October 12, 1972
Page 35388
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and, without objection, the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
S. 3342
On page 90, beginning at line 24, strike out all through line 14 on page 91 and insert, in lieu thereof, the following:
"SEC. 502. (a) (1) Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate rules and regulations, based on criteria published pursuant to section 407 (a) of this Act, to establish levels of cumulative noise exposure in the environment of airports and surrounding areas affected by noise from aircraft which levels shall be adequate to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
"(2) Within 90 days after promulgation of regulations required by paragraph (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate and amend standards for the measurement of levels of cumulative exposure.
(b) Within 270 days after the promulgation of rules and regulations establishing levels of cumulative noise exposure, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall identify and publish in the Federal Register those airports in the vicinity of which he has reason to believe such levels are or may be exceeded, and at any time thereafter the Administrator shall identify and publish in the Federal Register any other airports for which he subsequently receives evidence that levels of cumulative noise exposure are being exceeded.
“(c) (1) Within 90 days after an airport is identified pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall monitor the levels of cumulative noise exposure in the vicinity of the airport, and shall install devices to monitor on a continuing basis the levels of cumulative noise exposure in the vicinity of the airport and shall, periodically, but at least annually, examine the devices to assure accuracy and make a determination of the adequacy of the measures taken to attain and maintain such levels;
"(2) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall make public the data derived from such monitoring, correlated with the levels of cumulative noise exposure established pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
(d) (1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, after consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall develop and publish information on alternatives for reducing noise at airports and in the vicinity of airports, which information shall indicate the maximum degree of noise reduction control which can be achieved with available technology which is consistent with safety. Alternatives considered may include modifications and limitations on the number and frequency of operations, modifications of hours of airport operation, any other adjustments in operation of such airport, and any alternative controls or modifications of the use of land (including use of buildings and facilities, building code changes, etc.) surrounding such airport.
"(2) Where an airport is identified pursuant to these procedures in subsection (b) the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall provide technical assistance to the operator of such airport to develop methods to attain and maintain levels of cumulative noise exposure through implementation of alternatives such as those published in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection.
"(e) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the provisions of this section not to exceed $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $15,000,000 annually for each of the three succeeding fiscal years.
"(f) Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of an airport operator for other than emergencies to limit the number of frequency of operations or modify or limit the hours of airport operations in order to attain or maintain such levels.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate need look no further than the general statement section of the committee report on this bill for the facts which justify a major Government effort to control and reduce noise pollution. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, however, I am sorry to have to say to this body that the legislation which it now considers will not provide the kind of action that those facts demand.
The Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972, S. 3342, was introduced on March 14, 1972 by Senator JOHN V. TUNNEY and myself. That legislation was different than either the House- passed bill, H.R. 11021, or the administration's bill, S. 1016, in purpose and intent. The bill which we introduced was not primarily designed to relieve product manufacturers from the effect of State noise pollution regulatory programs. Nor was it designed primarily to relieve transportation companies, particularly the airlines, from effective noise regulations.
We wanted to establish a means to reduce as rapidly as possible, through the application of available control measures, the exposure of people to noise by reducing noise at its source, by changing the way noisy products are used, by controlling noisy activities, and by such other means that are available.
Our bill was an environmental regulatory measure. We recognized that the regulation of noise would have an impact on commerce, but we also recognized that the purpose of regulation must be the reduction in the volume, intensity, and character of noise to which people are exposed in their daily lives from sources over which they have no control.
As the third annual report of the President's Council on Environmental Quality stated:
It is increasingly difficult for any individual – in urban or rural America – to escape noise. For many city residents, noise may be the single most pervasive environmental pollutant.
The committee report itself notes that noise has–
– A significant impact on more than 80 million Americans ... 40 million Americans risk hearing impairment and other physiological and psychological effects . . . 44 million Americans have the utility of their dwellings adversely affected by noise from aircraft or traffic ... 21 million Americans are similarly affected by construction-related noise.
In the face of these facts, we have no right to adopt any more lenient a policy against noise pollution than we have adopted against air and water pollution. It will not be an easy task, because we will have to give States and localities much more flexibility to impose strict controls in controlling noise within their own jurisdictions than in controlling air and water pollution.
Noise is not subject to easy regulation. Unlike the common air and water pollutants, noise does not accumulate in the environment. Noise is not subject to collective treatment and reduction processes. As a practical matter, then, the best method to reduce noise is to apply stringent emission regulations at the source of the noise, so that products and activity will not present a noise pollution problem alone or in combination with each other.
To a degree, the legislation reported by the committee moves in this direction. Through the establishment of a regulatory mechanism which permits the Administrator to impose noise emission restrictions attainable through the application of the best available technology, the Administrator will be able to press the limits of our capability to reduce noise from new products.
The bill does not however, provide adequate options in those cases in which the best available technology is not adequate to achieve environmentally acceptable levels of noise. It does not protect adequately the authority of States and local government to safeguard the environment in which their citizens live. It does not give States the opportunity to ban the sale of federally regulated products which, in their jurisdictions, still emit unacceptable levels of sound. And at the same time, it does not expedite Federal regulation, thus holding out the hope of a quieter environment with no guarantee of early improvement.
By preempting State authority to restrict sale of noisy products, the bill places the burden on the consumer to take the risk of buying products which cannot be used in the manner intended at the time of purchase. The preemption provision limits State authority to restricting the manner of use of noisy products regulated by the Federal Government.
The Committee on Public Works is not unfamiliar with the problem of preemption. The Air Quality Act of 1967, which I sponsored, provided for Federal preemption of the authority to regulate air pollution emissions from new automobiles, except in California. That policy may have had an effect opposite of that which was intended. It appears that the preemption provision of that act did not cause the auto companies to focus their research efforts and investments on one set of national standards. Rather, the auto companies' efforts have been focused on undermining those national standards.
Again in 1970, preemption was discussed in relation to regulation of air pollution emissions from aircraft. The Congress decided on a preemption provision effective on enactment and set deadlines for standards to be developed.
Section 231 (a) of the Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency must begin an investigation of air pollution from aircraft within 90 days of date of enactment. Within 180 days after commencing that investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to report on the investigation and propose emission standards for any class of aircraft or aircraft engines which contributes to air pollution which endangers public health and welfare. Ninety days thereafter – 1 year after enactment – EPA was to issue final regulations. The proposed standards were due over 1 year ago, September 27, 1971. Today, no report or proposed standards have been published.
This is a classic example of Federal preemption leading to Federal failure to protect public health. The Federal Aviation Administration has undoubtedly discouraged active efforts by the Administrator. And the efforts that the Environmental Protection Agency has made have run aground in the Office of Management and Budget.
Therefore, when the committee considered the pending legislation, I expressed reservations regarding a broad preemption provision for product and aircraft emission standards. The States have moved actively in this field. Federal noise pollution responsibility is new and little significant authority or responsibility exists, but a number of States have regulatory programs which impose emission controls on noisy products which are enforceable both at the point of sale and at the point of use.
I cannot support Federal preemption which protects product manufacturers and the air transportation industry without effective regulatory programs which will enhance the quality of the environment. Substituting Federal law for State law with even less assurance that public health will be protected is poor public policy.
My second major concern with the legislation reported from the committee deals with the problem of aircraft noise and regulatory mechanism recommended to cope with that problem.
To date, the regulation of aircraft noise pollution has been the sole responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration has had this responsibility since its inception. It has had a specific legislative mandate for the past 4 years. And its record is wholly inadequate.
I understand why the Federal Aviation Administration's response has been inadequate. The FAA's primary mission is not to reduce the environmental impact caused by aircraft noise. Its mission is to promote air commerce and to protect safety. Regulation of noise from aircraft is not consistent with that primary mission.
In the proposed rule-making in January 1969, FAA set forth a "noise floor" at 80 EPNdB as "an objective to aim for, and to achieve where economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate to the particular design" and went on:
However, this objective is important because it makes it clear to all applicants that no increment of noise above 80 EPNdB can be considered acceptable, in and of itself, where it can be eliminated practically and reasonably. This figure is proposed as a reasonable boundary between noise levels that are high enough to interfere with communications and to obstruct normal life in homes or other buildings that are not designed with specific acoustical objectives, and lower noise "levels" which, while not completely benign, nevertheless allow those activities to proceed.
Where this goal can be reached in a given case, and can be justified as economically reasonable, technologically practical, and appropriate to the particular type design, the FAA does not intend to ignore this potential reduction.
Yet after industry pressure, the FAA dropped this 80 EPNdB "objective" from the promulgated regulations stating:
The FAA has determined that the request to remove the noise "floor" of 80 EPNdB from the regulatory language is reasonable and should be granted. This noise floor, not being currently achievable, could have no immediate legal effect.
The attitude of the Federal Aviation Administration as regards regulation of aircraft noise was more clearly spelled out in the following excerpt from a draft report on noise pollution prepared by the Environment Protection Agency:
Both directly and by unmistakable inference, a number of important conclusions arise from the information gathered on Federal noise control programs.
