January 18, 1973
Page 1527
MUSKIE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the 92d Congress failed to enact an extension of the Federal-Aid Highway Act in 1972 because of disagreement between the Senate and the House on use of the highway trust fund moneys for mass transit projects. That failure, however, should not overshadow the historic significance of the Highway Act passed last year by the Senate. By adopting the Cooper-Muskie amendment, this body served notice that the highway trust fund is too narrowly focused to serve today's transportation needs. Had the Senate bill been accepted by the House conferees, cities and States could today be developing alternative forms of transportation with support from highway funds.
When the Senate considered the Cooper-Muskie amendment, it was clear that a more flexible and more sensible transportation policy was a necessary step in the direction of securing for us the benefits of growth without making us its victims. That national growth policy and the national transportation policy, which is one of its critical elements, ought to be one of the principal concerns of the 93d Congress. We must seek ways in which we can all move freely about, without endangering our health, destroying our communities, and wasting our resources in the process.
Today I am proposing three bills to help develop a new and more flexible transportation policy by authorizing new uses for the highway trust fund. These bills will provide for the expenditure of trust funds to reduce traffic congestion in urban areas, to assist in the control of air pollution, and to begin reducing the heavy demands of private automobiles for dwindling petroleum resources. They will be introduced in the Senate later this month.
The first bill will permit highway trust fund support for public transportation projects. It is a revised version of the 1972 Cooper-Muskie amendment, and it represents the cornerstone of a new transportation policy for America. This bill would correct the most glaring flaw in our present policy: a closed circle of Federal funding which perpetuates highway construction as virtually the only solution to transportation problems that most cities and States can afford to choose.
Every year the circle closes tighter as the problems multiply. Whether the transportation problem in question involves moving workers to their jobs, moving goods and people from city to city, or bringing essential services to the rural population, more highways and more cars have become the only answer – even when they are obviously not the right answer. Before it is too late, we should take a hard look at the consequences of this closing circle and decide whether those consequences should be an inevitable part of our future.
The second bill would add to the Highway Safety Act a requirement that States establish programs to inspect each vehicle's auto emission control system. We know that achieving the necessary levels of emission control will be difficult, even when all systems operate effectively.
Today, however, it appears that many – if not most – control systems are not working properly; and we know that some garages are disconnecting the devices for their customers. Inspection programs are necessary to curb these practices and to assure the public that the devices are working properly. This inspection program would be funded from the highway trust fund.
The third bill would permit the Secretary of Transportation to utilize as much as 10 percent of annual highway trust fund revenues for emergency programs for the development or improvement of urban areas which are forced, by air quality regulations, to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. It also would authorize the use of funds from highway building programs in those urban areas with dangerously high air pollution levels to other transportation system improvements. Finally, it would prohibit approval of any new highway construction projects which might cause air pollution levels to exceed the levels considered safe for public health.
In addition to the bills I propose, I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH) and other committee members on a comprehensive revision of the Highway Act. New legislation, similar to that which the Senate enacted last year, should authorize a special program to focus on the highway needs of urban areas of less than 50,000 population. It should give Governors the program direction authority now given to State highway departments. It should finance the separation of highway-railway grade crossings from the highway trust fund. And, finally, a new bill should give local governments increased authority to make transportation decisions through an allocation formula for regularly apportioned urban system funds.
The automobile has revolutionized life in America, but now, it threatens in many ways to degrade the quality of life in America. Highways and the cars that use them pollute the air and menace our health, transform and degrade the urban environment, inefficiently consume our resources, and distort our transportation priorities.
The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 explicitly excluded considerations of economic and technological feasibility in setting ambient air quality standards, because Congress resolved that protection of the public health was of primary and overriding importance. The deadline for meeting those air quality standards is 1975, less than 3 years from now; but as of today, 67 metropolitan areas have air quality which threatens health due to one or more auto-related air pollutants, and the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the annual cost of air pollution in direct damage to health, vegetation, and property amounts to $16 billion.
