# Exhibit 1

## Calendar No. 1214

91ST CONGRESS I 

### { REPORT

2d Session f SENATE 1 1196



### NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

ACT OF 1970

REPORT

OF THE



### COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

5-3110 TOGETHER WITH
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS

TO ACCOMPANY



### S.4358

SEPTEMBER 17, 1970.-Ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1970COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman STEPHEN M.YOUNG, Ohio JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine J. CALEB BOGOS, Dlware B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina HOWARD H. BAKER, JR.,Tennessee BIRCH BAYH, Indiana ROBERT J.DOLE, Kansas JOSEPHM. MONTOYA, New Menico EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR.,Virginia ROBERT W.PACKWOOD, Oregon THOMAS F.EAGLETON, Missouri MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska
RICHARD B. ROYcE,ChiefClerkand StagDiiedor J. B. Huye, Jr., AeistatChiefClerkandAssistant Staf Dieor BARRYMEYER,Counsel BAILEy GUAR, Aeeitaln ChiefClerk (Minority) TOM C.JoRLrNo,Minority Contel ProfessionalStag Members: JOSEPH F. VAN VLDRicKEN, LEON 0. BILLINGS, RICHARDD. GROUND, STEWART E. MCCLURE, ADeIEN WALLER, HAROLD H. BRAYMAN, RICHARD W. WILSON, JOHNYAO, and PHILIP T. CummnmoS (I)

### CONTENTS

Fag. Ggeneral statement------------------------------------------------ I Hearin gs -------------------.-.-----------------------------. . . . . . 4 Discussion of in tent ----------------------------------------------- 4 Research relating tofuels and vehicles -------------------------- 4 Grantsforsupport of airpollution programs------------ 5 Interstateair qualityagencies ---------------------------------- 6 Research relating to airpollution effects -------------------------- 7 Air quality controlregions -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 8 Air quality criteriaand control techniques.------------ 9 National airquality standards and goals -------------- 9 Implementation plans------------------------------------------ 11 State standardsandplans toachieve greaterairquality control------ 15 New source standards of performance.-------------- 15 National emission standards-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 Stategra nts

------- ------ ------ ---- -- -- ---- ------ ----- - 31 Records and reports ------------- .---- .- -------- .........- 3 1 State standards

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 32 Used vehicles------ ---- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- 32 Registration and regulation of fuels and fuel additives

............... 33 Development oflow-emission vehicles_--------------- 35 Defin itions ------- ----- - -- --------- -- ------- --- --- --- --- 35 A pplicab ility------- --------------------- --- ----------- - 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. R obert J. Dole --------- ----- ---- ---- --------- ---- 47 Hon. Edward J. Gurney------------------- ------------------- 50 Section-by-section analysis ------------------------------------- 52 Changes in existing law --------------------------------------- 68
(IM)

# CalendarNo.1214

91ST CONGRESS )SENATE REPORT

2dSession I No. 91-1196

NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ACT OF 1970

SEPTEMBER 17, 1970.-Ordered tobe printed

Mr. BYRD 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 considered 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 concern 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 committee's concern to
authorize a massive attack on air pollution. This bill is designed to provide the basis for such an attack.Although the nature of the attack will differ from region to region,

one objective will be the same: Air quality standards protective 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 provision for elimination of emissions of extremely hazardous pollution agentswill require major action throughout the Nation. Many facilities will require major investments in newtechnology and new processes. Some facilities will need altered operating procedures or a change of fuels. Some facilities may be closed.

The requirementsfor Stateaction will be broadened. And theobligation 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 ofmotor 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 heating 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 recognizes that a generation-or ten years' production-ofmotor 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 ifhealth standards are to be achieved within the time required by thisbill.

In the Committee discussions, considerable concern was expressed 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.Therefore, the Committee determined that existing sources of pollutants either should meet the standard ofthe law orbe closed down, and in addition that new sources should becontrolled 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. Thenational airquality standards concept should notrestricteffective citizen action. Not only does the bill assure an opportunity for a region to adoptstandards more restrictive than the national standard, but public hearings onimplementation plans also mustbe held. More importantly, the committee believes that public participation should notbe limited to the development of standards and plans.

