of the Commissioners be renewed for like periods if no complaint is made to the Commissioners on account thereof or if, after such complaint has been made and duly considered at a public hearing held by the Commissioners on due notice, the Commissioners find that renewal is justified. No renewal shall be granted except on application therefor. Any such application shall be made at least sixty days prior to the expiration of the exemption or partial exemption. Immediately prior to making his application for renewal the applicant shall give public notice of such application in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commissioners. Any renewal granted pursuant to this subsection shall be on the same grounds and subject to the same limitations and requirements as provided in subsection (a) of this section.

(d) An exemption, partial exemption, or renewal thereof shall not be a right of the applicant or holder thereof but shall be in the discretion of the Commissioner.

(e) Nothing in this section and no exemption, partial exemption, or renewal granted under this section shall be construed to prevent or limit the application of the emergency provisions and procedures of section 14 of this Act to any person or his property.

HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

SEC. 16. (a) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioners issued under this Act may obtain a review of such order in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by filing in such court, within sixty days after the issuance of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Commissioners be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of such petition shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commissioners, and thereupon the Commissioners shall file in the court the record upon which the order complained of was entered. Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part, so far as it is applicable to the petitioner. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioners when supported by substantial evidence shall be conclusive. No objection to the order of the Commissioners shall be considered by the court unless such objection was presented to the Commissioners, except where there were reasonable grounds for failure to present such objections to the Commissioners. If application is made to the court for leave to offer additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence may materially affect the result of the proceeding and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to offer such evidence in the proceedings before the Commissioners; the court may order such additional evidence to be taken by the Commissioners in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may prescribe. The Commissioners may modify the initial findings by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and shall file with the court such modified or new findings which, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and shall also file their recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of the original order.

(b) The commencement of proceedings under subsection (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commissioners' order. The court shall not grant any stay of the order unless the person complaining of such order shall file in court an undertaking with a surety or sureties, satisfactory to the court, for the payment to the employees affected by the order, in the event such order is affirmed, of the amount by which the compensation such employees are entitled to receive under the order exceeds the compensation they actually receive while such stay is in effect.

(c) Any hearing provided for in this Act shall be held in accordance with such regulations as the Commissioners shall prescribe.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS
?

SEC. 17. Any records or other information which relate to processes or production unique to the owner or operator or which would tend to affect adversely the competitive position of such owner or operator shall be only for the confidential use of the Commissioners and the departments, agencies, and officers of the District of Columbia Government, unless such owner or operator shall expressly agree to their publication or availability to the general public. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the use of such records or information by

any department, agency, or officer of the District of Columbia Government in compiling or publishing analyses or summaries relating to the general condition of the outdoor atmosphere if such analyses or summaries do not reveal any information otherwise confidential under this section.

FEES

SEC. 18. The amount of fees to be charged under this Act and the procedure for their collection shall be established by the Commissioners by regulation.

PENALTIES

SEC. 19 (a) Any person who violates any provision of this Act, or any rule or regulation in force pursuant thereto shall be subject to a fine of not to exceed $150. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.

(b) Action pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall not be a bar to enforcement of this Act, rules and regulations in force pursuant thereto, and orders made pursuant to this Act, by injunction or other appropriate remedy, and the Commissioners shall have the power to institute and maintain in the name of the District of Columbia any and all such enforcement proceedings.

(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to abridge, limit, or otherwise impair the right of any person to damages or other relief on account of injuries to persons or property and to maintain any action or other appropriate proceeding therefor.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 20. This Act shall become effective immediately upon the date of its enactment, except that persons owning or using existing equipment or fuels not in conformance with the requirements set forth in sections 9, 10, or 11 of this Act shall, within six months after such date, comply with such sections or apply for an exemption under the provisions of section 15 of this Act.

Mr. MULTER. H.R. 12232 is what we may call the Commissioners' bill. It was submitted to us as a proposal on the part of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Those who may take the time to compare the bill as introduced with that which was submitted to you by the Commissioners will find some technical changes. There is no change in substance but bill drafting did make what they considered these changes in the rules of the House.

We will also make a part of the record at this point the statements and reports received from various government agencies with reference to the proposed legislation, with staff memorandum thereon. (The material referred to follows:)

H.R. 12232, 90th Congress, first session, by Mr. Multer on August 9, 1967

A BILL To provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "District of Columbia Air Pollution Control Act".

