SEC. 7. (a) All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, contracts, certificates, licenses, and privileges—

(1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to become effective in the exercise of functions which are transferred under this Act, by (A) any agency or office, or part thereof, any functions of which are transferred by this Act, or (B) any court of competent jurisdiction; and

(2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes effect; shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, termintaed, superseded, set aside, or repealed by the Administrator, by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

(b) The provisions of this Act shall not affect any proceedings pending at the time this section takes effect before any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which are transferred by this Act, except that such proceedings, to the extent that they relate to functions so transferred, shall be continued before the Administration. Such proceedings, to the extent they do not relate to functions so transferred, shall be continued before the agency or office, or part thereof, before which they were pending at the time of such transfer. In either case orders shall be issued in such proceedings, appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act had not been enacted, and orders issued in any such proceedings shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or repealed by the Administrator, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)—

(A) the provisions of this Act shall not affect suits commenced prior to the date this section takes effect; and

(B) in all such suits proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and judgments rendered, in the same manner and effect as if this Act had not been enacted.

No suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or against any officer in his official capacity as an officer of any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which are transferred by this Act, shall abate by reason of the enactment of this Act. No cause of action by or against any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which are transferred by this Act, or by or against any officer thereof in his official capacity shall abate by reason of the enactment of this Act. Causes of actions, suits, or other proceedings may be asserted by or against the United States or such official of the Administration as may be appropriate and, in any litigation pending when this section takes effect, the court may at any time, on its own motion or that of any party, enter an order which will give effect to the provisions of this subsection.

(2) If before the date on which this Act takes effect, any agency or office, or officer thereof in his official capacity, is a party to a suit and under this Act

(A) such agency or office, or any part thereof, is transferred to the Administrator; or

(B) any function of such agency, office, or part thereof, or officer is transferred to the Administrator;

then such suit shall be continued by the Administrator (except in the case of a suit not involving functions transferred to the Administrator, in which case the suit shall be continued by the agency, office, or part thereof, or officer which was a party to the suit prior to the effective date of this Act).

(d) With respect to any function transferred by this Act and exercised after the effective date of this Act, reference in any other Federal law to the agency, office, or part thereof, or officer so transferred or functions of which are so transferred shall be deemed to mean the Administration or Administrator, as appropriate, in which such function is vested pursuant to this Act and such other Federal law shall hereafter be administered by such Administration or Administrator to the same extent as such law was administered by such former agency, office, or part thereof, or officer.

(e) This Act shall not have the effect of releasing or extinguishing any criminal prosecution penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred as a result of any function transferred under this Act.

(f) Orders and actions of the Administrator in the exercise of functions transferred under this Act shall be subject to judicial review to the same extent and in the same manner as if such orders and action had been by the agency or office, or part thereof, or officer exercising such functions immediately preceding their

transfer. Any statutory requirements relating to notice hearings, action upon the record, or administrative review that apply to any function transferred by this Act shall apply to the exercise of such function by the Administration.

(g) In the exercise of the functions transferred under this Act, the Administrator shall have the same authority as that vested in the agency or office, or part thereof, exercising such functions immediately preceding their transfer, and his actions in exercising such functions shall have the same force and effect as when exercised by such agency or office, or part thereof.

SEC. 8. (a) This Act, other than this section, shall take effect 90 days after the enactment of this Act, or on such prior date after enactment of this Act as the President shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), any of the officers provided for in subsection (a) or (b) of section 3 of this Act may be appointed in the manner proprovided for in this Act, at any time after the date of enactment of this Act. Such officers shall be compensated from the date they first take office at the rates provided for in this Act. Such compensation and related expenses of their offices shall be paid from funds available for the functions to be transferred to the Administrator pursuant to this Act.

EXHIBIT 5

ANSWERS OF RUSSELL TRAIN TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR EDMUND MUSKIE ON REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3

1. Does the Administration plan to seek legislation to provide EPA with authority to deal with environmental noise? Why weren't these functions transferred from D.O.T. as a part of this plan?

A. The Council on Environmental Quality is now engaged in a study of existing noise control programs and of alternative approaches for the control of all major sources of noise. The outcome of this study probably will result in new legislation being submitted to the Congress.

In light of the Council study and the very embryonic stage of Federal programs dealing with noise, it was decided that it would be preferable to delay any transfer of noise control programs at this time. If a new, more comprehensive approach to noise control is to be taken, such an approach should be submitted to Congress in the form of legislation, rather than trying to anticipate it in a reorganization plan.

The President's message transmitting Reorganization Plans No. 3 and 4 makes quite clear that the Environmental Protection Agency would be a logical location for future noise control programs.

2. Criticism has been directed to the capability of FWQA and NAPCA to monitor water and air quality. These capabilities presently exist in the Geological Survey and Environmenal Science Service Administration. Why weren't these functions transferred to the new agency?

A. No effort was made in the reorganization plan to concentrate all monitoring activities in the new agency. The data from monitoring performed by other agencies will be readily available to EPA, and EPA will have sufficient authority to conduct its own monitoring activities where gaps exist.