These costs take the highest toll among the residents of our Nation's great cities, where motor vehicle emissions account for upward of 80 percent of urban air pollution. In Baltimore, for instance, 96 percent of the deadly carbon monoxide emissions are produced by motor vehicles.
On streets where urban children live and play, levels of carbon monoxide often exceed 50 parts per million – the maximum health-limits set for the safety of factory workers. Traffic jams often produce levels of over 100 parts per million. Children who live just a few blocks from this Chamber on North Capitol Street often are subject to carbon monoxide levels that poison as much as 5 percent of their blood supply. But these percentages and parts per million are only cold statistics; they mean more when they are expressed in terms of the symptoms they produce. Dullness of thought occurs at carbon monoxide air levels of 10 parts per million; a carbon monoxide content of 5 percent in the blood or exposure to air levels of carbon monoxide of 100 parts per million result in headaches and dizziness; death comes at 1,000 parts per million.
Lest anyone make the mistake of assuming that these excessive urban levels of carbon monoxide are rare, consider that in Chicago the 1-hour standard of 48 parts per million is exceeded 48 times per year, and the 8-hour standard is exceeded 713 times per year; in Washington the 1-hour standard is exceeded 87 times per year, and the 8-hour standard is violated 99 times. And escape to the suburbs is not an answer, even for those who can afford to escape. Current estimates indicate that there will be a 200 to 300 percent increase in carbon monoxide levels in Arlington and Alexandria, Va., over the next 15 years, unless substantial changes are made in available transportation.
It is no wonder, in the face of these statistics, that heart disease, high blood pressure, and respiratory ailments have been found to occur two to three times as frequently among the urban poor than among other segments of the population.
Motor vehicles are also the major source of urban noise, which has been increasing at the alarming rate of nearly one decibel per year. This means that within the next 15 years, the overall noise level in our cities will double if it continues to increase at the present rate. These high noise levels, 60 percent of which is generated by people who live outside the cities, have been found to be a major cause of sleeplessness, tension, and mental distress.
Highways and automobiles have had as destructive an effect on our cities themselves as they have had on the health of the people who live in those cities. Highway construction divides our urban areas with ribbons of concrete – separating people from their jobs and from each other, destroying the integrity of communities, and encouraging suburban sprawl and other questionable land uses. As places of urban and suburban employment have become more and more dispersed, with access to them provided only by highways, more and more workers have been forced to rely on cars to get to their jobs. The available highways have in turn become more congested, forcing us to build more and more roads. We have devoted so much of our living and working space to the automobile that up to 60 percent of the land area in our major cities is required for the circulation and servicing of our cars.
The senseless construction of urban freeways has run roughshod over the real transportation needs of city residents, displacing hundreds of thousands of people and businesses in the process.
Often the grandiose plans end in tragic waste for the benefit of no one. Just a few blocks from here, for instance, a portion of the Inner Loop, constructed over the objections of thousands of city residents, is a four-block long, six-lane highway running from nowhere to nowhere. It is now being used as a parking lot for Federal marshals and college students – a concrete symbol of much that is wrong with our transportation planning and priorities.
In the process of destroying the environment, threatening our health and ravaging our cities, highways and automobiles are also helping to lead us to an energy crisis from which there may be no road back. Motor vehicles currently account for 40 percent of all petroleum consumed in the United States, with 55 percent of that share – or 65 billion gallons – devoted to keeping private cars on the road. This luxurious use of motor vehicles to carry, as is so often the case, only one person is a wasteful and inefficient use of valuable, nonrenewable resources.
Automobiles effectively utilize only 5 percent of the potential energy from the fuel they burn; the rest is wasted. Where buses are capable of 110 passenger miles per gallon in urban traffic, cars average only 20 passenger miles per gallon and get as few as 5 to 8 passenger miles per gallon for one person in a large car. In light of an impending energy and fuels crisis, this waste is unacceptable; but as long as automobiles remain our principal mode of urban transportation, that reckless consumption of dwindling supplies of fuel will continue unchecked.