Most plainly, the control of unwanted sound is not a high priority issue for virtually any Federal agency or department. Only when an Agency's primary mission absolutely requires a commitment of time, manpower and funding to noise control to assure the smooth functioning of that primary mission (as with for instance, FAA and NASA) is even a modest venture into noise suppression undertaken. For the FAA, aircraft noise is only an annoying interference in the basic goal of the Agency: the most efficient, safest and swiftest air travel possible.
While this statement was deleted from the final report transmitted to the Congress, it is indicative of FAA's attitude toward noise from aircraft. Unfortunately, the bill, as reported, would continue the dominance of the FAA. Not only would FAA have veto over safety of noise reduction technology, but neither could EPA make any judgment as to the availability of technology or the cost of achieving noise reductions without FAA approval.
Continuation of the Federal Aviation Administration in a role of determining the degree to which noise emissions from aircraft will be reduced is not justified in the record. While the committee bill takes steps to establish the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as the determinator of those levels of aircraft noise required to protect public health and welfare, EPA will have little authority to enforce standards to meet those requirements.
Members of the committee, including myself, recognized that aircraft were unique because of the safety requirements and the interrelationship of safety to the engine system. Therefore, I agreed with the committee's judgment and supported the amendments of Senator COOPER and Senator STAFFORD which would retain the Federal Aviation Administration lead role in making any final determination as to whether or not any technology available to achieve noise emission levels would also be consistent with the highest standards of safety.
The assumption that technology might not be available to meet noise emission goals combined with the assumption that technology could be vetoed because of FAA safety judgment, lead to the conclusion that there must be a mechanism to assure maximum pressure to develop safe technology while at the same time reduce the impact of noise in the environments of impacted airports.
The committee considered and rejected a provision that would have required achievement of health and welfare protection of noise levels in airport environments, whether or not specific aircraft engine emission control technology was available. Without an action-forcing mechanism such as enforceable "cumulative noise exposure levels," neither FAA nor the airlines would have any incentive to press technology and achieve the goals EPA would be authorized to establish. A combination of cumulative noise levels and emission standards would create that pressure.
Obviously if technology exists to achieve the levels of noise emission reduction to protect public health, achievement of emission standards would reduce any economic burdens on the airline industry caused by controls imposed to achieve cumulative noise levels. And such local environmental noise requirements would require a reduction in the number and frequency of flights if technology did not exist.
The committee considered and rejected a provision which would have required the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to identify any airports in the country with aircraft noise problems of a magnitude to cause a violation of cumulative noise exposure levels. The proposal defined "cumulative noise exposure levels" as those levels of noise in the environments of airports associated with aircraft operations which were adversely affecting the health and welfare of people around airports.
Most importantly, this provision would have imposed a positive burden upon the operator of the airport to exercise responsibility to regulate the number, the frequency and the hours of flight or to impose land use and other controls so as to eliminate noise as an environmental problem in the area of that airport. And the airport operator's duty and responsibility to carry out such responsibilities would be established by statute.
This concept is not unique. In 1970, the Congress enacted legislation which requires development of a clean car by 1975. That law recognized that reliance on technology alone would not result in elimination of auto-related pollution as a health hazard until existing vehicles were off the road – perhaps mid-1985 or later. Therefore, the bill established a procedure to regulate the use of automobiles in areas in which automobile-related air pollution was unacceptably high to assure that public health would be protected at an early date – in this instance, 1975-76.
The combination of emission reduction technology and air quality implementation plans has been a useful mechanism both to improve air quality and to apply pressure on local governments to seek alternatives to reliance on motor vehicles. Also this mechanism will apply pressure to the auto industry to develop clean cars if they wish to preserve existing markets.
This mechanism can and should be applied to aircraft-related noise problems. It recognizes the limitations of technology, while providing a means to protect the health and welfare of those seven and a quarter million people who live in airport environments and who are adversely affected by aircraft noise. To do anything less in this legislation is to fail to meet responsibly the demands of the American public for a safe, healthful and peaceful environment.
Without a provision of this type, I believe the bill to be inadequate. Without a provision of this type, the bill does not address in a meaningful way the real problem faced by people who are confronted now with unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. The reported bill would force these people to wait for emission control technology to be developed and applied to new and existing aircraft, or on the courts to impose sufficient penalties or damage claims against the airlines and the airport operators for creating g a public nuisance before relief will be achieved. To turn over to the courts the responsibility of making ad hoc decisions to solve environmental noise problems is equally unacceptable. I think it is inadequate to rely on claims for damages, penalties against the airlines, and injunctions as a substitute for positive regulatory programs.
Mr. President, I think it is inadequate to enact a Federal law which ignores the most basic and most significant problem of noise as perceived by people.
These are the major flaws in this legislation as I see it, Mr. President. Even as our environment becomes noisier and noisier, as the physiological, psychological, and property costs of that noise rise higher and higher, and as we develop more and more techniques for reducing that noise, we are not responding adequately to our task.
We must protect the public health. The amendments which I and other Senators will propose will not create unreasonable restrictions on potential sources of noise, and they will give this legislation the quality of effective environmental regulation. They will improve our ability to protect the health and welfare of the people of our land. I urge that the Senate support these vital improvements.
Mr. President, the two amendments I offer today would get at these points I have just raised. The amendment just reported is designed to determine levels of airport noise which affect public health and welfare and to establish procedures to identify and monitor activities at airports where levels of excessive environmental noise exist. In recent years the primary impetus to develop Federal noise controls has been citizen concern with excessive noise levels in the vicinity of airports. Excessive airport noise may be reduced someday, in part, by controls on aircraft and aircraft engines which are dealt with in other sections of this bill.
But simply modifying aircraft and aircraft engines will not alone solve what has become known as the airport noise problem – at least not soon enough to help 7 million citizens who face unacceptable noise levels every day of their lives.
To solve the airport noise problem, other programs integrated with aircraft controls are necessary. Effective programs will include curfews, controls over operation or aircraft at and around airports, limitations on the number of airport operations per hours, land use, zoning, building construction and ground transportation system regulations in the airport and its vicinity, and other noise-related control efforts.
These controls are immediately more important than aircraft engine controls if airport noise problems are to be reduced. But nowhere in the legislation before us is a mechanism established to determine specific levels of airport noise which will protect public health and welfare, to monitor noise levels around airports to give advice to airport operators on various approaches they can take to deal with the other aspects of airport noise problems, or to provide technical assistance to airport operators which they may need in implementing such controls. Nor does the bill assure airport operators that interim measures can be taken locally to reduce airport noise and thus the myriad of damage actions pending and anticipated.
All that S. 3342 does, in section 502, is call for a study of these matters. This is not enough.
Today we are told we are enacting legislation to deal with the aircraft noise problem, not to study those problems but to have a real commitment of Federal action. If that is so, then we must include a real Federal commitment to act against airport noise.
The amendment I propose will require that within180 days after enactment of this act, EPA publish regulations establishing levels of cumulative noise exposure for airports and surrounding areas which are adequate to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
Ninety days after publication of these regulations, EPA will be required to publish standards for measurements of levels of cumulative noise exposure.
Within 9 months after measurement regulations are published – about 18 months after enactment of the law – EPA would be required to identify those airports in the vicinity of which unacceptable levels of cumulative noise exposure exist. EPA would be required to install at those airports devices to monitor, on a continuing basis, levels of noise exposure and make available to the public data which resulted from EPA monitoring activities. This process would establish a single uniform basis for examining cumulative noise levels and determining just what airport noise levels and what airport activities result in levels of noise harmful to public health or welfare.
To aid the airports in reducing levels of cumulative noise exposure, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, whom we all agree has the greatest experience in airport operations and safety, is directed to develop and publish guidelines with suggested alternatives for reducing airport noise and to provide technical assistance to airports in solving their noise problems.
Finally, my amendment would establish a clear, statutory recognition of the duty and responsibility of airport operators to take necessary action to reduce airport noise as determined necessary to prevent damage actions and protect health and welfare. I am particularly concerned that this legislation clarify the role of the FAA in working with airports to solve their airport noise problems. Recently, the FAA has taken the position that airports cannot restrict aircraft operations in order to reduce noise. Thus, under FAA interpretation, aircraft operators must bear the burden of noise damage suits without authority to solve local problems and defend themselves against such suits.
I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the RECORD at this point a complaint filed by the FAA against the town of Morristown, N.J., charging Morristown had violated Federal law and grant agreements by restricting aircraft operations because of noise.
There being no objection, the complaint was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[In the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey)
United States Against Morristown, N.J. (United States of America, plaintiff, v the town of Morristown, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey; the Morristown Airport Commission; the township of Hanover, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey; the township of Morris, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey; the borough of Florham Park, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey; A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Kenney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John E. Flaherty, Norman S. Weinberger, all residents of Morris County, State of New Jersey; defendants.)
COMPLAINT
The United States, by the undersigned attorneys complaining of defendants, hereby alleges as follows:
1. This court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345, § 1331 and § 1337. The action arises under the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. The value of the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000.
2. Plaintiff is the United States of America. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an agency of the United States.
