as
an original bill for the purpose of
amendment and that all points of
order are waived against the pro-
visions beginning on page 52, through
line 4 on page 53 of the committee
substitute. Points of order are waived
against the specific language on pages
52 and 53 because of the question of
germaneness.
The purpose of H.R. 17255 is to
speed up, expand, and intensify the
war against air pollution.
The Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare will be authorized and
directed to establish nationwide air
quality standards and the States will
be left free to establish stricter
standards, if they so desire. Thus, the
war against air pollution will be
carried on throughout the Nation
rather than only in particular geo-
graphical areas.
Within 60 days after promulgation
of national ambient air quality stand-
ards, the Governor of a State may
file a letter of intent that the State
will, within 180 days and after public
hearings, adopt a plan for the imple-
mentation and enforcement of such
standards, and the Secretary may ex-
tend the 180-day time period for
good cause shown but not to exceed
an additional 180 days.
I commend the committee for re-
porting this legislation to eliminate
the disgraceful pollution of the air,
especially in industrial urban centers.
The Calumet region of Indiana is
-------
1392
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
making slow progress on air pollution.
Steel mills, oil refineries, and other
air polluters will welcome both Fed-
eral and State unity to join with local
governments to solve this gigantic air
pollution menace that is endangering
the health of millions of helpless
citizens over the Nation.
The hill authorizes appropriations
for fiscal year 1971 in the amount of
$200 million, for fiscal year 1972 in
the amount of $250 million, and for
fiscal year 1973 in the amount of $325
million.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption
of House Resolution 1069.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. MADDEN] has ably
stated House Resolution 1069 makes
in order consideration of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970, un-
der an open rule, 2 hours of debate,
the committee substitute is made in
order as an original bill for the pur-
pose of amendment, and points of
order are waived against that part of
the committee amendment which in-
cludes all of page 52 and the first 4
lines of page 53 of the bill. This
language, which amends the Federal
Aviation Act, is nongermane.
The purpose of the bill is to speed
up, expand, and intensify the war
against air pollution in the United
States. A thorough review of the
Clean Air Act as presently admin-
istered indicates an intensification is
necessary.
The bill authorizes the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to
establish nationwide air quality stand-
ards with the States left free to
establish even stricter standards in
their own boundaries. No standards
may be less vigorous than Federal
standards. For the five pollutants
which the Secretary already has estab-
lished criteria—sulfur oxides, particu-
late matter, carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and photochemical oxidants
•—national standards would be issued
within 30 days after the date of
enactment. With respect to other
pollutants, standards would be pro-
posed within 30 days after the criteria
has been established.
Each State must file a letter of
intent, that the State will within 180
days adopt a plan to implement and
enforce the standards. If a State fails
to file a letter or implement the plan
in 180 days, the Secretary himself may
institute an acceptable plan. The bill
authorizes the Secretary to test or
require to be tested in a manner he
deems appropriate any new motor
vehicle or engine as it comes off the
assembly line in order to determine
whether the vehicle or engine con-
forms with national standards,
already adopted. Further, he is au-
thorized to establish limitations on in-
gredients of fuels in motor vehicles
when he deems it necessary. The
Secretary is given similar authority
for air pollutants in aircraft and air-
craft engines. Under present law, the
Secretary does not have such
authority. The bill authorizes appro-
priations for fiscal year 1971 of ap-
proximately $200 million; 1972, $250
million; 1973, $325 million. Of these
amounts, $75 million for 1971, $100
million for 1972, and $125 million for
1973 are earmarked for research re-
lating to controlling pollution result-
ing from the combustion of fuels in
vehicle and aircraft engines.
There are no agency reports.
Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced
a package of seven bills on air and
water pollution control, a description
of which I outline here.
H.R. 16024 amends the Land and
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to
authorize the sale of surplus Federal
real property to any State, county,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1393
municipality, or other political sub-
division to be used as a public park or
recreation area. Moreover, any moneys
realized from these sales in excess of
$54,700,000 a year will be placed in
the land and water conservation fund
which, in turn, will be used to provide
additional park and recreational
facilities.
This bill, when enacted, could trans-
fer vast amounts of land from re-
stricted Federal reservations to much-
needed recreational and park land
available to all the people.
H.R. 16025 is concerned with the
burgeoning pollution problem. This
bill recognizes that a pollutant might
reasonably be considered as a resource
out of place; indeed, the bill states
clearly that pollution of air, water,
and land can be ameliorated only by
greater use of reclamation and re-
cycling of material from solid wastes
such as metals, plastics,
[p. 19200]
ceramics and glass, paper products,
and the like.
Failure to reclaim and recycle ma-
terials not only causes pollution of
all kinds but also contributes to the
wasteful depletion of primary natural
resources—squandering our heritage,
so to speak. The reason for this
failure is that we do not know how
to make the reclamation of materials
economically advantageous as com-
pared with using up primary re-
sources. The problem is especially
serious in regard to scrap automo-
biles.
Thus, this bill has two purposes:
First, to provide for investigations,
studies, surveys and research into
the development of methods for en-
couraging greater reclamation and re-
cycling materials from solid wastes;
and, second, to give special considera-
tion to the problem of motor vehicle
hulks.
Now, who is going to do these
things and how are they going to
achieve their goals? This program will
be carried out by the newly created
Council on Environmental Quality and
they are going to develop a carrot and
stick method—that is, they will study
the relative effectiveness of various
types of incentives, including financial
and tax relief, along with regulatory
measures to accelerate reclamation or
recycling materials not presently com-
petitive with primary resources. They
will then make recommendations to
the President for legislative proposals
or executive actions which will insure
attainment of the goals of this bill.
H.R. 16026 zeroes in on air pollu-
tion. This bill amends the Clean Air
Act so as to extend its duration, pro-
vide for national standards of ambient
air quality, expedite enforcement of
air pollution control standards, au-
thorize regulation of fuels and fuel
additives, provide for improved con-
trols over motor vehicle emissions, and
to establish standards applicable to
dangerous emissions from stationary
sources.
Briefly, this bill streamlines the
implementation required to secure
clean and healthful air. It facilitates
direct action by the Federal Govern-
ment and shortens the length of time
between recognition of a source of air
pollution and its abatement. Perhaps
most significant, it establishes stiff
penalties of $10,000 fine per day per
violation rather than the previously
established fine of $1,000 maximum
fine per violation.
H.R. 16027, H.R. 16028, and H.R.
16029 are each concerned with the
abatement of water pollution. They
constitute three separate amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, each of which deals with
vital areas.
H.R. 16027 deals primarily with
grants of money. The first portion of
-------
1394
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
this bill updates and extends the
authority of the Department of the
Interior to support and encourage re-
search relating to the causes, control,
and prevention of water pollution.
Grants may also be made for studies
that will enhance or protect water
quality, demonstrate advances in
waste water reuse technology, or con-
tribute to knowledge concerning as-
sociated problems. More specifically,
the kinds of research this bill is
designed to support are:
First, practical means of treating
municipal sewage so as to maintain
the maximum amount of the Nation's
waters at a quality suitable for re-
peated reuse;
Second, methods and techniques of
identifying the effects of pollutants
upon water quality;
Third, methods and procedures for
evaluating the effects of augmented
streamflow on water quality;
Fourth, analyses of bodies of water
with respect to water quality, waste
disposal practices, water uses and
needs, and water quality management;
Fifth, development of better
methods of managing storm sewer
discharges ;
Sixth, development of advanced
waste treatment and waste water
renovation; and
Seventh, development of new and
improved methods of managing in-
dustrial waste discharges.
The second portion of this bill au-
thorizes increased moneys to the
States for planning programs to pre-
vent and control water pollution. The
augmentation in the size of these
grants available deserves special
recognition. The original act author-
ized $3 million for each of the years
1957 to 1961. The amounts authorized
for 1961 to 1967 were $5 million, and
from 1967 to 1970 it was $10 million.
This bill authorizes $12.5 million in
1971; $15 million in 1972; $20 mil-
lion in 1973; $25 million in 1974; and
$30 million in 1975. The tremendously
augmented moneys speak eloquently
for how important the State role is in
water pollution abatement.
H.R. 16028 is especially significant.
It broadens the scope of the Water
Quality Act in several very meaning-
ful ways by amplifying both the
national policy and the waters subject
to enforcement action by the Secre-
tary of the Interior.
The national policy will now em-
brace not only the concepts of water
pollution abatement and environ-
mental quality enhancement, but will
also provide for planning future
water quality management in keeping
with our Nation's population growth,
industrial expansion, agricultural
intensification, energy requirements,
recreation and conservation uses, and
environmental quality.
This bill broadens the scope of
waters under protection to include
not only interstate and navigable
waters as before, but also ground
watetrs.
These underground water resources
are an important portion of our water
supply formerly free from protection
against pollution. This bill also pro-
tects against pollution of the terri-
torial seas of the United States. The
high seas beyond the contiguous zone
are protected from pollution trans-
ported from or originating in areas
over which the United States has
sovereignty.
A third effect of this bill is to
put sharper teeth into enforcement
procedures. The existing Water
Quality Act does not specify penalties
for violation of water quality stand-
ards, leaving the appropriate abate-
ment procedures to the discretion of
the courts. This bill specifies that the
court may enforce its judgment by
issuing an injunction against activi-
ties which cause violation of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1395
standards or by levying fines of up to
$10,000 per day for each violation.
The third water pollution control
bill, H.R. 16029, is designed to provide
financial assistance for the construc-
tion of waste treatment facilities. The
bill, when enacted, will make $4 bil-
lion of Federal moneys available to
States and and municipalities over the
next 4 fiscal years. Further, it requires
that by January 1973, the Congress
shall receive from the President a
report on the financial requirements
for construction of waste treatment
facilities for fiscal years 1975 through
1979, thus assuring p/rogram con-
tinuity throughout the next decade.
This bill also adds flexibility to the
ways that these moneys can be made
available by permitting the Federal
Government to incur obligations in the
form of grant agreements as well as
by direct granting.
H.R. 16030 establishes an Environ-
mental Financing Authority to assist
in the financing of waste treatment
facilities. The purpose of this bill
is to assure that the inability to
borrow necessary funds at reasonable
rates does not prevent any State or
municipality from constructing waste
treatment works authorized and
financed with the aid of grants pro-
vided by the Secretary of the Interior,
as just described. This authority will
be a federally insured agency and
occupy a statutory position parallel
to that of the well-known Federal
National Mortgage Association and
the Government National Mortgage
Association.
The impact of this Environmental
Financing Authority is hard to over-
estimate because many municipalities,
especially those with limited tax
bases, are unable to supply their share
of the money needed to construct
waste treatment facilities. Bond issues
in these days of high interest rates
have met increasingly with failure.
These forces have combined to
frustrate achievement of the national
goal of water free from pollution.
I take great pride in presenting a
discussion of these administration
bills to you. Each of them is a major
step forward in the preservation and
enhancement of our environment;
together they are a dynamic, effective
program of great value to the people
of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further
requests for time, but I reserve the
balance of my time.
I urge the adoption of the resolu-
tion and the bill.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. FARBSTEIN] ,
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. MADDEN] for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the rule on H.R. 17255, the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970. I am
opposing the rule because of the
undue haste with which this bill is
being brought to the floor of the
House. Less than 24 hours' notice has
been given and a committee hearing
record is not yet available.
I am opposing the rule because I
believe that the Members of this
House should have had more than a
few hours to consider a bill as com-
plex and as vital to the Nation's
health and welfare as this one. The
number of ineffective pieces of envi-
ronmental protection legislation at
[p. 19201]
the State, local, and Federal level,
is legion. Given the complexity of
such legislation, it is perhaps not
surprising that so many legislatures
have failed to keep their promises. I
do not want this House to fail. I
believe that a mere 24 hours' notice of
such an important measure is totally
inadequate. I urge the House to delay
-------
1396
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
consideration of this bill until the
Members have an opportunity to give
it the careful thought and scrutiny
it demands.
Hundreds of young men and women,
and also many oldeir people as well,
intended to come to Washington at
their own expense, many from great
distance, to work within the system to
let the Congress know of their concern
that the blight of the internal com-
bustion engine should be ended. The
focus of their interest was to be H.R.
17255 and four amendments to be
offered to the bill.
Unfortunately, through those
actions which sometimes happen in
the U.S. Congress, these fine people
will not have their chance to speak
their minds; nor will the Members of
the House have the benefit of their
thoughts and the opportunity to
reflect on the many complex problems
involved in this legislation.
The issues raised by these four
amendments, whether one agrees or
disagrees with them, are fundamental
and have far-reaching' implications
for the Nation's environment and its
transportation system. The amend-
ments deserve careful scrutiny and
enlightened and informed debate.
Mr. Speaker, the Nation is be-
coming accustomed to air pollution
legislation so riddled with loopholes
and delays as to be unworkable. Two
and one-half years ago the House
unanimously passed the Air Quality
Act of 1967. Since that time not one
smokestack has been cleaned up; and
up to 80 percent of auto emission
control devices fail to function
properly after 11,000 miles of per-
formance. As a result of inadequate
legislation and administration, the
pollution of our air has increased.
This bill, as reported from committee,
makes many small improvements to
the present legislation. But none of
these improvements is enough to curb
the rising levels of environmental
poison. I had hoped to strengthen at
least one part of this bill, and help
solve at least one-half the problem,
the half, or rather 60 percent con-
tributed by the automobiles. This does
not mean that I am at all satisfied
with the still too weak provisions for
stationary sources, the factories and
powerplants.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to vote
against air pollution control legisla-
tion. But we have already broken too
many promises to the American
people. 1 urge my colleagues to oppose
the rule so that after due considera-
tion, we may at least present the
American people with half a solution.
One of the amendments would
adopt as minimum national standards
for auto emissions the standards
already adopted and approved by Cali-
fornia for 1971, 1972, and 1974 model
cars.
A second would authorize voluntary
testing of devices driven over 4,000
miles, with the Federal Government
empowered to require the auto in-
dustry to correct patterns of defects
uncovered.
A third would substitute the far
superior fuel additive regulation pro-
visions recommended by the adminis-
tration for the almost totally unwork-
able provision in the committee bill.
The final amendment would estab-
lish auto emission standards beginning
in 1975, based on the cleanest feasible
propulsion system, rather than on
what the internal combustion engine
can achieve.
Should the House nevertheless vote
to consider the bill today, I hope and
trust that the Members of the House
will make the sustained effort to
consider these amendments and will
then join with me in supporting their
adoption on the floor.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1397
Mr. FAKBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I
think the gentleman overlooks the fact
that this is an open rule and the
gentleman can offer any amendment
he desires during debate in the Com-
mittee of the Whole House.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I appreciate
that and that is the reason for my
last statement. However, there was no
notice given on this legislation; it was
not programed. In addition, I am vot-
ing against the rule because I feel
this bill should be put over in order
that Members of Congress and the
people of the United States might
know what legislation is coming up.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAKBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. MADDEN. As I understand it,
it was the purpose of the leadership to
call up the postal reform bill today on
the floor. But yesterday the Committee
on Rules, of which I am a member,
was holding hearings from 10:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. and we were unable to
get the bill reported out. We are still
holding hearings upstairs on the
postal reform bill and had it not been
for the long Rules Committee hearing
on postal reform this bill would not
have been up for consideration today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York [Mr.
RYAN].
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I believe
the gentleman from New York is
exactly right on this question.
The degradation and contamination
of our environment and the conse-
quent effects upon the health of our
citizens is a paramount issue. Far-
reaching legislation is essential to
preserve the quality of our environ-
ment.
In 1967, the Clean Air Act was
passed unanimously, I believe; it has
not sufficiently reached the problems
to which it was addressed. The reason
that it has not been more effective is
probably because it was too noncon-
troversial. It satisfied too many
interests to the detriment of the
public.
Strong legislation is necessary. The
Secretary would be empowered to set
national emission standards for all
stationary sources and not just for
new sources. H.R. 17255 applies only
to new sources which endanger the
public health and welfare—a far too
restrictive test. The test should be
whether or not any source—old or
new—contributes to the deterioration
of environmental quality.
I believe the Secretary should have
the power to issue court enforceable
cease and desist orders against
polluters as my bill, H.R. 17113,
provides.
Several of us had intended to offer
strengthening amendments, which
would have been circulated in advance
to the Members of the House so that
they would have an opportunity to
consider them fully and to be pre-
pared to discuss them and to debate
them. I prefer the approach of my
bill, H.R. 17113, and might want to
offer it as a substitute.
The lateness with which this bill
was scheduled, not having been pro-
gramed until late yesterday afternoon,
makes that impossible.
I believe the procedure under
which this bill is now being brought to
the floor does a disservice to the Mem-
bers of the House. We are entitled, it
seems to me, at least to notice the
previous week when the leadership
intends to bring up a very important
piece of legislation. If, in fact, the
leadership found there were no other
bills scheduled today, so be it.
It is more important that we act
thoroughly, with careful scrutiny, than
simply programing a bill in order
-------
1398
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to have something to do. Members
should have sufficient notice for the
consideration of major legislation.
Public concern about air pollution
is so great that there is a groundswell
of support for strong legislation.
There should be enough notice for the
public to let Congress know their
feelings.
Beyond that, I am informed that
the hearings are not available.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman from Indiana yield?
Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. I have in my hand
a copy of the hearings. They have
been on the desk for the Members of
the House.
Mr. RYAN. The hearings were not
available to my office this morning.
They may be here now. I am glad
they are.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Speaker,
I can well understand the problems
that the Rules Committee and the
leadership both encountered yesterday,
and I concede it would not look well
for the House on a Wednesday, in the
month of June, to be virtually idle.
However, both as a Californian and
as a member of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I
do somewhat resent the idea that this
very important piece of legislation
should be considered as a sort of
stopgap activity, a backup piece of
business for the House of Representa-
tives—something to be considering on
such short notice.
For that reason, for the first time
in my 8 years in this body, I intend to
observe the absence of a quorum when
we come to a vote on the rule.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the
majority leader.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I
certainly want to be among the first
to recognize
[p. 19202]
the interest which the three gentlemen
who have spoken in opposition to this
rule have had over the years on this
subject. The record speaks for itself.
I am sure that no Member is more
conscientious or devoted to clean
air than they. I agree with them that
this is an important subject, one of
the most important confronting the
human race.
I also agree that in all instances as
much notice as possible should be
given to the House. I must call to the
attention of the House the fact, how-
ever, that we did take extraordinary
caution in announcing the program
last week. Not only did the whip
notice contain the usual reserva-
tion that any further program may
be announced later, but we did specifi-
cally point out that there had been
programed, and that perhaps it would
be brought up on Wednesday, the
postal reform bill, but that in case a
rule was not granted, we would an-
nounce another program for Wednes-
day. I at first considered the Emer-
gency Housing Amendments, but the
distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee was not ready to go to the
Rules Committee on that matter.
The distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. SIKES] stated that he
could be ready on the military con-
struction authorization bill for today,
but it was requested by a number of
Members—and this was specifically
brought to my attention before we
had made any arrangements to change
the program or to add to the program
—to give an extra day on this bill
because there was a highly contro-
versial item in it. In order to accom-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1399
modate Members who wanted that
extra time, I decided to heed the
petitions of the gentleman from West
Virginia and the gentleman from
Florida to program the clean air bill,
particularly in view of the fact that
they advised me that it had come out
of the committee unanimously.
That is the reason the bill was pro-
gramed. It was one bill that had
come out unanimously and the com-
mittee chairman was seeking to have
it programed. Whether I was right or
wrong, that is what happened, and
after I promised the gentleman from
West Virginia that I would program
the bill, and we did have this day
free, I did it.
I hope my colleagues, even though
they are entitled normally to more
notice than this, will realize we did
give special notice that the program
might have to be changed. We did
announce when we made the program
announcement that any bill that had
a rule would be eligible for substitu-
tion. To that extent I think I should
rise in defense of the procedure which
we have used.
*****
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr.
GRAY]. The question is on the resolu-
tion.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. 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 pro tempore. Evi-
dently 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 336, nays 40, not voting
53, * * *.
So the resolution was agreed to.
[p. 19203]
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. 17255) to
amend the Clean Air Act to provide
for a more effective program to im-
prove the quality of the Nation's air.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
queston is on the motion offered by
gentleman from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE 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 (H.R.
17255) 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 Illi-
nois [Mr. SPRINGER] will be recog-
nized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentle-
man from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself whatever time I might
require to explain the bill.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like
to say there seems to have been some
controversy over the rule. I do not
believe there is going to be this kind
of controversy over the bill, because
the bill has been well considered, and
it has been given ample hearings.
Many amendments were offered. Those
-------
1400
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
amendments were either adopted or
voted down in the committee. The
hearings started in December 1969
and proceeded through April of this
year over a period of almost 4 months.
As I said, I do not believe there is
any controversy over the bill itself. I
know some amendments will be of-
fered. We of the committee would be
very happy for them to be offered and
considered and in the proper way
either voted up or voted down.
Air pollution in the United States
is the result of pollution from
numerous highly diversified sources.
They range from millions of auto-
mobiles driven on city streets on inter-
state highways to a relatively limited
number of facilities and plants which
are large-scale polluters such as power-
plants 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.
Every Member of this House knows
we have had ample publicity not only
in the newspapers and magazines, but
also on TV and radio and through
other media showing the dangers of
the environment and to our health.
That is one of the reasons this bill
is before the House now, the fact that
recognition has been given to these
dangers.
The original act was enacted in
1955. It authorized research, and then
in 1963, some beginning was made
with regulation. Actually it was not
until 1967, however, that the first bill
of any consequence passed this
House. So this program has been in
operation for only 3 short years.
I would be the first to admit that
not enough has been done under the
present law. That is the reason why
we have come here with a new bill
changing the authority of the
agencies, changing the procedures by
which regulations will be adopted, and
certainly cutting down on the time
during which these things will be
done.
Effective technologies to reduce or
eliminate particular pollutants must
be developed. Many people think these
have already been developed and can
be put into effect, but this is not true.
That is the reason why almost half
the money in this bill is for research
and development. For instance, in
checking on automobile air pollutants,
it takes an average of about 9 to 13
hours to conduct checks to see whether
a car meets the required standards.
We are hopeful that under this bill
there will be developed effective
machinery to test cars within a very
short time on the assembly lines or at
test stations. That cannot be done
now. It requires entirely new test
methods.
As I said, really the first regulatory
legislation was enacted in 1967. We
have to develop the technology to
carry out the new legislation now
before us.
While the basic strategies in the
Nation's war against air pollution
must be developed in a unified and
consistent way by the Federal Gov-
ernment, the implementation and
enforcement of these strategies will
have to be effected in every com-
munity in the United States. There-
fore, prompt and effective regional,
State, and local efforts are needed to
win the campaign for clean air.
If we left it all to the Federal Gov-
ernment, we would have about every-
body on the payroll of the United
States. We know this is not practical.
Therefore, the Federal Government
sets the standards, we tell the States
what they must do and what stand-
ards they must meet. These standards
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1401
must be put into effect by the com-
munities and the States, and we expect
them to have the men to do the actual
enforcing.
While a start has been made in con-
trolling air pollution since the enact-
ment of the Air Quality Act of 1967,
progress has been regrettably slow.
This has been due to a number of
factors: First, cumbersome and time-
consuming procedures called for under
the 1967 act; second, inadequate fund-
ing on Federal, State, and local levels;
third, scarcity of skilled personnel to
enforce control measures; fourth, in-
adequacy of available test and control
technologies; fifth, organizational
problems on the Federal level where
air pollution control has not been
accorded a sufficiently high priority,
and sixth, last but not least, failure
on the part of the National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration to demon-
strate sufficient aggressiveness in
implementing present law.
On the other hand, the picture is
not entirely bleak. Citizens and offi-
cials 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 momen-
tum not be lost.
Therefore, it is urgent that Con-
gress adopt new clean air legislation
which will make possible the more
expedious imposition of specific emis-
sion standards both for mobile and
stationary sources and the effective
enforcement of such standards by both
State and Federal agencies.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Will the gentle-
man please tell me why it is the entire
Nation cannot have the same stand-
ards the State of California has in
connection with the reduction of pollu-
tion that comes from the internal com-
bustion engine? California had dif-
ferent standards for 1971, 1972, and
1974, yet under this bill the same
standards exist up until 1975. The
California standards are much more
stringent. I would appreciate the
gentleman telling me why the rest of
the Nation cannot have the same
standards as California.
Mr. STAGGERS. I should like to
make my statement first, because this
is a part of our presentation. I will
answer the gentleman when I get
through, if the gentleman does not
mind.
The imposition of national ambient
air quality standards and declaring
each State as an air quality control
region are steps aimed toward the
achievement of those objectives.
Effective pollution 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 extrahazard-
ous. The legislation, therefore, grants
authority to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to establish
emission standards for any such
sources which either in the
[p. 19204]
form of entire new facilities or in the
-------
1402
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
form of expanded or modified facili-
ties, or because of expanded or mod-
ified operations or capacity constitute
new sources of substantially increased
pollution.
Automotive pollution constitutes in
excess of (50 percent of our national
air pollution problem and such pol-
lution 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 ve-
hicles and fuels which would reduce
pollution to minimal levels.
The committee hopes that the auto-
mobile manufacturers will not limit
their choice of antipollution devices to
those developed by them in-house, and
that the two great industries—auto-
mobile manufacturers and automotive
fuel producers—will join hands to de-
velop the most effective technologies.
The Government is not particularly
well equipped to design cars oir to
determine the composition of fuels
appropriate toward these ends. How-
ever, Congress would be derelict if it
did not vest in the Government appro-
priate residual authority with regard
to vehicles and fuels to make the nec-
essary decisions should members of
these industries fail to do so on their
own.
The legislation, therefore, provides for more
stringent testing of automobiles. Such test-
ing is not limited, as heretofore, to the test-
ing of prototypes. Such testing will continue
but the tests should require each prototype
rather than the average of prototypes to
comply with regulations establishing emission
standards.
In addition to prototype testing, daily test-
ing either on a sampling 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 ap-
plicable emission standards, the Secretary
may suspend or revoke the certificate. He
may, however, issue certificates for those
cars which actually comply with the regula-
tions in effect at that time.
The manufacturers must warrant that the
vehicles have control systems or devices sub-
stantially of the same construction as the
systems and devices on the prototype vehi-
cles for which a certificate 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 automotive fuel ingredients,
the committee has conditioned the Secretary'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.
In addition, the legislation provides
for aircraft emission standards. The
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare is authorized and directed to
establish, after consultation regard
ing safety aspects with the Federal
Aviation Administrator, emission
standards for aircraft and aircraft
engines. Such standards would be en-
forced 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 gov-
erning the composition of any aircraft
fuel or fuel additive for the purpose
of achieving the aircraft emission
standards established by the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. 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 authority to establish
such standards although the aircraft
industry has voluntarily agreed to
abate smoke emissions.
Furthermore, the legislation con-
tains special provisions to combat pol-
lution from Federal facilities. It di-
rects Federal agencies in the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches to
comply with applicable Federal, State,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1403
interstate, and local emission stand-
ards. 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 rea-
son for granting each such exemption.
Instead of exercising leadership in
controlling or eliminating air pollu-
tion the Federal Government has
tended to be slow in this respect. The
foregoing provisions are designed to
reverse this tendency. The level of
appropriations available for the modi-
fication of Federal facilities to elimi-
nate or reduce air pollution has been
inadequate.
The committee hopes that the Ad-
ministration will seek and the Con-
gress will provide adequate appro-
priations to remedy this unfortunate
situation.
The legislation would extend author-
izations for appropriations through
fiscal year 1973. The bill authorizes
appropriations for the fiscal year
1971, totaling $200 million, for the
fiscal year 1972, $250 million, and 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 re-
sulting from the combustion of fuels.
These authorizations constitute a sub-
stantial increase over and above the
level of appropriations authorized
during the preceding years. The high-
est amount authorized for any one
fiscal year—fiscal year 1969—was
$185 million.
The Subcommittee on Public Health
and Welfare held extensive hearings
on the problems dealt with in this
legislation. The provisions of the bill
were fashioned on the basis of the
testimony received in these hearings.
I am proud to say that the subcommit-
tee has done an outstanding job and
our full committee found it necessary
to make relatively few changes in the
bill reported unanimously by the sub-
committee. Our full committee like-
wise voted unanimously to report the
bill, although three members of our
committee, as will be seen from their
additional views appended to the com-
mittee report, would have liked to
have gone still further than the full
committee felt was warranted at this
time.
I hope the House will give its sup-
port to this legislation so that the war
against air pollution in the United
States may be speeded up, expanded
and intensified, and that the air we
breathe throughout the Nation will
be wholesome once again.
Mr. Chairman, I will say to the
Members of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the
Union that this is a very strong bill,
as strong as it could be made at the
present time. Undoubtedly, as time
goes by there will be more stringent
laws and standards and requirements.
I think it is a good bill. I think it has
been well considered by the subcom-
mittee and, as I said, the hearing
started back in December and ended
in April. I think they did a good job
and I recommend the passage of the
bill to the House.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will
the chairman yield?
Mo-. STAGGERS. Yes, I yield to
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. M A.HON. I represent an area
which has a number of cotton gins.
There are also carbon black plants
in the area. The operators of these
industrial establishments have some
concern about legislation relating to
clean air. Of course, I think we all
are very much interested in doing
whatever is reasonably possible to
improve the quality of the air in the
United States.
In the opinion of the chairman of
-------
1404
LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
the committee, is there anything in
this bill that would tend to be con-
fiscatory at all with respect to an in-
dustry such as the ones to which I
have made reference?
Mr. STAGGERS. In response to
the gentleman from Texas I would
say this, that the States must set up
a plan which must meet the Federal
standards established by the Secre-
tary. In establishing the emission
standards I am sure the States will
take into consideration the particular
problems of air quality control which
exist in particular areas. This ques-
tion will be left up primarily to the
States.
Mr. MAHON. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. STAGGERS. There will have
to be ambient air quality standards
for all of America and these standards
which the States will have to meet
will be set up by the Secretary.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in response to
the statement of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. FARBSTEIN], I might
say any State can have more string-
ent ambient air quality standards if
they want to. If a State plan is pre-
sented to the Secretary, to carry out
such stricter standard, I am sure it
will be approved. I hope the gentle-
man is listening because no one is
preventing any State from having
stronger standards and a State plan
designed to carry out such standards.
We would hope that this will take
care of any State that says they have
peculiar problems. We are not hold-
ing them back, but we say that all of
the States must comply with the na-
tionwide standards. We think that at
the present time this is the best we
can do. If any State wants stronger
standards, we think it will know best
what it should do and how far it
should go. But if any State does not
come up with a State plan to the
satisfaction of the Federal Govern-
ment then the Federal Government
will step in and establish a plan for
such State.
[p. 19205]
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
can the gentleman from West Virginia
envision the city of Detroit restrict-
ing the numbers of internal combus-
tion engines? Does not the gentleman
realize
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would interrupt the gentleman from
New York for just one moment be-
cause I want to answer that question,
which is a question I know he wants
to make a speech about, and that is
automobiles.
But I would say to the gentleman
that we do have standards here, and
we will inspect, if necessary, each
and every motor vehicle engine that
comes off the assembly line to see that
the engines that come off the assem-
bly line meet the qualifications so as
to be assured they will meet the emis-
sion standards. We will not just have
the prototypes tested but the cars as
they come off the assembly lines.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, in 1967 Congress
passed a comprehensive air quality
act which imposed duties upon the
Federal Government and the States
in regard to improving the air which
surrounds us. It was a good law and
it probably would work out if left
alone. Since that time we have be-
come increasingly impatient with de-
lay in this vital area and so we are
here today to reshuffle the cards and
deal out new responsibilities. In do-
ing so we must recognize that no law
can create clean air. No governmental
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1405
organization, no bureau, no adminis-
trator can order clean air into being.
It is a long process which is neces-
sarily limited by what we know and
the technology for attacking the
problem.
Because we are impatient there has
been a tendency to look for scapegoats.
It is easy to point fingers at elements
in our society and decry their activi-
ties as shortsighted and dangerous.
It is more difficult to acknowledge
that our environment is basically the
result of all of us enjoying the way
of life we have collectively developed.
If we allow ourselves the luxury of
electing victims of our ardor for
changes and demanding results which
cannot be achieved we will be undoing
the cause of clean air rather than
advancing it. As legislators we have
a duty to look at the problem in the
broadest way and choose solutions
that will make ultimate sense. Prob-
ably no piece of legislation is perfect
and Members of this House as well
as individual citizens may honestly
differ as to what can reasonably be
accomplished at this time. We Want
to act boldly but we must not act
rashly.
The bill which is brought to the
floor today by the Commerce Commit-
tee is the best thinking of a group of
your colleagues who have been wrest-
ling with this problem in Congress for
many years now. Legislation con-
cerning clean air did not suddenly
erupt a year or two ago. On the
contrary, this House has passed pro-
gressively ambitious legislation in the
field since 1955. In that year Presi-
dent Eisenhower suggested, and Con-
gress passed, Public Law 84-159 which
provided for research and technical
assistance to States and communities
in identifying and attacking air pol-
lution problems. Research studies and
congressional hearings went on over
the next few years and the program
was extended in 1959. A year latea- an
addition to the legislation was made to
recognize the emerging realization
that automobile exhaust had become
one of the major contributing causes
of air pollution. During the next ad-
ministration these auto exhaust
studies were extended.
In 1963 the first general provisions
for abatement and control were writ-
ten into law. They were in the form
of grants to encourage and assist local
governments in attacking the problem
and at the same time urging Federal
installations to lead the way.
In 1965 Public Law 89-272 autho-
rized the Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare to prescribe na-
tional standards for motor vehicle
emissions. In addition, research into
control methods for sulfur oxides was
launched. A year later we added as-
sistance by way of grants to help run
local control agencies as well as es-
tablish them.
Now we come to the Air Quality
Act of 1967 which was the first at-
tempt at a comprehensive control and
abatement system. As I have already
said it was a good law but we are
determined today to move to act as
rapidly as possible. The differences
between present law and that pro-
posed by the bill before us today I
will point out as I go along.
At the present time HEW has the
responsibility for solving the scien-
tific problems. There is much that we
must know about the very nature of
pollutants and how they affect us and
our environment. Out of about ten
major pollutants HEW has now been
able to pin down half and tell us just
what they do that is hurting us. The
next responsibility of the Federal Gov-
ernment is to look for ways to cut
down or eliminate these pollutants
without closing down the entire store.
Armed with this information, regional
commissions decide what overall
526-703 O - 73 - 16
-------
1406
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
standard of air quality is desirable
for their regions. H.R. 17255 will
change that by having HEW set up
national air quality standards. As the
scientific details emerge and the con-
trol methods are developed, the air
Duality standards for the entire na-
tion will be adjusted accordingly. This
change is desirable because it is a
natural and logical one. The basic
quality of the air for which we strive
should be uniform. Let it be under-
stood that the air quality standards
is the target at which we shoot with
all of the control machinery eventual-
ly devised.
It was recognized in the present
law that air quality and even control
efforts do not break down neatly into
political boundaries. For that reason
interstate regions were comtemplated
as the norm. The only trouble with
such efforts is that they are by nature
cumbersome and slow to develop. This
bill would make each State a region.
In that way there are immediate lines
of communication and authority to
translate information into action. This
does not mean that interstate ar-
rangements cannot be made. They
can. Furthermore, existing regional
machinery may be retained where
States have gone ahead and tackled
the problem on a cooperative basis.
The success of the entire effort de-
pends upon what is done to meet the
national air quality standard at the
local level where the pollution is ac-
tually created, emitted and breathed
by our citizens. The bill therefore
provides that State governments will
create plans for the implementation
and enforcement of the air standards.
In fact a State may declare more
stringent standards if it feels it nec-
essary. Such plans for cracking down
on the sources of pollution must be
forthcoming within 180 days. If a
State hangs back and fails to move
out, the Federal Government will take
over and make rules and regulations
amounting to a State plan. Machinery
for forcing a plan upon a State is
spelled out including penalties of
$10,000 a day for failing to act. In
addition, authority is granted to in-
spect establishments to check up on
the plan. This latter authority is new
in the bill now before us and should
expedite performance or enforcement.
It has been the philosophy of the
law up to this point that State and lo-
cal agencies should determine the
exact methods and procedures far
controlling emissions by installations.
This is not basically changed by this
bill. It does, however, contemplate
that new stationary sources which
are especially hazardous to health will
have Federal standards. Although it
is a departure, it is sensible. Since
the Federal Government is determin-
ing the air quality target and work-
ing constantly on control techniques
it is the best position to have them
make a decision about new sources.
Stopping these extraordinary prob-
lems before they develop is best for
the antipollution effort and it is also
best for those who would build such
installations and then find they could
not operate.
Motor vehicles are a popular villain
in the piece, and rightly so. Control
devices have come a long way in the
last few years. Better control must
be achieved. But it is also imperative
that we get the most out of the stand-
ards already in effect. Testing a few
until they seem allright and then cer-
tifying an entire run of the auto-
mobile models so equipped is not very
smart. The real test for progress in
this field is the quality of control on
the cars which roll off the asembly
line and end up on our main streets
and in our driveways. .Recognizing
this, perhaps belatedly, this bill will
provide for production line testing.
As a followup, States will be required
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1407
to inspect cars after they are on the
road as soon as practical means for
such inspections are available.
Much has been said about getting
the lead out. Perhaps a crash require-
ment to delead gasoline would result
in dramatic improvement in air qual-
ity. I seriously doubt that it would
be all that great. There may be other
ingredients or additives in gasoline
which are equally harmful. Legislating
lead out of gas might get rounds of
applause in some
[p. 19206]
quarters but is hardly the way to go
about it. The bill gives authority to
HEW to limit the ingredients in fuels
if such ingredients can be identified
as the culprits which impair health or
make automobile control devices roll
over and die. This authority coupled
with the intensive efforts in fuels re-
search should help eliminate the more
dangerous ingredients and at the same
time perfect better and safer fuels
for automotive purposes.
Aircraft are being watched closely
of late. Some models spew out a pro-
digious stream of smoke. It should be
eliminated as rapidly as possible. This
bill allows for emission standards to
be set for aircraft engines. Airlines
have already recognized that their
particular kind of pollution, whether
a major contributor or not, is highly
visible and not the best advertising.
Already most airlines have agreed to
replace or refit their engines with
devices which have been developed in
the last year to render them relatively
smokeless.
One of the frustrating aspects of
air pollution legislation is the pres-
ence of large Federal installations
either operated directly by the Gov-
ernment or under its direction which
contaminate the atmosphere on a large
scale. How can we expect cooperation
or credibility for the governmental
effort when the installations con-
trolled by Uncle Sam are some of
the worst polluters? The Federal Gov-
ernment as much as some private
businesses has dragged its feet for
purely economic reasons. Allowing the
Government to remain immune from
the rules which we wish to impose on
others is wrong. Actually it should
lead the way. Recognizing the real
considerations of national security
might intervene in certain cases this
bill requires Federal installations to
meet whatever standards those around
them must meet and allows for exemp-
tions on the very limited basis of a
year at a time. I know that our col-
leagues on the committee will be
watching closely the use of this
exemptive authority. We expect that
localities which harbor Federal in-
stallations will also be watching and
reporting to use their compliance or
lack of it.
To carry out the ambitious pro-
grams outlined here will cost money.
It is a lot of money and yet there will
be some who will feel it is far too
little. This is not an effort on which
you can pour a bucket of money and
thereby have instant clean air. It
must be done in some kind of logical
order and only so much can be done
in a year no matter how much is
spent. The committee feels that the
authorizations contained in this bill
- represent sensible but still generous
goals for spending and accomplishing
in this field. For the vital fuels re-
search to which I referred earlier it
provides $75 million for fiscal year
1971, $100 million for fiscal year 1972,
and $125 million for fiscal year 1973.
All other activities described will take
$125 million in fiscal year 1971, $150
million in fiscal year 1972, and $200
million in fiscal year 1973. At that
time we will again analyze our prog-
ress in all respects. If we have de-
vised a workable system here—and I
-------
1408
LEGAL COMPILATION—AEB
think we have—the progress in these
next 3 years should be dramatic.
The committee worked very hard to
come here with a bill you can accept
and be proud of. In my opinion it is
the best and most balanced approach
which could be devised. Its pieces fit
together and should be taken as a
whole. I know that many people have
great feeling about certain parts of
this effort and this problem to the
exclusion of other parts. As a commit-
tee and as a Congress we cannot be
thus diverted. We must attack the
problem across the entire front and
this bill does so, giving due emphasis
to all elements. I recommend H.R.
17255 to the House.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, our
health is dependent on the cleanliness
of the air. But our air, especially in
heavily populated areas, is becoming
increasingly polluted. And we have
only to read the forecasts of population
experts to realize that—in the near
future—virtually every area of the
United States will be heavily popu-
lated. Therefore, unless we change
things, the country will soon have
heavily polluted air.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen action
before here in Congress to clean up
our air. In 1967 we passed the Clean
Air Act, but it just has not done
what we had hoped it would.
Let us hope that H.R. 17255, as re-
ported out by the Committtee on In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce, will
do the job.
Over the next 3 years, it would
provide more than three-quarters of a
billion dollars in additional Federal
funds—and nearly half of that, Mr.
Chairman, would go for research into
better ways to clean up automobile
fuels and engines which, in combina-
tion, cause 60 percent of our air pollu-
tion.
The bill provides stringent penal-
ties for those found guilty of air pol-
lution and, perhaps even more impor-
tant, streamlines the process by which
such persons can be moved into our
courts.
The bill centers responsibility for
setting clean air standards—and en-
forcing them—with the State Gov-
ernors and with the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare. It
designates the States and allied geo-
graphic areas as air quality control
regions and requires them to adhere
to at least minimum standards of air
quality. It requires extensive testing
of new auto engines—not only in pro-
totype but in production, too. It for-
bids the creation of new stationary
sources of air pollution unless they
adhere to strict standards. And it
provides—for the first time—for the
creation of emission standards for air-
craft engines.
Mr. Chairman, I support this legis-
lation. I hope it will succeed where
previous legislation has failed.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. THOMPSON].
Mr. THOMPSON of Georgia. Mr.
Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I will not take the 5 min-
utes, but I do rise in support of this
legislation.
We are all very much aware of
the problems of some of the major
cities so far as air quality is con-
cerned. The gentleman from Illinois
has very adequately and in detail ex-
plained the provisions of this particu-
lar act.
What we are doing today is in ef-
fect answering the needs of the pub-
lic, answering the cries of the public
that legislation be enacted which
would guarantee not merely the pres-
ent generation but future generations
that we will have a clean environment,
that the air they breathe will be free
of noxious gases, and that there will
be no people in any city, in effect suf-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1409
focating and contracting respiratory
diseases because of dirty air that ex-
ists through failure of Government to
operate.
So the standards that are being
established by this act are not only
reasonable standards, but they are
necessary. They are necessary to give
us the protection for our future. They
operate in conjunction with our local
governments. They provide that
where there is an area of the country
in which several States may be in-
volved, we can have a regional clean
air area and thus more efficiently
and effectively provide for clean air
standards throughout the United
States.
This is needed legislation. It is good
legislation, and I think it will re-
ceive the overwhelming support of the
Congressmen not only in the House
but the other body as well and also
the American public.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. REID].
Mr. REID of New York. I thank
the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of H.R. 17255, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970, and H.R. 11833,
the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
The authority given to the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare under the clean air amendments
to establish nationwide ambient air
quality standards is essential if we
are to restore clean air to this coun-
try in the foreseeable future. In the
past, States have played leading roles
in the attack on air pollution, but it
appears that some States are now
falling behind. Beyond that, air—
clean or dirty—does not respect po-
litical boundaries and a unified na-
tionwide attack is necesary if progress
is to be made.
Stricter enforcement procedures,
new Federal emission standards for
new stationary pollution sources, and
controls on pollution from Federal
facilities are all necessary steps and
I am pleased to see them included in
this bill. Many of these provisions
were included in H.R. 17090, Clean
Air Act amendments which I intro-
duced on April 16, 1970.
However, there is a major omission
in the committee bill and I strongly
support the amendment to be offered
to close this loophole. In its provisions
on fuel composition, the committee
bill fails to include the ban on lead
in gasoline which I feel is essential
to cleaner air. While it does riot in-
clude an outright ban, the bill pro-
posed by the administration would
give the National Air Pollution Con-
trol Administration the authority to
ban lead as well as other additives in
gasoline.
The administration bill is superior
to the committee bill with regard to
fuel composition in four other re-
spects as well: First, the administra-
tion bill covers all fuels, not just auto
fuels as the com-
[p. 19207]
mittee bill does; second, while both
bills provide for regulation of fuel
composition to eliminate adverse
effects on public health and welfare,
the committee bill requires that no
fuel composition regulations may be
established if the health danger can
be remedied through increased auto
emission standards. This is a serious
failure to make the oil industry take
action in the public interest; third, the
administration bill does not require
the rigorous medical and scientific evi-
dence stipulated in the committee bill
before action may be taken; and
fourth, the administration bill gives
NAPCA necessary authority to pro-
cure the fuel additive pollution re-
search it needs from the industry.
-------
1410
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
I am pleased that the administra-
tion has taken such a strong and vig-
orous stand on the critical matter of
fuel composition, and heartily support
the amendment to be offered to sub-
stitute the administration provisions
on fuel composition for the weaker
committee version.
The three other amendments to be
offered—adopting California's auto
emission standards as the nationwide
minimum, authorizing1 NAPCA to
conduct voluntary testing on autos
that have been driven 4,000 miles, and
providing for the gradual adoption
of standards based on the most pollu-
tion free propulsion system available
•—are also necessary to a meaningful
fight on air pollution.
I am hopeful that the Congress will
adopt these rigorous standards and
thereby serve notice on the fuel and
automobile industries that this Na-
tion intends to do more than talk
about cleaning the air. Restoring the
clarity of our skies is more than an
esthetic goal—it is essential if we
are not to modify our weather in-
advertently and if we are not to
exacerbate ths lung and breathing
illnesses from which too many Ameri-
cans already suffer. Indeed, New York
City today announced that it was in
a "high pollution forecast stage" be-
cause of stagnant weather conditions.
Surely we cannot wait any longer to
take steps to prevent this situation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would
just say that there has been some re-
search in the State of New York with
regard to lead emissions, particularly
on submicroscopic particles. Dr. Vin-
cent Schaefer of the State University
in Albany estimates that each auto
at normal idling speed turns out about
100 billion particles per second. I am
told further that some of these parti-
cles find their way into the lungs of
human beings, and, indeed, when in-
dividuals smoke, it is possible that
this lead may, in fact, be vaporized
in the lungs. I know not the ramifica-
tions of this, but it does seem clear
to me that it is important to study
very carefully the need for very
stringent standards in terms of lead.
Yet, in just breaking up the larger
particles but not necessarily seeing
that there is combustion of the small
particles, we may be creating a prob-
lem for which we have no real con-
ception as to its implications.
Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is
a very distinct step forward. Its pas-
sage is essential to heeding President
Nixon's call to restore our environ-
ment.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. SKUBITZ] such time as he may
consume.
Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman,
achieving the objective of clean air
for our entire country is an expensive
and a slow process. We would like to
have it done tomorrow but the reali-
ties of life do not allow for that. We
do want to be sure that it will come
about. The Air Quality Act of 1967
was a comprehensive bill which was
designed to bring it about in due
course. Today we feel that certain
revisions of the scheme set forth in
the present law are necessary to speed
up the process somewhat further.
The bill before us today should do
that. In the process it will spend as
much as $775 million over the next
3 years but many of the changes that
are being made will expedite the proc-
ess we believe in other ways than the
expenditure of funds.
This bill provides for the creation
of national air quality standards as
opposed to regional standards in the
present law. As new scientific data
is produced the standards can be re-
vised with a minimum of administra-
tive holdup by having national stand-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1411
ards. Hereafter each State will be
designated as an air quality region.
Although States may cooperate and
interstate regions already in existence
may remain, this new arrangement
simplifies the chain of command and
puts State governments directly in
the line from information to ultimate
action.
The Federal Government will now
set specific emission standards for
new stationary sources of pollution
which present unusual and special
health hazards. Motor vehicle emis-
sions will be tested on a spot basis
at the assembly line rather than de-
pending upon the test results from
a few prototype engines. This should
insure that the vehicles on the road
are as efficient as those initially test-
ed.
Automotive fuel can be regulated
as to its ingredients. This is another
way of saying that if it actually is
a practical thing, the Government can
require that the oil companies get
the lead out.
Standards for aircraft engines will
be set and the airlines, recognizing
the handwriting on the wall, have al-
ready agreed to use cleaner engines
in their new planes and to eventually
retrofit the planes on the line.
In addition to all the things that
are going to be required from private
business, for the first time we are
saying without equivocation that Fed-
eral installations are going to have
to live up to the rules that the Fed-
eral Government makes for others.
As in everything else the Federal
Government must have an out for
exceptional circumstances, and the
Secretary can exempt installations for
good cause shown but only for a year
at a time. I certainly hope that the
executive branch will turn the screws
down on its own operations and that
the Congress and specifically our com-
mittee will watch carefully that the
Government is not fudging on its own
rules. I for one promise to keep an
eye on it.
In my opinion the bill before us to-
day is a great improvement over the
present law and I recommend its pas^-
sage.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud
that the Subcommittee on Public
Health and Welfare has been respon-
sible for producing- this important
piece of legislation which will be of
tremendous benefit to the American
people. Our subcommittee began hear-
ings as early as December of last
year in order to determine why prog-
ress in the war against air pollution
under the Air Quality Act of 1967 has
been so slow.
In our early hearings, we concen-
trated on automotive air pollution which
constitutes 60 percent of the air pollu-
tion problem in the United State?. We
heard departmental witnesses and wit-
nesses from the automobile industry.
It became apparent from their testi-
mony, that important changes would
have to be made in automotive emis-
sion standards in order to reduce
pollution from motor vehicles. It also
became apparent that more stringent
testing would have to be done of new
automobiles in order to assure that
they will achieve the stricter emission
standards. Furthermore, new tech-
nologies would have to be developed
in order to achieve these standards
and the composition of motor vehicle
fuels might have to be modified in
order to make the operation of the
new antipollution equipment possible.
Our subcommittee during its subse-
quent hearings in March and April
heard numerous witnesses from the
-------
1412
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
automobile, as well as the petroleum,
industries who gave us their consid-
ered judgments as to what would have
to be done in order to reduce auto-
motive pollution.
The bill which we have brought to
the House today represents our best
judgment as to what is necessary to
come closer to the goal of assuring
the American people of clean air once
again.
The able chairman of our full com-
mittee, Mr. STAGGERS, has already
given you the broad picture. Let me,
therefore, concentrate on giving you
some additional details with regard to
the provisions of the bill. Under the
bill, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare 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 standards
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 Nation rather than
only in particular geographical areas.
Furthermore, 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.
The bill provides for the establish-
ment of air quality control regions by
declaring each State as an air quality
control region. However, the Secre-
tary is authorized to establish inter-
state air quality regions for the pur-
pose of dealing with air pollution
problems of an interstate nature.
Existing interstate regions remain in
effect.
Under present law, the Secretary is
[p. 19208]
directed to establish air quality
control regions but only a few such
regions have been established thus
far. Consequently, actual air pollution
enforcement activities have been
delayed excessively. Additionally, the
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 selec-
tive basis will be saved. By dividing
the entire United States into contigu-
ous 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: Sulfur oxides, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and photochemical oxidants,
proposed national standards would be
issued within 30 days after the date
of enactment of this legislation. With
regard to other pollutants such stand-
ards would be proposed within 30 days
after the criteria have been issued.
The legislation would revise the en-
forcement provision contained in pres-
ent law. Within 60 days after promul-
gation of national ambient air quality
standards, the Governor of a State
may file a letter of intent that such
State will, within 180 days and after
public hearings, adopt a plan for the
implementation—principally by pre-
scribing appropriate emission stand-
ards—and enforcement of such stand-
ards. A State may adopt more
stringent ambient air quality stand-
ards, 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1413
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 Secre-
tary 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 pollu-
tion. The court may assess a penalty
of up to $10,000 for each day during
which any person fails to take action
ordered by the Secretary to abate
pollution.
The Secretary may inspect any
establishment for the purpose of deter-
mining 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 con-
suming, and no authority is provided
for the Secretary to inspect estab-
lishments.
Perhaps one of the most significant
provisions in the bill deals with the
establishment of 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
emissions 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 be-
cause they generate extrahazardous
pollutants or because they are large-
scale polluters.
At present emission standards for
stationary sources are established
exclusively by the States.
The promulgation of Federal emis-
sion standards for new sources in the
aforementioned categories will pre-
clude efforts on the part of States to
compete with each other in trying to
attract new plants and facilities with-
out assuring adequate control of ex-
tra-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 stand-
ards within its plan. The provisions
for court actions to secure abatement
and the imposition of penalties are
comparable to the provisions described
in section 4 of this legislation.
I have already mentioned the
importance of automotive air pollu-
tion in the United States. Under the
provisions contained in the bill, 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 addition to testing
the prototypes furnished by the auto-
mobile manufacturers for purposes
of securing certificates of conformity.
On the basis of the assembly line test-
ing, the Secretary may suspend or re-
voke any such certificate in whole or in
part. Hearings on the record are to
be conducted by the Secretary at the
request of any manufacturer who
desires to challenge the Secretary's
-------
1414
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
decision to suspend or revoke a certifi-
cate, but such hearings shall not stay
the suspension or revocation. Determi-
nations made by the Secretary on the
basis of such hearings are subject to
judicial review.
Experience has shown that the test-
ing and certification of prototypes
does not of itself assure that auto-
mobiles coming off the assembly line
which are sold to the public comply
with the Federal emission standards.
Therefore, the legislation authorized
inspection of assembly plants and the
testing of automobiles and engines
coming off the assembly lines.
Additionally, the legislation pro-
vides that States must require inspec-
tion of motor vehicles in actual use
if the Secretary, after consultation
with the State, determines that the
achievement of ambient air quality
standards requires such inspection
and that such inspection is techno-
logically and economically feasible.
Your committee is aware that low-
cost, easily operated instrumentation
techniques for such inspections are
not available at present. Since auto-
mobiles account for 60 percent of the
air pollution problem in the United
States and since new antipollution
devices must be developed and in-
stalled on automobiles to meet more
stringent emission standards, it will
be necessary also to develop more
effective measuring devices to make
possible inexpensive and efficient tests.
The Secretary, therefore, is directed
to conduct research and development
activities with respect to low-cost
instrumentation techniques to facili-
tate the measuring of automotive
emissions. The Secretary is directed to
report to the Congress his recommen-
dations for testing programs to assure
that emission standards are met
during the life of vehicles and engines.
The provisions which authorize the
Secretary to establish standards for
automotive and other fuels are like-
wise of great importance. The Secre-
tary is authorized to establish limita-
tions on—or providing for elimination
of—ingredients of fuels—including
additives—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.
Present law does not authorize the
imposition of such limitations on auto-
motive or other fuels.
I need not go into further detail on
the provisions dealing with aircraft
emission standards and pollution from
Federal facilities because Chairman
STAGGERS has already dealt with these
provisions and, therefore, I can con-
clude at this point by asking the
House to support this very worth-
while legislation. Our subcommittee
has worked very hard on this legis-
lation. All of the members of the
subcommittee, including myself, are
listed as sponsors of the bill (H.R.
17255) and it is my hope that this
legislation will make possible sub-
stantial improvements in the quality
of the air which we will breathe as
the provisions of this legislation will
be implemented and enforced.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
ROGERS! .
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman from Florida yield
in order that I may clarify something
before he starts, so I will not interfere
with his statement, or would the
gentleman rather complete his state-
ment and then have me ask the
question?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, I will ask the gentleman to
allow me to complete my statement. If
we do not get into his question then,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1415
we will get into it on the 5-minute
rule.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support
this legislation. The committee has
done an excellent job on the bill and
is bringing to the Congress the most
effective bill that I think could be
proposed to clean up the air in
America.
There has been much attention
given
[p. 19209]
law. The law has not been effectively
in our Nation today. Unfortunately,
this attention which has gained the
general support of the entire popula-
tion, has come at a very late date. We
find ourselves in a position now of
acting quickly to remedy our excesses
or we will be forced to change our
entire life-style.
For scientists of almost every disci-
pline have told us that we cannot go
on polluting our environment and
expect to continue living as we are
today. Even today we are forced to
do things differently than our ances-
tors because we have fouled our
environment.
Air pollution is one of the most
pressing forms of pollution because
unlike others, the air around us is
unavoidable. We do not have to swim
or look at dying lakes. But everyone
must breathe.
It is one thing to think of clean
air for the beauty of it. After all, the
pictures of smog over our major
cities is a national disgrace.
But it is much more serious than
that. Clean air in some parts of our
Nation is in such short supply that, if
we continue along the same lines
which we have for the past decade,
we have been warned that mass
deaths may result in this decade.
Other experts forecast that residents
of our major cities may have to wear
gasmasks, while others tell us that
the layers of smog are creating a wall
between the Sun and the Earth so
that sunlight may be blocked, in whole
or in part, thus affecting the tempera-
ture of the earth and the growth
patterns of our vegetation.
Indeed, these forecasts are already
ringing true. Doctors in California
blame pollution for the rising number
of deaths from emphysema. And in
Los Angeles, 10,000 people have been
advised to move elsewhere because
of the adverse effects of smog on their
respiratory systems.
The chief culprit in the air pollu-
tion story is the automobile. Between
55 and 60 percent of the problem is
traced to the auto and in heavily
populated areas this figure is much
higher.
It is estimated that the automo-
bile annually dumps about 90 million
tons of pollutants into the air. In 1967
we thought we had started an effective
program which would reduce auto
pollution, but found differently during
hearings.
Dr. John Middleton, the Director of
the National Air Pollution Control
Administration, testified that between
70 and 80 percent of the automobiles
tested during one study failed at least
some portion of the standards. This,
in effect, means that we, the public,
are paying for antipollution devices
which are not working to the stand-
ards set out by the Secretary.
If Members want to clean up the
air in America, they will vote affirma-
tively for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we have changed
the concept from the 1967 law, which
all of us were not pleased with, par-
ticularly the administration of the
to the many forms of pollution
administered. The provisions of the
law were not even enforced. For in-
stance, under the law, fuel was sup-
posed to be registered. But this was
-------
1416
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
never done and I do not know why.
We did not have an adequate testing
program for automobiles, and used
only four prototypes to determine if
the standards were being met by a
particular manufacturer. And, instead
of taking each result on a separate
basis, they were using an average on
the four prototype automobiles. We
are changing this and saying that
each prototype automobile must meet
the standard itself—not be averaged.
We are also going to have the daily
inspection of the assembly-line pro-
duction so that we will get to this
problem of cleaning up the auto
emissions.
In changing the theory of the legis-
lation, we go from setting up little air
regions to national air standards. To
show how effective the law has been
since 1967, I would note that there
has been only one interstate region
approved. When the law was passed,
we envisioned more than 75.
I believe they now say there are 17
regions approved by HEW. That does
not mean 17 states; it means 17 parts
of States in most instances. That is
about what has been accomplished.
HEW says they may get up to 70 by
the end of the summer. This entire
procedure is too ponderous and needed
to be changed, so the committee in this
bill has changed it.
The Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare under this legisla-
tion will set a national air quality
standard for ambient air quality. This
is a standard that will be for the
whole Nation, to assure clean air to
the American people based on criteria,
scientific information as to how many
parts per million are permissible for
particular pollutants. Five of those
criteria have already been determined
by scientific and medical evidence,
and they have been published.
From that, then, the national stand-
ard will be established. And these will
be published 30 days after the passage
of this law. Under the present law
the approach has been by regions pro-
ceeding with hearings to determine
whether there should be a region here
or there. The committee has cut
across that time-consuming process.
We say now that every State is a
region, right off, so that we can begin
to effectively administer the law.
The air quality standard estab-
lished by the Secretary must be
carried out by the States, according
to a State plan. This State plan will
implement the air quality standard
by setting emission standards and
controls within the State to control
those pollutants, in order to meet the
overall quality air standard. This will
be true in every part of the Nation.
Each State plan will be submitted
to the Secretary. If the Secretary does
not think the plan meets the need,
it will go back. If it is not then cor-
rected, the Secretary himself will
have the authority to go in and set
the plan. Further, if the law is not
enforced by the State, the Secretary
may go in and enforce it, or go
through the courts for injunctive
relief or whatever the equities of the
case may allow.
Now, as to stationary sources,
those in existence will be met that
way, through the State plan by its
emission controls to meet the air qual-
ity standard. As new factories are
built, the Secretary will be permitted
the right to set emission standards;
not just a quality of air standard but
emission standards, so that we know
that new sources of pollution will not
develop.
Where there is a particular hazard-
ous substance, the Secretary can also
go in.
This takes care, basically, of sta-
tionary sources.
On the automobile, the Secretary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1417
will be given the right, of course,
to continue emission standards.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida has expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman an additional 5
minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, some say we ought to do just
like California. The gentleman from
New York is concerned.
The Secretary now has the autho-
rity to put whatever standards he
believes are necessary for the safety
of the American people into effect,
and the 1975 standards are the same,
as I understand it, as those of Cali-
fornia. It has been true that Cali-
fornia has advanced its standards
some over what the Federal Govern-
ment has, but this does not mean that
the Federal Government right now
cannot change its standards immedi-
ately.
I presume, after the passage of
this bill, and the interest indicated
by the Congress, the Secretary prob-
ably will even increase those stand-
ards where he feels it is feasible.
I think all of the authority that
the Secretary needs is already on the
books. We are now giving him more
authority to correct the emission
standards in the factory, by daily in-
spection on the assembly line.
Furthermore, we allow him the
right to go in and say that this is not
just a device problem but it may also
be a gasoline problem. We then give
the Secretary the right to go in and
say, "You cannot put this additive in
the gasoline if it affects the public
health" or—because it is not just pub-
lic health that is involved—"or on the
further ground if it will prevent emis-
sion standards from being met."
Wihat many people are forgetting
is that this is really a problem of
two industries. It is the combination
when they come together that pro-
duces the problem. The Secretary now
can set any emission standards he
wants coming out of that automobile.
And nothing comes out of the tailpipe
until the fuel goes in. So he can con-
trol anything he wants right now,
basically, through emission standards
on what is coming out of the tailpipe
of that automobile.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes; I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. The fist ques-
tion I would like to ask is with rela-
tion to your statement that there is
inspection at the time that the auto-
mobile is produced on the assembly
line. According to information I have
received, auto engineers say it is al-
most impossible to judge if a device
works until after the vehicle is broken
in after approximately 4,000 miles,
and while assembly line inspec-
[p. 19210]
tion can test individual devices for
quality control, no opportunities exist
to see if the device actually works in
operation. It has been held that over
53 percent of the devices have been
found to have broken down and been
of no use after 11,000 miles. What
good is there to an inspection at the
assembly line, then?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Evidently
the gentleman does not understand
the inspection process. What I would
say to him is, first of all, your proto-
types are those that have been run
50,000 miles, so the devices, first of
all, are proved prototypes. This is
50,000 miles and not 4,000 miles. We
are requiring all of the prototypes
meet all of the standards.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. But how about
an automobile that has never had a
prototype?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Let me
finish.
-------
1418
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
We are also incorporating the fur-
ther testing and the further assurance
to the public by requiring that the test-
ing is done from the assembly line
every day. As soon as something
shows up the Secretary can go in
there and lift a certificate and those
cars cannot be sold in interstate
commerce until the matter is cor-
rected. They can then be tested and,
when the Secretary determines that
the car or cars meet the standard, he
will immediately certify that tested
car. So the gentleman can be assured
that this legislation will be carried
out.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 3 additional min-
utes.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think,
if people will study this bill, they will
see that we have incorporated effect-
ive provisions to reach the automo-
bile. I also feel the Secretary should
use the Government automobiles for
testing. And if a pattern of failure
develops, then I think the Secretary
should make a public announcement of
this. This will put public attention
on any failure and bring appropriate
action.
Also, we go into the airplane prob-
lem. We allow the Secretary to set
emission standards for airplanes
which are to be administered by the
Federal Aviation Administration,
keeping in mind safety features.
Furthermore, we have a provision
about Federal-installation polluting.
We direct that all Federal installa-
tions, who, incidentally, are some of
the biggest polluters in this Nation,
shall abide by the pollution laws, and
the only way they can get an excep-
tion is to go to the Secretary. That
exception cannot be granted for more
than 1 year and then the Secretary
must explain to the Congress why
he granted that exception. In other
words, this is telling the Federal
agencies: "We want you to stop pol-
luting the air, too."
Now, we have strong enforcement
provisions in the bill. We have the
most rapid means which I know of
bringing in States with complete au-
thority to get things done. If the
States will assume this responsibility
•—and I think they will under this leg-
islation—we are going to have clean
air in this Nation. If they do not, we
are still going to have clean air, be-
cause the Federal Government is go-
ing to come in and clean up the air
if the States do not meet their re-
sponsibilities.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
from Florida yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
I am sure the gentleman from Flori-
da is aware that, under existing leg-
islation, many conferences have been
held on pollution, out of which cer-
tain recommendations have come.
What is going to happen under the
new legislation to those recommenda-
tions emerging from conferences al-
ready held?
For example, the conference pro-
cedure has dragged out for over 3
years in the Marietta, Ohio-Vienna,
W. Va., area, we have finally arrived
at some recommendations and hope
all this time is not lost.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Actually,
what we did in the present bill is to
allow any regions that have been
performing under the law to continue
to do so where progress has really
been made. However, the chairman
of the committee has already agreed
that we would add clarifying lan-
guage to the bill along this line.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1419
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. I propose to offer
this amendment on this subject later
on.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think
this will clarify the question of the
gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield further, I have one more brief
question. We have miserably failed to
prevent air pollution by trying to ap-
ply the laws now on the statute hooks.
Polluters have used every opportuni-
ty to delay and there has been a long,
drawnout procedure which has frus-
trated public eforts to clean up air
pollution.
Is there any injunctive process un-
der this pending legislation which will
immediately force abatement of an air
pollution source?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. This au-
thority is contained in the bill, that
the Secretary can go into the court
for the abatement of pollution. So,
the authority is in the bill now pro-
viding for this type of court proce-
dure.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida has again
expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 1 additional min-
ute.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield further I am still concerned
about whether polluters can be en-
joined. What the gentleman from
Florida is saying, then, is that this
court procedure will not in itself con-
stitute a long drawnout delay of pollu-
tion abatement, is that correct? We
must have speedier action to obtain
clean air.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Well, of
course, I do not know how long it will
take for the court to act, but an in-
junctive procedure is very rapid in
obtaining a determination of the ques-
tion. I think it is about as rapid an
attack on the problem as we can get.
I think the gentleman from West
Virignia will be very pleased with this
legislation. It is going to clean up the
air.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. On page 40, sec-
tion (2) (a) I understand that the
administration's proposal originally
required that the representative sam-
ple failed to meet the test for emis-
sion standards, the whole class of
automobiles would be revoked and
the certificate would be revoked?
Now, suppose a representative sample
under the present law of the produc-
tion code does not meet the standard
of emission, can the Secretary revoke
the certificate for a whole line of
cars, or just the one being tested?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. In other
words, if your representative sample
coming off the daily production line
does not meet the standard he can
raise and withdraw the certification
for that whole assembly line produc-
tion.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. That is all I
want to know.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. ECKHARDT].
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman,
first I want to recognize the work
that has been done by the chairman
of the full committee and by the gen-
tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. JAEMAN)
as well as the gentleman from Flori-
da who just spoke in Naming what
seems to me to be a most adequate and
strong act to control air pollution.
I have a question that I should like
to propound to the chairman at this
time:
-------
1420
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ara
Since the bill has two provisions
that seem to me to be its salient
factors strengthening the present law,
it seems to me it is well to know
precisely what these do. The first
factor, of course, is the provision by
which the Federal Government es-
tablishes ambient air standards. This
of course did not exist in the previous
bill.
The other salient factor strengthen-
ing the present law that seems to me
to be an extremely effective new meth-
od of controlling air pollution is con-
trol of emissions from new sources.
First I should like to ask the chair-
man whether a new source necessarily
means new equipment, or whether a
new source may include an altered or
increased effluent from a plant?
It is my understanding that the
legislation grants authority to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare to establish emission stand-
ards for any such sources which,
either in the form of entirely new
facilities, or in the form of expanded
or modified facilities, or because of
expanded or modified operations or
capacity, constitute new sources of
substantially increased pollution?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is true, I
say to the gentleman, and that is
the intent of the committee in passing
the legislation. And I want to make
it perfectly clear that this was the
reason for putting a specific state-
ment into the report as to what the
intention of the committee was.
[p. 19211]
Mr. ECKHARDT. I understand
that that is clearly spelled out in the
report.
Mr. STAGGERS. It is.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Therefore, it
would appear to me that, for instance,
an old steel plant which altered its
production in a particular unit or
operation, even though that unit was
an old unit, would be controlled just
as its competitor, a new steel plant,
would be controlled, where new equip-
ment plus new sources of emission oc-
cur?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
Mr. ECKHARDT. I thank the
chairman.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. VAN DEERLIN].
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, I wish to thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I commend the committee for put-
ting its attention to the problem of
air pollution, but I feel that we can,
and must, strengthen the provisions
in H.R. 17225, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970.
Air pollution continues to darken
our cities' skies and threaten our to-
tal environment with its poisonous
chemical mixtures.
The primary contributor to this
pollution is the automobile which
accounts for nearly 80 percent of the
air pollution in our cities. The auto-
mobile is responsible for dumping into
the atmosphere each year more than
90 million tons of pollutants; this is
twice as much as any other single
contributor. If air pollution is to be
curtailed, dangerous emissions from
automobiles must be substantially re-
duced.
To combat the problem of vehicular
air pollution the Federal Government
is issuing emission control standards,
but the present approach is inade-
quate for a number of reasons. Studies
have shown that under existing con-
trols automobile air pollution in the
United States will more than double
in the next 30 years. This is due to
the projected increase in both the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1421
number of vehicles and the miles
driven by each vehicle.
Only California has adopted emis-
sion standards which will stabilize air
pollution and control the production
of oxides of nitrogen. But, we want
to not only stabilize air pollution, we
want to eliminate it.
We have an immediate and press-
ing duty to protect the health of the
American people by curbing danger-
ous vehicular air pollution. It is clear
that present efforts to curb pollution
by regulating new car emission levels
are wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore,
we must take immediate steps to en-
courage the development of low-
emission vehicles.
Legislation, such as the bill (H.R.
14534) which I have cosponsored,
would require Federal procurement of
low-emission vehicles, thus fostering
development of nonpolluting vehicles.
By offering legislatively guaranteed
markets, a reasonable rate of initial
production is possible. Such a pro-
posal would make the nearly 400,000
vehicles now used by the Federal
agencies a guaranteed market for low-
emission vehicles. In 1968, the Fed-
eral Government spent $26 million
for the purchase of about 16,000 pas-
senger cars and $129 million for
nearly 46,000 buses, ambulances, and
trucks. Under the procurement plan
limitations, the total additional year-
ly costs cannot exceed $34 million.
This additional cost is a small price
to pay for alleviating the dangers of
air pollution and for preserving a
life-sustaining environment.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I feel
that we should put Detroit on notice
that they must develop a low-emission
vehicle. Last year, the California, Sen-
ate passed a bill which would ban
pollution causing engines in new
motor vehicles after January 1, 1975.
The bill died in the assembly. Similar-
ly, I have introduced a bill, H.R. 17516,
which is identical to the California
bill.
We must strengthen our laws in
order to eliminate air pollution. Our
health and our very existence depend
on our action.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I thank my colleague from Cali-
fornia for his comments, and I am
glad the gentleman was here because
his is a district which knows a great
deal about the problem to which we
address ourselves today.
As a matter of fact, there are
occasions today when the unclean air
from the gentleman's district some-
times wafts its way as far southward
as the otherwise salubrious city of San
Diego. And even there, we are learn-
ing something about what they have
suffered for many years in Los An-
geles.
Mr. Chairman, we had a fight on
this legislation just 3 years ago. It
was then that the delegation from
California rallied sufficient support
within the House membership to win
the right for our State to maintain
stricter standards against auto efflu-
ents than prevail in the other 49
States. This change was accepted by
the rest of the House, I think on the
grounds that California had been suf-
fering from this problem longer, and
had taken greater strides toward
meeting the problem.
Unfortunately, since that fight in
1967—and even though we did im-
prove legislation then on the books—
air pollution has grown still worse.
It is my opinion that the bill we
are about to pass today, unless we
give serious attention to the amend-
ments which will be offered, will fail
to take the additional steps that are
necessary now to call a halt to this
ever-mounting pollution.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
526-703 O - 73 - 17
-------
1422
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to commend the
gentleman for his statement and for
his forthright stand on this issue.
Is it not true that sometimes to get
something done you have to take
somewhat drastic action to get the
problem solved; and in this particu-
lar instance it might be the automo-
bile industry that needs to take dras-
tic action? What is your opinion of
this concept?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I congratu-
late the gentleman. Speaking of dras-
tic action, he will recall that the State
senate in California last year, by a
26 to 5 rollcall, voted to require the
elimination or phasing out of the in-
ternal combustion engine in automo-
biles sold in our State, by the year
1975.
Mr. BELL of California. Does the
gentleman think that by just con-
tinuing the way we are going it is
likely to be enough to solve this prob-
lem in Los Angeles and San Diego
and other troubled areas?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. New York
and Philadelphia and Chicago.
Mr. BELL of California. Yes; New
York and Philadelphia.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. No.
Mr. BELL of California. Does the
gentleman think anything significant
is going to be accomplished in pollu-
tion abatement if we just continue
the way we have been going for the
last few years with just a few little
changes here and there in the way
of improvements?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I think the
gentleman anticipates my attitude on
that.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. STAGGERS. Did I understand
the gentleman to say that he wanted
all internal combustion engines
phased out in California by 1975?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I said our
State senate felt so deeply the con-
cern of the people of California that
the senate voted last year to phase
out all internal combustion engines
sold in California by the year 1975—
but the bill was not enacted into
law.
Mr. STAGGERS. Oh, I see.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Under an
amendment that I will offer, we want
to phase out the internal combustion
engine by 1978. Until 1975 the Cali-
fornia standards should prevail. But
after that, gradually, in 3 years, large
motors and smaller motors and so on
will be phased out. So by 1978 there
shall be a clean engine and no longer
a smog-producing engine. I believe
the technology of the automobile com-
panies is such that they can produce,
or they can mass-produce, an auto-
mobile which will be clean and at
the same time be able to sell at
prices similar to those at which they
are sold today.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. May I say, I
feel the gentleman's generosity in ex-
tending the limit by 3 years over
what the California senate is willing
to do will impress itself on all, ex-
cept possibly the auto industry.
The most dramatic evidence of air
pollution is always to be found in
dirty smokestacks in factories, belch-
ing smoke across populated communi-
ties. The fact of the matter is that
in urban areas 90 percent of the
poisons in our air come right out of
the automobile exhaust pipe. While
it is easy to get civic campaigns
started against those black factory
smokestacks, it is a much sadder ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1423
perience when you try to do some-
thing about what goes into fuel com-
position or into the manufacture of
an automobile.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has ex-
pired.
[p. 19212]
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, is it possible to have an addi-
tional minute?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield the gentle-
man from California 1 more minute.
Mr. VAN D'EERLIN. I would like
to make the point that by compelling
others to do this job, we can save a
great deal of money. This Congress
has authorized a billion dollars, and
appropriated $600 million for clean
water. I think we could get by for
much less money when it comes to
establishing clean air if, by law, we
put the matter up to the automobile
and oil industries themselves.
I regret that so many of those who
are present are members of the com-
mittee who have already listened very
patiently to my arguments before
today. I should like to point out that
on page 51 of the report, you will
find a fairly concise statement of our
objections, signed by three members
of the committee—the gentleman
from New York [Mr. OTTINGER], the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
TIERNAN], and myself. Thank you.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. MIKVA].
Mr. MIKVA. I thank the Chairman.
I should like to add my compliments
to those of other speakers to the com-
mittee and the subcommittee for what
I consider to be an overall excellent
job. I think this bill goes a long way
toward solving some of the problems
that we as a country have in cleaning
up our air.
I have the dubious distinction, ac-
cording to the Federal air pollution
authorities, of representing one of the
most polluted, if not the most polluted
districts in the entire country. While
I am aware of the long stride for-
ward that has been made, I think
there is one instance where a defect
in the 1967 act must be cured if we
are going to begin to approach clean
air in the urban areas of our country.
That has to do with an item that so
fundamentally touches on States'
rights and local initiative that I for
the life of me cannot understand how
it crept into the 1967 act. I think this
is the time for it to be removed.
I refer of course to the provision
that preempts local and State govern-
ments from doing anything about
automobile emissions, not only in
terms of living up to the Federal
standards which are strict, but in
terms of trying to impose standards
that are more strict. I regard as an
anomaly the fact that a State or a
local government can impose such
different standards on fuel. It can
impose such different standards on
any kind of stationary sources. It
can impose such different standards
on motorboats. Only the automobile
is treated as some- kind of privileged
character which does not have to
meet State or local standards.
For example, United States Steel
is in my district. I think it has other
plants in the districts of many of the
Members on the floor today. They
have to meet local and State anti-
pollution and stationary air standards
of all localities in which they produce.
Automobiles have to meet local laws
insofar as size is concerned, insofar
as tires are concerned, insofar as
equipment is concerned. Only in the
special area of air pollution are they
given a pass, and while I have great
regard for the automobile industry, I
think we pay too high a price for
-------
1424
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
their being able to operate under one
single standard.
The late Justice Frankfurter once
described the local government as 50
separate laboratories in which we are
to find new ways of solving problems,
and I think in this area we ought to
repeal that preemption of new solu-
tions, and I intend to offer an amend-
ment to that effect.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. PBEYER],
a member of the committee.
Mr. PREYER of North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this legislation. In recent months the
words "environment" and "ecology"
have been trigger words, words that
have set off our deepest emotions.
We have all been viewing with alarm,
but alarm by itself puts out no fires,
to mix metaphors. We have all made
a lot of noise on the stairs, and now
it is time to come into the room. It
is time to stop talking and to take
concrete action. Action is a whole
lot harder than talking, and when
we ask ourselves what kind of law
should we pass that will do some-
thing about air pollution, the popular
demonology of pollution is not of much
help, nor is jousting at "greedy busi-
ness" or "mindless technology."
What we have to do is to apply
creative intelligence to the problem
at hand. One problem is that we know
so little about what to do. For exam-
ple, Barry Commoner, who testified
before our subcommittee, said that we
are woefully ignorant about the na-
ture of air pollutants and about the
chemistry that is going on in this
massive air over our cities. He de-
scribed an instrument he was using at
Washington University which pro-
vides a total analysis of an air shed
for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur di-
oxide. You put this instrui^nt in the
back of a station wagon. You point it
at the sky, and as you drive down the
road, you can read off on a paper
chart the concentrations of nitrogen
dioxide and sulfur dioxide. The
amazing fact is that this is the only
instrument of its kind in the country.
This means that we need a much
stronger research effort and that we
are limited in what we can do leg-
islatively by our lack of knowledge.
Commoner, while testifying on this
bill, estimated we probably face a 10-
year period of research and operation
of pilot plants before we have some
final answers. So I think the point
we should make here is that our hopes
should not be too high for a final
answer on this bill.
Our people in this country are al-
ready aroused to a high pitch of
disbelief, frustration, and despair on
many matters, and we do not need any
more total solutions that do not work.
The present bill is responsible legisla-
tion because it does what we know
how to do—no more and no less.
It offers no final Apocalyptic so-
lution, but this represents the best
we know how to do at this time, and
I strongly support it. The bill pro-
vides that as our technology develops,
as our research gives us more facts,
then the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare is empowered to
upgrade and strengthen air pollution
standards in the light of such new
knowledge.
What does the bill do? It strength-
ens the present law in five significant
respects—which have been commented
on already and which I will not re-
peat. It provides for tripling of funds
for air pollution control. I should
like to make two general points which
have not been commented on.
One thing I think the bill recog-
nizes is that we cannot return to
some pre-technological womb. We can-
not return to Walden Pond. What we
have to work with in this country,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1425
the only real possibility we can con-
sider, is solving this problem in terms
of a growing economy. As Walter
Heller pointed out recently, by the
year 2000 we will have to have twice
as many schools in this country, and,
if human nature stays the same way,
we will have to have twice as many
jails and twice as many everything,
so solving the air pollution problem
in terms other than in terms of a
growing economy is probably impossi-
ble.
If we retreated, say, to an 1870
level of technology—and if we went
back to 1870, we would have to rea-
lize the bison were already dead, the
eastern forest had already disap-
peared, and colonial cities were in a
decline—then the median standard of
living-, if we went back to that time,
would be far below the 1970 poverty
line. So I think we have to deal with
this problem in terms of solving it
within the framework of our modern
economy and not by "Buddhist eco-
nomics" (that is, by reducing our
gross national product until we are
back to the Tibetan village level).
I think it can be done. The mayor
of a small midwestern town recently
said: "If you -want this town to grow,
it has got to stink." This fatalism is
totally unacceptable.
I would like to make one comment
on the substance of the bill itself, and
that deals with the national standards
and with respect to industry's role in
the big cleanup, because industry has
got to play a key role. Industry has
objected in a number of instances to
national standards, but we must have
clear guidelines from Government
that will apply uniformly to protect
each individual industry's competitive
position. This means we must have
national standards.
Some industries object to national
standards because of their belief that
State regulations can more easily tail-
or the situation to local industry
needs. But if we do not have national
standards, we find what has happened
is that States begin to bid against
each other to attract polluting indus-
tries. A State says, "We will be easier
on you if you come into our area."
Or the industry will say, "If you en-
force this standard against us, we
will move our industry into another
State." So I say it is not fair to
those States who are trying to do
something about pollution to allow
such lowering of standards to attract
polluting industries into other States,
so I think the national standard is an
excellent approach.
We are embarking now on a new
experiment in government, an experi-
ment
[p. 19213]
to determine whether we are wise
enough to direct our affairs in a way
which recognizes the essential inter-
dependence of man and his environ-
ment.
The situation is not hopeless despite
some doomsday prophets, and I think
the human race can solve it with the
proper efforts and proper programs.
I think this bill is a fine step in that
direction.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count.
Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll,* * *.
*****
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. 17255, and
-------
1426
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
finding itself without a quorum, he
had directed the roll to be called,
when 357 Members responded to their
names, a quorum, and he submitted
herewith the names of the absentees
to be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
MURPHY].
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.
Chairman, as a member of the com-
mittee, I congratulate the chairman
of the full committee and the chair-
man of the subcommittee and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS]
on an outstanding legislative accom-
plishment in presenting this clean air
bill to the House.
The city of New York is starting
to shut down different city functions
because of an atmospheric inversion.
At no time in the past and at no time
in the future is this legislation more
necessary. I urge its speedy enact-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, today the House is
considering what may be one of the
most significant pieces of legislation
of 1970. The Clean Air Act amend-
ments will arm Federal officials with
the legal weapons to probe, prosecute,
and punish willful air polluters.
Today, there are no less than seven
major departments and agencies in-
volved in the air pollution battle in
the metropolitan area I represent.
Yet, we are losing the fight for life
and lung a little more each day. The
amendments we will act on today
will reverse the trend of this battle.
We will put teeth into the fight for
clean air.
During consideration of these
amendments in the Committee on In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce, my
colleagues agreed with me that a
serious obstacle to success in cleaning
up our air was the inability of the
Federal Government to move decisive-
ly in areas of suspected pollution.
For this reason I brought an
amendment through the committee
which provides dramatic new enforce-
ment powers to the Federal Govern-
ment. The need for this kind of
power was amply demonstrated to me
in my own district, where pollution
from one State flows into another
and neither State can adequately
compel changes in the other State.
This language, which is now con-
tained as section 112 (f) of this bill,
will give the States the necessary
backup from the Federal Government
to stop interstate pollution.
The bill permits officers or em-
ployees duly designated by the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare upon presentation of appropriate
credentials and a written notice to
the owner, to enter, at reasonable
times, any establishment which the
Secretary has reason to believe is or
may be in violation of regulations is-
sued for the control of air pollution.
These officers shall be authorized to
inspect records, files, papers, proc-
esses, controls, and facilities relevant
to compliance with the air pollution
regulations. A separate notice is re-
quired for each inspection, and in-
spections shall be promptly completed.
As you can see, we are authorizing
the Federal Government to step into
critical interstate situations—such as
exist in the major industrial areas of
this country, and elsewhere—where
the interstate mechanisms have failed
to abate pollution.
This section is one which can be
embraced by every State in the Union
because it gives the States the added
muscle they have lacked in years past.
The language for this section grew
out of a conference I held in New
York this spring. Every important
agency in the metropolitan area in-
volved in the air pollution battle was
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1427
represented. Federal, State, city, and
interstate officials suggested the
language of this section to me as a
vital and necessary arming tool to
reverse the increasingly dangerous
blanket of foul air which threatens
the health of every one of us,
I strongly commend this section to
the Members of the House.
I also strongly commend the full
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970
to this body. All of these steps we
consider today are vitally needed if
the Federal effort in the fight for
clean air is to be but little more
than that of a mere bystander.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
CUNNINGHAM].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, I have long been active in ef-
forts to clean up our air and water
and land pollution.
In order that I may make my posi-
tion clear I herewith refer to a letter
from the Associated Press Bureau in
Nebraska asking my position on va-
rious aspects of the problems of air
and water pollution. Their letter to
me reads as follows:
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS,
Omaha, Nebr., February 20, 1970.
Hon. GLENN CUNNINGHAM,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CUNNINGHAM : Some
of the biggest news of the day involves the
growing public interest in ecology and the
problems of air and water pollution.
For our next round-up on Nebraska con-
gressional opinion, we would like to ask some
questions dealing with the pollution problem
in the United States and specifically in
Nebraska:
1. How seriously do you view the threat of
air and water pollution in the nation? Do you
concur with those who claim the planet may
be destroyed in a few short years by pollu-
tion? Or do you think the immediate threat
has been over-dramatized?
2. How strong a role should the federal
government play in the antipollution fight?
Should the government have punitive powers
to force industry to take antipollution meas-
ures? Do you think business and industry
have dragged their feet on pollution?
3. How seriously do you view the pollution
problem in Nebraska? What should be done
about the feedlots that are dumping un-
treated wastes into Nebraska's rivers and
streams? Can we depend on Nebraska's grow-
ing industrial community to take steps vol-
untarily to combat pollution or must they
be forced by the government to do so?
Sincerely,
JOHN M. ARMSTRONG,
Correspondent.
P.S.—One further question: Should busi-
ness and industry pass on the costs of pol-
lution control to the consumer, or should
they use some of their profits to pay for
pollution abatement?
Mr. Chairman, I replied to the As-
sociated Press inquiry at some length,
and I now present my reply to the
AP:
February 26, 1970.
Mr. JOHN ARMSTRONG,
The Associated Press,
Omaha, Nebr.
DEAR JOHN : I think the topic for your
next round up of Nebraska Congressional
opinion is an excellent one.
Before answering your questions specifi-
cally regarding ecology and the problems of
air and water pollution, may I point out that
that was one of my major concerns even
prior to my becoming Mayor of Omaha in
1948. At that time—-that is, prior to my elec-
tion as Mayor—we had a civic effort caHed
the Omaha Improvement Plan and there
were various study groups set up to study
various aspects of Omaha's many problems.
The purpose of the studies was to determine
what, it anything, should be done, and if
some action was to be taken, what amount
of money should be recommended to be
placed in a package in the form of a bond
issue to provide the means of solving these
problems, or at least to make a start at solv-
ing them if they required a long range
program.
T was appointed by the chairman of the
overall committee, who was the President of
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, to
be the chairman of the Omaha Improvement
Association's Committee on Sanitation. There
were other members of my committee, prob-
ably five or six, but I do not recall ex-
[p. 19214]
actly. We made a detailed study of Omaha's
long-neglected sewer problems and the dumping
of untreated sewage into the Missouri River,
as well as other ecological problems, includ-
-------
1428
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ing air pollution. Of the some twelve or
more study groups, our committee recom-
mended, as I recall it, approximately $3 Mi
million in the form of bond issue money to
accomplish the most urgent needs. The total
package of these bonds recommended by the
various study groups amounted to a consider-
able sum and that is why we were cautioned
to hold our recommendations to a reasonable
amount in order that the voters would not
be too frightened by the whole package of
recommendations.
The voters did approve the majority of the
bond issues that were on the ballot, including
the money for the fixing of our sewers and
the problem of dumping of raw sewage into
the Missouri River, for air pollution and
related subjects. This was the first start that
Omaha had made in all of its history to stop
the pollution of the Missouri River due to the
raw sewage being thrown into it at various
locations, from the airport to a considerable
distance south of the old Ak-Sar Ben Bridge.
We also built a tremendous number of sewers
that were broken, creating a seepage problem,
and during heavy rains our old combined
sanitary and storm sewers were flooding- the
streets. The combined sewers naturally con-
tained a considerable amount of raw sewage.
"We also recommended a strong anti-smoke
ordinance, as it was called in those days,
although this required no bond money but
was a part of cleaning up our environment.
Subsequently the advisory committee which
I mentioned above were made permanent and
a part of the city government when the bonds
were approved. I was then named Secretary
of the Omaha Sanitation Commission, which
was then charged with carrying out the rec-
ommendations we had originally made and the
expenditure of the funds that had been ap-
proved by the voters.
I took a special interest also, as noted
above, in smoke abatement because it was a
major problem in Omaha at that time. So I
made a detailed study of this and looked par-
ticularly at St. Louis, which at that time had
done a tremendous job in cleaning up its air
pollutants. I have forgotten the name of the
man in St. Louis who achieved these success-
ful results, but because of what he did he was
eventually elected Mayor of that city. In any
event, I finally personally prepared a compre-
hensive smoke-abatement and/or control ordi-
nance which I presented to the City Council
with strong arguments for its adoption, and
it was adopted.
Shortly thereafter I was elected Mayor of
Omaha and it fell upon me to implement and
administer the smoke-abatement ordinance
which I had presented and which had been
adopted prior to my election as Mayor. The
first thing I did was to employ a professional
person, a graduate chemical engineer, to ad-
minister the program. His name was Herb
Ulrich and I vividly recall how very effective
he was in carrying out the ordinance. It used
to be that dozens upon dozens of smoke stacks
belched out black soot and smoke every morn-
ing for hours on end and other times during
the day, Mr. Ulrich told me that no smoke-
stack should emit any smoke, soot, etc., be-
cause if it did it simply meant that the heat-
ing unit supplying that smokestack was either
faulty or improperly operated.
In further carrying out the ordinance, we
stationed spotters every morning beginning
at dawn on three of the tallest buildings in
Omaha so that we could have a view of where
this smoke was coming from. I recall going
with Mr- Ulrich atop the Telephone Building,
which was one of our lookout posts. In any
event, when Mr. Ulrich and his staff saw this
smoke being emitted they would spot the lo-
cation and go there immediately and talk to
the people and explain to them that the
heating unit was either faulty or being op-
erated improperly. And- we were severe with
industry in these cases. As a result, over a
period of three or four years we had elimi-
nated 90 plus percent of all of these black,
sooty, smoky emissions from chimneys and
smokestacks. As a matter of fact, our pro-
gram was so successful that we received
national recognition for what we had done.
So 1 am no Johnny-come-lately in this
field and I am sorry that Omaha again has
a problem because what happoned after I
left the Mayor's officer was that they com-
bined Mr. Ulrich's department with two or
three other departments and relegated him
to a minor position. This handicapped Mr.
Ulrich and his staff in carrying out their
duties, and what might have happened be-
hind the scenes or behind closed doors with
top city officials is unknown to me. But the
program was gradually phased out. So all of
our good work really went for naught and
even today when I see these emissions from
smokestacks I say to myself, "Somebody
ought to see these people and stop this be-
cause it can be stopped if the heating unit
is efficient and properly operated."
Now to your questions.
1. I view with great seriousness the threat
of air and water pollution in the nation and
I do concur with those who claim the planet
may be destroyed in a few years by these
pollutants. I do not think by any means that
this threat has been over-dramatized. (I might
add that because I was so deeply involved
with clean air way back in 1946, 1947, 1948,
and until 1954, when I was Mayor, that I
even hesitated to walk the streets because of
the additional dangerous condition of the
environment due to exhaust fumes from
automobiles.)
2. I think that the Federal Government
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1429
must play a strong role in this pollution fight
and I wholeheartedly support President Nix-
on's program. As a matter of fact, I am a
co-sponsor of all seven of the President's
bills in this area.
I do not always approve of the Federal
Government having punitive powers, but in
this field the government has no other re-
course but to have punitive powers to force
industry to undertake anti-pollution meas-
ures. In this field it does no good for one
city or one state to have an outstanding
pi ogram if an adjacent state does not have
the same type of program. For example, the
Missouri River does not affect just Nebraska.
It is not enough for Omaha to stop polluting
it. Other jurisdictions must do likewise. This
is also true of air pollutants. They have no
respect for state boundary lines. Therefore,
it is a Federal problem and must be dealt
with as such.
I do believe that business and industry
have not met their responsibilities regarding
pollution, but I believe they are beginning
to recognize the problem and will be coop-
erative. It is just a very sad thing that our
atmosphere today is so contaminated because
of the many years of neglect of this problem
by those who have caused it.
3. I think Nebraska has a serious pollution
problem and much needs to be done, but I
do feel that overall it is the larger, more in-
dustrial states who bear the greatest respon-
sibility. I do not mean for one moment that
Nebraska does not have a problem and should
not do all it can to abate pollutants. I would
mention feed lots, for example, that are
dumping waste into Nebraska's rivers and
streams. I would say that this must not be
allowed to continue. It matters not who pol-
lutes the streams. The big problem is to stop
pollution from whatever source.
I do not know whether or not we can de-
pend upon Nebraska's growing industrial
community to take steps voluntarily to abate
pollution, but I do know that if it is not
stopped the Federal Government will step
in and require some action.
I believe those who are causing the pol-
lution actually should bear the costs of con-
trolling pollution of our air and water and
other phases of the environmental problem.
Business and industry, in my opinion, should
not pass on the costs of pollution control to
the consumer but should use their own funds
for this purpose. The public at large should
not be penalized for something over which
they have no control. Mr. Nixon's program in
this field is extraordinary. Yes, we have
problems, but I know of no problem that is
any greater than this one which we are dis-
cussing in this letter.
I might add as an aside that one of the
reasons I have opposed the Platte River Dam
from Ashland north is that it is my belief,
after studying engineering data, that this
dam would result in a highly polluted mud
hole, just as the Potomac River which runs
right through the City of Washington is one
of the most polluted rivers in the United
States. So my hat is off to Mr. Nixon for the
fight he is going to wage, and I hope that
the majority party, which controls the Con-
gress, will cooperate with those of us in the
minority and see that this legislation which
he has recommended and which I have co-
sponsored is speedily enacted into law.
In reference to the Potomac River, I might
add that it is so full of chemicals that to
me the water is unfit to drink even after its
so-called treatment. As a result I purchase
for use in our home bottled water, pure
unadulterated spring water, which comes
from upper New York State. This is expen-
sive to me but for the good of my health
and that of my family I have found it nec-
essary to assume this expense.
You have chosen a good topic and I wish
you well. There is much more that I could
say, but I think I have said as much as you
would care to hear from me at this time.
Sincerely yours,
GLENN CUNNINGHAM,
Member of Congress,
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I wish
to outline a position paper on ecology
which involves the problems of air,
water, and land pollution. My po-
sition paper reads as follows:
ECOLOGY—PROBLEMS OF AIR, WATER, LAND
POLLUTION
(A position paper by Congressman
GLENN CUNNINGHAM)
My interest in and concern for our en-
vironment began many, many years ago,
prior to my election as Mayor of Omaha in
1948. As chairman of the Committee on
Sanitation of the Omaha Improvement As-
sociation, a civic organization, I became
deeply involved in the city's long-neglected
sewer problems, the dumping of untreated
sewage into the Missouri River, air pollution,
and other ecological problems. As a result
of the studies and recommendations of the
Omaha Impi ovement Association, bond is-
sues were approved by the voters and funds
became available for sewer repair and con-
struction, sewage treatment, smoke abate-
ment, etc. The study committees were made
permanent as part of the City Government
and became known, as the Omaha Improve-
ment Commission. I was named Secretary of
the Omaha Sanitation Commission. In this
-------
1430
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
position, and subsequently as Mayor, it fell
upon me to implement the programs and
regulations the voters approved to carry out
the Omaha Improvement Commiysion respon-
sibilities.
One of the most serious environmental
problems existing in the city at that time
was the black soot and smoke that belched
out of several dozens of smokestacks. I made
a detailed study of this problem and pre-
pared a comprehensive smoke-abatement and
control ordinance which was presented to the
City Council and adopted. Soon thereafter I
was elected Mayor of Omaha and one of my
duties was the implementa-
[p. 19215]
tion and administration of this smoke-abate-
ment ordinance. We worked closely with indus-
trial firms, providing information and instruc-
tions on operation and renovation of their
heating units, resulting in great efficiency and
economy in their operations and achievement
of our goal—reduction of air pollution. Even-
tually 99 plus percent of all the black, sooty,
smoke emissions from chimneys and smoke-
stacks was eliminated. As a matter of fact, this
program was so successful that it received
national recognition.
I view with great seriousness the threat of
air and water pollution in the nation today.
These environmental problems have no re-
spect for boundary lines and therefore I think
the Federal Government must play a strong
role in combatting pollution and efforts to
make our environment more livable and en-
joyable not only for ourselves but for future
generations.
The first Fedei al air pollution program was
authorized in 1955, just prior to my election
to the Congress. In the years I have served
in the Congress I have consistently supported
anti-pollution legislation. In 1963 we en-
acted the Clean Air Act. Much progress in the
cleaning up of our air and water has resulted
from this and subsequent legislation. Be-
cause of my efforts for passage of the Air
Quality Act of 1967, President Johnson in-
vited me to the White House when he signed
the bill into law and presented to me one
of the pens he used.
I wholeheartedly support President Nixon's
program for control of air, water, and land
pollution, and I have co-sponsored seven bills
which constitute his legislative program in
this area. These bills are designed to wage a
constructive and effective campaign against
air and water pollution by encouraging bet-
ter soil conservation, the development of park-
lands and public recreation areas, as well
as dealing with means of disposing of trash
and all "solid wastes." This legislation is also
designed to clean up our water resources, to
improve the quality of the air we breathe
and to remove from the landscape the litter
and trash which have become a national
eyesore.
The President's plan involves fundamentally
new philosophies of air, land, and water use,
stricter regulations, increased government ac-
tion, expanded citizen involvement and new
programs to make sure that government,
industry, and individuals all are called upon
to do their share of the job and to pay their
share of the cost.
Each of the seven bills uses a different ap-
proach, but together they form a comprehen-
sive anti-pollution program. Highlights of
each of the bills I have introduced follow:
H.R. 16031: Amends the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Provides for
the acquisition of lands for use as National
parks and Federal recreational areas. Also
allows the Government to dispose of lands
for which it has no use, the receipts from
which would be used to obtain other more
useful lands.
H.R. 16032: Authorizes the Council on En-
vironmental Quality to conduct studies and
make recommendations respecting the rec-
lamation and recycling of material from
solid wastes; extends the provisions of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, the principal con-
cern of which is the junked car. The object
of this bill is to clean up the face of America.
Included would be the development of dis-
posable containers to help unclutter the
American landscape.
H.R. 16033: Amends and extends the Clean
Air Act, provides for national standards of
ambient air quality, expedites enforcement
of air pollution control standards, regulates
fuels and fuel additives, provides for im-
proved controls over motor vehicle emissions.
This legislation is concerned both with con-
trol of noxious discharges from internal com-
bustion engines and with air pollution re-
sulting from industrial discharges.
H.R. 16034: Establishes an Environmental
Financing Authority to assist local and state
governments in the financing of waste treat-
ment facilities.
H.R. 16035: Provides a 5-year program with
the Federal and the State or municipal gov-
ernments contributing toward the construc-
tion of waste treatment facilities on a match-
ing hasis. The Federal Government would
contribute 40 percent of the cost and the
State or municipal government would con-
tribute 60 percent.
H.R. 16036: Amends the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act to establish standards for
pure water; implements swift and effective
enforcement of water pollution control meas-
ure. Gives the Secretary of Interior author-
ity to achieve such enforcement fairly and
equally throughout aL of the states.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1431
H.R. 16037: Principally concerned with de-
veloping and supporting improved state and
interstate water pollution control programs,
with chief emphasis on research, investiga-
tions, training and demonstration activities
conducted by the Department of Interior.
Also upgrades water pollution control pro-
grams carried out by individual institutions
and agencies assisted by Federal funds.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the above
very well outlines my long interest in
these problems and that I am no
Johnny-eome-lately in doing some-
thing about cleaning up our air,
rivers, and land which problems, in
my estimation, and perhaps the most
important problems facing this gen-
eration today and for future genera-
tions whose very existence depends on
what we do not to protect them.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. KEITH].
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, if you were a non-
smoker and spent a day breathing
the air in the city of New York, you
would have experienced the same ill-
effects of smoking two packs of cig-
arettes. The air in New York is pol-
luted. The air in Washington is pol-
luted. In fact, the air in many of our
major cities is polluted.
The bill before us today is designed
to quicken the pace of the battle
against the destruction of our atmos-
phere. I am not an alarmist in say-
ing that time is running out. In fact,
some experts in the field feel it may
be already too late.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 laid
the foundation for the battle, but
did not go far enough. We have ex-
perienced a hodge-podge of activity
in the antiair pollution effort with far
too many rules, regulations, and pro-
cedures arising from the several jur-
isdictions involved.
The last 3 years have produced
evidence that clearly shows some na-
tional minimum standard dealing
with the emission of air pollutants
must be established. This bill will do
just that. It puts standards into ef-
fect throughout the Nation without
having to wait for individual State
action.
Further in the area of interstate
pollution problems, it provides a clear
means for Federal enforcement of
these newly established standards.
Such authority is essential in a Na-
tion that is growing closer and closer
together through advances in the
transportation and the product mark-
eting fields.
The enforcement provisions have
also been strengthened so that an ob-
viously guilty polluter cannot rely on
administrative delays to put off
eventual installation of control de-
vices.
This measure further deals with
the very serious problem of station-
ary air polluting facilities. Under
this bill, the Secretary of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare would have in-
creased ability to control and stop
such hazardous offenders.
More than 60 percent of our na-
tional air pollution problem is caused
by automobiles. This is particularly
acute in areas of high population
density which receives a concentrated
dosage of carbon monoxide and car-
bon dioxide emissions from automo-
biles.
One health association advises pe-
destrians to minimize their breathing
while walking along city streets. In
fact, they recommend the rush hour
ambiant to stop breathing entirely
while outside an air-conditioned en-
vironment.
It is possible, if we do not act,
that one day the Public Health Serv-
ice will recommend an end to unpro-
tected breathing regardless of an in-
-------
1432
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
dividual's location, unless strong mea-
sures are taken now.
The need then for stronger air pol-
lution control measures is great. This
bill before us now, Mr. Chairman,
provides increased control and strong-
er penalties. It better organizes the
attack on the polluters from the na-
tional point of view.
Air is the basic substance of life.
The elements of the air comprise the
greater portion of our body composi-
tion. Without clean air to breathe all
else is inconsequential.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I strongly
urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to consider the merits of
this bill and vote for its final passage,
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York [Mr.
HALPERN].
Mr. HALPERN, Mr. Chairman, I
rise in enthusiastic support of this
legislation.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from California [Mr.
BELL] .
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of this legisla-
tion.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. CARTER].
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, air
pollution, as most of us know, causes
many diseases, bronchitis, emphysema,
and even lung cancer.
The known causative agents are
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxides, nit-
rous oxides, and particulates.
Many instances of widespread ser-
ious illnesses have followed protracted
periods of extreme pollution. In-
creases in death rates have been noted
in London, New York City, Los An-
geles, and Donora, Pa.
In many areas of our country, we
still see smokestacks belching forth
clouds of poisonous pollutants. A still
greater menace occurs from the many
automobiles, 80 million, in our coun-
try. They
[p. 19216]
account for approximately 50 to 55
percent of the pollution.
The present bill permits the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare to set standards of air quality
throughout the country and emission
standards for all new smoke-emitting
factories. In case a pollution problem
occurs, the Secretary is empowered to
come into the State or region and
institute immediate abatement proce-
dures. In case of autos, new standards
have been set for emissions, and the
automobile industry has been quite
cooperative. The problem of leaded
gasoline has been mentioned. The
chief complaint concerning this sub-
stance is that it clogs the devices
used to clean the emissions, and not
because lead is itself a dangerous
pollutant.
All in all, it is my feeling that this
is a good bill and should be passed.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. TIERNAN], a mem-
ber of the committee.
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
The report on H.R. 17255 by the
House Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce Committee, of which I am a
member, states from the outset that—
The strategies which we have pursued in
the war against air pollution have been in-
adequate in several important respects and
the methods employed in implementing those
strategies often have been slow and less
effective than they might have been.
H.R. 17255 is an attempt to speed
up, expand, and intensify the war
against air pollution and for that rea-
son, I support its general thrust. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1433
problem is that the bill does not go far
enough.
It has been shown that the auto-
mobile is responsible for 60 percent
of all air pollution in the United
States. Yet this bill fails to deal
effectively with eliminating pollutants
from this engine. Members of a bi-
partisan group, including myself, Con-
gressmen LEONARD FARBSTEIN, DANIEL
BUTTON, LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, and
RICHARD OTTINGER have prepared
amendments designed to strengthen
H.R. 17255 so as to make certain that
automobile pollutants are eliminated
as a major source of environmental
decay by the mid-1970's.
My amendment deals with the regu-
lation of fuel composition. The amend-
ment substitutes a far superior
version recommended by the admini-
stration, in place of the fuel compo-
sition section in the committee bill.
The amendment would provide the
National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration with the power to regu-
late the composition of fuels, thus
giving it the ability to ban lead as
well as other additives in gasoline, in
order to reduce pollution. It is my
feeling that the NAPCA needs this
power if we truly hope to have clean
air in the near future.
In a comparison between H.R. 17255
and my amendment, 1 think it is clear
that the latter is more effective in the
fight for clean air. First, the ad-
ministration bill covers all fuels. H.R.
17255 applies only to auto fuels.
Second, both provide for regulation of
fuel composition to eliminate adverse
effects on public health and welfare.
The committee bill, however, requires
that no regulation may be established
if the health danger can be remedied
through increased auto emission stand-
ards. The burden is thus put on the
auto industry, and the oil industry
is left pretty much free and clear.
Third, the committee bill requires spe-
cific "finds derived from relevant
medical and scientific evidence" to
prove that a fuel or fuel additive
endangers public health or welfare.
The administration bill requires no
such rigorous proof.
NAPCA has indicated it could prob-
ably not scientifically justify banning
lead in gasoline under this procedure.
Fourth, the administration bill pro-
vides authority for NAPCA to secure
from industry fuel additive pollution
research it reasonably needs to assess
pollution characteristics of fuels. The
Food and Drug Administration has
such power. The committee bill pro-
vides only the power to secure re-
search already done. NAPCA would
thus be required to do much of its
own research at a substantial addi-
tional cost. Tied to rigorous evidence
requirement, it would be almost impos-
sible for NAPCA to operate under
this procedure.
Clean air is vital to our health and
happiness. H.R. 17255 can be an
effective tool toward cleaning our air,
especially if we accept the amend-
ments which are being offered to
strengthen the bill. The problems of
environmental pollution, unless dealt
with quickly and effectively, will
plague mankind forever. The steps
contained in H.R. 17255 are but the
bare minimum. I urge my colleagues
to support this vital legislation with
the amendments.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. HECHLER].
Mr. HECHLER of W«st Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Nation is
indebted to the Congress in its demand
for strict air pollution control.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
VANIK].
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
-------
1434
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
in support of this bill, but I am also
in support of amendments which
I believe are important to make the
bill more effective.
Like many Members of this House,
I was shocked to learn late last evening
that the regularly scheduled legisla-
tion for today, the postal reform bill,
had been removed from consideration
and that H.R. 17255, the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970 had been
substituted. This air pollution control
legislation is an extremely vital bill
for the health and future of our
country, and yet it has been brought
up for consideration today on less
than 24 hours' notice. The hearings
of the committee which handled the
bill were not available for distribu-
tion until midmorning today—2 hours
or so before debate on the bill was to
begin. These hearings come in two
volumes and total 891 pages. Mr.
Chairman, I wanted to look through
these hearings and study them, but
the sudden scheduling of this bill
has denied me that opportunity and
right.
Mr. Chairman, there are terrible
weaknesses in this bill, particularly as
it relates to automotive air pollution
control.
The present internal combustion
automobile engine is the most serious
and dangerous source of air pollution
in the Nation today. The U.S. Public
Health Service estimates that the
auto causes 60 percent—or more—of
all air pollution in America today.
Automobile exhausts create 180 billion
pounds of poisonous pollutants a year.
Medical research teams have found
that heart diseases, lung cancer,
respiratory ailments, and eye infec-
tions increase in proportion to the
increase of automobiles. In addition
to causing disease and death, air
pollution cuts crop production,
destroys trees, and is estimated to
cost the economy $30 billion annually.
The type of damage that can be done
is well illustrated by the U.S. Forest
Service estimate that 1.3 million trees
in the San Bernardino National
Forest will die in the next 5 years
because of smog on the freeways.
These facts, plus the fact that the
100 million autos on the highways
today will increase to 150 million by
1980, demand the strongest possible
action.
The action taken by the committee
bill will alleviate auto pollution for a
little while; but as the number of
cars on the highways grows the level
of pollution will begin to rise again.
It will grow and grow until in the
near future auto exhaust pollution
will be even worse than it is today.
It is for this reason that I am
supporting' four strengthening amend-
ments to the bill before us today.
First, in the area of auto emission
standards, I will support the amend-
ment to adopt the present California
standards as nationwide minimums.
Under the present air pollution con-
trol laws, California was permitted to
set tougher standards than the
national criteria, if it could be shown
that these standards were feasible.
These California standards have been
set and are feasible and economical.
As a result the people of California
will have a reduction of auto emis-
sions and pollutants from new cars;
the people of my congressional district
will not. The people of New York
City, of Pittsburgh, Chicago, and
Philadelphia will not—and yet all of
these cities have severe air pollution
problems. The health of all these
people is being threatened. They have
been "zoned" for a lower quality of
air; they have been "zoned" for a
higher level of disease, sickness, and
discomfort.
The bill before us does not adopt
the California standards. As a result
the National Air Pollution Control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1435
Administration plans no national
reduction in hydrocarbon or carbon
monoxide standards until 1975.
Therefore, I am supporting the
amendment to adopt the California
standards as nationwide minimums.
This will not prevent the Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration from
setting tougher standards. It will
require that Detroit's current know-
how in auto emission control will be
available to all Americans—not just
Califomians.
Second, I will support the amend-
ment to provide for better emission
control devices. Presently, when autos
come off the assembly line, the emis-
sion control device is quality tested. If
the car passes
[p. 19217]
the emission test, it is moved on to
the showroom and on to the con-
sumer. Yet it now appears that the
ability of these emission control
devices to control pollution deterio-
rates rapidly as the car is used. One
Federal study has shown that 57
percent of the emission-control de-
vices installed on the auto fleet of a
major car rental firm failed to live
up to their billing as smog deterrents
after being used only 11,000 miles.
The committee bill before us does not
provide for testing cars on the road
under real road conditions. There-
fore, I am supporting the amendment
to permit voluntary tests of cars after
4,000 miles of road usage. If the re-
sulting tests indicate a failure of the
emission control device, the manu-
facturer would be required to bring
the device back up to standard through
production line improvements and
recalls.
Third, the present bill, H.R. 17255,
does not deal adequately with the
problem of fuel composition. Lead-free
gas will be required by 1975 to meet
emission standards. But this bill
places nearly impossible conditions on
the National Air Pollution Control
Administration's ability to control
fuel composition. First, instead of
applying to all fuels, the bill deals
only with auto fuels. Second, it puts
the burden of proving that the fuel
exhaust is creating a public health
menace on the public agency, but gives
the agency no authority to require oil
company research to prove the health
or safety of the fuel and its additives.
Therefore, I plan to support an
amendment which will permit the
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare to regulate fuels that
would be dangerous in present, high
emission autos. It would also require
the industry to provide the necessary
research to determine the absence or
presence of health dangers in fuel
mixtures and additives.
Fourth, and most importantly, I will
support the amendment to phase out
the internal combustion engine from
use in automobiles. This amendment
is the most vital. It is only through
this amendment that we really begin
to solve the pollution problem. This
amendment will involve major
changes. But the seriousness of the
pollution crises demands changes.
Earth Day speeches are not enough.
Action is demanded.
This amendment is needed for two
reasons. First, emission controls can
only remove a certain percentage, a
certain amount of the emission pollu-
tion and poison produced by the in-
ternal combustion engine. Second, as
the number of motor vehicles increase,
the total staggering level of auto-
mobile air pollution will rise—even
though the pollution per vehicle will
be less. In a few years, our cities will
be even more choked with exhaust
fumes than they are today.
The solution is to move to a new
power source. We must plan now to
move beyond the present technology.
The bill before us makes no pro-
-------
1436
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
vision for better pollution standards
after 1975. Emission standards would
be geared to the internal combustion
engine instead of the machine being
geared to mankind's survival under
this bill. If the standard car motor
cannot be substantially improved
after 1975—and it does not appear
that it can be—the car industry would
be permitted to continue to mass pro-
duce life-killing internal combustion
engines. The amendment would warn
Detroit that not just the cleanest gas-
oline engine must be developed, but
the cleanest possible energy source—
whether it be electric, steam or gas
turbine. If the internal combustion
engine could not meet the standards
set by a feasible and clean propulsion
system, production of the polluting
engine would be gradually phased
out. In 1975 engines of more than
375 horsepower—and comprising less
than 5 percent of all new car sales
today—would be no longer produced.
Engines of over 275 horsepower would
be phased out in 1976; those over 175
horsepower in 1977, and all internal
combustion engines in 1978.
There is agreement by experts in
the field of propulsion systems that
pollution-free units can be mass pro-
duced almost immediately, that such
engines can be cheaper to operate
than existing internal combustion
engines and will provide the public
with all the performance qualities he
has come to demand from his modern
automobiles—without the creation of
poisonous wastes.
The elimination of the internal com-
bustion engine will be a major conver-
sion, but jobs will not be eliminated;
industries need not be dislocated.
It is a task we must undertake. The
future of our Nation and the health
of our people are critically involved.
There are other sections of this
legislation which I do support and
applaud, Mr. Chairman.
The move to establish national am-
bient air quality standards is long
overdue. To date, the States have
been left to establish their own air
quality standards. In all too many
areas, there has been delay and foot
dragging—and ridiculously low stand-
ards set to accommodate local
industries and interests. The estab-
lishment of national standards will
insure action throughout the Nation
on a rapid basis. A State would be
left free, of course, to get stronger
standards if it so wished. Further, if
a State fails to enforce its plan, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare can notify the State and
persons who violate the plan. If, after
such notice, the State fails to act
within 30 days, the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare may
request the Attorney General of the
United States to bring suit to secure
abatement and cessation of the pollu-
tion. A court may then assess a fine
of up to $10,000 per day for each day
during which the polluter fails to take
corrective action.
I am particularly pleased, Mr.
Chairman, that this bill moves toward
a concept which I have long advo-
cated: the establishment of industry-
by-industry pollution standards.
Under this bill, the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare can
establish emission standards with re-
gard to any class of new stationary
sources which, because of the nature
or amount of emissions, may con-
tribute substantially to endangerment
of the public health or welfare. It is
my hope that he will establish stand-
ards on an industry-by-industry basis,
taking advantage of the latest tech-
nology.
A steel mill, operating anywhere in
Ohio, or the Nation, should be re-
quired to make the same kind of
effort to control the pollution emission
of an oxygen steel furnace. A steel
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1437
mill creates pollution in certain ways
wherever it is located. The procedures
to control this form of pollution
are likely to be substantially alike.
If we would insist on uniform ap-
proaches for pollution control of this
industry—wherever the plants are
located—the competitive benefits of
a dirty plant would be eliminated. A
steel plant in Youngstown, Massilon,
or Middletown would have to make
the same effort to control pollution
as a plant in Cleveland. There would
be no profit in pollution. There would
be no production cost advantage to
the dirty producer. When the profit is
eliminated in pollution by uniform
high standards in air quality and
pollution control, the battle will be
won.
Under the same principle, HEW
could establish uniform pollution con-
trol standards for the chemical, oil re-
fining, foundries, food processing, and
cement-making industry, and other
industries. In each case the pollution
control regulation would be directed
to the specific pollution of a specific
industry. Every plant within the same
group could be required to maintain
the same high standards. There would
be no variation in pollution control
procedure by a given industry by
region or area of operation. The stand-
ards for each type of plant would be
the same in Zanesville as they are in
Dayton or Cleveland. No other part
of the State or Nation could lure our
industry on the basis of a greater
tolerance for pollution.
I feel that Federal standards for
pollution control on an industry-by-
industry basis are necessary and in-
evitable. National standards of pollu-
tion control would prevent another
State from attracting any industries
because of a greater pollution toler-
ance. Such competition is unfair and
against the public interest.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
CASEY].
Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, the
people of Houston and Harris County,
Tex., know the seriousness of air
pollution. We have lived with it for
many years—and in spite of deter-
mined efforts by our local govern-
ments to control it—we know it can-
not be done without Federal help.
Some 15 years ago, when I had the
privilege of serving as county judge,
the administrative head of Harris
County, I was instrumental in having
our commissioners court, on its own
initiative, create the first air pollution
control program in the State of Texas.
We had no State or Federal laws to
guide us. We worked closely with our
major industries to seek their volun-
tary cooperation to curb pollution.
Some did. Others did not, and we
brought suit against nearly a hundred
major industries and obtained agreed
judgments against most of them. I
know what local governments can do
to curb pollution—if the locally elected
leaders have the courage and determi-
na-
[p. 19218]
tion to take action. I also know they
cannot do it all alone, and need the
vast resources of the Federal Govern-
ment to assist them.
Some of us were deeply disap-
pointed when the first Clean Air Act
was brought before this House on
July 24, 1963. Like the first Water
Pollution Control Act of 1961, we
found that few, if any, of its provi-
sions were of help in combatting our
own local problems. Many followed
my example, and voted against these
two measures as a matter of protest
in the hope they would be sent back
to committee and substantially
strengthened. Subsequently, as my
colleagues know, our objections were
526-70! O - 73 - 18
-------
1438
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
heard and these acts broadened and
the hand of cooperation was extended
from the Federal level to our States
and localities. And I have supported
these programs since that time.
I learned another fact at the local
level of fighting air and water pollu-
tion, and that is this: industry needs
help in paying the massive cost of
installing the devices necessary to
curb the emission of pollutants. In
Harris County, many of the air
scrubbers and other devices needed
cost as much as $1% million and that
was in the mid-1950's. When I entered
Congress, one of the first major bills I
introduced was to give industry the
necessary tax incentive to install anti-
pollution devices by permitting rapid
amortization of the cost. For years, I
pushed the administrations of both
parties to endorse such a proposal. It
was with great personal satisfaction
that I saw these provisions finally
enacted into law in the Tax Revision
Act signed by the President on Decem-
ber 30, 1969.
Industry now has the incentive, and
you can see the effect in nearly every
major publication as company after
company announces how much it plans
to spend to curb pollution. I take
modest pride in stating that this one
provision enacted into law by this
House will do more to curb pollution
than all we have done so far in this
field, for we have voluntarily enlisted
the great resources and technology
available to industry to aid us in this
fight.
In Houston and Harris County, as
I know in other parts of our country,
the people are deeply disturbed over
the defilement of our air and water
resources. Many new groups are being
formed to join in the fight for a clean
environment, and those of us who
have long been concerned welcome
with enthusiasm their great assist-
ance. My hope is that their enthu-
siasm never wanes, for it is going to
be a long fight to reverse the decades
of negligence and it cannot be done
without the cooperation of our people,
our industries, and our government
at all levels.
Today, as the House begins its
consideration of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970, which I intend
to support, I express my thanks on
behalf of our people to the distin-
guished chiarman and members of the
committee for their work on this bill.
The funds authorized under this
legislation are urgently needed, if, as
the committee report stated, we are
to assure "that the air we breathe
throughout the Nation is wholesome
once again."
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
might I inquire how much time is left
on this side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 of those minutes to the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. FARB-
STEIN].
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Well, Mr. Chair-
man, I suppose all I can say in pass-
ing is we got as much notice of the
fact that the bill was going to be on
for today as the time I am getting
now. However, four amendments will
be offered.
And I will offer one of the amend-
ments. Three other gentlemen will
offer the other amendments, we will
try to do something to tighten the bill,
to make it effective, so that it will
benefit the people instead of benefiting
the automobile companies and the oil
companies.
Mr. Chairman, according to the
Public Health Service, the auto is
responsible for 60 percent of all air
pollution—180 billion pounds—in this
Nation. Pollution from the auto is a
serious health hazard in every city
in this country with a population of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1439
50,000 or more. This air pollution is
the cause of disease and death, cuts
crop yields and kills forests, and costs
the economy $30 billion annually.
Automotive air pollution thus stands
as the logical target of those who
want to improve the quality of the
environment. If the Federal Govern-
ment is willing to undertake the com-
mitment, the auto can be eliminated as
a major source of air pollution by the
mid-1970's and a radical reduction
achieved almost immediately.
The air pollution bill we have before
us, H.R. 17255, fails to achieve this
objective. Indeed, it appears to bend
over backward to accommodate the
auto and oil industries. It is far more
limited than the recommendations of
the administration.
Indeed, with respect to some pro-
visions of the bill the public interest
might better be served if there were
no bill at all. If we are going to
eliminate the auto as a source of air
pollution, it is going to require more
than Earth Day speeches.
The following four amendments are
being offered to the bill in an attempt
to bring this legislation up to the level
of the administration recommenda-
tions and give the House an oppor-
tunity to assert its commitment to
save the environment by going beyond
the administration position.
1. VOLUNTARY FEDERAL INSPECTION
OF DEVICES IN OPERATION
Congressman VAN DEERLIN will of-
fer an amendment authorizing volun-
tary inspection of auto control devices
in operation for over 4,000 miles. If
a defect pattern is uncovered, the
company would be required to correct
it at its own expense, and certifica-
tion of the device would be revoked
until the design defect was also cor-
rected.
Auto engineers say it is almost im-
possible to judge if a device works un-
til after the vehicle is broken in after
approximately 4,000 miles. While as-
sembly line inspection can test indi-
vidual devices for quality control, no
opportunity exists to see if the de-
vice actually works in operation. Eeg-
ulations require devices to work up to
50,000 miles. Current tests simulating
operating conditions, however, are
unrealistic.
NAPCA tests of rental cars oper-
ated at various mileage intervals
found that after a few thousand miles
up to 80 percent of vehicles tested
failed at least one emission test. A
study conducted by the California Air
Resources Board corroborates this
study. This amendment provides an
implied warranty to insure the de-
vice is manufactured to meet the mile-
age requirement.
2. ADOPTION OF THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS
Congressman BUTTON will offer an
amendment to establish as national
automotive emission standards for
1971, 1972, and 1974 standards equiv-
alent to those already adopted by
California. These would be minimum
standards, and would in no way pre-
clude the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare from setting higher standards
or standards for other years.
Current administration pronounce-
ments call for no change in auto pol-
lution standards for existing regu-
lated pollutants from the 1970 stand-
ards until 1975.
In the meantime, we are to be left
with the current standards and an
ever-increasing number of cars. Under
current law, California can set higher
emission standards for autos in its
jurisdiction, if they are approved as
technologically feasible by HEW.
California has set standards far
-------
1440
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
more rigorous than 1970 Federal
standards. These have been approved
by HEW and will be required of the
10 percent of the auto market which
is produced for California. We see
no reason these standards should not
also apply to the other 90 percent of
the market. It is not a question of
technological capability or economics,
only whether citizens of New York or
Miami may have the same oppor-
tunity for cleaner air as those in Los
Angeles. What makes it even more
imperative that such standards apply
nationwide is the general unavaila-
bility of California devices outside the
State—even if the individual is will-
ing to wait and pay more to get
them.
3. AUTOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS BE-
GINNING WITH THE 1975 MODEL
SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CLEANEST
FEASIBLE PROPULSION SYSTEM
I will offer an amendment to set
auto emission standards beginning in
1975 on the basis of the cleanest
feasible propulsion system. Large
horsepower internal combustion en-
gines which cannot meet the stand-
ards would be phased out first based
on the folowing timetable:
Based on sales of 1969 American
cars, the phasing out would have the
following effect:
Three hundred and seventy-five
horsepower in 1975—less than 5 per-
cent of new car sales.
Two hundred and seventy-five
horsepower in 1976—35 percent of
new car sales.
One hundred and seventy-five
horsepower in 1977—all but 10 per-
cent of new car sales.
All internal combustion engines in
1978.
[p. 19219]
Current auto emission standards
are based on what the inherently pol-
luting internal combustion engine can
achieve. There is general recognition
that the internal combustion engine
cannot be cleaned up much beyond
the standard proposed by the admin-
istration for 1975 models. This amend-
ment sets standards based on what
the best available technology with
whatever engine system can achieve
these standards. Its object is clean
air.
There is also general agreement
outside of Detroit that pollution-free
propulsion systems can be mass pro-
duced almost immediately. Such en-
gines are cheaper to manufacture and
operate than existing internal combus-
tion engines and provide the consumer
with all the qualities he has come to
expect in an automobile.
Phasing out large horsepower en-
gines first has the advantage of elim-
inating the highest pollutant first.
Large engines burn more fuel and
thus produce higher levels of pollu-
tion. It also has the following addi-
tional advantages:
It is easier to develop a new pro-
pulsion system in large engines.
Fewer people buy automobiles with
large engines for personal use, there-
fore, any recalls that might be nec-
essary to perfect the system would
affect fewer people. The industry fol-
lows a practice now of putting experi-
mental systems, which may need re-
calling to perfect them, on "odd-ball
lines" that attract fewer customers
and inconveniences fewer customers.
This would follow that practice.
4. REGULATION OF FUEL COMPOSITION
AND THE ELIMINATION OF LEAD
Congressman TIERNAN will offer
an amendment that would substitute
for the committee fuel composition
section, the far superior version rec-
ommended by the administration.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1441
Under California law, the State Air
Resources Board is empowered to reg-
ulate the composition of fuels with
the aim of reducing pollution. The
exercise of this power has brought a
significant reduction in pollution.
A major element in the administra-
tion's air pollution program is to
provide the National Air Pollution
Control Administration—NAPCA—
with a similar nationwide authority,
which could be used to regulate or
ban lead as well as other additives
in gasoline. Going beyond regulation
of lead is important as there are
other harmful additives, especially
among potential substitutes for lead.
The committee bill leaves the shell
of the administration fuel regulation
power, but effectively "guts" any ac-
tion under it. This is demonstrated
by reference to at least four of its
provisions. First, the administration
bill covers all fuels. H.R. 17255 ap-
plies only to auto fuels. Second, both
provide for regulation of fuel com-
position to eliminate adverse effects
on public health and welfare. The
committee bill, however, requires that
no regulation may be established if
the health danger can be remedied
through increased auto emission
standards. The burden is thus put on
the auto industry, and the oil industry
is left pretty much free and clear.
Third, the committee bill requires
specific "finds derived from relevant
medical and scientific evidence" to
prove that a fuel or fuel additive en-
dangers public health or welfare. The
administration bill requires no such
rigorous proof.
NAPCA has indicated it could prob-
ably not scientifically justify banning
lead in gasoline under this procedure.
Fourth, the administration bill pro-
vides authority for NAPCA to secure
from industry fuel additive pollution
research it reasonably needs to assess
pollution characteristics of fuels. The
Food and Drug Administration has
such power. The committee bill pro-
vides only the power to secure re-
search already done. NAPCA would
thus be required to do much of its
own research at a substantial addi-
tional cost. Tied to rigorous evi-
dence requirement, it would be al-
most impossible for NAPCA to oper-
ate under this procedure.
Mr. CRAMEE. Mr. Chairman, I
was pleased to vote in favor of the
rule on H.R. 17255, a bill to amend
the Clean Air Act. The crisis of air
pollution is one of the most critical
domestic problems facing our Nation
today. This problem must be faced
up to and under the provisions of the
bill we are considering here in the
House today we are showing our con-
cern by proposing to speed up, expand,
and intensify the war against air pol-
lution. We are attempting to assure
that the air we breathe is wholesome
once again. Mr. Chairman, I support
H.R. 17255 and trust it will have the
overwhelming support of the House.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I
most earnestly hope and urge that
this measure before us, H.R. 17255,
providing for a more effective pro-
gram to improve the quality of the air
we breathe throughout this Nation,
will be speedily and overwhelmingly
adopted.
For several years we have clearly
and rightfully recognized air pollu-
tion as a major national danger and
we have initiated legislative efforts
to control and eliminate this danger.
However, and unfortunately, the
evidence that has been presented to
us today obviously and definitely re-
veals that the procedures and instru-
ments which we have been pursuing
in this war against air pollution have
been deficient in several important
aspects, and the means and methods
employed in implementing these pro-
cedures have been too often too slow
-------
1442
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
and much less effective than what is
necessary and essential to timely
achieve and complete the objective.
In summary, this measure, there-
fore, is proposed and recommended
to strengthen existing legislation by
declaring each State an air-quality-
control region; by establishing and
promulgating more stringent nation-
wide air pollution correction stand-
ards for new stationary sources, for
automobile and engine testing, for
automotive and aircraft fuels; by re-
quiring Federal facilities to comply
with all applicable standards; by im-
posing stricter and more severe im-
plementation procedures and enforce-
ment penalties; and by increasing and
extending the appropriations authori-
zations to carry out these provisions
over the next 3 years.
