-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2339
          (A) investigation of the psychological and physiological
        effects of noise on humans and the effects of noise on domestic
        animals, wildlife, and property, and determination of accepta-
        ble levels of noise on the basis of such effects;
          (B) development of improved methods and standards for
        measurement and monitoring of noise, in cooperation with
        the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce;
        and
          (C) determination of the most  effective and practicable
        means of controlling noise emission.
      (2) Provide technical assistance to State and local governments
    to facilitate their development and enforcement of ambient noise
    standards, including but not limited to—
          (A) advice on training of noise-control personnel  and on
        selection and operation of noise-abatement equipment; and
          (B) preparation of model State or local legislation for noise
        control.
      (3) Disseminate to the public  information  on the effects of
    noise, acceptable noise levels, and techniques for noise measure-
    ment and control.

           DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-NOISE-EMISSION PRODUCTS

  SEC. 15. (a)  For the purpose of this section:
      (1) The  term "Committee"  means  the Low-Noise-Emission
    Product Advisory Committee.
      (2) The term "Federal Government" includes the  legislative,
    executive, and judicial branches of the Government of the United
    States, and the government of the District of Columbia.
      (3) The term "Ipw-noise-emission product" means any product
    which emits noise in amounts significantly below the levels speci-
    fied  in noise  emission standards under  regulations applicable
    under section 6 at the time of procurement to that type of product.
      (4) The term "retail price" means (A) the maximum statutory
    price applicable to any type of product; or  (B)  in any  case
    where there is no applicable maximum  statutory  price, the most
    recent procurement price paid for any type of product.
  (b) (1) The Administrator shall determine which products  qualify
as low-noise-emission products in accordance  with the provisions of
this section.
  (2) The Administrator shall certify any product—
      (A)  for which  a  certification  application  has been filed in
    accordance with paragraph (5) (A) of this subsection;
      (B) which is  a  low-noise-emission product as determined by
    the  Administrator; and
      (C) which he determines is suitable for use  as a substitute for
    a type of product at that time in use by agencies of the Federal
    Government.
  (3) The Administrator  may  establish  a Low-Noise-Emission
Product  Advisory Committee  to assist him  in determining which
products qualify as low-noise-emission products for purposes of this
section. The Committee shall include the Administrator or his desig-
nee, a representative of the National Bureau of Standards, and repre-
sentatives of such other Federal agencies and private individuals as
the Administrator may deem necessary from time to time. Any mem-
ber of the Committee not employed on a full-time basis by the United
States may receive the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
in effect for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule  for each day such
                                                        [p. 12]

-------
2340           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
   member is engaged upon work of the Committee. Each member of
   the Committee shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per
   diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by section 5703 of title 5,
   United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed
   intermittently.
     (4) Certification under this section shall be effective for a period
   of one year from the date of issuance.
     (5) (A) Any person seeking to have a class  or model of product
   certified  under this section shall file a certification application in
   accordance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator.
     (B)  The Administrator  shall publish in the Federal Register a
   notice of each application received.
     (C) The Administrator shall make determinations for the purpose
   of this section in accordance with procedures prescribed by him by
   regulation.
     (D)  The Administrator shall  conduct  whatever  investigation is
   necessary, including actual inspection of the product at a place desig-
   nated in regulations prescribed under subparagraph (A).
     (E)  The Administrator  shall receive and evaluate written com-
   ments and documents from interested persons  in support of, or in
   opposition to, certification  of the class or model of product  under
   consideration.
     (F)  Within ninety days after the receipt of a properly filed cer-
   tification application the Administrator shall determine whether such
   product is a low-noise-emission product for purposes of this section.
   If the Administrator determines that such product is a low-noise-emis-
   sion  product,  then within one hundred and eighty days of such
   determination the Administrator shall reach a decision as to whether
   such product is a suitable substitute for any class or classes of products
   presently being purchased by the Federal Government for use by its
   agencies.
     (G) Immediately upon making any determination or decision under
   subparagraph (F), the Administrator shall publish  in the Federal
   Register notice of such determination or decision, including reasons
   therefor.
     (c)(l) Certified low-noise-emission products shall be acquired by
   purchase or lease by the Federal Government for use by the Federal
   Government in lieu of other products if the Administrator of General
   Services determines that such certified products have procurement costs
   which are no more than 125 per centum of the retail price of the least
   expensive type of product for which they are certified substitutes.
      (2) Data relied upon by the Administrator in determining that a
   product is a certified low-noise-emission product shall be incorporated
   in any contract for the procurement of such product.
      (d)  The procuring agency shall be required to purchase available
   certified low-noise-emission products which are eligible for purchase
   to the extent they are  available before purchasing any other products
   for which any low-noise-emission product is a certified substitute.
   In making purchasing selections between competing  eligible certified
   low-noise-emission products, the procuring agency shall give priority
   to any class or model which does not require extensive periodic main-
   tenance to retain its low-noise-emission qualities or which  does not
   involve operating costs significantly in excess of those products for
   which it is a certified substitute.
      (e) For the  purpose of  procuring certified low-noise-emission
   products any statutory price limitations shall be waived.
      (f) The Administrator shall, from time to time as he deems appro-
   priate, test the  emissions of noise  from certified low-noise-emission
   products purchased by the Federal Government. If at any time he
   finds that the noise-emission levels exceed the levels on which certifi-
                                                            [p. 13]

-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       2341
cation under this section was based, the Administrator shall give the
supplier of  such  product written notice of this finding, issue public
notice of it, and give the supplier an opportunity to make necessary
repairs,  adjustments, or replacements. If no such  repairs, adjust-
ments, or replacements are made within a period  to be  set by the
Administrator, he may  order the supplier to  show  cause  why the
product  involved should be eligible  for recertification.
   (g) There are authorized to be appropriated for paying additional
amounts for products pursuant  to, and for carrying out  the provi-
sions of, this section, $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending  June 30,
1973, and $2,000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal years.
   (h) The Administrator shall  promulgate the procedures required
to implement this section within one hundred and eighty  days after
the date of enactment of this Act.

                   JUDICIAL REVIEW J WITNESSES

   SEC. 16. (a) A petition for review of action  of the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency in promulgating any stand-
ard or regulation under section 6, 17, or 18 of this Act or any labeling
regulation under  section  8 of this Act may be filed only in  the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a
petition for  review of action of the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration in promulgating any standard or regulation under
section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 may be filed only in
such court. Any such petition shall be filed within ninety days from
the date of  such  promulgation, or after such date if such petition is
based solely on grounds arising  after such ninetieth day. Action  of
either Administrator with respect to which  review could have  been
obtained under this subsection shall  not be subject to judicial review
in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.
   (b) If a party seeking review under this Act applies to the court
for leave to  adduce additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction
of the court that the information is material and was not  available
at the time of the proceeding before the Administrator of such Agency
or Administration (as the case  may be), the court may order  such
additional evidence  (and evidence in  rebuttal  thereof) to  be taken
before such Administrator, and to be adduced upon the hearing, in such
manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem
proper.  Such Administrator may modify his findings as to the facts,
or make  new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken,
and he shall file with the court such modified or new findings, and his
recommendation,  if any, for the modification or setting aside of his
original order, with the return of such additional evidence.
   (c) With  respect to relief pending review of an action by either
Administrator, no stay of an agency action may be granted unless the
reviewing court determines  that the party seeking  such stay  is (1)
likely to prevail  on the merits in the review proceeding  and (2)
will suffer irreparable harm pending such proceeding.
   (d) For the purpose of obtaining information to carry out this Act,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may issue
subpenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the pro-
duction of relevant papers, books, and documents, and he may adminis-
ter oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage
that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. In cares of
contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person under
this subsection, the district court of the United States for any district
in which such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon
application  by the United  States and after notice  to such person,

                                                         [p- W]

-------
2342           LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
  shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to appear
  and give testimony before the Administrator, to appear and produce
  papers, books, and documents before the Administrator, or both, and
  any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such
  court as a contempt thereof.

                  RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS

    SEC. 17. (a) (1)  Within nine months after the date of enactment
  of this Act, the Administrator shall publish proposed noise emission
  regulations for surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce by rail-
  road. Such proposed regulations shall include noise emission standards
  setting such limits on noise emissions resulting from operation of the
  equipment and facilities of surface carriers engaged in interstate com-
  merce by railroad which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
  through the application of the best available technology, taking into
  account the cost of compliance. These regulations shall be in addition
  to any regulations that may be proposed under section 6 of this Act.
    (2) Within ninety days after the publication  of such regulations as
  may be proposed under paragraph (1)  of this subsection, and subject
  to the provisions of section 16 of this Act, the Administrator shall
  promulgate final regulations. Such regulations  may be revised, from
  time to time, in accordance with this  subsection.
    (3) Any standard or regulation, or revision thereof, proposed under
  this subsection shall be promulgated only after consultation with the
  Secretary of Transportation in order to assure appropriate considera-
  tion  for safety and technological availability.
    (4)  Any regulation or revision thereof promulgated under this
  subsection shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
  necessary, after consultation with the Secretary of  Transportation,
  to permit the  development and application of the requisite technology,
  giving appropriate consideration  to the cost of compliance within
  such period. •
    (b) The Secretary of Transportation, after  consultation with  the
  Administrator, shall promulgate regulations to insure compliance with
  all standards promulgated by the Administrator under this  section.
  The  Secretary of  Transportation shall carry  out such regulations
  through the use of his powers and duties of enforcement and inspec-
  tion  authorized by the  Safety Appliance Acts, the Interstate  Com-
  merce Act, and the Department of Transportation Act. Regulations
  promulgated  under this section shall be subject to the provisions of
  sections 10,11,12, and 16 of this Act.
    (c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) but notwithstanding any  other
  provision of this Act, after  the effective date of a regulation under
  this section applicable to noise emissions resulting from the operation
  of any equipment or facility of a surface carrier engaged in interstate
  commerce by  railroad, no State or  political subdivision thereof may
  adopt or enforce any standard applicable to noise emissions resulting
  from the operation of the same equipment or facility of such carrier
  unless  such standard  is identical to a standard applicable to noise
  emissions resulting from such operation prescribed by any regulation
  under this section.
    (2) Nothing in this section shall  diminish or enhance the rights of
  any  State or political subdivision  thereof to establish and  enforce
  standards or controls on levels of environmental noise, or to control,
  license, regulate, or restrict  the use, operation, or movement of any
  product if the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of
  Transportation, determines that such standard, control, license, regula-
  tion, or restriction  is necessitated by special local conditions and is not
  in conflict with regulations promulgated under this section.
                                                           [p.  15]

-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY       2343


  (d)  The terms "carrier" and  "railroad" as used  in  this section
shall have the same meaning as such terms have under the first section
of the  Act of February 17, 1911 (45 U.S.C. 22).

             MOTOR  CARRIER NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS

  SEC. 18. (a) (1) Within nine months after  the  date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall publish proposed noise emission
regulations for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. Such
proposed  regulations shall  include noise  emission standards setting
such limits on noise  emissions resulting from operation of motor car-
riers engaged in interstate commerce which reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application of the best available
technology, taking into account the cost of compliance. These regula-
tions shall be in addition to any regulations  that may  be proposed
under section 6 of this Act.
  (2)  Within ninety days after  the publication of such regulations
as may be proposed under paragraph (1)  of this subsection, and sub-
ject to the provisions of section 16 of this Act, the Administrator shall
promulgate  final regulations. Such regulations may be revised from
time to time, in accordance with this subsection.
  (3) Any standard or regulation, or revision thereof, proposed under
this subsection shall be promulgated only after consultation with the
Secretary of  Transportation in  order  to assure appropriate  con-
sideration for safety and technological availability.
  (4)  Any  regulation  or revision thereof promulgated under this
subsection shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to
permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration  to the cost of compliance within such
period.
   (b)  The Secretary of Transportation,  after consultation with the
Administrator shall  promulgate regulations to insure compliance with
all standards promulgated  by the Administrator  under this section.
The Secretary of Transportation  shall  carry out such regulations
through the use of his powers and duties of enforcement and inspec-
tion authorized by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Department
of  Transportation Act. Regulations promulgated under this section
shall be subject to the provisions of sections 10, 11, 12, and 16 of this
Act.
   (c) (1)  Subject to paragraph  (2)  of this subsection but  notwith-
standing  any other provision of this Act, after the effective date of a
regulation under this section applicable  to noise  emissions resulting
from the operation  of any motor carrier engaged in interstate com-
merce, no State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce
any standard applicable to the same operation of such motor carrier,
unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to noise emis-
sions resulting from such operation prescribed by any regulation under
this section.
   (2)  Nothing in this section shall diminish or enhance the rights of
any State or political subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on  levels of environmental noise, or to control,
license, regulate, or restrict the  use, operation, or movement of any
product if the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,  determines that  such standard, control, license, regu-
lation, or restriction is necessitated by special local conditions and is
not in conflict with regulations promulgated under this section.
   (d)  For purposes of this section, the term "motor carrier" includes
a common carrier by motor vehicle, a contract carrier by motor vehicle,
                                                          [p.  16]

-------
2344            LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
   and a private carrier of property by motor vehicle as those terms are
   defined by paragraphs  (14), (15),  and (17) of section 203(a) of the
   Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 303 (a)).

                   AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 19. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act
   (other than section 15) $3,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
   1973;  $6,000,000  for the  fiscal year ending  June  30,  1974; and
   $12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1975.
     Approved October 27,  1972. '(
   LEGISLATIVE HISTORY;

   HOUSE REPORT  No.  92-*42 (Comm.  on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
   SENATE REPORT No.  92-1160 accompanying S. 3342 (Coram. on Public Works).
   CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972):
       Feb. 29, considered and passed House.
       Oct. 12, 13,  considered and passed senate, amended, in lieu of S. 3342.
       Oct. 18, House concurred in Senate amendment, with an amendment;
                Senate concurred in House amendment.
   WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44:
       Oct. 28, Presidential statement.                             r    .. »-i
                                     o

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2345

   1.4A(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
                   FOREIGN COMMERCE

             H.R. REP. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)

               NOISE CONTROL  ACT OF 1972
FEBRUARY 19, 1972.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
     Mr. STAGGERS,  from the Committee on Interstate and
           Foreign Commerce, submitted the following


                        REPORT

                    [To accompany H.R. 11021]

  The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11021) to control the emission of noise detri-
mental to the human environment, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report  favorably thereon with an  amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is &s follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting  clause and insert in lieu thereof a
substitute which appears in the reported bill in italic type.
                                                         [p- 1]

-------
2346          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


                       SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
Purpose
   The objective of the Noise Control Act of 1972,  ". .  . to promote
an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare ..." (sec.  2(b)) is to be achieved  in  the
following manner:
Coordination of Federal noise control and research activities
   (1) by requiring all Federal agencies to promote this objective in
carrying out the programs under their  control (sec.  4(a));
   (2) by requiring the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to coordinate the programs of all  Federal  agencies relating
to noise research and noise control (sec. 4(b)(l));
   (3) by requiring each Federal  agency (except the  Federal Aviation
Administration to which special provisions apply) to consult with the
Administrator when prescribing  regulations  respecting noise, and by
authorizing the Administrator to request any such  agency to  review
noise control regulations when  he has reason  to believe  that such
regulations do not protect the public health and welfare to the extent
he believes to be required and feasible (sec.  4(b)(2));
   (4) by  requiring the Administrator to report from time to time on
the status and progress of Federal noise research and control activities
(sec.4(b)(3));
Identification of major noise sources and publication of noise  control
     information
   (5) by requiring the  Administrator to develop and publish noise
criteria identifying the effects on health and welfare  of differing quan-
tities and qualities of noise (sec.  5(a));
   (6) by requiring the Administrator to identify, and publish  a com-
pilation of products which constitute major  noise sources (sec. 5(b));
Noise emission standards for new  products
   (7) by requiring the Administrator to establish noise emission stand-
ards for new products in the following four  categories, if they have
been identified as major noise sources, and if noise emission standards
are feasible:
       I.  Construction equipment
      II.  Transportation equipment
     III.  Motors or engines, or equipment of which motors and engines
       are integral parts
     IV.  Electrical or electronic  equipment
and by  providing  detailed  time schedules for the  establishment
of such standards (sec. 6(a));
   (8) by authorizing  the Administrator  to establish noise emission
standards for other new  products for which such standards are feasible
and requisite to protect the public health and welfare (sec. 6(b));
State and local noise control of use of any product
   (9) by leaving intact State or local authority to control the use,
operation or movement of any product (sec.  6(d));
                                                            [p. 2]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2347
 Interagency coordination with regard to aircraft noise standards
   (10) by directing the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
 istration to consult  with the Administrator of the Environmental
 Protection Agency in prescribing noise control standards and regula-
 tions under the applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Act; by
 authorizing  the Administrator of  the Environmental  Protection
 Agency to  request the Administrator  of the Federal Aviation Ad-
 ministration to review any standard or  regulation which the Adminis-
 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency has reason to believe
 does not adequately  protect  the public from aircraft noise or sonic
 boom, and  to submit a report to the Administrator of  the Environ-
 mental Protection Agency on the results of such review; and by pro-
 hibiting  the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
 from issuing an original  type certificate for any aircraft for which
 substantial  noise abatement  can  be achieved through regulations,
 unless he prescribes noise or sonic boom regulations applicable to the
 aircraft (sec. 7);
 Informative labeling of new products
   (11) by requiring the Administrator to issue regulations requiring
 informative labeling (or other suitable methods  of informing prospec-
 tive users) with respect to any product (or class thereof) which emits
 noise capable of adversely affecting  the public health or welfare,  or
 which is sold wholly  or in part on  the  oasis of its effectiveness  in
 reducing noise  (sec. 8);
 Imports
   (12) by  requiring  the  Secretary of  the Treasury in consultation
 with the Administrator to carry out  the provisions of this legislation
 with regard to  imports (sec. 9);
 Enforcement
   (13) by authorizing the Administrator (and a  State under an agree-
 ment with the Administrator) to assess  and to collect in a civil action,
 civil penalties of not more than $25,000 for each violation of any of the
 prohibitions of this legislation relating to the sale of any new product
 which does not conform with a noise emission standard; the removal or
 rendering inoperative of any  device  incorporated in any product  in
 compliance with such standard; the use thereafter of any such product;
 the removal prior to sale to an ultimate purchaser of any informative
 labeling attached to  any new product; the importation of any  new
 product in  violation  of this  legislation; or  the failure to maintain
 records or furnish any report  or information required by this legisla-
 tion (sections 10 and  11);;
 Citizen, suits
   (14) by  authorizing the institution  of a citizen  suit against  any
 violator of a noise control requirement under the bill or against the
Administrator  of the  Environmental Protection Agency or the  Ad-
ministrator  of  the  Federal Aviation Administration for an alleged
fpilure to perform any act under this legislation which is not discre-
tionary with such Administrator (sec. 12);
Records, reports, and information
   (15) by requiring manufacturers to maintain records or to furnish
reports and information reasonably required by the Administrator to
                                                            [p. 3]

-------
2348          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
 secure compliance with this legislation, and by requiring manufac-
 turers to make new products available for testing by the Administrator
 (sec. 13);
 Research
   (16) by authorizing the Administrator  to conduct research  or to
 finance research by others ta determine the effects, measurement and
 control of noise as well as acceptable levels of noise;  to provide tech-
 nical  assistance to States  and  local governments in training enforce-
 ment personnel and in preparing model State or local noise control
 legislation (sec. 14);
 Low-noise-emission products
   (17) by directing the Administrator to determine which products
 qualify as low noise emission products and to certify such products as
 suitable for use as substitutes for other products in use at that time by
 federal agencies, and by directing such  agencies to use any such certi-
 fied product if the Administrator of General Services' determines that
 the procurement costs of such  certified product are not more than 125
 per centum of the retail price of the least expensive type of product for
 which such certified product is to serve as  a substitute; and by au-
 thorizing $1 million for fiscal year 1972 and  $2 million for each of the
 two succeeding fiscal years for paying the additional costs of such
 certified products (sec. 15);
 Authorization of appropriations
   (18) by authorizing for purposes of  carrying put the provisions of
 this legislation the appropriation  of the following sums: $3 million
 for fiscal year 1972; $6 million for fiscal year 1973; and $12 million
 for fiscal year 1974 (sec. 16).