3. The defendants, Town of Morristown, Township of Hanover, Township of Morris and Borough of Florham Park are municipal corporations in the State of New Jersey. The Town of Morristown and the Morristown Airport Commission are the defendants in a suit styled Township of Hanover, et al. v. Town of Morristown, et al., Docket No. C3172-68, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County (108 N.J. Super. 461, Ch. Div.) in which judgment of Judge Joseph H. Stamler was entered on 23 March 1970. The Township of Hanover, Township of Morris, Borough of Florham Park, A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Kenney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger, are the plaintiffs in said suit. The individual defendants are residents of the County of Morris, State of New Jersey within this judicial district.
4. The Town of Morristown is the owner of Morristown Municipal Airport, a public airport located in Morristown, New Jersey. Operational control of the airport is in the Morristown Airport Commission which reports directly to the Mayor and the Board of Alderman of Morristown.
5. Aircraft operations to and from Morristown Municipal Airport include operations which are in interstate commerce.
6. On 24 June 1969, the Town of Morristown entered into a written agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of the United States, for a federal-aid airport project designated as Project No. 928-007-0904, under which the United States agreed to participate to the extent of $1,259,818.00 in the cost of certain airport development at Morristown Municipal Airport. The airport development in the project consists of:
Land acquisition, consisting of Parcels 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42; resurface and mark existing Runway 5-23 (4000' x 150') and two connecting taxiways; extend, light (H.I.) and mark Runway 5-23 (2000' x 150') to 6000'; construct, mark, and light taxiway parallel to Runway 5-23 (4300' x 60') from Runway 12-30 to north end of Runway 5-28, with associated drainage; install taxiway guidance signs.
7. The FAA approval of the project was consistent with the current National Airport Plan compiled pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1102 which recognized the need for the extension of runway 5-23 and the other development to accommodate the aeronautical needs of the users of the airport.
8. Under the terms of the aforesaid grant agreement, the Town of Morristown agreed to operate Morristown Municipal Airport for the use and benefit of the public and agreed it would keep the airport open to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautic use without discrimination between such types, kinds and classes. The Town of Morristown further agreed that it would operate and maintain in a safe and serviceable condition the airport and all facilities thereon connected therewith which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport and that it would not permit any activity thereon which would interfere with its use for airport purposes.
9. The extension of runway 5-23 included in Project No. 9-23-007-0904 has been satisfactorily completed; the other development in the project is substantially complete.
10. On or about July 24. 1969, the defendants herein, the Township of Hanover, Township of Morris, Borough of Florham Park, A. Stewart Dunford, John E. Flahety and Norman S. Weinberger filed a complaint against the defendants, the Town of Morristown and the Morristown Airport Commission, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. Morris County, Docket No. C 3172-68 and, after trial, the court rendered its opinion which is reported in 108 N.J. Super 461 (Ch. Div. 1969). On March 23, 1970, a judgment was entered (Exhibit A) which among other things, (1) provides under paragraph C thereof, that runway 5-23 shall be used as the preferential runway by all jet aircraft landing at and taking off from Morristown Municipal Airport except when the crosswind component on runway 5-23 is in excess of twenty knots and under certain other specified exceptions; and (2) under paragraph I thereof, prohibits jet aircraft take-offs from and landings at the airport each day between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 am. and on Sundays, except during the hours of 1:00 until 3:00 p.m.
11. As a result of the aforesaid judgment, the defendants, Town of Morristown and Morristown Airport Commission, have closed the airport to take-offs and landings by jet aircraft during the hours prescribed in the judgment of Judge Stamler.
12. Prior to the imposition of the restrictions aforesaid, jet aircraft engaged in interstate commerce had used Morristown Municipal Airport for landings and take-offs during the weekdays between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and on Sundays during the hours from 3:01 p.m. to 12:59 p.m.
13. Effective November 9, 1970, in accordance with its authority under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1348(c) and 1431), the Federal Aviation Administration implemented a Noise Abatement Runway System at Morristown Municipal Airport, the standards and conditions of which differ from and conflict with those imposed by Judge Stamler in paragraph C of his Judgment (Exhibit A).
14. The Federal Aviation Administration has either disbursed or put under grant agreement the sum of $1,938,272.00 for participation in the development of Morristown Municipal Airport under authority of the Federal Airport Act (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) The FAA has also allocated an additional sum of $1,032,451.00 for further participation in the development of Morristown Municipal Airport under authority of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), successor to the Federal Airport Act.
15. The defendants, Township of Hanover, Township of Morris, Borough of Florham Park. A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Kenney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger, by commencing and continuing to maintain Civil Action No. C 3173-68 in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Morris County, New Jersey, have caused and continued to cause the defendant, the Town of Morristown to breach and fail to fulfill its obligations and agreement to and with the United States under the grant agreement.
16. The defendants, Township of Hanover, Township of Morris, Borough of Florham Park. A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Kenney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger, by commencing and continuing to maintain Civil Action No. C 3172-68 in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Morris County, New Jersey, have caused and continue to cause jet air traffic in interstate commerce to cease using navigable airspace during certain hours for landings and take-offs at Morristown Municipal Airport; and would purport to control the use of navigable airspace further by restricting the use of the runways under certain wind conditions and criteria which are in conflict with those implemented by the Federal Aviation Administration. The aforesaid defendants are without power to regulate, control or disrupt in any manner the use of navigable airspace.
17. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays:
A. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Town of Morristown from failing to perform its obligations and duties under the grant agreement with the United States;
B. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, Township of Hanover, Township of Morris, Borough of Florham Park, A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Kenney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger from interfering with compliance by the Town of Morristown with its obligations and duties under its agreement with the United States by continued maintenance of the suit styled Township of Hanover, et al. v. Town of Morristown, et al., Docket No. C 3172-68, Superior Court, Chancery Division, Morris County, New Jersey or in any other manner.
C. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, Township of Hanover, Township of Morris, Borough of Florham Park, A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Kenney, Martin B.,Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John E. Flaherty and Norman E. Weinberger from interfering with the use by jet aircraft of navigable airspace for landing at and taking off from Morristown Municipal Airport by continued maintenance of the suit styled Township of Hanover, et al. v. Town of Morristown, et al., Docket No. C 3172-68, Superior, Court, Chancery Division Morris County New Jersey or in any other manner.
D. For an order compelling all defendants herein to file a joint motion in the case styled Township of Hanover, et al., v. Town of Morristown, et al., Docket No. C 3172-68, Superior Court, Chancery Division, Morris County, New Jersey, demanding the Superior Court, New Jersey modify the judgment of Judge Stamler by deleting therefrom the restrictions imposed against the landings and take-offs of jet aircraft under paragraphs C and I and further order all parties to waive the 20 day notice provided in the judgment of Judge Stamler and demanding expedited consideration of the joint motion to vacate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the judgment of the lower court in this matter be included in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the judgment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, Docket No. C 317268]
(Township of Hanover &c., et al, Plaintiffs; vs. town of Morristown &c., et al; Defendants)
JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court in the presence of counsel, Harry L. Sears, Esquire and John M. Mills, Esquire appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Edward F. Broderick, Jr., Esquire appearing on behalf of the defendants, and the Court having heard the representations of counsel and various technical consultants retained by the parties herein, and good cause being shown,
It is on the 23rd day of March, 1970, ordered that judgment be entered in this case as follows:
A. The Court having determined that the extension and resurfacing of Runway 5-23 at the Morristown Airport will create an additional measure of safety and will produce some attenuation of noise in take-offs and landings, the extension of Runway 5-23 and the increase of weight bearing capacity of both runways will be permitted;
B. Having determined that the remaining phases of the General Airport and Layout Plans provide additional measures of safety and noise attenuation, the other provisions of the General Airport Plan and Layout including taxi-ways, I.L.S. System, lighting, et seq. will be permitted;
C. Having determined from the evidence that the wind rose patterns at the Morristown Airport indicate that the prevailing winds favor the utilization of Runway 5-23 approximately ninety percent of the time, it is directed that after the completion of the extension of said runway, that the preferential runway at Morristown shall be 5-23. This runway shall be utilized as the preferential one by all jet aircraft landing and taking off at Morristown, except as follows:
(1) When the cross wind component on 5-23 is found to be in excess of twenty (20) knots;
(2) When an emergency landing or takeoff situation exists;
(3) When the use of Runway 12-30 shall be requested and or directed, by the Airport Tower personnel in the interests of flight safety. Furthermore, such preferential runway program when initiated, shall be under the direction and guidance of F.A.A. control tower personnel and enforced by the management of Morristown Airport;
D. The noise abatement procedures promulgated by the management of Morristown Airport from time to time shall be enforced by the management of the Airport and copies of any changes in the established noise abatement procedures shall be mailed within a reasonable period of time to the municipal clerks of those municipalities that immediately abut the Airport premises;
E. So that residents in the vicinity of the Airport may assert complaints based on detailed information, the management of the Morristown Airport will arrange to obtain information regarding movements at the Airport which are recorded on tapes at the airport tower, which tapes transcribe data received by the tower personnel of the aircraft in traffic patterns, as well as from
ground control, and which tapes are kept for a period of fifteen (15) days and contain information regarding each take-off, landing, aircraft, number, runway used, wind direction and force, altimeter setting, time of take-off or landing. The Airport Manager will monitor these tapes upon a request from a complainant and shall make available to any complainant any information so recorded which is needed to assist the complainant in the making of the complaint. Additionally, the airport management will keep records of the movements of itinerant aircraft at the Airport in order to assist any person seeking to make a complaint in obtaining any necessary information.