These new legislative provisions
combined with the proven values in
our existing programs will serve to
project a more effective corrective
and containment attack upon this
major health menace of air pollution
which threatens to continuously in-
crease unless we promptly adopt more
vigorous measures.
In essence and in reality, Mr. Chair-
man, this is a matter of life and
death of our American people, and I
hope that this bill will be unanimous-
ly approved without extended delay.
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I
support the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 to provide for a more
effective program to improve the qual-
ity of the air we breathe.
I supported the Clean Air Act of
1963 and the Air Quality Control Act
of 1967, and I wholeheartedly support
the 1970 amendments to expand and
intensify the offensive against air pol-
lution.
The Clean Air Acts in 1963 and
1967 were good starts in the fight to
alleviate air pollution hazards, but
air pollution continues to pose a ser-
ious threat to the health and well-
being of American citizens. We need
more stringent regulations guarding
the quality of the air we breathe and
we need vigorous enforcement of the
regulations designed to curb air pol-
lution. I am pleased that this bill ful-
fills both of those requirements.
The bill under consideration con-
tains several new provisions for in-
suring cleaner air: First, the Secre-
tary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare is authorized
and directed to establish nationwide
air quality standards. Under the pro-
visions of the bill States will be free
to establish stricter standards, but
they would have to comply with the
minimum Federal standards. For ad-
ministrative purposes, each State will
constitute an air quality region, and
if a State fails to adopt an acceptable
air quality plan, the Attorney Gen-
eral is authorized to bring suit to
secure abatement of polluters within
the State who violate the Federal
standards. A court may assess a pen-
alty of $10,000 a day against persons
failing to comply with the law.
Second, the bill sets forth Federal
emission standards for new stationary
sources of pollution, and provides
for either State or Federal enforce-
ment of these provisions. Under exist-
ing law, States set the emission stand-
ards and the new Federal standards
will prevent States from trying to at-
tract new industries by having lax
pollution emission control standards.
Third, the bill provides for tighter
automotive emission control standards
and for new testing and certification
procedures to insure that new motor
vehicle engines comply with the reg-
ulations.
Fourth, the bill establishes new
limitations on fuel additives which
endanger the health and welfare of
persons or which interfere with the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1443
proper functioning1 of emission con-
trol devices.
Fifth, the bill, for the first time
provides for the imposition of emis-
sion and fuel additive standards for
aircraft.
The emphasis that this bill places
upon automobile emission standards
is entirely in order. Automobiles are
responsible for
[p. 19220]
over 60 percent of the Nation's air
pollution, and if we can implement
tight, workable emission standards in
this area, we will be almost halfway
home.
Also, the promulgation of nation-
ally uniform standards recognizes
that air pollution is a national prob-
lem and cannot be treated by estab-
lishing small pockets of resistance.
Without national standards, States
will never succeed in cleaning up their
air if neighboring States do not go
along with them in establishing
standards.
This is a good bill, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting
this measure.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I
am happy to support legislation to
amend the Clean Air Act. My bill,
H.R. 15871, is similar to the bill re-
ported from the committee.
I strongly favor the thrust of this
legislation. I belive it is needed and
will strengthen the Clean Air Act.
Over the last 15 years, Congress
has enacted laws to control air pollu-
tion. The first legislation passed was
in July 1955, authorizing a Federal
program of research in air pollution
and technical assistance to State and
local governments. In the period be-
tween 1955 and 1963 it became clear
that not enough was being done to
curb air pollutants, and in December
1963 the Clean Air Act was passed.
Improvements to the Clean Air Act
were made by Congress in 1965 and
1967, which I have supported.
The bill the House is considering
today has a wide sweep to it, propos-
ing the Federal Government to do
more to halt the rising health and
economic hazard of air pollution,
which I am told costs the American
people some $12 billion annually in
economic loss alone. This estimated
cost due to air pollution is damage to
property and materials, agricultural
losses, reduced property values and
reduced visibility that may contribute
to automobile accidents and airport
delays. My own hometown of Jackson-
ville, Fla., has experienced two sep-
arate incidents of this type. In 1948
nylon blouses and stockings actually
disintegrated on the wearers and in
1961 severe vegetation damage was
experienced in the residential areas
on both sides of the St. Johns River,
which flows through the middle of
Jacksonville. National Air Pollution
Control Administration experts say
there is little doubt that air pollution
caused these incidents.
As President Nixon said in his
message on environment, February
10, 1970:
Air is our most vital resource, and its pol-
lution is our most serious environmental
problem.
The problem is one which must
be solved through strong legislation
and also by individual action.
I believe the Federal program to
halt air pollution is providing vital
assistance to State and local communi-
ties. In the last several years it has
been my pleasure to have Dr. John
T. Middleton, Director of the Federal
air pollution program, and his re-
gional director, Gene B. Welsh, of
Atlanta, participate in urban and en-
vironmental seminars in Jacksonville.
They both gave excellent presenta-
tions and helped to alert local offl-
-------
1444
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cials, civic leaders and citizens to
the need and availability of anti-air-
pollution programs. This has helped
spur citizen action. In Jacksonville we
have some very effective leaders in the
fight to control air pollution. For
example, Mrs. Lee Adams, is stimu-
lating private and public efforts for
clean air in Jacksonville.
Mr. Chairman, the House Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee has provided substantial leader-
ship for a nationwide battle against
air pollution. I support this legisla-
tion to approve the strongest and
mest effective measure to combat this
problem.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I am pleased to have this op-
portunity to express my concern re-
garding the needs of my area for
combating air pollution and for ameli-
orating waste disposal methods.
These are among the crucial prob-
lems that must be faced today. They
vitally effect the health and wealth
of the entire Nation. The current
focus on the area of ecology demon-
strates the intense concern the peo-
ple of the country have for these
problems.
Last August, the St. Louis area
experienced a pollution blackout —
the atmosphere became unable to dis-
perse pollutants. Not until the winds
increased was the problem alleviated.
In this day and age of enormous in-
dustrial complexes and increased use
of roadways, we cannot wait or
even count on nature to lessen the
threats these problems create. After
all, we cannot yet control the weather.
The urgency of finding solutions to
effectively control air pollution in-
creases daily.
We must now increase our efforts
towards finding an effective solution
to this problem. To be effective, these
efforts must include more stringent
standards of air quality and meth-
ods of enforcement of these standards
to be applied nationwide. There must,
of course, also be a provision for
curtailing pollution emissions to pre-
vent crisis episodes as we experienced
in August. The urgency of this prob-
lem must be impressed on all regions
of the country, and each must be
required to comply either with the
standards published in the Federal
Register or with equivalent ones. The
regions, furthermore, must be re-
quired to conform in the most expedi-
ent way. Their plans, therefore, must
be submitted for review and there
must, in addition, be at intervals,
inspections of each air quality con-
trol region.
There must also be a provision for
overcoming the present confusion that
exists in our air quality control region
since both States were required to
submit standards by January 6, 1970,
and by July 5, 1970, each State must
submit implementation plans.
Finding more practical and economi-
cal waste disposal methods must be
of equal concern to us, especially
since incineration increases air pollu-
tion.
The States must be directed to
make greater efforts to initiate ex-
perimental waste disposal systems and
to develop new techniques for solid
waste disposal.
Methods must be developed to re-
duce the amount of money and ef-
fort spent on dumping and incinera-
tion—the two prevalent methods of
disposing of wastes today. Improved
techniques must be developed to re-
cover useful materials from the waste
and to lessen the amount of useless
materials.
It is imperative that there now
be additional endeavors by Congress
to improve techniques of air pollution
control and waste disposal. We must
not rest in our efforts. If further re-
search is required to find solutions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1445
for ending air pollution or for find-
ing practical or inexpensive ways of
disposing of waste, let it be. But, con-
currently, more effective methods and
standards must be implemented.
The legislation that is currently be-
fore the House, H.R. 17255 and H.R.
11833, can effect these goals. There-
fore, I strongly support these bills and
urge their adoption.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 17255, the
Clean Air Act, but I do so with mixed
emotions and many reservations.
This bill represents a step ahead
in the effort to curb air pollution. I
was particularly pleased to see that
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare is directed to establish
nationwide air quality standards. I
am concerned, however, that these
standards will not be stringent enough
or adequately enforced to curb air
pollution.
I am especially concerned that this
hill does not directly attack the pri-
mary cause of air pollution — the
automobile. According to the Public
Health Service, automobile emissions
are responsible for 60 percent of all
air pollution. This fact dictates the
need for a concentrated attack on
automotive emissions.
It was for this reason that I sup-
ported the four amendments that
were offered today. The first author-
ized voluntary inspections of auto-
mobiles after the first 4,000 miles
and required manufacturers to cor-
rect defects in the emission system.
Another amendment would allow
the adoption of California emission
standards as nationwide minimums.
It would not preclude the setting of
still tougher standards by NAPCA.
It would insure that the current
technology on the production line
would be made available to all the
States, not just California.
The third amendment would re-
store the administration bill's pro-
visions with regard to fuel composi-
tion. Rather than placing the burden
of proof on the agency, it would per-
mit NAPCA to both regulate fuels
which would be dangerous in current,
high emission vehicles, and to require
and obtain from industry the research
necessary to determine the presence
or absence of health hazards from
fuel mixes or additives.
The last amendment would serve
notice on the auto industry that fur-
ther progress after 1975 is impera-
tive. It would provide for the gradual
adoption of emission standards based
not on the possibilities of a pollution
free internal combustion engine, but
of the most pollution free propulsion
system available. The object is clean
air; the standards should be set to
achieve that object, not to fit a par-
ticular type of engine.
Most important is that this Nation
should have realistic and enforceable
air quality standards. I am not con-
vinced
[p. 19221]
that the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare can act with enough
speed. Thus I favor the imposition of
some additional emission standards,
such as the California standards,
which are enforced.
I hope that when the bill returns
to the House that the questions I
have raised will be more satisfactorily
answered.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, the
problem of environmental pollution
is one of the most serious problems
facing our Nation.
Air pollution is dangerous to our
health and to our economic well-
being. At last there is a public aware-
ness and concern about air pollution
which makes it possible to enact far-
reaching legislation. H.R. 17255, the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,
-------
1446
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
does strengthen air pollution control
programs, but it does not embrace
the approach which I believe neces-
sary.
One area where the legislation
falls short is in section 112, which
deals with emission standards for
stationary sources. The bill provides
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare with the power to es-
tablish standards for such sources
only when they are new and only
when they endanger the public health
and welfare—an unduly restrictive
test. The test should be whether any
source—old or new—degrades the
quality of the environment.
There must be stringent Federal
emission standards for all stationary
sources, and these standards must be
strictly enforceable.
Under the pending bill, each State
would become an air quality region,
permitting the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to create
interstate regions when he deems it
necessary.
I fear that this emphasis on State
action rather than regional action
is a move in the wrong direction. In-
stead of turning to State govern-
ments which have too often demon-
strated their unwillingness to take
effective action to control pollution,
the regional approach should be ex-
panded. My bill, H.R. 17113, does
just that.
Air pollution knows no political
boundaries. It cannot be confined
within the borders of any one State.
Neither city nor State lines can hold
the menace of air pollution, as is
evident in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. My bill provides
authority for the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to create air
quality regions and air quality con-
trol commissions which would set
standards for the regions and en-
force the established standards.
Another area of the bill which is
not strong enough is that section
dealing with enforcement.
My legislation, H.R. 17113, would
permit the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare to issue court
enforceable cease and desist orders
against polluters.
In addition, my legislation makes
acts of pollution civil offenses subject
to fines of $50 to $2,000 for each
violation. I think the combined ap-
proach of cease and desist orders
and monetary fines provides the type
of strict enforcement which is nec-
essary to make the polluters of our
environment understand that they
can no longer poison our air with
impunity.
Also my bill provides that a pri-
vate citizen may bring suit in the
name of and on behalf of the United
States against the polluter when the
Federal Government fails to take
action.
H.R. 17113 bans leaded gasoline. It
is clear that leaded gas is a sig-
nificant contributor to air pollution.
It is also obvious that unleaded gaso-
line is feasible; such a product is on
the market today. Manufacturers
would have 1 year to cease producing
this detrimental fuel.
H.R. 17113 also provides for a
State motor vehicle inspection pro-
gram. This program would be run by
the Secretary of Transportation, who
would be able to impose, before ap-
proving any State highway safety
program, the requirement that such
a program include inspection of
emission control devices as one of its
features. In addition, grants would
be made available to meet the costs
of the inspection program.
I intend to support the amend-
ments to be offered which would
strengthen the motor vehicle pollu-
tion section of this bill.
They include substituting the Ian-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1447
guage of the administration's bill re-
garding the regulation of fuels and
fuel additives; authorizing of volun-
tary inspection of emission control
devices which have been in operation
over 4,000 miles and mandatory cor-
rection of defects by the manufac-
turer; establishing as minimum na-
tional automotive emission standards,
standards equivalent to those adopted
and approved by the State of Cali-
fornia for 1971, 1972, and 1974; and
the establishment of motor vehicle
standards based on the cleanest feasi-
ble propulsion system.
This bill provides $200 million for
fiscal year 1971, $250 million for fiscal
year 1972, and $325 million for fiscal
year 1973. This is an excellent start.
I suggested similar amounts in my
bill with on exception—that $50 mil-
lion be authorized to conduct and ac-
celerate research and development
solely in the field of alternatives
to the internal combustion engine.
In the past, such research and devel-
opment has not been singled out for
specific funds, and thus the amount of
such research and development has
been inadequate.
In addition, my bill repeals section
105 (c) of the Clean Air Act, which
places a percentage limitation on the
amount of Federal funds which any
one State may receive. Needless to say
those States which are more indus-
trialized need air pollution funds more
than those which are less industrial-
ized. It is highly unrealistic to com-
pare States like New York, Califor-
nia, and Illinois with more rural
States. For this reason, I feel that
section 105(c) should be repealed.
Mr. Chairman, our environment is
so threatened that it is going to take
strong measures to save it. Congress
must provide tough national stand-
ards backed up by stringent enforce-
ment powers and adequate funds.
Cleaning our air is not going to be
easy. We will have to measure up to
the task. W« can no longer afford to
talk about the problem. We can no
longer afford to say—"this is a
beginning; we'll be able to do more
tomorrow."
There have been too many
tomorrows in the past. Unless we
make a firm commitment to preserving
our environment, the future may hold
no more tomorrows.
Mr. Chairman, I include at this
point in the RECORD the statement I
made before the Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee on
April 14, 1970, in which I discussed
my bill, H.R. 17113:
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportu-
nity to offer testimony before the Public
Health and Welfare Subcommittee of the
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee. We are all aware—and the gen-
eral public is becoming increasingly aware—
of the awesome havoc we have wrecked upon
our environment. Perhaps more than any
other problem facing this nation, pollution
intrudes on every citizen's life every single
day. Its severity may be most immediately
apparent to the city dweller, but even the
most isolated farmer in the most remote
section of the country is likewise exposed
to it.
Before discussing the legislation which I
have proposed' to amend the Clean Air Act, I
should like to make some mention of the
severity of the problem now at hand. Some-
thing approaching 200 million tons of con-
taminants are now hurled into the atmos-
phere every year. These pollutants range
from the noxious and highly visible soot
pouring out of industrial smokestacks to the
colorless and odorless, but potentially lethal,
carbon monoxide produced by automobiles.
Periodically, this infusion of gases and
solid particles into the atmosphere reaches a
point of over saturation. We are then sub-
jected to the killer smogs which have hit
Donora, Pennsylvania, New York City, Los
Angeles, and other communities. It is, almost
literally, pure luck that the disasters thus far
have not been even more acute in number of
victims and in duration.
Let me just point to a few statistics on pol-
lutant levels to demonstrate the daily haz-
-------
1448
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ards we endure. While the carbon monoxide
content in clean, dry air near sea level is ,1
parts per million, the average daily content
in midtown Manhattan often exceeds 15
parts per million during business hours. The
oxidants component in clean, dry air near sea
level is .02 parts per million; the average
daily content at East 121st Street in Manhat-
tan is .04 ppm's. As compared to .001 parts
per million of nitrogen oxide in clean, dry air
near sea level, the average daily content at
East 121st Street is 109 ppm's. And the com-
parative figures for sulphur dioxide are .0002
ppm's in clean dry sea level air and .111
ppm's at East 121st Street. Finally, suspended
particulates average 124 micrograms per cubic
meter in Manhattan's air.
These statistics are not unique. Nor are
they unusual. Anyone who has traveled
through Gary, Indiana, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Cleveland, or a hundred other cities, has seen
the layer of smog overhanging their skylines.
Anyone who suffers from emphysema or asth-
ma or bronchitis has experienced the ago-
nies of polluted air. Anyone who has been
caught in a traffic jam, or who has driven the
streets of any town or city, has been sub-
jected to a small part of the over 90 million
tons of contaminants spewed forth from
automobile exhaust systems.
Perhaps even more frightening is the very
real peril that the entire world's heat bal-
ance is going to be irreversibly altered and
that all of human life—not just people pecu-
liarly susceptible to the noxious pollutants
filling our air—will be endangered.
We are all victims of our own folly. And
[p. 19222]
yet we are all culprits, as well, for each of us
is a polluter. Certainly it would be more com-
fortable to place the blame on impersonal
entities—"the system," "the establishment,"
or "big business." But, while corporate action
and governmental inaction have played a
major role in bringing us to oui present dis-
astrous condition, they have been ably as-
sisted and abetted by each individual, ready
to reap the personal benefits of convenience
and ease. Every enzyme pre-soaking, every
aluminum can, every weekend car rental,
every pre-packaged cook-and*serve dinner con-
tributes to a polluted environment.
Of course, moralizing is no answer. Nor, in
fact, is it even fair to say that we have
arrived at our calamitous state solely because
of greed or indifference. There are very real
conflicts in legitimate social goals. We may
now understand the effects of insecticides on
the ecological balance, but who will argue
that underdeveloped nations must continue
to live with plague and widespread disease?
We may recognize that massive urban con-
struction poses massive disposal problems,
but who will tell the poor that they must
continue to live in sub-standard housing?
We will not resolve our conflicts by argu-
ing for a return to a pre-technological soci-
ety. But we can, and indeed we must, begin
to act rationally in choosing between com-
peting alternatives to achieve a desired end.
There is no question that transportation
for commuters into the inner cities is essen-
tial. But there is very real cause to consider
whether hundreds of thousands of large,
internal combustion engined automobiles, each
driven by a lone commuter, are the most
beneficial means to achieve this end. There
is no question that speedy travel between
the coasts is needed, but it may well be that
the extra hour or two gained by larger and
faster jets is not worth the accompanying
noise.
These are just two examples of the ap-
proach which we, as individuals and as legis-
lators, must begin to follow—assessing our
actions, and the programs and activities to
which we commit funds, in terms of their
impact upon our environment, and choosing
those which minimize that impact, even if
the expense is thereby higher.
This approach looks to the long term re-
ordering of our consumption habits. But the
short term, as well, offers us opportunity to
undertake effective and immediate steps to
ameliorate air pollution and remediate its
causes. The legislation which I have intro-
duced mandates and enables aggressive ac-
tion to these ends.
H R. 17113, which amends the Clean Air
Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857, provides several distinct
components, each of which is strong by it-
self, and which together provide a coherent,
stringent strategy to meet the challenges
which clearly have not yet been met, and
which the Administration bill clearly fails
to meet
Perhaps most important, the bill provides
power to enforce the law. Hitherto, the Sec-
retary of Health .Education, and Welfare
has only had the authority, under Section
108 (k) of the Clean Air Act, to request the
Attorney General to seek an injunction to
abate pollution sources "upon receipt of evi-
dence that a particular pollution source or
combination if sources (including moving
sources) is presenting an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to the health of per-
sons, and finding that appropriate State or
local authorities have not acted to abate
such sources. . . ."
This provision is brigaded with language
diminishing its utility—"imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment." It is susceptible to
use only if the State or local authorities have
not acted, and a finding has been mad-e to
this effect. H.R. 17113, on the other hand,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1449
gives strong and powerful enforcement au-
thority. The Secretary may issue cease and
desist orders, the regional commission which
the bill creates in another section may do so,
and similarly, the States are required to in-
clude such power within the plans they must
tender for approval to the Secretary.
I have just made mention of regional com-
missions, and I want to more fully explain
this reference. H.R. 17113 authorizes the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Welfare to
establish air quality regions, and Air Quality
Control Commissions to set standards for
these regions. These standards may be more
stringent than the nationally applicable stand-
ards set by the Secretary, and, in such case,
they will then supersede the Federal stand-
ards, as well as State standards which are
weaker.
I recognize that the Clean Air Act now
provides, in Section 105, for interstate air
quality agencies or commissions. However,
these bodies do little, and have virtually no
power.
The commissions I propose do have major
functions, and they have firm authority to
enforce the standards they establish. And
these two characteristics are essential. Air
pollution is virtually by definition a problem
which knows no man-made boundaries. City
borders and state lines have significance for
taxing bodies, but they are irrelevant in
terms of deterring the smoke of the steel
plants in Gary from polluting the skies over
Chicago. The stench of the New Jersey chem-
ical plants is shared in unwilling comity by
New York City, and the DDT sprayed over
the farms of California disperses in the air
over Arizona and Nevada.
Regional commissions, mandated to set
firm air quality standards, and armed with
the Secretary's authority to issue cease and
desist orders, are the key to dealing with air
pollution rationally and effectively.
H.R. 17113 not only provides adequate en-
forcement power, and it not only creates
regional commissions equipped to abate pol-
lution. It further authorizes the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to set na-
tionally applicable standards for ambient
air quality, and for designated industries.
The need for national standards naturally
follows from the pervasiveness of the prob-
lem, and the wide dispersal from their
sources of pollutants. It accomplishes little
for New York State to establish meaningful
pollution control standards if her neigh-
boring states set only minimal restrictions.
In the same vein, national standards for
designated industries are a distinct need
apart from nationally applicable standards
of ambient air quality. While the latter
establish pollution levels in terms of the
presence of gases and particles in the air,
the former go directly to governing the proc-
esses of particular industries which call for
special provisions. Thus, the steel industry
must be governed by restrictions which ad-
dress the particular methods and systems
which it employs, and those pollutants for
which it is most directly responsible.
H.R. 17113 also embodies a provision which
I believe especially important in putting
meaningful penalty behind the fine rhetoric
which is so common in condemning polluters.
Acts of pollution are made civil offenses,
and polluters are subject to fines ranging
from $50 to $2,000 for each violation. Thus,
not only is cease and desist authority pro-
vided by my bill to stop acts of pollution,
but monetary fines are also authorized to
punish those who are patently guilty of
degrading our environment. What is more,
in those instances, should they arise, where
the Federal Government fails to bring: an
action to recover these penalties, the private
citizen is authorized to bring suit in the
name of and on behalf of the United States
against the polluter.
This is far reaching legislation, but it is
necessary. We have seen that the govern-
ment has done too little and even that has
been done too seldom. Yet, our air con-
tinues to decline in quality. This degradation
of our environment is not going to await
the arousal of bureaucracies; concerned citi-
zens must be given the opportunity to protect
themselves and society by bringing suit when
the government fails to do so.
There are several other provisions of H.R.
17113 to which I want to allude briefly. The
bill contains a section providing for Federal
assistance to those workers whose plants have
been ordered to cease and desist their pol-
luting activities, and who have thereby had
to either lower their output or cease opera-
tion while readjusting their manufacturing
methods.
My bill also bans the making of leaded
gasoline. I think the evidence abundantly
clear that the lead which is entering our
atmosphere through the use of leaded gaso-
line in automobiles is one of the most peril-
ous pollutants, and, yet, also one of the most
easily eradicable pollutants in terms of cut-
ting off further entry into the air. Thus, H.R.
17113 gives just one year to cease manufac-
ture of this product.
My bill also provides for a state motor ve-
hicle pollution control inspection program.
The Secretary of Transportation would be
able to impose, before approving any state's
highway safety program, a requirement that
the program include, as a part of vehicle in-
spection, procedures to assure the adequacy
of performance of emission-control devices
in motor vehicles. The Secretary of Transpor-
tation would establish standards based on
-------
1450
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pollution emission standards established by
the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Grants would be available to assist
in meeting the cost of this program.
Finally, H.R. 17113 repeals that section of
the Clean Air Act—section 10B(c)—which
places a percentage limitation on the amount
of Federal funds which may be received by
any one state. It is obvious that industrial-
ized- states such as New York, California, and
Illinois, have far more severe pollution prob-
lems than do the rural states. Consequently,
their need for funds is far more acute, and
repeal of section 105 (c) recognizes this fact.
Obviously, money is a prime requisite and
H.R. 17113 recognizes this by authorizing for
the Clean Air Act $200 million for fiscal year
1971, $250 million for fiscal year 1972, and
$300 million for fiscal year 1973. In addition,
$50 million is authorized to conduct and ac-
celerate research into and development of
alternatives to the internal combustion en-
gine.
I also want to briefly discuss the problem
of waste disposal and- the legislation which I
have introduced—H.R. 642—to meet this
problem. The statistics here are no less stark
than those I recited earlier concerning air
pollution. On the average, each person in
this county generates about 7 pounds of
trash a day.
About 73 percent of refuse now goes into
open dumps: 15 percent is incinerated; 8
percent goes into sanitary land fills; 1 per-
cent into compost; and only about 3- percent
is salvaged.
Obviously, the need for solid waste dis-
posal facilities is enormous. H.R. 642 •would
meet this need. It would permit the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare to
make grants for surveys by state, interstate,
municipal, and intermunicipal agencies of
solid -waste disposal practices and problems
within their jurisdiction. Money would also
be available for these agencies to develop
solid waste disposal plans. In addition, the
Secretary would be able to make grants for
construction of solid wastes disposal facilities,
including completion and improvement of
existing facilities.
At present, the national average expendi-
ture on waste disposal is $6.81 a year per
persons. This amount in no way comes close
to meeting the costs which must be incurred
if we are to grapple in any way adequately
with the annual total of 180 million tons of
[p. 19223]
solid waste. I recognize that to some degree
this paltry total of $6.81 per person reflects a
reluctance upon the part of local communi-
ties to meet their responsibilities. But, the
overwhelming problem ia not one of failure to
recognize the problem, but rather, a lack of
funds to deal with it.
H.R. 642 provides such funds. It raises the
funding for those portions of the program
administered by the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare for fiscal year 1970 from
$19,750,000 to $152 million, and it authorizes
$216 million for fiscal year 1971 and $236
million for fiscal year 1972. And for those
portions of the program administered by the
Secretary of the Interior, there is authorized
$15 million for fiscal year 1970, $18 million
for fiscal year 1971, and $21.5 million for
fiscal year 1972.
In summary, I want to emphasize that the
degradation of our environment calls for effec-
tive and forceful legislation. H.R. 17113 and
H.R. 642 answer this call. But, equally as
important, there must be a commitment on
our part, on the part of the Executive branch,
and on the part of every citizen and business,
to stop the slow but steady suicide we have
embarked upon. We can deplore and we can
implore endlessly, but rhetoric is no more than
empty air—and in this case very dirty empty
air. We can legislate and we can appropriate.
But legislation and money are only allies of
action and for enforcement. We are truly
using up our trump cards, and the game may
soon be over—permanently. I do not want to
sound overly ominous or to be a prophet of
doom, but the peril allows no less.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to close the debate on this side,
and to say I believe the committee has
considered this bill very well.
As I have said, hearings started in
December and ended in April. The
committee members heard all the
testimony. After hearing all the
testimony they came up with the
strongest bill they could.
I believe it is a good bill and a
strong bill, regardless of any asper-
sions or innuendoes which might be
cast against it.
It is a little like anything else we
do in life. We would like to do things
right now, but we do not have the
technology necessary and have many
times not done all the things which
ought to be done.
The situation is a little bit like the
situations which faced the late Presi-
dent Kennedy when he said in 1961
that he hoped to have a man on the
moon and back during the decade.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1451
Well, this has happened, but it did not
happen without a lot of hard work
by those involved. We hope not 10
years from now but 3 years from now
we will have the technology by which
we can control a great many of these
things. I know some say that the only
way to control it is to get rid of the
internal combustion engine. However,
anybody who has any commonsense
knows that we cannot do that now. It
will take time. We are trying to clean
it up so it will not be a pollutant to
the air.
Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill
and as good a bill as we could come out
with at this time. It certainly gives
everyone a chance to develop those
things and do those things that are
necessary to stop pollution in this
country.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, in
reiterating what the chairman of this
committee has said, I would like to
make two points if I can.
All of the amendments which are
being submitted here today were
before our committee in one form or
another. They were up for discussion.
We have considered everything here,
every alternative that I know of.
The second point I want to make is
that we in this bill greatly changed
the existing law of 1967 and we
strengthened it in five different ways
that I outlined in my speech a few
minutes ago.
Everything that has been talked
about here today or which will be
introduced by way of amendment was
discussed at great length in the com-
mittee. We finally came to you with
this bill. It is a good bill, it is an
improved bill, and it is a strong bill.
It has a tremendously increased
authorization to back it up.
May I say that I think we went as
far in this bill as we could go with
the knowledge we have at hand at the
present time and still make a reason-
able commonsense version.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. This bill is a good
bill. It has been well conceived and
well thought out and is well appropri-
ated for.
Now I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman
state why any one of the States of the
Union which wanted to promulgate
stricter emission standards for auto-
mobiles than those which are set forth
by the Federal Government should not
be allowed to do so?
Mr. SPRINGER. This was gone
into in great detail. I will not go into
all of it here as to why it was, but
it was felt that you could not have
50 different emission standards. That
is the reason, and that could conceiv-
ably happen. The gentleman is talking
about one of the amendments that the
gentleman's colleagues will introduce,
which I will be opposed to. Why? Be-
cause he will let any locality that
wants to set its own emission stand-
ards. When you do that it means that
you cannot drive from one county to
another in Illinois, just the same as
you could not drive in 50 different
States, and you would have all
different laws.
Mr. YATES. Suppose the State of
Illinois wants to set up stricter emis-
sion standards for automobiles in the
same way as the State of California.
Why should it not be permitted to
do so?
Mr. SPRINGER. May I say that
we would not have done it in the State
of California except in one county
that has had the worst situation in
the world, with the possible exception
of London. There was a good reason
for the exception of California.
Now, If I may, I would like to go
ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize
that I think this bill is a good one
-------
1452
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and the chairman would not have
brought it out to you unless he
thought it was a good bill. He has
been strong for a good, sound clean-
air bill which was well financed. And,
in that effort, I have taken every
opportunity I could to back him up.
Mr. Chairman, this bill came out
of the committee unanimously. I do
not mean that everyone agreed with
every single provision of it, but there
certainly was not any opposition that
I knew of to the bill as it finally came
to the floor of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make
that statement to the members of the
Committee at this time before we get
into the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further
requests for time.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. There is being no
further requests for time, pursuant
to the rule, the Clerk will now read
the committee amendment in the na-
ture of a substitute printed in the
reported bill as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment.
[p. 19224]
Mr. STAGGERS (during the read-
ing) . Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the committee amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute be
considered as read, printed in the
RECORD, and open to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED
BY MK. VAN DEERLIN
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. VAN DEEBLIN:
On page 44, line 3, strike out "or".
Page 44, line 4, insert before the period the
following: ", or (C) to fail to comply with
the requirements of pection 206(f) (2)".
Page 44, line 24, strike out the quotation
marks.
Page 44, insert after line 24 the following:
(f)(l) The Secretary shall conduct, or
cause to be conducted such inspections, tests,
studies, research and investigations as may
be necessary to determine whether new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines con-
form to the regulations prescribed under sec-
tion 202 of this title, after such vehicles or
engines have been in operation, under normal
conditions of maintenance and use, at least
4000 miles. Any inspection of a new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine, 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 in-
spection program established pursuant to the
last sentence of subsection 108(c)(l) of Title
I of this act.
"(2) If through testing, inspection studies
or other investigation of representative num-
bers of any class or category of motor vehicles
or motor vehicle engines, or by other means,
the Secretary determines that such class or
category of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines, operated under normal condi-
tions of maintenance and use, does not con-
form to the regulations prescribed under sec-
tion 202 of this Title he shall immediately
notify the manufacturer or manufacturers
thereof of such determination of non-conform-
ity. The notice shall contain the finding of the
Secretary and shall include all information
upon which the findings are based, and shall
be published in full in the Federal Register as
promptly as possible. The Secretary shall
within thirty days of such notice afford all in-
terested parties an opportunity to present their
views and evidence in support thereof, at a
public hearing or in writing, with regard to
the Secretary's determination of non-conform-
ity. The Secretary shall within a reasonable
time, but in no event more than 60 days from
the date of notice of non-conformity, direct
the manufacturer to provide prompt notifica-
tion of such non-conformity to the owners of
all motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines in-
cluded within the class or category, unless the
Secretary, on the basis of all the facts and
evidence in the public record of such proceed-
ings, shall conclude that the class or category
or new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines is in conformity with the regulation,
and publish such conclusion together with the
reasons therefore in the Federal Register as
promptly as possible.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1453
" (3) The notification to the owner provided
for in this subsection shall contain a clear de-
scription of the non-conformity, a statement
of measures to be taken to remedy such non-
conformity and a commitment of the manu-
facturer to cause such non-conformity to be
remedied at no cost to the owner.
"(4) The U.S. District Court shall have
jurisdiction to restrain violations of this sec-
tion or any order of the Secretary issued under
this subsection, upon petition by the appropri-
ate U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General on
behalf of the United States."
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I regret the need for imposing
both on the Clerk and the Members of
the House the reading of such a long
amendment, but it is one which is
quite important in a piece of legisla-
lation which is in itself of paramount
importance.
The existing law provides only for
the testing of prototype vehicles of
emission-control devices. The com-
mittee bill which we have before us
would improve upon this to the extent
that it would require assembly line
testing. If that is the best we can
manage I am for it, but I think we
can do still better. I think that the
consumer out there who has bought
a car, and has relied upon the war-
ranty of purchase, should have some
way of making certain that the car he
is driving will hold up in the kind of
condition that it was when it left the
assembly line.
The committee report itself bears
out the need for this. It says:
Experience has shown that the testing and
certification of prototypes does not of itself
assure that automobiles coming off the assem-
bly line which are sold to the public comply
with the Federal emission standards. There-
fore, the legislation authorizes inspection of
assembly plants and the testing of automobiles
and engines coming off the assembly line.
That is from page 3 of the report.
The experts tell us that no testing
is really valid until the devices have
been operating at least 4,000 miles—
and that means operating under
driving conditions, not under protected
conditions that prevail in the testing
of prototypes at the factory.
As a matter of fact, the present
regulation on the prototype says that
we should expect these devices to work
for 50,000 miles.
Now, some interesting tests have
been conducted in California, con-
ducted on a controlled basis within
the Hertz rental car fleet, and the
findings there were that 53 percent
of the Hertz cars tested between
10,000 and 11,000 miles were deficient
in one respect or another in regard
to their effluent-control devices.
Adequate test equipment for this
purpose costs about $10,000 per unit,
and it is possible that through the
adoption of this amendment it would
mean that $1 million would have to be
spent across the Nation to provide
these consumer tests. The fact of the
matter is that we shall be spending
about $750 million as consumers on
these devices, and it seems reasonable
that $1 million should be spent to
make sure that we are not wasting
the $750 million. The American pub-
lic is entitled to know that the
devices will last, that they are work-
ing, that they are going to help
restore clean air.
Mr. Chairman> I would be willing
to answer any questions anyone may
have on this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS' of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I notice that the amendment
would require this to be voluntary. Is
that correct?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. The reason
for that wording, I would say to the
gentleman from Florida, is that many
States have a requirement for manda-
tory testing. We would not want to
exclude these from coming under the
protection of the amendment, but in
526-703 O - 73 - 19
-------
1454
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
addition to those States which do
require mandatory testing, I would
like to know that every consumer
could obtain it voluntarily.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I think
the gentleman would want the House
to know that there is no State, insofar
as I know, that has mandatory auto-
mobile testing for air pollution. Is
that not correct?
[p. 19228]
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. If these
failures turn up in ordinary inspec-
tions as required, I want them to be
corrected.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Not for
emission standards. There is really no
test, because we do not have the test-
ing devices. Frankly, is that not
basically the problem now in the
country?
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. We have it in
California, and we are doing some-
thing about it.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The
gentleman knows that they are not
doing anything as far as requiring
testing on emission standards.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I will state to
the gentleman from Florida that my
son has spent time in court for
violating the air with his car.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. They did
not have any testing devices. Many
communities have ordinances which
say if a person causes excess pollu-
tion, where they see a lot of smoke
coming out, but what the gentleman
is talking about is a lot different than
emission standards as such, as I am
sure the gentleman knows.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. The gentle-
man from Florida knows that these
devices are available.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I am not
sure that they are yet available.
But in this case you are concentrat-
ing research and developing testing
devices that can be used.
I think the House should also
know before you vote on any amend-
ment like this that we have directed
the Secretary to develop testing
devices which we do not have.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman. I certainly recognize
the intentions of the gentleman from
California [Mr. VAN DEERLIN], one
of the very able members on our
committee. I am very sure his inten-
tions are only the finest and certainly
insofar as his intention is concerned,
certainly it is right. But I would like
to point this out to the Members of
the Congress right now.
The bill contains this language:
At such time as the Secretary, after consul-
tation with the State, determines that the
achievement of an air quality standard under
section 107 (e) requires inspection of motor
vehicles in actual use and that such inspection
is technologically and economically feasible, the
State shall revise its plan to provide for such
inspection.
This is a part of the bill. They can
do that under the State plan.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California, Mr. VAN
DEERLIN.
The question was taken; and the
chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand tellers so that we
might see a little show down the
middle aisle and a little of the feeling
and the mood of the membership.
Tellers were refused.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1455
try to make a little legislative history
that might in time come to be impor-
tant to all of us.
I do not think there is any argu-
ment among us about whether or not
we ought as best we can to provide for
cleaner air. Certainly, we all agree in
this respect.
But I want to ask some questions of
the committee chairman or the rank-
ing minority member.
First as to section 206 on page 39
of the bill, which has to do with motor
vehicle and motor vehicle engine com-
pliance testing and certification.
Is it intended in the language of
the committee bill that the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare will
be required to test on the assembly
line and certify every single engine
produced for a period not to exceed 1
year before the manufacturer can sell
that engine?
Mr. STAGGERS. I might say "No,"
categorically.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Then what is
proposed?
Mr. STAGGERS. It means he can
keep testing and when there is evi-
dence that there is any failure or they
do not come up to place, they can
stop the assembly line right there and
stay there.
Mr. WAGGONNER. It means he
can, until he is so satisfied?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Is it necessary
every time an engine design is
changed by the manufacturer that he
submit this new engine design to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
iVelfore for testing and certification?
Is the answer to that "No"?
Mr. STAGGERS. I would say this.
I do not think he has to, if it is a
trade secret, as to whatever he is do-
ing—I do not think you would have
to give this in advance. But they do
have to meet certain standards. This
is the criteria—they have to meet
certain standards. I do not think they
would have to show the design or
anything, but after they started per-
formance they have to meet certain
performance standards.
Mr. WAGGONNER. How can this
determination be made unless the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare engages in this testing which will
precede certification?
Mr. STAGGERS. I would certainly
say that he would have to. The only
way he could do it would be on the
first ones tested.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Then, in view
of the gentleman's answer, if an
automobile manufacturer or an engine
manufacturer should change the
design of the engines that he pro-
duces in mass production—and just
for argument's sake we will say he
produces 100,000 of these engines—
then the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare could come in and
revoke or suspend the certification of
an engine for which the design has
been changed because, in his opinion,
the new engine does not meet the
standards that he had set forth.
Mr. STAGGERS. According to the
legislation, the manufacturer would
have to submit a prototype and it
would have to be tested.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Then the
answer to my first question should
properly have been that when an
engine design is changed, the manu-
facturer must submit a prototype for
testing?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct. I
did not understand your question and
I did not answer it correctly.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Let us talk a
little bit about fuel. Section 8 of the
bill, which has to do with stand-
ards with respect to fuel, states that:
"(f) (1) The Secretary may, on the basis of
specific findings made in accordance with sub-
section (g), establish standards respecting the
composition or the chemical or physical prop-
-------
1456
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
erties 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 fuel or fuel additive will endanger the
public health or welfare, or (B) if such fuel
or fuel additive will impair to a significant de-
gree the performance of any emission control
device or system which 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.
Am I to believe that under the au-
thority of this section establishing
standards with respect to fuels, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare can, today, because no time
is prescribed, if he so desires and
feels he has sufficient information, say
to the manufacturers and producers of
fuels, "You have got to take the lead
out of gas. You have got to put
another additive in. You have got to
change your formula"?
Mr. STAGGERS. Under another
section of the bill the Secretary is
required to make specific findings that
that it affects either the health or the
operation, and so forth, before he can
put these measures into operation,
and it must be based upon the facts
and not allegations that he does not
know about, and they have to be so
stipulated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
getleman from Louisiana has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WAG-
GONNER was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. WAGGONNER. I would like to
ask the chairman this question. Let us
consider the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Under exist-
ing legislation, the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare made
application of existing law which
would allow him to remove from the
market under conditions he could
prescribe DDT. Now they are having
second thoughts about DDT and they
think they made a mistake. The scare
has already been introduced in the
minds of the public that lead is
harmful to health, that it is a pollu-
tant, and the administration ap-
parently shares some concern because
they apparently want to get lead out
of gasoline. It might well be. I do not
know. But they propose that a tax
be placed on leaded gasoline, in ef-
fect, to try to take leaded gasoline
off the market as well as produce
revenue.
If the Secretary feels that he
already has sufficient information, can
he now
[p. 19229]
say, "You cannot manufacture gaso-
line and market it any longer that has
lead in it"?
Mr. STAGGERS. No, he cannot. If
the gentleman is talking about present
law, as it is now constituted, he
cannot.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am talking
about the law as it will be by these
amendments.
Mr. STAGGERS. He will have that
authority.
Mr. WAGGONNER. And he could
do that tomorrow?
Mr. STAGGERS. If he has the
facts, and he has proven this by
facts, that they are a danger and
poisonous—I am trying to find it in
the bill so I can cite it to the gentle-
man.
Mr. WAGGONNER. We are getting
into some dangerous ground, because
we are talking about something we
have not thought through.
Mr. STAGGERS. It says in this
clause under section 8:
"(g)(l) Any standards pursuant to clause
(A) of subsection (f) (1) shall be established
by the Secretary on the basis of specific find-
ings derived from relevant medical and scien-
tific evidence, including (in the case of a
standard with respect to a motor vehicle fuel
or fuel additive) a finding that it is not other-
wise technologically or economically feasible to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1457
achieve the emission standards established pur-
suant to section 202 of this Act.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Then the
gentleman is saying to me, Mr. Chair-
man, that if information already exists
or they believe they have that informa-
tion which will prove that lead in
itself in gasoline is harmful, whether
they are right or not, but they believe
they are right, if they have developed
this information before this proposal
is signed into law, it will be within
the power of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare at any point
he desires to .say that they must take
lead out of gasoline.
Mr. STAGGERS. It is not based on
belief. This says specifically that it is
based upon specific findings.
Mr. WAGGONNER. When must
those findings have been made?
Mr. STAGGERS. If this is possible,
and I do not think it is at the present
time, then it would have to be
constituted on specific findings derived
from relevant medical and scientific
evidence.
Mr. WAGGONNER. The gentle-
man's answer is quite interesting. The
gentleman just made the statement he
did not think this was the case or
possible at the present time. Is the
gentleman saying to this House that
nothing during the course of con-
sideration of these amendments was
produced in evidence to show that lead
was harmful in gasoline?
Mr. STAGGERS. I did not say that.
Mr. WAGGONNER. That is the net
effect, Mr. Chairman, of what the
gentleman just said.
Mr. STAGGERS, No; I do not want
the House to believe that.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Let us get this
record straight because this legislative
history is important, and none of us
has had a chance to study this except
those on the committee. This legisla-
tion was scheduled yesterday, and it
came out of the blue, with many of us
not having had an opportunity to
prepare ourselves.
Mr. STAGGERS. The chairman of
the committee had nothing to do with
that. The chairman of the committee
was called yesterday and asked if he
could appear before the Rules Com-
mittee, and I am complying with what
I was requested to do.
I think there is nothing wrong with
this. I think it is perfectly clear.
There is no shenanigan. Some legisla-
tion was needed on the floor, and the
chairman said he would agree to be
helpful to the House and to carry on
business.
Mr. WAGGONER. I know there is
no shenanigan. I do not imply that.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I think if the gentleman will
look at this in context, he will sef
what we have done. As the gentleman
knows, under the existing law, all of
the burden of cleaning up emissions
that were polluting the air from
automobiles was placed on the auto-
mobile industry. That was where the
burden was placed. The automobile
industry said, "We cannot meet Gov-
erenment standards in 1975 if there is
lead in gasoline." Now there was no
authority for the Secretary to do
anything about gasoline.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Let me ask a
question. Does that mean that Govern-
ment standards are bad, or that lead
in gasoline is bad?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. We are
saying it is the joint burden of the oil
industry and the automobile industry,
because both products go to produce
the pollution, so what this amendment
does very simply is to say that the
Secretary will also have the right to
bring in the oil industry to help meet
-------
1458
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the problem, and he does this in a
very precise way.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WAG-
GONNER was allowed to proceed for
5 additional minutes.)
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, if the gentleman will yield
further, it is outlined how the Secre-
tary does it. If all the emissions
standards could be met and we could
clean up the air without going into
regulating any one industry, that
would be fine, but it happens that this
is not so.
So we have established now the
authority where, if there is evidence
that it is necessary to take out or
eliminate certain components or
certain additives to gasoline—and lead
is one—that will be considered, no
question about it, and if that is neces-
sary, this bill will give the Secretary
that authority.
Mr. WAGGONER. Is it intended
that in changing the gasoline formu-
las, if the Secretary says that they
must take something out, that the
formulas, as is the case with engines,
for new fuels must be submitted to
the Secretary for approval?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Let me
say, we did not give authority—which
is what I believe the gentleman is
concerned about—for the Secretary to
go in and tell the companies how to
make gasoline. We do not tell them
how to make an automobile engine.
We do not want to get into that and
do not want the Federal Government
to do it.
Mr. WAGGONNER. And there is a
good reason. We do not know how to
do it, either.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I under-
stand. We are not going to permit
that.
We have said that if there is a
component part of the gasoline or if
there is an additive, which the facts
show will affect the public health, and
medical and scientific facts show this,
or will prevent the emission standards
from being met, the Secretary may
act as to that component part or that
additive.
Mr. WAGGONNER. What appeals
are made available to the manufac-
turer of an engine or the producer of
a fuel, if they take issue with the
findings of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. They
have the Administrative Procedure
Act.
Mr. WAGGONNER. And only the
Administrative Procedure Act?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. And an
appeal to the court, from the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act.
Mr. WAGGONNER. In some cases
they would.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. They
would in this case.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Not in all
cases do people have the right of
appeal to the court under the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act. In some
instances under the Administrative
Procedure Act the decisions are final,
when they render a decision.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I believe
they would in this instance.
Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAGGONER. I yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. KAZEN. Let me see if I can
understand this. If the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare de-
cides that lead is injurious to public
health and that they then order lead
be taken out of gasoline, and lead
happens to be a component upon
which high compression engines
depend to run
Mr. WAGGONNER. As it is.
Mr. KAZEN. As it is—and those
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1459
engines are already on the road now,
that means they will stop the manu-
facture of that gasoline, and those
cars then must stop. Is that the idea?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I should like to
have an answer from some member
of the committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. ROGERS)
for an answer.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, it will have to be estab-
lished. As we know, the automobile
industry is now reducing the com-
pression in the engines. This is
already being accomplished in the
3971 models.
Mr. KAZEN. I will take a 1970
high-compression engine. What will I
do for gasoline?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Now, first
of all, there is a nonleaded, high-test
gasoline already being produced for
high-compression engines, and already
one company is producing it—Amoco.
[p. 19230]
Mr. KAZEN. Yes; but that does not
work in the high-compression engines.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Yes; that
is already a nonleaded gasoline.
Amoco produces it for the high-
compression engine, not for the low-
compression engion. That is all they
produce now. Other companies are
also producing.
Mr. WAGGONNER. At a cost of 2
cents i gallon more and it still con-
tains pollutants in the form of
aromatics.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. They will
have the necessary gasoline to run the
automobiles now on the road.
Mr. WAGGONER. Does the gentle-
man recognize that conservative esti-
mates made by people who know
something about the refinery opera-
tion, capacity, and cost in this country
are that it will take in excess of a
minimum of $6 billion to convert the
refineries of this country to produce
unleaded gasoline?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I have
heard the claim made, and that other
people say it may go $2 billion. That
is quite possible. Amoco is now pro-
ducing high-compression gasoline
without lead at 1 cent over the
regular price.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAGGONER. I yield to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. I should like
to make this observation; the hearings
are replete with evidence, statement
after statement that if we go to non-
leaded gasoline at this time then for
the next 10 years we will have two
classes of gasoline in this country,
one to take care of the present popu-
lation of automobiles, and a different
class of fuel for the new population of
motor vehicles and that this will cost
somewhere between $3 billion and $6
billion to the petroleum industry alone
to deal with such a situation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana has again
expired.
Mr. PICKLE, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKLE. I do not just yet. I
will try to yield later.
This is a section of the bill that
came in for considerable discussion in
the hearings and later in meetings of
individuals trying to find a better
answer. The members of the com-
mittee know that I have had reserva-
tions about this particular section,
and I felt we ought to eliminate the
words "the composition of" when we
talked about gasoline. The committee
felt, though, that we ought to keep it
-------
1460
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in there. I must say that there are
certain safeguards, and I want to be
fair to the committee. I believe they
tried to protect what they thought
were the best interests of those people
who manufacture gasoline. Overall the
Secretary must make specific findings
based, exactly as the chairman of the
committee read, on medical and scien-
tific evidence. Then the Secretary
could establish certain safeguards
specifying a limitation on the compo-
sition of the fuel or the additives if
two things take place: One, if they
endanger the public health and, sec-
ond, if they would impair to a signifi-
cant degree the performance of any
emissions product. I think those are
good safeguards. The Secretary must
meet those two requirements. That
does give us some assurance that you
will not just automatically overnight
have in a change in the formulas.
I will ask this committee this ques-
tion. I understand the intent of the
committee was that it would just use
the word "additives." Additives are
our real problem. There is no intent
on the part of the committee to try
to establish a formula here for one
grade of gasoline. You are not trying
to get at the composition of gasoline
but rather to control the emissions of
pollutants that come out of the
exhaust. We are really trying to get
at the additive problem and not so
much at the composition or the grade
form of the gasoline?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKLE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS' of Florida. I think
the gentleman knows that we are not
trying to say to a manufacturer that
he has to make his gasoline in a
particular way. What we are saying
is we want the Secretary to have the
authority wherever the facts show
that a particular component or an
additive of gasoline—a particular item
—affects adversely the public health
or prevents emission standards from
being met, then the Secretary can
say that this item should be reduced
or eliminated. It is put on that basis
and the findings are made. He does
not go in and say that that is the way
you will make gasoline. Yes. You are
correct on that.
Mr. PICKLE. The committee is not
attempting to establish one grade of
gasoline for all manufacturers?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. We are
not trying to establish any kinds of
grades. What we want is for the
public health to be protected and auto
emission standards to be met for the
benefit of the public health.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKLE. I yield to the chair-
man.
Mr. STAGGERS. I think the gentle-
man from Louisiana was worried
about the fact that this would be a
hard ruling made in the courts. Of
course, these matters come up under
the Administrative Procedure Act,
and then they have recourse to the
courts. If they feel, after all of the
hearings have been laid before them,
that these were not the facts and that
the ruling was wrong, the court will
have the final decision.
Mr. PICKLE. The Chairman, I
think, would say that those people
who manufacture gasoline have given
full cooperation in the consideration of
this bill. They are not trying to throw
roadblocks in the way. But certainly
they will be concerned if you are try-
ing to say to them that the Secretary
can establish standards that will
allow the manufacturer to have only
one grade of gasoline. I think if
we can have that assurance, it will
give them the sense of assurance that
they are entitled to.
Mr. STAGGERS. I think it is the in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1461
tent of the committee all the way
through.
Also I repeat again what the bill
has to say here. Certain criteria must
be met or if they do not, they can take
those into consideration.
Mr. PICKLE. I thank the Chair-
man.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. SAYLOR
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SAYLOR : On page
46, insert after line 25 the following :
"(f) Section 208(b) of such Act is amended
to read as follows:
" '(b) The Secretary shall, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, waive applica-
tion of this section to any State which has
adopted standards for the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle
engines, unless he finds that such State does
not require standards more stringent than ap-
plicable Federal standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions or that such State
standards and accompanying enforcement pro-
cedures are not consistent with section 202 (a)
of this Act.1 "
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, first
let me commend the committee for
bringing this bill to the floor. The im-
provements that are contained in this
bill in my opinion are excellent. But
the amendment that I have offered I
think is an amendment which is abso-
lutely necessary if we are going to
clear up the air pollution in this
country.
The basic question is whether or not
the Federal law is going to become
the floor or the ceiling on air pollution.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the committee
has already made one exception to the
State of California. They say they
have good reason for making that
exception in the State of California.
Very frankly, if you will read the
record, you will find out that the same
conditions that exist in California
exist in every metropolitan area of
the United States.
What my amendment, if adopted,
would do is to say that if the States
will establish standards which are
higher than those of the Federal
Government, it is perfectly proper for
the Secretary to approve those stand-
ards.
Now, very frankly, while California
has made out a good case, the in-
dustrial State of Pennsylvania from
which I come has had more deaths due
to air pollution than any other State
in the Nation. Under the law at the
present time we are bound by what
the Federal standards are.
Mr. Chairman, the State of Pennsyl-
vania is interested in increasing its
standards. They are trying to see to
it that the automobiles that are sold
in Pennsylvania meet a higher stand-
ard than the Federal standard.
Now, I cannot see why, if this com-
mittee is really interested in cleaning
up air pollution and not in trying to
see that the Federal Government is
the sole monitor or the sole agent to
determine what is air pollution, that
they would give other States who
have these unusual problems the right
to have higher standards.
Now, I did not put in this amend-
ment the fact that the States could
do it automatically. I have seen to it
that this amendment is so drafted
that they must confer with the Secre-
tary and when they establish to his
satisfaction that they
[p. 19231]
have a condition which requires a
greater standard, then they should be
permitted to put those standards into
effect. I think this is in the interest
of good legislation.
Let me point out to you that the
conditions in Alaska, which is one of
our sister States, are not the same as
they are in Massachusetts or Pennsyl-
-------
1462
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
vania or New Jersey or the highly
industrialized States. New York has a
problem with fog and smog that is
just as bad as that condition which
exists in California. California has
made a great to-do about their condi-
tion because it is concentrated in
one local area. But everyone of you
who comes from a metropolitan area
has this same problem.
Mr. Chairman, all I am seeking to
accomplish through the adoption of
this amendment is to say that if your
States come in and show the Secretary
that they have a problem, give the
States the right to establish for the
cars that are sold in their States a
higher standard of emission than the
general rule that the Federal Gov-
ernment has established.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAYLOB. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Do I not under-
stand that your amendment does not
permit 50 different rules? As a matter
of fact, it would only permit the
number of rules suitable to the Secre-
tary; would it not?
Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct; you
would not have 50 unless they could
give proof to the Secretary that would
be adequate, but where there is a
special situation and the Secretary is
satisfied it is a special situation, and
the State proves to him, then he could
approve higher standards to be set
up for that State.
Mr. ECKHARDT. So that there
would be two guarantees against the
rule being overly burdensome: One,
the good judgment of the legislature
of the State, which presumably would
not enact legislation putting an extra
burden on its citizens, and two, the
judgment of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare; is that
correct?
Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAYLOR. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Am I to under-
stand, then, that all that you seek
is that the other States of the Union
have the same right that the State of
California has in setting standards
that they deem necessary for the
health and safety of their people?
Mr. SAYLOR. That is all that I am
asking, and I ask that they go to the
Secretary and make out their case
just as California must go.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I
believe that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. SAYLOR] should be passed unani-
mously, because there is no reason that
I can see why only California shall be
permitted to set healthful standards
for its citizens, and none of the others.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, 1
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the wording has
been very carefully made in this
amendment in order to try to get
around the amendments which have
been offered by several gentlemen that
I know of over here who are planning
to offer one which gives not only States
but localities the right to set any
standards they want.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania
has offered an amendment with a
slight modification—if they can con-
vince the Secretary what the facts
are.
Mr. Chairman, we made an excep-
tion. We thought we were sound. We
did not try to make a lot of exceptions,
because, Mr. Chairman, I think we
have gone into this matter very care-
fully when we made the last survey
that I know of, that was made by the
Public Health Service, which showed
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1463
that the situation in one county, Los
Angeles, in this country was 4.98
worse than any other city in the
country. That is almost five times as
much. We felt that the county of Los
Angeles had made out a case, and we
had to observe it.
There is not any other situation
in this country that is even compar-
able to that in Los Angeles. Anyone
who wants to make a study of this
will find out that there is no other
place where engine emissions from
automobiles are anything like they
are there. There is not any place in
the country where the weather condi-
tions are like they are in Los Angeles.
It is merely one weather condition
which, combined with all the other
factors of engine emission, make up
quite a dangerous situation. But if
you had not had Los Angeles in this,
California would not have gotten this
exception. Any of you gentlemen who
live in California and have gone to
San Francisco know there certainly is
no situation like that there. I have
been in both places, and I do not have
to be a .stranger—all I have to do is
walk around in the streets, or go over
the freeways, to see that the situation
is not the same. And that is the rea-
son, because there is this one county of
Los Angeles that we made the
exception.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot, may I
say, have 50 different standards, but
it could be possible. The reason the
gentleman has drawn this amend-
ment the way he has is because he
says it is only possible to do it, under
his amendment, if you can convince
the Secretary.
Let me just give you an illustration
of what would actually happen if you
wanted to give everybody this right
to set up their own standards. There
is nothing to prevent them from
setting up their own standards and
penalties where you could have 15 or
20 States which could prohibit the use
of an automobile on the highways of
that State unless you had a motor that
conformed with the standards of that
State. You cannot be any more
ridiculous than that. And that is what
you are getting into when you start
letting every State in the Union set up
its own standards. And that is exactly
the problem that is involved in this.
I am not going to go into the
evpense problem. But some of you
gentlemen surely can understand if
you have an automobile manufac-
turer manufacturing 15 or 16 different
engines at 15 or 16 different rates,
depending on what the local body
thought was necessary in its own
particular situation, you can see what
the problem would be.
I merely develop that point to give
you some of the problems which we
did not go into today but which we
talked about in committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I certainly
concur with the gentleman.
As was pointed out, you just cannot
drive from one State to the other if
we permitted this type of thing',
without everybody paying a fine or
else having his car pulled off the road.
Second, we direct the Secretary that
he shall set standards, and we want
him to set the highest standards, the
strictest standards, so that the people
in Alaska are going to be protected
just as much as anybody else. They
ought to be and they will be under the
committee bill.
I agree with the gentleman that
this amendment definitely and any
amendment like it, should be voted
down.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
-------
1464
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SAYLOR. I would just like to
call to your attention that the only
State that has had any deaths from
air pollution is the State of Pennsyl-
vania. You can talk all you want to
about Los Angeles, but the only State
that had any deaths from pollution
coming from automobiles is the State
of Pennsylvania in the town of
Donora. This is a matter of record.
Mr. SPRINGER. I do not know
about the situation altogether in
Donora. But it was my understanding
that there were other conditions than
autos which had to do with the
death in Donora.
If anybody has ever traveled
through that town, as I used to, when
I came from Illinois each time going
back and forth—I can very well
understand the situation because
there was a great deal of pall hanging
over that town which did not come
from auto engine ignitions but came
from the large factories all up and
down that valley and that river.
Mr. SAYLOR. The reverse of that
situation is essentially what you had
in Los Angeles for which you made
an exception. Carrying that argument
to its conclusion, you would say that
the other 49 States of the Union
should not allow any car licensed in
California to drive anywhere else
because they have different standards
than we have in the other States.
Mr. SPRINGER. It would not con-
flict because their standards are
higher and they can just drive in the
other States without fear of prosecu-
tion. I will say to the gentleman again,
the only reason we made an exception
for California was because of the
situation being five times as bad as.
anywhere else in the country, in
Los Angeles.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
[p. 19232]
Mr. Chairman, I had proposed to
support a modified amendment that
would have permitted States to make
their own rules governing standards
of automobile construction relating to
emission of pollutants. But, frankly, I
believe this is more guarded and it
answers some of the objections that
would be, or could be, presented to an
amendment that permitted each State
to make its own rules so long as the
rule was stricter than the existing
Federal law.
I think it answers the contention
that there could be an inordinate
number of rules that would make it
too burdensome for a manufacturer
to comply.
With that in mind, I would favor
the approach here above those of such
type that might be offered later.
Incidentally, I should like to point
out to the House that if any of the
other approaches did pass, at least it
would arguably make the bill difficult
to enforce. This does not do so. But I
do want to be sure as to precisely
what the amendment does, and I
should like to ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania a few questions on the
matter. First, do I understand that
no standard can be established by any
State unless the Secretary concurs?
Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Second, do I
correctly understand that the Secre-
tary could not under this provision
concur unless the standard adopted by
the State was consistent with section
202 (a) of this act?
Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Do I also
correctly understand that such a
standard could not be adopted by a
State unless it addressed itself to an
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1465
extraordinary condition in that State
and constituted a stiffer rule than the
Federal rule?
Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. In connection
with the statement about conditions in
various States, I would just like to
say for the record that right now
there is an air pollution alert in New
York City. The last time such an
alert took place 175 people died. New
York has asked people not to drive
their cars because people are dying
now. It would seem to me that the
least we could do would be to amend
the law so that the very minimum
would be the standard set by Cali-
fornia. I believe an amendment will be
offered today to set the minimum
standards as those of California in
connection with antipollution.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman,
I support the amendment.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I will go for
that amendment.
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman,
originally I had intended to offer a
separate amendment, which the distin-
guished gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
SPRINGER] referred to. However, after
hearing the amendment that has been
offered and some of the discussion on
it, I rise in support of this amend-
ment. This amendment avoids some of
the questions that have been raised
about the proposal I was going to
offer, and yet at the same time meets
the very pressing problem which
the committee did not address itself to,
either in its report or in the bill itself,
namely how do we meet the fact that
whatever was true in 1967, as far as
California was concerned, is true
today in many of the urban areas of
this country? The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the author of the
amendment, referred to the fact that
deaths have occurred in Pennsylvania.
Deaths have occurred in Chicago;
deaths have occurred in other big
cities as a result of automobile pollu-
tion ; because the fact of the matter is
that you cannot separate out pollution
caused by automobile emissions, from
the other pollutants which as a total
create the conditions under which
there is real danger to the life and
health of our population.
The Governor of my State, Gover-
nor Ogilvie, specifically addressed a
letter to me, and I believe to the other
members of the Illinois delegation, in
which he strongly urged that a strong
effort be made to repeal the preemp-
tion clause which exists in the 1967
act. Governor Ogilvie wrote:
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Springfield, May 8, 1970.
Hon. ABNEB MIKVA,
Member of Congress,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MIKVA: I should like to
enlist your support for the repeal of a provi-
sion in the Federal Clean Air Act that unrea-
sonably restricts state and local authority to
regulate air pollution caused by motor vehicles.
Federal emission standards are a necessary
minimum. But existing standards do not ade-
quately control emissions even of carbon mon-
oxide and hydrocarbons, much less of nitrogen
oxides and other pollutants. Indeed, it is im-
probable that nationwide standards will ever
be strict enough for our most congested areas
since they are applicable to rural areas
as well. Nevertheless, Congress in 3967 forbade
the states to regulate emissions from new vehi-
cles in response to the manufacturers' request
for a single national standard.
An exemption from this pre-emption was
provided only for California, which had dem-
onstrated the existence of a special problem.
Now, with the recent issuance of federal cri-
teria for automotive air pollutants, it is clear
that many other states may be confronted
with the need to go beyond the federal stand-
ards in order to protect the public health and
welfare. While federal law allows state regula-
-------
1466
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tion of automobile use, it deprives the states of
one of our most effective weapons—the control
of emissions from new vehicles.
It would be unfortunate enough if federal
law merely denied the states power to protect
their own citizens. But the federal law is also
internally inconsistent, for the preemption sec-
tion is wholly incompatible with the simultane-
ous federal expectation that the states set and
achieve air quality standards for automotive
pollutants. Congress has told us we must de-
velop automotive controls and at the same time
has deprived us of the authority to do so.
A bill to amend the Clean Air Act will soon
reach the floor of the House of Representa-
tives, where an effort will be made to insert a
provision repealing the pre-emption section in
accord with bills introduced earlier in this ses-
sion. I support this effort to restore to state
and local governments the power to prevent
pollution from motor vehicles, and I am writ-
ing each of the Nation's Governors and to the
Illinois Congressional delegation to ask for ex-
pressions of support.
Sincerely,
RICHARD B. OGILVIB,
Governor.
An expression of support has come
from many of the mayors of the large
cities of this country. One such letter
I have received is as follows:
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES,
U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
Washington, D.C., April 29, 1970.
Hon. ABNER J. MIKVA,
17.5. House of Representatives,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN MIKVA : The National
League of Cities and U.S. Conference of
Mayors support enactment of H.R. 16013 to
repeal the present federal pre-emption of state
and local motor vehicle emission standards
which are more stringent than federal stand-
ards. We believe that there should be no fed-
eral pre-emption of any state or local regula-
tions controlling air pollution which are stricter
than federal requirements.
The National League of Cities National
Municipal Policy for 1970 states in its section
on air pollution: "States and local governments
should not be precluded from adopting more
restrictive standards than those adopted at the
federal level."
Many local communities have air pollution
problems which they believe to be more serious
than generally appreciated at the federal level.
These communities must be free to act posi-
tively to control air pollution to the extent
they believe necessary for the health and well
being of local citizens.
We commend you for your interest in this
problem and look forward to working with
you in support of H.R. 16013.
Sincerely,
ALAN HEALS,
Director, Congressional Relations.
Very simply, I say to the mem-
bers of this committee that we have
no way of meeting the problems unless
there is some authority in State gov-
ernment to impose stricter standards
on motor vehicles.
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MIKVA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado.
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. In order
that I may better understand the pro-
visions of the amendment offered by
the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania, I wonder whether or
not the effect of his amendment
would be to control the sale of
vehicles alone or control the sale of
vehicles and the use of vehicles?
What I have in mind is a family that
is leaving one State and going to 15
or 20 States in a car they bought in
their home State. Is it the use of the
vehicle or the purchase and use of the
vehicle that your amendment is
directed to?
Mr. MIKVA. I shall yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania in a
moment. First, I would like to say that
as I read the present law—and I
made a serious inquiry into the
present provisions—used automobiles
are not affected. The only provision
relates to new automobiles. In answer
to the gentleman's question, I would
say that a State, such as the State of
Illinois, can today, whether or not this
[p. 19233]
amendment passes, tell you that you
may not drive your automobile into
Illinois unless you meet certain stand-
ards in regard to your vehicle. The
restriction is on new vehicles.
I yield to the gentleman from Penn-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1467
sylvania to answer the question more
specifically.
Mr. SAYLOR. My amendment it-
self is directed merely to the sale of
new automobiles and not to the trans-
portation of automobiles.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MIKVA. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. ROGERS].
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Of course,
this would give the Secretary a com-
plete out from meeting his responsi-
bilities. What we have directed him
to do is set tough pollution standards.
California was already into this be-
fore the Federal Government got into
it. That was why they were granted
this arrangement. Now the Federal
Government is going to set strict
standards, if the Secretary will do it.
We will have a situation where the
Secretary can say, "You will meet
these strict standards." Instead, under
this, he can say, "In New York, if
you cannot meet it, you do not have
to." I do not think we ought to give
them that out. I oppose the amend-
ment.
Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ad-
dress the Committee on this matter,
because, when I was in the California
State Senate, I wrote the present
State legislation we have on automo-
bile emissions. This was written with
almost the unanimous opposition of
the automobile manufacturers.
In California, to register a car,
one has to have an approved device
which has been approved by the Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Board. For
example, as a Member of the U.S.
Congress, and as a legal resident of
the State of California, when I pur-
chased a car here, I had to have a
special order, because I could not
register that car in California unless
I had a certification that I had an
approved air-pollution-control device
that was approved by the State of
California.
If I were not from the State of
California, and I were traveling to
the State of California, I could drive
all through the State just as long as
I did not become a resident and regis-
ter my car there as a legal resident
of the State of California.
If we approve this amendment, it
does not mean we have to stop and
leave the car at the New York, Cali-
fornia, or Illinois border, but it means,
if we wish to become residents of that
State, we have to come up to the
minimum health standards regarding
automobile emissions.
We allow the States to develop min-
imum health standards. This is what
we are talking about. We are not
talking about automobiles. We are
talking about health of human be-
ings.
In 1955 when I was a freshman in
the California State Legislature, I
was chairman of a special subcommit-
tee on health effects of air pollution.
We were just beginning to develop in-
formation on emphysema, which is a
lung disease. We did not know about
emphysema. Now we find emphysema
is becoming one of the major causes
of death in the State of California.
It is a lung disease, the inability of
the lungs to function. Its probable
cause is living in air polluted areas.
We find the doctors, in southern Cali-
fornia, are telling many families they
had better move out of this smog
basin and go some place where they
will not have this concentration of
pollutants.
Many people say pollution might
not necessarily be caused by the auto-
mobile or maybe only a small contribu-
tion. In California we have very tough
laws. We have basin type controls on
stationary sources. In Los Angeles
-------
1468
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
we outlawed all open air burning and
all open air incinerators about 15
years ago. We outlawed all industrial
air pollutants quite a few years ago.
We will not even allow the steam
plants to build within the Los Ange-
les Basin. We have effective control
on stationary pollutants, all station-
ary sources of pollutants, but still we
have air pollution because of the last
uncontrolled source, the motor vehicle,
continues to pollute the atmosphere.
Detroit has not admitted this. They
would not admit it 10 years ago or 5
years ago. They always say it is some-
thing else. In California we had to
fight the automobile industry every
foot of the way, because they say they
are not responsible. I think they are.
I think every State has the right to
look at the health of the people of
that State and to come up with min-
imum standards to fit that State.
I think if we do not grant to the sev-
eral States, as we have granted to
California, this right, then we are go-
ing to have bare minimal standards
dictated by States with minimal pol-
lutants. I think to protect the health
of our people we have to have max-
imum standards where States deem
that they need maximum standards
to protect the health of their citizens.
I urge an aye vote on this amend-
ment.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of
words and rise in support of the
amendment.
It is hard for me to understand
why there would be any objection to
voting for this amendment since it
was brilliantly conceived. It does not
impose these high standards on every
area. It does not even give to every
area the right to impose those stand-
ards for its own protection.
What it says is that the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare
may, upon application, where the
facts warrant it, permit an area to
impose upon itself the standards that
California now has.
It is hard for me to believe that the
Members here would want to permit
the residents of California and the
Members who come from California
to say, "Well, we in California saw
the problem. We recognized it, and we
are protecting our own constituency
while the rest of the country is not
protected."
It appears to me that the con-
stituency in California should be pro-
tected and its Members should be
commended for their foresight, and
that we have an obligation to say,
"Yes; if a like condition exists in
the State of New York, or any other
State, that application could be made
to the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, to grant the same pre-
rogatives to such State that Califor-
nia has been granted."
I should like to say to the Members,
as an example of our special problem
in New York City that in the borough
of Manhattan at times nearly 70 per-
cent of the vehicles, during certain
hours of the day, are taxis. They,
with other vehicles, are the prime
cause for the pollution in the borough
of Manhattan.
Is it unreasonable to permit the
State of New York, if upon applica-
tion it establishes that the air pol-
lution in the State is so bad that
action needs to be taken and higher
emission standards imposed? Is it un-
reasonable to say that the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare
may hear such an application and if
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare finds after a hearing
that our problem is equal to that of
California that New York may take
the same measures taken by Cali-
fornia?
I should like to ask the distin-
guished gentleman from Florida [Mr.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1469
ROGERS], if he is present—and if not,
then the chairman of the committee—
why, sir, is it not right to give to
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare the right to pass upon
an application of an individual State
which wishes to bring before him facts
which would show that the problem
existing in California exists else-
where?
I see that both the gentlemen are
present. Do they not have confidence
in the Secretary that he would only
make a finding permitting the change
if in fact a like situation existed?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOCH. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I hope
the gentleman realizes what we are
doing in this legislation now is tight-
ening it up and saying to the Secre-
tary, "We want you to have strict
standards." They have already pub-
lished standards the same as those in
California for 1975. I am sure they
are going to be tightened up in the
interim years.
Mr. KOCH. May I ask the gentle-
man another question along the same
line?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Certainly.
Mr. KOCH. If tomorrow, or upon
the passage of this bill, the State of
New York wanted to make an appli-
cation to the Secretary, and if it were
to establish that right now our prob-
lem in New York is the equal of that
in California, is it the gentleman's
judgment that we should wait until
1975 to deal with that problem?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I am sure
the gentleman knows under present
law the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare can move in any of
these fields any time there is an im-
minent danger to health.
Mr. KOCH. I ask the gentleman
again: Is it his judgment that if the
State of New York were to make an
application under the new law, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare ought not to have the power
to approve the stricter standards if
the facts show that New York has
the same kind of pollution as that
which exists in California?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What I
am
[p. 19234]
saying to the gentleman is we want
the Secretary to impose those strict
standards all over the Nation. We give
him this authority in the bill. I do
not believe he should have the right
to get out of it by saying, "I will let
some State assume the burden."
The gentleman knows that many
States will not even assume a burden.
Mr. KOCH. But, I say to the gentle-
man, assuming for a moment that the
pollution standards are adequate for
the State of Iowa, which perhaps
does not have as many taxis and
other vehicles as the State of New
York, is the gentleman saying that
New York shall not have that right
in the interim and must wait until
1975 when the Secretary says, "These
California standards shall apply to
the whole United States"?
Is not the issue of States rights in-
volved here?
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. What I
am saying is if there is an imminent
danger to New York, then the Secre-
tary can act now under the authority
of the law. He has that authority
now.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to support the amendment offered by
the gentleman' from Pennsylvania,
and I do so after giving it a great
deal of very careful thought.
I listened with interest to the com-
ments of my colleague from Califor-
nia [Mr. REES]. I recall my service
in the legislature of my State back
526-703 O - 73 - 20
-------
1470
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in 1949 when we passed some of the
pioneering legislation dealing with
the problems of air pollution. I realize
fully how frustrated we would have
been had we been confronted with
Federal standards which were inade-
quate to meet the needs of California
and the peculiarities of the Los An-
geles basin. I recognize that there
are other sections of this Nation hav-
ing peculiarities—we live in one right
here in the Washington metropolitan
area—where the pollutants from
motor vehicles frequently cause con-
siderable personal discomfort. This is
an area of intensive pollution. If the
States can advance the technology to
deal with this problem and can make
a convincing show to the Secretary—
and the language of the amendment is
drafted so as to avoid any crazy
"pattern of standards"— it is reason-
ably drafted—I assume the man oc-
cupying the office of the Secretary,
whoever he might be, would give
very, very careful consideration to
any excessive economic impact upon
what constitutes one of the basic in-
dustries of this Nation and not im-
pose onerous or unreasonable burdens
upon it. I think this is a reasonable
request, and it is in the sense of the
reasonableness of the request that I
extend my support to it and urge
the support of the members of the
Committee.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. I am very pleased to
yield to my friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Does the gentle-
man from California not agree with
me that with respect to emission
standards for new automobiles this
act does preempt the field and re-
quires a single standard everywhere
except California?
Mr. MOSS. I think that it does.
Yes, indeed.
Mr. ECKHARDT. The gentleman
from Florida was indicating that
special problems might be met by the
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare in areas where that
special problem existed in his answer
to the gentleman from New York in
the discussion with him, but as I
understand the law as drafted, special
problems may be met in every field
except emissions from new automo-
biles. The provision referred to by the
gentleman from Florida is found in
section 108 (k) but it is aimed at a
contributor to the alleged pollution
and provides for injunctions to stop
the emission of contaminants. It is
not directed at the manufacturer of
a facility which may cause pollution.
Is that not true?
Mr. MOSS. I think that is quite
true.
Mr. ECKHARDT. And all we are
attempting to do here is to provide
a minimal relaxation of that pre-
emption.
Mr. MOSS. I think it is the bare
minimum that a State could reason-
ably expect to take care of problems
peculiar to that State or to an area
within that State.
I am very pleased to yield to my
friend, the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
I want to clear this up. There is
provision in the law that says when-
ever there is an imminent danger the
Secretary may act.
Mr. MOSS. I think we are en-
visioning something here short of an
imminent danger.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I say if
it is all that serious, the Secretary
may act.
Mr. MOSS. It would require mov-
ing so quickly and the danger would
have to be of such magnitude that I
think this would not deal with that
problem. That contemplates an entire-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1471
ly different problem. However, I
think this is a reasonable request of
the committee and of the Congress.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of
national standards to be met by all
States in fighting air pollution. But
I think we have to recognize the fact
that in more States than just Cali-
fornia we do have special problems.
Just to set the record straight I
have heard talk here today about hav-
ing different types of engines and
numerous types of gasoline in order
to get away from the lead additive, a
great air polluter, which is now
placed in gasoline in order to get a
higher octane rating.
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the
members of the committee that this
is just not true. The additive which
can be placed in gasoline and which
can take the place of lead and which
will burn in the process of combustion
and not discharged into the atmos-
phere as a pollutant, are aromatic
hydrocarbons that are a product of
the cracking of crude oil.
If we ?ay to every oil company in
this country today, "We are going to
give you 2 years to phase out the use
of lead as an additive," we could do
it and add an additional 1 cent a gal-
lon to the cost of gasoline. The cost
of putting lead in gasoline is 2 cents
a gallon, approximately. The expense
of aromatic hydrocarbon which has to
be refined and added to the gasoline
would be less than 3 cents a gallon
and would produce the same high-
octane gasoline.
Mr. Chairman, all this talk about
$6 billion or $7 billion could be
amortized at a cost of 1 cent a gallon.
So, we do not need a lot of differ-
ent types of engines. But, we should
give consideration to phasing out the
diesel engine which is a great pol-
luter.
However, Mr. Chairman, to get
back to this specific amendment, you
have to realize the fact that in a
State like Pennsylvania we have
numerous unusual conditions where
other air pollutants emitted by auto-
mobiles and I have reference to in-
dustrial pollutants. For instance, in
the city of Philadelphia, in the Great-
er Philadelphia area, we have a great
concentration of refineries, an unbe-
lievably large concentration of re-
fineries. We have steel mills and
every other type of industry. The ve-
hicles that we are talking about in
the States which would set higher
standards would be applied only to
those vehicles registered in that State.
You have already heard the distin-
guished gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. SAYLOE] talk about the deaths
that occurred in one of our smaller
cities and I can tell you that the
concentration of steel mills around
the city of Pittsburgh sets that city
apart as much as any other city inso-
far as air pollution is concerned.
Mr. Chairman, we must take into
consideration the fact that while we
do support national standards, at the
same time we have to recognize the
possible adverse conditions which ex-
ist in some States and we must pro-
vide the legislation for dealing with
those special cases. Therefore, I rec-
ommend the support of this amend-
ment.
Mi-. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I
have heard our colleague, the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. ROGERS], say
that this bill has a provision to the
effect that the Secretary has a right
in the case of imminent danger to act.
-------
1472
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Do the other 49 States have to wait
until he acts while citizens are in
danger of losing their lives, rather
than giving the State legislatures the
opportunity to act, or do they have
to come down to the Secretary and
ask for some relief? That is what the
bill presently provides. Therefore, I
would like to see this amendment
adopted.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. The gen-
tleman knows that the bill—and it is
already being done under present law
—the Secretary is setting strict stand-
ards for automotive emissions. This
is done because these automibiles are
moving emission sources. In other
words, they go from one State to
another. That is why we are approach-
ing it in this manner and not allowing
one State to set a high standard and
another not to do likewise.
[p. 19235]
Mr. WILLIAMS. I understand the
gentleman's statement, but I also un-
derstand that the national standards
are not as high as your committee
would like to have reported out at
this time—not as high standards that
you will probably be reporting out 5
or 6 years from now.
So that all I am saying to you is
that we must realize that there are
special conditions in States other than
California that will require standards
higher than the Federal standards
at this time.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I
would ask the gentleman, do I under-
stand that for years the States have
had the authority to set the standards
in their own States? Is there any-
thing that prohibited all of the States
from doing what California did?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know
that there was any.
Mr. COLLIER. Then, if there was
not, why have they been silent all
these years? Why is it that all of a
sudden we find that the Federal Gov-
ernment is going to set standards?
It just seems to me that somebody has
been asleep at the switch.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The answer is
that everybody has not been asleep
at the switch and they have not been
asleep at the State levels in certain
instances.
The city of Philadelphia today has
the highest anti-air pollution elimina-
tion standards in the country in all
probability, as far as any municipali-
ty. Years ago the city of Pittsburgh
adopted regulations and they cleaned
up the atmosphere in Pittsburgh
tremendously.
Mr. COLLIER. Will this lower the
standards?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, it will not.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to find out what time
limit we can place on this amendment
to close debate on it.
I believe we have been debating
this one amendment for an hour, and
I think that is sufficient time. I
would just like to find out how much
time would be required.
Does the gentleman from Michigan
desire time?
Mr. DINGELL. Yes, I do.
MOTION OFFERED BY ME. STAGGERS
Mr. STAGGERS. Anyone else?
Mr. Chairman, I move that all
debate on this amendment and all
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1473
amendments thereto close in 10 min-
utes.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my dear friend, the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania, and I move
to strike the requisite number of
words. As every one here knows, the
author of this amendment is not only
one of our most able, sincere, and
valuable Members, but he is one of
our Nation's truly great conserva-
tionists.
Mr. Chairman, I think the best
argument against this amendment
was made by one of its proponents
and supporters, the gentleman from
California [Mr. REES].
We have had a long fight to get
uniform Federal standards on water
quality and air quality. I was the
author of the first legislation to cre-
ate uniform Federal standards on
water pollution. I was the first author
of legislation to create Federal stand-
ards on air pollution, both on moving
and stationary sources.
A few years ago on the floor of
this House this body adopted a piece
of legislation which set up a require-
ment that the Federal Government
would have uniform Federal stand-
ards in all kinds of air pollution,
moving and stationary. On the offer-
ing of my friends from California we
adopted an exemption which per-
mitted California, because of the sup-
posedly unique circumstances there,
to create local standards which would
be stronger upon the showing of need.
Now we have made great progress
under the uniform Federal standards
on moving sources, and many of my
colleagues seem to think and seem
to express the thought that we do not
have strong Federal standards, and
that we will not have strong Federal
standards between now and 1975.
Nothing is further from the truth.
There is a very simple answer to this
point that I think has to be brought
out. The fact of the matter is that
between now and 1975 the Federal
Government is going to adopt exactly
the same standards that will be
adopted by the State of California on
moving sources of pollution. If Cali-
fornia is doing as well as its rep-
resentatives say—then that is all that
can possibly be done for any State.
I think that should make it quite
plain that there is no desperate need
to Balkanize this Nation and have to
have 50 different assembly lines and
50 different designs of automobiles
and 50 different kinds of automobile
engines produced and marketed in
this country.
I think it should be known that
everyone in this country should under-
stand that his Federal Government
is not going to allow marketing of
autos that do not meet the highest
possible technological and economic
standards that can be achieved for
the prevention of air pollution. The
law says that it should be thus, and
the Congress and your committee will
insist it be so.
Now it is assumed that California
is unique. I am here to tell you that
it is not unique. My friend, the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania, complains
that they have air pollution problems
in Pennsylvania. He is right. I am
here to tell you we have air pollution
problems in Michigan. I am here to
tell you you have them in New York
City.
I am satisfied that there is not a
single metropolitan area that does
not have grave air pollution problems.
These problems are related to the
meteorological conditions and are re-
lated to industrial emissions and are
related to the number of automobiles
and the concentration of people and
to geographical factors.
This is precisely the reason why
-------
1474
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
we need strong high Federal stand-
ards. Not 50 different standards that
are going to involve all of us in in-
numerable and immeasurable and
everlasting disputes over what shall
be the 50 different automotive air
pollution abatement standards in this
Nation.
I say that strong Federal standards
are the only device under which we
can have a meaningful cleanup and
abatement of pollution from auto-
mobiles that is emitted into the at-
mosphere of the United States. Auto-
mobiles move from State to State,
city to city, area to area. California,
New York, Michigan, and Pennsyl-
vania should know that the innumera-
ble visiting1 autos meet the very high-
est and best standards.
I want to make one thing very
clear. The proponents of this amend-
ment would have you believe it is not
possible for a State to challenge the
Federal standards. This demonstrates
the clear lack of knowledge of the
standards on their part because be-
fore the standards can become promul-
gated, it must be done pursuant to a
hearing where all viewpoints are
heard. Each and every State can then
come forward and stress both the
problems which it has with regard to
pollution and the need for a particular
kind of device and relief to abate pol-
lution which happens to afflict their
people.
The Federal Government will be
responsive to the wishes of the States
for stronger and better standards,
and we, the representatives of the
people, will see that it be so.
There is further the opportunity of
a judicial review of Federal standards
if they are not strong enough and
the States are fully qualified to speak
on behalf of their people.
So anyone who has the idea that
the Federal standards are not the ap-
proach is entirely in error, and I
would urge the House to reject this
amendment summarily.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. SPRINGER].
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman,
I think this has been well debated. I
think certainly everyone has made
up his mind on the basis of the de-
bate that we have had here.
The committee in 1967 considered
this most carefully. We again con-
sidered it most carefully this year
on the expiration of the 1967 act. We
think we have made a broad improve-
ment in five areas. We came to the
conclusion that we simply could not
leave this thing open to the possibility
where you could have as many as 50
different standards.
There has been a lot of talk here
today about what a State could or
could not do. But if a State does get
permission to set up its own stand-
ards upon, we will say, even a petition
to the Secretary, they can include in
their legislation and prevent any other
automobile from being driven on the
highways of that State, if that State
wants to do it.
There are broad indications here
that they would not do it. But that
does not keep a State from doing it
if it wants to do it.
This committee is faced with a very
practical situation, gentlemen. We
simply could not throw the door open
to the possibility where you could
have even as many as eight, 10, or 12
different engines out on the highway
unless your consumers want to pay
for that. That is
[p. 19236]
exactly what you have to do in this
instance if you allow that kind of
standards to be created in so many
States as I have indicated could pos-
sibly happen.
I think the committee has done a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1475
good job in thinking and working
this thing- through this whole matter
and every facet of what the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania is talking
about has been debated.
Some of the members of the com-
mittee here have joined in the debate
on both sides so that you have a pic-
ture of this. It means that we should
vote against this kind of amendment
and the vote against this kind of
amendment was very strong in com-
mittee because we felt it simply was
not practical to undertake this kind
of amendment to leave the door open
to what would happen and what I
think the Members here think would
happen and what could and is most
likely to happen if we got the kind of
pressures that have been indicated
here on the floor might be put on the
various States for the various prob-
lems that arise.
Putting all this aside, whatever
has been said here, about my city be-
ing as bad as Los Angeles—it simply
is not true because the Public Health
Service has made a survey of all of
these. There is not any place in the
world, as I have indicated to you, ex-
cept London, that is anywhere near
as bad as Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is roughly five times
as bad as any other city in this coun-
try. I am giving you a picture of why
we allowed a relaxation in the case
of the State of California. I felt that
the State of California, upon the pre-
sentation they made, should have that
relaxation. And if it had not been for
the one county, which had 10 or 12
million people in it, which is Los
Angeles County, they would not have
gotten the exemption which they did.
I felt that they were entitled to this
kind of exemption by virtue of what
the Public Health Service found
there. The Public Health Service did
not find any city in the country more
than one-fifth as bad as the county
of Los Angeles, and that is the reason
that we allowed the exemption.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRINGER. If I have any
time remaining, I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I would like
to refresh the gentleman's memory.
In the bill before the committee 3
years ago there was no exemption
for California. It came to the floor
and had to be fought out on the floor
the same as this one has to be fought
out. This amendment was not even
offered in committee. This is a States
rights amendment which seems to me
every bit as valid as the one re-
lating to California before.
Mr. SPRINGER. The subject was
well debated in the committee. The
whole issue of what should be done
was discussed under almost exactly
the same kind of amendment dis-
cussed by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia, whether anyone actually of-
fered the amendment or not. That
I do not know. But I can say it was
discussed from one end of the hear-
ings to the other.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I appreciate the gentleman's
yielding. I merely wish to support
the remarks of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. KOCH].
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
we are here to legislate for the 50
States. That is our purpose. We are
trying to present a strong, national
clean air bill and not to split its pro-
visions in different ways and let the
States go their own ways, which the
gentleman from Illinois spoke about.
-------
1476
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Where were the States during all the
years until 1965, and even after that
when Federal legislation was passed
in 1967, which was not strong enugh?
We realize that, and we have at-
tempted to make it stronger. We ex-
pect the Secretary to make the auto-
motive standards as strong or
stronger than the California ones.
We do not want it to stop with those
standards. We want the best national
standards which America can have.
We want the best for the land. But we
do not want to split these standards
up 15 different ways.
What are the possibilities if we do
not have strong national standards?
I do not oppose the objectives of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, but I think his
amendment would result in exactly
the opposite of what is intended. We
would have weak Federal standards.
We would in effect be saying, "Let
the States do it."
You will abrogate your responsi-
bility as a Congressman of the United
States if you say, "Let us leave it to
the States to do this." If you want
uniform standards so that cars can
travel out of one State and into all
50 States, as they do today, vote
against the amendment. We ought to
have a strong law. We ought to have
the standards stronger than Califor-
nia has. We can say to the Secretary,
"Let us have stringent standards."
Let us not abdicate our responsibility.
Let us defeat the amendment, pass
a bill, and get it on the books.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGEES. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Minnesota.
Mr. NELSEN. I wish to join with
our good chairman. I served on the
subcommittee that sat through all the
hearings, and I am in full agreement
with the chairman. I hope the amend-
ment is defeated and the bill is passed
in its present form.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from West Virginia has
expired. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. SAYLOR].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. SAYLOR),
there were—ayes 49, noes 79.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers Mr. SAYLOB
and Mr. STAGGERS.
The Committee again divided, and
the tellers reported that there were—
ayes 50, noes 66.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. TIERNAN
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The .Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TIEBNAN: Page
47, strike out line 12 and all that follows down
through line 20 on page 49, and insert in lieu
thereof the following.
"BEGISTKATION AND REGULATION OF FUELS AND
FUEL ADDITIVES
"SEC. 8. (a) Subsection (a) of section 210
of the Glean Air Act is amended to read as
follows:
" '(a) The Secretary may by regulation des-
ignate any fuel or fuel additive, and after Buch
date or dates as may be prescribed by him, no
manufacturer or processor of any such fuel or
fuel additive may sell or deliver it unless the
manufacturer of such fuel or fuel additive has
provided the Secretary with the information
required under subsection (c) of this section
and unless such fuel or fuel additive has been
registered with the Secretary in accordance
with subsection (c) of this section.'
"(b) Section 210 of such Act is amended by
redesigns ting subsections (b), (c), (d), and
(e) as subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f).
respectively, and by inserting after subsection
(a) the following new subsection:
"(b) The Secretary may, on the basis of in-
formation obtained under subsection (c) of
this section or any other information available
to him, establish standards respecting the com-
position or the chemical or physical properties
of any fuel or fuel additive to assure that such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1477
fuel or fuel additive will not cause or contrib-
ute to emissions which would endanger the
public health or welfare, or impair the per-
formance of any emission control device or sys-
tem which is in general use or likely to be in
general use (on any motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine subject to this title) for the
purpose of preventing or controlling motor
vehicle emissions from such vehicle or engine.
For the purpose of carrying: out such standards
the Secretary may prescribe regulations—
" (1) prohibiting the manufacture for sale,
the sale, the offering for sale, or the delivery
of any fuel or fuel additive; or
" (2) limiting the composition or chemical
or physical properties, or imposing any condi-
tions applicable to the use of, such fuel or fuel
additive (including the maximum quantity of
any fuel component or fuel additive that may
be used or the manner of such use)."
"(c) Section 210(c) of such Act (as so re-
designated by subsection (b) of this section)
is amended—-
"(1) by striking out "For the purposes of
this section the Secretary shall' and inserting
in lieu thereof 'For the purpose of establishing
standards under subsection (b), the Secretary
may require the manufacturer of any fuel or
fuel additive to furnish such information as is
reasonable and necessary to determine the
emissions resulting from the use of the fuel or
fuel additive or the effect of such use on the
performance of any emission control device or
system which is in general use or likely to be
in general use (on any motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine subject to this Act) for the
purpose of preventing or controlling motor
vehicle emissions from such vehicle or engine.
If the information so submitted establishes
that toxic emissions or emissions of unknown
or uncertain toxicity result from the use of
the fuel or fuel additive, the Secretary may
require the submission within a reasonable
time of such scientific data as the Secretary
may reasonably prescribe to enable him to
[p. 19237]
determine the extent to which such emissions
will adversely affect the public health or wel-
fare. To the extent reasonably consistent with
the purposes of this section, such requirements
for submission of information with respect to
any fuel additive shall not be imposed on the
manufacturer of any such additive intended
solely for use in a fuel only by the manufac-
turer thereof. Among other types of informa-
tion, the Secretary shall';
"(2) by inserting in clause (2) 'the descrip-
tion of any analytical technique that can be
used to detect and measure such additive in
fuel,' after 'above,';
"(3) by striking out in such clause 'to the
extent such information is available or becomes
available,';
"(4) by striking out 'clauses (1) and (2)'
in the second sentence .and inserting in lieu
thereof 'the provisions of this subsection*; and
"(B) by striking out 'such fuel additive' in
such sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
'such fuel or fuel additive'.
"(d) Section 210(d) of such Act (as so re-
designated by subsection (b) of this section)
is amended—
"(1) by inserting after the first sentence the
following new sentence: "The Secretary may
disseminate any information obtained from re-
ports or otherwise, which is not covered by
section 1905 of title 18 of the United States
Code and which will contribute to scientific or
public understanding of the relationship be-
tween the chemical or physical properties of
fuels or fuel additives and their contribution
to the problem of air pollution.'; and
"(2) by striking out 'subsection (b)' in the
first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
'subsection (c)'.
"(e) Section 210(e) of such Act (as so re-
designated by subsection (b) of this section)
is amended (1) by inserting 'or subsection
(b)' after 'subsection (a)'; and (2) by strik-
ing out '$1,000' and inserting in lieu thereof
'$10,000'.
"(f) The amendment made by subsection
(e) (2) of this section shall be effective with
respect to any fuel or fuel additive to which a
regulation issued under section 210 (a) of such
Act or a standard established under subsection
(b) of such section (as amended by this Act)
applies."
Mr. TIERNAN (during the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be con-
sidered as read and printed in the
RECORD. As I have already explained
to the chairman, this amendment is
a section of the administration bill
which was presented to the commit-
tee and was not adopted by the com-
mittee. I believe it will save time for
the committee if we consider it read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, what I
have attempted to do here today is to
present to the committee for its con-
sideration the language in the bill
which was presented by the adminis-
tration to the committee, because I
-------
1478
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
believe this is very important, and I
believe it is necessary that we talk
about the standards with respect to
the fuels.
I commend the committee for its
work on this bill because, as the
chairman indicated, it is a step for-
ward. I certainly agree with the chair-
man in a sense that it is something
to improve the situation we have.
What my amendment will do is to
go a little bit further, to be more
stringent. It certainly will give the
Secretary more power with regard
to the type of fuels and additives that
will be used in the future.
For example, it requires anyone
who is using an additive to submit
his findings and research data, which
he has obtained, without making it
necessary for the Secretary to under-
take independent research.
Since the administration has put
this forth in its bill, I believe we
should support the administration in
its efforts to curtail the pollutants
that are put into the air.
The present bill now before us puts
the burden on the automobile industry
solely. It does not affect the manu-
facturer of the fuels used in the auto-
mobiles. I believe that the administra-
tion bill and the amendment I offer,
which is the administration language,
goes much further than the committee
bill and it is necessary because of the
situation we have here in America
today.
We all know that the number of
cars in our country today is increas-
ing every year. Particularly those
Members who come from large urban
areas know of the situation which
has certainly been exemplified by the
situation in Los Angeles. In my own
State, in all the urban areas, we have
this problem. I know those who live in
the cities know what it means to go
into the city when it is rainy and a
cloudy day, and there is heavy traf-
fic downtown, not only with fuel be-
ing used in automobiles but also fuel
being used for the heating and power
of our great country.
I believe this is a time the Secre-
tary should have made available to
him through this amendment the in-
formation, the scientific data, which
would be made available by the lan-
guage under the administration bill.
Therefore, I believe we should not
only require the automobile industry
to meet this challenge, this grave
challenge, which everyone recognizes
here, but also the fuel industry. It
is a question of balancing the needs
of industry against the needs of our
people.
I believe we have reached the point
where we will look back, a few years
from now, and say, "Why did we not
do something about this five years
ago?" This is the time to do some-
thing. The country needs it. This is
the time for us to act.
I move the adoption of my amend-
ment.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I shall take only a moment of the
time of the committee, because the
time is late. I hope we will not take
too much time on these amendments.
Under the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Rhode Island any
Secretary, no matter who he is—and
he might be changed; there has been
a change recently—could take ar-
bitrary actions. We think what is
required by the bill is in accordance
with our American way of doing
things. I think the amendment ought
to be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr.
TIERNAN].
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FARBSTEIN
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1479
offer an amendment, and I ask unani-
mous consent that reading of the
amendment be waived and that I may
explain it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there ob-
jection to the request of the gentle-
man from New York?
There was no objection.
The amendment is as follows:
Page 46, insert after line 25 the following:
"(f) Section 202 of the Clean Air Act is
amended by striking out in suts2ction (b)
thereof 'prescribed undsr this ssction,' and in-
serting in lieu thereof "prescribed under sub-
section (a) of this section' and by adding at
the end thereof the following:
" *(c) (1) The Secretary shall immediately
commence the testing of motor vehicle engines
propelled by any system other than the in-
ternal combustion engine which have emission
characteristics superior to the internal com-
bustion engine. On the basis of such tests, the
Secretary shall, by regulation prescribe as soon
as practicable, but not later than December
31, 1971 regulations for the control of automo-
bile emissions which in his judgment cause or
contribute to, or are likely to cause or to con-
tribute to, air pollution which endangers the
health or welfare of any persons, and such
standard shall apply to such vehicles or en-
gines whether they are des'gatn as complete
systems or incorporate other devices to prevent
or control such pollution.
" '(2) The regulations initially prescribed
under this subsection shall be applicable (A)
on and after January 1, 1975, to all new motor
vehicles propelled by engines having 375 horse-
power or more and to all new motor vehicle
engines having 375 horsepower or more, (B)
on and after January 1, 1976, to all such new
vehicles and engines having 275 horsepower or
more, (C) on and after January 1, 1977, to all
such new vehicles and engines having 175
horsepower or more, and (D) on and after
January 1. 1978, to all new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines. Amendments to any
regulations prescribed under this subsection
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 compli-
ance.' "
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
this is a very simple amendment. I
will not take my 5 minutes.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. STAGGERS. So we might get
a time limit on that. I will wait until
the gentleman gets through first.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. This is the same
amendment I offered I think either
last year or 2 years ago when the
question of air pollution was the
local issue in Los Angeles. At that
time I said that the internal com-
bustion engine ought to be banned by
1978. Of course, at that time it seem-
ed as though it was an odd-ball amend-
ment, but strange as it may seem,
it has caught on. It has caught on
in the sense that the people of this
Nation realize that something has to
be done about the pollution that is
killing so many of our citizens.
What my amendment seeks to do
is to ban the internal combustion
engine in the sense that the amend-
ment would set auto emission stand-
ards beginning in 1975 on the basis
of the cleanest of the
[p. 19238]
propulsion systems. Internal combus-
tion engines which cannot meet the
standards would be phased out first
on the basis of their power on the
following timetable: based on sales
of 1969 American automobiles, the
phaseout would have the following
effects: the automobile engines with
375 horsepower would be outlawed in
1975. In other words, you have 5 years
within which to use up an automobile
that has a 375-horsepower engine.
Less than 5 percent of the new-car
sales had this horsepower, so there
will not be very much of a loss. Sec-
ond, in 1976, 275-horsepower engines
will be outlawed. There you get 35
percent of your new-car sales. Third,
in 1977, 175-horsepower engines will
be outlawed, and all but 10 percent of
the new-car sales are those. Then in
1978 there will no longer be permitted
an internal combustion engine.
-------
1480
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. Chairman, I have ridden in
and I know for a fact that there can
be produced other engines which are
equal to the internal combustion en-
gine. I have ridden in a steam car out
here 2 blocks away from where I am
standing only a couple of months ago.
I understand that a steam car can be
built to cost no more than the auto-
mobile of a similar type that is mass
produced today costing between $2,800
and $3,500.
We have to realize that the time
has come when we must plan ahead
in order that our people will be pro-
tected. It seems to me 8 years is time
enough for the automobile industry
to use its technology in a fashion
that will no longer make necessary
the internal combustion engine. I
think they can do it. The only thing
that is missing is the will and the
fr.ct that they have a large invest-
ment in the internal combustion en-
gine.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, the California Senate last year
by a vote of 26 to 5 voted favorably
on a bill which would have outlawed
the internal combustion engine by the
year 1975. That bill did not become
law, but it reflected the sentiment
of the people of California and the
concern for what is happening
through the use of an engine that
cannot avoid emitting pollutants.
Mr. Chairman, I want the gentle-
man from New York to know that
this was a branch of our State govern-
ment what was not only a rather
conservative body, but which had and
still has a majority of Republicans.
Mr. PARBSTEIN. I thank the gen-
tleman for his remarks,
Mr. Chairman, I know that the in-
ternal combustion engine is inherently
deadly, dirty, and cannot be cleaned
up. The only thing we can do to save
the lives of our people is by adopting
this amendment.
The amendment would establish au-
tomotive emission standards begin-
ning with the 1975 model, based on
what the cleanest feasible propulsion
system can achieve.
The amendment is premised on the
belief that the quality of the air
should be determined on the basis of
the best available technology, even
if that means moving away from
technology currently in general use.
The internal combustion engine is
inherently a high polluting system.
The theory of current antipollution
technology is that add-on devices and
mechanical adjustments in the en-
gine can filter or catalytically re-
move the harmful pollutants produced
by the internal combustion engine.
In the last 3 years the American
public has spent a billion and a half
dollars buying devices and mechanisms
to control the internal combustion
engine; and yet learned this year
that up to 80 percent oi those devices
fail after only a few thousand miles
of normal driving.
More importantly the quantity of
automotive poisons entering our at-
mosphere is rising at a dramatic pace.
Most important of all, health, im-
pairment of property and vegetative
damage due to air pollution is on the
climb. In my own city of New York
death rates from emphysema have in-
creased by over 500 percent in the
last 10 years; deaths from chronic
and acute bronchitis have increased
by 300 percent; lung cancer and heart
disease are at an all time high.
The last 3 years' experience indi-
cates that the internal combustion
engine is, by nature, dirty. Moreover,
every auto expert not indentured to
the auto industry agrees that the in-
ternal combustion engine could be
cleaned up only at unacceptable costs
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1481
and then only up to the approximate
level of the administration's proposed
standards for 1975 models.
But with the increase in the number
of automobiles on the highways, these
standards will be sadly deficient by
the end of this decade. The only really
economically feasible method of clean-
ing up auto pollution once and for
all is to ban the internal combustion
engine or to insist that Detroit meet
the rigorous standards of other non-
conventional modes of propulsion.
I have personally driven in a sleek,
modern, efficient, and fast steam car,
employing the Rankin system.
I have also personally observed
vehicles powered by gas turbine en-
gines. Both the steam car and the gas
turbine work, and work well. You
have not only my word as to this but
the word of governmental studies like
the Morse panel, the Battelle Me-
morial Institute, the Senate Com-
merce Committee, and the California
Assembly which confirm what I saw
with my own eyes.
The question now is whether De-
troit will abandon its present obsolete
and environmentally destructive tech-
nology and give the American people
the best that 20th century science and
engineering can offer.
Mr. BELL of California. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in favor of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
York.
My Los Angeles constituents' aware
ness of the dangers of automotive
pollution—smog—is exceeded by none.
They suffer from it daily.
Thanks to the progressive action
of local Los Angeles and California
State government some years ago,
pollution in our area caused by sta-
tionary sources has been virtually
eliminated, as my good friend Con-
gressman REES has said.
At the time these ordinances were
enacted, many claimed that they were
too drastic. Too unreasonable. That
they would cause inordinate expense.
These naysayers were proved wrong
and I am proud that residents of my
area exercised the courage of their
convictions.
Today we are considering an
amendment against which the same
charges will be leveled.
The health crisis caused by automo-
tive pollution again demands so-called
"drastic" measures.
This time, however, we cannot de-
pend on local administrative remedies.
We are forced to turn to national
policies to stimulate answers to what
is increasingly a national problem.
Ninety percent of the smog in Los
Angeles is caused by automotive pol-
lutants.
Sixty percent of all smog in the
Nation stems from the same source.
We have all been hopeful that the
automobile industry would itself un-
dertake to remedy the danger to
health and life brought about by the
products of the internal combustion
engine.
And to some extent they are doing
this, and for these efforts I com-
mend them.
We are also aware, however, that
there can be degrees of commitment.
A commitment can be wholehearted,
as in our successful moon landing, or
it can halfheartedly limp along with
too much rhetoric and too little action.
I am confident that some day, if
we waited long enough, Detroit would
inevitably build clean cars.
But can we afford to wait that
long?
Is there not some way we can speed
up the process, enhance the commit-
ment? It is like Chairman STAGGERS
has said: In quoting the late Presi-
dent Kennedy about a moon landing
in this decade. He points up the
same point inadvertently that I am
making. Sometimes it is better to set
-------
1482
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
a goal and force the kind of action
that will meet it.
We cannot legislate with the stroke
of a pen an instant pollution-free en-
gine. But we can legislate the com-
mitment incentive that is presently
lacking.
The pending amendment would do
just that.
This amendment would provide us
with a positive, rational approach to
a critical problem.
It would not automatically outlaw
the internal combustion engine.
On the contrary, it is possible that
through fuel research and other tech-
nological developments the internal
combustion engine can be made liv-
able.
It is also possible, however, that
the solution will lie in a new pro-
pulsion system such as a revised
steam or turbine engine.
My constituents do not care what
we call it, or how it works.
They do care that it will provide
the transportation required in our
society today while simultaneously
sparing their environment and health
the kind of devastation we are now
witnessing.
Mr. Chairman, I am certainly
aware
[p. 19239]
that the urgency felt by the residents
of Los Angeles and New York is not
shared by those who are presently
being spared the suffocating stench
of smog.
They can argue that automotive
pollution is not their problem.
But I call on my colleagues from
such areas to contemplate the long-
run inevitability that without action
now, they, too, will ultimately have to
face the same problems.
If we can cooperate today, we can
ensure early relief for citizens such as
I represent, while guaranteeing that
those not now burdened by dangerous
pollution need never fear it.
There is no need to wait another
10 or 15 years.
We can act now by approving the
pending amendment and I strongly
urge that we do so.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like at
this time to see if we could arrive
at a time limitation on the considera-
tion of this bill because some Members
of this body have other obligations.
Therefore, I wonder if we could reach
a decision to vote on this amendment
and all other amendments to the bill
by 6:30 p.m.? I do not feel that that
would be cutting off unduly the time
of anyone. I would like to do this in
order to get the bill passed this even-
ing.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that we vote on
this amendment and all other amend-
ments thereto and vote on the bill at
6:30.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's
request is that debate on all amend-
ments close at 6:30?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right;
and vote on the bill.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
to the bill conclude at 6:30.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there ob-
jection to the request of the gentle-
man from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
I will only take one^half minute of
that time right now.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
to the amendment just proposed to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1483
the House for the reason that this
just is not possible. It is not a
feasible amendment to say that we
are going to do this at a certain time.
The experts say we can have a clean
internal combustion engine and we
expect to hold them to their state-
ments. We can take another look at
this when this law comes again be-
fore Congress 3 years from now. If
progress has not been made by that
time, we can take the necessary ac-
tion which will be required.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. FARB-
STEIN].
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KLEPPE
Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. KLEPPE : On page
49, line 10, strike out the quotation maik.
Page 49, insert after line 10 the following:
"(i) The Secretary is authorized to conduct
as soon as practicable a full investigtaion and
study (including, if appropriate, a pilot or
demonstration pioject) respecting the feasi-
bility of combining gasoline with alcohol made
from grain, in ordei to produce a cleanei
bui ning motor vehicle fuel, thereby reducing
both air pollution and grain surpluses."
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
I reserve a point of order against
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from North Dakota [Mr.
KLEPPE], but I will not raise the
point of order until the gentleman
has spoken and has given his views.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from West Virginia reserves a point
of order on the amendment.
Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, I
want to take a very brief moment
to discuss this amendment. We have
been talking about fuels all after-
noon in this debate, and this amend-
ment deals with fuels also. There is
nothing new about this proposal. It
is very self-explanatory. It is some-
thing that has been under considera-
tion for many years. As a matter of
fact, during the Eisenhower adminis-
tration there was a congressional
commission appointed to study this
question, and the only reason nothing
was done was because of the cost
involved.
To make alcohol out of grain and to
blend it with gasoline to reduce pollu-
tion in the air from automobiles is
something that works, but it is more
costly than to make alcohol from
ethylene, which is a petroleum prod-
uct.
The point I want to make, Mr.
Chairman, is that there are some
offsetting costs involved when you
use grain as a raw material. The
offsetting costs are that we have a
surplus of grain today, and we could
reduce the cost to the taxpayers and
our Federal Government if we would
utilize more grain to make alcohol
to blend with the gasoline.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentlemen yield?
Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
agree with the objectives of the
amendment offered by my colleague,
the gentleman from North Dakota.
I wish to say that the Secretary al-
ready has the needed authority—I will
not take time to read the language—
but it is under section 104, subsections
1 and 3 of that, that gives him the
authority already. We will urge the
Secretary to proceed along these lines.
I think it is a worthy objective, and
that he should be doing this kind of
research.
Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for his com-
ments.
-------
1484
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLEPPE. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman,
may I say that I want to commend
the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. KLEPPE], for his excellence in
the pursuit of this subject of making
alcohol from grain to blend with gas-
oline.
I too recall—because I was here
during the Eisenhower administration
—when this commission to study this
matter was set up. Again I want to
commend the gentleman for bring-
ing this matter to the attention of
the committee, and I certainly wish
to assume the gentleman that we will
do all that we can to assure that this
very important subject which the
gentleman has raised will be studied.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLEPPE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Kansas.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding-, and
I would like to associate myself with
the remarks made by the gentleman
from North Dakota.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation to
amend the Clean Air Act would be
a positive step by Congress to protect
the quality of our environment.
H.R. 17255 would extend the dura-
tion of this act, provide for national
standards of air quality, expedite
enforcement of air pollution control
standards, authorize regulation of
fuels and fuel additives, provide for
improved controls over motor vehicle
emissions and establish standards for
dangerous emission from stationary
sources.
Regarding this obviously needed
legislation, I am particularly in-
terested in the amendment introduced
by my good friend and colleague, the
Honorable TOM KLEPPE, from North
Dakota. The gentleman from North
Dakota's amendment would provide
for an urgently needed study and
pilot program in the use of grain
alcohol as an additive to gasoline to
eliminate tetraethyl lead pollution of
the atmosphere.
For some time now, it has become
obvious air pollution from tetraethyl
lead now used in gasoline as an anti-
knock additive is a most serious pol-
lution problem. Leading scientists ac-
ross the Nation have warned of the
serious dangers from possible lead
poisoning. There is reason to believe
this proposed pilot study could pro-
vide us with a reasonable answer to
this problem through the use of grain
alcohol.
Using grain alcohol as a substitute
for lead would have many obvious
side benefits. Not only could we re-
duce dangerous pollution, but we
could provide a tremendous grain
market and thereby reduce the farm
surplus and the farm program cost.
We could also provide a high protein
grain residue for low-cost health food
and livestock needs as well. The social
impact of this research has far-
reaching implications.
Since the cost feasibility of this
proposal has been questioned, I feel
a full investigation and study, includ-
ing a pilot or demonstration project
in the wheat belt, should be imple-
mented as soon as possible.
Mr. KLEPPE. Mr. Chairman, with
the assurances of the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. STAGGERS], I
ask unanimous consent that I may
be permitted to withdraw my amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there ob-
jection to the request of the gentle-
man from North Dakota?
There was no objection.
[p. 19240]
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Chairman,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1485
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLEPPE. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Montana.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Chairman, I
•want to commend the gentleman from
North Dakota for his very fine ex-
planation of the possibilities of the
utilization of our grain resources,
and I want to join with the gentle-
man in his efforts. Not only would
this help control pollution but also
promote a broad market for grains.
Mr. KLEPPE. I thank the gentle-
man.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HECHLER
OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HECHLER of
West Virginia: on page 54, line 12, strike out
$75,000,000 and insert $750,000,000; on page
54, line 13, strike out $100,000,000 and insert
$1,000,000,000."
On page 54, line 14, strike out "$125,000,000"
and insert $1,250,000,000".
On page 54, lines 18 and 19, strike out
"$125,000,000" and insert "$1,250,000,000".
On page 54, lines 19 and 20, strike out
"$150,000,000" and insert "$1,500,000,000".
On page 54, line 21, strike out "$200,000,000"
and insert "$2,000,000,000".
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. HECHLER)
is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, the current legislation
that we are considering authorizes
only a total of $200 million in the
fiscal year 1971. My amendment would
enable the expenditure of ten times
that amount and ten times the
amounts authorized for subsequent
fiscal years.
What will $200 million buy? I have
checked with the Department of
Defense and find that $200 million
will buy one, only one Poseidon
nuclear submarine now under con-
struction. Is not human life on this
planet worth more than one nuclear
submarine? Air pollution threatens
the very existence of human life on
this planet.
How many Members on the floor
if faced with the choice in 1961 of
whether they would prefer to invest
$30 billion to go to the moon or to
make life livable for human beings
on this planet by eliminating air pollu-
tion, would not have chosen to elimi-
nate air pollution? We have the
chance to eliminate air pollution if we
have the will to undertake it.
We have the opportunity to make a
bold stroke to achieve a genuine clean-
ing up of the air. Air pollution is cost-
ing the American public conservatively
$11 billion, and more probably $15
billion a year. This does not include
the impairment to health and medical
payments and loss of productivity or
damage to architectural buildings. I
see by the evening paper that the Lin-
coln Memorial is threatened by air pol-
lution. Our forests are threatened by
air pollution. Our crops are threatened.
But more important, human beings and
their health are seriously threatened.
Here is an opportunity for the Con-
gress to authorize sufficient funds to
solve the problem. These funds will be
expended, I am assured by S. Smith
Griswold, former director of the
National Air Pollution Control
Administration, for the purpose of
strengthening the State agencies
which have the primary responsibility
under the new legislation.
The States and not the regions will
be the entities which will enforce the
Secretary's standards. The Secretary
will promulgate ambient air stand-
ards. Ambient air standards are used
under the Air Quality Act of 1967 and
the problem has been that the States
where regions have been designated
very often do not have the manpower
or ability to come up with implemen-
526-703 O - 73 - 21
-------
1486
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tation plans. In other words, they do
not know how to translate ambient
air standards into emission standards.
The inadequately staffed, inadequately
equipped State air pollution control
programs do not have the resources to
evaluate their air pollution problems
nor the means to resolve these prob-
lems. Increased funding is not always
the answer, but in this case adequate
Federal support is sorely needed to
beef up the State programs.
I would say that less than 10 States
out of the 50 have adequate pollution
control agencies today, and even these
are hard pressed for adequate
financial support.
While I am talking about this ques-
tion of State responsibility under the
pending proposed legislation, I would
like to point out that the legislation
we are considering does not provide
any authority for the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to
establish a maximum period within
which each State must meet the
national air quality standards. The
bill does not authorize HEW to
enforce the national standard or the
plan except where the State fails "to
take responsible action to enforce the
plan." It is absolutely unclear what
"reasonable action" means.
Additional financing might not pre-
vent these long, drawn-out delays, and
I am pleased that the authors feels
that the injunctive process can help.
Yet the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare will only be able to
enjoin those who emit pollutants for
which standards and a plan has been
developed.
I am disturbed that the Secretary
cannot issue standards until criteria
reports have been published. The
NAPCA has identified between 30 and
50 pollutants, but has only published
criteria for five since 1967. A crash
program, utilizing the additional
funds which I would authorize
through my amendment, would enable
the publication of criteria for these
additional pollutants, as well as de-
velopment of the technology to abate
this pollution.
We really ought to directly control
emissions from larger plants by
setting national emission control
levels, not ambient levels, and let the
States in the first instance try to
enforce Federal emission standards. If
this does not work out in a particular
State, then the Secretary can move
much more quickly than he would
under the proposed legislation. If
emission controls are set for a new
facility, we really ought not to dis-
criminate, but should set them for all
facilities above a certain size.
Another aspect of this proposed bill
which disturbs me are the clauses
contained on pages 33 and 36 which
relate to technological and economic
feasibility. For example, page 33 of
the bill refers to a suit in the U.S.
district court by the Attorney General
to secure abatement of the pollution.
There follows this sentence:
The court, giving due consideration to the
practicability and to the technological and
economic feasibility of complying with pro-
visions of the plan established to implement
such standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment and orders enforcing such
judgment as the public interest and equities
may require.
And on page 36, the bill states:
The Secretary shall from time to time by
regulation, giving appropriate consideration to
technological and economic feasibility, estab-
lish standards with respect to such emissions.
Now I do not understand why these
phrases are necessary. Obviously the
Secretary will take such factors into
consideration where necessary, but
keeping uppermost the public interest.
To write these phrases into legislation
emphasizes their importance above
and beyond the public interest. I
doubt whether Columbus would have
succeeded had Queen Isabella stressed
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1487
practicability, technological, and eco-
nomic feasibility. Certainly it was not
technologically or otherwise feasible
to go to the moon in 1961. If Jefferson
had placed these factors uppermost he
never would have allowed Lewis and
Clark to embark on their expedition.
We have long since passed the point
where we should allow polluters to
plead that their economic interests
are being threatened by having clean
air. I believe the following letter puts
the issue of economics into a little
clearer perspective:
PRATT, W. VA.,
April SO, 1970.
Hon. KEN HECHLER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR : The residents of the Upper
Kanawha Valley are facing the problem of
air pollution, which in the Montgomery, West
Virginia, area, has assumed absurd proportions.
There are several reasons why I say this.
First is the obvious financial burden it places
on home owners in the area. It is necessary
to repaint at least every other year due to
the large quantities of grit, spot and flyash
forever present in the air. Second, there is
the mental and spiritual depression brought
on by the continuous, ever increasing blanket
of smog which covers our beautiful moun-
tains and threatens to obliterate the sun.
Finally and most important, is the effects of
this blanket of gloom on the health of the
citizen victims who must live and work in
the area. It is a rare person, indeed, who does
not suffer sinus and bronchial irritations from
breathing this stinking, malodorous air. After
all, we haven't much choice but to breathe
this so-called air, have we?
The source of these abysmal conditions ? The
Union Carbide Metals plant at Alloy, West
Virginia.
According to the public relations depart-
ment of Union Carbide, it will be at least five
or six more years before we are allowed to
breathe in safety. I find this six year esti-
mate hard to believe, though; since, for the
past 35-years, Union Carbide has been promis-
ing that "within five or six years" they will
have the problem solved. I have begun to get
the impression that by "solving the problem"
they mean to wipe out the entire
[p. 19241]
population of the Montgomery area, and by
doing so will have no need to curb their
destruction of nature.
In fact, Union Carbide seems to have very
little concern for its employees either. Among
the employees with whom I am acquainted,
my father included, not one is entirely free
from emphysema, bronchitis, and other respira-
tory diseases. I think their plight is similar
to the coal miners who are victims of "black-
lung."
The reason nothing has been done about
these toxic conditions eludes me. There is no
valid excuse which can be offered by Union
Carbide; they are financially as well as tech-
nically capable of putting an end to the health
hazard of air pollution around Montgomery.
I sincerely feel and hope that something can be
done to force Union Carbide to stop the
pollution. The citizens of the Upper Kanawha
Valley put their lives in your capable hands,
Mr. Hechler.
Very truly yours,
EDGAR F. SCALES, Jr.
We have made some bold decisions
in this Congress to increase the recom-
mendation of a paltry $214 million in
the President's budget for waste treat-
ment plants and water pollution
control to $1 billion. I therefore feel
that we should take similar action in
the area of air pollution control, and
initiate a meaningful program such
as outlined in my amendment.
Right now we are losing the battle
to control air pollution.
The air is getting dirtier and
dirtier.
The high-sounding titles of the two
basic pieces of legislation which Con-
gress has passed: the "Clean Air Act"
of 1963 and the "Air Quality Act" of
1967 have not lived up to their titles.
The Nation is far ahead of the Con-
gress in demanding clean air, and
tough regulations with teeth in them
to enforce the law.
Now we have a chance to move
forward boldly and launch an all-out
fight against air pollution. I hope that
my amendment will receive support.
For the future of the human race, we
can afford to spend more than the cost
of one nuclear submarine to preserve
human life on the planet earth.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
-------
1488
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
HECHLER) .
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BUTTON
Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BUTTON: Page
46, insert after line 25 the following:
"(f) Title II of the Clean Air Act is
amended by inserting after section 212 the
following new section:
" 'STATUTORY STANDARDS
" 'SEC. 213. (a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, the maximum level of
emission from any new motor vehicle or new
motor vehicle engine, expressed in grams per
mile, with respect to reactive hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen shall
be as follows: Reactive hydrocarbons—2.2 for
1971, 1.5 for 1972, 1973 and 1974; carbon
monoxide—23.0 for 1971 through 1974 ; oxides
of nitrogen—4.0 for 1971, 3.0 for 1972 and
1973, and 1.3 for 1974. For the years after
1974, such levels shall be determined by the
Secretary in accordance with this title but
such levels shall not exceed those established
herein for 1974.
"'(b) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to prohibit the Secretary from estab-
lishing for any year with respect to reactive
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
nitrogen, emission standards establishing lower
levels of emission than those provided in this
section.' "
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. BUTTON) is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BUTTON. Mr. Chairman,
this amendment seeks the same goals
as the amendment proposed by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
SAYLOR but it uses a different
avenue.
I believe it meets the objections of
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
DINGELL) and some of the others who
feel that there should not be a patch-
work of different regulations among
the States.
This would move up by 5 years the
period of time when there would be
standards set nationwide—and move
it up from 1975.
The Federal standards under the
provisions of this bill will match those
projected for California by 1975 but
meanwhile the rest of the Nation
must suffer from inadequate control
standards.
This amendment will begin the
process of cleaning up the air 5 years
earlier, which time has been lost and
we cannot afford to lose much more
time.
Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the gentleman from
New York's amendment and commend
him for his concern with reducing the
harm from the principal source of air
pollution, the internal combustion
engine. Although this bill, H.R. 17255,
as reported from committee, will sub-
stantially strengthen our efforts to
curb air pollution, it was weakened in
committee from the administration's
initial recommendations to alleviate
pollution from the automobile.
The Public Health Service states
that the automobile is responsible for
60 percent of all air pollution in the
United States and is costing Ameri-
cans $30 billion annually. Here in the
Washington metropolitan area we
have a particular problem with the
automobile. It is astonishing to note
that the 61 square miles that the
District encloses has the highest autD
density in the entire country, and
traffic is constantly increasing. This
year the District is approaching 5,000
cars per square mile. Therefore, to
the extent in fighting air pollution
nationally and in the Washington
metropolitan area, we note that auto-
mobiles are a prime target.
Our goal must be the attainment
of pollutant free vehicles as a com-
plete substitute for our present types
in the shortest period of time. We
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1489
must not flag in our efforts to achieve
this end. The diseases scientists associ-
ate with air pollution are definitely
on the upswing. Emphysema, for
example, an ailment which perma-
nently destroys sections of the lung,
had a rate in 1950 of less than two
deaths per 100,000 while in 1966 the
rate increased to more than 12 deaths
per 100,000.
Although it is difficult to pinpoint a
specific pollutant as causing a specific
disease, scientists assure us that we
can not only look for a decrease in
emphysema but also for a real im-
provement in man's general health
and welfare with the removal of all
filth from the air regardless of its
origin.
Therefore, while we are making
some progress against air pollution in
Washington—we have had a 46-per-
cent reduction in oxides of sulfur and
a cessation of most open burning—we
must in no way slacken our efforts.
For this reason I urge the adoption
of this amendment as well as the other
amendments which are being offered
which would restore the requirements
of H.R. 17255 to the more stringent
levels recommended by the administra-
tion.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment. I
think it unwise at this time to legislate
in this way. The subcommittee and
the full committee considered these
and all other approaches. We hope we
can do much better than the standards
that would be set by the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr.
BUTTON).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York
(Mr. RYAN).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. KOCH
yielded his time to Mr. RYAN.)
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RYAN
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RYAN: On page
36, line 4, strike out "and economic feasibility"
and on page 37, line 3 and 4, strike out "and
economic feasibility".
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of the amendment is to strike
from the new section 112, which
empowers the Secretary to establish
Federal emission standards for new
stationary sources, the requirement
that the Secretary give appropriate
consideration to the economic feasi-
bility of proposed emission standards.
In both section 112(a) on page 36 and
section 112 (b) (2) on page 37 the
bill refers to "economic feasibility." I
believe that the threat to our environ-
ment is so great that, as a matter of
public policy, industry should be
required to use the most advanced
technology regardless of whether or
not a particular industry finds it
economically feasible. I fear that the
language of the bill as presently
written, will encourage industry to
say, "This will cost too much and we
can't do it." The only way to achieve
clean air is to set the standards and
require compliance.
For example, in New York City,
before the city of New York required
Consolidated Edison to reduce the
sulfur content of its fuel, the utility
said it was simply impossible, that it
would cost too much. But when faced
with a deadline, it not only met the
standard but did so a year sooner than
required. It did cut down the sulfur
content of its fuel. Although the cost
was some $15 million a year, when
prorated among all the users, it came
out to something like 14 cents a
month for the average residential
user of electricity.
-------
1490
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
be
I do not think the Secretary should
[p. 19242]
put in the position of determining
economic feasibility. Experience shows
that industry will not reveal its cost
figures to him. Similar provisions have
been adopted in various State laws,
and State control agencies have time
and again run into difficulty because
they cannot obtain the cost factors
and other information. Then they
wind up in court litigating the ques-
tion of economic feasibility.
The task of the Secretary should be
to set standards strict enough to con-
trol and eliminate air pollution. His
hands should not be tied.
I urge support for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr.
RYAN).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RYAN
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RYAN: On page
36, lines 1 and 2, strike out "substantially to
endangerment of the public health or wel-
fare" and insert in lieu thereof "to the de-
terioration of the Quality of environment".
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee, this
amendment also applies to the new
section 112, which make possible Fed-
eral emission standards for new sta-
tionary sources. Under the provision
as proposed by the committee, the
source must contribute "substantially
to the endangerment of the public
health or welfare." My proposed
substitute language would require that
the source contribute "to the deterio-
ration of the quality of the environ-
ment."
I think this is a very important
distinction. Our concern should be
whether or not the pollutant, which is
to be controlled, does, in fact, affect
and cause deterioration of the environ-
ment. To impose on the Secretary the
burden of determining whether pollut-
ants endanger public health and wel-
fare reverses the place where the
burden should be. The burden should
be upon the polluter to establish that
he does not contribute to the deteriora-
tion of the environment.
The test for setting standards
should be environmental deteriora-
tion.
Section 112(b) (1) imposes an "ex-
tremely hazardous to health test" for
an absolute prohibition on construc-
tion and operation. That restriction
should be more than sufficient in terms
of requiring a health danger. If we
are to achieve clean air and save our
environment, then we must not unduly
restrict the Secretary.
I urge support for this amend-
ment.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I might say this is taken care of in the
State plans and certainly it is not
needed in this bill. The amendment
should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr.
RYAN).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
(Mr. VAN DEERLIN).
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chair-
man, the committee has been most
patient. I am happy to yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. ROGERS).
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Chairman, I urge the passage of this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1491
bill. It will clean up the air in
America.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. DINGELL).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DIN-
GELL yielded his time to Mr. STAG-
GERS.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
ECKHARDT).
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent to yield my
time to the distinguished chairman of
the full committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, there
has been a serious time limitation. I
had no amendment to offer, but many
others have been precluded from offer-
ing an amendment by the serious time
limitation. Is there some special
reason why the gentleman wants to
yield the additional time to the chair-
man of the committee?
Further reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, are there any
other members of the committee who
plan to engage in this same type
of operation?
I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
wish to use my time.
Mr. Chairman, I merely would offer
my time to anybody who had some-
thing to say and who could say it in
that period of time, so it is really up
for grabs, except that I was quite
sure the chairman could use it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. SPRINGER).
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
think this bill has been well stated. I
think everybody has had his say on it,
and in view of the way in which it
has been received, I hope this bill will
pass.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. STAGGERS), the chairman
of the committee.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
am not going to take the full 4
minutes. I do appreciate the courtesy
of my colleagues in yielding time to
me.
What I have to say I can make very
brief.
I want to compliment the Com-
mittee for the way they have con-
ducted themselves in talking about
and arguing over this bill.
