November 25, 1974
Page 37220
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, President Nixon's veto of the Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection appropriations bill for fiscal year 1975 has caused Congress to consider a second appropriations bill for these programs. The President's arguments for vetoing the bill were not convincing. The able chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator McGEE, has discussed the inappropriateness of the President's veto, and I shall not repeat that argument.
The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking Republican, Senator FONG, have displayed considerable diligence in fulfilling their duties this year.
As in the past, they have been sensitive to the needs of environmental protection programs. They have provided funds to reduce the abuses heaped on the environment.
The bill vetoed by the President contained many increases in EPA programs. Those increases remain in the bill before the Senate, subject to the general reduction applied to all programs by the Appropriations Committee. This reduction has been recommended to the Senate because we are now well into the fiscal year, and increases ought to be reduced proportionately.
There has been a significant attempt in recent years to undermine and rewrite environmental protection programs through legislation in appropriations bills. This has not been a product of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Rather, it has been done by a House Appropriations Subcommittee, and has led to considerable difficulty and conflict.
There were three provisions in the House-passed legislation that continue the attempt to use the appropriations bill to amend and redirect the clean Air Act and other environmental laws.
First was an amendment to the Clean Air Act which was stricken from the bill before us. Second was language in the House report which attempted to discredit all environmental laws. The third was an assertion that all language contained in previous reports is still valid.
I commend the subcommittee chairman, Senator McGEE, for taking the action necessary to remove the most objectionable of these provisions from the bill, which is the language amending the Clean Air Act.
Section 511 of the House bill contains this provision:
No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.
This language was entirely inappropriate.
Section 511 of the bill as passed by the House raised three important questions. And because this provision will be subject to conference discussion, I would like to raise those questions:
First. We must ask if it is proper to use an appropriations procedure to accomplish substantive change in legislative policy. This amendment could not be reached in the House on a point of order because it is purportedly a procedural limitation on the use of funds. It is more than that.
This amendment would void current regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency authorized by the Clean Air Act and which have been upheld by the courts.
The language of the House bill is legislative in nature, yet it has had no legislative hearings. It was adopted by the House subcommittee with no public discussion. This is not proper legislative process.
Again, I commend the Appropriations Committee, and particularly the subcommittee chairman, Senator McGEE, for agreeing to strike this provision from the Senate bill.
Second. We must ask ourselves whether the Congress wants to restrict pollution control authority through this process without any review of the ramifications of that restriction on the health of citizens in areas where such controls are required.
Third. We must ask ourselves whether or not we want to impose on the Environmental Protection Agency the burden of finding other means to meet statutory deadlines for achieving public health-related air quality standards. Last year the Senate bowed to House demands in the energy emergency legislation to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using parking surtaxes as an element of pollution control without a specific congressional authorization. The provision in the House bill would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from using any parking regulations whatsoever as an element of pollution control.
Dates for the attainment of the deadlines of the Clean Air Act remain intact. Therefore, communities with air pollution problems will simply have to adopt other measures to reach clean air goals. Parking management is a very useful tool for many communities. Removal of the power to use this approach simply forces communities to use more stringent techniques to accomplish the goals of the Clean Air Act. This might include annual inspection of auto emission control devices, extensive mandatory retrofit of catalysts on older cars, and gas rationing. None of these are popular or economically attractive programs.
I think that rationing of gasoline without careful congressional consideration as to its implications and the alternatives is a step which should not be taken, but the Environmental Protection Agency may have no other choice. The courts have ordered that Agency to develop transportation control strategies which will achieve health-related air quality standards by the deadlines established in the act. Even if Congress should act in the next session to change those deadlines or provide the agency with additional tools, we cannot anticipate how quickly that legislation might move. Certainly it would not develop quickly enough to avoid adverse public reaction to proposals which would be required by court order.
A number of communities across the country with substantial pollution problems want to emphasize mass transit. Transportation control plans used in a number of cities, such as Boston, require employers to reduce parking spaces available to employees in order to encourage carpooling and mass transit. As such a shift occurs, the mass transit systems will improve, congestion will decline, shopping and commercial use of the downtown area will become more pleasant and attract more customers without causing pollution.
