Congress in 1981: Clean Air Act and Budget Skirmishes Set Stage for Action-Packed 1982 Session

F. L. McChesney

Congress' concentration on budgetary and economic matters reduced the output of substantive environmental legislation in the first session of the 97th Congress. Nevertheless, environmental issues drew their share of attention, thanks in large part to the Reagan Administration's draconian budget cuts, its controversial choices for key environmental positions in the Administration, and its inability to mobilize the bipartisan majorities that have been the hallmark of its stunning legislative victories in non-environmental contexts. While business and development interests, encouraged by the new administration's promises of regulatory relief and the more conservative mood of the new Congress, launched aggressive drives to loosen pollution control requirements, environmental interests gained strength from record membership drives and found Congress sensitive to public opinion polls and mail counts indicating a groundswell of sentiment within the electorate for maintaining current environmental standards. Sharply divided on many environmental issues, Congress considered a wide variety of legislative proposals, but proved reluctant to follow the Administration's lead in relaxing environmental laws and even made efforts to blunt legislatively what was seen on Capitol Hill as anti-environment initiatives by the Administration. Legislative action ranged from a House proposal to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),¹ to an unprecedented resolution by the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to halt mineral leasing in wilderness areas.²

In the grand scheme of things, these were only a sideshow to the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act,³ which drew much of Congress' energy but saw very little actual progress. Environmental groups were concerned at the beginning of the session that Congress would make major changes in the Act, such as requiring the use of cost-benefit techniques in setting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), but at year-end it now appears likely that only fine-tuning will occur. One tangible change was the Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act of 1981,⁴ which followed up the work of the Carter Administration's "Tripartite Committee" by allowing the steel industry to defer pollution controls for three years.

For the last half of the year, Congress struggled with itself and the Administration over the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)⁵ sewage treatment construction grants program and the EPA budget. A construction grants bill entailing major reforms was passed on the last day of the session, though it has yet to be signed into law. Congress also grappled with requests for drastically diminished appropriations for EPA and other environmental agencies. While many members of Congress expressed concern that massive EPA budget and personnel cuts recommended by the Administration would interfere with implementation of pollution control laws, both the Senate and the House adopted a 1982 budget for the Agency that barely exceeded the Administration's request.

Clean Air Act

Although funding for the Clean Air Act expired September 30, 1981, Congress failed to revise the Act in the first session of the 97th Congress despite steady and well-organized industry pressure. However, in December, after nine months of hearings and review, key committees in both houses had begun rewriting in earnest. Proposals included H.R. 3471,⁶ a bill containing sweeping changes in the Act, a House resolution establishing Congress' "commitment to clean air,"⁷ and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recommendations for "fine-tuning" rather than an overhaul of the Act.

In August the Administration propounded 11 "principles" for revising the Act which called for relaxing pollution control standards moderately and delaying some cleanup deadlines.⁸ Many of these concepts resurfaced in a comprehensive revision of the Act proposed by several members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The "Broyhill bill"⁹ would extend the deadlines for attaining the NAAQS from 1982 to 1990 and would require the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting secondary standards but not primary standards. However, primary standards would be set to protect the public against a "significant risk" of adverse effects and would eliminate the "adequate margin of safety" that is now factored into the standards under § 109.¹⁰ It would also eliminate Class II and III PSD requirements, and delete the requirement that new sources in non-attainment areas install control technologies more stringent than those required for other new sources.¹¹

The Senate Environment Committee chaired by Senator Stafford of Rhode Island, opened its review of the Act by voting to consider individual amendments rather than introducing a draft bill.By the end of the session, it had studied amendments involving NAAQS, mobile source standards, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), attainment deadlines, new source performance standards, acid rain controls, and hazardous pollutants.¹² While the Committee did vote against the consideration [12 ELR 10002] of economic costs in setting secondary ambient air quality standards, it left most issues unresolved.It voted to delay decisions on whether to relax automotive carbon monoxide standards, a change sought by automakers and the Reagan Administration, and whether to allow states to postpone inspection and maintenance programs for cars until the Act is reauthorized.¹³