This is a bill with which I am sure
none of us fully agrees, but we have
come out with a strong bill. The sub-
committee presented a strong bill
which the Members thought was for
the best interest of our Nation. The
full committee concurred in that and
has brought it to the floor. We believe
it is a strong bill. We believe it is one
that will help curb this environmental
danger we have.
This is a problem we will be taking
a look at again 3 years from now.
I commend the bill to the House for
passage.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. STAGGERS
Before we close debate, Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment which I
believe is concurred in by the com-
mittee.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. STAGGERS: Page
35, line 15, insert after the period the follow-
ing: : "The amendments made by this section
shall not be construed as repealing or modify-
ing the powers of the Secretary with respect
to any conference convened under section
108(d) of such Act before the date of this Act."
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
-------
1492
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
do not desire to discuss the amend-
ment.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, we
have no objection to the amendment
on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
STAGGERS) .
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
before the Committee rises, I do want
to compliment the subcommittee. The
members did work long and hard, for
many hours, to bring us this bill to
the full committee and the House.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois,
the ranking minority member of the
committee, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. SPRINGER) and all who
serve on the committee for their
cooperation. They have done a grand
job. And I believe we have brought
a good bill to the floor for the good of
the country.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
further amendments to be proposed?
If not, the question is on the com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee substitute amend-
ment, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT) having assumed 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 consid-
eration 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, pursuant
to House Resolution 1069, he reported
the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute? If not, the question is on the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED
BY MR. CUNNINGHAM
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker,
I offer a motion to recommit.
[p. 19243]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the
gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In its present
form, Mr. Speaker, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will report the motion to re-
commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. CUNNINGHAM moves to recommit the
bill H.R. 17255 to the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was
rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1493
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Evidently a quorum is not present.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 375, nays 1, not voting
53, * * *.
*
So the bill was passed.
[p. 19244]
l.lk(4)(b) Sept. 21, 22: Considered and passed Senate amended,
pp. 32837; 32900-32928; 33072-33121
AMENDMENT OP CLEAN AIR
ACT—AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 926
Mr. BAKER (for himself and Mr.
COOPER) proposed an amendment to the
bill (S. 4358) to amend the Clean Air
Act, and for other purposes, which
was ordered to lie on the table and
to be printed.
AMENDMENT NO. 927
Mr. MANSFIELD (for Mr. MAG-
NUSON) submitted an amendment, in-
tended to be proposed by Mr. MAG-
NUSON, to Senate bill 4358, supra,
which was ordered to lie on the table
and to be printed.
AMENDMENT NO. 928
Mr. DOLE submitted an amend-
ment, intended to be proposed by him,
to Senate bill 4358, supra, which was
ordered to lie on the table and to be
printed.
(The remarks of Mr. DOLE when
he submitted the amendment appear
later in the RECORD under the appro-
priate heading.)
AMENDMENT NO. 930
Mr. COOPER (for himself and Mr.
BAKER) submitted an amendment, in-
tended to be proposed by them, jointly,
to Senate bill 4358, supra, which was
ordered to lie on the table and to be
printed.
[p. 32837]
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Order
No. 1214, S. 4358.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read the bill
by title, as follows: S. 4358, to amend
the Clean Air Act, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Maine?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one
of the most troubling aspects of our
national mood is the crisis in confi-
dence which afflicts too many Ameri-
cans in all walks of life. It is a crisis
marked by self-doubt, by a fear that
our problems may be greater than our
capacity to solve them, that OUT public
and private institutions may be inade-
quate at a time when we need them
most.
Our environmental problems have
contributed heavily to that self-doubt
and fear. A nation which has been
able to conquer the far reaches of
space, which has unlocked the
mysteries of the atom, and which has
an enormous reserve of economic
power, technological genius, and
managerial skills, seems incapable of
halting the steady deterioration of
our air, water, and land.
The legislation we take up today
-------
1494
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
provides the Senate with a moment of
truth: a time to decide whether or
not we are willing to let our lives
continue to be endangered by the
wasteful practices of an affluent so-
ciety, or whether we are willing to
take the difficult but necessary steps
to breathe new life into our fight for
a better quality of life.
This legislation will be a test of our
commitment and a test of our faith:
in our institutions, in our capacity to
find answers to difficult economic and
technological problems, and in the
ability of American citizens to rise to
the challenge of ending the threat of
air pollution.
I am prepared to affirm that faith—
on the basis of the knowledge we have
gained from existing air pollution
control legislation, on the basis of
what Americans have been telling me
and other Members of the Senate
about there determination to overcome
the obstacles to clean air.
I. THE NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
Mr. President, we are considering
this legislation in a year of environ-
mental concern. The President devoted
much of his state of the Union
message to the environment, young
and old together marked Earth Day in
April, and Congress has considered an
unprecedented number of bills dealing
with the degradation of our air, wa-
ter, and land.
In January of this year the Presi-
dent signed the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. That law com-
mits all agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment to continuing environmental
concern. In April of this year the
Water Quality Improvement Act, built
upon the record established by the
Congress since 1965 in the
[p. 32900]
area of water pollution control, was
enacted.
The bill we consider today, how-
ever, faces the environmental crisis
with greater urgency and frankness
than any previous legislation. The
effect of these amendments to the Clean
Air Act will be felt by all Americans.
This bill states that all Americans in
all parts of the Nation should have
clean air to breathe, air that will have
no adverse effects on their health.
And this bill is aimed at putting in
motion the steps necessary to achieve
that level of air quality within the
next 5 years.
It is a tough bill, because only a
tough law will guarantee America
clean air. It is a necessary bill, be-
cause the health of our people is at
stake.
Over 200 million tons of contami-
nants are spilled into the air each
year in America. Each year we soil
more clothes and buildings, destroy
more plant and animal life, and
threaten irreversible atmospheric and
climatic changes. And each year these
200 million tons of pollutants en-
danger the health of our people.
The costs of air pollution can be
counted in death, disease and dis-
ability; it can be measured in the
billions of dollars of property losses;
it can be seen and felt in the dis-
comfort of our lives.
A reduction of 50 percent in air
pollution in urban areas would result
in savings of over $2 billion in the
annual costs of health care in
America.
So there is a need for this legisla-
tion. During the past year all of us
have recognized this need. Last month,
in transmitting the first annual
report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, President Nixon
recognized this need.
Man—
He said—
has been too cavalier in his relations with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1495
nature. Unless we arrest the depredations that
have been inflicted so carelessly on our natural
systems . . . we face the prospect of ecological
disaster.
In hearings on the bill before us,
Mr. Joseph Germano, a steelworker
from Chicago, also recognized this
need. He told the committee:
This old philosophy, that when you see the
smoke rolling out of the tops of the blast
furnaces there is prosperity, doesn't go any-
more. The people don't look at that anymore.
Prosperity doesn't mean anything if they are
not going to live to enjoy the prosperity.
All Americans have agreed on the
need for action. It is now time to
determine whether the agreement has
reflected only a lack of disagreement,
or a genuine commitment to action.
II. A REVIEW OF THE LAW
The bill now before the Senate
would amend the Clean Air Act. It is
consistent with the purpose of that
law and with the basic approach of
the present program. In the Air
Quality Act of 1967, Congress adopted
this basic approach in amendments to
the Clean Air Act of 1963.
The Senate report on the 1967 bill
stated the purposes of the legislation:
(It) is the intent of the Committee to en-
hance air quality and to reduce harmful pollu-
tion emissions anywhere in the country, and
to give the secretary authority to implement
that objective in the absence of effective state
and local control.
The committee feels that S. 4358 is
consistent with those purposes and
reflects knowledge gained since the
law has been in force.
The 1967 established procedures for
the achievement and maintenance of
federally approved regional standards
of ambient air quality. These stand-
ards, based on Federal criteria docu-
ments describing the effects of pollut-
ants on health and welfare, are
adopted and enforced on the State and
local level. In the event that adequate
standards are not developed or en-
forced, the Federal Government
assumes the responsibility.
The underlying wisdom of the origi-
nal legislation has been confirmed. We
have learned from the criteria docu-
ments which have been issued for five
pollutants that more decisive action
must be taken now. We have learned
from the standards-setting process
that public participation is important,
and we have learned from experience
with implementation of the law that
States and localities need greater in-
centives and assistance to protect the
health and welfare of all people.
III. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED
FROM THE LAW
From the operations of the existing
law, we have learned a great deal—
about the concern of Americans over
air pollution, about the response of
polluters to this concern, and about
the sacrifices we must make to protect
our health.
The effectiveness of existing law
depends in great part on the willing-
ness of people to make tough decisions
concerning the quality of air they
want to breathe. And it depends on
their willingness to make their wishes
known in public hearings on the local
level. This experiment in public par-
ticipation has worked. It has opened
doors once closed. People have become
involved in the standards-setting
process. They have learned of the
threats to their health and they have
sought to make the program respon-
sive to their needs.
At the same time, some industries
have not exerted their best efforts to
control air pollution. Two steel com-
panies in the Chicago area, for
example, dumped more pollutants into
the air in 1968 than in 1963—3,500
tons more. Oftentimes, funds which
should have gone for air pollution
control have been spent on advertising
and public relations designed to
-------
1496
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
reduce the pressure on the companies
to do what is necessary.
In the face of citizen concern and
corporate resistance, we have learned
that the air pollution problem is more
severe, more pervasive, and growing
faster than we had thought. Unless
we recognize the crisis and generate a
sense of urgency from that recog-
nition, lead times may melt away
without any chance at all for a
rational solution to the air pollution
problem.
IV. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED
ABOUT THE LAW
While we have learned much from
the operations of the laws passed in
1963, 1965, and 1967, we have also
learned about the law itself.
It is clear that Congress was right
in 1967 when national emissions stand-
ards without ambient air quality
standards for stationary sources were
rejected—in favor of regional
ambient air quality standards with
emissions standards as tools to meet
them. Emissions standards alone will
not—and probably cannot—guarantee
ambient air quality which will protect
the public health. The implementation
of air quality standards must take
more forms than emissions controls.
It is also clear that ambient air
quality standards which will protect
the health of persons must be set as
minimum standards for all parts of
the Nation, and they must be met in
all areas within national deadlines.
Congress did adopt emissions stand-
ards as the basic control technique
for moving sources in 1965, because
they are not controllable at the local
level. Here we have learned that tests
of economic and technological feasi-
bility applied to those standards com-
promise the health of our people and
lead to inadequate standards. It is
clear that the long-range proposal
for emission standards will only be
adequate if the timetable is acceler-
ated.
In 1963, Congress recognized that
the Federal Government could not
handle the enforcement task alone,
and that the primary burden would
rest on States and local governments.
However, State and local governments
have not responded adequately to this
challenge. It is clear that enforcement
must be toughened if we are to meet
the national deadlines. More tools are
needed, and the Federal presence and
backup authority must be increased.
Finally no level of government has
implemented the existing law to its
full potential On all levels, the air
pollution control program has been
underfunded and undermanned. To
implement the greater responsibilities
of this bill, great financial commit-
ments will have to be made and met
at all levels. Air pollution control will
be cheap only in relation to the costs
of lack of control.
V. CHANGES RECOMMENDED
What we have learned—from and
about the existing law—forms the
basis of the changes recommended by
the committee. Because we have fallen
behind in the fight for clean air, it is
not enough to implement existing law.
We must go further. The Senate com-
mittee report on the Air Quality Act
of 1967 warned polluters:
Considerations of technology and economic
feasibility, while important in helping to
develop alternative plans and schedules for
achieving goals of air quality, should not be
used to mitigate against protection of the pub-
lic health and welfare.
That warning, Mr. President, has
been on the books of this committee
for 3 years, for all to read.
Contrary to this intent, these con-
siderations have been used as argu-
ments to compromise the public health.
Therefore, the committee has made
explicit in this bill what is implicit to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1497
standards designed to protect our
health. That concept and that
philosophy are behind every page of
the proposed legislation.
The first responsibility of Congress is not
the making of technological or economic
[p. 32901]
judgments—or even to be limited by what is or
appears to be technologically or economically
feasible. Our responsibility is to establish what
the public interest requires to protect the
health of persons. This may mean that people
and industries will be asked to do what seems
to be impossible at the present time. But if
health is to be protected, these challenges
must be met. I am convinced they can be met.
First, the bill provides for national ambient
air quality standards for at least ten major
contaminants that must be met by national
deadlines. This means that in every region of
the country, air quality must be better than
that level of quality which protects health.
Anybody in this Nation ought to be able at
some specific point in the future to breathe
healthy air.
Second, national air quality goals—protec-
tive against any known or anticipated adverse
environmental effects—will be set for the major
pollutants and must also be achieved within
specific time-frames on a regional basis. Air
quality goals are especially important because
some pollutants may have serious effects on
the environment at levels below those where
health effects may occur. For example, the
Secretary would be expected to disapprove
regional air quality goals which would delay
the application of controls required to protect
plants and animals from the well-known haz-
ards of exposure to fluorides.
Third, the bill provides that newly con-
structed sources of pollution must meet rigor-
ous national standards of performance. While
we clean up existing pollution, we must also
guard against new problems. Those areas
which have levels of air quality which are
better than the national standards should not
find their air quality degraded by the con-
struction of new sources. There should be no
"shopping around" for open sites. These
standards of performance "would not specify
what technology must be used by particular
types of sources, only the emissions perform-
ance that must be met.
Fourth, the bill provides the Secretary with
the authority to prohibit emissions of hazard-
ous substances. The committee was presented
with strong evidence that any level of emis-
sions of certain pollutants may produce adverse
health effects that cannot be tolerated.
Fifth, the bill provides the Secretary with
the authority to set emission standards for
selected pollutants which cannot be controlled
through the ambient air quality standards and
which are not hazardous substances. These
pollutants could later be covered by either
ambient air quality standards or by prohibi-
tions as hazardous substances.
These five sets of reqiurements will
be difficult to meet. But the committee
is convinced that industry can make
compliance with them possible or im-
possible. It is completely within their
control. Industry has been presented
with challenges in the past that
seemed impossible to meet, but has
made them possible.
As far back as 1869, the Alkali Act
prohibited the emissions of hydrogen
sulfides in England. Although in-
dustry had said that requirement
could not be met, there was compli-
ance within 2 years.
At the beginning of World War II
industry told President Roosevelt that
his goal of 100,000 planes each year
could not be met. The goal was met,
and the war was won.
And in 1960, President Kennedy
said that America would land a man
on the moon by 1970. And American
industry did what had to be done.
Our responsibility in Congress is to
say that the requirements of this bill
are what the health of the Nation
requires, and to challenge polluters to
meet them.
The committee has also recom-
mended significant changes in title II
of the Act dealing with moving
sources, and especially with automo-
biles.
In 1968, moving sources were re-
sponsible for more than 42 percent of
the total emissions of the five major
pollutants—including 64 percent of
the carbon monoxide and 50 percent
of the hydrocarbons. In health effects,
these pollutants mean cancer, head-
aches, dizziness, nausea, metabolic
and respiratory diseases, and the im-
pairment of mental processes. Clearly,
solving the air pollution problem
-------
1498
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
depends on the achievement of signifi-
cant reductions in the emissions from
automobiles. Clearly, protection of the
public health requires quick and
drastic reductions.
Since legislation to deal with the
problem of automotive emissions was
first introduced in 1964, the industry
has known that they would have to
develop the solutions to the problem.
In 1965 they announced that national
standards could be met in the fall of
1967.
As the report of the committee indi-
cates, it is now clear that continued
reliance on gradual reductions in auto-
motive emissions would make achieve-
ment of the ambient air quality stand-
ards impossible within the national
deadlines established in title I of this
act. More important, it would con-
tinue hazards to our health long after
they should have been eliminated.
In order to maintain these stand-
ards set under title I—standards
which are necessary to protect the
public health and which must be met
in the next 5 years—the emissions
standards for carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, and nitrogen oxides which
have been projected for 1980 must be
met earlier. This bill would require
that this be done by 1975.
To insure that production line vehi-
cles perform adequately, this bill
would require that each vehicle manu-
factured comply with the standards
for a 50,000-mile lifetime. The manu-
facturer would be required to war-
ranty the performance of each indi-
vidual vehicle as to compliance with
emission standards. The increased
price of new cars that would be a re-
sult of this bill can be defended only
if the emission control systems work
satisfactorily for the life of the car.
The committee, in setting the 1975
deadline, made every effort to make
that requirement consistent with what
the industry has told the committee on
many occasions over the years: It
provides 2 years for research and
development of the necessary tech-
nology, and 2 years to apply that
technology in the mass production of
vehicles.
In response to claims that these
requirements cannot be met, the com-
mittee has included in the legislation
an opportunity for a secretarial
review of the 1975 deadline. A 1-year
extension of the deadline could be
granted upon a secretarial finding
that such an extension would be neces-
sary and justified. The bill also pro-
vides for a review of that decision
by an appellate court.
It was only on the issue of secre-
tarial review that the committee was
divided. Several members, including
myself, felt that an extension of the
deadline was a major policy decision
that should be made only by the
Congress. We felt that if Congress
decided the requirements of public
health were not to be compromised in
any way, any change in that policy
would be properly reserved to the
Congress.
It should be clear that the com-
mittee was unanimous on the im-
portant question of when review could
be sought—either before Congress or
the Secretary. In the committee's view,
such review should not be available
until the last possible moment. For
an extension to be granted, the manu-
facturer would have to demonstrate
not only impossibility, but also that
all good-faith efforts had been made.
The committee is aware of the prob-
lems these requirements might create
for individual companies. Therefore,
the bill provides a procedure for
mandatory licensing which would
make available patents, trade secrets,
or know-how necessary to achieve
compliance with the Standards Act to
any manufacturer who can show a
need and to whom the information is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1499
not otherwise available. This pro-
vision would also apply to stationary
sources.
Mr. President, I should like to make
the philosophy of the bill clear, with
this emphasis:
Predictions of technological impossi-
bility or infeasibility are not sufficient
as reasons to avoid tough standards
and deadlines, and thus to compromise
the public health. The urgency of the
problem requires that the industry
consider, not only the improvement of
existing technology, but also alterna-
tives to the internal combustion
engine and new forms of transporta-
tion. Only a clear cut and tough
public policy can generate this kind
of effort.
This philosophy has been stated by
the committee before. In reporting the
Air Quality Act of 1967 to the Senate,
the committee said:
The Committee recognizes the potential eco-
nomic impact, and therefore economic risk,
associated with major social legislative meas-
ures of this type. But this risk was assumed
when the Congress enacted social security, fair
labor standards, and a host of other legisla-
tion 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.
Detroit has told the Nation that
Americans cannot live without the
automobile.
This legislation would tell Detroit
that if that is the case, they must
make an automobile with which
Americans can live.
The third major area in which the
committee has recommended signifi-
cant changes is the area of enforce-
ment. Standards alone will not insure
breathable air. All levels of govern-
ment must be given adequate tools to
enforce those standards.
The committee remains convinced
that the most effective enforcement
of standards will take place on the
State and lo-
[p. 32902]
cal levels. It is here that the public
can participate most actively and
bring the most effective pressure to
bear for clean air.
Public participation is therefore
important in the development of each
State's implementation plan. These
plans do not involve technical deci-
sions ; they do not involve public policy
choices that citizens should make on
the State and local level. They should
be consistent with a rational nation-
wide policy and would be subject to
the approval of the Secretary.
The powers to enforce these stand-
ards must be increased for the State
and local governments as well as the
Federal Government. The bill thus
requires adequate State enforcement
authority as a part of implementa-
tion plans and provides that abate-
ment orders may be issued by the
Secretary or his representative. Viola-
tions of these orders will be punish-
able by statutory penalties of as much
as $25,000 for each day of a first
violation.
The bill also provides the Federal
Government with the authority to use
the influence of the Federal contract
as an incentive to compliance with
standards established under this act.
Federal contracts could be awarded
only to facilities which were in com-
pliance with the standards and re-
quirements of this act.
Finally, the bill extends the concept
of public participation to the enforce-
ment process. The citizen suits author-
ized in this legislation would apply
important pressure. Although the com-
mittee does not advocate these suits
as the best way to achieve enforce-
ment, it is clear that they should be
an effective tool.
-------
1500
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
VI. WHAT THE LAW CAN MEAN
These, then, are the commitments
that the Congress should make—com-
mitments to meaningful environ-
mental protection; effective protection
of the health of all Americans; and
the early achievement of these goals.
Committing the Congress with this
legislation, however, will not be
enough. Here we can make only
promises to provide the funds and
manpower necessary to set and
enforce the standards. We must carry
this commitment through to the
appropriations of those funds. If these
promises that we make here are not
kept, these will be empty promises.
May I re-emphasize the point, Mr.
President, that the number of per-
sonnel in the agency available today
to deal with these problems is less
than 1,000. We asked the administra-
tion to give us its best estimate of the
numbers needed and the costs to
administer and fully implement the
bill before us if it is enacted into law.
The details on the administration's
figures are in the report. Personnel
would have to be increased to 1,741 in
the present fiscal year; 2,535 in fiscal
1972; and 2,930 in fiscal 1973. In 1973,
in order to provide the necessary
personnel, the annual appropriations
would have to be $320 million.
We talked about commitment, Mr.
President. The 1967 act has not
worked as well as it should have be-
cause we did not provide the man-
power and the money to enforce it.
For that reason, we are now forced to
consider a more stringent law. So, for
those who look to the law enacted in
1967, to those who are tempted to
weaken this one, let me make this
point.
If the Senate passes the bill, if the
House passes it in this form, and if
the President signs it into law, we
cannot make it work unless we have
as a minimum the personnel and the
dollars recommended by the adminis-
tration.
Mr. President, I emphasize this
because it is such an important point.
The committee got these detailed esti-
mates from the administration so that
we could tell the Senate and the
House of Representatives in advance
what it is going to cost to make this
law work.
I know the traditional attitude of
the Appropriations Committee is that
we in the legislative committees are
good at putting together the big
promises, but that since we do not
have to concern ourselves with the
details of what it will cost or how
many people it will take, we are really
not a very good bunch to write the
figures into law.
This is one time a legislative com-
mittee got the details. They are here
for all to see. If the members of
the Appropriations Committee are
interested in those details, they are
here.
If there is any doubt on the part of
any Senator about whether he would
support the appropriations necessary
to make this law work, let him vote
against the bill. Let us not vote for
empty promises.
Mr. President, I emphasize that
this bill seeks a commitment not only
from Congress but also from the
people. As I said earlier in this state-
ment, clean air will not come cheap
and it will not come easy.
The legislation would require new
kinds of decisions with respect to
transportation and land-use policies. It
would require new discipline of our
desire for luxury and convenience.
And it would require a new perspec-
tive on our world, a recognition that
nothing is more valuable or essential
to us than the quality of our air.
Mr. President, 100 years ago the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1501
first board of health in the United
States, in Massachusetts, said this:
We believe that all citizens have an inherent
right to the enjoyment of pure and uncon-
taminated air and water and soil, that this
right should be regarded as belonging to the
whole community and that no one should be
allowed to trespass upon it by his carelessness
and his avarice, or even by his ignorance.
Mr. President, 100 years later it is
time to write that kind of policy into
law. The pending hill is such a law.
I urge the Senate to approve it over-
whelmingly.
Mr. President, at this point I would
like to pay tribute to all members of
the Committee on Public Works and
the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution for their involvement in,
their commitment to, and their dedi-
cation to what, for me, has been one of
the most unusual experiences of com-
mittee work since I have been a Mem-
ber of the Senate.
Hearings on this legislation began
early this year. They were concluded
early in the spring, in ample time for
us to have simply passed out any one
of the bills that were introduced and
considered our work done. But we
were conscious of the fact that the
legislation already enacted had proven
inadequate.
We were also conscious of the fact
that in the climate of environmental
concern which we faced in the country,
it was important that Congress give
to the country the best bill it was
possible for Congress to devise.
Since the completion of the hear-
ings, therefore, the subcommittee and
the full committee have spent long
hours in deliberation and consultation
and finally in decision. Never was a
partisan line drawn in any of these
deliberations. Never was there any
effort to obstruct or delay the action
of the committee.
The discussions were long because
it was necessary to educate ourselves,
the Senate and ultimately the country
as to the options available to us and
the implications of these options.
We have been conscious, I think,
since early June that what we were
considering writing into law could
result in drastic changes in the
pattern of the life we live in the
urban areas of America. We felt that
just such changes were essential if we
were really to come to grips with the
problem of air pollution. We cannot
solve the problem of air pollution in
the city of Washington by prohibiting
backyard burning of leaves. That has
already been done in some of the sub-
urban counties. It does not begin to
touch the job.
All of us in the Senate travel about
this country by air. I know of no city
of more than 50,000—and that
includes my own State—which is not
threatened already by the pall of
smog. Beyond any question the auto-
mobile is the principal contributor to
that pall; and the results have grown
visibly since 1967. The problem that
troubled the committee most was not
the problem of the new car, but the
problem of the used car. There are
more than 100 million on the road.
And before this law takes effect, if it
is enacted into law, four or five new
generations of automobiles will be-
come used cars at the rate of 8 million
to 9 million a year.
After new cars roll out of the show-
rooms onto the streets and into the
control of their owners, it is techno-
logically almost impossible to make
them clean cars.
In title I of this act we have written
a national deadline for the purpose of
implementing applicable ambient air
quality standards. That is going to
require every State Governor and the
mayor of every city in this country
to impose strict controls in the use of
automobiles before the new car is a
clean one.
526-703 O - 73 - 22
-------
1502
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The only way we can deal effectively
with the used car is to begin making
clean cars in Detroit. Under the pro-
gram as it is presently planned, the
used car population will not be
cleaned up until 1990. Under the
pending bill, the used car population
would not be cleaned up until 1985.
Mr. President, that is not too soon
to be concerned about the health
effects of automobiles on the lives of
the people living in these cities.
[p. 32903]
Drastic medicine? Yes.
Necessary? Yes.
The industry will have 5 years to
make its peace with this proposal. As
we bear in mind the space program
and other great technological achieve-
ments of American industry, I find it
difficult to believe that, whatever their
present doubts, they cannot meet the
challenge of this bill.
They have been able to meet such
challenges in the case of war when
President Eoosevelt asked them to
build 100,000 planes a year.
They have been able to meet such
challenges in the case of national
curiosity when President Kennedy
asked them to make it possible to send
a man to the moon in the 1960's.
Here, in the case of a national ob-
jective more serious than either of
those—the national health, I think
that we have an obligation to lay
down the standards and requirements
of this bill.
I think that the industry has an ob-
ligation to try to meet them. If, in
due course, it cannot, then it should
come to Congress and share with the
Congress—the representatives of the
people—the need to modify the policy.
That is the philosophy of this bill.
The committee felt it owed no less
duty to the Senate and the Congress
than to state it in these terms. That
is why we have this kind of bill. It
was not unreasonable or arbitrary in
the sense that it was ill-considered.
The committee spent hundreds of
hours over weeks and months before it
came to this hard decision.
Mr. President, I wish to list in the
RECORD at this point the names of the
members of the committee: Senator
RANDOLPH, Senator YOUNG of Ohio,
Senator MUSKIE, Senator JORDAN of
North Carolina, Senator BAYH, Sen-
ator MONTOYA, Senator SPONG, Sen-
ator EAGLETON, Senator GRAVEL, Sen-
ator COOPER, Senator BOGGS, Senator
BAKER, Senator DOLE, Senator GUR-
NEY, and Senator PACKWOOD.
After all these hundreds of hours
covering weeks and months of deliber-
ations, all those Senators—obviously
of widely varying political philoso-
phies—voted unanimously to recom-
mend to the Senate and Congress the
passage of this bill, the goals it estab-
lishes, the sense of urgency it incor-
porates, and the program for meeting
the problem. I cannot think of a major
piece of domestic legislation that has
had such complete committee support
from that spectrum of opinion. There
was no doubt in the minds of any of
them about supporting it.
It is with that recommendation that
I am proud to submit the legislation
to the floor of the Senate.
At this point I would like to express
my heartfelt appreciation to the chair-
man of the committee, the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH),
the ranking Republican member, the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER),
the ranking Republican member of the
subcommittee, the Senator from Dela-
ware (Mr. BOGGS), and every one of
the members of the committee for the
most conscientious attention to duty,
committee meetings, and the respon-
sibilities this legislation imposes that
I have ever witnessed in a committee
in my experience.
This is not the usual pat on the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1503
back one gets on the floor of the Sen-
ate. This is heartfelt. Not only did
they contribute their energy and time,
but the ideas in this bill could not
be separated along party lines of
Democratic and Republican. These are
Democratic, Republican, liberal, and
conservative ideas. This is an inte-
grated piece of legislation incorporat-
ing the full thought of all members
of the committee.
I would like to express my apprecia-
tion to the members of the committee
staff. I include their names here be-
cause they have given such a fine
example of the kind of staff work that
is possible in Senate committees. They
are: Mr. Richard B. Royce, chief clerk
and staff director; Mr. M. Barry
Meyer, chief counsel; Mr. Bailey
Guard, assistant chief clerk for the
minority; Mr. Tom Jorling, minority
counsel; Mr. Leon G. Billings, Mr.
Richard W. Wilson, Mr. Philip Cum-
mings, Mr. Richard Grundy and Mr.
Harold Brayman, professional staff
members; and Mrs. Frances Williams,
Miss Rebecca Beauregard, Miss Sally
White, and Miss Cecily Corcoran of
the committee staff.
I would like to express my appre-
ciation to Mr. Eliot Cutler of my staff
and to the members of the staffs of
members of the committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me for a few
minutes? I realize that the ranking
Republican Member has a statement
to make and I do not wish to impose
too much on his time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Needless to say,
there are portions of this bill which
have a significant impact on the State
of Michigan. The Senator from Maine
has addressed himself to those pro-
visions. I realize, of course, that there
are other important portions of the
bill. I would be less than honest with
the Senate if I did not indicate some
serious misgivings about certain
provisions of the bill which write into
legislative concrete, in effect, that cer-
tain standards—standards which are
exceedingly high—must be met by
1975 or 15 million workers will lose
their jobs.
Is it the position of the Senator
from Maine that the state of the art
is such now that the standards for
automobile exhaust set in this bill
could be met now?
Mr. MUSKIE. If that were the
case, I would say somebody has failed
in discharging his responsibilities un-
der the 1967 law in not requiring that
such standards be met by models com-
ing off the lines now. No, if we thought
the technology existed today we would
insist that it be incorporated in these
cars today.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Is it a fact that no
hearings were held by the committee
with regard to the question as to
whether the standards set in the bill
could be met by 1975?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read some-
thing to the Senator from the testi-
mony in 1967 of Mr. Thomas Mann,
president of the Auto Manufacturers-
Association. He made several points,
but on this one he said:
My fourth point is related to the third:
As research indentifies objectionable or harm-
ful pollutants and determines dangerous levels
to be avoided, it defines ambient air quality
needs in terms of specific goals to be met.
With these goals clearly established it becomes
appropriate to project timetables for all indus-
tries or other sources of emissions so they
can begin research and development work to
devise methods of achieving the goals.
At that time we did not have cri-
teria identifying the health effects of
pollutants. So Mr. Mann urged re-
search to find these defects before
timetables were set He did not say
that before we set timetables the com-
mittee should be satisfied that technol-
ogy is available. No. He said, "With
these goals"—talking about health
-------
1504
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
effect goals—"clearly established it
becomes appropriate to project time
tables for all industries or other
sources of emissions so that they can
begin research and development work
to devise methods of achieving the
goals."
Since then, under pressure of hear-
ings first held by the subcommittee in
1964 and held almost every year since,
the industry has come before us and
clearly has been pushing technology,
research, and development to the point
that they now indicate to us not any
commitment to what they can do, but
the contention, as one president of one
auto company said:
You can't put this in the record, but we are
that close.
If we are "that close," it seems to
me we have to set the timetable and
challenge them to meet it. They can
always come back to Congress.
There is something here in Mr.
Mann's testimony, in another portion
of his statement, on the timetable
question where he defines the process
through which a company has to go
in order to devise the changes nec-
essary to meet the goals; that is a
separate process, after they have been
told what the goals are. He said:
Normally, what I have referred to in the
preceding paragraph takes approximately two
years in -addition to the time needed for de-
sign, research, and development stages.
A lot of the hardware is already
being tested. We saw at the time of
the hearings prototype models which
already meet the 1975 standards.
Various companies have differing de-
grees of competency to meet 1980
standards under the present program,
but they recognize they have to push
ahead.
There is another point I would like
to make about the attitude of the
automobile companies. It is surely
understandable, under the pressures of
customer demands and expectations,
and under the kinds of pressure gen-
erated in connection with safety de-
vices, that the industry wants to walk
the extra mile in testing and refining
any new technical hardware before
putting it in the hands of the custom-
ers. That is where, it seems to me, we
have a problem of such urgency that
normal procedures have to be short-
ened if we are to achieve the goals.
Mr. GRIFFIN. With all deference
to the distinguished Senator from
Maine, I must say he has not given
a very satis-
[p. 32904]
fying answer so far as the junior
Senator from Michigan is concerned.
Let me elaborate a bit, if I may. It is
fine and very desirable to set national
goals as the committee seeks to do in
this bill.
The Senator from Maine referred
to President Kennedy's goal to reach
the moon. With respect to that goal,
I would remind the Senator from
Maine that the Congress did not set
itself up as a group of scientists and
say, in legislative concrete, that—-
We shall reach the moon on such and such
a date, and if we do not, those working in
industries having to do with space achieve-
ments shall be put out of their jobs.
It is completely understandable
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say that this
bill does not say that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. It is understandable
that the President of the United
States or, perhaps, the Senate through
a sense of the Senate resolution,
might want to set a goal in this field,
toward which we should strive. But
what bothers me about this legislation
is that it does not repose any real
authority in those who have scientific
competence and knowledge—those
who could judge the state of the art
and its applicability on a realistic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1505
basis to this industry at any given
point in time.
With all due respect, I believe the
Senator from Maine and the commit-
tee have gone too far. There ought to
be some flexibility in the hands of the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare or a committee of scientists
and engineers—people with some
competent ability to judge the state
of the art as it continues to develop.
As I understand the situation, with-
out any hearings at all, the commit-
tee has, itself, made what is, in effect,
a scientific judgment; it has assumed
the role of scientists, and said:
This cannot be done now, but we think it
can be done by 1975.
Without any particular basis for
such a declaration.
Mr. MUSKIE. We made no such
judgment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Not only that it
can be done, but "It will be done or
you are out of business."
Mr. MUSKIE. We made no such
statement.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is the effect,
as I understand it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, to clarify the
Senator's understanding of the effect,
I shall be happy to repeat what I said.
We made no technological judgments
in this bill. We do not presume to be
in a position to do that. Neither have
we made any judgment of our own
with respect to the health effects of
pollutants that are emitted by the
automobile.
In that respect we did what Mr.
Mann and the automobile industry
suggested we do back in 1967. We
directed the Secretary of HEW to
issue criteria documents identifying
those pollutants. This is what the
criteria said:
Air quality criteria documents for auto-
mobile related pollutant agents have provided
information on the effect of those pollutants
on health and welfare. As an example, health
effects can be expected from carbon monoxide
exposure of 8 to 10 parts per million for an
8-hour period. Many communities exceed these
concentrations with unacceptable frequency.
For example, carbon monoxide concentrations
in Chicago exceed the standard more than 20
percent of the time.
This is the judgment the committee
made—no more, no less.
Knowing what the health effects
are, we could not see ourselves in the
position of saying to the country:
Emissions from automobiles are unhealthy.
The agency we charged with giving us that
information in 1967 has told us so. But we are
going to leave it to the automobile industry to
tell us when those health effects are to be
eliminated.
We felt it was our responsibility,
and no one else's, to establish the
public policy. We are saying in this
bill that this is what the public health
requires. We are saying to the coun-
try, this is what the automobile ought
to be measured against. We are say-
ing to the industry, this is what you
must try to do.
Congress, I assume, will be in ses-
sion in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and
1975—and possibly without any inter-
ruption if we continue at the present
rate. The committee would be avail-
able to sit. The companies would be
in a position to make their case. If
the Congress, which would have made
the policy in the first instance, is
persuaded that the industry cannot
do the job, Congress could change
the policy.
It is conceivable, may I say to the
Senator from Michigan, that by 1973
we may know a great deal more
about the health effects of the auto-
mobile and decide that they are so
bad that the companies ought to make
the required changes by January 1,
1975—or stop producing cars until
they do. I am not predicting that. I do
not think that is necessary. I do not
think that will happen.
-------
1506
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
But this would be—as it is now—a
policy decision of such moment to the
country that it ought to be made by
nobody other than the Congress, so
that the decision gets the visibility,
the prestige and the responsibility
that are necessary to deal with this
problem.
It is not necessary to say that any
company is going to be closed on Jan-
uary 1, 1975, but it is necessary for
the Congress to say that they must
meet the standards until the Congress
itself decides otherwise. That is what
we are asking. Five years is a long
time for the companies to make their
effort, then to make their case and
then for Congress to consider a
change of policy.
If the Senator from Michigan is
going to assume that, in the face of
a convincing demonstration, the Con-
gress will irresponsibly shut down the
automobile companies, then, of course,
the Senator should vote against the
bill.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me first read
this letter of September 11, 1970,
written to me by President B. N.
Cole of General Motors. He says this:
Remarkably low emissions can be achieved
with experimental laboratory cars without any
regard to mass production, manufacturing
tolerances, durability, maintenance, cost, and
conditions of customer use.
If I understand that sentence, he
is saying that the way of dealing with
these emissions is now available in
the laboratory—that it can be done,
and that what stands between us and
January 1, 1975 is the development
of the mass production techniques
to convert what can now be done in
the laboratory into a production line
automobile. This man, who is a prod-
uct of an American industry whose
great genius is mass production, is
now telling us that what is possible
in the laboratory cannot be converted
to the mass production line in 5 years.
I can remember, when the astro-
nauts were burned in their space
vehicle in Cape Kennedy, how long
it took to completely change the sys-
tem so a safe one could be sent to
the moon.
Let me give the Senator another
piece of information. Then he may
respond. This information concerns
the clean car race of a short time
ago.
I read from this report:
When tha Wayne State University entry
reached California, it was tested for pollution
control. The results, after this 3600-mile race,
showed tbat the student-modified internal com-
bustion engine, using nonleaded gasoline, sur-
passed not only the proposed 1975 Federal
standards—
And by that is meant the ones
agreed to by the administration—
but were far below the proposed 1980 Federal
standards—
which the subcommittee has recom-
mended be advanced for 1975.
So these students were able to
achieve what the automobile industry
tells us they cannot achieve.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
wish to respond briefly; I shall have
more to say tomorrow. I am aware of
the fact that the automobile industry
has made, and is making, great prog-
ress in the effort to reduce auto ex-
haust pollution.
Is it not the case that a 70-percent
reduction in the auto exhaust pol-
lution has been achieved, or is be-
ing achieved, as measured by stand-
ards already set? And is it not true
that the provision of this bill would
require what amounts to a further
reduction by 90 percent of the 30 per-
cent that has not yet been achieved?
Roughly, is that not a fair statement?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that is
roughly so; yes. I will check the exact
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1507
figures, but I am prepared to accept
that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Although the Sen-
ator from Maine has read some por-
tions of a letter, I shall make the
statement—on the basis of informa-
tion that I have been able to gather—
that the technology is not available
today to meet the standards set in
this bill, and it appears to me that
the Senator from Maine and his com-
mittee have only a pious hope that
the technology can be available for
cars to be produced in 1975.
To suggest that 1975 is a long time
away, with all due respect, is to in-
dicate not very much acquaintance
with the automobile industry and
what is involved in producing automo-
biles.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? Is it all right for
the Senator from Maine to rely on
the testimony of the industry spokes-
man in 1967?
Mr. GRIFFIN. It takes a long time
from the drawing board stage to make
a major
[p. 32905]
or significant change in an automobile
—a long time until it rolls off the
assembly line. That fact must not
be overlooked because it can mean
a great deal to those who work in the
automobile industry. In fact, I under-
stand that it can take as much as 43
months to incorporate a major change
into an automobile.
So, while the committee may say
that it is giving the automobile in-
dustry until 1975, it is not—because
the industry must have the know-how
and begin making such a change long
before 1975. Indeed, it may be neces-
sary to have the technology perfected
and ready to incorporate into an auto-
mobile 43 months before the final
product begins to roll off the 1975
assembly line.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. And then the Sen-
ator says, in effect, that if the indus-
try cannot do that, it can come back
to Congress for what essentially
would be a political decision.
Mr. MUS'KIE. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I think that is very
unwise.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to make it
very clear, I think the goal is fine.
But the policy we establish should be
administered by those with some de-
gree of technical competence—by peo-
ple who have some basis for judging
the state of the art—who will not
have to come back to Congress and
make a political appeal.
Another point that I wish to make
is this: under the bill, I understand
that economic feasibility is not a fac-
tor. Accordingly, if it cost $15,000 or
$20,000 to produce an automobile to
meet the standards, that would not
be taken into account, as I understand
this bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is that a figure that
the industry has authorized?
Mr. GRIFFIN. No, I am just say-
ing if it should cost that much, it
would not make any difference.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from
Maine does not use figures that light-
ly.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Will it?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not know. I
do not think anyone knows.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Should it be talked
about then? Does the Senator from
Maine know what it would cost?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I said in my
statement—I have not hidden any-
thing—that our responsibility is to
tell the industry what the public
health requires. If the Senator thinks
the industry ought to make that pub-
-------
1508
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
lie health decision, I do not agree with
him. If he says that the industry
should tell us—and that not until the
industry tells us it can build this
automobile should we require it—
that I do not agree with him.
Where would the Senator place a
decision of such importance to the
public health? In the boards of di-
rectors of these great motor com-
panies? Does Congress have no re-
sponsibility?
We began talking to the industry
about this problem in 1964, not just
recently. The Senator speaks as
though we had only a nodding ac-
quaintance with this problem, the in-
dustry attitudes and the development
of technology over the years. We have
been working on this matter for 7
years. I have been in Detroit. I have
been in the laboratories of all the
companies. They have not hesitated
to bring their prototypes here.
We have tried to get all of the in-
sight into and feel for the companies'
capability in this area that we could,
but I will say in frankness that the
industry has never, during all these
years, shown any sense of urgency
about anything except the preserva-
tion of the internal combustion engine
—no real push to do anything else, or
to explore any other technology, be-
cause they have said, "We can clean
up the internal combustion engine."
They told us that in 1964; they told
us that in 1965; they have told us that
on innumerable occasions. So we are
not talking about 5 years between now
and 1975; we are talking about the
years between 1964 and 1975, when
they should have generated the feeling
of urgency.
Sure, we set a target for them, an
informal one: "You have got to clean
up the automobile." Did that create
a feeling of urgency? The Senator
says they can do it in 43 months;
why did they not do it in 43 months?
Mr. GRIFFIN. The Senator mis-
understood me. I said it could take
43 months from the time the tech-
nology is available.
Mr. MUSKIE. I doubt that. That
is inconsistent with Mr. Mann's tes-
timony of 1967 that I read. He said:
What I have referred to in the preceding
paragraph takes approximately two years.
They are up to 43 months now that
they are under the gun. At the time
of Mr. Mann's testimony, was oppos-
ing proposals giving the States au-
thority to set different standards in
every State. I did not put these words
in his mouth; he stated them.
It is not this committee's responsi-
bility to perfect the technology re-
quired by this deadline. That we ought
to have some feel for it, that we ought
to have some understanding of the in-
dustry's problems, that we ought not
to do it hastily or arbitrarily, I will
concede as a measure of congressional
responsibility. But we have been
working on this matter since 1964.
The Senator might look at our hear-
ings over the years, and judge for
himself why I have tried to communi-
cate a sense of urgency to this indus-
try.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Did the committee
have any hearings in this session on
this problem as to the state of the
art—on the likelihood or possibility
that this goal can be reached by 1975?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, we had testi-
mony jointly before the Commerce
Committee and before our committee
from the automobile companies on the
state of the art. With respect to this
specific deadline, no.
Mr. GRIFFIN. On this particular
bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, but not on this
specific deadline.
Mr. GRIFFIN. As to whether this
deadline was realistic?
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1509
Mr. GRIFFIN. No hearings?
Mr. MUSK IE. The deadline is
based not, I repeat, on economic tech-
nological feasibility, but on consid-
erations of public health. We think, on
the basis of the exposure we have had
to this problem, that this is a neces-
sary and reasonable standard to im-
pose upon the industry. If the in-
dustry cannot meet it, they can come
back.
I think that, in terms of public
health, if we do not say that this is
necessary, there is nobody to say it.
But on the question of technological
and economic feasibility, there are all
kinds of people who complain that it
cannot be done. We are the only ones
who can say to the automobile indus-
try, and make it stick, "The public
health requires this."
That is what this bill says, and
nothing more.
Why does not the industry say, if
it wants us to make a technological
judgment, "All right, we will try, and
we will come back in 1973, and let us
both take a look at it then." No, they
want us to make that judgment now.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to be sure
the distinguished Senator from Dela-
ware has time to make his statement.
I would not say this bill plays "Rus-
sian roulette"—let me say it plays
"economic roulette," with millions of
jobs in the automobile industry. With-
out adequate expertise, without the
kind of scientific knowledge that is
needed—with the hearings that are
necessary and expected, this bill would
write into legislative concrete require-
ments that can be impossible—and
that will literally force an industry
out of existence. That may be fine
for the Senator from Maine to ad-
vocate
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have
not said that nor advocated that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to remind
the Senate that a great many jobs are
involved. One job out of seven in the
United States depends directly or in-
directly, on the manufacture, sale, or
service of automobiles.
Mr. MUSKTE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator com-
plains when he says I distort what he
says. I thought I had made it eminent-
ly clear that I was not saying what
he has just put in my mouth.
What I said—I will repeat it to
make it clear—is that in the judgment
of this committee—this includes Sen-
ators from the Senator's side of the
aisle—some of a pretty conservative
political persuasion—that Congress
has the duty to say, "This is what
ought to be done in the interests of
the health of the country." If it can-
not be done, if the industry has made
a good faith effort, it can come back
to Congress.
We speak of Russian roulette. If it
is really that choice—and I do not
agree that it is—I would rather play
Russian roulette with the automobile
companies than with the trapped in-
habitants of urban America. Their
health is involved.
But it is not a question of Russian
roulette, and no amount of rhetorical
exaggeration can make it that. What
we are talking about is very clear
and simple. We are saying that Con-
gress, in the interest of public health,
should say to the country and to the
industry that this is what that health
requires. Then industry should go to
work over the next 5 years
[p. 32906]
to either make it possible or, if it
proves to be impossible, ask Congress
to change the policy.
That is all there is here, and it is
tough. The Senator thinks it is tough,
and we understand it is tough. We
have no desire to be unreasonable.
-------
1510
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Does the Senator tell me that Senator
JOHN COOPER is an unreasonable man,
or Senator CALEB BOGGS, or the other
Senators on this committee? They are
thoughtful men, and they have given
this matter thoughtful consideration,
and they were not engaged in a game
of Russian roulette.
Mr. BOGGs. Mr. President, I com-
mend the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, the floor manager
of this bill, on his excellent opening
statement. He has ably and carefully
covered the intention of the committee
as well as the provisions of the bill.
I wish to express my strong support
for S. 4358, a bill that is intended to
help bring clean air to every city and
town in the United States.
This measure may be the most
important to be considered by the Sen-
ate this year, charting, as it does, a
path toward a better quality of life
in America. As President Nixon
stated on the first morning of this
decade:
The 1970's absolutely must be the years when
America pays its debt to the past by reclaim-
ing the purity of its air, its waters, and our
living environment. It is literally now or never.
The amendments to the Clean Air
Act seek to answer the President's call
by improving existing laws and devel-
oping a method to insure that the air
of the United States attains a level
of purity compatible with public
health.
The proposed legislation incor-
porates many of the best proposals
offered by Members of the Senate, in
particular the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution (Mr. MUSKIE). The
testimony during 11 days of hear-
ings was also most valuable in shap-
ing this legislation.
Yet much of the basic outline for
S. 4358 was established by President
Nixon in his thoughtful message on
the environment last February.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the President's February 10
environmental message to Congress
be printed in the RECORD at the con-
clusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOGGS. In addition, I ask
unanimous consent that the Council
on Environmental Quality's discus-
sion on air pollution in its first annual
report be printed in the RECORD at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. BOGGS. At this point, I would
like to discuss some of the President's
proposals and the manner in which
they were incorporated into the com-
mittee's bill.
One of President Nixon's most sig-
nificant proposals called for estab-
lishing national ambient air quality
standards. This bill incorporates that
proposal, seeking to insure that the
air around us will be protective of
health in every corner of the nation.
President Nixon asked Congress to
accelerate the designation of air
quality control regions. This measure
requires, 90 days after passage, that
air pollution control regions be
created to cover every portion of the
Nation.
President Nixon's program for air
pollution control sought to establish
national emission standards for pol-
lutants of an extremely hazardous
character, as well as national stand-
ards of performance for major classi-
fications of new facilities. The pro-
posed legislation gives the President
authority in both of these areas.
President Nixon sought Federal en-
forcement authority covering intra-
state violations in addition to author-
ity over interstate violations. This
bill extends that authority to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1511
President, while maintaining a pri-
mary enforcement reliance at the
State level.
President Nixon sought court im-
posed fines of up to $10,000 per day
for violation of emission requirements.
It was the committee's judgment that
a penalty of up to $25,000 per day
would prove more effective.
President Nixon in February an-
nounced that more stringent motor
vehicle emission standards for the
1975 model year would be adopted.
This bill for the first time writes into
law specific standards intended to
enhance air quality and to place a
virtually pollution-free car on the Na-
tion's highways by 1975.
President Nixon's environmental
program sought new procedures to in-
spect new cars on the assembly line to
assure that they meet the low-pollu-
tion standard. This measure adopts
procedures for assembly line testing,
and adds a provision requiring war-
ranty of air pollution control perform-
ance for 50,000 miles.
President Nixon sought authority
to regulate fuels and fuel additives.
The proposed legislation gives S'T*^
authority, tempered with a necessity
that the need for such regulation be
examined in public hearings if the
Secretary seeks to control or prohibit
use of a fuel for reasons other than
the protection of health.
President Nixon sought financial
support for research and development
of low-pollution vehicles driven by un-
conventional power sources. This bill
expands the air pollution control pro-
gram to support such research and
development on an accelerated basis.
These points, I believe, demonstrate
the tremendous contribution the ad-
ministration has made to the shaping
of this legislation.
There is one other section of this
bill I would like to mention. It is
a section that has not received broad
public attention, yet it is a vital pro-
vision of the bill. This is section 118,
dealing with the control of pollution
from Federal facilities. President
Nixon has pledged his support for ef-
fective pollution abatement at Federal
facilities. This section of the bill re-
inforces the President's stand and
encourages publicly owned and oper-
ated facilities across our Nation to
become models of environmental en-
hancement and pollution control.
The key word is "leadership." For
that is what the proposed legislation
seeks to create—a method and pat-
tern for national leadership in the
fight to preserve and enhance our
environment. This legislation may be
characterized as tough. But a tough
bill is essential to meet the vast chal-
lenge facing us.
It is a workable and realistic bill,
taken as a whole. Yet I know there
are provisions in the bill that raise
some concern among my colleagues,
as the Senator from Michigan (Mr.
GRIFFIN) just stated.
One involves the warranty provi-
sion incorporated into section 207 (c)
of the bill. The full Committee on
Public Works amended the warranty
provision that had been reported by
the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, and I believe the full com-
mittee's change greatly improves this
section, strengthening the warranty
by making it more realistic.
Yet there remains a question over
whether the performance of the air
pollution control system should be
warranted, as proposed in the bill, or
whether the warranty should extend
to the materials, the design, and the
workmanship used to create that pol-
lution control system.
The second concern of some mag-
nitude involves the procedure to be
employed to extend the deadline for
marketing a car that will meet the
standard established under section
-------
1512
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
202(b) (1) and (2). The Committee
on Public Works added to section 202
a provision suggested by Senator
COOPER and Senator BAKER. This pro-
vision, section 202 (b) (4) would allow
a vehicle manufacturer to seek a 1-year
extension in the deadline if effective
control technology does not exist. The
Secretary's decision on the extension
could be appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Co-
lumbia.
I commend the distinguished rank-
ing Republican member of the com-
mittee (Mr. COOPER) and my distin-
guished colleague (Mr. BAKER) for
their work on this provision. Such a
review procedure is needed to prevent
chaos in the event that the automobile
industry makes every possible effort
to achieve a 90-percent reduction in
emissions and still cannot achieve that
goal.
The distinguished Senator from
Kansas (Mr. DOLE) has indicated in
his individual views that he will offer
an amendment that will bring the
Congress into that review procedure.
It is my thought that congressional
review is more appropriate in light
of the responsibility assumed by the
Congress in setting a specific stand-
ard. Nevertheless, I want to reiterate
my view that the committee was wise
to provide such a possible extension,
with safeguards, whether that ex-
tension is reviewed by the Congress
or the courts.
In closing, Mr. President, I wish
to commend my colleagues on the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion and the full Committee on Public
Works for their vigorous and thought-
ful attention to this bill over the
past several months. The committee
and subcommittee devoted many long
hours in numerous executive ses-
sions in consideration of this legisla-
tion, working together to create a
bill that will prove to be effective
and workable. The leadership pro-
vided by the chairman of the full
committee (Mr.
[p. 32907]
RANDOLPH), the ranking member of
the full committee (Mr. COOPER), and
in particular, the chairman of the
subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE), has
been an inspiration to every member
of the committee. Their leadership in
the effort to meet the challenge of air
pollution has produced what I con-
sider to be a responsible and thought-
ful bill. I commend them.
In addition, I would like to thank
the staff members of the committee,
as well as the staffs for various mem-
bers of the committee for their ef-
forts to assist the committee in per-
fecting this legislation.
Mr. President, in closing I wish to
commend this legislation to my col-
leagues for their consideration. I
know there will be amendments seek-
ing to strengthen and improve this
bill. Undoubtedly many provisions
will also receive attention in confer-
ence with the House, which has
adopted legislation that has many
differences with this bill. I shall listen
carefully to the debate, as I know it
will result in legislation that will have
a beneficial impact for the decade of
the 1970's and beyond. I urge support
of this important legislation.
EXHIBIT 1
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON THE ENVIRON-
MENT, FEBRUARY 10. 1970
To the Conareal of the United States:
Like those in the last century who tilled a
plot of land to exhaustion and then moved
on to another, we in this century have too
casually and too long abused our natural
environment. The time has come when we
can wait no longer to repair the damage
already done, and to establish new criteria
to guide us in the future.
The fight against pollution, however, is not
a search for villains. For the most part, the
damage done to our environment has not been
the work of evil men, nor has it been the in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1513
evitable by-product either of advancing tech-
nology or of growing population. It results not
so much from choices made, as from choices
neglected; not from malign intention, but from
failure to take into account the full conse-
quences of our actions.
Quite inadvertently, by ignoring environ-
mental costs we have given an economic ad-
vantage to the careless polluter over his more
conscientious rival. While adopting laws pro-
hibiting injury to person or property, we have
freely allowed injury to our shared surround-
ings. Conditioned by an expanding frontier, we
came only late to a recognition of how pre-
cious and how vulnerable our resources of
land, water and air really are.
The tasks that need doing require money, re-
solve and ingenuity—and they are too big to
be done by government alone. They call for
fundamentally new philosophies of land, air
and water use, for stricter regulation, for ex-
panded government action, for greater citizen
involvement and for new programs to ensure
that government, industry and individuals all
are called on to do their share of the job and
to pay their share of the cost,
Because the many aspects of environmental
quality are closely interwoven, to consider each
in isolation would be unwise. Therefore, I am
today outlining a comprehensive, 37-point pro-
gram, embracing 23 major legislative proposals
and 14 new measures being taken by adminis-
trative action or Executive Order in five ma-
jor categories:
Water pollution control.
Air pollution control.
Solid waste management.
Parklands and public recreation.
Organizing for action.
As we deepen our understanding of complex
ecological processes, as we improve our tech-
nologies and institutions and learn from ex-
perience, much more will be possible. But these
37 measures represent actions we can take
now, and that can move us dramatically for-
ward toward what has become an urgent com-
mon goal of all Americans: the rescue of our
natural habitat as a place both habitable and
hospitable to man.
WATER POLLUTION
Water pollution has three principal sources:
municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes.
All three must eventually be controlled if we
are to restore the purity of our lakes and
rivers.
Of these three, the most troublesome to con-
trol are those from agricultural sources: animal
wastes, eroded soil, fertilizers and pesticides.
Some of these are nature's own pollutions. The
Missouri River was known as "Big Muddy"
long before towns and industries were built
on its banks. But many of the same techniques
of pest control, livestock feeding, irrigation
and soil fertilization that have made American
agriculture so abundantly productive have also
caused serious water pollution.
Effective control will take time, and will
require action on many fronts: modified agri-
cultural practices, greater care in the dis-
posal of animal wastes, better soil conservation
methods, new kinds of fertilizers, new chemical
pesticides and more widespread use of natural
pest control techniques. A number of such ac-
tions are already underway. We have taken
action to phase out the use of DDT and other
hard pesticides. We have begun to place con-
trols on wastes from concentrated animal feed-
lots. We need programs of intensified research,
both public and private, to develop new meth-
ods of reducing agricultural pollution while
maintaining productivity. I have asked The
Council on Environmental Quality to press for-
ward in this area. Meanwhile, however, we
have the technology and the resources to
proceed now on a program of swift clean-up
of pollution from the most acutely damaging
sources: municipal and industrial waste.
Municipal wastes
As long as we have the means to do some-
thing about it, there is no good reason why
municipal pollution of our waters should be
allowed to persist unchecked.
In the four years since the Clean Waters
Restoration Act of 1966 was passed, we have
fai]ed to keep our promises to ourselves: Fed-
eral appropriations for constructing municipal
treatment plants have totaled only about one-
third of authorizations, Municipalities them-
selves have faced increasing difficulty in selling
bonds to finance their share of the construction
costs. Given the saturated condition of today's
municipal bond markets, if a clean-up program
is to work it has to provide the means by
which municipalities can finance their share
of the cost even as we increase Federal ex-
penditures.
The best current estimate is that it will take
a total capital investment of about $10 billion
over a five-year period to provide the munici-
pal waste treatment plants and interceptor
lines needed to meet our national water quality
standards. This figure is based on a recently-
completed nationwide survey of the deficiencies
of present facilities, plus projections of addi-
tional needs that will have developed by then
—to accommodate the normal annual increase
in the volume of wastes, and to replace equip-
ment that can be expected to wear out or
become obsolete in the interim.
This will provide every community that needs
it with secondary waste treatment, and also
special, additional treatment in areas of special
need, including communities on the Great
Lakes. We have the industrial capacity to do
the job in five years if we begin now.
To meet this construction schedule, I pro-
-------
1514
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
pose a two-part program of Federal assistance:
—/ propose a Clean Waters Act with $4 bil-
lion to be authorized immediately, for Fis-
cal 1971, to cover the full Federal share of
the total $10 billion cost on a matching
fund basis. This would be allocated at a
rate of $1 billion a year for the next four
years with a reassessment in 1973 of needs
for 1975 and subsequent years.
By thus assuring communities of full Federal
support, we can enable planning to begin now
for all needed facilities and construction to
proceed at an accelerated rate.
—/ propose creation of a new Environmental
Financing Authority, to ensure that every
municipality in the country has an oppor-
tunity to sell its waste treatment plant
construction bonds.
The condition of the municipal bond market
is such that, in 1969, 509 issues totaling $2.9
billion proved unsalable. If a municipality can-
not sell waste treatment plant construction
bonds, EFA will buy them and will sell its
own bonds on the taxable market. Thus, con-
struction of pollution control facilities will
depend not on a community's credit rating,
but on its waste disposal needs.
Providing money is important, but equally
important is where and how the money ia
spent. A river cannot be polluted on its left
bank and clean on its right. In a given water-
way, abating some of the pollution is often
little better than doing nothing at all, and
money spent on such partial efforts is often
largely wasted. Present grant allocation for-
mulas—those in the 1966 Act—have prevented
the spending of funds where they could pro-
duce the greatest results in terms of clean
water. Too little attention has been given
to seeing that investments in specific waste
treatment plants have been matched by other
municipalities and industries on the same
-waterway. Many plants have been poorly de-
signed and inefficiently operated. Some mu-
nicipalities have offered free treatment to lo-
cal industries, then not treated their wastes
sufficiently to prevent pollution.
To ensure that the new funds are well in-
vested, five major reforms are needed. One re-
quires legislation: the other four will be
achieved by administrative action.
—I propose that the present, rigid alloca-
tion formula be revised, so that special
emphasis can be given to areas where
faculties are most needed and where ike
greatest improvements in water quality
will result.
Under existing authority, the Secretary of
the Interior will institute four major reforms:
—Federally assisted treatment plants ivitt
be required to meet prescribed design, op-
eration and maintenance standards, and to
be operated only by State-certified op-
erators.
—Municipalities receiving Federal assistance
in construction plants will be required to
improve reasonable users' fees on indus-
trial users sufficient to meet the costs of
treating industrial wastes.
—Development of comprehensive river basin
plans will be required at an early date, to
ensure that Federally assisted treatment
plants will in fact contribute to effective
clean-up of entire river basin systems. Col-
lection of existing data on pollution sources
and development of effluent inventories will
permit systems approaches to pollution
control.
—wherever feasible, communities will be
strongly encouraged to cooperate in the
construction of large regional treatment
facilities, which provide economies of scale
and give more efficient and more thorough
waste treatment.
Industrial Pollution
Some industries discharge their wastes into
municipal systems; others dis-
[p. 32908]
charge them directly into lakes and rivers.
Obviously, unless we curb industrial as well
as municipal pollution our waters will never
be clean.
Industry itself has recognized the problem,
and many industrial firms are making vigor-
ous efforts to control their water-borne wastes.
But strict standards and strict enforcement are
nevertheless necessary—not only to ensure com-
pliance, but also in fairness to those who have
voluntarily assumed the often costly burden
while their competitors have not. Good neigh-
bors should not be placed at a competitive dis-
advantage because of their good neighborliness.
Under existing law, standards for water pol-
lution control often are established in only the
most general and insufficient terms: for ex-
ample, by requiring all affected industries to
install secondary treatment facilities. This
approach takes little account of such crucial
variables as the volume and toxicity of the
wastes actually being discharged, or the ca-
pacity of a particular body of water to absorb
wastes without becoming polluted. Even more
important, it provides a poor basis for enforce-
ment: with no effluent standard by which to
measure, it is difficult to prove in court that
standards are being violated.
The present fragmenting of jurisdictions also
has hindered comprehensive efforts. At pres-
ent, Federal jurisdiction generally extends only
to interstate waters. One result has been that
as stricter State-Federal standards have been
imposed, pollution has actually increased in
some other waters—in underground aquifers
and the oceans. As controls over interstate
waters are tightened, polluting industries will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1515
be increasingly tempted to locate on intrastate
lakes and rivers—with a consequently increased
threat to those waterways—unless they too are
brought under the same strictures.
I propose that we take an entirely new ap-
proach: one which concerts Federal, State and
private efforts, which provides for effective
nationwide enforcement, and which rests on a
simple but profoundly significant principle: that
the nation's waterways belong to us all, and
that neither a municipality nor an industry
should be allowed to discharge wastes into
those waterways beyond their capacity to ab-
sorb the wastes without becoming polluted.
Specifically, I propose a seven-point pro-
gram of measures we should adopt now to en-
force control of water pollution from industrial
and municipal wastes, and to give the States
more effective backing in their own efforts.
—/ propose that State-Federal water quality
standards be amended to impose precise
effluent requirements on all industrial and
municipal sources. These should be im-
posed on an expeditious timetable, with
the limit for each based on a {air alloca-
tion of the total capacity of the waterway
to absorb the user's particular kind of
waste without becoming polluted.
—7 propose that violation of established
effluent requirements be considered suf-
ficient cause for court action.
—7 propose that the Secretary of the In-
terior be allowed to proceed more swiftly
in his enforcement actions, and that he
be given new legal weapons including
subpoena and discovery power.
•—7 propose that failure to meet established
water quality standards or implementation
schedules be made subject to court-imposed
fines of up to $10,000 per day.
—/ propose that the Secretary of the Inte-
rior be authorized to seek immediate in-
junctive relief in emergency situations in
which severe water pollution constitutes an
imminent danger to health, or threatens
irreversible damage to water quality,
—7 propose that the Federal pollution-control
program be extended to include all navi-
gable waters, both inter- and intrastate, all
interstate ground waters, the United States'
portion of boundary waters, and waters of
the Contiguous Zone.
—7 propose that Federal operating grants to
State pollution control enforcement agen-
cies be tripled over the next five years—
from $10 million now to t!0 million in
fiscal year 1975—to assist them in meeting
the new responsibilities that stricter and
expanded enforcement will place upon
them.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Air is our most vital resource, and its pol-
lution is our most serious environmental prob-
lem. Existing technology for the control of air
pollution is less advanced than that for con-
trolling water pollution, but there is a great
deal we can do within the limits of existing
technology—and more we can do to spur tech-
nological advance.
Most air pollution is produced by the burn-
ing of fuels. About half is produced by motor
vehicles.
Motor vehicles
The Federal Government began regulating
automobile emissions of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons with the 1968 model year. Stand-
ards for 1970 model cars have been made sig-
nificantly tighter. This year, for the first time,
emissions from new buses and heavy-duty
trucks have also been brought under Federal
regulation.
In future years, emission levels can and must
be brought much lower.
The Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare is today publishing a notice of new,
considerably more stringent motor vehicle emis-
sion standards he intends to issue for 197S
and 1975 models including control of nitrogen
oxides by 197S and of particulate emissions by
1975.
These new standards represent our best
present estimate of the lowest emission levels
attainable by those years.
Effective control requires new legislation to
correct two key deficiencies in the present law:
(a) Testing procedures.—Under present law,
only manufacturers' prototype vehicles are
tested for compliance with emission standards*
and even this is voluntary rather than man-
datory.
7 propose legislation requiring that repre-
sentative samples of actual production vehicles
be tested throughout the model year.
(b) Fuel composition and additives.—What
goes into a car's fuel has a major effect on
what comes out of its exhaust, and also on
what kinds of pollution-control devices can
effectively be employed. Federal standards for
what conies out of a car's engine should be
accompanied by standards for what goes into
it.
7 propose legislation authorizing the Secre-
tary of Health, Education and Welfare to regu-
late fuel composition and additives.
With these changes, we can drastically re-
duce pollution from motor vehicles in the years
just ahead. But in making and keeping our
peace with nature, to plan only one year ahead
or even five is hardly to plan at all. Our
responsibility now is also to look beyond the
Seventies, and the prospects then are uncertain.
Based on present trends, it is quite possible
that by 1980 the increase in the sheer number
of cars in densely populated areas will begin
outrunning the technological limits of our ca-
pacity to reduce pollution from the internal
-------
1516
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
combustion engine. I hope this will not happen.
I hope the automobile industry's presently de-
termined effort to make the internal combustion
engine sufficiently pollution-free succeeds. But
if it does not, then unless motor vehicles with
an alternative, low-pollution power source are
available, vehicle-caused pollution will once
again begin an inexorable increase.
Therefore, prudence dictates that we move
now to ensure that such a vehicle will be
available if needed.
I am inaugurating a program to marshal
both government and private research with
the goal of producing an unconventionally
powered virtually pollution-free automobile
within five years.
—/ have ordered the start of an extensive
Federal research and development program
in unconventional vehicles, to be conducted
under the general direction of the Council
on Environmental Quality.
—As an incentive to private developers, 1
have ordered that the Federal Government
should undertake the purchase of privately
produced unconventional vehicles for test-
ing and evaluation.
A proposal currently before the Congress
would provide a further incentive to private
developers by authorizing the Federal govern-
ment to offer premium prices for purchasing
low-pollution cars for its own use. This could
be a highly productive program once such
automobiles are approaching development, al-
though current estimates are that, initially,
prices offered would have to be up to 200%
of the cost of equivalent conventional vehicles
rather than the 125% contemplated in the pro-
posed legislation. The immediate task, however,
is to see tbat an intensified program of re-
search and development begins at once.
One encouraging aspect of the effort to curb
motor vehicle pollution is the extent to which
industry itself ia taking the initiative. For ex-
ample, the nation's principal automobile manu-
facturers are not only developing devices now
to meet present and future Federal emission
standards, but are also, on their own initia-
tive, preparing to put on the market by 1972
automobiles which will not require and, in-
deed, must not use leaded gasoline. Such cars
will not only discharge no lead into the atmos-
phere, but will alfo be equipped with still
more effective devices for controlling emissions
—devices made possible by the use of lead-free
gasoline.
This is a great forward step taken by the
manufacturers before any Federal regulation
of lead additives or emissions has been imposed.
I am confident that the petroleum industry will
see to it that suitable non leaded gasoline is
made widely available for these new cars when
they come on the market.
Stationary~eource pollution
Industries, power plants, furnaces, incinera-
tors—these and other so-called "stationary
sources" add enormously to the pollution of the
air. In highly industrialized areas, such pollu-
tion can quite literally make breathing hazard-
ous to health, and can cause unforeseen atmos-
pheric and meteorological problems as well.
Increasingly, industry itself has been adopt-
ing ambitious pollution-control programs, and
state and local authorities have been setting
and enforcing stricter antipollution standards.
But they have not gone far enough or fast
enough, nor, to be realistic about it, will they
be able to without the strongest possible Fed-
eral backing. Without effective government
standards, industrial firms that spend the
necessary money for pollution control may find
themselves at a serious economic disadvantage
as against their less conscientious competitors.
And without effective Federal standards, states
and communities that require such controls
find themselves at a similar disadvantage in
attracting industry, against more permissive
rivals. Air is no respecter of political bound-
aries : a community that sets and enforces
strict standards may still find its air polluted
from sources in another community or another
state.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1967, the Fed-
eral government is establishing air quality
control regions around the nation's major
[p. 32909]
industrial and metropolitan areas. Within these
regions, states are setting air quality standards
—permissible levels of pollutants in the air—
and developing plans for pollution abatement
to achieve those air quality standards. All state
air quality standards and implementation plans
require Federal approval.
This program has been the first major Fed-
eral effort to control air pollution. It has been
a useful beginning. But we have learned in
the past two years that it has shortcomings.
Federal designation of air quality control re-
gions, while necesary in areas where emissions
from one state are polluting the air in another,
has been a time-consuming process. Adjoining
states within the same region often have pro-
posed inconsistent air quality standards, caus-
ing further delays for compromise and revision.
There are no provisions for controlling pollu-
tion outside of established air quality control
regions. This means that even with the desig-
nation of hundreds of such regions, some areas
of the country with serious air pollution prob-
lems would remain outside of the program.
This is unfair not only to the public but to
many industries as well, since those within
regions with strict requirements could be un-
fairly disadvantaged with respect to competi-
tors that are not within regions. Finally, In-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1517
sufficient Federal enlorcement powers have cir-
cumscribed the Federal government's ability to
support the states in establishing and enforc-
ing effective abatement programs.
It is time to build on what we have learned,
and to begin a more ambitious national effort.
I recommend that the Clean Air Act be re-
vised to expand the scope of strict pollution
abatement, to simplify the task of industry in
pollution abatement through more nearly uni-
form standards, and to provide special controls
against particularly dangerous pollutants.
—/ propose that the Federal government
establish nationwide air Quality standards
with the states to prepare within one year
abatement plans for meeting those stand-
ards.
This will provide a minimum standard for
air quality for all areas of the nation, while
Permitting states to set more stringent stand-
ards for any or all sections within the state.
National air quality standards will relieve the
states of the lengthy process of standard-setting
under Federal supervision, and allow them to
concentrate on the immediate business of de-
veloping and implementing abatement plans.
These abatement plans would cover areas
both inside and outside of Federally designated
air quality control regions, and could be de-
signed to achieve any higher levels of air
quality which the states might choose to
establish. They would include emission stand-
ards for stationary sources of air pollution.
—/ propose that designation of interstate air
Quality control regions continue at an
accelerated ratet to provide a framework
for establishing compatible abatement plans
in interstate areas.
—/ propose that the Federal government
establish national emissions standards for
facilities that emit pollutants extremely
hazardous to health, and for selected classes
of new facilities which could be major con-
tributors to air pollution,
In the first instance, national standards are
needed to guarantee the earliest possible elimi-
nation of certain air pollutants which are clear
health hazards even in minute quantities* In
the second instance, national standards will
ensure that advanced abatement technology is
used in constructing the new facilities, and
that levels of air quality are maintained in
the face of industrial expansion. Before any
emissions standards were established, public
hearings would be required involving all inter-
ested parties. The States would be responsible
for enforcing these standards in conjunction
with their own programs.
/ propose that Federal authority to seek
court action be extended to include both inter'
and intrastate air pollution situations in which,
because of local non-enforcement, air quality
is below national standards, or in which
sions standards or implementation timetable*
are being violated.
I propose that failure to meet established
air quality standards or implementation sched-
ules be made subject to court-imposed fines of
up to $10,000 per day.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
"Solid wastes" are the discarded left-overs
of our advanced consumer society. Increasing
in volume, they litter the landscape and strain
the facilities of municipal governments.
New packaging methods, using materials
which do not degrade and cannot easily be
burned, create difficult new disposal problems.
Though many wastes are potentially re-usable,
we often discard today what a generation ago
we saved. Most bottles, for example, now are
"non-returnable." We reprocess used paper
less than we used to, not only adding to
the burden on municipal sanitation services but
also making wasteful use of scarce timber-
lands. Often the least expensive way to dis-
pose of an old automobile is to abandon it^—
and millions of people do precisely that, create
ing eyesores for millions of others.
One way to meet the problem of solid wastes
is simply to surrender to it: to continue pour-
ing more and more public money into collection
and disposal of whatever happens to be pri-
vately produced and discarded. This is the old
way; it amounts to a public subsidy of waste
pollution. If we are ever truly to gain control
of the problem, our goal must be broader: to
reduce the volume of wastes and the difficulty
of their disposal, and to encourage their con-
structive re-use instead.
To accomplish this, we need incentives, regu-
lations and research directed especially at two
major goals: a) making products more easily
disposable—especially containers, which are de-
signed for disposal; and b) re-using and re-
cycling a far greater proportion of waste
materials.
As we look toward the long-range future—
to 1980, 2000 and beyond—recycling of ma-
terials will become increasingly necessary not
only for waste disposal hut also to conserve
resources. While our population grows, each
one of us keeps using more of the earth's re-
sources. In the case of many common minerals,
more than half those extracted from the earth
since time began have been extracted since
1910.
A great deal of our space research has been
directed toward creating self-sustaining en-
vironments, in which people can live for long
periods of time by re-processing, recycling and
re-using the same materials. We need to apply
this kind of thinking more consciously and
more broadly to our patterns of use and dis-
posal of materials here on earth.
Many currently used techniques of solid
waste disposal remain crudely deficient. Be-
526-703 O - 73 - 23
-------
1518
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
search and development programs under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 have added
significantly to our knowled-ge of more efficient
techniques. The Act expires this year. I recom-
mend its extension, and I have already moved
to bi oaden its programs
I have ordered a re-direction of research
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act to place
greater emphasis on techniques for re-cycling
materials, and on development and use of
packaging and other materials which will
degiada after use—that is, which will become
temporary rather than permanent wastes.
Few of America's eyesores are so unsightly
as its millions of junk automobiles.
Oidinarily, when a car is retiied from use
it goes first to a wrecker, who strips it of its
valuable parts, and then to a scrap piocessor,
who reduces the remainder to scrap for sale
to steel mills. The prices paid by wreckers for
junk cars often are less than the cost of trans-
porting them to the wrecking yard. In the
case of a severely damaged or "cannibalized"
car, instead of paying for it the wrecker may
even charge towing costs. Thus the final
owner's economic incentive to deliver his car
for processing is slight, non-existent or even
negative.
The rate of abandonment is increasing. In
New York, 2,500 cai s were towed away as
abandoned on the streets in 1960. In 1964,
25,000 were towed away as abandoned; in
1969, more than 50,000.
The way to provide the needed incentive
is to apply to the automobile the principle
that its price should include not only the cost
of producing it, but also the cost of disposing
of it.
/ have asked the Council on Environmental
Quality to take the lead in producing a recom-
mendation for a bounty payment or other sys-
tem to promote the prompt scrapping of all
junk automobiles.
The particular disposal problems presented
by the automobile are unique. However, wher-
ever appropriate we should also seek to estab-
lish incentives and regulations to encourage
the re-use, re-cycling or easier disposal of other
commonly used goods.
/ have asked the Chairman of the Council
on Environmental Quality to work with the
Cabinet Committee on the Environment, and
with appropriate industry and consumer rep-
resentatives, toward development of such in-
centives and regulations for submission to the
Congress.
PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION
Increasing population, increasing mobility,
increasing incomes and increasing leisure will
all combine in the years ahead to rank recrea-
tional facilities among the most vital of our
public resources. Yet land suitable for such
facilities, especially near heavily populated
areas, is being rapidly swallowed up.
Plain common sense argues that we give
greater priority to acquiring now the lands
that will be so greatly needed in a few yeais.
Good sense also argues that the Federal Gov-
ernment itself, as the nation's largest land-
holder, should address itself more imaginatively
to the question of making optimum use of its
own holdings in a recieation-hungry era.
/ propose full funding in fiscal 1971 of the
$3^7 milhon available through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund for additional park
and recreational facilities, with increased em-
phasis on locations that can be easily reached
by the people in crowded urban areas.
I propose that we adopt a new philosophy
for the use of Federally-owned lands, treat-
ing them as a precious resource—like money
itself—which should be made to serve the high-
est possible public good.
Acquiring needed recreation areas is a real
estate transaction. One-third of all the land
in the United States—more than 750,000,000
acres—is owned by the Federal Government.
Thousands of acres in the heart of metro-
politan aieas are reserved for only minimal
use by Federal installations. To supplement
the regularly-appropriated funds available,
nothing could be more appropriate than to
meet new real estate needs through use of
presently-owned real estate, whether by trans-
fer, sale or conversion to a better use.
Until now, the uses to which Federally-
owned properties were put has largely been
determined by who got them first. As a result,
countless properties, with enormous potential
as i ecreational ai eas linger on in the hands
of agencies that could just as well-—01 better
—locate elsewheie. Buieaucratic inertia is com-
pounded by a quiik if present accounting pio-
cedures, which has the effect of imposing a
budgetary penalty on any
[p. 32910]
agency that gives up one piece of property and
moves to anothei, even if the vacated property
is sold foi 10 times the cost of the new.
The time has come to make more rational
use of our enormous wealth of leal property,
giving a new prioiity to our newly urgent con-
cern with public recreation—and to make more
imaginative use of properties now surplus to
finance acquisition of propeities now needed.
—-By Executive Order, I am directing the
heads of all Federal agencies and the Ad-
ministrator of General Services to institute
a review of all Fedcrally-owntd real prop-
erties that should be considered for other
uses. The test will be whether a particular
property's continued present use or another
would better serve the public interest, con-
sidering both the agency's needs and the
property's location. Special emphasis will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1519
be placed on identifying properties that
could appropriately be converted to parka
and recreation areas, or sold, so that
proceeds can be made available to provide
additional park and recreational lands.
—/ am establishing a Property Review
Board to review th e GSA reports and
recommend to me what properties should
be converted or sold. This Board will con-
sist of the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget, the Chair-man of the Council of
Economic Advisers, the Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality and the
Administrator of General Services, plus
others that 1 may designate.
—7 propose legislation to establish, for the
first time, a program for relocating Fed-
eral installations that occupy locations that
could better be used for other purposes.
This would allow a part of the proceeds
from the sales of surplus properties to be used
for relocating such installations, thus making
more lan^ available.
—/ also propose accompanying legislation
to protect the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund, ensuring that its sources of in-
come would be maintained and possibly
increased for purchasing additional park-
land.
The net effect would be to increase our
capacity to add new park and recreational
facilities, by enabling us for the first time to
use surplus property sales in a coordinated
three-way program: a) by direct conversion
from other uses; b) through sale of presently-
owned properties and purchase of others with
the proceeds; and c) by sale of one Federal
property, and use of the proceeds to finance
the relocation and conversion costs of making
another property available for recreational use.
—/ propose that the Department of the In-
terior be given authority to convey sur-
plus real property to State and local gov-
ernments for park and recreation pur-
poses at a public benefit discount ranging
up to 100 percent.
•—7 propose that Federal procedures be re-
vised to encourag e Federal agencies to
make efficient use of real property. This
revision should remove the budgetary pen-
alty now imposed on agencies relinquish-
ing one site and moving to another.
As one example of what such a property
review can make possible, a sizable stretch of
one of California's finest beaches has long
been closed to the public because it was part
of Camp Pendleton. Last month the Defense
Department arranged to make more than a
mile of that beach available to the State of
California for use as a State park. The re-
maining beach is sufficient for Camp Pendle-
ton's needs; thus the released stretch repre-
sents a shift from low-priority to high-priori-
ty use. By carefully weighing alternative uses,
a priceless recreational resource was returned
to the people for recreational purposes.
Another vast source of potential parklands
also lies untapped. We have come to realize
that we have too much land available for
growing crops and not enough land for parks,
open space and recreation.
—/ propose that instead of simply paying
each year to keep this land idle, we help
local governments buy selected parcels of
it to provide recreational facilities for use
by the people of towns in rural areas.
This program has been tried, but allowed
to lapse; I propose that we revive and
expand it.
—7 propose that we also adopt a program.
of long-term contracts with private own-
ers of idled farmland, providing for its
reforestation and public use for such pur-
suits as hunting, fishing, hiking and pic-
nicking.
ORGANIZING FOR ACTION
The environmental problems we face are
deep-rooted and widespread. They can be
solved only by a full national effort embracing
not only sound, coordinated planning, but also
an effective follow-through that reaches into
every community in the land. Improving our
surroundings is necessarily the business of us
all.
At the Federal level, we have begun the
process of organizing for this effort.
The Council on Environmental Quality has
been established. This Council will be the
keeper of our environmental conscience, and
a goad to our ingenuity; beyond this, it will
have responsibility for ensuring that all our
programs and actions are undertaken with a
care "ul respect for the needs of environmen-
tal quality. I have already assigned it major
responsibilities for new program development,
and I shall look to it increasingly for new
initiatives.
The Cabinet Committee on the Environ-
ment, which I created last year, acts as a co-
ordinating agency for various departmental
activities affecting the environment.
To meet future needs, many organizational
changes will still be needed. Federal institu-
tions for dealing with the environment and
natural resources have developed piecemeal
over the years in response to specific needs,
not all of which were originally perceived in
the light of the concerns we recognize today.
Many of their missions appear to overlap, and
even to conflict. Last year I asked the Presi-
dent's Advisory Council on Executive Organi-
zation, headed by Mr. Roy Ash, to make an
especially thorough study of the organization
of Federal environmental natural resource and
oceanographic programs, and to report its
recommendations to me by April 15. After
receiving their report I shall recommend
-------
1520
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
needed reforms, which will involve major re-
assignments of responsibilities among Depart-
ments.
For many of the same reasons, overlaps in
environmental programs extend to the Legisla-
tive as well as the Executive branch so that
close consultation will be necessary before
major steps are taken.
No matter how well organized government
itself might be, however, in the final analysis
the key to success lies with the people of
America.
Private industry has an especially crucial
role. Its resources, its technology, its demon-
strated ingenuity in solving problems others
only talk about—all these are needed, not
only in helping curb the pollution industry
itself creates but also in helping devise new
and better ways of enhancing all aspects of
our environment.
/ have ordered that the United States Patent
Office give special priority to the processing
of applications for patents which could aid in
curbing environmental abuses.
Industry already has begun moving swiftly
toward a fuller recognition of its own en-
vironmental responsibilities, and has made
substantial progress in many areas. However,
more must be done.
Mobilizing industry's resources requires or-
ganization. With a remarkable degree of
unanimity, its leaders have indicated their
readiness to help.
/ will shortly ask a group of the nation's
principal industrial leaders to join me in
establishing a National Industrial Pollution
Control Council.
The Council will work closely with the
Council on Environmental Quality, the Citi-
zens' Advisory Committee on Environmental
Quality, the Secretary of Commerce and
others as appropriate in the development of
effective policies for the curbing of air, water,
noise and waste pollution from industrial
sources. It will work to enlist increased sup-
port from business and industry in the drive
to reduce pollution, in all its forms, to the
minimum level possible. It will provide a
mechanism through which, in many cases,
government can work with key leaders in
various industries to establish voluntary pro-
grams for accomplishing desired pollution-
control goals.
Patterns of organization often turn out to
be only as good as the example set by the
organizer. For years, many Federal facilities
have themselves been among the worst pol-
luters. The Executive Order I issued last
week not only accepts responsibility for put-
ting a swift end to Federal pollution, but
puts teeth into the commitment.
I hope this will be an example for others.
At the turn of the century, our chief en-
vironmental concern was to conserve what
we had—and out of this concern grew the
often embattled but always determined "con-
servation" movement. Today, "conservation"
is as important as ever—but no longer is it
enough to conserve what we have; we must
also restore what we have lost. We have to go
beyond conservation to embrace restoration.
The task of cleaning up our environment
calls for a total mobilization by all of us. It
involves goverments at every level; it requires
the help of every citizen. It cannot be a
matter of simply sitting back and blaming
someone else. Neither is it one to be left to
a few hundred leaders. Rather, it presents us
with one of those rare situations in which
each individual everywhere has an opportuni-
ty to make a special contribution to his coun-
try as well as his community.
Through the Council on Environmental
Quality, through the Citizens' Advisory Com-
mittee on Environmental Quality, and work-
ing with Governors and Mayors and county
officials and with concerned private groups,
we shall be reaching out in an effort to en-
list millions of helping hands, millions of
willing spirits—missions of volunteer citizens
who will put to themselves the simple ques-
tion: "What and can I do?"
It is in this way—with vigorous Federal
leadership, with active enlistment of govern-
ments at every level, with the aid of industry
and private groups, and above all with the
determined participation by individual citizens
in every state and every community, that we
at last will succeed in restoring the kind of
environment we want for ourselves, and the
kind of generations that come after deserve
to inherit.
This task is ours together. It summons our
energy, our ingenuity and our conscience in
a cause as fundamental as life itself.
RICHARD NIXON.
The White House.
EXHIBIT 2
AIR POLLUTION
We tend to view air pollution as a recently
discovered phenomenon. But since the lawn
of the industrial revolution, people in many
communities have endured levels of smoke
pollution that would he held intolerable today.
In the last half of the 19th century, a sur-
prising number of aroused citizen groups
protested the smoke-laden air of London. But
their protests were lost in the overwhelming;
[p. 32911]
clamor for industrial development at any price.
Progress in the United States was no more
heartening' Chicago and Cincinnati passed
smoke control laws in 1881. By 1912, 23 of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1521
28 American cities with populations over
200,000 had passed similar laws. But still
there was little dent made in air pollution.
In the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's smoke pol-
lution reached its zenith in the United States,
especially in Eastern and Midwestern indus-
trial cities. The public outcry against these
conditions resulted in the enactment of im-
proved smoke pollution legislation, its partial
enforcement, and a visible improvement in
the air of some industrial cities. These local
control efforts focused primarily on cutting
down smoke from fossil fuels, particularly
coal. The fortunate advent of diesel engines in
place of steam locomotives and the increased
use of gas as a fuel for space heating also
helped cut hack air pollution in that era.
The Donora disaster in Pennsylvania in
1948 pricked the conscience of the Nation,
but the experience of Los Angeles, beginning
in that same decade was a more certain sign
of the complex air pollution problem which
now confronts cities throughout the world.
When the citizens of Los Angeles began to
complain of smog, few people suspected that
air pollution was a great deal more than just
smoke. Los Angeles used virtually none of
the fuels primarily responsible for the smoke
problems of cities elsewhere; yet smog ap-
peared and worsened. Dr. Aria J. Haagen-
Smit, of the California Institute of Tech-
nology, finally pinpointed the principal sources
of photochemical smog in Los Angeles—hydro-
carbons and nitrogen oxides from automobile
exhausts. Smog was at first thought to be a
phenomenon amplified by local weather con-
ditions and limited to Los Angeles, Today,
however, most major cities are afflicted to
some degree by photochemical smog: as well as
by other forms of air pollution.
Air pollution is for the most part a phe-
nomenon of urban living that occurs when the
capacity of the air to dilute the pollutants is
overburdened. Population and industrial growth
and a high degree of dependence on the motor
vehicle cause new gaseous and particulate
emissions to complement, interact with, and
further complicate the traditional ones.
When the first Federal air pollution control
legislation was passed in 1955 there were no
viable ongoing State programs at all. There
was little interest in the scientific community,
and the public, by and large, equated air
pollution with coal smoke and considered smog
a problem unique to Los Angeles. It is no
wonder that air pollution is regarded as a
recently discovered phenomenon.
POLLUTANTS AND THEIR SOURCES
Five main classes of pollutants are pumped
into the air over the United States, totaling
more than 200 million tons per year. These
are summarized in table 1 for 1968, the latest
year for which data are available for making:
estimates.
Transportation—particularly the automobile
—is the greatest source of air pollution. It
accounts for 42 percent of all pollutants by
weight. It produces major portions not only of
carbon monoxide but of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS, 1968
[In millions of tons per year]
Carbon Partic- Sulfur Hydro- Nitrogen
Source monoxide ulates oxides carbons oxides
Transportation
Fuel combustion m stationary sources...
Industrial processes
Solid waste disposal _ . - , ..
Miscellaneous1 , ^
Total
63.8
1.9
9.7
7.8
16.9
100 1
1.2
8.9
7.5
1.1
9.6
28.3
0.8
24.4
7.3
.1
.6
33.2
16.6
.7
4.6
1.6
8.5
32.0
8.1
10.0
.2
.6
1.7
20.6
Total
90.5
45.9
29.3
11.2
37.3
214.2
1 Primarily forest fires, agricultural burning, coal waste fires.
Source: NAPCA Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions, 1970.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odor-
less, poisonous gas, slightly lighter than air,
that is produced by the incomplete burning of
the carbon in fuels. Carbon monoxide emissions
can be prevented by supplying enough air to
insure complete combustion. When this occurs,
carbon dioxide, a natural constituent of the
atmosphere, is produced instead of carbon
monoxide.
Almost two-thirds of the carbon monoxide
emitted comes from internal combustion en-
gines, and the overwhelming bulk of that
comes from gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
Particulate matter includes particles of solid
or liquid substances in a very wide range of
sizes, from those that are visible as soot and
smoke to particles too small to detect except
under an electron microscope. Particulates may
-------
1522
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
be so small that they remain in the air for
long periods and can be transported great
distances by the winds. They are produced
primarily by stationary fuel combustion (31
percent) and industrial processes (27 percent).
Forest fires and other miscellaneous sources
account for 34 percent.
There are established techniques for con-
trolling particulates from a boiler stack or
from a waste air stream—among them filter-
ing, washing, centrifugal separation, and elec-
trostatic precipitation. These work well for
most of the particles, but complete removal,
especially of the very finest particles, is tech-
nically and economically difficult.
Sid fur oxides (SOX) are acrid, corrosive,
poisonous gases produced when fuel containing
sulfur is burned. Electric utilities and indus-
trial plants are its principal producers since
their most abundant fuels are coal and oil,
which contain sulfur as an impurity. The
burning of coal produces about 60 percent of
all suLur oxides emissions, oil about 14 per-
cent, and industrial processes that use sulfur
22 percent. Most of the coal and oil is burned
in electric power generation plants. About
two-thirds of the Nation's sulfur oxides are
emitted in urban areas, where industry and
population are concentrated. And seven indus-
trial States in the Northeast account for al-
most half of the national total of sulfur oxides.
In rurs.1 areas, however, sulfur oxides sources
may be large industrial plants, smelters, or
power plants. Any one of these may throw
out several hundred thousand tons of sulfur
oxides in a year.
Government agencies and industry have
sought to reduce sulfur oxide emissions in
three ways: switching to low sulfur fuels
(those with less than 1 percent sulfur), re-
moving sulfur from fuels entirely, and remov-
ing suFur oxides from the combustion gases.
Hydrocarbons (HC), like carbon monoxide,
represent \mburned and wasted fuel. Unlike
carbon monoxide, gaseous hydrocarbons at
concentrations normally found in the atmos-
phere are not toxic, hut they are a major
pollutant because of their role in forming
photochemical smog. More than half the es-
timated 32 million tons of hydrocarbons pro-
duced each year conies from transportation
sources, mainly gasoline-fueled vehicles. An-
other 27 percent comes from miscellaneous
burning and 14 percent from industrial proc-
esses. About 60 percent is produced in urban
areas, largely because there are more auto-
mobiles.
Nitrogen oxides (NO*) are produced when
fuel is burned at very high temperatures. Sta-
tionary combustion plants produce 49 percent
of the nitrogen oxide emissions; transporta-
tion vehicles, 39 percent; and all other sources,
12 percent.
Internal combustion engines operate at very
high temperatures, and so do efficient, large
electric power and industrial boilers. Nitrogen'
that is ordinarily inert combines with oxygen
in high temperature flames and tends to stay
combined if the exhaust gases are cooled too
quickly. The control of NOx from stationary
sources requires careful adjustment of flame
and stack gas temperatures. Control of nitro-
gen oxides from automobiles is more difficult
because reducing other pollutants can increase
the output of NO*.
Under the influence of sunlight, nitrogen
oxides combine with gaseous hydrocarbons to
form a complex variety of secondary pollutants
called photochemical oscidants. These oxidants,
together with solid and liquid particles in the
air, make up what is commonly known as
smog. The photochemical oxidant family of
pollutants includes, among others, ozone, an
unstable, toxic form of oxygen; nitrogen diox-
ide; peroxyacyl nitrates; aldehydes; and acro-
lein. In air they can cause eye and lung irrita-
tion, damage to vegetation, offensive odor, and
thick haze.
Air pollution emissions in the United States,
1S68
[Percentage by weight]
What they are:
Sulfur oxides
Hydrocarbons
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
15
15
13
10
47
Where they come from:
Fuel combustion in stationary sources 21
Solid waste disposal - 5
Forest fires . . 8
Miscellaneous 10
Industrial processes 14
Transportation . 42
Source: National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, HEW.
WHAT AIR POLLUTION DOES
Air pollution adversely affects man and his
environment in many ways. It soils his home
and interferes with the growth of plants and
shrubs. It diminishes the value of his agricul-
tural products. It obscures his view and adds
unpleasant smells to his environment. Most
important, it endangers his health.
The extent of air pollution depends heavily
on how weather disposes of the pollutants.
The ability of the atmosphere to dilute and
disperse them is limited to two factors—wind
speed and the depth in the atmosphere to
which air near the surface can be mixed. Al-
though considerable variation occurs from day
to day in the extent to which these factors
disperse air pollution, the same patterns tend
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1523
to repeat themselves over months or years. On
some few days in a year, strong winds and
highly unstable atmospheric conditions may
disperse even the heaviest blanket of pollu-
tion. On many other days, weak winds and
highly stable conditions let small quantities of
pollutants accumulate and build up to serious
proportions. Between these extremes, variations
in weather condi-
[p. 32912]
tions create varying levels of pollution over a
given aiea.
Many cities lie in natural basins at the con-
fluence of rivers, around bays, or in flat areas
backed against mountains. Such basins are
natural gathering places for low-lying masses
of warm air, which trap pollutants in the
familiar phenomenon known as an "inver-
sion." However, even communities more favor-
ably located increasingly find that atmospheric
conditions limit the amount of air available as
& dumping place for pollutants.
To human health
The most important effect of air pollution is
its threat to human health. Acute episodes of
pollution in London, New York, and other
cities have been marked by dramatic increases
in death and illness rates, especially among
the elderly and those with preexisting respira-
tory or cardiac conditions.
The incident most familiar to Americans oc-
curred in 1948 in Donora, an industrial town
in the mountains of western Pennsylvania.
Almost half of the town's 14,000 inhabitants
fell ill; 20 died. The worst air pollution dis-
aster of modern times struck in London in
1952 when its famous "killer smog" increased
the number of deaths in London to 1,600 more
than would have normally occurred. Both of
those episodes occurred when, under conditions
lasting for several days, unusual weather pre-
vented the dispersal of pollutants.
Such major disasters are cause for concern.
However, of much greater significance for the
American population are the subtle, long-range
effects on human health of exposure to low-
level, long-lasting pollution.
The causes of chronic diseases which consti-
tute the major public health problems of our
time are difficult to determine. Assessing the
contribution of particular pollutants to these
conditions is complicated by the seemingly in-
finite variety of pollutants to which persons,
particularly those in urban areas, are exposed
from the day of their birth. And it is difficult
to separate pollution from the other biological
and physical stresses to which people are sub-
jected.
Nonetheless, it is well established that air
pollution contributes to the incidence of such
chronic diseases as emphysema, bronchitis,
and other respiratory ailments. Polluted air is
also linked to higher mortality rates from
other causes, including cancer and arterioscle-
rotic heart disease. Smokers living in polluted
cities have a much higher rate of lung cancer
than smokers in rural areas.
The incidence of chronic diseases has soared
sharply during this century, while the infec-
tious diseases which were the primary public
health concern in the past have been brought
under control. Heart and blood vessel diseases
caused more than half the deaths in the United
States in 1962. Lung cancer, once a rarity,
now kills more persons than all other cancer
types combined. Emphysema has doubled every
5 years since World War II. Air pollution has
been linked to asthma, acute respiratory infec-
tions, allergies, and other ailments in children.
Such childhood diseases may well underlie
chronic ills developed in later life.
Knowledge of the health effects of specific
contaminants present in the air is far from
complete. However, the more overt health ef-
fects of several major classes of pollutants are
beginning to be defined. Those pollutants are
found almost everywhere in the United States.
When carbon monoxide is inhaled, it dis-
places the oxygen in the blood and reduces the
amount carried to the body tissues. At levels'
commonly found in city air, it can slow the
reactions of even the healthiest persons, mak-
ing- them more prone to accidents. Moreover,
it is believed to impose an extra burden on
those already suffering from anemia, diseases
of the heart and blood vessels, chronic lung
disease, overactive thyroid, or even simple
fever. Cigarette smokers, who are already in-
haling significant amounts of CO in tobacco
smoke, take on an additional CO burden from
polluted air.
Studies show that exposure to 10 parts per
million of CO for approximately 8 hours may
dull mental performance. Such levels of carbon
monoxide are commonly found in cities
throughout the world. In heavy traffic situa-
tions, levels of 70, 80, or 100 parts per million
are not uncommon for short periods.
Sulfur oxides, produced mainly by burning
coal and oil, can cause temporary and perma-
nent injury to the respiratory system. When
pai ticulate matter is inhaled with the sulfur
oxides, health damage increases significantly.
The air pollution disasters of recent years were
due primarily to sharply increased levels of
sulfur oxides and particulates.
Sulfur dioxide can irritate the upper respira-
tory tract. Carried into the lungs on particles,
it can injure delicate tissue. Sulfuric acid—
formed from sulfur trioxide when water is
present—can penetrate deep into the lungs
and damage tissue.
Health may be imperiled when the annual
mean concentration of sulfur dioxide in the
air rises above 0.04 parts per million. Deaths
-------
1524
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
from bronchitis and from lung cancer may in-
crease when this level of sulfur dioxide is ac-
companied by smoke concentrations of about
0.06 parts per million. American cities often
exceed this annual mean substantially. The
annual mean concentration of SO2 in the air
was 0.12 parts per million in Chicago in 1968;
in Philadelphia it was 0.08. When SO2 exceeds
0.11 parts per million for 3 to 4 days, adverse
health effects have been observed, and this
level is reached in many large cities during
inversions.
Photochemical oxidants have emerged rela-
tively recently as a major health problem, and
research relating to their effects on human
health is still in its Infancy. However, studies
have shown that eye irritation begins when
peak oxidant levels reach 0.10 parts per mil-
lion. Increased frequency of asthma attacks
occurs in some patients on those days when
hourly concentrations average 0.05 to 0.06
parts per million. Even the healthiest persons
may be affected; however, a study of cross-
country runners in a Los Angeles high school
showed that their performances suffered when
hourly average oxidant levels ranged from 0.03
to 0.30 parts per million.
Less is known about the effects on health of
nitrogen oxides, which play such an important
part in producing photochemical pollution.
They have been little studied until recently.
However, evidence so far suggests that they
may be harmful to human health. A study in
Chattanooga, Tenn., linked very low levels to
these oxides in the air to children's suscepti-
bility to Asian flu.
The lowest participate levels at which health
effects have been noted in the United States
were reported at Buffalo. The Buffalo study
suggests that the overall death rate rises in
areas with an annual average concentration
ranging from 80 to 100 micrograms per cubic
meter. The study also reveals a tie between
these levels of participate matter and gastric
cancer in men 50 to 69 years old. A similar
association was found in a Nashville study.
Particulate levels in this range are found in
most major urban areas and are common even
in smaller industrial cities.
The findings relating to particulate matter,
as a class of pollutants, amply justify measures
to reduce their level in the air. Included in
this class of pollutants are a number of sub-
stances which are potential health hazards at
much lower concentrations and which will re-
quire even more stringent controls.
Beryllium, for example, which may be
emitted from industrial sources and from
rocket fuel, can cause lesions in the lung,
producing serious respiratory damage and even
death. Since the sources of this pollutant are
limited, however, it may be a problem only in
specific localities.
Asbestos, long recognized as an occupational
hazard, is increasingly present in the ambient
air because of its use in construction materials,
brake linings, and other products. Long ex-
posure in industry produces the lung-scarring
disease, asbestosis. On the other hand, meso-
thelioma, a type of lung cancer associated al-
most exclusively with asbestos exposure, does
not appear to be associated only with heavy
or continued exposure.
Many other particulate pollutants are a
growing public health worry even though they
may not constitute such an immediate and di-
rect threat. Current studies suggest that lead
levels now found in the blood and urine of
urban populations—although well below those
associated with classic lead poisoning—may
interfere with the ability of the human body
to produce blood. As air pollution becomes
more widespread, increased numbers of people
are being exposed to airborne lead, chiefly
from automotive emissions, at levels formerly
found only in congested areas.
To vegetation and materials
Air pollution inflicts widespread and costly
damage on plant life and buildings and mate-
rials. Some experiences of the past warned of
the effects of air pollution on plant life. Sulfur
dioxide fumes from a large copper smelting:
plant set up after the Civil War in Copper
Basin. Tenn., damaged 30,000 acres of timber-
land. Much of this originally forested moun-
tain land is still barren. Today, the damage
to plant li"e is less dramatic than in the days
of unrestricted smelter operations. But the
slower, chronic injury inflicted on agricultural,
forest, and ornamental vegetation by increas-
ing quantities and varieties of air pollutants
has now spread to all parts of the country.
Smog in the Los Angeles basin contributes
to the slow decline of citrus groves south of
the city and damages trees in the San Ber-
nardino National Forest 50 miles away. Fluo-
ride and sulfur oxides, released into the air by
phosphate fertilizer processing in Florida,
have blighted large numbers of pines and
citrus orchards. Livestock grazing on fluoride-
tainted vegetation develop a crippling condi-
tion known as fluorosis. In New Jersey, pollu-
tion injury to vegetation has been observed in
every county and damage reported to at least
35 commercial crops.
At sulfur oxide levels routinely observed in
some of our cities, many plants suffer a
chronic injury described as "early aging."
Nitrogen dioxide produces similar injury symp-
toms and seems to restrict the growth of
plants even when symptoms of injury are not
visible. Ozone, a major photochemical oxidant,
is a significant threat to leafy vegetables, field
and forage crops, shrubs, and fruit and forest
trees—particularly conifers. The damage from
ozone in minute quantities can be great. Ex-
tended ozone exposure to 0.05 parts per million
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1525
can reduce a radish yield 50 percent. Tobacco
is sensitive to ozone at a level of 0.03 parts
per million.
Air pollutants also damage a wide variety of
materials. Sulfur oxides will destroy even the
most durable products. Steel corrodes two to
four times faster in urban industrial areas
than it does in rural areas where much less
sulfur-bearing coal and oil are burned. When
particulate matter is also present in the air,
the corrosion rates multiply. One-third of the
replacement cost of steel rails in England is
estimated to be caused by sulfur pollution. The
rise of sulfur oxides levels in the air ia ac-
celerating the erosion of statuary and buildings
throughout the world, and in some cities,
works of art made of stone, bronze, and steel
must be moved indoors to preserve them from
deterioration. Particulate matter in the air not
only speeds the corrosive action of other pol-
lutants but
[p. 32913]
by itself is responsible for costly damage and
soiling. Clothes and cars must be washed,
houses painted, and buildings cleaned more
often because of the particulates in the
air. Ozone damages textiles, discolors dyes, and
greatly accelerates the cracking of rubber.
To visibility
Air pollution dims visibility, obscures city
skylines and scenic beauty, interferes with the
safe operation of aircraft and automobiles, and
disrupts transportation schedules. In one recent
year, low visibility from smoke, haze, and dust
was the suspected cause of 15 to 20 plane
crashes. In Los Angeles, visibility in the smog
frequently lowers to less than 3 miles. During
the air pollution alert in the eastern States
during July 1970, visibility was almost totally
obscured in some areas. The Federal Aviation
Administration's visibility safety factor for
airplane operation without instruments is 5
miles. Nitrogen dioxide, which reaches peak
levels during morning rush-hour traffic, is
responsible for the whiskey-brown haze that
stains the sky over many cities. Particulates,
however, are the major villain in reducing visi-
bility. Particles (ash, carbon, dust, and liquid
particles) discharged directly to the air scatter
and absorb light, reducing the contrast between
objects and their backgrounds. Particles are
also formed in the atmosphere by photochemi-
cal reactions and by the conversion of sulfur
dioxide to sulfuric add mist. Wherever sulfur
pollution is aigniiicant — which is wherever
large amounts of coal and oil are burned—•
visibility diminishes as relative humidity rises.
To climate
Air pollution alters climate and may pro-
duce global changes in temperature. Chapter
V of this report deals with that subject
WHAT AIR POLLUTION COSTS
In damages
The total costs of air pollution in the United
States cannot be precisely calculated, but they
amount to many billions of dollars a year.
Economic studies are beginning to identify
some of the more obvious costs. To paint steel
structures damaged by air pollution runs an
estimated $100 million a year. Commercial
laundering, cleaning, and dyeing of fabrics
soiled by air pollution costs about $800 mil-
lion. Washing cars dirtied by air pollution
costs about $240 million. Damage to agricul-
tural crops and livestock is put at $500 million
a year or more. Adverse effects of air pollution
on air travel cost from $40 to $80 million a
year. Even more difficult to tie down are the
costs of replacing and protecting precision in-
struments or maintaining cleanliness in the
production of foods, beverages, and other con-
sumables. It is equally difficult to assess dam-
age, soiling, and added maintenance to homes
and furnishings or how air pollution acts on
property values. The cost of fuels wasted in
incomplete combustion and of valuable and
potentially recoverable resources such as sulfur
wasted into the air is also hard to count. It
is still more difficult to determine the dollar
value of medical costs and time lost from
work because of air pollution—or to calculate
tbe resulting fall in productivity of business
and industry.
In control
The total investment necessary through 1975
to control the major industrial and municipal
sources of particulate matter, sulfur oxides,
hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide in 100
metropolitan areas of the United States has
been estimated at $2.6 billion. This includes
costs for controlling both existing and new
sources. By 1975, it will cost another $1.9 bil-
lion for operation, maintenance, depreciation,
and interest.
These estimated costs are based on assumed
future control requirements. Still, the yearly
cost to control the industrial sources of these
four major pollutants is relatively low, less
than 1 percent of the value of the annual out-
put of the industries involved, although the
costs to some industries are much greater.
According to industry estimates, the costs
-------
1526
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of control devices to meet Federal motor ve-
hicle emission standards are rising rapidly,
both because of general increases in prices
and because of the increasing stringency of
the standards. The cost for 1968 and 1969
models was $18-19 per car; for 1970, $36 per
car; and for 1971 models it is estimated at $49
per car. The application of more stringent
standards will increase these costs still further.
Thus in 1971 the cost for installing control
devices on the 10 million new cars produced
will be almost $500 million. However, assum-
ing that the average vehicle life is 10 years,
the cost is only $5 per car per year.
PROGRAMS IN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Legislative history
The first Federal legislation concerned ex-
clusively with air pollution was enacted in
July 1955. It authorized $5 million annually
to the Public Health Service of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare for research,
data collection, and technical assistance to
State and local governments.
Pressures for action led to the Clean Air
Act of 1963. It provided grants to air pollution
agencies for control programs (with special
bonuses for intermunicipal or interstate areas).
And it provided Federal enforcement authority
to attack interstate air pollution problems.
In October 1965, the Clean Air Act was
amended to permit national regulation of air
pollution from new motor vehicles. The first
standards were applied to 1968 models. These
standards were tightened for 1970 and 1971
model cars. And even more stringent standards
have been announced for 1973 and 1975.
In November 1967, the Congress passed the
comprehensive Air Quality Act, which under-
girds much of the current Federal air pollu-
tion control effort. That act set in motion a
new regional approach to establishing and
enforcing Federal-State air quality standards:
The Secretary of HEW first must designate
air quality control regions within a State or
within an interstate region.
The Secretary must promulgate air quality
criteria which, based on scientific studies, de-
scribe the harmful effects of an air pollutant
on health, vegetation, and materials. He must
issue control technology documents showing
availability, costs and effectiveness of preven-
tion and control techniques.
In the designated regions, the States must
show willingness to establish air quality stand-
ards.
The States then set standards limiting the
levels of the pollutant described in the criteria
and control technology documents. If the
States fail to do this, the Secretary is em-
powered to set the standards.
After the States have developed air quality
standards, they must establish comprehensive
plans for implementing them. {These plans
should set specific emission levels by source
and a timetable for achieving compliance.)
The process of adopting standards and im-
plementation plans can take up to a year and
a half, and the approval process requires still
more time. The process must be renewed and
repeated each time criteria and control tech-
niques are issued for a new pollutant.
On February 10, 1970, the President made
a number of legislative proposals to improve
the air quality program. Among them were
proposals to apply air quality standards
throughout the entire Nation, not just with-
in the air quality control regions. Hearings
are provided for, and the States have the
option of adopting more stringent standards
if they choose. The States would have 9
months from the time the national standards
are established to submit a plan detailing how
thty would enforce the national standards, in-
cluding the associated emission standards. The
Federal Government would enforce the stand-
ards if the air quality in a State or region
fell below the standards and the State plan
was not being carried out. The provisions for
national standards should markedly quicken
the process of establishing enforceable stand-
ards and a workable plan for abatement.
The President's proposals also call for na-
tional emission standards for new pollutant
sources considered harmful to health and wel-
fare and which can be controlled. This author-
ity is necessary to insure that new stationary
sources are designed to reduce emissions to the
lowest level consistent with available technol-
ogy. National emission standards would apply
to existing as well as to new stationary sources
for pollutants extremely hazardous to health,
such as asbestos, cadmium, or beryllium. The
legislation would authorize the Secretary of
HEW to move directly against sources of these
pollutants when States do not act.
The President's program would also extend
Federal enforcement authority to pollution
within one State. And it would levy fines of up
to $10,000 a day for noncompliance.
The Department of HEW first issued docu-
ments on air quality criteria and control
methods for sulfur oxides and particulate
matter in February 1969. This triggered the
standards-setting process for these two key
pollutants. In March 1970, criteria and control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1527
documents were issued for carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and photochemical oxidants.
HEW expects to issue documents on lead, ni-
trogen oxides, fluorides, and polynuclear or-
ganic compounds early in 1971.
By July 1, 1970, air quality regions had been
designated in 10 major metropolitan areas.
By the end of the summer 1970, HEW expects
to designate 90 regions, providing at least one
region in each State. These regions will em-
brace 123 million people, almost 60 percent of
the U.S. population. As of July 1, 1970, 17
States had submitted standards to the De-
partment, and 10 had been approved. No im-
plementation plans have yet been approved.
Action on each new pollutant requires pub-
lication of air quality criteria and control
technology, the development and approval of
State standards for each region, and the de-
velopment and approval of State implementa-
tion plans for each region. The National Air
Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA)
is currently studying 30 different pollutants to
determine their potential effects on health.
When the evaluations are completed, criteria
documents will be issued, as necessary.
Federal abatement actions
Although the major current emphasis is on
developing standards, some action continues
under the enforcement provisions of the 1963
Clean Air Act. Since passage of the act, 10
enforcement conferences have been held. Four
have dealt with single sources of pollution; six
have considered all sources of pollution within
major metropolitan areas, including the metro-
politan areas of New York-New Jersey, Kansas
City, and Washington, B.C.
Those conferences covering whole metro-
politan areas have concentrated more on
strengthening State and local efforts than on
directly curbing polluters. The conference-pub-
lic hearing procedure has been a cumbersome
and time-consuming method of taking action
against individual polluters.
The first air pollution enforcement action
was instituted in 1965 against a chicken ren-
dering plant in Bishop, Md. A conference was
held in 1965 and a public hearing in 1967; a
suit was begun in the Federal district court
in 1969, and an appeal finally made to the
U.S. Supreme Court. The plant was not shut
[p. 32914]
down until the Supreme Court refused to
hear the appeal in May 1970—5 years after
the action started. No other enforcement ac-
tion has proceeded beyond the conference
stage.
No enforcement has yet taken place under
the 1967 act, since the standards, for the
most part, have not yet been adopted nor
implementation plans approved. The Presi-
dent has submitted comprehensive proposals
to the Congress to strengthen enforcement
powers. These are discussed later in the
chapter.
Curbing auto pollution
The first standards set under the 1965
Amendments to the Clean Air Act applied to
1968 model vehicles. These standards required
complete control of crankcase hydrocarbons
and partial control of exhaust hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide.
In June 1968, HEW tightened exhaust
standards for 1970 and later model vehicles and
for the first time set evaporative loss stand-
ards—to be applied starting with the 1971
model year.
In July 1970, the Secretary proposed sweep-
ing changes in procedures for testing whether
new automobiles meet the Federal emission
standards—when it was discovered that the
existing procedures underestimated the actual
amount of pollution being emitted. The new
test procedures would take effect when proto-
types of 1972 model cars begin their tests at
the end of this year. At the same time, the
Secretary confirmed the same 1975 standards
for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and
said that the nitrogen oxide and particulate
standards proposed in February 1970 would be
confirmed as soon as test procedures for these
standards had been developed. Table 2 sum-
marizes the effects of all these standards on
automobile emissions through 1975.
Under the 1965 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act, NAPCA tests only vehicles submitted
by a manufacturer. If the test vehicle meets
the Federal standards, all other like model
vehicles sold by a manufacturer are deemed
in conformity with the standards.
The first surveillance data on production line
cars subject to the Federal standards were re-
ported in the summer of 1968. The data showed
that, on the average, the cars complied with
the Federal standards. However, by the win-
ter of 1969, the surveillance data showed that,
on the average, hydrocarbon emissions of 1968
cars ran about 20 percent above the standard
and carbon monoxide emissions about 8 percent
above. Reports in 1970 show hydrocarbon emis-
sions higher than the standard by 25 percent
and carbon monoxide by about 10 percent.
-------
1528
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
TABLE 2.—EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS AND UNCONTROLLED VEHICLE EMISSION LEVELS BASED ON
CURRENT AND PROPOSED 1972 TEST PROCEDURES
PRESENT TEST PROCEDURE
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen
Participates
c
Baseline (uncontrolled vehicle).
Present standards (intended
degree of control)
1975 standards (expected
control) .. _.
Baseline (uncontrolled vehicle)
Equivalent present standards
(achieved degree of control)
Proposed 1972 Standards
(control)
Proposed 1973 standards
(control)
Proposed 1975 standards
(control) .
i./mi.i Percent « 1
11.2
2.2 80
.5 96
PROPOSED
14.6
4.6 69
2.9 80
.5 97
3./mi. Percent G./mi. Percent G./mi. P
73.0
23.0 69 'N.A. N.A. N.A.
11. 0 86
TEST PROCEDURE
116.3 6.0 0.3
47.0 60 ..- .
37.0 69
3,0 50
11.0 91 .9 85 .1
ercent
N.A.
66.7
1 Grams per mile emitted.
' Percentage reduction from uncontrolled vehicle.
1 No standards applicable.
Source: NAPCA.
Remedies for the failure of production line
cars to perform as well as their prototypes are
both administrative and legislative. New tests
to be applied for the first time to 1972 models
include a revised durability test. It will more
accurately reflect actual operating conditions.
And the manufacturer will be required to make
available to NAPCA test cars to be under
the control of the Federal Government in ac-
cumulating durability mileage.
Proposed Presidential amendments to the
Clean Air Act would authorize HEW to with-
draw approval of a particular model of car if
vehicles coming off the production lines do not
meet the Federal standards. Moreover, the Sec-
retary of HEW would be explicitly authorized
to test, or require manufacturers to test, ve-
hicles at the end of production lines. Even
with these safeguards, many automobiles will
not meet the standards. In addition to systems
that break down or are not sufficiently durable,
the car owner may not provide proper main-
tenance.
The data on present levels of pollution in
our urban environment, the projected increase
in urban traffic in the years ahead, and the
performance of pollution control systems un-
der actual driving conditions make it clear
that even applying stricter standards in 1975
will only prolong the downward curve in ve-
hicle emissions until the middle 1980's. After
that, carbon monoxide levels will again rise
because of the sheer number of automobiles on
the roads and highways.
Motor vehicle pollution is the product of a
complex combustion system of engines, fuels,
and fuel additives. Effective control, then,
means dealing not only with engines and con-
trol devices but with the fuel itself and with
fuel additives. The President's proposed legis-
lation includes authority to establish standards
and regulations for both fuel and fuel addi-
tives.
The key additive from an air pollution con-
trol viewpoint is tetraethyl lead in gasoline.
It accounts for a significant portion of the
participate pollution from automobiles. Most
experts believe that control systems incorpo-
rating chemical catalysts will be required to
meet 1975 standards. Experience to date indi-
cates that lead in gasoline poses serious prob-
lems to the use of catalytic control devices.
Although other control methods are likely to
be available, the catalyst appears to be most
economical and durable. A panel of the Com-
merce Technical Advisory Board concluded
that lead-free gasoline should be ready within
the next few years so that industry will have
the chance to road-test these catalytic devices.
Automobile manufacturers say that they intend
to market vehicles with low-octane requirements
in their 1971 models, thus reducing or even
eliminating the need for lead in gasoline.
The Secretary of HEW has asked the chief
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1529
executives of the Nation's petroleum compa-
nies to work toward production of a lead-free
gasoline. The Secretary suggested a plan to re-
duce lead levels in regular grades to 0.6 gram
per gallon by July 1, 1971, and to zero lead
content by July 1, 1974. However, since premi-
um gasoline containing lead will still be needed
for a number of years to meet the requirements
of high compression engines in older cars, the
Secretary's plan provides for leaded premium
gasoline as long as it is needed. To make the
new gasolines competitive, the administration
has requested a $4.25 per pound tax on lead
used in gasoline.
An alternative to the internal combustion
engine may be necessary if it cannot meet
the increasingly stiff standards. The President
announced in his February 10, 1970, environ-
mental message a program to develop one or
more alternatives within 6 years. He called
for:
An extensive research and development pro-
gram to be conducted under the general di-
rection of the Council on Environmental
Quality;
An incentive program to private developers,
through Government purchase of privately
produced unconventional vehicles for testing
and evaluation.
Controlling sulfur oxides
Sulfur oxides are one of the most difficult
classes of air pollutants to control. Because
of their toxicity and pervasiveness, they are
among the most dangerous air pollutants to
human health and are clearly the most harm-
ful to vegetation, buildings, and materials.
Because their source is chiefly the electric
power industry, their potential increase is tied
to the burgeoning industry, which almost dou-
bles its output every 10 years.
At present about 65 percent of the energy
for generating electricity steins from coal;
gas, oil, and hydroelectric sources account for
about 34 percent; and nuclear energy the re-
maining 1 percent. By 1980, 22 percent of the
total installed electric power capacity is ex-
pected to be nuclear. By 1990, it will be 40
percent. However, by far the greatest source
of energy is now, and will continue to be for
the rest of this century, the burning of coal
and oil. The amount of coal used for power
by the year 2000 will be four times greater
than it is today.
A number of alternatives are available to
control sulfur oxide pollution over the next
decade. Switching fuels is possible, but only
when an alternative, low-sulfur fuel is avail-
able. Most coal near the Nation's centers of
population and power demand is high in sul-
fur. Low-sulfur coal not only is far away but
also commands a higher price for use as coke
by domestic and foreign steelmakers. North
Africa and other areas are rich in low sulfur
oil but are limited by low production and re-
finery capabilities. Oil import quotas bar it
from certain areas of the Midwest and the
West Coast, although the oil may be im-
ported to other areas of the United States.
The United States will probably continue to
rely primarily on residual oil from the West-
ern Hemisphere. And that oil will have to be
desulfurized before it is used. Natural gas
carries an insignificant sulfur content, but it
is the scarcest of fossil fuels, and most of it
is being conserved for nonpower purposes.
Sulfur can be separated from coal and oil,
but the processes are costly, and some are not
fully developed technically. Methods to remove
sulfur from the stack gases after the fuel is
burned are under development. However, none
of these processes is yet in large-scale use and
the costs are not yet known. Some of the
stack control processes recover sulfur or a
sulfur byproduct, which can be sold to help
offset costs. Some are also being evaluated for
their potential in reducing pollution from ni-
trogen oxides.
[p. 32915]
Research and development
A number of technological and research gaps
in controlling air pollution still exist. NAPCA
carries on an extensive research, development,
and demonstration program in its own facili-
ties and through grants and contracts. The
fiscal year 1970 budget contains $59.3 million
in budgeted funds for research and demon-
stration. The fiscal year 1971 budget requests
call for $63.3 million.
Two principal areas hold high priority. One
is the development of technology for the con-
trol of stationary sources. Currently, a com-
prehensive program is underway in NAPCA,
working with the Bureau of Mines and TV A,
aimed at perfecting techniques for controlling
sulfur oxides. A similar program is getting
underway for nitrogen oxides. The second
prime priority is the development of new low
emission power systems for motor vehicles.
This program aims to develop at least two un-
conventional vehicle prototypes and to dem-
onstrate commercial feasibility by 1975. Initial
research will center on gas turbine, steam,
and hybrid systems, with continued work on
electrical systems. The 1971 Federal Budget sets
aside $9 million for this program. The Council
on Environmental Quality has worked closely
with the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, which is the lead agency for this
program, and with other Federal agencies to
assure that the widest range of Federal talents
is enlisted in the low-emission power program.
The Council has also appointed a committee to
advise it on this program, headed by Dr.
Ernest Starkman, of the University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley.
-------
1530
LEGAL COMPILATION—ATR
Air quality monitoring
Collecting and evaluating data on air pol-
lutant emissions and air quality require a joint
Federal-State-local effort. NAPCA is now en-
gaged not only in operating its own air moni-
toring network but also in supporting State
and local monitoring activities. NAPCA's own
air monitoring program involves operation of
more than a thousand air sampling devices at
stations across the country, including six
continuous monitoring stations in major cities.
Over the past year, mechanized devices for
measuring various gaseous pollutants were put
in operation at 145 sites. This expansion of
NAPCA's network reflects the increased stress
on gathering data for air pollutants which have
been or will be the subject of air quality cri-
teria documents.
State and local governments, which have
the primary responsibility for monitoring air
quality, operate over 2,000 stations. Most of
them, however, monitor air quality only inter-
mittently.
State and local programs
With one major exception—new motor ve-
hicles, whose control the Clean Air Act pre-
empts to the Federal Government—primary
responsibility for the control of the sources of
air pollution is assigned to State and local
governments. An assessment, then, of State
and local air pollution control programs is a
useful measure of the current efforts to cope
with the problem.
A March 1970 Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare report to the Congress,
"Progress in the Prevention and Control of
Air Pollution," traces the considerable in-
crease in State and local budgets for air pol-
lution control, stimulated in large part of the
Federal matching grants program initiated in
1963. However, of the B5 State and territorial
programs being financed by the grants pro-
gram in 1970, only six have reached an annual
per capita expenditure of 25 cents, which is
generally considered the minimum expenditure
needed for State programs. Only 23, including
the six, are spending as much as 10 cents per
person per year. At the local level, the situa-
tion is better: 64 of 144 grantee agencies are
spending at least 40 cents per capita per year,
which is generally considered the minimum
needed for local programs.
Table 3, also from the March 1970 HEW
progress report, shows the accelerated pace
at which States have been adopting air pol-
lution control regulations during the last sev-
eral years. Prior to passage of the Clean Air
Act in 1963, only nine States had adopted air
pollution control regulations. 3y 1967-68, 30
had. By the end of 1970 it is expected that all
States will have established the legal basis for
controlling the sources of air pollution.
No detailed survey has been made of the
adoption of air pollution regulations at the
local level of government. However, local agen-
cies set up to deal with the problem have
proliferated—from 85 agencies in 1962 to more
than 200 today.
TABLE 3.—STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
[Number of States enacting laws and regulations
in specified years]
1951- 1963- 1965- 1967-
62 64 66 68 Total
Initial law enacted II
23 46
First regulation adopted. 9 4 17 30
Type of regulation:
Administrative 9 4 13 26
Fuel burning 2 3 11 16
Open burning 4 3 12 19
Ambient standards... 21 1 11 15
Visible emissions 5 3 14 22
Incinerator 1 1 2 13 17
Industrial process. 1 4 9 14
Vehicle I 5 6
Sulfur oxides._. 156
Perhaps the most significant indicator of
the adequacy of State and local air pollution
control programs is manpower. The 1970 HEW
report to the Congress, "Manpower and Train-
ing Needs for Air Pollution Control," indicates
that in general control agencies are inadequate-
ly staffed. Fifty percent of State agencies have
fewer than 10 positions budgeted, and 50 per-
cent of local agencies have fewer than seven
positions budgeted. Further, during 1969 the
vacancy rate for all agencies was 20 percent.
Recruitment of competent personnel is diffi-
cult. The report estimates that by 1974 State
and local agencies will need 8,000 personnel if
they are to implement the Clean Air Act prop-
erly—a jump of 300 percent over the the
number of persons currently employed in these
programs.
The chief difficulty is the low salary rates
paid by State and local agencies. The HEW
report cites a study which indicates that State
and local median salaries fall 20 to 50 percent
below the median paid by industry for com-
parable positions.
EVALUATION
In evaluating the effectiveness of air quality
efforts, it is useful to separate stationary from
mobile sources, since the methods of control
and the implementing institutions are so
different. It is also useful, for purposes of per-
spective, to compare air quality and wate*.*
quality efforts on stationary sources, since
many aspects of the Federal legislation are
similar.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1531
Stationary sources
Congressional and public concern focused on
water pollution many years before air pollu-
tion. The first permanent water pollution legis-
lation was enacted in 1956, the first permanent
air pollution legislation not until 1963. There
are currently standards and implementation
plans for almost all the interstate and coastal
watei s of the United States, covering: most
forms of water pollution. Water quality cri-
teria have been developed, and Federal, State,
and local governments and industry are be-
ginning to commit themselves to abatement
programs.
In contrast, only five air pollution criteria
have been issued; only 10 State standards have
been approved, and no State implementation
plans have yet been approved. There is cur-
rently no basis for enforcing standards because
enforcement must await approval of implemen-
tation plans.
The air pollution effort is not as advanced
as water pollution in terms of stationary
sources for three major reasons. First, there
is no available technology for a number of
air pollutants, although most forms of indus-
trial water pollution are amenable to control.
Second, State water pollution control agencies
have existed for many years in the United
States and have developed capabilities, although
often limited. Until enactment of the Air
Quality Act of 1967, air pollution control was
largely conducted by local agencies. Few States
had adequate manpower and resources. Finally,
the Air Quality Act of 1967 is no longer an
adequate tool to cope with current pollution
problems. Procedures for development and im-
plementation of air quality standards are too
slow and place an inordinate burden on both
the States and the Federal Government.
The current enforcement authority is also
inadequate. As with water pollution, the Fed-
eral Government has no jurisdiction if the
pollution from one State is not endangering
health and welfare in another State, unless the
Governor of the State in which the pollution
occurs requests help. The current conference-
hearing procedure is unduly cumbersome and
time consuming. The only court action that
can be requested by the Government against a
polluter is a cease-and-desist order, and the
only available remedy in the case of noncom-
pliance is to hold the polluter in contempt of
court. The current act does not provide for
fines to compel compliance.
Mobile sources
The attack on pollution from automotive
emissions has begun to make progress. Cur-
rent standards have already reduced emissions,
and the 1973 and 1975 standards are expected
to bring a further marked decrease. As dis-
cussed earlier, however, control systems on ve-
hicles sold to the public lose their effectiveness
moie rapidly than on test vehicles, and, accord-
ingly, the goals may not be met. Also, the
cm rent program does not deal with the mil-
lions of cars on the road with no control sys-
tems at all or with systems that do not or
will not meet the required standards.
Monitoring
Although air pollution monitoring has been
underway for years, the current systems—
Federal, State, and local—are so spotty in
coverage that it is very difficult to determine
trends in the quality of air. For example,
sampling stations are generally in downtown
areas. The deterioration of air quality away
from these regions, where the greatest amount
of industrialization and urbanization has been
taking place, is often not even monitored.
Often trend data indicate improvement in one
pollutant, while other pollutants not measured
in the same city are increasing. Clearly, the
total level of pollutants in our major urban
areas continues to be above levels at which
adverse effects on human health and destruc-
tion of vegetation, buildings, and materials
occur. But improved monitoring systems are
necessary to understand the status and trends
of air quality and to develop better control pro-
grams.