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 2. It is the policy of this Act to authorize and direct the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to prescribe reasonable classifications and regulations in order to preserve, protect, and improve the air resources of the community so as to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the District of Columbia and the metropolitan region; to prevent injury to human health, plant, and animal life; to prevent harm to property; to foster the comfort and convenience of its inhabitants; and. to the greatest degree practicable, to facilitate the enjoyment by the citizens of the Nation of the attractions of the Nation's Capital.

REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

SEC. 3. (a) The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia may prescribe such reasonable classifications and regulations as it deems necessary to prevent, abate, and control air pollution in the District of Columbia.

(b) The regulations prescribed under this section may provide for(1) the control of—

(A) the emission of pollutants into the outdoor atmosphere from any source,

(B) the burning of open fires in any public or private place outside of any structure,

(C) the operation and maintenance of any equipment, vehicle, or mechanical device which may discharge pollutants into the atmosphere, and

(D) the use of any fuel, substance, or product which may result in air pollution;

(2) exemptions from and enforcement of such regulations;

(3) administrative hearing and review procedures;

(4) the confidentiality of business records and trade secrets;

(5) fees; and

(6) fines (not exceeding $300) or imprisonment (not exceeding ninety days) for each violation of any such regulation.

Each day of violation of any such regulation shall constitute a separate offense.

DUTIES AND POWERS

SEC. 4. (a) The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia may(1) conduct studies, investigations, and research relating to air pollution and its prevention, abatement, and control;

(2) prepare and develop a comprehensive plan or plans for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution;

(3) advise, consult, and cooperate with industries, interstate or interlocal agencies, local governments within the Washington metropolitan region, the Federal Government, and interested persons and groups;

(4) collect and disseminate information and conduct educational and training programs relating to air pollution; and

(5) encourage voluntary cooperation by persons or affected groups to achieve the purposes of this Act.

(b) For the purposes of carrying out its duties under this Act, the Board of Commissioners may

(1) establish such administrative office or agency as it may deem necessary, and delegate to such office or agency any of the duties authorized by this Act, except the power to adopt regulations;

(2) issue such orders as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Act and enforce the same by all appropriate administrative and judicial proceedings, including injunctive relief:

(3) hold hearings relating to any aspect of, or matter in, the administration of the Act;

(4) secure necessary scientific, technical, administrative, and operational services, including laboratory facilities, by contract, or otherwise;

(5) receive and administer grants or gifts for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of this Act; and

1, (6) take any other action which may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

REPORTING OF INFORMATION ·!

SEC. 5. The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia may require persons engaged in operations which may result in air pollution to file with it reports containing information as to (1) location and description of source; (2) rate, duration, and composition of pollutant emission; and (3) such other information as the Board of Commissioners may require.

REPEAL OF ACT OF AUGUST 15, 1935:

SEC. 6. The Act approved August 15, 1935 (D.C. Code, secs. 6-801-6-804) is repealed. 3...

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C., July 20, 1967.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of June 28, 1967, for a report on H.R. 6981, a bill "to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia."

This bill would establish regulations for the prevention and control of air pollution from fuel-burning installations, open burning and incineration of refuse, and other manufacturing and processing activities. The bill would also require the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to establish Air Pollution Control Agency and, through this agency, to perform various functions relating to the evaluation of air pollution problems in the District of Columbia, the development of plans for dealing with such problems, and enforcement of the regulations contained in the bill.

There can be no doubt that the current program for the prevention and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia is inadequate, largely because the existing statutory authority for the program is obsolete. Air pollution control activities in the District are currently conducted under the provisions of a law passed more than 30 years ago—a law which does not provide adequate authority to cope with many of the most complex and important aspects of the modern air pollution problem A new statute is needed if the District of Columbia is to succeed in attacking its existing air pollution problem, which is a serious threat to the public's health and welfare, and in preventing the problem from reaching truly critical proportions.

This Department is strongly in favor of Congressional action to provide effective legislation for the prevention and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia. In our view, such action will be most effective, in the long run, if it leads to the adoption of enabling legislation, under which an agency of the District of Columbia government would be authorized or directed to establish and enforce appropriate regulations for the prevention and control of air pollution. This approach would be preferable to the enactment of such regulations into law, as proposed in H.R. 6981.