Additionally, the airport telephone will arrange to provide for a telephone service to be installed at the Airport to record the incoming calls of any complainants who wish to call the Airport after hours or who are otherwise desirous of calling the Airport after hours or who are otherwise desirous of calling the complaint number in response to a listing in the local telephone directories. The airport management will follow up in response to said complaints and establish procedures for the mailing of data forms to all persons seeking to make a complaint. Upon receipt of these written complaints and the data forms requested, records shall be maintained at the Management or Operations Office of the Airport for public inspection during business hours of all complaints received, and such records shall note the action taken thereon by the airport management or the F.A.A. or both, as the case may require.
G. There shall be required at the Airport noise suppression devices and noise attenuation equipment or engine "test calls" which are to be installed and used for jet engine maintenance and testing and run-up.
H. Portable shields or sound baffling devices similar to those described in the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties shall be used at such places and locations on the airport premises as in the opinion of the management they will best reduce hazards to safety and will be most effective, subject however to the requirements of the F.A.A. as to proper clearance at the end of each runway.
I. Oral argument having been heard from counsel and a proffer of proof having been made by counsel for defendants on the subject of restricting jet aircraft at Morristown Airport during certain hours and good cause being shown therefore, the Court directs that jet aircraft will be prohibited from take-offs or landings each day between the hours of 9:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. and on Sundays, except during the hours of.1:00 P.M. until 3:00 P.M., unless an emergency exists, or the interests of flight safety require the utilization of the airport under the guidance and direction of the F.A.A. tower personnel.
J. The provisions of Paragraph C herein shall be implemented upon the completion of the Runway (5-23) extension and improvements referred to in Paragraphs A and B herein, as shall the procedures with reference to noise abatement outlined in Paragraph D herein. Additionally, the Airport management shall have installed portable shields and sound baffling devices contemplated in Paragraph H herein by such time as the improvements and the runway extension have been completed. All other requirements of this Judgment shall become effective immediately upon the filing thereof.
The Court expressly retains jurisdiction of all issues herein. Although binding on all parties, and except as to Paragraphs A and B herein, this Judgment is experimental in nature. Subsequent to the entry of Judgment herein, either party or parties effected by the entry of said Judgment may, upon twenty days notice to the parties of record, move before this Court for a change in, a modification of, or relief from any of the provisions of Paragraphs C through I, and the Court in the exercise of its discretion, shall permit the taking of testimony or additional evidence related to the implementation of this Judgment, as it may effect, now or in the future, the legitimate interests of the parties.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, that judgment requires the airport to undertake certain procedures for handling complaints and orders the adoption of certain noise abatement procedures.
If it is, indeed a position of the FAA, as indicated in its complaint, that airports should not be allowed to control aircraft operations to reduce noise, then it is essential that the FAA assist those airports to reduce their noise exposure to levels which are not harmful to the public health. Either Federal law must provide a clear method for airport operators to solve their problems, or the Federal Government must be held liable for damage action brought against those airports.
May I review the provisions of this amendment: First, the EPA would set levels of cumulative noise exposure which are unhealthy in terms of public health and welfare; secondly, it would set standards for measuring those noise levels; third, it would identify those airports in the country which exceed those levels.
That is the extent of the authority of EPA under this amendment.
Then FAA, the agency which the opponents of this amendment I take it, argue is the agency which ought to control aircraft operations, is charged under this amendment with the responsibility of issuing guidelines to airport operators and providing technical assistance so that they may safely meet their environmental responsibilities of controlling noise levels. I think FAA has that responsibility. But it is the aircraft operators themselves, who are subject to damage suits. Many of them are now in court for this purpose, because they violate public health and welfare levels of noise emissions.
I think this is a minimal kind of mechanism to deal with this problem. The study provided in the bill is not sufficient. It mandates nothing.
This amendment proposal gives FAA the authority necessary to establish health and welfare standards. It gives FAA power to veto it, in effect, as well as the responsibility to issue guidelines to meet those standards.
I reserve the remainder of my time on the amendment.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I must oppose this amendment, on behalf of myself and the committee. The committee took this matter up at quite some length
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President; will the Senator yield for a moment so I may make a request to have certain staff members on the floor?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Gallagher of Senator TUNNEY's staff, and Len Bickwit, and Lee Tyner, of Senator HART'S staff, may be permitted on the floor during the debate on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I was saying that I shall have to oppose this amendment. This matter was considered at great length in the committee, and I personally spent a great deal of time on it. I wanted to see something done in this area. It seemed to me that, if we were going to have a noise bill, we really should try to develop a scheme whereby we can control cumulative noise levels around airports.
The bill went through a number of prints in which we tried to revise the language so as to meet the health need but also to various objections. As we got deeper and deeper into it in the markup session, we realized that we just did not have adequate data on which to base a rational judgment as to the best mechanism to do the job. It was the considered opinion of the committee that, instead of trying to push through a scheme at a very late date, without sufficient evidence as to its precise ramifications, what we should provide is a 1-year study which will certainly keep the heat on and will require the Environmental Protection Agency to come to the Congress and make proposals which I feel are needed if we are going to be able to reduce airport noise.
But there are more than a dozen different systems for monitoring airport noise; and when you are dealing with airport noise, you are dealing not only with aircraft, but with railroads that go past airports, and with highways. National Airport is a good example of what I mean. The question is how do you differentiate between aircraft noise, highway noise, and train noise?
This issue is something which really should be considered in a study, so that the committee has all the facts available to it before it rushes blindly into a regulatory scheme that may or may not be appropriate.
I would like to read from the committee report on this point. It states:
The Committee considered approaches to controlling aircraft noise based on a concept of cumulative noise exposure, involving the level of noise from aircraft to which individuals in the areas surrounding airports are exposed and the effects of such exposure on public health and welfare. While methods other than noise emission standards can be effectively utilized to reduce aircraft noise, the Committee felt that it had insufficient knowledge as to the precise regulatory mechanism for cumulative aircraft noise exposure. Therefore, the Committee included in the bill, in place of any regulatory scheme dealing with community noise around airports, a one year study by the EPA of the implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposures around airports. The results of this study, submitted to the Committees on Public Works and Commerce of the Senate and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House with legislative recommendations, will form the basis for any legislation on aircraft noise in the next Congress.
Also included in this study are the adequacy of FAA flight and operational noise controls, the adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing standards on new and existing aircraft (together with the Environmental Protection Agency's recommendations on the retrofitting and phase-out of existing aircraft), and any additional measures available to airport operators and local governments to control aircraft noise.
In the context of the development of this legislation, inquiries were sent by one member of the committee to manufacturers, airlines trade organizations, government agencies and independent consultants concerning th possibility of mandating retrofit and phase-out requirements. (See appendix for text of letter and replies.)
Tools other than noise emission standards do exist for reducing aircraft noise. It is the intention of the Committee in section 501 (c) of the bill that all existing authority over aircraft or aircraft noise be utilized to reduce that noise, including, among other things the consideration of flight and operation changes such as the two-segment landing approach and the adjustment of take-off, approach and flight paths to impact fewer people, and review of traffic flow with regard to adequacy of load factor.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that in this bill we have done just about all we could at this point in time. I was deeply concerned in the committee, as the debate progressed, that no one really understood what the effect of the mechanism that was put into the bill would be. That mechanism called for a conference to be held at a noise-impacted airport at which the airport operator, the FAA, the CAB, EPA, local authorities, and the interested public would discuss ways of cutting down on airport noise.
At this airport conference various measures to reduce noise, including the adequacy of noise- emission standards for aircraft, and operational and flight procedures, would be taken into consideration. Also considered would be the possibility of scheduling changes, curfews, use of preferential runways, substitution of quieter aircraft, and, finally, as a last resort, controls on land use.
But, as we got into the matter, it became very clear that we just did not have nearly enough information to be able to have this mechanism written into the law with a sufficient anticipation of all the possible consequences. Rather than be accused of legislating in the blind, we decided to have a study by EPA and to have the matter brought up again in Congress when we could have full hearings on this specific point.
In its present form, this amendment has not been considered by the Committee on Public Works. For this reason, I would have to say that, no matter how good this amendment may be or may not be, because of its complex nature and because perhaps no one really understands what it says except the Senator from Maine, it is objectionable, and the Senate ought to reject the amendment
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute or two to agree with the statement that the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from California (Mr: TUNNEY), has just made in regard to the pending amendment.
I am free to say, and I say at the request of our colleague on the committee the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), who is unable to be here at the moment because he is in a conference on the highway bill, that he also supports the committee position. He has asked me to relay that point of view.
It seems to me, as the distinguished Senator from California has said, that this amendment has not been fully considered in committee. We have not had hearings on it and we do not really understand the full significance of it. I do appreciate the objective and the goal of the distinguished Senator from Maine, the chairman of our subcommittee, and I take this opportunity, as always, to compliment him on the outstanding work he has done as chairman of our Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. His contributions are most valuable and immeasurable. However on this issue I find myself in disagreement.