State and local programs
As discussed earlier, until enactment of the
Air Quality Act of 1967, air pollution was
carried on largely by local agencies- The ex-
penditures by State government were only
$1.1 million in 1961. Even under the stimula-
tion of Federal grants, State air pollution con-
trol agencies spent only $9.6 million in 1970,
compared to $17.2 million for local air pollution
control agencies and about $36 million for State
water pollution agencies.
[p. 32916]
NAPCA considers inadequate some 28 to 34
State programs for areas not tinder the juris-
diction of a local agency. Some 14 to 20 are
considered adequate or progressing rapidly,
and only two to four are considered good. Local
and regional programs are doing better, with
44 percent of the agencies spending what
NAPCA considers adequate for a minimal
program.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
The Council on Environmental Quality rec-
ommends the following:
1. The President's legislative program should
be enacted to deal more effectively with sta-
tionary sources by setting national air quality
standards and national emission standards on
substances harmful to health, by streamlining
-------
1532
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
enforcement procedures, and by providing fines
of up to $10.000 a day.
2. // the President's legislative program is
enacted, the mayor Federal efforts on stationary
sources should be directed toward the prompt
establishment of national air Quality standards
covering a wide range of pollutants, and to-
ward development of emission control limits
for harmful pollutants such as asbestos, beryl-
lium,, cadmium, and other toxic materials.
3. Programs must be developed to improve
State and local control agencies. Highest pri-
ority should be given to increasing personnel,
monitoring, and other control and enforcement
activities. The recently developed program of
assigning Federal personnel to the agencies is
a positive step. But greatly expanded training
efforts and higher pay are necessary to provide
the personnel needed for effective air quality
management.
4. Federal research and development on sul-
fur oxides and nitrogen oxide control technol-
ogy should be accelerated. Sulfur oxides control
technology for large coal- and oil-fired power-
plants should be demonstrated in actual opera-
tion so that the technology -can be applied
throughout the industry. Both government and
industry share responsibilities for this. Studies
of better combustion methods to reduce oxides
of nitrogen are also needed.
6. A more balanced research and development
program is necessary to hasten the develop-
ment of more efficient energy processes. Al-
though control technology for sulfur oxides
will provide appreciable improvement for sev-
eral decades, a longrun answer to this type of
air pollution lies in better energy conversion
processes which will emit less pollutants per
unit of energy produced. Gasfield coal, fluidized
bed combustion, breeder reactors, and nuclear
fusion all hold promise. Although research for
new nuclear power sources have already re-
ceived significant support, greater attention
must be given to these other processes. Even
now, the Nation needs to use its fuel resources
more effectively through development of a na-
tional energy policy. Such a policy would
guide the use of natural gas, low-sulfur coal
and oil, and other energy resources to assure
their availability and minimize air pollution.
6. Incentives to accelerate industry support
for research and to stimulate corrective ac-
tions should be considered. Specifically, incen-
tives might encourage increased research by
the electric power industry to develop better
control methods and new types of power that
are less polluting. Other incentives could en-
courage a shift to techniques which would re-
duce pollution from combustion processes.
7. The President's legislative proposals for
regulating fuel and fuel additives, taxing lead
to be used in gasoline, and testing emission
systems on the production line are critical for
meeting motor vehicle emission standards and
should be enacted.
8. Alternatives available to assure continued
control of motor vehicle emissions under ac-
tual road conditions should be evaluated. Some
alternatives include warranty of system effec-
tiveness by the manufacturer, incentives to
States to check vehicle emissions as part of
their automobile inspection procedures, and
development of more foolproof emission con-
trol systems as a p rerequisite for Federal
certification.
9. The development and widespread testing
of an inexpensive and effective emission con-
trol system for installation on used cars should
be accelerated. Consideration should be given
to requiring its use on all automobiles or on
vehicles in areas with severe pollution problems.
10. The program for development of an un-
conventional vehicles propulsion system (e.g.,
steam, gas turbine, or hybrid) should be ac-
celerated to assure that the technology will be
available if conventional propulsion systems
are incapable of meeting increasingly stringent
Federal standards.
11. Increased research should be conducted
on the development of transportation systems
that not only move people and goods efficiently
but also help reduce both dependency on the
private car and, with it, air pollution. Al-
though the principal goal of mass transit is
more efficient transportation, it is also a
method to reduce air pollution. It deserves
more study as such. Also, more research is
necessary on the placement of roadways and
traffic flow patterns as a method of minimiz-
ing air pollution.
12. More research should be conducted on
the effects of air pollutants on man. More
knowledge is especially necessary about short-
and long-term health impacts of air pollutants.
The number of health effect studies should be
increased and a thorough evaluation made of
current epidemiological evidence.
13. Federal, State, and local monitoring pro-
grams must be improved considerably. There
is need to develop inexpensive automated
instruments to monitor air pollution. More
monitoring stations, especially in areas of rapid
population growth and industrialization, are
vital. And standard methods of measurement
need improvement.
14. Land use planning and control should
be used by State, local, and regional agencies
as a method of minimizing air pollution.
Large industries and power generating fa-
cilities should be located in places where their
adverse effect on the air is minimal. There ia
a need for State or regional agencies to re-
view proposed power plant sites to assure that
a number of environmental values, including
air pollution, are considered.
15. The United States should work toward
cooperative arrangements with other nations
in limiting total amounts of air pollutants
emitted into the atmosphere. Air pollution is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1533
no longer solely a local. State, regional, or even
national problem. It is ultimately an interna-
tional problem and must be so recognized. As
discussed in Chapter V, the addition of par-
ticulates and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
could have dramatic and long-term effects on
world climate. The United States should take
the initiative in forming cooperative arrange-
ments to control air pollutants that could
have widespread effects.
POTENTIAL FOR PROGRESS
During the last 15 years, much data on the
health dangers from air pollution have been
accumulated. During that time, progress in
improving air quality has not kept pace with
increased population and urbanization—except
in some cities where efficiency of combustion
and changes in fuel use have reduced soot.
The costs and institutional barriers to higher
air quality are not as massive as in water pol-
lution control. Abatement technology can be
installed rapidly when available. Clearly the
technological gaps in air pollution control
must be overcome, but once breakthroughs are
made, rapid progress will be possible.
The Council on Environmental Quality be-
lieves that a very high priority should be given
to air pollution control. The opportunities for
making significant improvements in the en-
vironment, at relatively low cost, are impres-
sive. Indeed, the benefits which can be derived
from greater control of air pollution far out-
weigh the costs of the control measures.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
distinguished Senator from Maine
(Mr. MUSKIE) has provided the Sen-
ate and the country with a concept
of the pending bill and its purposes—
an excellent and noble purpose, may
I say. We are indebted to him for his
initiative and leadership in the field
of pollution control over many years.
The distinguished Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), who has been
the ranking Republican member of
the Subcommittee on Pollution Con-
trol for a number of years, has ren-
dered yeoman service to the commit-
tee, to the Congress, and to the people
of this country. He deserves our
gratitude.
I join the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MTISKIE) in saying that the work on
this bill, which has characterized the
work on other pollution bills, has
been of the greatest interest and, I
may say, the most satisfactory in-
terest to all members of the commit-
tee. The very nature of the problem
itself demands long hours of labor
and the attention of each member of
the committee to the intricate and
delicate provisions involved in such a
problem. Its immensity drew from
every member his attention and his
devotion in order to try to find a
solution that would be fair and, more
than that, would also meet the neces-
sities of our time in the field of air
pollution.
Mr. President, I cannot pay too
great a tribute to the members of the
staff who worked day and night with
creativeness and industry to help
bring this bill before the Senate.
As the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. BAKER), one of the members
of the subcommittee, said, this bill
is far reaching and may be as pro-
found in its impact upon the social
and economic life of our Nation as
any that has been enacted into law
by this session of Congress.
I would go further and say that it
may have a larger impact upon the
social and economic life and health of
this Nation than any bill I have ob-
served during my service in the Sen-
ate.
To all members of the committee,
the majority and minority, Republi-
can and Democratic, my congratula-
tions. We worked together. We dis-
agreed. We worried about many pro-
visions of the bill. At last, however,
we joined unanimously in recommend-
ing and sponsoring this bill, believing
that our approach was one that could
make progress toward solution of the
problem of air pollution.
No, Mr. President, I have prepared
some remarks. I do not wish to take
much time, because some of my com-
ments emphasize points already made
by the Senator from Maine and the
Senator from Delaware, but in my
526-703 O - 73 - 24
-------
1534
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
remarks I attempt to provide the
general concept and plan of the bill
and its purpose. I hasten now with my
statement:
Mr. President, I would like to pre-
sent an outline of the general plan of
the air quality bill, which the com-
mittee developed after long and in-
tensive consideration and has now
presented to the Senate for approval.
The bill extends for 3 years the au-
[p. 32917]
thorizations of the Clean Air Act of
1967, for extension of that authority
is necessary this year, and it provides
greatly increased amounts to accom-
plish the work laid out by the bill.
It establishes a new framework for
action to achieve clean air, based in
large part on recommendations of the
administration and the President's
Council on Environmental Quality,
proposals which have been advanced
by Senator MUSKIE, and those de-
veloped by the committee as the result
of testimony received and through
consideration of the air pollution prob-
lems facing the country. I do say at
this point that many of these pro-
posals were similar, although there
were differences in specifics. This gen-
eral agreement in approach shows, I
think, that we have learned much
about air pollution and how to go
about this task. Alternative ways of
proceeding and a rational plan of
attack on the problems of air pollution
are now better known—as they were
not in earlier years.
The bill grants large powers to
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare which, it should be noted,
will be transferred to the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection
Agency under the President's reorga-
nization plan to consolidate air, water,
and land pollution research, standard
setting, and control and enforcement.
The bill in effect establishes a very
high national priority for the goal
of clean air. It will not succeed with-
out a massive effort, not only by the
Federal Government, the States, and
localities, but by industry and through
the willingness of citizens throughout
the country to make the sacrifices
necessary and to pay the price of
accomplishing the goals of clean air—
goals which the committee, the admin-
istration, and, I am sure, the Congress
believe the public urgently desires.
It is a far-reaching bill, as profound
in its impact on the social and eco-
nomic life of our Nation as any I
have seen during my service in the
Senate. I know from our discussions,
that all members of the committee are
keenly aware of the scope of the
challenge, of the complexities of the
problem, and of the sustained and
massive effort which the bill requires
•—in funding-, training of personnel,
research, private investment and en-
forcement. Adoption by the Senate of
the National Air Quality Act of 1970,
and we trust its enactment into law,
will be only the beginning—the step
which lays out the statutory plan.
Mr. President, I am glad to see
present in the Chamber the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. SPONG) , the Sena-
tor from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) —
who is now presiding—the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) ,
and the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE). That is an indication of
their deep interest that follows upon
the great work they have done in the
committee.
While the bill is far reaching, and
sets a high challenge, we believe it
necessary for life and for health, and
responsive to our duty in husbandry
to future generations.
I have emphasized at the outset my
appraisal, for I think it important
that the Congress and the country
recognize the size of the task—that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1535
they know the consequences of a
decision to secure clean air under an
accelerated schedule. Unless this pro-
gram is recognized and accepted for
what it is—if it is to be underfunded
or reduced in priority, or if the
national affection for the environment
now evident is fickle or inconstant—-
the bill ought not be enacted, for it
would be a shame and tragic to hold
out false hope. I make this point also
because the scope of action required
by the bill rests largely with local
decisions—often hard and costly
decisions.
This hill is certainly far more than
an exercise in the revised authority of
Federal agencies. Carrying out the
program envisioned by the bill will
require actions beyond the jurisdic-
tion and control of the Senate Com-
mittee on Public Works, or of any
branch of Government alone. We are
making our recommendation. We hope
we are correctly reflecting the desire
of the Congress and of the people of
our country.
This is the general plan of the bill:
First, immediately after enactment
of the bill—30 days—air quality stand-
ards will he issued and then within 90
days established—a national stand-
ard applicable to the entire country,
and at a level "protective of health."
It would be established for each of the
five major pollutants for which we
now have the most knowledge on
effects and about control technology,
already published—particulates, sul-
phur oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxidants
—and nitrogen oxides next to be
published—which account for 98 per-
cent by weight of all air pollution.
These ambient air quality stand-
ards would apply, as I have said, to
every part of the country, rather than
only to the air quality regions estab-
lished under the 1967 act, when we
sought to first concentrate on the
most critical areas, some 40 of which
have now been designated. For admin-
istrative purposes in developing con-
trol or implementation plans, the
Secretary would complete the designa-
tion of the important air quality
regions, and the States could divide
their remaining area into separate
regions if they wish.
Within 9 months after standards
are fixed, pollution sources must be
inventoried in the ent;re country, hear-
ings held, and a control plan must be
developed—including emission require-
ments for sources, and whatever land-
use, traffic or other controls may be
necessary. And these plans must
accomplish the air quality standards
within 3 years. It is at this point that
States and communities must make
economic decisions, and decisions on
the future growth of their areas and
the kind of life they want, in con-
sidering alternative means of achiev-
ing clean air.
National air quality goals, as distin-
guished from standards, goals pro-
tective of public welfare as well as
health and including visibility and
effects on the environment, would also
be established, but with flexibility
to the States in the time for their
achievement. Later, the Secretary
could add additional agents to those
in the ambient air for which national
standards would be set and imple-
mentation plans required. This is the
basic plan, building on the concept
of the 1967 act, laid out in sections
108 through 111.
Second, in section 113 the bill estab-
lishes the procedure to control emis-
sions from all new factories, including
the expansion of facilities, in in-
dustries designated by the Secretary.
These new source performance stand-
ards would require industry to apply
the latest available emission control
technology and processes wherever a
new plant is located—and that high
-------
1536
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
standard would apply even if the local
implementation plan alone could be
accomplished with some lesser degree
of control. The concept is that wher-
ever we can afford or require new
construction, we should expect to pay
the cost of using the best available
technology to prevent pollution. Like
national ambient air quality stand-
ards, the best control of new sources,
wherever located, is also a recom-
mendation of the President.
This provision requires that new
sources, that is, the industry plants, be
certified by the Secretary before they
can begin operation, to insure they
will meet the performance standards
—a degree of Federal control beyond
any I have supported in the past,
which we hope will not be abused, but
one we believe necessary as we begin
to deal with the air pollution as a
national problem.
Further, section 114 requires the
Secretary to set emission standards
for specific industrial pollutants—
applicable to old plants as well as
new. This procedure would apply to
the same industries designated for
new source standards of performance
in section 113.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD
at the conclusion of my remarks thesa
industries which it is expected could
be designated for control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
committee considers this approach in
section 114 much more manageable
than attempting to monitor in the
ambient air in every region the less
diverse and widespread agents, trace
them back to the source, and attempt
to enforce against violations of the
ambient air quality—as would have
been required under the 1967 act.
Taken together, the new source
standards of performance, and the
national emission standards for
selected agents from old as well as
new plants, moves a long way toward
national emission standards—a con-
cept rejected by the committee in 1967
as logical for moving sources but not
for stationary sources. I point out,
however, that the earlier concept of
national emission controls alone was
a simplistic and unsatisfactory ap-
proach, which not only raised great
problems of fairness and Federal
determination of local consequences
but also gave no assurance that it
would achieve quality of the air we
breathe.
The plan proposed in the bill de-
veloped by the committee combines air
quality standards, local implementa-
tion plans, and national emission
standards for new sources and for
specific agents.
[p.32918]
From old sources, in a way that we
believe will accomplish the purpose of
the country.
Once the national standards for air
quality are established, the next step
is for communities to determine how
they wish to meet that standard. They
will be assisted in drawing up their
implementation plans by the knowl-
edge of new plant performance, and of
emission control for industrial pollut-
ants, required by the Federal Govern-
ment. At this point of decision, com-
munities and States must also know
what level of emissions they can
expect from automobiles—and the
consequent degree of traffic control or
other steps which must be taken.
I must say that the most difficult
part of the bill—and one which earlier
had been squarely faced—is the rela-
tionship between moving and station-
ary sources. We have attempted to
bring about a relationship between
the two in this bill, and any member
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1537
of the committee can tell you that it
has not been easy. The central prob-
lem is that the automobile not only is
the source of at least 40 percent of the
pollution, but cars move about, and we
assume, therefore, must all achieve
the same standard. The amount of
pollution to be allowed from auto-
mobile traffic must really be decided
first—and then the remaining deci-
sions can be made, the remaining
pieces of the plan can be put into
place, to accomplish clean air.
The committee has set a stringent
standard and a high goal for the
reduction of automobile emissions—
by 90 percent of 1970 standards for
new cars, by the 1975 model year. I
am sure there will be debate on
whether that can be accomplished.
These standards also will be set by
law, and not be regulated by the Sec-
retary. I am frank to say I do not
know if these standards can be met by
1975. I do not know if the national
ambient air quality standards required
by the implementation plans, including
stationary source controls, can be ac-
complished in all places by 1975. How-
ever, as emphasized by the Senator
from Maine and the Senator from
Delaware, we have set these standards
because we believe that they can be
met. Second, we know if they are to be
met, the maximum effort must be
made by the automobile manufac-
turers, and by the owners of other
emission sources. We know that if
delay is permitted the number of cars
in use will increase, new plants will
be built, existing pollution will con-
tinue, and the possibility of clean air
will be set back, perhaps 5 years or
longer.
There will be debate on amend-
ments, and perhaps we will be able to
review provisions in the bill, not only
for automobile manufacturers, but
also for the owners of other facilities
with source emissions. For example,
in the committee I offered, for myself
and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BAKER) , a section which provides for
review by the Secretary with appeal
to the courts, permitting a special
extension of 1 year if certain strict
requirements cannot be met. The sec-
tion was adopted by the committee,
and is section 202 (b) (4).
I must say it is a very strict and
tightly drawn provision, but it does
assure the right that should be ac-
corded everyone, the right to due proc-
ess under the law.
Mr. President, in presenting this
general outline of the plan of attack
on air pollution provided by the bill, it
might as well be said that the philos-
ophy of the bill abandons the old
assumption of requiring the use of
only whatever technology is already
proven and at hand and of permitting
pollution to continue when it is not
economically feasible to control it. The
bill proceeds instead to set out what is
to be achieved, and places its reliance
on a great effort to develop technology,
to train and put to work the man-
power to accomplish that purpose, and
it assumes a readiness by industry
and the people or the country to pay
the costs of pollution control.
There are a great many other im-
portant provisions of the bill,
especially those dealing with much
more stringent and timely enforce-
ment. But I think that is the con-
ceptual framework, and I thought it
would be useful for me to give my
appraisal at this time, as the Senate
begins its debate and consideration of
the National Air Quality Standards
Act of 1970.
EXHIBIT 1
New stationary sources which the adminis-
tration has advised the committee to expect
would be subject to the provisions of this
section include:
Cement manufacturing;
Coal cleaning operations;
Coke byproduct manufacturing;
-------
1538
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Cotton ginning;
Ferroalloy plants;
Grain milling and handling operations;
Gray iron foundries;
Iron and steel operations;
Nitric acid manufacturing;
Nonferrous metallurgical operations (e.g.
aluminum reduction, copper lead, and zinc
smelting) ;
Petroleum refining;
Phosphate manufacturing;
Phosphoric acid manufacturing;
Pulp and paper mill operations;
Rendering plants (animal matter);
Sulfuric acid manufacturing;
Soap and detergent manufacturing;
Municipal incinerators; and
Steam electric powerplants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield briefly to the Senator from
Delaware.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that additional
staff members of the Committee on
Public Works be permitted on the
floor during consideration today and
tomorrow of amendments to the Clean
Air Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 4358) to
amend the Clean Air Act, and for
other purposes.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the
proposed National Air Quality Stand-
ards Act of 1970 is without question
the most significant and far-reaching
environmental protection bill ever to
be considered on the floor of the
Senate. For the first time, specific air
pollution compliance schedules would
be established by legislation—a pro-
\ision reflecting the committee's con-
cern over the direct adverse effect of
air pollution upon public health.
We have carefully preserved the
right of the public to participate in
the pollution abatement process. In
one significant respect, we have broad-
ened that right. We have written into
the bill a section authorizing citizens
to bring suits on their own behalf
to assure enforcement of standards,
emission requirements or implementa-
tion plans.
In an effort to prevent frivolous or
harassing litigation, we have provided
that before instituting suit a citizen
must give notice to Federal and State
authorities, and allow at least 30
days to permit them to initiate en-
forcement proceedings against the
alleged violator. There would be no
provision for delay following notice if
there is alleged violation of the certifi-
cation requirements under section 115,
or a court order. The court could allow
costs of litigation to either party
whenever it determines that such an
award was in the public interest.
It is not our intent to substitute
citizen suits for the enforcement
efforts of the responsible administra-
tive agencies. Rather, we intend the
provision to corrplement and en-
courage the abatement activities of
governmental agencies.
[p. 32919]
I am particularly pleased, Mr.
President, over those sections of the
bill dealing with pollution from Fed-
eral facilities and installations. Exist-
ing law contains only an expression of
intent that Federal departments and
agencies should, "to the extent prac-
ticable," cooperate with Federal and
State efforts for the prevention of
air pollution.
As is pointed out in the committee
report, Federal agencies have been
notoriously laggard in abating pollu-
tion. The pending bill would require
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1539
Federal agencies to provide leadership
for the control of air pollution. Only
the President could exempt a Federal
facility from the act, and then only
if he determined the exemption to be
in the paramount interest of the
United States. An exemption could
not be granted because of a lack of
an appropriation unless the President
requested an appropriation and the
Congress failed to approve such ap-
propriation. The President would be
required to report to Congress annually
the specific exceptions granted, to-
gether with an explanation of the
exceptions.
We cannot expect individuals and
businesses to be motivated to abate
pollution if their Government con-
tinues to pollute. I support whole-
heartedly the mandate for the Federal
Establishment to live up to the
national commitment for clean air.
The committee has changed the
thrust of existing law as it relates to
emissions from motor vehicles. In the
Air Quality Act of 1967, we required
the Secretary to set such standards
on the basis of economic and techno-
logical feasibility. Under the pending
bill, the Secretary would set stand-
ards on the basis of the degree of
control necessary to insure health-
related ambient air quality levels.
In view of evidence that emissions
of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and
nitrogen oxides now exceed safe health
levels in many major metropolitan
areas, the committee's decision is am-
ply justified. The overriding purpose
in the enactment of legislation of
this type should be the protection of
public health. The automobile is the
major moving source of pollution. Its
emissions are responsible for an esti-
mated 60 percent of the Nation's urban
air pollution problem. Moreover, the
rate of growth in motor vehicles is
twice that of our national population
increase. Our population growth is
about 6,000 per day, but motor vehicles
are increasing at the rate of 12,000
per day.
The bill would establish as 1975
standards the emission goals proposed
for 1980. Automobile manufacturers
have made it abundantly clear that
there are serious leadtime problems
involved, and that technology may not
be available to meet the 1975 stand-
ards. The committee weighed very
carefully that position against the
opinion that health requirements war-
rant an escalation in the 1980 goals.
In my view, the industry should be
required to exert every effort to meet
the standards set forth in the bill.
Recognizing that technology may not
be available to meet the standard, and
that the industry's leadtime require-
ments may pose problems, I concluded
that there should be a carefully drawn
mechanism in the bill which would
permit an extension of the standard.
Such a provision has been included.
It would permit the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, after
a hearing, to grant an extension of
1 year. That decision would be sub-
ject to judicial review. During the
committee's consideration of this prob-
lem it was suggested that Congress,
rather than the courts, should review
the Secretary's decision.
I concluded that jurisdiction should
be vested in the courts because they
are better equipped to obtain the in-
formation necessary on which to make
a judgment. In this particular situ-
ation, most of the information would
be in the hands of the automobile man-
ufacturers. The courts can obtain that
information through the discovery
process, and can compel the attend-
ance of witnesses. In any event, Con-
gress would set the standard by this
legislation, and of course Congress
could amend it at any time.
Mr. President, it has been a privi-
lege to participate in the development
-------
1540
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of this landmark bill. The Subcommit-
tee on Air and Water Pollution devot-
ed most of the summer to the measure,
and I hope it will be enacted. I wish
to thank our distinguished subcom-
mittee chairman, the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), for his leader-
ship during our deliberations. With-
out question, he is the most knowledge-
able Member of the Senate on the
subject of this bill. I also am indebted
to the distinguished chairman of the
full committee, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), for accom-
modating the members while they
worked their will on the legislation.
I also wish to acknowledge the
efforts and contributions of the Sena-
tor from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON),
and the minority members of the com-
mittee—particularly the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), and the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER).
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
wish to express my appreciation for
the statements made this afternoon
by the distinguished Senators from
Delaware, Kentucky, and Virginia.
Each of them has made a significant
contribution to the work on this bill,
the ideas contained in it, the shape it
now takes. I expressed my apprecia-
tion generally to the members of the
committee earlier. I would like to re-
inforce it in response to the excellent
statements made today.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), whose
work also has been indispensable.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I
thank our colleague from Maine. I
thank him for the opportunity to speak
'briefly in the nature of an opening
statement on an important piece of
legislation. It is important that the
Senate understand the potential im-
plications of this bill.
Although as a rule I try to avoid
hyperbole, I do not think it is ex-
aggeration to say I think this bill will
have a profound impact on the eco-
nomic and governmental character-
istics of the American Nation.
One of the most self-evident truths
about the environment is the fact that
the environment is a system, from
which no part can be truly and finally
separated. Thus, every act which im-
pinges on one part of the environ-
ment or the "ecosystem" has an im-
pact on other parts of the system.
The death of an insect has an impact
on the food chain; the detonation of
a nuclear device in the atmosphere
has a potential impact on the genetic
characteristics of unborn children.
It is not necessary that mankind
be paralyzed into inaction by the reali-
zation that his actions spread like
ripples on the surface of a pond. It is
also not necessary that man return
to the cave to protect his environment.
But it is necessary that we seek new
knowledge of how our actions do affect
our environment, that we rationally
choose ways to minimize or eliminate
effects that we do not want to occur,
and that we implement these methods
with a sense of urgency where the
effects are immediate.
Mr. President, the concept estab-
lished in this bill that the objective
of healthful air be attained within a
required period of time is not entirely
new and one that is entirely appro-
priate in pollution control. In the bill
it is proposed that the quality of air
necessary to protect the health of
persons in the United States in every
area of the United States must be
obtained within 3 years from this date
of promulgation or approval of an
implementation plan. It is proposed
that this is what the Congress would
determine to be the maximum time to
attain this quality of air and what the
American people have a right to ex-
pect.
It is important to note that in con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1541
sidering this bill we are considering
a basic change in the philosophy of
the Government of the United States
toward the pollution of the air en-
velope upon which we all depend.
When I first came to the Senate of
the United States, the first legislation
in this field had already been passed,
largely under the guidance and di-
rections of the subcommittee chair-
man, the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) .
At that time, in early 1967, the
junior Senator from Tennessee was
exposed to the intricacies and under-
lying rationale of the so-called am-
bient air theory; that is, that the
emphasis was going to be directed
toward accomplishing the improve-
ment of the particular quality of the
overall atmosphere.
I recall at that time that we also
considered as an alternative to the
ambient air approach the establish-
ment of uniform national standards
for all sources of emissions by class.
I remember at that time there was
considerable dialog among members of
the committee and witnesses on the
relative methods, the so-called dilution
theory and the pristine air theory.
The ambient air concept implies
that it is possible or desirable to ac-
cept a certain amount of pollution;
that it is not desirable to set uniform
standards for every source. It is im-
plicit in the stack standard or emis-
sion standard theory that we will not
permit a degree of pollution in the
atmosphere of those areas that have
relatively clean air, which is probably
the more idealistic and probably less
attainable objective.
At that time, in 1967, the policy of
ambient air quality was adopted and
became the law of the land. It has pro-
ceeded apace now for more than 5
years.
[p. 32920]
The uniqueness of this legislation
is that it proceeds to depart from the
ambient air theory with the require-
ment that, at least insofar as the
automobile is concerned, we are going
to establish by statute certain precise
emission levels that cannot be exceed-
ed by any automobile anywhere, which
brings us back to the original con-
cept of the alternative of the emis-
sion standard theory.
It is an important step, and I think
I would be less than candid with my
colleagues if I did not make the esti-
mate that, if the legislation is passed
—and I hope it is—it probably is the
forerunner of other efforts to estab-
lish particular standards for partic-
ular sources of pollution into the at-
mosphere. It most certainly is not
likely to be the last.
So if we establish these standards
for automobiles now, which is poten-
tially one of the most controversial
sections of the bill, I think we should
keep one eye cocked on the fact that
we are likely to pursue this theory
further rather than stop here.
I believe, on balance, that in the 4
years I have been in the Senate I
have seen few, if any, other pieces of
major legislation that have been as
thoroughly examined and as painful-
ly considered as the bill before us has.
I have seen the committee work to-
gether, and I have seen it work
against itself, so to speak, in trying
to arrive at a fair plan, under the
necessities and requirements of the
circumstances, for a workable solu-
tion of the problem. I have seen us
evolve this new theory and yet imbed
it into the original concept of the
quality of ambient air. I see in the bill
a melding together of the two con-
cepts and the beginning of some new
differences.
I do not suggest, as I never sug-
gested in committee, nor do I believe
any other member of the committee
-------
1542
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
suggested, that the bill is perfect, or
even that it is outstanding. It may
turn out to be very good. It may turn
out to be best of all, though, for be-
ginning something new.
There are certain provisions in it
that give me great pause. One is the
very nature of the requirement that
certain statutory standards be met by
the automobile industry by a specific
statutory date, with the provision for
only a limited escape hatch.
As the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) pointed out,
there was considerable discussion of
the various ways of relieving the
stresses of uncertainty; and the bill as
reported reflects a limited possibility
of relief based on judicial review with-
in narrow limits.
I am not certain this is the best
way or only way to do it—there are
other ways—but it seems to me it is
the best compromise under the circum-
stances. If we are to consider the pos-
sibility that the automobile industry
cannot in fact build production line
vehicles for sale to the general public
that meet these standards by the year
1975, and if we are to give credence
to the allegation that they do not now
have the technology in sight, then I
think it is incumbent on us to provide
a method of escape from the statutory
provision. We have attempted to do
that by judicial review.
It seems to me that judicial re-
view—calm, judicious determination,
that certain fact situations do or do
not exist which would form the basis
for relieving the automobile industry
from compliance with these sections
of the statute—is the best way to
isolate that determination from the
considerable political pressures which
would be brought to bear if we had
not then solved the problem of auto-
mobile pollution.
Other ways are suggested, one of
which is similar to the procedure fol-
lowed under the Reorganization Act
suggested by the distinguished junior
Senator from Kansas, or other meth-
ods of judicial review. The important
thing to me, though, is that the bill
as reported does provide an escape
hatch. It does provide a method of
coming to terms with the possibility
that we will not be able to meet the
standards set.
I frankly think we can. I frankly
think the automobile industry can
meet these standards. And the over-
riding consideration is that we must
do something to clean up atmospheric
pollution, and recognize the fact that
the automobile is a major contributor
to it.
Mr. President, another section that
concerns me has to do with the regu-
lation of vehicle fuels. The language
as finally reported by the committee
appears in section 8 beginning at page
74, line 12. A new section, 212, is
added to the Clean Air Act.
There has been a flurry of attention
recently in connection with the in-
troduction of low-lead automobile fuels
into the market. At least one major
metropolitan government has an-
nounced that its fleet vehicles will use
only gasoline with no lead additives.
Although it has been lead that has
received the greatest attention, there
are other additives used in fuels or
which might be used in fuels which
are potentially hazardous or unde-
sirable. The subcommittee received
testimony from witnesses to the effect
that the combustion of certain aro-
matics present in high-octane unleaded
fuels might be more hazardous to
health than the presence of lead itself
in emissions from vehicles burning
leaded gasolines. The subcommittee
also heard testimony from at least
one scientific witness to the effect that
more lead is introduced into the hu-
man system through the food chain
than through the inhalation of lead
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1543
particles present in the atmosphere.
There appears to be no unanimity
among competent persons about the
contribution of fuel additives to the
general pollution problem. But there
is no doubt that the combustion of
fuels in vehicles is a significant source
of air pollution.
It has seemed to me from the out-
set—and I have sought to have this
concept embodied in the committee
language—that in considering the
question of fuel composition one must
never lose sight of the fact that what
is of interest is not the composition of
the fuel per se but the emission of
the products of the combustion of a
given fuel into the atmosphere. This
may seem like a simplistic or truistic
point, but it is a central one. Put more
colloquially it says, "We are con-
cerned not with what goes into the
tank but with what comes out of the
tailpipe."
The committee bill provides that
any manufacturer of a vehicle fuel
must register that fuel with the Sec-
retary and disclose to the Secretary,
among other information, the com-
position of the fuel and the products
of the combustion of the fuel. The
Secretary is authorized to either con-
trol or prohibit the sale of any given
fuel when he finds one of two things:
First. That the combustion or
evaporation of such fuel produces
emissions that, in and of themselves,
endanger the public health or welfare;
or
Second. That such emissions pre-
vent the operation of a system that is
necessary to reduce automobile emis-
sions to the levels required by stand-
ards issued by the Secretary under
section 202 of the act.
The important thing to hear in
mind is that this section is not designed
to give to the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare the authority
to set about regulating the composition
of fuels. The composition of fuels in
the business of fuel manufacturers
and those who buy their products. The
business of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare is seeing to
it that the public health and welfare
of people is protected from the harm-
ful effects of air pollution. It is, for
example, entirely possible that an
economic manner can be found to meet
the section 202 standards that would
permit the continued use of lead ad-
ditives in gasoline. In such an event,
the Secretary would ban fuels con-
taining lead only if he found that the
fuel emission into the atmosphere of
the combustion products of a given
fuel containing lead additives was, in
and of itself, an endangerment of the
public health or welfare. An amend-
ment offered in committee by Senator
SPONG and now appearing as new
subsection 212(c) (3) at page 77, line
3, further provides that the Secretary
shall prohibit the use of any fuel until
he finds that such prohibition will not
result in the use of another fuel which
will provide emissions dangerous to
the public health or welfare in the
same or greater degree.
I simply reemphasize for the rec-
ord that what is intended is the reg-
ulation of fuels and not fuel additives
or fuel composition. And the fuel is
proposed to be regulated, not because
of what is in it or how it is made up
according to what formula or process,
but because of emissions into the at-
mosphere following the combustion of
the fuel.
I think it is urgently important,
Mr. President, that we keep in mind
that we are trying to regulate the
combustion byproducts of the fuel,
and not shift the burden of innova-
tion from the manufacturer of the
fuel to the Secretary.
Mr. President, I referred earlier to
section 202 as it relates to automobile
emissions. This section of the bill has
-------
1544
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
gained the greatest public attention.
It relates, of course, to emission stand-
ards for moving sources, and most
particularly subsection 202 (b), begin-
ning at page 46, line 21, which sets
very tough new emission
[p. 32921]
standards for passenger automobiles
which must be met no later than
January 1, 1975. It is well known to
the Senate and to the people generally
that the four principal manufacturers
of automobiles in the United States
have stated that they know of no way
in which the standards can be met.
It may prove to be true that the
standards cannot be met. The industry
does not know. The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare does
not know. Certain it is that the junior
Senator from Tennessee does not
know. But I do know that we need to
try, and to try hard. It is believed by
the committee that section 202 (b) pro-
vides an incentive for such an all-out
effort. It is, I think, the conviction of
the committee, generally, that without
such an incentive such an all-out
effort might not be made. This is not
meant to impute to the automobile
industry any lack of devotion to the
public welfare. It is meant only to
acknowledge a certain conviction on
the part of members of the com-
mittee, and particularly of the sub-
committee, nurtured from years of
contact with the problem and efforts
that have been made to deal with it,
that an ambitious goal encourages
and promotes a more satisfying result.
As I stated earlier, Mr. President,
such a requirement, I think, might
better not be built into the statute if it
were not for the fact that we also pro-
vide a realistic appraisal and review
of whether or not the industry is not
able to meet the requirements of the
statute. Of course, it is clear that
what Congress does today, Congress
can undo later, but I think that is a
fairly faulty way to approach a sub-
ject as important as this.
I think the bill does provide relief
in the form of judicial review under
section 202, and that there is a fair
opportunity for the industry to 'show
that, with good-faith effort, it was not
able to meet those standards, if that
turns out to be the case.
But I underscore my comments on
that particular subject by saying that
I personally have great faith that the
automobile industry, with the internal
combustion engine, if it chooses, can
meet these requirements, and that in
any event we must meet them, if we
are to protect the health and welfare
of this and future generations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
(Mr. SPONG assumed the chair as
Presiding Officer at this point.)
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President,
much has been said today, and will
be said, with respect to the origin
and background of the pending legis-
lation with respect to air pollution
and the establishment of national air
quality standards. All I wish to do,
Mr. President, is add a few brief
words echoing the sentiments as pre-
viously expressed, I think, by the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS), the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. BAKER), the Senator from Vir-
ginia (Mr. SPONG), and others in
paying tribute both to the chairman
of the subcommittee (Mr. MUSKIE)
and to his very able and hard-work-
ing staff, which assisted all of us in
the preparation of this measure.
No single piece of legislation, Mr.
President, has demanded more of my
personal attention in the past 6
months than the matter now before
the Senate. As the Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mr. BAKER) has pointed out,
this may not go down in history as
the most outstanding piece of legis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1545
lation ever enacted, but I think, to
use the Senator's words, in his judg-
ment it will be considered to be a very
good piece of legislation. And insofar
as that which can be devised by mortal
man—to wit, nonperfection—is con-
cerned. I guess the accolade of "good"
is about as safe a one and as appro-
priate a one as we can apply to the
legislative process.
Thus it was with great pleasure
that I joined as a cosponsor of this
measure, and I repeat that in signifi-
cant measure, the credit for this bill
emerging in its present form to the
floor of the Senate belongs to the
Senator from Maine and, in no small
measure, to his very able and per-
severing staff, who spent many, many
hours during the nitty-gritty and un-
heroic work of assisting us in getting
it into final legislative form.
I think that at the very outset, as
Senator BAKER pointed out, it will be
considered a very good, very mean-
ingful, and very worthwhile piece of
legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
should like to say a word about mem-
bers of the committee I regard as
counsel to the committee.
Senator BAKER, Senator EAGLETON,
and of course the distinguished Sena-
tor from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) have
been of great value to me, as well as
to the rest of the committee, I think,
in picking up the legal challenges that
are obviously involved in the bill. I
think that by their disagreements with
each other as much as by their agree-
ments, they were able to focus our at-
tention on important points that might
otherwise have been neglected. I
should like to express my apprecia-
tion. Senator BAKER this afternoon has
particularly given us an example of
the kind of thoughtfulness that he has
addressed to this bill in that respect.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator
from Kansas. I should like to express
my appreciation to him, as a member
of the committee, for the work he has
given to this bill. Especially I am
interested in paying tribute to an
amendment he will call up later in the
course of this debate which I think
is an ingenious answer to the trouble-
some problem of reviewing a policy
which the bill incorporates.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, President Nixon, in
the first Presidential message to Con-
gress on the environment, proposed
far-reaching legislative and admin-
istrative initiatives to restore and pre-
serve our precious natural resources.
The President pointed out that we
have "too casually and too long abused
our national environment." He empha-
sized that "the time has come when
we can wait no longer to repair the
damages already done, and to estab-
lish new criteria to guide us in the
future."
In his recent message "A Call for
Cooperation" President Nixon declared
that "reform" would be the watch-
word of his administration—reform
of our institutions and creation of the
conditions we will live with in the
future. The President described our
choice very clearly:
We can choose to debase the physical en-
vironment in which we live and with it the
human society that depends on that environ-
ment, or we can choose to come to terms with
nature, to make amends for the past, and build
the basis for a balanced and responsible future.
A major portion of the 37-point
program proposed by the President
was devoted to air pollution. We have
become increasingly aware that the
air around us is our most valuable
resource and one which we must act
now to preserve. Carbon monoxide,
one of the major pollutants, is reach-
ing unhealthy levels regularly in
major metropolitan areas. Other con-
taminants entering our air cause mil-
lions of dollars in property damage
and destroy plant and animal life.
-------
1546
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The bill reported from committee is
in response to this challenge and is
the result of many hours of bipartisan
efforts by committee members, staff
members, and the executive branch.
It contains elements of legislation in-
troduced by Senator MUSKIE, chair-
man of the subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, as well as significant
aspects of legislation introduced by
Senator SCOTT, minority leader, on be-
half of the administration.
Specifically, the following Presi-
dential administrative and legislative
recommendations for control of air
pollution are contained in the bill:
1. More stringent motor vehicle emission
standards.
2. More effective procedures for insuring
that motor vehicles meet the low pollution
standards.
3. Authority to regulate fuels and fuel addi-
tives.
4. Financial support for research and devel-
opment of unconventional pollution-free power
somce^.
5. National ambient air quality standards,
with the States required to prepare imple-
mentation plans for meeting these standards.
6. Accelerated designation of interstate air
quality control regions.
7. Establishment of national emission stand-
ards for pollutants which are extremely haz-
ardous to health and for new facilities which
could be major contributors to air pollution.
8. Extension of Federal authority to seek
court actions against both interstate and intra-
state air pollution.
9. Court authority to impose increased fines
for violation of emission requirements.
My State of Kansas is fortunate
that it does not face so many of the
severe problems of air pollution con-
fronting more intensively industrial-
ized States. Passage of this bill will
assist in remedying the problems
which do exist and insure the preser-
vation of the high-quality of air Kan-
sas presently enjoys. Specific pollut-
ants present in the Kansas City air
quality control region will be subject
to action by both Kansas and Mis-
souri within 3 years.
Under this bill, we can continue to
encourage the location of new in-
dustry in Kansas and other rural
unspoiled regions without fear of
polluting the high quality of air found
there. At the same time, national
standards for new stationary sources
will not place some States at a com-
parative disadvantage affecting in-
dustry decisions on plant locations.
Kansas State officials responsible
for
[p. 32922]
administering air pollution laws have
expressed a hope that with the in-
creased responsibilities mandated by
this bill will come an increase in the
Federal funding necessary to hire ad-
ditional technical personnel. I want to
specifically urge the Congress to ap-
propriate sufficient funds to meet
this need, and urge officials responsi-
bile on the Federal level to work
closely with the States in fulfilling
their new responsibilities.
While I am in substantial agree-
ment with the bill as reported, I feel
there are certain provisions which
could be improved. We have established
the 1975 model year as the deadline
for achieving a 90-percent reduction
in automobile emissions from specified
1970 levels. The committee, recogniz-
ing that there might not be sufficient
time for the industry to meet this
standard, provided for a 1-year ex-
tension of the deadline by the Secre-
tary, subject to judicial review. How-
ever, I believe a combination of admin-
istrative and congressional action
would be more consistent with the in-
tent of Congress. I have submitted an
amendment in the form of a substitute
for Section 202(b) (4) to provide au-
tomobile manufacturers an opportuni-
ty to petition the Secretary for a 1-
year extension of the 1975 deadline. If
the Secretary who possesses the ex-
pertise and factfinding authority, finds
the extension to be in the public in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1547
terest, and also finds that all possible
good faith efforts to meet the standard
have been made, and the technology is
not available, he must recommend to
Congress a 1-year extension, with a
complete record of information avail-
able to it, will then be in position to
determine if the Secretary's policy
judgment in establishing the 1975
deadline, and it is only logical that
Congress should have the authority to
review that policy decision on the
basis of social, health, and economic
considerations, which might become
apparent as that deadline approaches.
By the terms of the amendment,
Congress would be given the fi nal
opportunity to act, thus placing the
responsibility where it should be. The
procedure is similar to that employed
in the executive reorganization acts
and would be more expeditious than
depending- on court action with the
potential for delay incumbent in that
process.
Adoption of this amendment will
provide a responsible answer to a
difficult problem, one that I know con-
cerns every member of the committee
greatly. If Congress, in a declaration
of national policy, establishes strin-
gent emission requirements for the
automobile industry, it should assure
congressional review of that policy
judgment in the event that compliance
with those standards is not possible.
I urge my colleagues to support this
bill and my proposed amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 928
I submit the amendment and ask
unanimous consent that it may be
printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and print-
ed, and will lie on the table; and,
without objection, the amendment will
be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be print-
ed in the RECORD, is as follows:
On page 48, beginning with line 11, strike
out all through line 6 on page 52, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(4) (A) Within 24 months but no later
than 12 months before the effective date of
standards established pursuant to this sub-
section any manufacturer or manufacturers
may file with the Secretary an application for
a public heaping on the question of a suspen-
sion of the effective date of such standards for
one year. Upon receipt of such application, the
Secretary shall promptly hold a hearing to
enable such manufacturer or manufacturers
and any other interested person to present in-
formation relevant to implementation of the
standards.
"(B) In connection with any hearing under
this subsection, the Secretary may sign and
issue subpoenas for the attendance and testi-
mony of witnesses and the production of rele-
vant papers, books, and documents, and ad-
minister oaths. 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 refusal to obey a
subpoena served upon any person under this
subparagraph, hte district court of the United
States for any district in which such is found
or resides or transacts business, upon notice
to such person to appear and give testimony
before the Secretary or to appear and produce
documents before the Secretary, or both, and
and- failure to obey such order of the court
may be punished by such court as a contempt
thereof.
"(C) Within 6 months after such receipt of
the application for suspension, the Secretary
shall, if he finds upon a prepondence of
evidence adduced at such hearing that a sus-
pension is essential to the public interest and
the general warfare of the United States, that
all possible and good faith efforts have been
made to meet the standards established by this
subsection, and- that effective control technol-
ogy, processes, operating methods or other
alternatives are not available or have not been
available for sufficient period to achieve com-
pliance prior to the effective date of such
standards even with the full application of
section 309 of this Act, recommend to Con-
gress that (i) the effective date of such stand-
ard be suspended for a period of only one year,
and (ii) the emission standard that should be
applied during any such suspension which
standard shall reflect the greatest degree of
emission control possible through the use of
technology available.
"(D) The findings and recommendations re-
quired by this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review. Such recommendations shall
be effective as law at the end of the first period
-------
1548
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of 60 calendar days of continuous session of
Congress after the date on which the recom-
mendation is transmitted to it unless, between
the date of transmittal and the end of the 60-
day period, either House passes a resolution
stating in substance that the House does not
favor such recommendation.
"(E) For the purpose of this paragraph—
"(i) continuity of session is broken only by
an adjournment of Congress sine die; and
"(ii) the days on which either House is not
in session because of an adjournment of more
than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in
the computation of the 60-day period.
"(F) Nothing in this paragraph shall ex-
tend the effective date of any emission stand-
ard established pursuant to this subsection for
more than one year,
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
know there is wide interest in the
emission standards for automobiles
required by the bill developed by the
committee. During consideration in
subcommittee and the full committee,
we referred to a summary table of
automobile emissions, which contains
the figures in grams per mile com-
paring uncontrolled emissions, the
1970 standard, the proposed 1975
standard under present law, the 1980
goal put forward by the administra-
tion, and the level proposed in the
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the
table be printed in the RECORD for the
information of Members, because I
am sure that these facts will be re-
ferred to during the debate.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
AUTO EMISSIONS
[All figures in grams per mile]
Hydrocarbons,
new test
Uncontrolled . .. 14.6
1970 standard . 2.9
Proposed 1975 standard .5
Proposed 1980 standard . _. .25
Bill language (90 percent reduction of 1970 or uncontrolled). .29
Carbon
monoxide,
new test
116.3
37.0
11.0
4.7
3.7
Nitric oxides,
old test
4.0
.9
.4
.4
Particulate,
matter
old test
0.4
.1
.03
.04
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, at
the outset of my remarks, I want to
testify and bear witness to the great
interest this Senator has had in meas-
ures dealing with pollution and with
antipollution measures. This Senator
has cosponsored the administration
bill, which was introduced by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. SCOTT).
I have subscribed to the very com-
prehensive program which the Presi-
dent has announced and which he is
urging with such commendable loyal-
ty and aggressiveness. After all, this
is one of the leading issues, if not
the leading issue, of the day. The need
is urgent; it is vital. It is vital and
urgent not only for proper living and
for health and for safety to the mil-
lions of people in America, but also
in terms of survival on a longer pull.
This bill and the subject with which
it deals is monumental, and I com-
mend the committee for it. It is a
pioneering effort, and I subscribe to
the words of the Senator from Ten-
nessee that many of its provisions are
the result of painstaking effort as
well.
Our task in this field is a great one,
as we all know. It is not only to over-
come the backlog of 100 years of neg-
lect in this field. During that time this
Nation has become an industrial Na-
tion. We have profligate with our re-
sources. We have not been sufficiently
concerned with the abuses we have
committed upon our air, our soil, and
our water.
[p. 32923]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1549
Again I say that I commend the
committee for the effort it has made in
this bill, which contains almost 100
printed pages.
However, one thing distresses this
Senator very much. Notwithstanding
the importance of this bill and its
monumental character, it was not un-
til Friday, when Thursday's RECORD
became available, that the text of this
bill became available even to Members
of the Senate.
It was not until this morning that
copies of the report on this bill were
available so that we could get a feel-
ing for the rationale and the fashion
in which it is to be implemented and
its provisions enforced.
It has been only since last Friday
that the Office of Budget and Man-
agement got the bill so that it could
study it and give its opinion to the
Members of Congress.
Just this morning, the Department
of Justice got it for the purpose of
giving its legal opinion to the Office of
Budget and Management. That does
not comport with the general idea of
legislating carefully and properly in
a field which is so important.
There is a provision in the bill an-
alogous to S. 3201, which is known as
the consumers class action bill. This
is a highly technical and vital field
since it directly affects the function-
ing of our court system.
Our courts are hard pressed these
days, it took us 5 years to get to the
authorized strength of 401 judges in
our judicial system. It will take per-
haps another year to get the full ben-
efit of the program because of delays
In getting the appointments, getting
the judges qualified, and getting them
ready to begin their duties.
From time to time we have had
discussions about the situation that
exists in the court system. One of the
most dramatic presentations was made
by Chief Justice Burger during the
sessions of the American Bar Associa-
tion in St. Louis, Mo., in August of
this year—about 6 weeks ago—when
he called attention to the plight of the
judicial system and the heavy load
and backlog, and the many antiquated
procedures and practices which still
prevail in the judicial system. Then he
went on to say this:
Meanwhile, not a week passes without
speeches in Congress and elsewhere, and edi-
torials, demanding new laws, new laws to
control pollution, new laws to change the
evironment, new laws to allow class actions
by consumers to protect the public; but the
difficulty lies in our tendency to meet new
and legitimate demands for new laws but
without adequate considerations for the con-
sequences on the courts.
That defect is reflected in this bill.
Again, let me say—and I propose to
repeat this proposition another time,
or perhaps two or three times—that I
am entirely in sympathy with the ob-
jectives of the bill. I realize the im-
portant and the vital part it will play
in the health, welfare, safety, and
survival of the citizens of the Nation,
born and unborn. I appreciate all
those things. But we should also fix
in our minds, when we expect to place
a bigger burden on the judiciary sys-
tem, that we have to accommodate that
added burden in one of two ways.
One is to enlarge the court system,
enlarge its capacity to handle an add-
ed load, or, alternatively, to adjust
the priorities of our judicial system.
Shall we burden the court system
with the large number of lawsuits I
anticipate will result from section 304
at the expense of trying criminal
cases?
Shall --ve do it at the expense of
added delay in trying very important
cases in antitrust and civil cases of
all kinds. They cannot, of course, all
be tried at once.
As we proceed with this important
legislation, we must take into con-
sideration the burden that will be
526-703 O - 73 - 25
-------
1550
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
placed on the court system by section
304.
Let me invite attention to the fact
that in S. 3201, the so-called consum-
ers class action bill, there is an elabo-
rate and far-reaching provision for
bringing class actions. Many of the
restraints which are normally put
upon Federal court jurisdiction are
removed. Serious questions are there-
fore raised as to whether real relief
or redress for the individual results,
or the cause of combating unfair trade
practices is advanced.
There is very important testimony
in the record before the Judiciary
Committee that says there will actual-
ly be a penalty, what we call a whip-
lash to the consumers. Instead of
advancing the cause of combating un-
fair trade practices and affording re-
lief and redress to the individuals
involved, the opposite will be true.
The consumers class action bill was
referred to the Judiciary Committee,
not for the purpose of obstruction,
not for the purpose of defeating or
postponing action on the bill, but for
the purpose of insuring that the bill
will truly serve the purposes intended.
Hearings were extended, but we
heard the last witnesses today. We
hope to have reported by the Judiciary
Committee very soon the results of our
inquiry into the subject. We hope to
improve the bill so that the provisions
of the Consumers Unfair Trade Prac-
tices Act can be carried out in an
effective way without menacing the
functioning of the court system. We
want to give the court system a
chance to work with some respect for
national setting of priorities, consider-
ing the tremendous backlog of cases
in the courts.
Mr. President, during the hearings,
we heard testimony from Judge Rif-
kind. His testimony included statistics
on court congestion. I have excerpted
that material from his testimony and
ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the RECORD. It gives a very
good idea of the problem which we al-
ready have, without even considering
the load proposed as an additional
burden upon the courts by section
304 of this bill.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
APPENDIX
STATISTICS ON COURT CONGESTION
From the Fiscal Year 1969 Annual Report
of the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, the following
information has been obtained:
COURT OF APPEALS
In fiscal year 1969, there were 10,248 ap-
peals commenced—a record number, amount-
ing to a 12.4% increase over the previous
year. At the end of fiscal 1969, there were
7,849 cases pending in the Court of Appeals,
an all time high. In 1967 there were 90 ap-
peals docketed per judgeship on a national
average, and in 1969, the figure was 106 per
judgeship. The heaviest increase in appeals,
according to type of case, was in habeas cor-
pus by Federal prisoners (up 55% over pre-
vious year); appeals from denial of motions
to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2265 (up
29%); and Civil Rights appeals (up 46%).
DISTRICT COURTS
In an attachment to the Annual Report it
is stated that: "The United States District
Courts during 1969 experienced the largest
increase in case filings (exclusive of bank-
ruptcy) in recent years." (p. 115). During
1969, there were 110,778 civil and criminal
cases filed in the district courts, an in-
crease of 8.4% over the previous year, and
at the end of the year there were 104,091
cases pending. This is the highest pending
case figure in the district courts on record.
This increase case load caused the median
time to reach trial in civil cases to increase
from 12 months in 1968 to 13 months in
1969.
On the civil side, a great portion of the
increase was attributable to civil actions
brought under special statutes. These types
of cases increased by 17.3% during the year.
For example, over the one-year period suits
under Narcotic Rehabilitation Act (Pub. Law
89-793, Nov. 8, 1966) increased by 419.6%:
Civil Rights suits by 51.6%: Federal pris-
oner petitions, by 26.7%; state prisoner pe-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1551
tiona 12.2%. Security suits, by 15.5%; and
Social Security cases by 32.3%. At the end
of 1969, there were 83,957 civil actions pend-
ing, and of these 9.8% have been pending for
more than 3 years. And, according to the re-
port, "Since 1963, 3-year-old pending civil
actions have increased steadily." (p. 124).
There were 33,586 criminal cases filed in
the district courts during 1969, an increase
of 9.3% over 1968. This increase was largely
attributable to increase in certain types of
cases: Selective Service cases, up 81%; Im-
migration cases, up 57%; and Narcotics cases,
up 21%. In the attachment to the Director's
Annual Report, it was stated:
"Thus overall, both the Courts of Appeals
and the district courts experienced an across-
the-board increase in judicial business in 1969
of approximately 10%. In spite of an increased
output of terminated cases, the arrearages on
the dockets of the courts of appeals increased
19% and the arrearages on the dockets of the
district courts increased 7%." (p. 103) . . .
"The weighted caseload per judgeship in
the United States district courts increased to
289 in 1969 compared with 265 in 1968 and
252 in 1967. The increase this year reflects
primarily the 10 percent increase in the fil-
ing of civil and criminal cases. But it also
reflects the changing character of the litiga-
tion. The increase in the filing of the more
time-consuming cases was greater than aver-
age in 1969. In the last 2 years the weighted
caseload per judgeship has increased almost
15 percent from 252 to 289. Approximately 47
additional district judgeships would be re-
quired to reduce the 1969 weighted caseload
per judgeship to what it was in 1967." (p.
132)
FIRST 9 MONTHS OF FISCAL YEAR 1970
The latest figures available from the Direc-
tor, Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, cover the first nine months of FY
1970 (period ending March 31, 1970), and re-
veal that the burden of the federal courts has
steadily increased.
Appeals docketed during the third quarter,
FY 1970 reached 2,990, an increase of 18.6%
over the same period of the previous year.
Projecting these statistics to the end of
fiscal year, the Directors' Report concludes
that there will be 10,806 appeals docketed
during FY 1970 and that on June 30, 1970,
there will be 9,136 appeals pending, an in-
crease of 16.4% over the previous year.
[p. 32924]
DISTRICT COURTS
In the third Quarter of FY 1970, 21,280 civil
cases were filed in the district courts, an
increase of 12.3% of the same period of the
previous year. On March 31, 1970. there were
91,308 civil cases pending in the district
courts, an increase of 7.5% over the previous
year. On March 31, 1970, for each of the 840
judgeships, there were 269 civil cases pending
in the United States district courts.
On the criminal side of the docket, the in-
crease in the court backlog was more acute.
In the first nine months of fiscal 1970, there
were 29,469 criminal cases filed, an increase
of 16.1% over the previous year. On March 31,
1970, there were 21,449 criminal cases pend-
ing, an increase of 22.3% over the previous
year.
In Bankruptcy cases, the trend towards de-
creased filings has reversed itself. In the
first nine months of FY 1970, there was an
increase of 3.1% in the cases filed, the cases
terminated during that period decreased by
6.8%, resulting in an all time record of 187.-
637 cases pending on March 31, 1970.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, sec-
tion 304(a)(l) provides that a law-
suit "may be brought by one or more
persons on their own behalf. (A)
Against any person, including, but
not limited to, a governmental in-
strumentality or agency, where there
is alleged a violation by such person
of any such schedule, timetable, emis-
sion standard, or prohibition, or (B)
against the Secretary where there is
alleged a failure of the Secretary ta
exercise (i) his authority to enforce
standards or orders estabished under
this act; and (ii) any duty established
by this act."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that for continuity of the dis-
cussion in which I am engaged the
complete text of section 304 be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sec-
tion 304 was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
CITIZEN SUITS
"SEC. 304. (a) (1) In furtherance of th«
purpose of this Act to protect the public
health and welfare and control air pollution.
the district courts of the United States shall
have original jurisdiction, regardless of the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of
the parties, to enforce, or to require the en-
forcement of, any applicable schedule or time-
table of compliance, emission requirement.
-------
1552
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
standard of performance, emission standard,
or prohibition established pursuant to this Act.
Civil actions for such enforcement, or to re-
quire such enforcement, may be brought by one
or more persons on their own behalf. (A)
against any person including, but not limited
to, a governmental instrumentality or agency,
where there is alleged a violation by such per-
son of any such schedule, timetable, emission
requirement, standard of performance, emission
standard, or prohibition, or (B) against the
Secretary where there is alleged a failure of
the Secretary to exercise (i) his authority to
enforce standards or orders established under
this Act; or (ii) any duty established by this
Act.
"(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the
right of such persons as a class or as individu-
als under any other law to seek enforcement
of such standards or any other relief.
"(3) Prior to instituting any suit, under
this subsection, such person or persons shall,
by certified or registered mail or personal serv-
ice, notify (A) the Secretary, (B) an author-
ized representative of the Secretary, if any, in
the field office responsible for the area in
which the alleged violation occurs, (C) an
authorized representative of the air pollution
control agency of the State in which the al-
leged violation occurs, and (D) the person, or
persons alleged to be in violation of such alleged
violation. Such notice shall be in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
as to content and specificity. No such suit shall
be filed unless such person or persons shall
have afforded the Secretary, his representative,
or such agency, at least thirty days from the
receipt of such notice to institute enforce-
ment proceedings under this Act to abate such
alleged violation; except any action under this
section to abate a violation of (i) an order is-
sued by the Secretary pursuant to section 116,
(ii) clause (A) or (B) of section 113(h)(l),
(iii) section 114(f) (1), or (iv) section 115,
may be undertaken, after notice, without re-
gard to the time limitations of this subsection.
In any such action, the Secretary, if not a
party, may intervene as a matter of right.
"(b) The courf, in issuing any order in any
action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section, may award costs of litigation,
including reasonable attorney and expert wit-
ness fees, whenever the court determines such
action is in the public interest.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, it is
not my purpose to get into any posi-
tion that would be obstructive. Frank-
ly, inasmuch as this matter came to
my attention for the first time not
more than 6 hours ago, it is a little
difficult to order one's thoughts and
to decide the best course of action to
follow.
Had there been timely notice that
this section was in the bill, perhaps
some Senators would have asked that
the bill be referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary for consideration of
the implications for our judicial
system. As was the case in the con-
sumers class action bill, this section
deals with an area of governmental
function which is under the juris-
diction of that committee.
I am aware of the situation which
confronts us. We want to go home to
campaign. We want to get out of the
Senate and either adjourn sine die be-
fore the election or return after the
election. I understand the emotional
appeal of the bill. I know of its in-
tent. I know all these things are true.
But if in the process of taking action
which might be ill advised and would
result in some of the backlash, as we
might call it, that was foretold and
forecast for us in the case of S. 3201,
I wonder if it would not be better to
make haste slowly.
What is the matter with that sec-
tion? I have here a memorandum that
was handed to me by a member of my
staff. It outlines some of the basic
objections that lie as objections to sec-
tion 304.
The memorandum starts out this
way:
S. 4358—THE CLEAN Am ACT
SECTION 304, CITIZENS SUITS
A. The profotal it unprecedented in Ameri-
can history.
1. The proposal is predicated on the errone-
ous assumption that officials of the Execu-
tive Branch of the United States Government
will not perform and carry out their respon-
sibilities and duties under the Clean Air Act.
Never before in the history of the United
States has the Congress proceeded on the
assumption that the Executive Branch will
not carry out the Congressional mandate,
hence, private citizens shall be given specific
statutory authority to compel such officials
to do so.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1553
2. The Hearings of the Public Works Com-
mittee do not provide either a factual or legal
basis which would justify the adoption of this
far-reaching and novel procedure wherein
private citizens may challenge virtually every
decision made by the officials of the Executive
Branch in the carrying out of the numerous
complex duties and responsibilities imposed by
the Clean Air Act.
Mr. President, that involves not
only every decision but also every lack
of a decision, which the Secretary may
engage in for the purpose of imple-
menting this act.
The memorandum further states:
B. The adoption of Section S04 will result
in a multiplicity of suits which will interfere
with the Executive's capability of carrying out
its duties and responsibilities.
1. The Clean Air Act provides the regulatory
agencies with ample powers to formulate stand-
ards and to secure effective enforcement of
the regulations. There is no need to delegate
enforcement powers, direct or indirect, to
private citizens.
2. Section 304 is an open invitation to the
institution of Citizens Suits—encouraged by
the awarding of litigation expense "includ-
ing reasonable attorney and expert witness
fees . . ." (Section 304(b)). This award may
be granted even in a case where the actions
"result in successful abatement but do not
reach a verdict" (Report p. 38). A multiplic-
ity of actions are sure to follow the enact-
ment of Section 304 regardless of how well
the regulatory agencies perform their duties
and responsibilities.
Mr. President, I might add that the
agency might not be at fault if it does
not act as promptly or does not en-
force the act as comprehensively and
as thoroughly as it would like to do.
Some of its capabilities depend on the
wisdom of the appropriations process
of this Congress.
It would not be the first time that a
regulatory act would not have been
provided with sufficient funds and
manpower to get the job done.
I need refer only to the very recent,
classic example brought up in the
case of the class action Packer Stock-
yard Act of 1940, where for decades
the provisions of the act were not
capable of enforcement, Congress—
whether deliberately or not—contin-
ually and repeatedly refused to pro-
vide the funds and manpower neces-
sary to enforce the provisions of that
act.
Notwithstanding the lack of capa-
bility to enforce this act, suit after
suit after suit could be brought. The
functioning of the department could
be interfered with, and its time and
resources frittered away by respond-
ing to these lawsuits. The limited re-
sources we can afford will be needed
for the actual implementation of the
act.
I continue to read from the memo-
randum :
3. A multiplicity of suits decided by the
several courts will lead to a spate of con-
flicting decisions.
4. The public interest is not served by sub-
jecting officials of the Executive Branch to
harassing litigation. How can they perform
the complex administrative and enforcement
functions required under the Clean Air Act
while simultaneously participating as defen-
dants and/or witnesses in litigation? Instead
of forcing such officials to act more effectively
the institution of the Citizens Suits will more
likely lead to paralysis within the regulatory
agency.
Mr. President, I would like to dwell
on this point. That is the backlash to
which
[p. 32925]
we might be invited by reason of
section 304.
I continue to read from the memo-
randum :
C. The enactment of Section SO& would im-
pose an impossible burden on the already
burdened judicial system.
1. Chief Justice Burger's recent ABA speech
and the current hearings of the Judiciary
Committee on S. 3201 have clearly demon-
strated that the federal judicial system is
presently faced with a ever-increasing work
load of such a magnitude that Congress should
not now extend the courts jurisdiction by the
passage of new legislation.
2. Citizens Suits would be particularly bur-
densome upon the courts as they involve com-
plex factual and legal issues in a new field of
-------
1554
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
law, one in which the courts have thus far
had only limited experience.
3. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary
has jurisdiction over, among other things,
"(1) Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal,
generally. . . . (3) Federal court and judges.
. . ." The Senate should suspend consideration
of Section 304 pending a study by the Judiciary
Committee of the section's probable impact on
the integrity of the judicial system and the
advisability of now opening the doors of the
courts to enumerable Citizens Suits against
officials charged with the duty of carrying out
the Clean Air Act.
Mr. President, it is my hope that
some consideration could be given to
the withholding of this section so that
it can be considered more thoroughly.
It is very doubtful that it would be
needed at the outset, before regula-
tions had been completed and deter-
minations made. It is doubtful that
this provision is so necessary that we
could not go forward with the body of
the law without it.
It is my thought that this can be
done without jeopardizing the ad-
ministration of justice and that it can
be done without imposing such a bur-
den on the judicial court system. It
already takes as long as 3 or 4 years
to get to trial. How many more yeais
will we add to this delay if we author-
ize legislation in section 304?
I recall again the language of the
Chief Justice in St. Louis when he ex-
plained the load under which the
courts are operating:
Editorials demand new laws to control pollu-
tion and change the environment, new laws
allowing class actions by consumers to protect
the public. The difficulty lies in our tendency
to meet new and legitimate demands with new
law but without consideration for the con-
sequences on the courts.
He might add, the consequences to
society of the inability of the courts
to attend to the trial of civil cases.
Again, and for the third or fourth
time, I want to say I am very con-
cerned with problems of pollution, and
with all the measures for this purpose
that will be considered by this Con-
gress. My record on that is clear. I
cosponsored the administration bill;
subscribe to the President's compre-
hensive plan and program in this
field; I am personally convinced of the
need.
At the same time, I want the REC-
ORD clear that this Senator would very
much regret the enactment into law
of a section which would have an
opposite effect to that which was in-
tended instead of making progress, it
would retard progress, taxing the
time, resources, and manpower of the
agency.
It is in that spirit that I engage in
these remarks. I would like to extend
such cooperation as this Senator can
in his position on the Committee on
the Judiciary or otherwise to get that
kind of result and that kind of suc-
cess.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
think it might be helpful to Senators
reading the RECORD tomorrow to make
some observations with respect to sec-
tion 304, the citizen suits provision,
which the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska discussed earlier this after-
noon. So I ask unanimous consent that
the section of the report beginning on
page 36 and ending at the top of
page 39, which covers the subject of
section 304, be printed in the RECORD,
at this point.
There being no objection, the ex-
tract was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SECTION 304. CITIZEN SUITS
The Committee has established a provision
in the bill that would provide citizen partici-
pation in the enforcement of standards and
regulations established under this Act. The
provision in the proposed bill is carefully re-
stricted to actions where violations of standards
and regulations or a failure on the part of
officials to act are alleged.
Section 304 would not substitute a "com-
mon law" or court-developed definition of air
quality. An alleged violation of an emission
control standard, emission requirement, or a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1555
prbvision in an implementation plan, would not
require reanalysis of technological or other
considerations at the enforcement stage. These
matters would have been settled in the adminis-
trative procedure leading to an implementation
plan or emission control provision. Therefore,
an objective evidentiary standard would have
to be met by the citizen who brings an action
under this section.
Government initiative in seeking enforce-
ment under the Clean Air Act has been re-
strained. Authorizing citizens to bring suits
for violations of standards should motivate
governmental agencies charged with the re-
sponsibility to bring enforcement and abate-
ment proceedings.
In order to further encourage and provide
for agency enforcement, the Committee has
added a requirement that prior to filing a
petition with the court, a citizen or group
of citizens would first have to serve notice of
intent to file such action on the Federal and
State air pollution control agency and the
alleged polluter. Each citizen or group would
have to include facts in such notice in accord-
ance with regulations prescribed by the Sec-
retary. The Secretary should prescribe such
regulations as soon as possible after enactment,
and such regulations should reflect simplicity,
clarity, and standardized form. The regulations
should not require notice that places impossible
or unnecessary burdens on citizens but rather
should be confined to requiring information
necessary to give a clear indication of the
citizens' intent. These regulations might require
information regarding the identity and loca-
tion of alleged polluter, a brief description of
the activity alleged to be in violation, and the
provision of law alleged to be violated.
The Committee has provided a period of
time after notice before a citizen may file an
action. The time between notice and filing of
the action should give the administrative en-
forcement office an opportunity to act on the
alleged violation.
It should be emphasized that if the agency
had not initiated abatement proceedings fol-
lowing notice or if the citizen believed efforts
initiated by the agency to be inadequate, the
citizen might choose to file the action. In such
case, the courts would be expected to consider
the petition against the background of the
agency action and could determine that such
action would be adequate to justify suspension,
dismissal, or consolidation of the citizen pe-
tition. On the other hand, if the court viewed
the agency action as inadequate, it would have
jurisdiction to consider the citizen action not-
withstanding any pending agency action.
The Committee emphasizes that if the al-
leged violation is a failure to comply with an
administrative enforcement order, a violation
of a standard of performance, or a prohibition
or emission standard, there would be no wait>-
ing period following notice. It is the Commit-
tee's intent that enforcement of these control
provisions be immediate, that citizens should
be unconstrained to bring these actions, and
that the courts should not hesitate to consider
them.
Section 304 would provide that a citizen en-
forcement action might be brought against and
individual or a government agency. As recog-
nized under section 118 of the bill. Federal
facilities generate considerable air pollution.
Since Federal agencies have been notoriously
laggard in abating pollution and in requesting
appropriations to develop control measures, it
is important to provide that citizens can seek,
through the courts, to expedite the government
performance specifically directed under sec-
tion 118.
The standards for which enforcement would
be sought either under administrative enforce-
ment or through citizen enforcement proce-
dures are the same.
The participation of citizens in the courts
seeking enforcement of air quality standards
should not result in inconsistent policy. The
Clean Air Act should achieve objective stand-
ards against which to measure air quality.
There should be no inconsistency in the enforce-
ment of such standards. Whether abatement
were sought by an agency or by a citizen,
there would be a considerable record available
to the courts in any enforcement proceeding
resulting from the Federal and State adminis-
trative standard-set ting procedures. Conse-
quently, the factual basis for enforcement of
standards would be available at the time
en-Forcement is sought, and the issue before
the courts would be a factual one of whether
there had been compliance.
The information and other disclosure ob-
ligations required throughout the bill are im-
portant to the operation of this provision. The
Secretary would have a special duty to make
meaningful information on emitting sources
available to the public on a timely basis.
The provision is drawn to avoid problems
raised by class action provisions of the Fed-
eral rules of civil procedure, specifically by
Rule 23. Section 304 does not authorize a
"class action," Instead, it would authorize a
private action by any citizen or citizens acting
on their own behalf. Questions with respect to
traditional "class" actions often involve: (1)
identifying a group of people whose interests
have been damaged; (2) identifying the amount
of total damage to determine jurisdiction
qualification; and (3) allocating any damages
recovered. None of these points is appropriate
in citizens suits seeking abatement of viola-
tions of air quality standards. There would be
no jurisdictional amount required in section
304 nor is there any provision for the recovery
of property or personal damages. It should be
noted, however, that the section would spe-
-------
1556
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
cifically preserve any rights or remedies under
any other law. Thus, if damages could be
shown, other remedies would remain available.
Compliance with standards under this
[p. 32926]
Act would not be a defense to a common law
action for pollution damages.
Concern was expressed that some lawyers
would use section 304 to bring frivolous and
harassing actions. The Committee has added
a key element in providing that the courts
may award costs of litigation, including rea-
sonable attorney and expert witness fees,
whenever the court determines that such action
is in the public interest. The court could thus
award costs of litigation to defendants where
the litigation was obviously frivolous or harass-
ing. This should have the effect of discourag-
ing abuse of this provision while at the same
time encouraging the quality of the action that
will be brought.
The Courts should recognize that in bring-
ing legitimate actions under this section
citizens would be performing: a public service
and in such instances the courts should award
costs of litigation to such party. This should
extend to plaintiffs in actions which result in
successful abatement but do not reach a ver-
dict. For instance, if as a result of a citizen
proceeding and before a verdict is issued, a
defendant abated a violation, the court may
award litigation expenses borne by the plain-
tiffs in prosecuting such actions.
Enforcement of pollution regulations is not
a technical matter beyond the competence of
the courts. The citizen suit provision is con-
sistent with principles underlying the Clean
Air Act, that is the development OF identifiable
standards of air quality and control measures
to implement such standards. Such standards
provide manageable and precise benchmarks
for enforcement.
The Committee bill would provide in the
citizen suit provision that actions will He
against the Secretary for failure to exercise
his duties under the Act, including his en-
forcement duties. The Committee expects that
many citizens suits would be of this nature,
since such suits would reduce the ultimate bur-
den on the citizen of going forward with the
entire action.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
think it is important to note the limi-
tations written into this provision of
the bill by the committee that are
noted in the section of the committee
report which I have just inserted in
the RECORD.
First of all, the section does not
presume that there will be a lack of
good will or good faith or dedication
on the part of those administering
the provisions of the law in doing so.
What we are seeking to establish is
a nationwide policy. National ambient
air standards implemented by plans
developed at the State and local level
create potentially enormous enforce-
ment problems for State, local, and re-
gional governments, as well as for the
National Government. I think it is too
much to presume that, however well
staffed or well intentioned these en-
forcement agencies, they will be able
to monitor the potential violations of
the implementation plans that will be
filed under this act, all the other re-
quirements of the act, and the re-
sponses of the enforcement officers to
their duties.
Citizens can be a useful instrument
for detecting violations and bringing
them to the attention of the enforce-
ment agencies and courts alike. So we
have provided this restrictive citizen
suit provision for that purpose. We
took testimony on this subject. It was
strongly supported by legal scholars
and several organizations. The pro-
vision, as finally written into the bill,
is considerably cut down from some
of the proposals that were advanced.
It is not a class-action provision.
These features might be of interest:
First of all, a citizen suit can be
brought only to enforce the provisions
of the act or the requirements that
are established as a result of the
operations of the act. In other words,
a citizen suit is limited to the right
to seek the enforcement of the pro-
visions of the act.
Second, before bring suit, there is
a requirement in this provision that
the citizen bring his intention to bring
suit to the attention of the local en-
forcement agency, the thought being
that he might trigger administrative
action to get the relief that he might
otherwise seek in the courts.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1557
I think most citizens, if they were
able to trigger such administrative
action, would be satisfied with having
done so. Thus, they would have done
nothing more than the act anticipates
—that is, the full and effective en-
forcement of the provisions of the law.
In those instances where enforce-
ment was not triggered, that is, en-
forcement action by the administra-
tive agency was not triggered, then it
seemed to us the citizen ought to be
able to pursue the judicial remedy.
The Senator from Nebraska raised
the question of possible harassing
suits by citizens. This the committee
attempted to discourage by providing
that the costs of litigation—including
counsel fees—may be awarded by the
courts to the defendants in such cases,
so that the citizen who brings a harass-
ing suit is subject not only to the loss
of his own costs of litigation, but to
the burden of bearing the costs of
the parties against whom he has
brought the suit in the first instances.
I doubt very much that individual
citizens would lightly engage this pos-
sibility.
These are some of the points it
seemed to me ought to be brought to
the attention of the Senate, in the
light of the remarks made by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Nebraska.
Other points are covered by the sec-
tion of the committee report which I
have asked to be included in the REC-
ORD.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment which is pending
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The amendment was read, as fol-
lows:
On page 63 insert "(1)" after "(c)" on
line 19 and on page 64 between lines
22 and 23 a new paragraph (2) as follows:
"(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed as imposing any cost obligation re-
sulting from any warranty requirement im-
posed by this subsection on any dealer. The
transfer of any such cost obligation from a
manufacturer to any dealer through franchise
or other agreement is prohibited."
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I wish
to amend the amendment by inserting
after the word "obligation" in the
second line, section (2), the words "on
any dealer" before the word "result-
ing," and striking the words "on any
dealer" from the third line.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as
follows:
On page 63 insert "(1)" after "(c)" on line
19 and on page 64 insert between lines 22 and
23> a new paragraph (2) as follows:
" (") Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed as imposing any cost obligation on
any dealer resulting from any warranty re-
quirement imposed- by this subsection. The
transfer of any such cost obligation from a
manufacturer to any dealer through franchise
or other agreement is prohibited."
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, the
amendment to S. 4358, to amend the
Clean Air Act, and for other purposes,
has the effect of- excluding from the
application of cost responsibility un-
der the warranty section of dealers
and distributors.
Although the subject matter of this
amendment is addressed in the report
on the bill and, therefore, conforms
to the intent of the committee, I feel
that the matter should be addressed
explicitly in the bill.
Mr. President, often obligations and
responsibilities under product war-
ranties are assigned or otherwise
transferred, to dealers and distribu-
tors by manufacturers, often through
the leverage of franchise agreements.
Mr. President, the obligations of
the manufacturer under this bill to
produce a clean car should he borne by
the manufacturer and the manufac-
turer alone. Such obligations should
not be transferred to any dealer.
Thus, my amendment would make
-------
1558
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
it clear that the cost obligations under
the warranty required by the statute
run against the manufacturer of the
automobile and not against dealers
and distributors.
Mr. President, it might be pointed
out further, that while the amend-
ment provides against the shifting of
any cost obligation resulting from the
warranty it does not mean the manu-
facturer could not call upon his deal-
er network to perform services or ad-
justments under the warranty. It does
mean that the cost of those adjust-
ments and services would be borne
by the manufacturer and not the deal-
er, and that the franchise agreement
could not be used as leverage to re-
quire the dealer to absorb any related
costs.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have
discussed this matter with the Sen-
ator from Tennessee. Because of the
careful consideration he gives to legis-
lation, I think his amendment is an
accurate reflection of the intent of the
committee. It is a point the committee
overlooked in its consideration of the
warranty. We focused entirely upon
the responsibility of the manufacturer.
It did not occur to us that we would be
imposing an obligation on the dealer.
It was not our intent to do so. I would
be willing to accept his amendment,
but before doing so I yield to the Sen-
ator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
rise because I joined with the Senator
from Tennessee in offering this
amendment.
During the discussion of the bill in
committee this issue was raised by the
Senator from Tennessee. I join in
this matter because of the many
messages I was receiving from distrib-
utors and dealers of automobiles in
my State ask-
[p. 32927]
ing if obligations under the warranty
ran against the distributors and
agencies.
I believe the committee agreed it
was not so intended, and I think the
Senator from Tennessee is right in
offering this clarifying amendment.
It is well to have a provision to
reassure many people and I am glad
to join with the Senator from Ten-
nessee in the amendment and I sup-
port it strongly.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I did
not realize that the Senator from
Michigan wanted to be recognized.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, it
occurs to me that I had better get my
2 cents worth in here because it looks
as if action is about to be taken on an
amendment and, frankly, it had been
my understanding that this bill will
he laid down but no amendment would
be acted upon.
I am not at all sure this amendment
is all that noncontroversial. I wonder
if the Senator from Maine expects to
take action on the amendment this
evening.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
would yield to the desire of Senators.
I think when I discussed it with the
Senator from Tennessee we looked at
this amendment as a clarification of
the committee intent.
If it would be helpful to the Sena-
tor from Michigan to postpone action
on the amendment, I yield to the Sen-
ator from Tennessee. We were trying
to dispose of whatever we could this
evening, not thinking that we were
by this amendment getting involved
in anything complicated.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, I have no objection
to putting the amendment over until
tomorrow.
I have discussed the amendment
with the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) and the Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. COOPER) on the basis that
the amendment was a clarification of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1559
the committee's amendment. If we
cannot dispose of it this afternoon, I
am willing to put it over until to-
morrow.
However, I point out that on page
81 of the bill it states that the pro-
vision shall not include any dealer,
and the report language itself makes
it clear. However, the Senator from
Kentucky did not feel it was spelled
out with particularity, and we intro-
duced this amendment for the purpose
of clarification.
If the Senator from Michigan
wants to defer action on the amend-
ment, I am certainly willing to defer
it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I think it would be
•well to study the effect of the amend-
ment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection
at all.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. BAKER. Is it necessary for
me to get unanimous consent to with-
draw the amendment at this particu-
lar time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Tennessee may with-
draw his amendment or he may leave
it as the pending question without
any action being taken on it.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I do
not have any idea of discommoding
the Senate for the transaction of
other business it may have while it
is waiting for us to act on this
amendment, but if it is agreeable to
all concerned, I prefer that the
amendment remain as the pending
business.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, I would
like to suggest that I have some pure-
ly technical amendments which I
would like to offer at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair would suggest to the Senator
from Maine that that might be ac-
complished with the unanimous con-
sent of the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then I have no ob-
jection to leaving the amendment as
the pending business tomorrow.
I ask unanimous consent that tech-
nical amendments I send to the desk
be considered at this time.
*****
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendments will
be considered en bloc. Without ob-
jection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
AMENDMENT NO. 930
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment in
which Senator BAKER and Senator
GTTRNEY join as cosponsors. I do not
intend to call it up this evening, but
I ask that it be received and printed,
and lie on the table.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received, printed,
and will lie on the table.
Mr. COOPER. I might give notice
to the chairman of the subcommittee
that it is similar in substance to the
amendment I offered in the commit-
tee. As the Senator knows so well, the
warranty provided for in the bill
goes not only to the design and as-
sembly of the automobile propulsion
system as it affects emissions, but
also to its performance over a period
of service, 50,000 miles, under opera-
tion by various owners.
I intend to call the amendment up
at some time and discuss it, to see
if my conception is correct in the view
of the committee and the chairman,
and then I shall decide whether I
shall ask for a vote on it.
-------
1560
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that the proposed amendment
for myself, Senator BAKER and Sen-
ator GUENEY, to be printed at this
point in the RECORD, for the informa-
tion of Members.
There being no objection, the
amendment No. 930 was ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
On page 63, beginning on line 23, strike
out all through line 4 on page 64, and insert
in lieu thereof the following: "and shall be
BO warranted for the lifetime of such vehicle
or engine. Fifty thousand miles shall be taken
as the basis for the lifetime of a vehicle or
engine under this section. As a condition to the
obligation of manufacturers to correct defects
in design, manufacture or assembly, manufac-
turers may require the ultimate purchaser and
subsequent purchasers of such vehicle or en-
gines."
On page 64, line 12, strike out the words
"adjustment, operation."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
[p. 32928]
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY ACT
OF 1970
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON). Without objection, the
Chair lays before the Senate, Calen-
dar Order No. 1214, S. 4358, which
the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
S. 4358, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
ask the distinguished Presiding Officer
of this body to advise the Senator
from West Virginia and his colleagues
who sit with him the approximate
time that Members of this body will
join the Members of the House of
Representatives in connection with
the joint meeting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON). That will depend on the
request that will be made by the
leadership.
[p. 33072]
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I shall propound a unani-
mous-consent request, with the pro-
viso that it be without prejudice to
the senior Senator from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) who is to be
recognized under the previous order.
I ask unanimous consent that dur-
ing further consideration of the pend-
ing bill, Calendar No. 1214, S. 4358,
the Clean Air Act, debate on any
amendment be limited to 1 hour, with
the time to be equally divided be-
tween the sponsor of the amendment
and the manager of the bill; that
time on any amendments to amend-
ments, and motions, and appeals, ex-
cept for motions to lay on the table
be limited to 30 minutes, the time
to be controlled by the mover of the
amendment to the amendment and
the manager of the bill; that the
time on the bill be limited to 4
hours with the time to be equally
divided and controlled between the
manager of the bill and the minority
leader or his designee: that no amend-
ments not germane to the provisions
of the bill be in order; and that time
under the bill may be allotted by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1561
those in control thereof to any Sen-
ator on any amendment, motion, or
appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, I am
among those who find some aspects
of the bill very controversial.
I want to indicate that I was dis-
turbed originally because it was
suggested that only 2 hours of de-
bate be granted on the bill. At my
request, the distinguished majority
leader and the distinguished acting
majority leader have extended that
period to 4 hours which will provide
additional time in the event the 1
hour and the half hour allotted to a
particular amendment might not be
sufficient in any particular situation.
This is a very, very important piece
of legislation. It is going to have a far-
reaching impact on the whole econo-
my, to say nothing of the automobile
industry. Yet, I realize that there is
only so much time that can profitably
be devoted in the Senate in terms of
having someone listen to those who
want to speak.
I feel that this will be satisfactory
and that we can move along and deal
with the issues that need to be dealt
with.
Mr. President, I do not object.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, I want
to make an inquiry about the unani-
mous-consent request.
I intend to offer an amendment to
the Dole amendment, a perfecting
amendment. With regard to the time
provision in that amendment, as I
understand it, under the unanimous-
consent request, mine would be an
amendment to an amendment. I could
offer that at any time after the Dole
amendment is offered, and I would
have a half hour on that amend-
ment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, it
is a half hour on the amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I have
no objection to the agreement. How-
ever, representing the minority side,
I would like to ask if the Senator
from Maine (Mr, MUSKIE) has been
consulted and if the chairman of the
committee, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), has been
consulted.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, in response to the question
of the able Senator from Kentucky,
may I say that the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) on yesterday
afternoon was agreeable to entering
into such an agreement. He thought
that we were on the verge of having
such an agreement. However, at that
time there was some objection from
the other side. I am confident that
there will be no objection from the
Senator from Maine, because on yes-
terday he had thought we were about
to reach such an agreement, and he
had worked for it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
Senator from West Virginia was out
of the city, I think.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I do not think there would
be any objection on his part. I believe
I can confidently state that, Mr.
President.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, was
the consultation of the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. BYRD) with the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE)
about the possible time limitation
prior to or after the remarks of the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUS-
KA) on yesterday?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I think I can answer the
Senator. My consultation with the
Senator from Maine on yesterday oc-
-------
1562
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
curred following any remarks by the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HEUS-
KA).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President,
further reserving the right to ob-
ject, I am thinking now in terms of
the fact that we have a policy lunch-
eon and have some matters on the
agenda which will require my atten-
tion. When will the time begin to
run?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I might say that
an amendment is pending now. I do
not think there will be much difficul-
ty on that amendment, however.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In the meantime,
the time will be taken out of the 1
hour allotted to the pending amend-
ment, which will be satisfactory. It
would not take away from the time
on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
The Chair will see to it that noth-
ing is done before the Republican con-
ference and the Democratic Policy
Committee have completed their dis-
cussions and until some speakers are
on the floor. The time will not begin
to run until the distinguished Sena-
tor from West Virginia has com-
pleted his remarks.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
by necessity, the distinguished senior
Senator from Washington (Mr.
MAGNUSON) could not be present
during the consideration of the Clean
Air Act amendments. The Senate
will not be without his thoughts and
views on this measure, however, Sen-
ator MAGNUSON has prepared a state-
ment on this antipollution bill and
in it he offers his strong support, and
recounts for the Senate some of his
own achievements and those of the
committee he chairs—the Committee
on Commerce—in this most important
area.
I ask unanimous consent that Sen-
ator MAGNUSON'S statement be print-
ed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, Senator
MAGNUSON'S statement was ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAGNUSON
Mr. President, the Senator from Maine (Mr.
Muskie) and his colleagues on the Public
Works Committee are to be congratulated for
the firm, responsible legislative steps they have
taken in S. 4358 to bring automobile air pol-
lution under control. By legislatively mandat-
ing the production of low-emission vehicles.
Senator Muskie and his colleagues have dem-
onstrated resolve to bring about the production
of low-emission vehicles which would signifi-
cantly reduce air pollution in this country.
Low-emission vehicle development has been
a matter of continuing concern to the Senate
and the Public Works Committee and Com-
merce Committee. In 1967 joint hearings were
held to explore electric car technology. Those
initial hearings were followed in May 1968 by
joint hearings to explore steam car technology.
On the basis of these hearings and other in-
vestigations, the Senate Commerce Committee
published a report entitled "The Search for a
Low-emission Vehicle" which concluded that
the existing legislative approach to vehicular
air pollution was inadequate, that other tech-
nologies for vehicle propulsion were feasible,
and that a new low-emission vehicle had to be
produced if we were going to stop the air
pollution epidemic.
In January of this year the Senate Com-
merce Committee and the Public Works Com-
mittee again jointly searched for low-emission
vehicles in hearings on S. 3072, the Federal
Low-Emission Vehicle Procurement bill—a bill
which was unanimously approved by this body
on March 26th of this year and which now
awaits action in the House. This procurement
legislation is an essential first step toward
realizing the goal of low-emission vehicles by
1975. By offering a guaranteed government
market to both innovative producers and the
automobile industry itself, the legislation can
stimulate early development and production of
smogless cars. The premium paid by the gov-
ernment for these cars can help defray costs
resulting from necessary acceleration of present
research, development and production pro-
grams. The procurement legislation also offers
vehicle manufacturers the opportunity to fleet
test under controlled conditions their low-
emission vehicles to insure satisfactory con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1563
Burner performance when full production is
undertaken.
In addition to the joint efforts of the Senate
Commerce Committee and the Senate Public
Works Committee in the area of automobile air
pollution control, both Committees have co-
operated in developing legislative provisions
authorizing the setting of air pollution stand-
ards for other transportation modes, including
aircraft and vessels. In March the Commerce
Committee participated
[p. 33073]
in joint hearings on the legislative proposals
from which the reported air pollution bill was
derived. I am happy to say that the Public
Works Committee accepted several suggestions
which our Committee made concerning the
proper involvement of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Coast Guard when
setting standards and conducting compliance
tests on aircraft and vessels, matters within
the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce Com-
mittee.
Ordinarily the Senate Commerce Committee
would request re-referral of a piece of legisla-
tion which so profoundly affects transportation
matters. But because of the joint efforts already
undertaken, because of the lateness of the ses-
sion, and because of the compelling: need to
take positive action on this legislation now, no
such request will be made.
I support S. 4358 and urge its swift enact-
ment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) is recognized.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent
that the time under the agreement
not begin to run against the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH)
until such time as he has consumed,
if he does so consume, 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
our attention to this legislation is of
the utmost importance. I am sure
that my able colleague on the com-
mittee, the junior Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mr. BAKER), would feel it
appropriate for me to reemphasize,
although perhaps not in his exact
words, what he said within the com-
mittee at the time we were working
on the measure. He indicated on that
occasion that the National Air Qual-
ity Standards Act of 1970, could well
be the most significant domestic
measure that would be presented dur-
ing the 91st Congress.
I echo that expression. I have stated
that the matter is of extreme im-
portance to many segments of Amer-
ican life including, of course, all the
people of the United States.
In this legislation it is proposed
that we establish a national policy
for the protection of the health of
the citizens of our Republic. I think
it should be very clearly understood
that this is not the beginning. As we
come today, and as we began yester-
day, the consideration of this legis-
lation we were building on the legis-
lative framework of the Clean Air
Act of 1965 and the 1967 Air Quality
Act amendments.
So I think it is pertinent to say that
within the Committee on Public
Works, and especially within the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollu-
tion, we have been giving attention
to these matters, responsible to our
colleagues in the Senate, a Senate that
I think is responsive to the Ameri-
can people, although we are not al-
ways in agreement on the procedures
that are proposed in this measure.
The pending bill would require the
establishment within 3 to 5 years of
its enactment State implementation
plans to achieve national ambient air
standards to protect the health of
citizens of this country.
I underscore that this objective
may be very difficult to achieve in
this time bracket. It is my belief that
-------
1564
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
an extension of this proposed schedule
will probably be required in certain
instances.
However, I feel that if we can
achieve the objectives in the hoped-for
time period we would control and
abate today's air pollution and also
prevent in part the occurrence of
future air pollution problems, and we
would do so reasonably and realisti-
cally without doing violence to legiti-
mate and necessary business. In the
process, both industry and Govern-
ment will be hard pressed to provide
the required capital and manpower
for what I know will be a mammoth,
but necessary, undertaking.
This legislation will test the will-
ingness of the citizens of this Nation
to control and abate environmental
pollution. Ultimately every individual
citizen would be called on to pay the
increased costs associated with the
achievement of an environment that
protects and improves the public
health within this country.
I think it is necessary also to stress
the fact that effective implementation
in 3 years would require a major
commitment by Government and in-
dustry. The pending bill contains
authorizations of $1.190 billion. This
is the commitment of the Federal
Government, a commitment, of course,
that must be followed within the ap-
propriation process. I have said on
many occasions that often we author-
ize from the standing committees pro-
grams for which we have extreme
difficulty in providing the necessary
funds with which to do the job. It is
going to be necessary, if this task is
to be completed, that we have the
funds to do the work. That is why I
call the attention of my colleagues
again not only to the authorization
activity which results in the measure
before us, but also to the responsibil-
ity which this body will have to ap-
propriate the required funds.
Equally important will be the com-
mitment of those units of govern-
ment at the State and local level, and
certainly the private sector of our
economy. Sometimes we are not as
eager as we should be to commend
business and industry when, by and
large, with exceptions—and this is
understandable—business and indus-
try attempt with Congress to move
forward in these matters, making
their own viewpoints known. Some-
times, very candidly, the differences
that exist are, in reality, our
strengths. We do not have to be uni-
form in the presentation of a bill to
have a unity on the measure because
certainly the detail provisions must
be subject to very close scrutiny. But
it is the purpose of this legislation,
which I hope the Senate will approve,
as well as the actual words of the act
as presented.
I earlier mentioned that we have
a framework of action. It is a frame-
work which began with Clean Air
Act of 1965 and the Air Quality Con-
trol Act of 1967. Frankly, there has
been the necessity to change that
program and there will be the neces-
sity in the months and years ahead
to refine the pending measure.
The National Air Quality Stand-
ards Act of 1970, I believe, will accel-
erate the effort to provide clean air
through additional policies and pro-
cedures for action. It is important
that we act and that we do so not
just in a desire to act but to do it
with knowledge and intelligence. I
hope we are doing that in this legis-
lation.
Progress in implementing the poli-
cies in this legislation will receive
continuous review by the Committee
on Public Works over the 3-year au-
thorization period. Where necessary,
further congressional action will be
provided. During this time all affect-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1565
ed parties will have an opportunity
to present their views. Under review
by the committee will be the commit-
ment of both industry and Govern-
ment to air quality.
I want to state again with empha-
sis that I would rather have us feel
that this is not a matter of Govern-
ment as a senior partner and industry
as a junior partner. I would like to
think of this as a partnership, a full
partnership, a partnership of under-
standing, a partnership of concern, a
partnership of action in reference to
what we are doing in this legislation.
I call attention to the fact that in
the past the Federal staffing and
funding have left much room for
improvement, as has the commitment
of funds and personnel and staff at
each level of Government.
In 1967, it was estimated that the
staff of the National Air Pollution
Control Administration would have
to increase to 1,900 in fiscal 1970
if the Air Quality Act of 1967 were to
be implemented in its full potential.
Yet, as of May 1, 1970, NAPCA had
only 971 full time permanent workers
on its staff as compared with pro-
vision for 1,116 in its 1968 budget.
This inadequacy has been the chief
deterrent to progress in the NAPCA
effort to abate air pollution. If imple-
mentation to the act of 1970 is to be
achieved, the administration—and I
am not critical of the administration
when I make this statement—must
fund and staff the National Air Pol-
lution Control Administration at the
required level.
We must have the development of
new and improved emission control
systems for both stationary and mov-
ing sources. Funds were provided in
the Air Quality Act of 1967 to stim-
ulate development of the required
technology. This research and devel-
opment effort has been severly under-
funded in the intervening years, a
situation that must be remedied.
I call upon the Members of the
Senate and the House, I call upon all
the people of the country who are con-
cerned with this problem, to see that
this situation is remedied in the
months ahead. For example, we
placed in the 1967 act authorization
for a 5-year research and develop-
ment program for the control of
sulfur oxide emissions from station-
ary sources. This program called for
a Federal expenditure of $394 million,
including $215 million for the period
from 1968 through 1970. Yet, in
this 3-year period the estimated actual
expenditure has been only $82 mil-
lion, or $123 million behind schedule.
The estimated expenditure for fiscal
1971 was $94 million, as compared
to the currently planned expenditure
of $26 million.
[p. 33074]
I reviewed this research effort in
some detail in my Senate remarks on
S. 4092 and the current fuels and
energy crisis on July 16, 1970, and
in testimony on the bill before the In-
terior Committee on September 2,
1970.
This was in connection with my
remarks when I introduced a bill,
with the cosponsorship of more than
60 of my colleagues, to establish a
Fuels and Energy Commission in
this country, keeping in mind en-
vironmental factors. That was on
September 2, before a subcommittee
of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs, in which this situa-
tion, which certainly is a crisis, was
stressed.
The remedies to air pollution, how-
ever, must not rely solely on add-on
devices. Insufficient attention has
been given to such other alternatives
as fuel cleaning, more efficient meth-
ods for combusting fuels, and the de-
526-703 O - 73 - 26
-------
1566
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
velopment of synthetic fuels with low
potential for environmental impact.
The committee, therefore, has ex-
panded the research and development
authority under section 104 of the Air
Quality Act. The development of con-
trol methods, process changes, and
improved operating procedures all
offer potential remedies to reduce
atmospheric emissions. These alter-
natives can be funded and developed
under that act. The private sector can
actively participate as well as support
its own development efforts. In con-
cert between the Federal Government
and industry there can be accelerated
development of new and improved
means to reduce atmospheric emis-
sions.
The legislation being debated today
reflects an evolutionary developmen-
tal effort by providing for the estab-
lishment of performance standards
for new stationary sources. This pro-
vision would require the application
of the most effective means of pre-
venting and controlling air pollution
for new stationary sources.
The overriding purpose of perform-
ance standards for new stationary
sources is to prevent the occurrence
of new air pollution problems. These
standards will insure that when an
industry moves into any area with
low pollution levels, that this new
facility does not appreciably degrade
the existing air quality. The first
plant in a new area must meet the
same standards of performance as
subsequent plants, thus spreading the
responsibility equally among all facil-
ities for maintaining clean air.
This legislation also provides for
emission standards for hazardous
materials. Concern is for material
which in trace quantities in the am-
bient air contribute to a high risk of
serious irreversible or incapacitating
effects on health. It is anticipated
that this provision will be employed
to control only those materials which
are extremely hazardous or toxic
to people. It is anticipated that a
limited number of pollutants come
within this category.
It may be desirable to provide a
total prohibition of emissions for
these contaminants, but it is recog-
nized that emissions may be possible
without endangering public health.
The committee intended that the bur-
den of providing that emissions are
possible without endangering the
health of persons should rest with
the emitter.
An administrative procedure, Mr.
President, as I conclude my remarks,
is provided for those industries that
discharge hazardous materials to pre-
sent scientific and medical evidence
that the public health is not in danger
when low level discharge of these
materials is permitted. It is intended
that the Secretary, in establishing
the emission standards for these ma-
terials, would give recognition to the
fact that trace materials may occur
as impurities in many types of com-
bustion. In this regard, section 115
would apply to primary producers of
hazardous materials rather than to
general combustion processes in
which these materials appear as per-
vasive but in almost immeasurably
small quantities.
Mr. President, as I indicated in
my first few words, this is a signifi-
cant approach to a very pressing
problem. I think that in the 91st
Congress, we cannot overstate the
gravity of the situation, and the com-
pelling need to enact such legislation.
I think it is without question one of
the most far-reaching environmental
protection measures to be considered,
perhaps not only in this Congress,
but over a considerable period of
years. It is also one which will have
broad economic Impact. I recognize
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1567
this and I am concerned to a great
degree, as I have stated within the
subcommittee, within the committee,
and again on the Senate floor. I must
remind Americans that there will be
price tags on the costs which they
will pay for goods and services.
And so, as we desire, and properly
so, to enhance the quality of our
environment, to provide cleaner air,
that Americans may live in greater
health, we know that what we are
doing will be felt, not so much today
or tomorrow, but it will be felt by
those generations that will be active
in the United States of America 10,
15, or 20 years from now.
For the reasons that I have stated,
Mr. President—and, of course, there
are other reasons which members
of our committee, and especially our
subcommittee, have presented and
will present—I urge the enactment
of S. 4358.
If this bill is passed, and if this
bill or a revised measure goes to the
President of the United States and is
signed into law, I feel that we can
proceed with the accelerated effort to
improve the air which is breathed by
the increasing population of men,
women, and children of this country—
some 209 million persons living in
this Nation today. What the figures
will be in a few years we do not
know, except that we have every in-
dication that our population will in-
crease, and the people in this country
will desire, in large numbers, to con-
tinue to live in the urban and the
closely clustered suburban areas of
our country. So this is a real prob-
lem that concerns all of us, not just
industry and business and Govern-
ment, but the people of the United
States as a whole; and I hope that
we here today, and subsequently on
the amendments that shall be voted,
will make a further commitment to
do this job and to do it, Mr. Presi-
dent, while we still have time.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I
support S. 4358, the National Air
Quality Standards Act of 1970, which
was reported by our Committee on
Public Works on September 19, 1970,
by a unanimous vote of its members.
I have been privileged to serve on
the Committee on Public Works and
I wish to take this occasion to pay
particular tribute to the leadership of
our chairman, the distinguished sen-
ior'Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH), and to the leadership of
the ranking minority member, the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. COOPER) and also that of chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Pollu-
tion, the distinguished Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the rank-
ing member on the subcommittee, the
distinguished Senator from Delaware
(Mr. BOGGS). They all are to be com-
mended upon their work on this bill.
Mr. President, the need for im-
proving the quality of the air nation-
wide has been apparent for some time,
but I think it was brought home to
us all at the end of last July and in-
the first week of August when al-
most the entire east coast of the
United States was smothered in a
choking smog. As we looked at our
great cities through watery eyes the
realization came, I think, with great
urgency that the Congress must act
decisively about this incredible state
of affairs. The quest for solutions to
our national problems of air pollu-
tion which a decade ago had been
the regard of merely a handful of
scientists and forward-looking con-
servationists has become an issue of
a national overwhelming concern.
As President Nixon said in his
February message on the environ-
ment:
-------
1568
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
The time has come when we can wait no
longer to repair the damage already done
and to establish new criteria to guide us in
the future.
Autos and trucks, generally agreed
to be the biggest single source of
pollutants in the air, came in for
a great deal of criticism last August.
Fifteen States filed suits in the Su-
preme Court in an attempt to force
automakers to produce pollution-free
cars at the earliest possible date.
We have had our share of the
prophets of doom and gloom who have
told us again and yet again that the
battle has been lost before it has been
joined and that our planet is inexor-
ably succumbing to the poison of its
own chemical and natural waste prod-
ucts.
I do not share, nor can I ever share,
such pessimism. It seems to me that
the genius of the American spirit
which produced so much for so many
can, if properly channeled and di-
rected, be turned to the problem of
successfully cleaning up our environ-
ment. It is axiomatic that this battle
will be a costly one and I think it
deserves the highest priority in our
national councils. If the fight against
polluted air, filthy water, and solid
waste is to be won, we must have a
united attack upon it by all levels of
Government: Federal, local, and
State, by
[p. 33075]
industry, and by individuals through-
out the Nation. I think the prospects
of mounting such a victorious offen-
sive are real and substantial. I think
we are on the way. I think that this
bill, S. 4358, the National Air Quality
Standards Act of 1970, which has
been presented to the Senate by the
distinguished chairman of the Public
Works Committee, is a significant
contribution to that fight.
The National Air Pollution Control
Administration tells us that five
chemical contaminants are the most
offensive and dangerous factors in
air pollution today. The most per-
vasive of these is carbon monoxide,
of which we have 100 million tons
per year coming largely from autos,
trucks, and buses. It has been stated
by the National Institutes of Health
that even in small amounts, carbon
monoxide diminishes the reflexes of
individuals and impairs their judg-
ment.
Sulfur dioxide, of which 33 million
tons are dumped into the air annual-
ly, is an irritating gas which comes
mostly from burning of oil and coal
and it adversely affects the individ-
ual's lungs and his throat. If he has
any respiratory difficulty at all, be
it minor such as a cold, or major such
as emphysema, sulfur oxide aggra-
vates that ailment.
Particulates, of which 28 million
tons find their way into the air in
the United States annually, are tiny
bits of solid matter, some of which are
extremely dangerous to the respira-
tory system. Again, they come mainly
from the burning of coal and from
smokestacks which are not properly
filtered.
Hydrocarbons, of which half of the
32-million-ton total is each year dis-
charged from trucks and autos, are
reputed to be a key ingredient in the
smog that surrounds so many of our
cities these days.
Nitrogen oxides, of which 20 mil-
lion tons yearly find their way into
our air stream, is another smog-in-
ducing element, which daily pours out
of motor vehicle tailpipes and also
from combustion of fuel, coal, oil, and
so forth, at stationary sources.
Tallied up, the public health offi-
cials estimate that 91 million tons of
toxic material annually go into our
atmosphere as a result of the in-
ternal combustion engines in auto-
mobiles, trucks, and buses. Our bill
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1569
is aimed specifically at reduction of
the toxic substances poured into the
air by automobiles and by stationary
users of fuels in our hope that we can
significantly lower the level of air
contamination in future years. We
cannot, obviously, outlaw the internal
combustion engine; we cannot forbid
the burning of coal or oil. The prob-
lem, as I see it, is one of balancing:
How we can develop standards and
procedures and controls which will
reduce significantly the present level
of air contamination, while at the
same time not causing a severe eco-
nomic dislocation. It is not sufficient
at this time to point an accusatory
finger at industry, or at the consum-
ing public, or at the utilities, or at the
car manufacturers, or at any group
within our society and try to make
them the villain of this tableau. There
is no villain. There is only a problem
which needs to be remedied. Our bill
in my judgment is a rational and
viable approach to this problem.
In many ways the bill presently
under consideration is a trail-blazer
on the part of Congress. We have
spelled out and specifically written
into this act the emission standards
to be imposed on sources of pollution,
and when we did that, we did it with
the realization that we were entering
unknown and unexplored territory.
I think the situation in our country
demands this kind of action. But, like
a surgeon's most powerful drug, such
a drug is fraught with danger unless
expertly administered and unless the
patient is safeguarded against its de-
leterious side effects. And so, while I
support wholeheartedly the intent of
our committee in this piece of legis-
lation, I would offer several caveats
which I think must be recognized from
the outset.
I am troubled by two portions of
the bill: First, the establishment
within the bill of emission standards
for motor vehicles to be established
and made operational by January 1,
1975, and second, by the provision
which relates to judicial review of
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare's determination in this
regard. On the question of setting
standards by 1975, our committee has
been informed by the entire automo-
bile industry that the technology to
effect the desired result will not be
available for wholesale use on millions
of motor vehicles by 1975. I do not
know if this contention on the part
of the automobile industry is, in fact,
correct, and as I pointed out in my
individual views which were submitted
with the report, no one knows whether
this contention is correct, since hear-
ings were not held on this specific
subject. As I stated in my individual
views, I think that mandating stand-
ards set out in this bill for a January
1, 1975, achievement is open to the
criticism that it is arbitrary. Never-
theless, I think that the January
1971 deadline can be left in the bill
provided we also include some sensi-
ble way to prevent economic dislo-
cation should the technology not be
available on that date. The inclusion
of the deadline is a goal for auto-
makers to speed such technological
development. Hopefully they will
achieve it. If they do not, I would sug-
gest that the manufacturer or manu-
facturers be allowed to apply for two
extensions of 1 year each in order to
make such performance and emission
standards a reality. The bill as it now
stands provides for a 1-year extension
subject to judicial review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia circuit. My suggestion would
be that the Secretary of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare should be em-
powered to make such an extension
or extensions on the facts presented
to him, and that a determination on
-------
1570
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
his part either to grant or withhold
such a suspension should not be sub-
ject to judicial review.
I say this not because of any re-
sentment or dislike for the process
of judicial review. On the contrary,
I think judicial review is eminently
suitable in most instances. I think,
however, that this is an extraordinary
case and that the process of judicial
review would not serve the best in-
terests of the general public. I think
that it would be potentially time con-
suming and might very well delay,
instead of hasten, the implementation
date of emission standards which we
all want to see. We have reposed
great authority and responsibility in
our bill in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. It is he who
is responsible for the promulgation of
air quality standards and their super-
vision and enforcement.
In the final analysis, in my judg-
ment, it should be the Secretary who
should have the authority to make
the determination about whether a
suspension of the January 1, 1975,
deadline is desirable and/or necessary.
The Secretary has experts at his dis-
posal within the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare; he
has developed a wealth of technical
knowledge within the Department on
this subject. His engineers have been
working closely with the auto industry
for some time now on solving the air
pollution problem. There is no one in
or out of Government better able to
make a sound judgment on whether
or not the auto manufacturers can
meet the January 1, 1975, deadline.
If evidence presented to the Secretary
shows that the automakers have made
good faith attempts to lick this tech-
nological problem and have failed to
meet standards set in the bill by
January 1, 1975, he can, and should,
grant suspension.
I think we can rely on the good
faith and the bona fides of the Sec-
retary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. I do not think that he would
use the suspension power which we
have granted him in this bill lightly
or casually. It is my understanding
that he would only grant such a sus-
pension after a long and exhaustive
administrative proceeding at which all
points of view, including the point
of view of the environmentalist and
conservationist groups, had been
heard, considered, and digested. To
subject his final determination in
this regard to judicial review would
seem to me to be unwise and unwar-
ranted. As I have said, it might well
delay the implementation process of
this bill.
While there are other more tech-
nical corrections which I think we can
make in the bill, they are for the
most part perfecting amendments as
distinguished from substantive chang-
es. I think, on the whole, that the Con-
gress should feel a sense of accom-
plishment with this bill. I think we
have met the problem of air pollution
head on. There is no shirking or
avoiding in this bill; it is a sweeping
public statement by Congress that it
is a national goal and a high national
priority to diminish the level of air
pollution which we currently have in
the Nation and a full-fledged con-
frontation with this great national
problem.
Many, many long hours of thought
and work have gone into this bill. It
is a comprehensive and, to a certain
extent, complex piece of legislation,
but we are dealing with a far-reach-
ing and a very complex subject that
needs and demands the frontal at-
tack which we in the Committee of
Public Works have mounted by this
bill. It is probably not a perfect piece
of legislation. After all, we are none
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1571
of us experts on chemistry or in
chemical contaminants, but we have
availed ourselves of the expertise
which we could find extant in the
executive
[p. 33076]
branch, and we have heard from in-
dustry and numerous environmental
experts in the private sector. It is my
hope that Congress will pass this bill
and send it to the President. I have
every confidence that the President
will sign it into law and that we
will be on our way to finding a na-
tional solution for the staggering
health problem of air pollution.
Mr. President, I yield back the
remainder of my time and suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
SPONG). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CASE). The Senator from Tennessee
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry. Is the pending
amendment my amendment No. 926?
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Would the Senator please restate his
parliamentary inquiry in loud and
ringing tones. The Chair did not
hear the Senator.
Mr. BAKER. The Senator from
Tennessee apologizes to the Chair.
His parliamentary inquiry was wheth-
er the pending business is his amend-
ment No. 926.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CASE). The Senator is correct.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I spoke on this
amendment yesterday and pointed out
that its purpose and intent is to
exempt from the provisions of the
warranty section of the bill a cost
obligation running against the dealer
or distributor.
It is clear from the bill, and I think
it is clear from the language of the
repDrt, that no such result was in-
tended and that the warranty pro-
visions would run entirely against the
manufacturer who, after all, is re-
sponsible for designing and manufac-
turing the automobile, which is the
subject of this title.
But to make it abundantly clear, so
that there can be no misunderstand-
ing, the Senator from Tennessee felt
it would be appropriate to provide
that specific exemption in the body
of the bill itself.
That is the purpose of this amend-
ment. It was my understanding yes-
terday that, the manager of the bill,
the distinguished Senator from Maine
(Mr. MUSKIE), was agreeable to ac-
cepting it. Since yesterday there has
been the opportunity to have the
amendment printed. It is on the desk
of every Senator now. I have had oc-
casion to discuss it with a number
of Senators on both sides of the
aisle.
I am prepared at this time to
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I
would be happy to yield to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
take just a moment to reaffirm my
support for this amendment, which I
expressed on yesterday.
It does reflect the intent of the
legislation and of the committee and
clarifies that intent.
-------
1572
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
For that reason I support it.
Mr. President, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having expired, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Tennessee.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I yield
move that we reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
At the end of the bill insert a new section
as follows:
"SEC. 14. If Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970 becomes effective prior to the date of
enactment of this Act, wherever in any
amendment made by this Act the term (1)
"Secretary" or "Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare" is used it means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, or (2) "Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare" is used it means the
Environmental Protection Agency."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
will not take 5 minutes to explain the
amendment. This is a technical amend-
ment. It is intended to make clear
that if the President's proposed En-
vironmental Protection Agency be-
comes law under the reorganization
plan which he submitted to Congress,
all references in the bill to the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare will relate to the new agen-
cy.
The amendment is necesary in the
event that Agency becomes the ad-
ministering Agency of this program.
Mr. President, I do not think there
is any question about the amend-
ment. If there is none, I yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having expired, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
[p. 33077]
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 4358) to
amend the Clean Air Act, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 928
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I call
up amendment No. 928.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to state the amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered, and the
amendment will be printed in the
RECORD.
The amendment reads as follows:
On page 48, beginning with line 11, strike
out all through line 6 on page 52, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(4) (A) Within twenty-four months but
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1573
no later than twelve months before the ef-
fective date of standards established pursuant
to this subsection any manufacturer or manu-
facturers may file with the Secretary an ap-
plication for a public hearing on the question
of a suspension of the effective date of such
standards for one year. Upon receipt of such
application the Secretary shall promptly hold
a hearing to enable such manufacturer or
manufacturers and any other interested person
to present information relevant to implementa-
tion of the standards.
" (B) In connection with any hearing un-
der this subsection, the Secretary may sign
and issue subpoenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production
of relevant papers, books, and documents, and
administer oaths. 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 refusal to obey
a subpoena served upon any person under
this subparagraph, the district court of the
United States for any district in which such
is found or resides or transacts business, upon
application by the United States and after
notice to such person to appear and give tes-
timony before the Secretary or to appear and
produce documents before the Secretary, or
both, and any failure to obey such order of the
court may be punished by such court as a con-
tempt thereof.
"(C) Within six months after such receipt
of the application for suspension the Secre-
tary shall, if he finds upon a preponderance
of evidence adduced at such hearing that a
suspension is essential to the public interest
and the general welfare of the United States,
that all possible and good faith efforts have
been made to meet the standards established
by this subsection, and that effective control
technology, processes, operating methods, or
other alternatives are not available or have
not been available for sufficient period to
achieve compliance prior to the effective date
of such standards even with the full applica-
tions of section 309 of this Act, recommend
to Congress that (i) the effective date of such
standard be suspended for a period of only
one year, and (ii) the emission standard that
should be applied during- any such suspension
which standard shall reflect the greatest degree
or emission control possible through the use
of technology available.
"(D) The findings and recommendations re-
quired by this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review. Such recommendations shall
be effective as law at the end of the first period
of sixty calendar days of continuous session
of Congress after the date on which the recom-
mendation is transmitted to it unless, between
the date of transmittal and the end of the
sixty-day period, either House passes a resolu-
tion stating in substance that the House does
not favor such recommendation.
"(E) For the purpose of this paragraph—
" (i) continuity of session is broken only
by an adjournment of Congress sine die; and
" (ii) the days on which either House is
not in session because of an adjournment of
more than three days to a day certain are
excluded in the computation of the sixty-day
period.
"(F) Nothing in this paragraph shall ex-
tend the effective date of any emission stand-
ard established pursuant to this subsection for
more than one year."
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are
under a time limitation of 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct, 1 hour, 30 minutes
on each side.
How much time does the Senator
from Kansas yield himself?
Mr, DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, In 1968,
moving sources were responsible for
more than 42 percent of the total
emissions of five major pollutants—
including 64 percent of the carbon
monoxide and 50 percent of the hy-
drocarbons. In health effects, these
pollutants may cause cancer, head-
ache, dizziness, nausea, metabolic and
respiratory diseases, and the impair-
ment of mental processes* In particu-
lar, the President pointed out in his
message on the environment that—
Studies show that exposure to 10 parts
per million of carbon monoxide for approxi-
mately 8 hours may dull mental performance.
Such levels of carbon monoxide are common]?
found in cities throughout the world. In heavy
traffic situations, levels of 70, 30 or 100 parts
per million are not uncommon for short periods.
Solving1 our air pollution problems
therefore depends on the achieve-
ment of significant reductions in auto-
-------
1574
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
mobile emissions. Because of this fact,
the Public Works Committee deter-
mined that the establishment of
motor vehicle emission standards is a
policy decision so important to pub-
lic health that it should be made by
the Congress, rather than the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. Because Congress has made the
establishment of emission standards
a question of congressional policy, it
should retain the authority to review
that policy decision on the basis of
social, health, and economic considera-
tions. Congress will have a complete
record on the basis of the Secretary's
findings, which will enable it to act
expeditiously, if action is required.
Further, the argument for judicial
review is convincing, but I cannot
agree with that approach for several
reasons. First, there is an increasing
tendency to delegate responsibility for
policy decisions to the judiciary.
While that branch of Government is
less susceptible to political and eco-
nomic pressures, it has been increas-
ingly subjected to the pressure of a
growing backlog of cases. The senior
Senator from Nebraska, in discussing
section 304 of this bill, noted yester-
day that Chief Justice Burger had
called attention to the plight of the
judicial system. The words of the
Chief Justice are worthy of our seri-
ous consideration:
Meanwhile, not a week passes without
speeches in Congress and elsewhere, and edi-
torials, demanding new laws, new laws to
control pollution, new laws to change the
environment, new laws to allow class actions
by consumers to protect the public; but the
difficulty lies in our tendency to meet new and
legitimate demands for new laws but without
adequate considerations for the consequences
on the courts.
The Senator from Nebraska also in-
serted the appendix of the fiscal year
1969 annual report of the Director of
the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts. It contained convincing figures
that indicate the Congress must be
very careful not to further overload
the judicial system.
Although the provision for judicial
review contained in the bill provides
that the automobile manufacturers'
petition would be expedited, the de-
cision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia is sub-
ject to review by the U.S. Supreme
Court. It is likely that if the automo-
bile manufacturers do not appeal,
other interested persons or the United
States will. Furthermore, there are
other procedural safeguards incum-
bent in the judicial process that may
delay the final decision on whether an
extension will be granted until the
issue becomes moot.
I believe congressional review, based
on the Secretary's findings and recom-
mendations, is the best answer to the
difficult problem created by the estab-
lishment of a 1975 deadline.
Mr. President, let me read some ex-
cerpts from the amendment so that it
may be fully understood.
The amendment reads in part:
"(A) (A) Within twenty-four months but
no later than twelve months before the effec-
tive date of standards established pursuant to
this subsection any manufacturer or manu-
facturers may file with the Secretary an ap-
plication for a public hearing: on the ques-
tion of a suspension of the effective date of
such standards for one year. Upon receipt of
such application, the Secretary shall promptly
hold a hearing to enable such manufacturer or
manufacturers and any other interested person
to present information relevant to implementa-
tion of the standards."
The next section indicates that in
connection with the hearings, of course,
certain subpoenas and other proce-
dures will be followed.
Section (C) states:
"(C) Within six months after such receipt
of the application for suspension the Secretary
shall, if he finds upon a preponderance
[p. 33078]
of evidence adduced at such hearing that a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1575
suspension is essential to the public interest
and the general welfare of the United States,
that all possible and good faith efforts have
been made to meet the standards established
by this subsection, and that effective control
technology, processes, operating methods, or
other alternatives are not available or have
not been available for sufficient period to
achieve compliance prior to the effective date
of such standards even with the full applica-
tions of section 309 of this Act, recommend
to Congress that (i) the effective date of
such standard be suspended for a period of
only one year, and (ii) the emission standard
that should be applied during any such suspen-
sion which standard shall reflect the greatest
degree or emission control possible through the
use of technology available."
Mr. President, I specifically note the
language in section (D):
"(D) The findings and recommendations re-
quired by this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review. Such recommendations shall
be effective as law at the end of the first
period of sixty calendar days of continuous ses-
sion of Congress after the date on which the
recommendation is transmitted to it unless, be-
tween the date of transmittal and the end of
the sixty-day period either House passes a
resolution stating in substance that the House
does not favor such recommendation."
Mr. President, the chairman of our
subcommittee and the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee stressed
time and time again that we are
making- very difficult policy decisions.
They have been made time after time
by Congress, but we have to accept
the responsibility for making these
very difficult decisions. The same is
true with respect to emission stand-
ards for model year 1975. It seems
to me that if we wish to be consistent,
Congress must accept responsibility
for extension of that deadline in the
event the standards cannot be met.
While I have no quarrel with judi-
cial review as an orderly procedure, in
this instance where Congress imposes
standards, if good faith efforts are
made, an extension might be neces-
sary. Why, should not Congress have
the final word on whether or not the
extension should be granted? By Con-
gress making the final judgment, the
automobile industry would not have
to wait 1, S, 4, 5, 6 months, or 2 years
for a court to act, but would have a
decision within 60 days.
I have no pride of authorship in the
amendment. I believe it fits the situa-
tion. It puts the matter squarely up
to Congress: Should we pass a law
which everyone agrees imposes very
strict standards, and then back away
from it and say, "Leave it up to the
Court or the Secretary." I feel if we
are willing to impose deadlines today
we should be willing to determine in
the future whether the deadlines
should be extended.
Therefore, I strongly suggest this
amendment does offer some compro-
mise.
Mr. President, in conclusion I wish
to say that this amendment is the re-
sult of efforts by the subcommittee and
the full committee to find the best
possible avenue of resolving a very
difficult problem. If we tell a great
industry it must meet certain stand-
ards by January 1, 1975, or the 1975
model year, then as indicated earlier,
we must accept the responsibility for
making the final judgment. My amend-
ment would be a substitute for lan-
guage now contained in the bill and
would give Congress this vital re-
sponsibility. It is patterned very much
after the reorganization acts sub-
mitted by the executive branch from
time to time.
If either the House or the Senate
do not accept the recommendations of
the Secretary, for a 1-year extension,
then there is not a 1-year extension,
but at least we then come to grips
with the problem we created by the
passage of this legislation. It occurs
to me that in fairness to the industry,
to the courts, and the Secretary, this
should be a partnership. There should
be a coming together and this amend-
-------
1576
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
merit would provide that compromise
because in the first instance the Sec-
retary holds the hearings, he makes
the recommendations, and we have 60
legislative days in which to act or not
to act.
It does offer a compromise and we
would not "pass the buck," so to
speak, to the judiciary system of the
United States.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for 3 minutes?
Mr. DOLE. I yield 3 minutes to the
Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish
to commend the distinguished Senator
from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) for offering
this amendment, together with his
excellent presentation and explanation
of the amendment.
I wish to express my strong support
for the amendment.
One of the most significant aspects
of this legislation is the deadline pro-
posed under section 202 (b) which re-
quires a specific degree of emission
control by the 1975 automobile model
year.
We must realize that a possibility
exists that good faith effort will still
find the automobile industry short of
that low-pollution goal. Therefore, the
committee wisely provided a provision
for secretarial review, on the question
of granting relief for 1 year in the
deadline. Under the proposal made by
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER) and the Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mr. BAKER) and incorporated
into the bill, the Secretary's decision
would be subject to judicial review.
The Dole amendment preserves the
basic thrust of section 202 (b) (4),
but returns the responsibility for re-
view of the Secretary's decision to the
Congress.
It is my view that congressional re-
view is more appropriate in light of
the responsibility that the Congress is
assuming in establishing a specific
standard of emissions control.
The amendment of the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. DOLE) encourages the
Congress to meet that responsibility.
I am happy to join with him, and I
do support his amendment.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me for a minute
or two?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine has his own time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
support the amendment and the time
in opposition should go to someone
else. I would suggest, if he is willing,
the Senator from Kentucky take the
time in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
Senator from Delaware is controlling
the time.
Mr. BOGGS. The Senator from
Kansas is controlling time for those in
favor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Technically I control
time of those against.
Mr. COOPER. I understand the
Senator from Florida (Mr. GURNET)
will offer an amendment to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Kansas. Is
it the Senator's intent to offer that
amendment now?
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. GURNEY. Once we debate the
issues on the Dole amendment I do in-
tend to offer an amendment to the
Dole amendment to change the time
provision in the Dole amendment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1577
Mr. COOPER. Is the Senator pre-
pared to offer his amendment now?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
cannot hear the discussion that is go-
ing on. I am not critical but I make
the point of order that the Senate is
not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate is not in order and the Senate
will be in order.
Since the Senator from Maine is
supporting the amendment, the minor-
ity leader or his designee will control
time in opposition.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER)
is in opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky has control of
the time in opposition. Does the Sen-
ator yield himself time?
Mr. COOPER. I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. President, if the Senator from
Florida is not ready to send his amend-
ment to the Dole amendment to the
desk, I am ready to present my case
against the Dole amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, if
the Senator would yield, I shall be
very happy to send my amendment to
the desk. Then we can dispose of the
whole thing.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time to the Senator from Flori-
da?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
1 minute to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the amendment
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is advised that the Senator may
not offer his amendment until all time
is yielded back or used on the pending
amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. GURNEY. Can the amendment
simply be read? That is all I want
to do.
[p. 33079]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment may be read.
The assistant legislative clerk read
the amendments intended to be pro-
posed to the amendment of Mr. DOLE,
as follows:
On page 1, beginning on line 1, strike
"Within twenty-four months but no later than
twelve months".
On page 1, line 2, capitalize the word "be-
fore".
On page 1, line 4, after the word "applica-
tion" insert the following: "in a timely man-
ner to be determined by the Secretary".
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I
shall take just a minute to explain my
amendment briefly, so the Senator
from Kentucky can have the two
amendments before him and present
his argument to both.
,A11 this amendment does is change
the time provision in the Dole amend-
ment in which application can be made
to the Secretary for relief under the
bill. The Dole amendment provides
that application cannot be made be-
fore 2 years prior to January 1, 1975,
when the standards take effect, and
they cannot be made any later than
1 year prior to that date. My amend-
ment simply provides that the auto-
mobile manufacturers may make ap-
plication
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Florida has
expired.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
1 minute to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Florida.
Mr. GURNEY. My amendment
-------
1578
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
merely provides that the automobile
manufacturers may go to the Secre-
tary at any time, in a manner to be
determined timely by him, to present
their case.
The reason why I am offering the
amendment is that, as I understand it,
a great deal of leadtime is necessary,
somewhere between 2 and 2% years,
of tooling-up-time processes for the
manufacturers, and that they need a
longer time than 24 months.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
2 minutes to the Senator from Maine
(Mr. MUSKIE).
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, two
issues have been raised. I would like to
respond to the first one initially in the
2 minutes the Senator has just given
me.
The issue raised by the Senator
from Florida I shall discuss later, but,
with respect to the Dole amendment,
I support it. I supported it in commit-
tee. It was offered in committee as a
substitute for the judicial review pro-
vision which is in the bill.
I support it for these reasons, all
of which I think have been touched
upon by the distinguished Senator
from Kansas:
First of all, we are making a con-
gressional policy decision if we enact
the law. It is a serious one and with-
out precedent. We have done it be-
cause of the urgency of the problem.
If the policy is changed, only the Con-
gress should change it. The advantage
of the Dole amendment is that it would
bring the decision back to Congress to
be made. For that reason I support the
Dole amendment.
The second reason why I support the
Dole amendment is that this is a tech-
nical question. I think the judiciary,
within the judicial review provisions
in the bill, would find it difficult to
come to grips with technical decisions
of this complexity. On the other hand,
in the administration we have an
agency established by Congress which
has developed the expertise, know-
how, and background to review any
request for a change in the deadline.
The Dole amendment would put that
machinery into motion. After it had
completed its work, the Secretary
would then make a recommendation
to the Congress, and the policy de-
cision would be made here, with the
benefit of all the background devel-
oped by the Secretary in the adminis-
trative process.
So I think the Dole amendment is
an ideal way to get at the question of
whether or not to postpone the dead-
line at some point in the future. For
that reason, I support it. I think it
makes a great deal of sense. It was
offered in committee. The vote was
very close. As I recall it, it was 8 to
6. So the committee was pretty closely
divided on it. For that reason, I have
no hesitation to support this amend-
ment, as I did in committee, to sup-
port it on the floor, and to urge the
Senate to support it, as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I ask
the Senator from Kentucky to yield
me time?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield the Sen-
ator, but first I yield myself 30 sec-
onds.
This is an important amendment. It
involves the only possibility of review,
what I would call due process of law,
in this provision of the bill. I can at-
test that it is hard to understand the
bill, with all its provisions, even after
working on it for weeks and months.
The Senator from Maine knows that
so well.
