Clean air act amendments of 1975

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Clean air act amendments of 1975
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. -- Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 24262135
oclc - 2183124
System ID:
AA00022500:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Clean air act amendments of 1976 (H.R. 10498): Summary of the bill
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Back Cover
        Page 29
        Page 30
Full Text

68/] fI,


ti. r .


COMITTE PRINT


COMMITTrrrs
PRIXT No. 21


. rd. . .N.
"l U OMMIT
.,, : ... Jii j- *;, I', m iiyii -iji i ii'T:^ j





^II- COMMJT'

. |. .' .m... .


* .... ... .

.... .. ..
: " "d "
: .. i' : : .:. :* :: "
. : .: / -:

;: ir::::::'.: "* :

... ..i "





" ,i .. TTT


I ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976

Y OF THE BILL (H.R. 10498)


AS REPORTED BY THE


ON INTERSTATE AND


FOREIGN COMMERCE


PREPARED BY THE STA!

FOR THE USE OF THE


ran'r


U.4. XIW^U D-J


OF REPRESENT


MAY 1976


U.. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1976


I"


I,..


AH


-/1 C\r~
t.b-r{ '7':


r










COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE


HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,
TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts
JOHN E. MOSS, California
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida
LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, California
FRED B. ROONEY, Pennsylvania
JOHN M. MURPHY, New York
DAVID E. SATTERFIELD III, Virginia
BROCK ADAMS, Washington
W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY. JL., Georgia
BOB ECKHARDT, Texas
RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina
JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES J. CARNEY, Ohio
RALPH H. METCALFE, Illinois
GOODLOE E. BYRON, Maryland
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana
WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD, Michigan
JAMES J. FLORIO, New Jersey
ANTHONY TOBY MOFFETT, Connecticut
JIM SANTINI, Nevada
ANDREW MAGUIRE, New Jersey
MARTIN A. RUSSO, Illinois


West Virginia, Charman
SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio
JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina
TIM LEE CARTER, Kentucky
CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio
JOE SKUBITZ, Kansas
JAMES M. COLLINS, Texas
LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
JOHN Y. McCOLLISTER, Nebraska
NORMAN F. LENT, New York
H. JOHN HEINZ III, Pennsylvania
EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
MATTHEW J. RINALDO, New Jersey
W. HENSON MOORE, Louisiana


W. E. WILLIAMSON, Clerk
KENNETH J. PAINTER, Assistant Clerk


Profesaionl Staff


CHARLES B. CURTIS
LEE S. HYDB
ELIZABETH HARRISON
JEFFREY H. SCHWARTZ


WILLIAM P. ADAMS
ROBERT R. NORDHAUS
BRIAN R. MOHn
KAREN NELSON


MARGOT DINNEEN
H. THOMAS GRENNE, Associate Minority Counsel


(U)









CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF
1976 (H.R. 10498)

SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee ordered reported
H.R. 10498, the Clean Air Amendments of 1976, as amended, on March 18,
1976. These amendments represent the first significant Congressional
review of the Clean Air Act since the 1970 Amendments.I/

In adopting the 1976 Amendments the Committee intended to accomplish
several objectives:

(1) to authorize relaxation or revision of standards or
deadlines where lack of technology, energy, shortages,
or other factors make such flexibility necessary;

(2) to provide a greater role for State and local govern-
ments in planning and execution of air pollution
control strategies, and to minimize the Federal role;

(3) to direct the Administrator to consider energy and
economic impacts to a greater extent in standard set-
ting under the Act;

(4) to clarify issues under the present law which have been
addressed, but not finally resolved, by the courts;

(5) to provide new authorities to deal with environmental
problems that were not addressed in earlier legislation;
and

(6) to continue and improve methods for protection of the
public health.!/
*"


_/ Amendments on auto emissions and coal conversion extensions
were adopted in the "Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
of 1974" (P.L. 93-319).

W d/ Dissenting Members either did not agree that these purposes
would be achieved or opposed the provisions on their belief that other
adverse ramifications would result.


(1)










SECTION 1 -- SHORT TITLE

SECTION 2 -- AUTHORIZATIONS

This bill authorizes appropriations of.$200,000,000 for FY 1977;
$200,000,000 for FY 1978; and $200,000,000 for FY 1979. None of this
authorization is for research activities under the Clean Air Act.
Authorizations for research are handled by the Committee on Science and
Technology. Authorizations of appropriations for the entire Clean Air
Act, including research, were $300,000,000 for FY 1975.

SECTION 101 -- UNREGULATED POLLUTANTS

This section requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations to
control several currently unregulated air pollutants, unless the Adminis-
trator finds within one year that these pollutants are not hazardous to
public health. The pollutants in question are vinyl chloride, cadmium,
arsenic, and polycyclic organic matter (POM's).

This section also requires the Administrator to promulgate a one-hour
national primary ambient air quality standard for N02, unless the Adminis-
trator finds that the present annual average standard for N02 is adequate
to protect public health.

The section also requires the Administrator to study these unregulated
pollutants and includes sulfates within the scope of the study.

SECTION 102 -- BASIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS

This section establishes the standard of proof which the Administrator
must meet before promulgating regulations controlling the emission of any
air pollutant from any class of sources under this Act. Regulation is
authorized only if emissions of the pollutants from that class of sources
contribute to air pollution which "may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare."

SECTION 103 -- COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS (STATIONARY SOURCES)

This section authorizes the States and the Administrator to grant
extensions of compliance deadlines for stationary sources under the State
implementation plans. An extension may be granted for up to five years.
An extension may only be granted after notice and a formal hearing on
the record.

There are six grounds upon which an extension may be granted; (1) the
lack of adequately demonstrated technology to meet necessary emission
limitations; (2) a shortage of clean fuels or technology (which has been
adequately demonstrated); (3) unavailability of means of compliance due to
strike, embargo, or other emergency; (4) delay of construction of a replace-
ment facility; (5) temporary unavailability of financing for procurement
of clean fuels or technology; (6) to encourage use of innovative emission
control technology.