Carpools and mass transit clearly have a beneficial effect on the fuel supply problem facing the country. John Sawhill, Acting Federal Energy Administrator, recognized the usefulness of such transportation control plans in conserving scarce fuel. Recently in Philadelphia. he commented that increased use of carpools and mass transit were important in reducing the fuel shortages facing the Nation.
Parking management regulations may be useful in tackling long run problems that occur when facilities are located improperly in urban areas. They may not be. But the legislative committees – not the appropriations committees – ought to make that decision.
In any event, communities should be encouraged to take a long look at the proper location of facilities to minimize the environmental impact of growth. This is not an "anti-growth" approach, for it will actually allow more growth by having it occur in the least damaging way.
The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Public Works Committee held weeks of Clean Air Act oversight hearings this year. We carefully examined parking management and indirect source regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, in June of this year, Congress enacted the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act, which specifically prohibited Federal imposition of parking taxes and delayed the implementation of parking management regulations for 6 months.
These actions were to insure that EPA would consult carefully with localities and develop reasonable regulations that could be implemented in the most reasonable fashion possible.
The Environmental Protection Agency's legal authority to impose parking management regulations has been questioned by some. It was the intent of Congress in the Clean Air Act of 1970 to authorize EPA to use transportation and land use controls where necessary to meet the goals established in the act. Page 12 of the 1970 Senate report says that:
In addition to direct emission controls, other potential parts of an implementation plan include land use and air and surface transportation controls. These should insure that ... sources will be located and operated so as not to interfere with the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of any applicable air quality standard or goal.
The legal issue has not been tested completely in the courts, but the first broad test has occurred, and a sweeping decision sustaining this authority was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court on Sept. 27, 1974. This case dealt with the Metropolitan Boston Air Quality Transportation Control Plan. On all constitutional and statutory challenges, EPA's authority under the act was supported by the court.
This item will obviously be controversial in conference, and I would urge the Senate to stand by its action in removing this provision.
The second major problem created by the action of the House Appropriations Committee stems from objectionable language in the House report. It reads as follows:
The Committee considered recommending the following language in the bill relating to funds for the Environmental Protection Agency:
None of these funds are appropriated for the purpose of administering any program that reduces the supply or increases the cost of electricity or food to the consumer.
However, the Committee agreed it would be best to include the language in the report at this time, and to rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to so modify its regulations and requirements as necessary to accomplish this directive.
While protecting the air we breathe and the purity of our waters is absolutely essential, and has long been a major concern of this Committee, it does not seem that this must be accomplished by raising the cost of food and electricity beyond the financial ability of many Americans.
The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee rejects this language and the committee is to be commended for their forthright position.
It appears to rest on the erroneous assumption that a significant part of increased food and electricity costs and general inflation stems from pollution control requirements. This charge has been made frequently during the debate over our economic ills. Investigation of this charge has shown that pollution control expenditures have a minimal effect on economic output and inflation.
A report prepared by Russell W. Peterson, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and presented at a pre-economic summit meeting states the following:
The economic impact of these expenditures [on environmental programs] is not nearly as significant as some would have us believe. Pollution control expenditures certainly are not responsible for our current problems of inflation. The Council on Environmental Quality's most recent analysis of the impact of environmental programs on the economy indicate that these programs account for at most roughly half of one percent of our current inflation. Nor are they any more responsible for high interest rates. Put in perspective, expenditures made during 1973 to satisfy requirements of federal water and air pollution control legislation amounted to approximately one percent of our GNP. Looking at it another way, they amounted to from two to three percent of all investments and five to six percent of total expenditures on plant and equipment. These numbers certainly are not large enough to have the economic impact that some are attributing to them.
Furthermore, a recent study showed that the projected investment and operating costs for pollution control devices over the next ten years would have an insignificant impact on the growth in GNP – 4.3 percent per year without the pollution control program and 4.2 percent with it. And, of course, the increased value to the people of cleaner air and water is not included in the GNP.
An extensive article by the National Journal, August 24, 1974, concluded that environmental costs had a small impact on the economy.
The Environmental Protection Agency has conducted the most comprehensive studies existing in this area and is currently engaged in a new series of investigations into eight specific projects to provide additional data.