The proposed legislation emphasizes the need to accelerate enforcement action. To assure that Federal and State agencies aggressively pursue their responsibilities and to supplement their capacities, the bill provides a right of citizen action to seek enforcement of the provisions of the act. Actions to abate violations of timetables, of implementation schedules, of emission requirements, ofperformance 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 ofthe purposes of the Act. By providing authority to prohibit the emission of pollutants 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 of pollution effects and control methods. New motor vehicle engines must represent substantial improvements over existing systems. The sale offuels which would hinder effective, economic emission control systems can be prohibited.

Under the provision which would require mandatory licensing of pollutioncontrol techniques, technology (nototherwise available) that is developed to control emissions from either moving sources on 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 broadened. The pace and degree ofenforcement 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, itisagrowing environmentalproblemwhich is national in scope and requires intensified evaluation and greater understanding. By authorizing the establishment of an Office ofNoise 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, andthe new programs authorized will be without meaningunless supplementalmanpower (doublingpresent staffing ofNational AirPollution Control Administration) and supplemental funding (an increase of at least $44 million over the present budget request) are provided in this fiscal year.

Failure bythe Executive BranchtorequestandCongress to approve these needed increases willsubstantially impairimplementation ofthislegislation and make both the executive and legislative branches subject to charges of lack of commitment.

Within a short period, the pressures for additional staffand funds will alsobe feltby the States. Should the Statesfail to respond to that pressure, the deadlines established by the Act would require broader Federal involvement in regional and State programs.

Insum, this billwould extend theClean AirAct of 1963 as amended in 1965, 1966, and 1967 to provide a much more intensive and com- prehensive attack on airpollution. It would establish that 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 Subcommittee on Air andWater Pollution held 13days of oversight hearings in 1968 and 1969 on the progress and problems associated 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 addition, 2 days ofjoint hearings were heldwith the Senate Commerce Committee onalternatives to the internal combustion engine.

On December 10, 1969, Senator Muskie introduced S.3229, theAir 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 Acton March 4, 1970. Subsequently, 11 days of hearings were held in Washington, D.C. Three additional daysof hearings were held injointsession 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 ofoversight hearings in 1968 and 1969, and 15days oflegislative hearings in 1970.

DISCUSSION OF INTENT

SECTION 104. RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES The Air Quality Act of 1967 provided increased emphasis on re- search relating to fuels and vehicles. This provision included two special features not contained in the general research authority of section 103 ofthat act.First, appropriated fundswere toremain 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 con- trol equipment in profit making facilities in order to gain maximum benefit from expertise in the practical application of technology.

The amendments to section 104 contained in the bill, as reported, would provide increased emphasis on (1) fuel cleaning prior to com- bustion; (2) new and improved methods for combusting fuels which result in decreased atmospheric emissions; (3) methods for producing synthetic or new fuels which have a lower combustion potential forcreating air pollution; and (4) increased efforts to develop and demonstrate alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

Thelegislation also would provideauthority tomakefleet purchases oflowemission vehiclesforresearch, development, andtestingpurposes 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 expenditures of $89.1 million for the development of low-emission alternatives to the internal combustion engine. This plan includes both the control of emissions from conventional motor vehicles, and the development ofunconventional low pollution motor vehicles. New authority for purchase of cars for research, development, and testing is intended primarily to facilitate thisprogram.

The current research and development effort for controlling emissionsfrom stationary sources has emphasized flue gas treatment and fuel cleaning (removal of contaminants from fuels before 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 control technology offers a potential for improvement, the long-term answers may lie in magnetohydrodynamics, fuel cells and other energy con- version processes which emit lesspollution per unitof fuel orper 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 aminimal 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 ofmethods to produce synthetic

or new fuels forboth stationary and moving sources which will result in decreased atmospheric emissions.

The bill would authorize $450 million to carry out the provisions ofthissection: $125 millionfor fiscalyear 1971; $150 millionfor fiscal year 1972; and $175 million for fiscal year 1973. Appropriations 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 section 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. Stateoperated regional programs should supplant municipal or intermunicipal programs only in those cases where it is clearly advantageous, from the standpoint of effective air pollution control and efficient utilization ofresources.There are a number of ways a State agency could establish such regional programs, and States should use their own administrative andorganizational structure to achieve this purpose in amanner most suitable to theirrespeQtiveneeds. Inatleastone 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 program; the employees of such regional programs are to be considered State employees.

Acting under section 301(a) ofthe Clean AirAct, the administration has formulated aplan 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. Aftera 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; theadditionalprovisionin section 105wouldauthorize theDepartment to make such assignments in lieuof cash awards under a grant.

