With its authorization set to expire Sept. 30. the federal Clean Air Act will come under congressional review in the months ahead. Obviously the act should be extended in some form in a continuing effort to upgrade the environment. But equally obvious after the country’s experience with the law – is the need for changes to improve fairness and practicality and avoid endangering vital industries. jobs and payrolls. It is understood legislation for extension already is in the works. Presumably it will be subjected to congressional debate. hearings and opportunity for public comment. But those closely concerned should not delay inquiring about the timetable. The 97th Congress. which will review the complex and far-reaching Clean Air Act. undoubtedly is more conservative and costconscious than the one which adopted the 1977 measure. Personnel has changed considerably. About l80 senators and representatives – roughly a third of Congress e have been elected since the legislation was passed. Thus it would appear the lawmaking bodies will be open-minded to proposals for revision. In general. the standards of the program are designed to limit concentrations of the seven most common air pollutants – carbon monoxide. hydrocarbons. lead. nitrogen dioxide. ozone. particulates and sulfur dioxide. It is in the economics and methodology of the program that the greatest controversy has developed in its early years. Based on that experience, these are among the needs that ought to be considered: – Greater state authority and less outside dictation in negotiating. approving and enforcing agreements. This would speed action. tend to harmonize local factors. and result in more-acceptable judgments. – More reasonable deadlines (the current compliance deadline of Dec. 31. 1982,,is too stringent) and more room for lexibility and even conciliation. – Generally limiting the area of concern to primary standards required in the interest of public health. and foregoing overly-costly and hard-to-achieve secondary programs for aesthetic accommodation. at least for the immediate future. America must not destroy valued industries by cost-prohibitive regulation nor impair their ability to compete on the free market and to put aside funds for plant replacement and modernization. In full perspective. our goal should be one of protection of the public’s over-all interest. And that includes bread and butter as well as a healthful env.ironment.