While reauthorization of the Act progressed slowly, Congress passed and President Reagan signed the "steel stretchout" amendments which offer the steel industry three extra years to meet Air Act compliance deadlines. The Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act of 1981¹⁴ is based on recommendations to then President Carter by the "Tripartite Committee" of business, labor, and government. It allows the EPA Administrator to negotiate consent decrees on a case-by-case basis with steel companies to extend Air Act compliance deadlines from December 31, 1982 to December 31, 1985. Extensions are conditioned on a number of factors, including the requirement that the money saved through deferral of pollution control expenditures be invested in modernization of steel-producing facilities. Applicants for relief must also show that they are in compliance with other environmental requirements, or that any violations are "de minimus."¹⁵ In addition, such extensions may be granted only if the Administrator makes a finding that there will be no "significant" adverse impact on air quality.

Public alarm over the effects of acid deposition, which is believed to sterilize freshwater lakes and damage vegetation in northern states and Canada, was reflected in several bills in both houses. While those areas suffering the ill effects argued for strict emission controls, the coal-producing states and midwestern utilities argued that the available scientific evidence provides an insufficient basis on which to enact costly sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emission requirements. While S. 1706, the "Mitchell bill," would accelerate research programs, it would also place an immediate ceiling on SO₂ and NO_x emissions, particularly from coal-fired power plants in a 31-state "acid deposition impact region."¹⁶ Industry would be required to achieve a 10-year, 10 million-ton reduction in SO₂ emissions. Several other bills would require power plants in states within the "acid rain mitigation" region to reduce SO₂ emissions to a level equal to 85 percent of actual 1981 emissions from "large power plants" by 1991.¹⁷ The Senate also has before it a bill that addresses interstate transport of air pollution more generally.It would allow any state to bring a cleanup action against another state to abate transboundary emissions.¹⁸ A more conservative House measure adopts the Reagan Administration's stance that more research is needed on the mechanisms of acid rain formation and transport before controls are implemented.¹⁹

Water Pollution

The FWPCA is not scheduled for reauthorization until 1982. However, the Reagan Administration took the lead early in the 97th Congress with its proposals for funding the sewage treatment construction grants program.²⁰ Although authorization for the program does not expire until October 1, 1982, the Administration made its fiscal year 1982 appropriations request of $2.4 billion contingent on enactment of specific "reforms," thus forcing Congress to act quickly. The reforms include reducing future federal spending through the year 2000 from a projected $90 billion to $23 billion, giving highest priority for federal grants to projects serving large cities, and permittingno federal grants for "reserve" treatment capacity to accommodate anticipated population growth.

On the last day of the session, Congress sent to the President the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981,²¹ authorizing the program for four years at the $2.4 billion annual level sought by the Administration. However, failure to adopt the immediate reform measures raised doubts about whether the President will sign the bill into law. Congress extended the existing program until October 1, 1984, which allows all categories of treatment, storage, and conveyance of wastewater to remain eligible for 75 percent federal funding until fiscal year (FY) 1985, and allows "reserve" capacity to be built into plants until October 1, 1984. The allotment of funds will be based on the current formula in FY 1982, but in FYs 1983 through 1985 a compromise formula will be based on an average between the House formula and the Senate formula. [12 ELR 10003] They also voted to repeal the industrial cost exclusion provision, added last year, that bars the use of federal grants for construction of publicly owned treatment works that handle discharges from industrial plants.

The Senate had also responded to the Supreme Court decisions in City of Milwaukee v. Illinois²² and Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association,²³ which eviscerated the federal common law of nuisance.²⁴ The Senate bill would amend § 511 of the FWPCA to provide that the regulatory program established by the Act does not preempt other federal law, including common law, thereby opening the door to private litigation not authorized by the Act's citizen suit provision. While Congress did not adopt this measure, the conferees noted that failure to include the provision was without prejudice and agreed to study ways to achieve their intent in the next session.²⁵

Hazardous Substances

One of the highest environmental priorities of the 96th Congress and the Carter Administration was enactment of legislation to pay for the cleanup of hazardous substances disposal sites. While they succeeded in enacting the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),²⁶ notably absent from the "Superfund" legislation are provisions for compensation for victims of hazardous chemical releases and establishing liability for oil spills. Despite Reagan Administration opposition, both houses moved early in the 97th Congress to remedy these shortcomings, but failed by the end of the session to reach final action. A House proposal would set up an oil spill cleanup, liability, and compensation fund to be financed by a 1.3-cent-a-barrel tax on petroleum products and would set liability limits at $8 million.²⁷ The fund would be used to compensate victims, such as fishermen and resort owners, and for cleanup of damages resulting from major spills. The Senate also has before it a bill²⁸ to amend CERCLA to provide compensation for medical expenses of victims of hazardous substance releases.

