1

reaches truly critical proportions in many parts of the country. To avoid the impending dangers to the Nation's health and welfare both our research efforts and our regulatory activities must be strengthened. Strong regulatory programs are needed to insure full application of technological, feasible, and economically reasonable methods of control.

Testimony has shown that at present the Nation is not currently employing all the economically and technically feasible methods available for reducing discharges of pollution into the air. Industry, county, and municipal incineration and other private and governmental sources of pollution-including automotive, locomotive, and jet propulsion-must be stimulated to do everything possible with existing capabilities to abate pollution of the air.

At the same time both governmental and private research must be accelerated in an effort to find the means to economically control the emission of gases and particulate matter which pollute the air.

The oxides of sulfur controversy is indicative of the need more - precisely to define the relationship between pollution and health and welfare. Because the committee is concerned with both longand short-term hazards as well as the need for valid scientific data to substantiate the correlation between pollution and health and welfare the Secretary is urged to move forward with diligence and perseverance in the area of scientific analysis as well as research into ways feasibly and effectively to control potentially dangerous emissions.

Research is not intended as a substitute for regulation. Reasonable regulation, should, however, be based on an accurate measurement of the health and welfare needs, technological feasibility of abatement

[p. 10]

of pollution and economic factors involved. Where health considerations permit and there are technological obstacles or known and seriously adverse economic results which would grow out of precipitous abatement action, the timetable for developments through research should be synchronized so that the pollution problem can be solved in an orderly manner.

On the other hand, where there are health hazards, it is expected that State and local authorities will take the necessary abatement

action, and if they do not, the Secretary is specifically authorized to commence abatement action.

IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

[p. 11]

The early authority of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to air pollution was derived primarily from Public Law 84-159 (Air Pollution Control Act) as amended. This act authorized a program of research and technical assistance to obtain data and to devise and develop methods for the control and abatement of air pollution by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. The act recognized the primary responsibilities and rights of the States and local governments in controlling air pollution, but authorized Federal grants-in-aid to air pollution control agencies to assist them in the formulation and execution of their research programs directed toward abatement of air pollution.

This act was amended by Public Law 86-493, which directed the Surgeon General to conduct a thorough study of motor vehicle exhaust as it affects human health through the pollution of air. Subsequently, in 1962, the Air Pollution Control Act was amended by Public Law 87-761 to make permanent the requirement that the Surgeon General conduct studies relating to motor vehicle exhaust.

With the adoption of the Clean Air Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-206), Federal policy in the field of air pollution control underwent significant evolution. Although there was no change in the view that responsibility for the control of air pollution rests primarily with State and local governments, the Federal Government was further directed to equip itself to aid State and local control programs more effectively and to stimulate them to the increased level of activity considered necessary. With this act the Congress provided the Federal Government with the authority to

(1) Grant consent to interstate agreements or compacts for the prevention of air pollution.

(2) Authorize a broad program of research, investigations, and training.

(3) Authorize the compilation and publication of criteria reflecting accurately the latest scientific knowledge indicating the type and extent of effects which may be expected from the presence of air pollutants.

(4) Authorize grants to air pollution control agencies to develop, establish, and improve programs for the prevention and control of air pollution.

(5) Authorize grants up to two-thirds of the cost of developing, establishing, and improving air pollution control programs to air pollution control agencies, and up to threefourths of such costs to intermunicipal or interstate air pollution control agencies.

(6) Authorize a procedure to carry out abatement actions. (7) Direct the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to encourage continued efforts on the part of the automotive and fuel industries to prevent pollutants from being discharged from the exhaust of automotive vehicles.

[p. 12]

(8) Authorize the establishment of a technical committee to evaluate progress in the development of automotive pollution control devices and fuels, and to develop and recommend research programs.

(9) Recognize the need for cooperation by Federal departments in controlling air pollution from installations under their jurisdiction.

During January, February, June, and July 1964, following the enactment of the Clean Air Act, the subcommittee conducted field and technical hearings to obtain factual data to be used as a basis for determining whether additional legislative action was required. Subsequently, a subcommittee report entitled "Steps Toward Clean Air" documented the findings of hearings and recommended legislative action.