This section also provides that existing non-ferrous metal smelters
could be granted up to two compliance date extensions not to exceed five
years each In length for the purpose of permitting it to use emissions
systems other than those ordinarily required when means of compliance are
shown to be not reasonably available. The Administrator could only ter-
minate the extension if it is found after a full adjudicatory hearing,
that means of compliance have become reasonably available. As conditions
to the granting of an extension under this provision the smelter must,
first, agree to comply with requirements-which are needed to maximize
reliability and enforceability of the alternately used control measures
and, second, any violation of any national ambient air quality standard
within a designed liability area would be considered to be a violation
of the State implementation plan.
Sources receiving extensions must meet compliance schedules and use
the best interim control measures during the extension period.

SECTION 104 -- ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES
This section authorizes the courts to impose civil penalties of up to
$25,000 per day for violations of the Clean Air Act. The courts are
directed to take into account the size of the business, and the seriousness
of the violation, in setting the amount of the penalty.
SECTION 105 -- EXCESS EMISSION FEES
If a major stationary source receives a compliance date extension rsee
sec. 103) and the reasons for the source's inability to comply with applicable
mission limitations were not primarily beyond its control, then it must pay
an excess emission fee.

The amount of the fee is to be based on a schedule of rates promul-
gated by the Administrator. The schedule of rates must be designed (1) to
prevent any extension from creating a competitive disadvantage for sources
receiving an extension (over those sources which comply on time) and, (2)
to encourage compliance as rapidly as practicable.

The fee may not exceed $5,000 per day. The Administrator is authorized
to reduce or mitigate the fee for any source under certain specified con-
ditions. The fee may only be applied to major stationary sources, i.e.
those which emit over 100 tons of pollutant per year.
As with other provisions of the Act, judicial review of action of
the Administrator under this section is expressly authorized.
The Committee's intended purposes in adopting the excess emission fee are:
(1) to encourage good faith efforts to comply; (2) to prevent noncomplying
sources from gaining an advantage over complying sources with whom they
compete; (3) to permit a middle course of action to be followed in case of
noncon liance, rather than plant shutdowns or noncompliance without
penalty.2


3/ See footnote 2.










SECTION 106 -- COAL CONVERSION

This section deals with two main subjects: (1) compliance date exten-
sions for sources prohibited from burning oil or natural gas, or both;
and (2) whether to require continuous or intermittent control of pollutants
from stationary sources.

Coal Conversion. -- This section amends section 119 of the Clean Air
Act, as adopted by the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-319). It permits compliance date extensions for sources
converting to coal to last until 1980, instead of 1979, as under existing
law. A further extension up to as late as 1985 could be granted under
section 103 of the bill.

The amendments to P.L. 93-319 also permit extensions for those coal
burning sources (subject to an FEA order not to switch to oil or natural
gas), which had earlier intended to meet applicable emission limits by
switching to one of these fuels and had earlier received a variance or
plan revision to do so. Under existing law, extensions are not authorized
for these sources.

Also under current law, a source which is ordered to convert from
burning petroleum products or natural gas to coal may not receive an exten-
sion of an emission limitation for any pollutant if the air quality any-
where in the region exceeds the primary health standard for that pollutant.
This is called the "regional limitation". This new section would make the
"regional limitation" rebuttable (and thus permit extension) upon certain
findings.


This section also requires concurrence by the Governor as a condition
for granting this type of extension. Concurrence by the Governor is not
required under existing law.

Continuous Controls. -- The amendments also affirm the decisions of
three U.S. Court of Appeals cases that the Act requires continuous emis-
sion reduction measures to be applied. Thus, intermittent control measures
(to be applied only in case of adverse weather conditions), increasing
stack heights, or other pollution dispersion techniques would not be
permitted as final compliance strategies.

The Co.mittee's intended purpose in adopting this amendment was
to ensure the use of control measures which (1) would be reliable and
enforceable; (2) would reduce overall pollution exposures to regulated
pollutants (and to uncontrolled derivative pollutants, such as sulfates);
(3) prevent spreading the pollution to presently clean areas; (4) leave
more air resources for the growth of new industry and jobs.4/


4/ See footnote 2.





5


SECTION 107 -- STRATOSPHERE AND OZONE PROTECTION
This amendment provides for a two-year study on the cumulative effects
of various substances and activities on the stratospheric ozone layer,
which screens and limits solar radiation exposures on Earth. The study is
to be conducted by the Administrator, in cooperation with the National
Academy of Sciences, and an interagency task force.
At the end of the two-year study (or earlier under specified circum-
stances), the Administrator may, upon making certain findings, promulgate
regulations to protect the stratospheric-ozone layer. Such regulations
my be promulgated only if the Administrator finds that the ozone layer
(and public health or welfare) may reasonably be anticipated to be
endangered. Regulations are required to take into consideration feasibility
and cotts of controlling any dangerous substance or activity.

Regulations must be submitted to Congress and may not take effect for
60 legislative days after submission. If either House passes a disapproval
resolution within that 60 day period, the portion of the regulations which
have been disapproved may not become effective. Expedited consideration
by Congress is provided for. The bill would preempt State or local regu-
lations once Federal regulations become effective, but would preserve the
right of a State to adopt and enforce more stringent regulation of aerosol
spray emissions if it so chooses.
SECTION 108 -- PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
In 1972, the Supreme Court by a 4-4 vote upheld a lower court decision
which ruled that the Clean Air Act required "prevention of significant
deterioration" of air quality in clean air areas of the country. The
court did not define what constituted "significant deterioration" or
require specific measures to prevent it.
In response to the Court's order, the Administrator has promulgated
regulations which are now in effect to "prevent significant deterioration".
The Committee's intended purposes in adopting this provision are:
(1) to affirm the decision that the Act requires a policy of prevention of
significant deterioration; (2) to provide additional Congressional guidance:
to specify what "significant deterioration" is and how it must be prevented;
(3) to delete the current EPA regulations and to substitute a system which
gives a greater role to the States and local governments and which restricts
the Federal government in the following ways:

(a) The Committee bill removes the Federal land manager's
authority to control classification of Federal lands,
which is contained in the EPA regulations.
(b) The Committee bill eliminates the authority which the
Administrator has under current EPA regulations to










override a State's classification of any area on the
ground that the State improperly weighed energy,
environment, and other factors.

(c) The Committee bill prohibits the Administrator from
compelling any State to impose any uniform or
automatic no growth buffer zone around any area.