It is clear, then, that Americans are paying a heavy price for the luxury and convenience of private automobile transportation. But many Americans who pay the price get nothing in return.
For these Americans, the highway trust fund and the transportation systems it creates rob Peter to pay Paul. In many American cities – including Baltimore, Milwaukee, Richmond, and Columbia, S.C. – nearly one out of every four dwellings have no car. Fifty-seven percent of households with incomes below $3,000 have no cars; 14 percent of those households reporting incomes between $3,000 and $10,000 have no car. Most of the 20 percent of Americans who have no car are poor, handicapped, young or old – people who need mobility the most to gain access to adequate education, health care, job opportunities and other necessities of life. The unemployment of at least one-half of the 1 million jobless handicapped is attributable to a lack of adequate transportation. In five Ohio cities, 54 percent of the households whose head is over 65 have no car, and 42 percent of those households reported a need for transportation beyond any available to them.
These inequities and imbalanced transportation priorities are perpetuated by the highway trust fund, a transportation financing system designed for a time long past. Trust fund moneys are readily available for highway-oriented solutions to transportation problems, often requiring only a minimal amount of State or local matching funds. Federal support for alternative solutions such as mass transit, on the other hand, is limited to a maximum share of 66 percent and often less.
The Federal Government spends billions of dollars each year through the trust fund, while the Urban Mass Transit Administration is budgeted at much less. Because funding for highways is thus assured, more and more roads are built. As more roads are built, more vehicles use them; and more user tax revenues pour into the trust fund. This vicious spiral must be controlled if we are to bring order out of our chaotic transportation priorities.
These distorted priorities are the product of conscious government policies and investments of tax dollars. With great ingenuity, productivity, and activity, we have created the present mess. I am convinced that with an equal amount of ingenuity, productivity, and activity, we can reverse it – and create a sensible national transportation policy.
The three bills which I am proposing are the essential first steps in that direction. They will not provide automatically the ingenious new transportation systems we need nor quick public acceptance of mass transportation as a substitute for the luxury and convenience of the private automobile. But the diversion of funds from highways to public transportation must come first, both to signify our willingness to change and to make it financially possible to do so.
These bills will be introduced formally next week. In order, however, for Senators to examine their provisions, I ask unanimous consent that section-by-section analyses and texts of the three bills be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS: HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
In Section 1: Subsection (a) broadens the uses of funds authorized for the urban highway systems (paragraph 6) to support any capital projects to improve ground transportation, including rail mass transit facilities and equipment.
Subsection (b) allows use of funds from the Federal-Aid primary system, Federal-Aid secondary system, the urban extensions of the primary and secondary systems, and the Interstate system to support any highway related public transportation improvements, including the purchase of buses but excluding any rail mass transit facilities or equipment.
Subsection (c) is identical to subsection (b) of the existing law requiring that routes and schedules for mass transit systems be developed through the regular urban transportation planning process.
Subsection (d) is designed to avoid any concerns that directives in the Highway Revenue Act or other sections of the Highway Act will be violated by use of highway trust funds for what some may allege to be non-highway purposes. This subsection defines all projects authorized under subsections (a) and (b) as highway projects. It also indicates that the Federal share paid for these projects would be the same as if these projects were regular highway projects (70% for most projects, 90% for projects using Interstate funds).
Subsection (e) revises subsection (c) of the existing law requiring DOT to receive assurances that any public transportation project will have adequate capability to utilize, maintain and operate equipment or facilities received under this section. The present law requires that these assurances be received from the State, which would be inappropriate with the revised procedures necessary to implement the urban system. This subsection is also changed from requiring that the proposed project be utilized fully to require satisfaction that any equipment obtained will be maintained and operated properly.