There are several reasons why enabling legislation would be more satisfactory. For one thing, scientific understanding of the problem of air pollution and its effects on public health and welfare is constantly improving, and, at the same time, technology for the prevention and control of air pollution is constantly being modified and improved. This means that new problems are frequently encountered and that new opportunities for effective control action are being found. To deal with such problems and to take full advantage of such opportunities, the District of Columbia must be in a position to alter its regulations without necessarily seeking the adoption of new legislation. H.R. 6981 would freeze detailed regulations into law and would apparently require the enactment of new or additional legislation by the Congress even for relatively minor technical changes in those regulations.

We recognize that the provisions of H.R. 6981 are taken from a model ordinance prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments with technical assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Thus, those provisions of the model ordinance containing detailed standards for the prevention and control of air pollution do reflect technical judgments made by officials of this Department on the basis of data available at the time the model ordinance was being prepared; however, we have not endorsed the inclusion of such standards in Federal, State, or local legislation.

Their inclusion in Federal legislation affecting any part of the Washington area is particularly inappropriate at this time, This Department is currently engaged in a major new technical investigation of air pollution in both the District of Columbia and the suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia. This investigation is the first phase of action which this Department has initiated for abatement of interstate air pollution in the National Capital area, under provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended. We expect to call an abatement conference within the next few months.

This new examination of the Washington area's air pollution problems may well indicate that the regulations needed for effective control of air pollution in both the city and the suburbs are markedly different from those contained in the Council of Governments model ordinance. We recommend, then, that those sections of the bill containing standards and regulations for the control of

various types of air pollutants, be eliminated, and that, in their place, language be inserted in Section 5, "Duties and Powers," which would atuhorize the adoption of appropriate standards and regulations by the cognizant agency of the District of Columbia government.

If the Committee wishes to place greater emphasis on the adoption of regulations than it could by merely providing discretionary authority for such action, you may wish to consider a provision which would explicitly direct the responsible agency to develop and adopt appropriate regulations, possible within a specified time period.

In many important respects, H.R. 6981 would provide opportunities for improvement in the District of Columbia's efforts to deal with problems of air pollution. The bill would apparently vest all responsibility for air pollution prevention and control activities in a single agency. This would remove an important obstacle to progress in the fight against air pollution in the city-the current division of responsibility for air pollution control activities within the District government. The experience of this Department indicates that authority for air pollution control activities, whether at the State or local level, is best vested in a single agency. We therefore urge that this concept be retained, regardless of whether authority is vested in the Commissioners or is vested in an existing agency, and that consideration be given to repeal or appropriate modification of existing statutes and regulations pertaining to the prevention and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia.

With slight modification, H.R. 6981 could provide opportunities for progress on another front-progress toward the development of a regional attack on air pollution in the Washington area. This area's air pollution problems are regional programs, in very large measure. Many people who live in the area tend to think that Washington is the source of all, or nearly all, of the area's air pollution. This is a myth that serves mainly to obscure the need for a coordinated regional effort to deal with the problem. There are numerous air pollution sources in all parts of the Washington metropolitan area, and their impact is felt throughout the area. This area clearly shares a common air supply and a common air pollution problem.

The District of Columbia should, of course, be in a position to participate fully in any regional air pollution control effort that may be undertaken in the months and years ahead. In H.R. 6981, Section 5(a)(3) would empower the District Commissioners to "advise, consult, and cooperate with agencies of the District of Columbia Government, industries, interstate or interlocal agencies, the Federal Government, and interested persons and groups." This language may not provide sufficient latitude for cooperation with State and local governmental agencies which have jurisdiction in parts of the Washington area. We suggest that "States and political subdivisions of States," also be mentioned in this provision.

In summary, this Department supports the enactment of H.R. 6981, with the modifications suggested in this report. We will be pleased to provide any assistance you may desire in effecting these modifications. We are continuing further to study the details of the bill and will submit to your Committee such further modifications of a technical or drafting nature which may be discovered thereby. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely,

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report H.R. 6981, 90th Congress, a bill "To provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution in the District of Columbia."

The purpose of the bill is set forth in the language of the declaration of policy which appears as section 2 of the bill and reads as follows: !