(d) The Committee provides for a local role in decision-
making, while the current EPA regulations provide
for no such local role; and

(e) The Committee bill fixes allowable increments and
removes the Administrator's authority to prescribe
more or less strict requirements.5/

Purposes. -- The section has several stated purposes:


5/ See footnote 2.









(1) to protect health from harmful exposures occurring at levels
below the ambient standards;
*
(2) to protect national parks and other areas of special natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value;

(3) to prevent competition for industry among States to be waged by
allowing significant deterioration of air quality;

(4) to prevent interstate air pollution which significantly degrades
air quality;

(5) to assure careful evaluation of all consequences and opportunity
for full public participation prior to a State's decision allowing deteri-
oration in existing clean air areas.

Area Classified Plans. -- Each State must classify those areas which
are cleaner than the national ambient air quality standards as Class I,
Class II, or Class III for all pollutants for which national ambient air
quality standards are established. However, for any pollutant other than
sulfur dioxide or particulates, a State may develop any other measures
to prevent significant deterioration, and the Administrator must approve
the State's plan if he determines that the State's plan will carry out the
purposes stated above at least as effectively as an area classification
plan.

Initial Classification of Areas. -- Initially most areas which are
cleaner than the ambient standards would be classified as Class II. The
provision restricts Mandatory Class I areas to national parks and national
wilderness areas, which exceed 25,000 acres in size. Wilderness areas,
national parks and international parks between 10,000 and 25,000 acres, as
well as national preserves, national monuments, national recreation areas,
and national primitive areas in excess of 25,000 acres would be Discretionary
Class I areas. These Discretionary Class I areas would convey Class I
status initially with subsequent reclassification to Class II possible at
the discretion of the State. According to Administrationr estimates, the
Mandatory Class I areas amount to less than 3 per cent of the Federally-
owned lands in the United States.

Reclassification of Areas. -- In general, the State would be free to
reclassify areas as Class I, II, or III at any time. Reclassification must
be preceded by a public hearing and preparation of an analysis of the
health, environmental, economic, social and energy effects of the proposed
reclassification. Any reclassification of a Federal land area initially
classified as Class I and any reclassification of any areas to Class III
must be approved by appropriate local governments and the State legislature
and must not interfere with the classification of any other area. Discre-
tionary Class I areas (listed above) may only be reclassified as Class
11.










The Administrator is not authorized to disapprove any State's re-
classification, unless the reclassification violates one of the afore-
mentioned requirements or limitations.

Effect of Area's Classification. -- Depending on an area's classifica-
tion, the following limitations will apply to that area:

ALLOWABLE POLLUTION INCREMENTS AND
ALLOWABLE POLLUTION CEILINGS


Allowable increments Allowable ceilings

Class I------2 percent of lowest national standard 90 percent of lowest
(all pollutants, except particulate), national primary
10 percent of lowest national stan- standard (all pol-
dard for (particulate). lutants).
Class II------25 percent of lowest national standard Do.
(all pollutants)---------------
Class III--- 50 percent of lowest national standard Do.
(all pollutants)---------------

An "allowable increment" refers to the amount of increase in pollution
in any area which is permissible above a baseline pollution level. The
baseline pollution level is the level of pollution calculated to exist,
assuming (1) plant capacities in being on January 6, 1975 (when the classi-
fication systems first became effective under the Administrator's regula-
tions), and (2) additional plant capacities for new sources which receive
new source permits prior to date of enactment. (The baseline level is not
limited to, but includes, the natural or background pollution levels in
existence prior to any industrial activity). The allowable increment is
the amount of increased pollution permissible beyond baseline levels for
any area. Thus, sources in existence on date of enactment will not be
subject to control under this section, because pollution from existing
sources is included in the baseline. No rollback in emissions from exist-
ing sources would be required, whether an area is classified as Class I,
II, or III.








lThe Comrittee bill would authorize the Governor to grant a variance
or exclusion, so as not to count against the allowable Increment, pollution
Increases due to: (1) coal conversions or natural gas curtailments;
(2) particulate pollution due to construction or other temporary activities,
such as seasonal open burning; (3) new foreign sources of pollution; and
(4) background or naturally occurring particulates.
An "malloawable ceiling" refers to the absolute pollution levels which
may not be exceeded as a result of increases in pollution beyond the base-
line for any area. It does not refer to any particular amount of permissible
Increase. New sources thus would not be permitted to cause or contribute
to air pollution concentrations exceeding 90 per cent of the lowest national
primary ambient air quality standard in any area, regardless of whether
the area is classified I, II, or III.
Perit provisions. Only new or modified major stationary sources are
required to obtain a State permit prior to construction. A major stationary
source Is defined to include only those direct pollution sources with design
capacity to emit 100 tons or more pollutant oer year. Thus,_indirect and mobile
sources, and stationary sources emitting less than 100 tons per year, would
not be subject to State permit provisions.

The permit program is to be operated by States. The purpose of the
permit is to assure that the allowable increments and allowable ceilings
will not be exceeded as a result of emissions from any new or modified
major stationary source. States may issue permits based on less than one
year of prior air quality monitoring, if the Administrator finds that an
adequate analysis of the air quality impact of any major stationary source
can be achieved within a shorter period.

Deadlines. -- State plans for control of sulfur dioxides and particu-
lates must be submitted within one year after date of enactment. State
plans for other pollutants must be submitted within two years. The
Administrator must approve the plan within four months, if it meets
applicable requirements. If not, the Administrator must propose a plan
for that State within four months after disapproval and promulgate it
within 90 days (but after notice and public hearing) if the State in the
meantime has failed to submit an approvable plan.

SECTION 109 -- TRAINING
This section prohibits the Administrator from charging fees for train-
ing of personnel employed by State or local air pollution control agencies.
Until recently, training was provided free of charge to such employees.
However, pursuant to directive of the Office of Management and Budget fees
of up to $90/day have been imposed on State and local governments. The
Committee felt that the imposition of fees on such personnel would be in-
consistent with the overriding objective of encouraging State and local
governments to assume primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing
the Act.






