Alternatively, shoppers might drive slowly around and around a nearer retail facility looking for an empty space, therefore increasing VMT and air pollution.

Since shoppers' destinations are not fixed, it is impossible to control their choice of transportation by controlling parking supply at only a few locations, nor is it desirable if freedom of competition is to be preserved. Moreover, the same logic that causes the EPA

to argue that it can reduce commuter-related VMT by making automobile travel less convenient to a fixed place of employment indicates that there will be an increase in VMT for shoppers unless the closest of several competing retail facilities is also the most convenient in terms of travel time no matter what mode of transportation is used for the shopper.

From the above, it should be apparent that customer traffic to retail facilities is completely discretionary with the customer and is not within the control of the Moreover, as the NAS report, cited supra,

retailer.

states:

"Unfortunately, changing the basic urban
transit habits or choices of Americans
is a difficult enterprise at best."
(at page 118)

Accordingly, regulating retail facilities in order to minimize the VMT of shoppers will be ineffective.

The Federation believes that some substantive and procedural legislative changes are necessary. Although the American Retail Federation does not at this time support any specific bills, we do support the following concept as a basis for possible amendments.

As stated, the regulation of retail facilities is not warranted. However, if the Clean Air Act is not amended to specifically exclude from regulation retail facilities, the

Act must be amended to provide these minimal substantive safeguards in regard to retail facilities.

1.

Congress must address the problems of all sectors of the society which are seriously being affected by the enforcement of the Clean Air Act of 1970.

2. The statute should require that any proposed
regulation under the Clean Air Act be based upon
technical data and not upon assumptions.

3. Any proposed regulation covering retail facil-
ities must be demonstrated to be necessary after
primary reliance has been placed on direct sources
of emissions.

4. Any proposed regulation covering retail facil-
ities must be clearly demonstrated to be the most
reasonable and effective alternative.

5. Economic, social, and energy impacts must be
taken into consideration.

sources of pollution, on-the-record hearings be required when any regulations are proposed concerning such nondirect sources. To provide a more meaningful basis for review, something more than the present unsatisfactory informal rulemaking procedures must be used to insure that the meaningful review of the Administrator's actions can be had. The EPA should be required to make and justify specific findings concerning the need for, effectiveness of, and economic, social, and energy impacts of the proposed regulations.

The type of informal rulemaking that has occurred in regard to the Indirect Source Regulations and the Management of Parking Supply Regulations was strongly criticized in the special concurring opinion in State of Texas v. EPA,

cited supra:

"The sole purpose of this addendum is to
highlight the adverse effects flowing from
the legislative mandate that judicial re-
view proceedings be injected into the court
system at the appellate level.

com

"No formal hearing has ever been held in
this highly technical, factually complex
matter. The administrative 'record' upon
which we had to base our review was
prised of only the sparest of documenta-
tion, for it essentially evolved from an
act of agency rule-making. To accentuate
the problem the agency contracted the
services of a private firm for the formu-
lation of most of the rule requirements it
ultimately adopted here, so that not even
intra-agency background for these actions
was available. The writing judge was re-
quired to hold both pre- and post-argument
conferences with counsel for the parties
to enable the three of us as a court to
comprehend the substance of the issues and
conduct a minimally meaningful review.

"The subject matter of this action involves
the health and welfare of millions of citi-
zens, the continued business vitality of tens

of thousands of firms and compliance
expenditures costing billions of dollars.

"These extensive rights deserve a more
orderly process of judicial reflection."
(at pages 321 and 322)

The Federation wishes to thank you for this opportunity to offer

these comments.

This is to submit our views on the proposed Clean Air Act revisions, specifically S. 251, 252 and 253.

The American Trucking Associations, Inc., by action of its Executive Committee has committed itself to the maximum practical reduction of pollutants, noise and wastes detrimental to the environment. In this posture, we address ourselves to those sections of the bills under review which require emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The requirements are upon the manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles; but the cost therefor, maintenance, and effect upon vehicle performance are matters of direct concern to the users whom our association represents.

It is a fact that emission standards have been in effect for new gasoline and diesel powered truck engines since 1970. These standards were promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the general provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, relating to emission standards for moving sources.

The emission standards for automobiles, unlike those for heavyduty trucks, are specifically set forth in the statute. We understand it is necessary for Congress to amend these standards since the 1978 statutorilymandated standards are impossible of practical achievement.

A National Federation Having an Affiliated Association in Each State