which preceded it. Mr. R. Dixon Speas, nationally-known aviation consultant of Manhasset, New York, chaired the committee.

The Evaluation Committee representatives observed and recorded the activities at the primary Manhattan V/STOL sites on both days of the exercise; they also observed activities at the staging bases on November 5th and participated in many of the planning meetings which preceded the demonstration.

In the organization of the exercise, one of our principal objectives was to involve as many agencies of government and industry as practicable in order to insure adequate support and, as importantly, to realize the widest possible appreciation of its results. Albert D. O'Connor, Director, Office of Emergency Planning, Region One, served as Chairman of the Central Planning Staff; Herbert Holberg, First Deputy Commissioner, New York City Department of Marine and Aviation, was Vice Chairman. Albert Gallo of the General Services Administration was Chairman of the Communications Task Group. Col. Francis Gerard, Director, New Jersey Department of Aeronautics, chaired the Operations Task Force. The Grand Support Task Force was chaired by New York City Police Commissioner Howard Leary. The development of missions requirements and the establishment of mission priority was the function of the Missions Task Group chaired by George E. Flowers of the Office of Emergency Planning. Each task group was a multi-agency operation in which splendid cooperation was provided by all levels of government as well as by industry. For instance, one of the star performers in the Operation Task Group, who organized the rotary wing operations, was Fred Feldman, the helicopter pilot-traffic observer for WOR in New York.

The headquarters of the operation was at the Communications Control Center of the FAA Eastern Region at Kennedy Airport. Facility Coordinators were stationed at each of the downtown V/STOL facilities: East River Park, South Street, Governor's Island, Pier 26 and Pier 42. Each facility was linked in a radio and telephone set and possessed its own VHF air-ground voice capability. Mobile control towers were installed at each site which consisted of a single strip varying in length from 980 to 1250 feet with a small staging area at one end. Additional smaller facilities were used exclusively for rotary wing operations such as the East River Recreation Pier on 26th Street, Pier 9 and the 30th Street Heliport.

The first fixed wing operation from a New York City pier was a test landing at Daybreak November 5th by R. Hunter Blackwell, Chief Pilot, Helio Aircraft Corp. Immediately, thereafter, the first scheduled operation took place with the Rev. Robert Bryan, the flying missionary from Labrador, who conducted the invocation formally opening the exercise. In both instances Helio Couriers were used. During the following three hours 300 passengers were flown into Pier 26 in the Helio Courier, Helio Stallion, DHC-2 Turbo Beaver, DHC-6 Twin Otter, and the Fairchild Hiller Porter. Meanwhile, Boeing CH-47A Chinooks and New York Airways Vertol 107s were bringing emergency supplies and personnel into various locations about the City. The Sikorsky S-64 Flying Crane brought into Manhattan such external loads as a Red Cross emergency truck; a Salvation Army mobile kitchen, a Police Department Amphibian Duck, an Air Flight Haulage Truck, a mobile telephone company repair van and marine cargo containers. A DHC-5 Buffalo hauled a 200 bed mobile hospital from Albany to Governors Island where it was transferred to a cargo container and brought to the Recreation Pier on 26th Street. The hospital was operational in Manhattan 5 hours after pick up in Albany. Hundreds of Civil Air Patrol and Red Cross personnel were transported in Vertol 107s, Chinooks and Twin Otter to and from various locations in the City simulating emergency staff ingress and hospital evacuation. Emergency generators and pumps were transported in support of simulated Police and Fire Department and Transportation Authority emergencies.

A number of missions provided simulated support of the City's delicate but vital financial services by hauling millions of dollars of emergency funds in and millions of dollars of canceled checks out, of downtown Manhattan. Scheduled airline flights carried emergency supplies into Kennedy Airport from such remote locations as San Juan, Los Angeles, and Chicago. They were met on the Kennedy ramp by Stol and rotary wing aircraft and their cargoes of blood plasma, drugs and emergency supplies were flown directly to the afflicted areas in downtown Manhattan. Special executive airlift was provided by newly certificated Fairchild Hiller 1100s, Bell 47s and Bell 204Bs.

The Committee summarized its evaluations and recommendations as follows: 1. "Metro Air Support '66” achieved its objectives.

2. Ground and flight operations were conducted without incident to aircraft, property or operating personnel.

3. Aircraft operations, passengers transported, and cargo carried were only a small fraction of what could be accomplished, if in fact a real emergency existed.

4. The downtown Manhattan V/STOL sites were satisfactory for use during emergency conditions as simulated.

5. Communications were excellent during the exercise.

6. Air traffic control was effective and efficient.

7. Security (crowd control) under a real emergency condition would require additional measures.

8. Emergency fire and crash equipment and personnel appeared adequate at all sites.

9. The Public Relations and information distribution overall were good. Certain improvements are recommended for future exercises of this nature.

10. The effective liaison between Federal, State and Municipal authorities established before and during this exercise should be developed on a continuing basis. It is strongly recommended that steps be taken to assure preparedness of a group of key personnel who could readily organize an airlift during a real emergency.

11. Public officials should actively investigate the feasibility of establishing permanent downtown V/STOL ports which would be adequate to provide for long term commercial aviation needs of New York City and would thereby serve as vital bases of operation during emergencies.

12. In considering the above, it must be borne in mind that excellent weather conditions prevailed throughout the exercise and that weeks of work in planning and facility preparation preceded the exercise. In establishing a permanent organization, planning measures should cover operation during varied weather conditions and continual review of facility readiness.