10


SECTION 110 -- REVIEW OF STANDARDS
This section requires the Administrator to review the technical criteria
and national ambient air quality standards at least once every two years
and to revise the standards and promulgate new ones as appropriate. In
deciding whether revision or promulgation of new standards is necessary,
the Administrator must consider the advice of an independent scientific
review committee. The committee is to be comprised of seven members,
including at least one physician, one representative of the National Academy
of Sciences, and one person representing State and territorial air pollu-
tion administrators.

SECTION 111 -- NEW SOURCE STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

The existing Clean Air Act requires the promulgation of nationally
applicable standards of performance (emission standards) for new or modi-
fied major stationary sources of pollution. This section amends that pro-
vision to require that major new sources meet standards based on the degree
of control achievable through use of the best technological system of
continuous emission reduction.

This amendment makes four significant changes. First, it clarifies
that intermittent or alternative control measures are not permissible means
of compliance. Second, it indicates that adequately demonstrated techno-
logy is to be the basis of the standard, not merely reliance on use of
untreated fuels. Third, it requires the Administrator to take into account
energy requirements (in addition to costs) in determining which technologies
have been adequately demonstrated. Fourth, it requires the Administrator
to consider non-air quality health and environmental impacts in making
that determination.

The section also makes clear that standards adopted for existing
sources under section 111(d) of the Act are to be based on available means
of emission control (not necessarily technological) and must, unless the
State decides to be more stringent, take into account the remaining useful
life of the existing sources.


This section also contains authority for the Governor of a State to
petition the Administrator to compel him to issue new source performance
standards for industries which have not yet been covered by such standards,
to issue revised standards when better technology becomes adequately demon-
strated, or to cover unregulated pollutants for which Federal new source
performance standards or hazardous emission standards have not been set.
The Committee's intended purposes in adopting this amendment are: (1) to
provide a greater role for the States in standard setting under the Act;
(2) to assure that industries do not play off States with weak or no environ-
mental controls against States with stronger controls in decisions to locate
new sources; and (3) to provide a check on the Administrator's inaction or
failure to control emissions adequately.6_/


6/ See footnote 2.










SECTION 112 -- VARIANCES FOR TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
"This section authorizes the Administrator to grant a variance from
Federal new source standards of performance in order to encourage develop-
mnt and application of new, improved, but as yet not adequately demon-
strated, technological systems for meeting the standards.

In order to grant the variance the Administrator must find that there
is a substantial likelihood that the new technology would achieve greater
mission reduction than presently required or would achieve equivalent
mission reduction at lower economic, energy, or environmental costs.
The Administrator must also be satisfied that the new technology will not
cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to health, welfare, or safety.
A third condition for granting the variance is that the Governor of the
State where the new source intends to locate consents to the variance.
Fourth, all national ambient air quality standards must be attained and
maintained. Fifth, the number of variances must be limited to the amount
necessary to test the new technology.
A variance is limited in duration to ten years from date of issuance
or the date on which the Administrator finds the new technology is an
irrmediable failure, whichever is sooner. In case of such an uncorrect-
able failure, the Administrator is required to allow additional time for
the source to obtain and use technology which has been adequately demon-
strated to meet the standards.

SECTION 113 -- FEDERAL FACILITIES

The purposes of this provision are several: (1) to clarify that section
118 of the existing Clean Air Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity,
such that Federal facilities and persons operating them must comply with
all State and local air pollution control requirements; (2) to clarify
that the Federal facilities must comply with "procedural" as well as
"substantive" requirements; and (3) to authorize enforcement against such
facilities and persons by the same means as for any non-Federal source.
These requirements continue to be subject to the President's authority
to grant exemptions under section 118 of the existing Act.

SECTION 114 -- WAIVER OF MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
This section would authorize the Administrator to waive the maintenance
of effort requirement in existing law (and thus to continue giving State
and local program grants), if the Administrator finds there is good cause
for granting such a waiver. This provision is intended to permit continued
Federal assistance to State or local air pollution control programs, where
fiscal emergencies have necessitated general across-the-board reductions
In State and local spending.







12


SECTION 115 -- VARIANCES FOR INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION OR GROWTH

Under the existing Clean Air Act, no new emission source may be con-
structed in an area which is already exceeding the national ambient air
quality standard after the date specified for attainment of that standard.
Under the existing Act, the attainment date is supposed to be 1975 or 1977
at the latest. Thus, in many regions that have not yet reached the national
ambient standards, growth could be curtailed altogether.

In order to permit flexibility so that an immediate growth
ban would not be required in these major-metropolitan regions, the Committee
adopted this section. The section authorizes the States or the Administrator
to grant a variance which would permit new construction or expansion of
existing facilities in these areas. Under the variance, a company which
owns or operates existing sources would be permitted to obtain such a
variance if it shows that all existing sources owned by the company are in
compliance with emission limits or schedules for compliance. Also the
proposed new or expanded facility would have to be equipped with the best
available control technology.

At no time would a variance be permitted to increase allowable emis-
sion levels by more than 15 per cent of that permitted by the State plans.
By 1980, the company's total emissions from the new and existing facilities
could not exceed 100 per cent of what had previously been allowed from
the existing facilities alone. No variance under this section could have
the effect of delaying the date that the national ambient standards would
be attained.

SECTION 201 -- LIMITATIONS ON INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEWS AUTHORITY

This section establishes several limitations upon the Administration's
authority to require State or local governments to adopt or implement in-
direct source review programs. An indirect source is a facility or property
which although it does not directly pollute the air, does attract traffic
in sufficient amounts to cause or contribute to unhealthy levels of air
pollution.

First, before an indirect source review program can be required to
be implemented in any area, the Administrator must find that such a program
is necessary, i.e., that the national primary (health-related) ambient air
quality standards will be exceeded after the statutory deadlines for attain-
ment and maintenance of such standards notwithstanding the new motor vehicle
emission standards and application of direct stationary source and trans-
portation controls. In making the finding of necessity, the Administrator
is directed to assume that the requirements originally applicable to 1975
and 1976 new cars under the 1970 Act were met on time, instead of delayed.
This assumption reduces the likelihood that the determination of necessity
will be made for any area.