                   HEARINGS ON THE LEGISLATION

    Your Committee, acting through its Subcommittee on Public Health
 and Environment,  conducted  a series of hearings on the problems of
 noise  pollution. Hearings focused on  the Administration  bill, H.R.
 5275, which was introduced on March  1, 1971, by Chairman Staggers
 and  Congressman  Springer,  and  several other bills introduced by
 various Members of Congress which would  provide for a comprehen-
 sive program for the control of noise. Hearings were held on June 16,
 17, 22, 23, and 24, 1971,  and  testimony was received from a variety
 of  witnesses representing  government, industry, and professions con-
 cerned with noise and its effects on human health and welfare. The
 Committee also received extensive written material involving the sub-
 ject of noise abatement as an  aspect of environmental quality.
    Following  the hearings and Subcommittee consideration, a  clean
 bill, H.R. 11021, was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Rogers
  and seven other members of the Subcommittee. On February 8, 1972
  the bill was ordered reported by voice vote.

    KBPOBT ON NOISE HEQTJIRED BY TITLE IV OP THE CLEAN AIR ACT

    Title IV of the Clean Air Act (the "Noise Pollution and Abatement
  Act  of 1970")  required  the  Environmental Protection Agency to
  undertake a  complete investigation of noise  and its  effect  on the
  public health and welfare, to identify and classify the sources of noise,
                                                             [p- 4]

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2349
and to determine projected growth levels of the problem to the year
2000. The Agency was required to undertake research, conduct public
hearings, and to report to the President and Congress within one year
the results of such investigations along with recommendations as to
legislation  or any other action. The EPA "Report to the President
and the Congress on Noise" was submitted to the Congress on Jan-
uary  26, 1972.  In the opinion of  your  Committee,  the report sub-
stantiates the urgent need for a coordinated Federal, State and local
effort to control and abate noise in order to protect the public health
and welfare and demonstrates  the need for legislation such  as that
recommended in  the reported bill.

                    MAJOR ISSUES PRESENTED

  The Committee in examining the proposed legislation for noise
control, was concerned with the following major issues:
      (1) The  nature and extent of noise as an element of environ-
    mental concern.
      (2) The  adequacy of  technology  to deal with the problem of
    noise abatement.
      (3) The extent and effectiveness of present Federal programs for
    noise control and the cost of noise control.
      (4) The responsibilities of the Federal Government, the States
    and their political subdivisions in abating and controlling noise.
      (5) The  proper roles of the Environmental Protection Agency
    and the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aircraft
    noise.

     THE NATURE  AND EXTENT OF NOISE AS AN  ELEMENT  OF
                    ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Effects of noise pollution
  As  brought out by  the witnesses testifying before the Committee,
and as described in detail in the EPA "Report to the President and
Congress on Noise", the effects of noise on people takes many forms,
and can be psysiological  or psychological in nature. These effects in-
clude permanent  hearing loss, interference with speech communica-
tion, stress reactions which  could  have  significant long term health
implications, interference with  communication and disturbance of
sleep. Moreover, noise may have sociological impacts within families
and in  communities.  In addition, it has  been demonstrated that
acoustical energy can cause damage to buildings and structures.
  The particular effects which may occur as a result of a given noise
environment are a function of the intensity of the noise and the total
exposure time.  For example, except  in the case of severe acoustic
trauma  (such as an exposure to the sound from  an explosion) only
daily exposure to a  very high noise intensity for several hours over a
period of months will cause a permanent hearing loss.  Much lower
noise intensities and brief exposure periods can and do produce irrita-
tion and annoyance effects.
  The testimony of  Dr. David Lipscomb, Director of the Noise Study
Laboratory, University of Tennessee, concerning the implications of
non-occupational  noise as a hazard to the health  and welfare of the
population of the nation was especially disturbing to the Committee.
                                                           [p. 5]
 525-314 O - 73 - 3

-------
2350          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
Dr.  Lipscomb  presented  to the Committee  certain data  obtained
during a  four-year research study  by the noise laboratory which
indicated  a trend toward an inordinately high  prevalence of high
frequency hearing reductions in young persons. For example, a survey
of 3000 freshmen between the ages of 16 and 21 entering the University
of Tennessee in the Fall of 1968 indicated that 32.9 percent experienced
loss of high frequency hearing acuity. To confirm that striking finding,
a portion of the incoming class was screened for hearing in the Fall of
1969. The second survey produced an  even more striking finding; it
yielded an incidence indication of 60.7 percent. Most of these hearing
disorders  probably were  attributable  to  exposure  to music played
at intense levels. This study  clearly  indicated  to the Committee
that hearing acuity of young persons  is being reduced many years
before such  reductions  should  be  expected.  Studies cited in  the
Agency's Report  to Congress verify that the University of Tennessee
study did not depict a localized phenomenon. Indeed, there is ample
evidence that the current population  of young persons will have much
more serious hearing problems in their  middle  years than the present
population.
The number of citizens affected by noise pollution
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 44
million persons in the  United States have the utility of their dwellings
adversely  affected by noise from traffic and aircraft, and 21 million
persons are similarly  affected by noise associated with construction
activity. 40 million persons are exposed to noise potentially capable of
producing hearing impairment due to the operation of noisy devices
and  the number of such devices and  the intensity of  exposure is
steadily rising. Although obviously  these figures are not  additive,
noise appears to affect to a measurable degree of impact at least 80
million persons or approximately 40 percent of  the present population
of the United States. Of that number, roughly one-half are risking
potential health hazards in terms of long duration exposures resulting
in hearing impairment.
  There is a long history of occupational noise causing various  de-
grees of hearing impairment in some of the working population. Re-
ports available to the Committee indicate that the number of persons
engaged in occupations in which there exists a  definite risk of hearing
impairment  may be as high as 16 million.  The legal structure for  the
protection of workers now exists through the provisions of the Occu-
pational Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mine Safety and Health
Act. Although it has been estimated that nonoccupational noise hearing
impairment  of sufficient severity to require the use of a hearing aid for
adequate comprehension of speech affects almost 3 million persons in
the United States at the  present time, these persons receive virtually
no protection from such noise by federal law.
  Taking into account the growth and numbers of sources of noise and
the increase  in energy associated therewith, residual noise levels in
urban  areas is predicted to rise from 46 dBA to 50  dBA by the year
2000, according to EPA reports. Of more concern is the fact that with-
out more  vigorous  control methods, the  acoustical energy dissemi-
nated into the environment from highway vehicles  alone will double by
the year 2000. Moreover,  the number of person hours of exposure to
hearing impairment risks from home  appliances will increase approxi-
mately 2.25 times the 1970 exposures.                        r   „-,

-------
            NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     2351


   The Committee  notes  that most of the information  relating to
noise exposures is concerned with specific sources rather than typical
cumulative  exposures, to  which urban and suburban dwellers com-
monly are exposed. There is a need for much greater effort to deter-
mine the magnitude and extent of such exposures and the Committee
expects the EPA to  promote studies on this subject and consider
development of methods  of  uniform measurement of the impact of
noise on communities. In the opinion of the Committee, there is also a
demonstrated need for further research leading to better information
on the non  auditory physiological and psychological effects of noise,
and it is expected that the EPA will conduct and promote research in
this area.

THE ADEQUACY OF TECHNOLOGY To DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF
      NOISE ABATEMENT  AND THE  COST OF NOISE CONTROL

   The testimony received from a variety of witnesses  indicated that
most  major sources of noise  affecting the population  of the United
States have noise  reduction potential  that can be  attained with
application of today's technology. The Administration bill contained
no specific time schedules  for the development of  criteria documents
and for the setting of standards. Because of its finding that technology
is available for the control within adequate limits of noise emission of
the majority of products  which constitute  major noise sources,  the
Committee  determined  that  a  time limit  for the initiation of  the
standard setting process was  proper  and indeed essential to prevent
the growth of the noise problem beyond reasonable limits. Accordingly,
the bill establishes time schedules within which  the  Administrator
of EPA must develop  standards.  The Committee expects that in con-
sidering whether it is  feasible to  propose standards for noise sources,
primary emphasis should be placed on protection of the public health
and welfare.
   The Committee recognizes that different industries operate accord-
ing to different general patterns, and regulations may vary as between
particular products  to take this into account. For example, the auto-
mobile industry  makes changes in  its  products  on a well-defined
model year  basis. Therefore,  a standard applying to automobiles
should include  an effective date related to the start-up  of a new
model year production.
   The Committee found that  there is a lack of adequate information
regarding the cost of noise control for some products and thus included
in the bill the requirement that in  establishing final  standards  for
noise sources, appropriate consideration must be given to the economic
costs of such standards. The Committee also fully expects that ade-
quate consideration be given to the technical capability of industry to
meet noise control requirements.

THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENT FEDERAL  PROGRAMS
                      FOR NOISE CONTROL

   Noise responsibilities are vested in a number of Federal departments
and agencies as a collateral activity to their primary missions. Those
with significant involvement include the Environmental  Protection
Agency; the Department of Defense;  the Department of Transporta-
tion; the Department of Health, Education,  and Welfare; the Depart-
                                                          [p- 7].

-------
2352          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
ment of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Labor;
and  the National  Aeronautics and Space  Administration.  More
moderate programs reported to the Committee include those in the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the General
Services Administration,  the  Department of  Interior,  the Postal
Service  Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Atomic
Energy  Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, the Treasury Department and the Department of
State. In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality has a limited
review  and coordination authority with respect  to noise pollution
matters as  with all other aspects of environmental quality.
  The Committee found that due  to the  wide divergence  of noise
abatement programs within the Federal  Government, the vast ma-
jority of Federal activities relating  to noise have been conducted on
an ad hoc basis. As a result, different systems of measurement of noise
impact  have been  developed. Because of a demonstrated need for a
comprehensive  Federal effort,  the  bill places responsibility on the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the co-
ordination  of programs of all departments and  agencies, rather than
merely  promoting  such coordination as proposed in the Administra-
tion's bill.  The Committee anticipates that suitable mechanisms for
effective exchange of information will be achieved and expects that
greater  joint participation of the principal agencies in research efforts
and suitable arrangements for joint utilization of facilities for research
will be achieved.

RESPONSIBILITIES  OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATES, AND
  THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS  IN ABATING AND  CONTROLLING
  NOISE

  The Committee  was  presented with differing views as to the proper
roles of  the Federal Government, the States and localities in the effort
to achieve  noise abatement. In the  Committee's bill the general con-
cept of Federal preemption for new products for which Federal stand-
ards have been established—the concept proposed by the Administra-
tion—was retained.
  Section 6 of the  Committee's bill affects the authority of States and
political subdivisions over  noise emissions only in  one respect: State
and local governments are  preempted from prescribing noise  emission
standards for new pioducts to which Federal standards apply,  unless
their standards are identical to the Federal  standards. A similar
provision applies to component parts. For products other than new
products to which Federal standards apply, State and local govern-
ments retain exactly the same authority they would have in absence of
the standard setting provisions of the bill. The authority of State and
local government to regulate use, operation, or movement of  products
is not affected at all by the bill. (The preemption provision discussed
in this paragraph does not  apply to aircraft. See discussion of aircraft
noise below.)
  Nothing in  the  bill  authorizes or prohibits a State  from  enacting
State law respecting  testing  procedures. Any  testing procedures
incorporated into the Federal  regulations must, however, be adopted
by a State in order for its regulations to be considered identical  to
Federal regulations.
                                                           Lp.  8]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2353


   Localities are not preempted from the use of their well-established
 powers to engage in zoning, land  use planning, curfews and other
 similar requirements. For  example,   the  recently-enacted Chicago
 Noise  Ordinance  provides  that  heavy equipment  for construction
 may not be used between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within 600 feet of
 a  hospital or  residence except  for public improvement  or public
 service utility work.  The ordinance further provides that the motor
 of a vehicle in excess of four tons standing on private property and
 within 150 feet of residential property "may not be operated for more
 than  two consecutive minutes unless within a completely enclosed
 structure.  Such local provisions would not be preempted by  the
 Federal Government by virtue of the reported bill.
   The Committee gave some consideration to the establishment of a
 Federal ambient noise standard,  but rejected the concept. Establish-
 ment of a Federal ambient noise standard would  in  effect, put the
 Federal government  in the position of establishing land  use zoning
 requirements on the basis of noise—i.e., noise levels to be permitted
 in residential areas, in business areas, in manufacturing and residential
 areas; and within  those areas for different  times of  the day  or night.
 It is the Committee's view that this  function is one more properly
 that of the States and their political subdivisions, and that the Federal
 Government should  provide  guidance and leadership to the States
 in undertaking this effort.
   The Committee felt it to be desirable to authorize the Administrator
 of the EPA to  enter into agreements with States  which would au-
 thorize State officials to enforce  violations of the Act, and adopted
 the Administration provision to this effect.

 THE PROPER ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   AND  THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION  WITH RESPECT
   TO  AIRCRAFT NOISE

  The Committee has established procedures whereby it is intended
 that a combined EPA-FAA effort will have the effect of protection of
 the public from excessive aircraft  noise, a nationwide complaint. FAA
 and EPA presently have a formal  relationship with respect to emission
 of air pollutants from aircraft, but no such arrangement exists with
respect to noise  pollution.  The reported bill establishes  such  a
relationship.
  The Committee considered very carefully  the  Administration's
request for EPA  veto  power over standards  and  regulations  pre-
scribed by the FAA Administrator relating to noise characteristics of
civilian aircraft. It also weighed proposals which would vest the Ad-
ministrator of the EPA with the authority to establish such standards.
It was determined that neither of these procedures was practical at this
time because of  the lack of the necessary technical expertise with re-
spect  to aircraft design within the EPA. For this reason, the bill re-
tains the authority of the FAA to establish such standards, but adds
the requirement that they may  not be prescribed  before EPA has
been consulted concerning the standards.
  In addition to providing EPA  with  a statutory advisory and con-
sultation role with respect to aircraft noise standards, the bill provides
that after the date of enactment  of this bill original type certificates
                                                         '  [p-  9]

-------
2354
LEGAL COMPILATION"—SUPPLEMENT I
for aircraft for  which substantial noise  abatement  can be achieved
cannot be  issued unless  the FAA Administrator has prescribed noise
standards which apply to such aircraft.
  In order to allow the EPA to assume a meaningful role with respect
to aircraft  noise, the bill provides further that whenever the Adminis-
trator of EPA  has reason to believe that an existing or proposed
standard or regulation or exemption therefrom or the issuance of an
original  type certificate  does not  adequately protect  the public, he
shall request a review of such action as well as a report on the FAA's
findings upon review. EPA's request may be published in the Federal
Register and, unless FAA's report  indicates an agreement to take
specific actions  that have been requested by EPA, the FAA report
must also  appear in the  Federal Register. Any such report must
identify  any environmental impact statements which have been filed
under the  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with  respect
to such action.
  Your  Committee believes that  these procedures, involving active
consultation and advice  as well as public disclosure  of both agencies'
recommendations and actions, will have a substantial effect on  aircraft
noise abatement. The Committee  intends to closely review this new
relationship  between EPA and  FAA. If this relationship does not
serve to provide the public with effective reductions in aircraft noise
within a reasonable time, further consideration will be given to the
problem of  excessive aircraft noise  and the Committee  will take
whatever action it considers necessary to achieve  adequate reduction.
  No provision  of the bill is intended to alter in any  way the relation-
ship between the authority of the Federal  Government and  that  of
State and  local governments  that existed  with  respect to matters
covered  by section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 prior  to
the enactment of the bill.

                         ESTIMATE OF COSTS

  In compliance with Clause 7 of  XIII of the Rules of the House  of
Representatives, there is set forth below an estimate made by your
Committee of the cost which would be incurred in carrying out H.R.
11021 in the current fiscal year and for each of the following fiscal
years for which appropriations are authorized by the bill.

ESTIMATE OF COSTS WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED IN CARRYING OUT H.R. 11021 FOR THE AUTHORIZED DURATION
                         OF EACH OF THE PROGRAMS
                           [In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year-
Section of bill; program
4 Federal programs 	 	
5 Noise criteria and control technology
6 Noise emission standards for new products
7 Aircraft noise 	 	
8 Labeling 	
9 Imports
11 Enforcement
13 Records, reports and information..
14 (1) research 	 , 	
(2 and 3) Technical assistance and public information 	
15 Development of low-noise-emission products 	
16 Authorization of appropriations 	

1972
300
1,390
300
100
20
20
20
20
350
400
180
3,000

1973
700
2,100
1,000
300
90
40
80
40
600
900
U50
6,000
1974
800
5,340
1,400
400
200
60
400
200
1,200
1,400
'600
12,000
 ' In addition to program costs, the bill authorizes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1972 and $2,000,000 for each of the 2 succeed-
ing years for Federal agencies to pay necessary additional amounts for low-noise-emission products.
                                                            [p.  10]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2355


               NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972

                  SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title and table of contents
  This section provides that  the  bill  may be cited  as  the "Noise
Control Act of 1972", and contains a table of contents of the bill.
Section 2. Findings and policy
  This section contains a statement  of  congressional findings and
policy. Subsection  2(a) sets forth the following findings:  (1) that
noise, particularly in  urban areas, presents a growing danger  to the
public health and welfare; (2)  that the major sources of noise include
a variety of products that move in commerce; and (3) that the Federal
Government bears a responsibility to deal with major sources of noise
requiring national uniformity  of treatment. Subsection 2(b) declares
a Federal policy  to promote an environment for all Americans free
from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. This subsection
further states  that the purpose of the Act is to establish  a means for
effective coordination of Federal noise control programs, to authorize
the establishment of  Federal  noise emission standards  for  products
distributed in  commerce, and to provide information to the  public  of
noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products.
Section 3. Definitions
  Section 3 defines certain terms used in the bill.
  (1)  "Administrator"  means the Administrator  of  the  Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) who is given  the primary  responsi-
bility for implementing the provisions of the bill.
  (2)  "Person"  is  defined as an individual,  corporation,  partner-
ship, or association, and includes any governmental officer, employee,
department, agency, or instrumentality with two exceptions—in the
enforcement section (section 11) "person" does not include a Federal
department,  agency,  or instrumentality,  and in  the  citizen suits
section  (section 12) the United States cannot be  a plaintiff  and a
State cannot be a defendant in cases in which the eleventh amendment
of the Constitution applies.
  (3)  "Product" is defined to include any manufactured article  or
goods  or  component  thereof,  with   four  general exclusions—(A)
"Product"  does not include  aircraft,  aircraft engines, propellers  or
appliances, as defined in section 101 of the Federal Aviation  Act  of
1958.  (The noise characteristics of aircraft and these aircraft com-
ponents are already subject  to  regulation under provisions of that
Act, which will continue in effect subject to the amendments in section
7 of the bill, discussed below.) (B) "Product" also  excludes any mili-
tary weapons  or equipment designed  for  combat use. The policy  of
the Act does  dictate, however,  that  all  feasible steps  be  taken  to
improve the noise  characteristics of  these articles. (C)  "Product"
further excludes equipment designed for use in experimental work
performed by  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(D) To the extent provided  by regulation by  the  Administrator  of
EPA,  the term also excludes  certain  other experimental equipment
used in work performed by or for Federal agencies.
  (4) "Ultimate purchaser" is defined as the first person who purchases
a product for a use other than resale.
                                                         [p. 11]