Both ESSA and the Geological Survey monitor for a wide range of activities other than pollution control. Less than 10% of ESSA's work is related directly to pollution, and the work of the Geological Survey is more directly related to the water resource development programs than to pollution control. Both agencies perform a wide range of services for a number of different agencies, and EPA will be able to use their services when it considers such use desirable.

3. States and communities have repeatedly charged that Federal pollution grant programs are so fragmented that effective coordination of grant applications, especially water, sewer and waste treatment, is not possible. Why didn't the Administration take this opportunity to consolidate the Farmers Home Administration-HUD-FWQA grant programs in these areas?

A. There are two primary reasons why the Agriculture and HUD water and sewer grants were not included in the new agency. First, these grant programs are quite closely related to the mission of the agencies in which they are currently located. Sewers are just as much a tool for controlling urban development as for controlling water pollution. Agriculture's grants are a vital part of the general support provided to smaller communities.

Second, the administrative difficulties involved in combining the grants are immense. The grant programs are difficult, and in the case of Agriculture, almost impossible to separate from the water and sewer loan programs. The cost-sharing and administrative provisions differ for each of the grant programs, and agreement on common provisions would be very difficult. The Agriculture grants are processed by county committees, and thus Agriculture would probably have to continue to administer the applications process, even if the grants were given by another agency. Agreement on a common Federal share of costs would probably result in more Federal money per grant than is now the case.

The coordination of the water or sewer programs through a common application form is beginning to work well, and the problems referred to in the question are becoming less acute.

4. When water pollution control was transferred to the Department of the Interior from HEW, concern was expressed about the need to maintain a focus upon protection of the public health. I am informed that little if any coordination has existed, in the past four years, between the Bureau of Water Hygiene in the Public Health Service and the Federal Water Quality Administration. Effective coordination might have resulted in earlier identification of the critical problem of mercury contamination.

Who will be providing the health data to EPA? Why wasn't the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences transferred to provide the new administration with an adequate health research base? How do you expect the new administration to anticipate and deal with the health related problems posed by radiation and pesticides which will require immediate attention?

A. The reorganization plan gives EPA its own capability to deal with the health aspects of pollution. The inclusion of such a capability in the new agency was considered essential for its standard-setting function.

The ability of EPA to do health-related research will be provided by the transfer of several units from HEW-the National Air Pollution Control Administration, portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health, the Bureau of Water Hygiene, and those parts of the Food and Drug Administration involved in research and standard-setting for pesticides. In the field of radiation, the new agency will also draw heavily on such expert bodies as the National Commission on Radiation Protection Standards.

The National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences was not transferred because the research conducted by it is quite basic in nature. It generally does not do the type of applied research necessary for setting standards or for taking action on immediate critical problems. Since the NIEHS research is basic, the results will be readily available to EPA. Also, the work of NIEHS is so closely related to that done by the other National Institutes of Health (particularly the Cancer Institute) that it is likely that HEW would have to create a new NIEHS if the existing one were transferred.

5. There has been some concern about portions of existing agencies and their programs not being transferred to the Environmental Protection Administration. What can you tell us, for example, about the environmental health programs and agencies, or portions thereof, which will not be transferred from HEW to the new independent agency?

A. The following environmentally related programs were not transferred from HEW: NIEHS, the Bureau of Occupational Health, the Bureau of Community Environmental Management, and portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health. We have explained above the reasons for not including NIEHS. Occupational health was not considered to be one of the functions of the new agency, which will focus on the general environment, and therefore the Bureau of Occupational Health was not transferred. The programs of the Bureau of Community Environmental Management relates primarily to particular disease problems, such as coal miners' "black lung" (pneumoconiosis) and diseases of Alaska natives, and these were not considered part of EPA's mission. The portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health not transferred relate to occupational health, consumer protection, and control of radiation from medical uses, all of which were considered to be outside the focus of the new agency.

6. The President's message accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 3 says it should result in more efficient operation of the Government. It goes on to say: "It is not practical, however, to itemize or aggregate the exact expenditure reductions which will result from this action." Do you expect expenditures for these already under-funded, under-manned programs to decrease? The Committee on Public Works Staff Study shows 4,926 employees and $1.5 billion are

being used in these programs. What are your estimates of funding and manpower for the new agency during the next three years?

A. The President's statement with respect to expenditure reductions was made only to comply with the requirement of the statute governing reorganizations (P.L. 89–554) which states that the President in his message transmitting a reorganization plan "shall specify . . . the reduction of expenditures (itemized so far as practicable) that it is probable will be brought about by the taking effect of the reorganizations included in the plan."

Funding and manpower for the EPA programs will almost certainly increase over the next few years. It is impossible to tell how large such increases will be, since such decisions cannot be made apart from the total budgetary process and will depend on factors such as international relations and the state of the economy which are not totally predictable at this time.

ANSWERS OF RUSSELL TRAIN TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CHARLES MATHIAS ON REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3

1. The concentration of environmental efforts into one agency would seem to facilitate the United States' ability to enter into international pollution control agreements. Has consideration been given to make more international initiatives in this area?