Another point that has not been mentioned, which I do think is important at this time, because it is important to move forward with this noise pollution control legislation, is that I believe if the amendment were adopted at this time, at this late point in the session, it would probably complicate forward movement and complicate the chances of getting this bill enacted at this session, because it would undoubtedly involve committee jurisdictional problems which have not been completely worked out.
Mr. President, I recommend that this amendment be rejected at this time. I think the Senator for yielding.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President; how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. TUNNEY. I would like to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 18 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 5 minutes to cover the points raised by the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think it would be interesting to include, and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point, the provision in the original bill which covered this subject.
I think, second, there ought to be included, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD, the modification of that provision which was developed as the result of the committee hearings and pressed by Senator TUNNEY and myself in the committee.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS
Sec. 3. Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows:
"CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
“Sec. 611. (a) In order to afford present and future relief and provide protection to public health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic boom, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards, rules, and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized by this title. All standards, rules, and regulations prescribed pursuant to this section prior to the date of enactment of the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972 shall remain in effect until amended or revoked by subsequent standards, rules, or regulations prescribed and approved pursuant to this section.
"(b) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall not issue a type certificate under section 603(a) of this Act for any aircraft, or for any aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance that affects significantly the noise or sonic boom characteristics of any aircraft, unless the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall have prescribed standards, rules, and regulations under this section which apply to such aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or appliance, and which protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise or sonic boom consistent with the considerations listed in subsection (d) of this subsection.
"(c)The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, within 6 months of the date of enactment of the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972, shall review all standards, rules, or regulations (or any proposed standard, rule, or regulation) in effect under this section prior to the date of enactment of the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972. If he determines after public hearings, that such standards, rules, or regulations do not protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise or sonic boom consistent with the considerations listed in subsection (d) of this section, he shall within 12 months of the date of enactment of this Act, revise such standard, rule, or regulation.
"(d) (1) In prescribing and amending standards, rules, and regulations under this section, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall–
"(A)consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom and the noise environments of airports, including the results testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act and the Department of Transportation Act;
"(B) consult with such Federal, State, interstate and municipal agencies as he deems appropriate; “(C) consider whether any proposed standard, rule, or regulation is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or air transportation in the public interest;
"(D) consider whether any proposed standard, rule, or regulation is technologically practicable for application to existing types of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to which it will apply;
"(2)Aircraft, aircraft engines, or appliances which are manufactured or sold after date of enactment of the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972 shall meet the standards prescribed pursuant to this section.
"(e) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certificate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards, rules, or regulations applied to aircraft or aircraft engines existing on the date of enactment of the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972 is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same notice and appeal rights as are contained in section 609, except that in any appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify, or revoke, the order of the Secretary of Transportation only if it finds no violation such standards rules, or regulations, and that such amendment, modification, or revocation is consistent with safety in air transportation.”
"SEC. 502. (a) In order to attain and maintain the ambient levels of noise for airport environments and surrounding areas established under section 501(a) (1) of this Act, the operator of any airport where such ambient levels are not presently attained shall develop and adopt a plan for the achievement and maintenance of such ambient levels after public hearings and consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and any affected State or political subdivision thereof. Such plan may consider reductions in noise emissions due to standards applicable to particular types of aircraft, controls on the granting or acceptance of air service, controls on the frequency and scheduling of flights, modifications of hours of airport operation, changes in operational and flight procedures, and land use regulation. The operator of any other airport, or any State or political subdivision thereof affected by aircraft noise, may develop and adopt such a plan with respect to an airport not covered by a plan developed under the first sentence of this subsection.
“(b) (1) Any plan required by subsection (a) of this section, shall be submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Transportation within one hundred and eighty days after the promulgation of regulations establishing ambient levels of noise for airport environments and surrounding areas pursuant to section 501 (a) (1) of this Act.
"(2) Within ninety days after such submission, the Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the Administrator his determination as to the consistency of such plan with air safety and air commerce, together with his recommendation for approval or modification of such plan.
The Administrator shall review such plan to assure attainment of maintenance of such ambient levels of noise established under section 501 (a) (1) of this Act and, in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of Transportation, shall approve or modify such plan within sixty days after such transmittal.
"(c) Where the implementation of an approved plan under this section requires the promulgation or modification of any regulations under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation or the Civil Aeronautics Board, such regulations shall be promulgated or modified within ninety days after the approval of such plan under subsection (b) of this section.
Mr. TUNNEY. Will the Senator permit a correction? It was in print 6, the sixth edition.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator. Let me say, Mr. President, there was much discussion in the committee of this issue about the desirability of having this kind of control at the local level. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter that is in the record of the hearings of the committee from Randall L. Hurlburt, of the city of Inglewood, Calif., addressed to me, dated March 24, 1972, in which he said:
DEAR Mr. MUSKIE: I hope to convince your Committee that:
1. Aircraft noise pollution is excessive, is detrimental to the public welfare, and needs to be reduced.
2. Aircraft noise pollution can be reduced dramatically if the federal government uses its authority to set aircraft and airport noise standards.
The residents of Inglewood send you their quiet prayers. They hope that you understand fully the gravity of the work you are presently doing. Your efforts in controlling noise mean much more than just making life a little more pleasant; they may mean life or death to our city.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA,
Inglewood, Calif.,
March 24, 1972.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
U.S. Senate Public Works Committee,
Washington, D.C.
Subject: Noise Pollution Hearings, San Francisco, California, March 24, 1972
DEAR Mr. MUSKIE: I hope to convince your Committee that:
1. Aircraft noise pollution is excessive, is detrimental to the public welfare, and needs to be reduced.
2. Aircraft noise pollution can be reduced dramatically if the federal government uses its authority to set aircraft and airport noise standards.
The residents of Inglewood send you their quiet prayers. They hope that you understand fully the gravity of the work you are presently doing. Your efforts in controlling noise mean much more than just making life a little more pleasant; they may mean life or death to our city.
Inglewood has 90,000 residents. Most of them live under or near the landing approach corridors to Los Angeles International Airport. Most of the homes were built long before Los Angeles became a major airport. Today the lives and homes of these people are being destroyed by noise.
The Inglewood city government has become deeply involved in protecting its citizens from locally generated sources of noise pollution. We have also strongly supported all measures which promise meaningful relief from aircraft noise.
Just to show the extent of our involvement in the aircraft noise problem, to our knowledge Inglewood is the only city in the world which has an airport noise monitoring system even though it does not own an airport. Our system consists of four permanently located stations on telephone poles under the flight paths and one mobile station which can make sound recordings anywhere in the city. We have invested more than $50,000 in noise measuring equipment. We are determined that noise will not escalate above present levels, and we will make every effort to assure that noise is reduced quickly to acceptable levels.
We feel we have a thorough understanding of the need for aircraft noise reduction and how it can be accomplished. I'd like to share a few of these ideas with you.
As part of a recent federal program which studied the future of Inglewood, a survey was made to ascertain community opinions on important subjects. When asked, "How important to you is finding a solution to the following issue – jet noise control?" 61 % responded that it was of the greatest importance. Twenty percent responded that it was very important. Only the issue of crime control was considered more important with 73% responding that solution to crime control was of greatest importance and 17% responding that it was very important. All other issues had less than 33 % responding "of the greatest importance." It is therefore apparent that the problem of jet noise rivals the problem of crime control as the most important issue facing the future development of Inglewood. More detail on the results of Inglewood's Community Review Program questionnaire is shown in Attachment 1.
Associated with the above-mentioned Community Review Program was a study relating residential land values and vacancy rates to aircraft noise levels. We found that there was a statistically significant correlation between high noise levels and low land values. On the average, land subject to noise levels of less than 80 PndB was valued 50% higher than land subject to noise levels greater than 110 PndB. There was also a statistically significant correlation between high noise levels and high rental property vacancy rates. So noise not only hurts our citizens physically, psychologically, and emotionally, but also economically. Attachment 2 summarizes in somewhat more detail the results of this correlation study.
Knowledge of the harm being caused by noise would be of little value if there were no way to stop it. But there are many steps which can be taken to significantly alleviate jet noise pollution.
The City of Inglewood is taking those steps which are within its authority such as enforcement of our noise ordinance, land use planning, and residential soundproofing. A draft ordinance requiring soundproofing in future residential construction is included as Attachment 3 and is currently under consideration by the Inglewood City Council.
If the federal government would shoulder its share of the responsibility for aircraft noise abatement, the noise environment in Inglewood could improve significantly in the future. Attachment 4 shows the improvement that could be achieved over time: a 75% reduction in noise exposure over the next 15 years. Compatibility between airports and communities could be established by 1985. This could be accomplished through a comprehensive planning approach to noise abatement which would include engine noise reduction, procedural changes for noise abatement, flight schedule reductions, and nighttime curfews designed to increase airline efficiency and decrease total noise pollution. NASA research programs have already shown the feasibility of engine retrofit for noise abatement. A few airlines such as PSA and National have implemented steep approach procedures which reduce landing noise at least 30 PndB. The State of California has adopted airport noise standards which use the comprehensive noise exposure methodology.
