Page images
PDF
EPUB

84-239 - 77 - 9

-10

of equity and common sense demand that
primary emphasis be placed on the preven-
tion of pollution by reducing the emissions
from each and every new automobile tail
pipe. Efforts based on indirect control of
the use of automobiles through restrictions
on parking lots, shopping centers and other
indirect sources, rather than full and prompt
controls for new autos, trucks, buses, and
motorcycles are inherently inequitable. It
transfers from the motor vehicle manufacturers
to the public and to indirect source owners
and operators the burden of protecting public
health from dangerous vehicle emissions.

But the Committee is also aware that even
after new car emissions meet the full standards
first required by the 1970 Clean Air Act, many
communities will require additional measures
if national ambient air standards are to be
attained and maintained.

With increasing awareness of the environmental causes of many serious diseases, including heart and pulmonary disease, and various forms of cancer, there can be no doubt of the urgent need to protect against unhealthy air quality. There is a particular public responsibility to protect those who are "at risk" from air pollution, including the elderly, the infirm and the very young.

There can be no doubt, therefore, of the need for additional control measures in areas where ambient standards will be exceeded after the statutory attainment date for meeting health standards. These measures may include all additional feasible control measures on stationary sources of mobile source air pollutants, tighter emission controls on new trucks, buses, and multi-purpose vehicles, measures to improve traffic flow, expansion and improvement of public transportation, vapor recovery, and even perhaps, in some cases, review of new facilities which attract heavy automobile traffic.

But the Committee is especially cognizant of the potentially sweeping consequences and potentially socially and economically disruptive impacts which may result from efforts to reduce automobile pollution through mandated reductions in parking supplies and restrictions on new parking facilities.

-11

Similarly, Roger Strelow, former EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Water Enforcement, "agrees that shopping centers and other areas that attract cars should not take up the burden for Detroit," and has suggested that an "equitable scale" be established so that indirect sources would not be saddled with a disproportionate share of the task of reducing

pollution.14/

Congressional Response

Congress first responded to the questions and controversy spawned by EPA's land use and transportation controls by amending section 110 (c) of the Clean Air Act to forbid the Administrator from requiring a parking surcharge regulation as part of a state implementation program.15/ Further, Congress voided all parking surcharge regulations previously required by EPA.16/ Similarly, enforcement of all parking-restriction regulations issued by EPA has been delayed repeatedly by Congress through amendments to appropriation bills. On December 31, 1974, Congress provided that no appropriated funds could be "used by

14/ See Magida, Environment Report/New Clean Air Provisions Respond to Local Complaints, National Journal (Nov. 22, 1975),p.1594. Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-319, § 42, U.S.C.A. § 1857c-5 (c)(2)(B) (Supp. 1975).

15.

16/ Id.

-12

the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities" until July 1, 1975.17/ On June 27, 1975, Congress extended this proscription

until October 17, 1975.18/

It is in this context that EPA sus

pended the implementation of the parking-related indirect source review indefinitely on July 3, 1975.19/

On October 17, 1975, Congress adopted an expanded version

of its previously adopted limitation on EPA's authority regarding parking: "No part of the funds appropriated under this Act may

be used to administer or promulgate, directly or indirectly, any program to tax, limit or otherwise regulate parking that is not specifically required pursuant to subsequent legislation."20/ This provision was in effect until September 30, 1976, and a similar provision was adopted as section 406 of H.R. 14233, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Act, 1977. It will be in effect until September 30, 1977.21/

17/ Pub. L. No. 93-563, § 510, 88 Stat. 1822 (Dec. 31, 1974).
18/ Pub. L. No. 94-41, 89 Stat. 225 (June 27, 1975).
19/ 40 C.F.R. § 52.22(b)(ii), 40 Fed. Reg. 28064 (1975).

Also,
EPA suspended indefinitely the Parking Management Regula-
tions, 40 C.F.R. § 52.139 (1974), 40 Fed. Reg. 28064,
29713 (1975).

20/ Pub. L. No. 94-116, § 407, 89 Stat. 581 (Oct. 17, 1975).

21

Pub. L. No. 94-378 (Aug. 9, 1976).

On August 9, 1976, the Comptroller General of the United
States issued a Decision on Environmental Protection Agency
Regulation of Parking Facilities which discussed the meaning
of the current and previous provisions limiting EPA's authority
to regulate parking. Decision, Environmental Protection Agency
Regulation of Parking Facilities, the Comptroller General of
the United States, B-175137 (Aug. 9, 1976).

Cont'd..

-13

Conference Committee Limitation on Indirect Source Review
Authority

After

During the last two years, much time and effort were expended by the members of this Subcommittee and other members of Congress in developing amendments to the Clean Air Act. long and thorough consideration, the 94th Congress produced a solution to the problems involved in federal regulation of indirect sources in Section 120 of the Conference Report on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (S. 3219) 22/ and included as Section 120 of S. 253, the bill now before this Subcommittee. this legislation was blocked in the last hours of the 94th Congress.

Unfortunately

21 Continued.

The Decision upheld EPA's approval of Oregon's State Implementation Plan which contained indirect source and regional parking plans since Oregon voluntarily promulgated the plan. However, the Comptroller General found that EPA's order to enforce the New York State Transportation Control Plan relating to New York City's parking facilities violated the 1975 appropriation limitation since it went beyond the existing policy of the State of New York or New York City.

The Comptroller General concluded:

Thus EPA's involvement in the regu-
lation of the parking facilities of the
States of Oregon and New York are con-
sistent with section 407 and section 510
(in the case of New York) only to the
extent that such involvement reflects
voluntarily adopted State or local policy.

Further, the Decision rejected EPA's attempt to interpret the appropriation limitation as applying to parking-related indirect source regulations relating to maintenance but not to parking-related regulations relating to attainment.

22 Conference Report on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (S. 3219), Rept. No. 94-1742, pp. 96-7 (Sept. 30, 1976).

-14

Because of this history, this Subcommittee is no doubt

aware that there are no easy answers to the problems posed

by this type of regulation. Committee came up with a balanced, fair and constructive provision that will provide answers to the serious questions that exist about the need, feasibility and effectiveness of the regulation of indirect sources and will provide a framework for the development of reasonable and effective regulations where they are necessary. 23/ The Conference Report- describes the provision on

However, ICSC believes the Conference

indirect source review as follows:

[It] [a]dds to existing law a new section
requiring the Administrator to conduct a
study of indirect source review programs.
The Administrator is required to obtain an
independent study of the issue from the
National Academy of Sciences and within one
year to report to Congress, taking into
account the work of the Academy and the
advice of other Federal agencies.

The provision amends existing section
110(a) by (1) limiting the Administrator's
authority to require indirect source review
programs as part of a State Implementation
Plan, and (2) authorizing States to suspend
or revoke existing programs included in the
State's plan.

The provision adds a new section 124
which prescribes limited conditions under
which the Administrator may require indirect
source review programs:

(1) He must determine as a result of
the required study that such a program
is necessary to assure attainment of
primary standards by the required attain-
ment date. In making this determination
he must assume that the 1975 and 1976
auto emissions standards mandated in the
Clean Air Act of 1970 have been achieved
and that all feasible stationary source
and transportation controls have been

implemented;

23/ Id.

« PreviousContinue »