An independent analysis by the Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. took EPA's cost data and coupled them with forecasts about the economy. They estimated that by 1977, 3.2 percent of the gross national product would be devoted to pollution control. This analysis estimated that 1977 would be the peak year, with the figure dropping to 2.2 percent by 1980.
Chase Econometrics also estimated that very little impact would be felt in output and employment, since there would be offsetting employment and production gains in the manufacture of pollution control equipment.
Mr. President, the real cause of increased electricity and food costs lie in factors such as oil price rises, material shortages, drought, and government management.
When all factors are examined, it becomes clear that environmental regulations cannot legitimately become the scapegoat for our economic problems. Repealing all our environmental protection laws would have very little impact on inflation or food production. In fact, in the long run, these environmental protection efforts are likely to secure our food supply in a more balanced ecological system.
Recently, the Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, Russell E. Train, summarized this issue this way:
We really do not have the option of not paying environmental costs at all. The question is really who shall bear the burden of these costs. If electric power is generated with inadequate controls over sulfur and particulate emissions, then the cost is borne by the general public through statistically demonstrable increases in mortality and morbidity.
Congress certainly expects some costs associated with cleaning up the environment. Repairing past damage will require sacrifice, commitment, and resources. We would fool ourselves if we pretended that a clean environment will be free. But we can say with assurance that the costs will not be unreasonable, and that the magnitude of the costs will depend on the ingenuity of private industry in developing effective low cost technology.
The House language appears to be targeted on undermining environmental protection efforts some industries regard as bothersome. The intent could hardly be to save the Nation from inflation, since the cause of inflation lies elsewhere.
Mr. President, there is another problem in the report of the House Appropriation Committee. In the past that committee has attempted to force the regulatory programs of the Environmental Protection Agency into the framework of the National Environmental Policy Act, even though such programs are exempt from NEPA. The House Appropriations Committee has attempted to nullify this exemption. The present report references all previous report language and directs the Agency to comply with its orders, even though that language was contradicted in subsequent legislative history, and in some cases was specifically voided by legislative action.
As a result of this pressure, the Environmental Protection Agency has voluntarily submitted some of its regulations to the Environmental Impact Statement process. The main effect of this will be to delay regulations.
Regulatory responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency under both the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are not subject to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Statutory provisions in both these laws clearly stipulate their relationship with NEPA.
Section 511(c) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act reads as follows:
Except for the provision of Federal financial assistance for the purpose of assisting the construction of publicly owned treatment works as authorized by section 201 of this Act, and the issuance of a permit under section 402 of this Act for the discharge of any pollutant by a new source as defined in section 306 of this Act, no action of the Administrator taken pursuant to this Act shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat.852);
Section 7 (c) (1) in the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 reads as follows:
No action taken under the Clean Air Act shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 856).
Thus, not only is the Administrator not required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act except as specifically provided in the above quoted section of the Water Pollution Control Act but also any action of the Administrator to conform to the spirit of NEPA shall be for information purposes only and cannot be construed as impacting, delaying or modifying his regulatory responsibility in any way.
The House report language has no legal standing in this issue, and the Agency is required to ignore it.
In summary, when we examine the entire congressional effort to further environmental protection, the actions of the House Appropriations Committee are clearly inappropriate. The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Public Works Committee has held extensive hearings on air and water legislation this year and will do so again next year. This is a responsibility borne by the legislative committees of the House and Senate, and I know that the House counterparts will engage in similar reviews.
The Senate must reject the House action as inappropriate. I commend the Senate Appropriations Committee for its action and urge the Senate to maintain the support it has given to environmental programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD certain correspondence in connection with this matter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SEPTEMBER 27, 1974.
Hon. GALE W. McGEE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR GALE: I am deeply disturbed by a provision in the House version of the Agriculture- Environmental and Consumer Protection appropriation bill which bars use of EPA funds "to administer any program to tax, limit or otherwise regulate parking facilities."
This provision, which may not be subject to a point or order in the House, is designed to narrow the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency and thus has the effect of amending substantive law. Such policy must be made in the context of the Clean Air Act and not in appropriation bills.