I would like to ask unanimous con-
sent that we may have a quorum call,
without the time being taken from
either side, in order to get more Sena-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1579
tors to listen to the debate on this bill
which will have great impact upon the
economic and social fabric of this
country.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, is this
to be a live quorum?
Mr. COOPER. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll, and without
objection the time will be taken from
neither side.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered. Who
yields time?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished Senator
from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN), but
since this a statement, as I understand
it, or a discussion of the bill, I ask
that the time be taken from the time
allotted to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan himself has
the time on the bill.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I yield myself 15
minutes.
Mr. President, while Senators are
considering the merits of the Dole
amendment and the proposed amend-
ment thereto offered by the Senator
from Florida (Mr. GURNEY), I should
like to address myself to some broader
aspects of the bill.
I am deeply concerned about this
bill because it introduces a novel con-
cept to automobile emission control—
the concept of brinkmanship. An in-
dustry pivotal to the U.S. economy is
to be required by statute to meet
standards which the committee itself
acknowledges cannot be met with ex-
isting technology.
Mr. President, brinkmanship is
risky business. It is especially risky
when it is applied to a key industry,
and when it is based upon such ques-
tionable premises.
Mr. President, there can be no argu-
ment about the need for establishing
and pursuing air quality standards
that will protect the public health. We
are long past the day when anyone
could think that improving our air
quality will be neither painful nor
expensive.
But another unavoidable fact is that
air pollution—whether coming from
factory smokestacks, automobile tail-
pipes, or backyard incinerators—is the
end product of an otherwise highly
successful economic system which is
second only to the environment in
assuring the physical well-being of
most Americans.
Obviously, to the extent that it is
reasonably necessary to penalize the
economy to gain cleaner air, we must
do so. But if we penalize the economy
excessively—beyond what is necessary
—we shall win no victory.
In that light, it becomes important
to point up some of the problems
which title 2 of the bill is likely to
cause the automobile industry. It is
significant that the most far reaching
of these provisions was devised when
the bill was considered by the subcom-
mittee in executive session, long after
hearings had been concluded. Indeed,
as I understand it, there has never
been testimony in either the House or
Senate on the concepts put forth in
section 202 of this bill. Because that
is the situation, I want to develop
some facts for the record—facts which
otherwise might not come to the atten-
tion of Senators because of the ab-
sence of hearings on section 202.
Interestingly enough, for Congress
to establish standards, as proposed in
section 202 without even a hearing or
-------
1580
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the benefit of written comment, is to
set an example which no administra-
tive agency would dare to follow.
Amid the current fad to blame the
automobile industry for a variety of
problems, Congress should not lose
sight of the fact that the manufac-
ture, sale and servicing of motor
vehicles is a vital industry in the U.S.
economy. The availability of automo-
tive transportation is a basic factor
in the personal economy and daily
living of most of the identical people
we seek to protect from the effects of
pollution.
Mr. President, 800,000 Americans
are directly dependent upon the auto-
mobile industry for their livelihoods
and more than 14 million other jobs
are dependent
[p. 33080]
upon its products—in all, 28 percent
of all private nonf arm employment in
the United States. Cars and trucks
generate 10 percent of all taxes
collected by Federal, State, and
local governments combined. Expendi-
tures for automotive transportation
account for more than 16 percent of
our gross national product. Even a
slight dip in auto sales, to say nothing
of a strike at General Motors, sends
shock waves throughout the financial
community.
This bill, as written, proposes to
give the automobile industry from 18
to 30 months to make a technological
breakthrough that has withstood more
than 15 years of research—and even
this illogically short time frame ignores
procedural requirements of the legisla-
tion which could easily consume in
excess of 12 months.
This bill, as written, would saddle
the automobile industry with addi-
tional problems, harassments, and un-
reasonable demands and expenses at
a time when rapidly rising costs are
already putting it under a severe
handicap in competing with foreign
producers—to the detriment of our
balance of payments.
In short, Mr. President, this bill
holds a gun at the head of the Ameri-
can automobile industry in a very
dangerous game of economic roulette.
Such a monumental gamble should
not be taken unless we are reasonably
sure the potential results are worth
the risk we incur. Let us look, there-
fore, at what it is that we actually
stand to gain.
Section 202 of the bill would require
that, by 1975, emissions by hydro-
carbons and carbon monoxide be re-
duced by 90 percent below the 1970
levels. It would require that oxides of
nitrogen, which are not now federally
regulated, undergo a similar reduction
5 years after standards are set. Since
the Secretary is expected to set stand-
ards in 1971, the 90-percent reduction
in nitrogen oxides would be required
in 1976.
At first blush, those sound like
impressive gains. They are, in effect,
a 5-year advance over the timetable
that the President, supported by the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, announced last February.
However, I think we need to look
more closely at these legislatively
imposed standards if we are to put
them into perspective with the full
record as it stands today.
To start with, it is interesting to
note that last month the Council on
Environmental Quality submitted data
attributing 42 percent of manmade
pollutants to transportation. I under-
stand that the automobile share is set
at 39 percent—39 percent, not the 60
to 90 percent that has been so fre-
quently charged. It is a serious
mistake to pin too much hope on clean-
ing up the air by cracking down on
automobiles. Total elimination of
automobile pollution would still leave
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1581
us with more than 60 percent of the
total pollution problem to deal with.
Yet this bill concentrates its heaviest
fire on the smaller part of the job. It
is another serious mistake to fall into
the trap of thinking that stationary
sources of pollution can be offset by
reducing- automotive pollution. It may
be recalled that Mayor Lindsay
recently enunciated that fallacious
policy in reference to allowing expan-
sion of Consolidated Edison's Astoria
plant to relieve New York City's
severe power shortage. He indicated
it would be possible to offset added
pollution from the powerplant by cur-
tailing auto emissions—but the ap-
parent logic of this position is quite
misleading.
The fact is that the photochemical
smog and the carbon monoxide con-
centrations caused, in large part, by
automotive emissions are not to be
confused with the kind of air pollu-
tion that brought on London's famous
"killer fog" of 1952 or the 1948
tragedy in Donora, Pa. Those catas-
trophes were not caused by hydro-
carbons, oxides of nitrogen, or carbon
monoxide—the major automotive
pollutants. They were caused by the
combination of sulfur oxides and par-
ticulates, which come from stationary
sources, including power generating
plants. Motor vehicles contribute
about 1 percent of the sulfur oxides
and, even with leaded gasoline, about
3 percent of the particulates in our
national air. I might mention that
London's progress in cleaning its
atmosphere has been accomplished by
putting controls on everything but
automotive vehicles.
Furthermore, the automobile con-
tributes 39 percent of our total man-
made air pollution only when pollut-
ants are measured on a tonnage basis,
primarily because of carbon monoxide.
On the same weight basis, however, it
takes something like 220 times as
much carbon monoxide to attain the
same "threshold health effect" as that
which results from sulfur oxides. This
was the judgment of California's
health authorities, who have had more
actual experience with pollution than
anybody else in setting their ambi-
ent air standards.
The point is that when pollutants
are measured by their effects on
health rather than by their gross
weight, the automobile's role in the
picture drops off sharply. In the June
1970 issue of Environmental Science
and Technology, two University of
California professors concluded that
automobiles are responsible for only
12 percent of total U.S. air pollution
when measured by pollution harm-
fulness.
Whichever figure we choose to
accept—12 percent or 39 percent—
much of this automotive pollution is
being produced by older uncontrolled
automobiles which predate the use of
present emission controls. The com-
mittee report itself makes this clear.
These older cars are being scrapped
at the rate of more than 7 million a
year. Let us look from an emissions
viewpoint at the new and used cars
which are replacing them.
Beginning in 1963, automobiles
were equipped with crankcase ventila-
tion systems which eliminate 20 per-
cent of the hydrocarbon emissions
from an uncontrolled vehicle.
Another 60 percent of the hydro-
carbons and all of the carbon mon-
oxide comes from the exhaust pipe.
Beginning with the 1966 models in
California and 1968 nationwide,
exhaust controls substantially lessened
that source of emissions. In the 1968
and 1969 models, 62 percent of hydro-
carbons and 54 percent of carbon
monoxide emissions were eliminated.
Improvements in 1970 controls raised
these percentages to 69 percent for
526-703 O - 73 - 27
-------
1582
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
hydrocarbons and 70 percent for
carbon monoxide.
So, Mr. President, as we consider
this bill, it is very important to keep
in mind that the automobile industry
already—due to their own efforts and
due, certainly, to the prodding by
governments, both State and Federal,
has already about eliminated 70 per-
cent of the pollutants coming out of
automobile exhausts. Now, this bill
would require the further elimination
of 90 percent of the remaining 30
percent within a very short period of
time—by 1975—even though the tech-
nology to do so does not exist today.
Of the 31 percent of the remaining
hydrocarbon emissions, nearly two-
thirds resulted from evaporation from
the gas tank and carburetor. Evap-
orative control systems on all 1971
cars have virtually shut off that
source of pollution.
All told, then, 80 percent of the
hydrocarbons and up to 70 percent of
the carbon monoxide emissions have
been eliminated on 1971 models.
Oxides of nitrogen will come under
control in California in 1971 and na-
tionwide in 1973.
The committee report cites testi-
mony from the National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration to the
effect that these gains are illusory
because present exhaust controls
quickly lose their efficiency through
use. However, NAPCA qualified this
conclusion by noting that it was
based on a broad interpretation of
field surveillance tests conducted by
the State of California.
Actually, these tests show that the
durability of exhaust control systems
has improved year by year with the
technology. For 1969 cars, carbon
monoxide emissions were more than
15 percent below the standard even
for the greatest amounts of driving
mileage reported. Even though hydro-
carbon deterioration has been more
resistant to solution, less than 6 per-
cent of the hydrocarbon reduction has
been found to be lost through deterio-
ration at 50,000 miles of driving.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield myself an
additional 10 minutes.
Some experts allege that lead addi-
tives are a major factor in the deteri-
oration of emission control. Reduction
in the amounts of lead additives in
gasoline appears to be a further step
in improving the long-range per-
formance of emission controls. More
rapid progress will be made in this
area as petroleum companies move
almost daily to expand the availability
of such fuels, for which the major part
of current U.S. auto engine produc-
tion is designed.
The best proof of how well present
emission controls work is the fact that
air quality already is improving as
far as automotive emissions are con-
cerned. Even in Los Angeles, with its
steady increase in automotive popula-
tion, the peak output of hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide was reached in
1966 and has been
[p. 33081]
steadily declining ever since. At the
current rate—including the rate of
automotive growth—even if no im-
provements in emission controls were
made beyond the 1971 level, by 1980
Los Angeles would have less automo-
tive hydrocarbons in its air than it
had in 1940. Its carbon monoxide
levels would be back to where they
were late in the forties.
This much has been accomplished
with relatively little additional cost to
the car buyer and with relatively little
sacrifice in vehicle performance. Prom
here on, however, the costs go up
sharply and the actual improvement
to the atmosphere becomes less and
less at each step.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1583
Consider, for example, what the
section 202 standards—which the
automobile industry says it has no
reason to hope it can meet by 1975—
would accomplish as compared with the
1975 standards set by HEW, which
the automobile industry has expressed
confidence it can meet.
Whether or not our confidence in
the industry's ability exceeds its own,
the fact is that meeting the require-
ments of section 202 would result in
only minimal improvements in air
quality.
Since 80 percent of the hydrocarbon
emissions already have been elimi-
nated in the 1971 cars, under either
the HEW requirement or section 202,
the control would be nearly total by
1975—95 percent in the one instance
and 98 percent in the other. Not a very
significant difference.
Section 202 would bring oxides of
nitrogen under 90 percent control 5
years after standards are set, com-
pared with HEW's 83 percent by 1975.
In New York City's own "Emission
Inventory Summary," incidentally,
only 18 percent of total emissions of
oxides of nitrogen were attributed to
surface transportation. That would
seem to indicate that again section 202
offers a very limited amount of im-
provement over HEW standards—
about a 1-percent reduction of oxides
of nitrogen in New York City, for
example.
Reduction of carbon monoxide levels
would be 97 percent under section 202
and 86 percent under the HEW time-
table. The significance of the gain,
however, is somewhat dimmed by re-
cent scientific findings that nature
renders atmospheric carbon monoxide
harmless in about a month's time.
Formerly, it was believed that carbon
monoxide lasted about 3 years, which
would gravely increase the danger of
cumulative buildup.
Unquestionably, any improvement
at all in air purity is much to be
desired. The desire, however, should
not be allowed to overcome our sense
of the practical. Whe are not living in
Camclot, where the very elements
could be controlled by decree.
Mr. President, in my several years
in both houses of this Congress, I have
never encountered so remarkable a
statement as this passage from the
committee report pertaining to section
202:
The Secretary is expected to press for the
deve'opment and application of improved tech-
nology rather than being limited by that which
exists. In other words, standards should be a
function of the degree of control required, not
the degree of technology available today.
Mr. President, I suggest that con-
firms the statement I have made over
and over again, that the technology
for achieving the standards set in
legislative concrete by this bill are
not available.
Also according to the report, the
standards envisioned by section 202
are derived from a paper presented
in June of this year at the annual
meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association by D. S. Earth of HEW.
What the report does not mention
is that Mr. Barth, in presenting his
paper, clearly and repeatedly stated
that he was preparing a groundwork
for standards rather than proposing
firm conclusions on which official
standards should be based.
In his calculations, Mr. Barth used
what can only be called a "best ball"
approach which at each step com-
pounded the safety factors for health
protection.
For present air quality, he used
one-time peak values rather than sta-
tistically valid maximum readings.
For desired air quality, he applied the
lowest values ever reported, not the
most widely-accepted values of what
is needed to avoid detrimental effects
on health. For the background con-
centration factor, he used the highest
reported values of "natural pollution"
-------
1584
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
rather than more generally accepted
figures. And in anticipating the future
growth of the automotive population,
he went far beyond most estimates
including that published by the De-
partment of Transportation.
By using this "best ball" approach
—that is, by assuming the worst at
each stage of his calculations—Mr.
Earth arrived at hypothetical vehicle
emission goals which are from six to
20 times more severe than would be
indicated if more widely accepted
values were applied.
That is the basis of the standards
proposed in section 202 with what the
committee report refers to as, quote,
"requirements for margins of safety,"
end quote.
If we are to believe both the bill
and the automobile industry—one say-
ing that these standards must be met
by 1976 at the latest and the other
saying that the technology for doing
it is not yet in sight—we could be
headed for an economic and transpor-
tation crisis in 5 or 6 years' time.
In this connection, I have mentioned
that the automobile industry believed
it could meet the 1975 standards pro-
posed by the administration. I should
also mention that there was one quali-
fication to their promise. At the White
House meeting last November, in-
dustry officials indicated their confi-
dence in meeting the standards if and
only if the 1970-71 Federal standards
were stabilized through the 1974
model year. They emphasized that
meeting the 1975 goals would require
the full concentration of their efforts
without being diverted onto interim
goals. Imposing new 1975 standards
and requiring a change of research
effort at this point can only handicap,
the effort to meet either set of goals.
This is especially so because the
automobile industry does not have 5
years, or even 6 years the bill pro-
vides at the discretion of the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, in which to come up with the
answer. The leadtimes involved in the
mass production of a machine as com-
plex as the automobile at reasonable
cost and acceptable reliability drasti-
cally reduce the grace period that the
manufacturers would have.
If the provisions of the present bill
were to take effect at the end of this
session, the industry would have 3%
years left before starting up 1975
model production. Three and a half
years is about the normal production
leadtime, particularly for sophisticat-
ed antipolluting systems which may
require major changes in the con-
figuration of the vehicle. Even if pro-
duction leadtime is compressed to 2
years, simple arithmetic shows that
automotive engineers would have only
18 months in which to invent the new
approach or 30 months if the industry
can gain the 1 year only suspension
of the standards provided for in the
bill.
Actually, the industry does not have
that much time because procedural
requirements grant the Secretary 6
months in which to make his momen-
tous decision on whether to grant the
suspension. Then appellate provisions
are provided—and I am sure they will
be used no matter what the Secre-
tary's decision is. These appellate
provisions include an appeal to the
circuit court of appeals which, I con-
clude, cannot consume less than 3
months, and application to the
Supreme Court for a writ of certio-
rari which almost certainly would con-
sume at least 3 months more.
During this period, cars cannot be
built for the simple reason that the
emissions systems are integral to the
car design and the design cannot be
established until the standards are set.
In this connection, it is important to
bear in mind that the Secretary, if he
extends the statutory deadline, must
establish new standards which are the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1585
most stringent that the technology
can meet.
Even if the Secretary does this con-
currently with his decision to extend
the deadline, car manufacturers would
be unable to build to that specification
until they know for certain that the
Secretary's judgment will not be over-
turned.
A few days ago, the junior Senator
from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) re-
leased a letter he had written to the
chairman of the Senate Public Works
Committee. In that letter, which re-
ceived wide publicity, the Senator
criticized the automobile industry for
claiming that it cannot do by 1975
what a group of students had already
accomplished in the 1970 cross-country
clean air car race.
Judging from what I have read in
the papers and seen on television, that
seemed like a plausible charge, and it
was certainly a serious one. I there-
fore decided to look into the matter
to determine for myself whether or
not the automobile manufacturers are
trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
I should like to summarize what I
found out.
My colleague, the junior Senator
from Wisconsin, said that the auto-
mobile companies "know the results—
of the clean air car race—and are
deeply embarrassed by them."
Of course the manufacturers know
the results of the race. To their credit,
sev-
[p. 33082]
eral of them were deeply involved in
it—providing vehicles, special equip-
ment, financing, testing facilities, and
expert technical advice.
The junior Senator from Wisconsin
went on to discuss the winning car, a
highly modified 1971 Ford Capri. He
said :
What the si ants of the automobile industry
are claiming cannot be done, was demonstrated
to the American public by a team of night
students at Wayne State who are employed as
technicians by Ford Motor Co. . . . without
the financial or technical resources available
to the auto industry.
The facts are these: The winning
car was put together by a team of
five students and two other young
engineers. Three of the students and
the other two team members are high-
ly regarded engineers at Ford Motor
Co. Without taking away from their ac-
complishment in the least, I was sure
they would be the first to acknowledge
that they received not only encourage-
ment but financial and technical as-
sistance as well from Ford Motor Co.,
which worked closely with them in
selecting their emission control equip-
ment.
Now let us consider what it is that
the vehicle and others in the race are
supposed to have demonstrated. It
was said:
The student-modified internal combustion
engine using nonleaded gasoline surpassed not
only the proposed 1975 Federal standards, but
were far below the proposed 1980 Federal
standards which your subcommittee has recom-
mended be advanced for 1975. The above re-
sults demonstrate the fact that a 1971 Ford
internal combustion engine can meet the pro-
posed 1980 standards today.
It was also claimed that a total of
nine of the cars in the race met the
proposed 1975 standards and that two
of them met the proposed 1980 stand-
ards.
The facts are that nobody knows
whether any of these cars met the
1975 or the 1980 proposed standards.
The reason is that none of them were
tested by using either the present or
the proposed Federal emission test
procedures. This is not just a tech-
nicality. When we are measuring pol-
lution in terms of parts per million—
and that is what we are talking about
—different test procedures can yield
results that vary by 100 percent or
more. That is why detailed test pro-
-------
1586
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cedure requirements are an integral
part of Federal emission standards.
The test procedures used during the
clean air car race were less stringent
and yielded lower results than would
be obtained from the Federal Govern-
ment's present and proposed proce-
dures. Consequently, the race results
cannot be equated with the results
that are obtained when a car is tested
for emissions certification by the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
For the moment, let us assume that
nine cars in the race would meet the
proposed 1975 Federal standards and
two would meet the proposed 1980
standards if tested in the prescribed
manner.
It was argued that such results sup-
port those provisions of the legislation
proposed by your Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution which would
require compliance with the proposed
1980 Federal emission standards by
1975. Senator NELSON said:
One can also conclude that the accomplish-
ments of the Wayne State University stu-
dents with a minimum of experience with a
major manufacturer should be well within
the expertise of all segments of the entire
automobile industry.
Of course, there is no question that
automobile manufacturers could build
cars exactly like the Wayne State Ca-
pri. The question is whether this would
be a practical and realistic way of
meeting the emission standards we are
now being asked to freeze into law.
Let us take a look at that car. To
make up for the loss of performance
resulting from the complex emission
control equipment added to the car,
an engine three times as big as the
standard engine was installed. To
make up for the loss of performance
and fuel economy resulting from the
extra weight and the emission equip-
ment, the car was lightened by sulv-
stituting plastic for much of the orig-
inal steel and glass and removing vir-
tually all of the interior trim and un-
essential hardware—hardly a practi-
cal substitution for normal use.
The principal modifications, of
course, were the addition of an ex-
tremely complex and costly emission
control system, including four plati-
num catalytic converters. Aside from
the very high cost of the platinum
in the exhaust system, the fact is
that there is now a worldwide short-
age of platinum and it is totally im-
practical to contemplate use in pro-
duction line cars of large quantities
of this precious material, such as was
used in the winning car.
Furthermore, the car and its emis-
sion control equipment were specifi-
cally designed merely to meet the re-
quirements of the race—that means
designed to get across the country
once, in good time and with minimum
emissions. They were not designed
to perform satisfactorily for 50,000
miles as demanded by the warranty
provisions of the clean air bill. In
fact, the winning car suffered a 60-
percent deterioration in hydrocarbon
control on its 3,600-mile trip.
The car entered in the race was a
car that would cost substantially more
than today's cars to build, and would
probably require frequent replace-
ment of its platinum converters.
In short, there is no basis for the
conclusion that this car or any other
car in the race represents an immedi-
ately available, practical way to meet
the emission standards included in the
bill. All that is proved by the results
of the race is that it is possible, if
cost and practicality are no object,
to build a car that comes close to
meeting the proposed standards for
somewhat less than 4,000 miles.
A serious problem in the bill is
the warranty provision. The war-
ranty provision is impractical, and I
suggest that it may be unenforceable.
In the first place, a warranty based
on emission standards requires some
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1587
method of measurement in the field. I
understand that at present it would
require some $50,000 worth of equip-
ment and several trained technicians
and would take 13 hours of time to
measure and test the performance of
one car.
I am aware of the fact that the
committee report speaks about devel-
opment by the HEW Secretary of a
quick-testing procedure.
Interestingly enough, I find no ref-
erence whatever to this in the bill.
There is no assurance whatever that
the HEW Secretary will be able to
develop such a quick-testing procedure
—or when he will be able to do so.
Many people have been trying to de-
velop a. quick, inexpensive testing pro-
cedure—and they have had little suc-
cess so far.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized
for an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the
goals set forth in this bill are com-
mendable. There is no reason that
we should not put as much pressure
as we can reasonably place upon the
automobile industry to meet reason-
able goals to control the pollution
caused by automobiles. I am all for
that.
I am very deeply concerned, how-
ever, that in this particular legisla-
tion, the Senate seems to place itself
in the position of scientists and auto-
motive engineers. As Senators, we
do not have the expertise that is need-
ed. And, obviously, the committee is
not willing to delegate any authority
to those who do have expertise.
President Kennedy announced a
goal when he said we would go to the
moon by a certain date. But no one
suggested a law that would have put
space industries out of business if we
had fallen short in developing the
needed technology.
Certainly some expertise—more ex-
pertise than the junior Senator from
Michigan has, should be employed
in determining what is feasible and
reasonable in this field.
The Senator from Kansas has of-
fered an amendment, and I know he
believes it moves in the right direc-
tion. Frankly, I think it does not. He
would provide for a 1-year extension
period dependent upon another vote of
Congress.
Frankly, I think one of the prob-
lems with this legislation right now
is that—and I say this with all due
respect for my colleagues and with-
out pointing- the finger at either side
of the aisle—too many of the deci-
sions with regard to this bill are being
made on a political basis.
I know it is difficult politically to
vote for any amendment that would
be characterized by the press as
weakening the clean air bill. Every-
one is for clean air and against pol-
lution.
But without an adequate under-
standing of what is really involved
in some respects, I am afraid that
some Senators—and I say this with
all due respect—will be casting votes
on a political basis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr President, I
yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized
for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. If these standards
prove to be completely unrealistic
and threaten to put the automobile
industry out of business, the amend-
ment offered would
[p. 33083]
require the industry to come back to
Congress for what I fear could be
another political decision. I believe the
-------
1588
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
decision should be in the hands of an
administrator who, surrounded with
experts, can look at facts objectively.
I believe the amendment offered by
the Senator from Florida is helpful
and that it would provide a litle more
flexibility. I shall vote for it, but,
unfortunately, I shall then vote
against the amendment offered by the
Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I believe we are
back on the amendment now.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 2 minutes. First, I wish to
inquire of the time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty
minutes remain on the amendment.
Mr. DOLE. How much time remains
on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator has 25 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wish
to say to the distinguished Senator
from Michigan, first of all, that I
commend him for pointing out and
emphasizing what a tremendous bur-
den we place on the automobile in-
dustry. I share the views expressed
by the distinguished Senator from
Michigan. As he indicated, there is
a tremendous problem and my point
is we create the problem by fixing a
date for imposition of certain stand-
ards.
We should be willing to face up to
that problem in the future. Congress
should be willing, at that time, to
make a judgment on whether there
should be an extension. We should
not pass that judgment on to the
courts.
I have been doing some checking
to find out how long it takes for a
case to go from the court of appeals
to the U.S. Supreme Court. I would
guess the average time would be
several months and perhaps a year
or longer. It occurs to me that if we
are willing in the first instance to
impose stringent standards, we should
not duck the responsibility when it
comes to changing those standards. I
hope the Senate will accept the prin-
ciple that we do provide for an ex-
tension. My substitute provides for an
extension. After a determination by
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, who has the expertise,
and in the event the House and the
Senate do not act, the deadline is
then extended for not more than 1
year. I am unable to say what will
happen in conference. The House bill
has no such provision.
I know the Senator is aware that
we are making an effort to be of
assistance to him and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I un-
derstand the pending business is the
question of whether or not the Dole
amendment will be substituted for
section 202 (b) 4 in the bill, which was
a subsection placed in the bill in com-
mittee by an amendment offered by the
Senator from Tennessee and me. The
choice is clear cut.
I might say that the Senate can
make a choice of the type review it
wants. The original draft of the bill
in committee provided no review of the
effective date to the manufacturer.
The bill, as we all know, provides
that by January 1, 1975, or by the
time the 1975 model is ready to be
introduced into commerce, the automo-
bile must be in conformity with stand-
ards proposed by the bill to be fixed
by law. I support that provision.
As I said, under early drafts in
the committee, if it should develop
that in the intervening time the au-
tomobile companies could prove that
using all available technology, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1589
proceeding in good faith, they were
not able to meet these standards,
they would have no way to present
it except that Congress might act as
it saw fit.
I know of no other pollution con-
trol bill, which does not provide for a
review of administrative decisions. I
think it is unfair to any group of
citizens in our country not to provide
for them a method of review, a meth-
od whereby they can be dealt with
fairly. That is the principle of due
process which is imbedded, not only
in our Constitution but throughout
our legal system. It is a process pro-
vided by the 14th amendment to the
Constitution.
The amendment which the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) and I
offered, in Committee, which was
adopted by a vote of 10 to 3 in com-
mittee—equally divided on both sides
of the aisle, majority and minority—
is identical with the Dole amendment
in the first requirement. In both pro-
visions the manufacturers, upon ap-
plication to the Secretary, may pre-
sent their case and must prove that
they have acted in good faith and ex-
hausted all reasonable possibilities to
come into conformity with the re-
quired standards.
Following the administrative pro-
ceeding, the Secretary makes a deci-
sion either granting or denying an
extension of 1 year. At that point our
amendments differ.
The amendment of the Senator from
Kansas provides that the Secretary's
decision granting an extension shall
become final within 60 days, unless
within that period one House of Con-
gress by resolution overturns that
decision. The amendment which was
adopted in committee provides that
within 30 days of the Secretary's de-
cision the applicant or other interest-
ed party can appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Colum-
bia. There is no further trial, the
action of the court of appeals shall
be taken on the record made by the
Secretary; and such record shall be
presumed to be correct. Following the
court of appeals decision the ap-
plicant, or any other intervenor could
carry the case to the Supreme Court,
if he so desired.
It has been said thin is a long pro-
cedure, but if it took longer than 1
year the case would become moot.
There is no remission of emission
standards and requirements during
the period of appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized
for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the
committee will make every provision
to expedite the matter. I think it is
eminently fair.
Under the present law, the law we
are amending, the Secretary is re-
quired every year to m'ake reports to
Congress and, of course, Congress, at
any time, can take whatever action
it desires.
I point out that the amendment of
the Senator from Kansas would pro-
vide 60 days between the finding of
the Secretary and the required action
by Congress.
Mr. President, when we think of the
year and one-half spent in developing
this bill, I submit that 60 days per-
mits little if any substantive considera-
tion by Congress. In fact, if one house
acted quickly, the other house would
be frozen out of any action.
I can think of no instance where
there is not provided to our citizens
an opportunity to have an administra-
tive decision reviewed by the courts.
The courts by design and tradition
are insulated and therefore are less
subject to pressure and emotion than
-------
1590
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
even Congress. I think judicial re-
view is best in this case.
This remedy is available not only
to the manufacturers. The Secretary
could permit other interested parties
to intervene. The Sierra Club, other
conservationists, and Mr. Nader could
present their case. They, too, could ap-
peal to the courts if they so desired.
I ask the Senate to return the con-
stitutional method of due process. I
think it is fair to all parties concerned
and fair to the Congress.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. COOPER. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I op-
pose the Dole amendment. I support
the committee version. I have no great
quarrel with the Dole proposal. The
Congress is faced with this basic prob-
lem. Do we require in this bill an ac-
complishment for the automobile in-
dustry that we are not certain can be
accomplished, at least by the time set
forth—1975? The answer we have
made in the bill we have reported is,
"Yes, we do," and I support that for
the reasons I noted in my opening
statement.
The committee has decided that the
automobile industry can accomplish
the emissions standards we require in
the bill in the time established. But I
believe, in view of the element of
doubt that still remains, we should re-
quire a realistic escape hatch, so that,
if we guessed wrong, someone can
administer redress.
That redress can come from three
sources. It can come from the execu-
tive department; it can come from
the legislative department; or it can
come from the judiciary. That really
is the question that confronts us on
the Dole amendment. Where do we put
it?
There is a good bit to be said for
each case and a good bit to be said
against
[p. 33084]
each. Of the three propositions, none
is perfect. I prefer judicial review,
and I shall elaborate on that in a
moment.
I gather, from the remarks of the
distinguished Senator from Michigan,
that he would prefer that the judg-
ment or relief be vested in the Execu-
tive department, in the Secretary. I
judge, further, that the only fair in-
tendment of the proposal of the junior
Senator from Kansas is that it be
vested in the legislative department,
in the form of a plan similar to that
found in the Reorganization Act.
The proposal in the bill offered in
concert by the senior Senator from
Kentucky and myself provides for re-
view by the judiciary, but on a very
limited basis, on the basis that the
relief the court can grant is circum-
scribed to one question only: That the
extension beyond 1975 will be granted
for 1 year or it will not be granted
for 1 year; and that the extension
can be granted, if it is to be granted,
only on certain specified statutory
grounds.
We do not run the risk that the
court will insert itself into policy-
making determinations in this field,
as it must restrict itself to the basis
of jurisdiction conferred on it by the
statute.
What are the relative merits, really,
of the three contentions? I believe the
question before the country in 1975,
if the automobile industry has not
succeeded in producing a clean car
according to the statutory standards,
will be essentially a question of fact—-
that is, whether the industry applied
good faith efforts and whether it was
possible within the then state of the
art to produce a clean car.
Questions of fact, historically and
traditionally, are best tried, and have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1591
always been best tried, except in cer-
tain specific instances, by the judici-
ary. They are certainly more ame-
nable to being tried in the judiciary
than they are by 535 legislators. The
procedure for determining these issues
is already formalized and imbedded
in the judicial precedents of this
country, indeed reduced to writing in
this statute.
But, not least of all, it occurs to me
that if in 1975 the automobile in-
dustry, for whatever reason, has not
produced a clean car, the amount and
type of interest in the judgment of
the Secretary, the Congress, and the
courts will be extraordinary indeed,
because the net effect of this statute,
Mr. President—and I think it is im-
portant that we realize it—is to
simply say, "Produce a clean car by
1975 or stop producing internal com-
bustion cars."
If there is to be a 1-year reprieve, I
have an idea that there will be a sub-
stantial interest in the proceedings by
which that is determined. I believe the
court, in the sanctity of its judicial
undertaking, in the calm, cool deliber-
ations of its factfinding function, in
its detachment from the immediate
pressures
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. BAKER. Is best suited to
undertake this task, rather than 535
legislators, 435 of them standing for
election in 12 months and one-third of
the Senate standing for election in
1976, to say nothing of the pressure,
the heat, and the confrontation of a
political campaign for President in
1976. The Congress is probably the
least likely place to have clear, calm
determination of that fact issue.
Congress is perfectly within its
right to reserve to itself the deter-
mination of this issue of fact, but I
believe we are doing ourselves a dis-
service if we do not vest it in the
judiciary.
That leaves only the other alterna-
tive, then, of the executive depart-
ment. I would have no great quarrel
with letting the Secretary decide
whether or not the automobile in-
dustry had used good faith and had
made its very best effort to produce
a clean car by 1975, but this may be
the biggest industrial judgment that
has been made in the United States
in this century. It may have the big-
gest impact on the economy that any
of us have participated in in recent
years. It is going to be of extraordi-
nary importance and an extraordi-
narily emotional situation if the in-
dustry has not produced a clean car,
according to this formula, by 1975.
I can guarantee my colleagues that,
whatever judgment we make, which-
ever of the three departments we
elect to determine whether or not the
industry would have a 1-year reprieve
in the event it had not produced a
clean car, will not be perfect. I think
we must realize that the best we can
do is the best we can do and that there
will be a great deal of criticism of
whatever judgment we make, but I
believe the judiciary is the one best
equipped, best suited, and best able to
make this determination.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
wonder if the Senator from Kansas
wanted to ask for the yeas and nays
on his amendment,
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Kentucky yield me 2
minutes?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield the Senator from Virginia 3
minutes, and more if he needs it.
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the question on the
Dole amendment is the determination
-------
1592
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
by the Senate of the best method by
which the Secretary's decision con-
cerning the capability and technology
available for the automobile industry
to meet what this bill requires of it by
January 1, 1975, can best be judged
to be correct.
I want to concur in the statements
already made that, as between Con-
gress deciding within a 60-day period
whether the Secretary has been cor-
rect in his judgment, and a court of
law deciding it, having the right of
subpena, the right of discovery, the
right of calling expert witnesses, and
making a judgment, we would be serv-
ing the public interest if we placed
this issue where it would be subject to
judicial review rather than our own.
For that reason, I oppose the Dole
amendment and support the amend-
ment offered in the committee by
Senators COOPER and BAKER.
Mr. GRIFFIN, Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SPONG. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I associate myself
with the Senator's line of reasoning. I
personally would prefer an adminis-
trative decision. I think it would be
better placed there. But I can see
there would be very little chance that
this body would accept that change.
But as to a choice between a judicial
decision and what I regret to say, un-
fortunately, might be a political de-
cision in Congress, I think the in-
dustry and the public would be better
served by a judicial decision.
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator
from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 2 minutes.
It is important that we review how
these different procedures might ap-
ply. As the Senator from Kentucky
pointed out earlier, the Dole amend-
ment and the language now in the bill
are very much alike in the initial
stages. The first possible time that a
petition could be filed with the Secre-
tary would be September 1, 1972, if
we take the model year, or January
1, 1973, if we go on a calendar date
basis. Then we allow the Secretary 6
months to make a recommendation.
If we take the first date, the peti-
tion being filed on September 1, 1972,
then he would have until March 1,
1973. If we take a calendar date, he
would have until July 1, 1973. Then
after that finding, if we use the
judicial review approach, he would
have 30 days in which to file a petition
with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
District of Columbia. That would
either be April of 1973 or August of
1973. I have been trying to determine
just how long it might take for this
case to be heard by the court of ap-
peals. I have been informed that it
might be as short as 3 or 4 months,
but possibly it might extend to 6
months, 8 months, or even a year.
Then, of course, there is the right
of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The point I wish to make is that it
would probably be a moot question,
because it would never be determined
by the Court by the time the 1975
model year was on the market.
I might ask the Senator from Ken-
tucky a question at this point: In the
event the Court has not made a final
determination, and January 1, 1975,
was rolling around, or the 1975 model
was available, and the matter was
still in court, what would be the effect
of the judicial review section? Would
the standards apply, or would they be
held in abeyance while the Court made
the determination?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I dis-
cussed this in the short statement I
made.
I point out, first, that even though
application is made, there is no re-
laxation or postponement of the ap-
plication of emission requirements.
Automobile companies must continue
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1593
to come into conformity, and if they
have not reached conformity on the
effective date, the burden would fall
on them.
The Senator asks me what would
hap-
[p. 33085]
pen if the court had not passed
upon it at that time. We discussed this
in the committee. The Senator from
Virginia and I discussed it, and the
Senator from Maine asked questions
about it.
It was our judgment, first, that Con-
gress can limit the courts in respect
to the remedy they can grant and
this the committee has done by limit-
ing jurisdiction to a 1-year extension.
Our judgment was that if it took
more than 1 year to reach a decision,
the case was moot, and the automobile
companies would have to come into
conformity or seek a remedy from
Congress. On the other hand, I want
to be straightforward and honest
about it: I cannot determine nor
direct how or when a court might de-
termine the question of due process,
and I do not believe anyone can do
that. The provision does provide for
an expedited procedure and I expect
the court would make every effort to
handle such a matter with dispatch.
I must say again, however, that I
do not believe that the Senator's
amendment provides due process. Al-
though there is authority to the con-
trary, I still believe that even if no
review is provided in this measure,
an interested person could go into
court and say, "I have been denied
constitutional due process," and my
judgment is that the court would
grant some review. Thus the Senator's
provision may still give rise to judicial
review, without, however, the direc-
tions contained in the committee bill.
The committee bill places very con-
crete limits upon judicial review and I
think it is as precise in its limits as
any method of review can be.
Mr. DOLE. I say with all due re-
spect to the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky that this does appear
to be a weakness in the judicial re-
view section. There has been much
stress on the point that time is of the
essence, and we must make a final
determination at the earliest possible
time, unless we want to penalize un-
fairly a great industry in America.
Under the so-called Dole amend-
ment, we have the same effective date,
but then, after the Secretary makes
his decision, he has 6 months. He would
make that decision either on March 1,
1973, or July 1, 1973, again depending
on whether he used the model year
to determine the date or the calendar
year. Then the Congress would have
to act within 60 days. So we would be
certain that the decision made by
one House of Congress or the decision
made by the Secretary would be final
not later than September 1, 1973, and
perhaps as early as May 1, 1973.
I say again that perhaps the under-
lying weakness of judicial review, in
this particular instance, is the fact
that there might not be a decision by
January 1, 1975, or by the time the
1975 model was on the market and
we would then do a disservice to an
important industry.
But if we make the judgment in the
first instance, as we are about to do
today, despite political pressures,
political pressures which are surely
greater now than they will be in 1975,
because hopefully there will be prog-
ress and less pollution then, I am
convinced that the political pressures
will be something we can withstand.
If Congress is willing to impose
stringent standards today, then Con-
gress should be willing to face up to
that judgment 2 years from now. If
we were wrong, the extension should
be granted; and if we were right, the
extension should not be granted. Of
-------
1594
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
course, if we are totally wrong or far
off base, then perhaps the entire law
would need to be revised. But it occurs
to me that if we are willing, in
September of 1970, to state that 5
years from now we are going to meet
certain standards, then the same body,
the same Congress, should say 2 years
hence that we were right or we were
wrong. We should make the final judg-
ment; we should not pass it off onto
some court because of imagined
political pressures in Congress.
Mr. President, I reserve the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. GURNET. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that my amend-
ment to the pending Dole amendment
be considered at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, would the
effect of the unanimous-consent re-
quest, if agreed to, be to terminate
the time otherwise still available on
the Dole amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. It
would allow the Gurney amendment to
be called up at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the effect be
to add the time on the Gurney amend-
ment to the time still remaining on
the Dole amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It
would add 15 minutes to a side.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Several Senators addressed the
Chair.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
would like the Chair to clarify one
thing. He may already have done
that, but
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. DOLE. I yield the Senator 1
minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield the Senator from West Virginia
a minute on the bill, or whatever
time the Senator may require.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I would simply
like a clarification from the Presiding
Officer that perhaps has been given,
but I could not hear it.
I first inquire, if this is not per-
mitted as requested by the junior Sen-
ator from Florida, what time now re-
mains on the Dole amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One
minute to the Senator from Kansas, 8
minutes to the Senator from Ken-
tucky.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, a parliamen-
tary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. DOLE. In either event, the
first vote would come upon the Gurney
amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield the Senator 1
minute on the bill.
Mr. BAKER. Will the Chair in-
form the Senator from Tennessee if
he is correct in his understanding that
the Gurney amendment would be sub-
ject to the limitation previously
agreed upon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
would be a limitation of one-half hour,
15 minutes to the side.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Florida? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered. The
amendment will be stated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1595
AMENDMENT NO. 928
The legislative clerk read the amendment, as
follows:
On page 1, beginning on line 1, strike
"Within twenty-four months but no later
than twelve months".
On page 1, line 2, capitalize the word "be-
fore".
On page 1, line 4, after the word "applica-
tion" insert the following: "in a timely man-
ner to be determined by the Secretary".
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, this
amendment would change the time
provisions in the Dole amendment in
which application for relief may be
sought under the Dole amendment. We
have been talking in the last 15 or 20
minutes, on the argument of both the
Dole amendment and the provision
now in the bill about the judicial re-
view, about the importance of time.
Time is important in this provision,
because there has to be a very con-
siderable lead time for the automobile
manufacturers to jell their model, the
elements that go into the model as
well as the antipollution device, and
order tools to manufacture the anti-
pollution device; and I am informed
that it means a very considerable body
change. So there will have to be
many tools besides the ones needed
to manufacture the antipollution de-
vice. All this requires time.
This is a tough bill. We all admit
that it is so. That is the reason why
we have in the bill at this time a
review method, so that relief can be
obtained from this bill for at least 1
year, under the judicial review
measure. That is why the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) has offered
his differing amendment for relief,
also, because no one is sure in the
automobile industry, in the Public
Works Committee which heard this
matter, or in the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare's shop
whether the automobile industry can
meet this January 1, 1975, deadline.
Everyone says that right now it is
not within the state of the art, al-
though we will hope that it can be
met by January 1, 1975. The point is
that if it cannot, then we must have
relief for this great industry in
America
[p. 33086]
that employs so many people and
means so much to the prosperity of
the country.
I have heard all kinds of differing
people on what kind of leadtime is re-
quired by the automobile industry.
Some say 3 years; some say three and
a half years. The shortest I have
heard is 2 years.
The Dole amendment provides that
the automobile industry cannot make
application to the Secretary until 24
months prior to the effective date of
January 1, 1975. Then we add 6
months that the Secretary has within
which to make his determination, and
add 2 months more within which Con-
gress has to either agree with the
Secretary or not agree with the Secre-
tary, and we have shortened the 24
months to 8 months less. I have not
heard any statement from anybody
that says that is enough leadtime
within which the automobile industry
can tool up and produce the 1975
models requiring this antipollution de-
vice.
All my amendment does is to take
out this 24-month period and the 12-
month period, and it puts in there this
language: "in a timely manner to be
determined by the Secretary."
In other words, the Secretary, him-
self may determine what is timely on
the part of the automobile industry
within which to make application for
relief under this bill. No one is better
prepared to make that determination
than the Secretary. He has the ex-
perts within his shop who have been
-------
1596
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
dealing with the matter of air pol-
lution for a matter of years. As a
matter of fact, I am informed that
they continually check closely with the
automobile industry in Detroit, finding
out what is going on within the ex-
perimental stages now, within the re-
search and development on this anti-
pollution device; and the Secretary,
indeed, would know when it was
timely for the automobile industry to
make an application.
I know that arguments will be made
that the automobile industry is going
to appear before the Secretary within
a day or two after this bill is passed
if we put in "in a timely manner."
The other argument, on the other end
of the pole, is that they will wait until
the last minute. I do not believe that
they have that bad faith, but I think
something else will compel them to do
otherwise. Obviously, the automobile
industry is not going to go to the
Secretary within a day or two or a
week or two or a month or two after
this bill becomes law, because they
want the best case they can get, too.
The best case they can get is to wait
as long as they can, showing the re-
sults of their research and develop-
ment. On the other end of the pole,
they are not going to wait until the
last minute, either, because they can-
not do that. They have to jell their
model; they have to order their tools;
they have to be in a condition to get
in their 1975 models.
So it seems to me that the only
sensible way to handle this matter is
to leave it up to the Secretary to de-
termine, when the application comes
to him, and in a timely fashion. Then
I think we will have a sensible ap-
proach to this matter and a relief
method that will work.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will
not take too much time, but I should
like to make some points that I think
are relevant to the amendment.
First of all, the provision in the
bill was written after consideration
by the committee, without dissent in
committee. The purpose of the pro-
vision is this: We wanted the pro-
vision for appeal to be made available
late enough in the 5-year time frame
so that the industry would make, and
be forced to make, a good faith effort
toward achieving the objectives of the
bill before resorting to the courts. At
the same time, we wanted to provide
that there would be sufficient time to
resolve the appeal and to get a deci-
sion so that the industry could then
respond to that decision in its produc-
tion schedules.
So the committee carefully, and
after considerable deliberation, agreed
on the 12- to 24-month formula. In
other words, the appeal must be in-
itiated and completed within calendar
year 1973.
The question that the Senator from
Florida raises and is concerned about
is whether there would then be time to
put production models into the proc-
ess. Let me cite the record.
The California standards which,
were the first standards applying to
automobiles, were adopted by Cali-
fornia in May of 1964. The industry
managed to incorporate them in the
1966 model cars, which were in the
showrooms in the fall of 1965. In other
words, a little more than a year after
California imposed the standards,
California automobiles were being
manufactured in accordance with
those standards.
With respect to Congress, Congress
enacted the current law in the fall of
1965, applicable to the 1968 model
cars, which were available in the fall
of 1967. So that 2 years after the
authority was given to the Secretary,
and less than 2 years after the Secre-
tary actually imposed the standards,
the industry was producing cars that
conformed to the standards.
Here is another piece of testimony
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1597
that is revealing. It was by Vice
President Ackerman, of Chrysler
Corp., in 1959, long before pollution
control standards were involved. At
that time, without the pressure of
deadlines, he said this:
Once these hurdles are over—
He was talking about the hardware
being available—
Once these hurdles are over, we have said
that we believe this thing could be available
within a >ear.
So there is time to respond to the
results of the review process, whether
it is the review process incorporated
in the bill, the so-called Cooper
amendment, or the review process pro-
posed by the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. DOLE).
For that reason, Mr. President, I
oppose the amendment and urge the
Senate to vote against it.
I am prepared to yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Florida yield back
the remainder of his time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, would
the Senator from Florida yield to me,
briefly?
Mr. GURNEY. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I rise
to indicate my strong support for the
amendment offered by the Senator
from Florida. He points out that the
lead time required by the industry is
all-important to the applicability of
this particular legislative measure.
Yesterday, the distinguished Sena-
tor from Maine, in discussing this
measure, referred to testimony back
in 1967 by Mr. Mann of the auto-
mobile association. He cited Mr.
Mann's testimony as evidence that
only 2 years was actually required
to put such a change into effect, as I
recall the statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will
yield there, simply to clarify my use
of the testimony, it was to indicate
that by the testimony of the industry
itself, not more than 2 years was
necessary. There is evidence, which I
have already placed in the RECORD
today, indicating less than that time
is sufficient.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to read from
Mr. Mann's testimony. It appears on
page 402 of the hearings of 1967. He
says:
Normally what I have referred to in the
preceding paragraph takes approximately two
years, in addition to the time needed for re-
search, design, and development stages.
On yesterday, in a colloquy with
the Senator from Maine, I said that it
could take as much as 43 months
from the drawing board stage until
automobiles actually come off the as-
sembly line—that much time to in-
corporate such technology—if and
when it is available. At the present
time, it is not available.
So, I wish to emphasize that the 2
years referred to yesterday is in ad-
dition to such time as would be needed
for research, design, and development.
The Senator from Florida, I think,
moves in the right direction by pro-
viding some measure of flexibility. He
makes the case, very wisely, that there
would be no reason or motive for the
industry to rush in without a case, so
that they would not go in prematurely
in any event. But they would like the
opportunity to go in as early as the
case is available to make sure that
this legislation will not absolutely
close the automobile industry down—
and that could happen if we put them
in a completely unrealistic strait-
jacket.
Accordingly, I hope very much that
the amendment of the Senator from
Florida will be agreed to.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
526-703 O - 73 - 28
-------
1598
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
PACKWOOD). Seven minutes remain to
the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GURNEY. I shall not take all
7 minutes but I would like to reply to
the Senator from Maine in his argu-
ments against the amendment.
I could detect only two arguments
against it. One has to do with the fact
that California standards as applied
to aid emissions and requiring pollu-
tion devices in California a few years
ago did not need the amount of time
that I am talking about. I do not see
that this is an analogous situation at
all. What was done in California a
few years ago is
[p. 33087]
nothing so drastic as what we are
proposing to do here. We go way be-
yond the California standards.
What I am saying is that perhaps
California standards could be met in
the 2-year leadtime, but now we have
a completely changed situation.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator from
Florida would yield on that point, the
attitude of the industry prior to the
time it was required to conform to
the California standards was the same
as it is in this case. They said it
could not be done. But, it was done.
Mr. GURNEY. Then I might
further treat with the other argu-
ment made by the Senator from
Maine, which seems to me to be even
more untenable. I, too, read the testi-
mony he read to the Senate a short
time ago, the testimony by the vice
president of General Motors Corp. in
1959. That was 11 years ago. We have
proceeded 11 years beyond 1959 in
this pollution business.
We have here now a bill that is as
different from the situation he was
talking about in 1959 as the North
Pole is from the South Pole. They
could not be further apart. Thus, I
do not think the arguments made by
the Senator from Maine are viable
in either case.
Finally, in closing and wrapping up
the arguments on behalf of my amend-
ment, I do not disagree with the
Dole amendment. I am supporting it.
It is a good one. But I also think, as
the Senator from Michigan (Mr.
GRIFFIN) just pointed out, that if we
put in the arbitrary dates of 24
months before this that the auto-
mobile industry must apply, it cannot
apply any later than 12 months be-
fore that date, we do, indeed, put
them in a strait jacket.
The facts and circumstances are,
when we all admit, in the committee,
in the industry, and the people in
Government who are experts in this
business, that we do not even know
whether they can be met, the industry
itself says it does not have the tech-
nology to do it, although it hopes to
be able to meet it. Under these facts
and circumstances, we look ridiculous
in the Senate not to give the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare a little leeway as to when he will
receive this application for relief.
All I say is that my amendment
makes more viable, more sensible, and
more reasonable when this application
may be presented to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Mr. President, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
should like to read one quotation to
the Senate from a letter by President
Cole of General Motors, dated Janu-
ary 31, 1969, which reads:
It is apparent that it is technically feasible
to achieve very low pollution levels with in-
ternal combustion engines—levels at least as
low as known ambient air auality needs. More
importantly, of the various approaches to
controlling vehicular pollution, the gasoline
engine seems to offer a better cost-benefit re-
lationship than the unconventional power-
plants in the lower right-hand corner of these
charts.
May I also read from the hearings
of 1967. This is testimony by an in-
dustry spokesman:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1599
Since the late 1940'a, General Motors engi-
neers and scientists have been doing basic re-
search on emissions and developing the results
of these into practical hardware. Between
now and 1980, we sincerely believe that cur-
rent research and engineering development
programs on our current gasoline engines will
result in continued progress toward solution
of this important problem.
Later in the testimony, there was
the same pessimism about meeting
deadlines that the Senator has ex-
pressed.
Since the late 1940's, a quarter of a
century ago, the industry has been oc-
cupied with this problem by its own
statements. It has been developing
technology. Every time it is pressed
to apply the technology, it pleads for
time. It says it is not possible. It said
this to California in 1964. It said this
to us in the hearings in 1964 and in
1P65. It says it again now.
What we need in this 5-year period
is a period not only for production
line work but also time for develop-
ment of the concepts which have been
on the drawing boards all these years.
Because that is time the committee
does not want to reduce, that is why
we fix a time when the appeal time
starts. It is as simple as that.
Mr. GURNEY. Let me point out
that the Senator and I do not disagree
on the applicable time
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair would advise the Senator from
Florida that he yielded back his time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Florida is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. GURNEY. I thank the Senator
from Maine.
We do not disagree on that at all.
My amendment, of course, in no way
weakens the applicable standard date,
which is January 1, 1975.
It simply revises the method and
the time by which the automobile in-
dustry could make application to the
Secretary, which I think is reasonable.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having expired, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Florida to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Kansas.
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The result was announced—years
22, nays 57, as follows:
*****
So Mr. GURNEY'S amendment to Mr.
DOLE'S amendment (No. 958) was re-
jected.
*****
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, by
a vote of more than 2 to 1 we have de-
feated the Gurney amendment and we
now are approaching the vote on the
[p. 33088]
Dole amendment. I think the core
of the problem as presented in the
Committee on Public Works, and
again as we have considered the mat-
ter in the Senate this afternoon, is, in
effect, whether we are for or against
judicial review which is embodied in
the amendment offered by the Senator
from Kentucky and the Senator from
Tennessee in the Committee on Public
Works.
The amendment of the Senator
from Kansas was defeated in com-
mittee. The chairman of the Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution has
indicated that the vote was close. The
vote was 8 to 6.
I think it is important, however, to
realize that the vote in the Com-
mittee on Public Works on the Cooper-
Baker amendment was 10 to 3 for
that amendment.
Mr, President, I supported the
amendment of Senators COOPER and
BAKER in the committee. I did so be-
cause I thought it was important to
have judicial review. I feel very
-------
1600
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
strongly today, as I did then, that the
bill, before the Senate, should include
the Cooper-Baker language.
The basic reasons supporting such
review have certainly been amply set
forth during the consideration of this
measure by other speakers, including
Senators COOPER, BAKER, and SPONG.
Mr. President, in my opinion, judi-
cial review is superior to the pending
proposal of the junior Senator from
Kansas (Mr. DOLE). It is superior be-
cause judges, I feel, will be less sub-
ject to the pressures and cross cur-
rents of opinions expressed outside
the courtroom.
Furthermore, it is axiomatic that
the Congress can act on the law, can
amend it, at any time it believes cir-
cumstances necessitate such action.
If we abolish court review by de-
feating the Cooper-Baker amendment
and approve the Dole amendment,
then our only recourse would be to
the Congress. If we sustain the
principle of court review in the
Cooper-Baker amendment, Congress
can still act whenever conditions seem
to require it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, is>
there any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas has 1 minute,
the Senator from Kentucky has 3
minutes.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may I
have 30 seconds?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, since
there are Senators present on the
floor who were not here earlier. I
would simply like to say that I sup-
ported the Dole amendment in com-
mittee. I support it here, for the fol-
lowing reasons: First, if this bill is
enacted into law, it is a congressional
decision which ought to be modified
only by Congress. Second, the Secre-
tary would continue to have the staff
and know-how necessary to do the job
better than the courts. His recommen-
dation would come to Congress. Con-
gress would have to act affirmatively
to affirm his recommendation.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 30 seconds to say the only
difference between the Baker-Cooper
amendment and my amendment is as
to whether the court or Congress shall
determine the matter. If Congress
imposes the standards, we should
make the judgment 2 years hence.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield myself 1 minute to clarify a
statement previously made. The Secre-
tary, in each case, will first review
all the evidence, with all its technical
staff. This would be the record avail-
able in either case.
It should be noted also that the
Baker-Cooper amendment was adopted
in committee by a 10-to-3 vote. I
would like to repeat that this pro-
vision will give the due process which
I believe Congress wants to give to all
its citizens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do
Senators yield back their time?
Mr. COOPER. I yield back my time.
Mr. DOLE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on the amendment having been
yielded back, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Kansas. On this question the
yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced—yeas 32,
nays 43, as follows:
* * * * *
So Mr. DOLE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1601
AMENDMENT NO. 927
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
in behalf of the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON), I send to
the desk an amendment and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 927) is as
follows:
AMENDMENT No. 927
On page 79, beginning with line 6, strike
out all through line 16 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SEC. 213. (a) For the purpose of this sec-
tion—
(1) "Board" means the Low-Emission Ve-
hicle Certification Board;
(2) "Federal Government" includes the leg-
islative, executive, and judicial branches of the
Government of the United States, and the
government of the District of Columbia;
(3) "motor vehicle" means any vehicle, self-
propelled by mechanical or electrical power,
designed for use in the United States on the
highways except any vehicle designed or used
for military field training, combat, or tactical
purposes;
(4) "low-emission vehicle" means any motor
vehicle which produces significantly
[p. 33089]
less pollution than the class or model of
vehicle for which the Board may certify it
as a suitable substitute; and
(5) "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 stat-
utory price, the most recent procurement price
paid for any class or model of motor vehicle.
(b) (1) There is established a Low-Emis-
sion Vehicle Certification Board to be com-
posed of the Secretary 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 De-
partment of Transportation, the Administrator
of General Services, and two members ap-
pointed by the President. The President shall
designate one member of the Board as Chair-
man.
(2) Any member of the Board not employed
by the United States may receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $125 for each day such
member is engaged upon work of the Board.
Each member of the Board shall be reim-
bursed for travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence as authorized by law
(6 U.S.C. 6703) for persons in the Govern-
ment service employed intermittently.
(3) (A) The Chairman, with the concur-
rence of the members of the Board, may em-
ploy and fix the compensation of such addi-
tional personnel as may be necessary to carry
out the functions of the Board, but no indi-
vidual so appointed shall receive compensa-
tion in excess of the rate authorized for
GS-18 by section 6332 of title 5, United States
Code.
(B) The Chairman may fix the time and
place of such meetings as may be required.
(C) The Board is granted all other powers
necessary for meeting its responsibilities un-
der this section.
(c) The Secretary shall determine which
models or classes of motor vehicles qualify
as low-emission vehicles in accordance 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 de-
termined by the Secretary; and
(C) which it determines is suitable for use
as a substitute for a class or model of ve-
hicles 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 applica-
tion 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 sec-
tion shall file a certification application In
-------
1602
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
accordance with rules established by the Board
and published in the Federal Register.
(B) The Board shall publish a notice of
each application received in the Federal Reg-
ister.
(C) The Secretary and the Board shall make
determinations for the purpose of this sec-
tion in accordance with procedures established
by the Secretary and the Board, respectively,
and published in the Federal Register.
(D) The Secretary and the Board shall con-
duct whatever investigation is necessary, in-
cluding actual inspection of the vehicle at a
place designated in the certification applica-
tion rules established under this section.
(E) The Secretary and the Board shall re-
ceive and evaluate written comments and doc-
uments from interested parties in support of,
or in opposition to, certification of the class
or model of vehicle under consideration.
(F) Within ninety days after the receipt of
a properly filed certification application, the
Secretary shall determine -whether such class
or model of vehicle is a low-emission vehicle,
and within onp hundred and eighty 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 substitute for any class or classes
of vehicles presently being purchased by the
Federal Government for use by its agencies.
(G) Immediately upon making any such
determination or decision, the Secretary and
the Board shall each publish in the Federal
Register notice of such determination or de-
cision, including reasons therefor and in the
case of the Board any dissenting views.
(e) (1) Certified low-emission vehicles shall
be acquired by purchase by the Federal Gov-
ernment 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 re-
tail price of the least expensive class or model
of motor vehicle for which they are certified
substitutes.
(2) In order to encourage innovative de-
velopment of inherently low-polluting pro-
pulsion 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 certified substitute,
if the Board determines that the certified low-
emission vehicle is powered by an innovative,
inherently low-polluting propulsion system.
(3) Data relied upon by the Board and the
Secretary in determining that a vehicle is a
certified low-emission vehicle shall be in-
corporated in any contract for the procure-
ment of such vehicle.
(f) The procuring agency shall be required
to purchase available 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 substitute. In making
purchasing selections between competing eligi-
ble low-emission vehicles, the procuring agency
shall give priority to (1) any class or model
which does not require extensive periodic
maintenance to retain its low-polluting quali-
ties or which doea 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 Secretary shall, from time to tim«
as the Board 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 ex-
ceed the rates on which certification under
this section was based, the Secretary shall
notify the Board. Thereupon the Board shall
give the supplier of such vehicles written no-
tice of this finding, issue public notice of it,
and give the supplier an opportunity to make
necessary repairs, adjustments, or replace-
ments. If no such repairs, adjustments, 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 in-
volved should be eligible for recertiftcation.
(i) There is authorized to be appropriated
annually not to exceed $50,000,000 for paying
additional amounts for motor vehicles pursuant
to, and for carrying out the provisions of.
this section.
(j) The Board shall promulgate the proce-
dures required to implement this section with-
in ninety days after the effective date of this
section.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order. Who yields
time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
This amendment has been offered
by the distinguished Senator from
Montana in behalf of the Senator
from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON),
It is an amendment that I am pre-
pared to take, but I should like to
read this description of it which was
prepared by the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON).
As most of the Senate is aware, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1603
Senator from Washington necessarily
could not be present during the Sen-
ate's consideration of this bill because
of an illness in his family. His state-
ment is as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR MAGNUSON
This amendment is designed to create a
comprehensive Federal low-emission vehicle
procurement program which would stimulate
the development, production, and distribution
of motor vehicles which emit few or no pol-
lutants. The procurement program would stim-
ulate low-emission vehicle production and dis-
tribution by creating immediately a guaranteed
market which would pay certain fixed premi-
ums for low-polluting vehicles and provide
controlled conditions for field testing new
concepts in automotive propulsion.
This amendment is substantially identical
to my bill, S. 3072, which this body passed
without a dissenting vote on March 26, 1970,
but which the House has not acted upon. It
would establish a Low-Emission Vehicle Cer-
tification Board composed of the Secretary of
Transportation, Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Wel'are, the Chairman of the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality, the Director of
the National Highway Safety Bureau, the
Administrator of General Services, and two
Presidential designees. This Board would re-
ceive applications from developers of low-
emission vehicles and determine if those ve-
hicles were suitable substitutes for existing
vehicles in use by agencies of the Federal
Government.
To obtain certification for a vehicle, a de-
veloper would make application to the Cer-
tification Board in a manner prescribed by
the Board. Upon receipt of this application
the Board would ask the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to determine whether
the vehicle embodies a significant advance in
pollution emission control technology. If the
Secretary so finds, then the Board would de-
termine whether or not the vehicle was suita-
ble for use as a substitute for any class or
model of vehicles then in use by the Federal
agencies. In making such determinations the
Board would consider such factors as the
safety of the vehicle, its performance char-
acteristics, its reliability, potential, its service-
ability, its noise level, and its maintenance
characteristics.
Any vehicle determined by the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to be a low-
emission vehicle and certified by the Board to
be a suitable substitute is then eligible for
purchase at a premium of 150 percent of the
retail procurement cost of the least expensive
class or model of comparable vehicles. At its
discretion the Board may in-
[p. 33090]
crease that premium to 200 percent if the
vehicle being purchased embodies an innova-
tive propulsion system which is "inherently
low-polluting''—one not depending upon some
complicated add-on device to make it smogless.
To the extent that such low-emission vehi-
cles are available, at prices within the premi-
um ceiling, the Administrator of General Serv-
ices is required to purchase them.
I urge my colleagues to again endorse this
Federal procurement proposal. In the first
place, this amendment will enable the auto-
mobile industry to begin at once to test new
propulsion systems under controlled conditions
to insure their satisfactory performance in the
general consumer market by 1975 or 1976. Sec-
ondly, the premium payments will help defer
some of the prototype development costs.
Thirdly, the bill will make feasible independ-
ent innovative development of low-emission
vehicles so that all paths to low-emission ve-
hicle development can be explored and the
1975 legislative mandates can be met through
the best technologies presently available to
this Nation.
There is a final need for this legislation.
The Federal Government, particularly as it
places greater and greater demands on the
private sector not to pollute, has a strong
obligation not to disrupt the environment when
conducting its own activities. Therefore, the
reduction in pollution from governmental ve-
hicles, even apart from the considerations pre-
viously mentioned, establish a need for this
amendment—now.
The legislation represented by this
amendment has already been enacted
by the Senate once this year, Mr.
President. I was privileged to be a
cosponsor of it with the distinguished
Senator from Washington. We held
joint hearings—the Committee on
Commerce and the Committee on
Public Works. So I recommend that
the Senate adopt the amendment.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield myself 1
minute.
Mr. President, in view of the state-
ment offered by the manager of the
bill, the Senator from Maine, and the
fact that the Senate has previously
acted on this matter, I have no ob-
jection to accepting the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do
Senators yield back their time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. It is the identical
bill that was passed?
-------
1604
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, it is. There are
a few technical amendments, I might
say.
Mr, President, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on the amendment has been yield-
ed back. The question is on agreeing
to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished senior Senator from Cali-
fornia (Mr. MURPHY) who, up until
this Congress, was a member of the
Senate Public Works Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution, and who
has always been a strong advocate of
legislation to fight pollution, is neces-
sarily absent today. The Senator co-
sponsored the bill which is before us
today, and he has prepared a state-
ment in support of the measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent to have Senator MURPHY'S
statement printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, Senator
MURPHY'S statement was ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SENATOR MURPHY STRONGLY SUPPORTS BILL
DESIGNED To ACHIEVE CLEAN Am BY 1976
Mr. President, as a cosponsor. I strongly
support S. 4358. This measure is tough, time-
ly and desperately needed.
I want to congratulate Senator Muskie and
the ranking Republican member. Senator
Boggs, and the members of the Subcommittee
and full Committee of the Public Works Com-
mittee for bringing this effective measure to
the Senate Floor. Up until this Congress, I
was a member of the Public Works Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution. In this
capacity I helped to shape and strongly sup-
ported all the air pollution legislation enacted
since 196S. My interest in the problem since
leaving the Committee has continued un-
diminished. I know of the careful and thorough
manner with which the Committee considers
legislation; I know of the cooperative and bi-
partisan spirit that operates in the Committee
for the benefit of the nation. This has pro-
duced again a unanimous recommendation to
the Senate on a bill for the benefit of the en-
tire nation.
There was a time when smog was con-
sidered a unique type of scientific curiosity
resulting from the unusual photochemical re-
actions which occurred in Los Angeles. I
have had the pleasure of crossing this vast
and great country many times in recent years.
I have seen the pollution problem grow until,
today, it is nationwide. Dr. John R. Goldsmith
of the Cal. Department of Public Health has
declared "there is no more clean air in the
United States . . ."
In California, where the concern over the
pollution problem is probably the greatest in
the country, we have experienced a similar
spread of pollution.
In San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys,
which neighbor Los Angeles, smog is frequent-
ly heavier than in Los Angeles itself.
Sacramento Valley which already has a
smog problem, may face pollution greater
than Los Angeles within the next decade or
two according to a University of California
agriculture engineer,
Fresno citizens 26 years ago were able to
see the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the dis-
tance. Today these mountains can only be
seen in the morning.
Smog in the Los Angeles hasin has resulted
in a slow decline of citrus groves south of the
city and trees have been damaged in the San
Bernardino National Forest 50 miles away.
No longer do we hear isolated voices of
concern in California; the citizens of Cali-
fornia are almost one voice crying out in ris-
ing crescendo against the attack on the state's
beauty and against the impairment of the
quality of life.
California has pioneered the nation's battle
against pollution. The Loa Angeles County Air
Pollution District probably has the toughest
air pollution laws in the country against pol-
lution from stationary sources. California has
also been the bellwether in the nation's battle
against pollution from the automobile. 1
might say that I am pleased that the "Murphy
Amendment*' which was added to the Air
Quality Act of 1967. after a difficult fight, is
preserved and is found in Section 210 (b) of
this measure. This amendment grants to
California the right to set automobile emission
standards higher than the nation. California
has taken advantage of the amendment and
has enacted legislation at the state level giv-
ing California the strongest anti-pollution
laws with respect to automobile emissions in
the country. Notwithstanding, these strict con-
trols, the automobile remains the principal pol-
luter in California. This is a particular con-
cern for California which already has more
cars per capita than any other state.
In addition, California is adding to its pres-
ent number at a rate faster than any other
state. If present trends continue, it has been
projected that 42 million Californians will be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1605
operating 23 million vehicles by the year 2000.
These 23 million vehicles will consume 25 bil-
lion gallons of gas or three times the present
consumption. We are running as fast as we
can, but our efforts have only given us a
"dangerous status QUO."
Air pollution has an adverse affect on both
man and his environment. Over 200 million
tons of contaminates are emptied annually
into America's skies. Pollution soils our clothe3
and our homes. It causes economic dangers to
our agricultural products. As the number one
agriculture state in the nation, this obviously
is a major concern to California. A recently
concluded eight-year study by the Air Re-
sources Center at the University of California
at Riverside showed smog was causing: eco-
nomic damage to citrus crops. The study
found air pollution cutting the yield per tree
by as much as half and reducing the cost
value by $33 million. This same study found
the greatest economic loss from smog to
ornamental plants and shrubs of homeowners.
This damage was estimated to be a stagger-
ing $125 to $144 million each year. Air pollu-
tion also limits visibility. The beauty of Cali-
fornia is blurred. Air transportation is made
more hazardous. For example, as a result of
Los Angeles smog, visibility frequently is low-
er than three miles. The July, 1970, air pollu-
tion alert on the East Coast nearly obscured
visibility in some areas.
While this damage to our eyes, our sensitivi-
ties, and our pocketbooks are important, the
most important effect of air pollution is the
danger it poses to the nation's health. There
had been several disaster warnings about the
air pollution crisis. These occurred in 1930 in
Mouse Valley of Belgium, in Donora, Penn-
sylvania in 1948, in London in 1952 and again
in 1962, and in New York in 1953, 1963 and
1966. The news reports on Japanese efforts to
control air pollution, particularly in Tokyo,
and the reports considered at international
conferences in recent years on the subject of
pollution show pollution to be a worldwide
problem. According to a Washington Post
article of July 27, 1970, the Japanese char-
acterize their air pollution problem as expos-
ing citizens to the greatest danger of their
lives. There probably have been other crises
in smaller, less conspicuous locations, where
the conditions were not recognized for what
they were or where the situation was not re-
ported. The major air pollution disasters were
important in that they presented dramatic
evidence of the deleterious effects of air pollu-
tion.
Most health workers in the field of respira-
tory diseases now agree that air pollution is
capable of producing serious health effects.
Rene Dubos pointed out in his book, "Man,
Medicine and Environment": "Chronic res-
piratory disease is now the leading cause of
disability among adults in all the industrial-
ized parts of northern Europe and is becom-
ing increasingly prevalent in the United
States. . . . Like chronic bronchitis, cancer,
and many other types of pathological mani-
festations, the multifarious effects of environ-
mental pollutants may not be detected until
several decades after the initial exposure."
In Hospital Practice, May, 1970, John Gold-
smith discusses community surveys in Los
Angeles and Pasadena which show that air
pollution has a significant effect in aggravat-
ing the condition of asthmatics. Other epide-
miological studies report that relatively little
air pollution aggravates chronic bronchitis.
Controlled clinical studies in Los Angeles
showed that patients with bronchitis or
moderately advanced emphysema are seriously
affected by Los Angeles type
[p. 33091]
smog. Goldsmith also states that the available
evidence suggests that air pollution may actu-
ally be a causative agent in emphysema. Em-
physema is now the fastest growing cause
of death in the United States, doubling every
five years since World War II.
Dr. John W. Jutila, a microbiologist at the
Montana State University, is reported as say-
ing that "Environmental microinsults ac-
cumulate to become life threatening to more
and more individuals. Acceleration of the ag-
ing process and the onset of cancer are among
the threats posed by a fouled environment."
In an extensive review by Stephen Ayres and
Meta Buehler in Clinical Pharmacology and
Therapeutics, May-June, 1970, the authors
summarize their results by saying: "An im-
pressive body of scientific information points
to the inescapable conclusion that the levels
of pollutant contamination existing today in
many American cities are sufficient to pro-
duce profound health consequences."
The first annual report of the Council of
Environmental Quality states:
"It is well established that air pollution con-
tributes to the incidents of such chronic dis-
eases as emphysema, bronchitis and other res-
piratory ailments. Polluted air is also linked
to higher mortality rates and other causes in-
cluding cancer, arteriosclerotic heart disease.0
The incidents of chronic disease has in-
creased rapidly during the past century. Al-
though it is difficult to determine the cause
of chronic diseases, there is enough evidence to
make one thing certain—air pollution is not
doing any of us any good. So the direct proof
of cause and effect relationship between air
pollution and health still is and should be the
subject of research and discussion in medical
research. One is reminded of the controversy
which still drags on about cause-effect relation-
ships between smoking and cancer. Disagree-
ments still continue and people are still suffer-
-------
1606
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ing ill health. Although the evidence and
statistics I have cited are convincing and
point out the urgency for new and tough ac-
tion, I believe the report which was carried in
Today's Health for this month which included
the following quotation even more cogently
depicts the need for action:
"Just recently there was an article in the
newspaper about grade school children in the
area south of Chicago's loop drawing pictures
in art classes. In the last three years the sun
no longer appears. Before, there was always
a bright smiling sun in the sky. No longer.
The sun is gone. There is no sun in the pic-
tures now. Children in the schools now accept
this, and it's very, very frightening. They ac-
cept pollution as a natural part of their en-
vironment. 'What ever happened to clean
air?' "
I am not willing to accept pollution as a
natural part of my environment. I want to
help put the "sun" back into the pictures of
those grade school children in Chicago. I sup-
port this measure and consider the elimination
of air pollution as one of the nation's priority
problems not only in terms of the obvious and
immediate benefits in the form of improved
health, but also in terms of indirect benefits
which will accrue through improved plant
growth and the aesthetic benefits associated
with our environment.
I am under no illusions that the cleaning up
to America's air will be cheap, but in con-
sidering the cost, we must also consider the
cost of inaction. Recent articles point both
costs out. The U.S. Mews and World Report
in its August 17 issue estimated the cost to he
over $13 billion over the next five years. How-
ever, this same report describes damages from
polluted air to be over $65 billion over the
same period, and this does not include damage
to health.
Lester B, Lave and, Eugene P. Seskin
pointed out in their recent analysis of the
cost effects of air pollution on human health
in Science, August 21, 1970:
"The evidence is extremely good for some
diseases (such as bronchitis and lung cancer)
and only suggestive for others (such as car-
diovascular diseases and non-respiratory tract
cancers), , . . We therefore make the assump-
tion that there would be a 25 to 50 per cent
reduction in morbidity and mortality due to
bronchitis if air pollution in the major urban
areas were abated by about 50 per cent. . . .
Approximately 25 per cent of mortality from
lung cancer can be saved by a 60 per cent re-
duction in air pollution. ... It seems likely
that 25 per cent of all morbidity and mortality
due to respiratory disease could be saved by
a 50 per cent abatement in air pollution levels.
. . . There is evidence that over 20 per cent
of cardiovascular mortality could be saved if
air pollution were reduced by 60 per cent. . . .
We have estimates that 15 per cent of the
cost of cancer would be saved by a 50 per
cent reduction in air pollution. . . . We es-
timate the total annual cost that would be
saved by a 50 per cent reduction in air pollu-
tion levels in major urban areas, in terms of
decreased morbidity and mortality, to be $2080
million. . . , Psychological and aesthetic effect
of air pollution on vegetation, cleanliness, and
the deterioration of materials have not been
included in these estimates."
Mr. President, the bill before the Senate
today builds on the experience and lessons
gained under the present air pollution legisla-
tion, as well as the mounting and increased
awareness of health dangers associated with
the pollution problem. As the committee report
observes, the problem of air pollution "is more
severe, more persuasive, and growing at a
more rapid rate than was generally believed."
I would like to discuss some of the features
of the bill that is before the Senate today.
(1) The bill provides that by model year
1975 an almost pollution-free automobile must
be achieved. 1975 cars must at a minimum
reduce pollution by at least ninety per cent
from the 1970 standards. While industry has
expressed concern that they will not be able
to meet these standards, the health and safety
of our people requires that they do so and I
feel they can. They have risen to similar chal-
lenges in the past and have met standards set
in California, which initially they felt could
not be met. Industry must do so again. Motor
vehicles account for 42 per cent of the five
major pollutants in the nation. In California,,
the car is our principal pollution problem.
Pollution equipment under the bill would be
required to have a fifty-thousand mile war-
ranty. The bill continues the federal preemp-
tion of emission standard setting authority for
automobiles, which means this states are not
permitted to establish their own standards.
The "Murphy Amendment," however, added to
the 1967 Air Quality Act is preserved intact.
Thus, California will continue to be able to
establish standards more stringent than the
federal standards. The Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare is also authorized to
certify used car control devices,
(2) The bill provides for regulations of
fuels and additives.
(3) The bill establishes national ambient
air quality standards with specific timetables
that must be met. This provision would help
to guarantee for all of our citizens cleaner
air in the" future.
(4) The bill establishes air quality goals.
(5) The bill requires that new industry
built in the nation must achieve standards of
performance based on the latest available
control technology.
(6) The legislation prohibits any emission
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1607
of pollution deemed extremely hazardous to
health-
(7) The bill authorizes national emission
standards for selected pollutants. This provides
authority to control pollution not covered by
the ambient air standards or by hazardous
substance emission controls,
(8) The bill requires federal facilities to
clean up. I have felt for some time that the
federal government should set an example for
the nation. Yet, I have discovered that the
federal government often not only is not a
model, but actually is a major polluter in some
areas. This has to stop. President Nixon has
issued an executive order requiring1 federal fa-
cilities to clean up, and these steps are over-
due and indeed welcome.
(9) The bill authorizes increased research
relating to fuels and vehicles.
(10) The bill authorizes research concern-
ing the health effects of air pollution. Recent-
ly the Senate adopted a Smith-Murphy amend-
ment to the Regional Medical bill, calling for
a report by the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare on the health consequences
of pollution. Certainly, we need to know more
about this aspect of the problem.
(11) The bill authorizes the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to abate any
pollution that presents an imminent arid sub-
stantial danger to health.
(12) The bill prohibits the federal govern-
ment from entering contracts with any com-
pany under an abatement order or found to
have knowingly violated air quality laws.
(13) The bill provides .for necessary pen-
alties and controls to make certain that the
standards, goals, and intent of the bill is
carried out.
(14) The bill establishes an Office of Noise
Abatement and Control in the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare. Although
it is clearly understood that if the Environ-
mental Protection Agency as proposed by the
President is established, this noise pollution
function would also be transferred.
Earlier I predicted that the 70*s would be-
come known as the Decade of Environment. It
is not coming any too soon. The President, as
his first official act of 1970 signed into law
the National Environmental Policy Act of
1970 establishing a three-member White House
Council on Environmental Quality. In April,
S. 7, the Water Quality Improvement Act,
which I cosponsored was enacted. In addi-
tion, the President has proposed the creation
of a new environmental Protection Agency to
coordinate, centralize and accelerate the Na-
tion's pollution fight. This was particularly
pleasing to me because I had earlier cospon-
sored with Senator Scott S. 3388, a bill pro-
posing a similar national agency. I have
written the President urging that this agency
be located in California. I ask unanimous con-
sent that my press release on this subject be
included into my remarks. The Senate on
September 1, passed the Environmental Quality
Education Act which I supported to establish
education programs to encourage and enhance
enviionmental quality. The bill the Senate is
considering today will probably rank as the
most significant anti-pollution legislation
passed by the Congress.
So, Mr. President, the air pollution prob-
lem is far more today than a scientific curi-
osity or a favorite topic for jokes. It is a
national disgrace and a menace to the health
and welfare of our people. We have already
i cached that point in our lives when vast na-
tional reigons are being affected by enormous
contaminated air masses. In 1966 I warned
the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution that "time is running out." I said:
"In my judgment the pollution problem is
one of the most serious domestic problems
facing our country today. While serious, it
is not yet critical. The time is not on our
side. It is running out. The delay will not
only be costly in terms of dollars, but even
more impoitant, will be the possible detri-
ment to human health and the interference
with the grenei'al well-being of oui- society."
Mr. President, time now has run out. It
is, as President Nixon has declared, ''now or
nevei" in our battle against pollution We
have reached that point and that time in
our histoiy when we must call a halt to the
fouling of our environment. We must pro-
[p. 33092]
vide oui' citizens with the quality of ah that
they rightly demand and deserve. S. 435S
should do the job
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time? The bill is open to further
amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 930
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 930.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
read the amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered; and,
-------
1608
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
without objection, the amendment will
be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 63, beginning on line 23, strike
out all through line 4 on page 64, and insert
in lieu thereof the following: "and shall be
so warranted for the lifetime of such vehicle
or engine. Fifty thousand miles shall be taken
as the basis for the lifetime of a vehicle or
engine under this section. As a condition to
the obligation of manu "acturers to correct
defects in design, manufacture, or assembly.
manufacturers may require the ultimate pur-
chaser and subseauent purchasers of such ve-
hicle or engine".
On page 64, line 12, strike out the words
"adjustment, operation".
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President,
amendment No. 930 is an amendment
proposed by myself and Mr. BAKER
and Mr. GUENEY. It arose out of the
discussion in the committee, and I
shall explain briefly its purpose. I am
not going to ask for a vote, but I do
think some record of the issue should
go into this debate.
The bill provides for a comprehen-
sive warranty by the manufacturer
running in favor of any purchaser or
subsequent purchaser. The warranty,
as I see it, is a warranty that the
design and the manufacture of the
system and parts in the car which
were designed to control pollutants
will be effective in favor of any initial
purchaser or subsequent purchaser. In
addition there is language in the bill
which extends the warranty to include
"performance". It would seem to me
that such warranty would not only
guarantee the design and equipment
of the car itself but also would
guarantee operation by the owner of
every car, in effect, perhaps a hundred
million car owners in this country.
I must say, however, that in the
discussion, the Senator from Maine
answered such issues quite persuasive-
ly. Inasmuch as I am not an auto-
mobile engineer or technician in any
way, I can just say that I would not
be in a position to rebut those argu-
ments without more information and
without more help from other mem-
bers of the committee who understand
engineering.
I think there is a problem with this
section, and I have only raised it as
an issue but I do not think it should
be determined on the floor of the
Senate. I do not know whether the
problem is as great as I thought it
was in the first instance. I bring it
up so that in conference we could
have a full discussion.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I agree with the
Senator that there are serious prob-
lems in regard to the warranty pro-
visions.
Page 82 of the bill, section 215, pro-
vides that warranty provisions shall
be effective 90 days after the enact-
ment of this section.
Keep in mind that testing pro-
cedures to determine in the field
whether or not the extent to which an,
automobile exhaust is polluting the
air have not yet been developed. Keep
in mind that it has been admitted on
the floor of the Senate over and over
again that the technology to make it
possible to comply with the standards
written into this bill is not in ex-
istence today. The hope is that it will
be developed. But the warranty goes
into effect 90 days after the bill is
enacted.
I wonder whether the Senator from
Maine could explain how it is that a
warranty would go into effect 90 days
after enactment in this particular
situation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator
that since the emission standards were
set by the Secretary under the 1965
law, automobiles presumably should
have been meeting the standards. The
fact is that they have not.
For example, according to testimony
of the National Air Pollution Control
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1609
Administration—I read from the re-
port:
The more complete data confirmed that
slightly more than one-half of the cars tested
failed to meet either the hydrocarbon or
the carbon monoxide standard. For one model,
more than 80 percent of the cars tested failed
one or more tests. Due to the small number
of cars, these emission data were not ex-
trapolated to 60,000 miles. However, on the
basis of the California data, one would expect
that the emissions would tend to increase to
some extent with increased mileage accumu-
lation.
So the record is that, although the
industry has been able to get certifica-
tion of the new cars and has sold
them—and has sold them under the
assurance that they were meeting the
standards—the fact is that the cars
are not meeting the standards.
So what we are concerned about is
not only the tests or the standards
that the cars meet while they are in
the factory, but also whether or not
they continue to meet these standards
afterward. We are asking the con-
sumers of America to pay an extra
cost, which undoubtedly will be im-
posed upon these cars, for cleaner
cars. The only way we can assure
them that they are getting what they
are paying for is to impose upon the,
manufacturer a responsibility and an
obligation to build into these cars a
durability quality that will permit the
cars to meet the performance stand-
ards required.
We think that the warranty is es-
sential. The used car population of
this country now numbers more than
100 million and is increasing at the
rate of a million and a half, discount-
ing those taken off the road. If we are
to clean up the used car population of
this country, we have to require that
new cars meet not only the standards
on the production line but also the
standards in performance. Unless
they do, the whole exercise is useless,
so far as I am concerned.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Of course, the goals
and objectives are very desirable; I'm
sure we are all for them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield myself time
on this bill.
The question is, How realistic and
how practical is the proposed legisla-
tion? Until now, warranties that have
been required, as I understand it,
have related to workmanship and
material in the automobile as it came
off the assembly line. Now, under this
bill, we would extend the warranty
far beyond that. We would say that
not only does the material and work-
manship have to meet certain stand-
ards when it comes off the assembly
line—but also, that, it must still per-
form in accordance with those stand-
ards 50,000 miles later.
Now, the fact is that testing pro-
cedures with regard to exhaust emis-
sion to establish whether a car, in the
field, 10,000 miles later, or 50,000
miles later, is still performing are not
available. Is that not correct, I would
ask the Senator from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the
Senator that in the bill as presented
to the committee, we had a provision
that the warranty should not be re-
quired until the Secretary was satis-
fied that the testing procedures were
available. It was at the request of the
industry that that was changed to 90
days after enactment. I suggested a
few moments ago to the Senator that
I would be happy to revert to the com-
mittee language if that would meet
his problem, but he was not interested.
We are interested in relating the war-
ranty and its application to the avail-
ability of the appropriate testing pro-
cedures.
May I say another thing to the
Senator, and this is from the testi-
mony of Mr. Williams of the Auto-
mobile Manufacturers Association in
1965, where he suggested that na-
-------
1610
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tional standards be tested against the
criteria one of them being, that (c) —
Control of emissions by establishment of
performance standards rather than design
standards.
The industry itself emphasized from
the beginning, until they were faced
with this deadline, that performance
should be the test and that it should
be geared to the requirements of am-
bient air. That has been their case
since 1967 and before.
Now that we take them up on that,
they inject other arguments, that we
should not insist upon performance
standards, which they cannot guaran-
tee, but that we should go only to the
design standards, that the warranty
should not be related to performance
but to design.
The story is different, now that we
take them up on the guidelines they
laid down in 1967, which we have been
trying to follow.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the
goals and objectives of this legisla-
tion are fine. But I do not think that
the bill before the Senate is very
realistic. I agree with the Senator
from Kentucky, I do not believe that
we can rewrite this
[p. 33093]
measure on the Senate floor. I would
offer an amendment, but it is almost
impossible to rewrite the bill in such
manner. I hope this exchange has
demonstrated that there are real prob-
lems in the bill, and I hope this will
not be lost upon the conferees repre-
senting the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD the language of the com-
mittee report dealing with this ques-
tion of the warranty.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt from the report, ordered to be
printed in the EECOKD, follows:
SECTION 207. VEHICLE AND VEHICLE ENGINE
COMPLIANCE TESTING
Section 207 would represent & significant
departure from prior provisions for control
of vehicle emissions. At the present time com-
pliance with national emission standards for
vehicles and engines is determined on the basis
of whether the average of a class or model
complies with the standard. Section 206 con-
tinues this procedure. Under section 206 proto-
type models would be certified as to compli-
ance with standards and production-line sam-
ple-testing would be authorized to assure that
the average of the models coming off the
production line conforms to preproduction cer-
tification.
Under section 207, each production line ve-
hicle would be required to comply with appli-
cable emission standards. Each vehicle would
be required to comply with standards for a
50,000-mile lifetime. The manufacturer would
be required to warranty the performance of
each individual vehicle as to compliance with
emission standards. The dealer would not carry
any obligation under this provision.
This section would provide two methods to
determine whether or not individual cars will
perform to the emission standard. First, the
Secretary would be provided with the authori-
ty to test representative samples of vehicles
on the road and, if he found that a repre-
sentative sample of a model or class fails to
continue to comply with the standards within
the 50,000-mile period, he could require the
manufacturers to recall that model or class
for the purpose of correcting any noncon-
formity.
The second compliance testing method would
be triggered by the development of a quick
test procedure. The Secretary would be re-
quired to develop a teat which could be quickly
and uniformly applied to individual vehicles
on the production line and on the road to de-
termine whether or not those vehicles com-
ply or continue to comply with the standards
for which they were certified. The quick test
would have to be correlated with the pre-
certification test procedure. It would have to
be a test which could he applied in a reason-
able period of time related to the normal time
for a regular vehicle inspection. A quick test
should avoid unnecessary slowdown of pro-
duction lines, unnecessary consumer inconven-
ience, while providing a method to determine
whether individual vehicles on the road are
continuing to meet the standards for which
they were certified.
The need to assure individual vehicle com-
pliance became evident after sample-testing:
of vehicles on the road (both from Caifornia
and nationally) revealed deterioration from
conformance with the standard.
According to testimony of the National Air
Pollution Control Administration:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1611
"The more complete data confirm that
slightly more than one-half of the cars tested
failed to meet either the hydrocarbon or the
carbon monoxide standard. For one model,
more than 80 percent of the cars tested failed
one or more tests. Due to the small number
of cars, these emission data were not extrap-
olated to 50,000 miles; however, on the basis
of the California data one would expect that
the emissions would tend to increase to some
extent with increased mileage accumulations."
This bill would require the American peo-
ple to make a substantially greater investment
in motor vehicles to assure that air quality
standards are implemented. This investment
would be defensible only if the emission con-
trol systems continued to conform to stand-
ards for the lifetime of the vehicle. Substantial
deterioration from the emission standard would
mean that the manufacturer was not designing
emission control systems which meet the intent
of this legislation. It would mean that air qual-
ity standards in regions throughout the Na-
tion would not be effectively maintained, and
it would mean that potentially billions of dol-
lars of consumer investment would be to no
purpose.
The Committee has no reason to believe that
emission control would be inexpensive. The
automobile industry has indicated that achieve-
ment of the 1975 standards set by the bill
would be costly—whether such standards were
achieved through cleaning up the internal
combustion engine or through development of
an alternative power source.
The manufacturers informed the Committee
that they would not be able to guarantee con-
formity with emission standards for the antici-
pated 10-year life of a vehicle. The committee
bill provides that 50,000 miles would be the
maximum that a vehicle would be required
to conform to the standards for which it was
certified. The Committee bill would provide
that a manufacturer may require reasonable
evidence of proper maintenance of a vehicle
and must provide written instructions on
maintenance, adjustments, service and op-
eration. The Committee hopes that, if the
motorist complied with these instructions, emis-
sion controls would not deteriorate after 50,-
000 miles to the extent that ambient air qual-
ity would be impaired. The Committee further
expects the manufacturer to endeavor to either
improve the quality control of emission systems
or explore better ways to assure continued
compliance beyond 50,000 miles of use.
The warranty required by this section would
not become effective until 90 days after enact-
ment of this Act. This delay would be needed
so that the manufacturer could prepare in-
structions for the motor vehicle purchaser. The
Committee expects these instructions to be
reasonable and uncomplicated. They would have
to be approved by the Secretary. During: such
time as the warranty provision is effective, ve-
hicles manufactured after that date would be
required to comply \vith present standards.
Vehicles manufactured in future years would
have to be warranted to comply with such
standards as may be applicable.
The Committee intends that the public should
be made aware of the actual cost, not the
manufacturer's price of any air pollution con-
trol equipment and warranty. While the Com-
mittee recognizes that separation of specific
costs for air pollution control may be difficult,
it is quite likely there would be a marked in-
crease in cars in 1975. To the extent that
such costs are attributed to the control of air
pollution emissions the Committee intends that
those increases be the actual cost of the air
pollution systems involved.
The Committee also recognizes the difficulty
in any recall provision of notifying the own-
ers of vehicles. The burden would be placed
on the manufacturer to notify both the initial
and subsequent purchasers of vehicles. The
Committee expects that the manufacturer would
not only depend on the files of the franchise
dealer, but would, to the extent practicable,
use State motor vehicle department registration
files to obtain the names and addresses of sub-
sequent purchasers of cars. By establishing a
50,000 mile, no year lifetime for the purpose
of warranty, the Committee did not intend to
relieve the automobile manufacturers of their
responsibility to notify owners of older cars.
The 50,000-mile period can be assumed to be
4 to 5 years and the manufacturer should he
expected to notify any owner of a vehicle that
is five years old or less as to failure to con-
tinue to perform to the standard, A decision
not to require the manufacturer to repair the
vehicle could be made after notice and after
finding: that the vehicle had exceeded the B0,»
000-mile warranty period.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me
make clear precisely what it provides.
It provides that there shall be a
manufacturer's warranty of perform-
ance for 50,000 miles.
Throughout discussions with the in-
dustry over the past 6 or 7 years, that
is what they were stating, 50,000
miles. They do not consider that tech-
nology would be effective or worth-
while, in terms of cost to the con-
sumer, unless it meets the 50,000-mile
test. So we are asking for that, be-
cause unless automobiles will perform
for a practical proportion of their
life, meeting standards initially may
not be worthwhile. Fifty thousand
-------
1612
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
miles is not all their life, 100,000 miles
being nearer to a measure of the life
of a motor vehicle, but we have taken
50,000 miles, comparable to the 50,000-
mile guarantee some companies gave
us a few years ago on the drive train
and the lubrication question, and we
have used that 50,000-mile test on per-
formance.
We understand, of course, that per-
formance depends at present as well
upon the extent to which the operator
maintains his car. We have said in
the report, and made it clear in the
language of the bill, indeed, that un-
less the individual operator meets the
manufacturer's instructions with re-
spect to maintaining the car as it re-
lates to the clean air provisions of
the automobile, the warranty will not
be available to the owner. That is the
language of the bill. It was written
into the bill, on page 64.
May I read it?
As a. condition to the obligation of manu-
facturers to correct deficient performance,
manufacturers may require the ultimate pur-
chaser and subsequent purchasers of such ve-
hicle or engines (a) to provide reasonable evi-
dence of the time when such vehicles or
engines were first placed in regular service
and (b) to provide reasonable evidence that
prescribed maintenance, adjustment, and serv-
ice requirements and schedules have been ob-
served. The manufacturer shall furnish with
each vehicle or engine written instructions for
the proper maintenance, adjustment, operation,
and service by the owner or operator.
In addition, Mr. President, the bill
provides grant-in-aid programs to
States and communities to develop in-
spection programs and services com-
parable to the safety inspection serv-
ices programs, that enable both
operator and manufacturer to stay on
top of the maintenance problem. That
is the key. The industry has recog-
nized that, from the time of its 1967
testimony and before. We have merely
responded to that concern of theirs.
We understand that it is not pres-
ently possible to build a maintenance-
[p. 33094]
proof, clean car, but that it is pos-
sible—with the use of a system that
is built with some durability in it and
some responsibility imposed upon the
operator—to assure reasonably clean
operation of such an automobile. We
have to have the two. One without the
other is like a one-legged man.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Maine yield me some
time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PACKWOOD). The Senator from Colo-
rado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I
think we are all trying to get at the
same thing, but on this subject, which
I had not intended to speak on, that
the Senator from Maine was discuss-
ing, it raises some questions in my
mind.
First, where is an operator going to
get the maintenance necessary to keep
his car operating at the supposed level
as when he purchased it?
My experience with various cars,
and I am sure it is no different from
anyone else's in the Senate, is that, to
secure competent maintenance on a
car at the present time in any respect
is almost an impossibility. In fact,
even for rather simple operations, it
is nothing unusual to have to take
back the car two or three times.
So, that is a weak spot in the bill.
Whether we can do anything about it,
I do not know, but it certainly is a
weak spot in the bill.
We are assuming that the auto-
mobile manufacturers are able to de-
velop the kind of emission control as
contemplated in the bill either by 1975
or 1976. Yet, we still would have an-
other problem.
For example, if I am delivered a car
in Washington, D.C., which contains
the so-called proper emission controls,
and it is in working condition and
performance and up to the standards
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1613
which have been set, and I drive that
car to Denver, Colo., that car will no
longer meet those qualifications which
held in Washington, D.C.
On the other hand, when I reach
Denver, if I am fortunate enough to
find a garage in which I can get the
emission controls on the car corrected
so that they meet the standards when
the car was delivered to me, I still
have a problem when I leave and
drive to, say, Vail or Dillon, and I
cross two mountain passes, one of
which is a few thousand feet, under
12,000 feet, and the other is in excess
of 11,000 feet, the car will not meet
the emission standards there. There-
fore, under the provisions of the bill,
I am contributing to a violation of the
bill and its purposes. Because one
simply cannot create an emission con-
trol which will be workable at sea
level, at 5,000 feet, at 11,000 feet, or
at 12,000 feet or, again, at 8,500 feet.
I do not know whether this means
that, as an operator I would have to—
and this would affect a lot of people
in my State—have my car taken to
a garage at each change of altitude,
but there are factors like this—al-
though I have not gone extensively
into consideration of the bill—which
have to be considered. As I say, the
first thing which concerns me is the
ability of an operator of a vehicle to
get it adequately cared for and the
second thing is the change in climatic
conditions. The car is affected by
climatic conditions and not just by
altitude. The change in emission in
any particular application of a car
is caused by a change in climate and
a change in altitude.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield rather briefly?
Mr. ALLOTT. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
want to clear up something I said
earlier. At one point I believe I in-
dicated that there are no testing pro-
cedures available at the present time.
That was an error. It is possible to
test the exhaust of a car now. But I
am told that it takes $50,000 worth of
equipment, several highly trained
technicians, and 13 hours of time for
each test of each car.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I am
referring to the kind of a test that
would be necessary to determine the
performance level after 10,000 or 50,-
000 miles.
Mr. ALLOTT. That is on an in-
dividual car.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is on one in-
dividual car. Now, what is lacking
and needed is a quicker, more con-
venient, and cheaper way of testing.
Although the bill itself does not say
anything about this, the committee
report contemplates that the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, hopefully, will develop some
quick testing procedure—a procedure
not available at the present time. In
the meantime, there are no practical
testing procedures.
There is no indication in the bill as
to who would pay the cost, how it is
to be paid, or who would provide the
equipment. However, the warranty
provision goes into effect, neverthe-
less, 90 days after enactment of the
bill.
Mr. ALLOTT. The Senator is
correct. However, it is the Senator
from Michigan and I, the users, who
are going to pay for the testing and
for whatever controls are put on the
car. There can be no question about
this. That is true of the American
people in this whole area of environ-
ment, ecology control, and so forth.
There is no use in kidding ourselves.
The American people will be spending
526-703 O - 73 - 29
-------
1614
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
a lot more for a lot of products in
order to have the industries meet the
standards that Congress is promulgat-
ing now. I think they are proper. I
think we are proceeding in the right
direction. However, it is John Q.
Public who pays and who will pay for
the testing and for the maintenance
and all the rest of it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in re-
sponse to the point made by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Michigan,
the committee has long been aware oi
the need for a quickie test, so-called.
This is why we geared the warranty
provision to such time as the Secre-
tary is satisfied such a test exists. The
90-day provision that is in here now,
and that might be in effect imposing
the requirement on the industry be-
fore such a test is developed, is at
the insistence of the industry.
I repeat that the bill proposed by
the committee would have been geared
to the establishment of a quickie test.
I have no objection to modifying
the bill to return it to what it was. I
assume that the industry had some
reason for insisting upon the 90-day
provision.
With respect to the points made by
the Senator from Colorado, he says
that the points he made reflect the
weakness of the bill. I take issue with
that statement. The weaknesses that
are reflected are endemic in the indus-
try and the internal combustion engine.
The industry itself has recognized
this over the years. And it has con-
stantly striven to make the automobile
maintenance-proof. It has undertaken
to stretch out the life of the lubrica-
tion system, to reduce the number of
times or the frequency of lubrication,
and so on.
The industry recognizes that the
American motorist is not a good main-
tenance engineer. Therefore the in-
dustry has worked to make the car
maintenance proof.
I think the greatest problem the in-
dustry faces is the shortage of me-
chanics across this country. As a
matter of fact, if there were sufficient
mechanics and if each owner followed
the particular maintenance schedules
of the automobiles, without any new
technology or new devices, they would
be substantially cleaner vehicles. I do
not know the extent to which they
might be cleaned up, but I suspect
that 50 percent might not be a bad
target at which to shoot. That is be-
cause oi maintenance problems.
We cannot by legislation remake
the automobile industry. We brought
pressure on the industry from the be-
ginning, 7 years ago, to press with
urgency, not merely for control of the
internal combustion engine, but for
the electric automobile, the external
combustion engine, and other ideas
that might develop in order to get
away from the problem of the internal
combustion engines. That is because
the internal combustion engine has
greater maintenance problems than
the electric or the external combus-
tion engine would if it were developed.
The industry likes the internal com-
bustion engine. It likes the comfort
and the conveniences it has built into
it.
The pending bill does not say to the
industry, "You have to stick with
this." It does not say that Congress
is committed to the internal combus-
tion engine.
We cannot solve the problem of
whatever technology the industry
chooses to put its bets on. All we can
do is to set the standards.
The automobile industry has created
all of the problems from the top to
the bottom. The corner service station
is related to the fact that Detroit built
an automobile with an internal com-
bustion system.
The dealer on Main Street is a prod-
uct of the manufacturer in Detroit.
He gets his franchise from them. He
gets the manufacturer's requirements
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1615
as to what kind of building he should
construct, what kind of service he
should provide.
[p. 33095]
The key to controlling the situation
is in Detroit, As a matter of fact, the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER)
has persisted in making the point that
it is not for us to say how these
things should be done, but rather what
performance standards are to be met.
So, if the bill is weak in not pro-
viding for the solution of the mainte-
nance problem, I would welcome an
amendment that would cure that
weakness. But I do not think there is
any way of writing a law that will
create maintenance capability all
across the country. Only the auto-
mobile industry can do that.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I
would have to take exception to the
statement about the automobile in-
dustry, because I think the internal
combustion engine has resulted in
great efficiency. The torque, the
r.p.m., speed of pickup, all of those
factors are things that the American
people have demanded.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, they
have demanded it because of the auto-
mobile industry's advertising. There is
plenty of testimony to the effect that
we do not need power built into the
automobiles. The appetite for the
power has been stimulated by adver-
tising.
The Senator knows that if the in-
dustry had chosen to put its muscle
behind low power cars, lighter cars,
cheaper cars, emission-free cars, it
could have sold them. Does the Sena-
tor from Colorado doubt that?
'Mr. ALLOTT. I think only within
limits could they have done that. My
feeling is that what the automobile
industry has done is to meet the
demands of the public. I admit, they
have advertised and promoted the prod-
uct just as one would promote suds
or some other kind of detergent. This
is part of the American way of life.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I can
recall driving an automobile back in
the mid-thirties-
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I will
get the floor later if the Senator wants
it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought the Sena-
tor had yielded the floor. I had gotten
the floor and was speaking and the
Senator from Colorado interrupted to
ask me a question.
Mr. ALLOTT. The Senator yielded
to me. It is all right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I can
recall driving my first automobile. It
had 100 horsepower. I cannot recall
demanding 200. I cannot recall even
thinking about it until the industry
put it in my mind.
Mr. President, now I insist on some-
thing at least that powerful or more.
The idea did not originate with me,
but with the industry. I must say I
enjoy it.
I say to the Senator that this bill
is not directed only to the automobile
industry. This bill is going to require
that the American motorist change his
habits, his tastes, and his driving ap-
petites. Of course, he has to, if we
are to revert to a lighter car and a
lower powered car. Those two factors,
without any technology, could drasti-
cally reduce emission. The consumer
also must make sacrifices in addition
to those made by the manufacturer.
So it is rather pointless to argue
about whether the appetite rose in in-
dustry advertising or within the minds
of consumers. The fact is both must
now modify their concept of what
tomorrow's automobile should be.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
yield 5 minutes on the bill to the
Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BAYH). The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
-------
1616
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I
want to say in response to what has
been said here that I am sorry there
really is only one authority on auto-
mobiles on the floor although ap-
parently there are others who have
driven a little bit.
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator
identify the authority?
Mr. ALLOTT. Would the Senator
repeat his question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Would the Senator
identify that exclusive authority? I
had not recognized it.
Mr. ALLOTT. I have been listening
to him for a little bit here.
Mr. President, I am frank to say, to
get back to this matter, we will have
several problems and one will be with
maintenance. I think if it were
possible today to check the personal
car of each Senator, I would doubt
very much if any is operated within
75 percent of its specifications. It is
impossible to get repairs to get them
to operate at much more than that—
maybe 80 percent, and I am being
kind at that. That is the point I make.
In the operation of this particular
matter one cannot apply the same
standards to an automobile here and
an automobile that is driven to Denver
or over into the mountains, and have
that car meet the standards that it
did when it was originally made and
delivered, even if it were 100 percent.
No one can deny that. No automotive
engineer that I know of anywhere in
the country will deny it.
Second, I do think that we have to
think not only in terms of what is
going to happen to our engines when
we have to drive them across the
country, but we have to think of main-
taining them. These are the two points
I make. Nothing I have heard con-
vinces me otherwise, and I am sus-
ceptible to being convinced. I would
like to hear if there are answers to
those points.
But what are we going to do with
people who have the kind of country
we have in Colorado where one goes
from 3,000 feet in some parts of our
State to 12,000 feet, and 12,000 feet
is nothing unusual in our State; and
then, the car will have to be adjusted
every 5 miles as it goes up 1,000 feet.
These are the problems we face.
I do not say the bill is wrong for
that reason, but there are problems
we have to face and it does not do any
good to say the automobile industry
inflicted this on us.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, may I
have 3 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 3 minutes to
the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, getting
back to the testing requirements, my
able colleague from Michigan raised a
point I thought was completely valid;
namely, that the obligation becomes
effective 90 days after enactment but
there is not available presently the
means within reason to make the
tests.
I was surprised to hear from the
able Senator from Maine that origi-
nally he had shared that concern, but
the committee had changed the lan-
guage at the specific request of the
automobile manufacturers.
None of us claims infallibility about
anything, but I wonder if Detroit,
given the opportunity for second
thoughts on this, would not agree with
my colleague from Michigan, that the
original position of the committee
would be much more desirable. Under
the original language the obligation
would not become applicable until 90
days after there was available reason-
ably the means for a test. The Secre-
tary would be obliged to make an
executive finding, that such a test
existed before the obligation would
arise.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. I yield.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1617
Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not know. I
take the Senator from Maine at his
word. I do not know what the position
of the industry was before his com-
mittee. I find it inconceivable that they
would ask for a warranty to go into
effect 90 days after enactment if there
was a provision in the bill that said it
would not go into effect until a certain
testing procedure was developed; and
we have no idea at the present time
how long it will take to develop.
Mr. HART. I find in the committee
report language to suggest it was in-
deed the committee's original inten-
tion and, for some reason, apparently
at Detroit's request they put in the
requirement that it go into effect 90
days after enactment. We find in the
report on page 29, fourth paragraph,
this language:
The second compliance testins method would
be triggered by the development of a quick
test procedure. The Secretary would be re-
quired to develop a test which could be quick-
ly and uniformly applied to individual vehicles
on the production line and on the road to de-
termine whether or not those vehicles comply
or continue to comply with the standards for
which they were certified.
Mr. GRIFFIN. If I may pursue this
further, when we talk about the Secre-
tary developing quick tests, I wonder
if anybody, including the Senator
from Maine, has any idea how much
it will cost to make quick tests avail-
able all over the country and how
long it will take.
Mr. MUSKIE. If we knew we would
not need to give the Secretary discre-
tion, would we?
Mr. HART. But we have not given
him discretion in the bill as reported.
I feel it would be preferable to state
something on the order of:
Within 90 days after the Secretary estab-
lishes methods and procedures for the tests
required that this obligation be established.
I cannot understand why that is
not in the interest of the manufactur-
ers and all dependent on the industry.
Mr. MUSKIE. I find that language
completely acceptable. I agree it is
asking a great deal to impose a war-
ranty
[p. 33096]
before we have a test to measure
whether or not the warranty is being
violated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself an-
other 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized for
another 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be perfectly
agreeable. May I suggest that here
are three Senators discussing this
matter. Why do we not decide what
should be in the bill and recommend
it to the Senate? We seem to be in
agreement. I am for it and the two
Senators are for it.
I suggest we offer the amendment
to the bill and let the Senate act on it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I would support the
amendment. It is a small step in the
right direction, but it points out how
ridiculous this portion of the legisla-
tion is.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, as compared to
what the committee had in the bill, if
it has become ridiculous because of
this provision, the source of the
ridiculousness is not the committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
It is ridiculous to say a warranty
shall be effective 90 days after enact-
ment when there is no testing pro-
cedure available. It would also be
ridiculous to say the warranty pro-
vision would be effective 90 days after
the Secretary develops a quick test,
whatever that is, when we have no
idea if this quick test can be made
available throughout the country in
90 days, how much it would cost, or
what would be involved. It is legislat-
-------
1618
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ing in the dark, and it is ridiculous.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, let us
take the small step, anyhow.
I would offer as an amendment the
addition of this language beginning on
page 63, at line 19, striking nothing,
but inserting prior to the language
appearing on line 19:
Within 90 days after the Secretary shall
have established feasible methods and proce-
dures for making testa as required by sub-
section (b) —
And, as a necessary conforming
amendment, I am advised that a
change on page 82, line 10, would be
required; namely, deleting the refer-
ence to "207 (c)".
I would inquire of the manager of
the bill
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is advised by the Parliamen-
tarian that an amendment is pending.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. I am withdrawing
my amendment to amend section 207. I
think the discussion that insued fol-
lowing my calling it up indicates some
of the problems that we had in the
committee. Since I am no engineer—
in fact, since 1936, I have not owr.sd a
car, nor have I driven a car in 20
years—-I think there are problems in
the warranty amendment. However,
trying to separate the warranty as
between a construction and design
warranty from a warranty which
would extend to performance of auto-
mobiles driven by 100 million drivers
is extremely difficult.
There are provisions in the bill
which seem to put pressure on the
manufacturers to produce a design
which will last 50,000 miles or the
life of the car. These include certifica-
tion by the Secretary; second, a pro-
vision that it will require testing on
the production line; third, a provision
that the Secretary can test it at any
time; fourth, that the Secretary can
order recall of any number of cars
from any number of owners; and
finally, penalties of up to $10,000 if a
car is put in commerce which will not
meet these standards.
So it seems to me there was a
question as to whether there should be
a performance warranty. As I have
said, my knowledge is not sufficient
to comprehend it. With other problems
of the committee, we may not have
gone into it as fully as we could. I
wanted to raise the matter because I
think it is proper that we have some
further discussion of it in conference;
but I withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Ken-
tucky is withdrawn.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment providing that the fol-
lowing language be inserted on line
19, page 63:
Within 90 days after the Secretary shall
have established feasible methods and proce-
dures for making tests as required by sub-
section (b) —
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will
the Senator send his amendment to
the desk?
Mr. HART. Mr. President, this
amendment is offered by my colleague
from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN) and
myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments offered by the Senator
from Michigan will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the
amendments, as follows:
On page 63, line 19, after "(c)", insert
"Within 90 days after the Secretary shall
have established feasible methods and proce-
dures for making tests as required by sub-
section (b),".
On page 82, line 10, strike out "207 (c),".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1619
have already indicated, I am willing to
accept this amendment. I am happy
to yield back my time.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think
I have indicated that the amendment
is offered both by myself and my col-
league (Mr. GRIFFIN).
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on the amendment having been
yielded back, the question is on agree-
ing, en bloc, to the amendments of-
fered by the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. HART) for himself and Mr.
GRIFFIN.
The amendments were agreed to en
bloc.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call
up two amendments which were to be
offered by the Senator from Tennes-
see (Mr. BAKER), but which have not
yet been called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the
amendment, as follows:
On pagre 90, line 24, after the word "know-
how" insert the following: "which is being
used or intended for public or commercial
use and".
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, it
was necessary for the junior Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) to leave
the city. Prior to his departure he
sent to the desk two amendments to
modify section 309 regarding manda-
tory licensing. I understand he dis-
cussed the amendments with the
manager of the bill (Mr. MusKIE)
and the manager on the minority side
(Mr. BOGGS). I believe there is no op-
position to the amendments. The Sena-
tor from Tennessee asked if I would
call the amendments up for adoption
and include for the RECORD his state-
ment in support of the amendments.
To the extent that section 309
covers all know-how and trade secrets
known to the owner of my patent,
know-how or trade secret, it is too
broad to be meaningful. It is impor-
tant that any know-how or trade
secrets used in the manufacture of
commercially available devices, vehi-
cles or engines be licensed, but it
would be unworkable to require all
industries to disclose all know-how
and trade secrets, whether used com-
mercially or not.
Thus, the section should be limited
to know-how or trade secrets used
commercially, whether or not the sec-
tion is limited to the industries cov-
ered in title II.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
discussed this amendment with the
Senator from Tennessee and the Sen-
ator from Kentucky. The American
Bar Association patents section raised
this question. It is a technical matter.
I am perfectly willing to accept the
amendment, and also the next amend-
ment which I think the Senator will
offer. I think there is no objection on
the part of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do
Senators yield back their time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
Mr. COOPER. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on the amendment having been
yielded back, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment offered by the
Senator from Kentucky.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I send
to the desk the other amendment
which was intended to be offered by
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BAKER) .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the
amendment, as follows:
On page 92, beginning at line 7: strike out
the subsection (c) and subsection (d) and
insert the following new subsections:
"(c) If the owner of any United States
letters patent, patent application, trade se-
cret, or know-how and any applicant for a li-
cense thereunder pursuant to subsection (a)
are unable to agree upon reasonable royalties
-------
1620
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
to be charged under such license or upon
any other provision which might be included
in such license pursuant to subsection (b),
either party may seek a declaration of the
amount of royalties to be charged or any
other provision of such license in an action
for declaratory judgment under Sections 2201
and 2202 of Title 28 of the United States
[p. 33097]
Code in a court of competent jurisdiction
regardless of the amount in controversy or
the citizenship of the parties.
"(d) The court, in issuing any order or
judgment on any action brought pursuant
to subsection (c) of this Section may award
or apportion the cost of litigation, including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees
whenever the court determines that such action
will do justice in the case.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to grant an exemption from the anti-
trust laws of the United States or any judg-
ments, ordered or decreed thereunder."
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, this
is the other amendment that was to
have been offered by the junior Sena-
tor from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER). He
asked me if I would call it up. He
informed me that he had discussed
it with the manager of the bill (Mr.
MUSKIE) and th« manager on the
minority side (Mr. BOGGS).
Senator BAKER has an explanation
of some length, which I shall not read
in full but summarize it in substance,
as I understand it. Under this section
of the bill, if there were a matter
which came to arbitration as to royal-'
ties, it would be resolved through the
rules of the American Arbitration As-
sociation. Senator BAKER'S amendment
would provide for substituting a
judicial declaratory judgment ap-
proach to resolve royalty disputes in
the place of the compulsory arbitra-
tion route.
I ask unanimous consent that the
complete statement of the Senator
from Tennessee be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECCED, as follows:
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ROUTE
Section 309(c) of the bill, as amended in
Committee, deviates from other provisions of
the bill with respect to the manner in which
disputes arising under the act should be re-
solved. It heaps compulsory arbitration upon
compulsory licensing, without any right of
judicial review.
The bill provides for arbitration under the
rules of The American Arbitration Associa-
tion then in effect. Congress has no control
over those rules and they may be changed
over night without Congressional control or
approval. On the other hand, the rules under
which the federal judiciary operates are sub-
ject to control by Congress and the proce-
dures available in the Federal Courts under
the declaratory judgment statute are well
established and adapted to resolve disputes
over such things as royalty rates and protec-
tion of know-how and trade secrets against
disclosure to unauthorized persons.
The purpose of substituting the declaratory
judgment route for the compulsory arbitration
route, is not only to utilize well known, estab-
lished procedures in the Federal Courts but
also to establish legal precedents to aid in
the implementation of the legislation.
Utilization of the federal judiciary will also
maintain a balance between the Executive
Branch and the judiciary in implementation
of all of the provisions of the act instead of
relegating the determination of legal relation-
ships to lay arbiters outside the framework of
our national government.
The provision for awarding or allocating
costs, attorney and expert witness fees is
substantially the same as that set forth in
Section 304(b) with respect to citizen suits
and allows for the application of equitable
principles in allocating such costs to prevent
injustice.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have
already indicated that I have dis-
cussed this matter with the Senator
from Tennessee and the Senator from
Kentucky. This is another amendment
in response to questions raised by the
section of the American Bar Associa-
tion dealing with this subject. I think
it makes sense. I support the amend-
ment, and I yield back the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Kentucky yield back
the remainder of his time?
Mr. COOPER. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1621
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from
Kentucky in behalf of the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER)-
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows :
On page 69, line 20, insert after "except"
the following: "In the case of vehicle or ve-
hicle engines".
On page 70, lines 22 and 23, strike "partic-
ularly such control, regulations or restric-
tions necessary". On line 23 after "with" in-
sert "plans for the implementation of".
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
have discussed this amendment with
the able Senator from Maine, the
chairman of our subcommittee.
The language of section 210, as re-
ported, seemed to me not to appear
to fully reflect the intent of the com-
mittee with regard to Federal pre-
emption for aircraft, as well as vessels
and commercial vehicle operations.
The omission on page 69, line 22 of
the word, "vehicle," before the word
"engines" clouds the precision of the
preemption and raises the question
of whether States will have the
authority to require more restrictive
emission standards for aircraft
engines than those established by the
Secretary under section 202(a). This
problem can be remedied by the ad-
dition on line 20 after the word "ex-
cept", the words: "in the case of
vehicles and vehicle engines".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
think the amendment clarifies the in-
tent of the legislation, and I support
it. I yield back the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from West Virginia yield
back the remainder of his time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from West Vir-
ginia.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
send to the desk another amendment,
and ask for its immediate considera-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows:
On page 10, line 20, insert the following
language as a new paragraph (4) at section
109(a):
"Section 109 (a) (4): The Secretary may
establish a standing consulting Committee for
each air pollution agent or combination of
agents published pursuant to subsection (a)
(1) of this section, which shall be comprised
of technically qualified individuals representa-
tive of state and local governments, industry
and the academic community. Such Committee
shall recommend to the Secretary appropriate
information as he may request on pollution
control techniques applicable to such air pollu-
tion agent or combination thereof for distribu-
tion to the States and to appropriate air pol-
lution control agencies. Such information shall
include (!) data relating; to the technology and
costs of emission control, (ii) such data as are
available on the latest available technology
and alternative methods of prevention and
control of air pollution, and (iii) data on
alternative fuels, processes, and operating
methods which will result in elimination or
significant reduction of emissions."
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
have also discussed this amendment
with the able Senator from Maine. It
is my belief that since enactment of
the 1967 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, it has become apparent that
one of the deficiencies in the operation
of the National Air Pollution Control
Administration has been the agency's
lack of understanding of industrial
pollution control techniques. It is, of
course, easy for Government to arrive
at a set figure for industry to meet
-------
1622
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
without giving due consideration to
whether those requirements are ob-
tained on the basis of available con-
trol technology.
At times Government officials may
believe that where the literature sets
out a method which has been proven
in the laboratory or in a pilot plant,
then this method can be successfully
utilized by industry in abating a given
air pollution problem. This may or
may not be true. Occasions have
arisen when there has been a distinct
conflict between inexperienced Govern-
ment technical personnel and industry
representatives who must do the "nuts
and bolts" work of solving a given air
pollution problem. For that reason, I
believe it is important that the Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare have the authority to establish
standing consulting committees on the
pollutants for which criteria have
been issued. These standing commit-
tees would advise the Secretary on
the appropriate control technology for
each pollutant. Following the pro-
cedure specified, the information
would then be issued to State and
local control agencies in the form of
a control techniques document.
Senators have noted that we use the
language "as he may request." Cer-
tainly this would be done after con-
sultation with appropriate advisory
committees and Federal departments
and agencies.
It should be emphasized that under
the present language of section 107 (c)
of the Clean Air Act, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare is
authorized to issue to the States and
appropriate air pollution control
agencies information on recommended
pollution control techniques after con-
sultation with appropriate advisory
committees and Federal departments
and agencies.
All of us recognize that air pollu-
tion and its control is a major issue
facing the country today. We all want
to improve the quality of the air we
breathe as rapidly as possible. How-
ever, in the process we need to use
care that the control methods which
are recommended by Government are
based on available con-
[p. 33098]
trol technology and not merely on
theoretical considerations.
I sincerely believe the amendment I
have proposed today would be help-
ful in assuring that the control tech-
niques recommended by NAPCA are
practical ones and ones capable of
being used successfully by industry
in the strenuous efforts which will be
needed if this country is to solve its
air pollution problems.
I commend, as I have done on many
occasions, the able leadership of the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
I compliment him for the work he
has done on this important bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from West Virginia.
I have indicated my willingness to
accept this amendment. Before doing
so, I would like to reemphasize that
the concept of this bill as it relates
to national ambient air quality stand-
ards and the deadlines for the auto-
mobile industry is not keyed to any
condition that the Secretary finds
technically and economically feasible.
The concept is of public health, and
the standards are uncompromisable
in that connection.
Nevertheless, under the law since
1967, and after the enactment of thia
law if it becomes law, there is a re-
quirement on the Secretary, when he
issues the criteria documents, to issue,
in addition, information on the tech-
nology available to deal with the pol-
lutants in question.
The amendment of the Senator
from West Virginia would create a
mechanism in the form of consulting
committees to provide information to
the Secretary on request.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1623
Mr. EANDOLPH. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. To assist him in pre-
paring those technological documents.
I think it would be a most useful de-
vice, and for that reason, I support
the amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
commenting just briefly further, not
desiring1 to take additional time, ex-
cept to underscore what I have said:
This is not a matter of competition
between Government and industry. I
think, actually, we can complement
one the other in an effort to achieve
the technology which is needed.
I appreciate the reasonableness of
the position taken by the able Senator
from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield back the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time on the amendment has been
yielded back. The question is on agree-
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from West Virginia.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield
3 minutes to the distinguished Sena-
tor from Kentucky (Mr. CoOK) on
the bill.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, yester-
day the Senate took up consideration
of S. 4358, the National Air Quality
Standards Act of 1970. All of the
members of the Public Works Com-
mittee deserve credit for their tireless
efforts in marking up and reporting
out what may very well be one of
the most significant pieces of legisla-
tion of the 91st Congress.
Of course, much attention has been
focused on certain sections of the bill,
such as section 202 which requires
that 1975 model automobiles achieve
at least a 90-percent reduction from
the 1970 emission standards.
Because of this very close examina-
tion of these sections by many of my
distinguished colleagues, I shall con-
fine my remarks to section 306, "Fed-
eral procurement."
It is with great interest that I take
up this section, because on March 20
I introduced S. 3614, the Federal
Procurement and Environmental En-
hancement Act of 1970. In essence, it
would prohibit all departments, in-
dependent agencies, and other instru-
mpntalities of the United States using
federally appropriated funds, from
purchasing goods, materials and serv-
ices from any person operating in
violation of Federal air or water pol-
lution control laws. On May 6 I testi-
fied before the Air and Water Pollu-
tion Subcommittee on behalf of this
measure—which, incidentally, was co-
sponsored by 10 of my colleagues, in-
cluding the distinguished senior Sena-
tor from Montana. Also, the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Air and
Water Pollution Subcommittee intro-
duced two major air and water quality
bills containing similar, but less com-
prehensive provisions.
With three exceptions, I shall not
explain in detail the provisions of S.
3614. However, I ask unanimous con-
sent that my testimony be printed in
the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the testi-
mony was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
TESTIMONY OP SENATOR COOK
Mr. Chairman, I thank this very busy and
productive subcommittee for allowing me the
opportunity to discuss the concept of pro-
hibiting the federal government from pur-
chasing goods or services from persons in
violation of federal pollution control laws.
On March 20, I introduced S. 3614, the
"Federal Procurement and Environmental
Enhancement Act of 1970," which would ac-
complish this purpose by amending the Clean
Air and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. If enacted, it would prohibit all depart-
ments, independent agencies and other instru-
mentalities of the United States using federally
appropriated funds from purchasing goods,
materials and services from any person oper-
ating in violation of these two laws. It would
require the establishment of contract regula-
tions and the insertion thereof, in all federal
-------
1624
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
procurement contracts.
Sections 13(B) (C) and 113 (B) (C) make
mandatory the establishment of contract regu-
lations, and the insertion thereof, in all federal
procurement contracts.
By Section (C) (1), the contractor or seller
agrees to furnish adequate proof or compliance
with the aforementioned air and water pollu-
tion acts. I would interpret this to mean a
simple statement of compliance. In the alterna-
tive, at the time of contract the seller agrees
to implement an affirmative plan for compli-
ance pursuant to those acts.
This section takes into account those man-
u'acturerg who are earnestly trying to comply
with federal pollution laws, while penalizing
those who refuse to comply. At the discretion
of the Secretary, it also permits the trans-
action of business with those persona who
have filed implementation schedules with the
Federal "Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion and the National Air Pollution Control
Administration.
Second, upon notice of a violation—and
with notice to the seller—the government is
compelled to terminate the agreement. Sec-
tion (C) (2) also relieves the government of
any damages, penalties or other liabilities.
Third, Section (C> (3) permits the con-
tinuance of a contract, otherwise terminated,
if the seller has implemented an affirmative
plan or schedule pursuant to the Air and
Water Pollution Control Acts.
Fourth, the last contractual requirement,
Section (C) (4) exempts the government from
adjusting either the contract price or the de-
livery or performance schedule due to continua-
tion of the agreement under (C)(3).
A distinction is made in Section (F) be-
tween a "contract directly related to a pollu-
tion action" and all others. Only in the for-
mer would the termination, continuance, and
exemption procedures of (C) (2), (3) and (4)
apply. The Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare or of the
Department of the Interior, after consulting
with the appropriate contracting agency head,
determines the direct relatedness of the pol-
lution action to the contract.
Aa an example, where the "X" Supply
Company's paper factory is violating either
the Air or Water Pollution Control Law—
all "X" paper contracts with the government
are subject to immediate suspension and
termination. However, all other "X" contracts
supplying other office equipment are not sub-
ject to this immediate action.
Section (F) is intended to prevent undue
chaos where a large manufacturer supplies
a diverse number of items to many govern-
ment agencies. An immediate end to all such
contracts may produce unnecessary adverse
effects. Therefore this section provides that
such contracts not directly related ' 'shall
continue until completed, at which time the
prohibition becomes effective." Consequently,
once the government is notified that "XV*
paper factory is an unrepentant polluter,
henceforth, "X" will be ineligible for all pro-
curement contracts.
Section (A) declares that such person is
ineligible for a period up to 3 years. At the
discretion of the Secretary, the seller may
become eligible prior to 3 years if he deter-
mines that the pollution has been abated.
To insure that the vast reaches of the
federal bureaucracy are informed of individ-
ual violations, Section (B) causes both the
Secretary of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare and the Department of
the Interior to establish the necessary notifi-
cation procedures.
Finally, Section (D) exempts the Depart-
ment of Defense from this act, if the Sec-
retary determines that such exemption is
necessary for national defense. It does pro-
vide, however, for public hearings on the
pollution action. In this manner, the neces-
sary attention may be focused on the prob-
lem to encourage voluntary compliance.
Also, the distinguished chairman of this
subcommittee has introduced two bills con-
taining similar provisions. Senator Muskie's
S. 3546, the "National Air Quality Standards
Act of 1970" and S. 3637, the "National Water
Quality Standards Act of 1970" state that no
federal department or agency shall procure
goods from those in violation of these stand-
ards.
'Mr. Chairman, since the introduction of
these measures a number of objections have
been raised questioning the need and prac-
ticability of such a prohibition.
As to the first objection, I can only say
that the prevention of further degradation
of the environment requires a total commit-
ment by all—especially the federal government.
With a budget exceeding $200 billion per year,
the federal government is the largest single
purchaser of goods and services. A substantial
portion of this amount is for procurement of
goods and materials ranging from highly
sophisticated weapons
[p. 33099]
systems to ordinary supplies necessary for
day-to-day operation.
As to its feasibility, it has long been the
established policy of this government to de-
clare that an agreed-upon public policy be
followed in the government's dealings in the
free marketplace. Desired policy has been im-
plemented by both executive fiat and legislation.
Legislatively, the Congress enacted the "Buy
American Act" (41 USC 10). This law re-
quires the use of American manufactured
materials and American mined supplies in
"every contract, for construction, alteration
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1625
or repair of any public building". Failure on
the part of the contractor to comply may result
in his name being placed on a debarment or
blacklist and declared an ineligible bidder for
a 3-vear period.
There have been a variety of standard labor
clauses dealing with employment and labor
and prescribed for use in government con-
tracts. The Davis-Bacon Act, the Copeland
Anti-Kickback Act and the Work Hours Act
(5 USC 673(c); 28 USC 1499; 40 USC 327-332)
govern the employment of laborers and me-
chanics on public works projects. The Davit-
Bacon Act (40 USC 276a-276a-6) prescribes
that such employees are entitled to the mini-
mum wage as determined by the Secretary of
Labor to the prevailing corresponding classes
of laborers and mechanics or similar projects
in the locale where the contract is to be per-
formed. The Copeland Act prohibits the requir-
ing by a contractor from requiring any "kick-
backs from any employees so denned in the
regulations." The Act is intended to aid in the
enforcement of minimum wage provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act and other similar statutes.