-------
2356          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


  (5) "New product" means a product the title to which has not yet
been transferred to an ultimate purchaser, or which is imported or
offered for importation into the United States and which is manu-
factured  after the effective date of a regulation under section 6 or
section 8 which would have been  applicable to such product had it
been manufactured in the United States.
  (6) "Manufacturer"  means  any  person  who  manufactures  or
assembles new products or imports new products for resale or who acts
on behalf of such a person in the distribution of new products.
  (7) "Commerce" is defined as trade, traffic, commerce, or transpor-
tation, (A) between a place in a State and any place outside thereof, or
(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation described
in (A).
  (8) "Distribute  in commerce" is defined as sell in, offer for sale in,
or introduce or deliver for introduction into, commerce.
   (9) "State" is defined to include  the District of Columbia, the Com-
monwealth  of  Puerto Rico, the  Virgin  Islands, American  Samoa,
Guam, and the Trust Territory of  the Pacific Islands.
  (10) "Federal agency" is defined as an executive agency (as defined
in section 105 of title 5, United States Code), plus  the United States
Postal Service.
Section 4. Federal programs
  Subsection 4 (a)  authorizes and directs Federal agencies to adminis-
ter the programs within their control in such a manner as to further
the policy of the bill to the fullest extent consistent with their existing
authority.
  Subsection 4(b)  directs the Administrator to coordinate all Federal
programs relating  to noise research and control, and to assist him in
exercising this responsibility, and  directs  Federal agencies to furnish
him with such information about such programs as he may reasonably
require.  Further,  in  prescribing  regulations  each Federal agency
must consult with the Administrator.  If the  Administrator at  any
time has reason  to believe that  an existing or proposed standard
or regulation respecting noise does not adequately protect the public
health and welfare, he may request a review and report on the advis-
ability of revising such standard or regulation. Such a request may be
published in the Federal  Register, but it must be accompanied by
supporting data. The requested review and report must be completed
within the time specified by the Administrator, but such specified time
may not be less than 90 days. The report must  be published in the
Federal Register with a detailed statement of the findings and conclu-
sions. With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration, special
provisions are provided in section  7, discussed below.
  This subsection also directs  the Administrator, on the  basis of
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, to publish a  periodic
report covering the  noise-related  activities of all  Federal agencies.
It is intended that this report will provide a means for assessing the
overall progress of Federal noise control efforts.
Section 5. Noise criteria and control technology
  Section 5 gives the Administrator of EPA responsibility to develop
and publish basic documents on noise and its control. Subsection 5 (a)
directs him to  develop criteria for noise, taking  into account up-to-
date scientific knowledge on noise  effects. These criteria should make
                                                          [p. 12]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2357
clear what quantities and qualities of noise are consistent with pro-
tection of the public health and welfare under differing circumstances.
  Subsection 5(b) directs the Administrator to publish one or more
reports identifying products or classes of products which in his judg-
ment are major sources of noise and providing information on tech-
niques for controlling  noise  from such sources.  Available data on
technology, costs, and alternative methods  of  control are to be
included. The first report must be published within 18 months after
the bill becomes law. Subsection 5(c) directs the  Administrator  to
review and, when appropriate,  revise the criteria, noise source, and
the  control  technology  documents  published under this  section.
Subsection 5(d) requires publication of major noise source lists in the
Federal Register and announcement of each publication or  revision
of criteria  or control technology documents in the  Federal Register
and release of copies thereof to the public.
Section 6.  Noise emission standards for new products distributed  in
     commerce
  Under section 6(a), the Administrator is required to  propose regula-
tions for each  product  which is identified in a- report under section
5(b)(l) as a major noise source; for  which, in his judgment, noise
emission standards are feasible; and which falls in one of the following
categories:
       (i) Construction equipment.
       (ii)  Transportation equipment  (including  recreational ve-
     hicles  and related equipment).
       (iii) Any motor  or engine (including any equipment of which
     an engine or motor is an integral part).
       (iv) Electrical or electronic equipment.
The  Administrator  must publish initial proposed regulations not
later than  eighteen months after the date of enactment of the bill for
any  product for which regulations are required and which is identi-
fied as a major noise source on or before the date the initial proposed
regulations are published.  Regulations for a product for which noise
regulations are  required, and which is  identified as  a major noise
source after  the  initial proposed noise regulations  are published,
must be proposed by the Administrator not later than eighteen months
after the product is so identified. After proposed regulations have been
published respecting a product, the Administrator is required, unless
in his judgment noise emission standards are not feasible for the prod-
uct,  to prescribe noise  regulations for such product not  earlier than
6 months  after publication of proposed regulations for the  product
and not later than 24 months after the enactment of  the bill (in the
case of a product subject to  the initial proposed regulations)  or 24
months after  the product is  identified  as a major noise source (in
the case of any other product).
  Subsection 6(b) provides  the Administrator with  additional au-
thority to  publish proposed regulations establishing  noise emission
standards for products other than  those for  which regulations are
required  above, if in his judgment  such standards are feasible and
requisite to protect the public health and welfare.  Regulations pre-
scribing such standards may not be earlier than six  months after the
proposed regulations are published.
  Any noise regulation prescribed under section  6 (a)  or (b) (and
any  revision thereof)  respecting a product must  include  a  noise
                                                           [p. 13]

-------
2358          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


emission standard which shall set limits on noise emissions from the
product and must be a standard which in the Administrator's judg-
ment,  based on  criteria published under section 5, is requisite to
protect the public health and  welfare. In establishing a standard
for a product the Administrator must give appropriate consideration
to  technological  feasibility and  economic  costs,  and  to  standards
under  other laws designed to safeguard  the  health and welfare of
persons,  including any  standard under  the  National Traffic  and
Motor Vehicle  Safety Act of 1966 or the Clean Air Act.  Any noise
emission standard under this section must be a performance standard.
  Noise regulations under this section may contain testing procedures
necessary to assure compliance with  the  noise emission standard in
the regulation, and may contain  provisions  respecting instructions
of the manufacturer for the maintenance, use, or repair of the product.
  The Administrator is given broad authority to prescribe regula-
tions appropriate to  the type of product regulated,  and the noise
problem that it creates. Noise emission standards could apply to the
performance of the product at the time of manufacture, and compli-
ance could be ascertained by prototype testing or sampling methods,
or  by  other testing procedures. Alternatively, if the Administrator
determined that it was appropriate, the standards could apply to the
performance of the product over a specified period of operation,  and
in such a  case the Administrator could  test  prototypes or samples
off the assembly line to determine whether the product complied with
the standard over the specified period. In  addition, the Administrator
could issue regulations requiring that the manufacturer recommend
in his  maintenance instructions procedures to assure that the noise
emission performance of the product would  pot deteriorate unduly
during the period of its use. (It should be noted, however, that under
the enforcement  provisions of the bill the Administrator has no  au-
thority to  regulate the use of products which do not  conform with
his noise emission standards, or  to  require  users  to  comply with
maintenance instructions.)
  Section  6(d)  prohibits  any State or  political subdivision from
adopting or enforcing any law  or regulation which sets a limit on
noise emissions from  a new product for which a noise regulation  has
been prescribed ,by  the Administrator under section  6, unless  the
non-Federal law  or regulation is  identical  to the regulation  of  the
Administrator. In addition, States  and political  subdivisions  are
prohibited  from  adopting  or enforcing  any law or regulation which
sets a limit on noise emissions from any  component incorporated
by  the manufacturer in a new product  to which noise regulations
under  section 6 apply. Section 6 (d) (2)  makes it clear  however that
nothing in section 6 will diminish or  enhance the rights of any State
or political subdivision thereof to control, regulate, or restrict the  use,
operation,  or movement of any product.
Section 7. Aircraft noise standards
  Section 7 amends section 611  of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
which  authorizes regulation of the noise characteristics of aircraft and
aircraft components,  as follows:
  New subsections (a),  (b), (b)(2), and  (c) are added; former sub-
section (a) is redesignated (b)(l) and amended, and the former sub-
sections (b) and (c) are redesignated as (d) and (e), respectively.
                                                           [p.  14]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2359


   Subsection 611(b)(l) is amended to direct that  the Administrator
 of EPA be consulted for his advice before standards or regulations are
 promulgated or amended. However, all standards, rules, or regulations
 (or exceptions  thereto) in effect at  the date of the enatcment of the
 bill remain in effect until amended or revoked by  subsequent action
 (including granting an exemption) under the new procedures.
   New subsection 611(b)(2)  directs that after enactment of this bill
 the Administrator of the FAA cannot issue an original type certificate
 for any aircraft for which substantial Boise abatement can be achieved
 by prescribing standards and regulations unless such standards and
 regulations have been prescribed and  are consistent with the redesig-
 nated subsection  (d). Under that  subsection  the Administrator of
 FAA must consider all relevant available data; consult with orther
 governmental  agencies as  he deems  appropriate; consider whether
 such standards or regulations'are consistent with the highest degree of
 safety; consider  whether  such  standards or regulations would be
 economically reasonable and  technologically practicable; and consider
 the extent to which they will carry out the purposes of section 611.
   Under the new  subsection  611(c) if the Administrator of the EPA
 has reason to  believe that (1) an  existing or proposed standard or
 regulation of the  FAA under Section 611, or exemption therefrom,
 or (2) the issuance of an original type  certificate for which noise
 abatement standards or regulations have not been prescribed, does
 not protect the public from  aircraft noise consistent with the con-
 siderations in redesignated subsection (d) he shall consult  with and
 may request the Administrator of the FAA to review and report on
 the advisability of revising such  standard, regulation or exemption or
 of the advisability of issuance of a type certificate as the case may be.
 Such a request, which must include supporting data, may be published
 in the Federal Register. Except where EPA proposes specific action
 which the  FAA agrees to take, the report of the FAA must be pub-
 lished in the Federal Register within a time specified by the Adminis-
 trator of the EPA (but he may not specify less than 90 days). The
 published  report  must  be  accompanied by a detailed statement of
 findings and reasons for the conclusions, must identify any environ-
 mental impact statement  filed  under the National Environmental
 Policy Act of 1969 which relates to the action, standard  or regulation
 in question,  and  provide information respecting the  availability of
 such statement. If, in the case of a standard, regulation or exemption
 therefrom, an environmental  impact statement was not  required and
 if the report indicates no revision should be made, then the published
 report must (if EPA so requests)  contain a comparison of the environ-
 mental effects of the existing or proposed standard, or regulation or
 exemption therefrom and the revision  proposed by the Administrator
 of the EPA.
   If the action contested by  the EPA is the  issuance of an original
 type certificate for which an environmental impact statement was not
 filed and the FAA report indicates that such a certificate should not
 be preceded by a noise  standard or regulation,  the Administrator of
the FAA must file a  statement  similar to an environmental  impact
statement if requested to do so by the Administrator of the EPA.
   (The exemptions to which  this section refers include exemptions
from noise standards  and regulations,  granted under section  601(c),
and exemptions from section 610(a)  granted under section 610(b),
                                                         [p. 15]

-------
2360          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


to the extent _ the exemption  under section 610(b)  has  the effect  of
relieving  foreign  airmen  or  aircraft from  compliance with  noise
standards or regulations under section 611.)
Section 8. Labeling
  Section 8 authorizes Federal noise labeling requirements for prod-
ucts distributed in commerce. Subsection 8 (a)  directs the Adminis-
trator by regulation to designate any product (or class thereof) which
(1) emits noise capable  of adversely affecting the public health and
welfare, or (2) is sold at least in part on the basis of its effectiveness in
reducing noise. Such products  are not limited to those for which stand-
ards have been set in section 6 or for which a control technology report
has been developed under section 5. For a product so designated, sub-
section 8(b)  directs the  Administrator to require by regulation that
notice be  given to the prospective user of the level of noise emission, or
of the effectiveness in reducing noise,  as the case may be. Such regula-
tions must specify (1) whether such notice will be affixed to the product
or to the  outside of its container (or to both) at  the time of its sale to
the ultimate purchaser or whether such notice will be given  to the pro-
spective user in some other manner, (2) the form of the notice, and (3)
the methods and units of measurement to be used.
  Subsection 8(c)  leaves intact any existing powers of the  States and
their political subdivision to regulate product labeling and information
respecting products in any way not in conflict with Federal regulations.
  This section affords  the Administrator wide latitude in the drafting
of regulations concerning notification of noise levels. In the case of a
mass production product such  as automobiles, the Committee bill does
not require  that each individual must be tested and  the specific  noise
level  of such unit be  included in  a  special label on that unit. For
example,  the Administrator  may  issue regulations  providing for
measuring a representative sample of automobiles which will provide
information on the  maximum amount of noise  that is likely to be
emitted from any  given product.
Section 9. Imports
  Section 9  directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with
the Administrator, to issue regulations to carry  out  the provisions  of
the bill with respect to new products imported or offered for importa-
tion.
Section 10. Prohibited Acts
  Section 10 sets forth certain acts which are prohibited by the bill.
  Paragraph 10(a)(l)  forbids  any manufacturer to distribute in com-
merce any  new product manufactured after the effective date  of
applicable noise regulations under section 6 applicable to the product,
except in conformity with such regulations.
  Paragraph 10 (a) (2)  forbids any person (1) to remove  or render
inoperative, other than for maintenance, repair,  or replacement, any
device or element  of design incorporated into a product in compliance
with  noise regulations prescribed  under  section 6, or  (2) to use a
product after such device  or element of design  has  been removed  or
rendered  inoperative by any person.
  Paragraph 10(a)(3)  forbids  any manufacturer to distribute in com-
merce any new product manufactured after the effective date of label-
ing regulations under section 8 that apply to such product, except in
conformity with such regulations.                           ,-   1 „-,

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2361
   Paragraph 10 (a) (4) forbids any person, prior to sale of a product to
the ultimate purchaser, to remove a notice affixed to the product or its
container pursuant to  labeling regulations prescribed  under section
8(b).
   Paragraph 10 (a) (5) forbids the importation into the  United States
of any products in violation of regulations under section 9, discussed
above, relating to imports.
   Paragraph 10(a)(6) forbids any person to fail to comply with  the
provisions of section  13(a), discussed below, respecting  required
records, reports, and tests.
   Subsection 10(b) allows two  exceptions to certain of  these prohibi-
tions: (1) The Administrator is authorized to  exempt for a  specified
period of time any new product from paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5)
of subsection (a), upon such terms  and conditions  as he may find
necessary to protect the public health or welfare, for the purpose of
research, investigations, studies, demonstrations,  or training, or for
reasons of national security. (2) A product which is  manufactured
solely for export, and  which product (and its container) is visibly
labeled or tagged to that effect, is exempted from the prohibitions of
paragraphs  (1),  (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a), except that such
paragraphs shall apply  to such a product if it is in fact distributed in
commerce for use in any State.
Section 11. Enforcement
   Section 11 provides for enforcement of the prohibitions set out in
subsection 10(a)  of this Act. Paragraph 11 (a)(1)  establishes  a civil
penalty of not more than $25,000 for each violation of subsection 10(a).
This provision provides for the imposition of the civil penalty  (1)
by the Administrator  and  the  collection  thereof in  a civil  action
brought by the Federal Government in a district court in a proceeding
under this section, or  (2) by a State, with an  agreement under sub-
section ll(c), discussed below, through civil action in a State court.
   Section ll(a)(l)(B) provides that a person who does any  act in
violation  of  paragraph  (1), (2), or  (3) of  section 10(a), and who
establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due
care that such act was in violation of that paragraph, shall not be
subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
   Paragraph 11 (a) (2) provides  that hi any proceeding by the Admin-
istrator (or a State)  for imposition of  a civil penalty, the  person
charged must be given notice and an opportunity to present his views,
and the Administrator  (or  such State), in determining the penalty
or the amount accepted in compromise, must consider the  gravity
of the violation and the efforts of the person charged to achieve rapid
compliance after notification of the violation.
   Paragraph 11 (a) (3) provides that when a civil penalty is imposed by
the Administrator under this subsection, if his determination of liability
is made on the record after notice and opportunity  for hearing, then in
any civil action to collect such civil penalty any findings of facts upon
which the above determination  is based are conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence on the  record considered as a whole.
   This  section  gives  the  Administrator  two procedural  alterna-
tives for  assessing civil  penalties. He may assess a penalty by  giving
the violator  notice and an opportunity to present his  views, and then
by collecting the penalty in a full de novo trial in  the court in which
                                                           [p.  17]

-------
 2362          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


the collection  action is brought.  Alternatively,  he may  give  the
violator a full administrative hearing on the violation, and  make his
determination of liability on the record after notice and opportunity
for hearing. In this case, in any civil action to collect the civil penalty,
the Administrator's findings of fact  would  be reviewed under  the
substantial evidence rule.
  For  the purpose of imposing  cumulative penalties, each  day of
violation of any paragraph  of section  10 (a) will be a separate viola-
tion under paragraph 11 (a) (4).
  Subsection ll(b) authorizes the United States to bring a civil action
in the  district courts  of the United States to restrain any violations
of section 10 (a) of the bill.
  Subsection ll(c)  allows the Administrator, when authorized by
State law, to make  an agreement with a  State, with  or without
reimbursement, authorizing  appropriate State officials to impose civil
penalties under subsection (a)(l)  above, and to bring civil actions in
appropriate State courts to impose civil penalties or restrain violations
under section 10(a), and the courts of such State  may entertain any
such civil action. Any civil penalty imposed by a  State court is pay-
able one-half to the State and one-half to the Federal Government.
  Subsection  ll(d)  exempts  any  department,  agency, or  instru-
mentality of the United States from the definition of  "person" in
section 3(2) of this Act.
Section 1%. Citizen suits
  Section 12 provides a  procedure  for citizen suits in furtherance of
the purpose of the Act to protect the public health  and welfare.
  Subsection 12 (a)  allows any person (other than  the United States)
to commence a civil action  on his own behalf, subject to subsection
(b), discussed below, against  (1) any person (including  the  United
States,  and  any  other governmental  instrumentality  or  agency
to the  extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitu-
tion) who is allegedly in violation of any noise control requirement,
discussed below under subsection (e), or (2) against the Administrator
of EPA or the Administrator  of FAA for an alleged failure to carry
out non-discretionary duties under their respective authorities. The
Federal district courts are given jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy, to restrain the defendant from violating the
noise control requirement or to order  the  defendant Administrator to
perform such act or duty, as the case  may be.
  Subsection 12 (b) restricts the  above action (1) prior  to 60 days
after notice to the Administrator of EPA (and of  FAA, when appro-
priate) when there  is a violation of a noise control requirement and
to any alleged violator of such requirement, or if an Administrator
has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action to require
such compliance, in which case any person may intervene as a matter
of right,  or (2) prior to sixty days after notice has been given to the
Administrator of EPA (and of FAA, if appropriate), as the defendant,
that such action will be commenced. Any notice must be given in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator of EPA,
   Subsection 12(c)  provides that an Administrator, if not a party,
may intervene as a matter of right.
   Subsection 12(d) makes it clear  that no provision of this section
restricts  any right of any person to institute proceedings under any
                                                           [p. 18]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2363


statute or common law  to seek enforcement  of  any noise control
requirement or other relief.
  Under subsection 12 (e)  "noise control requirement" is denned for
purposes  of this section  as any provision of section  10(a)  (except
paragraph (6), relating to recordkeeping, etc.), or a standard rule, or
regulation under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
  The provisions in section 12  with respect  to citizen suits against
violators of noise control requirements are intended'to apply only to
civil actions to require actual compliance with such a requirement.
Actions for the assessment or collection of civil penalties are governed
solely by section  11.
Section IS. Records, reports, and  information
  Subsection 13 (a) requires every manufacturer of a product covered
by  standards under section 6 or labeling regulations under section 8
to (1) maintain such records, make such reports, provide such informa-
tion, and make such tests as the Administrator may reasonably require
to enable him to determine whether such manufacturer has acted or
is acting  in compliance with the  bill,  (2) permit, upon request, a
representative of the Administrator to view such information and the
results of such tests and to copy such records, and (3) make products
coming off the assembly line or  otherwise in the hands of the manu-
facturer  available for testing by the Administrator to  the extent
required by the  regulations.
  Subsection  13(b)  provides that  all information  obtained  by  the
Administrator or his representatives pursuant  to the above subsection
if it contains or relates to a matter referred to as confidential section
1905 of title  18 of  the United States Code,  shall be protected from
disclosure as provided in that section, except that it may be disclosed
to other Federal employees, with whom it must remain confidential or
when relevant to the matter in  controversy in any proceeding under
the proposed act. Such information cannot be  withheld from the duly
authorized committees of Congress.
Section 14- Research, technical assistance,  and public information
  Section 14 authorizes the Administrator of  EPA, in furtherance of
his  responsibilities under the bill, to conduct and assist noise research,
to  provide  technical  assistance to  State and  local  governments,
and to disseminate information  on noise to the public.
Section 15. Development of low-noise-emission products
  This section encourages the use of present  technology  and further
research to develop low-noise-emission products.
  To accomplish this  objective the Administrator is  directed  to
determine  which products qualify as low-noise-emission  products.
For a product or class of products to qualify, a proper certification
application must be filed  under procedures prescribed  by regulation
and a notice of such  application must  be published in the  Federal
Register in order  for  the Administrator to receive  and  evaluate
comments and make a determination based upon such evaluation and
whatever  other investigation is  necessary, including inspection  at a
place  designated in the regulations. The  Administrator has authority
to establish a Low-Noise-Emission Advisory Committee to assist him
in  determining which  products qualify. Within  ninety  days  after
receipt  of a  properly filed certification  application  a  determina-
                                                           [p- 19]

-------
2364          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


tion  must be made as to whether such product qualifies as a low-
noise-emission product. Within one hundred and eighty days after
a determination that such product qualifies,  a decision is to be made
as to whether it is suitable as a substitute  for a product presently
being purchased for use  in the Federal Government. Both the de-
termination and. the decision are to be published immediately in the
Federal Register, including the reasons therefor.
  Any product for which a proper certification application has been
received, which has been determined to  be a  low-noise-emission
product, and which has been decided  to be a suitable substitute for a
product presently being purchased will be certified by the Adminis-
trator for a period of one year.
  Such a certified product will be acquired by purchase for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other products if the Administrator of
General Services determines the procurement cost is no more than 125
per centum of the retail price of the least expensive product for which
it would be substituted. Statutory price limitations are waived for
procuring such products, and authorizations for appropriations for the
additional amounts needed for a three-year period are provided.
  Tests of products certified and procured by the Federal  Government
are to be made as the Administrator deems appropriate, and if noise
levels exceed those on which certification was based, he  must give a
written notice to the supplier as well as issue a  public notice. The
supplier will be given an  opportunity to  make necessary repairs,
adjustments, or replacements.
  Procedures to implement  this section are to be prescribed within
one hundred and eighty days after this Act becomes law.
Section 16. Authorization of appropriations
  To carry  out this Act (other than section 15)  appropriations are
authorized  for: $3,000,000 for fiscal  year 1972; $6,000,000 for fiscal
year 1973; and $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1974.