The second limitation Is that the Administrator may not require such
a program unless the program is likely to be effective to assist In attain-
log or maintaining the primary (health) standards. In making this finding,
the Administrator must take into account the advice of the National
Acadey of Sciences, which is directed to undertake an independent study
of this issue.
The third limitation, which applies to most informal rulemaking under
the Act, is that the Administrator must follow the procedural requirements
established under section 305 of the bill. Findings of the Administrator
pertaining to the efficacy and necessity of indirect source review programs
would be subject to judicial review in connection with review of any
regulation promulgated by the Administrator.

The fourth limitation is that even if such programs are found to be
necessary and effective and even if procedural requirements are met, the
Admnistrator may not impose or administer Federal regulations for indirect
sources. The programs are to be carried out by State or local governments.
If a State fails to adopt or enforce an adequate program, the Administrator
has only one remedy. He may petition the court to prevent construction of
new indirect sources which do not have permits from approved State pro-
grams. The only exception to the rule against Federal implementation of
Indirect source review programs is with respect to indirect sources owned,
operated or assisted by the Federal government.
The fifth limitation is that the Administrator is not authorized to
review the State's individual indirect source permit decisions. Only if
the State improperly granted permits in a substantial number of instances
could the Administrator act to disapprove a program previously approved
under this section. Even then, the effect of the disapproval would only
be prospective (i.e., permits which had previously been issued by the
State could not be revoked).

The sixth limitation is that the Administrator must permit Governors
to grant variances from Federally-approved State programs under certain
specified conditions, even though the effect of such variances is to per-
ait air pollution levels in excess of the primary (health) standards.
Variances may last until as late as January 1, 1985, in the Governor's
discretion. At the expiration of any variance, the indirect source will
be required to conform to the State's implementation plan, which must
then attain and maintain primary standards.

The seventh limitation relates to timetables under this section.
Under the statutory timetables, indirect source review programs would pro-
bably not become effective until 39 months after date of enactment. During
this period, States and localities would be free to revoke or suspend any
existing indirect source programs or to adopt and enforce any indirect
source program. The Administrator may not compel or prohibit any such
action during this Interim period.






14


In related provisions, the Committee agreed to delete from the Clean
Air Act the words "land use" controls. Where necessary for attainment
or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards, air quality
maintenance plans and preconstruction review of direct pollution sources
are provided. Even these measures could not be required if a State adopts
a plan which is adequate to assure timely attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality standards without such measures.

SECTION 202 -- EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL COMPLIANCE DATES

This section authorizes the Administrator to extend the compliance
deadlines for implementation of various transportation control measures
which,.under current law, are required to become effective not later than
June 30, 1977. If the control measures in question could not be imple-
mented in accordance with current timetables without serious social or
economic disruption, then the Administrator may grant an extension.

An extension may last until as late as January 1, 1985. It may be
granted even though failure to implement the measure as originally scheduled
would cause or contribute to pollution levels exceeding national primary
(health) ambient air quality standards.

If an extension is granted, the measure extended must be implemented
according to a new schedule of compliance. In general, the measure would
have to be implemented as expeditiously as practicable. Extensions beyond
January 1, 1980, are authorized only where commitments are made as part
of the plan to improve public transportation.

In addition to the extensions authorized by this section, the deletion
of certain measures from Federally-approved State plans is authorized.
The measures authorized to be deleted involve certain gas rationing pro-
visions and certain vehicle retrofit requirements applicable to in-use
vehicles. If the State's plan is no longer adequate to assure timely attain-
ment and maintenance of the national primary (health) standards without
such strategies, it would have to be revised within nine months.

The mere fact that a State obtains an extension of any transportation
control measure does not provide basis for the Administrator to require
revision of the State plan. The State may not be required to revise its
plan to include more stringent measures if the plan would have been ade-
quate but for the granting of any extension under this section.

The section does require the Administrator to review all State plans
not later than one year after date of enactment, to determine their
adequacy. This review was felt by the Committee to be necessary in light
of such events as the administrative suspensions and Congressional action
delaying auto emission standard deadlines, the prohibition on parking
surcharge requirements, and the unworkability of certain strategies included
initially in the State plans. If the State plan is not adequate even
assuming no delays had been granted under these Amendments, then the plan
would have to be revised by the State, in accordance with provisions of
existing law pertaining to plan revision.




--15
iiiWii tem....rtincnrlmasr"i eiedt xld l




re~laion f paking.The urpoe of his xcluion i to ssur tha
*1 rq~sio f akig ssujcttote iittin o ecio 01o
reoulaion o indiectisurces
SETO 203 LIGH-DUTYMOTORVEHICE EMISION
Under thspoiin tttr msso tnad o e uoo i iiiiii
andothr lghtduy vhices reqirng 90 reucton in HCan C
emisins wul bedeayd ntl ode y ar190. Duiiiiiiiiiiillrisi
1978 and 197, standardswould.be.froen.at.19.5.ederal .int. rm.standards
Whl h ul9%rdcinwudb eurdfrH n Oiiiiiiin mode
Yeai19ii n teiiieifiteiNiisandrdtheiuli90ireuctiiioul
noihvetobeacieedunilmoeiyar191. EvnthnthiAmii iiiiii
trto wolieatoizdtiupn heNxsadr (o oe er
1919) etn ihritrmlvesuo eemnto ht 1
i isnttcnlgclyfail tome th stnadwti th t iime
permitte; or (2)meetingthe 90 pricentirductionrequiremntiwoul
reul ina xesv ulpnly
i i iiie
Ths plcbeFdrlsadrswudb sflos

HCg/i Og/m) Nxg/i






16


The full 90 per cent reduction in NOx would not have to be achieved
under a separate provision of this section. If the manufacturer of any
model could demonstrate that its vehicles could meet the following stan-
dards for 10 years or 100,000 miles (instead of the usual five years or
50,000 miles), then compliance with the .4 NOx standard would not be
required for that model.
gm/mi
HC -------------------------------------------------- .41
CO------------------------------------------------- 3.4
NOx------------------------ ---- ---------------------1.0






17


The Committee's Intended purpose In adopting this provision is to
CreMte an Incentive for development of inherently clean and durable techno-
logies while continuing to provide protection of public health from auto-
'Otive emissions.7/
The section also requires the Administrator to study and report
amually to Congress on unregulated pollutants being emitted from various
systems (controlled and uncontrolled).
Finally, the section makes it a prohibited act for any manufacturer
seeking a suspension to have failed to make maximum feasible efforts for
that manufacturer to develop a system which could meet the standards with-
out an excess fuel penalty.