The Work Hours Act requires that employees
must be paid at least time and one-half their
basic rates of pay for hours worked in excess
of eight hours per day or forty per week.
Contracts for the procurement of services
are governed by the terms of the Walsh-
Healy Act, (41 USC 35). Any contract entered
into by the executive or legislative branch or
any instrumentality of the United States shall
include provisions relating to minimum wages,
child labor, maximum working hours and
health and safety conditions. A breach of any
of these conditions requires not only the can-
cellation of the contract, but subjects the party
to fines as well. In 1965, the Congress passed
the Service Contract Act, (41 USC 351), ex-
tending to employees of government service
contracts the federal minimum wage law, a
breach of this law subjects the contractor to
cancellation and the difference in the wages
paid and what is required by law to be paid.
Because of Congress* concern with the de-
cline of the small businessman, 41 USC 252
provides that "a fair proportion of the total
purchases and contracts for property and
services for the government shall be placed
with small business concerns."
By executive action all government con-
tracts and subcontracts must contain an equal
opportunity clause prohibiting contractors from
discriminating against employees on the basis
of race, color, creed, religion or national origin,
in hiring, promotion, pay rates and job train-
ing. The contract clause also requires affirma-
tive action on the part of the contractor and
compliance with executive orders 10925 and
11246, and regulations issued by the Secretary
of Labor pursuant to those orders. It also
requires the filing of reports and for termina-
tion in casea of non-compliance.
The protection of American industry small
business, and the social and civil rights of
the American laborer are all worthy of a
firm governmental policy of enforcement
through the procurement of goods and serv-
ices. I contend that the protection of the
environment deserves no less a firm policy.
An additional question raised about S. 3614
is the lack of hearing procedures ensuring
a fair termination because of a pollution vio-
lation. Experience has shown that the time
consuming and complicated procedures required
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
provides moie than ample opportunity for an
alleged polluter to be accorded a full hearing:.
In regard to hearings on the contract cancella-
tion due to a pollution violation, the existing
standard government contract procedures gov-
erning such matters would apply. However,
if the present regulations are inadequate, I
support any necessary curing legislation.
Also, after reviewing all the pending legisla-
tive measures, it appears that they are lim-
ited in application to the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act and the Clean Air Act.
However, because of the long and tedious en-
forcement procedures involved in these acts,
the Department of Justice has recently filed
charges under an obscure 1899 federal statute.
This law, Section 13 of the River and Harbor
Act, (33 USC 407), prohibits the dumping or
depositing of "any refuse matter of any kind
or description" into any navigable water or
tributary thereof. I suggest, therefore, that
the subcommittee also consider applying the
governmental procurement ban to those persona
found in violation of this law.
Mr. Chairman, while the Congress is con-
sidering these hills, the Executive Branch has
also expressed an interest in this idea. On
February 21 I wrote to the Secretary of De-
fense concerning the President's February 4
executive order in regard to the preven-
tion, control and abatement of air and water
pollution at all federal facilities. In the let-
ter, I suggested that the Department of De-
fense take the lead in administratively im-
plementing—by amending the Armed Services
procurement regulations—the suggestions that
later developed into S. 3614. The Department
ruled that a White House directed inter-agency
task force was exploring the possibility of
developing "a comprehensive federal program
for utilizing purchasing, contracting and other
policies to reduce environmental pollution". (At
this point, I insert for the record, copies of
this correspondence.) I have requested a status
report on the work of the task force, but thug
far I have received no reply.
On February 24, I wrote a letter to every
cabinet level department requesting their com-
ments on the implementation of the procure-
ment ban at the department level. Most of
the replies stated that (1) any revision of
procurement contracts should be directed to
-------
1626
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIK
the General Services Administration, or (2)
the White House is presently studying this
matter. However, the Department of Interior
replied that they have "reached the conclu-
sion that we must include provisions in our
contracts and grants requiring contractors and
grantees to comply with regulatory standards."
But, the Department also recommended that to
have the desired effect any such procurement
requirement must have government-wide appli-
cation. (I include in the record, my letter
and the replies from Interior and the other
departments.)
Mr. Chairman, the federal government has
an obligation to provide moral leadership in
the fight for a livable environment. The pas-
sage of this legislation would not only be a
positive step in this direction, but also give
industry additional incentive to comply with
existing law. I, therefore, urge the subcom-
mittee to give serious consideration to this
proposal.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, section
306 of the committee bill, while
similar in principle, departs consider-
ably from S. 3614 and the existing law
upon which it was modeled. First, the
procurement prohibition takes effect
only upon a "knowing" violation of
standards defined in the act. I see no
reason for the insertion of an ad-
ditional factor which can only work
to the detriment of the purpose of the
section. The word "knowing" creates
a presumption not found in similar
and existing laws.
Other Federal procurement laws
are not encumbered by such language.
The Buy American Act—41 U.S.C. 10,
10 (b)—bars a contractor from Gov-
ernment work for a period of 3
years upon "a failure to comply with
such provisions" of that act. The
Walsh-Healy Act—41 U.S.C. 35—re-
lating to minimum wages, maximum
working hours, child labor laws, and
health and safety conditions, subjects
a violator to its penalty provision upon
"any breach or violation of any of
the stipulations" in the contract. Also,
the Service Contract Act—41 U.S.C.
351—which extends to employees of
Government service contracts the Fed-
eral minimum wage law, subjects a
violator to the procurement penalty
upon "any violation" or "when a viola-
tion is found." Mr. President, I con-
tend that pollution violators deserve
no greater protection than other law-
breakers.
Another major difference between
the two measures is that section 306
of the committee bill only applies pro-
spectively. Therefore, a polluter pres-
ently in violation of air quality
standards is allowed to continue any
existing contract, and to continue
profiting from the U.S. Government at
the expense of the community. How-
ever, S. 3614 applies not only pro-
spectively, but also provides for the
cancellation during the life of the
contract should a pollution violation
occur after both parties enter into
the agreement.
Again, I can only cite the Walsh-
Healy Act which permits the Federal
Government to cancel a contract and
"to make open market purchases or
enter into other contracts for the com-
pletion of the original contract, charg-
ing any additional cost to the original
contractor." The Service Contract Act
also provides for "cancellation" and
the charging of additional cost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 additional
minutes to the Senator.
Mr. COOK. The last major differ-
ence between the two measures is that
S. 4358 would apply the procurement
ban only to "any facilities subject to
such action by the court which are
owned, leased, or supervised by such
person." In explaining this language,
the committee report states that pro-
curement sanctions are limited "to
contracts affecting only the facility
not in compliance, rather than an
entire corporate entity or operative
division." It further states that a
company with a "contract unrelated
to the violation" is eligible for busi-
ness with the Federal Government. I
must differ with the committee on this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1627
point. It is possible, even with the
strong sanctions contained in this act,
that a large and diversified corpora-
tion may continue its multi-million
dollar contractual arrangements with
the Government even though one of
its plants or factories is guilty of a
so-called "unrelated violation." I can
see no reason for such distinction.
A company is either in compliance
with the law, or it is not in compli-
ance.
The Government will either do busi-
[p. 33100]
ness with pollution lawbreakers, or it
will not do business with pollution
lawbreakers.
If a total procurement ban is in ef-
fect for the entire company it will
certainly encourage compliance with
the law. That I believe should be the
purpose of section 306. That is the
purpose of S. 3614.
Mr. President, I feel very strongly
about the points I have discussed.
However, I am fully aware of the
pressures that the Public Works Com-
mittee operated under in drafting this
far-reaching legislation. I commend
the committee for reporting out the
most stringent pollution control legis-
lation in history. Therefore, in order
that the Senate conferees may press
for complete acceptance of the bill in
conference with the House, I decline
to offer my suggestions as amend-
ments. However, since the House bill
differs from ours, I fully expect my
distinguished colleagues to retain sec-
tion 306 in conference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 min-
utes.
Mr. President, I compliment the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kentucky for
having pressed this concept. Had it
not been for his interest, I am sure
that we would not have it even in its
present form in the committee bill.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed at this point in the RECORD the
portion of the committee report relat-
ing to this subject, so that we may
have a full understanding of what the
committee had in mind.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SECTION 306. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
The Committee considered proposals of-
fered by Senator Muskie and by Senator Cook
to assure that the Federal Government does
not patronize or subsidize polluters through
its procurement practices and policies.
Section 306 would make any person or
corporation who fails to comply with a court
order issued under this Act or who is con-
victed of a knowing violation of any sched-
ule or timetable of compliance, emission re-
quirement, prohibition, emission standard,
or standard of performance, ineligible for a
Federal contract for any work to be done at
the polluting facility. This ineligibility would
continue until the Secretary certifies that the
facility is in compliance with the court order
or the provisions of the Act.
This section would be limited, whenever
feasible and reasonable, to contracts affect-
ing only the facility not in compliance, rather
than an entire corporate entity or operating
division.
There might be cases where a plant could
not participate in a Federal contract due to
a violation but another plant owned by the
same company might bid and transfer work
to the first plant. This type of action would
circumvent the intent of this provision. In
this case, the company's second facility should
also be barred from bidding until the first plant
returns to compliance.
There would also be instances where a
second plant within a corporation was seek-
ing a contract unrelated to the violation at
the first plant. In such a case, the unrelated
facility should be permitted to bid and re-
ceive Federal contracts.
It is anticipated by the Committee that
the Executive Branch will, in the near fu-
ture, publish new Federal contract guidelines
that will enable the Federal Government to
suspend or revoke a contract once the con-
tracting party is found to be in noncompliance
with the air pollution standards or other
requirements of this Act. This executive action
would be specifically mandated by section
306(c).
The effectiveness of this section would de-
pend on fast, accurate dissemination of in-
formation. All Federal agencies would have
to be rapidly apprised of any abatement or-
der or conviction which would bar a facility
from eligibility for Federal contracts. The
-------
1628
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Secretary would also have to act expedi-
tiously to certify that a facility had achieved
compliance, and notify all Federal agencies
of that fact. Delays in reporting such infor-
mation, leading to inaccurate public dis-
closures, would quickly render this section
unworkable.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, ear-
lier I sent to the desk an amendment
on behalf of myself and the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER). I call
up the amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so directed; and,
without objection, the amendment will
be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 48, line 11, insert the following
new paragraph (4), and renumber succeed-
ing paragraphs:
"(4) Six months following enactment of
this section, and each year thereafter, the
Secretary shell report to the Congress with
respect to the development of systems nec-
essary to implement the emission standards
established pursuant to this section. Such re-
ports shall include information regarding the
continuing effects of such air pollution agents
on the public health and welfare, the extent
and progress of efforts being made to develop
the necessary systems, the costs associated
with development 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 the paragraph
and in connection with any hearing, the pro-
visions of subsection (5) (B) of this section
shall apply."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this is
an amendment which I offered in com-
mittee in lieu of the judicial review
amendment which Senator COOPER in-
troduced and which the committee
adopted. Nevertheless, the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) thought
that this provision ought to be includ-
ed as complementary to his amend-
ment on judicial review, because it
provides for periodic reports to Con-
gress on the development of systems
necessary to implement the emission
standards established pursuant to this
section.
I think that those reports would be
useful to Congress. I think they would
be useful to us in evaluating any re-
quest for an extension of the deadline
that might be made. So I offered the
amendment, and the Senator from
Kentucky supports it, and, so far as I
know, the whole committee does.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I am
glad the Senator has offered this
amendment. It would present to Con-
gress, I believe, every 6 months
Mr. MUSKIE. Six months would be
the first one, and then every year
thereafter.
Mr. COOPER. Progress on this bill;
so if it became apparent to Congress
that some action should be taken, it
would be in a better position to do so.
I am very pleased that the Senator
has offered this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do
Senators yield back their time?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, be-
fore that, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I was
just talking with a Member of Parlia-
ment from Israel. In discussing the
proposed legislation before the Senate
this afternoon, he observed that the
nation of Israel had passed similar
legislation some 8 years ago. He also
observed that that legislation had
never been enforced.
My question to the distinguished
Senator from Maine is this: Am I
correct that if the situation arose in
time of war or in time of emergency
when it was obvious that the para-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1629
mount interest of the country would
require that these standards be held in
abeyance, when other concerns are of
greater moment to us than the quality
of the air under this legislation, does
the President, or does someone in this
country have the authority to sus-
pend them for such time as may be
required, in order to serve the para-
mount interest of the country?
Mr. MUSKIE. Congress has such
authority, and only Congress.
Mr. HANSEN. Only Congress. The
President does not have that author-
ity.
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank my distin-
guished colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GURNEY) . The question is on agreeing
to the amendment of the Senator from
Maine.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, on be-
half of the distinguished minority
leader, the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. SCOTT), I ask unanimous consent
that a statement by him in support of
S. 4358, the bill now pending before
the Senate, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, Senator
Scott's statement was ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OP SENATOR SCOTT
Mr. President, I want to congratulate Sen-
ator Randolph and the members of the Pub-
lie Works Committee on the excellent bill
they have reported to us. S. 43B8 represents
the combined input of the Administration.
both Houses of Congress and numerous con-
cerned groups from the national community.
I note with pleasure that many of the pro-
visions of President Nixon's S. 3466, Amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, which I had the
pleasure to work on and introduce, have been
included in the Committee version. This leg-
islation represents the highest form of non-
partisan political cooperation. Senators from
both sides of the aisle took an active personal
interest in developing the strongest possible
air pollution control legislation. The bill be-
fore us represents a dynamic and aggressive
assault on our national air pollution problems.
Every year, 200 million tons of contami-
nants are spilled into the air. The presence
[p. 33101]
of these contaminants is not only dangerous
from a health point of view, but it is also
extremely costly in terms of economic damage
to clothing, buildings, plant life and animal
life. Unless this outpouring of contaminants
is controlled, scientists tell us we may very
well experience irreversible atmospheric and
climatic changes capable of producing a snow-
balling adverse effect to the health and safety
of our citizens. Four aspects of this bill are
worthy of special note. They would accomplish:
1. The implementation of a system of na-
tional ambient air quality standards to re-
duce at least ten major contaminants. These
national ambient air quality standards should
provide a minimum level of national air quality
protection. Along with national air quality
goals and standards for newly constructed
sources of pollution, the Secretary of HEW
has the authority to enforce a cleaner air
standard.
2. The "Hazardous Substances" provision
gives the Secretary of HEW the authority to
prohibit emissions of those substances hav-
ing an adverse effect on the health of the sur-
rounding community.
3. Automobile emissions comprise nearly
60 percent of our national air pollution con-
trol problem. By 1975, subject to possible de-
lay of one year, the automobile industry will
have to meet certain emission standards. This
provision is tough, but necessary if we are to
make a serious impact on our air pollution
control problems.
4. The bill establishes a novel concept of
public participation in the environmental en-
forcement process. The citizens suits author-
ized in the legislation will guarantee that pub-
lic officials are making good on our national
commitment to provide meaningful environ-
mental protection.
Mr. President. No discussion of the en-
vironment would be complete if I were not
to pay a special tribute to the Hanking Mi-
nority member of the Sub-committee on Air
and Water Pollution, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Delaware, Mr. Boggs. Few men in
this chamber have contributed as much to
the betterment of our environment than the
Senator from Delaware. His efforts, together
with those of the Chairman of the Sub-com-
mittee, Mr. Muskie, and all members, both
Republican and Democrat, are reflected In
this meaningful piece of legislation.
In 1947, a rare air inversion over the town
of Donora, Pennsylvania, trapped emissions
from industrial plants in the Pittsburgh area.
A lethal cloud of contaminants suffocated
Donora for five days. During this period of
time, over twenty people died and hundreds
526-703 O - 73 - 30
-------
1630
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of others experienced severe respiratory prob-
lems. To guarantee that future generations of
Americans can live without fear of the de-
struction of the very air they hreathe, I urge
immediate passage.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. The Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA) could not be
here this afternoon, but he was very
much concerned and wanted an in-
dicatio.i of his concern reflected in
this debate, regarding the provision
in this bill authorizing certain class
actions against the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, or a
manufacturer, in the event of noncom-
pliance.
As a member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, it is disturbing to me
that this far-reaching provision was
included in the bill without any testi-
mony from the Judicial Conference,
the Department of Justice, or the
Office of Budget and Management
concerning the possible impact this
might have on the Federal judiciary.
No hearings were held. Obviously,
it is related to other legislation pro-
viding for class actions—legislation
being considered now by the Com-
merce and Judiciary Committees.
It would seem to me, even if such
actions were to be authorized, that it
would have been more appropriate to
allow them to be instituted at some
later date, after a period of time had
elapsed, after Congress had an op-
portunity by 1975 or 1976 to see
whether these standards could be met.
But to write such a provision into
this bill now, without any idea of
what it means—especially in terms of
our judicial system—seems very un-
fortunate.
The Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
HRUSKA), the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, wanted that con-
cern expressed. I certainly share it.
I yield now to the Senator from
Kentucky.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I am
very much concerned about this, as a
member of both the Commerce and
Judiciary Committees. I suggested at
a much earlier date that we conceiv-
ably in the respective committees
could get together and make a pat-
tern for class actions.
I want the Senate to understand
that we are now taking up in the
Judiciary Committee a suit in the
District of Columbia that, it is con-
tended, could possibly include as many
as 117 million plaintiffs. There is pres-
ently a suit in New York with
3,750,000 plaintiffs. There was a
settlement made in a case, not too long
ago, which was a class action, which
was settled for a sum of approximate-
ly $135 million, and the judge in
writing his opinion suggested accept-
ance of this for some 70,000 or 80,000
plaintiffs, stating that they should ac-
cept this settlement because the
chances of their recovery on a trial
were 50-50, if not less.
I would only say to the Senator
that I am glad he brought this up. I
am very much concerned about this
discussion of a plaintiff being able
to bring an action which he himself—
and members like him—seeks, but he
knows not whether anyone else has
been damaged in any way, shape, or
form. Yet, we set ourselves up here
in a position to make it more con-
venient to settle a case than to try it
on its own merits because of the over-
all estimated cost of a trial.
I repeat, I am glad the Senator
brought up that point, because we
have been struggling between the
Commerce and Judiciary Committees
for many weeks in an effort to bring
up a motion for a class action suit.
I am sorry that we did not have an
opportunity to sit down with the Pub-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1631
lie Works Committee and come up
with basic standards for all class
action suits that would be, at least,
leg-ally sanctioned by Congress. Suffice
it to say that I am glad the Senator
brought it up and that these remarks
are in the RECORD.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, as in
the case of Senators, the various in-
terested agencies could not learn about
some provisions of this bill until a
text was finally available on Monday
of this week.
Mr. MTJSKIE. Mr. President, let
me say in response that first, there
were hearings. This provision was in-
cluded in legislation introduced last
winter. There was considerable testi-
mony. We have here, for instance, the
testimony of Governor Sargent of Mas-
sachusetts, endorsing it.
We have the testimony of Paul
Treusch, President of the Federal Bar
Association, endorsing it. We have
the testimony of Douglas Head, the
Republican Attorney General of the
State of Minnesota, endorsing it. We
have Prof. James Jeans of the Ameri-
can Trial Lawyers Association, en-
dorsing it.
Furthermore, this is not a class
action provision. I suggest that Sena-
tors read it.
Senate bill 3201, to which compari-
son was made by the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA) on yester-
day, in a class action bill. S. 4358 is
not. S. 4358 is limited to citizens act-
ing on their own behalf.
Senate bill 3201 provides damages
and a remedy for recovery of fines
and restitution, and other monetary
damages. The pending bill is limited
to seek abatement of violation of
standards established administratively
under the act, and expressly excludes
damage actions.
Senate bill 3201 provides for redress
of consumer injury. The pending bill
is limited to an action for enforce-
ment on abatement of violations of
administratively set standards.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD
two staff memoranda prepared for me
in response to the comments yesterday
of the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
HRUSKA).
There being no objection, the memo-
randums were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
1. The Administrative Procedure Act pro-
vides that reviewing courts "shall . . . compel
agency action unlawfully withheld." The
concept of compelling bureaucratic agencies
to carry out their duties is integral to demo-
cratic society. Senator Hruska mentioned
yesterday an example of where an adminis-
trative agency failed to act. The concept in
the bill is that administrative failure should
not frustrate public policy and that citizens
should have the right to seek enforcement
where administrative agencies fail.
2. Extracts from the hearing record on ths
citizen suit provision:
a. Governor Sargent, Republican Governor
of Massachusetts, speaking on behalf of the
National Governors Conference in response
to a question if he supported the concept.
Governor Sargent replied as follows: "Yes, I
do. As a matter of fact, in my message to the
legislature this year, I proposed a bill of
rights which would give to the citizens of our
State the right to clean air, the right to
waters that are not contaminated, and th«
opportunity to take legal action if legal ac-
tion is called for."
b. Paul Treusch, President of the Federal
Bar Association "Section 4, by adding Section
108(c)(13), authorizes suits for private en-
forcement of air quality standards, imple-
mentation plans, and emission standards
established under this section. We are very
much in favor of this provision. Not only will
this provision help establish a distinct public
attitude of participation in the quality of our
environment, it will give the public a prob-
lem-resolving tool to protect and enhance
air quality."
e. Douglas Head, Republican Attorney
[p. 33102]
General, State of Minnesota "The provision
for private civil suits would be supported, 1
believe, by a large number of attorneys gen-
eral with the caveat . . .
"The one danger that we can gee from the
men that I have talked with is the multi-
-------
1632
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
plicity of suits that would override compli-
ance agreement already entered into by the
Pollution Control Agency so that I believe
that citizens should be very carefully corre-
lated with the present enforcement provi-
sion so that we do not unnecessarily dupli-
cate the enforcement of the law and that
we do not unnecessarily clog up the courts
where we are in fact making very swift ef-
forts to enforce," The provision as currently
drafted affords these protections.
d. Professor James Jeans for the American
Trial Lawyers Association ". . . but we do
want to commend the authors of the bill for
the recognition of the value of private ac-
tions in a democratic society."
3. The fact that (a) citizens will be en-
forcing the same standards as administra-
tive agencies, (b) notices are required to ad-
ministrative agencies prior to bringing of
an enforcement by citizens, and (c) clear
discretion of the court to consolidate ac-
tions will avoid multiplicity of suits.
4. The provision on the award of cost liti-
gation is intended by the Committee, as it is
stated in the report, to provide a mechanism
for the courts to avoid frivolous and harass-
ing litigation by permitting the courts to
award costs to defendants when plaintiffs
seek only harassment.
6. The provision in the bill S. 4358 providing
for citizen suits bears little resemblance to the
provision mentioned by Senator Hruska in the
bill S. 3201.
a. S. 3201 provides for class action, such
class reauired to meet the complex and dif-
ficult requirements of Rule 23 of the Fed-
eral Rules of Civil Procedures. S. 4368 is
limited to citizens acting on their own behalf.
b. S. 3201 is designed to provide a damaged
remedy for recovery of fines, restitution and
other monetary damages. S. 4358 is limited
to seeking abatement of violations of stand-
ards established administratively under the
Act and expressly excludes damage actions.
c. S. 3201 provides for redress of consumer
inquiry. S. 4368 is limited to an action for en-
forcement or abatement of a violation of an
administratively set standard.
6. Citizen enforcement may add to the bur-
den of the courts—-but in a democracy, the
answer cannot lie in the denial of citizen
access to the courts—In a society of Gov-
ernment of and by the people we foreclose
participation by citizens at our Peril. The
provision is directed at providing citizen en-
forcement when administrative bureaucracies
fail to act.
7, Time for establishment of enforceable
standards is at a maximum twelve months
away and it will be considerably more time
before many administrative standards are
eligible for enforcement—so any impact on
the courts is in effect postponed until the
courts will have the additional judges men-
tioned by Senator Hrucka.
8. The Council on Environmental Quality.
chaired by Russell Train, has established a
Legal Advisory Committee to assist the Coun-
cil. The Committee's chairman is Whitney
North Seymour, Jr., United States Attorney
for the Southern District of New York, and
it includes many others. I ask unanimous
consent that the membership of the Com*
mittee be inserted at this point in the record,
Malcolm Baldwin, Esq., senior legal asso-
ciate, the Conservation Foundation, Wash-
ington, D.C.; William T. Coleman, Esq., Dil-
worth, Paxson, Kalish and Levy, Philadel-
phia, Pa.; Prof. David Currie, University of
Chicago Law School and coordinator for
Environmental Quality to the Governor of
Illinois; Prof. Frank P. Grad, director, Legis-
lative Drafting Service, Columbia Law
School; Roger P. Hansen, executive director.
Rocky Mountain Center on Environment, Den-
ver, Colo.; A. Wesley Hodge, Esq., Hodge,
Hills and Dahlgren, Seattle, Wash.; Prof.
Louis Jaffe, Harvard Law School; William F.
Kennedy, Esq., corporate counsel. Genera}
Electric Co.; Nicholas Robinson, chairman.
Environmental Law Council, Columbia Law
School; Prof. Ann Strong, director. Institute
for Environmental Studies, University of
Pennsylvania; Prof. Joseph Sax, University
of Michigan Law School; David Sive, ESQ.,
Winer, Neuberger and Sive, New York City.
The Advisory Committee last week passed
the following resolution on citizen partici-
pation in the courts:
It is the sense of the Advisory Committee
that: Private litigation before courts and
administrative agencies has been and will
continue to be an important environmental
protection technique supplementing and re-
inforcing government environmental protec-
tion programs.
ARGUMENTS ON CITIZEN Surra
1. The citizen suit provision is new to mem-
bers of the Senate and has not had adequate
hearing.
A similar provision was included in S. 3646
as introduced, and substantial testimony from
citizens' groups supported it as a key provision
in this year's air pollution legislation.
2. This provision would encourage frivo-
lous or harassing suits against industries and
government agencies.
The bill provides no action for damages,
only for the abatement of violation of stand-
ards, which are public policy. Expressly for
the purpose of limiting harassing or frivolous-
suits, the bill provides that the court may
award the costs of litigation, including rea-
sonable attorney and expert witness, to either
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1633
party as the public interest requires. The
court would surely award costs to the de-
fendant, a potentially expensive risk for the
plaintiff, where the litigation was obviously
harassing or frivolous.
3. A citizen suit provision is based on the
assumption that the Federal and State agen-
cies will be incompetent, corrupt or other-
wise not discharge their responsibilities.
Citizens in bringing such actions are per-
forming a public service. The limited re-
sources of many State enforcement agencies,
bearing the first line of responsibility under
this bill, will be fully extended. This provi-
sion, requiring 30 days notice to State and
Federal agencies, in which they may initiate
abatement proceedings, will allow many vio-
lations to come to their attention which might
otherwise escape notice. The only exceptions
to this 30 day period for administrative action
come for hazardous emissions or those of
which the Secretary can be assumed to already
have noticed.
4. Authorizing citizens actions against pol-
luters and government agencies would bur-
den already clogged courts.
A great number of these actions would
come to the courts anyway, even if vigor-
ously pursued by administrative agencies. En-
forcement of an order to abate must be ob-
tained in the courts, whether an agency or a
private citizen initiates action. But more im-
portantly, should the granting and protection
of a right to clean air rooted in public policy
be limited to what the courts can comfortably
handle? We must legislate to protect the pub.
He health, then strengthen our court system
as appears necessary.
5. The courts do not have the competence
to handle the issues in air pollution control
actions, and sending such actions there rather
than confining them to expert administrative
agencies, delays and confuses enforcement.
Enforcement of air pollution standards and
regulations is not a technical matter beyond
the competence of courts. This provision merely
asks the court to do what it does best: a fact
finding job as to violations of a definite numer-
ical standard. If a violation is found, a judicial
remedy is fashioned as indicated above, citizen
enforcement would not disrupt administrative
enforcement, but would reinforce and extend
it. Standards would be the same under either
mode.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we
are talking, gentlemen, about apples
and pears. What we are talking about
here is a judicial way for citizens to
enforce the provisions of this act.
May I make another point about it,
that before any citizen can bring an
action, he is required to notify the
enforcement agency concerned of his
intent to do so, and the specific, al-
leged violation which he has in mind.
In other words, the idea is to use
citizens to trigger the enforcement
mechanism. If that enforcement
mechanism does not respond, then the
citizen has his right to go to court.
This is a much more limited applica-
tion of the concept of citizen access to
the courts than anything that has
been discussed by the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. HKUSKA) or the Sena-
tor from Kentucky (Mr. COOK).
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I merely
brought this up in regard to the re-
marks of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. GRIFFIN), because I felt that it
would be a good opportunity to do so.
I am sorry that that opportunity has
passed. I felt it was a good opportu-
nity when I first suggested it, that we
might change the uniform standards
for class actions because the call for
class actions was in the language, re-
gardless of the amount in controversy,
or the citizenship of the parties, which
is in the language on page 83, lines 18
and 19, which constitutes, in essence,
a class action. I felt that uniformity
of language for class actions for this
bill, and S. 3201, would be a good
step forward in the name of uniform-
ity.
Mr. MUSKIE. This does not re-
quire as class actions do, identifica-
tion of the class or group before a suit
is brought in the name of a class. This
can be brought by an individual
citizen. The court has authority to
consolidate actions that might be
taken by individual citizens.
Mr. COOK. May I say that the op-
portunity for the court to consolidate
actions has been a part of Federal
rules of procedure for a long, long
time. That is already in existence.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand. But
the important distinction I want to
make, if it is one—and I am told that
-------
1634
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
it is—is that it is not necessary for
a citizen to take advantage of this
right to establish himself as a member
of a class. He can bring suit as an
individual citizen under this provision.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
the Senator from Maine mentioned
several individuals who appeared at
the hearings on that occasion. I would
like the RECORD to reflect that one of
the gentlemen was Stanley Preiser, of
West Virginia, who is recognized as
one of the finest trial lawyers not only
in our State but also in the Nation.
[p. 33103]
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Michigan is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
understand now that hearings were
held around a year ago—and I stand
corrected. I was mistaken.
Mr. MUSKIE. They were held on
March 23 of this year, and not a
year ago.
Mr. GRIFFIN. But, in spite of the
impact upon the Federal courts, it is
still true, I take it, that the views of
the Justice Department and the views
of the Bureau of the Budget was not
requested.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is part of
every bill. Administrative agencies
are asked to report. This provision
is in the legislation introduced. If
these departments did not report on
the matter, it is not my responsi-
bility. It is theirs.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I
wanted to make the point that this
is a matter which is very much within
the interest of the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee. I do stand cor-
rected on the point that some hearings
were held.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield 1 minute to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield 1 additional minute to the Sen-
ator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I state
to the Senator from West Virginia
that I am delighted that Mr. Preisor
testified. Mr. Preisor and I went to
law school together. He is a fine and
distinguished lawyer.
I say again to the Senator from
Maine that I merely brought this up
for the RECORD. Page 84, lines 9 and
10 state:
Nothing in this section shall affect the
right of such persons as a class or as indi-
viduals—
That is plural. It is not as an in-
dividual, but as individuals who would
constitute a class.
I merely set this out for the legis-
lative record.
I say this to again emphasize that
I think they are discussing and in-
dicating a class action.
In this instance there is no juris-
dictional amount in the bill. There-
fore, the limit of authority is the
$10,000 amount to get into the Fed-
eral courts.
I merely say that S. 3201 is the
same. It allows anyone to bring suit
in Federal court on the basis of $10
or more. But we are writing new au-
thority and a new cause of action
in the Federal court and not placing a
jurisdictional amount on it.
I might say that I have no ob-
jection except that I think in the
future we will eliminate all jurisdic-
tional amounts in Federal court and
we had better be ready to appoint
a whale of a lot more Federal judges.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
read from page 83, lines 24 and 25
of the bill. It states that such actions
"may be brought by one or more per-
sons on their own behalf."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1635
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would
like to address myself at this time
to section 304 of S. 4358, the citizen
suit provision of the bill. I regard
this provision as one of the most
attractive features of the bill and am
therefore disturbed by criticism of it
which has been offered both within
and without this Chamber.
The basic argument for the pro-
vision is plain: namely, that Gov-
ernment simply is not equipped to
take court action against the numer-
ous violations of legislation of this
type which are likely to occur. In tes-
tifying on a similar bill before the
Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Nat-
ural Resources and the Environment,
former Attorney General Ramsey
Clark spoke convincingly of this in-
evitable incapability. Mr. Clark
stated:
It will be impossible for government en-
forcement to control all significant acts of
pollution. . . , The extension of private right,
. . . and effective sanctions for the persona
directly affected or concerned will be essen-
tial if vital interests are to be protested. Our
experience in areas of massive unlawful racial
discrimination, such as in schooling, employ-
ment, and housing tells us that however hard
it might try, government will never have the
manpower, the techniques, or the awareness
necessary to enforce the law for all. Private
enforcement of those laws is the only way
the individual can be assured that the rights
cannot be violated with impunity.
Pollution control is another such area. If
we are really serious about controlling the
quality of our environment before it destroys
the quality of our lives, we must give the
individuals affected by, or concerned about
pollutions in his life, the power to stop them
through legal process.
Far from risking an undue or inhibiting
interference with Government enforcement,
it will provide powerful supplementary en-
forcement. . . . and an effective and desirable
prod to officials to do their duty.
It has been argued, however, that
conferring additional rights on the
citizen may burden the courts un-
duly. I would argue that the citizen
suit provision of S. 4358 has been
carefully drafted to prevent this con-
sequence from arising. First of all,
it should be noted that the bill makes
no provision for damages to the in-
dividual. It therefore provides no in-
centives to suit other than to protect
the health and welfare of those suing
and others similarly situated. It will
be the rare, rather than the ordi-
nary, person, I suspect, who, with no
hope of financial gain and the very
real prospect of financial loss, will
initiate court action under this bill.
For the most part, only in the case
where there is a crying need for ac-
tion in fact be likely. In such cases,
I would argue that action must be in
the public interest.
The bill also provides for a notice
requirement to State and Federal
pillution agencies prior to the bring-
ing of suit. This requirement, it is
expected, will have the effect of prod-
ding these agencies to act. In many
cases, it is hoped, they will be able
to act without resorting to the courts.
Even if litigation is in fact ex-
panded under this bill, it must still
be contended that such expansion is
justifiable. As Ramsey Clark also
stated at the hearings previously re-
ferred to:
There is no question that justice is denied
in America because it is delayed and court
backlogs are a serious problem for society
from every standpoint. But society has to
have priorities and survival should be a pretty
high priority. Survival depends upon the pro-
tection of our environment, and I think legal
redress in America will be a major method
of protecting that environment. The imposi-
tion of any additional caseload that might
follow from this bill on the courts is one that
it must gladly assume.
It may be that our judicial system
must be expanded to provide for this
caseload. Or it may be, as Mr. Clark
states, that we may have to adjust
-------
1636
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the priorities within that system. The
time perhaps has come to take major
action to compel that adjustment. It
is in part for that reason that some
have suggested the elimination of
threshold procedural defenses that
consume a court's time en route to its
examination of the merits of cases.
And it is in part for that reason that
some have suggested an end to the
fault principle that monopolizes so
much time in automobile accident liti-
gation.
It has been argued that even if
the courts can meet the burden of
cases arising under this bill, de-
fendants may be unduly harassed by
frivolous suits which may be brought.
The bill defends this criticism by pro-
viding that the court "may award
costs of litigation, including reason-
able attorney and expert witness fees,
whenever the court determines such
action is in the public interest." Given
the escalating costs of attorneys fees
today, I find it difficult to imagine
that many will engage in the frivol-
ity which appears so worrisome to
some.
Yesterday, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Nebraska (Mr. HRUSKA)
referred to Chief Justice Burger's re-
marks about the dangers inherent in
providing additional rights of action
enforceable in Federal courts.
I am aware of the Chief Justice's
caution in this area, and I believe
it to be soundly based. However, I
would remind my colleagues of an-
other cautionary remark to which
he referred in one of his opinions,
namely, Office of Communication of
United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359
F. 2d 994 (1966). In that opinion re-
ferring to the right of citizens to
appear before the FCC, he cited with
approval a statement of the late Ed-
mond Cahn, which reads :
Some consumers need bread; others need
Shakespeare; others need their rightful place
In the national society—what they all need
is processors of law who will consider the
people's needs more significant than adminis-
trative convenience.
It is my hope that both we and
those administering our judicial sys-
tem will take heed of that advice and
continue to be guided by it.
Mr. President, I was off the floor
when the Senator from Kentucky
made his remarks and I may not be
responding to what was said.
I would make this point, however,
relative to the specific issue now be-
fore the Senate.
In legislation of this type, we will
find very likely noncompliance which
in number or degree are far beyond
the capacity of the Government to re-
spond to. This is one of the frustra-
tions.
We do not have to serve on com-
missions such as the Commission on
CHI Disorders or Violence or any-
thing else to know that one of the
frustrations across
[p. 33104]
this country is the increasing number
of our citizens who feel that Congress
has made them a promise, but that
there are no means of obtaining de-
livery on that promise.
The burden on the Department of
Justice is so great that the agency
cannot respond to it. To allow the
citizen the right to sue on his own
behalf may indeed increase the bur-
den on the Federal courts. But this
is not an adequate response to the
frustrated citizen who seeks that
right.
Our obligation, I feel, is to bear
that burden by expanding the ca-
pacity of the court system to respond
to the frustrated citizen.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1637
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
On page 62, after line 22, insert:
"(d) The Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register the results of each of his
tests of vehicles and vehicle engines under
this section, as promptly as possible and at
least every six months, in such nontechnical
manner as will reasonably disclose to pro-
spective purchasers (at retail) of new motor
vehicles and new motor vehicle engines the
comparative performance of the vehicle and
engines tested in meeting the air pollution
emission standards required by the regula-
tions prescribed under section 202 of this
Act."
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, this
is an amendment which would re-
quire that every 6 months the Sec-
retary publish automobile pollutant
emission levels which have been deter-
mined for the various makes and
models of cars in the Federal Reg-
ister.
It makes it possible, therefore, for
the public to actively participate in
the program for purity and cleaner
air by purchasing the cars which
are in greatest compliance with the
purpose of this act.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on
the face of the amendment, it is
perfectly consistent with the objec-
tives of the bill and the desire to
make the performance standards un-
derstandable to the public.
I want to indicate to the Senator
from Maryland that I am willing to
take the amendment to conference, if
the Senate approves, with the fur-
ther understanding that if there are
problems as we evaluate the matter,
I will take them up with the Senate
and with the conferees.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Maryland.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Public Works be discharged
from further consideration of H.R.
17255.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate proceed to the consideration of
H.R. 17255.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK.
A bill (H.R. 17255) to amend the
Clean Air Act and for other pur-
poses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Maine?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that all after
the enacting clause be stricken and
that the text of S. 4358, as amended,
be substituted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and third reading of the
bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read
a third time.
The bill was read a third time.
-------
1638
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays on passage
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[p. 33105]
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (S. 4358) to
amend the Clean Air Act, and for
other purposes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, yes-
terday the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) quoted a paragraph from a
letter written by Mr. E. N. Cole. I
believe the Senator used the para-
graph out of context to support an
argument diametrically opposite to the
burden of the entire letter.
A copy of the letter was sent to me
and to other Senators. I ask unani-
mous consent that the complete text
the letter be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,
Detroit, September 17, 1970.
HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIB,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, B.C.
DBAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I was distressed to
learn that the Senate Public Works Commit-
tee has voted approval of an air pollution bill
•which would require that 1976 model cars
have a 90 per cent reduction in emissions
from 1970 levels.
As you may recall, in our meeting August
26 I stated that General Motors does not at
this time know how to get production ve-
hicles down to the emission levels that your
bill -would require for 1975 models. Accom-
plishment of these goals, as far as we now
know, simply is not technologically possible
within the time frame reauired.
Many persons appear to have the impres-
sion that your bill seeks to clean up 90 per
cent of auto emissions. Instead, the bill ac-
tually would require more extreme reduc-
tions. Specifically, your bill requires reduc-
tions 90 per cent below the low levels already
achieved as of 1970. As a result, the following
reductions would be required, compared to
1960 pre-control levels: hydrocarbons, 98%;
carbon monoxide, 97.5%. As to nitrogen
oxides and participates we would be required
to reduce them 90% each within five years
after publication of health criteria for them.
Moreover, we would have to achieve even
greater reductions than these for the vari-
ous emissions, as the bill requires us to
warrant that every car we build remains
within the standards for 50,000 miles. Our
ability to achieve the required particulates
reduction would depend absolutely on the
availability of unleaded fuel.
My purpose in writing to you is to em-
phasize as strongly as possible that General
Motors presently does not have the techno-
logical capability to make 1975 model produc-
tion vehicles that would achieve emission
levels the legislation requires. We are aware
that there has been a reluctance among some
in Washington to accept this statement.
General Motors has committed itself pub-
licly to eliminating the automobile's part of
the pollution problem at the earliest pos-
sible date. We are making good progress
toward that goal. Some of the experimental
engines and control systems in our Research
Laboratories have achieved very low emis-
sions under laboratory conditions. This ex-
perimental hardware bus encouraged us to
believe that we will be %ble to meet the
federal government's proposed 1975 standards,
which would result in reductions of 95% and
86% in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide,
respectively, compared to pre-control vehicles.
Remarkable low emissions can be achieved
with experimental laboratory cars without
any regard to mass production manufactur-
ing tolerances, durability, maintenance, cost,
and conditions of customer use. It is quite
another thing to engineer control systems
that can be mass-produced and operated utl-
der all conditions, and still meet stringent
standards over the lifetime of the vehicle,
as would be required by the warranty pro-
visions.
The legislation, in effect, is asking the au-
tomobile industry to mass-produce systems
developed through space age technology.
There is a distinct difference between hand-
building one moon rocket at a time and the
requirement that your legislation would im-
pose—manufacturing millions of units that
would have the same close tolerances that
space hardware demands.
I urge you to consider amending the legis-
lation to give the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare authority to determine
administratively (1) the air quality needs to-
meet health requirements and (2) whether
the technology exists to permit the mass pro-
duction of long-lived automotive control sys-
tems which would perform at this level.
In view of the prreat interest of members
of Congress and the public in this Impor-
tant matter, I am taking the liberty of send-
ing copies of this letter to others who are
vitally concerned, as you are, with this subject.
Sincerely,
E. N. COLE.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1639
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, in
connection with the discussion of the
section on class action, I ask unani-
mous consent to have printed in the
RECORD an article written by Mr.
Joseph Thebodeaus, who I understand
is legal adviser to the Governor of
Michigan.
There being no objection, the ar-
ticle was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
MICHIGAN'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
OF 1970: PANACEA OF PANDORA'S Box
I. INTRODUCTION
Michigan House Bill 30551 is the most rev-
olutionary—almost radical—measure to have
been enacted in the burgeoning field of en-
vironmental law. It creates in every person
and entity, irrespective of standing or in-
jury, the right to sue any person or entity
for the protection of the environment. First
introduced in the Michigan House on April
1, 1969, it was labeled "an April fool joke".
Little more than a year later, on "Earth Day",
April 22, 1970, it emerged from the House.
It passed the Senate on June 26, 1970, and
was signed by Governor William G. Milliken
Footnotes at end of article.
[p. 33106]
on July 27, 1970. It will become effective
October 1, 1970.
Professor Joseph L. Saxa had been retained
by the West Michigan Environmental Action
Council3 to draft the bill. Just how and by
whom the decision was made to introduce it
on the House side only, through a low-profile
member of that body, and under lone Demo-
cratic sponsorship into a legislative structure
of which Republicans controlled both the
Senate and Governor's office, is now left only
for conjecture.* Any detriment which might
have come about as a result of that decision,
however, never materialized. Rabid public re-
action, aided and abetted by political grand-
standing, incident to 3055's passage over-
came all obstacles.
The bill owes its enactment to that reac-
tion. The sex appeal of the "environmental
crisis" peaked shortly after the bill's intro-
duction. Introduced at any other time, it
never would have been the subject of even
one committee hearing; introduced when it
was, members of the Michigan House were
standing in line to have their names ap-
pended as, co-sponsors. As tbe legislative
process unfolded, it became obvious that any-
thing with a "3055" label would have been
passed and signed. This is a classic story of a
notion whose time was ripe.
As introduced, and to a lesser extent as
passed, 3055 had and has potential problems.
At best, it may clog the circuit courts in
Michigan for some time; at worst, it threatens
to throw them into chaotic disrepair. Moreover,
it could hopelessly confuse substantive leg-si
principles of public nuisance, environmental
and administrative law.
Governor Milliken was confronted with the
dilemma of wanting to support the bill's con*
cept, while having serious reservations about
the form and operative effect of some of its
provisions. But suggestions for constructive
change were not warmly received. In addition
to the ordinary inertia which accompanies any
attempt at change, several factors surrounding:
3055, but totally unrelated to its merits, ex-
acerbated the difficulty.
First, the bill had only Democratic sponsor-
ship. Accordingly, the Governor's support was
somewhat suspect.
Second, owing to its sex appeal, and owing
to typical knee-jerk "boobus americanus" re-
action, 3055 readily assembled a sizeable lay
following which generated great pressure in
be'.alf of something, about which it had little
or no substantive knowledge. Who, in 1970,
could be against the environment? Who, in
1970, could favor pollution? Support was for
the measure as introduced, period, without any
changes, irrespective of their merits. Either you
supported the measure completely, or you were
against it completely. The Governor's public
posture in attempting to effect constructive
change was, therefore, extremely precarious.
Third, from the perspective of legal and
technical competence prerequisite to grasping
some of the intricacies of the bill, the House
Committee on Conservation and Recreation, to
whom it was assigned, was lacking.6
Fourth, suspicious of support from th«
Governor's office, reveling in the great atten-
tion given the bill and thus to his committee,
and convinced that the proposal of any
amendment was an attempt to emasculate the
measure, the committee chairman took an in-
tractable position that no amendment would be
appended in his committee.8
Finally, into the consideration of this in-
tricate and complex bill was injected the de-
bilitating influence of party politics in an
election year.
These factors would have considerable im-
pact on the direction and legislative intent of
3055.
Footnotes at end of article.
It was with some diffidence, then, that on
March 18, 1970, the House Conservation and
-------
1640
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Recreation Committee hearing was approached
with sixteen pages of analysis and suggested
amendments to the bill in hand. Apprehension
was particularly high since it was known that
the design of the "hearing" was to rubber-
stamp the Sax version, report it out, and ram
it through. Thus, with some skepticism, if
not trepidation, the Governor's representative
opened his remarks to the committee:
"It should first be noted that the Governor
supports this bill in concept. It is only for the
purpose of attempting to help in insuring its
effectiveness and making it a workable piece
of legislation that I am here today. Workable
from the private citizens' point of view; from
the public administrative agencies' points of
view; and most of all workable from the
courts1 point of view. For it will be, in the
final analysis, the courts which will bear the
burden of 3055. They are the ones who will
have the burden, not only in added caseload,
but more importantly in the exercise of their
judicial discretion.
"Accordingly, it is my initial observation
that, to be workable, this bill must be workable
in, for and by the courts. If they are left to
drift in a morass of legal vagueries or ill-
defined standards, or worse, no standards at
all, within which to exercise their powers, then
not only will this legislation be unworkable in
and of itself, but it will have the more deleteri-
ous and long-range effect of impeding whatever
progress, albeit inadequate, we are making in
the effort to save our environment.7 "
With those and other preliminary observa-
tions having been made, pertaining to the title
of the bill, broadening the class of partiea-
plaintiff, and potential res judica-ta and
estoppel problems incident to declaring all ac-
tions brought under the bill to be in the name
of the "State," 8 several major problems with
the Sax draft were singled Out. To some ex-
tent these problems still exist. Others were
corrected by amendment. Others, still, arc in-
herent in the basic concept of the legislation.
For reference an appendix is provided. It
contains a draft of Enrolled House Bill 3055
as signed by Governor Milliken on July 27,
1970,8" a draft of the bill as introduced on
April 1, 1969, and the version of 3055 as inti"O-
duced in Congress on March 10, 1970.8b The
draft of the enrolled bill is printed with mar-
ginal numbering of each line. In the following
pages, references to line numbers will be to
this draft.
n. ANALYSIS
A. Constitutional basis
Though introduced in April, 1969, 3055 did
not receive any attention until mid-January,
1970, when the House Conservation and Rec-
reation Committee held its first of many pub-
lic hearings. Paraphrased, the bill provides
that:
"Any person or entity shall have the right
to maintain an action for declaratory and
equitable relief against any person or entity
for the protection from pollution, impairment
or destruction, of the air, water and other
natural resources of the state."
In addition to its foundation in the general
police power regulating the public health,
safety and welfare, 3055 has a more specific
constitutional basis in the Michigan Constitu-
tion of 1963:
"The conservation and development of the
natural resources of the state are hereby de-
clared to be a paramount public concern in
the interest of the health, safety and general
welfare of the people. The legislature shall
provide for the protection of the air, water
and other natural resources of the state from
pollution, impairment and destruction.*'B
The operative language is the second sen-
tence, a substantial part of which is incor-
porated verbatim into the bill,10 That language
has generated much of the controversy sur-
rounding 3055; because of it, 3055, by design,
lacks specificity in standard and definition.
This is its great weakness.
"While it may have sounded suspect to the
overwhelmingly lay membership of the House
committee to question language in a statute
which had been taken virtually verbatim from
the Michigan Constitution, it was argued that
the same language, without qualification, had
a different significance in the context of a
statute. The fact that language is drawn ver-
batim from a constitutional provision, doea
not necessarily render it workable, or even
constitutional, within the confines of a statute.
Language as it appears in a constitution is not
self-ex ecu ting.11 It is only a directive to the
legislature, and, as such, contemplates further
legislative action to implement it. In this in-
stance, not only does the constitutional lan-
guage specifically direct the legislature to im-
plement the provision, but the pertinent min-
utes of the Constitutional Convention clearly
reflect the intent that this language was not
to be self-executing:-12 It is axiomatic that if
constitutional language is not in and of itself
self-executing, then the verbatim recitation of
the same language in a statutory provision
does not effect execution of the constitutional
provision and does not, therefore, implement
tbe provision.
Moreover, implementation of any constitu-
tional language requires that it be done in ac-
cordance with due process, which implies
guidelines or standards with which the statute
itself and the constitutional provision can be
effectively enforced. Accordingly, adoption by
a statute of constitutional language, unquali-
fied by guidelines or standards for enforce-
ment, runs the risk of violating due process.1*
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1641
This is true, irrespective of the fact that the
courts, as a practical matter in the first in-
stance, might find the unqualified language
unworkable.
In particular, although drawn directly from
Article 4, § 52, the terms "pollution, impair-
ment and destruction" are relative. They are
unrestrictive, unqualified, and undirective. As
is noted above, to employ wide-open and ill-
defined language in any statute is dangerous;
to do so in one of such sweeping ramifications
as 3055 could prove disastrous. To some extent
each of us is polluting, impairing and destroy-
ing our air, water and other natural resources
with each breath we take. Presumably, under
the parameters of 3055 each of us could be en-
joined from drawing another one.14
Prerequisite to further consideration of this,
its most critical aspect, however, is some ex-
amination of the mechanics of 3055.
B. Operative sections
Section 1
Section 1 (lines 9 and 10) states the title
of the act. Aside from the political gamesman-
ship reflected in the appearance in the title of
the names of one Democratic House member
and one Republican Senator, adoption of Sec-
tion 1 was not accompanied by any great fan-
fare or controversy; nor is it of any great
significance.
Section 2
Section 2(1), (lines 11 to 21) provides that:
"The attorney general, any political sub-
division of the state, any instrumentality or
agency of the state or of a political subdivi-
sion thereof, any person, partnership, corpora-
tion, association, organization or other legal
entity may maintain an action in the circuit
court having jurisdiction where the alleged
violation occurred or is likely to occur for
declaratory and equitable relief against the
state, any political subdivision thereof, any
person, partnership, corporation, association,
organization or other legal entity for the pro-
tection of the air, water and other natural re-
sources and the public trust therein from pol-
lution, impairment or destruction."
[p. 33107]
As introduced in April, 1969, section 2 was
not as inclusive of parties-plaintiff as the en-
rolled bill reflects. It formerly included only
" [t] he attorney general, a city, village or
township or a citizen of the state. ..." This
technical change enables every person or entity,
including the state or any agency, to sue any
other person or entity, including the state or
any agency, for the protection of the environ-
ment.
It is significant that the state and its agen-
cies are susceptible to injunctive action un-
der the bill. This reflects the increasingly ac-
cepted view, and motive behind 3055, that ad-
ministrative agencies are not doing their job
to protect and preserve natural resources.
Proponents of the bill argued that these agen-
cies, while entrusted with this responsibility,
are not upholding it. It was the expressed in-
tent of the House committee, therefore, that,
not only would the polluter be susceptible to
actions under the bill, but that the relevant
regulatory body could also be subjected to the
court's equitable and declaratory jurisdiction.
Section 2(2), (lines 22 to 29) signals this
lack of confidence in administrative proce-
dures :
" (2) In granting relief provided by sub-
section (1) where there is involved a stand-
ard for pollution or for an anti-pollution de-
vice or procedure, fixed by rule or otherwise,
by an instrumentality or agency of the state
or a political subdivision thereof, the court
may:
" (a) Determine the validity, applicability
and reasonableness of the standard.
"(b) When a court finds a standard to be
deficient, direct the adoption of a standard ap-
proved and specified by the court."*
The section was inserted in Senate com-
mittee, after House passage, and the House
later concurred in the Senate amendment. But
it could cause problems.
In particular, it has been suggested that
section 2(2) (b) may be an unconstitutional
delegation of legislative authority, and may
violate the principle of separation of powers.
Tt purports to give the courts the authority to
write, not merely interpret, the law. Moreover,
it enables the courts to superintend administra-
tive prerogative. The Michigan Constitution of
19fi3 provides that:
'The powers of government are divided into
tbrpe branches: legislative, executive and judi-
cial. No person exercising powers of one
branch shall exercise powers properly belong-
ing to another branch except as expressly
provided in this constitution." *"
To some extent the courts, especially activist
courts, legislate now; perhaps rightly so, in
some cases. But section 2(2) (b) gives more
than tacit approval of, or recognition to, this
fact. It writes it into law. Unquestionably,
the branches of government must work to-
gether in a spirit and practice of coopera-
tion.18 It is also squarely within judicial pre-
rotative, as provided in section 2(2) (a) to,
"tdletermine the validity, applicability and
reasonableness of (a) standard."w But the
courts cannot legislate. They cannot ". . . di-
rect the adoption of a standard. . . ."M
"There is a distinction between legislative
and judicial acts. The legislature makes the
law—courts apply it. To enact laws is an ex-
ercise of legislative power; to interpret them
-------
1642
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
is an exercise of judicial power. To declare
what the law shall be is legislative; to declare
what it is or has been ia judicial. The legisla-
tive power prescribes rules of action. The
judicial power determines whether, in a par-
ticular ease, such rules of action have been
transgressed. The legislature prescribes rules
for the future. The judiciary ascertains exist-
ing rights." 1&
Nor it is legally sufficient to reply that the
legislature has vested the courts with authority
to adopt appropriate standards. That begs the
question and flies directly in the face of im-
proper delegation of legislative authority:
Footnotes at end of article.
"In view of the recognized division of pow-
ers between the different departments of gov-
ernment any attempt to vest the courts with
legislative authority would be invalid.'*m
And further:
"The power given to a court under the Con-
stitution is judicial power. It is beyond the
power of the legislature to take from it that
judicial power, and it is equally beyond the
authority of the legislature to confer upon it
power not judicial.21"
Moreover, the delegation of rule making
power, if possible in the first instance, is
nonetheless invalid if it does not set forth
standards or guidelines in connection there-
with.22 It might be argued that section 2(2)
(b) is no more than an expression of the
court's declaratory and equitable jurisdiction.
That is, that to "... direct the adoption of
a standard . . /* is no more than a logical
extension of the court's equitable powers. This
assumes, however, that the section is applica-
ble, not as a general principle, but only aa to
each case on an ad hoc basis. But that as-
sumption and interpretation does not track
with the literal language which clearly haa a
much broader applicability. Furthermore, it
was the legislative intent that it be a general-
ly applicable principle.28
Section 2a dines 30 to 34) authorizes the
court, where it has *'. . . reasonable ground to
doubt [his] solvency" or ". . , this] ability to
pay any coat or judgment . . .*', to require of
the plaintiff the posting of a bond not to ex-
ceed $500.00. The section ia designed to pre-
clude the harassing suit or the action which is
totally without merit.** The section itself is
probably equally unmeritorious. Because of the
nominal amount stipulated, any well-inten-
tioned litigant will post it without difficulty.
But if he ia well-intentioned, then the posting
of the bond is unnecessary. On the other hand,
if the lawsuit is of an harassing, unmeritori-
ous nature, the nominal bond will not pre-
clude it. It can still be brought without great
imposition. Further, the limit on amount is so
small that it would not cover any substantial
cost that might be invoked.
It would seem more sensible to simply have
relied in this regard on the courts equity
power. The suit need not be entertained at
all. Moreover, in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction, the court can demand the posting
of a bond of any size, or any other condition.
Likewise, in the exercise of that jurisdic-
tion, it can award or apportion costs. Acco^d-
ingly, it would seem that section 3(3) (lines
51 and 52) is also unnecessary.
In addition, as is noted below, if the court
is in need of an escape hatch, section 3(2)
(lines 48 to 50) provides it through the crea-
tion of the role of the master or referee whose
findings and recommendations can serve as a
basis for dismissal or other disposition of an
action, short of a full evidentiary hearing.
Section 2a may, however, be more than just
an unnecessary appendage. In setting a fixed
maximum dollar limit on the bond which may
be required-, the section may similarly limit
the court's otherwise unlimited equitable pow-
er to require a bond in any amount. By sin-
gling out a lesser power, the section may
constrain the court's otherwise unbridled au-
thority to do equity. This clearly was not the
legislative intent. Quite the contrary, notwith-
standing that the foregoing observations were
made in committee, a representative moved
from the House floor that the bond provision
be inserted so as to afford the courts authority
to prevent the harassing suit. Its effect may
be just the opposite.
Section 3
Section 3(1) (lines 35 to 47) was the focal
point of much debate, and appropriately so,
for it is a key part of the bill. It reads:
"When the plaintiff in the action has made
a prima facie showing that the conduct of the
defendant has, or is likely to pollute, impair
or destroy the air, water or other natural
resources or the public trust therein, the de-
fendant may rebut the prima facie showing
by the submission of evidence to the contrary.
The defendant may also show, by way of an
affirmative defense, that there is no feasible
and prudent alternative to defendant's con-
duct and that such conduct is consistent with
the promotion of the public health, safety and
welfare in light of the state's paramount con-
cern for the protection of its natural resources
from pollution, impairment or destruction, Ex-
cept as to the affirmative defense, the prin-
ciples of burden of proof and weight of the
evidence generally applicable in civil actions
in the circuit courts shall apply to actions
brought under this act,"
In short, it says that the plaintiff must first
show a prima facie case of hia right to re-
lief.25 If the defendant chooses to rebut that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1643
showing by the presentation of some evidence,
the burden shifts back to the plaintiff. In the
alternative, the defendant may, "... by way
of an affirmative defense . . .", prescind from
the plaintiff's initial showing and assume the
burden of showing that there is ". . . no
feasible and prudent alternative ..." to his
conduct. If he takes the latter approach, the
defendant must also show that his ". . . con-
duct is consistent with the promotion of the
public health, safety and welfare in light of
the state's paramount concern for the pro-
tection of its natural resources. . . ." The sec-
tion concludes that, except as to the "affirma-
tive de "ense," the principles of burden of
proof and weight of the evidence shall be the
same for proceedings under 3055 as they are
for all other civil actions in the circuit
courts.26
As originally drafted, section 3(1) did not
provide for the alternative defenses. Once the
prima facie case had been shown, it placed
the burden on the defendant throughout,
and required much more of the defendant's
proof. It simply stated that, once the plain-
tiff established his prima facie case:
"ft] he defendant has the burden of es-
tablishing that there is no feasible and
prudent alternative and that the conduct,
program or product at issue is consistent
with and reasonably required for promotion
of the public health, safety and welfare in
light of the state's paramount concern for
the protection of its natural resources from
pollution, impairment or destruction."
This may have been asking a bit much
of the defendant, notwithstanding the argu-
ments of the proponents of the language.
They argued that in most, if not all, environ-
mental lawsuits technological knowledge and
expertise are exclusively with the defendant:
that he is solely in a position of knowing
whether an alternative method to his conduct
does or does not exist, and that only be and
his evidence can establish that fact.27
Thus, the original language was an in-
direct means of obtaining discovery—and more.
Placing the entire burden of proof on the
defendant effectively compelled him to come
forward with the evidence—for or against
himself. This is a complete reversal of com-
mon law jurisprudence and civil practice.
While there is some merit to the proponents'
rationale, the effect of this complete reversal
is of questionable advisability. It at least
prejudges the derendant's conduct, may be of
questionable constitutionality (fifth amendment
due process) and begs the question: Is the
remedy under the Act a, penalty? It is true
that technological data is usually exclusively
with the defendant. But discovery is available.
The de-
[p. 33108]
fendant should not have to prove the plain-
tiff's case. He should not have to prove the
case against himself.
The language of the enrolled bill to some
extent corrects this inequity. Instead of re-
quiring the defendant, once a prima facie
showing is made, to sustain the entire burden
throughout, he is now afforded the option
of simply rebutting that showing, or of going
beyond and showing that these is ". . . no
feasible and prudent alternative ..." to
his conduct. This is in contrast to the Sax
draft, by the terms of which he was com-
pelled to show ". . . no feasible and prudent
alternative . . ." to his conduct. Under the
enrolled bill, if the defendant does not raise
the question of "feasible and prudent alterna-
tive", it need not be put in issue. In most
cases, however, the defendant will ultimately
see fit to litigate the question. But he need
not, if he ia able to overcome the plaintiff's
case by way oe a lesser showing. This change
was made in House committee for the express
purpose of alleviating the inequities inherent
in the Sax draft.
Nevertheless, there is still a weakness in
section 3(1). The terms "feasible and prudent"
are left all alone and unqualified. What may
be feasible and prudent in one instance, may
not be in another. What may be feasible and
prudent from one prospective may not be
from another. There are technological, eco-
nomic, geographical, physical, and other kinda
of feasibility and prudence. It was argued—
ultimately in vain, though for a time some
converts were won—that these terms, like "pol-
lution, impairment and destruction", are rela-
tive and in need of further definition.
For the short while (2 drafts) during which
that argument met with some success, the
language "considering all relevant surround-
ing circumstances and factors" was inserted
to qualify "feasible and prudent alternative."
It was later removed as the quid pro QUO for
the insertion of the term "unreasonable" to
modify "pollution, impairment and destrufr-
tion."28
Hopefully, the courts are still free to con-
sider "all relevant surrounding circumstances
and factors." But because of the constructive
legislative intent, perhaps not. They certainly
are not compelled to do so. Broad, and per-
haps vague, as that language is, it might have
afforded the courts paradoxically more lati-
tude and more direction in a given instance.
Now, presumably, a determination of feasibil-
ity and prudence could—and may have to—
turn on a single factor to the exclusion of
consideration of all others.
In the Sax draft, section 3(1) also required
that the defendant's conduct be ". . . reason-
ably required for promotion of the public
health, safety and welfare in light of the
state's paramount concern for the protec-
-------
1644
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion of its natural resources from pollution,
impairment or destruction . . .*' Requiring
that a particular endeavor of private enter-
prise be "reasonably required" by the public
health, safety and "welfare is totally unrea-
sonable and disconsonant with basic human
motivation and activity. People do not ordi-
narily do things because required by the pub-
lic health, safety and welfare to do them.
Their conduct may, and must, be "consistent
with** these considerations.
But the test as originally drafted is a
greater one than is exacted of public and
nonprofit entities. If business were required
to show that it is "reasonably required" by
the public health, safety and welfare (let
alone by "the protection of [the state's]
natural resources") then it would be unable
to justify its existence. The test was perhaps
unconstitutional, totally unworkable, and, at
least in total disregard of the ordinary course
of business and the conduct of human affairs.
In a word, it was academically idealistic and
Footnotes at end of article.
practically unrealistic. As finalized in the en-
rolled bill, the test now is simply "consistent
with" these considerations, and this would
seem most satisfactory, necessary and suffi-
cient.
Although not in the least bit controversial,
section 3(2) (lines 48 to 50) has some sig-
nificance. It provides for a master or referee
to assist the court. Specifically, to the mas-
ter or referee is delegated the responsibility
of taking ". . . testimony and making a rec-
ord and a report of his findings to the court
in the action." It is the design of this sec-
tion: to provide for a preliminary screening
of actions; to weed out the unmeritorious
action; to give the court some basis in fact
for doing so, short of a full-blown hearing on
the merits; and, in general, to provide the
court with an informal precis of the case
before or shortly after issue is joined.
Section 3(3) (lines 61 and 52) merely
affirms what is inherent in the equitable pow-
ers of the court—to apportion costs as justice
requires.
Section 4
Section 4(1) (lines 63 to 56) authorizes
the court to grant temporary or permanent
relief, or impose any conditions required, to
protect the air, water and other natural re-
sources.
Section 4(2) (lines 67 to 68) provides that.
In doing so, the court may remit the whole
matter to an appropriate administrative agen-
cy or agencies. There is sound authority for
doing so:
"The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, like
the rule requiring exhaustion of adminis-
trative remedies, is concerned with promoting
proper relationships between the courts and
administrative agencies charged with par-
ticular regulatory duties. 'Exhaustion' applies
where a claim is cognizable in the first instance
by the administrative agency alone; judicial
interference is withheld until the administrative
process has run its course. 'Primary jurisdic-
tion,' on the other hand, applies where a claim
is originally cognizable in the courts, and
comes into play whenever enforcement of the
claim requires the resolution of issues which,
under a regulatory scheme, have been placed
within the special competence of an adminis-
trative body; in such a case the judicial proc-
ess is suspended pending referral of such
issues to the administrative body for its
views. General American Tank Car Corp. v.
El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U.S. 422, 433
(1939).
"No fixed formula exists for applying the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In every case
the question is whether the reasons for the
existence of the doctrine are present and
whether the purposes it serves will be aided
by its application in the particular litigation.
These reasons and purposes have often been
given expression by this Court. In the earlier
cases emphasis was laid on the desirable uni-
formity which would obtain if initially a spe-
cialized agency passed on certain types of ad-
ministration questions. See Texas & Pacific R.
Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.. 204 U.S. 426.
More recently the expert and specialized knowl-
edge of the agencies involved haa been particu-
larly stressed. See Far East Conference v.
United States, 342 U.S. 670.»"
Proceedings at the administrative level are
to be conducted pursuant to the Administra-
tive Procedures Act of 1969,30 and the court
is to retain jurisdiction of the matter pend-
ing their completion. At that time, the court
is to determine whether "adequate protection"
has been afforded the air, water and other
natural resources.
During debate in House committee, com-
mercial and industrial interest lobbied strongly
for mandatory, rather than discretionary re-
mittance. They argued that somewhere there
exists the opportunist on the bench who, for
political reasons, will fail to remit a case
which should be referred to the administrative
level; that there is the judge who will seize
upon the right case at the right time (just
prior to his own reelection bid), short-circuit
the administrative process and grandstand to
the voters.
The conservationists argued, on the other
hand and inconsistently with much of their
rationale relating to other provisions of the
bill, that to require referral would deprive
the judge of discretion in the exercise of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1645
his equitable powers. More importantly, they
argued that to require referral of cases could
preclude or stifle decisive action where needed
in a given case. In addition, since the judge
who voraciously seeks out more of a case-
load than he already has is a rarity, (iiot-
withstanding the political opportunist) it
seems unlikely that the courts will be at all
reluctant to preliminarily remit an appropriate
case to the administrative proceedings. This is
particularly true, since the court retains ju^is-
diction pending completion of the proceedings.
The last sentence of section 4(2) and the
first sentence of section 4(3) (lines 65 to 71)
contain the essence of the philosophy behind
3055. Those two sentences read:
"In so remitting the court shall retain
jurisdiction of the action pending completion
thereof for the purpose of determining
whether adequate protection from pollution,
impairment or destruction has been afforded.
"Upon completion of such proceedings, the
court shall adjudicate the impact of the de-
fendant's conduct on the air, water or other
natural resources and on the public trust
therein in accordance with this act."
In addition to affording immediate access
to the courts, 3055 provides for immediate
review of administrative actions. But it is
the kind of judicial review that is significant.
Ordinarily, the scope of review is limited to
those cases where the administrative decision
is:
(a) In violation of the constitution or a
statute.
(b) In excess of the statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the agency.
(c) Made upon unlawful procedures result-
ing in material prejudice to a party.
(d) Not supported by competent, material
and substantial evidence on the whole record.
(e) Arbitrary, capricious or clearly an abuse
or unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(f) Affected by other substantial and mate-
rial error of law.31
Direct review under 3055, however, is avail-
able irrespective of these considerations and
of whether the agency followed established
substantive rules, regulations or guidelines.
The courts have always had authority to
review administrative regulations, and the
exercise of discretion thereunder, to protect
constitutional rights.32 But they have not had
the authority to pass judgment upon the
substantive content of a rule or regulation
absent a showing of its unconstitutional op-
eration. Absent a showing of one of the
generally accepted bases for overturning ad-
ministrative decisions, to arm the courts with
override authority of the kind granted pursuant
to section 4(3) (". . . adjudicate the impact
of defendant's conduct . . .") comes parlously
close to running afoul of the improper dele-
gation and separation of powers principles
noted above.33
"The legislative power prescribes rules of
action. The judicial power determines whether,
in a particular case, such rules of action have
been transgressed.8*'*
Section 4(3), with its directive to the
courts to override substantive administrative
rules, regulations and guidelines, in adju-
dicating the effect of a defendant's conduct
on the environment, is, by operation, legis-
lating. Moreover, it does so with no provision
for standards or guidelines. Needn't the de-
fendant have promulgated notice of the
standards which he must meet? Or can he,
in lieu of being held accountable to specif-
ically prescribed and promulgated rules and
standards, be set adrift in the ill-defined
[p. 33109]
morass of "pollution, impairment or destruc-
tion" and "reasonable requirements of the
public health, safety and welfare"? The for-
mer would seem to be the rule.
"This court has been specially vigilant in
the guardianship of personal and property
rights as against uncontrolled delegation of
the power to legislate and enforce at will. See
the leading case of Oaius v. City of St. Clair
Shores, 334 Mich. 893, 698 (48 ALR2d 1079);
"There is no doubt that a legislative body
may not delegate to another its lawmaking
powers. It must promulgate, not abdicate.
This is not to say, however, that a subordi-
nate body or official may not be clothed with
the authority to say when the law shall oper-
ate, or as to whom, or upon what occasion,
provided, however, that the standards pre-
scribed for guidance are as reasonably pre-
cise as the subject matter requires or per-
mits.36' "
And acceptance of the rule is becoming
widespread:
"There is growing recognition among the
state courts of the healthy principle that a
person who relies in good faith on an agency
rule should be held harmless from loss if
that rule is later held invalid, or is amend-
ed.38"
Section 4(4) is a technical override of sec-
tion 64 of the Administrative Procedures Act
of 1969s7 which, in conjunction with section
4, could permit the vesting of jurisdiction,
upon review of the administrative proceedings,
in a court other than that which first took
cognizance of that matter. Section 4(4) in-
sures that judicial review will be conducted
by the court originally taking jurisdiction.
Section 5
Section 5(1) (lines 79 to 88) provides for
intervention at both the administrative and
judicial review levels. Its scope is as all-in-
526-703 O - 73 - 31
-------
1646
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
elusive as is that of parties-plaintiff and
defendant under section 2.
Section 6(2) (lines 89 to 95) purports to
Superimpose on the administrative agency the
game directive as is given tbe court under sec-
tion 4(3). That is, an override of duly estab-
lished and promulgated agency standards and
guidelines is provided. Accordingly, the anal-
ysis of section 4(3) is equally applicable to
this section. The only distinction is that this
section is expressly operative at the adminis-
trative level, (and arguably operative upon
judicial review) whereas, section 4(3) is ex-
pressly operative upon judicial review.
Of the remaining sections 5(3) (lines 96
and 97), 6 (lines 98 and 99), and 7 (line
100), 5(3) is designed to prevent a multi-
plicity of suits by stating that the doctrines
of res judicata and estoppel are applicable. It
would be seem that, under its equitable power.
the court could invoke them in any event.
Section 6 states that 3055 is supplemen-
tary to, not supplantive of, existing admin-
istrative procedure.
Section 7 provides the effective date of
October 1, 1970.
m. IN RETROSPECT
A. Reasonable pollution?
References have been made to the lack of
definition of terms and preciseness of language
in 3055. With no small amount of effort were
some of the Governor's proposed changes in-
serted and retained in the bill. Other changes
were also made. Perhaps a sufficient number
of constructive changes were effected to have
constituted a decent average in most leagues.
But it will forever be a cause of great
chagrin that the term "unreasonable" was
stricken from the final draft after it reached
the floor of tbe House.38 The manner in
which it was removed is likewise a source of
concern and a sad commentary on legisla-
tive processes. The term was not used in the
Sax draft. It was inserted in House com-
mittee. Aa has been noted, the qualifying
language relating to "feasible and prudent
alternative" had been deleted by agreement
Of all concerned in exchange for retaining
"unreasonable" .**
Footnotes at end of article.
Nonetheless, one Democratic Representative,
who, as chairman of the House committee,
had been privy to all drafting sessions, moved,
as the bill was reported from committee onto
the calendar, that "unreasonable" be stricken.
He had rallied the number of his Democratic
colleagues sufficient to obtain the necessary
minimum 56 votes and the word was excised.40
Enough attention was thereby focused on it
that any attempt to reinsert the -word would
have been an exercise in futility. Public reac-
tion, without understanding the full signifi-
cance of the term and spurred by conservations
paranoia,*1 misguidedly brought sufficient press-
ure to bear to keep it out.
Thus, whereas an agreement had been made
by all principals involved, one Questionably
motivated act undid it all. Whereas a fairly
sound model had been prepared, the measure
may now be of questionable constitutionality
for lack of definition.
"[A]ny statute which subjects those who
violate its terms to criminal prosecution or to
an action for damages must give tsufficientiy
definite] notice. Even a statute subjecting
violators merely to injunction or to depriva-
tion of a prospective gain should give notice
where the secondary effect of such a sanction
is to destroy the value of an existing invest-
ment of time or money.'*42
In any event the courts are now deprived
of any handle, which they might otherwise
have had, upon -which to rationally, and
with precedent, decide the matters which come
before them under the act.
This ia particularly true, since, in review-
ing cases pursuant to 3055, the courts are
directed to prescind from administrative rules,
regulations, guidelines, standards and actions."
As such, they have no criteria upon which to
base their decisions. The terms "pollution, im-
pairment and destruction" are in desperate
need of qualification. It was strongly felt that
the term "unreasonable" afforded the semblance
of definition.
The action of once having expressly in-
serted the word "unreasonable" in the bill
and subsequently removing it, may give rise to
a constructive legislative intent that the courts
are to regard "pollution, impairment and de-
struction" in the absolute; that, notwithstand-
ing their broad equity powers, they are pre-
cluded from adopting a "rule of reason."
Is there such a thing as reasonable pollu-
tion? The conservationists and the chairman
of the House committee answered, "No." It
can only be hoped'—for the sake of plaintiffs,
defendants, commerce, industry, the courts
and all of us—that, notwithstanding the con-
troversy over the term "unreasonable" and
the ultimate resolution of that controversy,
the courts find that answer erroneous.
B. The public trust
A concept to which much significance ia
attached in 3055 is that of "the public trust".
As first introduced, the Sax draft used the
term in several different contexts. In sec-
tion 2 it refers to "... public trust in the
natural resources of the states". In section 3
the phrase is ". . . natural resources or the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1647
public trust of the state". In section 4 it
speaks simply of "the public trust".
Unquestionably, Professor Sax knew what
be meant by the term. But the confusing and
different contexts in which it was used and
the complexity of the concept itself, as Sax
defined it, was disconcerting. Moreover, there
are different conceptions of public trust. Ac-
cordingly, a motion was made in House com-
mittee that it be stricken. As a compromise,
an expression consistently used throughout
the enrolled bill was decided upon. Now the
act speaks in terms of the ". . . air, water,
or other natural resources or the public trust
therein".
Sax urges a very special significance to the
term. He states that:
"Confusion has arisen from the failure of
many courts to distinguish between the gov-
ernment's general obligation to act for the
public benefit, and the special, and more
demanding, obligation which it may have as
a trustee of certain public resources."*4
Presumably, as was said at the outset, the
state's authority to regulate these matters
stems from its police power.
But to Sax's thinking, the public trust is
obviously something very distinct from the
protection of the air, water and other natural
resources through the police power.
Among its salient characteristics are the
Public nature of the resource and use there-
of, the fact that the use is not to be sub-
stantially altered, and the fact that it can-
not be alienated to a private interest for a
consideration (quasi-private condemnation of
resources). Thus, it differs substantially from
the preservation and protection to be afforded
the state's natural resources under the police
power. It connotes a trusteeship—a fiduciary
duty to the public.
The public trust has received recognition,
and in fact, is still in its embryonic stages,
in the courts. It is a principle, the thrust
of which is to preserve to the people their
natural surroundings in the highest quality
possible commensurate with the normal con-
duct of human affairs. Incidentally, it has
made the people aware of their surroundings
and made administrative agencies responsive
to the people. It has afforded public access
to administrative determinations. It strikes
at the heart of the low-visibility agency deci-
sion making. Says Sax:
"[P]ublic trust law is not so much a sub-
stantive set of standards for dealing with the
public domain as it is a technique by which
courts may mend perceived imperfections in
the legislative and administrative process.
The public trust approach which has been
developed . . . and the exercise in applying
that approach to existing situations . . .
demonstrate that the public trust concept is
more than anything: else, a medium for de-
moc ratization .4G"
III. CONCLUSION
That is where 3055 began. That is its un-
derlying rationale. To democratize environ-
mental law. To take a step, legislatively, into
an area into which up to now only the courts
have ventured. To short cut the process. To
codify into a statute what has been only
dicta in the cases that the people are the
very real beneficiaries of a trust, the corpus
of which is their environment. Will it workT
As 3055 left House committee with most of
his recommended changes adopted, Governor
Milliken gave this assessment :
"This bill certainly will not be the total
answer to all our environmental problems.
It is not a panacea. It will not be the total
answer to all our environmental problems.
But, it will serve to bring some of them into
focus; perhaps more quickly than they are
now.
"It will also, in some cases, produce quicker
action from those agencies and instrumental-
ities of state and local government whose
responsibility it is to protect the environ-
ment, as well as from the polluters them-
selves.
"Most importantly, it will permit direct
citizen involvement in bringing much of this
about, and hopefully, in so doing, will pro-
duce an increasing consciousness and con-
science in every citizen of this state concern-
ing the protection and preservation of his
environment. For, ultimately, the quality of
our environment is, not only the concern,
but the responsibility, of every citizen.
"If this measure takes ua one step closer to
[p. 33110]
that realization it will have been worth the
effort of its enactment.46"
3055 may do this and much more. Its con-
cept is bold, though its execution might have
been better. If it can withstand constitu-
tional attack, or if it can be satisfactorily
amended to provide for more definitive stand-
ards, it could revolutionize environmental law.
The potential ramifications are virtually un-
limited. Which of them will be realized, and
to what extent, must await case by-case de-
velopment under the Act.
The businessman-industrialist — especially in
Michigan — awaits in frightened expectation;
the activist-conservationist in childlike frenetic
excitation.
FOOTNOTES
h. Camp. L. of 19t8, 5 691.1201-07 (Act
127, P.A. 1970).
-------
1648
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
2 Professor of Law, University of Michigan.
A.B., 1957, Harvard University; J.D., 1959,
University of Chicago. Has taught at the
University of Colorado and at the University
of California at Berkeley. In Washington,
D.C., from July, 1969, to July, 1970, he
studied, on a Ford Foundation grant, the use
of law in environmental quality controversies.
* An organization, in turn comprised of 60
or more organizations, the natures of which
span the spectrum from local PTAs, to black
unit councils, to Kiwanis clubs, to garden
clubs to conservation groups. WMEAC was
formed in the Spring of 1968 at the initiation
of Mrs. Willard E. Wolfe of Grand Rapids. Its
stated purpose is to coordinate information,
to educate the public, and "take whatever
action is necessary" to protect the environ-
ment. This action has largely taken the form
of encouraging legal and legislative action
and generating support therefor. WMEAC
has been most successful in enlisting the
support of otherwise not primarily conserva-
tion oriented groups. It first confronted Pro-
fessor Sax on January 28, 1969, with its
problem: a need to effect governmental ac-
tion in the protection of the environment.
3055 is the result.
4 Representative Thomas J. Anderson, Dem-
ocrat of the 28th House District, introduced
the bill as its sole sponsor. An engineer by
profession, after 10 years of local political
activity, he was first elected to the House in
1964. He was reelected in 1966 and 1968 and
stands for reelection in November, 1970. He is
co-chairman of the House Conservation and
Recreation Committee. Mich- Man. 1969-70
(Mich. Dept. Ad.) at 191.
E The House Committee on Conservation and
Recreation is comprised of IS members, one
of whom is a member of the bar. Mich. Leg.
Hdb. 1969-70. (Comp. by Kenyon and Thatch-
er, 1969). Since the bill was labeled a con-
servation measure, it was assigned to that com-
mittee. More appropriately it might have been
referred to House Judiciary.
6 Representative Warren N. Goemaere, Dem-
ocrat of the 72nd House District, although
technically designated "co-chairman", is chair-
man of the committee for the 1970 session.
Like Anderson, he was first elected to the
House in 1964, was reelected in 1966 and 1968,
and stands for reelection in November, 1970.
Mich. Man. 2969-70, supra. Note 4, at 197.
7 Testimony of the author, Hearings on H.B.
3055 before House Conservation and Recreation
Committee, 75th Mich. Leg., Mar. 18, 1970 (un-
reported).
8 See Appendix, infra. House Bill 3066 as
introduced April 1, 1969, 5 2. The purpose for
removing the reference to the "State" in the
enrolled bill was to avoid potential res judi-
cata or estoppel problems; to avoid a con-
struction that would preclude an action where
a prior suit had litigated the same issue on
similar or identical facts, but through a dif-
ferent party-plaintiff. Though maintained in
the names of distinct parties-plaintiff, because
the cases were declared to be in "the name of
the State", the legal identity of the single
party—the State—might have been imputed
to the plaintiffs.
The reference to the doctrines of res judi-
cata and estoppel in the enrolled bill (See
Appendix, infra, §5(3), (lines 96 and 97) is
to the customary application of those doc-
trines.
M Mich. Comp. L. of 1948, § 691.1201-07
(Act 127, P.A. 1970).
8b Environmental Protection Act of 1970,
S3575, 91 Cong. 2nd sess., 1970.
"Mich. Const., art 4, § 62.
10 See Appendix, infra, Enrolled House Bill
3055, §§ 1, 3(1), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1) and
6(2).
11 McDonald v. Schnipke, 380 Mich., 14, 22,
25, 26, N.W. (1968).
12 Mich. Const. Con. 1961—Official Record
(Knapp. ed.) Committee Proposal 125, Vol.
II, at 2602-05. Mr. Millard reported as fol-
lows (at 2602) :
"The proposed section submitted herewith
is merely declaratory and has no automatic
self executing quality. The wording has been
examined by Professor William Pierce of the
law school of the University of Michigan,
who asserts that the section would not alter
existing water law in any respect, either in
riparian rights, meander lines or otherwise.
Nor would the declaration of a public para-
mount interest in the air interfere with the
traditional common law doctrine of the con-
trol of air space above real property. Nor
would existing vested rights in property
holders of the various forms of 'natural
resources' be in any fashion disturbed."
The consequence of adoption of the pro-
vision, in short, does not lie in any alteration
of existing law.
Mr. Hatch reemphasized the fact that the
language is not self executing (at 2603):
"I want to make it perfectly clear that this
amendment is merely declaratory. It has no
automatic self executing qualities."
And Mr. Millard confirmed this again (at
2605).
"We have to have some protection against
the waste of our natural resources. We do
that now. Our legislature does have control
over the natural resources, the use of them,
and I feel that in the future that ttrs is
more or less just a memorializing of the
legislature, that they have the right, the
power. We are not giving them any power.
They have that power. We are just telling
them to look out into the future for our
natural resources, the air and the water, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1649
to make some regulations so that they will
not be used up for the other generations
that are to follow."
is McKibbin v. Corp. & Sec. Comm., 369
Mich., 69, N.W. (1963). Although speaking of
the delegation of authority to an agency, the
rule o" McKibbin is equally—and more—ap-
plicable to a delegation to the courts.
14 Time Mag., August 24, 1970, at 37. The
first state law of its kind in the U,S., the
Michigan statute could inspire a flurry of
odd-ball suits. If a Detroit resident dislikes
auto pollution, for example, he might well ask
a court to ban all downtown traffic.
13 Mich. Const., art. 3, § 2.
16 See People v. Piasecki, 333 Mich. 122, 52
N.W. 2d 626 (1952); Local 321, State, County
and Municipal Workers of America v. Dear-
born, 311 Mich. 674, 19 N.W. 2d 140 (1945);
and Parker, " Separation of Powers Revisited",
49 Mich. L. Rev., 1009 (1951).
" Lewis v. Grand Rapids, 222 F. Supp. 349,
378 (W.D. Mich. 1963).
*s Northwood Properties Company v. Royal
Oak City Inspector, 325 Mich. 419, 39 N.W.
2d 25 (1949).
is In re Consolidated Freight Co., 265 Mich.
340, 343, 251 N.W. 431, (1933).
20 Goethal v. Kent County Supervisors, 361
Mich. 104, 113, 104 N.W. 2d 794 (1960).
21 Johnson v. Kramer Freight Lines, 357
Mich. 254, 257-8, N.W. (1959).
22 McKibbin, Supra, Note 13.
23 Sec. 2(2) was added in the Senate Con-
servation and Tourist Industry Committee.
Senator Basil W. Brown, Democrat of the 6th
Senatorial District, proposed and moved the
adoption of the language. A most able lawyer,
Senator Brown later informally speculated
that the language may not survive constitu-
tional attack.
24 See Appendix, infra, Environmental Pro-
tection Act of 1970, S. 3575, 91 Cong., 2d Sess.
§ 4(e) (1970), which provides:
"No bond shall be required by the court of
the plaintiff: Provided. That the court may,
Upon clear and convincing evidence offered
by the defendant that the relief required will
result in irreparable damage to the defendant,
impose a requirement for security to cover the
costs and damages as may be incurred by
defendant when relief is wrongfully granted:
Provided further, That such security shall not
be required of plaintiff if the requirement
thereof would unreasonably hinder plaintiff in
the maintenance of his action or would tend
unreasonably to prevent a full and fair hearing
on the activities complained of."
Quite clearly the provision says nothing,
except that the court may or may not, in its
discretion, require bond. The language in En-
rolled Bill 3055 was appended on the floor of
the House, it having been decidedly rejected
in House Committee.
'* Black's Law Dictionary 1353 (4th ed.
1951) says of prime, facie ccee that: "A liti-
gating party is said to have a prima facie
case when the evidence in his favor is suffi-
ciently strong for his opponent to be called
on to answer it. A prima facie case then is
one which is established by sufficient evi-
dence, and can be overthrown only by re-
butting evidence adduced on the other side."
wMich. Gen. Ct. R. 601 states: "The bur-
den of proof, presumptions, judicial notice,
and other rules of evidence shall be accord-
ing to the common law except as modified
by statute or court rule."
Thus, the "exception" for the "affirmative
defense" is somewhat ambiguous. If in fact
section 3(1) makes an exception from the
common law rule that the burden of estab-
lishing such a defense is on its proponent,
it fails to state what rule shall govern. Ac-
cordingly, an assumption must be made that
no "exception" is in fact created.
27 Professor Sax strongly urges this point.
See Sax, "The Public Trust Doctrine in Nat-
ural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Inter-
vention", 68 Mich. L. Rev. 473 (1970).
28 On April 14, 1970, a meeting was held
in the Washington, D.C. office of Professor
Sax, In attendance were: Representatives
Anderson and Goemaere, Senator Gordon Rock-
well, Chairman of the Senate Conservation
and Tourist Industry Committee, Mr. James
L. Rouman, then Executive Director of the
Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Profes-
sor Sax, and the author. With all present
concurring, the author agreed to the deletion
of this language and, in turn. Professor Sax
agresd that the word "unreasonable" remain
in the bill. Representative Goemaere subse-
quently moved that the word "unreasonable"
be stricken— see pp. 20—22, infra.
2» United States v. Western Pacific R.R. Co.,
352 U.S. 59, 63-4 (1956).
30 Mich. Comp. L. of 1948, §§ 24.201-24.313.
31 Id. § 24.306.
82 Lewis v. Grand Rapids, supra, at Note 17.
83 Cf. pp. 8 and 9. Notes 15-22, supra.
34 In re Consolidated Freight Co., supra.
Note 19, at 343.
83 O'Brien v. State Hwy. Commr., 375 Mich.
545, 557, N.W. (1965).
30 Cooper, State Administrative Law, 267
§ 4(D) (1965).
37 Mich. Camp. L. of 1948, § 24.264.
38 See S. 3575, 91 Cong., 2d Sess. (1970),
§§ 2(b), 3 (a) and 4 (a), wherein the word
"unreasonable" appears. The insertion of the
term was made by staff personnel before in-
[p. 33111]
troduction to the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce.
38 Cf. pp. 14 and 15, Note 28, eupra.
-------
1650
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
*° The Michigan House has 110 members.
Thus, 66 votes were needed to carry Repre-
sentative Goemaere's motion. The House of
the 7Sth Legislature has a constituency of 67
Democrats and 63 Republicans, Mich. l>eff.
Hdb. 1969-70. The record role call on Repre-
sentative Goemaere's motion reflects 61 Demo-
crats and 6 Republicans voting "Yea", H.
Journal No. 67, 75th Leg. Ree. Sess. (1970),
roll call No. 335 at 1296.
u The Michigan United Conservation Clubs,
through Dr. Frederick L. Brown, its president,
was signally effective here. Spooked by a prior
legislative hassle of some years before when
the word "willful" crept into a conservation-
ist piece of legislation, Brown vehemently
and vociferously opposed the term "unreason-
able." From his testimony, and specific refer-
ences to the fact, it was clear that Brown
and other conservationist interests errone-
ously imputed to the word the same connota-
tion as in commonly ascribed to "willful".
*>6S Harv. L. Rev. 77, 78-9 (1948).
43 Cf. pp. 8, 9, 11-19, Notes 16-22, 31-36.
" Sax, supra. Note 27 at 478.
«Id. at 609.
18 Press release. Governor William G. Mil-
liken, Mar. 31, 1970.
From the perspective of both Legal Ad-
visor to Governor William G. Milliken and
ad hoc counsel to the House committee which
drafted the measure, the author affords an
incisive analysis of Michigan House Bill
3055. The Environmental Protection Act of
1970, effective October 1, 1970. The Michi-
gan Legislature maintains no permanent
record of its committee hearings or floor de-
bate. Accordingly, through his observations
and recollections, the author here provides
the only recorded history, with a focus on
legislative intent, of the passage of this re-
markable Act. Since the Michigan version is
expected to be the model for the enactment
of similar measures in other states (now
pending in Colorado, Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and the U.S.
Congress, and expected to be introduced in
Texas and California) and since there prom-
ises to be much litigation brought pursuant
to the Act, this article should be of partic-
ular value to legislative members and ad-
ministrative officials, as well aa to corporate,
government and private attorneys.
APPENDIX
(Enrolled House Bill No. 3066 as signed by
Governor William G. Milliken on July 27,
1970 (Act 127, P.A. 1970, Mich. Comp. L.
1948, 55 691.1201-07))
An Act to provide for actions for declara-
tory and equitable relief for protection ol
the air, water and other natural resources
and the public trust therein; to prescribe the
rights, duties and functions of the attorney
general, any political subdivision of the state,
any instrumentality or agency of the state or
of a political subdivision thereof, any per-
son, partnership, corporation, association,
organization or other legal entity; and to
provide for judicial proceedings relative
thereto.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may
be cited as the "Thomas J. Anderson, Gordon
Rockwell environmental protection act of 1970",
Sec. 2 (1) The attorney general, any polit-
ical subdivision of the state, any instrumental-
ity or agency of the state or of a political
subdivision thereof, any person, partnership,
corporation, association, organization or other
legal entity may maintain an action in the
circuit court having jurisdiction where the
alleged violation occurred or is likely to oc-
cur for declaratory and equitable relief against
the state, any political subdivision thereof, any
instrumentality or agency of the state or of a
political subdivision thereof, any person, part-
nership, corporation, association, organization
or other legal entity for the protection of the
air, water and other natural resources and the
public trust therein from pollution, impair-
ment or destruction.
(2) In granting relief provided by subsec-
tion (1) where there is involved a standard
for pollution or for an anti-pollution device
or procedure, fixed by rule or otherwise, by
an instrumentality or agency of the state or
a political subdivision thereof, the court may:
(a) Determine the validity, applicability and
reasonableness of the standard.
(b) When a court finds a standard to be
deficient, direct the adoption of a standard
approved and specified by the court.
Sec. 2a. If the court has reasonable ground
to doubt the solvency of the plaintiff or the
plaintiff's ability to pay any cost or judgment
which might be rendered against him in any
action brought under this act the court may
order the plaintiff to post a surety bond or
cash not to exceed $500.00.
Sec, 3. (1) When the plaintiff in the ac-
tion has made a pritna facie showing that the
conduct of the defendant has, or is likely to
pollute, impair or destroy the air, water or
other natural resources or the public trust
therein, the defendant may rebut the prima
facie showing by the submission of evidence
to the contrary. The defendant may also
show, by way of an affirmative defense, that
there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to defendant's conduct and that such con-
duct is consistent with the promotion of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1651
public health, safety and welfare in light of
the state's paramount concern for the pro-
tection of its natural resources from pollu-
tion, impairment or destruction. Except as
to the affirmative defense, the principles of
burden of proof and weight of the evidence
generally applicable in civil actions in the
circuit courts shall apply to actions brought
under this act.
(2) The court may appoint a master or
referee, who shall be a disinterested person
and technically qualified, to take testimony
and make a record and a report of his find-
ings to the court in the action.
(3) Costs may be apportioned to the parties
if the interests of justice require.
Sec. 4. (1) The court may grant temporary
and pei manent equitable relief, or may im-
pose conditions on the defendant that are
required to protect the air, water and other
natural resources or the public trust there-
in from pollution, impairment or destruction.
(2) If administrative, licensing or other
proceedings are required or available to de-
termine the legality of the defendant's con-
duct, the court may remit the parties to
such proceedings, which proceedings shall
be conducted in accordance with and sub-
ject to the provisions of Act No. 306 of the
Public Acts of 1969, being sections 24.201
to 24.313 of the Compiled Laws of 1948. In
so remitting the court may grant temporary
equitable relief where necessary for the pro-
tection of the air, water and other natural
resources or the public trust therein from
pollution, impairment or destruction. In so
remitting the court shall retain jurisdiction
of the action pending completion thereof for
the purpose of determining whether adequate
protection from pollution, impairment or de-
struction has been afforded.
(3) Upon completion of such proceed-
ings, the court shall adjudicate the impact
of the defendant's conduct on the air, water
or other natural resources and on the public
trust therein in accordance with this act.
In such adjudication the court may order that
additional evidence be taken to the extent
necessary to protect the rights recognized in
this act.
(4) Where, as to any administrative, li-
censing or other proceeding judicial review
thereof is available, notwithstanding the pro-
visions to the contrary of Act No. 306 of the
Public Acts of 1969, pertaining to judieia
review, the court originally taking jurisdiction
shall maintain jurisdiction for purposes of
judicial review.
Sec. 5. (1) Whenever administrative, li-
censing or other proceedings, and judicia
review thereof are available by law, the
agency or the court may permit the attorney
general, any political subdivision of the state
any instrumentality or agency of the state or
of a political subdivision thereof, any per-
son, partnership, corporation, association, or-
ganization or other legal entity to inter-
vene as a party on the filing of a pleading
asserting that the proceeding or action for
judicial review involves conduct which has
or which is likely to have, the effect of pol-
luting, impairing or destroying the air, water
or other natural resources or the public trust
therein.
(2) In any such administrative, licensing
or other proceedings, and in any judicial re-
view thereof, any alleged pollution, impair-
ment or destruction of the air, water or other
natural resources or the public trust therein,
shall be determined, and no conduct shall be
authorized or approved which does, or is
likely to have such effect so long as there
is a feasible and prudent alternative con-
sistent with the reasonable requirements of
the public health, safety and welfare.
(3) The doctrines of collateral estoppel
and res judicata may be applied by the court
to prevent multiplicity of suits.
Sec. 6. This act shall be supplementary to
existing administrative and regulatory pro-
cedures provided by law.
Sec. 7. This act shall take effect October 1,
1970.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.
HOUSE BILL No. 3055, AS INTRODUCED
APRIL 1, 1969
A bill to provide for action for declaratory
and equitable relief for protection of the air,
water and other natural resources of the
state; to prescribe the duties of the attorney
general, political subdivisions and the citi-
zens of the state; and to provide for judicial
proceedings relative thereto.
The people of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may
be cited as the "natural resource conservation
and environmental protection act of 1969".
Sec. 2. The attorney general, a city, village
or township or a citizen of the state may
maintain an action for declaratory and equi-
table relief in the name of the state against
any person, including a governmental in-
strumentality or agency, for the protection
of the air, water and other natural resources
of the state from pollution, impairment or
destruction, or for protection of the public
trust in the natural resources of the state.
Sec. 3. (1) When the plaintiff in the action
has made a prima facie showing that the con-
duct of the defendant has, or is reasonably
likely to pollute, impair or d-estroy the air,
water or other natural resources or the public
trust of the state, the defendant has the
-------
1652
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
burden of establishing that there is no fea-
sible and prudent alternative and that the
conduct, program or product at issue is con-
sistent with and reasonably required for pro-
motion of the public health, safety and wel-
fare in light of the state's paramount con-
cern for the protection of its natural re-
sources from pollution, impairment or de-
struction.
(2) The court may appoint a master or
referee, who shall he a disinterested person
and technically qualified, to take testimony
and make a report to the court in the action.
The costs thereof may be apportioned to the
parties if the interests of justice require.
Sec. 4. (1) The court may grant temporary
and permanent equitable relief, or may im-
pose conditions on the defendant that are
[p. 33112]
required to protect the public trust or air,
water and other natural resources of the
state from pollution, impairment or destruc-
tion.
(2) If administrative, licensing or other
such proceedings are required or available to
determine the legality of the defendant's con-
duct, program or product, the court may remit
the parties to such proceedings. In so remitting
the court may grant temporary equitable relief
where appropriate to prevent irreparable in-
jury to the natural resources or public trust
of the state. In so remitting the court shall
retain jurisdiction of the action pending com-
pletion thereof, for the purpose of determining
whether adequate consideration has been given
to the protection of the public trust and the
air, water or other natural resources of the
state from pollution, impairment or destruc-
tion, and, if so, whether the agency's decision
is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence upon the whole record.
(3) If such consideration has not been
adequate, the court shall adjudicate the impact
on the public trust and air, water and natural
resources of the state in accordance with the
preceding sections of this act, or where, as to
any such administrative, licensing or other
proceeding, judicial review thereof is avail-
able, the parties shall be remitted to the
processes of such review as augmented by sec-
tion 5, and upon the vesting of jurisdiction in
any other court of the state, the court may
dismiss the action brought hereunder without
prejudice to the parties.
Sec. 5. (1) In such administrative, licens-
ing or other proceeding, and in a judicial re-
view thereof made available by law, the at-
torney general, a city, village or township, or
a citizen of the state may intervene as a party
on the filing of a verified pleading asserting
that the proceeding or action for judicial re-
view involves conduct, programs or products
which may have the effect of impairing, pollut-
ing or destroying the public trust or air, water
or other natural resources of the state.
(2) In any such administrative, licensing
or other proceeding, the agency shall con-
sider the alleged impairment, pollution or
destruction of the public trust of air, water
or other natural resources of the state and
no conduct, program or product shall be
authorized or approved which does, or is rea-
sonably likely to have such effect so long as
there is a feasible and prudent alternative
consistent with the reasonable requirements of
the public health, safety and welfare.
(3) In an action for judicial review of any
proceeding described in subsection (2), the
court, in addition to any other duties imposed
upon it by law, shall grant review of claims
that the conduct, program or product under
review has, or is reasonably likely to impair,
pollute or destroy the public trust or the air,
water or other natural resources of the state,
and in granting such review it shall follow the
standards and proceedings set forth in this act
in addition to the review authorized by Act
No. 197 of the Public Acts of :952, as amended,
being sections 24.101 to 24.110 of the Com-
piled Laws of 1948.
Sec. 6. In an action where a plaintiff or
intervenor seeking judicial adjudication as
provided by this act has failed to intervene
in any administrative, licensing or other such
proceedings, the court may remit such plain-
tiff or intervenor to such proceeding for
amplification of the record therein, and may
order the granting of intervention and the
granting of review therein as provided in sec-
tion 5, However, where intervention was avail-
able in such administrative, licensing or other
proceedings, and where the plaintiff or inter-
venor seeking judicial adjudication hereunder
wilfully and inexcusably refused intervention
therein, the court may dismiss the action with
prejudice to the plaintiff or intervenor.
s. 3576
(Environmental Protection Act of 1970, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess., introduced Mar. 10, 1970,
by Senators PHILIP A. HABT and GBORGB
MCGOVEBN)
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 "Environmental Pro-
tection Act of 1970".
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares
that each person is entitled by right to the
protection, preservation, and enhancement ol
the air, water, land, and public trust of the
United States and that each person has the
responsibility to contribute to the protection
and enhancement thereof.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1653
(b) The Congress further finds and de-
clares that it is in the public interest to
provide each person with an adequate remedy
to protect the air, water, land, and public
trust of the United States from unreasonable
pollution, impairment, or destruction.
(c) The Congress further finds and de-
clares that hazards to the air, water, land,
and public trust of the United States are
caused largely by persons who are engaged
in interstate commerce, or in activities which
affect interstate commerce,
SEC. 3. (a) Any person may maintain an
action for declaratory or equitable relief in
his own behalf or in behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, for the protection
of the air, water, land, or public trust of the
United States from unreasonable pollution,
impairment, or destruction which results from
or reasonably may result from any activity
which affects interstate commerce, wherever
such activity and such action for relief con-
stitute a case or controversy. Such action may
be maintained against any person engaged in
such activity and may be brought, without re-
gard to the amount in controversy, in the
district court of the United States for any
judicial district in which the defendant re-
sides, transacts business or may be found:
Provided, That nothing herein shall be con-
strued to prevent or preempt State courts
from exercising: jurisdiction in such action.
Any complaint in any such action shall be
supported by affidavits of not less than two
technically qualified persons stating that to
the best of their knowledge the activity which
is the subject of the action damages or reason-
ably may damage the air, water, land, or pub-
lic trust of the United States by pollution,
impairment, or destruction.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the
term "person" means any individual or organi-
zation; or any department, agency or in-
strumentality of the United States, a State
or local government, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a posses-
sion of the United States.
SEC. 4. (a) When the plaintiff has made
a prima facie showing: that the activity of
the defendant affecting: interstate commerce
has resulted in or reasonably may result in
unreasonable pollution, impairment, or de-
struction of the air, water, land, or public
trust of the United States the defendant shall
have the burden of establishing that there is
no feasible and prudent alternative and that
the activity at issue is consistent with and
reasonably required for promotion of the »"bjjo
health, safety, and welfare in light of the para-
mount concern of the United States for the
protection of its air, water, land, and public
trust from unreasonable pollution, impairment
or destruction.
(b) The court may appoint a master to
take testimony and make a report to the
court in the action.
(b) The court, or master, as well as the
parties to the action, may subpoena expert
witnesses and require the production of records,
documents, and all other information necessary
to a just disposition of the case-
(d) Costs may be apportioned to the parties
if the interests of justice require.
(e) No bond shall be required by the court
of the plaintiff: Provided, That the court
may, upon clear and convincing evidence
offered by the defendant that the relief re-
quired will result in irreparable damage to
the defendant, impose a requirement for secu-
rity to cover the costs and damages as may be
incurred by defendant when relief is wrong-
fully granted: Provided further. That such
security shall not be required of plaintiff if the
requirement thereof would unreasonably hinder
plaintiff in the maintenance of his action or
would tend unreasonably to prevent & full and
fair hearing" on the activities complained of.
SEC. 6. The court may grant declaratory
relief, temporary and permanent equitable
relief, or may impose conditions on the de-
fendant which are required to protect the
air, water, land, or public trust of the United
States from pollution, impairment, or destruc-
tion.
SEC. 6. This Act shall be supplementary to
existing administrative and regulatory pro-
cedures provided by law and in any action
maintained under the Act, the court may
remand the parties to such procedures: Pro-
vided, that nothing in this section shall be
deemed to prevent the granting of interim
equitable relief where required and so long
as is necessary to protect the rights recognized
herein: Provided further; That any person
entitled to maintain an action under this Act
may intervene as & part in all such procedures;
Provided further, That nothing herein shall
be deemed to prevent the maintenance of an
action, as provided in this Act, to protect the
rights recognized herein, where existing ad-
ministrative and regulatory procedures are
found by the court to be inadequate for the
protection of such rights: Provided further,.
That, at the initiation of any person entitled
to maintain an action under the Act, such
procedures shall be reviewable in a court of
competent jurisdiction to the extent necessary
to protect the rights recognized herein: and
provided further, That in any such judicial
review the court shall be bound by the pro-
visions, standards, and procedures of sections
2, 4, and 5 of this Act, and may order
that additional evidence be taken with respect
to the environmental issues involved.
-------
1654
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
the legislation we are considering
today may well be the most impor-
tant environmental protection measure
ever before this Congress. Its pro-
visions could mean that, within 5
years, the air in our cities will be
fit to breathe, no longer endangering
the health of our citizens.
To accomplish this vitally neces-
sary task will be difficult. With our
factories and our automobiles we
have utterly befouled our urban air.
To clean it will take bold and drastic
steps. This bill provides such steps.
National air quality standards will
be set at the level necessary to pro-
tect public health, and States and
regions would be required to attain
that quality of air within a statutory
deadline. While States and regions
would continue to have the primary
responsibility for implementing those
standards, and enforcing timetables
and emission requirements on partic-
ular sources, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare would have
backup authority to do any task a
State was unwilling or unable to do
itself.
One important aspect of this bill
deals with emissions of hazardous
substances. The definition of sub-
stances subject to this section has
been tightly drawn by
[p. 33113]
the committee, so that only air pollu-
tion agents which even in trace
amounts cause or contribute to an in-
crease in mortality or serious irre-
versible or incapacitating reversible
damage to health, will be included.
The provision requires national
emission standards for such sub-
stances. The standard must prelim-
inarily be set at zero for any sub-
stance the Secretary finds hazardous,
putting the burden on the emitter to
show that a higher emission level will
be hazardous. It was not intended by
the committee that a technically un-
achievable zero emission level be set
unless the substance is so dangerous
that any emissions endanger health.
Only in that case would emissions be
prohibited, a step which conceivably
could force plants to suspend opera-
tions. Every possible procedural safe-
guard is available to an affected in-
dustry under the hazardous substance
provision: the protections of the Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act, a public
hearing in which to make its case be-
fore the Secretary, the judicial review
of any standard or other to abate to
which it takes exception.
The bill also sets a dramatic goal
for controlling emissions from new
automobiles. By 1975, the emissions
from cars must reach the levels which
the National Air Pollution Control
Administration has projected are
necessary to protect the public health.
To avoid disrupting a major industry,
which contributes much to the na-
tional economy, the committee ap-
proved a mechanism for extending the
deadline 1 year if the automobile in-
dustry, having made all good faith
efforts, is unable to meet the stand-
ards by 1975.
This is not an arbitrary provision.
It reflects the understanding of con-
trol technology the committee gained
through extensive hearings and meet-
ings with the auto industry and the
National Air Pollution Control Ad-
ministration. The members of the
committee were confident that this
deadline can be met, and that a clean
car can be achieved without wrecking
the auto industry.
In this bill, $1,190 million is author-
ized for the costs of research and air
pollution control. This is only the Fed-
eral commitment. The States and
cities must also heavily involve them-
selves in this effort, as must the pri-
vate sector.
S. 4358 is the product of much work
by the Subcommittee on Air and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1655
Water Pollution, and by the parent
Committee on Public Works, of which
I am a member. It is a tough bill
which will give us, finally, the tools
to clean up the Nation's air.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the
United States today is at a crucial
point in the battle to halt the continu-
ing deterioration of our physical sur-
roundings and to begin to provide im-
proved quality of life for all our citi-
zens and their descendants. As the
widespread increase in smog episodes
and oil-clogged beaches demonstrated
this summer, environmental pollution
is a national issue which reaches all
communities, regardless of size and
location, and touches each of our lives,
regardless of age or social status.
Poisoned air, contaminated water, and
despoiled land rob each one of us of
a treasured national heritage and
threaten our health and physical prop-
erty. To reverse this trend, it will
require the unified commitment for
environmental quality of each one of
us—individual citizens, public officials,
and the industrial community.
On his 80th birthday, Walter Lipp-
mann gave evidence of his sontinued
prescience and ability to accurately
survey our national condition when
he noted:
Our only hope is that a sufficiently large
number of people will become actively con-
cerned about the destruction of the environ-
ment. ... If a sufficiently powerful group
of people understand . . . (they) can lead
the rest.
Mr. President, today the Senate of
the United States is in a position to of-
fer this Nation the leadership needed
to succeed in the fight to halt air pol-
lution. Senator Edmund S. Muskie
and the Senate Public Works Com-
mittee have brought to the floor of
the Senate the toughest piece of en-
vironmental legislation ever consid-
ered by Congress.
S. 4358, the National Air Quality
Standards Act of 1970, could mark
the turning point in the struggle
against air pollution. The 1975 dead-
lines for compliance with national air
quality standards and the development
of a clean car are essential to the
protection of public health. The new
enforcement provisions in the act
mean business and will insure com-
pliance with those deadlines.
I especially want to congratulate
Senator MUSKIE—not only for his
leadership in writing the new bill, but
also for bucking the strong tide of
industry opposition to this legislation.
Senator MUSKIE, Chairman RAN-
DOLPH, and the other members of the
committee have offered Americans
new hope for a clean and healthy en-
vironment.
As Senator MUSKIE stated yester-
day:
The legislation we take up today provides
the Senate with a moment of truth: a tima
to decide whether or not we are willing to let
our lives continue to be endangered by the
wasteful practices of an affluent society, or
whether we are willing to take the difficult but
necessary steps to breathe new life into our
fight for a better quality of life.
I emphatically agree. This legisla-
tion is a test of our commitment to
providing national leadership and na-
tional policy for air pollution control.
Air pollution directly attacks the
health of all Americans. This bill be-
fore us is a firm congressional state-
ment that all Americans in all parts
of the Nation should have clean air to
breathe, air which does not attack
their health. And this bill sets the
goal of achieving clean air in the
Nation within the next few years.
The responsibility of this body and
of the Congress is to determine what
the public interest requires to protect
the health of tough decisions and
equally rigorous challenges. But the
situation is of such a critical nature
that we cannot shirk this responsibil-
ity. It is the proper time to state the
goals and outline for clean air. This
-------
1656
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
bill is an acceptance of this respon-
sibility to protect the public health
and states an outline for clean air in
clear, precise terms.
It is particularly encouraging to see
that S. 4358 recognizes the motor
vehicle as the most serious single
cause of air pollution in the country.
Earlier this year I proposed that
January 1, 1975, be the national goal
for the manufacture and sale of non-
polluting automobile engines, that all
air pollution control devices on motor
vehicle engines have an extended war-
ranty to make sure that they function
after the vehicle is on the road, and
that individual States be allowed to
set stricter emission standards for
motor vehicles than required by the
Federal Government. The Public
Works Committee has taken this same
basic position.
Contrary to the statements of indus-
try, this bill does not dictate tech-
nology. The measure simply states
that it shall be the national policy to
have a clean automobile engine in 5
years. It issues a public challenge
to the automobile industry to devote
their vaunted technological and manu-
facturing resources to the task of
meeting this goal. This is a challenge
which is certainly proper for Congress
to issue. It is a statement of national
policy which cannot be compromised
by the Automobile Manufacturers As-
sociation.
If the Senate and the Congress
agree to make clean air within the
next 5 years a national goal, we must
also be prepared to commit the re-
sources necessary to meet this prom-
ise. Clean air is not just the busi-
ness of industry. If the national chal-
lenge for clean air is issued, it will
require the hard work and determina-
tion of each of us—private citizen
and public official as well as the busi-
ness community. We face the oppor-
tunity to join together in working for
an improved quality of life—a quality
of life that we will share together in
any case. The question is not whether
we have the means to make coopera-
tive effort; it is whether we have the
will and determination. Today, this
question is directly posed to the Con-
gress and to this body.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I
would like to make a few remarks at
this time about the new air pollution
bill, S. 4358.
As cosponsor of S. 3466, the original
administration bill on air pollution, I
want to add my expression of sup-
port for this new bill. Three years
ago, we passed the Air Quality Act
and hopefully initiated an era of
gradually reduced air pollution.
It soon became clear that the
disease proved too strong for our first
attempt to cure it. For a variety of
reasons, pollution has increased. Iron-
ically, as we all know, the problem is
a byproduct of affluence—and as we
grow richer in the years to come, we
must not let bad air compete with our
economic progress for the future.
The National Air Quality Stand-
ards Act of 1970 contains tough pro-
visions to counteract our pressing
problem. I do not wish to enumerate
the points of the bill, for excellent
summaries have already been given.
Rather, I would like to concentrate on
some important aspects of the bill,
the reasons for which enactment is
imperative.
An important underlying philosophy
of the bill is that it is the right and
duty of each State to develop its own
plans to
[p. 33114]
implement the standards set by the
Secretary. To be sure, minimum Fed-
eral standards are a must, as they
free the 50 States from the necessity
of competing for business by lowering
their standards. Yet States especially
imperiled by foul air are not enjoined
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1657
from passing more stringent meas-
ures.
The sensible means of attacking
this problem which varies so radically
from one region to the next is, there-
fore, at the State level with the Fed-
eral Government willing and able to
assist when needed.
An innovative feature of the bill, in
keeping; with the urgency of the prob-
lem, is the establishment of definite
deadlines. State implementation plans
must be designed to assure attain-
ment of national ambient air quality
standards within 3 years of accept-
ance. The auto manufacturers are
required to reduce pollutant emissions
by 90 percent on their 1975 models. In
each case the basic tenet of the new
bill is explicit: for the first time, air
quality standards will take precedence
over objections of economic impracti-
cality and technical impossibilities.
Products which make life easier at
the cost of life itself are worthless.
Thus, we are saying that industry-
must make peace with our environ-
ment and we are placing the emphasis
on how we grow instead of how fast
we grow.
Would-be polluters are forewarned:
A livable environment is more im-
portant to man and his survival than
all of the marketable gadgets pro-
duced by our economy to make our
life easier.
The air pollution bill, therefore, pro-
vides reasonable and effective methods
for solving the air pollution problem
that has plagued us for so long. It
merits our support, not just as an
expression of concern, but as a na-
tional commitment consistent with the
right of all citizens to clean air.
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, to-
day the U.S. Senate faces a critical
choice. As a member of the subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution of
the Public Works Committee, which
is chaired by the distinguished Sena-
tor from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), I
have watched this body and this
country become increasingly aware of
the problems of environmental quality.
Air pollution is not simply a prob-
lem of the east coast or Los Angeles.
America is industrial and mobile, and
that means air pollution. I have re-
ceived numerous letters from con-
stituents in New Mexico raising cbn-
cerns about the quality of the air
they breathe as New Mexicans and as
travelers to other parts of this
country. The city of Albuquerque is
desperately trying to cope with a
growing air pollution problem, and
requested funds of over $263,000 for
its program: the amount granted to-
taled only $64,000. I would hope that
the stimulus of the passage of this
bill and the increased funds it author-
izes would help communities like this
across the Nation.
Today we vote on the National Air
Quality Standards Act of 1970, and
our vote may have great influence on
the kind of world we inhabit within
the next 10 years, and the kind of
world we leave our children and
grandchildren. There is no time left
for delay, for rcexamination after re-
examination. The problem of clean air
has become critical now.
Why is this so? Primarily for two
reasons. First, the growth of the
sources of air pollution is rising
rapidly. This is particularly true when
we examine the case of the auto-
mobile. This Nation produces about
191 million tons of air pollutants an-
nually, and 92 million tons, or 48 per-
cent of the total, is produced by
automobiles. Now here is the most
startling fact relating to air pollution
and automobiles: The number of
motor vehicles in this country grows
twice as fast as the number of people.
Every moment we delay we compound
the problem, and we will eventually
have to face the results of any delay.
Postponement would simply make the
-------
1658
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
problem more difficult and costly to
cure.
Automobiles are not the only source
of air pollution growing at a very
rapid rate. Studies indicate that the
use of electric power will increase even
faster. If these studies are correct,
and such studies have usually under-
estimated the increases in the past,
then this country will be using five
times more electricity in the year 2000
than we presently use. We must decide
to put proper controls on the new
plants that will produce this power
now, before they are built. It is false
economy to build first and then attach
control devices during some later state
of panic. The present bill under con-
sideration would instruct industry to
take proper steps now, by requiring
new facilities to adopt the best avail-
able pollution control technology. This
is a sensible provision, not an un-
realistic requirement.
The second reason clean air has be-
come a critical problem is that we
have not forced ourselves and our
economic system to include pollution
as a "cost" to anyone. We have al-
lowed, in fact encouraged, industry to
pollute. If we do not adopt the present
bill before us, essentially in the same
form given it by the Air and Water
Pollution Subcommittee and the full
Public Works Committee, then we will
be continuing the same inadequate
system with the same inherent mis-
takes. We can no longer afford those
mistakes. In the past an industry re-
ceived no reward if it controlled its
pollution. In fact, it was penalized by
raising its own costs of production.
The present bill would put all new
facilities on the same footing, and
would also do much to give Americans
clean air. Competitive disadvantage
is not created when all new facilities
are required to adopt the same level
of pollution control technology. This
is a reasonable and workable scheme,
and I would hope that my Senate col-
leagues would agree with this concept.
S. 4358 calls for the establishment
of national air quality standards. This
by no means eliminates the States, for
they are responsible for devising im-
plementation plans so that each State
can reach the level set in the national
standards. Our State and regional or-
ganizations simply have not moved
fast enough in cleaning up this
country's air. The present bill acceler-
ates the cleanup schedule while main-
taining the States as part of that pro-
gram.
The intense activity on the part of
the automobile industry with regard
to the deadline of January 1975, for
compliance with emission standards
that had previously been targeted for
1980 has drawn the attention of the
press and the public to this portion
of the bill. I want to make myself
completely clear on this point: Auto-
mobiles have not been singled out as
a whipping boy; challenging deadlines
have been set because automobiles are
such a dominant part of the air-pol-
lution problem. They simply cannot be
ignored. The car industry says that it
does not know how it will meet these
standards by the dates set in the bill.
Yet four young students from Wayne
State University have already figured
out how, and have driven across the
country in an automobile that meets
the 1&80 standards right now. This
car used unleaded gas—gas that is
now available at service stations
across the country—and a 1971 Ford
Capri V-8 engine. In other words, this
was not some little two-cylinder engine
nursed across the country by an ex-
otic fuel. The students attached cata-
lytic mufflers, an exhaust recircula-
tion system, an electric fuel pump, in-
sulated fuel line, a carburetor sensi-
tive to temperature changes, and pro-
duced a relatively clean engine.
In short, a relatively clean engine by
1975 is not an unreasonable hope;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1659
given the experience of these students.
The past record of the auto industry
shows that it can usually move faster
than it thinks it can when called upon
to do so. The present bill does not
say that Congress knows how to build
such an engine. It simply says that
the public health is in danger, and
that we must call on the industry
with the know-how to produce such an
engine. 1975 may be too late. 1980 is
undoubtedly too late. We are faced
with a crisis, and must act now. Smog
killed 20 and made 5,900 ill in Donora,
Pa., in 1948. Nothing happened. Im-
pure air killed 4,000 in London in
1952. Very little happened. Foul air
caused more than 700 deaths above
normal in New York in 1953, 1963,
and 1966. Very little happened. Car-
bon monoxide levels in Chicago, New
York, and some other cities have
reached a level at which the public
health is impaired. The eastern saa-
board received another scare this
summer when it appeared that a seri-
ous air pollution crisis was bearing
down on these urban centers. Unnoted
by these statistics are the many peo-
ple who have respiratory diseases that
are aggravated by the kind of air they
must breathe.
Mr. President, we must act now,
and we should act favorably on S.
4358 without adding any crippling
amendments.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, yes-
terday, I spoke on the bill, but today
I emphasized again the importance of
the bill. Following its well developed
tradition, the Committee on Public
Works has brought to the Senate floor
unanimously and bipartisanly report-
ed bill S. 4358, to amend the Clean
Air Act, and for other purposes. It is
particularly significant that this bill
was reported from committee unani-
mously and that the committee con-
sidered the bill in bipartisan fashion
for the amendments to the Clean Air
Act represent a great deal more than
pollution control provisions, rather,
in fact they constitute social legisla-
tion which, as the distin-
fp. 33115]
guished Chairman of the Subcom-
mittee has pointed out, constitute per-
haps the most significant piece of
domestic legislation that will be con-
sidered by the Congress this session.
The quest for environmental quality
has brought the society to the point
of making difficult choices. Difficult
choices because they affect economics,
growth, development, and many of the
other traditional social activities and
goals. To many, the placing of any
constraints on these activities is out-
weighed by a continued unrestricted
growth and development. However,
the committee, in these Clean Air Act
amendments, views the restoration
and maintenance of public health as a
paramount objective. The commitee is
also cognizant of the fact that con-
tinued degradation of the environ-
ment through air pollution could cause
serious changes in the natural sys-
tems regulating the biosphere and
possibly destroy the earth's ability to
sustain life.
These are not meant to be alarmist
fears. However, the evidence which is
accumulating should give every reason-
able man cause for concern. We now
know, although with varying degrees
of precision, that incident sunlight
striking the surface of the earth has
been reduced significantly as a result
of air pollution. In Washington, D.C.,
for instance, the Smithsonian Institu-
tion has recorded a 16-percent reduc-
tion in incident sunlight striking the
surface of the earth at the Mall. We
know that the air pollution is trigger-
ing competing forces, one causing
or tending to cause a cooling of the
earth's atmosphere and the other
causing or tending- to cause a heating
of the earth's atmosphere, but we are
not clear as to which of these forces
-------
1660
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
are predominating. Both have great
implications for continued success of
life on earth.
Similarly there is now evidence
that air pollution is causing a signifi-
cant deterioration in the fertility of
our soil through the leaching of
essential nutrients that occurs when
acid rainfall percolates through the
soil. All of these factors must be
given great attention by all of those
of us who are concerned about the
future.
However, the committee has recog-
nized that short-term adverse effects
of air pollution involving the health
of the citizens of this Nation must be
remedied as soon as possible. Since
the enactment of the Clean Air Act in
1963 and the Air Quality Act of 1967,
a great deal of information has been
learned about the character of air
pollution, its extent, and about its
effects on health and welfare. The
data can only be summarized as re-
quiring action. In many areas of this
Nation, and in almost every metro-
politan region above 50,000 people,
the quality of the air is well below
that necessary to maintain public
health. For some pollution agents
the problem is particularly severe; for
instance, carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxide, oxides of nitrogen, and hydro-
carbons. The effects produced in these
high pollution areas range from out-
right disease causation to mutage-
nicity and carcinogenicity, to substan-
tial increase in respiratory disease,
and, significantly, to decreased work
performance and attendance. All of
these problems have reached propor-
tions where the committee believes
that it is necessary to act to bring air
pollution under control and attain the
quality of air necessary to protect the
health of our persons. This is the
general objective of the bill before
the Senate today.
The bill continues the subdivision
of the Clean Air Act into three titles
to provide a comprehensive and sys-
tematic air pollution control program.
Title I deals with stationary sources
of pollution; title II deals with moving
sources of pollution; and title III
contains general administrative pro-
visions applicable to the overall act.
In part, the major changes proposed
in title I result from the adoption
of the President's proposal to estab-
lish national ambient air quality
standards. Through such standards
every area of the Nation will be
subject to a standard and, therefore,
required to develop an implementation
plan. The committee modified the
President's proposal somewhat so that
the national ambient air quality stand-
ard for any pollution agent represents
the level of air quality necessary to
protect the health of persons. Further
the bill requires attainment of this
quality of air within an established
period of time, 3 years, measured
from the date of approval or promul-
gation of the implementation plan.
The committee has adopted this frame-
work based upon a decision that the
attainment of the quality of am-
bient air necessary to protect health
is a high priority for this Nation.
In order to provide ultimately for
clean air and avoid the chronic
degradation of the environment and
thereby improve the quality of life,
the committee has provided that in
addition to establishing national am-
bient air quality standards the Secre-
tary shall establish national ambient
air quality goals; such goals repre-
senting the quality of air which will
not produce any known or antici-
pated adverse effect on men or the
environment. The committee recog-
nizes that the attainment of such a
quality of air cannot be achieved in
many areas of the Nation for many
years and, therefore, provides that
each region shall establish the period
of time necessary to achieve national
ambient air quality goals, subject, of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1661
course, to the approval of the Secre-
tary.
The bill does require that the States,
in submitting their implementation
plan, include those provisions neces-
sary to achieve the ambient air quality
goal. The committee recognizes, how-
ever, that, in many instances, the pro-
gram necessary to move from national
ambient air quality standards to na-
tional air quality goals will require
more detailed and extensive analysis
than that required for standards and
therefore provides an additional 18
months for the development of that
portion of the implementation plan.
Another benefit of the concept of
national ambient air quality goals is
that it provides for the retention and
maintenance of present ambient air
quality in regions where that air
quality is of the quality established
by the goal.
The bill recognizes that the control
and attainment of ambient air quality
standards and goals is dependent
upon rigorous application of emission
controls. Consequently, the bill pro-
vides through four separate proce-
dures for the application of such con-
trols.
First, the bill provides that in de-
veloping each implementation plan
each air quality control region in
every State is required to establish
emission requirements for every
source of air pollution within such
region in order to achieve the quality
of ambient air established by the na-
tional air quality standard.
Second, the Secretary is required to
establish emission standards for pollu-
tion agents or combination of such
agents, called selected pollution agents,
which are not appropriate for the
establishment of ambient air cri-
teria and national ambient air quality
standards. The Secretary is to estab-
lish these emission standards for both
new and existing stationary sources
which are national in scope.
Third, the Secretary is authorized
to initiate an innovative administra-
tive process leading to the develop-
ment of emission controls for those
substances which he finds to be ex-
tremely hazardous to health of per-
sons. The Secretary establishes these
emission controls through the pub-
lication of the proposed prohibition
of such pollution agents and promul-
gates such prohibition unless he de-
termines that a departure from a
zero emission for such pollution agent
will not jeopardize the health of per-
sons whereupon he promulgates an
emission standard prescribing the per-
missible level of emissions for such
pollution agents.
In establishing a fourth class of
emission controls, the committee has
adopted another of the President's
recommendations and requires the Sec-
retary to establish emission controls
for all new air pollution facilities of
national scope. Through such stand-
ards of performance maximum avail-
able technology will be installed in
all new facilities. With this mecha-
nism, the committee believes that new
facilities will be constructed to achieve
maximum air pollution control, and,
at the same time provide that all new
facilities are equal with respect to
air pollution control and therefore
eliminate a large element of "forum
shopping" that is possible if new facil-
ities are not required to meet the level
of pollution control.
The committee has further refined
the opportunity for public participa-
tion in the administrative procedures
under the act. It has been demon-
strated, pursuant to existing law, that
public participation is extremely im-
portant in the development of air
pollution programs across the country.
In requiring that each air quality
control region consider the establish-
ment of ambient air quality stand-
526-703 O - 73 - 32
-------
1662
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ards more stringent than the nation-
ally promulgated standard, the bill
provides a clear opportunity for the
citizens of each region to choose the
quality of air that they desire through
full consideration of the issues in a
public forum.
It has become abundantly clear that
air pollution control, as is the case in
any good law, is dependent upon a
credible and enforceable statute. One
of the
[p. 33116]
principal difficulties for the existing
law has been the lack of a deci-
sive enforcement authority and the
bill before the Senate seeks to stream-
line and expedite this authority so
that procedural delays in enforcement
activities do not frustrate the clear in-
tent of the National Air Quality
Standards Act of 1970.
In amending title II the committee
recognized that a great portion of the
pollution problems in many areas are
attributable to emissions of pollution
agents from moving sources, includ-
ing the automobile, commercial ve-
hicles, aircraft and vessels. The com-
mittee therefore proposes to authorize
the establishment of emission stand-
ards for all classes of moving vehicles,
including both new and old commercial
vehicles, vessels and aircraft in dis-
tinction to existing law which au-
thorized the establishment of emission
standards for only new vehicles. In
addition, reflecting the percent con-
tribution to air pollution made by the
automobile, the committee has directed
to the light duty vehicle particular at-
tention, designed to achieve a reduc-
tion in emissions necessary, if the
urban areas of the country are ever
to achieve and maintain national am-
bient air quality standards and goals.
Under existing law the test the Sec-
retary must consider in establishing
emission controls for automobiles is
whether such control is economically
and technologically feasible. This, in
effect, has made technology and eco-
nomic feasibility factors, which are un-
der the control of industry, dictate
public policy rather than respond to
public policy. The committee, recog-
nizing the paramount interest in
achieving ambient air quality neces-
sary to protect the health of its citizens
proposes to establish emission stand-
ards for automobiles based upon re-
quirements related to ambient air
quality rather than technological or
economic feasibility. Through this
mechanism the committee expects to
develop maximum incentive to stimu-
late new technical and economic means
of reducing vehicle emissions. With-
out such incentive, such innovation
is not likely to be forthcoming.
