Congress passed, in both Houses, an act on the last day of the last session of the last Congress and adjourned. There was no way for this Agency to obtain a supplemental budget request with the Congress not in session.

So, we had from October until January in which there was no way to obtain a supplemental budget request. In January and the Congress reconvenes, just the normal process of getting things under way also limits the ability to obtain a supplemental request.

So, the next option that you have is to reprogram and this produces the classic question; you are already coming up toward the end of the year and half of the year's moneys have been spent. Who are you going to take the money away from? So what the Agency does is to administratively review the various acts of the Congress, the various priorities-many of which are established by the same committee that have passed that legislation and have close deadlines also as to where it is going to take the money away from.

So, that is part of the delay. In fact, it is the major delay, sir. Senator TUNNEY. I would like to submit for the record, at this point, a letter dated November 25, 1972, from Robert Fry, Deputy Administrator to Mr. William Morrill, Office of Management and Budget, Assistant Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He asked in November of 1972 for new budget authority of $1,175,000 with new permanent positions of 25 in a supplemental appropriation request and I happen to know that this request was turned down and that is the reason why you did not get the money. It was not because of the Congress's incapacity to act. It was because the Office of Management and Budget decided to turn down the request.

Senator CANNON. The letter will be made a part of the record. [The letter follows:]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, Washington, D.C., November 25, 1972.

Mr. WILLIAM A. MORRILL,

Assistant Director,

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MORRILL: Enclosed are the FY '73 supplemental budget requests for the new Pesticides Act and the new Noise Control Act as follows:

Pesticides Act.
Noise Control Act.

New permanent positions

New budget authority

+45 +25

+$1,075, 000 +$1,175,000

It is requested that you consider these supplementals in an expeditious manner so that the mandates of the new Pesticides and Noise Control Acts can be implemented.

Requests for the 1974 budgets for these programs have been submitted to Mr. Jim J. Tozzi's office through normal budget channels.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT W. FRI, Deputy Administrator.

Dr. MEYER. If I may explain, I happen to have been a party to the reason for the turndown, which is just what I said.

Had it been approved, I would have been without any ability and would be waiting on the Congress to act on that. The decision was made to go the reprograming route rather than try for the supplemental budget, which could not have been acted on until the last of January.

The logic here was why doesn't EPA go back and try and find the money. You know, your time is going to run out and you can go back and find the money in EPA.

Senator TUNNEY. Well, you didn't get the million dollars, did you?

Dr. MEYER. Well, we have been funded rather adequately at the present time.

Senator TUNNEY. I am not asking you to take a position that is contrary to what OMB has laid down as a dictum. That would not be healthy for

you.

Dr. MEYER. I am glad the Senator appreciates my position.

Senator TUNNEY. Well, I appreciate that, but it does not mean I have to agree with it.

Now, with regard to funds for the Vanguard facilities, which it is my understanding that that is where your new office space is, have you gotten funds for the Vanguard building to have adequate secretarial help and telephones and copying facilities and et cetera?

Dr. MEYER. Well, it was not a question of funds; it was a question of logistics. I would say that the GSA in cooperation with our Agency moved very promptly to get that space.

It was not a question of funds, it was a question of looking around Washington to find space. As we are all aware, office space is at a premium. There was no question about funding for hiring people.

There are certain problems of just how fast you can get people off of the street into a job and comply with the civil service rules-and that has been part of the delay the logistical problems of getting people processed, hired, and so on.

Senator TUNNEY. I understand that members of your staff, including professionals, have spent a good deal of time cleaning the offices-I am talking about janitorial service, cleaning the offices themselves before moving into them.

I am curious to know how much of their time has been occupied with petty matters like this and whether or not you think it is defensible in light of the importance of the study and the problems that you had getting the study.

Dr. MEYER. Senator, I was approached by several people on the professional staff who said, "We are impatient to get on with the task at hand, would it be a violation of the rules if we sort of straightened this place up until the GSA can get the proper folks over here?"

I gave them the authority, as long as it did not interfere with their regular duties and I believe that this is a classic can-do-let'sget-on-with-the-show attitude for which those people should be commended. It did not take any of their time, that I know of, away from their professional jobs.