SECTION 204 -- EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES OR
ENGINES AND FROM MOTORCYCLES
This section requires the Administrator to promulgate emission stan-
dards for model years 1978-1984 new heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motor-
cycles based on use of the best technology which has been adequately demon-
strated. For 1985 and subsequent model years, standards must require a
90 per cent reduction of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and a
6S per cent reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from baseline levels,
I.e. uncontrolled levels emitted by gasoline-powered vehicles or engines
of a comparable class or category. Standards under this section would
apply both to gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles and engines.
Upon making certain findings regarding technical infeasibility or
fuel economy penalties, the Administrator may in 1979 grant a variance
(i.e. relaxation) of the 1985-7 standards for any class or category of
vehicles or engines. Additional revisions of up to three years each could
be granted at three-year Intervals thereafter if the requisite findings
are made. At the end of each revision period, the standards would revert
to a requirement for reductions of 90 per cent for HC and CO and 65 per
cent for NOx.
The section also provides for pollutant specific health studies to be
undertaken on HC, CO, NOx, and particulates. If these studies justified
setting other targets (either more or less stringent),then the 90 per cent
reduction figures for HC or CO or the 65 per cent reduction figure for
NOx could be changed or a particulate target level could be set.
In the event a vehicle or engine fails to meet the revised standards,
It my nonetheless be permitted to be sold so long as the degree of non-
conformity is within a range prescribed by rule by the Administrator and
the manufacturer pays a nonconforming technology penalty. Also the section
requires production line testing of heavy-duty vehicles or engines.
In setting and revising standards under this section the Adminis-
trator may subdivide heavy-duty vehicles or engines into classes or
subclasses, by weight, horse-power or other appropriate factors.
The term "heavy-duty vehicle" Is defined to mean vehicles (including
trucks and buses) weighing over 6,000 pounds. The tern excludes fixed rail
vehicles and vehicles (such as farm equipment) which are not designed pri-
marily for use on highways or roads.


7/ See footnote 2.






18


SECTION 205 -- AIRCRAFT EMISSION STANDARDS

This section authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to disapprove
at any time any aircraft emission standard .promulgated by the Administrator,
if DOT finds the standard would create a hazard to aircraft safety. If
DOT disapproves, then the emission standard would cease to be effective
(or may not take effect, if the standard is yet to take effect). Also
under this section, the Administrator must promulgate standards for non-
military supersonic aircraft within 12 months of date of enactment.

SECTION 206 -- ASSURANCE OF PROTECTION OF PUBLIC EHALTH AND
SAFETY

This section requires the manufacturers of new motor vehicles or
new mo or vehicle engines to bear the burden of proving, as a condition
of obtaining a certificate of conformity, that the emission control systems
or devices that are to be used to meet emission standards will not produce
unregulated pollutants in concentrations which create an unreasonable risk
to public health or welfare. The manufacturer must also prove the safety
of any such system or device.

SECTION 207 -- TEST PROCEDURES FOR MEASURING EVAPORATIVE
EMISSIONS
Recent information demonstrates that the methods used by the Adminis-
trator and the State of California to measure evaporative emissions from
new motor vehicles have failed to capture and thus to record the bulk of
evaporative emissions which actually occur. Consequently, California h's
revised its test procedure to use a method which measures all evaporative
emissions. This section requires the Administrator to use test procedures
which measure all evaporative emissions, effective for model year 1978
light-duty vehicles (and 1978 or later for heavy-duty vehicles or engines).

SECTION 208 -- RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS
F-
This section establishes a new part C of title II of the Clean Air Act
(new sections 235-7). The new subtitle directs the Administrator to study
the extent to which emissions from railroad locomotives affect air quality
and the technological feasibility of controlling such emissions. Within
one year after date of enactment, the Administrator would be required
to promulgate national emission standards for railroad locomotives and
equipment.

As in the area of aircraft safety, the Secretary of Transportation may
disapprove any emission standard under this section promulgated by the
Administrator if he finds it would create a hazard to railroad safety. The
Secretary of Transportation also is given responsibility for enforcing the
railroad emission standards.

Once standards are promulgated States and local governments would be
preempted from adopting or enforcing emission.standards which are not
identical to the Federal standards.





19


SECTION 209 -- MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS CERTIFICATION AND STUDY
BY FTC
This section was adopted In order to address the problem of potentially
anti-cumpetitive effects of the 5-year/50,000-mile performance warranty
under section 207(b) of the existing Clean Air Act. Although the warranty
In question has not become effective yet (and according to the Administrator,
Is unlikely to become effective prior to model year 1979 vehicles), the
Comtmttee was concerned that unless certain preventive measures were put
Into effect prior to the effective date of the warranty, the warranty may
result In anti-competitive effects harmful to small business, the market-
place, and consumers as well.
In response to these concerns, the new section changes the duration of
the performance warranty under section 207(b) from 5 years or 50,000 miles
to 18 months or 18,000 miles. The design warranties under section 207(a),
the recall authority under section 207(c), the certification and assembly-
line test provisions under section 206, and the "useful life" definition
under section 202(d) are not affected by this change.

This section, secondly, requires the Administrator to promulgate
regulations within two years after date of enactment establishing a volun-
tary parts certification program. Under this program, the manufacturer
of any motor vehicle part could certify that use of that part in specified
vehicles or engines would not result in a failure of the vehicle to meet
mission standards. The use of a certified part would not provide grounds
for the vehicle manufacturer to invalidate the customer's performance
warranty, even though the part may have been manufactured and sold by an
independent parts supplier and installed by an independent garage.
Third, the new section requires the Federal Trade Commission to study
regulations promulgated by the Administrator. If the FTC finds that in
light of the Administrator's regulations no significant anticompetitive
effects would result from a 5-year/50,000-mile performance warranty, then
the 5-year/50,000-mile performance warranty would be restored.