                       COMMITTEE VOTES

  One record vote was taken during  Committee consideration of the
bill.  The vote was  on the following amendment  by Mr. Eckhardt,
which was defeated by a vote of 3 ayes, 16 nays:
  Delete section 6(d)(l).

                        AGENCY REPORTS

                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
                                              Washington, D.C.
Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your requests for the
views of the Environmental Protection Agency  on H.R. 5275 (and
5388), 6986, and 6989. We are also including comments on H.R. 923,
6002, 6984, and 6990, which are related proposals.
  H.R. 5275  (also  5388) is the Administration's bill to control the
generation  and transmission  of noise detrimental to  the  human
environment.
  Under a statement of congressional findings, that bill would provide
that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to public
                                                          [p. 20]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2365


 health and welfare, particularly in urban areas; that the major sources
 of noise include transportation vehicles and  equipment,  machinery,
 appliances, and other manufactured articles that move in commerce;
 and that primary responsibility for control of noise in many respects
 rests with States  and local governments but that Federal action is
 essential to deal with major noise problems  which require  national
 uniformity of treatment. It would be the policy of the Federal Govern-
 ment to promote an environment free from noise that  jeopardizes
 public health and  welfare.
  The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who
 would have the primary responsibility for implementing  the legisla-
 tion, would be required to promote the coordination of  all Federal
 programs relating to noise research and control, and all other Federal
 agencies would be required to furnish him with any information he
 might reasonably request about their programs. On the basis of regu-
 lar consultation with appropriate agencies, the Administrator would
 publish periodic reports on the status and progress of Federal noise
 abatement activities.
  The Administrator would be given authority to develop and publish
 criteria,  after consultation with appropriate Federal Departments and
 agencies, for noise for the protection of public health and welfare and
 which would reflect the best scientific knowledge in identifying the
 effects of differing quantities and  qualities of noise. He would be
 directed  to  confer with the Secretaries  of  Health, Education, and
 Welfare  and Labor to assure consistency with criteria and standards
 for occupational noise exposure under the Occupational Safety and
 Health Act of 1970. After compilation of initial criteria, the Adminis-
 trator would compile and publish a report or series of reports to identify
 major sources of noise and to give information on techniques for the
 control of such noise which would include available data on technology,
 costs and alternative methods of control.
  The Administrator would  also be authorized to  prescribe  noise
 standards for  construction  equipment,  transportation  equipment,
 including recreation equipment and equipment powered by  internal
 combustion engines. In prescribing and amending standards, he would
 have to consider whether it would be economically reasonable, techno-
 logically practicable and appropriate for the particular products and
 whether  the particular products could  be more effectively controlled
 through  Federal  or State  or local regulations. The standards so
 prescribed would be those requisite to protect the public  health and
 welfare. Standards would apply only to those products manufactured
 subsequent to the effective date of such standards. Any manufacturer
 of a product covered by a proposed standard would have the right to
 a public hearing.
  Section 611  of  the Federal Aviation Act, which authorizes the
regulation of noise or sonic boom characteristics of civil aircraft and
 components thereof, would be amended to provide that  standards,
rules and regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion subsequent to enactment of this legislation must be approved by
the Administrator of  EPA. Further, after the effective date of the
proposed legislation, the FAA could not issue a type certificate for
any  aircraft and components thereof unless he has already prescribed
standards, rules and regulations for the noise characteristics.
  After the Administrator of EPA prescribed noise-generation stand-
ards for any product, no State or subdivision  thereof could adopt or
                                                          [p. 21]

-------
2366          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


enforce  different  standards  for such products.  However, States or
subdivisions would retain the right to control, regulate, or restrict the
use, operation or movement of such products.
  Under the provisions of this Administration proposal,  the Admin-
istrator of EPA would also have the authority to designate products
or classes of products that (1) produce noise capable of adversely
affecting public health and welfare or (2) are sold wholly or in part
on the basis of their effectiveness in reducing noise. The Adminis-
trator  could prescribe  noise-generation  or  noise-reduction  labeling
requirements for  any  products so designated to  be affixed to the
product and the container.  These labeling requirements would be far
reaching and apply to many categories of equipment beyond those
which would be subject to noise  emission standards. States or sub-
divisions would retain the right to regulate product labeling in  any
way not in conflict with Federal regulations.
  Prohibitions included in  the proposal would not allow any manu-
facturer of new products to sell a product after  the effective date of
labeling regulations  promulgated  respecting either  noise-generating
characteristics or noise reduction unless they conformed to such regula-
tions; or any person, prior to the sale to the ultimate purchaser to
remove the affixed notice or label. Products imported would be  sub-
ject to the same general standards and labeling requirements as domes-
tic products. Two exceptions to these prohibitions would be provided—
the Administrator could exempt any new product upon such terms and
conditions  as he might find necessary to protect the public health or
welfare, for the purpose of  research, investigations, studies, demon-
strations or training, or for reasons of national security; and products
intended solely for export.
  Every domestic manufacturer covered by the noise regulations or
labeling regulations would be required ta maintain records, make re-
ports and provide such information as the Administrator may reason-
ably need  to determine that  such manufacturer was in compliance
with the Act. Information  relating to  trade secrets would  be kept
confidential.
  In furtherance  of his responsibilities, the Administrator would be
authorized to conduct and assist noise research, including the investi-
gation of effects on humans, domestic animals, wildlife, and property;
development of improved methods  and standards for measurement
and monitoring of noise in cooperation  with the National Bureau of
Standards; and determination of most effective and practicable means
of controlling noise. He would also provide technical assistance to
and prepare model legislation for State and local governments and
disseminate information to the public.
  H.R. 5275 would provide for civil penalties of not more than $25,000
for each violation of the Act which could be  imposed either by the
Administrator, after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, or  by  a
court. In determining the amount of the penalty, the Administrator
would consider the gravity of the  violation and the efforts to achieve
compliance after  the notice was given.  Penalties could be judicially
enforced. The Administrator would be  able to enlist the aid of any
State to enforce the Act either by suing to restrain violations or by
imposing civil penalties. Any civil penalty thus imposed would be
payable one-half to the State and one-half to the Federal Government.
  The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that the Ad-
ministration proposal, H.R. 5275, be enacted. This legislation would
                                                          [p. 22]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2367


provide for noise abatement control which is appropriate and adequate
at this  time. The Administrator of EPA  would have  flexibility of
management which would allow him to incorporate the best  man-
agerial techniques and planning and to apply the most suitable and
up-to-date technology available to carry out an effective program.
States and local governments would retain responsibility to control
certain  aspects of noise.  The  Federal  .Government  would provide
technical  assistance to them and address the major  noise problems
where national uniformity is needed.
  In  summary, the functions that  EPA, hi consultation with  other
agencies, would carry out under H.R. 5275 are:
      1. Prescribe criteria for noise to protect the public health and
    welfare.
      2. Identify and set standards for the following major sources of
    noise:
           (a) Construction equipment;
           (6) Transportation equipment (including recreational ve-
        hicles and related equipment);  and
           (c) Equipment powered by internal combustion engines.
      3. Establish labeling requirements for designate  products or
    classes of products.
      4. Promote the coordination of Federal programs relating to
    noise research and noise control.
  H.R.  923 would provide for the establishment of an Office of Noise
Abatement Control within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Such office  would be directed to conduct a complete
investigation and  study  of noise and  its effects  on public health
and welfare. The results of the study, together with recommendations
for action, would be reported to the President and the Congress within
one year of the enactment of this bill. Appropriations of such amounts
as would be necessary for the purposes of the bill would be authorized.
  EPA  fully supports the purposes of H.R. 923,  but does not rec-
ommend  that  it  be  enacted  since its provisions closely parallel
requirements already enacted into law under the "Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of  1970" (Title IV, P.L. 91-604) which places the
responsibility with the Environmental  Protection  Agency. Actions
mandated by the  Congress in  P.L. 91-604 are now in progress in
EPA.
  H.R.  6002 would "provide for a comprehensive program for the
control  of noise" under the direction of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Section 102 would authorize  the Administrator to make grants to
States for the purposes of providing programs of noise control, re-
search into the causes and effects of noise, programs for the investiga-
tion  of  existing causes of excessive noise  and research into  new
techniques of controlling, preventing,  and abating  noise" with an
authorization for  appropriations escalating from $5 million for  fiscal
year 1972 to $13 million for fiscal year 1976. Allocation and realloca-
tion formulas would be provided for these funds fof those States with
plans approved under conditions designated.
  Section 103 would  authorize the Director  (rather than  the Ad-
ministrator) to make grants to any public or nonprofit private agency,
organization  or institution, or to make contracts for  the services
of any such agency, organization, institution or of any individual to
conduct research, provide training,  and establish and conduct  dem-
                                                          [p. 23]

-------
2368          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
onstration projects. Appropriations would  be authorized on an es-
calated basis from $5 million for fiscal year 1972 to $12 million for
fiscal year 1975.
   Title II of this proposal would require  the Administrator,  after
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation,  to prescribe and
amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom
and to prescribe and amend  such rules and regulations as may  be
necessary. Standards, rules and regulations initially issued under this
section would include specified restrictions on such things as the dBA
level exposure  to the nearest  residential properties, times of takeoffs
in populated areas and ground runup intervals. Civil aircraft would
be prohibited from operating  at supersonic speeds over land areas of
the United States. Injunction proceedings would be provided, and any
person violating any standard,  rule or regulation  under  this title
would be fined not less than $1,000 for each violation. Section 611 of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C.  1431) would be repealed.
   Title III would direct the  Administrator to prescribe standards,
rules and regulations applicable to the emission of noise from motor
vehicles sold in commerce which endanger health and welfare. Stand-
ards, rules and regulations initially issued would include prohibitions
against the operation of motor vehicles where the noise level of the
vehicle exceeds specified dBA levels  at  certain speeds. Injunction
proceedings and penalties would be the same as under Title II.
   Title IV would  direct the  Administrator to prescribe standards,
rules and regulations  applicable  to  occupational  noise exposure.
Standards, rules and regulations initially issued would include specified
dBA limits throughout the workday and for impact noise during the
workday. Injunction  proceedings and penalties would again be the
same as under Title II. Standards, rules and regulations which would
be promulgated under this bill would supersede those set under the
Walsh-Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35, et seq.).
  EPA generally supports the purposes of the bill but recommends
against the enactment  of  H.R.  6002.  The Administration's  bill,
H.R. 5275, for reasons enumerated below, provides  a more compre-
hensive and effective  approach to the problem.
  Section 102  of H.R.  6002  is  patterned  upon  existing State-aid
categorical program support authorities such as under  the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This authority overlaps,  to a large
measure, that contained in Section 103 of the proposal under which
grants could be made to "any public or nonprofit private agency,
organization, or institution" to conduct research in the same areas.
Duplication of  research efforts would be wasteful and could lead  to
confusion. We  agree  it is desirable to provide technical assistance
to States to develop noise  control programs; however, we do not
believe it is necessary or appropriate for the Federal  Government
to provide categorical program support to  states as contemplated
in H.R. 6002. The more general  authorities contained in Section 11
of H.R. 5275 would also provide greater flexibility in structuring
research programs to be conducted by both public and private agencies.
Further, the appropriation provision in Section 14 of H.R. 5275 is
preferable in that it  would  authorize  appropriations for each fiscal
year beginning  with 1972 for such sums as are necessary. This would
provide for essential  flexibility in structuring programs needed to
take advantage of "breakthroughs" or unexpected new developments
in research.
                                                       -  [P- 24]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2369


  Title II of H.R. 6002,  which sets specific requirements on dBA
level exposure of aircraft to residential  properties, times of takeoffs,
etc., is based on  current  technology and existing standards. Such
requirements would limit  the Federal Government's  authority  to
establish  more  stringent standards keeping  pace with  new  tech-
nology. Rather than  repeal  Section 611  of the Federal  Aviation
Act of 1958, Section  6(c)  of the Administration's proposal would
amend Section  611 by making rules and regulations developed there-
under  subject to  the  approval of the  Administrator of  EPA.  The
Administration's proposal would also require that the Administrator
of the Federal  Aviation Administration not issue  "type certificates"
under  Section 603 of that Act unless he has presciibed standards, rules
and regulations  subject to  the  approval  of the Administrator  of
EPA,  and further that the Administrator of EPA may at any time
request the Administrator  of  FAA to  report  on the advisability  of
revising standards, rules and regulations not believed to adequately
protect the public from aircraft noise or sonic boom. The Adminis-
tration's approach provides flexibility to tajse into account changes
in noise technology, noise monitoring, and noise control requirements.
  Again under  Title III of H.R. 6002,  pertaining  to control and
abatement of motor vehicle noise, numerical values and other condi-
tions for noise exposure are specified. In this instance,  the proposed
limitations closely follow those established by the State of California,
except that they do not specify the point of measurement (number  of
feet) nor do they take into account some of the research results now
being  developed  by the Highway  Research Board of the National
Research  Council, National  Academy  of  Sciences, and National
Academy  of Engineering. Therefore, the requirements that would be
fixed in the law would not reflect the latest developments, nor provide
for  keeping pace with such  developments. Title III covers only motor
vehicle noise,  whereas, the Administration's proposal  provides for
noise generation control for other internal-combustion engines such  as
heavy  construction equipment (compressors,  generators,  etc.). Vir-
tually  all  recent studies have concluded that the major sources  of
noise in urban areas are from all forms of internal-combustion equip-
ment. H.R. 6002 thus deals with only a portion of the problem while
the Administration bill provides for the most important sources.
  Title IV  of  H.R.  6002  specifies numerical levels that must be
included in the regulations. The numerical regulations regarding the
8-hour daily exposure are more  restrictive  than those  presently
specified in the  Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (which have been
a source of controversy). This Title, in effect,  would supersede the
authorities of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 regard-
ing  occupational health vested in the Secretaries of  Labor and Health,
Education, and  Welfare. The environmental aspect of  occupational
health  and safety is only one segment of programs which involve a
combination of medical, engineering and educational functions that
should be conducted in an  integrated, coordinated fashion. Removal
of responsibility, authority  and accountability for one segment of the
industrial-environmental exposure would seriously weaken the overall
occupational health and safety effort. In addition to the environmental
controls, other measures are required, such as the setting of standards
for hearing ability associated with various tasks and occupations, and
pre-employment and periodic audiometric and other  evaluations to
                                                          [p. 25]

-------
2370          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


differentiate effects of occupational noise from other sources of hearing
loss  (illness or accident), and the problem  of  providing an overall
environmental  control program operated in  conjunction  with  other
medical and educational procedures.
  The relationship  between  the  occupational environment and  the
general environment, recognizing the totality of  environmental  ex-
posures, is taken into account in  Section 5 of the Administration  bill
which would require that the Administrator of EPA assure consistency
between the criteria provided for in that proposal and the criteria and
standards for occupational noise exposure produced under the Oc-
cupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In our view, this represents
a better functional solution to the total environmental problem than
that proposed in H.R. 6002.
  H.R. 6986 (and H.R. 6987) would  amend the Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970.
  Under Section  402, among other things, the Congress  would-find
that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare,
that the level of noise in the United  States has doubled since  1955;
the government has not taken steps necessary to provide for control
and  abatement; that the Federal Government has a responsibility to
protect the health and welfare of its citizens; and that  all citizens
are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment. The purpose of  the
act would be to expand the functions  and responsibilities of the Office
of Noise  Abatement  and Control; to establish means of  effective
coordination  of all Federal research and activities relating to  noise
control; to establish standards to promote public health and welfare;
to provide grants, contracts and assistance to State and local govern-
ment;  and to establish a Noise Control Advisory Council to provide
expert advice.
  Section 403 would provide  that the  Administrator of EPA establish
an Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
  Section 404 would authorize the Office in performing its functions
to undertake investigations,  hearings, research, experiments, publish
reports and assist State and local governmental bodies with technical
assistance.
  Section 405 would provide that this Office coordinate the efforts
of any arm of the Federal Government which has any responsibility
relating to the control of noise, and all Federal agencies must consult
with this Office on noise problems considered  to be a public nuisance.
The Office would be required  to publish periodic reports on the status
and progress  of Federal activities.
  Section 406 would provide that an annual report be  submitted to
the Congress in July of each year which would include complete in-
formation on the results of its investigations, on the work and activities
of State and  local governmental bodies and on the activities of  other
recipients of grants or contracts.
  Section 407 would  establish a categorical grant program for the
support of State and other local governmental bodies for developing,
establishing and conducting programs  of noise control and for research
into the causes  and effects of  noise and new techniques.
  Under Section 408 the head of the Office would be further authorized
to make grants or contracts  to any public or nonprofit organization
for the purpose of conducting research into noise  pollution, training
professional and technical personnel, and  conducting demonstrations
projects.                                                  [p>  26]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2371


   Section 409 would forbid Federal contract negotiations with persons
 convicted of violation of Section  412  which lists  "prohibited acts."
 The head of the Office  would establish  procedures  required, and
 within  180 days after enactment of  the legislation  the  President
 would be  required  to  issue an order requiring compliance  by all
 Federal agencies involved in procurement. The President could exempt
 any contract, loan or grant where such exemption would  be para-
 mount to the interest of the United States, and he would be required
 to report annually to the Congress regarding measures taken.
   Section 410  would create a Noise  Control  Advisory Council to
 advise the head  of  the Office  on  its responsibilities and further to
 review all project grants and contracts.
   Section 411 would authorize the prescribing of standards, rules and
 regulations applicable to any machine, or class of machinery, which
 is determined contributes to, or may contribute to,  the endangering
 of the public health  and welfare. Provision would be made for neces-
 sary inspections and investigations to implement this section. Manu-
 facturers for which regulations, rules or standards were promulgated
 would be required to  maintain records, make reports and provide
 necessary information. State or local governmental  units would be
 permitted to set  stricter standards than those established under this
 section.
  H.R. 6986 further would provide for district courts to have jurisdic-
 tion to restrain violations of the standards set and to impose civil and
 criminal penalties for each violation with maximum fines set. If the
 head of the Office fails to take action against a violator within 60 days
 suits by private citizens would be authorized against the polluter or
 the head of the Office, as may  be  appropriate. In any civil action to
 which the head of the Office is a party, he would appoint attorneys to
 represent him.
  EPA supports the  general objectives of H.R. 6986, but recommends
 enactment instead of H.R. 5275.
  Section 403 would continue the Office  of Noise  Abatement and
 Control currently established by Title IV, P.L. 91-604 and deals with
 responsibilities for  undertaking  investigations, hearings,  research,
 experiments and reports provided under P.L. 91-604. We would prefer
 an approach whereby the Administrator of EPA would have manage-
 ment flexibility of modern program planning and budget  operation
 and procedures.
  Coordination of Federal activities under Section 405 carries forward
 that requirement already in P.L. 91-604 and in the main, contains the
 same proposals as in the Administration bill under Section 4. Section
 405 would require the publication of a periodic report and Section 406
 requires an annual report. While a report requirement is desirable, we
 believe only one such requirement  is preferable.
  As in H.R. 6002, the grant programs provided in Section 407 and
 408 would be duplicative. Again, the technical assistance provisions
 contained in H.R. 5275,  would provide a better basis for Federal
support of State  and local programs and would give more flexibility
to take care  of individual State needs. Section 407 and 408  would
 also provide  specific appropriation authorizations. As stated above,
we believe the legislation should authorize appropriation of such sums
 as may be necessary. Studies that  are underway in EPA will provide
 a basis for determining the amounts that will be needed to carry out
 an effective program.
                                                          [p. 27]