The House Report, by way of justification, notes that this same provision was included in P. L. 93-245, a 1974 supplemental appropriation bill. You will recall that we discussed that earlier provision and agreed that, because there were no EPA regulatory appropriations included in that Supplemental, the provision was moot. In this case the provision is anything but moot. This appropriation bill carries all of EPA's funds for FY 1975.
If adopted, a major element of EPA's clean air regulatory effort would be voided without any evaluation of the impact of such actions on Clean Air Act deadlines, the public health, or the overall regulatory effort.
Should this provision survive in the House, I urge that it be deleted in the Senate Committee and that it not be included in the conference agreement.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
October 11, 1974.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental
Pollution,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED: Thank you for your recent letter in which you commented on the action of the House Appropriations Committee in restricting the use of appropriated EPA funds for its parking facilities program.
As you know, H.R. 16901 passed the House on October 9 and included the provision to which you objected. The time element did not allow us to consider this in committee prior to the recess.
I anticipate that we will get to this shortly after we reconvene in November. I know of your deep interest and concern in this matter, and you may rest assured that you and your staff will continue to be kept advised.
Sincerely,
GALE McGEE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Environmental and Consumer Protection.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
November 19, 1974.
Hon. GALE McGEE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR GALE: As Members of the Committee on Public Works, we are concerned with a provision of the pending Environmental Protection Agency Appropriation bill (H.R. 16901) which would have the effect of amending the Clean Air Act through a restriction on the use of EPA funds.
Section 510 of that bill would prohibit EPA from using any funds "... to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities."
While technically this is a limitation on the use of funds, it is in fact an amendment to Sec. 110 of the Clean Air Act which requires EPA to take such measures "as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance of primary (health) ... standards, including but not limited to, land use and transportation controls."
EPA has, pursuant to court order, promulgated such controls and is in the process of holding additional hearings on their viability (in accordance with the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act enacted in June of this year).
The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Committee on Public Works has held hearings on these transportation and land use control proposals in Los Angeles and additional hearings will be held early next year. The Administration has proposed legislation designed to reduce the impact of these requirements. And the House Committee is committed to a full evaluation of the implications of the policies proposed to implement the Clean Air Act prior to the required extension of funding authority.
We feel that it is both inappropriate and unwise to attempt to vacate a legislative mandate through a limitation on use of funds. Congress has directed EPA to develop programs to achieve and maintain health-related air quality standards. This limitation may require EPA to adopt draconian measures such as gas rationing to achieve health standards because other tools have been eliminated even though both the law and the courts insist that deadlines be met.
As indicated above, we are committed to a thorough review and any appropriate modifications of the Clean Air Act. We would appreciate your support to see that such modifications occur in an orderly manner by deleting this provision of H.R. 16901.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
Oct. 3,1974.
Hon. GALE W. McGEE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Environmental and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you requested, I am pleased to offer my comments on H.R. 16901, the Agriculture-Environmental and Consumer Protection Appropriation Bill of 1975, which is now before your Committee. Two points are of serious concern to me: section 511 of the bill itself and secondly, certain language in the House Report concerning EPA.
If enacted, section 511 would, in my judgment significantly affect the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out its mandate under the Clean Air Act. Section 511 states:
No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking facilities.
Enactment of section 511 would substantially impair the ability of some 24 metropolitan areas to achieve the Clean Air Act health-protection standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants. In addition, the ability of all State air pollution control programs to maintain compliance with the health standards, once they are met, would be greatly impaired.
The language of section 511 would affect the following programs: nationwide "indirect source" parking reviews, parking management programs in twenty cities with severe automobile pollution problems, on-street parking restrictions in various transportation control areas, employer transit use incentive plans being implemented in fifteen metropolitan areas, and air quality maintenance plans which are being formulated and adopted by the States to ensure maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards across the country. Each of these programs is complementary to measures that EPA is taking, together with State and local governments, to expand mass transit service and car pool programs.
Under the Clean Air Act, which requires the establishment of such transportation measures as are needed to help meet and maintain the air quality standards, the Agency would be required to replace any parking-related measures eliminated by section 511 with new measures sufficient to meet the standards. However, the Agency has already included almost all available reasonable measures in severely polluted areas. Consequently, any replacement measures would likely be more controversial and less acceptable.