Subsection (f) prohibits use of equipment acquired with financial assistance under this section for charter, leasing or sightseeing in areas beyond the metropolitan area where the equipment is intended to be used.
Subsection (g) requires that equipment meet emission standards published by EPA under section 202 of the Clean Air Act and that wherever practicable, equipment also meet special criteria for low emission vehicles established in section 212 of the Clean Air Act.
Subsection (h) requires assurances that facilities will be planned to recognize and deal with the special needs of the elderly and the handicapped.
Subsection (i) states the clear Congressional intent that funds available for mass transit through this section are absolutely intended to be in addition to those funds appropriated under the Urban Mass Transportation Act. Substitution of funds derived from the Highway Trust Fund for funds which otherwise could be available under the Mass Transportation Act would be a violation of Congressional intent.
Subsection (j) states that the regular policies and procedures of the Highway Act shall apply to implementation of provisions of this section except where DOT determines that the provisions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act would more appropriately apply.
Subsection (k) prohibits transfer of any funds authorized for the urban highway system for use on any other highway system. The section is designed to prevent state highway departments from transferring funds out of the urban system for use on other highway systems over which they exercise greater domination.
Section 2 changes the title of the particular section in the table of contents to "Public Transportation".
Section 3 authorizes $1 billion annually from the Highway Trust Fund for the urban highway system in fiscal years 1974 and 1975.
A bill to authorize uses of urban highway system funds for public transportation improvements, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. Section 142 of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 142.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
"(a) To encourage the development, improvement, and use of public mass transportation systems for the transportation of passengers within urbanized areas, so as to increase the efficiency of the Federal-aid systems, sums apportioned in accordance with paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be available to finance the Federal share of the cost of construction of and acquisition of facilities and equipment for public mass transportation projects. For purposes of this section the term 'public mass transportation' means ground transportation which provides general or special service (excluding school bus, charter, or sightseeing service) to the public on a regular and continuing basis, and includes activities designed to coordinate such service with other transportation. Projects which may be financed under this subsection shall include, but not be limited to, exclusive or preferential bus lanes, highway traffic-control devices, passenger loading areas and facilities, including shelters, fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities to serve bus, rail, and other public mass transportation passengers, construction of fixed rail facilities, and for the purchase of passenger equipment, including rolling stock for fixed rail.
"(b) To encourage the development, improvement, and use of public transportation systems for the transportation of passengers in such urban areas and rural areas as may be designated by the State and approved by the Secretary on the basis of local transportation need, so as to increase the traffic capacity of the Federal-aid system, sums apportioned in accordance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be available to finance the Federal share of the costs of projects within their respective systems, for the construction of exclusive or preferential bus lanes, highway traffic control devices, passenger loading areas and facilities, including shelters, fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities to serve bus and other public transportation passengers, and for the purchase of passenger equipment other than rolling stock for fixed rail.
"(c) The establishment of routes and schedules of such public mass transportation systems in urbanized areas shall be based upon a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on in accordance with section 134 of title 23, United States Code.
"(d) For all purposes of this title, a project authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be deemed to be a highway project, and the Federal share payable on account of such project shall be that provided in section 120 of this title.
"(e) No project authorized by this section shall be approved unless the Secretary of Transportation is satisfied that public mass transportation systems will have adequate capability to utilize fully the proposed project and to maintain and operate properly any equipment acquired under this section.
"(f) No equipment which is acquired with financial assistance provided by this section shall be available for use in charter, leased, sightseeing, or other service in any area other than the area for which it was acquired.
"(g) In the acquisition of equipment pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Secretary shall require that such equipment meet the standards prescribed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 202 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and shall authorize, wherever practicable, that such equipment meet the special criteria for low- emission vehicles set forth in section 212 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
"(h) The Secretary shall assure that the provisions of subsection (a) of section 16 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, relating to planning and design of mass transportation facilities to meet special needs of the elderly and the handicapped (as defined in subsection (d) thereof) shall apply in carrying out the provisions of this section.