97-555-73-6

Senator CANNON. Dr. Meyer, Senator Tunney has a few more questions for you.

Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. I think that at this time we will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon and start off with you and after you we will follow with Mr. Skully from the FAA so we can get some of these

answers,

Dr. MEYER. My pleasure, sir.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF DR. ALVIN F. MEYER, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Following enactment of the Noise Control Act of 1972, on October 27, 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency began to undertake the plans for implementation of the Act which were developed concurrent with the legislative actions leading to its passage. A major portion of our activity has been in the study of aircraft and airport operations, as required by Section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972.

After examining several alternative methods of obtaining the required information and preparing the report, the Environmental Protection Agency elected to employ the previously successful method it used in the preparation of its Report on Noise under Title IV of PL 91-604. In addition to a Task Force of recognized specialists, supplemented with selective contract efforts, it was considered desirable to also permit the widest possible participation by other interested and qualified groups in the preparation of the present report. Task Force activities were formally launched on February 15, 1973, at which time a comprehensive plan of action for preparation of the report and regulations required by Section 7 of the Noise Control Act was reviewed and discussed. Representatives of Federal and other government agencies, industry and trade associations, professional organizations, and citizen and environmental groups have been organized into six (6) Task Groups totalling approximately 120 highly motivated and qualified specialists. The efforts being undertaken by the Task Force are broken down as follows:

Task Group 1-Legal and institutional analysis of aircraft and airport noise and apportionment of authority between Federal, State, and local governments. Task Group 2-Operations analysis including monitoring, enforcement, safety, and costs.

Task Group 3-Impact characterization of noise including implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure.

Task Group 4-Noise source abatement technology and cost analysis including retrofitting.

Task Group 5-Review and analysis of present and planned FAA noise regulatory actions and their consequences regarding aircraft and airport operations.

Task Group 6-Military aircraft and airport noise and opportunities for reduction without inhibition of military missions.

Each of the task groups have had three full-scale meetings. In addition, various sub-panels and individual members have had a series of meetings and consultations. This effort has developed an extensive data base from which the material for the various chapters of the Report will be drawn. Several hundred documents, and individual task group participants' position papers and data inputs have been collated and are being analyzed at the present time. In anticipation of enactment, the EPA automated data retrieval system was augmented to provide for noise information and that system is currently being utilized to assist in this difficult task. A report outline has been established, and detailed chapter content is currently being prepared by each of the task groups. A major by-product of this effort will be the production as part of the report of what we believe will be one of the most comprehensive bibliographies on the subject of aircraft, airport and avaiation noise published to date. Our present schedule calls for chapter drafts being completed early in May and incorporated in the final report during the latter part of the month.

We are undertaking a major effort to insure participation in this effort by representatives of other agencies of the affected industry and of specific envi

ronmental interests, as well as professions concerned with noise, noise effects, and aviation or related areas of interest. All participants in the task group effort will be furnished a draft copy of the Report during the last week of May, and will be given an opportunity to comment on its contents at an open meeting which will be held during the week of June 11, 1973, in accordance with our planned schedule. We have established a docket procedure for this report similar to that used for regulations, so that all of this material, including the various participants' specific comments are part of the public record. In many ways, this is quite a formidable task, but, based on the progress we have made to date, we are fully confident that the Report will be submitted to the Congress on schedule.

The one basic requirement for EPA in this area of activity is to identify the actions necessary to minimize the adverse consequences to health and welfare resulting from aircraft and airport operations noise. Concurrent with the requirement in Section 7 of the Noise Control Act for this study, there are also underway, the actions to develop and publish the health and welfare effects criteria document, and the information on levels of environmental noise which are deemed necessary to protect public health and welfare, as called for by Section 5 of the Act.