If enacted, section 511 would have a serious and adverse impact on air pollution control programs throughout the country. Such a measure in my judgment should be enacted only after the most careful deliberation and review by the appropriate Committees of Congress. No hearings were ever held on this section.
Section 511 is not simply a repetition of previously enacted language as the House report suggests, but rather goes far beyond the prohibition on parking charges contained in the recently enacted Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974. EPA has fully complied with that prohibition and, in fact, took action even prior to the final Congressional action.
As you know, the Administration has recommended to the Congress an amendment to the CAA which would give EPA needed flexibility in the administration of the transportation control plans. I feel confident that the appropriate Committees will be holding hearings on this proposal early next year.
It should be noted that section 511 would eliminate measures with significant energy conservation as well as health benefits. The parking regulations approved or promulgated by EPA should significantly reduce energy consumption by encouraging mass transit usage and car pooling. The importance of such parking measures has been recognized, for example, by John Sawhill, Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, in his recent remarks before the Ninth Project Independence Hearing and elsewhere.
Because EPA's parking management measures have a number of important ramifications and have gained considerable momentum and support at the State and local levels, I have enclosed an attachment which describes the specific adverse effects that would follow from enactment of section 511. In view of these considerations, I urge you and your committee to eliminate section 511 from the bill.
I am also concerned by a section of House Report No. 93-1379. The paragraph, which does not refer to any specific section of H.R. 16901, is found on page 5 and reads in part as follows:
The Committee considered recommending the following language in the bill relating to funds for the Environmental Protection Agency:
None of these funds are appropriated for the purpose of administering any program that reduces the supply or increases the cost of electricity or food to the consumer.
However, the Committee agreed it would be best to include the language in the report at this time, and to rely on the Environmental Protection Agency to so modify its regulations and requirements as necessary to accomplish this directive.
A literal interpretation of this language could call into question most of EPA's statutory authorities since a great number of our authorities are in some way related to the energy and food industries and have some impact direct or indirect upon supply and price.
For example, EPA regulations which impact upon the production of electricity include among others health related sulfur oxide particulate air standards; thermal and chemical effluent standards; and environmental regulations of off-shore oil production; the transportation of energy resources; and proposed authority over surface mining. EPA regulations which impact upon the production and distribution of food include among others pesticide regulations; water effluent guidelines on food-related industries; and environmental regulations affecting the production and transportation of natural gas and fertilizers.
I should point out to the Committee that EPA in the process of development of our regulations does take into account both the projected economic and energy impacts, consistent, of course, with our statutory responsibility. In addition to our energy and economic assessments which occur as each regulation is being developed, we have undertaken two special, comprehensive efforts to review the economic and energy impacts of our programs. Both of these efforts are designed to calculate these impacts to insure that we are fully aware of all economic and energy impacts, particularly in light of the Nation's rapidly changing energy and economic situation.
I cannot believe that the language from the House report cited above was intended to diminish or negate the Agency's obligations under other statutes enacted by Congress or to cause a wholesale revision of our regulations and standards. I hope your Committee will carefully scrutinize this language and consider the effect, if any, it has or should have on EPA programs.
I greatly appreciate your consideration of these matters and I would be glad to discuss this situation with you at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL. E. TRAIN.
EFFECTS OF ENACTING SECTION 511 OF H.R. 16901
ROLE OF PARKING CONTROLS IN CLEAN AIR PROGRAMS
In many areas, the combined impact of new automobile emission controls and stationary source controls will not be adequate to attain the health protection standards for the two primary automobile-related pollutants, carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants. Consequently, it is necessary to provide certain measures which provide for the reduction and control of automobile use to minimize pollution impacts. Such measures take different forms to solve different problems. High localized carbon monoxide levels are caused by concentrated automobile use in and around large parking facilities. To prevent the creation of additional localized carbon monoxide problems, the "indirect source" parking facility review regulations provide for the careful designing of new parking facilities so as to avoid creation of high polluting congestion situations.