"(i)Funds available for expenditure to carry out the purposes of this section shall be supplementary to and not in substitution for funds authorized and available for obligation pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
‘(j) The provisions of chapters 1, 3 and 5 of title 23 of the United States Code shall apply in carrying out the provisions of this section except with respect to projects within urban areas as to which the Secretary determines the provisions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1954, as amended, are more appropriately applicable."
(k) No sums apportioned in accordance with paragraph (5) of subsection (b) of section 104 of this title shall be transferred and utilized on any other Federal-aid system than that authorized by subsection (d) of section 103 of this title."
SEC. 2. 'The table of contents of chapter 3 of title 23 of the United States Code is amended by striking
"142. 'Urban highway public transportation." and inserting in lieu thereof:
"142. Public transportation."
SEC. 2. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States Code, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Federal-aid urban system, out of the Highway Trust Fund, $1,000,000000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and $1000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS: HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION PROGRAMS.
Subsection (a) requires that after January 1, 1975, no State highway safety programs under Section 402 be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation unless he determines that the State has established an EPA certified program to inspect emission control systems of motor vehicles for 1972 and later model years. Inspection systems must include (1) an examination of the emission control system to assure that it is operating properly and (2) once a system for testing emissions of vehicles in actual use has been developed pursuant to section 207(b) of the Clean Air Act, an in-use test of the operation of emission control systems to assure compliance with standards of the Clean Air Act. Failure to approve a State inspection system meeting these requirements would result in application to the State of penalties for failure to implement the Highway Act under Section 402(c). This would result in a reduction of 10 per cent of the State's allocation of highway funds.
Subsection (b) authorizes Federal payment of up to 75% of the cost establishing the auto emissions control inspections system. The Federal share may be increased to 90% if the State combines the emission control inspection system with its safety inspection program. This provision allows those States which maintain their safety inspection programs through private garages to continue to do so, while requiring all States to establish and maintain on their own auto emission inspections programs and encouraging them, through increased matching funds, to combine both of their programs.
Subsection (c) directs that funds be apportioned among the States on the basis of population, but with no State receiving less than one-half of 1% of the total apportionment.
Subsection (d) authorizes $300 million for the program in fiscal 1974 and $400 million in fiscal year 1975 with funds to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended.
Subsection (e) requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop regulations to implement the emission controls inspection program in cooperation with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
S. __
A bill to establish and support state inspection programs for auto emission control systems
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Chapter 4 of Title 23, United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
"SEC. 405. MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAMS
"(a) After January 1, 1975, the Secretary shall not approve a state highway safety program under section 402 of this Act unless he determines that the state has established a program, certified as adequate by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to inspect the auto emission control systems of motor vehicles which have been sold in accordance with certifications granted under the provisions of Section 206 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), which inspection programs shall include:
"(1) An examination of the emission control system of each motor vehicle licensed to operate in the state, on at least an annual basis, to assure that the emission control system is operating properly, and
"(2) As soon as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has announced the existence of an in-use motor vehicle emission control inspection system in accordance with the provisions of section 207 (b) of the Clean Air Act, a test of the operation of the emission control system of each motor vehicle licensed to operate in the state, on at least an annual basis, to assure that emissions of that vehicle do not exceed limits required by regulations published in accordance with section 202 of the Clean Air Act.
"(b) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section shall be used to aid the states in establishing and operating emission-control system inspection centers and shall be available to pay up to 75 per centime of the cost to the state of establishing and maintaining such centers, provided, however, that Federal share of the cost of establishing and maintaining such centers may be increased to 90 per cent of the cost to the state where such centers are also used for inspection programs relating to safety, as prescribed in standards published in accordance with section 402 of this Act.
"(c) Sums authorized to be appropriated in accordance with subsection (d) shall be apportioned among the states in the ratio in which the population of each state bears to the total population of all the states, as determined by the latest available Federal census: Provided, however, that the annual apportionment of each state shall not be less than one-half of 1 per centum of the total apportionment.
