The changes that have taken place in the pattern of State and local activity in the past few years are clearly the product of a national trend toward greatly improved control of the contemporary air pollution problem. That this trend will continue well into the future is beyond question. In all parts of the country, people are becoming increasingly concerned about air pollution and they are increasingly insisting on better control efforts at all levels of government. Thus, far, the response of State and local agencies has been encouraging, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a great many Cities and States are still without the services of truly effective control programs.

For the most part, local and State agencies are still not equipped to meet their present responsibilities for the prevention and control of air pollution, let alone the potentially greater responsibilities that may be thrust upon them as the potential for air pollution continues to grow. In many important respects, the progress made during the past two and one-half years is not as impressive as the raw statistics might indicate.

To begin with, people in many parts of the country will not share fully in the benefits of the increase that has taken place in State and local spending. A major share of such spending is still concentrated in the State of California. Local agencies in California accounted for 38 per cent of all spending for local air pollution programs in 1965. The Los Angeles County budget alone represented about 25 per cent of the national total for all local agencies and, combined with the budgets of the next five largest local agencies, made up over half the national total. And at the State level, nearly half of the increased spending has been in California. This means, of course, that State and local governments elsewhere in the country are still not attacking their air pollution problems with resources commensurate with the numbers of people those problems affect.

Through there are now 33 air pollution programs at the State level, many of them are scarcely more than nominal programs having neither the authority nor the resources needed to carry on effective control activities. In 19 States, some degree of abatement responsibility has been assigned to State agencies, but in most instances the abatement authority can be invoked only with respect to obvious nuisances or in response to complaints. Only a half-dozen State agencies engage in more than a nominal degree of abatement activity; the great majority are not even serving those communities which are too small to operate their own local programs but are nontheless affected by serious air pollution problems, often from a single major source. There are many such communities in all parts of the country.

For the most part, efforts at the local level are equally deficient, indeed, more so when measured against the greater degree of activity that is generally expected of local governments. In the air pollution field, it has been traditional to take the position that local governments should bear the major responsibility for practical control action. In actual fact, however, tradition and practice have seldom coincided. There has been some improvement in this situation in the past two years, but not nearly enough to take care of all instances of inadequate effort or total neglect of air pollution at the local level.

Our most recent estimate indicates that only 58 per cent of the urban population of the United States is served by local air pollution programs. Even where local programs exist, they frequently, indeed commonly, do not have adequate resources. On a per capita basis, annual spending for local programs has increased in recent years from a median figure of 10.8 cents to 15.2 cents. This increase is hardly adequate in the light of estimates that an effective local control program for a middle-sized city requires an expenditure of at least 40 cents per capita per year. In most communities, the actual increase has barely been sufficient to keep pace with the rising cost of operating an air pollution program. Only a handful of local agencies have adequate authority to deal with the complex modern problem of air pollution. These are agencies which have been given broad authority, either by local or State governments, to adopt rules and regulations for the control of all sources of air pollution. But many of these agencies have been slow to apply this authority to significant sources. And many others are still without adequate power to adopt and enforce control regulations applicable in any degree to important air pollution sources within their jurisdiction. As for regional activity, the improvement that has taken place in the past two years has barely touched the largest urban centers of the country. Only five of the 24 largest metropolitan areas are now served by a regional air pollution proThese 24 areas are the homes of some 69 million people-about one-half of the Nation's urban population-and, in general, tend to have the most serious

gram.

air pollution problems. Though air pollution in such metropolitan areas is inevitably a regional problem, the authority to deal with it is usually fragmented among many jurisdictions. A number of devices short of establishing regional programs are being used to achieve some degree of regional activity, but since most of them depend purely on voluntary cooperation by the participating governments, they are of limited effectiveness.

In brief, Mr. Chairman, there are still many serious deficiencies in State and local air pollution programs in nearly all parts of the country. To achieve a really significant degree of improvement will require a much greater effort in the months and years ahead than has been made at any time in the past. The inadequacy of the present pattern of control efforts means that a great deal of new local and State legislation will be needed; it means that more trained manpower will be needed-particularly since the lack of enough trained personnel is already keeping many local and State programs from keeping up with their scheduled expansion; it means that local and State agencies must not only redouble their efforts to develop and carry on technically sound and sophisticated control programs but, at the same time, must begin dealing more effectively with the many obvious sources of air pollution which remain uncontrolled in virtually every city and town; and, not least important, it means that an increased investment of public funds will be needed to achieve and sustain the high level of control activity that is so clearly called for by our knowledge of the present and probable future dimensions of the air pollution problem.