It is the intent ofthe 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 theirarea ofjurisdiction and effectively coordinate their efforts with those of the Federal air pollution control program. In order to achieve such performance inprograms receiving Federal support, the Secretary would be authorize tosuspend ordenysuch assistance until the performance of such program isadequate.

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 programs for 2 years in order to expedite the development ofregional control
programs in interstate areas. The purpose of this provision was to provide amechanism for planning in acoordinated fashionthroughout regions where, except for State boundaries, the problems of air quality control are common.

It washoped that planning agencies such asCouncils of Government and regional planning commissions would be used. These agencies
now function in some areas to provide consistency of approach between States and among local jurisdictions on a number of common problems, and were expected to perform

. similar function for air quality planning.

The Uommittee is disappointed that the provisions of Section 106 have neverbeen implemented, andthat no interstate planningagency hasbeen activated. The success offuture regional efforts in air quality control requires sound planning and coordination of planning efforts

on a comprehensive, regional basis. The bill, therefore, would retain the planning provision, but would delete the authority for the Secretary to establish Federal regional commissions to plan for imple- mentation of air quality standards. The rigid timetables proposed by thislegislation would obviate the value of this authority.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-particularly longterm effects. This effort should be directed toward the accelerated development ofmore comprehensive air quality criteria.

The protection ofthe public health and welfare requires definitive knowledge ofthecausal relationships betweenexposure toairpollution agents-singly or in combinations-and health orwelfare undervarying environmental conditions. Knowledge ofthe relationship between theexposure tomany airpollution agentsand acute andchronichealth effects issufficient todevelop air qualitycriteria related tosucheffects. Our knowledge of some of the chronic effects involving extended exposure over a period ofyears islimited. Increased research activities should concentrate in this area.

Concern for health effects must extend beyond "normal" segments ofthe 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 relationships involving impacts on socio-econoic conditions, vegetation, and materials.

Thelegislation wouldprovide for an accelerated researchprogram to improve knowledge of the contribution of air pollution agents to the

occurrence ofadverse 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 andtissues;

(4) The influence of airpollution agents on the impairment 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 billalso would providefor the furtherance ofknowledge onwelfareeffects,including effects onvegetation, animals,wildlife, 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 airpollution oftenextend beyond normal contractperiods, andin order to maintain

a continuity with respect to suchepidemiological, clinical, andlaboratory studies, the billwould provide contract authority for periods up to 10 years. For the purpose of carrying out this specific contract research, thebillprovides anauthorization of $15,000,000.

The ongoingresearch onhealth andwelfare effects carried out under section 103 shouldnotbereplaced,but shouldbe supplementedby thisauthority. It is important that health research activities authorized by thisAct 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 thatthe proposed revisionof theprocedure for the designation ofair quality control regionswill provide 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 ofair quality standards, such as meteorological, topographical, and urbanindustrial factors which influence 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 imple- mentation plan foran entireStatewould overlook thefact thatvarious 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 ofthe area to which thestrategy 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 airpollution problem areas.This period is considered tobe asufficienttime forcompleting thedesignation of air qualitycon- trolregions for the91 areas alreadyproposed for such designation. It is also considered to be sufficient time for the Secretary to designate additional air quality control regions covering interstate areas or any intrastate areaswhere thereare major airpollution problems associated with particular concentrations ofpopulation andindustry.

It should benoted thatthis90-day period wouldproduce no delayin the establishment and implementation ofambient air quality standards, since it would coincide with the period for the promulgation of national ambient air quality standards for pollution agents for which criteria have beenissued. Moreover, any area of a State not included inan air quality control regiondesignated by the Secretary during this period would automatically beconsidered an air qualitycontrol region for the purposes ofthe Act.In each State, the areanot included in air qualitycontrolregions designatedby theSecretary couldbe 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 theSecretary at the time that implementation plansare submitted for approval.

It should be emphasized that the provision for subdivision of States intoregions isincluded in the bill to insurethat factors bearing

oneffective implementation of air quality standards such as meteotology, topography, and urban-industrial concentrations will take precedence over mere administrative convenience. In other words, while itis considered necessary that areas not covered 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 whethersuch areasought tobe subdividedto effectively implement air quality standards.

SECTION 109. AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Thisproposed legislation would require acceleration ofthe issuance of air quality criteria and information on control techniques as an integral part ofthe system for adoption ofambient air quality standards and implementation plans.

Pollution agents which would be subject to the provisions of this section would be those which are emitted from widely distributed air pollution sources and generally present in the ambient air in all

areas ofthe Nation.