In order to avoid any possibility of confusion among those requirements, and those related to the study on implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure, we have established a formalized internal coordination and review mechanism. Principle coordinator of this effort is Dr. Henning vonGierke of the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory whose emminence in this field is recognized worldwide. The Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics & Biodynamics of the National Research Council is providing special working groups to assist us in this effort and its chairman, Dr. W. Dixon Ward of the University of Minnesota, is serving on a leave of absence from the University as our principle consultant and project director for the criteria document. Dr. David Lipscomb of the University of Tennessee and Dr. Clifford Bragdon of the Georgia Institute of Technology will be working with our staff audiologists (who have recently joined us). Supplementing all of that effort is the Conference on Health Effects of Noise involving most of the world's acknowledged workers in this field being sponsored by this Agency in May of this year. Again, results of all of this effort will be in the public domain and are being entered into our data retrieval system.

The time available for the preparation of the Report and of the criteria documents has made it somewhat difficult to thoroughly assess the problem of impact of aircraft and aviation noise on the health and welfare of those affected thereby. However, it is possible for us to examine the FAA's reglatory authorities over air commerce and transportation, or over aircraft or airport operations, which might be applied to the control of the problem; and, as indicated in our comments regarding organization of the task groups and of the Report, this action is underway. The reason that we are not submitting to the FAA proposed regulations concurrent with the Report is that we must evaluate the actual health and welfare requirements as brought to light in the criteria document, health effects document, and the Report itself. We definitely do not intend to study this problem ad infinitum, as we are planning, based on this first evaluation to submit the initial proposed regulations called for by Section 7 (c) of the Act not later than end of FY '73.

The cooperation and assistance from other government agencies, industry, trade associations, environmental and citizen groups, has been outstanding. We believe that we are experiencing most encouraging evidence that the regulatory process in government can be enhanced through this type of participatory effort. Although the Department of Transportation and the FAA have not yet 'been represented at the task group's Aviation Study meetings held to date, we have been able to obtain the information necessary to the various studies underway. We do look forward to their participation and assistance in remaining meetings and the consultation called for by Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1959 as amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972.

In summary, we are on a schedule which is consistent with the requirements of the Noise Control Act, whose requirements we fully intend to meet in a timely, responsive, and effective manner.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator CANNON. The hearing will come to order.

Dr. Meyer, Senator Tunney has not arrived yet. He had some further questions for you, so I am going to ask you to step aside for the moment. Is Mr. Hellegers here? Is Dr. John Hellegers and Ms. Raelyn Janssen representing the Environmental Defense Fund and Mr. Jerrold Fadem, and Ms. Darlene Mitcheltree, are any of those persons here?

[No response.]

Seantor CANNON. Mr. Skully, Richard Skully?
Mr. SKULLY. Yes.

Senator CANNON. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SKULLY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ARVIN BASNIGHT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE WESTERN REGION

Mr. SKULLY. Senator, I have Mr. Arvin Basnight, who is the Regional Director for the Western region. If there are any questions on the local California issues.

Senator CANNON. Step up there, Arvin.

Mr. SKULLY. I have submitted a statement for you for the record, which I would like to refer to and add some additional comments. Senator CANNON. All right, sir.

Your statement will be made a part of the record in full and you can summarize from it and make such comments as you desire.

Mr. SKULLY. In 1968 the Congress enacted legislation which gave the FAA the authority it needed to put a stop to the escalation of aircraft noise. By November of 1969 the Agency implemented part 36 to the Federal Aviation Regulations for the certification of the new turboprop aircraft, jet aircraft. The results of part 36 are well

known.

The aircraft certificated under this regulation include the Douglas DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, the Boeing 747, Focke F-28 and the Cessna Citation.

By June of 1973 there will be over 300 of these aircraft in service. Now, all of these aircraft are substantially quieter than the previous aircraft in their weight categories. A much less well-known fact is that almost 100 noise certification actions and modifications to older aircraft have been processed without a further escalation of noise.

An example of a modification would be a change in the powerplant, or an engine modification resulting in increase in thrust. The regulation requires that the manufacturer demonstrate that proposed modifications do not increase the noise level of the intended aircraft. Actually, noise escalation has been prevented in several hundred individual aircrafts by this part of the regulation.

In 1970 the Airport and Airway Development Act was passed. Procedures to ensure that airport projects are environmentally sound were made preconditions to Federal planning and airport construction funding. Thus, the ability to forestall future environmen