3 The committee in reporting the bill believed the legislation essential to successfully combat the air pollution problems. It was recognized that automotive exhausts are not the only source of air pollution, but they are a major problem and they are increasing rapidly.

The committee determined from the automotive industry's own testimony that it could meet the California standards of 275 parts per million of hydrocarbons and not more than 1.5 percent by volume of carbon monoxide. The committee believed that the standards could be applied and were reasonable, and by applying them, the Nation would take a major step toward the control and abatement of air pollution.

It was also evident to the committee that further research was needed to determine effects of automotive pollutants other than hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and to find means of controlling them and to advance the research activities relating to

reducing the emissions of oxides of sulfur produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels.

The committee was convinced that a Federal Air Pollution Control Laboratory was needed to provide facilities to carry out research and experimentations in perfecting methods and means of reducing air pollution.

The committee believed that it was important that the Clean Air Act be amended so that it not only provided a basis for action to abate pollution in our country but also adopted a procedure for cooperation with foreign countries in cases involving endangerment of health or welfare.

With the signing by President Johnson on October 20, 1965, of Public Law 89-272, the Secretary assumed major new responsibilities for the prevention and control of air pollution, which included

(1) Provide for recommended motor vehicle exhaust emission standards by the Automotive Vehicle and Fuel Pollution Technical Committee and, by regulations, for the establishment of standards, requirements, or limitations on emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines and devices or motor vehicle design not later than September 1, 1967.

(2) Prohibit the distribution in commerce of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine manufactured after the effective date of regulation unless it is in conformity with such regulations. It is also required that such vehicle or engines offered for importation must meet prescribed regulations.

[p. 13]

(3) Provide for enforcement procedures for the abatement of air pollution adversely affecting a foreign country.

(4) Authorize the conduct and acceleration of research programs relating to means of controlling hydrocarbon emissions resulting from the evaporation of gasoline in carburetors and fuel tanks, and the means of controlling emissions of oxides of nitrogen and aldehydes from gasoline-powered or diesel-powered vehicles.

Although important progress had been made in the brief period since enactment of the Clean Air Act, a sustained and accelerated effort appeared needed if the promise of that act to prevent and control air pollution was to be fulfilled.

In enacting the Clean Air Act, the Congress established important policy through its findings, as contained in section 101, “that

the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local government; and *** that Federal financial assistance and leadership is essential for the development of cooperative Federal, State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollution."

Section 104 of the act authorized grants to air pollution control agencies in support of the cost of developing, establishing, or improving programs for the prevention and control of air pollution. The amounts authorized to be allocated for such grants were not to exceed 20 percent of the total appropriations for all purposes under the act. Grants were authorized to be made, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary finds necessary, in amounts up to two-thirds of the eligible program costs, except that in the case of grants to intermunicipal or interstate agencies, the grants may be up to three-fourths of eligible program costs.

This approach authorized a Federal role limited to providing an initial stimulation of program improvements and subsequent withdrawal of support on the assumption or hope that non-Federal funds will be available to substitute for the Federal share.

Experience under this provision indicated that certain areas, where strengthened programs where needed, were ineligible for Federal assistance which would otherwise be warranted, because very little or no “new” non-Federal funds were made available in the current fiscal year. Increased local funds and the strengthening of local programs occurred in prior fiscal years; as a result, the provisions tended to penalize those areas which acted on their own initiative to control air pollution prior to the availability of Federal grant funds. The maintenance and continuation of expanded efforts by State and local air pollution control agencies required in the future not only stimulatory grant assistance but sustaining grants as well. Sustaining grants adequately reflected the strong Federal interest and responsibility in air pollution control and significantly improved the effectiveness of programs in giving impetus to greater State and local action.

In 1966, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act by enacting Public Law 89-675, which—

(1) Consolidates into one section appropriation authorizations.

(2) Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to air pollution control agencies in an amount up to one-half of the cost of maintaining programs for the prevention and control of air pollution.

(3) Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to intermu