"(d) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation for implementation of this section, out of the Highway Trust Fund, $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974 and $400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975. Sums appropriated in accordance with this subsection shall remain available until expended.
"(e) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall publish regulations for implementation of the inspection programs required by this section."
SEC. 2. The table of contents of chapter 4 of title 23 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof: "405. Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs"
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS: HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN AIR-IMPACTED URBANIZED AREAS FROM HIGHWAY PROGRAMS TO OTHER PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION
Section 1 requires the Secretary of Transportation to withdraw approval of routes on the Interstate System, the Federal-aid Primary System, and the Federal-aid Secondary System where such withdrawal is requested by the Governor and the affected local officers and is for route within an urbanized area which is in an air quality region where the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that automotive related air pollution will exceed levels considered safe for public health in 1975 or thereafter. Funds authorized for projects on the withdrawn routes would be reallocated for expenditure as if they were urban highway system funds, thus allowing their use for public transportation improvements. (The effect of this provision would be to allow cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, or Washington, D.C. to use funds originally allocated for highway construction for broader transportation system purposes, at their option, where it is indicated that automotive air pollution poses a threat to public health.)
Section 2 allows the Secretary of Transportation to use up to 10 percent of Highway Trust Fund revenues for any given year ($500-$550 million) to provide emergency assistance for transportation system improvements, as he deems necessary, in areas where the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that, in 1975 or later, automotive-related air pollution will exceed levels considered safe for public health. Funds would be used under terms and conditions applying to the Federal-aid urban system, which allows use of funds for public transportation- related purposes.
Section 3 prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving any highway project which the Environmental Protection Agency has stated may result in levels of air pollution in excess of that considered safe for public health.
S. __
A bill to allow use of highway funds for any transportation improvements necessary to avoid air pollution dangerous to public health, and to prohibit highway projects which may create air pollution dangerous to public health.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Subsection (f) of Section 103 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding "(1)" immediately following "(f)" and by adding a new paragraph to read as follows:
"(2) (A) The Secretary upon the joint request of a State Governor and the local governments concerned, shall withdraw his approval for any route or portion thereof designated or selected in accordance with the provisions of subsections .(b), (c) or (e) of this section and within an urbanized area where he determines that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has certified or otherwise stated that the air quality region which contains such urbanized area will fail to achieve, by July 1, 1975, levels of air quality necessary for attainment of the primary ambient air quality standard specified for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) in accordance with Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.)
"(B) Amounts apportioned to a State for projects on routes or portions thereof for which approval has been withdrawn in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to and added to the amounts apportioned to such State under paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of title 23, United States Code for the account of the urbanized area from which the withdrawal of the routes or portions thereof was made."
SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 104 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding "(1)" immediately following "(a)" and by adding a new paragraph to read as follows:
"(2) (A) Whenever an apportionment is made of the sums authorized to be appropriated for expenditure upon the Federal-aid systems, the Secretary shall deduct a sum, in such amount not to exceed 10 per centum of all sums so authorized, as the Secretary deems necessary to provide emergency assistance for transportation system improvements in those air quality regions within a state which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has certified or otherwise stated will fail to achieve, by July 1, 1975, levels of air quality necessary for attainment of the primary ambient air quality standard specified for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) in accordance with section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
"(B) Amounts made available to a state in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be transferred to and added to the amounts apportioned to such State under paragraph (6) of subsection (b) of section 104 of title 23, United States Code, for the account of the urbanized area within the air quality region designated by the Secretary to receive the emergency assistance.
SEC. 3. Section 105 of title 23, United States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection to read as follows:
"(h)" The Secretary shall not approve any project in accordance with the provisions of this section where he receives a statement from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that such project may result in a failure to attain any primary ambient air quality standard specified in accordance with section 109 of the Clean Air Act."