SECTION 210 -- VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
This section requires annual inspection of light-duty vehicles which
are registered to persons who live or maintain their principal place of
business in an air quality control region where transportation control
measures apply as of June 30, 1975. Thus, the provision only applies to
29 cities and surrounding areas, where the national primary ambient air
quality standards for mobile source-related pollutants are being exceeded.
The purpose of the annual inspection is to assure that vehicles will
remain relatively non-polluting in use.
The section is patterned on the New Jersey inspection and maintenance
program which has been in effect for well over a year. The section estab-
lishes standards applicable to in-use vehicles. The standards reflect that






20


degree of emission control which is achievable by in-use vehicles which
are maintained reasonably well. The standards do not apply to pre-1968
vehicles, antique cars, and certain other vehicles.

If a vehicle is found not to be in compliance with the standards as a
result of the emission inspection, then the operation or registration of
the vehicle would be prohibited, with certain exceptions. The exceptions
are as follows: (1) a noncomplying vehicle may be operated for a temporary
period to permit the vehicle to be brought into compliance; and (2) a non-
complying vehicle may be operated and registered if it has received a
major tune-up within three months prior to the inspection or thereafter.
States would retain authority to impose more stringent requirements, but
the Administrator would not be authorized to compel the States to do so.

The inspection requirements will become effective one year after date
of enactment. To the extent practicable, use of existing State motor
vehicle inspection and testing facilities is encouraged, but it is not
required.

If, at any time a State plan becomes adequate to attain and maintain
the national ambient air quality standards in timely fashion without
reliance on vehicle inspection and maintenance, then such a system would
not be required.

SECTION 211 -- COSTS OF VAPOR RECOVERY

Regulations promulgated under the existing Clean Air Act require the
installation of vapor recovery devices at retail gasoline stations in
certain highly polluted areas. The purpose of the requirements is to
control hydrocarbon emissions which result when the distributor of fuel
delivers it to storage tanks at the gasoline station and when the retailer
fills the ultimate consumer's gasoline tank from the gas pump.

This section provides that the costs of vapor recovery systems would
be borne by the owner of the storage tanks and pumps, not by the franchised
retailer. This section also prohibits the owner of the tanks and pumps
from transferring the costs of vapor recovery to the retailer. The dis-
tributor is required to reimburse the retailer for any such costs incurred
prior to date of enactment. Finally, the section permits a four-year
phase-in period for small independent marketeers to install vapor recovery
systems where required.

SECTION 212 -- TESTING BY SMALL MANUFACTURERS

This section exempts vehicle manufacturers with projected annual
U.S. sales of 300 or less from the requirement for 50,000-mile certification
testing of such vehicles.






21


^ SECTION 213 -- CALIFORNIA WAIVER

pi This section Is Intended to broaden and strengthen the State of
p ul Calforuia's authority to prescribe and enforce separate new motor vehicle
: diusion standards from the Federal standards. The authority which Call-
'nl:a has under existing section 209 of the Act is not limited in any
I rpet by this provision. Rather, it permits the State to have its
S standards considered as a package and would require the Administrator in
si' Mt Instances to waive the preemption under section 209 with respect to
l Caitfornia's standards. The Administrator would be authorized to deny
|i such waiver only if (1) California's judgment that its standards.
considered together, are at least as protective of health and welfare
as Federal standards, considered together, was arbitrary and capricious;
Sor (2) one of the findings under existing section 209(b) is made. The
e n.enit thus confers broad discretion on the State of California to weigh
i::. the degree of health hazards from various pollutants and the degree of
i,, mission reduction achievable for various pollutants with various emission
i control technologies and standards.

.. SECTION 214 LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES
In order to encourage development of low-emission vehicles the 1970
S Clean Air Act provided for Federal procurement of such vehicles. This
section provides that such vehicles should be considered as suitable sub-
i Stitutes for existing vehicles, even if a full range of potential uses is
S not achievable by each low-emission vehicle.

r SECTION 215 REMOVAL OR TAMPERING WITH CERTAIN DEVICES

S.This section expands the existing prohibition on removal or render-
.ig inoperative of pollution control devices or systems which are needed
to met new motor vehicle emission standards. Under current law, only
manufacturers or dealers are subject to this prohibition after sale and
delivery of the vehicle to the ultimate purchaser. Under this section
S any person engaged in the business of vehicle repair or service who know-
ingly takes such action would be subject to a civil penalty, thus including
independent gas stations and garages. If the ersojntaking such action is
an Individual working on his own vehicle, that action would not constitute
a violation.

,, This section also provides that use of parts other than original equip-
men t manufacturer parts for purposes of repair or replacement would not be
construed in and of itself to constitute prohibited tampering with emission
I control systems, devices, or elements of design.
Liii~b
piii


ih: .
riii;'.
en~i~l...
Iiiii!
I. m:






22


SECTION 216 -- HIGH ALTITUDE PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENTS

This section authorizes adjustments to the emission control system
of any vehicle or engine which improve fuel economy performance while not
harming the emission control performance of the system. Under existing law,
questions have been raised about whether such adjustments are prohibited by
the anti-tampering prohibition. Also this section requires vehicle manu-
facturers (or the Administrator) to publish instructions as to how much
adjustments can be made. The Committee's intended purpose in adopting this
provision was to encourage adjustments which would both improve emission
control performance and benefit fuel economy.f/

SECTION 217 -- PARTS STANDARDS; PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW

This section provides that if a Federal part certification program
is established under section 209 of the bill, then any part certified under
the Federal program would not have to be recertified under any State or
local program.

SECTION 218 -- FILL PIPE STANDARDS

This section authorizes the Administrator to prescribe fill pipe stan-
dards for new motor vehicles to assure effective connection between the
fill pipe and any certified vapor recovery system. Adequate lead time
must be allowed for compliance with these standards. The Administrator
would not be authorized to regulate motor vehicle styling or body design.

SECTION' 219 -- ONBOARD HYDROCARBON TECHNOLOGY

This section would require the Administrator to consider the feasibility
and desirability from a cost/effectiveness viewpoint of prescribing standards
for new motor vehicles to require use of onboard hydrocarbon control techno-
logy to minimize or avoid the necessity for vapor recovery requirements.
If he makes certain findings concerning costs, fuel economy, feasibility,
etc., he is directed to promulgate such standards. Adequate lead time must
be allowed for compliance. Regulations could be disapproved by the Secretary
of Transportation on a finding that a hazard to safety would be created.