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act,²⁹ which gives the Department of Transportation (DOT) responsibility for regulating transport of nondefense nuclear, toxic, and other dangerous materials, faced reauthorization in 1981. As passed by the House, amendments to the Act would require DOT to establish regional training centers to improve local response to hazardous waste emergencies and provide funding for the centers.³⁰ A controversial provision, which would have banned large shipments of hazardous wastes through New York City, was rejected by the House.

While Congress criticized EPA's implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),³¹ by the end of the session, House-Senate conferees had agreed to reauthorize TSCA for two years without substantive amendments. The funding level would allow for continued support of EPA's programs but would eliminate public participation grants.³²

As with TSCA, reauthorization of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)³³ began quietly, but as the session progressed several controversial issues arose. The states and a broad range of environmental, consumer, and labor groups clashed with pesticide manufacturers over proposed amendments that would limit public access to health and safety data produced by companies seeking registrations of a pesticide. Manufacturers also sought amendments to § 24a of FIFRA,³⁴ which allows states to require more health and safety data in state registration proceedings than that required by the federal government. At the end of the session bills had been reported to the floor of each house.

Natural Resources

The election of President Reagan and his appointment of James Watt as Secretary of the Interior signalled a significant shift in the executive branch's public land policies, prompting some members of Congress and state's rights advocates to push for statutory amendments allowing greater state control of federal lands in the West. These so-called "sagebrush rebellion" bills include a Senate proposal that would authorize western states to apply for the transfer from federal to state control of approximately 460 million acres of lands currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as well as approximately eight million acres of lands administered by the Forest Service.³⁵ A similar House proposal would allow western states to apply for transfer of BLM lands, but would not permit the transfer of national forest lands.³⁶ A number of other bills would allow states to select certain public lands in exchange for other state lands taken by the federal government by eminent domain.³⁷ However, by midway through the first session, the sagebrush rebellion's momentum appeared to have slowed considerably, due in part to Secretary Watt's statement that such a massive transfer of federal lands was unnecessary given his promise for a federal "good neighbor policy."³⁸

Action on wilderness legislation continued throughout the first session, but no major RARE II³⁹ proposals appear close to passage. A California wilderness bill, establishing [12 ELR 10004] some 2.1 million acres of national forest wilderness and 1.4 million acres of national park wilderness, unanimously passed the House in August,⁴⁰ but was unenthusiastically received in the Senate due to opposition by the Reagan Administration and the timber industry. As passed by the House, the bill would "release" from wilderness consideration some 2.2 million acres of national forest lands in California until revisions are made in management plans required under the National Forest Management Act⁴¹ by 1985. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee worked for several months with a national "release" bill, the so-called "anti-wilderness" bill, that would establish a 1985 deadline for congressional action on wilderness proposals and prohibit any future consideration of wilderness designations within the national forest.⁴²

The Reagan Administration's new policy to actively encourage applications for oil and gas leases in wilderness areas led to skirmishing between some members of Congress and Secretary Watt. Following the proposal to award oil and gas leases in several wilderness areas near Glacier National Park in Montana, the House Interior Committee, exercising its authority under § 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA),⁴³ ordered the Secretary to withdraw from mineral leasing a 1.5 million-acre area, which includes the Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, and Great Bear national forest wilderness areas, until January 1, 1984.⁴⁴ However, with dogged persistence, the Department of the Interior began issuing leases in other wilderness areas. News that leases had been issued for mining within and adjacent to the Capital Mountain Wilderness in New Mexico again prompted emergency House action. Representative Lujan introduced, with strong support, a bill prohibiting all leasing in wilderness areas until 1984, when a similar prohibition takes effect under the Wilderness Act.⁴⁵ Hasty negotiations stalled this measure, but led to an Interior Committee resolution barring the Secretary from issuing any further leases in congressionally designated wilderness areas before June 1, 1982.⁴⁶