Airqualitycriteriafor fivepollutionagentshave alreadybeenissued (sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and photochemical oxidants). Other contaminants of broad national impact include fluorides, nitrogen oxides, polynuclear organic matter, lead, and odors. Others may be added to thisgroup as knowledge in-

creases. 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 forwhichthe ambientair 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 Committee recognizes that the States will continue to need this information to develop meaningful programs for implementation of ambient air qualitystandards on aregionalbasis.

The Committee believes thatcriteria andcontrol technology documentsshouldbe periodicallyreviewed andre-issued toensurecurrency. In addition, control techniques information should be periodically modified to reflect information developed under sections 104and 113.

TheSecretary wouldalso be required toissue information oncontrol 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 techniques, methods, processes, or systems available for the purpose of complying with such emission standards or standards ofperformance.

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 limitations on control technology innovation.

SECTION 110. NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND GOALS
This section would provide for publication and promulgation ofna- tional ambient air quality standards at a level which will protect the health ofpersons. In setting such air quality standards the Secretaryshould consider and incorporate not only the results ofresearch sum- marized in airquality criteria documents, but also theneed formargins of safety. Margins of safety are essential to any health-related en- vironmental standards ifareasonable degree ofprotection is to be provided against hazards which research has not yetidentified.

Following the publication of any proposed national ambient air quality standard, the Secretary would provide up to 90 days for the receipt and evaluation ofcomments. Since the issuance ofair 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 thepresentation 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 toset a national minimum standard ofair qualitywhich will protect the health ofpersons 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 es- tablished at a level necessary to protect the health of persons, the Committeerecognizes that such standards will not necessarily provide for the quality of air required to protect those individuals who are otherwise dependent on a controled internal environment such as patients in intensive care units ornewborn infants in nurseries. However, the Committee emphasizes that included among those persons whose health should be protected by the ambient standard are par- ticularly sensitive citizens such asbronchial asthmatics and emphyse- matics who in the normal course of daily activity are exposed to the ambient environment. In establishing an ambient standard necessary to protect the health of these persons, reference should be made to a representative sample ofpersons comprising thesensitive group rather than to a single person in such a group.

Ambient air quality issufficient to protect thehealthof suchpersons whenever there is an absence of adverse effect on the health of a statistically related sample of persons in sensitive groups from ex- posur3 to the ambient air. Anambient air quality standard, therefore, should be the maximum permissible ambient air level of an air pollu- tion agent or class of such agents (related to a period oftime) which will protect the health of any groupofthe population.

For purposes ofthisdescription, a statistically related sample isthe number ofpersons necessary to test in order to detect a deviation in thehealth ofanyperson within such sensitivegroup whichisattributableto the condition of the ambient air.

Within 30 days after enactment theSecretary would be required to publish proposed national air quality standards for those pollutants covered by existing air quality criteria (sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbonmonoxide, hydrocarbons, andphotochemical oxidants). Since these criteria havebeen available for sometime, itis realisticto expect that proposed national standards for these five pollution agents wouldbe published within the30-day period. Proposed national air quality standards for pollutants for which criteriawould be issuedsubsequent to enactment would be published simultaneously with the issuance of such criteria. These pollutants would include nitrogen oxides, lead, polynuclear organics, odors, and fluorides.

National air quality standards are authorized because the Committee has recognized that protection ofhealthis a national priority, but the Committee also recognizes thatman's natural andman-made environment must be preserved and protected. Therefore, 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 pollution-includ'ng effects onsoils, water, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, visibility climate, and economic values. To implement this provision the sections ofexisting law relating to theissuance of air quality criteriahave been modified to require that air quality criteria documents include,
to the extent practicable, information on any known or anticipated adverse effects of airpollution, includingsucheffects onall theenvironmental 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 suchrevisions aremade, the Secretary should publish interim guidelines to assist the States in developing plans for the implementation ofgoals.