The bill, therefore, sets the date of
1975 as the date after which it will
be unlawful to sell any automobile
which does not meet emission controls
for two pollution agents, carbon mon-
oxide and hydrocarbons, which must
represent a 90-percent reduction from
the level set by emission standards
applicable in 1970. In addition, the
bill establishes procedure to establish
an additional emission standards rep-
resenting 90-percent reductions for
those pollution agents, such as nitro-
gen oxide, which have not yet been the
subject of emission controls under
existing law. In establishing these
emission standards and strict sched-
ules for compliance the committee rec-
ognized that it may be impossible for
a manufacturer or manufacturers to
comply with such standards before the
effective date.
As is widely known the committee
struggled with various provisions to
provide for a single year suspension
of such effective date upon a showing
of certain evidence by an applicant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1663
for such suspension. These alterna-
tives ranged from provision that would
have made a suspension available only
from Congress, to suspension issued
by the Secretary with no review, to
suspension issued by the Secretary
which, if not opposed by either House
of Congress within a set period would
become effective, to secretarial de-
cision with review by an appellate
court.
Mr. President, the committee adopt-
ed by a vote of 10 to 3 an amendment
I offered with Senator BAKER, to es-
tablish a standard administrative pro-
cedure on the part of the Secretary,
following which he would issue a
decision to, or not to grant a suspen-
sion. Such secretarial decision is re-
viewable, by the terms of the provi-
sion, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia. It should be
noted that the suspension provision is
for 1 year only and there are partic-
ular guidelines that the Secretary
and, independently, the court must
review prior to granting, affirming,
or denying any such suspension. These
guidelines, or tests, include first, the
public interest of the United States,
second, that all good faith efforts
have been made to achieve compliance
with the standard, and third, that the
technology or other alternatives are
not or have not been available to
achieve compliance.
I prefer the judicial review frame-
work in the bill for I believe that
through the administrative process the
Secretary can develop on the record
all of the technical and other relevant
information necessary to achieve a
sound judgment. Similarly, and in
accordance with general administra-
tive law, such decision of the Secre-
tary should be reviewable in the court
of appeals so that the interests of all
parties can be fully protected. With
the record developed by the Secretary,
the court, as an unbiased, independent
institution, is the appropriate forum
for reviewing such decision and mak-
ing a judgment as to its quality. The
normal rules of the court also provide
the greatest amount of insulation
from the political pressures that will
undoubtedly surround a judgment of
this type. At the same time, judicial
review provides for full procedural
and substantive due process for all
interested parties. I therefore recom-
mend to the Senate that this provision
in the bill be retained.
I think the Committee on Public
Works is to be commended for accom-
panying the stringent substantive pro-
vision regarding the air pollution con-
trol program with several procedural
requirements and opportunities to
clearly incorporate due process pro-
tection in the application of the pro-
posed law. In three areas provision
is made to seek relief from, or review
of, administrative actions or the ap-
plication of the statute. The first of
these is a general judicial review pro-
vision so that administrative promul-
gations and decisions made pursuant
to the act may be reviewed while
maintaining the basic integrity of the
act. In section 308 the committee rec-
ognizes that administrative actions
will affect the interests of persons and
that such actions should, therefore,
be reviewable.
The second procedural opportunity
for relief allows a Governor of a State
to seek relief from the effect of an
expiration of the period in which the
bill would require the attainment of
the quality of air established by the
ambient standard. In so doing the
committee recognizes there may be
cause for impossibility of perform-
ance but adds safeguards so that
the provision will only be used spar-
ingly and where necessary so as to
-------
1664
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
provide incentive for the maximum
effort to seek air quality.
The third specific relief provision
is that I offered relating to the auto-
mobile provision discussion above.
The committee bill also breaks new
ground in extending public participa-
tion, an essential element throughout
the act, to enforcement proceedings.
In section 304, the bill proposes to
grant jurisdiction to the Federal dis-
trict courts to hear charges of viola-
tion of particular provisions of the
act brought by citizens acting in their
own behalf. As originally proposed
the provision troubled me with respect
to its impact on administrative en-
forcement efforts and, of course, on
the courts. During its consideration
the committee made particular efforts
to draft a provision that would not re-
duce the effectiveness of administra-
tive enforcement, and not cause abuse
of the courts while at the same time
still preserving the right of citizens
to such enforcement of the act.
The citizen suit provision has de-
veloped in a context of other proposals
authorizing citizen access to the courts
for environmental remedies at both
the State and Federal level. Some of
these proposals by, in effect, authoriz-
ing the development of a common law
of pollution could reduce the effective-
ness of the Clean Air Act. The most
significant of these is an act recently
signed into law by Governor Milliken
of the State of Michigan.
Mr. President, the bill before the
Senate may be the most significant
domestic legislation of this Congress.
It may be the most significant meas-
ure in a domestic sense of any Con-
gress. It is a very complex bill. For
me, it has been an educational process.
The committee worked very well to-
gether and every member of the com-
mittee entered into the discussions.
As ranking minority member I am
very proud of the minority side aa
well as the majority and would like to
particularly praise the staff of the
committee.
Yesterday I spoke at length about
them, and today I repeat that to Sen-
ator MUSKIE and to Senator BOGGS
who have been leaders on these meas-
ures for many years I pay deep trib-
ute, and to all members of the com-
mittee for their devoted work. To
Senator RANDOLPH—the able chair-
man of the full Senate Committee on
Public Works, who presided in the
full committee over our final delibera-
tion and acceptance of the bill. By
the unanimous vote of the committee,
may I say great credit is due, his fair-
ness and objectivity helped produce
the bill. And may I say, he was a
strong right arm in supporting the
approval of the Secretary—judicial
views, written into the bill.
A MOVE TOWARD SURVIVAL
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. Presi-
dent, the proposed National Air Qual-
ity Standards Act of 1970 is among
the most crucial pieces of legislation
to be considered before the Senate
this year. I
[p. 33117]
highly commend the efforts of Senator
MUSKIE and his colleagues on the
Public Works Committee who have
worked so diligently on this piece of
legislation.
We have heard an abundance of
rhetoric regarding the urgency of the
pollution problem. The National Air
Quality Standards Act goes beyond
the usual "call to action" or "state-
ment of concern." The bill sets stand-
ards, establishes deadlines, and pro-
vides for the implementation of com-
prehensive attacks on the problem of
air pollution. The effects of this act
will be felt by every American. Our
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1665
citizenry should be provided with
breatheable air for the sake of their
personal physical health. The very
survival of mankind is threatened if
we continue to abuse the fragile bal
ance of our environment. This bill
seeks to bring about the necessary
improvement in the quality of our air
by January 1, 1975. We can no longer
afford to allow millions of tons of
contamination to be dumped into our
atmosphere year after year by auto-
mobile and industrial emissions. We
hear many suggestions that this legis-
lation establishes a goal, the achieve-
ment of which is beyond the capacity
of American technology. I do not be-
lieve that we lack the ability to come
up with the answers to the dilemma
which confronts us. Certainly, the
gravity of the challenge should not
deter us from action.
I have worked for the passage of
anti-pollution legislation since coming
to the Senate in 1957. As chairman
of the Senate Subcommittee on
Health, I urge Senators to support
this bill, which is so important to the
health of the American people.
AIR QUALITY A TIME FOR DECISIVE
ACTION
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I
stand today in support of the National
Air Quality Standards Act of 1970.
This bill, one of the most comprehen-
sive ever on the subject, is essential
to the national quest for environ-
mental improvement defined so well
by our President. It is a tough bill
but there is no more room for laxity.
Too much is at stake.
To many, it may seem strange that
the toughest of our environmental
legislation yet focuses on air quality.
Other forms of pollution are far more
apparent and seemingly widespread
even to the layman. The issue here,
however, is nothing less than the
present and future health of our
Nation. I, for one, feel that tough new
approaches are not only justified but
mandatory. And new toughness in
other areas will, hopefully, soon fol-
low.
We cannot delay. We cannot com-
promise. We must act. A more flexible
approach to the problem was attempt-
ed in 1967 with the Air Quality Act.
But we have learned much since then
and all relevant evidence points to the
conclusion that more stringent meas-
ures are essential. I support them.
And I will support such supplemental
measures that are reasonably required
to implement the public policy ex-
pressed in this bill.
I know there has been considerable
pressure to allow more flexibility in
certain provisions of this bill. The
time for flexibility is gone. Four years
ago, the Senate passed a very flexible
law for air quality. Yet today, in-
dustry and citizens dump 200 million
tons of pollutants into the atmosphere
each year. For the 4 years of opera-
tion under the Air Quality Act, this
cannot be seen as a reduction in levels
of pollution. In many areas, the levels
of pollution have actually increased.
Flexibility has run its course. Now
we must act.
These words are not a condemnation
of American industry or of our way
of life. Rather, these words and the
legislation of which I speak are a re-
affirmation of traditional American
ideals.
American industry and the Ameri-
can people always have manifested a
profound capacity to respond to a
challenge clearly stated in terms of
national need. This bill states such a
challenge. And I believe that the
American people and our industry can
meet it. We must recognize that the
challenge is real, tangible, and of
-------
1666
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
imminent importance to the continued
welfare of our Nation.
I am sure the Senate will respond.
The course will be hard. Yet we have
risen to such challenges before. The
American people had only glimpsed
the potential of our technology in
1960 when President Kennedy pro-
posed that we land a man on the moon
in a decade. Yet we did it. And we
managed to beat the timetable by
over a year. The present challenge
poses the same conceptual dilemma.
Much technology needs to be devel-
oped in our quest for air quality. I
feel that it will be, and I ask that all
Americans share that faith as they
share the effort.
I would like to add my praise at this
time to my colleagues, led by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) for their tireless efforts in
writing this legislation. This bill, as
Senator MUSKIE has said, is not par-
tisan legislation or liberal legislation.
It should be noted that the committee
that reported this bill included men
reflecting all philosophies and points
of view. And these men reported this
bill unanimously to the Senate.
It should also be noted that our
President, Mr. Nixon, has played a
major role in the development of this
bill. The administration submitted
legislative proposals that formed the
basis for much of this legislation.
Some of the proposals were kept,
some changed and many more were
added by the committee, yet the Presi-
dent deserves credit for his leadership
and open-mindedness in providing the
support of his administration for a
strong and comprehensive bill.
As written, this legislation would
provide the mechanism for a large-
scale attack on this Nation's air pol-
lution problem by:
First. Requiring designation of ma-
jor air quality control regions within
90 days.
Second. Setting procedures to achieve
air quality standards that would in-
sure the protection of health. After
standards and goals are set, the States
will have 9 months to develop a plan
to implement the standards.
Third. Requiring that implementa-
tion plans be designed to achieve con-
formance with air quality standards
within 3 years.
Fourth. Allowing States to adopt
even stricter air quality standards
than those set by the Federal Govern-
ment.
Fifth. Authorizing regulations to
require that new industries meet
emission performance standards based
on the latest control technology, proc-
esses, and operating methods.
Sixth. Providing for civil—$10,000
—and criminal—up to $50,000 and 2
years—penalties for violations and au-
thorizing pollution abatement orders.
Seventh. Requiring that national
emission standards also apply to ves-
sels and aircraft and providing that
1975 model cars must achieve at least
a 90-percent reduction in polluting
exhaust from the 1970 standards. Pen-
alties would range up to $10,000 per
vehicle.
Eighth. Requiring a warranty of
50,000 miles on a vehicle's emission
system performance and authorizing
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare to have cars road tested
and recall those produced if they do
not meet standards.
Ninth. Authorizing certification of
low-emission vehicles for research and
development purposes and for Fed-
eral acquisition of such vehicles for
demonstration purposes.
Tenth. Authorizing $125 million in
research for fiscal 1971, $150 million
for 1972, and $175 million for 1973
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1667
for research relating to fuels and
vehicles.
Eleventh. Providing 3-to-l funding
to States and providing for the option
assignment of Federal personnel in
place of cash grants.
Twelfth. Permitting citizens to file
suits to enforce standards.
Thirteenth. Authorizing $725 mil-
lion for 3 years for enforcement,
grant assistance, and administration.
Fourteenth. Establishing an Office
of Noise Abatement and Control with-
in the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
I repeat, this is a strong bill. It
attacks in forceful manner such prob-
lems as ambient air standards and in-
terjurisdictional problems. The result
is worthy of full support and strong
timely enforcement. It is my hope
that Americans will familiarize them-
selves with the terms and far-reach-
ing philosophy of this legislation. The
task now is to transform the language
into reality and into air that we can
all share in good health and common
gratitude.
Mr. GRAVEL. We can all be grate-
ful, Mr. President, for the committee's
able and lucid report on this compli-
cated and desperately needed bill,
which I have the honor to cosponsor.
However, I would like to take this
opportunity to raise one objection to
the treatment in the report of the
growing radioactive hazard to our
environment.
In discussing section 115, the com-
mittee did not specifically cite man-
made radioactivity as a "hazardous air
pollution agent" for which the secre-
tary should immediately consider pro-
hibiting release. Yet the phrase, "haz-
ardous to the health of persons" as
defined in paragraph 7B of that sec-
tion most certainly would apply to
man-made radiation as well.
The Council on Environment Qual-
ity stated in its first report that
"radiation is potentially a more dan-
gerous pollutant to man than pesti-
cides." Yet, the com-
[p. 33118]
mittee report—page 18—still puts
pesticides and radioactive substances
side-by-side.
For 25 years we have recognized a
link beween radiation and both can-
cer and genetic mutations.
Recent calculations indicate that
cancer might increase 10 percent if we
all were to receive chronic radiation
even at the low levels presently per-
missible. Fortunately, we are not yet
receiving the permissible dose. This
is one area where we still have the
chance to prevent such an environ-
mental tragedy.
Even the most conservative scien-
tists in the current debate over radia-
tion acknowledge that radiation is
two to three times more powerful at
producing cancer than they thought
just 10 years ago.
It should be remembered, when we
consider the meaning of the phrase
"hazardous to health," that a single
"hot particle" of radioactive pluto-
nium lodged in the lung is capable of
causing a lethal cancer. Furthermore,
although there are 50 trillion cells in
our bodies, it takes only one single
cell, smashed by radiation, to cause a
malignancy.
There is no doubt whatsoever that
radiation damages human cells. New
instruments have made it possible to
observe broken and damaged chromo-
somes inside the cells. As an Alaskan
I am particularly concerned that these
observations have been made on Eski-
mos whose doses of radiation from
fallout were below the present guide-
lines used by the Atomic Energy
Commission. Chromosomes, of course,
-------
1668
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
carry the genetic heritage of the hu-
man race.
AEC experts, plus the few inde-
pendent experts in the field of radia-
tion, all agree that we must assume
no amount of radiation is so low that
it is harmless. With regard to genetic
damage, the AEC says it quite simply
in one of its booklets called "the genetic
effects of radiation." "There is no
safe amount of radiation as far as
genetic effects are concerned."
The Nobel-prize winner, Dr. Joshua
Lederberg, recently stated that, if we
all were to receive the presently per-
missible dose of radiation, we could
expect a 10-percent increase in the
human mutation rate.
Obviously, the "hazard to health"
presented even by very low doses of
radiation is staggering—since 25 per-
cent of all human diseases and ill-
nesses have a known genetic compo-
nent, and that does not mean just ob-
scure diseases; that includes the Na-
tion's No. 1 killer: Heart disease.
Dr. Lederberg estimates the cost of
the extra medical care generated by
a 10-percent increase in the mutation
rate would be about $10 billion a year
in a country of 200 million people.
Further, he explicitly warns that we
must not wait to deal with radiation
until we can observe our disease-rate
and mental damage growing:
A level of risk that approaches the intoler-
able, once we are well aware of it, may be
impossible to verify by direct measurements
of disease diffused throughout the popula-
tion. In exceptional circumstances, an effect
like the peculiar malformations induced by
thalidomide comes to the surface, and then
achieves a visibility and notoriety all out of
proportion to other agents. If the malforma-
tion induced by thalidomide were a mental
retardation of ten percent of the I.Q. instead
of a highly characteristic and unusual de-
formation of the limba, in an equal number
of subject*, we would bs unaware of it to
this day.
The urgency of prohibiting further
emissions of radioactivity to our air
and water now, not 5 years from now,
becomes even more striking when we
realize that more than 100 radioactive
powerplants are already in prepara-
tion in 28 States, and that the AEC
expects to license another 400 or 500
within the next 30 years.
Each 1,000 megawatt nuclear pow-
erplant will produce, every year that
it operates at 75-percent capacity, as
much radioactivity as the explosion of
several hundred Hiroshima-size bombs.
That could mean the equivalent of
250,000 bombs every year, if there
were 500 plants operating.
Their waste will have to be con-
tained at the plant, during transpor-
tation, at the fuel-cleaning plants,
and during processing for perpetual
storage.
Complete containment would have to
be assured at every step of the way,
and no accidents. Even 1-pevcent leak-
age in the annual total would mean a
2,500 bomb equivalent.
The nuclear industry is saying that
it is expensive, but technically feasible,
to design zero-release nuclear power-
plants.
My position is that nuclear mal-
functions, which are frequent, and
accidents, which will occur with un-
known frequency, will give us quite
enough additional radiation without
accepting any routine releases at all.
The AEC is trying to calm the pub-
lic, so it compares the present level of
routine releases of manmade radia-
tion with levels of natural radiation,
from the rocks and the stars. The
nuclear industry even sponsored a
2-page advertisement to that effect in
Newsweek, September 21. The trouble
is: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Natural radiation is also lethal. It
is true that the levels of natural radia-
tion are still higher than the levels
from a technology just emerging from
its infancy. Is that any comfort,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1669
when nuclear technology is being de-
signed under standards which would
permit the tripling of our natural
dose?
In the face of the obvious failure of
environmental dilution to render DDT,
mercury, lead, and automobile ex-
haust harmless, there is something
pathetic—and frightening—about cur-
rent AEC assurances that dilution will
take care of radioactive emissions.
The fact is that radioactive substances
are known to reconcentrate in the
animal chain to over 1 million times
their initial concentration in the radio-
active effluent.
With a matter as hazardous as
radioactivity, we simply cannot count
on dilution alone. Instead, we must
consider steps to prohibit and prevent
releases of man-made radioactivity.
Under section 115 of this bill the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare will have the power to con-
trol standards for emission of hazard-
ous air pollution agents. Certainly he
should use that power to force those
who are proposing admissible levels
of radioactive contamination of our
air to prove in public hearings—if
they can—that radioactive agents are
not hazardous to the health of human
beings.
I am a firm believer, Mr. President,
in the goal of a zero level of accept-
able man made radioactive pollution
of our environment. Those who pro-
pose anything less should be required
within the terms of this legislation
to justify their plans before the
American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do
Senators yield back the remainder of
their time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is: Shall it pass?
The yeas and nays have been or-
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
[p. 33119]
The result was announced—yeas 73,
nays 0, as follows:
So the bill (H.R. 17255) was
passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate reconsider the
vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Secre-
tary of the Senate be authorized to
make technical and clerical correct-
ions in the engrossment of Senate
amendments to H.R. 17255 and that
the bill be printed as it passed the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that S. 4358
be postponed indefinitely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
oupt objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that an article
which appeared in the Louisville, Ky.,
Courier-Journal and Times, discussing
the role of the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) in this
matter, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the ar-
ticle was ordered to be be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
POLLUTION SHOWDOWN: COOPER AND COMPANY
VERSUS DETROIT
(By Leonard Pardue)
WASHINGTON.—The Senate Public Works
Committee, which seems an unlikely dragon-
-------
1670
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
slayer, has aimed its lance at the stoutly
armored automobile industry, and the battle
will be joined this week.
The committee, whose senior Republican
member is Sen. John Sherman Cooper ot
Kentucky, has proposed that the industry be
required, by Jan. 1. 1975. to start producing
cars that don't pollute the air with their ex-
hausts.
The industry has responded that it can-
not meet the deadline. It casts doubt on its
ability to invent effectively anti-pollution de-
vices that quickly and, beyond that, stresses
the difficulty of rapid alteration of production
lines.
The committee's weapon is a bill it has
endorsed that would rewrite federal air pol-
lution-control procedures. The measure is
scheduled to come before the Senate this
week, probably tomorrow.
The contest pits the nation's largest in-
dustry against a committee that has tradi-
tionally devoted much of its time to build-
ing highways and dams and to improving
navigation facilities on rivers and in harbors.
Those preoccupations have had to yield
in recent years, first to responsibility for
water pollution-control efforts (because of the
committee's concern with waterways) and then
to attempts to clean up the nation's air.
"This committee used to be rather staid
in its jurisdiction," said Sen. Cooper in an
interview last week. "Suddenly we find our-
selves in charge of most of the environmental
questions."
As Cooper sees it, the committee came to
its conclusions about the need for a dead-
line for Detroit because there are so many
cars and they have so much to do with air
quality.
"This is the major factor of pollution.
Every effort must be made to correct it," he
said.
The bill would simply require that cars
produced after the beginning of 1975 emit
90 per cent less pollutants than federal
standards permit for 1970 models. In effect,
that means a pollution-free automobile.
Cooper gave these two specific arguments
for setting the 1976 deadline:
"If you don't fix these standards, you
won't get the maximum effort on the part
of the companies to meet them." In other
words, the committee believes necessity will
be the mother of invention.
Delay in producing a nonpolluting car raises
the possibility that there will be "further
degrading of the air." Cooper pointed out that
the 10-year average life of a car means it will
take a decade for the full impact of the pollu-
tion-free car to be felt. "We have all these used
cars—they're practically hopeless" in terms of
pollution control, he said.
The committee isn't really sure the auto
industry can meet the deadline. "I don't sup-
pose anyone knows exactly whether they can
make it or not," Cooper says.
A provision of the conunittee's bill would
permit the secretary of health, education and
welfare or the courts to extend the deadline
a year, if the industry could show the impos-
sibility of meeting the 1975 requirement.
Cooper put forward that part of the bill—in
the interest, he said, of offering the indus-
try recourse to the courts as a matter of due
process of law.
Another ameliorating part of the bill, from
the manufacturers' standpoint, would permil
the auto companies to share their technological
advances in the pollution field without running
afoul of federal anti-trust laws.
The committee appears to have come to its
decision to seek a deadline partly because of
its conclusions about antipollution require-
ments for factories and power-generating
plants.
That section of the bill would completely
reorganize the current federal approach to-
ward state and regional pollution-control pro-
grams.
The HEW secretary would be required to
establish national clean-air standards that
limit pollutants to amounts safe for the health
of persons. States and interstate pollution-
control regions (such as the one encompassing
the metropolitan Louisville area) would have
to write plans to achieve those stands. They
would have to restrict pollution to whatever
extent necessary to bring about air that is
safe to breathe.
The bill, in fact, gives implicit sanction
to such local actions as forbidding an indus-
try to locate in an area if its exhausts would
damage air quality, or restricting traffic in
certain areas, if that would help clear the
air. It does this by saying that implementa-
tion plans properly may include "land-use and
transportation controls and permits."
The bill sets out specific timetables for
each of the steps involved in setting national
standards, adopting local plans, and achieving
the goals. The schedule proposed in the bill
would mean that in about 4% years, the air
everywhere should be at least as clean as the
national standards say it should be.
This concept of requiring clean air by a
specific date wag advocated most forcefully
in the committee's deliberations by Senator
Thomas Eagleton, D-Mo. He is a member of
the subcommittee on air and water pollution,
as is Cooper.
Sen. Edmund Muskie, the Maine Democrat
who is subcommittee chairman, draws most
of the credit as author of the legislation, but
it was Eagleton who confronted officials of
the National Air Pollution Control Administra-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1671
tion, during a hearing, with the question of a
specific deadline.
Dr. John T. Middleton, the agency's director,
said the law ought to allow "a reasonable
time" for compliance, particularly since all the
technical devices for controlling exhausts don't
yet exist.
"I am trying to force the state of the art"
of pollution control, Eagleton replied.
He also argued that it would be incon-
sistent to write legislation to attain clean
air without guaranteeing that the goals would
be met by a certain date.
That thinking prevailed, and "the concept
of deadlines runs throughout this bill," says
Bailey Guard, Cooper's chief aide on the
committee.
While Guard insists that the sections of
the bill regarding national clean-air stand-
ards and local efforts to meet them are of
utmost importance, it is the timetable for the
auto industry that is receiving most of the
attention.
"Detroit is complaining bitterly," Guard
said, gesturing toward some telegrams and
letters on a table in his office. Already local
auto dealers in Kentucky have mobilized to
send wires to Cooper to protest the bill.
Cooper in a sense acknowledges that they
have reason to complain. He calls the com-
mittee's stand "a hard position"—one that
will cost auto companies "large sums of
money" for research; that may result in
"higher costs for motor cars"; that may force
manufacturers to "revolutionize their propul-
sion systems."
fp. 33120]
There are critics of the internal-combustion
engine (most notably the Ralph Nader task
force that studied air pollution) who think
some substitute must be found.
The bill, in fact, would increase federal
funds for research into other propulsion
methods, such as steam and electricity, but
this is an effort that Detroit welcomes. One
industry witness before Muskie'a subcom-
mittee said he is confident the research will
show there is no feasible alternative to the
internal-combustion engine.
Should the industry fail to develop a clean
gasoline-burning engine in time for use in
1975 or '76, and should no alternate engine
be available, the thinking is that Congress
might then change the law, relaxing th«
pollution requirements or giving the industry
more time to meet them.
"Recourse to the Congress is always there,"
Cooper said. Muskie has taken the same view.
So the stage is set for this week's debate on
the future of the auto industry and the future
of the air we breathe.
Cooper believes the Senate is likely to ap-
prove the committee's bill. It would probably
then wind up in a Senate-House conference
committee, where its fate is difficult to predict.
However, some clean-air bill must be approved
this year, because the current law expires.
In any case, it is perhaps a measure of the
depth of the national air-pollution problem
that moderate men like Cooper and Sen.
Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, the Pub-
lic Works Committee chairman, have come to
support such rigorous action.
"We spent God knows how many boon
going over the bill line by line, all of us
learning all the time," Cooper said. "If this
is successful, it will have a tremendous effect
on reduction of air pollution, there's no ques-
tion about that."
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
once again the Senate has witnessed
one of those rare legislative achieve-
ments under the leadership of the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
By the passage of this bill, the most
far-reaching hope of achieving the
goal of a pollution-free atmosphere
conies closer to realization. His mas-
tery of the subject matter and the
brilliance of his presentation are re-
fleeted in the unanimity of the vote.
Some would classify this bill as the
strongest, the toughest, the most far-
reaching. I can only say that it is the
best. I know of the long hours, of the
many meetings required under the
leadership of Senator MUSKIE to bring
about this achievement. To Senator
MUSKIE and his entire subcommittee,
the country is indebted.
I wish to pay special tribute to the
ranking Republican member of his
subcommittee, the able Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BOGGS). His coopera-
tion and assistance, advice and contri-
bution are so indelibly impressed in
every phase of this measure.
To the chairman of the full commit-
tee (Mr. RANDOLPH) and the ranking
member of the full committee (Mr.
COOPER), the Senate owes a special
thanks for their efforts in bringing
about this achievement.
To the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
-------
1672
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DOLE) and Kentucky (Mr. COOK) and
the Senators from Michigan (Mr.
HART and Mr. GRIFFIN) and the Sen-
ator from Florida (Mr. GURNEY),
their cooperation with the leadership
and contributions to this debate are
greatly appreciated.
The Senate as a whole can be justly
proud of its record in the enactment
of this bill.
[p. 33121]
l.lk(4)(c) Dec. 18: Senate and House agreed to conference
report, pp. 42381-42395; 42519-42524
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OP
1970—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 17255) to
amend the Clean Air Act to provide
for a more effective program to im-
prove the quality of the Nation's air.
I ask unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
EAGLETON). Is there objection to the
present consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of Dec. 17, 1970, pp.
42283-42294, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is
with considerable satisfaction that I
report to the Senate that the Senate
conferees on the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970 have returned, just in
time for Christmas, •with the package
ordered unanimously by the Senate on
September 22.
This was a long conference with the
House conferees. There were many
points at issue, many provisions in the
Senate bill which were not considered
at all by the House committee or by
the House, nor reflected in the House
version of this bill. The conferees
worked long and hard on resolving
these differences and dealing with the
House problem of including in the bill
provisions which the House had not
considered. I think that what we have
is a tough bill.
I commend to all of my Senate col-
leagues the result of the conferees'
painstaking efforts over the past 3
months. It is a strong, tough, air pol-
lution control agreement. It will ena-
ble the country to clean up the air and
protect the public health.
The conferees' agreement, no less
than the Senate bill, intends that all
Americans in all parts of the country
shall have clean air to breathe within
the 1970's.
The conferees' agreement, no less
than the Senate bill, carries the prom-
ise that ambient air in all parts of the
country shall have no adverse effects
upon any American's health.
The conferees' agreement, no less
than the Senate bill, faces the air pol-
lution crisis with urgency and in can-
dor. It makes hard choices, provides
just remedies, requires stiff penalties.
The conferees' agreement, no less
than the Senate bill, calls for the
money and the manpower required to
clean up the air. A threefold increase
in manpower and a total of $1.1 bil-
lion in funding over 3 years are au-
thorized.
Mr. President, I am convinced that
nothing short of this kind of commit-
ment to the fight against dirty air,
against environmentally induced dis-
ease, will be enough.
That is why I am greatly encour-
aged by the support given to this leg-
islation by the Senate and House con-
ferees, and I am particularly grateful
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1673
to each of them for his contributions
to our work during these 3 months.
Let me now review briefly where we
were in September, what we had
learned from our experience with the
existing law, what we felt was needed
for a successful effort to obtain clean
air and to protect public health, and
what the conferees accomplished.
There was little doubt in the Sen-
ate, in September, that the country
was facing an air pollution crisis. Cit-
ies up and down the east coast were
living under clouds of smog and daily
air pollution alerts. More than 200
million tons of contaminants were
being spilled into the air annually.
The costs of air pollution were
being counted in death, disease, and
disability. The National Institute of
Environmental Health scientists esti-
mated the cost of environmentally in-
duced disease at $38 billion a year. A
50-percent reduction in urban air pol-
lution, it was estimated, would result
in a saving of $2 billion a year in
health care costs.
It was clear that the country was
falling behind in its struggle for clean
air. Automobiles were putting out 64
percent of the carbon monoxide and 50
percent of the hydrocarbons. Two
steel companies in the Chicago area
spilled 3,500 more tons of pollutants
into the air in 1968 than they had
spilled in 1963.
It was clear, too, that the new legis-
lation then being considered would
have to go beyond the limited objec-
tives of the Air Quality Act of 1967.
Senators will recall that the 1967 act
was drawn to enhance air quality, to
reduce harmful emissions, and to
"give the Secretary authority to im-
plement that objective in the absence
of effective State and local control."
The 1967 act established procedures
for the achievement and maintenance
of federally approved regional stand-
ards of ambient air quality. These
standards, based on Federal criteria
documents describing the effects of
pollutants on health and welfare, are
adopted and enforced on the State and
local level. In the event that adequate
standards are not developed or en-
forced, the Federal Government as-
sumes the responsibility.
The underlying wisdom of the origi-
nal legislation was confirmed. We
learned from the criteria documents
issued for five pollutants that more
decisive action must be taken. We
learned from the standards-setting
process that public participation is
important. We learned from experi-
ence with implementation of the law
that States and localities need greater
incentives and assistance to protect
the health and welfare of all people.
The effectiveness of existing law de-
pends in great part on the willingness
of people to make tough decisions con-
cerning the quality of air they want
to breathe. It depends on their will-
ingness to make their wishes known in
public hearings on the local level.
This experiment in public participa-
tion worked. People became involved
in the standards-setting process. They
learned of the threats to their health
and they sought to make the program
responsive to their needs.
[p. 42381]
From citizen concern and corporate
resistance, we learned that air pollu-
tion is more severe, more pervasive
and growing faster than we had
thought. Unless we recognized the cri-
sis and generated a sense of urgency,
national lead times to find and apply
controls measures could melt away
without any chance for a rational so-
lution to the air pollution problem.
It is also clear that ambient air
quality standards which will protect
the public health must be set as mini-
mum standards for all parts of the
Nation, and that they must be met in
all areas within national deadlines.
Congress adopted emissions stand-
ards as the basic control technique for
moving sources in 1965, because they
-------
1674
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
are not controllable at the local level.
Here we learned that tests of eco-
nomic and technological feasibility ap-
plied to those standards compromise
the health of our people and lead to
inadequate standards.
In 1963, the Congress' recognized
that the Federal Government could
not handle the enforcement task alone,
and that the primary burden would
rest on States and local governments.
However, State and local governments
did not respond adequately to this
challenge. Enforcement had to be
toughened. More tools were needed.
The Federal presence and backup au-
thority had to be increased.
Finally, no level of government has
implemented the existing law to its
full potential. On all levels, the air
pollution control program was under-
funded and undermanned. Greater fi-
nancial commitments had to be made
and met at all levels.
With these lessons in mind last Sep-
tember, the Senate laid down in its
bill five sets of requirements for
tougher standards and tighter en-
forcement against air pollutants and
air polluters.
First, the bill provided for national
ambient air quality standards for at
least 10 major contaminants that
must be met by national deadlines.
This meant that in every region of the
country, air quality had to be better
than that level of quality which pro-
tects health.
Second, national air quality goals
—protective against any known or an-
ticipated adverse environmental ef-
fects were to be set for the major pol-
lutants and had to be achieved within
specific time frames on a regional
basis. These goals were especially im-
portant because some pollutants could
have serious effects on the environ-
ment at levels below those where
health effects occur.
Third, the bill provided that newly
constructed sources of pollution had to
meet rigorous national standards of
performance. While we cleaned up ex-
isting pollution, we were determined
to guard against new problems. Those
areas which have levels of air quality
better than the national standards
should not find their air quality de-
graded by the construction of new
sources.
Fourth, the bill provided the Ad-
ministrator authority to prohibit
emissions of hazardous substances.
The committee had received strong ev-
idence that any level of emissions of
certain pollutants might produce ad-
verse health effects that could not be
tolerated.
Fifth, the bill provided the Admin-
istrator with the authority to set
emission standards for selected pollut-
ants which cannot be controlled
through the ambient air quality stand-
ards and which are not hazardous
substances. These pollutants could
later be covered by either ambient air
quality standards or by prohibitions
as hazardous substance.
The Senate also recommended sig-
nificant changes in title II of the act
dealing with moving sources, and es-
pecially with automobiles.
In 1968, moving sources were re-
sponsible for more than 42 percent of
the total emissions of the five major
pollutants.
In health effects, these pollutants
mean cancer, headaches, dizziness,
nausea, metabolic and respiratory dis-
eases, and impairment of mental
processes. Clearly, solving the air pol-
lution problem depended on the
achievement of significant reductions
in the emissions from automobiles.
Clearly, protection of the public
health required quick and drastic re-
ductions.
Since legislation to deal with the
problem of automotive emissions was
first introduced in 1964, the industry
had known that they would have to
develop the solutions to the problem.
In 1965 they announced that national
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1675
standards could be met in the fall of
1967.
It was clear that continued reliance
on gradual reductions in automotive
emissions would make achievement of
the ambient air quality standards im-
possible within the national deadlines
established in title I of the Senate bill.
More important, it would continue
hazards to health long after they
should have been eliminated.
In order to maintain those stand-
ards set under title I—standards
which are necessary to protect the
public health and which must be met
in the next 5 years—the emissions
standards for carbon monoxide, hy-
drocarbons, and nitrogen oxides which
have been projected for 1980 had to be
met earlier. The bill required that this
be done by 1975.
To insure that production line vehi-
cles perform adequately, the Senate
bill required that each vehicle manu-
factured comply with the standards
for a 50,000 mile lifetime. The manu-
facturer was required to warranty the
performance of each individual vehicle
as to compliance with emission stand-
ards.
The Senate in setting the 1975
deadline made every effort to make
that requirement consistent with what
the industry had testified on many oc-
casions over the years: It provided 2
years for research and development of
the necessary technology, and 2 years
to apply that technology in the mass
production of vehicles.
In response to claims that these re-
quirements could be met, the Senate
included in the legislation an opportu-
nity for an administrative review of
the 1975 deadline. A 1-year extension
would be necessary and justified. The
bill also provided for a review of that
decision by an appellate court.
xThe Senate was aware of the prob-
lems these requirements might create
for individual companies. Therefore,
the bill provided a procedure for man-
datory licensing which would make
available patents necessary to achieve
compliance to any manufacturer who
could show a need and to whom the
information was not otherwise availa-
ble. This provision was also applied to
stationary sources.
Predictions of technological impos-
sibility of infeasibility were not con-
sidered sufficient reasons to avoid
tough standards and deadlines, and
thus to compromise the public health.
The urgency of the problems required
that the industry consider, not only
the improvement of existing technol-
ogy, but also alternatives to the inter-
nal combustion engine and new forms
of transportation. Only a clear cut
and tough public policy could generate
this kind of effort.
The third major area in which the
Senate recommended significant
changes is the area of enforcement.
Standards alone would not insure
breatheable air. All levels of govern-
ment had to be given adequate tools to
enforce those standards.
The Senate remains convinced that
most effective enforcement of stand-
ards would take place on the State
and local levels. It was here that the
public could participate most actively
and bring the most effective pressure
to bear for clean air.
Public participation is still impor-
tant in the development of each
State's implementation plan. These
plans do not involve technical deci-
sions; they do involve public policy
choices that citizens should make on
the State and local level. They should
be consistent with a rational nation-
wide policy and should be subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
However, the powers to enforce
these standards had to be increased
for the State and local governments
as well as the Federal Government.
The bill thus required adequate State
enforcement authority as a part of
implementation plans and provided
that abatement orders could be issued
-------
1676
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
by the Administrator or his represent-
ative. Violations of these orders were
to be punishable by statutory penal-
ties of as much as $25,000 for each
day of a first violation.
The bill also provided the Federal
Government with the authority to use
the influence of the Federal contract
as an incentive to compliance with
standards.
Federal contracts could be awarded
only to facilities which were in com-
pliance with the standards and re-
quirements of this act.
The bill extended the concept of
public participation to the enforce-
ment process. The citizen suits author-
ized in this legislation would apply
important pressure. Although the
Senate did not advocate these suits as
the best way to achieve enforcement,
it was clear that they should be an
effective tool.
Mr. President, those were the basic
and principal portions of the package
taken by the Senate conferees to the
first meeting with the House conferees
on October 8. On several of those
points, the House bill was silent. I ask
unanimous consent to include in the
RECORD at the end of my remarks a
summary of provisions of the confer-
ence agreement.
[p. 42382]
I ask unanimous consent that a dis-
cussion of the key provisions of this
agreement and the implications of
those provisions be included immedi-
ately following the summary.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no doubt
that this legislation, like its predeces-
sor, will be subject to criticism. Al-
ready the auto industry has indicated
it is unacceptable. Others will focus
on its limitations and still others will
find fault for political purposes.
That is the democratic process. It is
not in the public interest that all crit-
ics be satisfied. But false implications
are not needed. This is not a political
measure—it had unanimous support
from the Senate conferees—some of
whom had differing views on specific
language but all of whom knew that a
public demand needed a stern re-
sponse.
One issue on which there will be
repeated interpretation and misinter-
pretation involves the deadline for
achievement of emissions standards
for passenger cars. The Senate did
not get all that it wanted here. The
Senate conferees had to accept two
major changes in order to preserve
the deadlines in the Senate bill and to
obtain conference agreement.
First, the House insisted that an
application for suspension from the
effect of the deadline must be made
earlier than 24 months before the
effective date of the standard in ques-
tion.
Second, the administration is re-
quired to make this decision within 60
days after receipt of such an applica-
tion for suspension.
Conversely, two improvements were
made. First, the Administrator no
longer can be forced to rely upon the
auto manufacturer to determine
whether technology is available. He
must test engine systems developed by
private parties to ascertain whether
they meet standards; thus, all availa-
ble technology will be known. When a
breakthrough occurs, the administra-
tion will know, and standards can be
toughened even beyond the degree of
control required by this statute.
Let me say, with respect to the con-
ference agreement as it relates to the
Senate agreement, that the Senate did
not get all it wanted. It was necessary
to compromise. Yet, in many in-
stances, the compromise resulted in a
stronger bill than either the Senate or
the House bills. The key decision, the
one on which the committee focused
most over the past few months, was
the deadline for the cleanup of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1677
internal combustion engine in the pas-
senger automobile.
The deadline has been retained.
That deadline is January 1, 1975, for
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons,
and January 1, 1976, for oxides of ni-
trogen. I repeat, that deadline has
been retained.
The Senate bill provided, in addi-
tion, the possibility of an extension of
1 year beyond each of the deadlines.
The limitation of a 1-year extension
has been retained without change, ex-
cept for the fact that the judicial re-
view provisions of the Senate bill have
been eliminated.
There has been one change made,
upon House insistence. The date for
applying for that 1-year extension of
the deadline has been advanced by 1
year.
Mr. President, the Administrator
would make the decision on whether
an additional year should be granted
on the basis of a review of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences on tech-
nological developments in the field as
well as other information available to
him. If the Administrator decides the
deadline cannot be met, he must im-
pose interim standards, achieving as
high a level of emission control as
technological developments permit.
This advances the date for applying
for the 1-year extension by 1 year, but
no further extension is possible.
May I say that, in my judgment,
the pressure is on the automobile in-
dustry. The deadline of 1975 and 1976
is still in the law, and only Congress
can change it.
If the review procedure is followed
and results in an extension, the maxi-
mum extension permitted for the 1
year as was the case in the Senate
bill. Any extension beyond that can be
provided only by action of Congress.
That has not been changed by the con-
ference agreement.
I think the action we have taken on
the automobile deadline is a reasona-
ble compromise, in light of the fact
that the House bill contained nothing
of the sort in its legislation. The
House moved, I think, close to 100
percent toward the Senate provision.
In other respects, the Senate bill is, 1
think, as tough now, following the
agreement with the House, as it was
when it left the Senate Chamber.
Other important features of the
Senate bill were retained. Each indi-
vidual manufacturer must, if suspen-
sion of the deadline is considered es-
sential, apply to the Administrator
and make the necessary showing. This
means that the lack of technology or
the leadtime to the smaller companies
cannot be used as a justification for
suspension by the major manufactur-
ers.
Further, the companies must pro-
vide the Administrator with the infor-
mation needed to judge their technical
capability. The Administrator should
require periodic reports on the prog-
ress of technology from each company
—such reports and comments thereon
should be a part of the report the
Congress required by this section.
As in the Senate bill, the Adminis-
trator retains certain discretionary
authority. He must, for example, pre-
scribe the actual standard which the
automobile must achieve to meet a
90-percent reduction from 1970-71 ve-
hicle emission levels.
This technical judgment could be
viewed as a way to vitiate the effect
of the deadline by adjusting the meas-
urement technique. This has been done
once this year. Before the Senate com-
pleted action on this bill and before
the decision to write a statutory
standard for motor vehicles, the Na-
tional Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration proposed a new measurement
technique for vehicles. The new tech-
nique had the effect of increasing the
allowable emissions for 1970-74 pas-
senger cars. By the seemingly simple
method of revising the base on whi^h
standards were calculated—new tech-
nology made pollutant quality and
526-703 O - 73 - 33
-------
1678
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
quantity easier to measure—the
amount of allowable pollutants was
increased.
The conference committee was
aware of the potential for adjustment.
The conference agreement mandates
that measurement techniques be deter-
mined within 6 months after enact-
ment. Should the base be adjusted
again; that is, should a new measure-
ment technique be adopted for carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons so as to
increase the amount of emissions and
thus alter the circumstances on which
our judgment has been made, over-
sight hearings, and if necessary,
corrective legislation will be the re-
sult.
Mr. President, this legislation is the
product of an effort which involved
many people over an extended period
of time. The members of the Senate
Committee on Public Works and their
staffs deserve particular praise. Our
hearings were numerous and there
were more executive sessions. The
members were patient, attentive, coop-
erative, and not partisan.
Chairman RANDOLPH and Senator
COOPER, both of whom sit with the
subcommittee, helped guide the bill
through the full committee. Senators
BOOGS, BAYH, MONTOYA, SPONG, EAGLE-
TON, BAKER, and DOLE worked long
hours on this bill and the final version
represents their individual commit-
ments to the goal of a clean environ-
ment.
Mr. President, there were many
conferences with the House Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
The chairman, HARLEY O. STAGGERS of
West Virginia, who served as chair-
man of the conference, guided the leg-
islation well. His constant reminder of
the need to get a good, strong, reason-
able bill helped maintain our determi-
nation. Representative PAUL ROGERS
of Florida provided key proposals to
break deadlocks and Representatives
JOHN JARMAN, BILL SPRINGER, and
ANCHER NELSEN worked diligently and
patiently to formulate the compro-
mise. The House conferees were ably
and faithfully assisted by Kurt Bor-
chardt and Bob Nordhaus, and with-
out their cooperation with the Senate
conferees' staff, this bill could never
had been produced.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I want
to emphasize again that committing
the Congress with this legislation can-
not be, and will not be, enough. In this
Chamber, we can make promises to
provide the funds and the manpower
necessary to set and enforce the
standards. That is not enough. We
must carry our commitment through
to the appropriations of those funds.
This program requires a commit-
ment not only from the Congress and
the Executive. It also requires a com-
mitment from the people. And from
all of us, it requires a new perspec-
tive. We all must recognize that the
quality of our air is most valuable,
most essential, to the quality of our
environment and to the quality of our
lives upon this planet.
[p. 42383]
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT ON THE CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS
OF 1970
STATIONARY SOURCES
Air Quality control regions: The agreement
provides that areas of states not designated
will be considered as air quality control regions
and provides authority for Administrator to
designate interstate region.
Air quality criteria and control techniques:
The agreement requires issuance of re-
maining air quality criteria for major pollut-
ants within 13 months of date of enactment.
National ambient air Quality standards: The
agreement establishes procedures for setting
primary national ambient air quality standards
to protect public health and secondary national
quality standards necessary to protect public
welfare, following promulgation of the stand-
ards (four months after issuance of criteria),
the States will have nine months to develop
and to adopt, after public hearings, a plan to
implement the primary standards. Additional
time will be provided to set implementation
plans for secondary standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1679
Implementation plans: The Administrator
has six months to approve a submitted imple-
mentation plan or if no plan is submitted or
the plan is inadequate, to substitute a plan of
his own. The plan must be designed to achieve
the level of air quality established by the
primary standard within three years, and must
include a description of steps which will be
taken, including transportation and land use
controls, emission requirements, and other en-
forcement procedure.
State standards: The agreement enables the
State or local subdivision to adopt air quality
emission standards that are stricter than the
national standard.
New source performance standards: The
agreement authorizes regulations to require
that new major industry plants such as power
plants, steel mills, and cement plants achieve a
standard of emission performance based on the
latest available control technology, processes,
operating methods, and other alternatives.
Hazardous substance emissions: The agree-
ment requires the administrator to regulate
emissions of pollutants found to be hazardous
to health.
Federal enforcement: The agreement prohib-
its violation of any air quality implementation
plan, emission standard, etc. It provides crimi-
nal penalties and the authority to issue abate-
ment orders. The agreement requires record
keeping, authorizes subpoenas, requires emis-
sion monitoring, and authorizes right of entry.
Federal Facilities: The agreement requires
Federal facilities to control air pollution.
Moving sources: Standards—The agreement
requires emission standards based on protec-
tion of public health and welfare without re-
gard to the propulsion system and provides
that the 1975 model cars must achieve at least
a 90% reduction from emissions of the 1970
models. This would approximate the 1980
standards projected currently for automo-
biles. The agreement prohibits violation of
standards.
Aircraft emissions: The agreement provides
for regulation of aircraft emissions and Fed-
eral preemption of authority to regulate such
emissions. Aviation fuels regulation is author-
ized also.
Penalties: The agreement sets penalties of
up to $10,000 per vehicle and provides author-
ity to seek injunctions against violators.
Certification: The agreement authorizes the
Administrator to test any new vehicle submit-
ted for certification for compliance with stand-
ards and authorizes certification for a year. It
also provides for production line testing of
vehicles.
On the road testing and compliance: The
agreement requires warranty of 60,000 miles
on emission system performance. The Admin-
istrator can test cars on the road, and can
require recall if a representative sample fails
the test.
State grants for vehicle inspection: The
agreement authorizes 2-1 grants to the States
for developing emission inspection systems.
Pre-emption: The agreement preempts State
emission standard-setting authority, except for
California.
Low emission vehicles: The agreement au-
thorizes certification and purchase of Low-
Emission Vehicles.
Research: The agreement authorizes $75 mil-
lion for fiscal 1971, $125 million for fiscal
1972, and $150 million for fiscal 1973 research
relating to fuels and vehicles. It authorizes
research concerning the health effects of air
pollution and authorizes an additional $15 mil-
lion for long-term contracts to carry out these
investigations.
State planning grants: The agreement pro-
vides 3 to 1 funding to states with a bonus
now available only to interstate and intermu-
nicipal programs; it also provides for the option
of assignment of Federal personnel in lieu of
cash grants.
Emergency powers: The agreement gives the
Administrator authority to abate any pollution
that presents an imminent and substantial en-
dangerment to health.
Citizens suits: The agreement permits citi-
zens suits to enforce violation of standards.
Suits against the Administrator are limited to
mandatory functions.
Federal contract compliance: The agreement
prohibits the Federal Government from signing
contracts with any company convicted of viola-
tion of air quality laws. The agreement au-
thorizes the President to issue an executive
order to provide uniform contract compliance
language.
Judicial review: The agreement permits re-
view of the standards, implementation plans,
or other action taken pursuant to the Act.
Mandatory licensing: The agreement author-
izes mandatory licensing of patents, on tech-
nology not otherwise reasonably available to
facilitate compliance with provision of this
Act.
Authorization: The agreement authorizes
$650 million for three years for purposes other
than Section 104.
Environmental policy: The agreement re-
quires the Administrator to review any Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act statements
and major Federal actions and make his com-
ments public.
Noise pollution: The bill establishes an Office
of Noise Abatement and Control in the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and authorizes
$30 million to carry out functions.
-------
1680
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
DISCUSSION OF KEY PROVISIONS
Section 107-108. The conference agreement
requires the designation of air quality control
regions and the issuance of air quality criteria
and control technique information within a
statutory deadline. These are necessary admin-
istrative preconditions on which much of the
rest of the agreement depends, and the confer-
ence committee felt it desirable to speed up
their availability. Criteria have already been
issued for five pervasive pollutants: sulfur ox-
ides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocar-
bons, and photochemical oxidants. Within the
13-month deadline, the Congress expects cri-
teria to be issued for nitrogen oxides, fluorides,
lead, polynuclear organic matter, and odors,
though others may be necessary.
Section 109. Under section 109 of the agree-
ment, national ambient air quality standards
must be established, either within one month
of enactment or simultaneously with any cri-
teria issued. For each pollutant subject to a
criteria document, there will be a primary
ambient air quality standard, set at the level
of air quality adequate to protect the public
health, and a secondary ambient air quality
standard to eliminate adverse effects on wel-
fare.
Section 110. Section 110 requires each State
to develop an implementation plan which as-
sures the attainment of the primary ambient
air quality region within three years from the
date the plan is approved. The plan also must
provide for reaching the generally more re-
strictive levels of air pollution of the secondary
standards within a reasonable set time period
and should be related to the difficulties with
which a particular region is confronted.
With up to four months for the final pro-
mulgation of national standards, up to nine
months for the States to develop their plans
and up to four months for the Administration
to either approve a State plan or decide to
substitute his own authority in promulgating a
plan, approval of plans for major pollutants is
no more than 17 months away. Within four
and one-half years, the level of air quality in
American cities, as to these major pollutants,
should be adequate to avoid adverse effects on
public health.
In order to implement the national ambient
air quality standards, these plans must provide
for emission limitations on all services in the
region covered by the plan, together with
schedules and timetables of compliance, sys-
tems for monitoring both ambient air and
emissions from individual sources, and ade-
quate enforcement authority (including special
provisions for air pollution emergencies). Im-
plementation plans must provide that when
adequate on-the-road motor vehicle emissions
tests are developed, the State will have a
system for periodic inspection. Federal grants
are available to develop such inspection pro-
grams.
Implementation of standards will require
changes in public policy: land use policies
must be developed to prevent location of facili-
ties which are not compatible with implemen-
tation of national standards. States must re-
view the location of every new stationary
source before construction to assure no inter-
ference with attainment of the standards.
Transportation policies must be developed or
improved to assure that the impact of pollu-
tion from existing moving sources is reduced
to the minimum compatible with the needs of
each region. Construction of urban highways
and freeways may be required to take second
place to rapid and mass transit and other
public transportation systems. Central city use
of motor vehicles may have to be restricted. In
some congested areas the number of operations
of aircraft into an airport may need to be
limited, or steps taken to reduce emissions
while aircraft are on the ground. If such
controls are required, the plan for implementa-
tion should so provide. If the plan is approved,
the Congress expects the Federal regulatory
agencies to take the steps necessary to assure
compliance with the plan.
The conference committee was convinced
that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency would work closely with the States and
the Environmental Protection Agency to attain
these controls when necessary.
If, at the time of plan approval, it appears
impossible to bring specific sources into com-
pliance within three years, the Governor of the
State may request an extension of the deadline
up to two years. The Administrator must be
satisfied that alternate means of achieving the
standard have been considered (including clos-
ing down the source in question), that all
reasonable interim measures will be applied,
and that the State is justified in seeking the
extension,
A Governor may also apply for a postpone-
ment of the deadline if, when the deadline
approaches, it is impossible for a source to
meet a requirement under an implementation
plan, interim control measures have reduced
(or will reduce) the adverse health
[p. 42384]
effects of the source, and the continued opera-
tion of the source is essential to national secu-
rity or the public health or welfare of that
State. Such a postponement is subject to
judicial review.
Section 111. The conference agreement, as
did the Senate bill, provides for national
standards of performance on emission from
new stationary sources. Included under this
section would be emissions from new or modi-
fied installations of major industries. These
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1681
sources, important in themselves and involved
in industries of national scope must be con-
trolled to the maximum practicable degree re-
gardless of their location. Standards of per-
formance must be set at the greatest degree of
control attainable through the application of
the best system of emission reduction which
has been adequately demonstrated.
Sources for which the Congress would expect
standards of performance to be established in-
clude :
Cement manufacturing;
Coal cleaning operations;
Coke byproduct manufacturing;
Cotton ginning;;
Ferroalloy plants;
Grain milling and handling operations;
Gray iron foundries;
Iron and steel operations;
Nitric acid manufacturing;
Nonferrous metallurgical operations (e.g.
aluminum reduction, copper, lead, and zinc
Smelting);
Petroleum refining;
Phosphate manufacturing;
Phosphoric acid manufacturing;
Pulp and paper mill oeprations;
Rendering plants (animal matter);
Sulfuric acid manufacturing;
Soap and detergent manufacturing;
Municipal incinerators; and
Steam electiic power plants.
Section 112. Under section 112, the Admin-
istrator must set emission standards for haz-
ardous air pollutants, after public hearings on
proposed standards. The standards must he set
to provide an ample margin of safety to pro-
tect the public health. This could mean, effec-
tively, that a plant would be required to close
because of the absence of control techniques. It
could include emission standards which allowed
for no measurable emissions.
New sources of such pollutants may be con-
structed only if they meet the standards.
"Within two years, if installment of contiol
equipment takes that long, existing sources
must meet the standards, and during any relay
in meeting the standards, alternate means
must be used to protect the health of persons
from imminent endangerment. Examples of
substances which the Administration informed
the Senate were likely to be controlled under
this provision are beryllium, asbestos, mercury,
and cadmium.
Section 113. Federal enforcement under sec-
tion 113 leaves the primary responsibility with
the States for enforcing requirements under
implementation plans. The Administrator can
issue an abatement order to a polluter or go to
court seeking an injunction only after 30 days'
notice to an individual polluter, or 30 days
after notifying the State that the Federal Gov-
ernment is generally assuming enforcement
powers in that State because of a widespread
failure of States' enforcement. This gives
States 30 days in which to take appropriate
action themselves.
For Federal standards of performance for
new sources and emission standards for haz-
ardous air pollutants, the Administrator may
enforce without delay by either issuing an
order to abate or seeking an injunction in
court. This authority may be delegated to
States but the Administrator retains authority
to act directly without notice to the State.
The conference agreement retains the exist-
ing abatement conference procedure for inter-
national pollution and for pollutants not sub-
ject to ambient air quality standards or emis-
sion standards for hazardous air pollutants.
The effect of past enforcement actions is pre-
served.
Knowing violations of an order issued by the
Administiator or of State implementation plan
requirements (where the violator has received
notice) or of Federal standards of perform-
ance for new sources or of Federal emission
standards for hazardous emissions shall be
punishable by a fine of not more than $25,000
per day of violation or by imprisonment for
not more than 1 year. For second or subse-
quent violations, the fine is not more than
$50,000 and imprisonment for not more than 2
years.
Section 114. The conference agreement
grants authority to the Administrator or his
authorized representatives to enter the prem-
ises of any emission sources, to require the
owner or operator of any source to install and
maintain emissions monitoring equipment (and
to protect it against tampering), to require
sampling of emissions, and to require records
and leports. Violations of this provision are
subject to restraining orders and knowing fal-
sification of records, reports and other infor-
mation required by this Act is subject to
ciiminal penalties of $10,000, or imprisonment
of six months, or both.
Section 202. The Administrator is directed to
establish emission standards for pollutants
from new motor vehicles or engines which are
likely to endanger the public health or welfare.
Such standards are to be applicable for the
useful life of the vehicles or engines. The
statute specifies that "useful life** shall be a
period of use of at least five years or 50,000
miles, whichever occurs first. The effective date
of the standards is to depend on the period
necessary to develop the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
complying by such date.
Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions
from light duty vehicles for 1975 model year
and thereafter are to be reduced at least 90
per centum over 1970 standards for these pol-
lutants. Oxides of nitrogen emissions from
light duty vehicles for the 1976 model year and
-------
1682
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
thereafter are to be reduced by at least 90 per
centum over the actual emission of these pol-
lutants from 1971 model vehicles, which were
not subject to Federal or State standards for
such emissions.
Any manufacturer may apply to the Admin-
istrator within specified time limits for a one-
year suspension of the statutory time limits,
and the Administrator is to issue interim
standards if he approves such application.
Such interim standards are to reflect the
greatest degree of emission control which is
achievable by application of technology deter-
mined by the Administrator to be available.
The Administrator is to take into considera-
tion whether the manufacturer has met statu-
tory requirements relating to public interest
and public health and welfare, availability of
technology, and good faith efforts to meet
standards.
The Administrator is to enter into appropri-
ate arrangements with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a study of the feasibil-
ity of meeting statutory deadlines for the 1975
and 1976 model years. In entering into such
arrangements, the Administrator is to request
the Academy to submit its first report not
later than July 1, 1971. The Administrator is
directed to use all information-gathering au-
thority granted to him to furnish to the Acad-
emy any information requested by it.
Section 207. The provisions for warranty of
vehicle emission control systems or devices,
contained in section 207 of the conference
substitute, are among the most important in
the Act. Standards for new cars will have
little impact if we cannot assure compliance
with those standards over the useful life of
those vehicles. Testimony required by the Com-
mittee indicated significant deterioration from
expected per formance levels as between proto-
type models and production vehicles. According
to information provided by the National Air
Pollution Control Administration from the
record of the Senate hearings:
"The production fleet data indicate that air
quality in 1985 will be 25 percent higher in
hydrocarbons and 13 percent higher in carbon
monoxide than it would have been if there
were no discrepancy in emissions rates. Oxi-
dant concentrations are approximately a direct
function of hydrocarbon concentrations, as in-
dicated in the "Air Quality Criteria for Hydro-
carbons." Thus the oxidant levels in 1985 will
also be approximately 25 percent higher. This
analysis is based on data gathered from 1968
and 1969 model year cars. To the extent that
production fleet performance can be made to
approximate prototype emissions more closely,
in 1970 and later model years, the discrepan-
cies in the projected curves can be re-
duced/' (Volume 1, p. 372.)
This information, in addition to data which
shows significant deterioration from the stand-
ard after a vehicle accumulates mileage, sug-
gests that the investment in emission systems
by the American public will be of no purpose
and that the air quality objectives of existing
and proposed legislation will have failed unless
better performance is required.
The responsibility of the industry cannot
stop at the factory gate. Without some degree
of quality control which can only be assured
through individual vehicle compliance, the mo-
torists cannot be required to maintain emission
performance—vehicle emission inspection pro-
grams will be meaningless—and air quality
will not be maintained.
Conversely, by requiring the manufacturer to
warranty performance, margins of safety will
be built into each vehicle to insure better than
required performance, systems will be designed
to minimize deterioration, State vehicle emis-
sion inspection programs can cause proper
maintenance to be observed by the motorists
and the air quality objectives of this legislation
will be implemented.
To achieve this, the conference agreement
provides that motor vehicles be warranted by
the manufacturer to comply with emission
standards for 5 years or 50,000 miles. This
performance warranty is in addition to a stat-
utoi y warranty of freedom from defects in
materials and workmanship.
The performance warranty cannot be en-
forced until the Administrator establishes
methods for on-the-road testing of vehicles and
states have individual vehicle compliance
inspection systems and programs. A warranty
will not become effective until the vehicle's
deviation from the standards subjects the
owner to some sanction, such as a fine or ban
from the road. Proper operation and mainte-
nance according to the manufacturer's reason-
able instructions is a precondition to the war-
ranty, but all repair work under the warranty,
as in the case of vehicles recalled because of
non-conformity with the standards, must be at
the cost of the manufacturer.
Section 211. Section 211 of the conference
substitute authorizes the Administrator to con-
trol or prohibit the manufacture or sale of
motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives. This is
combined with added information-gathering
powers in the registration of all fuels and fuel
additives. The Administrator may impose such
controls or prohibitions if emission products of
a fuel will endanger public health or welfare,
or if the fuel or additive impairs to a signifi-
cant degree a vehicle emission control system
in general use, as long as the control of a fuel
does not result in a greater danger to public
health or welfare from a substitute fuel.
[p. 42385]
The concept of a control or prohibition
should be taken to include requiring design
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1683
changes in motor vehicles, as well as fuel
handling equipment, to ensure maximum com-
pliance with regulations specifying acceptable
fuel use for various classes of vehicles. In de-
veloping any controls, the Administrator should
consider the fuel needs of existing motor ve-
hicles, as well as future production.
While the conference substitute specifies
procedures under section 211 which the Ad-
ministrator will use in determining whether
to prohibit or control fuels or fuel additives,
the conference committee wishes to call the
Administrator's attention to the relationship
between his functions under this section and
the emission deadlines stipulated in Section
202. It is not the intent of the Congress to
create a cumbersome, time consuming admin-
istrative procedure which will delay necessary
controls on fuels and fuel additives required
to meet these deadlines.
Neither is it the intention of the Congress
to lock the Administrator into a rigid economic
interpretation of the cost benefit analysis
specified in this section in making his de-
termination to prohibit or control fuels or fuel
additives.
Rather, the conference committee wishes to
call the attention of the Administrator to the
broad environmental, esthetic and health con-
siderations underlying the enactment of this
legislation which should be kept in mind mak-
ing these determinations.
States and localities are preempted from
presenting or enforcing controls or prohibi-
tions not identical to those of the Federal
government, unless an approved State imple-
mentation plan under section 110 provides for
fuel or additive control in order to attain the
national ambient air quality standards. Cali-
fornia, however, is free to have any regulation
of fuels or additives it finds necessary.
Sec. 231-234. A new Part B of Title II,
added by the conference agreement, provides
authority for the Administrator to prescribe
emission standards for civil aircraft and air-
craft engines. This he must do after no more
that 180 days of study and after public hear-
ings in critically affected regions. The Secre-
tary of Transportation, through the Federal
Aviation Agency, will enforce the standards.
States and localities are preempted from adopt-
ing or enforcing any but identical standards.
The Administrator is also authorized to recom-
mend standards for aviation fuels, which must
be prescribed by the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Agency.
The conferees expect that critical standards
for aircraft will go considerably beyond the
present smoke reduction program which is
being carried out for three-engine jobs. To
limit the standards to certain aircraft is un-
acceptable. To rely on smoke reduction alone
ignores other, perhaps more important pol-
lutants, which will have to be controlled as a
part of the national ambient air quality
standards program.
Section 304. The conference agreement au-
thorizes citizen suits against polluters to abate
violations of any emission limitation under
the Act (including State implementation
plans), and against the Administrator to re-
quire him to do any of the functions this Act
assigns to him. Any polluter, including a gov-
ernment agency, is subject to such a suit
after 60 days notice from the citizen-plaintiff.
If a government abatement action is being
diligently pursued in a United States or State
court, a citizen action cannot be filed, but an
interested party may intervene as a matter
of right. There is no delay or notice require-
ment for violations of the Administrator's
order or a violation of a hazardous pollutant
emission standard. Cost of litigation, including
attorney's fees and expert witness fees, could
be awarded to either party, as the court thinks
appropriate.
The Courts should recognize that in bringing
legitimate actions under this section citizens
would be performing a public service and in
such instances the courts should award costs
of litigation to such party. This should extend
to plaintiffs in actions which result in suc-
cessful abatement but do not reach a verdict.
For instance, if as a result of a citizen pro-
ceeding and before a verdict is issued, a de-
fendant abated a violation, the court may
award litigation expenses borne by the plain-
tiffs in prosecuting such actions. However,
there is no question that some persons may use
section 304 to bring frivolous and harassing
actions. In such cases, the court could award
costs of litigation to defendants as it is in
the public interest to avoid such actions. This
should have the effect of discouraging abuse
of this provision, while at the same time en-
couraging the quality of the actions that will
be brought.
Section 305. An important provision of the
conference agreement is section 305, granting
the Administrator the authority to represent
himself in court if the Attorney General does
not qualify him that he will enter the case
within a reasonable time. This is necessary if
the Administrator is to have effective control
of enforcement actions under this Act. The
Administrator is required to initiate enforce-
ment actions; this allows him to satisfacto-
rily carry them out.
Section 308, In order to prevent the stringent
standards of the Act from contributing to
monopolist concentrations in any industries,
the conference agreement provides for a limited
mandatory licensing of the technology neces-
sary to meet automobile emission standards,
emission standards for hazardous air pol-
lutants, or new source standards of perform-
ance, if covered by a U.S. patent. If rights
under such a patent are not reasonably avail-
able, or the technology not commercially avail-
-------
1684
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
able through purchase of control equipment,
the Attorney General may certify to a district
court that some lessening of competition will
result and seek a license on reasonable terms
and conditions.
Section 310. The conference agreement in-
structs the Administrator to review and com-
ment on Federal actions which affect environ-
ment and make such comments public upon
completion of bis review.
This policy conforms with Sec. 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act and was
discussed with the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, William D.
Ruckelshaus, at his confirmation hearing on
December 1, 1970.
The conference agreement thus removes the
ambiguity concerning the public release of such
reviews and comments which has emerged dur-
ing the debate on appropriations for the
supersonic transport. Those comments must be
made public when the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency completes its review—not when
the environmental impact agency decides the
public should be informed.
Authorizations. The conference substitute
adopts the House amount for Fiscal Year 1971
for Sec. 104 and Sec. 309—a total of $200
million. For Fiscal Year 1972 the conference
agreement provides for a total of $350 million,
of which $125 million is for research on fuels
and vehicles. For Fiscal Year 1973 the author-
ization is $150 million for research under Sec-
tion 104, out of a total of $450 million. In addi-
tion the conference substitute retains $15
million or long term contracts for air pollution
effects research under Section 103, $30 million
for funding the Office of Noise Abatement in
the Environmental Protection Agency, and
$55 million for low emission vehicle procure-
ment, $5 million of which is authorized for
Fiscal Year 1971 and $25 million each for
Fiscal Years 1972 and 1973.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. T am happy to yield
to the Senator from Missouri and
commend him for his invaluable as-
sistance in the committee, on the floor,
and in the conference.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Sena-
tor from Maine. I should like to pro-
pound to him a few brief questions
just to illustrate further the signifi-
cance and the parameters of this very
noteworthy piece of legislation.
Before doing so, I wish to praise his
enormous efforts in this valuable piece
of legislation. But for the Senator
from Maine, but for his diligence, his
persistence, his persuasiveness, we
would not have as good a bill as we
today have before us.
We all recognize that this bill has
great significance for our national ef-
fort to clean up the air pollution that
afflicts virtually every citizen in the
United States. I think we should also
pause to record that this bill also
marks a very significant step forward
in the continuing development of more
responsive and responsible relation-
ships among the Federal Government
and the State and local governments
of our country. I want to thank the
distinguished Senator from Maine for
his vigorous and enlightened leader-
ship on this less conspicuous but sin-
gularly important aspect of this bill.
Would the Senator from Maine agree
that this bill has very broad signifi-
cance in the area of Federal-State re-
lations?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. May I say to
the Senator that during the delibera-
tions on the bill I have been very
much interested in preserving "local
option" features, so that State and
local authorities would be able to pur-
sue options among a broad array,
seeking a possible way of controlling
or preventing air pollution that is
most responsive to the nature of their
air pollution problem and most re-
sponsive to their needs. In my judg-
ment, the bill will give State and local
authorities sufficient latitude in select-
ing ways to prevent and control air
pollution.
Mr. EAGLETON. It seems to me
that even with the strong provisions
in this bill concerning automobiles, it
will be necessary for us to devote
more of our national resources to al-
ternative ways of transporting people,
particularly transporting them to and
from our cities and within those cities,
at less than supersonic speeds. Would
the Senator from Maine care to com-
ment on this proposition?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I would. There
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1685
is a tendency to focus upon the new
car provisions in the bill, and under-
standably so. Nevertheless, what
really moved the committee, the Sen-
ate, and the conferees to go in the
direction of a tough deadline for new
cars is the fact that there are used
cars, and the used car population cre-
ates a problem. There are 100 million
to 110 million automobiles that are
moving about, heavily concentrated in
the large urban centers and beyond
the reach, really, of any effective tech-
nological control development.
Further, if we are to deal with the
used car problem, we need a new car
deadline in order to begin the process of
[p. 42386]
cleaning up new used cars. We still
have existing a mass of used automo-
biles to deal with. The bill before us
deals with that problem by the re-
quirement of national ambient air
quality standards geared to help.
Those standards, realistically ap-
plied, will require that urban areas do
something about their transportation
systems, the movement of used cars,
the development of public transit sys-
tems, and the modification and change
of housing patterns, employment pat-
terns, and transportation patterns
generally. All of that is implicit in the
concept of implementation plans for
national ambient air quality stand-
ards and what they mean for the used
cars in our country.
Mr. EAGLETON. Would the Sena-
tor from Maine agree with me that
this bill is intended to afford to the
citizens of the United States very
broad opportunities to participate in
the effort to prevent and abate air
pollution? Are not the citizen suit pro-
vision and the requirement for public
hearings on State implementation
plans likely to result in higher quality
and better air pollution control pro-
grams across the Nation than would
likely be the case if there were less
opportunity for citizen participation?
Mr. MUSKIE. That was the thrust
of the Senate bill in many respects,
and although we did modify the citi-
zen suit provision I feel that thrust is
retained. The Senate committee felt it
would be impossible to do the total job
of air pollution cleanup relying wholly
upon the Federal bureaucracy.
This is why we emphasized the ne-
cessity for developing State and local
programs. But in addition, this bill
provides for other participation by
citizens in various ways. We regard
that as a key element in the successful
prosecution of the air pollution goals
which this bill undertakes.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, as
the Senator knows, long after the
Senate had completed action on the
air pollution bill, well after adminis-
tration representatives had been in-
vited to react to the Senate's air pol-
lution bill, and even after an an-
nounced agreement had been reached
on the vital auto deadline, to which
the Senator from Maine has already
referred, the Nixon administration
wrote an llth-hour letter to the dis-
tinguished Chairman of the Senate
Public Works Committee. In my view,
that letter can only be interpreted as
an attempt on the part of some in the
administration to weaken the strong
Senate bill and the tentative confer-
ence compromise.
Does the Senator from Maine think
that the Richardson letter is an indi-
cation that we should carefully review
implementation of this program in
mid-1971 to be sure that the regula-
tions are not weakened in application?
Mr. MUSKTE. Mr. President, I
agree. The Richardson letter was
badly timed. It did complicate the
work of the conference and make it
more difficult to reach agreement and
to achieve what we ultimately
achieved in the conference agreement.
On this point I concur with the Sen-
ator. We should carefully review the
implementation of this program next
year to insure that it is moving along
-------
1686
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in accordance with our interpretation
of what we think the Senate is doing
in this piece of legislation.
Regulations are not to be used to
dilute and water down the strong pol-
icy which the Senate is adopting.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
am not familiar with everything the
conferees did. But I think that there
is some confusion as to what depart-
ment would be the enforcement
agency.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Environmental
Protection Agency.
Mr. MAGNUSON. What about the
Department of Transportation?
Would it have something to do with it,
or the Motor Safety Division?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator refers
to the low-emission vehicle program
which the Senator from Washington
introduced and of which I was a co-
sponsor. We had joint hearings on it
with the Committee on Commerce.
And it was reported out of the Com-
mittee on Commerce. It was passed as
separate legislation. Then it was in-
cluded in this bill. It is retained in the
conference report.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
thoroughly agree with the Senator
from Maine. We can set a deadline
and then no one has any oversight
over what is going on. So we come to
the deadline and someone will say,
"We have not done it."
They give us all the rigmarole and
the reasons why they have not done it.
I am concerned about having some
kind of surveillance over this as we
move along toward the date decided
by the conference. We could do that
later. But we should have the legisla-
tive oversight committee or someone
do it. Perhaps it should be the new
Environmental Control Committee on
which we will meet this afternoon.
They might do that. I do not know.
Mr. MUSKIE. This could be within
their area of jurisdiction. I think it
might be useful to read this provision
from the House RECORD of yesterday:
There is established a Low-Emission Vehi-
cle Certification Board to be composed of the
Administrator or his designee, the Secretary
of Transportation or his designee, the Chair-
man of the Council on Environmental Quality
or his designee, the Director of the National
Highway Safety Bureau in the Department 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.
Mr. MAGNUSON. This is the sort
of thing we have to keep on top of.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Otherwise we
will wake up on a given date and they
will say, "Well, we have not been able
to do it." They will give all kinds of
reasons why they have not been able
to do it. There will then be an outcry
to extend it.
I think we have to be sure that
someone is on top of this thing all the
time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, I now yield to the
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
shall ask the able chairman of the
subcommittee several questions. The
Senator from Maine who served so
effectively as chairman of the Senate
conferees, has, not only during this
conference, but also during several
years past, given much of himself to
the development of this legislation. It
is as he said in commenting on the
conference report, good strong legisla-
tion.
I respectfully disagree with the
words of the Senator from Maine and
the words of the Senator from Mis-
souri in reference to the appropriate-
ness of the communication from Sec-
retary Richardson.
Each person places his own inter-
pretation on the content of the letter.
I do not say this today for the first
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1687
time. I said it when we discussed the
matter within the Public Works Com-
mittee and when we discussed it
within the conference. I am only re-
peating what I have said before.
I am very frank to say that I think
the letter should have come to us
sooner. This is something that I want
the RECORD to reflect. I also want the
RECORD to indicate that there had been
no final decisions made here on Capi-
tol Hill in reference to this important
legislation at the time the communica-
tion was received. The democratic
process is at work. The legislative
process is at work. The advice from
the executive branch is at work in ref-
erence to the finalization of this im-
portant legislation.
Mr. MUSKTE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, to
clarify my position with reference to
the administrator's prerogative to
comment on this legislation or any
legislation, it is not my intent in the
remarks I made earlier that the ad-
ministration does not have that pre-
rogative. From the time we reported
this bill out of the Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution, we publicly
and in other ways solicited the admin-
istration's position on the provisions
of the bill.
It would have been useful to have
had the administration position in the
course of the floor debate. We specu-
lated about it, but we did not know
what it was.
We went to conference, I think,
about October 8 or 9. We reached a
tentative agreement on the auto emis-
sion deadline on that day. The letter
from the Secretary of HEW is dated
November 17, some 6 weeks later. It is
that to which I direct my criticism.
Six weeks after we started the confer-
ence we got this letter on the adminis-
tration's position. Certainly it is the
administration's prerogative to send it
up at any time it wishes. They could
have sent it today. I am talking now
about the very disruptive effect the
timing had.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I have agreed
with my distinguished colleague, the
Senator from Maine, that I felt the
letter was late in arriving. I made
that statement at the very outset. But
I do not look on a letter from the
administration setting forth its views
as disruptive.
I look on it as a further indication
of the interest of the parties who are
in the Federal Government either
officially or
[p. 42387]
indirectly, and that, I think, is the
democratic process.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, who
has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
floor is held by the Senator from
Maine, who had yielded to the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
have some further remarks I am
going to make in reference to the con-
ference report, but I have just called
attention to the colloquy here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine has the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield the floor so the Senator from
West Virginia can have the floor in
his own right for the purpose of yield-
ing to other Senators.
Mr. BAKER. I wanted to make sure
who had the floor so that I know to
whom I should address my inquiry so
that I might comment on the colloquy
between the Senator from Maine and
the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
-------
1688
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Chair recognizes the Senator from
West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
because of the colloquy which has en-
sued, I yield next to the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Sena-
tor. As the Senator from West Vir-
ginia knows, the air pollution bill was
pending before the Committee on Pub-
lic Works for many months.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. And on numerous
occasions representatives of the ad-
ministration, Dr. Middleton, and oth-
ers in the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, either testified
before the Committee on Public
Works, and I refer to the Subcommit-
tee on Air and Water Pollution of
that committee, or had conferences
and communications with that com-
mittee.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. It is well known
that as the bill evolved through the
committee process, in subcommittee, in
full committee, in markup, and so
forth, and it was widely disseminated
in the public press that the Senate
committee was considering a 1975
model year cutoff with respect to new
cars.
Mr. RANDOLPH. At this point the
able Senator knows that much of what
is printed in the press on so-called
executive sessions, and conversations
of Members, is a constant problem,
not that the press should not inform
its readers. I commend the media for
attempting to be accurate. But I think
there is a constant question mark in
stories of this kind. I would not say
that what we were doing was pre-
cisely set forth.
Mr. EAGLETON. Passing for a mo-
ment from what had or had not been
published in the press, it was abun-
dantly well known in the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
that the Senate committee was consid-
ering and leaning strongly toward a
1975 cutoff with respect to new cars.
Is that correct?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. Then, I would
like to ask this question, without for a
moment wishing to detract from the
excellent bipartisan cooperation in the
committee and in the Senate which
has made this bill possible: No one
questions the prerogative of any Cabi-
net official to write a letter to any
Senator or Representative at any time
he is predisposed to do so; but what is
raised by the timing of this letter is
more significant than the content of
the letter. Bear in mind that we
worked on this bill for many months
and that we had gone through labori-
ous executive sessions in the Commit-
tee on Public Works, and we had Mr.
Middleton for a part of those sessions,
and the bill was reported to the floor.
On the floor it was vigorously debated,
and, in particular, the provision on
automobiles was debated between the
Senator from Maine and the Senator
from Michigan. Then the bill went
back to conference. There was a tenta-
tive agreement, and it was printed in
the press before the election recess
that the tentative agreement had been
reached on this portion of the bill.
After all of that, we hear in writing
from Secretary Richardson for the
first time after the election recess that
he has some objection to the 1975 cut-
off deadline.
The point I am trying to make is
that I do not question Mr. Richard-
son's ability or authority to write the
letter. But with that history behind
this bill I do question why it took him
until November 1970 to make his posi-
tion clear with respect to this single
most contentious portion of the bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I wish to reply. I
have said that it would have been
much better if the letter from Secre-
tary Richardson had come sooner.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1689
Frankly, in the matter of a confer-
ence report I am not interested in at-
tempting to charge the administration
with being weak. I am not attempting
to charge them with being weak or
strong on this subject matter. The
Senate acted, the House acted, and
now Congress is acting.
It is my feeling that that which has
gone before—the expression of var-
ious viewpoints and possibly the late
timing of the expression by the Secre-
tary—are matters that perhaps are
not as important as what we have
done. That is why I have said it is a
matter of interpretation. I respect my
colleagues in their discussion of the
matter and I understand they have
their reasoned judgment on the mat-
ter. I am sure other members of the
committee and of the Senate have
their feelings with respect to the situ-
ation.
Mr. EAGLETON. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. BAKER, Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
(At this point Mr. EAGLETON as-
sumed the Chair.)
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I was
a conferee in connection with this bill.
I am a member of the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution and have
been since I came here in 1967. I have
served with great pleasure under the
chairmanship of the chairman of the
subcommittee and the distinguished
chairman of the full committee.
As far as I can recall, this is the
first time the purposes of an air qual-
ity bill, or for that matter a water
bill, have been subordinated in debate
on the floor, or in committee, for polit-
ical purposes. I feel that was the case
in the colloquy that just took place
between the Senator from Maine and
the Senator from Missouri.
I feel the Senate passed a meaning-
ful, worthwhile and strong bill. I
think it will contribute materially to
the business of cleaning- up air in this
country and taking care of the prob-
lem of automobile emissions. That has
been accomplished because Republi-
cans and Democrats on that commit-
tee for many years have cooperated
not only between each other but at the
staff level. Under the leadership of
our chairman on the full committee
and the chairman of the subcommittee
staff members have cooperated, and
there has also been cooperation with
the agencies of government in the ex-
ecutive department which, for weeks,
months, and years on end have con-
ferred almost constantly with staff
members on the minority side and the
majority side as to how best to arrive
at sound conclusions. This cooperation
has been so close that some of these
discussions are discernible in the plat-
forms of both major parties and in
the state of the Union message of the
President of the United States. That
is no small accomplishment for a com-
mittee or a subcommittee.
The Senator from Maine is to be
commended without restraint for his
leadership and motivation to the rest
of us in this field. That makes it all
the more tedious for me to sit in this
Chamber on the eve of the adoption of
a conference report underscoring a
good bill and hear a political purpose
being served by a bill that was worth-
while, notable, and nonpolitical, even
under circumstances which might un-
derstandably have been suspect of
producing a different atmosphere and
a different set of circumstances.
If the Senator from West Virginia
will yield for a moment more I wish to
clarify my statement. I am referring
specifically to the remarks, as I under-
stood them, by the junior Senator
from Missouri to the effect that the
Richardson letter, referring to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Elliot Richardson, dated No-
vember 17, 1970, and I quote: "must
-------
1690
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
be interpreted as an attempt on the
part of the administration to undercut
the strong Senate bill."
Now I had not proposed to say any-
thing about the automobile section at
this time as the Senate considered this
proposal because I believe my col-
leagues who were conferees on this
bill will recall that I was the only
conferee in the House or the Senate
who did not agree and specifically
voted against the first weakening of
this bill.
I think my conferee colleagues
might also agree that I have con-
tended from the very beginning that
Congress ought
[p. 42388]
to do what we apparently have not
chosen to do in this case, and that is
to remove the serious business of de-
ciding whether or not the automobile
industry has made a good faith effort
to comply with the bill's requirements
beyond the tender mercies and the
political motivations of a future Con-
gress, and, rather, vest it in the inde-
pendent judiciary to gather those facts
and resolve those conflicts and decide,
in 1976, a Presidential year, an elec-
tion year for a third o fthis body and
all of the House of Representatives.
The legislative department will be
called upon to sit as a factfinding
body to decide whether or not the au-
tomobile industry will be permitted to
continue manufacturing automobiles,
assuming it has not fully met this
statutory deadline. I think it is a hor-
rible prospect. I think it would be dif-
ficult enough for the independent judi-
ciary to undertake it.
All of that, I say again, I have sub-
ordinated to the desires of the major-
ity of the conferees, and I felt, and I
still feel, we have a good bill, but I
also feel that it is unfair to overlook
the weeks and months of coordination
between the members and staff of this
committee and this administration and
the previous administration, and the
weeks and months and even years of
nonpartisan cooperation between the
members and the staff of this commit-
tee, and the inspired leadership of our
committee chairman and our subcom-
mittee chairman in trying to unravel
probably the most delicate and com-
plex domestic problem that has con-
fronted the country in 100 years, and
do it in a spirit of give and take; and
then as we get to final passage of the
bill, with a few Senators on the floor,
we hear the charge that the position
of the administration is to undercut a
strong Senate position.
I submit that is not worthy of the
effort that has gone into this legisla-
tion thus far and into previous legis-
lation in previous sessions of the Con-
gress.
Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. COOPER
addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
wonder if I might complete a very
brief comment on the conference re-
port.
Mr. COOPER. I wanted to comment
on the point just made.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to my able
colleague from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I
know the Senator from West Virginia
will point out the constructive work
the Senate and House conference have
done on this most important bill. But
before he speaks, I want to respond to
the statements that have been made
that the letter from the Honorable El-
liot Richardson indicates that the ad-
ministration will try to undercut this
bill. I must say I have found nothing
in the letter which supports the state-
ment. In fact, while the letter disa-
greed with the Senate and House ver-
sions of the bill on some points, the
letter states that the administration
wants a strong bill. Secretary Rich-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1691
ardson said this in the closing par-
agraph of his letter:
In conclusion we would like to reiterate the
Administration's strong support for the effec-
tive control of air pollution by legislation
embodying the major features of the House
and Senate bills. Accordingly, we recommend
the enactment of such legislation, incorporat-
ing the recommendations made above, during
this session of the Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the entire text of Secretary
Richardson's letter be inserted at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
AND WELFARE
Washington, D.C., November 17, 1970.
Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Committee on Public Workt,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C,
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to pre-
sent the views of the Administration to the
conference committee considering the House
and Senate versions of H.R. 17255, amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act.
To begin with, it is extremely gratifying to
note that all of the major Clean Air Act
amendments proposed by President Nixon in
his February 10, 1970 environmental message
to the Congress are reflected in both versions
of the bill. I refer specifically to the Presi-
dent's proposals regarding national air quality
standards, State adoption of implementation
plans covering the whole area of every State,
emission standards applicable to major new
stationary sources of air pollution and to
hazardous emissions from all stationary
sources, expanded and streamlined enforce-
ment powers, assembly-line testing of motor
vehicles, and regulation of fuels and fuel addi-
tives.
We are, therefore, fully in accord with the
objectives and the essential features of both
the House and Senate bills. In our judgment,
however, both bills have certain provisions
that should be modified in the manner recom-
mended below. While this letter makes refer-
ence to the Secretary of HEW throughout, as
do both bills, we note that the Senate bill has
the effect of vesting these authorities in the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, as contemplated by Reorganiza-
tion Plan Number 3 of 1970.
Automobile Emission*. The Senate bill
would require, under provisions that have no
counterpart in the House bill, that certain
automobile emissions be reduced by 90 percent
from the 1970 levels by 1975, unless the Secre-
tary of HEW extends this period for one
year, which extension would be subject to
judicial review.
The objective of these provisions is to accel-
erate substantially the current timetable for
controlling automobile emissions. The Senate
bill does this by making effective in 1975 the
standards administratively projected to take
effect no later than 1980. We fully support the
objective of accelerated control of automotive
air pollution and support the proposed estab-
lishment of 1975 as a target date for achiev-
ing the proposed 90 percent reduction.
Based on the information available to us at
this time, we are uncertain whether the requi-
site control technology will be developed and
reduced to commercial practice on a mass-pro-
duction basis by 1975-76. This presents the
Federal government with a dilemma. On the
one hand, if, despite a maximum effort, the
necessary control technology cannot be devel-
oped and put into production, then emissions
cannot in fact be reduced to the levels sought.
On the other hand, the prospect of repeated
deadline extensions based simply on the ab-
sence of control technology gives rise to an
understandable concern that automobile manu-
facturers may not press the development of
such technology and its application as rapidly
as they should to meet air quality require-
ments.
The Senate bill would resolve this dilemma
by providing an absolute statutory deadline of
1976, despite the fact that the very basis the
bill provides for the single extension from
1975 to 1976—that all good faith efforts have
been made to meet the standards, but no
effective control technology has been developed
—would logically justify additional extensions
for a manufacturer on the basis of similar
findings.
We believe that provision for additional ex-
tensions of the deadline can be made while at
the same time assuring1 maximum effort by
the manufacturers, as sought by the Senate
bill. To accomplish this, we suggest that,
using the 1975 standards as a yardstick, the
manufacturers' efforts be examined periodi-
cally by a highly competent, impartial body
outside of Government—the National Academy
of Sciences and/or the National Academy of
Engineers would be eminently qualified to play
such a role. (We understand the conferees are
interested in using the Academies in a man-
ner that may be related to this proposal.)
Such examination should involve periodic de-
terminations of the manufacturers' level of
effort and judgment as to the progress in
developing adequate control technology, and
its application to mass production. The results
of such examinations would keep the Congress
-------
1692
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and the Secretary informed of the manufac-
turers' efforts and progress toward meeting
the standards and provide the Secretary with
a basis for determining whether to grant or
deny any extension which a manufacturer
might seek. It seems to us that such a proce-
dure would provide a more orderly and equally
beneficial process for achieving the results
sought by the Senate bill.
We would also favor two other changes in
the provisions of the Senate bill with respect
to automobile emission standards. First, there
is a serious question whether the bill, in
fixing January 1, 1973 as the earliest time a
manufacturer could seek a deadline extension,
gives proper recognition to automotive pro-
duction lead times. Establishing any specific
date in the bill seems unnecessary to us,
however, and we recommend that this matter
be left up to the judgment of the Secretary.
There is clearly a natural regulator at work
here, since the earlier a manufacturer might
seek an extension, the less credible would be
its claim that it had made a good faith effort
to meet the standards. Second, we also recom-
mend that, instead of providing for essentially
de novo judicial review of the Secretary's
decision with regard to an extension request,
the bill should provide for the customary more
restrictive scope of judicial review.
Warranty of Automotive Pollution Control
Systems. In provisions that again have no
counterpart of the House bill, the Senate bill
requires, effective 90 days after appropriate
test procedures have been established, that the
automobile manufacturers warrant that their
pollution devices will meet prescribed emission
standards for 50,000 miles.
In testimony before the Senate committee
the Administration supported the principle of
requiring a manufacturer's warranty of con-
trol devices, and we continue to support this
principle. However, we regard the 60,000 mile
warranty as inappropriate and unrealistic in
the light of known technology and experience.
At the present time neither the Federal
government nor the manufacturers have suffi-
cient or reliable knowledge as to why, in some
cases, a particular automobile in actual use
fails to meet emission tests. This being the
case, substantial and no doubt
[p. 42389]
lengthly research and studies would have to
be undertaken before the Secretary could, with
any confidence, promulgate defensible test pro-
cedures, which under the bill would make the
manufacturers liable for the satisfactory per-
formance of emission devices for 50,000 miles.
Thus, the provisions of the Senate bill could
have the unintended result of actually delay-
ing the imposition of any warranty require-
ments for a long period of time. If on the
other hand the Secretary were to promulgate
test procedures before the Government or the
manufacturers better understand why some
automobiles fail to meet emission require-
ments, manufacturers would almost certainly
price the warranty at a level which would
fully protect them from this lack of knowledge.
Also, the manufacturers could understandably
specify extremely stringent maintenance re-
quirements as condition of the warranty. Since
most car owners would have little incentive
to comply fully with all of these requirements,
the warranty would be unenforceable in many
cases and would make virtually no contribution
to control of air pollution.
We favor including a provision in the bill
which would authorize the Secretary to impose
warranty requirements on the manufacturers
as he determines that such requirements can
be justified on the basis of adequate operating
knowledge that has become available. Such
warranty requirements could be made more
stringent as more knowledge and experience
in these matters are gained, with a view
toward progressing to the goal of a 50,000
mile warranty requirement on all new auto-
mobiles. We also favor requiring from the
outset a manufacturer's warranty against de-
fects in material and workmanship.
State Vehicle Emission Standards. The Sen-
ate bill, in provisions not contained in the
House bill, would empower States to fix spe-
cial emission standards for new vehicles more
stringent than the standards fixed by this
legislation if the States could prove to the
satisfaction of the Secretary tbat such action
were necessary to meet air quality standards
in regions within their jurisdiction.
We believe that existing law properly pro-
vides for Federal preemption of emission con-
trol standards for new vehicles, in recognition
of the need for uniformity and the inability of
manufacturers to produce different types of
vehicles for a number of States. In addition,
as a practical matter there would appear to
be very little further reduction in automobile
emissions available to the States, in view of
the stringent Federal emission standards con-
templated by the Senate bill for 1975. We
recommend that the present Federal preemp-
tion concept be retained without change, and
that the States attain air quality standards by
the ample variety of other means contem-
plated by the bill—including control of emis-
sions from other than new cars, and, if neces-
sary, traffic controls.
Export Vehicles. The Senate bill would elim-
inate a provision in the existing Clean Air
Act which exempts new motor vehicles and
engines manufactured solely for export end
sale abroad from applicable emission stand-
ards. The House bill would make no change in
existing law in this regard.
We are unaware of any rationale to support
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1693
this proposed change, and we believe that the
considerations which supported the present
export exemption provision are still valid. The
emission standards adopted by a number of
foreign countries on the basis of their air
pollution control needs probably will continue
to be significantly less stringent than the
emission standards contemplated by the Clean
Air Act. American motor vehicles are re-
quired, of course, to comply with applicable
foreign emission standards, and requiring
them to comply with the differing American
standards could seriously prejudice their com-
petitive position abroad.
Mandatory Licensing. The Senate bill com-
pels holders of patents, trade secrets, or
know-how on pollution control devices to
grant licenses to all applicants for the use
(upon payment of reasonable royalties) of
these devices, if the Secretary of HEW deter-
mines that this is necessary to facilitate com-
pliance with air pollution standards for auto-
mobiles, aircraft, and vessels, for hazardous
facilities, or for new stationary sources. There
are no comparable provisions in the House
bill.
The constitutionally-recognized protection
which patents afford has been a key element
in encouraging innovation, and we are seri-
ously concerned as to what the ultimate ef-
fects of this major change in policy might be.
In particular, we are uncertain as to its
possible deterrent effects on the incentive to
invent in the pollution control field, where the
need for innovation is so great. Moreover, we
are not aware of the basis for assuming that
developers of essential air pollution control
technology would refuse to make it available
either by license or direct sale to the users.
We recognize that this authority is permis-
sive, and that the report of the Senate Public
Works Committee emphasizes that very re-
strictive use should be made of it. Despite this,
we are not convinced of the need for such a
basic change in policy in light of its potential
adverse effects and in the absence of known
abuses. If in the future a situation arises in
which a refusal to make technology available
threatens to jeopardize the national air pollu-
tion control effort, Congress can then legislate
to meet the particular problem.
Citizen Suits. The Senate bill authorizes
citizens to bring civil actions against alleged
polluters (including governmental entities) or
against the Secretary of HEW to enforce
compliance with the requirements of the Act.
There are no comparable provisions in the
House bill.
In authorizing citizen suits directly against
alleged polluters, this provision builds on the
trend of existing law, and we do not object to
its enactment. Such suits can contribute to
the effective enforcement of air pollution con-
trol measures.
However, the authorization of citizen suits
against the Secretary to force him to take
enforcement action in a particular case would
have the unintended result of reducing the
overall effectiveness of our air pollution con-
trol efforts by distorting enforcement priori-
ties that are essential to an effective national
control strategy. Therefore, we recommend the
deletion of that portion of the provision au-
thorizing suits against the Secretary. This
deletion will not affect the right of citizens to
move directly against alleged polluters, includ-
ing Federal agencies.
We note that the Senate bill contains no
express provisions either requiring bonds to
be posted as a condition for granting prelimi-
nary injunctions (i.e., injunctions granted be-
fore full hearings) or explicitly stating the
authority of the courts to fit final relief to the
equities of the case. Adequate bonds and flexi-
bility of relief can be very important in cases
of this type. However, we trust that the
courts will exercise their existing authority to
fix preliminary injunction bonds at levels suf-
ficient to protect any defendants later found
upon full hearing to have complied with the
Act and to frame final orders that fu% take
into account all of the circumstances of the
case.
State Implementation Plan Deadlines. The
Senate bill provides that within nine months
after promulgation of any national ambient
air quality standard each State is to submit to
the Secretary for approval an implementation
plan for each air quality control region, pro-
viding for the attainment of the standard
within three years after approval of the plan.
In addition to limited Secretarial authority for
extensions based on new information, provi-
sion is made in the bill for judicially-granted
one-year extensions of the three-year deadline,
upon petition of the Governor of the State
concerned (subsequent to the approval of the
implementation plan) if the Court determines
that such relief is in the paramount interest
of the U.S. and that means to control the
emissions have not been available for a suffi-
cient period of time. The House bill contains
no such provisions.
In providing for extensions of this deadline
subsequent to approval of the implementation
plan, the Senate bill plainly concedes that
cases may very well arise where marginal or
inadequate emission control technology would
render it impossible to meet the standard
within the three-year period. Although both
the State and the Secretary might agree that
this is so at the time an implementation plan
is submitted for approval, the Senate bill
forbids the Secretary from approving any-
thing but a three-year implementation plan,
which in due course probably would be ap-
pealed by the Governor. The net effect of the
bill's provisions in such cases would be to
526-703 O - 73 - 34
-------
1694
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
place both the Secretary and the State con-
cerned in the untenable position of approving
an implementation plan they know is unrealis-
tic and probably unworkable.
To avoid this type of situation we favor an
amendment which would, in the few cases
where it might be necessary, permit the Sec-
retary to extend the deadline at the time the
State's implementation plan is being reviewed
and approved. Such extensions should only be
made if the Secretary determined that ade-
quate control technology is not available and
is not likely to be available, and he should be
required to make public his determination and
the specific grounds on which it rests. More-
over, once beyond the three-year period the
Secretary should determine periodically
whether adequate control technology is availa-
ble and make known his findings and any
requisite compliance determinations resulting
therefrom.
Certification of New Sources. The Senate
bill establishes a Federal requirement (which
could be delegated to the States) to certify
that all new stationary sources of emissions
meet Federal performance standards reflecting
the latest available control technology and
processes. Such certification would involve (a)
preconstruction review of locations and design
of any new source, (b) performance tests
within a reasonable time after operation com-
mences, (c) methods to identify violations and
enforce compliance, and (d) methods to as-
sure that any new source will not prevent
implementation of national air quality stand-
ards or goals. The House bill contains no
comparable provisions.
We feel that this certification procedure is
overly elaborate and would impose a heavy
and unnecessary burden on both the Govern-
ment and industry. Moreover, industry would
appear to have ample incentive for precon-
struction consultation with responsible officials
even without this special mechanism. We see
no reason why performance requirements
could not be established and enforced in the
same manner as other emission requirements.
If compliance with performance standards
were made part of a State's implementation
plan, these adverse consequences would be
avoided and there would also be the additional
benefit of placing the basic enforcement re-
sponsibility in the State, as is generally the
case under the Act, rather than in the Federal
Government, as the Senate bill provides.
While we recommend that basic enforcement
of performance standards should be in the
States, we favor retaining the provision of
the Senate bill which allows the Secretary
[p. 42390]
to enforce these standards without being re-
quired to make a finding that a State has
failed to perform adequately. We also would
favor a similar pattern for the enforcement
of emission standards established under sec-
tion 114 of the Senate bill.
We can see merit to a statutory require-
ment that the emissions from all new sources
would have to be measured at the time (or
within a reasonable time thereafter) they
begin operations, and we would support the
retention in the bill of provisions to accom-
plish this purpose.
National Security Exemptions. The Senate
bill authorizes the President to exempt Fed-
eral property, facilities, vehicles, or vessels
from applicable emission standards, whenever
he determines that this is necessary in the
paramount interest of the United States. The
bill also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
defer for fine year, if necessary for the pur-
pose of national security, the applicability of
emission standards to military aircraft and
vessels. The comparable provision in the
House bill, which covers only emissions from
new stationary sources, carries out the Ad-
ministration's recommendations for exemp-
tions by the Secretary of HEW when he
determines they are necessary for the purpose
of research, investigations, studies, demonstra-
tions, or training, or for reasons of national
security.
We would support the approach of the Sen-
ate bill, if aircraft are included under the
Presidential exemption provision, since the
reasons for authorizing exemptions for all
other Federal facilities, vehicles, and vessels
are equally applicable to aircraft, particularly
combat aircraft. We also believe that the
Presidential exemption should be made appli-
cable to non-Federal facilities, since there
could conceivably be instances where their ex-
emption would be as much in the paramount
interest of the U.S., as would be the exemp-
tion of Federal facilities.
Hazardous Emissions. The Senate bill re-
quires zero emissions from facilities deter-
mined by the Secretary of HEW to be emit-
ting pollutants hazardous to health even in
trace amounts, with a specified timetable for
compliance and enforcement, unless the owner
of such facility can demonstrate that contin-
ued operation (under applicable emission
standards) will not endanger the public
health. The House bill contains no comparable
provisions.
Of course, hazardous emissions should be
effectively and quickly controlled, as was rec-
ognized in the Administration's bill. Because
the Senate bill in Section 114 gives the Secre-
tary general authority to set emission stand-
ards, down to zero levels, for all facilities, we
think the Secretary should have the flexibility
to deal with hazardous emissions on a priority
basis within this general authority. In fact,
the Secretary could move more swiftly and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1695
equally effectively under such general author-
ity, in Sections 114 and 116 of the Senate bill,
than he would be able to under the special
hazardous emission control procedures con-
tained in Section 115. Accordingly, we recom-
mend deletion of Section 115 of the Senate
bill, and any necessary modifications of Sec-
tion 114 to fully cover hazardous emissions.
Low Emission Vehicle Procurement. The
Senate bill requires the Federal Government,
in provisions not contained in the House bill,
to procure vehicles determined to be "low
emission", and authorizes premium prices to
be paid for such vehicles.
These provisions were contained in a sepa-
rate bill added by amendment on the Senate
floor. We had recommended a number of mod-
ifications in these provisions in comments on
both that separate bill and a comparable bill
in the House. We continue to support these
changes, and particularly feel that there
should be discretion in the President with
respect to procurement of these vehicles in
order to assure realistic accommodation to
budgetary priorities and the special vehicular
needs of the Government, and to permit or-
derly procurement should there be a number
of "low emission" vehicles to select from.
Fuels and Fuel Additives. The House bill
contains a number of restrictive provisions on
the authority to fix standards respecting the
composition of fuels or fuel additives. For
example, standards on fuels and fuel additives
could be fixed under this authority only if the
Secretary could show that it is not otherwise
technologically or economically feasible to
achieve automobile emission standards. The
Senate does not contain similar restrictions.
The Administration recommended broad au-
thority to regulate fuel and fuel additives,
because it believed that such authority, in
conjunction with controls over sources using
such fuels, is necessary in order to mount the
most effective overall attack on air pollution.
We recommend, therefore, that these provi-
sions be modified to conform with the Admin-
istration's air pollution bill, the essential pro-
visions of which on this matter are incorpo-
rated in the Senate bill.
Also in connection with fuels, we would
recommend that authority over aviation fuels
and additives be lodged in the Secretary of
HEW, who will have jurisdiction over all
other fuels and additives, rather than being
placed in the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, as the House bill
provides.
Personnel. Two troublesome provisions of
the Senate bill, relating to personnel who
would be authorized to participate in carrying
out the Act's requirements, raise serious pre-
cedential and administrative problems and we
urge their deletion. There are no comparable
provisions in the House bill.
Section 10 of the Senate bill would author-
ize a sweeping exemption from the customary
Civil Service appointment and classification
laws, as they relate to the procurement of
personal services to carry out the Act's re-
quirements. We believe that the personnel
needs of the air pollution control program,
like similar needs in other urgent Federal
programs, can be met within the Civil Service
framework. In addition to creating a moat
undesirable precedent, this provision would
constitute a marked departure from a long-
standing Federal policy against the perform-
ance of clearly governmental functions by
non-governmental personnel, which is of par-
ticular concern in this instance due to the
important regulatory and enforcement actions
to which such work could give rise.
The Senate bill provides in various sections,
but most notably in proposed Section 305 of
the Act, that attorneys appointed by the Sec-
retary would be authorized to represent him
in suits brought by or against the Government
under the Act's provisions. Such authority is
at odds with long-standing Federal policy of
this and prior Administrations of placing liti-
gating authority in the Attorney General, to
be exercised as he deems appropriate. This
policy derives from the sound administrative
practice of relying on the Justice Depart-
ment's established legal expertise and re-
sources, rather than promoting the duplication
of such expertise and resources in each of the
Federal departments and agencies. We favor
deleting Section 305 (as well as making com-
parable conforming changes in other provi-
sions of the bill), the result of which would
be that in actions instituted under this Act,
officers of the Department of Justice under
the direction of the Attorney General would
appear for and represent the United States or
any officer or agency thereof, including the
Secretary.
Procedural and Technical Changes. We be-
lieve that there are a number of places in
both the Senate and House bills where
changes in procedural and technical provisions
would avoid unintended results and materially
improve the legislation. We would like to fur-
nish such changes to the conferees informally
along with the revisions needed to carry out
the amendments recommended in this letter.
In view of the sweeping and widespread impli-
cations of this bill, and in order to avoid, to
the greatest extent possible, litigation that
could slow down its implementation, we be-
lieve you will agree that its complex provi-
sions need to be drafted with the greatest
possible care and precision.
In conclusion, we would like to reiterate the
Administration's strong support for the effec-
tive control of air pollution by legislation
embodying the major features of the House
and Senate bills. Accordingly, we recommend
-------
1696
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the enactment of such legislation, incorporat-
ing the reccrnmendations made above, during
this session of the Congress.
The Office of Management and Budget ad-
vises that enactment of H.R. 1725B, if
amended as recommended in this letter, would
be in accord with the program of the Presi-
dent.
Sincerely,
ELLIOT RICHARDSON,
Secretary-
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, Elliot
Richardson is a man of quality and
integrity. He would not make state-
ments to the Senate and to the Senate
Public Works Committee which were
in contradiction to his deeply held
views.
The administration has made, from
time to time, recommendations relat-
ing to the whole field of the environ-
ment and particularly on pollution
control. It has responded more to
these problems than any administra-
tion we have known.
I have always, and do now, pay
tribute to the chairman of the subcom-
mittee, whose leadership in this field
is known not only to Congress but to
the country. I pay tribute to the chair-
man of the Public Works Committee. I
have served on this committee, I sup-
pose, longer than anyone else on the
committee. I served 2 years in the
Senate in 1947 and 1948, and I was on
that committee. We passed in 1948 the
first pollution control bill. It was
small in scope, but a good one, and
was sponsored by the late Senator
Robert Taft of Ohio and the late Sen-
ator Alben Barkley of my State of
Kentucky.
We have been fortunate that Demo-
crats and Republicans have served to-
gether under fine leadership. We have
laid aside political matters. We have
worked openly and honestly with each
other. For that I am thankful, and I
am sure that the Senate is thankful.
But, in my opinion, I must say I think
it is unfortunate to interject political
views as we come to the point of ap-
proving what has been termed as the
most complex, and one that will per-
haps have greater significance and im-
pact than any bill in this century. So I
regret that those speculations have
been made. I hope we will continue to
go forward and work as we have in
the past.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
made the statement earlier that I was
disturbed by the Elliot Richardson let-
ter, and I was. But I concede that to
discuss it, in connection with this con-
ference report is unfortunate. What-
ever opinions we had about it we could
discuss elsewhere, and we could dis-
cuss them as we wished. I wish the
issue had not arisen most of
[p. 42391]
all because the Republican side of this
subcommittee and this committee has
cooperated so wholeheartedly over so
many years in the development of this
legislation. I refer to the Senator
from Kentucky, the Senator from
Tennessee, the Senator from Dela-
ware, the Senator from Florida, and
the Senator from Kansas. There has
never been the slightest bit of parti-
sanship in any of our committee delib-
erations or in our conference work
with each other over a period of some
7 or 8 years now. I want to underscore
what my good friends from the Re-
publican side of the aisle have said on
that point this afternoon.
I want to say to them that I do
regret that this argument has arisen
this afternoon. I hope we will proceed
now to dispose of the conference re-
port.
I know the Senator from West Vir-
ginia desires to put some questions to
me.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; I do wish to
do that.
Before doing so, I repeat that this
legislation represents a significant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1697
achievement in the evolution of our
national environmental policy—an ev-
olution which has been carried for-
ward, in great degrees, by the leader-
ship of the Senator from Maine (Mr.
MUSKIE) . I think that we have to in-
sure the protection of the health of
the citizens of this Nation, and we
have to protect against environmental
insults—for when the health of the
Nation is endangered, so is our wel-
fare, and so is our economic prosper-
ity.
I think that the emphasis here on
the health benefits that will follow
when implementation of the bill be-
comes law is very important.
I now ask the distinguished chair-
man of our subcommittee whether it is
not a fact that, when we have dealt
with previous legislation, we have con-
centrated primarily on the immediate
problems of air pollution control and
the environment, and it seems to me
now that we are providing additional
enforcement for those existing sources
of air pollution, but, more signifi-
cantly, we are providing effective
means of prevention of future air pol-
lution problems.
Is that the feeling and the under-
standing? I believe the record should
reflect it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I think that to
a greater extent than we might have
in past legislation, we are undertak-
ing to deal with the long-term aspects
as well as the short term. I would
agree with that.
Mr. RANDOLPH. And provision is
made for performance standards for
new stationary sources, to make sure
that no industrial development will
degrade the quality of the air so as to
endanger public health and welfare,
or interfere with and restrain further
economic growth. I know at times on
the subcommittee and on the commit-
tee we have talked about the econom-
ics of this legislation as well as the
health standards of the legislation,
and I know that the Senator from
Maine has been one of those who have
recognized that this legislation is both
an economic measure and an air pollu-
tion measure.
I believe that is correct; may I in-
quire whether the Senator shares that
view?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is cor-
rect. It undoubtedly will have an eco-
nomic impact all across this country.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, it will, and
it will be costly. And yet the ugly face
of pollution must be erased.
The implementation of the policies
that are contained in this measure
will test the determination in this
country to achieve a livable environ-
ment, not only for ourselves but for
future generations. In turn, the legis-
lation will test the willingness of the
citizens—not just the various levels of
government, but the citizens of this
country—to control, abate, and pre-
vent environmental pollution. And I
wish to compliment the Senator from
Maine that, in his addresses through-
out the country, in his presentation of
these problems before audiences on
college campuses and elsewhere, he
has emphasized the personal obliga-
tion which must be recognized—a re-
birth, I should say, of responsibility
on the part of the individual citizen of
this country.
Is that the feeling of the Senator
from Maine?
Mr. MUSKIE. Completely, may I
say to the Senator. We cannot clean
up the pollution problem with a piece
of legislation. There has to be commit-
ment to it by every citizen, not only
with respect to the activities of others,
but with respect to each citizen him-
self, to deal with this problem.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes. I appreciate
the Senator's attitude.
I conclude by saying that ultimately
each and every person will be called
on to pay the increased costs—and we
must not forget it—associated with
-------
1698
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the achievement of an environment
that, at a minimum, does not endan-
ger public health, for, frankly, if we
do endanger public health, we shall
have degraded the environment.
Effective implementation will require
a major commitment, as the Senator
from Maine has said, of Government
and of industry, of course, but also—•
and I appreciate his stressing its im-
portance, as I have—of each individ-
ual citizen.
I am pleased that the House confer-
ees have made an authorization of
$1.1 billion for fiscal years 1971 and
1972. These figures represent the mag-
nitude of the commitment that will be
necessary to meet the challenge that is
ahead. The next step must be to pro-
vide Federal staffing—and I think this
is most important—commensurate
with the effective implementation of
what we are doing today. We must
not allow understaffing—the Senator
from Maine has discussed this matter
in our subcommitee and our commit-
tee, and in conference—of this Fed-
eral program, because if that happens,
it will be a major interference with
the implementation of the National
Air Quality Standards Act of 1970, as
was the case, very frankly, in connec-
tion with the Air Quality Act of 1967.
I commend all those who have
worked within the conference and all
those who have worked within the
House of Representatives and the
Senate, and especially I commend the
chairman of the conference, Repre-
sentative HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, who
was a strong advocate, a fair negotia-
tor, and a patient chairman. I com-
mend also the very able chairman of
the Senate conferees, my friend, Sena-
tor MUSKIE, and all the members of
the Committee on Public Works and
their staff, both majority and minor-
ity, who have put so many long hours
into a bipartisan effort to bring forth
what will be the most effective pollu-
tion control legislation yet enacted by
the Congress.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the
conference report before the Senate,
when fully implemented, will assure
an accelerated rate of progress in our
national effort to improve the quality
of our air environment.
The Senate conferees acceded to
several modifications in the bill ap-
proved unanimously by the Senate on
September 22, 1970, but the final prod-
uct is an effective and far-reaching
environmental protection measure.
The conference report would estab-
lish as 1975 standards the automobile
emission goals previously proposed for
1980 for carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbons. We have accelerated by 1
year the date on which automobile
manufacturers may seek an extension
of that deadline. By allowing such ap-
plications to be filed on January 1,
1972, we have taken into fuller ac-
count the leadtime problems of the au-
tomobile industry.
The report also would enable the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to set interim
standards in the event he finds tech-
nology is not available to meet the
standard provided by law. The Ad-
ministrator, in making a decision on
interim standards, would have the
benefit of reports from the National
Academy of Sciences on the progress
that has been made in the develop-
ment of technology and knowledge of
the good-faith effort of the industry to
meet the 1975 deadline.
The report sets a deadline of 1976
for meeting the standard for oxides of
nitrogen, with provision for a 1-year
extension. Automakers could apply for
that extension on January 1, 1973.
The thrust of the section of the
Senate bill requiring the establish-
ment of national emission standards
for hazardous substances has been
changed. The Senate measure required
the publication of a proposed prohibi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1699
tion of emissions of hazardous sub-
stances. The conference report re-
quires the Administrator of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency to pub-
lish a list of pollutants which in his
judgment is extremely hazardous to
public health. He would subsequently
publish proposed regulations estab-
lishing emission standards. The modi-
fied provision requires the Adminis-
trator to "establish any such standard
at the level which in his judgment pro-
vides an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health from such
extreme hazard."
The conference report retains con-
current Federal-State jurisdiction
over enforcement activities, although
the final product is a combination of
the Senate and House approaches to
the matter. We agreed that in situa-
tions where a State has primary en-
forcement responsibility, the Adminis-
trator of EPA would be required to
give the State 30 days notice before
issuing an order or seeking court ac-
tion. The Administrator may act with-
out notice to the State in cases where
[p. 42392]
the Federal Government has primary
enforcement responsibility.
Both bills provided for the estab-
lishment at the Federal level of na-
tional ambient air quality standards,
and that concept is of course in the
conference report. Implementation
plans to be prepared by the States to
meet the standards must provide for
achieving the standards within 3
years. Again, there are provisions for
an extension in the event technology is
not available.
I wish to emphasize, Mr. President,
that the implementation plans to be
prepared by the States to meet the
primary national air quality stand-
ards must include provision for land
use and transportation controls. In my
judgment, the term transportation
controls is not restricted to motor ve-
hicles. For some areas, the implemen-
tation plans may well specify a limita-
tion upon the number of civil aircraft
which may land at any airport within
such areas. Such restrictions may be
necessary in certain metropolitan
areas in order to meet the ambient air
quality standards.
The conference substitute retains
the Senate provision for citizen suits
against violators, although suits
against the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency are
limited to actions in which there is an
alleged failure by the Administrator
to perform mandatory duties imposed
by the statute. Before a suit can be
brought, 60-day notice must be given
to the alleged violator, the Adminis-
trator and the State. The courts are
given discretionary authority to
award costs, including reasonable at-
torney and witness fees, to any party.
Mr. President, I understand the
purpose of that section of the report
which establishes a mechanism for the
licensing of patents to those subject to
emission standards to be set under the
legislation. It is our intent to provide
an assured supply of technology to all
needing it to comply with the stand-
ards.
After reflecting upon the implica-
tions of the section, I would have pre-
ferred that the issues involved be re-
viewed by the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Patents, Trademarks, and Copy-
rights. However, the conference report
language on the matter is an improve-
ment over the provisions in the Sen-
ate-passed bill. The section will not
become generally operative for at
least 2 years, and in the interim I
would hope that the issues involved
will be the subject of hearings and
review.
Mr. President, the conference com-
mittee has devoted many hours of ar-
duous work on its report. It has been
a rewarding personal experience be-
cause of the dedication of those in-
-------
1700
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
volved to see the objective of protect-
ing the public health. I wish to thank
and commend the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) and the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE),
the distinguished chairmen of our
committee and subcommittee, for their
leadership during the development of
this legislation. I also wish to pay
tribute to the invaluable contributions
of the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
EAGLETON), the Senator from Dela-
ware (Mr. BOGGS), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), and the Sen-
ator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER).
Mr. President, I wish to echo what
has been said about the bipartisan ap-
proach to this legislation. As a mem-
ber of the subcommittee and as a con-
feree, I can attest that Senators on
both sides of the aisle have partici-
pated on a nonpartisan basis.
I should like to ask the Senator
from Maine to answer one question.
Section 110 of the conference report
requires the development of implemen-
tation plans by the various States,
and the approval of such plans by the
Administrator. Paragraphs 2 and
2(B) of the section, governing those
plans, read as follows:
(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 Administrator shall approve such plan, or
any portion thereof, if he determines that it
was adopted after reasonable notice and hear-
ing and that—
(B) it includes emission limitations, sched-
ules, and timetables for compliance with such
limitations, and such other measures as may
be necessary to insure attainment and mainte-
nance of such primary or secondary standard,
including, but not limited to, land-use and
transportation controls;
I should like to know if, in the opin-
ion of the Senator from Maine, the
term "transportation controls" is lim-
ited to motor vehicles.
Mr. MUSKIE. No; I think that that
phrase ought to be considered in a
much broader context, if we are to
fully understand what the intent of
the legislation is.
It seemed to the committee that
transportation policies must be devel-
oped or improved to insure that the
impact of pollution from all existing
moving sources—automobiles, air-
craft, trains, vessels, and so on—is re-
duced to the minimum compatible with
the needs of each region.
For example, construction of urban
highways and freeways may be re-
quired to take second place to rapid
transit and other public transporta-
tion systems. The use of motor vehi-
cles may have to be restricted and, in
some congested areas, the number of
operations of aircraft into an airport
may need to be limited, or steps taken
to reduce emissions while aircraft are
on the ground.
If such controls are required, the
committee believes the plan for imple-
mentation should so provide. If the
plan is approved, Congress expects
the Federal regulatory agencies to
take the steps necessary to assure
compliance with the plan; because
what is involved in these greater
urban areas, from the standpoint of
air pollution, is the whole complex of
residential patterns, employment pat-
terns, and transportation patterns—
the way in which people move about,
go to their work, and live—and all of
this ought to be subject to modinr.
tion, and must be modified if the
objective of clean air is to be achieved.
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator
from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished chairman.
I wish to express strong support for
the conference report on these amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act. This bill,
I think, is the most far-reaching and
important legislation for the control
of air pollution ever to be considered
by the Congress.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1701
In time, it will bring our Nation
clean air and a healthier environment.
It should be pointed out that this
bill follows closely the concepts cre-
ated in the legislation passed in Sep-
tember by the Senate. Further, it ad-
heres in many details to the concepts
and recommendations offered by the
administration as long ago as last
February.
Mr. President, I share the thoughts
of the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee—I know how sincere
and dedicated he is—when he stated
that he regrets the partisan nature of
the discussion of Secretary Richard-
son's letter. I share his feelings. I, too,
am sorry that occurred. The chairman
has pointed out, as have others, that
we have maintained an absolutely bi-
partisan approach on environmental
questions, certainly a major problem
confronting our country. I have every
confidence that it will continue to op-
erate in a bipartisan manner. There-
fore, I stand with the chairman of my
subcommittee in regretting that the
incident occurred.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I com-
mend the leadership and cooperation
offered by the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Public Works,
Mr. RANDOLPH, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the
distinguished ranking Republican
member of the committee, Mr. COOPER,
the distinguished Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mr. BAKER), and the distin-
guished Senator from Kansas (Mr.
DOLE) . Each has been most coopera-
tive and helpful in studying a very
difficult and complex subject. This leg-
islation is going to involve not only
the Federal Government but every
other level of government—the States,
the cities, the counties—as well as
public and private organizations. In
actuality, it will affect and benefit
every individual in our country.
In addition, I wish to commend Rep-
resentative STAGGERS of West Vir-
ginia, the chairman of the House com-
mittee, and the other conferees on the
part of the House. And I thank the
staffs of both the committees and the
Members for their excellent assist-
ance.
The conference was long and pains-
taking. It has produced a conference
report that I believe will bring to the
Nation effective control of air pollu-
tion. This bill is a credit to the coun-
try. I strongly commend it to my col-
leagues.
Mr. MUSKJE. I thank the Senator.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
commend my distinguished colleagues,
the Senate conferees, for the compro-
mise legislative product which is now
before us.
I would have liked to have had more
opportunity to review the House-Sen-
ate conference report and all the de-
tails of these very important amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, but I rec-
ognize that expedition is mandatory if
we are to deal with the major items of
legislation still before the Senate at
this session.
[p. 42393]
I did take the time to study the bill
carefully to ascertain that the new
amendments to the Clean Air Act will
not interfere with or change the pres-
ent statutory framework and imple-
menting regulations for controlling
radiological effluents from nuclear fa-
cilities. The new Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the Atomic En-
ergy Commission now have certain
authorities and responsibilities with re-
spect to such matters as radiation
protection standards or the regulation
and control of radiological effects
from nuclear facilities. Under our
present statutes we have very excel-
lently safeguarded health and safety
in regard to the use and regulatory
control of nuclear facilities, and in my
-------
1702
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
judgment it would have been unwise
and potentially dangerous for a gener-
ally comprehensive legislative meas-
ure such as the one before us to dilute
or interfere with our presently gov-
erning requirements.
I again want to congratulate my
distinguished colleagues for bringing
about this compromise, for doing a
splendid job, and for rendering such
an excellent public service.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator
from Rhode Island. He has accurately
stated the effect of the bill on the
point he has raised. I am happy to
endorse his view of it.
I yield to the Senator from Ken-
tucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, today
the Senate members of the Conference
Committee on the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970 bring back for final ac-
tion a bill which has been described as
perhaps the most significant domestic
legislation of the decade. The action
today represents the culmination of a
thorough exercise of the legislative
process, beginning with 20 days of
hearings in the subcommittee, fol-
lowed by more than a dozen executive
sessions of the subcommittee, more
than 10 executive sessions of the full
committee, 2 days of debate on the
Senate floor in September and, finally,
12 conference meetings with the
House in order to bring to the Con-
gress this conference report.
I would like to note for the RECORD
that the number of conference meet-
ings with the House was in no way
related to any attempt or desire to
obstruct or delay on the part of any
Member of the Senate or the House
conferees. Rather, it simply reflects
the degree of the differences between
the House and Senate bill and the
great scope of the legislation. Every
Member had the same objective, and
the conference report before the Sen-
ate is truly a historically significant
bill.
Great credit is due to the cochair-
man of the conference committee of
both Houses, Representative STAGGERS
of West Virginia and Senator MUSKIB.
Of course, special credit is due to Sen-
ator RANDOLPH, chairman of the Sen-
ate Committee on Public Works, and
to Senator BOGGS, the ranking minor-
ity member of the subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution. But I would
like to add that this conference was
very well attended by all Members
and I am especially proud that Sena-
tor BAKER and Senator DOLE on the
minority side contributed so much in
the development of this conference re-
port.
The staffs of both committees also
deserve special credit, for not only has
the work been difficult and heavy with
responsibility, but also, the parliamen-
tary situation has compressed the
time available and they have per-
formed magnificently. Their work was
most helpful, and I think their names
should be placed in the RECORD.
It would be difficult to single out
any provision in this bill for special
attention. I think it represents a firm
application of pollution control proce-
dures, while at the same time being
just and incorporating throughout,
due process and fairness. The bill pro-
vides many procedural protections and
involves the judicial branch of Gov-
ernment to a degree never before at-
tempted in programs to achieve envi-
ronmental quality.
The bill will place great responsibil-
ities on nearly every aspect in our so-
ciety. It certainly will place great bur-
dens on industry, it will place great
burdens on Government, both at the
State and Federal level, and it will
place great burdens on the people gen-
erally for they will ultimately have to
bear the expense and, for the first
time, possibly experience inconven-
ence so that we might achieve clean
and healthful air. The provisions ask
for the highest quality of Government
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1703
activity, and I am pleased that the bill
will become law nearly coincident with
the establishment by the President of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The administration of that agency is
entrusted to Mr. Ruckelshaus, who I
believe is an excellent choice to control
the exercise of the many duties and
responsibilities of the Federal Govern-
ment under this law.
With the passage of this bill the
time for resolute action has come, ac-
tion that must not be based on recrim-
ination or punishment, but based on
the fair application of the law. The
burdens are great and I trust that the
Federal Government, State govern-
ment, industry, and the people will all
work together to achieve this goal.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
As he has said, the staff work has
been superlative throughout the con-
sideration of this measure.
In addition to the work of commit-
tee, Chief Clerk Richard Royce, Mi-
nority Clerk Bailey Guard, and Coun-
sel Barry Meyer, the staff of the sub-
committee including Leon Billings,
Dick Wilson, Dick Grundy, Phil Cum-
mings, Becky Beauregard, Frankie
Williams, Sally White, Eleanor Putz,
and the minority staff including Tom
Jorling, Harold Brayman, Adrien
Waller, Hester Dungan, and Ann
Brown are to be congratulated.
Several staff members of Senators
were also essential in the development
of this legislation including Eliot Cut-
ler of my staff, Allen Jones of Sena-
tor SPONG'S staff, Bob Maynard of
Senator EAGLETON'S staff, Jim Jordan
of Senator BAKER'S staff, and Ward
White of Senator DOLE'S staff.
Mr. BOGGS. I share your views of
the staff and their performance. It has
been terrific.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished Senator
from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I con-
cur in the remarks made by the distin-
guished Senator from Kentucky.
My staff and I have had occasion
from time to time to consult and work
with members of the staff of the Air
and Water Pollution Subcommittee.
They are all superbly able and cooper-
ative and are making a great contri-
bution to the environmental problems
presented to that subcommittee.
I did not know that the conference
report was going to be brought up
today, so I did not have an opportu-
nity to prepare any remarks. How-
ever, I do wish to say that the com-
mittee members on both sides of the
aisle are to be commended for coming
up with such a landmark piece of leg-
islation.
I particularly want to say that this
bill is a great credit to Senator Mus-
KIE, whose record in terms of his con-
cern, his activities, and his construc-
tive efforts in the environmental field
are unexcelled by anyone else in pub-
lic life. Today we see before us an-
other solid environmental achievement
from Senator MUSKIE and a landmark
piece of legislation. I join all those
who are concerned about the environ-
ment in commending him for his tre-
mendous contribution.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Wisconsin. My
greatest regret in the work of this
committee was that the Senator from
Wisconsin left the committee several
years ago. Yet, he has not abandoned
his interest in this field. Indeed, he
has continued to be a leader nationally
in all environmental questions. It is
always helpful to have his close inter-
est and attention—and even prodding
from time to time—to help us in our
work.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I join my
colleagues in urging approval of the
conference report on the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970.
We are all familiar with the need to
prevent the further deterioration of
-------
1704
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
our air. Early this year, President
Nixon devoted a major portion of his
environmental message to the problem
of air pollution.
The need was clear, and in re-
sponse, the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution and the full Public
Works Committee carefully considered
and reported out a bill we felt would
contribute to preserving and protect-
ing our environment. Amendments
were accepted on the Senate floor
which improved that bill. But the leg-
islation we have before us today com-
bines the best elements of the House
and Senate bills.
Everyone will not be completely sat-
isfied with the final version of H.R.
17255, but it represents our best ef-
forts to act with the knowledge avail-
able to us at this time in an affirma-
tive but constructive manner. It is
possible that we will face unantici-
pated problems in the future, but the
Congress will have the opportunity to
review the Clean Air Act upon its ex-
piration.
I would point out that the passage
of this act does not mean we will elim-
inate air pollution overnight. It would
be impossible to physically accomplish
that fact. But it does mean we have
taken a
[p. 42394]
substantial first step. It is now up to
government at all levels, private in-
dustry, and every individual American
to make this act work.
I commend my colleagues on the
subcommittee and the full committee
for their long but fruitful work on
this important legislation, and urge
approval of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 42395]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R.
17255, CLEAN AIR AMEND-
MENTS OF 1970
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
call up the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 17255) to amend the Clean
Air Act to provide for a more effec-
tive program to improve the quality
of the Nation's air 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
December 17, 1970.)
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT). The gentleman from West
Virginia is recognized.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
am gratified to bring to the House the
conference report on the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970. I am proud
to say to the House that the confer-
ence report embodies clean air legisla-
tion which is stronger than the bills
passed by either House.
I say this because the conferees
after numerous and arduous working
sessions have worked out a bill which
promises to give to the American peo-
ple clean air to breathe within the
shortest feasible time.
The conferees have been guided by
two principles: to do what is feasible
and to do what is reasonable.
The bill passed by the other body
incorporated many provisions which
had not been included in the bill as
passed by the House. The House con-
ferees scrutinized carefully each of
these provisions and applied to them
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1705
the test of reasonableness and feasi-
bleness. On the basis of these two
tests, many of these Senate provisions
have been revised. The revisions, how-
ever, do not weaken those provisions.
On the contrary, the revisions
strengthen them because they make
more likely that we shall achieve the
desirable goals which these provisions
were designed to achieve.