The stumbling block to progress has been the FAA. They have consistently denied responsibility for noise in airport environments but will not allow local controls. The authority for elimination of aircraft noise pollution must therefore be given to the Environmental Protection Agency where it belongs.
For the information of the Senate Public Works Committee I have included a copy of the testimony which we presented to the Environmental Protection Agency's hearings on noise control. This report is a very comprehensive review of Inglewood's noise program and the possibilities for noise abatement in the future. It covers other sources of noise besides aircraft noise.
CONCLUSIONS
We feel there is clearly a need for major actions to reduce aircraft noise pollution. The means of accomplishing this reduction are readily available. What is lacking is a commitment by those in authority to make use of available technology to improve the environment for our citizens. The Federal Aviation Agency has been unwilling to accept this responsibility. Therefore, we recommend that the United States Congress place authority for aircraft noise abatement in the Environmental Protection Agency and demand that standards for aircraft noise pollution be established and enforced with the goal of eliminating incompatibility between airports and communities by no later than 1985.
Respectfully yours,
RANDALL L. HURLBURT,
Environmental Standards Supervisor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a 10-point action program for the alleviation of noise pollution in Inglewood, Calif., dated January 1, 1970, which lists an action program which the city of Inglewood has found possible to do, even without the assistance of the Federal Government.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE 10-POINT ACTION PROGRAM FOR THE ALLEVIATION OF NOISE POLLUTION IN INGLEWOOD, CALIF.
THE PROBLEM
The problem of jet noise crosses political boundaries and therefore cannot be solved by any single local community acting alone. A lasting solution can only come from a cooperative effort of the Federal Aviation Administration, the air transport industry, airline unions, aircraft, airframe and engine manufacturers, airport operators, legislators, and citizens. However, a solution must begin with local communities. Local communities, acting together can be the catalyst that brings all other bodies together in a massive attack on the problem of jet aircraft noise, as well as all environmental noise pollutants.
AN ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITIES
Indeed, it now appears that a forceful organization of communities is the only catalyst that can bring the other bodies together in the attack that is essential to protect our society from jet noise pollution.
The City of Inglewood, and other communities throughout this country, have wrestled with the jet noise problem for over ten years. Each community has, for the most part, acted alone. Our success has been less than desirable. There is more jet noise pollution today than ever before and the trend is unmistakably upward. But we feel that our efforts to this date have not been in vain.
We have reached a point where definite progress can now be made. Our experience has given us a "feel" for the magnitude and extent of the problem, as well as for the steps that must be taken to solve it. Also, we are no longer acting alone. The communities most affected by jet noise in this country are beginning to band together.
As this nationwide organizational process continues a program for eliminating jet noise as well as other environmental noise will be planned. All of the efforts exerted by individual communities and organizations to combat jet noise will then be studied and organized into this single national effort. In anticipation of this massive national task the City of Inglewood has condensed ten years of experience and effort into a Ten Point Action Program, which Inglewood is pursuing on a local level. Inglewood feels that many aspects of this Ten Point Action Program will be incorporated in the national effort against jet noise.
The general philosophy of the Inglewood City Council in adopting the Ten Point Inglewood program accepts jet aircraft as desirable, indeed essential, for today's highly complex need for rapid travel. The Inglewood program endorses the expansion of airports to accommodate more and better jet aircraft. The problem, as Inglewood sees it, is noise – not airplanes.
The Inglewood program calls first upon the people of Inglewood to adjust, within reasonable human limitations, to the advent of jet planes. The Inglewood program then calls upon the flying industry, and federal and state regulatory agencies to consider the entire society and not just the traveling public when building, flying, and regulating America's growing fleet of jet planes.
WHAT INGLEWOOD CAN DO
Four of the ten points in the Inglewood program are things the City of Inglewood can and will do to better adjust to jet planes.
Point 1 – Building code revisions and soundproofing
The City Building Code should be revised to require soundproofing of all affected new construction and remodeling.
Schools, public buildings, churches, apartments, and dwellings should be retroactively soundproofed if the sound levels are above the acceptable standards when jet aircraft fly overhead.
Point 2 – Planning and development studies
Inglewood should begin rezoning, master planning and redevelopment studies to determine areas where incentive zoning, property assembly, and alternate land use redevelopment might be useful to assist property owners to enhance their property values under the jet aircraft corridors.
Point 3 – Comprehensive noise ordinance
Inglewood should enact a comprehensive noise ordinance covering all sound in the City, including jet aircraft. Legally the ordinance must complement federal air regulations. It can neither supplant nor conflict with federal regulations.
Enforcement of such an ordinance is estimated to require two fully equipped enforcement trucks, costing about $30,000 each. Annual operating expenses for a technician and helper for each truck will add another $23,000 per year. Eventual operating expenses will approach $125,000 per year for around-the-clock comprehensive anti-noise enforcement.
It should be noted that our noise ordinance is to include all noise, whether emitted from aircraft, air conditioners, compressors, or amplification devices. Aircraft will not be treated differently in any respect and federally certified aircraft flying within approved federal regulation standards cannot, and will not be proscribed within our proposed noise ordinance.
(The above ordinance has been adopted by the Inglewood City Council. In November, 1969, the City employed an Acoustical Engineer to begin defining the specific equipment needed for the enforcement of the ordinance.)
Point 4 – Legal actions
The City Attorney should be given authority to take appropriate legal action on behalf of the City. The first action should be to legally compel the City of Los Angeles Department of Airports to extend the runways to their maximum point westerly and thereby relocate the landing threshold in such a manner as to place landing aircraft at a higher altitude over Inglewood.
The second action series should be to file a claim against the City of Los Angeles for damages on behalf of residents and property owners living in Inglewood within or near the landing corridors.
Next, the City Attorney should be authorized to file and maintain a legal action to establish the legal right of adversely affected residents and property owners to recover monetary damages on the basis of a class action.
(The legal actions proposed above have been instituted by the City of Inglewood.)
WHAT THE FLYING INDUSTRY CAN DO
Inglewood feels that the flying industry can and must do much more than they have done in the past to insure the health and safety of those who live under flight patterns and near airports.
Four points of the Inglewood program are directed specifically at the flying industry. They are:
Point 5 – Runway extensions
All runways at Los Angeles International Airport should be extended to within a minimum distance of the beach highway, and a displacement of the landing threshold an equal distance to the west. A STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) strip should be established to segregate traffic, thereby reducing the need to revise throttle settings on jet approaches.
Point 6 – Approach pattern revision
Inglewood should seek the addition of more sophisticated and modern air traffic control equipment and additional F.A.A. air traffic controllers to man such equipment, thereby permitting a revision in the air traffic procedures on approach to LAX. Planes could then fly over Inglewood using less power. Were no turns made by approaching aircraft inside the outer marker at approximately the Harbor Freeway, power settings could be reduced by stabilizing approaches at a higher altitude, permitting the use of less power on final approach. Further, noise effects would be highly restricted to two relatively narrow corridors over Inglewood approaching the two runway complexes.
This would reduce jet noise to the disappearing point in several areas of the City. Noise directly under the flight path could be reduced by as much as 8 PnDb.
Point 7 – Quieter engines
Inglewood should actively push for the development of quieter and cleaner engines, which can be developed. The City must encourage the air transport industry to recognize the responsibility that goes with mature citizenship and to begin a serious effort to meet these responsibilities by investing as much money and effort into noise suppression as they have in things such as speed.
Point 8 – Glide slope increase
An increase in the glide slope angle to at least 4 degrees is to be sought. With this increased glide slope angle a professional airline captain should be able to descend at a lower setting and still maintain adequate standards of safety and comfort for his passengers. Such approaches were done for a long period during the 1965 Watts riots, and have become known locally as "a Watts approach."
Point 9 – FAA, CAB, and State PUC intervenor
The City should be an intervenor in all Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aeronautics Board, and California Public Utilities Commission proceedings affecting noise. Examples of such proceedings are proposed rules concerning high density terminal areas, airline terminal traffic flow restrictions, engine noise standards, alternate terminal designations, and route hearings.
The City will thus serve notice on all regulatory bodies that airplanes and airports are not merely exotic businesses, aloof from the society that supports them; but rather they are a vital part of the community, which means they must behave like responsible adults.
Point 10 – Support national noise abatement efforts
The City should not only support, but initiate, efforts to form a national organization to combat jet noise and other environment noise pollution. Efforts should be made to contact communities and other groups all over the country who suffer from jet noise pollution. Only by pooling our efforts behind a united front can real and lasting progress be made for society as a whole.
(In October, 1969, Inglewood, in conjunction with S. Hempstead, New York, called a meeting in Washington, D.C., of groups and communities interested in noise abatement. At that meeting was born an organization named NOISE (National Organization to Insure a Sound controlled Environment).
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read some of these points.
Point 5 – runaway extensions; point 6 – approach pattern revision; point 7 – quieter engines; point 8 – glide slope increase; point 9 – FAA, CAB, and State PUC intervenor; point 10 – support national noise abatement efforts.
The city of Inglewood, which has been concerned with noise for some time, has found it possible, within the limited scope of its experience, to suggest practical steps, without further study, to deal with the problem of airport noise.