The Committee is aware that there aremany gapsin the available 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 intensify research on environmental and other economic effects of air pollution. A great deal of basic research will be needed to determine the long-term air quality goals which are required to protect the public health and welfare from any potential effects ofair pollution. In the meantime, the Secretary willbe expected to establish such national goals on the basis ofthe 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 Committee'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 andmaintenance ofthesegoals should notrequire

an extended time period. In areas where current air pollution levels

are already equal to, orbetter than, the air quality goals, the Secretary should not approve any implementation plan which does not provide, to the maximum extent practicable, forthe 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 l. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

The establishment alone ofambient air quality standards has little effect on air quality. Standards are only the reference point for the analysis ofthe factors contributing to airpollution and theimpositionof control strategy and tactics. This program is an implementation

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 thelroposed bill would require a great deal in a short period of time anubecause the brevity of the provision in existing law has led to uneven and inadequate interpretation, the character of an implementation plan
must be specified and the alternative methods of achievement 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 authority if the State plan,

or a portion thereof, isinadequate to attain the quality of ambient air established by the nationally promulgated ambient air quality standard.

The bill would provide that within nine months after the date of romulgation 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 thedate ofpromulgation ifthe Secretary established such plan

or any portion thereof.

The Committee bill, based upon experience gained under existing 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 disclosure ofinformation prior to public hearings. The Committee expects that appropriate Federal,

tate, and local officials, citizens and affected industry groups will consider the development of theimplementation 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 pollution 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 transportationcontrols. These shouldinsure that any existing orfuture stationary

source of air pollutionwill be located, designed, constructed, equipped, and operated, and that moving sources will be located and operated

so as not to interfere with the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of any applicable air quality standard or goal.

The Committee acknowledges that thiswould require each region to make difficult judgments about the siting of facilities which may emit pollution agents, including decisions to prohibit the location of new

sources which, although in compliance with Section 113, would con-tributeto a violation of a 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 isbelow the standard, rigorous restrictions must be placed on existing sources to provide a margin for future growth, oronly pollution-free growth, development and expansion willbe possible.

This section would also provide for intergovernmental cooperation in the development of air quality programs which at the minimum must prevent facilities in one State from contributing tothe violation ofambient airquality standards in an adjacent State, whether or not the adjacent State is part ofthe same air quality control region.

The Committee has added provisions that would require the States to develop enforceable information, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements similarto 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 emission controls.

he 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 ambient air quality standards for pollution agents associated with moving sources.

The Committee realizes that changes or restrictions in transportation systems mayimpose severe hardshiponmunicipalities 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 ofthe proposed bill would specifi- cally provide that, to the extent necessary, each region develop 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 pollution. 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 theimposition of a retroactive installation obligation on automobile manufacturers to a Federal subsidy program.

Section 211 ofthe Act provides for Secretarial certification of used

caremission control devices and systems in orderto protect the public from sham orinadequate devices and systems. Followingthe certification of such devices, theregions and States would be encouraged inthe development ofimplementation plans to adopt requirements for the installation ofsuch devices. The Committee believes at this timethat regulations relative to the retroactive application of emission control devices and methods is manageable ony at the State and regional

50-311 0-70---2level and expects and hopesthatthe 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 devices or systems or, at least, the tuning of used vehicles before resale.

Under this Section the Secretary would be required to approve the implementation plan onlyifit specified theboundaries of theregion to which such plan applies. This requirement is necessary to provide review of the adequacy ofimplementation plans forregions which the Governor may have sub-divided pursuant to the air control region designation provisions ofsection 108.

In order to insure achievement of air quality necessary to protect 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 implementation 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 forits submission. Ifhe 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 implementation 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 ambient 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 obligations 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 implementation 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 approved 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 extend the period of time re- quired for attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for

oneyear.

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 portions thereof within his State will notmeetthe national ambient air qualitystandard within the time provided, the bill would authorize him-one yearbefore the deadline-to file a petition against the United States in the District Court of the United States for the district where such region

orportion thereofis located forrelief from theeffect 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 provide that the
court could grantrelief in the paramount interest of the United States and in the public interest and general welfare of thepersons 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 contributing to thefailure had notbeen 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 subsection 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 implementation plan for ambient air quality standards may limit the capacity of States to act simultaneously on plans fornational ambient air quality goals. The bill would provide that the Secretary may extend for 18 monthsthe period for submission ofany portion ofany iml)lementation plan. The development of the portion of the implementation plan for the achievement of air quality goal requires 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 provide 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 ofSection 109 oftheAirQuality Act of 1967 which provided assurance that States, localities, intermunicipal and interstate agencies may adopt standards and plans to achieve a higher level of ambient air qualty than approved by the Secretary. The section would be revised to provide 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

rrheprovisions for new source )erformance standards are designed

to insure that new stationary sources are designed, built, equipped, operated, and maintained so as to reduce emissions to a minimum.

# Pages omitted due to document size. Available upon request.