Protection of fish and wildlife received a boost with the enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981.⁴⁷ The Amendments consolidate the Lacey Act of 1906⁴⁸ and the Black Bass Act of 1926,⁴⁹ which made it illegal to import or otherwise trade in live fish and wildlife or animal products which are taken, transported, or sold in violation of federal, state, or foreign laws. Responding to problems in enforcement of the two Acts, the new law extends federal protection to rare plants and to species taken in violation of Indian tribal regulations. The new law also increases to $10,000 both the Lacey Act's maximum civil penalty of $5,000 and the Black Bass Act's $200 penalty. Maximum criminal penalties are now $20,000 and five years imprisonment.

The marine and coastal environments also received attention during the 1981 session. Titles I and III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA),⁵⁰ received a straightforward one-year reauthorization. In reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act,⁵¹ Congress weighed and ultimately retained the Act's goal of reducing propoise deaths incidental to tuna fishing by continuing the use of the "best marine mammal safety techniques" that are "economically and technologically practicable" for tuna fishing. A newly added provision⁵² authorizes state management of marine mammals under specified circumstances.The House and Senate also passed resolutions calling for a whale-killing moratorium.⁵³

The threat of a legislative veto prompted the Departments of the Interior and Commerce to withdraw a controversial proposed rule written by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).⁵⁴ Under § 307 of the Act⁵⁵ any federal activity "directly affecting" a state coastal zone must conform to the states' coastal management plans. NOAA had proposed to modify its CZMA regulations to exempt outer continental shelf "pre-leasing" activities from the consistency requirement.⁵⁶ A storm of protest by affected states resulted in House and Senate resolutions to overturn the proposal.⁵⁷

The issue of protecting barrier islands led to an uncommon alliance between Secretary Watt and environmental groups in support of legislation to prohibit federal funding of commercial and residential growth on undeveloped barrier beaches and islands. Bills introduced in both houses to end federal flood insurance and financial assistance for construction and stabilization projects in such areas received wide congressional support, both for the economic and environmental savings they offer.⁵⁸

NEPA, Nuclear Energy

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)⁵⁹ came under considerable legislative pressure during 1981. A bill proposed in the House would amend the Act to [12 ELR 10005] provide for a statute of limitations with respect to judicial review of environmental impact statements (EISs).⁶⁰ The Senate Armed Services Committee approved a bill to limit EISs for atomic weapons facilities.⁶¹ Finally, Congress passed a bill to prohibit the appropriations of funds for the preparation by the Department of Energy (DOE) of any EIS, except those already underway, with respect to the operation of any DOE defense facility unless the EIS is "required by statute."⁶²

In the wake of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,⁶³ the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Congress drafted several legislative proposals to speed up licensing of nuclear plants.⁶⁴ In Sholly the D.C. Circuit ruled that Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA)⁶⁵ requires the NRC to hold a public hearing prior to issuing an amendment to a construction permit or operating license even if the agency has made a "no significant hazard" determination. To avoid potentially costly delays arising from hearings on routine license changes, the nuclear industry and the Reagan Administration supported a Senate proposal that would amend 189(a) to authorize the NRC to issue licenses in advance of hearings under certain circumstances.⁶⁶ The House appropriations bill for the NRC would simply authorize the Commission to dispense with hearings on license amendments that do not raise "significant hazards" considerations.⁶⁷

Both houses acted on proposals designed to relieve a backlog of operating licenses at the NRC. These measures,⁶⁸ though they differ in some respects, would allow the NRC to issue "temporary" or "interim" operating licenses to new nuclear plants before public hearings are completed.

Outlook — The Second Session

With work on the President's economic program largely behind it, and many major environmental programs requiring attention, in 1982 the 97th Congress is likely to turn to environmental matters with energy that was lacking in 1981. In the spring of 1982, attention will again focus on the reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. The action is likely to be more freewheeling and dramatic as the pressure from interest groups mounts, the November election looms, impatient legislators begin to reveal their views and seek compromises, and the administration presents a better prepared Clear Air Act position.

In addition, reauthorization of the FWPCA promises to spur lively action. Industry and environmental groups are gearing up for the Water Act debates, much of which will focus on the control of toxic water pollutants, a problem for which the makeshift scheme of regulation under §§ 301 and 307 is both incomplete and very expensive.

