Our main concern in the administration of the Clean Air Act deals with the present situation of grants to States, municipalities, etc. It was, and still is, our feeling when the Clean Air Act was originally introduced that these program grants should be administered through the State air pollution regulatory body. We feel that we, at the State level, are more familiar of the needs of a local political body from an equitable standpoint than anyone else. Secondly, it is our opinion that this program is dragging its feet because of the ground rules which have been set; that at the end of 3 years no matching money will be granted without additional new moneys from the local or State agency. Many political bodies in our State have so stated that they will not apply for one of these project grants because at the end of 3 years they would have no assurances that they could even replace Federal matching money for the first 3 years. We strongly recommend that you include in your amendments some verbiage such as exist in Public Law 660 dealing with program grants, that these be administered through the State air pollution control regulatory body and be on a continuing basis as long as Federal appropriations are made. Trusting that these comments, observations, and recommendations receive your sincere attention, I am, Cordially yours, DAVID B. LEE, Director. Senator MUSKIE. I have received a statement from Congressman Halpern, of New York. He also has sponsored a bill on this subject, H.R. 643. Both will be placed in the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK The members of this distinguished subcommittee are to be commended for the penetrating attention they are bringing to the problem of air pollution in the United States. Last October the subcommittee issued a report entitled "Steps Toward Clean Air." My own past interest in this field and the substance of the report became the basis of legislation I introduced in the House of Representatives on January 4, 1965, the first day of the new session, concerning automobile exhaust. This problem of air pollution is becoming an increasing menace to public health. In my own city of New York the effects of air contamination are very acute, as they are in all densely populated urban centers. In New York, as in other areas, we have a department of air pollution control, very ably directed by the Honorable Arthur J. Benline, which is constantly attempting to cope with the many facets of pollution. There is continuous contact with the U.S. Public Health Service charged with Federal responsibility. There are many sources of air pollution, and the means of combating the menace are inevitably complex. From my own investigation I am convinced that more extensive outlays are needed, particularly for research, and I would urge legislation authorizing a greater Federal engagement. The informative report, "Steps Toward Clean Air," affirmed that emissions of automobile exhaust constitute "a major proportion" of the air pollution problem, and it is this particular item I wish to concern myself with, recognizing at the same time that such components as solid waste disposal and industrialization also form part of the total problem. H.R. 463, which I introduced on January 4, authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prescribe standards of automotive exhaust 6 months after enactment of the bill. No particular control device is specified, for reasons I will explain. The industry must install instruments which comply with these standards 1 year after they are issued. The bill is not retroactive, but does apply to imported vehicles. I believe that the experience in California indicates that we are sufficiently advanced mechanically to enact nationwide regulations. This subcommittee is familiar with the agreement reached in California providing for the installation of certain devices in 1966. Auto exhausts account for about 60 percent of auto air pollution, and California authorities think the devices are effective. California auto production represents approximately 10 percent of the total market. There is no doubt that in the beginning, the price of new authomobiles will reflect the cost of these devices, anywhere from $12 to $75. The different manufacturers have been conducting their own research and have produced varying mechanisms. In addition, there are outside suppliers. In California, I understand that as techniques improve and better engines are made, stiffer standards will be applied. The New York State Air Pollution Control Board is supporting legislation in the State legislature that would require exhaustcontrol devices in New York, and New Jersey is inclining similarly. Regardless of these rather encouraging developments, Federal legislation retains an essential applicability if we are to succeed in a uniform fashion. H.R. 463 assumes that exploration in this field is far from exhausted, and that there is still the possibility of developing more effective, efficient and less costly instrumentation. The bill does require that auto manufacturers install devices which meet Government standards, which again must be subject to periodic change when improvements are manifested. Available information suggests that automobile exhaust contributes substantially to air pollution, principally in our cities and suburban areas where 70 percent of the Nation's population resides. Experience demonstrates that pollution must be attacked at the source if a control program is to be really effective. I very much hope that the subcommittee, which has been holding hearings on this issue, will approve legislation providing a nationwide framework of control over automobile exhaust. [H.R. 463, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prescribe safe standards for the discharge of substances into the air by motor vehicles Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assmbled, That (a) the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Secretary"), shall, after conducting such research as he may deem necessary, prescribe and publish in the Federal Register, standards as to the amounts of substances which he considers to be safe, from the standpoint of human health, for a motor vehicle to discharge into the atmosphere under the various conditions under which such vehicle may operate. (b) Standards prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section may be revised from time to time by the Secretary. Such revised standards shall be published in the Federal Register. SEC. 2. (a) The manufacture for sale in commerce, the sale in commerce, the offering for sale in commerce, the use in commerce, or the importation into the United States of any motor vehicle which discharges into the atmosphere substances in amounts in excess of the standards prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to the first section of this Act, shall be unlawful. (b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. SEC. 3. The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and to take such action as may be necessary to insure compliance with this Act. SEC. 4. As used in this Act (1) The term "commerce" means (A) commerce between any place in a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States and any place outside thereof, and (B) commerce wholly within the District of Columbia or any such territory or possession; and (2) The term "motor vehicle" means (A) any vehicle which is propelled by gasoline power, used for transporting passengers or freight whether on a fixed track or on a highway, and manufactured on or after the effective date of standards first prescribed and published for such vehicles as provided in subsection (a) of section 5 of this Act, and (B) any vehicle which is propelled by diesel power, used for transporting passengers or freight whether on a fixed track or on a highway, and manufactured on or after the effective date of standards first prescribed and published for such vehicles as provided in subsection (b) of section 5 of this Act. SEC. 5. (a) The standards first prescribed and published pursuant to the first section of this Act which are to be applicable to motor vehicles propelled by gasoline power shall be prescribed and published not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act and such standards shall take effect one year after the date of such publication. (b) The standards first prescribed and published pursuant to the first section of this Act which are to be applicable to motor vehicles propelled by diesel power shall be prescribed and published at such time as the Secretary determines necessary and such standards shall take effect one year after the date of such publication. (c) Any standards which are prescribed pursuant to subsection (b) of the first section of this Act shall take effect one year after the date on which they are published in the Federal Register. Senator MUSKIE. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Friday, April 9, 1965.) AMENDING THE CLEAN AIR ACT FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1965 U.S. SENATE, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Randolph, Muskie, Gruening, and Moss. First, I would like to place a letter in the record from Mr. Darl Caris, engineer in charge of power development of General Motors, to Robert Paige. (The letter is as follows:) ENGINEERING Staff, GeneRAL MOTORS CORP., GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER, Mr. ROBERT M. PAIGE, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PAIGE: I have your letter of January 7 to Mr. Fred Donner concerning air pollution in California and the possibility of applying the California "fix" to the rest of the United States. There are two reasons for not considering minimum exhaust emission nationwide at this time. First, getting our 1966 models equipped to meet the California requirements has been a very great and demanding engineering accomplishment; in fact, we have not had sufficient time to do the necessary engineering work on several of our low volume cars and have had to ask for exemptions for these vehicles in 1966. There simply would not be sufficient time to do this on a nationwide basis. The second reason is that the equipment to permit our cars to meet the air pollution requirements represents a significant cost penalty which we would be reluctant to pass on to many of our customers, for instance, those living in Kansas, or North and South Dakota, and similar areas. It might be very difficult to convince these customers that they have an air pollution problem. We feel that the fair way to prepare our cars nationwide for minimum exhaust emission will be after there has been legislation requiring this type of equipment on a nationwide basis. I am sure that otherwise we might not only be in a poor position public relationswise, but from a competitive standpoint as well. Without legislation we could not be sure our competitors would so equip their cars. I hope this answers your question; if not, please let us know. Very truly yours, DARL F. CARIS, Engineer in Charge, Power Development. Senator MUSKIE. I appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Secretary, in meeting with us again this morning at such an early hour. that you were traveling yesterday and that you are busy. We know 46-378-65--20 express appreciation also to you and the Department for helping to call public attention to this problem this week. We have had a very interesting week and I think a very useful week, but at this point I think there are some questions that the subcommittee would like to see wrapped up before we get down to consideration of the bill. There is, I think, some basis for confusion especially on the question of the automotive exhaust emissions. So I would like to ask, to clarify the record, whether the administration favors or opposes legislation to control automotive exhaust emissions. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY VERNON G. MacKENZIE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; AND DEAN COSTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION Mr. QUIGLEY. Senator, I tried to make this point on Tuesday. Gathering from the newspaper reports I read the last 2 days I am not too sure that I did and I appreciate the opportunity to come back, because what Tuesday's session was intended to be, so far as I was concerned and what I hope this session will prove to be, was a colloquy and honest exchange of views between the committee and myself as a spokesman for the Johnson administration. Clearly there isn't any doubt in anybody's mind that the air pollution problem from automobile exhausts is a real problem, a growing problem, and that it has to be solved. I tried to make this clear in my testimony on Tuesday. I want to emphasize it now. I think this is something the President recognizes, the Secretary recognizes, and certainly the chairman and members of this committee clearly recognize. To meet this problem the committee has a bill before it sponsored by the chairman and other Senators which is designed to meet that by congressional enactment which would spell out certain specific standards that would have to be met by all new automobiles beginning with the 1967 models. Now the point that I wish to raise, and wanted to discuss on Tuesday, was that we had some doubts and some reservation about this particular approach at this particular time. This is not to say that we don't recognize that there is a problem, or that we are saying, "Let's sit back and do nothing about it." Clearly the Secretary, in his report to the Congress in January made it clear that all appropriate action should be taken and should be taken now. I think the question I attempted to raise, and apparently not successfully or effectively is: Is legislation now the appropriate step and, specifically, is the bill as it is before this committee appropriate? I suggested then that we were hesitant to endorse, reluctant to endorse, this bill in its present form because of the specificity of the standards that would have to be met and because of the time schedule that was laid out. Clearly, necessary action must be taken and if it is the judgment of this committee that legislation is the appropriate approach, our De |