In his testimony last week Secretary Gardner emphasized that a share of the needed funds must come from the Federal government. To provide this assistance, the Congress, in our view, should give favorable consideration to Senate bill 3112, which would authorize Federal financial assistance to control agencies on a continuing basis and would remove the existing ceiling on allocation of Federal funds for grants to such agencies. In my view, adoption of this legislation is essential to permit the Federal Government to continue to meet its vital responsibility for helping State and local governments cope with the mounting problem of air pollution. As long as we in the Federal Government continue to urge State and local officials to shoulder a substantial share of the burden of dealing with air pollution, we can hardly ignore our obligation to help them respond.

But neither can we ignore the fact that serious air pollution problems exist now which State and local agencies are not equipped to bring under control. Nowhere is this more intolerable or more harmful to public health and welfare than in the many communities where air pollution is an interstate problem. Even where people living in such areas are able to insist on effective control of air pollution sources within their own communities, they are powerless to prevent pollution from reaching them from sources in another State. The pressing need to provide a means of dealing with situations was recognized in the Clean Air Act in the provisions authorizing Federal action to abate interstate air pollution problems. The language of those provisions made it clear that Federal action was not intended to supplant State and local abatement activities, but rather to protect the millions of Americans now affected by air pollution problems originating outside the jurisdiction of their own State and local Governments. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to take such action either on his own initiative, after consultation with officials of the States involved, or on request from a State.

Thus far, this new Federal authority has been invoked in eight interstate areas, both large and small, covering parts of 12 States. In terms of the number of people affected, the most significant case concerns interstate air pollution in a 17-county area of metropolitan New York and northern New Jersey-the home of some 15 million people and countless major sources of air pollution. In this area, Federal action to abate air pollution from sources in New Jersey was requested by the Governor of New York. Because communities in both New York and New Jersey contribute to interstate air pollution in the area, Secretary Gardner initiated concurrent action to abate pollution from sources in New York.

We are now engaged in the first phase of a technical investigation to identify sources of interstate air pollution in New York and New Jersey and determine the extent to which pollution originating in each one may be endangering public health or welfare in the other. This basic information-not now available-is a prerequisite for effective action. The first phase of the investigation, which

will require about six months, and the abatement conference which will follow it will be focused on two of the most important types of urban air pollutants-carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides. Other major pollutants will be dealt with in subsequent phases of the abatement proceedings.

In two interstate areas, abatement action has been undertaken at the request of States affected by pollution originating outside their boundaries. The first such case involved noxious and offensive odors from a feed and fertilizer plant in eastern Maryland affecting people in Delaware. The second involved odors caused by emissions from a pulp mill in northern New York affecting people in Vermont. In both instances, abatement conferences have already been held with the cognizant State officials, and the Secretary has issued recommendations calling for prompt and effective control of the interstate problems. As you know, Mr. Chairman, a period of at least six months must be allowed for such recommendations to be carried out; in these cases, the required time interval has not yet run its course.

On his own initiative, the Secretary has begun abatement action in five other interstate areas-the area of Lewiston, Idaho and Clarkston, Washington; the area of Steubenville, Ohio-Weirton and Wheeling, West Virginia; the area of Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri; the area of Parkersburg, West Virginia and Marietta, Ohio; and the area of Ashland, Kentucky-Ironton, Ohio-Huntington, West Virginia. In the Ohio Valley areas, technical investigations of interstate air pollution were begun several months ago. A short-term investigation will be undertaken in the Kansas City area before an abatement conference is held. And in the Idaho-Washington case, we expect to call a conference as soon as we complete our evaluation of available technical data. To sum up our abatement activities. Mr. Chairman, we have responded to two requests from States for abatement of interstate air pollution, and in six other areas, action has been undertaken on the initiative of Secretary Gardner. To be sure, this represents little more than a start toward dealing with all the instances of interstate air pollution in this country. About 70 large metropolitan areas either cross or about State lines; no one knows for certain how many other areas there are in which people living in small towns are chronically fumigated by isolated air pollution sources located in an adjoining State. To assess the present and possible future need for Federal abatement action, we have begun technical surveillance activities in many interstate areas. For this purpose,

we are using static air monitoring units equipped to provide some basic data on the presence of particulate and sulfur oxide pollution, the occurrence of photochemical smog, and the presence in the air of pollutants that may cause damage to metals, rubber, and textiles. These data will represent only a crude index to the occurrence and seriousness of interstate air pollution problems: follow-up studies will still be needed to permit effective abatement action to be undertaken. We expect to have surveillance units in operation in more than 30 areas in about 20 States by the end of this month. These areas, as well as the eight in which abatement action is underway, are identified on the chart to your right. By the end of the next Fiscal Year, we expect that surveillance activities will be extended to a total of some 70 areas in 40 States.