The Endangered Species Act, also up for reauthorization, is viewed by both its supporters and detractors as needlessly intricate.Nevertheless, environmental groups intend to fight amendments such as one proposal to authorize heads of agencies rather than the Endangered Species Committee to have the final say over projects, and another to compensate companies for the losses they incur as a result of the Act's requirements. Another area of legislative activity may again be EPA appropriations. Reports that the Reagan Administration planned to cut the FY 1983 EPA budget by about 50 percent prompted committees in both houses to hold spirited hearings to review the proposed budget cuts. Reports that the President's Office of Management and Budget planned to cut even deeper added fuel to the controversy. However, the recent decision by the White House to give EPA most of its FY 1983 budget request may satisfy Congress on this issue.⁶⁹

A Congress inclined to a "less is more" view of the role of the federal government will not likely disavow its perceived mandate to relax the two broadest and most costly environmental laws, the Clean Air Act and the FWPCA. At the same time, it cannot neglect the public support for continued environmental protection as reflected in several recent polls.⁷⁰ Decisions on Capitol Hill will also be influenced by the usual election year pressures on members to avoid taking controversial positions. Similar circumstances have mired environmental legislation in the past, and could easily bump a number of important items from the 1982 agenda. Moreover, they form the basis for the prevailing view that a major restructuring of the nation's environmental laws is not in the offing.

1. H.R. 2938, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

2. See 127 CONG. REC. D617 (daily ed. May 21, 1981).

3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642, ELR STAT. & REG. 42201.

4. Pub. L. No. 97-23, 95 Stat. 139 (July 17, 1981).

5. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376, ELR STAT. & REG. 42101.

6. H.R. 3471, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

7. H.R. Res. 252, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

8. See 39 CONG. Q. 1454 (Aug. 8, 1981).

9. H.R. 3471, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

10. 33 U.S.C. § 7409, ELR STAT. & REG. 42211. See Comment, D.C. Circuit Upholds NAAQS for Lead and Ozone, Defers to EPA's Rulemaking Discretion Under Air Act, 11 ELR 10197 (1981).

11. The lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) control technology would be replaced by the best available control technology (BACT) currently required in PSD areas.

12. See 39 CONG. Q. 2191 (Nov. 7, 1981); 2 INSIDE E.P.A. 8 (Oct. 16, 1981); and Clean Air Act Oversight: Hearings Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

13. Sen. Symms proposed an amendment during markup that would double the carbon monoxide standard for automobiles from 3.4 to 7.0 grams per mile. The Committee also approved amendments to the Act that would require heavy trucks to have catalytic converters by 1984 and prevent EPA from rolling back 1984 hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards for pickup trucks and vans.

14. Pub. L. No. 97-23, 95 Stat. 139 (July 17, 1981).

15. A question has been raised as to whether the new law will actually be able to provide the intended relief. While EPA supports a broad definition of what constitutes a de minimus violation, the Department of Justice backs a much more restrictive definition. See Legal Times of Washington at 1 (Dec. 14, 1981). Whether the steel industry will take advantage of the stretchout opportunity remains to be seen. To date only two relatively minor facilities have even applied.

16. S. 1706, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).Rep. Moffet introduced a similar bill in the House, H.R. 4829, which would also establish five emission-trading regions and allow emission reduction trades between sources within a region.

17. S. 1709, introduced by Sen. Moynihan, and H.R. 4936, introduced by Rep. Scheuer, are identical. H.R. 4816, introduced by Rep. D'Amours, is similar but would require EPA to publish a list of the 50 largest SO₂ emitters in the region and require each state to develop a plan for reducing SO₂ emissions from those sources.

18. S. 1718, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). This bill would amend § 110 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, ELR STAT. & REG. 42212, to require that state implementation plans control emissions that interfere with attainment of air quality standards or public health and welfare in any other state. It would also amend § 126, 42 U.S.C. § 7426, ELR STAT. & REG. 42229, to (1) include guidelines to be used by the states and EPA in determining whether a § 110(a)(2)(E) violation exists, (2) grant states the right to file suit in federal court when EPA fails to act upon § 126 petitions within the required time, and (3) extend from 60 to 120 days the time in which EPA is required to act on § 126 petitions.