-------
2372          LEGAL  COMPILATION'—SUPPLEMENT I
  Section 409 would provide for Federal procurement procedures for
with respect to noise control. Although the Administration's bill does
not specifically  deal with this issue,  we believe  that consideration
should be given to the use of Federal procurement to further the pur-
poses of the Federal noise control program.
  We concur in the desirability of obtaining advice and recommenda-
tions  of  an interdisciplinary  group  of  nongovernmental  experts.
However, we question the desirability of a Noise Control Advisory
Council to deal in the actual administration of grant and contract
awards. EPA is presently considering the establishment of an advisory
group. In this context we will take account of  the need for experts
in the noise control field.
  As provided in Section 411 standards,  rules and regulations would
be applicable to machines, or classes of machinery, defined in Section
416 as any item of mechanical or electrical machinery or equipment.
This definition is vague and could cover almost anything. The Adminis-
tration bill deals  with the major  sources of noise  in urban areas.
Studies that are now underway in  EPA will be useful in identifying
other sources of noise that require attention and  other steps that may
be needed on the part of Federal, State or local governments to reduce
noise.
  An almost impossible situation for manufacturers would be created
by  provision for  State  or  local  standards which are stricter  than
those set by  the  Federal  Government for  products in  interstate
commerce. While  conditions in States may  vary,  it  is  envisioned
that the standards to be established by the  Administrator  of EPA
would  be those  most consistent with requirements for protection of
health and  welfare and  the abatement of nuisances. Where more
restrictive  requirements  might be needed  to  meet  special  State
situations,  the provision of the Administration's bill would preserve
the rights of States or sub-divisions to control, regulate, or restrict
use, operation,  or  movement of products emitting noise. We believe
that this is a far more satisfactory approach to the problem.
  Section 414 provides that attorneys  employed by the "head of the
Office" shall appear  and  represent him in  any actions  instituted
under the Act. We believe that the Attorney General of the United
States  or his designee should represent the Federal  Government in
any actions.
  H.R. 6988 (and H.R.  6989) would require the disclosure of the
operational noise level of all new machinery distributed in interstate
commerce and imported  into the  United States  one year after enact-
ment. "Machinery" is defined as an item of .mechanical or electrical
machinery or  equipment,  and "operational noise level" is defined
as the  highest level  of  internally  generated noise  produced by
machinery when in operation under reasonably anticipated conditions
of use.
  The proposal would  require that  disclosure  be  made of  each
machine's  operational noise  level  unless it has been specifically
exempted by the Administrator. Such an exemption would be based
upon  the operation noise level being so  low as  to be negligible and
that such information would not be of  value to the user.
                                                          [p. 28]

-------
            NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2373


   The bill  would direct  the Administrator to  prescribe regulations
 establishing standard procedures for measuring  the operational noise
 level of each class of machinery and the form and content of plates
 or labels which would be required. He would be  further authorized to
 conduct such inspection  and investigation as may be necessary to
 implement  the Act and to require manufacturers of new machinery
 to keep records, make reports and provide such information as the
 Administration may reasonably require.
   The Administrator would be authorized to assess  a civil penalty,
 not  in excess of $25,000 for each violation with a maximum penalty
 not  to exceed  $500,000 for a  related series of violations.  Criminal
 penalties could be imposed by  a court up  to $5,000 or imprisonment
 not to exceed 180 days, or both. District courts would have jurisdiction
 of any action.  Civil action by private citizens  would be authorized
 against any violator or the Administrator if no action has been taken
 within sixty days after notice  of a violation. In any  civil action to
 which the Administrator is a party,  he would appoint attorneys to
 represent him.
   EPA favors the purposes of H.R. 6988, but prefers the Administra-
 tion bill for the  following reasons.
   The definition of "machinery"  in H.R. 6988 is  so  broad that
 literally thousands  of items would come under  it.  The definition of
 "operational noise level" as representing the highest level of internally
 generated noise  produced  by  the machine adds  new  terminology
 which would only serve to complicate the already "highly complex and
 somewhat confused semantics relating  to the  noise  problem. The
 "operational noise level"  would be a required specification  or state-
 ment to be included on plates or labels to be affixed to machines. We
 see little merit in affixing plates or labels which give no indication as
 to the significance of the noise level information or its effect on health
 and  welfare or nuisance  effects.
  The Administration's proposal provides for a more manageable and
 meaningful  approach to  the requirement to inform  the public re-
 garding noise generation associated with  various  products and its
 significance. Greater flexibility would also be given to the Adminis-
 trator in selecting the method of the notice and the units of measure-
 ment and specification  of the warning. This would allow the use of
 the best  scientific technology available  to  develop meaningful terms
 applicable to  the particular product and the  noise  therefrom.  It
would also allow the Administrator to use information developed in
the course of hearings called for by Title IV, P.L. 91-604.
  H.R. 6990 (and H.R. 6991) would amend the Occupational Safety
 and  Health Act  of  1970 to require  adoption of standards for the
purpose  of  providing  effective  protection to workers  against the
 deleterious effects of excessive  noise.
  This proposal would  direct the Secretary of Labor  to promulgate
noise standards in accordance with a dBA  table  provided.
  Since the  Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor
have the responsibilities"for occupational health and safety matters,
EPA defers to their judgment as to the desirability of this proposal.
  It is of interest,  however, that the Administrator  of EPA would
be required  to assure consistency between criteria  published under
                                                          [p. 29]

-------
2374         LEGAL COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT  I


Section 5 (a) and standards for occupational noise exposure under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. We  believe that the
progressive limitations may go far beyond health and safety require-
ments. Those suggested limitations should be thoroughly  examined.
  In summary, we  favor the purposes of most of  these  propopals,
but we believe the Administration proposal is the most desirable.
  We are advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there
is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
      Sincerely yours,
                               WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
                                                Administrator.


                           U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
                             Washington, D.C., August 11, 1971.
Hon.  HARLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman,  Committee on Interstate and  Foreign  Commerce,
House of Representatives.
  DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for
the views of the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 5275,  a bill "To
control the generation  and  transmission of noise detrimental to the
human environment, and for other purposes."
  The Commission has no comment on the bill.
  The Commission finds no personnel management provisions  or
implications in the bill. The staff required to support  the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the new functions
assigned to him would be employed and managed under existing law
and regulations.
  The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the stand-
point  of the Administration's program  there is no  objection to the
submission of this report.
  By  direction of the Commission.
      Sincerely yours,
                                          JAYNE B.  SPAIN,
                                             Acting Chairman.


                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
                               Washington, B.C., April 13, 1971.
Hon.  CARL B. ALBERT,
Speaker of the House oj Representatives, Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section  102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, I am  enclosing the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Noise Control Act of 1971.
This  proposed legislation is part of  the  President's environmental
program as announced in his environmental message of February 8,
1971,  and was transmitted to  you on  February 10, 1971. The bill
was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
      Sincerely yours,
                                 WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
                                                Administrator.
                                                        [p. 30]

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2375


                  NOISE CONTROL ACT OF  1971

               ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT

A. Nature of the proposal
  The bill is part of the President's environmental program as an-
nounced in his Environmental Message of February 8, 1971. It will be
administered by the  Environmental Protection  Agency and was
developed in coordination with the Council on Environmental Quality.
  The proposed  legislation would expand and coordinate  Federal
efforts to  control noise, which presents a growing threat to the health
and welfare of the American people. Particularly in congested urban
areas, the noise produced by the products of our advancing technology,
and in the manufacture of those products, causes continual annoyance
and in some cases serious physical harm. While the States and localities
have the  responsibility to deal with many aspects of noise, effective
Federal action is essential with  respect  to  major noise problems
requiring  national uniformity of treatment.
  The proposed bill would achieve three primary functions. First, it
would establish  in  the Environmental Protection Agency authority
to coordinate existing Federal noise research and control programs,
and authority to publish criteria and control-technology  documents
relating to  noise.  Second, it would supplement  existing  Federal
authority  to regulate  the noise  characteristics of  articles that are
major  sources of noise, and authorize Federal noise labeling require-
ments for such articles. Third, it would direct all Federal agencies to
administer  their programs,  consistent with  existing authority, in
such a manner as to minimize noise.
  In greater detail, the various sections of  the bill provide as follows:
  Section  1.—States the title of the Act.
  Section  2.-—States findings of the seriousness of the noise problem
and  of the need for  more effective Federal actions;  establishes a
Federal policy to promote an environment free from noise that jeop-
ardizes the public health or welfare.
  Section  3.—Defines certain terms used  in the bill.
  Section  4-—Authorizes  EPA to promote coordination  of  Federal
noise  programs,  and to publish periodic reports on the accomplish-
ments of such programs.
  Section  5.—Authorizes EPA to  develop and publish criteria for
noise, indicating what  amounts and types of noise are consistent with
 Erotection of the public health and welfare; authorizes EPA  to  pub-
 sh reports  identifying major sources of noise and discussing techni-
ques for controlling noise from those sources.
  Section  6.—Authorizes the Administrator of EPA to prescribe
noise  standards for construction equipment,  transportation equip-
ment,  and equipment powered by internal combustion engines that
he has identified as a major source  of  noise and for which he has
discussed  control  technology in   a  report published  pursuant to
section 5.
  Section  7.—Authorizes EPA to require noise labeling of products
that create significant  noise.
  Section  8.—Prohibits violation of the  requirements of the Act or
regulations thereunder.
                                                          [p- 31J

-------
 2376          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


  Section 9.—Requires every manufacturer of a product covered by
noise regulation  or  labeling regulations to maintain such  records,
make such reports, and provide such information as the Administra-
tor may reasonably  require to  enable him to  determine whether the
manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with the proposed
act.
  Section 10.—-Directs Federal  agencies to promote noise control.
  Section 11.—Authorizes EPA to perform noise research and related
activities.
  Section 12.—Provides for enforcement of the prohibitions in the bill.
  Section 13.—-Directs the  Administrator  and the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue regulations to apply to  imports the same general
standards and labeling requirements that are applied to like domestic
products.
  Section 14-—Authorizes appropriations.
  Section 15.—Amends the Clean Air Act by deleting the requirement
that there  be an Office of Noise Abatement and Control in  the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
B. Analysis of environmental implications
  1. The proposed bill should  have several principal  environmental
impacts:
  (a) It would accelerate the growth of understanding of the effects
of noise and of means of noise  control. EPA would perform and sup-
port research in  this area,  and serve as a gathering point for the
results of research performed  by others. The criteria and  control-
technology reports published by EPA  would bring together up-to-
date information  for the benefit of all interested persons.
  (b) It would establish for the first time an explicit  Federal policy
to protect  the environment from moise. Although there are  existing
Federal programs for noise control, these  presently lack a unifying
policy statement  and a means of coordination, both of which the bill
would provide.
  (c) It would enable EPA to zegulate noise generation by certain
products in commerce that  are major sources of noise. By means of
this  authority, EPA would  be  able to ensure  that noise reduction is
considered  along  with all other parameters in the design and manu-
facture of such products, and that they will be as quiet as technological,
economic and other constraints will  permit. This direct regulation,
on a national level, would  eliminate any  competitive disadvantage
that might arise  from State or private efforts to  reduce noise from
such products.
  (d) Its provision  for Federal  noise labeling requirements would
ensure that purchasers of products will be informed about the noise
characteristics of the various products available. This would increase
the effectiveness of the market mechanism in encouraging the develop-
ment of quieter  products,  and  enhance  awareness of  the  general
population to the problem of noise.
  (e) It would ensure that noise regulation of aircraft by the FAA
comports with the noise criteria developed by EPA.
  2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be  avoided should
the bill be enacted.
  The bill  is not expected  to have any adverse environmental con-
sequences.                                                 [p> ^

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2377
  It might be suggested that the assumption of a more active role by
the Federal Government would lead State and local governments to
abandon their current efforts to control noise, producing a net detri-
ment to the environment. This is not expected to occur. The bill
expressly  reaffirms the continuing role of the States, and contains
provisions for encouraging the States to adopt model noise-abatement
laws and  improved methods of noise measurement and control. The
increased  understanding of noise and technical assistance  to  the
States provided under the bill should promote  more effective State
actions in those araes not preempted by the Federal Government.
  3. Alternatives to the proposed bill.
  Except for authority to control aircraft noise  (P.L. 90-411), to set
standards for highway noise  levels (P.L. 91-605), and to regulate
occupational noise exposures to workers in interstate industries (P.L.
91-596), the Federal Government has not yet assumed  in the noise
field the dominant role that it has in combatting air and water pollu-
tion. This reflects in part the fact that noise does not have residues that
accumulate in the environment,  and noise effects are therefore largely
local to the source. Therefore, a possible alternative to the proposed
bill is to leave the regulation of noise primarily to the States. However,
most products  that would be regulated under this bill are manufac-
tured for  a  national market, making State regulation of their noise
characteristics impracticable. These considerations already have led
to assumption of Federal responsibility  for aircraft  noise  and for
occupational noise exposure.
  Alternatively, the Federal Government might undertake to regulate
not  only  the noise-generation characteristics of certain  products in
commerce but also the levels of perceived noise in areas where such
levels are  undesirably high. State and local restrictions on such "ambi-
ent noise" levels have not been highly  effective. However,  Federal
assumption  of this essentially local responsibility does not  appear
warranted. Centralized administration and enforcement of local noise
limits  would be unmanageable. The States  and localities would be
aided in their efforts by the technical assistance provided  under the
proposed  bill, without taking from the local units of government the
power to determine the levels of perceived noise  consistent with com-
munity aspirations.
  If neither  the Federal nor the  State and  local governments take
more effective action to control and abate noise, the noise levels in
populous  areas,  and along the routes  of major  transportation lines,
may be expected to become continually higher.
  4. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
  In the short term, substantial costs may be incurred in industry and
in government as steps are taken to enhance our  understanding of
noise, improve noise-control technology, and redesign products and
 Erocesses  to eliminate noise harmful to the public health and welfare.
 a. certain instances product costs may be increased. However, it is
unrealistic to think that the growing noise problem can be  ignored
indefinitely,  and, as with many other forms of environmental degra-
dation, the long-term costs of noise control will be minimized if action
is begun promptly. Noise research wil] make possible identification of
the effects of noise in advance of further aggravation of the problem.
Early institution of product labeling and regulation  of the major
                                                          [p.  33]

-------
2378          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
sources of noise will help to ensure that industry will give noise factors
adequate weight in design and investment decisions, avoiding long-
term commitments to courses of action inimical to the public interest
in noise contro1.
   5. Any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.
   The bill would tend to direct long-term commitment of industrial
resources toward production  of goods with improved noise charac-
teristics. Implementation of the bill would commit modest amounts
of Federal funds to the study of-noise and the Administration of the
new regulatory machinery. The amounts of funds required would not
be such as to detract from full and adequate funding of other Federal
environmental programs.
C. Coordination with other agencies
   The proposed bill was prepared in coordination with the Council on
Environmental Quality with the guidance and assistance of an inter-
agency task force including representatives of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology, the National
Aeronautics and Space Council, and the Departments of Commerce,
Interior, Labor, Transportation, State, Housing and  Urban Develop-
ment, and Health, Education, and Welfare.
   Comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement from the
Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, Housing and Urban
Development, and Transportation are attached.
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
                               OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
                            Washington, D.C., February 8, 1971.
Mr. TIMOTHY ATKESON,
General Counsel, Executive Office of the President, Council on Environ-
    mental Quality, Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. ATKESON: We have reviewed your proposed environ-
mental impact statements for the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1971, Proposed Noise Control Act of 1971, and Toxic
Substances Control Act of 1971. Each of them discusses and comments
upon one  of the three legislative proposals. The statements indicate
you expect none of these proposals to have  a  significant adverse
impact upon the quality of the human environment.
  Insofar as your proposed statements analyse and discuss the merits
of the  three legislative proposals we have no comment beyond that
which  we  have  already given directly to OMB  in our proposed
legislative reports on these same proposals.
  Insofar  as  the proposed statements predict the absence  of  any
significant  adverse  environment impact should the proposed legisla-
tion be enacted, we have no information or knowledge within the
area of our particular expertise which  would indicate the contrary.
We believe that the  bills will  have  a positive  impact on  the
environment.
      Sincerely yours,
                                        DONALD T. BLISS,
                               Special Assistant to the Secretary.
                                                         [p. 34]

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2379
      DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                                    Washington, March 9, 1971.
Mr. WILLIAM  D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Administration,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR.  RUCKELSHAUS: This is in response  to the request  for
comment on the bill proposing the Noise Control Act of 1971 and the
draft 102(2)C Environmental Statement, dated January 22, 1971,
which accompanies this bill.
  This  Department  interposes  no objection to  the environmental
impact of this bill which we find reasonable as a first step in developing
a coordinated national approach to noise control.
  As  an editorial refinement for focus and scope, we would extend the
title of  Section 4 of  the bill by adding the words "and  policies" to
the title. We would also insert the words "and policies" after "pro-
grams"  in both  sentences  in Section  4(a). We  would avoid the false
inference that has been drawn from existing language to the effect
that  this is primarily a research  program  by omitting the words
"noise research and" in both sentences of 4 (a) and adding the words
"including supporting research" at the end  of both sentences. The
draft  environmental statement should be adjusted accordingly.
      Sincerely,
                                   CHARLES J.  ORLEBEKE,
                                       Deputy  Under Secretary.