"Transportation control plans" in some 30 metropolitan areas require reductions in the amount of areawide vehicle miles traveled in order to help meet the air quality standard for both photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide. The placement and the availability of parking facilities are important factors in determining whether or not transit or car pooling are used as transport modes and influence the vehicle miles traveled in the area. The parking management, employer transit incentive, and on-street parking programs contained in 24 of the transportation control plans are a vital element of the vehicle miles traveled reduction program. The placement of future parking facilities and their relationship to available transit facilities also influence the ability to maintain carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidant air quality standards once they are achieved. The planning and the review of new parking facilities are, accordingly, important parts of the new air quality maintenance plans.
SPECIFIC IMPACTS OF SECTION 511
The impact of section 511 would be widespread. The following is a brief discussion of the effect of the legislation on current programs.
Indirect Source Parking Facility Review: Indirect source parking programs are implemented to ensure that construction of a new parking facility does not cause a localized carbon monoxide problem. Currently, EPA has promulgated national indirect source regulations for review of new facilities and some 26 states have adopted or are drafting indirect source programs to replace the Federal program, as EPA has encouraged them to do. Section 511 would eliminate the Federal indirect source parking review program and would seriously jeopardize existing and potential state programs. Under section 511, EPA could not implement the promulgated program and its ability to approve state programs may be voided. Obviously, if the Federal program is voided, the impetus for states to adopt programs will be seriously diminished. Furthermore, since EPA funds are used by many states to implement approved programs, existing state programs (such as that in Florida) might also be diluted or eliminated.
Parking Management Regulations: Parking management regulations have been approved or promulgated for some 20 metropolitan areas as one of a variety of measures set forth in the transportation control plans to help reduce vehicle miles traveled. I have recently proposed amendments to the parking management regulations to provide additional flexibility and have decided to delay the effective date of the regulations from January 1, 1975 to June 30, 1975 so that the new flexibility will be available to all covered by the regulations. Several local areas such as San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle are developing local plans to replace our regulations. The Agency has recently granted $500,000 to several California cities to aid this process. Section 511, if enacted, would eliminate this program and discourage further local efforts in this area.
There are many examples of cities in both the United States and Europe, which manage parking to encourage or discourage the use of automobiles in various parts of the city. The experiences of these cities in limiting parking have shown that restricting the availability of parking spaces is an effective means for discouraging the unnecessary use of the single passenger automobile in order to encourage use of available mass transit and car pool options. These programs have improved air quality without adverse economic effects.
Miscellaneous Transportation Control Plan Parking Restrictions: Various on-street parking regulations and designated area parking controls which have been carefully formulated through coordinated local, state, and EPA efforts would be voided. Many of these programs are already underway.
Employer Transit Incentive Programs: These programs in 15 areas call upon private and public employers having a certain number of employees or parking spaces to formulate a plan which encourages employees to use mass transit or car pools. This very effective pollution prevention and energy conservation measure has been positively accepted by many companies. In Boston, some 700 employer incentive plans were voluntarily submitted. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company has put into effect an exemplary employee van-pool program which will save 106,000 gallons of gasoline a year and substantially reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Similarly, innovative plans have been implemented in response to EPA regulations by such companies as Bell Helicopter Company, John Hancock Insurance Company, and General Electric Company. Since the employer incentive programs are oriented around employer parking facilities, they may also be covered under the section 511 prohibition.
Air Quality Maintenance Plans: The states are currently developing plans which will assure the maintenance of the air quality standards once they have been met. The indirect source review measures discussed above serve as a check for air quality maintenance on a localized scale and are an integral part of every air quality maintenance plan. Furthermore, review of new parking facilities will be necessary to maintain acceptable areawide carbon monoxide and oxidant levels by minimizing increases in vehicle miles traveled. This will be especially important in the mid-1980's after all vehicles are equipped with effective pollution control devices and the continued increases in the number of new vehicles begins to neutralize the impact of these devices. Section 511 would eliminate parking controls from maintenance plans and consequently make it extremely difficult to maintain healthy air.
Enforcement Implications: In view of the section 511 language which refers to the use by EPA of the authorized funds to administer any program related to parking facilities, the Agency might not be able to enforce the parking provisions of state plans which have been previously approved. Such a circumstance reduces the Agency's credibility and effectiveness.