Page images
PDF
EPUB

NRMA strongly supports the study of the effectiveness of indirect source controls contained in section 120. Each of the States affected would individually institute programs based on the study. In no event could EPA itself promulgate an indirect source program for a State or locality. However, if a State did not adopt controls where EPA had found them necessary and effective, no direct source activity could be constructed.

NRMA wishes to emphasize that this approach simply returns indirect source controls to the position they were intended to occupy under the 1970 amendments. The act itself clearly places priority on direct source activities, leaving indirect sources or the secondary measures to be applied if they are necessary as backup strategies.

The legislation passed by the Senate last year contained a limitation on use of land use controls, but it would have had only a minimal impact on indirect source and parking management programs. We urge that you incorporate section 120 of S. 253 in whatever legislation you move forward this year. It will insure that only those controls which will be effective in reducing pollution will be imposed and that they will be imposed only where needed and will not sacrifice the achievement of clean air goals.

NRMA would also like to discuss two additional amendments that were considered last year in the 94th Congress. First is that a change is necessary in order to allow competition in the automobile parts and service business to continue. This change would be accomplished by section 210 of S. 253. In brief, the provision would give the automobile owners the freedom to have their cars maintained at any reliable service facility of their choice.

The second proposed change which NRMA would like to touch on briefly concerns the administrative procedures which EPA must follow. Concern has been expressed by several reviewing courts over the state of the record of EPA proceedings. Our written statement includes suggested language which would incorporate into the Clean Air Act an administrative procedure section.

In summary, NRMA urges you to act expeditiously to deal with. problems that have arisen under the Clean Air Act. Of the bills before you, we feel S. 253 represents the best legislative approach to these problems.

We also urge you to incorporate the proposed additional section on administrative procedures in the legislation.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much.

[Mr. Stevenson's prepared statement may be found on p. 64.]

Senator HART. Thanks, Mr. Stevenson.

Proceeding in order, we will next hear from Mr. Maeder.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. MAEDER, THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTERS

Mr. MAEDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcom

mittee.

My name is Edward C. Maeder, and I appear today on behalf of the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). I am an attorney

with the law firm of Winston & Strawn, Washington counsel for ISCS.

The shopping center industry is committed to meeting the mandate of the Clean Air Act that a level of ambient air quality which protects the health of all Americans be attained and maintained throughout the United States. Our industry realizes that automobile-created pollution is a problem and that it will be necessary to make some changes in our transportation and land use patterns in order to meet the mandate of the Clean Air Act. And the industry is fully prepared to assume its full share of the burden involved in meeting these goals. The real estate development industry has been told, however, that it must shoulder an unfair portion of that burden.

The principal mechanism provided by the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1970, for the attainment and maintenance of the ambient standards with respect to carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidant is a set of emission standards for light-duty motor vehicles. Additionally, however, the act provided in section 110 (a) (2) (B) that, whenever and wherever a gap should exist between the reduction in aggregate emissions necessary to attain and maintain the standards and the reduction in aggregate emissions achievable through those emission standards, "land use and transportation controls" must be implemented to close the gap or to maintain the standard.

Thus, the act provided for land use and transportation controls as secondary implementation measures, to be applied where necessary when the primary implementation measure of direct automobile emissions controls was insufficient.

In other words, whenever and wherever a gap might exist between the reduction in aggregate emissions necessary to attain the standards and the reduction in aggregate emissions achievable through direct source controls, unspecified land use and transportation controls could be used to close the gap.

Unfortunately, these gaps have grown in size and number as a consequence of extending the timetables for implementing the direct controls on auto emissions required by the act.

Perhaps all the extensions of automobile emissions control deadlines both those that have been granted and those that have been requested-were, and are, necessary. In any event, the fact remains that as the title II deadlines have been extended, conforming adjustments have not been made in the timetables for attaining the ambient standards. As presently written, the act is inflexible in that respect, and land use and transportation controls become more draconian and more widely applied with each extension granted by the Environmental Protection Agency or enacted by the Congress.

Congress did not define the phrase "land use and transportation controls" and established no priorities for the implementation of these controls.

EPA has devised various strategies in the name of "transportation and land use controls" and those measures which will have a direct impact on real estate development are included in two regulations: Indirect source regulations and parking management regulations.

The propriety of Federal regulations of indirect sources has been brought into question by a series of studies which undercut the EPA approach. Several independent groups have suggested that these in

direct controls on auto emissions and indirect disincentives to discourage automobile use are high in costs, low in benefits, and often perverse and counterproductive in their effects.

Also there is serious questions as to whether there now exists an adequate technical basis for these regulations.

Finally, a 1974 report prepared for EPA indicated that the high degree of risk involved in the use of the Federal indirect source regulation to reduce air pollution is matched by their high cost to the developer and, ultimately, to the public at large.