SECTION 301 -- REDESIGNATION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS

This section authorizes the Governor of each State to revise the
boundaries of air quality control regions designated under the 1970 Act.
Under existing law, no such boundary revisions are authorized.

The boundary revisions are to be effective only with the approval of
the Administrator (and, in certain instances, the approval of Governors
of nearby States which may be affected by any such revision).

SECTION 302 -- CONSULTATION

The current Clean Air Act requires air pollution control plans to
be devised and implemented primarily at the State level. This has left


8/ See footnote 2.




Iv

F

I

II
a
flU
I.


_tmy local governmental units and regional agencies with a limited (or
rO) role in the process, although the plans adopted by the States may
have significant effects on local governments and metropolitan areas.
i: i: .;! :J.
Section 302 Is Intended to correct this situation. It requires a con-
sul1tation process to be established within each State. The process must
as adequate opportunity for general purpose local governments and
regional agencies to present their views prior to adoption of specified
misures which are of particular concern to such governmental entities.

The consultation process may take a variety of forms, so long as it
adequately involves local governments and regional agencies in the State's
decision-making.

SECTION 303 -- DELEGATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Under the current Clean Air Act, if a State fails to adopt and imple-
mut an approved plan to meet national air quality standards, the Adminis-
trator is required to do so. In order to minimize the necessity for
Federal enforcement, this provision would authorize the Administrator to
delegate enforcement authority to local government in the case of a plan
promulgated by the Administrator.
SECTION 304 -- EMPLOYM-ENT EFFECTS

This section contains a provision, like that in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, for the Administrator to investigate, report and
make advisory recommendations concerning employer allegations that
requirements under the Clean Air Act will adversely affect employment.
No sanction or enforcement authority is provided under this section.
SECTION 305 -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

This section establishes comprehensive procedures for most informal
rulemaking under the Clean Air Act, which would apply in lieu of the
Adklminstrative Procedure Act. The section (a) specifies the rules and
actions to which such procedures will apply; (b) provides for establish-
ment of a rulemaking docket for each of these rules or actions; (c) indi-
cates what the record will be for the Administrator in prescribing the
rule and for the courts in reviewing the rule; (d) establishes procedural
rights and opportunities for public participation in the rulemaking process,
including opportunities for cross-examination on material issues of disputed
fact; (e) provides the standards of judicial review, including the "sub-
stantial evidence" test; (f) modifies certain deadlines for promulgation
of rules; and (g) extends to 60 days the period of petitioning for judicial
review of any such rule.

SECTION 306 -- EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
This section establishes a new section 317, like the provision of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, to protect employees from retaliatory action
by employers, if the employee is assisting in the administration of, or
exercising rights under, the Clean Air Act.


23






24


SECTION 307 -- NOTICE TO STATES IN CASE OF CERTAIN
INSPECTIONS, ETC.

This section, like a comparable provision in the Safe Drinking Water
Act, requires the Administrator to give notice to States prior to under-
taking certain actions, including inspections, where the Administrator
intends to check on compliance with a standard adopted by the State and
approved by the Administrator.

SECTION 308 -- EMERGENCY PROVISIONS

This section,like the previous section, requires the Administrator
to consult with States prior to commencing any emergency action. The
section also authorizes issuance of emergency orders where public health
cannot be adequately protected solely by initiating a suit for injunctive
relief

SECTION 309 -- INTERSTATE POLLUTION ABATEMENT

This section provides for a system of interstate notification and
permits for major new sources which may significantly contribute to inter-
state air pollution. It also provides a mechanism for resolving disputes
on abatement of interstate air pollution.

SECTION 310 -- INTERAGENCY COOPERATION ON PREVENTION OF EN-
VIRONMENTAL CANCERS, HEART AND LUNG DISEASE

This section requires creation of an interagency task force to promote
increased cooperation between EPA and HEW to quantify the relationship
between environmental pollution and cancer, heart and lung disease and
to find methods for preventing environmentally-induced cancer, heart,
and lung diseases.

SECTION 311 -- CIVIL LITIGATION

This section, like a comparable provision in the Federal Trade Commis-
sion Act, authorizes attorneys appointed by the Administrator to represent
the Agency in civil litigation under this Act. The Administrator's attorneys
would not be authorized to appear in criminal cases (nor in the Supreme Court
if the Solicitor General agrees to appear on behalf of the Agency).
This section also provides that the courts may award reasonable attorneys
fees to any person against whom the Administrator acts unreasonably in
initiating an enforcement action. Attorneys fees and other costs (witness
fees, etc.) could also be awarded in judicial review proceedings under
section 307 of the Act.






25


SECTION 312 -- FINE PARTICULATE STUDY

This section requires the Administrator to study and report to
Congress In 18 months on health hazards and means of controlling fine
particulates. The National Academy of Sciences Is to participate In this
study. This study is to be coordinated with the study under section 101
and the standards review process under section 110 of the bill.
SECTION 313 -- AIR QUALITY MONITORING
This section requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations
establishing a standard air quality index for monitoring and reporting of
air quality data by State and local governments. It also requires the
Administrator to supplement State and local monitoring stations with Federal
stations where necessary.

SECTION 314 -- TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

This section includes miscellaneous technical and conforming amend-
ments.
SECTION 315 -- RESEARCH NOT AUTHORIZED

This section makes clear that no moneys authorized to be appropriated
under this Act may be used by the Administrator for research. Research
authorizations are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science
and Technology.

SECTION 316 -- STUDY AND REPORT CONCERNING ECONOMIC
APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING AIR POLLUTION
This section requires the Council on Environmental Quality to conduct
a study and to report to Congress on economic measures which might be
used to encourage greater or more efficient emission reductions.

SECTION 317 -- LOSS OF PAY PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN CASES
This section provides that one of the conditions for use of supplemental
or Interim control measures or other dispersion enhancement methods would
be that the owner or operator of the source proposing to use such measures
or methods agree not to make employees bear any of the costs of periodic
shutdowns or production curtailments which may result from use of such
methods or measures.




















.....:: .. ...




::! i;;::.. ^ **
**ii~i: :
I:


.:i
, Ii~iir, ::: .


S




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA :



3 1262 09113 7371


J