December 3, 1979
Page 34412
NOT ALL SENATORS SUPPORT NOISE BILL
HON. GLENN M. ANDERSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, December 3, 1979
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate are now in conference on H.R. 2440. H.R. 2440 is a simple House bill authorizing the expenditure of discretionary funds in fiscal year 1980 under the airport development aid program. The Senate version of H.R. 2440 is a complex and controversial bill aimed at gutting Federal regulations designed to significantly reduce the impact of aircraft noise. The Senate version is an industry bailout of the worst kind. The Senate conferees would have us believe that every reasonable person supports their bill. I know of many reasonable Senators who do not share the views of their conferees. Today, I received a letter from 16 Senators expressing their strong opposition to waiver provisions of H.R. as amended by the Senate. The text of this letter follows:
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
November 28, 1979.
DEAR CONFEREE: We write to lay before you some important facts on three provisions of the Senate version of H.R. 2440, the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, and hope they may be of aid to you in resolving these issues.
In general, FAA regulations provide that all non-complying aircraft operating in the United States must be quieted — through various methods (replacement, re-engining and retrofitting) — in stages to be completed. for two and three engine planes, by January 1, 1983, and for four engine planes by January 1, 1985.
THE TWO AND THREE ENGINE EXEMPTION
First, under the Senate version two and three engine airplanes that come within five decibels of the rules are exempted from the noise reduction requirements. This gives away the noise reduction expected from the FAA limits and also sacrifices the one to three decibels below the FAA limits that implementation of noise reduction technology would bring. We read the experts to agree that a six-to-eight decibel reduction brings perceptible relief.
THE SO-CALLED "NEW TECHNOLOGY" WAIVER
Under the so-called "new technology" waiver of the Senate version of H.R. 2440, four engine fleets are given a mandatory waiver from compliance with the anti-noise rules by merely signing a contract to buy complying aircraft by January 1, 1985 — the present deadline for full compliance. Since normal delivery time is 3½ years, full compliance would not be reached until at least mid-1988, and the interim compliance deadline of January 1, 1983, for one-half the four engine fleet could be ignored.
This delay is unwarranted; necessary technology to build the replacement aircraft is available now. Complying aircraft can be ordered immediately and many carriers have already done so.
Moreover, reengining is a viable option for the older four engine aircraft. (New engines can result in an over 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and an increased plane life of 10 years).
THE SO-CALLED "GOOD CAUSE" WAIVER
The third vitiating provision of the Senate version of H.R. 2440 is the so-called "good cause" waiver. This gives discretionary authority to the Secretary of Transportation to provide a waiver if non-compliance is due to "good cause". But the FAA already has the power to waive any of its regulations if such a waiver is in the "public interest".
Nor is there danger of a slavish adherence to the rules. As FAA Administrator Langhorne Bond stated in testimony before the House Aviation Subcommittee: The regulation includes provisions for granting exemptions when a true hardship might result . . . We are fully aware that narrow sighted insistence on adherence with any regulatory requirement could work against the public interest.
Aircraft noise is not a big city problem alone. Small and medium sized communities with airports will also be adversely affected if the noise rules are not implemented on schedule. 75% of the airports in the country would receive no noise relief if two and three engine aircraft are exempted. In addition, larger airports are more likely to put on additional restrictions on flights such as curfews and limitations on numbers of flights. If airlines are required to eliminate flights, they may well eliminate flights from smaller cities.
The cost of achieving the noise reduction objectives contemplated by these aircraft noise rules is not great when compared to the noise relief it brings. The per plane cost of retrofitting is approximately $200,000 for 2 engine and $250,000 for 3 engine aircraft. The total fleet cost would be about $220 million. For a 727-200 plane with a remaining life of ten years, the average cost per flight is $6.20, out of a total per flight cost of $1,390. And, as to fuel consumption, the FAA has concluded that retrofitting the entire two and three engine fleet will add less than one-tenth of one percent per year to the annual domestic commercial fuel bill.
Changes in the noise rules within little more than a year of the initial compliance date seem to be patently unfair to those carriers which have made the expenditures necessary to bring their fleets into compliance. Some of these airlines will be competing on the same routes with carriers who have not made decisions to bring their fleets in compliance.
The Department of Transportation, FAA, and EPA oppose these anti-noise changes as do other governmental entities, trade associations, environmental and consumer groups. Among these are: American Association of Airport Executives; Aviation Consumer Action Project; Airport Operators Council International; Congress Watch; Friends of the Earth; National Association of Counties; National League of Cities; National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment, N.O.I.S.E.; National Parks and Conservation Association; Sierra Club, Metropolitan Washington Group; and the United States Conference of Mayors.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Howard M. Metzenbaum, Jacob K. Javits, Paul Tsongas, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Harrison A. Williams, Jr., David Durenberger, Carl Levin, S. I. Hayakawa, Edward M. Kennedy, William Proxmire, Adlai E. Stevenson, Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., William S. Cohen, Paul S. Sarbanes, Edmund S. Muskie, Claiborne Pell.