The consensus reached by these observers, that land use and transportation controls not only are of marginal utility, at best, but also may occasion a perverse impact on the Nation's air quality objectives, has coincided with a feeling among many that it is unreasonable to establish expensive and disruptive limitations and requirements on the design, location and operation of indirect sources which are necessary only because the burden of cleansing the automobile has been lifted from the auto industry.

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.

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 the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities" until July 1, 1975. On June 27, 1975, Congress extended this proscription until October 17, 1975. It is in this context that EPA suspended the implementation of the parkingrelated indirect source review indefinitely on July 3, 1975.

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.

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.

During the last 2 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. After 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, and included as section 120 of S. 253, the bill now before this subcommittee. Unfortunately, this legislation was blocked in the last hours of the 94th Congress.

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. However, ICSC believes the Conference 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.

By requiring that there be a determination that an indirect source review program is "necessary" and basing this determination of necessity on the assumptions that the auto has been cleaned up as required by the 1970 act and that all feasible stationary source controls and all practicable transportation control measures have been implemented, this provision assures that indirect sources will carry their fair burden of cleaning the air but will not be penalized by delays in compliance by the automobile and others.

By requiring that there must be a determination that an indirect source review program will be effective before it can be implemented and basing this determination on an NAS study, the provision assures that programs which are technically deficient and which have a perverse impact on air quality will not be required.

By providing that indirect source review programs be implemented by the States and localities, that Governors be given authority to grant variances where air quality improvements will result, and that there be a schedule for the development of regulations that allows for input from the NAS study, the States and localities and concerned citizens, the provision assures that indirect source review programs will be as technically sound and as politically acceptable as is possible.

We urge that this provision be included in the amendments to the Clean Air Act to be passed this session.

To move forward with this provision in the form included in the conference report has several advantages: The particular language of the provision is the product of long and arduous study and work by both bodies, it has been agreed to by the representatives of both bodies in conference, and it has wide support among both those who would regulate the States and localities and those who would be regulated.

It is important to give relief in this area before the EPA appropriation limitation lapses and EPA reimposes or is forced to reimpose its indirect source and parking management regulations.

Not only will the imposition of these inequitable, infeasible, and counterproductive regulations have a serious effect on development with a resulting impact on jobs and the economy, but their imposition also will have a perverse effect on air quality. As usual, the impact will be more severe in both cases because of the delays in cleaning up the automobile that are likely to be granted this year.

I wish to reiterate the support of the International Council of Shopping Centers for the goals of the Clean Air Act-the protection of the public health and welfare and under no circumstances should our comments today be taken as criticism of the act's fundamental purpose. Nor should they be taken as an attempt to avoid the burden to be borne fairly and properly by our industry in cleaning up the air. However, we do believe that the Clean Air Act is in need of "midcourse corrections." We submit that one of these corrections should be the adoption of a provision limiting indirect source review authority similar to that contained in section 120 of S. 253 and section 120 of the conference report on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, S. 3219. We believe that other "mid-course corrections" should be

made in the administrative procedure and judicial review provisions of the Clean Air Act and that these corrections should be those contained in our testimony as submitted or in section 305 of the House passed Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976, H.R. 10498.

During the 94th Congress, ICSC supported comprehensive legislation to amend the Clean Air Act and we continue to support such a comprehensive approach. In fact, ICSC supported last year's Conference Committee bill, now before the subcommittee as S. 253, and opposed the last-minute efforts which successfully killed the legislation. Therefore, we believe that the indirect source review, administrative procedure and judicial review amendments that we have suggested should be part of legislation containing comprehensive amendments to the Clean Air Act.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views here today and to participate in this panel discussion. I ask that my full statement be included in the record.

[Mr. Maeder's complete statement together with responses to additional questions may be found at p. 109.]

Senator HART. Thank you, Mr. Maeder.

Mr. Roberts.

STATEMENT OF DAVID D. ROBERTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am David Roberts. I am a Realtor. I am from Mobile, Ala.

I am pleased to be here this morning representing the 500,000 realtors of America. The National Association of Realtors has the largest membership of any association in the United States that is concerned with all facets of the real estate industry.

I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to present our views. At the outset, I would like to emphasize that the National Association of Realtors is committed to the goals of the Clean Air Act. In the last Congress, for example, we supported the House-passed bill and urged passage of the conferencereported bill.

The subject of these hearings and the issues before the subcommittee are those which our membership and staff have spent a great deal of time studying and analyzing. In our appearance here today, I would like to point out some "midcourse corrections" to the Clean Air Act we feel are necessary. We are not seeking revolutionary changes in the act; in fact, most of the changes we seek are those that were adopted by the conference committee in the last Congress.

Before I discuss these specifics, I would like to point out how the Clean Air Act affects our industry. We feel the significance of this impact is not always readily perceived. It is difficult to pinpoint a particular provision, or for that matter a particular bill, and say, "that is what is causing the problems for the real estate industry." The fact is that collectively, all the environmental laws and their separate provisions have an impact greater than the sum of their component parts. The cumulative effect is substantial. One impact has been to raise the cost of housing and construction throughout the country.

« PreviousContinue »