A. The creation of the Environmental Protection Agency should facilitate efforts by the U.S. to enter into international pollution control agreements. Agreements now exist with Canada and Mexico concerning water pollution, and the Council on Environmental Quality is exploring further avenues for international cooperation.

2. Could you tell us to what extent probable growth in the new agency's operations was taken into account in determining the estimated budget of $1.4 billion for FY 1971? Having viewed the enormous oil spill in Baltimore harbor recently, I wonder if enforcement of the Interior Department's new regulations on oil spills, for example, would require substantial additional funding.

A. The Reorganization Plan itself cannot deal with the question of additional funding. The estimated $1.4 billion represents the budgets already submitted to the Congress for those agencies which will be transferred to EPA. In the future, insofar as additional functions are not included in the annual budget request, they can be included in requests for supplemental appropriations.

3. I understand that new environmental problems have sometimes been created in the process of controlling existing ones. Could you perhaps illustrate this and indicate how the proposed new agency would reduce the likelihood of producing self-defeating remedies?

A. There are numerous examples of new pollution problems being created through the control of existing ones. The burning of sewage sludge in municipal water pollution treatment plants often is a significant source of air pollution. Solid waste disposal practices often create problems of air or water pollution. The new agency would reduce the likelihood of producing self-defeating remedies because it would be responsible for all forms of pollution, and therefore would be able to consider all aspects of proposed pollution control methods.

4. With respect to the proposed transfer of the registration of agricultural chemicals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Environmental Protection Agency, serious concern has been expressed that the new agency, in regarding pesticides as pollutants, may show insufficient appreciation of their value as aids to agricultural production. How do you answer these doubts?

A. The new agency will be responsible for weighing all relevant factors in making regulatory decisions, and the Department of Agriculture will be responsible for advising EPA on the value of particular pesticides for agricultural production. Furthermore, EPA will be bound by the same requirements of due process and the other protections contained in the law regulating registration of pesticides. If the new agency is to maintain its credibility with the Congress and the public it cannot afford to make decisions based solely on environmental considerations.

5. The new agency will be responsible for dispensing financial and technical assistance from the Federal Government to States in developing their own pollution control programs. Is there any provision, such as in the pending consumer protection legislation, or are there any plans for extending the availability 49-935-70-9

of this type assistance to municipal governments and private non-profit organizations?

A. Some of the agencies included in EPA now give financial assistance to local government pollution control agencies. The air pollution program gives both project and support grants to local agencies, and the solid waste program gives demonstration grants to local agencies. Financial support to non-profit organizations in the form of research and development grants and contracts is given by almost all the major programs. Technical assistance takes many forms and is available to both municipal governments and, under some circumstances, to private non-profit organizations.

6. I understand that the reorganization of pollution control would have the advantage for industry that industry would be assured of consistent stanaaras covering the full range of their waste disposal problems. Could you elaborate on this?

A. Standards for industry will continue to be set by media (air pollution, water pollution) but the fact that one agency will be responsible for setting these standards will allow for consistency and coordination. An industry could obtain guidance on the best mix of control methods for its full range of waste disposal problems from one agency at one time. The situation where an industry creates a new form of pollution in the process of controlling existing pollution (for example, creating water pollution by using wet scrubbers to control air pollution) would be much less likely to occur because a single agency would be responsible for considering all aspects of pollution control methods, not just their effect on one particular medium.

7. I wonder if you might give some indication of what additional environmentally-related reorganizations you may later propose, provided the present proposals prove successful?

A. The President in his message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 3 specifically cited the example of future noise control programs being placed under the new agency. No other reorganizations in the environmental area are under consideration at this time.

EXHIBIT 6

STATEMENT OF FRED J. RUSSELL, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WITH REGARD TO REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3, TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before you today to testify in support of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which the President transmitted to the Congress on July 9, 1970. This reorganization plan, prepared in accordance with chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code, provides for establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The President, in his landmark message of February 10, 1970, on the environment, pledged to recommend new and improved administrative measures to meet the environmental crisis. The establishment of EPA will carry out that pledge by consolidating the major Federal pollution control programs. Since you have reviewed the reorganization plan and the accompanying message of the President and have heard the witnesses who have preceded me, I will summarize the content of the reorganization plan briefly at this time, but will not go into great detail.

EPA will bring together Federal pollution control programs which are now administered separately by the Department of the Interior and a number of other Federal agencies and councils. It will be able to conduct a comprehensive campaign to advance environmental quality and to combat pollution in a manner which takes into account the interrelationship among what we have tended to consider as independent environmental problems (air, water, solid waste, radiation, pesticides).

We expect that EPA will make the Federal Government's major pollution control programs fully effective that it will expedite the elimination of pollution in its many forms from Federal activities and activities under Federal licenses or permits-that it will increase the status and consideration accorded to environmental problems and pollution abatement activities within the Federal Government-that it will facilitate more prompt compliance by industrial and other pollutors by providing clear and consistent standards and unified enforcement-that it will encourage state and local governments to increase their em