Under the 1965 amendments to the Clean Air Act, the Federal abatement authority was extended to include international air pollution problems arising from sources in the United States. We are currently examining such problems in the Detroit area and the area of Buffalo and Niagara Falls in New York State. In both instances, pollution from sources in the United States is suspected of affecting adjoining communities in Canada. In cooperation with the Department of State, we are exploring the granting of reciprocal abatement rights from Canada; under the amendments to the Clean Air Act, such rights must be granted before we can undertake abatement action.

To supplement the Federal authority for abatement of air pollution from existing sources, the 1965 amendments to the Clean Air Act authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to investigate and seek to prevent potential new air pollution problems of major significance. Because many serions interstate air pollution problems already exist and require our attention, we have had to give abatement activities priority thus far. We are nevertheless examining, on a continuing basis, situations in which plans for new construction may result in the creation of major new sources of air pollution, particularly where interstate air pollution is likely to occur. In addition, we are keeping in close touch with changes in industrial technology, with a view toward spotting in advance those major technical innovations that may produce substantially new air pollution problems. Our activities in this area must

clearly be continued and accelerated if we are to make real progress toward achieving the objective set by President Johnson more than a year ago when he called for Federal action to prevent pollution before it happens.

In the amendments to the Clean Air Act, major new authority was provided for Federal action to deal with one of the most important single factors in the contemporary air pollution problem-the growing problem of motor vehicle pollution. Ever since the establishment of the Federal air pollution program in 1955, it has become increasingly apparent that motor vehicle pollution would have to be brought under effective control if real progress were to be made toward ridding the air of its burden of contamination. A two-year study undertaken by the Public Health Service under a directive from the Congress fully documented the magnitude and extent of motor vehicle pollution and the serious threat that it poses to public health and welfare. And more recently, in three reports to the Congress under provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has called attention to the present and potential future impact of the Nation's rising use of motor vehicles and to the existence of a technical capability for taking steps toward controlling this major national problem.

Under the new authority for the establishment and enforcement of national standards to control air pollution from new motor vehicles, Secretary Gardner has issued standards which will apply to new gasoline-powered passenger cars and light trucks, including American-made and imported vehicles, beginning with the 1968 model year. This means that, beginning in the fall of next year, such motor vehicles must be equipped to comply with Federal standards for the control of the two predominant sources of motor vehicle emissions-the exhaust tailpipe and the crankcase.

The standards call for significant reductions in tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, as well as 100 per cent control of crankcase emissions. For tailpipe emissions, the standards are couched in terms of allowable concentrations of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in relation to engine size. The allowable concentrations are highest for motor vehicles with engines in the smallest of three size ranges. This reflects the smaller total output of pollution from motor vehicles with small engines. The Federal standards, incidentally, are the first to be established for small cars. In all instances. average emissions projected over a vehicle life of 100,000 miles must not exceed the applicable standards. The major American manufacturers have indicated that they will be able to meet these standards, and we believe that foreign manufacturers will also be able to comply.

The need to control motor vehicle pollution nationally was recognized by the Congress when it adopted the 1965 amendments to the Clean Air Act. In shaping this legislation, the Congress took into account the knowledge that pollution from motor vehicles is a problem that threatens health and injures property and vegetation throughout the country. Appropriate consideration was given also to the fact that motor vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution problems in both large and small communities.

In recent months, our continuing scientific investigation of the motor vehicle pollution problem has provided additional evidence that effective control of motor vehicle pollution will be of direct benefit to people in all parts of the United States, indeed, to anyone who ever drives or rides in a motor vehicle. This additional evidence includes data from several cities showing that carbon monoxide inside the passenger compartment of motor vehicles in heavy traffic often reaches levels several times higher than those usually found or considered acceptable in the ambient air. A laboratory study has suggested that relatively brief exposure to such high levels of carbon monoxide may cause rats to respond inappropriately to environmental stimuli. This study is being pursued in an effort to determine the degree to which humans may be similarly affected and what the implications are for driver and passenger safety. In any case, the data we already have underscore the wisdom of controlling motor vehicle pollution not only in areas where photochemical smog is a chronic problem but wherever motorists are periodically caught in traffic with no choice except to breathe the fumes coming from their own cars and the others around them.

As new cars equipped to comply with the Federal standards replace older, uncontrolled cars, and as the standards are revised in accordance with improvements in control technology and in scientific knowledge of the harmful effects of motor vehicle pollution, we fully expect to see a significant reduction in this important national problem. But we are still a long way from achieving a