             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
                            Washington, D.C., February 12, 1971.
Mr. TIMOTHY ATKESON,
General  Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR. ATKESON: As requested by your letter of January 28,
1971, we have reviewed the draft environmental impact statements for
proposed legislation in the areas of ocean dumping, noise  control and
water pollution control. We have not yet received the impact state-
ment  on the National Land Use Policy bill.
  We have had an opportunity  to review previously the proposed
ocean dumping legislation. The impact statement  is consistent with
the bill, and we  have no comments on it.
  The proposed water  pollution  legislation appears  to have few
transportation implications,  and  we  have no comments on those
environmental impact statements. We  would, however, call  your
attention to the  comments which the Department has sent to OMB
on  the  "Enforcement" and  "Phosphate  Control" legislation under
date of  February 4, 1971.
  We have several comments on the impact statement for the proposed
Noise Control  Act  of 1971. These comments parallel, to some extent,
our views on the legislation itself, as transmitted to OMB  on Jan-
uary  29, 1971. Our  comments on the legislation  were intended  to
strengthen the proposed act, particularly insofar as the abatement of
transportation generated and transmitted noise is concerned. If OMB
revises the proposed act per the Department's suggested changes and
comments, the subject impact statement should be revised accordingly.
                                                         [p. 35]

-------
 2380         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
  If the proposed act is not changed as suggested by the Department,
the following comments  pertain to the "Analysis of Environmental
Implications" section of  the statement:
  Par. l(c): This paragraph  is too  general. It presents an over-
simplified picture of the environment in the noise area. The use of
the phrase "as  quiet in use as technology will permit" is misleading
and tells only one part of an extremely complicated problem. Economic,
social, political and jurisdictional considerations are not mentioned.
The second sentence should be revised to read "By means of  this
authority,  EPA would  be able to ensure  that noise reduction is
considered along with all other parameters in the design and manu-
facture of such products, and that they  will be as quiet as technological,
economic and other constraints will permit."
  Par. 3: This  paragraph is inconsistent. The Federal Government
has assumed the dominant role for noise (preempted for  aircraft)
in three areas:
       (a) P.L. 90-411:  Standards for measurement and evaluation,
    and for control of aircraft noise and sonic boom.
       (6) P.L. 91-605,   Section 136: Standards for highway noise
      (c) Title 41 CFR, Part 50-204.10: Standards for occupational
    noise levels.
This dominance  should  be noted  and the  reasons for altering  it
presented in this paragraph on alternatives.
  Another point, Section 11. (c) of the proposed act, states that the
Administrator of EPA shall  not  approve an  airport development
project  without certifying that ".  . .  the design and operation of
the airport development will be consistent  with the  protection of
the surrounding area from noise that adversely affects human health
or welfare." This essentially places the responsibility for the "ambient
level" of airport environs on EPA, since  aircraft noise is predominantly
the highest of any type of noise around airports.  It therefore follows
that the Federal Government is regulating, in effect, the "levels of
perceived noise  in  areas where such  levels  are  undesirably high."
The impact statement  says that the Federal assumption of this local
responsibility is not warranted. The impact statement is  not con-
sistent with the proposed act, and should be changed.
  As noted earlier (see items 3. a. and 3.b.), the Federal Government
is taking effective action to control and abate noise along the routes
of major transportation  lines, and the  impact statement should not
state nor imply otherwise.
  We appreciate the opportunity to comment  on these draft  state-
ments,  and we  look forward to  reviewing the draft  statement  on
National Land Use Policy when it becomes available.
      Sincerely,
                                  MICHAEL CAFFERTY,
                               Acting Assistant Secretary for
                                Environment and Urban Systems.

   CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made  by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no  change is proposed is shown in roman) :
                                                         [p- 36]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2381


        SECTION 611 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OP 1958

    CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM

   [SEC. 611. (a) In  order  to  afford present and  future  relief  and
protection to the  public from unnecessary aircraft noise  and sonic
boom,  the Administrator of the Federal  Aviation Administration,
after consultation with the Secretary of  Transportation,  shall  pre-
scribe and amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise
and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such rules and regula-
tions as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abate-
ment 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.]
  SEC.  611.  (a) For purposes of this section:
       (1)  The term "FAA" means Administrator oj the Federal Aviation
     Administration.
       (2)  The term "EPA" means the Administrator  of the Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.
   (&) (/) In  order to afford present and j-uture relief and  protection  to
the public from unnecessary aircraft noise  and sonic boom, the  FAA,
after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation  and with  EPA,
shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise
and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such  regulations  as the
FAA may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom, including  the application of such standards
and regulations in the issuance, amendment,  modification, suspension, or
revocation of any certificate authorized by this title. No exemption with
respect to  any standard or regulation  under  this section may  be granted
under any provision of this Act unless the FAA shall have consulted with
EPA before such exemption is granted, except that if the FAA determines
that aviation safety  requires  that such an exemption be granted  before
EPA can  be consulted, the FAA shall consult with EPA as soon as
practicable after the exemption is granted.
   (2) The FAA shall not issue on original type certificate under section
603 (a) of this Act for any aircraft for which substantial noise abatement
can be achieved by prescribing standards and regulations in  accordance
with this section, unless he shall have prescribed standards and regulations
in accordance with this section which apply to such aircraft  and  which
protect the public from aircraft  noise and sonic  boom, consistent with
the considerations listed in subsection (d).
   (c) (1) If any time EPA has reason to believe that—
       (A) a standard  or regulation (or any  proposed standard or regu-
     lation) under this section, or any exemption, granted under any pro-
     vision of this Act, with respect to  such a standard or regulation, or
       (B) the action of the FAA in issuing an original type certincate
    for an aircraft for which standards and regulations  described in
     subsection (b) (2) have not been prescribed,
does not protect the public from  aircraft noise or sonic  boom consistent
with the considerations listed in subsection (d) of this section EPA shall
consult with the FAA and may request the FAA to review, and report to
EPA on,  the advisability of such action or of revising such standard,
regulation, or exemption, as the case may be. Any such request may be
published  in the Federal Register and shall include  a detaued statement
                                                            [p. 37]
125-314 O - 73 - !

-------
2382          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
 of the information on which it is based.  The FAA shall complete the re-
 view requested and shall report to EPA within such time as EPA specifies
 in the request, but such time specified may not be less than 90 days from
 the date the request was made.  The FAA's report shall be accompanied by
 a detailed statement of the FAA's findings and the reasons for the FAA's
 conclusions; shall identify any statementfiled pursuant to section 102(2) (O)
 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to such
 action or standard or regulation (or exemption therefrom); and shall specify
 whether  (and where) such statement is  available for public inspection.
 The FAA's report shall be published in the Federal Register, except in a
 case in which EPA's request  proposed specific action to be taken  by the
 FAA, and the FAA's report indicates such action will be taken.
   (2) If, in the case of a matter described in paragraph (1)(A) of this
 subsection with respect to which no statement is required to be filed under
 such section 102(2)(C), the report of the FAA indicates that the revision
 (if any) proposed by EPA should not be made, then EPA may request the
 FAA to file a supplemental report, which  shall be published in the Federal
 Register  within such time as EPA may  specify (but such time specified
 shall not be less than 90 days from the date the  request was  made), and
 which shall contain a comparison of (A) the environmental effects (includ-
 ing those which cannot be avoided) of the existing (or proposed) standard
 or regulation of the FAA (or  exemption  therefrom) and (B) EPA's pro-
 posed revision.
   (.?) //, in the case of an action of the FAA described  in paragraph
 (1)(B) of this subsection with respect to which no statement is required
 to be filed under such section 102(2)(C), the report of the FAA states that
 issuance of an original type certificate should not be preceded by issuance
 of a noise standard and regulation, the FAA shall, upon request of EPA,
file a°statement  (of the type described in such  section  102(2)(u)) with
 respect to the issuance of such  certificate.  The requirements of such section
 102(2)(C) relating to  consultation,  obtaining comments,  and the  avail-
 ability of statements made pursuant to such section shall apply to any
 statement filed under the preceding sentence.
   t(b)J  (d) In  prescribing and  amending  standards  [, rules,J
 and regulations under this- section, the [Administrator] FAA shall—
       (1) consider  relevant  available  data relating to aircraft noise
     and sonic boom, including the results of research, development,
     testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act
     and the Department of Transportation Act;
       (2) consult with such Federal,  State, and interstate agencies
     as he deems appropriate;
       (3) consider whether any proposed standard [, rule,] or regula-
     tion is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce
     or air transportation in the public interest;
       (4) consider whether any proposed standard [, rule,] or regula-
     tion is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and
     appropriate for the particular type of aircraft,  aircraft engine,
     appliance, or certificate  to which it will apply; and
       (5) consider the  extent  to  which such standard [, rule,]  or
     regulation  will contribute to  carrying out the purposes of this
     section.
                                                             [p.  38]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2383


  [(c)3  (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 is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the
same notice and appeal rights  as are contained in section 609, and in
any  appeal to the  National Transportation Safety Board, the Board
may amend, modify, or reverse the order  of the  [Administrator]
FAA if it finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic
boom and the public interest do not require the affirmation of such
order, or that such order is not  consistent with safety in air commerce
or air transportation.


  For  the information of the Members,  section 1905  of  Title 18,
U.S.C., is set forth below:

               SECTION 1905 OF TITLE 18, U.S.C.

§1905.  Disclosure of confidential information generally.
  Whoever, being  an officer or employee of the United States or of
any  department or agency thereof, publishes, divulges,  discloses, or
makes  known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law
any  information coming  to him in  the course  of his employment or
official duties or by reason of any examniation or investigation made
by, or return, report or record  made to or filed with, such department
or agency or  officer or employee thereof, which information concerns
or relates to  the  trade secrets, processes, operations, style of  work,
or apparatus, or to  the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or
source  of any income,  profits,  losses, or expenditures  of any person,
firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits  any income
return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particu-
lars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except  as provided
by law; shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both; and shall be removed from  office or employ-

                                                         IP. »]

-------
2384         LEGAL COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT  I


     1.4a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE  ON PUBLIC  WORKS
             S. REP. No. 92-1160 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)
    ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL, ACT OF 1972
              SEPTEMBER 19, 1972.—Ordered to be printed
      Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works,
                    submitted the following


                         REPORT

                         together with

                     MINORITY VIEWS

                      [To accompany S. 3342]

  The Committee on PmVic Works, to which was  referred the bill
(S. 3342)  to amend title IV and to add a new title V to the Clean Air
Act, and  for other purposes,  having; considered the, same, reports
favorably thereon  with amendments and recommends that the bill
as amended do pass.

                  GENERAL STATEMENT

  The growing public awareness over the quality of the environment
has spotlighted another problem untouched by Federal regulation.
Noise—unwanted sound—is increasing in urban areas at a rate which
may double the average person's exposure to it within 10 years. Testi-
mony before the  Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution indicates
clearly that the impact of noise goes well beyond mere unpleasantness,
stress and other  psychic effects. It in fact may cause serious physio-
logical effects on the human body ranging from deafness to enhanced
risk of cardiovascular disease to alteration of fetal nervous systems.
  As with other forms of pollution, noise pollution is man-made. It oc-
curs as a by-product of an enormous number of commercial and domes-
tic machines.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, noise  has a
significant impact on more  than 80 million Americans. Of those, about
40 million persons are literally listening to a health hazard, risking
hearing impairment and other physiological and psychological effects.
                                                         [P-  1]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2385


   As many as 44 million Americans have the utility of their dwellings
 adversely affected by noise from aircraft or traffic, and 21 million more
 Americans are similarly affected by construction-related noise.
   The acoustic vibrations which make up noise pollution are invisible.
 They  leave no residue, and., they disappear almost instantly when the
 source is turned off. However, noisemakers  abound is our urban en-
 vironment, making it almost impossible for the individual to find even
 a short unbroken period of rest or retreat from noise. The effects which
 occur  as a result of a given noise environment depend on the intensity
 and character of the noise, the total exposure time, and the activity
 (such as conversation or rest) affected.
   The myths and  misconceptions  perpetuated  about the degrading
 effects of noise on the health and welfare of individuals have  per-
 mitted the noise pollution problem to grow into a serious problem.
 A single measure of the impact is demonstrated by the number of
 compensation claims for hearing loss. These claims have increased
 tenfold in recent years with every indication of judgments reaching
 into the hundreds of millions of dollars in the near future.  But the
 economic costs of compensation are only part of the total impact of
 noise pollution. An accurate estimate of the total costs would have to
 include physical damage to structures, loss of property values, inter-
 ruption of the educational process, interference with communication,
 hearing loss  and other health effects. The dollar costs cannot accu-
 rately reflect the intangibles, which  involve annoyance,  frustration,
 chronic stress, and suffering.
  The Committee learned from audiologists and other  expert  wit-
 nesses  that there are many misconceptions about the effects of noise
 on hearing and other aspects of health. These result,  in part  from
 the subtle and misleading symptoms which occur in the process of
 gradually increasing hearing loss.
  Individuals often have few clues which indicate the insidious pro-
 gression of physiological damage to the ear. There is no pain—no
 bleeding.  Yet, during  noise exposure, microscopically tiny hair cell
 i-eceptors, buried deep  in the inner ear and delicately poised  in their
 fragile array, are torn from their roots or gradually beaten into
 insensitivity  by incessant vibrations.
  The  individual's perception of this process belies  its true impact
 on the delicate mechanism of hearing. Whether the individual is an
 industrial worker or a  member of a hard-rock band, hearing ability
 following temporary hearing loss due to noise exposure, seemingly
 returns to normal after a day or so of rest, suggesting to the unwary
 victim that no permanent damage was incurred. Audiologists affirm,
 however, that repeated acotistic insults to the  ear leave a residual
 permanent damage which accumulates over time.
  Information  presented to the Committee indicates that noise has
 effects  on other  physiological systems in addition to hearing, and on
 psychological factors as well. Noise appears to directly alter heart
 rhythms and constricts blood vessels. The 1972 Report on Noise of the
 Environmental Protection Agency stated, ".  . . there is some evidence
 that worker exposed to high levels of noise have  a higher incidence of
cardiovascular disease, ear-nose-and-throat disorders, and equilibrium
 disorders than do workers exposed to lower levels of noise'' and ". .  .
there is evidence from animal research that high sound levels can inter-
                                                           [p- 2]

-------
2386          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
fere with sexual-reproductive functions (and) can interfere with re-
sistance to viral disease .  . ."
  Individuals who are subjected to high noise levels for extended
periods, or who cannot rest or sleep in residential circumstances sub-
stantially quieter than their work place, appear to run a high risk of
psychological distress. One study of workers showed men working in.
noisy conditions to be more aggressive, distrustful and even paranoiac
than similar workers in a quieter setting. The failure to obtain a mark-
edly lower noise level at home than in the working place, to provide a
recuperative period for mental processes, has been shown to have psy-
chological costs in family stability. Many individuals in this Nation,
already affected by health problems such as high blood pressure and
emotional illness, are especially susceptible and need protection from
the added stress of noise, according to information gathered by the
Committee.
  Property values suffer markedly from high levels of noise. In a study
conducted by the City of  Inglewood, California, a community affected
by noise from Los Angeles International Airport, land subject to noise
levels less than 80 PndB was valued an average 50% higher than land
subject to noise levels greater than 110 PndB. This appears to be related
not only to aircraft noise in residential areas but to the constant dis-
ruption of local schools by aircraft noise.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that no worker
be subjected to 115 dBA for  more than 15 minutes or to 90 dBA for
more than eight hours. (The  term "dBA" is a measurement of sound
intensity in decibels, on  the A  scale which is theoretically weighted
toward those  frequencies  predominant in human response. An increase
of lOdBA, since such units are logarithmic, would  be an increase of
100%.)  These standards  which are a first step toward health protec-
tive standards moderated by considerations of cost and technology and
therefore protective of only 70  to 80% of exposed workers,  are com-
monly exceeded in the non-occupational environment. A power mower,
a subway at 35 miles per  hour, and a compressor at 20 feet each attain
95dBA. A jet flyover at 1000 feet is 103dBA, and a jet take-off reaches
110 to 120dBA. A rock band easily scales 108 to 114dBA.  Obviously,
multiple sources dramatically increase the level to which any individ-
ual is exposed.
  The success of any new legislation on noise pollution  ultimately
will have to be measured in terms of a) its impact on reducing hearing
loss and other direct effects on health, b) its ability to establish levels
of noise in the  environment conductive to good communication; and
c) its success in  providing environments free of noise pollution at
times and in  areas where relaxation and sleep are needed.
  At  the turn of the century, Robert Koch, the Nobel laureate who
worked to control contagious  disease wrote: "The day will come when
men will have to fight noise as inexorably as cholera and plague." That
day is here, and this bill  provides tools to begin the fight.
                                                           [P- 3]

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     2387


                   MAJOR  PROVISIONS

     NOISE EMISSION  STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS

  The major regulatory thrust of this legislation is to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
noise emission standards for newly manufactured products which are
major sources of noise, on the theory that Federal action is needed to
effectively deal with the noise problems created by vehicles, construc-
tion equipment,  and other machinery which move so commonly in
interstate commerce. As with other types of environmental pollution,
control of emisions at the source is considered the most effective con-
tribution which the Federal Government can make in reducing levels
of environmental noise.
  The standards would cover new products, those which have never
before been sold to a consumer, which are  manufactured after the
effective  date of standards. Eemanufactured  and rebuilt products
whose  original functions have been restored by a manufacturer are
denned as new products. However, noise emission standards are to (be
established for such rebuilt products on the basis of what can be
achieved for products of that class, i.e., rebuilt products, and not what
is being required of newly  manufactured products of a similar type.
  The term "manufacturer" is defined to exclude "dealers", unless a
dealer's assembly work involves modifications increasing the, noise
characteristics of the product. The purpose of this distinction is to fix
responsibility for compliance with noise emission standards and lia-
bility for warranty costs on the party actually  responsible for the
noise emission characteristics of the product.
  The term "product" specifically excludes aircraft and related com-
ponents. The intention of the Committee is to separate the treatment of
aircraft under Title V from the treatment of products which are major
sources of noise under Tile IV, except where specifically included.
  The bill also provides extensive research and investigation author-
ity, hot only  for noise emissions from products and aircraft, but for
examining the effects of noise on humans and other living  systems.
The concept of the Audiological Data Bank has emerged as a valuable
means whereby individuals' attitudes about noise, hearing  and hearing
loss  can be recorded along with various  indices of hearing ability.
Data in the bank must come from many sources, and cover the entire
age range.  Each computerized record provides a longitudinal index
on individuals or groups, permitting a careful evaluation of the long
term effects of various noise environments, as well as changes or trends
which occur overtime. A Data Bank of this type, such as the one being
organized at the  Stanford Medical School, should be supported by the
research and long-term health effects study funds available under sec-
tion 405.                                                  [p.  5]

-------
2388          LEGAL  COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT  I
                 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CRITERIA

  Section 407 (a) requires the Administrator to issue noise criteria
within nine  months  after enactment, reflecting all  the  identifiable
effects of differing  quantities and qualities of noise on public health
or welfare. He will be expected to produce  criteria  documents very
much like those prepared under the Clean Air  Act for similar uses.
These criteria must set forth the levels of environmental noise the
attainment and maintenance  of which, in defined areas under various
conditions, are requisite to protect the public health and welfare with
an adequate margin O'f safety.
  The concept  of "environmental noise" is used through the bill to
describe the overall level of noise in a given area to which individuals
are exposed, including the intensity, duration, and character of sounds
from all sources. It also includes the concept of a limitation on noise
which would be applicable to every individual source in such a defined
geographic area.

             STANDARDS FOR MAJOR SOURCES OF NOISE

  Within fifteen months after  enactment, the  Administrator is re-
quired by section 407 (b) to publish reports identifying products which
appear to be major  sources of noise. Identification as a major source of
noise is the first step in the development of noise emission standards
for particular products. Of course, the Committee expects the Adminis-
trator to beein drafting possible noise emission standards for a product
as soon as his initial investigations suggest that  it might be identified
as a major source of noise. This is necessary because noise emission
standards must be promulgated for any product identified in the initial
list of major sources within 18 months after enactment.
  In view of the special purposes, attributes and uses  of motor racing
vehicles, such as Indianapolis cars and stock cars, it is the intent of the
Committee that the  Administrator will not designate as a "major
source of noise" vehicles- or engines, or any components or accessories
thereof, which  are  manufactured for modified for, or utilized exclu-
sively in organized  competitive off-high way motor-sports events. Like-
wise the Committee does  not expect the Administration  to identify
church bells or carillons in major sources of noise.
  Noise emission standards must be established  for any major source
of noise which falls into the categories of  construction equipment,
transportation equipment, motors or engines, turbines and compressors,
percussion and explosive equipment, or electrical and electronic equip-
ment  (other  than sound reproduction equipment). These standards
must take effect, with respect to products manufactured after that dnte,
no later than two years after the date of promulgation or  any shorter
period which permits the application of the necessary  technology. The
Administrator is given authority to define "effective  date" in such a
way as to prevent the stockpiling of inventories to circumvent the pur-
pose of the standards.
  Standards for new products are required to set limits on noise emis-
sions Avhich in the Administrator's judgment reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application of the best available tech-
nology, taking  into account the cost of compliance. The  difficulty of
                                                           [p. 6]

-------

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2389
 relating noise emissions from a given source to effects on public health
 and welfare in an enforceable way, when standards are to be set on a
 national basis without control of the circumstances of use or the num-
 ber of products in a given area, led the Committee to conclude that im-
 plementation  of  a technologically-based standard  was preferable in
 terms of uniformity and enforceability to one calling for protection of
 the public health and welfare. While the intention of the whole bill is
 to protect public  health and welfare from environmental noise, the
 Committee  expects that the application  of the best available tech-
 nology will just begin to realize that goal in the foreseeable future.
  After the effective date of standards applicable to a product, the
 manufacturer must warrant to the purchaser and subsequent  owners
 of that product that it conforms with the standards at the time of sale
 and that it  is  free from defects in materials and workmanship which
 cause the product, under normal use, operation, and maintenance, to
 fail to conform during its useful life. Useful life is to be determined by
 the Administrator, taking into account the range of uses to which such
 product might be put.
  This is a defects warranty, not a warranty that the product will in
 fact perform up to the standards throughout its useful life. The Com-
 mittee intends that the manufacturer be liable only for those changes
 in noise emissions which are in fact within his control. This is the pur-
 pose for including the consideration of the many possible, even unfore-
 seeable uses to which the product may be put, and for requiring the user
 to operate and maintain the product in a normal way. In fact, standards
 may contain provisions dealing with manufacturers' instructions for
 the maintenance or use of the product.