What I am suggesting in my amendment is that we back up local efforts, efforts that emerge out of experience with noise that communities already find unacceptable from the point of view of health and public welfare. Let us build on that experience in terms of a national policy. The amendment provides that we shall deal initially only with those airports that EPA identifies as areas where there is unacceptable exposure to noise. That is easy to do. Inglewood, I am sure, would qualify by its own experience. There are others that can do so as well.
Of course, there are breakthroughs to be made in all the sciences related to environmental pollution. But as I have learned in the development of air pollution legislation and the development of water pollution legislation, if all you ever require of an agency at the Federal level is that at some point they issue criteria or make a study, you will postpone almost indefinitely any effective action to deal with the problem. That is why we did not move as fast as we should in dealing with air and water pollution.
The standards are not mandated to be implemented instantly. They are simply to establish criteria and standards, to then use such expertise as FAA has – and I am sure FAA has the expertise to do what the Inglewood plan suggests – in a practical way to begin to reduce the noise levels in the beleaguered communities. That is all this amendment asks. It is not anything more than that. It is not a monster. It is not something beyond our reach. It is not something that cannot be done. It is something that would implement practical, already tried – as in Inglewood – attempts to reduce noise levels.
So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield myself 2 minutes, then I will yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I do not think anyone could disagree with the stated objectives of the Muskie amendment. I certainly agree with them. I think they are very good objectives, and I wish it were possible to achieve them overnight. Particularly, the people of Inglewood wish they could be achieved overnight. If we had quieter aircraft engines and if it were possible overnight to retrofit all the airline engines that fly into the Los Angeles International Airport, we would be able to solve the problem for the citizens of Inglewood and the citizens of other cities who live adjacent to airports.
But the problem is this: We have not had the opportunity to study the mechanism to achieve a reduction in airport noise the way we must in order to legislate in this area. As I have indicated, in many airports some of the major airport noise is created as a result of trains running by the airport and highways running by the airport.
Is the Environmental Protection Agency in concert with the FAA alone to regulate the scheduling of trains by the airport and to regulate the buses and cars that go by the airport? Should not other agencies like DOT be involved?
The only reason why I point this out is that it demonstrates to me that this issue has to be studied fully and that we should have hearings on this specific point. It was not adequately covered in the hearings we had on S. 3342. Much as I would like to see the Senator from Maine's objectives achieved tomorrow, I believe it is impossible and it would not be wise legislation.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for yielding to me.
Mr. President, I, too, want to join him in saying that I recognize the problem, the very great problem, to which the Senator from Maine has addressed himself. However, I am completely opposed to the amendment that the Senator from Maine has offered, for many of the same reasons pointed out by the Senator from California.
I may say that an added point that I find very disturbing is that at the last minute, in the closing days of the session, attempts are made to modify legislation or get legislation through without full and adequate consideration.
The Committee on Commerce has jurisdiction over civil aeronautics and matters relating to activities of the FAA. We have held extended hearings in relation to the problem of aircraft noise to find out what can be done, what procedural changes can be made operations-wise, and what actions can be taken to reduce the noise level around airports.
I recognize that people who are living close to an airport and who are most immediately affected feel that this job should have been done yesterday, not tomorrow, and they have a very valid point.
However, I should like to point out, also, that people are still building residential communities right around airports, including Washington National Airport, which is one of the biggest causes of complaint of noise in the area. We see high rises going up and people moving right into an area of great noise, as they did in California, as they built around the Los Angeles Airport and many others around the country. They are unwilling to build away from the airport, and they move in and build and then complain about the noise which is generated.
There are a number of bad features about this amendment, and I will read one at this time:
SEC. 502 (a) (1) Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate rules and regulations, based on criteria published pursuant to section 407 (a) of this Act ...
Mr. President, this is one of the examples I had in mind when I said there is a haste to get legislation through that is very ill-conceived and ill-considered. Why? Because section 407 (a) of the Act, to which that section referred, says that the Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and municipal agencies and other appropriate persons, within 9 months after the date of the enactment of this section, issue noise criteria.
So on the one hand you have the Administrator given 9 months, or 180 days, in which to issue noise criteria, and then in the amendment itself it is said that, within 6 months after the enactment of this act, he has to take action pursuant to that noise criteria. So the noise criteria promulgation still has 3 months to go before it can have been promulgated; yet, action will be required by the EPA Administrator 3 months earlier than the criteria have been published.
That is one of the examples that I say point out the bad features of trying to enact legislation in the closing hours of a session of Congress, on the floor of the Senate, involving such an emotional issue, an issue that has to be given rational consideration.
Mr. President, in our hearings we learned that the engine manufacturers are attempting to do everything they can to try to reduce the noise level of new engines coming onstream, and they are doing a fine job.
As a result, the aircraft coming out now – the 747's, the DC-10's, the Lockheed 1011's – are all very substantially lower in noise emission than the earlier aircraft. But they are the new planes coming on the line. It takes time to build new engines and make them more quiet. Also, it takes another decision, and that is, from an economic standpoint, is it economically feasible for new engines to be built and retrofitted to old aircraft reaching the latter part of their years of useful life? Those are some of the considerations that have to be given study and why I support the Senator from California in his position that the committee bill provide for a study. That is what should be done because we want to achieve the objective of noise reduction. We cannot go at it on a piecemeal basis but we must operate as fast as we can.
One of the criteria from the Long Beach area was the extension of runways. Mr. President, do you know how long it takes to extend a runway? It cannot be done tomorrow, or the next day.
Sometimes it takes a year and a half to make an extension of a runway and put it into operation. It depends on many factors: if the land can be acquired for the right-of-way, and to put houses out of the line for extension. Another point would be, presumably, that we would need less power to get off the ground.
I have traveled a lot by air and I, for one, would be reluctant to take any action to see that the pilot of that airplane not use all the power possible in the airplane to get it off the ground and into the air in as safe a manner as possible. This would be one of the problems.
Another problem, of the nine the Senator mentioned from Long Beach, would be the increase in the glide slope. That is already being done and the FAA is experimenting with that. The plane comes in at a higher altitude and we increase the steepness of the glide slope so that we do not have as much side exposure or underneath exposure to the noise. These are steps which are being taken now.
Thus, I would respectfully submit that the amendment of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) should be defeated. It should be, in all good judgment. The committee provision for a study should be agreed to, so that we can find out what we can do and then get on with the job.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Lawrence Woodworth of the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation be allowed the privilege of the floor for the next hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Nevada in opposing the amendment. He knows what he is talking about so far as airplanes are concerned. He probably has more expertise in this matter than any of us in the Senate, or any one Senator.
This is a problem where we are all agreed on the objective but we have to be practical about some of these things, too. I know that every generation of jet airplanes has been quieter than the previous one, and that the airplane manufacturers are doing everything they can to make the next generation of jets quieter than before. That is being done.
I frankly prefer the House bill on this matter, because it is a little more practical. Moving ahead too swiftly, with the amendment of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), is very ill advised at this time. There has not been any hearings on it. A study should be made, Mr. President, and I will tell you why. We have gone through a good many hearings in the Commerce Committee over the years on this aspect of aviation, and it is pretty hard to find noise experts who agree on much. We had two or three testify. I do not know whether they were self-serving or not, but they said they did not think there were over four or five noise experts in the United States.
This is a problem that is not only highly technical but is a problem that has to be placed in a practical perspective as to how we proceed toward the objective.
The Commerce Committee did not see this amendment until 1 pm. today. That is why the study should go ahead. I also understand it was discussed in the Committee on Public Works and was rejected there.
If carried out to its extreme, it would result in a drastic cutback in air service. I cannot believe that the FAA and the EPA would be unreasonable. I think we have to assume they will act as reasonable people because both have the same objective and we are moving ahead. But on this business of trying for hard and fast drastic rules in limiting the use of airplanes, there has got to be more study to determine if this is wise and practical.
Mr. MUSKIE: Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Washington that I doubt he understands the amendment. He talks about hard, drastic rules. There are no hard, drastic rules in this amendment. It provides for the establishment of criteria with respect to noise levels; it provides for publishing the criteria, and it also provides for giving the FAA the authority to develop the guidelines for implementing the criteria. It provides for the FAA to give technical assistance. There is nothing hard and drastic about it.
But, Mr. President, my objection to this bill is that it would undertake to preempt the authority of State and local governments to deal with this problem and would substitute for State and local action a Federal study.
If we are not prepared to assume the authority to do the job, then my view is, leave it to the States and the communities to continue what they are now struggling to do and not preempt the field and throw a study at them as the Federal answer.
Mr. President, on July 19, 1972, the distinguished Senator from California (Mr. TUNNEY) wrote me a letter on the question of the FAA. Let the Senator from California give us the facts:
I read in part:
For fourteen years the FAA has had authority to control aircraft noise, and regulations have existed for four years. The 1968 FAA regulations require that new aircraft applying for type certification after December 1, 1969, meet a standard of 108 EPN dB. Not only is this standard too weak, but only the new DC-10, L-1011's, Cessna Citations, and about ten percent of the Boeing 747's are subject to it. The Airport Operators Council estimates that by 1975, out of a fleet of 2100 aircraft, only 393, or 18.6 percent will be required to have noise certification.