The conference report and the
Statement of Managers are lengthy
and complex documents. Let me point
out briefly the highlights of the legis-
lation.
First. With regard to automotive
emissions, the legislation provides for
statutory deadlines by which new au-
tomobiles must be substantially pollu-
tion free. These deadlines which apply
to the 1975 and 1976 models are rea-
sonable and, based on our best judg-
ment, are also feasible. An independ-
ent body of experts—the National
Academy of Sciences—is going to
monitor the feasibility. If on the basis
of the Academy's advice, the 1975
deadline cannot be met for carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons, the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency is authorized to
grant a 1-year extension and to estab-
lish interim standards. A similar pro-
vision for a 1-year extension is con-
tained in
[p. 42519]
the legislation for the third important
automotive pollutant—oxide of nitro-
gen. The Administrator, upon the ad-
vice of the Academy, may extend the
statutory deadline from 1975 to 1976.
If after these extensions the compa-
nies are still not in a position to pro-
duce substantially pollution-free auto-
mobiles, it will be up to the Congress
to determine what is to be done about
this gravest of all air pollution prob-
lems which contributes about one-half
of air pollution in the United States.
Second. Another complex issue with
regard to automotive emissions in-
volved the question whether the manu-
facturers should be required to war-
rant the performance of automobiles
with regard to the achievement of
emission standards for the useful life
of automobiles—defined in the statute
as 5 years or 50,000 miles. The legisla-
tion provides that the performance
warranty will come into effect as soon
as the Administrator finds that suita-
ble road tests have been developed to
test emissions from automobiles and
as soon as adequate facilities are
available to apply such road tests.
Third. The enforcement of air pol-
lution regulations is partly the re-
sponsibility of the States and partly
that of the Federal Government. The
legislation provides that the Federal
Government shall have primary re-
sponsibility for the enforcement of
performance standards for new sta-
tionary sources and hazardous emis-
sions from stationary sources. The
States on the other hand will have
primary responsibility for the en-
forcement of State plans and the
emission limitations provided for in
those plans with regard to existing
stationary sources. There was a provi-
sion in the bill as passed by the other
body calling for precertification of
new stationary sources. This provision
was dropped as impractical.
Fourth. A provision which has re-
ceived a lot of attention deals with
citizen suits. The legislation will per-
mit such suits against polluters as
well as against the Administrator.
However, citizen suits against the Ad-
ministrator will be limited to those
duties which are mandatory under the
legislation and the suits will not ex-
tend to those areas of enforcement
with regard to which the Administra-
tor has discretion.
Fifth. Many Members of Congress
have received communications with re-
gard to a provision dealing with the
compulsory licensing of patents. The
-------
1706
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
legislation has modified substantially
a provision on this subject contained
in the bill as passed by the other body.
Under the legislation the Attorney
General will be authorized to seek
compulsory licenses if he determines
that the failure to make such licenses
available under any patent makes im-
possible the achievement of air pollu-
tion limitations and results in a re-
straint of trade or a monopoly. In
these exceptional cases, the Attorney
General would go to court seeking the
licenses and requesting the court to
establish reasonable terms and condi-
tions for such licenses.
I have touched on the provisions in
the legislation which have received the
greatest attention and I shall be glad
to answer any questions which the
Members may have with regard to
this important legislation.
I want to say to the Members that
this legislation has received the most
careful consideration by the commit-
tees in the House and in the other
body and by the conferees. All of the
House Members of the conference
committee, JOHN JARMAN of Okla-
homa, PAUL ROGERS of Florida, WIL-
LIAM SPRINGER of Illinois, and
ANCHER NELSEN of Minnesota, con-
tributed greatly to making this legis-
lation possible. Particular credit must
go to PAUL ROGERS of Florida, who
proposed some of the important provi-
sions contained in the conference re-
port. Among the Senate conferees,
Senator MUSKIE of Maine and Chair-
man RANDOLPH of West Virginia, were
most helpful. Congress and the Nation
owes all of these men a great debt.
Last but not least, I want to say that
this legislation would not have been
possible without the outstanding coop-
eration between the committee staffs
of the Senate and House committees,
and they too are to be commended for
working long hours and suggesting al-
ternative ways in which the many dif-
ferences between the bills passed by
the two Houses might be resolved.
In conclusion, let me say that I con-
sider this one of the most important
pieces of legislation that this Con-
gress has an opportunity to enact. It
will affect every man, woman, and
child in this Nation and hopefully it
will contribute substantially to im-
proving our environment which unfor-
tunately we have neglected for far too
long.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, one of the
great problems we have had in mount-
ing a meaningful environment pro-
gram has been the fragmentation of
responsibilities. Is the chairman of the
committee satisfied that the enforce-
ment provisions of this act are now
sufficiently centralized so that we can
also pinpoint the responsibilities of
the Federal agencies?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. That was one
of the great concerns of all the con-
ferees, and I am satisfied on this
point.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, if the gen-
tleman will yield further, I would
hope that the distinguished gentleman
from West Virginia may now, having
done such a great job, use his great
influence in this body to achieve a sim-
ilar centralizing of authority and re-
sponsibility at the House of Repre-
sentatives level where the responsibil-
ities are still unfortunately very frag-
mented.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Speaker,
can the Chairman assure us that in
the case of California, which this year
enacted additional and stricter laws in
the field of air pollution, California
will not now be required to come to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1707
the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and obtain a waiver in
order that those laws can be imple-
mented?
Mr. STAGGERS. I might answer
the gentleman this way: California
required a waiver only with regard to
new automobiles. With regard to air-
craft the Federal Government would
preempt the field, however.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. My understand-
ing was that it was only in the case of
aircraft. In other words, the Federal
Government is now in effect preempt-
ing- the State of California in the field
of aircraft, but it does not apply in
the field of automobiles.
Mr. STAGGERS. The State is free
with regard to fuels, stationary
sources, and used automobiles. Cali-
fornia is preempted in the field of
aviation. That is right.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. So those laws
that were put on the books this year
by the State of California and, in
fact, which are stricter and more rigid
than the national criteria will not, in
fact, be preempted by this legislation.
Mr. STAGGERS. The only excep-
tion I know of is the exception of air-
craft, and the waiver requirement in
case of new automobiles.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GORMAN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. GORMAN. May I inquire as to
the composition of fuel. It is my un-
derstanding California has a different
requirement concerning1 the composi-
tion of fuel than that established
under the Federal regulation. Will the
State of California continue to be in a
position to exercise police power in
that field of the composition of fuel?
Mr. STAGGERS. We must distin-
guish between fuels used in stationary
sources and fuels used in motor vehi-
cles. With regard to fuels used in sta-
tionary sources, all States are com-
pletely free to adopt and enforce more
stringent emission standards.
With regard to motor vehicle fuels,
all States with the exception of Cali-
fornia, are preempted from imposing
more stringent fuel standards. But
the other States, subject to the ap-
proval of the Administrator, may in-
clude in their State plans standards
for motor vehicle fuels if such stand-
ards are necessary to achieve air qual-
ity standards.
Mr. GORMAN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Califor-
nia.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gen-
tleman for yielding. I should like to
have an exchange with him on a dif-
ferent subject matter which pertains
to the functions of the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy and its statu-
tory responsibilities.
I believe that the conference report
is satisfactory, and I believe I can
conscientiously support it.
In the Senate report there were two
words which referred to "radioactive
substances." As I understand it, the
conference report is the report which
now obtains, so far as consideration is
concerned, and that the conference re-
port does not have those two words
referring to "radioactive substances";
is that true?
[p. 42520]
Mr. STAGGERS. In the conference
report there was no reference what-
soever to them.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Under these cir-
cumstances I assume the same confer-
ence report is being presented in the
other body.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I understand that
the bill before us would not encompass
the radiological aspects of nuclear fa-
-------
1708
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cilities. I refer now to the nuclear
plants of the Government. I also un-
derstand that the authorities and re-
sponsibilities of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Atomic
Energy Commission with respect to
such matters as radiation protection
standards from nuclear facilities
would remain unchanged by virtue of
the bill now before us.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct,
because of the fact that this radiation
was not considered in the air pollu-
tion.
Mr. HOLTPIELD. The gentleman
understands that the functions of the
Federal Radiation Council were trans-
ferred by the presidential plan over
into the Environmental Protection
Agency, and they have now taken over
these functions. Therefore, we will
have to look to the Environmental
Protection Agency to perform those
particular functions transferred from
the Atomic Energy Commission.
I just wanted to be sure that this
Clean Air Act did not interfere with
those functions of the Federal Radia-
tion Council now transferred by presi-
dential plan into the Environmental
Protection Agency or those functions
remaining in the Atomic Energy Com-
mission.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct, so
far as this bill is concerned.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gen-
tleman.
I also thank the gentleman and the
conferees for protecting the right of
California in respect to automobile
emissions to have stricter standards
than those required in other places in
the Nation because of the peculiar at-
mospheric conditions in California. I
appreciate the cooperation of the con-
ferees.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from
West Virginia yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to
yield to my colleague from West Vir-
ginia.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I
want to commend the gentleman from
West Virginia for his leadership in
bringing out the conference report on
this outstanding piece of legislation.
As the gentleman knows, in our State
we have had long and frustrating ex-
periences in attempting to curb air
pollution. In my congressional district
in the mid-Ohio Valley, we started 5
years ago to set the official machinery
in motion to control air pollution in
the Vienna, W. Va., area. Air pollu-
tion abatement conferences were held
in Vienna, W. Va., in 1967 and 1969.
Several air pollution abatement con-
ferences have been held in West Vir-
ginia, and also interstate conferences
involving air pollution along the bor-
ders of Ohio and West Virginia. Rec-
ommendations have resulted from
these conferences. Since the new act
does away with this conference proce-
dure, do we have to start all over
again, or will these conference recom-
mendations still be enforced by the
National Air Pollution Control Office?
Mr. STAGGERS. Any of the con-
ferences that have been held and that
have made recommendations will not
be affected at all.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I
thank the gentleman for this clarifica-
tion. We certainly should not throw
out the results of all the work which
has gone forward in these abatement
conferences.
It would be useful to ascertain the
periodic progress which the automo-
bile manufacturers are making, in-
cluding funds expended, toward meet-
ing the 1975 and 1976 deadlines pre-
scribed in the act. In the requirement
of the act that the Administrator re-
port annually to Congress, will the
committee insure that progress re-
ports are also required from the auto-
mobile manufacturers?
The public and the Congress are en-
titled to know precisely how far the
companies are progressing, particu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1709
larly since they fought and lobbied so
hard against any provision of this na-
ture. Since they contended they could
not meet the deadlines, the companies
will be probably eager to prove that
they cannot meet the deadlines. The
point I am making is that we ought to
be sure that we know how much
money is being spent and specifically
what the companies are doing so that
we do not wake up in 1975 and dis-
cover they have not met the dead-
lines? What is there in the bill beyond
requiring the Administrator to report
to Congress every year?
Mr. STAGGERS. Not only that, but
we have an additional safeguard. We
have directed the Administrator to
make arrangements with the National
Academy of Sciences to monitor every
thing and to make progress reports
to the Congress beginning July 1,
1971.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
May I pose one further question?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia.
The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare has had a number
of State implementation plans before
it since May of this year, and so far
none of them have been approved. The
delay since May implies that these
State plans do not meet the Federal
requirements, and I wonder if this
means that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency under the new legislation
will be promulgating a Federal imple-
mentation plan at an early date?
Mr. STAGGERS. Let me say this:
Any plan submitted under existing
law may be approved under the new
law but the Administrators may re-
quire appropriate revisions of the
plan to meet the new law.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I
thank the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia. I would hope that the committee
could plan hearings to find out how
this Administrator plans to implement
this law, because it is a very compli-
cated piece of legislation.
Mr. STAGGERS. I can assure you
of that.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I
also hope at some time in the near
future, a year or less from now, if the
act can be strengthened the committee
will recommend amendments to this
act.
Mr. STAGGERS. We hope to get
reports every year.
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. I
commend my colleague from West
Virginia and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. ROGERS) and others who
brought in this excellent report.
The Administrator has been given
wide discretion in dealing with the
emissions of highly hazardous sub-
stances. I would hope that in this area
the Administrator will vigorously en-
force the act to the point of setting
zero emission levels for these highly
hazardous substances, which should be
listed and defined. A great deal also
must be done to define more explicitly
the precise standards involved in the
90-percent reduction of carbon monox-
ide hydrocarbons and oxides of nitro-
gen which will be applicable in 1975
and 1976.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation has had a
sad and frustrating history of weak-
kneed inaction by those who have been
charged with protecting the divine
right of every citizen to breathe clean
air. Not only have the laws been weak
and shot through with loopholes, but
the underfunded administration of
legislation to combat air pollution has
been ineffective. We have allowed the
excuse of expanding technology and
production to over-ride the paramount
interest of the average citizen in pro-
tecting the environment and the air
we breathe.
Now I hope the pendulum will
swing dramatically and drastically in
the opposite direction. The very sur-
vival of human life on earth depends
on the ability to breathe. We are get-
ting choked with air pollution. Now
that this excellent piece of legislation
526-703 O - 73 - 35
-------
1710
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
has been passed, the challenge is
clearly how well the act will he admin-
istered. At the highest level of Gov-
ernment, leadership is demanded in
order to protect clean air. The Presi-
dent of the United States must insist
that this act he administered force-
fully, fearlessly, and where any bene-
fit of the doubt exists it should be
resolved in favor of clean air and
against those who pollute the air. We
can no longer afford the pussyfooting,
artful dogging, delays, end runs, and
outright flouting of the intent of the
legislation which has characterized
the history of air pollution control. I
trust that the President and the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency will
seize this challenge and thus protect
the right of every citizen to breathe
clean air.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may use to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. SPRIN-
GER).
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think I might outline for my col-
leagues the fundamental points that
were involved in this conference.
First of all, I would like to say that
this conference went on beginning
back before the election in November.
We were on this in conference for
some 3
[p. 42521]
months. This gives you some idea of
the amount of time consumed in work-
ing out differences. There has never
been a conference in the 20 years that
I have been a member of this com-
mittee where there was more consid-
eration given to a bill than there was
to this bill.
Second, most of the differences be-
tween the two bills on stationary
sources of pollution are matters of
language and emphasis. They were
worked out to keep the basic frame-
work of the House bill. I do not need
to go into detail in trying to explain
the results that we achieved. It does
no violence to what was done here in
the original bill.
The big difference between the
House and the Senate position on au-
tomotive emission standards was this:
The absolute deadline of 1975 for a
90-percent reduction imposed by the
Senate bill is retained. A 1-year ex-
tension is possible, as it was under the
Senate bill. The House did insist upon
an adequate lead time for the industry
to request an extension.
Third, aircraft emissions will be en-
tirely under Federal control. That is
preempted to the Federal Government.
Fourth, patents cannot be taken
over by compulsory licenses except in
the most compelling circumstances
and with the agreement of the Attor-
ney General and the U.S. District
Court.
Fifth, citizens suits may be insti-
tuted against Federal installations
and also against violators.
Citizen suits may be instituted
against the administrator only for
failure to act where he must. In other
words wherever he is given discretion
in the act, he may may not be sued.
He may be sued only for those mat-
ters imposed in the bill upon the ad-
ministrator as a matter of law.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
compliment the chairman, my distin-
guished colleague from Oklahoma
(Mr. JORDAN), the distinguished gen-
tleman from Minnesota (Mr. NEL-
SEN), and also the distinguished Sena-
tor from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), the
distinguished Senator from Delaware
(Mr. BOGGS), the distinguished Sena-
tor from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and
the distinguished Senator from Mis-
souri (Mr. EAGLETON) for the fine
contributions that they all made.
May I say that if these members of
the conference had not introduced
compromises upon which we could
have agreed, we never would have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1711
been able to finish this conference. I
think all of the gentlemen whom I
have named have made contributions,
in addition to those who have been
mentioned by the chairman pre-
viously.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficul-
ties that we had in this conference. I
have never run into anything like it in
my entire experience such as we had
in this conference. I want to say that
I believe we came back with the very
best bill that possibly could have been
agreed to considering all of the diffi-
culties we had in resolving the differ-
ences between the House and the other
body.
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. NICHOLS. I thank the chair-
man very much. I appreciate the
chairman yielding to me.
I, too, want to compliment the dis-
tinguished chairman of the committee
upon this very fine report which I cer-
tainly feel will be very meaningful in
the years ahead.
I would like to ask a question of the
chairman, if I may.
I am sure the distinguished chair-
man would recognize and agree with
me, I hope, that many automobile im-
provements in the efficiency and the
safety of motor vehicles have resulted
from experience gained in operating
motor vehicles under demanding cir-
cumstances such as those circumstanc-
es encountered in motor racing. I refer
to the tracks at Talladega in my own
State, to Daytona and Indianapolis,
competition.
I would ask the distinguished chair-
man if I am correct in stating that
the terms "vehicle" and "vehicle en-
gine" as used in the act do not include
vehicles or vehicle engines manufac-
tured for, modified for or utilized in
organized motorized racing events
which, of course, are held very infre-
quently but which utilize all types of
vehicles and vehicle engines?
Mr. STAGGERS. In response to the
gentleman from Alabama, I would say
to the gentleman they would not come
under the provisions of this act, be-
cause the act deals only with automo-
biles used on our roads in everyday
use. The act would not cover the types
of racing vehicles to which the gentle-
man referred, and present law does
not cover them either.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr.
Speaker, I simply want to commend
all who participated in the conference.
It was a long and difficult conference.
We have a significant bill.
The fact that the Congress in this
legislation has committed itself in the
strongest possible terms to bringing
about clean air in America is of para-
mount importance. If when the Presi-
dent signs the bill—and I hope and
believe that he will—then the Presi-
dent will commit the administration to
the same degree that the Congress is
committed to bring about clean air,
and we will have clean air in this Na-
tion.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, I am happy
to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Since racing cars are
apparently exempt from this legisla-
tion, would 0. Roy Chalk's buses also
be exempt?
Mr. STAGGERS. No, they certainly
are not because they run on the high-
ways.
Mr. GROSS. I certainly would hope
not.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
-------
1712
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, as I
understand, this grants 5 years for
allowing the automobile industry to
set instruments in the automobiles
which will prevent the emission of
foul air. If that is the case, I want to
ask the able gentleman whether it is
absolutely necessary to allow that
long a period of time?
Mr. STAGGERS. I will say to the
gentleman from Florida that even
under present law emissions from au-
tomobiles have been steadily decreas-
ing. The question is how soon can we
have substantially pollution-free auto-
mobiles. Once we have the technology,
and we may not have it at present as
the manufacturers contend, it takes at
least 24 months, really, before the
cars so equipped can start rolling off
the assembly line.
The legislation gives them enough
leadtime to build the best available
technology into the 1975 model cars.
The manufacturers have to make
their plans in 1972 for the 1975 model
cars. We give them 1 year leeway if
they cannot achieve the statutory
standards in those models. So they
really do not have very much leeway.
Mr. PEPPER. So the able gentle-
man feels that we have done the very
best job we could on this?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
Mr. PEPPER. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of the con-
ference report on H.R. 17255, the
Clean Air Act amendments.
Over the years, I have become in-
creasingly convinced that such legisla-
tion should have a top congressional
priority. Pollution is getting more se.
rious every day. This is evidenced
both by people's mounting concern
about the perils and the costs of air
pollution, and the increasing body of
medical evidence that contaminated
air endangers the health and well-
being of man.
This year, we hurled 149 million
tons of pollutants into the air; last
year, we dumped 130 million tons into
the atmosphere.
Concern about the deterioration of
the air manifests itself among the
people in the 17th Congressional Dis-
trict of California that I am privi-
leged to represent. The recent cam-
paign and the questionnaires that I
have sent out, show that the great
majority of the people I have talked
to and corresponded with, consider air
pollution to be a most critical problem.
That the situation is deplorable is
shown by the fact that air pollution
costs the United States over $12 bil-
lion annually. Dirty air ruins crops
and vegetables; causes steel in
bridges, rails, and ships to deterio-
rate; and it causes buildings and
clothing to age more rapidly. But the
cost in dollars is not the worst of it.
Dirty air is shortening our lives and
damaging our health.
The menace of prolonged air inver-
sions has increased the rates of death
—especially among our elderly citi-
zens. Doctors have been documenting,
with increased frequency, that re-
peated exposure for prolonged periods
to unclean air can severely damage a
person's health. Medical evidence has
associated air pollution with higher
rates of serious illness and mortality
from asthma, em-
[p. 42522]
physema, lung cancer, chronic bron-
chitis, and heart disease.
Mr. Speaker, we know that automo-
bile emissions account for 87.7 percent
of the air pollution in the Los Angeles
Basin. While the relation of the auto-
mobile to air pollution has long been
known, little has been done by auto-
mobile manufacturers to alleviate the
problem. Rather, many of us have
contended that they have stalled re-
search which might have helped to
clear our skies, except when Govern-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1713
ment pressure has been brought to
bear.
The bill before us now—the
Clean Air Act—is designed to correct
this situation. It has a provision
which requires that automobiles man-
ufactured in 1975 and thereafter, pro-
duce at least 90-percent less emissions
than the 1970 model.
A number of us attempted to amend
H.R. 17255 to include this provision
when it was before the House of Rep-
resentatives in June of this year. We
were narrowly defeated; however,
Senator MUSKIE was successful in the
Senate.
I was extremely pleased when it
was announced on October 8 that this
provision had been adopted by the
conferees. Then, on October 17, the
administration made a futile effort to
dissuade the conferees. I am grateful
that the conferees rejected the auto
industry's position as espoused by the
administration.
This is not only a great victory for
the health of our country and for our
environment; it is a great personal
victory for those who have worked for
so long to clean up our air. The efforts
of the House conferees cannot be ex-
aggerated. Chairman STAGGERS, Con-
gressman JARMAN, Congressman
PAUL ROGERS, Congressman SPRINGER,
and Congressman NELSON deserve our
praise and our thanks.
The public is angry and upset, and
rightfully so, because it realizes that
the black pall hanging over our cities
is not only unnatural, it is unhealthy
and uncomfortable.
Detroit had best realize that not
only is pollution in the air, but that
legislation for its correction is in the
wind.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, the adop-
tion of the conference report on H.R.
17255, the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1970, should signal a massive as-
sault on air pollution—an assault
which some of us have long urged,
and which is possible now that the
public has become aroused to the per-
ils posed by the degradation of our
environment.
On June 10, the House passed H.R.
17255. At the time, it was inadequate
—a half step where 10 giant steps
were required. In order to register our
dissatisfaction with that bill, as it
passed the House, a number of us in-
troduced legislation, entitled the Air
Pollution Abatement Act of 1970,
which incorporated the much stronger
provisions of the Senate-passed Clean
Air Act amendments. This bill is H.R.
19706. Our purpose was to exert pres-
sure on the House conferees by dem-
onstrating that we demanded strong,
effective action.
The bill which has emerged from
the conference committee makes possi-
ble such action. Without analyzing the
details of the conference report, I
would point out that among its major
provisions is that largely banning pol-
luting automobile emissions after
1975, with no more than 1 year's ex-
tension to 1976 on that ban. The Con-
gress is starting to drop the rhetoric
and demand results. Since I came to
this House in 1961, I have been
pushing for meaningful antipollution
legislation; legislation such as that re-
ported out of the conference commit-
tee is indeed welcome after these
years of effort.
I do want to discuss in some
length title IV of the bill, because this
deals with an aspect of our environ-
ment which only recently has begun to
receive widespread attention—that is,
noise pollution. Title IV of the bill is
entitled "Noise Pollution and Abate-
ment Act of 1970." It directs the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish an
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
for the purpose of investigating and
identifying the sources of noise and
its effects on public health and wel-
fare, and to report to the President
526-703 O - 73 - :
-------
1714
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
and Congress within 1 year of enact-
ment the results of the investigation
and study. Thirty million dollars is
authorized to carry out title IV.
I am particularly concerned about
this title'because, in the House, I have
introduced the Noise Control Act of
1970—H.R. 15473. Subsequent to my
initial introduction of it on January
20, 1970, 22 of my colleagues joined
me when I reintroduced this bill as
H.R. 16520 and H.R. 16708.
My bill would have established an
Office of Noise Control within the
Office of the Surgeon General of the
United States. A chief function of the
office would be to act as a clearing
house for all information on noise-—its
causes and effects, its prevention, its
control, and its abatement. On re-
quest, the office would make this mate-
rial available to States, local govern-
ments, and private groups interested
in the problem of noise and its abate-
ment.
In addition, the bill would provide
for grants to States, local govern-
ments, commissions, and councils for
programs of noise control—research
into the effects of noise, the investiga-
tion of existing causes of excessive
noise in our society, and research into
new ways of controlling, preventing,
and abating noise.
The bill also would provide for re-
search grants to public or nonprofit
private agencies, organizations, and
institutions. Grants would also be pro-
vided for training of professional and
technical personnel in methods to ef-
fect proper control, prevention, and
abatement of noise.
The Noise Control Act of 1970
would also provide for a Noise Control
Advisory Council, which would advise
the Director of the Office of Noise
Control of his responsibilities, and
would review all proposed project
grants. This Council would be made
up of nine individuals interested in
the problems of noise and its control,
who are skilled in the fields of medi-
cine, psychology, government, law or
law enforcement, social work, public
health, or education.
Since I introduced the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1970, Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970, creating the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, went into
effect. Therefore, it is appropriate
that the Office of Noise Abatement
and Control created by title IV of the
Clean Air Act amendments be placed
in that agency. I do recommend that
grants for research, for professional
and technical training, and for demon-
stration projects be made as outlined
in my original bill.
The problem of noise pollution de-
mands attention. It is an increasing
factor in even the simple amenities of
urban living; the intrusiveness of
noise pervades virtually every urban
home. But inconvenience aside, noise
pollution poses a peril to human
health. Consequently, the inclusion of
title IV in the Clean Air Act amend-
ments, as reported out of the confer-
ence committee, is particularly wel-
come.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Speaker, I want
to take this opportunity to commend
the conferees on the part of the House
for their work on H.R. 17255, the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
On June 10, 1970, the House of Rep-
resentatives passed a good clean air
bill. But in the last week of July the
eastern half of the Nation was "at-
tacked" by a blanket of smog that
demonstrated—if we did not fully re-
alize it before—the enormity of the
air pollution problem facing the Na-
tion.
As a result of the demonstration of
the severity of the air pollution prob-
lem—literally a matter of life and
health—the Senate passed a much
stronger Clean Air Act of September
22. This bill required a 90-percent re-
duction of pollutants from automo-
biles by 1975-76. Automobile pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1715
is the most serious source of contami-
nants in our Nation's—and the
world's—air. In urban centers, the au-
tomobile is estimated to cause between
60 and 85 percent of the pollution in
our cities. The House bill failed to set
a definite timetable for the reduction
of auto emissions. As the conferees on
the part of the House themselves
note:
The House bill did not amend the provi-
sions of existing: law relating to the establish-
ment of standards for new motor vehicles.
The Senate amendment deleted the require-
ments that such standards be based on a test
of technical and economic feasibility, and
provided statutory standards for passenger
cars and required that such standards be
achieved by a date certain.
Although the bill in its final form
provides for a possible 1-year exten-
sion for meeting these deadlines, the
Congress has finally given the Ameri-
can people a clean air bill that has
teeth, that has force, that will be
meaningful and which will result in
noticeably lower levels of air pollution
in this decade.
Human health and comfort has been
placed in the priority in which it be-
longs—first place.
There can be no doubt that we pos-
sess the technology needed to develop
a clean car and a car that can meet
the emission standards set by this act.
If anyone doubts that fact, they
need only consider the results of the
Third Annual Trans-Continenta!
Clean Car Race. This coast to coast
race was won by an ordinary 1970
model car that had its exhaust system
modified by four part-time night stu-
dents at Wayne
[p. 42523]
State University. These students put
together an exhaust system that beat
the pollution standards that the Fed
eral Government had been proposing
for 1980 model cars. If four students
can accomplish this, I am sure that
the auto industry, with all its massive
resources, will be able to do even
better—if it really tries.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to com-
mend the House conferees for agree-
ing to accept the stronger Senate-
passed provisions in so many cases.
Their action, and the action of the
Congress in passing this bill will be—
next to solving the dread disease of
cancer—the single most important
thing that the Congress can do to im-
prove the health of the American peo-
ple.
I also want to thank those 43 other
Members of the House who joined
with me in introducing in the House
the Senate-passed version of the Clean
Air Act. Forty-four of us introduced
this bill as an indication of the con-
cern in this Chamber for the strongest
possible bill. Of those sponsoring the
Senate-passed version in the House, I
would particularly like to commend
our retiring colleague, LEONARD FAKB-
STEIN of New York, for his hard work
in this area. He was one of the leaders
in the House on June 10th in the ef-
fort to strengthen the bill then before
the House. He is one of those who
joined me in cosponsoring the Senate
bill in October. The list of cosponsors
follows:
COSPONSORS
Mr. Addabbo, Mr. Bell, Mr. Brasco, Mr.
Brown of California, Mr. Button, Mrs. Chis-
holm, Mr. Clark, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Donohue, Mr. Edwards of California,
Mr. Eilberg, Mr. Farbstein, Mr. Fascell, Mr.
Fraser, Mr. Gaydos, Mr. Gude, Mr. Halpern,
Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Hechler of West
Virginia.
Mr. Koch, Mr. Lowenstein, Mr. Madden,
Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Mikva, Mr. Moorhead,
Mr. Olsen, Mr. Ottinger, Mr. Patten, Mr.
Pike, Mr. Podell, and Mr. Price of Illinois.
Mr. Reid of New York, Mr. Rees, Mr.
Reuss, Mr. Rodino, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Ryan,
Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Schwengel, Mr. Tunney, Mr.
Vanik, Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Yates.
-------
1716
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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. 42524]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1717
l.lk(5) THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS UPON SIGNING
THE BILL INTO LAW
Dec. 31,1970, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.
Vol. 6, No. 1, January 4,1971 (pp. 11-12)
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OP 1970
The President's Remarks Upon Signing the Bill Into Law.
December 31, 1970
Ladies and gentlemen:
On the last day of the year, 1970, I think it would be appropri-
ate to make a very few remarks with regard to this piece of
legislation that I will now be signing, the Clean Air Act of 1970.
And I see in this room a few who were present in San Clemente
on the first day of 1970 when I said that this would be the year of
the environment, that it was now or never if we were to clean up
the air and clean up the water in major parts of the United States
and to provide the open spaces that are so important for the
future generations in this country.
The year 1970 has been a year of great progress in this field. In
February, you will recall that I submitted the most comprehensive
message on the environment ever proposed by a President of the
United States. During the year, there have been some administra-
tive actions, some legislative actions.
Time, however, has been required for the Congress to consider
the proposals of the administration and, finally, to agree on the
legislation that will be sent to the President for signature.
This is the most important piece of legislation, in my opinion,
dealing with the problem of clean air that we have this year and
the most important in our history.
It provides, as you know, for provisions dealing with fuel emis-
sions and also for air quality standards and it provides for the
additional enforcement procedures which are absolutely important
in this particular area.
How did this come about? It came about by the President pro-
posing. It came about by a bipartisan effort represented by the
Senators and Congressmen who are here today in acting. Senator
Randolph, Senator Cooper, and Congressman Springer represent
both parties and both Houses of the Congress.
And I thank the Congress, and the country owes a debt to the
Congress in its closing days, for acting in this particular field.
I would say, however, that as I sign this piece of legislation, it is
only a beginning, because now comes the enforcement and that
-------
1718 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
allows me to comment briefly upon how we in the administration
are set up to handle the problems of the environment in the years
ahead.
We have, first, the Environmental Quality Council under the
Chairmanship of Russell Train. That Council advises the Presi-
dent on the policies which should be recommended to the Congress
and to the Nation. And consequently, as I submit new recommen-
dations, and there will be very significant new recommendations
submitted to the Congress early in the next session on the environ-
ment, those recommendations will be the result of the actions that
the Council has taken and its studies and its proposals.
And there is the Environmental Protection Agency, which has
been established by the Congress, where Mr. Ruckelshaus is the
man responsible. And that is the enforcement agency. He enforces
those proposals that, first, are recommended by the Council, sub-
mitted by the President to the Congress, enacted by the Congress,
and then become the law.
So, we have the enforcement agency on the one side. We have
the policy agency on the other. We have the legislative branch of
the Government, both parties represented here, and, of course, the
President in the primary role of having to submit the legislation
and then backing up those who have the responsibility for enforc-
ing it.
If I can summarize briefly, I think that 1970 will be known as
the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the
problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the
future generations of America.
I think 1971 will be known as the year of action. And as we look
at action, I would suggest that this bill is an indication of what
action can be, because if this bill is completely enforced within 4
years, it will mean that the emissions from automobiles which
pollute the environment will be reduced by 90 percent.
And the problem of automobile pollution, as we know, is one
that not only now plagues my native area of Southern California,
but all the great cities of this Nation, particularly those which
have heavy automobile traffic, and most of the great cities of the
world have similar problems.
So, what we are doing here is, first, by signing this legislation,
to provide the tools through which we can have action to avoid the
dangers that continuing air pollution by automobiles and through
other methods will be going forward.
[p. 11]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1719
So, it seems very appropriate that in this room, the Roosevelt
Room, a room that is named for both Roosevelts, Franklin Rosse-
velt and Theodore Roosevelt, but particularly in view of the fact
that Theodore Roosevelt, who was the man most remembered in
American history for his interest in conservation, his interest in
the environment, that this bill is being signed here; this, it seems
to me, is most appropriate.
And I would only hope that as we go now from the year of the
beginning, the year of proposing, the year 1970, to the year of
action, 1971, that all of us, Democrats, Republicans, the House, the
Senate, the executive branch, that all of us can look back upon this
year as that time when we began to make a movement toward a
goal that we all want, a goal that Theodore Roosevelt deeply be-
lieved in and a goal that he lived in his whole life. He loved the
environment. He loved the clear air and the open spaces and he
loved the western part of the United States particularly, which
will be greatly affected by this kind of action.
And as we sign this bill in this room, we can look back and say,
in the Roosevelt Room on the last day of 1970, we signed a historic
piece of legislation that put us far down the road toward a goal
that Theodore Roosevelt, 70 years ago, spoke eloquently about, a
goal of clean air, clean water, and open spaces for the future
generations of America.
[ P. 12]
1.11 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT
November 18, 1971, P.L. 92-157 §302, 85 Stat. 464
Public Law 92-157
92nd Congress, H. R. 8629
November 18, 1971
AN ACT To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
provide increased manpower for the health professions,
and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
[p. 1]
-------
1720 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS
[p. 33]
*******
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT
SEC. 302. (a) Section 307 (a) (1) of the Clean Air Act is
amended by striking out "210 (c) (4)" and inserting in lieu thereof
"211(c)(3)".
(b) Section 113 (b) (2) of such Act is amended by inserting
"(A)" before "during", and by inserting ", or (B)" after "as-
sumed enforcement".
(c) Section 113 (c) (1) (A) of such Act is amended by inserting
"(i)" before "during" and by inserting ", or (ii)" after "assumed
enforcement".
(d) Section 211 (c) (3) (A) of such Act is amended by inserting
"obtaining" after "purpose of".
(e) Section 211 (d) of such Act is amended by striking out
"under subsection (c)," at the second place it appears and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "under subsection (b)".
(f) The first sentence of section lll(b) (1) (B) of the Clean
Air Act is amended by striking out "purpose" and inserting in lieu
thereof "publish proposed".
[p. 34]
*******
1.11(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H. R. REP. No. 92-258, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
111(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC
WELFARE
S. REP. No. 92-251, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
111(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 92-578, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1721
l.l/(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 117 (1971)
l.l£(4)(a) July 1: Considered and passed House
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.l/(4)(b) July 14: Considered and passed Senate, amended in
lieu of S. 934
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.l/(4)(c) Oct. 19: Senate agreed to conference report
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
l.l/(4)(d) Nov. 9: House agreed to conference report
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.2 PUBLIC CONTRACTS, ADVERTISEMENTS FOR
PROPOSALS FOR PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS FOR
SUPPLIES OR SUPPLIES FOR GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS; 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)
41 § 5
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 advertising 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 per-
formed 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 1638
-------
1722 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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 Government shall
be governed by the requirements of this section for advertising.
In the case of wholly owned Government corporations, this sec-
tion shall apply to their administrative transactions only. R.S. §
3709; Aug. 2, 1946, c. 744, § 9(a), (c), 60 Stat. 809; June 30,
1949, c. 288, Title VI, § 602 (f), formerly Title V, § 502 (e), 63
Stat. 400, renumbered Sept. 5, 1950, c. 849, §§ 6(a), (b), 8(c), 64
Stat. 583; Aug. 28, 1958, Pub.L. 85-800, § 7, 72 Stat. 967.
1.3 ADVANCES OF PUBLIC MONEYS, PROHIBITION
AGAINST, AS REVISED, 31 U.S.C. §529 (1956)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a)(2)(D)]
31 § 529
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 rendered,
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 discharge 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 discharge of the pay and
emoluments to which they may be entitled cannot be regularly
effected. R.S. § 3648; Aug. 2,1946, c. 744, § 11, 60 Stat. 809.
1.3a ADVANCES OF PUBLIC MONEYS;
PROHIBITION AGAINST
August 2,1946, R.S. §3648, §11, 60 Stat. 809
SEC. 11. The first sentence of section 3648 of the Revised Stat-
utes (31 U.S.C. 529) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"No advance of public money shall be made in any case unless
authorized by the appropriation concerned or other law."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1723
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
TITLE 3—THE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10410
SPECIFICATION OF LAWS FROM WHICH THE ESCAPEE PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SHALL BE
EXEMPT
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 532 of the
Mutual Security Act of 1951, as added by section 7(m) of the
Mutual Security Act of 1952 (Public Law 400, approved June 20,
1952, 66 Stat. 146), it is hereby determined that the performance
of functions with respect to the escapee program, authorized by
section 101 (a) (1) of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amend-
ed, and administered by the Department of State, without regard
to the three following-designated provisions of law will further
the purposes of the said Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended:
1. Section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, 60 Stat.
809 (31 U.S.C. 529).
2. Section 305 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, approved June 30, 1949, ch. 288, 63 Stat. 396
(41 U.S.C. 255).
3. Section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (41 U.S.C.
5).
HARRY S. TRUMAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 14, 1952.
[F. R. Doc. 52-12341; Filed, Nov. 14, 1952; 3:54 p.m.]
[p. 10495]
1.3c E.O. 11223, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF
FUNCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE FOREIGN ASSIST-
ANCE ACT OF 1961
May 12,1965, 30 Fed. Reg. 6635-6636
RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY
THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961, As AMENDED
By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 633 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 75 Stat. 454 (22
-------
1724 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
U.S.C. 2393), it is hereby determined that, to the extent hereinaf-
ter indicated, the performance of functions authorized by that
Act, as amended, and any predecessor legislation, without regard
to the laws specified in the numbered subdivision of Sections 1 and
2 of this order and without regard to consideration as specified in
Sections 3 and 4 of this order will further the purposes of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended:
SECTION 1. With respect to functions authorized by the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), and
any predecessor legislation except those functions exercised by the
Department of Defense under authority of Sections 621 and 623 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2381 and 2383) :
(1) The Act of March 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 500, as amended (15
U.S.C. 616a).
(2) Section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, 60 Stat.
809 (31 U.S.C. 529).
(3) Section 305 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 396, as amended (41 U.S.C. 255).
(4) Section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (41
U.S.C. 5.)
(5) Section 3710 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 8).
(6) Section 2 of Title III of the Act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat.
1520 (41 U.S.C. lOa).
(7) Section 3735 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 13).
(8) Section 304 (c) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as added by the Act of October 31, 1951, 65
Stat. 700 (41 U.S.C. 254(c)), but only with respect to contracts
entered into with foreign governments or agencies thereof for the
rendering of services to the United States or an agency thereof
within the continental limits of the United States.
(9) Section 901 (a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, 49
Stat. 2015, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1241 (a)).
SEC. 2. With respect to purchases authorized to be made outside
the limits of the United States or the District of Columbia under
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and any prede-
cessor legislation:
(1) Section 2276 (a) of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(2) Section 2313 (b) of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(3) Section 304 (c) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as added by the Act of October 31, 1951, 65
Stat. 700 (41 U.S.C 254(c)).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1725
(4) Section 1301 of the Second War Powers Act, 1942, 56 Stat.
185 (50 U.S.C. App. 643), as extended by the provisions of the
Act of June 30,1953, 67 Stat. 120.
[p. 6635]
(5) Section 3(b) of the Act of August 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 972
(50 U.S.C. 1433 (b)), but only with respect to contracts in which
the inclusion of the clause required by Section 3 (b), or the compli-
ance with that clause, if included in a contract, is deemed by the
executive or military department concerned to be impracticable.
SEC. 3. With respect to cost-type contracts heretci ore or hereaf-
ter made with non-profit institutions under which no fee is
charged or paid, amendments and modifications of such contracts
may be made with or without consideration and may be utilized to
accomplish the same things as any original contract could have
accomplished, irrespective of the time or circumstances of the
making, or the form of the contract amended or modified, or of the
amending or modifying contract and irrespective of rights which
may have accrued under the contract or the amendments or modi-
fications thereof.
SEC. 4. With respect to contracts heretofore or hereafter made,
other than those described in Section 3 of this order, amendments
and modifications of such contracts may be made with or without
consideration and may be utilized to accomplish the same things as
any original contract could have accomplished, irrespective of the
time or circumstances of the making, or the form of the contract
amended or modified, or of the amending or modifying contract,
and irrespective of rights which may have accrued under the con-
tract or the amendments or modifications thereof, if the Secretary
of State determines in each case that such action is necessary to
protect the foreign policy interests of the United States.
SEC. 5. Executive Order No. 10784 of October 1, 1958, and
Executive Order No. 10845 of October 12, 1959, are hereby su-
perseded.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 12,1965
[F.R. Doc. 65-5158; Filed, May 12,1965; 2:56 p.m.]
[p. 6636]
-------
1726 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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)]
10 § 2353
(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 im-
provements 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—
(l)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;
(2) an option in the United States to acquire the underly-
ing 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. Aug. 10,1956, c. 1041, 70A Stat. 134.
1.4a ACT OF JULY 16, 1952
P.L. 82-557, 66 Stat. 725
AN ACT
To facilitate the performance of research and development work by and on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1727
behalf of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and
for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That each of the
Secretaries of the military departments is hereby authorized to
establish such advisory committees or panels as may be necessary
for the conduct of the research and development activities of his
department, and to employ such part-time advisory personnel as
they may deem necessary in carrying out such activities. Persons
holding other offices or positions under the United States for
which they receive compensation, while serving as members of
such committees, shall receive no additional compensation for
such service. Other members of such committees and other part-
time advisory personnel so employed may serve without compensa-
tion or may receive compensation at a rate not to exceed $50 for
each day of service, as determined by the appointing authority.
SEC. 2. No provision of law prohibiting employment of or pay-
ment of compensation or expenses to any person not a citizen of
the United States shall apply to any expert, scientific, technical, or
professional person whose appointment or employment in connec-
tion with the research and development activities of the military
departments is determined by the Secretary concerned to be neces-
sary.
SEC. 3. Contracts of the military departments for services and
use of facilities for research or development may be made for a
term not to exceed five years, and may be extended for an addi-
tional period not to exceed five years, subject to the availability of
appropriations therefor.
SEC. 4. Any contract of the military departments for research
or development, or both, may provide for the acquisition or con-
struction by, or furnishing to, the contractor of such research,
developmental, or test facilities and equipment as may be deter-
mined by the Secretary concerned to be necessary for the perform-
ance thereof. Such research, developmental, or test facilities and
equipment, including specialized housing therefor, may be ac-
quired or constructed at Government expense, and may be fur-
nished to the contractor by lease, loan, or sale at fair value, and
with or without reimbursement to the Government for the use
thereof: Provided, That nothing contained in this subsection shall
be deemed to authorize new construction or improvements having
general utility: Provided further, That nothing contained herein
shall be deemed to authorize the installation or construction of
facilities on property not owned by the Government which would
-------
1728 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
not be readily removable or separable without unreasonable ex-
pense or unreasonable loss of value, unless adequate provision is
made in the contract for (1) reimbursement to the Government of
the fair value of such facilities upon the completion or termination
of the contract, or within a reasonable time thereafter, or (2) an
[p. 725]
option in the Government to acquire the underlying land, or (3)
such other provisions as will in the opinion of the Secretary con-
cerned be adequate to protect the Government's interest in such
facilities: And provided further, That all moneys arising from
sales or reimbursement under this section shall be covered into the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, except to the extent otherwise
authorized by law with respect to contractor-acquired property.
The Secretary of each of the military departments shall transmit
to the Congress reports covering contracts for research or devel-
opment entered into during each six months following the enact-
ment of this Act. Each such report shall contain (1) a list of each
contract for research or development entered into during such
period the total cost of which to the Government will exceed
$50,000, and (2) specific information with respect to each such
contract, except that specific information the disclosure of which
he deems incompatible with the security of the United States may
be excluded from such reports.
SEC. 5. With the approval of the Secretary concerned, any con-
tract of the military departments for research or development, or
both, may provide that the Government will indemnify the con-
tractor against either or both of the following, to the extent that
they arise out of the direct performance of said contract and are
not compensated by insurance or otherwise :(1) Liability on ac-
count of claims (including reasonable expenses of litigation or
settlement of such claims) by third persons, including employees
of the contractor, for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to
property, arising as a result of a risk defined in the contract to be
unusually hazardous: [Provided, that any contract so providing
shall also contain appropriate provisions for notice to the Govern-
ment of suits or actions filed or claims made, against the contrac-
tor, with respect to any alleged liability for such death, bodily
injury, or loss of or damage to property, and for control of or
assistance in the defense of any such suit, action, or claims, by the
Government, at its election;] and (2) loss of or damage to prop-
erty of the contractor arising as a result of a risk defined in the
contract to be unusually hazardous: And provided further, That
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1729
no payment shall be made by the Government under authority of
this section unless the amount thereof shall first have been certi-
fied to be just and reasonable by the Secretary concerned or by an
official of the department designated for such purpose by the Sec-
retary. Any such payment may be made, with the approval of the
Secretary concerned, out of any funds obligated for the perform-
ance of such contract or out of funds available for research and
development work and not otherwise obligated; or out of any
funds appropriated by the Congress for the making of such pay-
ments.
SEC. 6. Each of the Secretaries of the military departments is
authorized to prescribe, with the approval of the Secretary of
Defense and of the Comptroller General of the United States,
regulations for his department stating the extent to which vouch-
ers for funds expended under any contract for research or devel-
opment, or both, shall be subject to itemization, substantiation, or
certification prior to payment, without regard to the limitations of
other laws relating to the expenditure of public funds and ac-
counting therefor.
SEC. 7. Each of the Secretaries of the military departments is
authorized to delegate any authority provided by this Act to the
Under Secretary or any Assistant Secretary of his department
and, except the authority under the second proviso in section 4
hereof, the said Secretaries may delegate any authority provided
by this Act to the chiefs of the technical services, bureaus, or
offices and to one assistant
[p. 726]
to each such chief. The power to negotiate, execute, and administer
contracts for research or development, or both, may be further
delegated, subject to the provisions of any other applicable law.
Approved July 16,1952.
[P- 727]
526-703 O - 73 - 37
-------
1730 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.4a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
H.R. REP. No. 548, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951)
FACILITATING THE PERFORMANCE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT WORK BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DE-
PARTMENTS OF THE ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE
JUNE 12,1951.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HEBEET from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 1180]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1180) to facilitate the performance of research and
development work by and on behalf of the Departments of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and for other purposes, hav-
ing considered the same, report favorably thereon without amend-
ment and recommend that the bill do pass.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide the armed
services with powers which are considered to be necessary to
facilitate the carrying on of their research and development pro-
grams.
The recent war may truly be called the scientists' war. Of
course, the most spectacular evidence of this is the development of
the atomic bomb. Other known illustrations are the proximity
fuze, the myriad applications of radar, recoilless weapons, and the
use of infra-red in front-line combat. On the side of the enemy
there were such things as the V-l guided missile, the V-2 rocket,
the sonic torpedo, and the snorkel submarine.
The significance of this for our national security in the future
has been well stated by Dr. Vannevar Bush, in his report to the
President entitled, "Science—The Endless Frontier" :
We cannot again rely on our allies to hold off the enemy while we struggle
to catch up. There must be more—and more adequate—military research in
peacetime.
It must be remembered that on mobilization day the enemy will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1731
have a far greater number of men under arms than the Allied
Nations. The logical answer on our part appears to be an equiva-
lent countersuperiority in arms and equipment as a result of our
"more — and more
adequate — military research in peacetime." The truth of this
statement has been demonstrated by the early experience of UN
troops against the mass attacks of Communists in Korea.
As a result of that experience, funds have been made available
for the acceleration of the research and development program.
Money alone, however, will not enable the military departments
to meet their research and development obligations. They must
have clear authority necessary to arrange and organize their re-
search and development work so as to secure the maximum results
for the funds expended. It is for that reason that the Armed
Forces have joined in recommending the passage of H.R. 1180.
This proposal does not require the increase of current appropri-
ations for research and development. The proposed legislation will
result in no increased cost to the Government, except to the extent
that unforeseen hazards may create liabilities under the indemnity
provisions contained in section 5 of the proposed bill. It is impossi-
ble to foresee the extent of such claims under these provisions, or
even whether justifiable claims will actually be made.
Experience has shown conclusively how research and develop-
ment, its personnel, and its institutions, must have each of the
elements of authority incorporated in this bill. This can be demon-
strated by analyzing the bill section by section.
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
Section 1 provides for the establishment of research and devel-
opment advisory committees or panels and the employment of such
part-time advisory personnel in each of the military departments
as they may deem necessary in carrying out their research and
development activities. The wartime experience of the armed serv-
ices has demonstrated that such committees or panels and part-
time consultants are of immeasurable aid to the research and
development programs of the armed services, because they focus
the greatest scientific minds of the country on the planning and
execution of the research and development projects of the armed
services. The members of these committees or panels and such
advisory personnel should be permitted to serve either with or
without compensation, and should be exempted from the laws
-------
1732 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(sees. 281, 283, and 284 of title 18, U.S. Code) which contain
certain statutory prohibitions and penalties which would be appli-
cable to all Federal employees, for example, in regard to the par-
ticipation in Government contracts or claims against the Govern-
ment. The most competent persons and efficient firms are those we
hope will accept appointments and contracts with the Government,
and may be in a position to lay valid claims against the Govern-
ment. These persons and firms should not be embarrassed by their
inter-relationship while in Government service. This section would
overcome the reluctance of such persons and firms and put them at
ease in accepting such work. Past experience has shown that it is
in the best interests of the United States to utilize the experience
of the country's outstanding industrialists, scientists, and educa-
tors who might be willing to accept pay, or fearful of liabilities
under the cited laws.
Section 2 authorizes the employment of scientific and technical
persons, whether or not they are citizens of the United States. It is
[p. 2]
common knowledge that many of the leading experts in these fields
are noncitizens and this authority will permit the employment of
such persons under the provisions of Public Law 600, Seventy-
ninth Congress.
Section 3 provides for long-term contracts. Research and devel-
opment programs must be planned far in advance in order to
achieve and maintain superior weapons and equipment systems.
The individual projects which contribute to the over-all programs
are unpredictable as to results and as to the length of time re-
quired for completion. Continuing funds as authorized in Public
Law 604, Eighty-first Congress, together with a 5-year contract
term plus provision for additional 5-year contract renewals, will
provide the necessary continuity. Under the proposed system the
Bureau of the Budget and the Congress would not lose control
over appropriated funds. In the case of each activity they would
be presented annually, with a single figure, representing the "bank
balance" of that activity. A large percentage of research and de-
velopment activities are conducted by contract with civilian insti-
tutions. The inability of the military services to conform to estab-
lished business practices in making long-term contracts seriously
impairs this relationship. A prospective contractor hesitates to
commit a highly trained staff, recruited with difficulty, for fear of
termination of the work when the contract is on a short-term
basis. Accelerated progress in critical fields may thus be retarded
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1733
until a subsequent appropriation to cover an amendment or a new
contract can be justified. Authority to place long-term contracts is
considered essential to meet the foregoing requirements.
Section 4 provides for the furnishing of necessary research,
development or test facilities to contractors, subject to adequate
protection of the Government's interests therein. It is the commit-
tee's understanding that, under the provisions of this section, the
military departments may utilize research and development funds
for the furnishing or construction of equipment or facilities for
the use of contractors where appropriate. Wartime experience in-
dicates that situations arise in which contractors require special
facilities for the performance of their contracts. Since in many
cases these facilities would be of no use to them apart from the
performance of such contracts, they are unable to provide the
facilities at their own expense. On the other hand, to permit con-
tract prices to include sufficient amounts to cover the cost of such
facilities would obviously be unfair to the Government in that the
Government would, in effect, be not only buying the facilities, but
would then leave them in the possession of the contractor. The
solution proposed herein is to authorize the Government to provide
such facilities, at the same time protecting its interest therein.
Section 5 provides authority for the military departments to
agree to indemnify contractors against liability and loss resulting
from injury to persons or damage to property arising out of the
direct performance of a research and development contract, to the
extent that such losses are not compensated by insurance or other-
wise. In many cases, contractors are reluctant to undertake a
research or development contract involving extremely hazardous
new developments without adequate protection in the event of
liability resulting- from claims made as a result of damage from
those experiments. No provisions can be made
[p. 3]
for such protection by including a reserve in the contract price,
and the cost of insurance, if at all obtainable, would be prohibitive.
The solution is for the Government to agree to indemnify such
contracts subject to the safeguards provided in this section.
Section 6 provides authority for the Secretaries of the military
departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense and
the Comptroller General to promulgate regulations stating the
extent to which vouchers for funds expended under any research
and development contract shall require itemization or substantia-
tion prior to payment. Universities and nonprofit institutions, in
-------
1734 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
which much research is conducted, as well as some commercial
organizations, are not equipped to handle the detailed vouchering
procedures and auditing technicalities required. Difficulty is expe-
rienced in negotiating contracts with these institutions for that
proved highly satisfactory. The requirement of approval by the
Office of Scientific Research and Development during the war and
proved highly satisfactory. The requirement of approval by the
Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller General is an important
safeguard on the extent to which this authority will be used.
Section 7 provides authority for the prompt publication of sci-
entific and technical information developed by the departments,
which will be extremely useful in disseminating such information.
Frequently it will be advantageous for the departments to avail
themselves of specialized means of distribution of such informa-
tion, such as the use of the services and mailing lists of appropri-
ate learned societies. The current situation of inflation, increased
costs, and the consequent shrinkage in media of publication of
scientific work, plus increase scientific activity, has resulted in
considerable difficulty in the publication of the findings of scien-
tific work. Scientific progress is directly related to the prompt
dissemination of technical data to others who are engaged in simi-
lar work. It is to the interest of the military service to assist in
such dissemination of information, subject to security controls.
This section excludes the publication of such material from the
provisions of law which generally require that all printing for
Government agencies shall be done at the Government Printing
Office.
Section 8 authorizes the Secretaries of the military departments
to delegate any authority provided by this act to the Under or
Assistant Secretaries of the Departments, the Chiefs of the Tech-
nical Service bureaus or offices, and to one assistant of each such
chief. Such delegation of authority is normal and is considered
essential in order to achieve the necessary facility and flexibility
of operation.
There can be no question that the future security of our Nation
depends largely upon our military research and development pro-
gram. The purpose of the proposed bill is to provide the armed
services with adequate means for properly discharging their re-
search and development functions.
As previously noted, it is impossible to predict unforeseen haz-
ards which may create liabilities under the indemnity provisions
contained in section 5 of the proposed bill. It is the intention of the
committee that the departments continue the current policy of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1735
having contractors insure employees against hazards in doing re-
search contract work where the premiums on such insurance are
not prohibitively costly. It is recognized that some of the under-
takings in the research and development contracts are so hazard-
ous that they cannot be insured
[P. 4]
in any amount. If such contracts are to be undertaken, and the
committee agrees that they must, there is no other solution than
that of having the Government agree to indemnify the contractor
if liability should be sustained by him. Except for this possibility,
the proposed legislation will result in no increased cost to the
Government.
The proposed legislation is a part of the Department of Defense
legislative program for 1951 and it has been approved by the
Bureau of the Budget. The Department of Defense recommends
that it be enacted by the Congress as is evidenced by the report of
the Secretary of Defense which is hereto attached and made a part
of this report :
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., January 5,1951.
Hon. SAM RAYBURN,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is forwarded herewith a draft of legislation
"to facilitate the performance of research and development work by and on
behalf of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and for other purposes,"
together with a sectional analysis thereof.
This proposed legislation is a part of the Department of Defense Legislative
Program for 1951 and it has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget.
The Department of Defense recommends that it be enacted by the Congress.
Purpose of the legislation: The purpose of this legislation is to provide the
military departments with administrative authority required to carry out
research and development programs. General authority for research and
development programs of the Departments of the Army and Air Force is
provided by the Army and Air Force Authorization Act of 1949, while the
Department of the Navy carries out its research and development program
under the authority of the act of August 1, 1946 (60 Stat. 779). The
National Security Act of 1947, as amended, provides for the authority of
the Secretary of Defense and the Research and Development Board with
respect to all research and development programs of the Department of
Defense. This legislation is not designed to affect such general authorities
and relationships but merely to provide the military departments with
administrative powers which are essential, in order to effectively implement
the general authority to conduct such programs.
These essential powers are:
(1) the appointment of research advisory committees;
-------
1736 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(2) The employment of alien scientists and technicians;
(3) The periodic renewal of research contracts;
(4) The furnishing of Government facilities;
(5) The indemnification against damage loss, where the contractor is
unable to procure insurance coverage;
(6) A simplified voucher procedure, the requirements of which can be
met by colleges, universities, institutes, and other contractors; and
(7) The publication and dissemination of scientific and technical infor-
mation.
Legislative references: Legislation similar to this proposal was introduced
in the Eightieth Congress (S. 1560). S. 1560 was passed by the Senate (S.
Kept. No. 1397), but was not reported out of the House Committee before
adjournment.
The Army and Air Force Authorization Act of 1949 (Public Law 604, 81st
Cong.) which was approved on July 10, 1950, authorized the Departments of
the Army and Air Force to conduct, engage, and participate in research and
development programs and to procure or contract for facilities, equipment,
services, and supplies to effectuate such programs. That act also provided for
the continued availability of appropriations to the Departments of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force for research and development.
Legislation identical with this proposal except for technical changes and the
omission of authority for the continued availability of appropriations for
research and development in the enclosed draft was included in the Depart-
ment of Defense legislative program for consideration by the Eighty-first
Congress, second session, approved by the Bureau of the Budget, and intro-
duced in the Congress (S. 3521 and H.R. 8352). No further action was taken
by the Eighty-first Congress with respect to S. 3521 and H.R. 8352.
Cost and budget data: Enactment of the proposed legislation should result
in no additional expenditure of public funds, except to the extent that unfore-
seen
[P-6]
hazards may create liabilities under the indemnity provisions of the proposed
legislation. It is impossible to foresee the extent of claims under those
provisions.
Department of Defense action agency: The Department of the Army has
been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense for this
legislation.
Sincerely yours,
MARX LEVA.
Existing comparable law is printed below on the left with the
bill (H.R. 1180) on the right:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1737
EXISTING COMPARABLE LAW
ARMY AND AIR FORCE AUTHORIZATION
ACT OP 1949—RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT AUTHORIZATION
(Army Authority)
SEC. 104. The Secretary of the
Army is hereby authorized to conduct,
engage, and participate in research
and development programs related to
activities of the Army of the United
States and to procure, or contract for
the use of, such facilities, equipment,
services, and supplies as may be re-
quired to effectuate such programs.
(Air Force Authority)
SEC. 205. The Secretary of the Air
Force is hereby authorized to conduct,
engage, and participate in research
and development programs related to
activities of the Air Force of the Un-
ited States and to procure, or contract
for the use of, such facilities, equip-
ment, services, and supplies as may be
required to effectuate such programs.
(Army, Navy, and Air Force Appro-
priation Authority)
SEC. 303. (a) There are hereby au-
thorized to be appropriated, out of
any moneys in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropri-
ated, such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(b) Moneys appropriated to the De-
partments of the Army, Navy, or Air
Force for procurement of technical
military equipment and supplies, the
construction of public works, and for
research and development, including
moneys appropriated to the Depart-
ment of the Navy for the procure-
ment, construction, and research and
development of guided missiles, which
are hereby authorized for the Depart-
ment of the Navy, shall remain avail-
able until expended unless otherwise
provided in the appropriation act con-
cerned.
EXISTING COMPARABLE LAW
ACT OF AUGUST 1, 1946 (60 STAT. 779)
(Office of Naval Research)
* * * That there is hereby created
and established in the Office of the
Secretary of the Navy an Office of
Naval Research, which shall be
charged with such duties relating to
(1) the encouragement, promotion,
planning, initiation, and coordination,
of naval research; (2) the conduct of
naval research in augmentation of
and in conjunction with the research
and development conducted by the
respective bureaus and other agencies
and offices of the Navy Department;
and (3) the supervision, administra-
tion, and control of activities within
or on behalf of the Department of the
Navy relating to patents, inventions,
trade-marks, copyrights, royalty pay-
ments, and matters connected there-
with, as may be prescribed by the Sec-
retary of the Navy. All of the duties
of this Office shall be performed under
the authority of the Secretary of the
Navy and its orders shall be consid-
ered as emanating from him and shall
have full force and effect as such.
SEC. 2. At the head of the Office of
Naval Research there shall be a Chief
of Naval Research, appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, for a term of
not to exceed three years, from among
officers not below the grade of com-
mander on the active list of the Navy.
The Chief of Naval Research shall
have the same rank and shall be enti-
tled to the same pay, allowances, and
privileges of retirement as are now or
may hereafter be prescribed by or in
pursuance of maior chiefs of bureaus
in the Navy Department.
SEC. B. An officer on the active list
of the Navy may be detailed as As-
sistant Chief of Naval Research, and
such officer shall receive the highest
pay of his grade and in case of the
death, resignation, absence, or sick-
-------
1738
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ness of the Chief of Naval Research,
shall, until otherwise directed by the
President as provided in Revised Stat-
utes, section 179 (U. S. C., title 5, sec.
6), perform the duties of such chief
until his successor is appointed or
such absence or sickness shall cease.
SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Navy
is hereby authorized to establish a
Naval Research Advisory Committee,
which shall consist of not exceeding
fifteen persons to be appointed by the
Secretary from those persons in civil-
ian life who are preeminent in the
fields of science, research, and devel-
opment work. One member of such
committee will be from the field of
medicine. The members of such com-
mittee shall serve for such term or
terms as the Secretary may specify,
and shall meet at such times as may
be specified by the Secretary to con-
sult with and advise the Chief of
Naval Operations and the Chief of the
Office of Naval Research. Each mem-
ber of such committee shall be entitled
to compensation in the amount of $50
for each day or part of a day he shall
be in attendance at any regularly
called meeting of the committee, to-
gether with reimbursement for all
travel expenses incident to such at-
tendance: Provided, that nothing con-
tained in sections 41, 109, and 113 of
the Criminal Code (U.S.C., title 18,
sees. 93, 198, and 203) ; in Revised
Statutes, section 190 (U.S.C., title 5,
sec. 99); in section 19 (e) of the Con-
tract Settlement Act of 1944 (Public
Law 395, Seventy-eighth Congress);
or in any other provision of Federal
law imposing restrictions, require-
ments, or penalties in relation to the
employment of persons, the perform-
ance of services, or the payment or
receipt of compensation in connection
with any claim proceeding, or matter
involving the United States, shall
apply to such persons solely by reason
of their appointment to and member-
ship on such committee.
SEC. 5. (a) There is hereby author-
ized to be appropriated such amounts
as may be necessary for the Office of
Naval Research to carry out its func-
tions as provided for herein, including
such sums as may be required for ad-
ministrative expenses, and the conduct
of research and development work in
Government facilities and under con-
tracts with private individuals, corpo-
rations, and educational or scientific
institutions. Sufficient information rel-
ative to estimates of appropriations
for research by the several bureaus
and offices shall be furnished to the
Chief of the Office of Naval Research
to assist him in coordinating the Navy
research program and the carrying
out of such other duties as outlined in
section 1.
(b) Any funds appropriated to ena-
ble the Office of Naval Research to
carry out its functions as provided for
herein shall, if obligated during the
fiscal year for which appropriated, re-
main available for expenditure for
four years following the expiration of
the fiscal year for which appropriated.
After such a four-year period, the
unexpended balances of appropria-
tions shall be carried to the surplus
fund and covered into the Treasury.
SEC. 6. Within the limits of availa-
ble appropriations, the Secretary of
the Navy, and by direction of the Sec-
retary, of Chief of the Office of Naval
Research and the chiefs of all bureaus
of the Navy Department may enter
into contracts, or amendments or mod-
ifications of contracts, for services
and materials necessary for the mak-
ing and securing of reports, tests,
models, apparatus, and for the con-
ducting of research, without perform-
ance or other bonds, and without re-
gard to section 3709 of the Revised
Statutes (U.S.C., title 41, sec. 5), sec-
tion 3718 of the Revised Statutes
(U.S.C., title 34, sec. 561), section
3719 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C.,
title 34, sec. 562), section 3720 of the
Revised Statutes (U. S. C., title 34,
sec. 563) section 3722 of the Revised
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1739
Statutes (U. S. C., title 34, sec. 572),
and may make advance, progress, and
other payments with respect to such
contracts without regard to the provi-
sions of section 3648 of the Revised
Statutes (U.S.C., title 31, sec. 529) :
Provided, That nothing herein shall be
construed to authorize the use of the
cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system
of contracting.
SEC. 7. The Secretary of the Navy
is authorized to transfer to the Office
of Naval Research, as in his judgment
may be necessary and appropriate,
such research and development func-
tions as are now assigned to the var-
ious bureaus and other agencies and
offices of the Navy Department, to-
gether with any or all personnel,
buildings, facilities, and other prop-
erty used in the administration
thereof, including without limitations
the Special Devices Division and the
Naval Research Laboratory.
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947, AS
AMENDED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1949.
(Research and Development Board)
"SEC. 214. (a) There is hereby es-
tablished in the Department of De-
fense a Research and Development
Board (hereinafter in this section re-
ferred to as the 'Board'), The Board
shall be composed of a Chairman, who
shall be the head thereof and who
shall, subject to the authority of the
Secretary of Defense and in respect to
such matters authorized by him, have
the power of decision on matters fall-
ing within the jurisdiction of the
Board, and two representatives from
each of the Departments of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force, to be designated
by the Secretaries of their respective
Departments. The Chairman shall be
appointed from civilian life by the
President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, and shall re-
ceive compensation at the rate of
$14,000 a year. The purpose of the
Board shall be to advise the Secretary
of Defense as to the status of scien-
tific research relative to the national
security, and to assist him in assuring
adequate provision for research and
development on scientific problems re-
lating to the national security.
"(b) Subject to the authority and
direction of the Secretary of Defense,
the Board shall perform the following
duties and such other duties as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe:
"(1) preparation of a complete and
integrated program of research and
development for military purposes;
" (2) advising with regard to trends
in scientific research relating to na-
tional security and the measures nec-
essary to assure continued and in-
creasing progress:
"(3) coordination of research and
development among the military de-
partments, and allocation among them
of responsibilities for specific pro-
grams ;
"(4) formulation of policy for the
Department of Defense in connection
with research and development mat-
ters involving agencies outside the De-
partment of Defense; and
"(5) consideration of the interac-
tion of research and development and
strategy, and advising the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in connection there-
with.
"(c) When the Chairman of the
Board first appointed has taken office,
the Joint Research and Development
Board shall cease to exist and all its
records and personnel shall be trans-
ferred to the Research and Develop-
ment Board.
"(d) The Secretary of Defense shall
provide the Board with such personnel
and facilities as the Secretary may
determine to be required by the Board
for the performance of its functions."
[P-10]
-------
1740
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
THE BILL (H. R. 1180)
A BILL to facilitate the performance of re-
eearch and development work by and on
behalf of the Departments of the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force, and for other
purposes.
That each of the Secretaries of the
military departments is hereby au-
thorized to establish such advisory
committees or panels as may be neces-
sary for the conduct of the research
and development activities of his de-
partment, and to employ such part-
time advisory personnel as they may
deem necessary in carrying out such
activities. Persons holding other offices
or positions under the United States
for which they receive compensation,
while serving as members of such
committees, shall receive no additional
compensation for such services. Other
members of such committees and other
part-time advisory personnel so em-
ployed may serve without compensa-
tion or may receive compensation at a
rate not to exceed $50 for each day of
service, as determined by the appoint-
ing authorities.
Service of an individual as a mem-
ber of any such advisory committee,
or in any other part-time capacity for
a department herevmder, shall not be
considered as service bringing such in-
dividual within the provisions of sec-
tion 281, 283, or 284 of title 18, United
States Code, unless the act of such
individual, which by such section is
made unlawful when performed by an
individual referred to in such section,
is with respect to any particular mat-
ter which directly involves a depart-
ment which such person is advising or
in which such department is directly
interested. The provisions of the Act
of July 12, 1870 (Revised Statutes,
3679), as amended shall not apply to
the acceptance of voluntary service of
any member of any committee or
panel authorized by this section.
SEC. 2. No provision of law prohib-
iting employment of or payment of
compensation or expenses to any per-
son not a citizen of the United States
shall
tp-6]
apply to any expert, scientific, tech-
nical, or professional person whose
appointment or employment in con-
nection with the research and devel-
opment activities of the military
departments is determined by the Sec-
retary concerned to be necessary.
SEC. 3. Contracts of the military de-
partments for services and use of fa-
cilities for research or development
may be made for a term not to exceed
five years, and may be extended for
an additional period not to exceed five
years, subject to the availability of
appropriations therefor.
SEC 4. Any contract of the military
departments for research or develop-
ment, or both, may provide for the
acquisition or construction, by, or fur-
nishing to, the contractor of such re-
search, developmental, or test facili-
ties and equipment as may be deter-
mined by the Secretary concerned to
be necessary for the performance
thereof. Such research, developmental,
or test facilities and equipment, in-
cluding specialized housing therefor,
may be acquired or constructed at
Government expense, and may be fur-
nished to the contractor by lease, loan,
or sale at fair value, and with or
without reimbursement to the Govern-
ment for the use thereof: Provided,
That nothing contained in this subsec-
tion shall be deemed to authorize new
construction or improvements having
general utility: Provided further,
That nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to authorize the installation or
construction of facilities on property
not owned by the Government which
would not be readily removable or
separable without unreasonable ex-
pense or unreasonable loss of value,
unless adequate provision is made in
the contract for (1) reimbursement to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1741
the Government of the fair value of
such facilities upon the completion or
termination of the contract, or within
a reasonable time thereafter, or (2)
an option in the Government to ac-
quire the underlying land, or (3) such
other provisions as will in the opinion
of the Secretary concerned be ade-
quate to protect the Government's in-
terest in such facilities: And provided
further, That all moneys arising from
sales or reimbursement under this sec-
tion shall be covered into the Treas-
ury as miscellaneous receipts, except
to the extent otherwise authorized by
law with respect to contractor-ac-
quired property.
[p. 7]
SEC. 5. With the approval of the
Secretary concerned, any contract of
the military departments for research
or development, or both, may provide
that the Government will indemnify
the contractor against either or both
of the following, to the extent that
they arise out of the direct perform-
ance of said contract and are not com-
pensated by insurance or otherwise:
(1) Liability on account of claims (in-
cluding reasonable expenses of litiga-
tion or settlement of such claims) by
third persons, including employees of
the contractor, for death, bodily in-
jury, or loss of or damage to property,
arising as a result of a risk defined in
the contract to be unusually hazard-
ous: Provided, That any contract so
providing shall also contain appropri-
ate provisions for notice to the Gov-
ernment of suits or actions filed or
claims made, against the contractor,
with respect to any alleged liability
for such death, bodily injury, or loss
of or damage to property, and for con-
trol of or assistance in the defense of
any such suit, action, or claims, by the
Government, at its election; and (2)
loss of or damage to property of the
contractor arising as a result of a risk
defined in the contract to be unusually
hazardous: And provided further,
That no payment shall be made by the
Government under authority of this
section unless the amount thereof
shall first have been certified to be
just and reasonable by the Secretary
concerned or by an official of the de-
partment designated for such purpose
by the Secretary. Any such payment
may be made, with the approval of the
Secretary concerned, out of any funds
obligated for the performance of such
contract or out of funds available for
research and development work and
not otherwise obligated; or out of any
funds appropriated by the Congress
for the making of such payments.
SEC. 6. Each of the Secretaries of
the military department is authorized
to prescribe, with the approval of the
Secretary of Defense and of the
Comptroller General of the United
States, regulations for his department
stating- the extent to which vouchers
for funds expended under any con-
tract for research or development, 01
both, shall be subject to itemization,
substantiation, or certification prior to
payment, without regard to the limi-
tations of other laws relating to the
expenditure of public funds and ac-
counting therefor,
SEC. 7. Each of the Secretaries of
the military departments is authorized
to arrange for the publication of sci-
entific and technical information re-
sulting from
Cp. 8]
the research and development activi-
ties of his department, so as to further
the full dissemination of information
of scientific value consistent with the
national interest without regard to
the provisions of section 87 of the Act
of January 12, 1895 (28 Stat. 662),
as amended, or of section 2 of the act
of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 762), as
amended.
SEC. 8. Each of the Secretaries of
the military departments is authorized
to delegate any authority provided by
-------
1742
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
this Act to the Under Secretary or
any Assistant Secretary of his depart-
ment and, except the authority under
the second proviso in section 4 hereof,
the said Secretaries may delegate any
authority provided by this Act to the
chiefs of the technical services, bur-
eaus, or offices and to one assistant to
each such chief. The power to negoti-
ate, execute, and administer contracts
for research or development, or both,
may be further delegated, subject to
the provisions of any other applicable
law.
[P-91
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1743
1.4a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
S. REP. No. 936, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951)
FACILITATING THE PERFORMANCE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT WORK BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DE-
PARTMENTS OF THE ARMY, THE NAVY, AND THE AIR
FORCE
OCTOBER 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 1) 1951.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STENNIS, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 1180]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill H. R. 1180, to facilitate the performance of research and
development work by and on behalf of the Departments of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and for other purposes, hav-
ing considered the same, report favorably thereon, without amend-
ments, and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The proposed legislation would provide the three military de-
partments with certain administrative authority required to carry
out their research and development programs.
EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
Background of the pending bill
The bill is substantially the same as S. 1560, Eightieth Con-
gress, which was passed by the Senate on June 1, 1948, but con-
cerning which no action was taken by the House of Representa-
tives. The pending bill introduces no change in policy or procedure
not contemplated in S. 1560, Eightieth Congress.
General authority for research and development
The Army and Air Force Organization Act of 1949 contains
-------
1744 LEGAL COMPILATION — Am
general authority for research and development programs to be
carried out by the Departments of the Army and Air Force. The
Department of the Navy carries out its research and development
program under the authority of the act of August 1, 1946 (60
Stat. 779). The National Security Act of 1947, as amended by the
National Security Act Amendments of 1949, makes provision for
the authority of the Secretary of Defense and the Research and
Development Board with respect to research and development pro-
grams within the Department of Defense.
H. R. 1180 does not disturb these general authorities and rela-
tionships but is intended to provide the three military depart-
ments with certain administrative powers which are essential for
them to implement the general authority which they now have to
conduct such programs.
Major provisions of the bill
The more important administrative powers which the bill pro-
vides are listed below :
(1) The appointment of research advisory committees;
(2) The employment of alien scientists and technicians ;
(3) The periodic renewal of research contracts ;
(4) The furnishing of Government facilities ;
(5) The indemnification against damage loss, where the con-
tractor is unable to procure insurance coverage ;
(6) A simplified voucher procedure, the requirements of which
can be met by colleges, universities, institutes, and other contrac-
tors ; and
(7) The publication and dissemination of scientific and techni-
cal information.
A more detailed discussion of each of the sections of the bill is
contained in the section-by-section analysis which follows.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Establishment of research and development advisory
committees
This section provides for the establishment of research and
advisory committees and panels and for the employment of such
part-time advisory personnel as the Secretaries deem necessary in
carrying out research and development activities.
Wartime experience demonstrated that such committees or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1745
panels and part-time consultants were of invaluable assistance in
the conduct of research and development programs. Such groups
make it possible for the country to avail itself of the best scientific
minds to deal with both the planning and the execution of projects
of the type for which professional personnel of the armed services
are not particularly equipped.
The bill provides that members of such committees and panels
and advisory personnel may serve either with or without compen-
sation and shall be exempt from the conflict of interest sections of
title 18 of the United States Code.
The authority to pay compensation at the rate of not to exceed
$50 per day of service is comparable to that contained in the 1949
amendments to the National Security Act. It should be pointed out
that this language does not constitute a new or separate authority
for the employment of consultants. The committee is mindful of
the fact
[p. 2]
that substantial numbers of consultants are already employed by
the Federal Government based upon authorizations contained in
various appropriations acts. One of the beneficial results of the
bill S. 913 (Mr. McClellan), which would establish a Joint Budget
Committee service and work on the Federal budget, would be a
scrutiny of the justifications for selection and employment of this
category of personnel.
Section 2. Employment of noncitizens
This section authorizes the employment of scientific and techni-
cal persons, whether or not they are citizens of the United States.
Many of the experts in these fields are noncitizens and this author-
ity will permit the employment of such persons under the provi-
sions of Public Law 600, Seventy-ninth Congress.
Section 3. Contracts
This section provides for long-term contracts. Research and de-
velopment programs must be planned far in advance. The individ-
ual projects which contribute to the over-all programs are unpred-
ictable both as to results and as to the length of time required for
completion. Continuing funds as authorized in the Army and Air
Force Authorization Act of 1949, together with a 5-year contract
term plus provision for additional 5-year contract renewals, will
provide the necessary continuity. Under the proposed system the
Bureau of the Budget and the Congress would not lose control
over appropriated funds. In the case of each activity Congress
526-703 O - 73 - 38
-------
1746 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
would be presented annually with a single figure representing the
"bank balance" of that activity.
A large percentage of research and development activities are
conducted by contract with civilian institutions. The inability of
the military services to conform to established business practices
in making long-term contracts seriously impairs this relationship.
A prospective contractor hesitates to commit a highly trained
staff, recruited with difficulty, for fear of termination of the work
when the contract is on a short-term basis. Accelerated progress
in critical fields may thus be awarded until a subsequent appro-
priation to cover an amendment and new contract can be justified.
Authority to place long-term contracts is considered essential to
meet the foregoing requirements.
Section 4. Furnishing of certain essential facilities to contractors
This section provides for the furnishing of necessary research,
developmental or test facilities to contractors, subject to adequate
protection of the Government's interests therein. Under the provi-
sions of this section, the military departments may utilize research
and development funds for the furnishing or construction of
equipment or facilities for the use of contractors where appropri-
ate. Wartime experience indicates that situations arise in which
contractors require special facilities for the performance of their
contracts. Since in many cases these facilities would be of no use
to them apart from the performance of such contracts, they are
unable to provide the facilities at their own expense. On the other
hand, to permit contract prices to include sufficient amounts to
cover the cost of such facilities, would obviously be unfair to the
Government in that the Government would,
[p. 3]
in effect, be not only buying the facilities, but would then leave
them in the possession of the contractor. The solution proposed
herein is to authorize the Government to provide such facilities,
at the same time protecting its interest therein.
Section 5. Authority to indemnify contractors against liability and
loss arising from injury or damage
This section provides authority for the military departments to
agree to indemnify contractors against liability and loss resulting
from injury to persons or damage to property arising out of the
direct performance of a research and development contract, to the
extent that such losses are not compensated by insurance or other-
wise. In many cases, contractors are reluctant to undertake a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1747
research or development contract involving extremely hazardous
new developments without securing adequate protection in the
event of liability resulting from claims made as a result of damage
from those experiments. No provision can be made for such pro-
tection by including a reserve in the contract price, and the cost of
insurance, if at all obtainable, would be prohibitive. The solution
is for the Government to agree to indemnify such a contractor,
subject to the safeguards provided in this section.
Section 6. Simplified vouchering procedures
This section provides authority for the Secretaries of the mili-
tary departments, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense
and the Comptroller General to promulgate regulations stating the
extent to which vouchers for funds expended under any research
and development contract shall require itemization or substantia-
tion prior to payment. Universities and nonprofit institutions, in
which much research is conducted, as well as some commercial
organizations, are not equipped to handle the detailed vouchering
procedures and auditing technicalities required. Difficulty is expe-
rienced in negotiating contracts with these institutions for that
reason. Relaxed procedures were applied to contracts let by the
Office of Scientific Research and Development during the war and
proved highly satisfactory. The requirement of approval by the
Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller General is an important
safeguard on the extent to which this authority will be used.
Section 7. Authorization for scientific and technical publications
This section 7 provides authority for the prompt publication of
scientific and technical information developed by the departments,
which will be extremely useful in disseminating such information.
It frequently will be advantageous for the departments to avail
themselves of specialized means of distribution of such informa-
tion, such as the use of the services and mailing lists of appropri-
ate learned societies. The current situation of inflation, increased
costs, and the consequent shrinkage in media of publication of
scientific work, plus increased scientific activity, has resulted in
considerable difficulty in the publication of the findings of scien-
tific work. Scientific progress is directly related to the prompt
dissemination of technical data to others who are engaged in simi-
lar work. It is to the interest of the military service to assist in
such dissemination of information, subject to security controls.
This section provides the means to that end, and also excludes
such material from the provisions of law which
[p. 4]
-------
1748 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
generally require that all printing for Government agencies shall
be done at the Government Printing Office.
Section 8. Delegation of authority
This section authorizes the Secretaries of the military depart-
ments to delegate any authority provided by this act to the Under
or Assistant Secretaries of the Departments, the chiefs of the
technical services, bureaus or offices, and to one assistant of each
such chief. Such delegation of authority is normal and is consid-
ered essential in order to achieve the necessary facility and flexibil-
ity of operation.
CONCLUSION
There can be no question that the future security of our Nation
depends largely upon our military research and development pro-
grams. The purpose of the proposed bill is to provide the armed
services with adequate means for properly discharging their re-
search and development responsibilities.
As previously noted, it is impossible to predict unforeseen haz-
ards which may create liabilities under the indemnity provisions
contained in section 5 of the proposed bill. It is anticipated that
the departments will continue their current policy of having con-
tractors insure employees against hazards in doing research con-
tract work where the premiums on such insurance are not pro-
hibitively costly. It is recognized that some of the undertakings in
the research and development contracts are so hazardous that they
cannot be insured in any amount. If such contracts are to be
undertaken there is no other solution than that of having the
Government agree to indemnify the contractor if liability should
be sustained by him. Except for this possibility, the proposed
legislation will result in no increased cost to the Government.
RECOMMENDATION OP DEPAETMENT OF DEFENSE
The proposed legislation is a part of the Department of Defense
legislative program for 1951 and it has been approved by the
Bureau of the Budget. The Department of Defense recommends
that it be enacted by the Congress as is evidenced by the report of
the Secretary of Defense which is hereto attached and made a part
of this report.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1749
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington 25, D. C., January 5,1951.
Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is forwarded herewith a draft of legislation to
facilitate the performance of research and development work by and on behalf
of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and for other purposes, together
with a sectional analysis thereof.
This proposed legislation is a part of the Department of Defense legislative
program for 1951 and it has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. The
Department of Defense recommends that it be enacted by the Congress.
Purpose of the legislation.—The purpose of this legislation is to provide the
military departments with administrative authority required to carry out
research and development programs. General authority for research and de-
velopment programs of the Departments of the Army and Air Force is
provided by the Army and Air Force Authorization Act of 1949, while the
Department of the
[p.6]
Navy carries out its research and development program under the authority
of the act of August 1, 1946 (60 Stat. 779). The National Security Act of
1947, as amended, provides for the authority of the Secretary of Defense and
the Research and Development Board with respect to all research and devel-
opment programs of the Department of Defense. This legislation is not
designed to affect such general authorities and relationships but merely to
provide the military departments with administrative powers which are essen-
tial in order to effectively implement the general authority to conduct such
programs.
These essential powers are:
(1) The appointment of research advisory committees;
(2) The employment of alien scientists and technicians;
(3) The periodic renewal of research contracts;
(4) The furnishing of Government facilities;
(5) The indemnification against damage loss, where the contractor is
unable to procure insurance coverage;
(6) A simplified voucher procedure, the requirements of which can be met
by colleges, universities, institutes, and other contractors; and
(7) The publication and dissemination of scientific and technical informa-
tion.
Legislative references.—Legislation similar to this proposal was introduced
in the Eightieth Congress (S. 1560). S. 1560 was passed by the Senate (S.
Rept. No. 1397), but was not reported out of the House committee before
adjournment.
The Army and Air Force Authorization Act of 1949 (Public Law 604, 81st
Cong.) which was approved on July 10, 1950, authorized the Departments of
the Army and Air Force to conduct, engage, and participate in research and
development programs and to procure or contract for facilities, equipment,
services, and supplies to effectuate such programs. That act also provided for
the continued availability of appropriations to the Departments of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force for research and development.
-------
1750 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Legislation identical with this proposal except for technical changes and the
omission of authority for the continued availability of appropriations for
research and development in the enclosed draft, was included in the Depart-
ment of Defense legislative program for consideration by the Eighty-first
Congress, second session, approved by the Bureau of the Budget, and intro-
duced in the Congress (S. 3521 and H. R. 8352). No further action was taken
by the Eighty-first Congress with respect to S. 3521 and H. B. 8352.
Cost and budget data.—Enactment of the proposed legislation should result
in no additional expenditure of public funds, except to the extent that unfore-
seen hazards may create liabilities under the indemnity provisions of the
proposed legislation. It is impossible to foresee the extent of claims under
those provisions.
Department of Defense action agency.—The Department of the Army has
been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense for this
legislation.
Sincerely yours,
MARX LEVA.
The following statutes set forth existing provisions of law
which are related to the authority recommended in the proposed
legislation and are included in this report as a matter of conveni-
ence :
ARMY AND AIR FORCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1949—RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT AUTHORIZATION
(Army authority)
SEC. 104. The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to conduct, engage
and participate in research and development programs related to activities of
the Army of the "United States and to procure, or contract for the use of, such
facilities, equipment, services, and supplies as may be required to effectuate
such programs.
(Air Force Authority)
SEC. 205. The Secretary of the Air Force is hereby authorized to conduct,
engage, and participate in research and development programs related to
activities of the Air Force of the United States and to procure, or contract for
the use of, such facilities, equipment, services, and supplies as may be re-
quired to effectuate such programs.
[p. 6]
(Army, Navy, and Air Force Appropriation Authority)
SEC. 303. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any
moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(b) Moneys appropriated to the Department of the Army, Navy, or Air
Force for procurement of technical military equipment and supplies, the
construction of public works, and for research and development, including
moneys appropriated to the Department of the Navy for the procurement,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1751
construction, and research and development of guided missiles, which are
hereby authorized for the Department of the Navy, shall remain available
until expended unless otherwise provided in the appropriation Act concerned.
ACT OF AUGUST 1,1946 (60 STAT. 779)
(Office of Naval Research)
* * * That there is hereby created and established in the Office of the
Secretary of the Navy an Office of Naval Research, which shall be charged
with such duties relating to (1) the encouragement, promotion, planning,
initiation, and coordination, of naval research; (2) the conduct of naval
research in augmentation of and in conjunction with the research and develop-
ment conducted by the respective bureaus and other agencies and offices of the
Navy Department; and (3) the supervision, administration, and control of
activities within or on behalf of the Department of the Navy relating to
patents, inventions, trademarks, copyrights, royalty payments, and matters
connected therewith; as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy. All
of the duties of this Office shall be performed under the authority of the
Secretary of the Navy and its orders shall be considered as emanating from
him and shall have full force and effect as such.
SEC. 2. At the head of the Office of Naval Research there shall be a Chief of
Naval Research, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, for a term of not to exceed 3 years, from among officers
not below the grade of commander on the active list of the Navy. The Chief of
Naval Research shall have the same rank and shall be entitled to the same
pay, allowances, and privileges of retirement as are now or may hereafter be
prescribed by or in pursuance of law for chiefs of bureaus in the Navy
Department.
SEC. 3. An officer on the active list of the Navy may be detailed as Assistant
Chief of Naval Research, and such officer shall receive the highest pay of his
grade and in case of the death, resignation, absence, or sickness of the Chief
of Naval Research, shall, until otherwise directed by the President as provided
in Revised Statutes, section 179 (U.S.C., title 5, sec. 6), perform the duties of
such chief until his successor is appointed or such absence or sickness shall
cease.
SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Navy is hereby authorized to establish a Naval
Research Advisory Committee, which shall consist of not exceeding fifteen
persons to be appointed by the Secretary from those persons in civilian life
who are preeminent in the fields of science, research, and development work.
One member of such committee will be from the field of medicine. The mem-
bers of such committee shall serve for such term or terms as the Secretary
may specify, and shall meet at such times as may be specified by the Secretary
to consult with and advise the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of the
Office of Naval Research. Each member of such committee shall be entitled to
compensation in the amount of $50 for each day or part of a day he shall be in
attendance at any regularly called meeting of the committee, together with
reimbursement for all travel expenses incident to such attendance: Provided,
That nothing contained in sections 41, 109, and 113 of the Criminal Code
(U.S.C., title 18, sees. 93, 198, and 203); in Revised Statutes, section 190
(U.S.C., title 5, sec. 99); in sections 19 (e) of the Contract Settlement Act of
1944 (Public Law 395, Seventy-eighth Congress) ; or in any other provision of
-------
1752 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Federal law imposing restrictions, requirements, or penalties in relation to the
employment of persons, the performance of services, or the payment or receipt
of compensation in connection with any claim proceeding, or matter involving
the United States, shall apply to such persons solely by reason of their
appointment to and membership on such committees.
SEC. 5. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such amounts as
may be necessary for the Office of Naval Research to carry out its functions
as provided for herein, including such sums as may be required for adminis-
trative
[p-7]
expenses, and the conduct of research and development work in Gov-
ernment facilities and under contracts with private individuals, corporations,
and educational or scientific institutions. Sufficient information relative to
estimates of appropriations for research by the several bureaus and offices
shall be furnished to the Chief of the Office of Naval Research to assist him in
coordinating the Navy research program and the carrying out of such other
duties as outlined in .section 1.
(b) Any funds appropriated to enable the Office of Naval Research to carry
out its functions as provided for herein shall, if obligated during the fiscal
year for which appropriated, remain available for expenditure for 4 years
following the expiration of the fiscal year for which appropriated. After such
a 4-year period, the unexpended balances of appropriations shall be carried to
the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury.
SEC. 6. Within the limits of available appropriations, the Secretary of the
Navy, and, by direction of the Secretary, the Chief of the Office of Naval
Research and the chiefs of all bureaus of the Navy Department may enter
into contracts, or amendments or modifications of contracts, for services and
materials necessary for the making and securing of reports, tests, models,
apparatus, and for the conducting of research, without performance or other
bonds, and without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C.,
title 41, sec. 5), section 3718 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., title 34, sec.
561), section 3719 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., title 34, sec 562), section
3720 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., title 34, sec. 563), section 3722 of the
Revised Statutes (U.S.C., title 34, sec. 572), and may make advance, progress,
and other payments with respect to such contracts without regard to the
provisions of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., title 31, sec. 529):
Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to authorize the use of the
cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting.
SEC. 7. The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to transfer to the Office of
Naval Research, as in his judgment may be necessary and appropriate, such
research and development functions as are now assigned to the various bur-
eaus and other agencies and offices of the Navy Department, together with
any or all personnel, buildings, facilities, and other property used in the
administration thereof, including without limitation the Special Devices Divi-
sion and the Naval Research Laboratory.
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1949
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947, AS AMENDED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY
(Research and Development Board)
"SEC. 214. (a) There is hereby established in the Department of Defense a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1753
Research and Development Board (hereinafter in this section referred to as
the 'Board')- The Board shall be composed of a Chairman, who shall be the
head thereof and who shall, subject to the authority of the Secretary of
Defense and in respect to such matters authorized by him, have the power of
decision on matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Board, and two
representatives from each of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force, to be designated by the Secretaries of their respective Departments.
The Chairman shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at
the rate of $14,000 a year. The purpose of the Board shall be to advise the
Secretary of Defense as to the status of scientific research relative to the
national security, and to assist him in assuring adequate provision for re-
search and development on scientific problems relating to the national secu-
rity.
"(b) Subject to the authority and direction of the Secretary of Defense, the
Board shall perform the following duties and such other duties as the Secre-
tary of Defense may prescribe:
"(1) preparation of a complete and integrated program of research and
development for military purposes ;
"(2) advising with regard to trends in scientific research relating to na-
tional security and the measures necessary to assure continued and increasing
progress ;
"(3) coordination of research and development among the military depart-
ments, and allocation among them of responsibilities for specific programs;
"(4) formulation of policy for the Department of Defense in connection
with research and development matters involving agencies outside the Depart-
ment of Defense; and
"(5) consideration of the interaction of research and development and
strategy, and advising the Joint Chiefs of Staff in connection therewith.
[p. 8]
"(c) When the Chairman of the Board first appointed has taken office, the
Joint Research and Development Board shall cease to exist and all its records
and personnel shall be transferred to the Research and Development Board.
"(d) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Board with such personnel
and facilities as the Secretary may determine to be required by the Board for
the performance of its functions."
SEC. 303. (a) The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the National
Security Resources Board, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Na-
tional Security Council, acting through its Executive Secretary, are author-
ized to appoint such advisory committees and to employ, consistent with other
provisions of this Act, such part-time advisory personnel as they may deem
necessary in carrying out their respective functions and the functions of
agencies under their control. Persons holding other offices or positions under
the United States for which they receive compensation, while serving as
members of such committees, shall receive no additional compensation for such
service. Other members of such committees and other part-time advisory
personnel so employed may serve without compensation or may receive com-
pensation at a rate not to exceed $50 for each day of service, as determined by
the appointing authority.
(b) Service of an individual as a member of any such advisory committee,
or in any other part-time capacity for a department or agency hereunder,
-------
1754 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
shall not be considered as service bringing such individual within the provi-
sions of sections 109 or 113 of the Criminal Code (U.S.C., 1940 edition, title
1944, unless the act of such individual, which by such section is made unlawful
18, sees. 198 and 203) or section 19(e) of the Contract Settlement Act of
when performed by an individual referred to in such section, is with respect to
any particular matter which directly involves a department or agency which
such person is advising or in which such department or agency is directly
interested.
[p. 9]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1755
1.4a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
1.4a(3)(a) Vol. 97 (1951), Oct. 19: Objected to in Senate, p. 13530
FACILITATION OF RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT WORK BY
DEPARTMENTS OF ARMY,
NAVY, AND AIR FORCE—BILL
PASSED OVER
The bill (H. R. 1180) to facilitate
the performance of research and de-
velopment work by and on behalf of
the Departments of the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force, and for
other purposes, was announced as
next in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the bill?
Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. Presi-
dent, reserving the right to object,
will the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi explain the bill?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the
purpose of this bill is largely to clar-
ify certain administrative authority
which is required in order to carry on
the research and development pro-
grams authorized for the military
services.
This bill is not intended to provide
additional basic authority to the
Armed Forces with respect to re-
search and development programs.
Actually, the Armed Forces already
have very broad authority for the con-
duct of research and development pro-
grams. It will be noted from the exist-
ing law quoted on pages 6 and 7 of the
committee report that the Army,
Navy, and Air Force already are au-
thorized, under existing law, to con-
duct research and development pro-
grams and to procure or contract for
the use of the necessary facilities,
equipment, services, and supplies to
effectuate such programs.
The bill addresses itself, therefore,
not to the proposition of expanding
existing authority, but simply to the
proposition of clarifying it. A similar
bill passed the Senate in 1948, but no
action was taken on that bill in the
House of Representatives.
This bill makes no policy changes in
that version of the proposed legisla-
tion.
In 1948 the bill was handled on the
floor of the Senate by the junior Sena-
tor from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]. He is a
member of the subcommittee which
handled the bill in 1951. The bill is on
the calendar with the unanimous re-
commendation of the Armed Service
Committee.
Mr. President, I emphasize that this
bill is largely a clarification of exist-
ing law. These research projects are
now being carried on by the various
groups of the armed services; and the
purpose of this bill is largely to coor-
dinate the law and clarify it and
bring it down to a modern package.
I hope there is no opposition to the
passage of the bill. It does not relate
to an extreme emergency, but passage
of the bill would greatly facilitate
carrying forward these programs.
Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, I
appreciate the explanation which has
been given by the distinguished Sena-
tor from Mississippi. However, I am
compelled to object to the passage of
the bill; and, by request, I ask that
the bill be passed over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Objection is heard, and the bill will be
passed over.
[p. 18580]
-------
1756
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Ua(3)(b) Vol. 98 (1952), July 3: Passed Senate, pp. 9053-9054
FACILITATION OF RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT WORK BY
DEPARTMENTS OF ARMY,
NAVY, AND AIR FORCE
The bill (H. R. 1180) to facilitate
the performance of research and de-
velopment work by and on behalf of
the departments of the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force, and for
other purposes, was announced as next
in order.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I
should like to make a brief statement
on the bill.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the
Senator reserving the right to object?
Mr. MORSE. I reserve the right to
object.
Mr. President, I make this state-
ment in behalf of the Armed Services
Committee: The Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] has prepared several
amendments to House bill 1180 deal-
ing with research and development
work. The amendments are restrictive
in nature. However, in examining
them, we learnt that that there is no
reason they should not be accepted by
the committee and by the Senate, so
that the bill may be passed.
I want to make it clear that we
have gone into this matter with the
assistance of the professional staff of
the Armed Services Committee, and I
think the
[p. 9053]
amendments of the Senator from
Kansas should t>e adopted. I hope he
will offer them and that there will be
no objection to them.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques-
tion is, Is there objection to the con-
sideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, I
call up amendment A, amendment B,
and amendment C which were sent to
the desk a few days ago, and which I
understand are printed.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the
Senator wish to haave them considered
en bloc?
Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Yes, Mr. Presi-
dent.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will state the amendments offered by
the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, may
I ask the Senator from Kansas if one
of those amendments is to strike out
section 7?
Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Amendment C
does that.
Mr. HAYDEN. That section should
be eliminated because it interferes
with the jurisdiction of the Joint
Committee on Printing.
Mr. SCHOEPPEL. That was the
view of the Senator from Kansas.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk
will state the amendments offered by
the Senator from Kansas.
The amendments were:
On page 2, strike out all in lines 7 to 20,
inclusive.
On page 4, line 12, after the period, insert
the following: "The Secretary of each of the
military departments shall transmit to the
Congress reports covering contracts for re-
search or development entered into during
each 6 months following the enactment of this
act. Each such report shall contain (1) a list
of each contract for research or development
entered into during such period the total cost
of which to the Government will exceed
$50,000, and (2) specific information with
respect to each such contract, except that
specific information the disclosure of which he
deems incompatible with the security of the
United States may be excluded from such
reports."
On page 6, strike out all in lines 4 to 12.
inclusive.
On page 6, line 18, strike out the section
No. "8" and insert in lieu thereof the section
No. "7."
Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President,
with reference to amendment A, under
-------
-TAfUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1757
section 1 of the bill, members of com-
mittees and panels and advisory per-
sonnel could be exempted from the so-
called conflict of interest provisions of
title 18, United States Code, relating
to Federal officers and employees. The
amendment A would strike this provi-
sion from the bill.
Amendment B would require that
reports be made to Committees on Ap-
propriations and Armed Services of
the Senate and of the House of Repre-
sentatives every 6 months by the Sec-
retary of each of the Military Depart-
ments, listing all contracts for re-
search and development in excess of
$50,000. Such reports shall contain
specific information with respect to
any such contract. Provision is made,
however, for the exclusion in such re-
ports of specific information pertain-
ing to such contracts which is deemed
by the Secretary to be incompatible
with the security of the United States.
Amendment C would eliminate from
this bill authority to waive certain ex-
isting requirements of law with re-
gard to printing in the case of publi-
cation of scientific and technical infor-
mation.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques-
tion is on agreeing en bloc to the
amendments offered by the Senator
from Kansas.
The amendments were agreed to.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time and
passed.
[p. 9054]
1.4a(3)(c) Vol. 98 (1952), July 4: Passed House, pp. 9374-9375
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WORK
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 1180)
to facilitate the performance of re-
search and development work by and
on behalf of the Departments of the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force,
and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, and concur in
the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 2, strike out lines 7 to 20, inclusive.
Page 4, line 12, after "property.", insert
"The Secretary of each of the military depart-
ments shall transmit to the Congress reports
covering contracts for research or develop-
ment entered into during each 6 months fol-
lowing the enactment of this act. Each such
report shall contain (1) a list of each con-
tract for research or development entered into
during such period the total cost of which to
the Government will exceed $50,000, and (2)
specific information with respect to each such
contract, except that specific information the
disclosure of which he deems incompatible
with the security of the United States may be
excluded from such reports."
Page 6, strike out lines 8 to 16, inclusive.
Page 6, line 17, strike out "8" and insert
"7."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Georgia?
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, I do so only
for the purpose of asking the chair-
[p. 9374]
man of the Committee on Armed
Services to explain to the House these
three changes which were made by the
other body and agreed to by the con-
ferees.
Mr. VINSON. Mr. Speaker, H. R.
1180 is a bill to facilitate the perform-
ance of research and development
•work by the Army, Navy, and Air
Force, passed the House on August 2,
1951. It passed the Senate on July 3,
1952, with three amendments.
-------
1758
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The three Senate amendments are
restrictive in nature and while the De-
partment would normally not want to
agree to those amendments, the time
element at present has prompted them
to state that the House should agree
to the amendments.
Section 1 of the House bill relieved
the members of the committees of ci-
vilians, which committees were to as-
sist each of the service Secretaries on
certain statutory restrictions. For in-
stance, the members of these commit-
tees would be permitted to serve with
or without compensation and would be
exempted from certain statutory pro-
hibitions and penalties which are ap-
plicable to all other Federal employ-
ees, for example, in regard to the par-
ticipation in Government contracts or
claims against the Government. The
net result of the Senate amendment
would be that persons who comprise
these advisory panels to the Secretar-
ies will probably have to be picked
from sources which are not in a con-
tractual relationship with the Govern-
ment.
The second amendment requires
each of the Secretaries to report on
research and development contracts
involving more than $50,000 each 6
months, unless publication of the in-
formation would violate security con-
siderations.
The third amendment deletes sec-
tion 7 of the bill which authorized the
Secretaries of the military depart-
ments to arrange for the publication
of scientific and technical information
resulting from the research and devel-
opment activities of his Department.
The author of the Senate amend-
ment, Senator SCHOEPPEL, is of the
opinion that this printing can be
taken care of in a different fashion.
Mr. ABENDS. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman front
Georgia [Mr. VINSON]?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendments were con-
curred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 9375]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1759
Ub AN ACT TO REVISE, CODIFY AND ENACT INTO LAW
TITLE X OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
August 10,1956, §2353, 70A Stat 149.
Revised
Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statute* at Large)
2353 (a) 5:235c (1st sentence; and July 16, 1952, ch. 882, § 4 (less 3d
2d sentence, less 2d and and last sentences), 66 Stat. 725.
last provisos)
5:475j (1st sentence; and
2d sentence, less 2d and
last provisos)
5:628e (1st sentence; and
2d sentence, less 2d and
last provisos)
2353 (b) 5:235e (2d proviso of 2d
sentence)
5:475j (2d proviso of 2d
sentence)
6:628e (2d proviso of 2d
sentence)
2353 (c) 5:235e (last proviso of 2d
sentence)
5:475j (last proviso of 2d
sentence)
5:628e (last proviso of 2d
sentence)
In subsection (a), the words "furnished to" and "for the use
thereof" are omitted as surplusage.
In subsections (a) and (b), the words "United States" are
substituted for the word "Government".
In subsection (b), the introductory clause is substituted for
5:25e (words of 2d proviso before clause (1)), 475j, and 628e.
The words "that. . . considers" are substituted for the words "as
will in the opinion". The words "an alternative" are substituted
for the words "such other".
In subsection (c), the words "Proceeds of" are substituted for
the words "That all moneys arising from".
[P. 149]
-------
1760 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Ub(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 970, 84th Cong., 1st Seas. (1955)
REVISION OF TITLE 10, U. S. CODE, ENTITLED "ARMED
FORCES", AND TITLE 32, U. S. CODE, ENTITLED "NA-
TIONAL GUARD"
JUNE 28,1955.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 7049]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 7049) to revise, codify, and enact into law title 10 of the
United States Code, entitled "Armed Forces", and title 32, United
States Code, entitled "National Guard", having considered the
same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do
pass.
I. EXPLANATION OF REVISED TITLE 10, ARMED FORCES,
AND TITLE 32, NATIONAL GUARD
1. Purpose and history
The Constitution, in article I, section 8, lists among the powers
of Congress the powers "To raise and support Armies" and "To
provide and maintain a Navy". In the exercise of these powers,
Congress has enacted hundreds of laws regulating the structure of
the armed forces and the functioning of its members, in some
cases down to the smallest detail.
These laws have been enacted over a long period extending from
1789 to the present date. They have been drawn by many drafts-
men, some good, some poor, and some indifferent. Even where
laws have been excellently drawn, they often reflect inconsistent
approaches and means of expression. The result has been laws full
of contradictions, duplications, ambiguities, obscurities, and obso-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1761
lete provisions. This problem has existed not only for the armed
forces but the Government as a whole.
5. Restatement of substance
The object of the new titles has been to restate existing law, not
to make new law. Consistently with the general plan of the United
States Code, the pertinent provisions of law have been freely re-
worded and rearranged, subject to every precaution against dis-
turbing existing rights, privileges, duties, or functions. Adherence
to the substance of existing law, however, has not always meant
adherence to the letter of the statute. Where court decisions, opin-
ions of officials such as the Attorney General or the Comptroller
General, executive orders, regulations, or well-established adminis-
trative practice have established authoritative interpretations
clarifying ambiguities in the law, the text has been reworded to
express those interpretations. These changes have been explained
in the applicable revision notes.
[p. 8]
1.4b(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary
S. REP. No. 2484, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956)
[No Relevant Discussion of This Section]
526-703 O - 73 - 39
-------
1762
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.4b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
1.4b(3)(a) Vol. 101 (1955), Aug. 1: Amended and passed House,
p. 12719
Please let me state as emphatically
as I am able that this bill is not de-
signed to make a single substantive
change in existing law.
As a matter of fact we have gone to
the extreme of inserting in the bill a
provision—section 50—that it is the
legislative purpose to restate the ex-
isting law without substantive change.
Moreover, there is a line of United
States Supreme Court decisions apply-
ing the well-known canon of statutory
construction that in this type of bill
even though Congress changes the
language of the existing law, the court
will construe it as a continuation of
existing law without substantive
change unless Congress clearly mani-
fests an intention to make such sub-
stantive changes.
Many undue fears about this bill on
that score should be allayed in view of
the following:
First. The canon of statutory con-
struction just referred to will be ap-
plied ;
Second. The interpretation clause
contained in § 50 and in other savings
provisions in the bill, together with
similar statements contained in the
committee report, clearly manifest the
intention of Congress to make no sub-
stantive change; * * *.
[p. 12719]
1.4b(3) (b) Vol. 102 (1956), July 23: Amended and passed Senate,
p. 13953
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.4b(3) (c) Vol. 102 (1956), July 25: House concurs in Senate
amendment, p. 14455
[No Relevant Discussion]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1763
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)]
§ 2112. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders
(a) The rules prescribed under the authority of section 2072 of
this title may provide for the time and manner of filing and the
contents of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of
appeals to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review
or enforce orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions,
and officers. Such rules may authorize the agency, board, commis-
sion, or officer to file in the court a certified list of the materials
comprising the record and retain and hold for the court all such
materials and transmit the same or any part thereof to the court,
when and as required by it, at any time prior to the final determi-
nation of the proceeding, and such filing of such certified list of
the materials comprising the record and such subsequent trans-
mittal of any such materials when and as required shall be deemed
full compliance with any provision of law requiring the filing of
the record in the court. The record in such proceedings shall be
certified and filed in or held for and transmitted to the court of
appeals by the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
within the time and in the manner prescribed by such rules. If
proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals
with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in
which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted.
The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall
thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the
record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the
interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the pro-
ceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.
(b) The record to be filed in the court of appeals in such a
proceeding shall consist of the order sought to be reviewed or
enforced, the findings or report upon which it is based, and the
pleadings, evidence, and proceedings before the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1) as
the rules prescribed under the authority of section 2072 of this
title may require to be included therein, or (2) as the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned, the petitioner for review
or respondent in enforcement, as the case may be, and any inter-
-------
1/64 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
venor in the court proceeding by written stipulation filed with the
agency, board, commission, or officer concerned or in the court in
any such proceeding may consistently with the rules prescribed
under the authority of section 2072 of this title designate to be
included therein, or (3) as the court upon motion of a party or,
after a prehearing conference, upon its own motion may by order
in any such proceeding designate to be included therein. Such a
stipulation or order may provide in an appropriate case that no
record need be filed in the court of appeals. If, however, the cor-
rectness of a finding of fact by the agency, board, commission, or
officer is in question all of the evidence before the agency, board,
commission, or officer shall be included in the record except such
as the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned, the peti-
tioner for review or respondent in enforcement, as the case may
be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by written stipula-
tion filed with the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
or in the court agree to omit as wholly immaterial to the ques-
tioned finding. If there is omitted from the record any portion of
the proceedings before the agency, board, commission, or officer
which the court subsequently determines to be proper for it to
consider to enable it to review or enforce the order in question the
court may direct that such additional portion of the proceedings
be filed as a supplement to the record. The agency, board, commis-
sion, or officer concerned may, at its option and without regard to
the foregoing provisions of this subsection, and if so requested by
the petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement shall, file
in the court the entire record of the proceedings before it without
abbreviation.
As amended Pub.L 80-773, § 5(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat.
1323.
(c) The agency, board, commission, or officer concerned may
transmit to the court of appeals the original papers comprising
the whole or any part of the record or any supplemental record,
otherwise true copies of such papers certified by an authorized
officer or deputy of the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned shall be transmitted. Any original papers thus transmitted
[p. 7640]
to the court of appeals shall be returned to the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned upon the final determination of
the review or enforcement proceeding. Pending such final determi-
nation any such papers may be returned by the court temporarily
to the custody of the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
-------
ST ~nTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1765
cerned if needed for the transaction of the public business. Certi-
fied copies of any papers included in the record or any supplemen-
tal record may also be returned to the agency, board, commission,
or officer concerned upon the final determination of review or
enforcement proceedings.
(d) The provisions of this section are not applicable to proceed-
ings to review decisions of the Tax Court of the United States or
to proceedings to review or enforce those orders of administrative
agencies, boards, commissions, or officers which are by law review-
able or enforceable by the district courts. Added Pub.L. 85-791, §
2, Aug. 28,1958, 72 Stat. 941.
[p. 7641]
L5a RECORD ON REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF
AGENCY ORDERS
August 28,1958, P.L. 85-791, §2, 72 Stat 941
AN ACT
To authorize the abbreviation of the record on the review or enforce-
ment of orders of administrative agencies by the courts of appeals and the
review or enforcement of such orders on the original papers and to make
uniform the law relating to the record on review or enforcement of such
orders, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the analy-
sis of chapter 133 of title 28 of the United States Code, immedi-
ately preceding section 2101 of such title, is amended by inserting
at the end thereof the following additional item:
"2112. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders."
"SEC. 2. Chapter 133 of title 28 of the United States Code is
amended by inserting at the end of such chapter immediately
following section 2111 an additional section, as follows:
"§ 2112. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders
"(a) The several courts of appeals shall have power to adopt,
with the approval ^f the Judicial Conference of the United States,
rules which, so fai as p.-icticable, shall be uniform in all such
courts prescribing the time and manner of filing and the contents
of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of appeals
to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review or en-
force orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions, and
officers, to the extent that the applicable statute does not specifi-
-------
1766 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cally prescribe such time or manner of filing or contents of the
record. Such rules may authorize the agency, board, commission,
or officer to file in the court a certified list of the materials com-
prising the record and retain and hold for the court all such
materials and transmit the same or any part thereof to the court,
when and as required by it, at any time prior to the final determi-
nation of the proceeding, and such filing of such certified list of
the materials comprising the record and such subsequent trans-
mittal of any such materials when and as required shall be deemed
full compliance with any provision of law requiring the filing of
the record in the court. The record in such proceedings shall be
certified and filed in or held for and transmitted to the court of
appeals by the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
within the time and in the manner prescribed by such rules. If
proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals
with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in
which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted.
The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall
thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the
record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the
interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the pro-
ceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.
"(b) The record to be filed in the court of appeals in such a
proceeding shall consist of the order sought to be reviewed or
enforced, the findings or report upon which it is based, and the
pleadings, evidence, and proceedings before the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1) as
the said rules of the court of appeals may require to be included
therein, or (2) as the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned, the petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement, as
the case may be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned or in the court in any such proceeding may con-
sistently with the rules of such court
[p. 941]
designate to be included therein, or (3) as the court upon motion
of a party or, after a prehearing conference, upon its own motion
may by order in any such proceeding designate to be included
therein. Such a stipulation or order may provide in an appropriate
case that no record need be filed in the court of appeals. If, how-
ever, the correctness of a finding of fact by the agency, board,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1767
commission, or officer is in question all of the evidence before the
agency, board, commission, or officer shall be included in the
record except such as the agency, board, commission, or officer
concerned, the petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement,
as the case may be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned or in the court agree to omit as wholly immaterial
to the questioned finding. If there is omitted from the record any
portion of the proceedings before the agency, board, commission,
or officer which the court subsequently determines to be proper
for it to consider to enable it to review or enforce the order in
question the court may direct that such additional portion of the
proceedings be filed as a supplement to the record. The agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned may, at its option and
without regard to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, and
if so requested by the petitioner for review or respondent in en-
forcement shall, file in the court the entire record of the proceed-
ings before it without abbreviation.
"(c) The agency, board, commission, or officer concerned may
transmit to the court of appeals the original papers comprising
the whole or any part of the record or any supplemental record,
otherwise true copies of such papers certified by an authorized
officer or deputy of the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned shall be transmitted. Any original papers thus transmitted
to the court of appeals shall be returned to the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned upon the final determination of
the review or enforcement proceeding. Pending such final determi-
nation any such papers may be returned by the court temporarily
to the custody of the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned if needed for the transaction of the public business. Certi-
fied copies of any papers included in the record or any supplemen-
tal record may also be returned to the agency, board, commission,
or officer concerned upon the final determination of review or
enforcement proceedings.
"(d) The provisions of this section are not applicable to pro-
ceedings to review decisions of the Tax Court of the United States
or to proceedings to review or enforce those orders of administra-
tive agencies, boards, commissions, or officers which are by law
reviewable or enforceable by the district courts."
[p. 942]
-------
1768 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.5a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 842,85th Cong., 1st Sen. (1967)
AUTHORIZING ABBREVIATED RECORDS IN REVIEWING
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY PROCEEDINGS
JULY 23,1957.—Ordered to b« printed
Mr. WILLIS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following,
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 6788]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 6788) to authorize the abbreviation of the record on the
review or enforcement of orders of administrative agencies by the
courts of appeals and the review or enforcement of such orders on
the original papers and to make uniform the law relating to the
record on review or enforcement of such orders, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
PURPOSE
The purpose of the bill is to permit the several courts of appeals
to adopt rules authorizing the abbreviation of the transcript and
other parts of the record made before Federal administrative
agencies when the orders of those agencies are to be reviewed by
the courts of appeals.
In many instances much of the record made before such agen-
cies is not relevant to the questions actually raised on appeal. This
legislation, in permitting an abbreviated record to be transmitted,
should result in a substantial saving of time and money without
interfering with any of the appellate rights which persons now
have under existing law.
BACKGROUND
In 1953 the Judicial Conference of the United States referred to
its Committee on Revision of the Laws a proposal that existing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1769
statutes be amended so as to permit administrative agencies whose
orders are to be reviewed by a court of appeals to send to the court
an abbreviated record where the whole record is not necessary.
The proposal also provided for the authorization of the use of the
original papers in appropriate cases in lieu of a transcript, the
[p. 6]
papers to be returned to the administrative agency upon the com-
pletion of the review proceedings. The Judicial Conference com-
mittee concluded that the proposal had substantial merit.
An examination of the Federal statutes authorizing judicial re-
view of orders of administrative agencies by that committee dis-
closed that many of them now specifically require a transcript of
the entire record to be filed by the agency in the court of appeals.
It was thought that these requirements should be eliminated ex-
cept in those instances where for some other reason it is necessary
to file the entire record.
This objective could, perhaps, have been accomplished by a gen-
eral statute repealing all inconsistent provisions of the various
acts providing for judicial review of agency action. But this would
have left the law in confusion as to what specific provisions would
have been thus repealed by implication. The Judicial Conference
committee became satisfied that in order to deal comprehensively
with the problem it would be necessary to amend many of the
existing statutes.
In addition it seemed advisable to that committee to add a new
section 2112 to title 28 of the United States Code which would
confer rulemaking power in this field upon the courts of appeals
with the approval of the Judicial Conference. Such a statute
should, the committee thought, be modeled upon section 6 of the
Hobbs Act of December 29, 1950 (5 U. S. C. 1036), which pro-
vides for uniform rules promulgated by the courts of appeals with
the approval of the Judicial Conference.
The Committee on Revision of the Laws of the Judicial Confer-
ence accordingly prepared a tentative draft of such an amendatory
statute and submitted it to all the judges of the courts of appeals
and to all the agencies involved for their study and suggestions.
It received a large number of constructive suggestions which it
embodied in the revision of the bill which was introduced in the
84th Congress as H. R. 6682, and which was the subject of a
hearing before Subcommittee No. 3 of the House Committee on
the Judiciary on May 17,1956. Thereafter a further document was
compiled made up of hearings, Government agency reports, and
-------
1770 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
other comments (hearings, Serial No. 25, House Committee on the
Judiciary, 84th Cong.), and was made available to all interested
organizations so that their views could be obtained on the pro-
posed legislation.
When the legislation (H. R. 6788) was introduced in this Con-
gress, further hearings were held. The Judiciary Committee has
considered the suggestions and feels that the instant bill, as
amended, will make a valuable contribution to the law of appellate
administrative procedures.
The bill has been approved in principle by the American Bar
Association. It incorporates the recommendation of the Presi-
dent's Conference on Administrative Procedure in this field. It has
the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
STATEMENT AND ANALYSIS OP BILL
The instant bill would add to title 28 of the United States Code
a new section 2112 entitled "Record on review and enforcement of
agency orders." The section includes enforcement as well as re-
view proceedings in the courts of appeals.
[p. 7]
Subsection (a) of new section 2112 as set out in section 2 of the
bill gives the courts of appeals power to adopt, with the approval
of the Judicial Conference, rules prescribing the time and manner
of filing and the contents of the record in all such proceedings
instituted in those courts to review orders of Federal administra-
tive agencies, unless present law affecting those agencies specifi-
cally provides a procedure on the subject. The general power
granted by section 2112 (a), however, will render separate statu-
tory provisions unnecessary in the future.
The section also provides that the rules of court may authorize
the Federal administrative agency concerned to file a certified list
of the materials comprising the record and retain the actual pa-
pers in its physical custody to be transmitted to the court only
when and if required by the court in its consideration of the case.
This has been a procedure which has been recently tried in several
of the appellate courts and has been found quite feasible, saving
both time and money.
As the result of a suggestion by the Securities and Exchange
Commission subsection (a) also includes a provision providing
that if review proceedings have been instituted in two or more
courts with respect to the same order, the Federal administrative
agency involved shall file the record in that court in which a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1771
proceeding was first instituted. The courts in which other proceed-
ings are pending thereupon will transfer their proceedings to the
court of appeals in which the record has been filed. In the interest
of justice and for the convenience of the parties, such court may
thereafter transfer the proceedings to another court of appeals.
Subsection (b) of proposed section 2112 provides for the abbre-
viation of the record by the inclusion only of such material as the
rules of the court may require, or as the parties, including parties
permitted to intervene by the court, may stipulate, or as the court
may designate by order. The stipulation or order may provide in
an appropriate case, such as a petition for a consent decree enforc-
ing a National Labor Relations Board order, that no record at all
be filed. There are in the courts of appeals many cases in which
the National Labor Relations Board petitions the court to enter an
enforcement decree which has been consented to by the parties
concerned. The Board under present law must spend the time and
public money required to send the court a complete transcript of
the record before the latter can enter the decree requested. Subsec-
tion (b) will permit dispensing with the filing of the record in
such a case, and a decree may be entered upon the petition and
consenting answer or stipulation.
The provisions of subsection (b) will also enable the parties to
abbreviate the record by eliminating all material not relevant to
the actual questions raised on review, with consequent saving of
time and expense. Provision is made, however, that additional
portions of the record may be ordered by the court if found to be
needed.
If the correctness of a finding of fact is in issue, subsection (b)
requires all the evidence to be included in the record except such
part as the parties, by stipulation, agree to omit as wholly imma-
terial to the questioned finding. This provision will enable the
court to perform its duty in cases under section 10 (e) of the
Administrative Procedure Act to "review the whole record or such
portions thereof as may be cited by any party."
Several of the Federal agencies advised the committee that in
some instances it would not only delay proceedings but it would be
more
[P. 8]
costly to abbreviate the record than it would be to send it in
its entirety to the court of appeals. The subsection therefore con-
tains a provision giving Federal agencies the right, at their op-
tion, to file the entire record instead of an abbreviated record.
-------
1772 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
The American Bar Association suggested, among other things,
that the petitioner for review and the respondent in enforcement
proceedings, should also have the right, at their option, to require
the filing of the entire record. In accordance with this recommen-
dation, the bill provides for the filing of the entire record of the
proceedings upon such request.
Subsection (c) of new section 2112 as set out in section 2 of the
bill authorizes the transmittal of certified copies instead of the
original papers. A number of agencies pointed out that many of
their records are public records which are required to be kept in
their offices open to public inspection. It was also pointed out that
in many instances an agency must retain the original papers for
use in connection with a related case which is before it but which
is not on review. The subsection therefore contains a provision
authorizing the transmittal of the original papers at the option of
the agency. It also provides that this situation may pertain to a
part, as well as to the whole of, the record so that an agency may
transmit some original papers and certified copies of others. All
original papers and certified copies are to be returned to the
agency at the conclusion of the case.
The bill is not intended to apply to the review of decisions of the
Tax Court, which is not an administrative agency, or to the review
of such agency orders as are by law reviewable by the district
courts, such as exclusion and deportation orders. The Department
of Justice has suggested that this be made explicit in the proposed
legislation. Therefore, subsection (d) has been added to the pro-
posed section 2112 to clarify the congressional intent.
Many of the statutes providing for the enforcement or review of
agency orders provide that the courts of appeals acquire jurisdic-
tion upon the filing of the petition for review. Many others pro-
vide, however, that jurisdiction is not acquired by the courts until
the filing of the transcript of the record. It was pointed out at the
hearing that this latter provision is illogical and unwise, illogical
since it places it within the power of the Federal agency to delay
the acquisition of full jurisdiction by the court, and unwise since it
raises a serious question as to the extent of the court's power to
make orders relating to the filing of the record or other prelimi-
nary orders between the time of filing the petition for review and
the time the record is actually filed. Accordingly, to take care of
this situation, the language of the bill adopts the pattern of the
Hobbs Act (5 U.S.C. 1036) relating to the review of orders of
certain Federal agencies, and proposes to amend the various stat-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1773
utes to provide in all cases that the reviewing court shall acquire
jurisdiction upon the filing of the petition on review.
At the hearings the committee's attention was called to the fact
that the Federal Trade Commission act, the Clayton Act, the Pack-
ers and Stockyards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the
Federal Power Act and the National Gas Act provide that an
agency acting under and pursuant to them may modify or set
aside its order after a petition for review has been filed and up to
the time of the filing of the record. Giving exclusive jurisdiction to
the courts upon the filing of the petition, as the instant bill, as
introduced, provides, could work
[p. 9]
undue hardship. The bill was therefore amended to provide that
although jurisdiction shall be immediately acquired by the court
upon the filing of a petition for review, such jurisdiction will be
concurrent and shall become exclusive only upon the filing of the
record.
[p. 10]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of Repre-
sentatives, there is printed below in roman existing law in which
no change is proposed, with matter proposed to be stricken out
enclosed in black brackets, and new matter proposed to be added
shown in italics:
TITLE 28. UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 133. REVIEW—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
*******
Si 12. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders.
*******
§ 2112. Record on reviews and enforcement of agency orders.
(a) The several courts of appeals shall have power to adopt,
with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
rules, which so far as practicable shall be uniform in all such
courts prescribing the time and manner of filing and the contents
of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of appeals
to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review or en-
-------
1774 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
force orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions, and
officers, to the extent that the applicable statute does not speci-
fically prescribe such time or manner of filing or contents of the
record. Such rules may authorize the agency, board, commission, or
officer to file in the court a certified list of the materials comprising
the record and retain and hold for the court all such materials and
transmit the same or any part thereof to the court, when and as
required by it, at any time prior to the final determination of the
proceeding, and such filing of such certified list of the materials
comprising the record and such subsequent transmittal of any
such materials when and as required shall be deemed full compli-
ance with any provision of law requiring the filing of the record
in the court. The record in such proceedings shall be certified and
filed in or held for and transmitted to the court of appeals by the
agency, board, commission, or officer concerned within the time
and in the manner prescribed by such rules. If proceedings have
been instituted in two or more courts of appeals with respect to
the same order the agency, board, commission or officer concerned
shall file the record in that one of such courts in which a proceed-
ing with respect to such order was first instituted. The other courts
[p. 35]
in which such proceedings are pending shall thereupon transfer
them to the court of appeals in which the record has been filed.
For the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice such
court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings with respect to
such order to any other court of appeals.
(6) The record to be filed in the court of appeals in such a pro-
ceeding shall consist of the order sought to be reviewed or en-
forced, the findings or report upon which it is based, and the plead-
ings, evidence, and proceedings before the agency, board, commis-
sion, or officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1) as the said
rules of the court of appeals may require to be included therein,
or (2) as the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned, the
petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement, as the case
may be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by written
stipulation filed with the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned or in the court in any such proceeding may consistently
with the rules of such court designate to be included therein, or
(8) as the court upon motion of a party or, after a prehearing con-
ference, upon its own motion may by order in any such proceeding
designate to be included therein. Such a stipulation or order may
provide in an appropriate case that no record need be filed in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1775
court of appeals. If, however, the correctness of a finding of fact
by the agency, board, commission, or officer is in question, all of
the evidence before the agency, board, commission, or officer shall
be included in the record except such as the agency, board, com-
mission, or officer concerned, the petitioner for review or respon-
dent in enforcement, as the case may be, and any intervenor in
the court proceeding by written stipulation filed with the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned or in the court agree to
omit as wholly immaterial to the questioned finding. If there is
omitted from the record any portion of the proceedings before the
agency, board, commission, or officer which the court subsequently
determines to be proper for it to consider to enable it to review or
enforce the order in question the court may direct that such addi-
tional portion of the proceedings be filed as a supplement to the
record. The agency, board, commission, or officer concerned may,
at its option and without regard to the foregoing provisions of this
subsection, and if so requested by the petitioner for review or re-
spondent in enforcement shall, file in the court the entire record of
the proceedings before it without abbreviation.
(c) The agency, board, commission, or officer concerned may
transmit to the court of appeals the original papers comprising
the whole or any part of the record or any supplemental record,
otherwise true copies of such papers certified by an authorized
officer or deputy of the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned shall be transmitted. Any original papers thus transmitted
to the court of appeals shall be returned to the agency, board, com-
mission, or officer concerned upon the final determination of the
review or enforcement proceeding. Pending such final determina-
tion any such papers may be returned by the court temporarily to
the custody of the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
if needed for the transaction of the public business. Certified copies
of any papers included in the record or any supplemental record
may also be returned to the agency, board, commission, or officer
concerned upon the final determination of review or enforcement
proceedings.
(d) The provisions of this section are not applicable to pro-
ceedings to review decisions of the Tax Court of the United States
or to proceedings to review or enforce those orders of administra-
tive agencies, boards, commissions, or officers which are by law
reviewable or enforceable by the district court.
[p. 36]
SEC. 3. (a) The sixth sentence of subsection (b) of section 5 of
-------
1776 w Ol Jr-
the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (52 Stat. 112):
"Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for
review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or,
if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until
[the transcript of] the record in the proceeding has been filed in a
court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the
Commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such man-
ner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in
part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this
section."
(b) The second and third sentences of subsection (c) of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (52 Stat.
112-113) : "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission,
and thereupon the Commission [forthwith] shall [certify and]
file in the court [a transcript of] the [entire] record in the pro-
ceeding, [including all the evidence taken and the report and order
of the Commission] as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United
States Code. Upon such filing of the petition [and transcript] the
court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question
determined therein concurrently with the Commission until the
filing of the record and shall have power to make and enter [upon
the pleadings, evidence, and proceedings set forth in such tran-
script] a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of
the Commission, and enforcing the same to the extent that such
order is affirmed and to issue such writs as are ancillary to its
jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgment to prevent injury to
the public or to competitors pendente lite."
(c) Subsection (d) of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commis-
sion Act, as amended (52 Stat. 113) :
"(d) [The] Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdic-
tion of the court of appeals of the United States to affirm, enforce,
modify or set aside orders of the Commission shall be exclusive"
(15 U.S.C., § 45, Federal Trade Commission). . . .
[p. 37]
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973 O - 526-703
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc#
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
------- |