.'_"'                          PREEMPTION

  Subsection 408 (d) of the bill deals with the responsibilities of the
 Federal government and State, and local governments in controlling
 noise. For any product manufactured after the effective date of  an
 applicable Federal standard, authority to establish noise emission
 standards for the product enforceable directly or indirectly  against
 the manufacturer is preempted. States and cities, however, retain com-
 plete authority to establish and enforce limits on environmental noise
 through the licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use, operation,
 or movement of a product, or concentration or combination of products.
  It is the intention of the Committee to distinguish between burdens
 which  fall on the manufacturers of  products in interstate commerce
 and burdens which may be imposed on the users of such products.  In
 the iuclsrment of the Committee, noise emission standards for products
 wThich must  be met by manufacturers, whether applicable at the point
 of introduction into commerce or at anv other point, should be uniform.
  On the other hand, States and local governments have the primary
 responsibility  under the bill for setting and enforcing limits on en-
 vironmental noise which in their view are necessary to protect public
 health  and welfare. This essentiallv local responsibility is not assumed
 or ipterfered with by this bill, although Federal leadership and tech-
 nical assistance are provided in the criteria  required by section  407(a)
 which will set forth levels of environmental noise protective of public
health and welfare.
                                                           [P-  7]

-------
2390          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
  The environmental impact statement prepared by the Administra-
tion for its proposed noise control legislation stated: "The States and
localities would be aided in their efforts by the technical assistance
provided under the proposed bill, without taking from the local units
of government the power to determine the levels of perceived noise
consistent with community  aspirations." This also reflects the inten-
tion of the  Committee in this bill. At a minimum,  States and local
governments may reach  or maintain levels of environmental noise
which they  desire through  (a) operational limits or regulations on
products in use (such as speed or load limits or prohibitions of use
in given areas or during given hours); (b) quantitative limits on en-
vironmental noise in a given area which may be enforced against any
source within the area, including zones adjacent to streets and high-
ways; (c)  regulations limiting the  environmental noise  which may
exist at the boundary of a  construction site; (d) nuisance laws; or
(e) other devices tailored to the needs of differing localities and land
uses which  do not amount to a burden manufacturers  must meet to
continue in business.
  This discussion of preemption does not deal with regulation of noise
from interstate carriers  such as railroads and  motor carriers. Such
sources, which are regulated under Parts B and C of title V, are sub-
ject to State or local regulations only where the Administrator deter-
mines it to be necessitated by special local conditions or not in conflict
with regulations under Parts B or C.

                          E NFORCEMEXT

  The bill generally parallels the enforcement authority of the Clean
Air Act. This includes criminal penalties of $25,000 or one year's im-
prisonment  for the first violation of  the prohibited acts  section appli-
cable to manufacturers. The bill also provides authority  to enjoin  any
violation. In addition, the  bill makes it a criminal violation for a
manufacturer or  dealer to assist any person in removing or  discon-
necting a noise suppression device or the giving of information to any
person on how to remove or disconnect such device  for purposes not
allowed by the bill.
                             EXPORTS

  Standards apply to all new products except  those intended solely
for export. Exported products have only to comply with the standards
of the importing country. It is not the intention of the  Committee to
require the  United States government to enforce the noise emission
standards of other countries. Bather, this language in section 411 (b)
is intended  to make clear that exported U.S. products must  comply
with applicable foreign standards.
  The bill also provides  authority for citizens to sue in the Federal
district courts to  abate violations of the requirements of the law. This
section is nearly  identical to the citizen suit provisions in the Clean
Air Act (section 304) and  the Committee intends that it be utilized
and interpreted in a similar fashion.
                                                           [p- 8]

-------
          NOISE	STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2391
                      AIRCRAFT NOISE

  Excessive noise from aircraft has been identified as the major noise
problem for many  Americans. One of the concerns which the Com-
mittee addressed in considering means to reduce aircraft noise was the
relative roles  of the Environmental  Protection  Agency, created in
1970 to centralize the Federal government's environmental regulation,
and the Federal Aviation  Administration,  charged with  complete
responsibility for aircraft operations and safety.
  Presently, under  section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, the FAA
has authority  to set standards for noise emissions from aircraft and
aircraft engines. Current standards cover only certain new aircraft
types certificated after the effective date of those standards. Proposed
standards recently  published  in  the Federal Register would extend
coverage to newly  manufactured aircraft of existing types. Under
section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA  has authority to  review and.
comment on regulations of FAA and other agencies.
  In the judgment, of the Committee, the proper role nnd  expertise
of the Environmental Protection Agency is in identifying levels of
environmental noisp associated with adverse effects on public health
and welfare, and, as in the Clean Air A ct and Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, in  assessing the availability of technology to attain such
levels. The special expertise and responsibility of the Federal Aviation
Administration  is recognized by the Committee in the. area of aircraft
engine and airframe design and construction, aircraft operations, and,
above all, safety  in air commerce.
  Accordingly, section 501 of  the reported bill requires the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate stand-
ards for the measurement of  aircraft noise and to identify levels of
noise emissions from aircraft and aircraft engines which in his judg-
ment are adequate  to protect  the public health and welfare with  an
adequate margin of safety.  In thin instance the term "safety'' refers
to safety from adverse effects of  noise on public  health and welfare.
The Environmental Protection  Agency therefore establishes in tho
first instance the levels for  aircraft noise which  would be necessary
to protect public health and welfare.
  Standards for noise emissions from aircraft, which actually define
what aircraft manufacturers and  air  carriers must attain, would
bo promulgated  on  the basis of the. degree of noise reduction achiev-
able through the application of the best available demonstrated tech-
nology, taking  into account the cost  of compliance. Technological
availability and the reasonableness of  compliance costs would  be
jointly determined  bv the Administrators of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration, since they
share, expertise in these matters. However, standards may be promul-
gated only after the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration determines  them to  be consistent with the highest degree of
safety in air commerce, and technologically available for application
to the particular aircraft or engine type in question. Air safety is to
be the paramount consideration,  and the FAA's responsibility in as-
                                                           [p.  9]

-------
2392          LEGAL  COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT  I


soring safety is recognized in tliis veto over aircraft noise emission
standards.
  The bill provides that existing standards promulgated under section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act will continue in effect until modified
in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The Administrator of
the Environmental  Protection Agency  is directed to review those
standards within 9 months after enactment for consistency with the
requirements of this bill. Original type, certificates cannot be issued
after  July 1, 1973,  unless noise emission standards which apply to
such aircraft have been promulgated. Any standards would be imple-
mented and enforced through the authority of the Federal Aviation
Administration, under its on-going program of inspection and certifi-
cation of aircraft. In addition, violations of the standards would be
subject to the penalties and abatement procedures until Title IV, in-
cluding citizen suits to abate violations.
  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 regulator}'  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 oil
aircraft noise in the next Co ngress.
  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
reti'ofitting  and phaseout of existing aircraft), and any  additional
measures available to airport operators and local governments to con-
trol 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 the 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 con-
sideration of flight and operational 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.
  States and local governments are preempted from establishing or
enforcing noise emission standards for aircraft unless such standards
are identical to  standards prescribed under this bill. This does not
                                                          [p. 10]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY     2393
address responsibilities or powers of airport operators, and no provi-
sion of the bill is intended to alter in any way the relationship between
the authority of the Federal government and that of State and local
governments that existed with respect to matters covered by section
(\ 11 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 prior to the enactment of the
bill.

STATE AND LOCAL  ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
                          PROGRAMS

  The Administrator  is authorized to grant a total of $22.5 million
over a three fiscal year period to State and local environmental  noise
control agencies. Grants are limited to two-thirds of planning and de-
velopment costs and one-half of  maintenance costs, in order to high-
light the importance of getting new programs off the ground. ISTo one
State may receive more than 10% of the total funds, and, where an en-
vironmental noise control agency program encompasses more than one
State, funds are apportioned.
  Specific, requirements must be met before an agency may qualify for
a li'rant. First, the agency must meet the qualifications of the definition
of "environmental noise control  agency"  contained in section 404. It
must be established pursuant to State law or local ordinance and have
jurisdiction  over the prevention and control of noise. Secondly, there
must be adequate representation of local, State and international inter-
ests, where appropriate. Thirdly, the Administrator must be assured
that the agency has the capability of developing and enforcing a com-
prehensive environmental  noise control  program.  To qualify, the
agency must have authority to regulate the location, modification, and
construction of individual noise sources. It must have authority to as-
sure that products in use will not exceed applicable noise levels, and
that controls on environmental noise can be enforced against individual
sources. Noise monitoring equipment must be available in the field to
monitor compliance with required standards and levels, and the agency
must have authority to issue abatement orders.
  By conditioning funding on effective enforcement authority of State
and local environmental noise control agencies, the Committee intends
to implement one of the major policies of the Act: the encouragement
and support of adequate  State and local programs to control environ-
mental noise.
                                                         [p. 11]

-------
2394          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
                         HEARINGS

  The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution conducted three
days of hearings in 1972 on noise control legislation. Bills before the
Subcommittee included S. 1016, the Administration proposal as in-
troduced by Senator Cooper and 32 cosponsors; H.R. 11021, as passed
by the House of Representatives; and S. 3342, introduced by Senators
Tunney and Muskie.
  The first day of hearings was held March 25,1972, in San Francisco,
California, in a State which has given considerable legislative attention
to its noise problem. Hearings were held in Washington, D.C., on
April 12 and 13, 1972, to receive testimony from the Environmental
Protection Agency, representatives of State and local governments,
and national trade associations.
  A total of 26 witnesses were heard, including Federal,  State, and
local officials, technical and scientific experts on noise and  spokesmen
for industry,  and trade, governmental and citizen organizations. Ad-
ditional statements and supporting materials filed with the Subcom-
mittee and included in the printed hearing record totaled 62.

      VOTES DURING COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

  No rollcall votes were taken in  committee during consideration of
this legislation. The bill was ordered reported by a voice vote.

                  COST OF LEGISLATION

  Section 252(a) (1)  of  the  Legislative Reorganization Act  of  1970
requires publication in this report of the Committee's estimate of the
costs of reported legislation, together with estimates prepared by any
Federal agency. The bill authorizes $18,000,000 in fiscal  year 1973,
$36,000,000 in fiscal year 1974, and $50,000,000 in fiscal year 1975 for
the general implementation of Titles IV and V. These sums were de-
rived by the committee from estimates prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the cost of  carrying out earlier  drafts of this
legislation. The Environmental Protection  Agency did not support
grants to State and local environmental noise control agencies  or Fed-
eral incentive  purchases of low-noise-emission products, and  did not
submit estimates of the costs of these programs.
  The following is a summary of funds which would be  authorized
for fiscal years 1973,1974, and 1975:
                                                         [p. 13]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2395


                             [In millions]

    Program                                   1973   1974   1975    Total
General authorizations
Grants to State and local environmental noise control agencies (sec. 418)-.,
Incentive purchases of low-noise-emission products (sec 419)

Totals

$18
5
1

24

$36
7.5
2

45 5

$50
10
2

62

$104
22.5
5

131.5

                     COMMITTEE VIEWS

  Although there have been sporadic efforts to control the noise prob-
lem in the past, and State and local governments have recently been
quite  vigorous in their response to the local effects of various noise
sources, it is now clear that the Congress must consider noise as a gen-
eral pollution problem and develop a regulatory framework which will
achieve effective control of this form of environmental degradation.
  For this reason, and because delay would disrupt the developing
noise  control program of the Environmental Protection  Agency,  the
Committee recommends passage of this bill.
                                                          [p.  14]

-------
2396          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972

                          TITLE IV

  Section 401. Short Title.—This  section designates the Act as the
"Environmental AToise  Control Act of 1972" and contains the table of
contents for Title IV.
  Section Jj.02. Statement of Congressional Finding and Policy.—This
section expresses Congress' concern with the growing danger to health
and welfare of environmental noise. States retain primary responsi-
bility to  control environmental noise, but Federal action is declared
necessary to deal with major sources of noise. A national policy for
protection of public health and welfare from effects of noise is declared,
including encouragement of and support for State and local programs
to control environmental noise.  Public participation in all procedures
and activities under the Act is required.
  Section 403. Office of Noise Abatement and Control.—This section
amends existing law to continue the authority of the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control in the Environmental Protection  Agency.
The Office's authority is extended to implementation of the provisions
of this Act. Basic rulemaking and  administrative authority are pro-
vided to the Administrator.
  Section 404- Definitions.—This section defines terms for purposes of
administering and interpreting the Act.
  Section 405. Research, Investigation, Training,  and Other Activi-
ties.—This section authorizes the Administrator to conduct basic and
applied research and development programs related to environmental
noise. The Administrator also is authorized to provide technical and
financial assistance,  to disseminate information,  to cooperate with
relevant agencies and to contract with other public agencies in carry-
ing out research and development. The Administrator also is author-
ized to provide manpower training assistance and educational assist-
ance programs.
  Section 406. Federal Programs.—This section requires all Federal
agencies to operate all Federal  facilities and programs under Federal
law in a manner consistent with the standards and policies of this Act.
The Administrator also is authorized to coordinate all Federal agency
programs related  to environmental noise research and control. The
Administrator is required to comment publicly on noise control pro-
grams and regulations established  by other Federal agencies.
   Section 407. Noise Criteria and Control Technology.—This section
requires the Administrator to develop and publish criteria for noise,
identifying the effects of various levels of noise, and setting forth levels
of environmental noise which will protect public health and welfare.
The Administrator also is required to compile and publish reports
identifying products which are major sources of noise and providing
                                                          [p.  15]

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2397


information on techniques to control the noise from these products, as
well as information on methods and techniques for controlling environ-
mental noise by means other than controls on noise emissions of new
products.
  Section 408. Noise Emission Standards for New Products.—This
section directs  the Administrator  to promulgate regulations within
18 months after enactment establishing noise emission standards for
categories of new products which he has found to be major sources of
environmental  noise. These sources include construction equipment,
transportation  equipment, any motor or engine, turbines and com-
pressors, percussion and explosive equipment, and electrical and elec-
tronic equipment. The Administrator is required to promulgate  ad-
ditional regulations as he adds new products to the list of major sources
of environmental noise. Noise emission standards must be established
on the basis of the reduction in noise emissions achievable with the
application of the best available control technology, taking into ac-
count the cost of compliance. The effective date  of regulations, aiter
which new products must be designed and manufactured to meet the
standards, would be no later than two years after promulgation of
the standards. The entry of non-conforming products into commerce is
prohibited after such effective date, and  inventories could not be
built up to circumvent the effective date.
  This section also provides for a design warranty of products covered
by noise emission standards, which requires manufacturers to warrant
that defects  in materials or workmanship will not cause a new product
under normal use and maintenance to fail to conform to  emission
standards over its useful  life, taking into account the range of uses
for such product.
  Authority to establish noise emission standards enforceable against
the manufacturer  for  any product manufactured after the effective
date of an applicable Federal standard is preempted, while States and
cities retain the authority to establish and enforce limits on environ-
mental noise through licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use,
operation, or movement of any product or combination of products.
Regulation of noise  emissions  from railroads and motor carriers is
separately treated, because of movements in interstate transportation
(see Title V, Part B). Products which comply with standards before
the actual effective date are covered by preemption from the date of
compliance,  rather than after the effective date.
  Section 409.  Labeling.—This section authorizes the Administrator
to establish  labeling requirements for any product which he finds to
be a major source of environmental noise, or which is sold as effective
in reducing noise.
  Section 4.10. Imports.—This section authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator, to issue regulations
to carry out  the purposes of the Act with respect to products imported
into the United States.
  Section 411. Prohibited Acts.—This section describes the activities
for which enforcement is  authorized under the Act. Standards apply
to all new products except those intended solely for export.
  Section 412- Enforcement.—This section authorizes criminal penal-
ties for introduction into commerce and importation of products in
violation of Federal standards. Criminal sanctions parallel to those of
                                                          [p.  16]

-------
2398          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
the Clean Air Act of 1970 are included, with fines up to $25,000 and
one year in prison for first offenses, and $50,000 and two years in
prison for subsequent offenses. Injunctive authority is provided, and
the Administrator may order such relief from violations of the Act
as he determines necessary to protect the public health and welfare,
in accordance with due process.
  Section 413. Citizen Suits.—This section authorizes citizens to sue
in the Federal courts for violations of the Act, and to compel the EPA
Administrator and the FAA Administrator to perform  non-discre-
tionary duties. This section conforms with the citizen suit provision
enacted in the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
  Section 414- Emergency Situations.—This section authorizes the
Administrator  or the  Attorney General to bring  expedited  civil
actions against any product the noise emissions from which are  an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health. Relief can
include notice to purchasers and the public,  recall, correction,  or
seizure.
  Section 4-15. Judicial Review.—This section provides for the judicial
review  of standards and regulations under titles IV and V,  with
petitions to be filed within 90 days after promulgation in  the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Stays of agency
action during review are limited.
  Section  416. Records,  Reports and  Information.—This section
authorizes the Administrator to require information, records and
other access  to  information  concerning  the establishment  of, and
compliance with, noise emission standards. Subpoena powers are
granted for obtaining information to carry out Title IV or Title  V.
Protection of proprietary information is provided only after a showing
satisfactory to the Administrator that the information is entitled to
such protection.  Noise emission  data are not entitled to proprietary
protection under  any circumstances. Criminal penalties for violations
of requirements are included.
  Section 1^.17.  Federal Procurement.—This section authorizes the
Administrator to forbid Federal procurement  contracts for persons
convicted of criminal violations of this Act and is similar to provisions
in the Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  Section 418. Grants for Support of Environmental Noise Planning
and Programs.—This section authorizes the Administrator to make
planning and program grants to State and local environmental noise
control agencies.  Before making program grants,  the Administrator
is required to  determine that  the State or local agency program
includes adequate authority to regulate noise levels. Authorizations
of $22.5 milion for three years are provided for this section.
  Section 419. Development of Low-Noise-Emission  Products.—This
section authorizes incentive purchases of low-noise-emission products,
similar to the program for cleaner motor vehicles under the Clean Air
Act. Over three fiscal years, $5 million are authorized.
  Section 4%0. Authorization of Appropriations.—This section au-
thorizes a total of $104 million for  the next three fiscal  years  ($18
million in FY 1973, $36 million in FY 1974, and $50  million  in
FY 1975)  to implement provisions of the Act for other than State
grants and the low-noise-emission product incentive purchases.
                                                          [p. 17]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2399
                           TITLE V

Part A—Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom.
  This part (section 501 through 508) provides that the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate standards
for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom, and regulations
with respect to noise emissions from aircraft which in his judgment
are adequate to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate
margin  of safety. Standards  actually applicable to noise emissions
from aircraft must reflect the degree  of noise reduction  achievable
through the application of the best available demonstrated technology,
taking into account the cost of compliance, as jointly determined by
the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Federal Aviation Administration. Such standards can be promulgated
only after the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
has determined that they are consistent with the highest degree of
safety in air commerce,  and technologically available for application
to particular types of aircraft. Standards under section  611  of the
Federal Aviation Act continue in effect until modified in  accordance
with this part. The implementation and enforcement of aircraft noise
standards, through inspection and certification, is the responsibility of
the Federal Aviation Administration.
  Section 502 of this part directs the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to conduct a one year study of  a) the ade-
quacy of FAA flight and operational noise  controls; b)  the adequacy
of noise emission  standards on new and existing aircraft, together
with  recommendations on the retrofitting and phase out  of existing
aircraft; c) the implications of identifying and achieving  levels of
cumulative noise exposures around airports; and  d) additional meas-
ures available to airport operators and local governments to control
aircraft noise. The Administrator is required to submit his report and
recommendations for legislation to the Committees on Public  Works
and  Commerce of the Senate and the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives.
  Section 508, on civil aircraft sonic boom,  forbids commercial flights
of supersonic aircraft over the United States and its territorial waters
or the contiguous zone at supersonic speeds, but would permit research
and  development flights of supersonic aircraft. Enforcement  of this
ban under Section 412 of this Act is authorized.
Part B—Railroad Noise Emission Standards
  This part (sections 511 through 514) provides a Federal regulatory
scheme for noise emissions from surface carriers engaged in interstate
commerce by railroad. The Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is required to publish within 9 months after enact-
ment and promulgate within 90 days after publication noise emission
standards for railroad equipment and  facilities involved in interstate
transportation, including both new and existing sources. Such stand-
ards must be established on the basis of the reduction in noise emissions
achievable with the application of the best available technology, tak-
ing into account the cost of compliance.
  Standards take effect after the period the Administrator determines
necessary to develop and apply the requisite technology, and are im-
                                                           [p. 18]