Based on the attention given the program nationally and abroad, the longrange effects of "Metro '66" are becoming increasingly evident. It demonstrated the capability of STOL/VTOL aircraft to provide air access and logistic support to a metropolitan center-city area. It brought to the consciousness of municipal planners the need to include specific provision for V/STOL facilities in urban renewal efforts and in land-use planning generally. This is not to say that the place of the V/STOL in future metropolitan America has been insured. While the door is ajar, we must now look to the municipal planner, the transportation consultant, private industry and government at all levels, to exploit fully the technology that has been displayed in order to insure the survival of the Ameri can city in the twentieth century.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO FAA AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING BY MR. BROWN

Q. Is supersonic transport sonic boom danger not so much discomfort of noise but danger of phyiscal damage by noise impact?

A. It is assumed that your question asks whether SST sonic boom danger lies in physical damage to people and their property. Although sonic boom may be annoying to some people, it does not constitute a physical hazard greater than that of a clap of thunder. Extensive testing by the Government and industry of the sonic boom phenomenon over a period of ten years has shown that no damage to structures is probable at the sonic boom levels expected from the SST. A sonic boom passing over a house or building might trigger damage that was on the verge of occurring. However, this same damage also might occur if a door were slammed or a high gust of wind hit the house.

Q. Do USAF (military) planes follow same noise abatement take-off procedure which FAA requires-that is, speed reduction after takeoff up to a certain altitude and which public carrier pilots have claimed is less safe than taking off at full speed?

A. USAF (military) aircraft, when flying in the air traffic control system, are required to follow the same air traffic rules and procedures that other aircraft follow. However, the detailed method of operating the aircraft to which you refer does not fall within the category of air traffic procedures.

Q. What is the procedure for getting a regional or international airport? Does FAA or the local airport initiate action on this?

A. The Civil Aeronautics Board is the Federal agency which has the authority to designate airports through which a community is to receive scheduled airline

service. In this connection the Board has on occasion, after public hearing, directed that service to two or more communities be provided through a single airport and has identified the specific airport in the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to the carrier.

Inasmuch as the Federal Aviation Administration implements a Federal grant-in-aid program for airport development, the Administrator of the FAA joined with the Chairman of the CAB in 1961, and issued a statement of policy with respect to the use and development of air carrier airports. The statement is quoted in part below:

"The Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics Board agree that the use of a single airport serving adjacent communities, where such action may result in a saving both to the Federal Government and the localities served, as well as improving the air service to the area, should be an increasingly important factor in considering applications for Federal funds for airport construction purposes and applications for certificated airline service."

The FAA, through its latest National Airport Plan, has identified those locations with possible regional airport potential, and urges those communities to study the immediate and long-range benefits which might possibly result from regional airport development. It further assists the communities by having published guidance for evaluating the feasibility of establishing such regional airports. The FAA cannot however, compel communities to develop a regional airport.

On the other hand, any two or more communities can voluntarily join together to develop a single airport to serve their respective areas. If scheduled airline service is involved, the CAB must approve service to these communities through the single airport.

The designation of U.S. airports as international airports (airports of entry) is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Customs. (This responsibility is vested under Section 1109 (b) of the Federal Aviation Act which provides, inter alia, that "(t) he Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to . . . designate places in the United States as ports of entry for civil aircraft arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof and for merchandise carried on such aircraft"). Normally, the request for this designation is initiated by the local airport and/or municipal authorities.

Q. When FAA and safety functions of CAB are merged into DOT, will CAB (or rather National Transportation Safety Board) reports which may be critical of FAA safety regulations be made public without prior screening by the Secretary of DOT?

A. Yes. This is the scheme set out in the Department of Transportation Act. Under Section 5 of that Act, the National Transportation Safety Board has the duty to exercise the functions transferred to the Secretary by the Act relating to aircraft accident investigations, including determining the cause or probable case of aircraft accidents, reporting the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to such accidents, and making recommendations to the Secretary or Administrator of FAA which, in its opinion, will tend to prevent similar accidents in the future. Section 5(e) of the Act provides that the Board shall make public all reports it issues regarding the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to accidents, and every recommendation made to the Administrator. Section 5(f) further provides that in the exercise of its functions, powers, and duties, the Board shall be independent of the Secretary and the other offices and officers of the Department.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 9, 1967.)

AGENCY HEARINGS

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We are pleased to have with us today the Securities and Exchange Commission in the series of examinations of the work of the various agencies which administer laws that are within the committee's legislative jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as this Commission is one of the so-called independent agencies, which essentially act as "arms of the Congress" in their administration of the congressional powers which have been delegated to them, we naturally feel very close to it. The powers delegated to such agencies are very broad, and the statutory standards to circumscribe and guide them in the exercise of these powers necessarily are very general. Under these circumstances, it is most important for the Congress regularly to review the work of these agencies, and to consider the problems which they encounter in administering these powers. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been requested to tell us today something about: (1) its jurisdiction; (2) its organization; and (3) some of the problems in the area of its jurisdiction. In addition, it has been asked to review with us some of the fundamental issues and policies underlying the legislation which it administers and to indicate any recommendations it has for legislative change.

These meetings also serve for us to become acquainted with your new members as well as our new members to become versed in your activities.

Chairman Cohen, you may now proceed with your presentation-introducing the members of the Commission and staff, and offering your statement in the manner which you deem best.

STATEMENT OF HON. MANUEL F. COHEN, CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY BYRON D. WOODSIDE, COMMISSIONER; HUGH F. OWENS, COMMISSIONER; HAMER H. BUDGE, COMMISSIONER; FRANCIS M. WHEAT, COMMISSIONER

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We in turn are very pleased to be here. In a very real sense this is our parent committee and traditionally our relationships have been of the closest. Some