19. H.R. 4830, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). Another bill, H.R. 5055, would amend the Energy Security Act to accelerate from ten years to five years the Act's comprehensive program to identify the causes and effects of acid deposition.

20. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1281-1297, ELR STAT. & REG. 42117.

21. See H.R. REP. NO. 97-408, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (Dec. 14, 1981) (conference report).

22. 11 ELR 20406 (U.S. Apr. 28, 1981).

23. 11 ELR 20684 (U.S. June 25, 1981).

24. See Comment, Requiem for the Federal Common Law of Nuisance, 11 ELR 10191 (1981).

25. H.R. REP. NO. 97-408 at 27.

26. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9657, ELR STAT. & REG. 41941.

27. H.R. 85, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

28. S. 1486, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

29. 49 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812.

30. H.R. 3403, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). The Senate Commerce Committee favorably reported S. 960, which is identical to H.R. 3403.

31. 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629, ELR STAT. & REG. 41335.

32. S. 1211, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

33. 7 U.S.C. §§ 135-135k, ELR STAT. & REG. 42301.

34. 7 U.S.C. §§ 135e, ELR STAT. & REG. 42306.

35. S. 1245, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). Under this measure there could be no transfer of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, or Indian reservations.

36. H.R. 3655, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

37. S. 254, H.R. 1136, and H.R. 2139, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

38. 6 PUB. LAND NEWS 5 (May 28, 1981).

39. See generally Comment, Wilderness in the National Forests: California Court Finds RARE II NEPA Violations, Congress Ponders 'Release', 10 ELR 10096 (1980).

40. H.R. 4083, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). See also S. 1584 (similar to the House measure).

41. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1676, ELR STAT. & REG. 41433.

42. S. 842, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). The bill has yet to be reported out of committee.

43. 43 U.S.C. § 1714, ELR STAT. & REG. 41462.

44. The constitutionality of the Committee's action was immediately challenged in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Watt, CV-81-141-BLG (D. Mont.), and Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Watt, CV-81-168-BLG (D. Mont.).

45. 16 U.S.C. § 1133(d)(3), ELR STAT. & REG. 41414.

46. See 127 CONG. REC. D1471 (daily ed. Nov. 20, 1981).

47. Pub. L. No. 97-79, 95 Stat. 1073 (Nov. 16, 1980).

48. 16 U.S.C. §§ 701-702.

49. 16 U.S.C. §§ 851-856.

50. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1444, ELR STAT. & REG. 41821, and 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1434, ELR STAT. & REG. 41824:1.

51. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1407, ELR STAT. & REG. 41815.

52. Pub. L. No. 97-16, 95 Stat. 100 (June 23, 1981).

53. H.R. Con. Res. 96 and S. Res. 148, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

54. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464, ELR STAT. & REG. 41701.

55. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1456, ELR STAT. & REG. 41704:1.

56. 46 Fed. Reg. 35253 (July 8, 1981).

57. H.R. Con. Res. 166 and S. Con. Res. 29, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

58. H.R. 857 and S. 96, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). The prohibitions were included in the budget reconciliation conference report that passed both houses. H.R. 3982, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

59. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4361, ELR STAT. & REG. 41009.

60. H.R. 2114, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

61. S. 1549, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). The need for this bill was mooted by the Supreme Court. See Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project, 50 U.S.L.W. 4027, 12 ELR 20098 (1981).

62. H.R. 3413, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

63. 651 F.2d 780, 11 ELR 20329 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and 11 ELR 20336 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (denial of rehearing en banc, with a dissenting opinion).

64. See Comment, Regulatory Reform Arrives at the NRC: Agency, Congress Act on Licensing Shortcuts, 11 ELR 10176 (1981).

65. 42 U.S.C. § 2239, ELR STAT. & REG. 41238.

66. S. 913, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

67. H.R. 2330, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

68. S. 1207 and H.R. 2330, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).

69. Washington Post, Dec. 19, 1981, at A1, col. 1.

70. Calling clean air one of the "sacred cows" of America, pollster Lou Harris testified before the House that 80 percent of the American public oppose relaxation of federal environmental controls.