Improvement in these figures is unlikely since the trend has been to refit rather than retire the existent fleet, as evidence by the new "wide body look" given to the 707 interiors.
It is for this reason, as stated in the Tunney letter to me, why we must have the development of cumulative noise standards in the airport environment.
Mr. President, that is why I offer this amendment.
Let me read another portion of the Tunney letter on the mechanisms of the bill:
The mechanisms for controlling aircraft noise is substantially parallel to other environmental legislation including the Clean Air Act.
The Senator was correct. Continuing reading:
The EPA Administrator would set performance levels for noise reduction in airport environments which must be met in order to protect the public health and welfare. For airports which exceed the target levels, a plan must be developed and submitted by the airport operator which could include controls on the frequency of flights, the hours of airport operation, changes in operational and flight procedures, land use, and other techniques, which the Secretary of Transportation determines to be appropriate and safe to achieve the levels established by EPA.
Mr. President this amendment before us does nothing more than the Senator from California (Mr. TUNNEY) urged on me in his letter of July 19.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
July 19, 1972.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED: On June 8, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution approved S. 3342, the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972. This bill will be considered in full Committee next Thursday, July 27, at 10:00 a.m. While there continue to be several outstanding issues to be decided, I firmly believe this bill offers a comprehensive scheme for environmental protection from noise pollution.
I am writing in advance of the markup session to express my personal interest in the bill, and my strong hope that it will be passed in this session. I hope to contact you personally prior to the markup session to get your reactions to it. Before I do, however, I would like to share my views on the need for the legislation and on the outstanding issues.
The sixth print, a copy of which I attach, is the draft reported out of Subcommittee. It evolved from three days of legislative hearings, the June 8 session, numerous meetings of staff, and additional comments by the Administration, industry and environmental groups. The latest version has again been widely distributed, and I understand that staff is compiling and will circulate comments received. Additionally, I met earlier this month with airport managers and operators, local groups and local officials at three major airports in California, where the noise problem is particularly acute. Their helpful comments, which will also be circulated, were supportive of the need for comprehensive regulation of airport and aircraft noise.
NEED
The effects of excessive noise on health are well documented. In addition to hearing loss – which may include cell damage and be irreversible – there are all sorts of insidious effects to many bodily and psychological functions. The metabolic changes brought about by noise continue to take place during sleep – even when the noise is not loud enough to cause arousal. Most disturbing is evidence that noise can affect the unborn child, causing changes in heart rate and skeletal muscular contractions, and inhibiting weight gain. There is also a statistically significant correlation between high noise levels and low land values – especially, high rental property vacancy rates around airports.
ISSUES
Of all the major sources of noise pollution aircraft noise is by far the most noxious. Using the standard unit of measurement of sound, the decibel, conversational speech will typically be at the level of sixty dB, heavy city traffic at ninety-two dB, and a jet airliner 500 feet overhead at 115 dB. Because the decibel scale is a logarithmic scale, a difference of ten units is actually 100 times as intense. If a factor for the irritation of high frequency sounds is taken into account, aircraft noise measures even higher.
Residents of Inglewood, California were recently asked how important to them it was to find solutions to problems of jet noise, crime, etc. 61% responded that it was the greatest importance to control jet noise, and 20% answered that it was very important. These figures compare with 78% and 17% on the issue of crime, and no figure higher than 33% for any of the other issues.
In Inglewood, therefore, the problem of jet noise rivals the problem of crime control as the most important issue to local residents. These sentiments were echoed in Oakland, Marin County and San Diego.
The extraordinary levels of aircraft noise and their severe impact on the public health have led to repeated and increasing pressure from many sectors for effective control. For fourteen years the FAA has had authority to control aircraft noise, and regulations have existed for four years. The 1968 FAA regulations require that new aircraft applying for type certification after December 1, 1969, meet a standard of 108 EPN dB. Not only is this standard too weak, but only the new DC-10, L-1011's, Cessna Citations, and about ten percent of the Boeing 747's are subject to it.
The Airport Operators Council estimates that by 1975, out of a fleet of 2100 aircraft only 393, or 18.6 percent will be required to have noise certification. Improvement in these figures is unlikely since the trend has been to refit rather than retire the existent fleet, as evidence by the new "wide body look" given to the 707 interiors. It is predicted, further, that the increase in numbers of flights should more than offset noise reductions from new quieter aircraft engines.
THE MECHANISM OF S. 3342
The mechanism for controlling aircraft noise is substantially parallel to other environmental legislation including the Clean Air Act. The EPA Administrator would set performance levels for noise reduction in airport environments which must be met in order to protect the public health and welfare. For airports which exceed the target levels, a plan must be developed and submitted by the airport operator which could include controls on the frequency of flights, the hours of airport operation, changes in operational and flight procedures, land use, and other techniques which the Secretary of Transportation determines to be appropriate and safe to achieve the levels established by EPA.
DOT would have responsibility to ensure that noise emission standards for aircraft are safe and technologically available. It would also review for purposes of safety and effect on commerce any plans submitted by airport operators to implement Federal ambient standards.
Each agency would act consistent with its mandate. As in most other areas of pollution, EPA would be empowered to prescribe standards to protect the public health and welfare. FAA would maintain sole responsibility for aircraft safety and technology, and, in coordination with the CAB, for developing and promoting an air transportation system which meets commercial needs while not degrading environmental quality.
As in other areas, I feel strongly that environmental programs should be implemented by environmental agencies. At the same time we must insist on safety, and, to the maximum extent practicable, avoid disruption of commerce. I think the Subcommittee bill meets these tests and hope you will support early action on effective regulation.
I will contact you personally within the next week to get your reactions to this important issue.
Best regards,
JOHN V. TUNNEY, U.S. Senator.
P.S. – Thanks so much for your personal letter of support for my position at the Subcommittee Exec. session. Leon has been a terrific help and I look forward to seeing you both on Thursday.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do this not to embarrass the Senator from California but to make the point that, of course, it is tough but, as the Senator knows, in the water pollution bill we sent to the President this week, we require of the industry the development of a technology which does not now exist. Because we know as a committee that unless we put this kind of pressure on the industry, we will not get the hardware. When our only means of control is technical, we have to build pressures into the bill to develop the technology. What we propose to do here is to do nothing more than we did in the Clean Air Act of 1970 or the Water Pollution Act of this year.
We propose to set targets and to set standards which will force industry and the technological community to build the hardware necessary to deal with this problem and in the meantime permit the communities – and the FAA has a veto in the field – to take pragmatic approaches to the problem which will enable them to make at least a beginning toward reducing the noise around airports.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, am very pleased that the Senator from Maine read my letter because the essence of that letter is still my position. And the whole letter would be my position if we had committee print No. 6 of S. 3342 before us today.
I wrote my letter based on section 502 of print 6 of the bill which is a far different provision than section 502 of the bill reported. I might say that the pending Muskie amendment is quite different both from print six to which I addressed my letter and from the version of the provision we now have before us.
We had established in print six a mechanism whereby a conference was held at a local airport which included participation by the airport operators, FAA, EPH, and others. The Senator's amendment, as I understand it, does not contain such language.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I will yield in a moment.
For the Senator from Maine to say, much as I respect him and have the strongest regard for him, that he addressed the amendment to my letter is not correct. My letter is addressed to print No. 6, and that is quite different from the bill before us today.
I am not saying that the Senator's amendment might not be a superb amendment. However, in the committee when we were asking tough questions as to how a mechanism to establish cumulative levels of noise should work and we could not secure agreement.
We want a bill that will start to curb the noise around the airports now. We are not willing to wait 2 or 3 years in order to preserve a purist position. We fought to give EPA a lead role in establishing aircraft noise emission levels, and we won in committee.
I am going to fight to protect the language of section 501, which establishes EPA as lead agency in setting noise emission levels. It is good language and should be maintained. But it is quite different to say that I was supportive of Senator MUSKIE's amendment to section 502 when I did not know it existed and did not see it until about 2 hours ago.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from California that if he wishes to offer a substitute for the pending amendment the language contained in print 6 covering the same subject, I would accept it without reservation. I would be happy to accept that as a substitute for this. The language in print 6 is similar to this language. It says:
A plan must be developed and submitted by the airport operator which could include controls on the frequency of flights; the hours of airport operation, changes in operational and flight procedures, land use, and other techniques which the Secretary of Transportation has laid out, and other techniques.
I still insist that those techniques would be implemented in print 6 and the language before us. Second, I read the footnote on that letter of July 19, 1972:
P.S. – Thanks so much for your personal letter of support for my position....
Now the Senator makes an argument that is a little different. He says that the only reason he will not go along with the deletion of the provision is that he wants a bill that starts now, The pending bill does not start now on the problem. It just provides for a study. It does not start now. I am trying to help the bill to enable it to start now. That is the rationale of the amendment.
Mr. President, before I forget it, I ask for the yeas and nays, or perhaps I should suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine does not have enough time under the present rule to suggest the absence of a quorum
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we may have a quorum call with the time taken out of neither side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. TUNNEY, Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would have just one further response to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we have not given up our time. I want the yeas and nays.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, will this time be taken out of our time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be taken out of the time of neither side. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Maine? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I first yield. 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2 minutes..