-------
 2400          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


plemented and enforced through the safety inspection and regulatory
authority of the Secretary of Transportation, as well as through Title
IV.
  Based on the interrelationship between the need for active regulation
of moving noise sources and the burdens imposed on interstate carriers
by differing State and local controls, the Federal regulatory program
for railroads  under this part completely preempts the authority of
State and local governments  to regulate such noise after the effective
date of adequate Federal standards, except where the  Administrator
determines it  to be necessitated by special local conditions  or not in
conflict with regulations under this part.
Part  C—Motor  Carrier  Noise  Emission Standards
  This part (sections 521 through 524) provides a Federal regulatory
scheme for noise emissions from motor carriers engaged in interstate
commerce. The  Administrator of the Environmental  Protection
Agency is required to publish within  9 months after enactment and
promulgate within 90 days after publication noise emission standards
for motor carrier operations involved in interstate transportation,
including both new and existing sources. Such standards must be estab-
lished on the basis of the reduction  in noise emissions achievable with
the application of the best available technology, taking into account
the cost of compliance.
  Standards take effect after the period the Administrator determines
necessary to develop and apply the requisite technology, and are imple-
mented and enforced through  the  safety inspection and regulatory
authority of the  Secretary of Transportation, as well as through Title
IV.
  Based on the interrelationship between the need for active regula-
tion  of moving noise sources and the  burdens  imposed on interstate
carriers by differing State  and local controls, the Federal regulatory
program for interstate trucks and  buses under this part completely
preempts  the  authority of State and  local governments to regulate
such noise after the effective date of adequate  Federal standards,
except where  the  Administrator determines it to  be necessitated by
special local conditions or not in conflict with regulations under this

part                                                      [p.  19]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2401


            MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. MUSKIE

  The Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972 (S. 3342) was intro-
duced 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 tc relieve
product manufacturers from the effect of State noise pollution regu-
latory programs. Nor was it designed primarily to relieve transpor-
tation companies, particularly the airlines, from effective noise regula-
tions.
  Our intent was to establish a means to reduce,  as  rapidly as pos-
sible through the application of available control measures available,
the exposure of people to noise by reducing noise at its source, by
changing the way noisy products are used, by controlling noisy activ-
ities, 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 reduc-
tion 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.
  While only recently recognized as a  major environmental pollutant,
noise may be one of the most perplexing. Unlike the common air and
water pollutants, noise does  not accumulate in the environment. Noise
is not subject to collective  treatment and reduction  processes. And,
noise is not subject to easy regulation. As a practical  matter, the pri-
mary method by which noise will be reduced is through  the applica-
tion of noise emission control regulations at the source  of  sufficient
stringency  so that products will not, alone or in combination with
other noise sources, present a problem.
  To a degree, the legislation reported by the  Committee moves to-
ward this goal. 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 have an opportunity 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 best available technology is not adequate to achieve environ-
mentally acceptable levels of noise. It does not recognize adequately
the responsibility  of States  and local  government  to  protect the en-
vironment in which their citizens  live. It does not assure States an
opportunity to ban the sale of Federally-regulated products which
emit unacceptable levels of sound.  At the same time, it does not ex-
pedite Federal  regulation, thus holding out the hope of a quieter
environment with no guarantee of early environmental improvement.
                                                          [p. 21]

-------
 2402          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


   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 restric-
 tion of 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, pro-
 vided for Federal preemption of the authority to regulate air pollu-
 tion 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 com-
 panies 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 stand-
 ards for any class of aircraft or aircraft engines which contributes
 to air pollution which endangers public health  and  welfare. Ninety
 days thereafter (one year after enactment).  EPA was to issue final
 regulations. The proposed standards were due nearly one 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, in consideration of 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. Conversely, a number of States have
regulatory programs which impose emission controls on noisv products
 which controls are enforceable, both at the point of sale and the point
of use.
  I cannot support Federal preemption which protects product manu-
facturers and the air transportation industry without effective  regula-
 tory programs which will enhance the quality of the environment. Sub-
 stitution of Federal law for State law without assurance that public
health will be protected is poor public policy.
  The second point of concern with  the legislation reported from the
 Committee has to do with the problem of aircraft noise and regulatory
mechanism recommended to deal with that problem. To date,  regula-
tion of aircraft noise pollution has been  the sole responsibility of the
Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation Administra-
                                                          [p.  22]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2403
tion has had this responsibility since its inception. It has had a specific
legislative mandate for the past four years. And its record is wholly
inadequate.
  I understand why the Federal Aviation Administration's response
has been inadequate. The FAA's responsibility is not to  reduce the
environmental impact caused by aircraft noise. Its primary responsi-
bility is to promote air commerce and to protect safety. Regulation of
noise from aircraft is not consistent with that primary mission.
  In the proposed rulemaking 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 appro-
priate 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 ob-
    struct normal life in homes or other  buildings that are not de-
    signed 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.
  And yet,  subject to 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 follow-
ing excerpt from a draft report on noise  pollution prepared by the En-
vironmental 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 domi-
nance of the FAA.  Not only would FAA have veto over safety of
                                                          [p-' 23]

-------
2404          LEGAL  COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT I
noise reduction technology, but also EPA could make no  judgment
as to the availability of technology or cost of achieving noise reduc-
tions 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 Pro-
tection 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 air-
craft were unique because of the safety  requirements and the inter-
relationship of safety to the engine system. Therefore, I agreed with
the Committee's judgment and supported the amendments of Sena-
tor Cooper and Senator Stafford which would retain the Federal Avia-
tion Administration lead role in  making  any final determination  us
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 Le 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 reducing 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 protective 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 "cumula-
tive 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 tech-
nology exists to achieve the  levels of noise emission reduction to pro-
tect 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 bill 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 asso-
ciated with aircraft operations which were adversely affecting the
health and welfare of people around airports. Under these regulatory
provisions, airports with significant  problems would be the  subject
of a conference to determine the  alternatives available to reduce ex-
posure levels and protect health and property. Each conference would
result in a report by the Administrator setting forth potential alterna-
tives including flight and operational patterns, on-ground  noise con-
trol methods, modification in the frequencv and number  of  flights,
                                                          [P- 24]

-------
            NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2405


 modification in the hours of airport use, and land use methods. Each
 Federal agency including the Federal Aviation Administration and
 the Civil Aeronautics Board would apply existing authority to achieve
 maximum noise  reductions possible through  additional  regulatory
 procedures.
   But, 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 controls so as to eliminate noise as an environmental problem
 in the area of that airport. And the airport operator's duty and respon-
 sibility to carry out  such responsibilities  would be  established by
 statute.
   This concept is not unique. In 19YO, the Congress enacted legislation
 which requires a  development of a clean car by 1975. That law recog-
 nized 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 es-
 tablished a procedure  to regulate  the use of automobiles in  areas in
 which automobile-related air pollution was unacceptably high to as-
 sure that public health would be protected at an early date (in this
 instance, 1975-1976).
   The combination of emission  reduction technology and air quality
 implementation plans  have proved to be 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.
   I suggest that this mechanism can and should be applied to aircraft
 related noise problems. I suggest that 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  en-
 vironments and who are adversely  affected by aircraft noise. I suggest
 to do anything less in this legislation is to fail to meet responsibly
 the demands of the American public for a safe, healthy 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 meaning-
 ful 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 damaged claims against the airlines and the air-
port operators  for creating  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 un-
acceptable. I think it  is inadequate to rely on  claims for damages,
penalties against the airlines and injunctions as  a substitute for posi-
tive 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 per-
ceived by people.
  On September 5, Senator Tunney, in remarks  on the Senate floor,
pointed out that  aircraft noise  was adversely  affecting the  hearing
                                                          [p. 25]

-------
2406          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


capacity of school children in the vicinity of Los Angeles  Airport.
Senator Tunney said:
      According to the report,  continuous  exposure to a 90-
    decibel level is a health hazard and peak jet noises in the
    seven schoolyards surveyed ranged from 95 to 115  decibels.
    In the classrooms of those schools, jet noises resulted in levels
    of from 80 to 96  decibels, which, in one example, prevented
    childern  from distinguishing  among  the words "where",
    "we're", and "wear', because they could not hear the difference
    in sounds. To the physical and  emotional effects from exces-
    sive noise must be added these problems in vocal response.
    Already, two schools around the Los Angeles Airport  have
    been forced to close.
  But the Administration wants a bill. Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus,  told the Commit-
tee on Public Works in executive session in September  of this year,
that he was not interested in the merits or the demerits  of noise pol-
lution legislation which might be forthcoming. He said the Admin-
istration wants a bill and he did not care what provisions that bill
included.
  This fact, combined with the decision of the Senate,  that no con-
troversial measures reported after September 15 would be considered
on the floor, has resulted in an inadequate bill. These  inadequacies
must be corrected before the Senate concurs.
                                           EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
                                                          [p. 26]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2407
               CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

  Subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that changes in existing law proposed to be made by
any  reported legislation be plainly  indicated  in the accompanying
report.
  Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), added to the
Act in 1970  by P.L. 91-604, provides for the creation of an Office of
Noise Abatement and Control within the Environmental Protection
Agency, to carry out a comprehensive study of noise and its effect on
the public health and welfare. A report on the results of such study
was required within one year after enactment, and such a report was
submitted to the Congress in January of 1972. Title IV also provides
that any Federal agency shall consult with the Administrator to deter-
mine possible  means of abating noise  from Federal activities, and
authorizes $30,000,000 for carrying out the purposes of the Title.
  S. 3342 would completely replace Title IV of the Clean Air Act as
it presently  exists and add a new Title V. Only the authority for an
Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the responsibility to carry out a continuing investi-
gation  of noise and its effect on the public health and welfare would
remain, in subsection (a) of section 403.
                                                         [p.  27]

-------
2408          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


                        APPENDIX
Responses to Letter From Senator Tunney Concerning Establish-
  ment of a Mandatory Schedule for Achieving Reductions  in
  Aircraft Noise Emissions

[Letter from Senator Tunney to which the folloiving are responses']

                                            SEPTEMBER  8, 1972.
Mr.  JOHN H. SHAFFER,
Administrator. Federal  Aviation Administration. Department  of
    Transportation, 400 Seventh Street NW.,  Washington. D.C.
  DEAR ADMINISTRATOR SHAFFER: As you know, the Senate Public
Works Committee has been marking up a noise pollution control act
(S. 3342) which I introduced with Senator Muskie in March. 1972.
  In the context of provisions respecting control of aircraft noise, it
has been suggested that a retrofit schedule be established in the legis-
lation. In order to meet the deadlines, aircraft which could not be
retrofitted economically could be retired and replaced by the new gen-
eration of quieter aircraft already under construction.
  Suggested language to be added to S. 3342  would provide that no
aircraft could land at U.S. airports after January 1,1976, unless such
aircraft complied with the maximum noise level standards in Appen-
dix  C of Part 36 of the  Federal Aviation  Regulations  (i.e., 108
EpndB). New aircraft types manufactured  after date of enactment
would be required to meet best available technology, or. at a minimum,
a noise level 15 EpndB lower than the Part 36 standard by January lr
1975. Additionally, the  EPA Administrator  would be required to
identify  further noise  reductions which  would  be  contemplated
thereafter.
  Because of the  press of Committee business and the short time left
in this session of  Congress, I am writing to solicit your views on this
subject which, I am aware, has been discussed in the context of previ-
ous legislation and subjected to considerable study in the industry and
Administrative agencies.
  Specifically, I hope you will address yourself to the current state of
technology respecting retrofit (and will consider new front fan treat-
ment in  addition  to nacelle treatment), costs of retrofit or retirement
and replacement and suggestions as to which procedure might be more
appropriate for certain types of aircraft, necessary lead times, alterna-
tive specific language which could be inserted in the legislation.
  If I could receive your comments by Monday. September 18,1 would
be in a  position  to advise  my colleagues on the Committee of your
views. I recognize that you are not given much time in which to re-
spond, but I hope that you will be able to cooperate with us. Cor-
                                                          [p. 29]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2409
respondence should be brought to the attention of Mrs. Jane Frank, my
legislative assistant.
  Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. The Public
Works Committee will meet on Tuesday. September 19, and I would
hope that we will be able to report the bill to the Senate floor at that
time.
      Sincerely,
                                        JOHN V. TTTNXEY,
                                                  U.S. Senator.

          AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
                                            September 14.1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNXEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you  for the opportunity to com-
ment on your proposal that the Noise Pollution Control Act (S. 3342)
include language which calls for either the retrofitting or retirement
of noisy  aircraft that do not meet FAR 36 maximum noise require-
ments  by January 1,  1976.  Your proposal  also specifies  that  new
aircraft types manufactured after the date of enactment  would be
required  to meet the best available technology or, at a minmum, a
noise level 15 EPNdB lower than the Part 36 standard by January 1,
1975. Airport operators believe this is an excellent approach. We have
long recognized that aircraft noise pollution constitutes a primary
constraint upon the U.S. aviation system.
  The  proposal to include a  specific date at  which time all aircraft
must meet or better the noise levels of FAE Part 36 is an absolutely
essential  component of any noise abatement  plan. Progress in noise
reduction will be made only if specific future goals are set now, and
adhered to by those Federa] agencies charged with the responsibility
of reducing  aircraft noise.
  Although  the NASA and  Rohr studies  of 1969  and 1970 clearly
indicated that the technology existed to retrofit existing aircraft, the
FAA began another comprehensive study  regarding retrofit. These
studies are nearing completion. A flight test of the retrofitted 727 will
take place this fall with a  final report due in the first quarter of 1973.
A flight test of a retrofitted 707 will take place during the summer of
1973 with a  final report due in the fourth quarter of 1973.  Contracts
have been awarded for studies of the DC-8 and DC-9 with their com-
pletion dates scheduled for late 1973. A contract  for the study of
retrofitting the 737 will be awarded this fall with the completion date
as yet undecided. Preliminary test results from the above studies, that
is static ground tests and other  acoustical  data, indicated  that it  is
technologically possible to retrofit aircraft to meet FAR Part 36.
These studies strongly support your proposed additions to S. 3342.
  While it is clear that the technology exists to mandate retrofit, the
decision to either retrofit  or retire should  be left to the individual
airlines. The language that is suggested would permit the owner of the
aircraft to consider  any option,  that  is, retrofit, retirement or other
conforming use. We do not believe, that the airlines can be burdened
with the costs of retrofit or retirement to an extent that would seriously
impair their financial position. It is very important that this country
                                                          [p. 30]

-------
 2410          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


 have a, nnancially healthy national air transportation system. Several
 different approaches exist for providing financial assistance to an air-
 craft owner if that assistance is needed or requested.  They include:
 accelerated tax depreciation benefits, Federal funding and loan guaran-
 tees, or a small increase in passenger ticket and cargo waybill user
 charges for the short  period of time required to assist in financing the
 above options. Another economic consideration which must be con-
 sidered is the great boost that a  decision to retrofit, or replace noisy
 aircraft, would give  to the sagging aerospace industry. We  believe
 that your second concept requiring that new types of aircraft manu-
 factured after January 1, 1975 meet either the best available tech-
 nology or, at a minimum, a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than Part 36
 is a laudable goal.
   In summary, we believe that the proposal to require that all aircraft
 after January 1,1976 meet FAR Part 36 is an excellent one. We fur-
 ther support the proposal for setting a goal of reducing the noise by 15
 EPNdB within three years.  I would refer you to our more detailed
 presentation before the Subcommittee  on Air  and Water Pollution
 on April 13, 1972 at which time we discussed at some length our sup-
 port for these proposals. There must be action now to reduce aircraft
 noise pollution. We believe that the best way to accomplish  this with-
 out  incurring  further delays is to mandate the agency which  is con-
 ducting investigations and studies in this field at this time to issue
 such regulations. This would be the Federal Aviation Administration.
 Further delays in the implementation  of aircraft noise regulations
 only increase the grave threat that noise pollution presently poses to
 our national air transportation system.
      Sincerely,
                                        J. DONALD REILLY,
                                      Executive  Vice President.
      THE PORT AUTHORITY  OF  NEW YORK AND NEW  JERSEY,
                             New York. N.Y., September 18,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTTNNEY,
Renofe Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
  MY DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you for your letter of Septem-
ber -12, concerning proposed chansres to the noise pollution control bill
(S.3342):
  We believe that language such as that suggested in your third para-
graph is essential if the new bill  is to result in timely and effective re-
duction of aircraft noise. The best information available to us indicates
that January 1,1976 is a reasonable target date for a retrofit program
if action is started now. Of critical importance, however, is  the devel-
opment of a financing program for the capital required to accomplish
retrofit. Without  Federal Government leadership  in this area, I am
afraid that retrofit will be jeopardized.
  The suggested limit of 15 EPNdB below FAB Part 36  seems ex-
cessive  for  the  present state of  the art. The joint  DOT-NASA
"CARD"  Study indicated that  a 10 dB reduction seemed feasible
within 10 years. We suggest that, in the language of Part 36,  new
aircraft for which application for a type certificate is submitted on or
                                                          [p. 31]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2411


after  January 1, 1975, be required to meet noise  levels at least 10
EPNdB lower than those of present Part 36. Only  by early action of
this sort can the public be assured that developing technology will be
applied to further noise reduction rather than increased payload and
range.
  Thank you  for the opportunity to  comment  on these aspects of
S. 3342.
      Sincerely,
                                          NEAL R. MONTANUS.
                                       CITY OF SAN JOSE,
                             San Jose, Calif., September U, 1972.
Hon.  JOHN  V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : Your letter of September 8,1972 to Donald
Reilly of Airport Operators Council International relative to S. 3342
has come to  my attention. I enjoyed our meeting at Oakland Airport
when  you met with RASSC relative to our Bay Area Systems Study.
T feel  rather strongly en the subject and would like to comment further.
  I would like to offer you a summary of recommendations, my cre-
dentials,  and discussion giving reasons for  the  recommendations. In
summary, it is technologically and economically feasible to accomplish
these recommendations. It is specifically recommended that:
  1. FAA be required to establish a retrofit trust fund with the monies
to come  from a  national enplanement tax levied against the air
passenger;
  2. That the FAA establish a formula for paying for the retrofit, said
formula to consider cost of retrofit and tax credits;
  3. The retrofit program be as follows:
  (a) That existing aircraft not now meeting FAR 36, be required to
have nacelle retrofits and meet FAR 36 by January 1,1976, with funds
from  the  trust fund;
  (b) The same aircraft be required to  re-engine or incorporate the
new NACA front fan treatment by January 1,1979, with funds from
the trust  fund;
  (c)  That both (a) and (b) may be accomplished by January 1,1976
if desired by the air carrier, with tota]  payment to come from the trust
fund  formula;
  (d) That  in lieu of retrofit, an air carrier may choose to retire ex-
isting aircraft from service, in  favor of purchasing new, quieter air-
craft, and that in such cases, the equivalent of retrofit be awarded from
the trust  fund to the air carrier toward purchase of the new aircraft;
  4. That any  language relative to new aircraft be explicit to include
new aircraft, regardless of country of manufacture.
  As to my credentials, I graduated from the University of California
at Berkeley, with  a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering, with an
aeronautics  option. I am a registered Professional  Engineer in the
State  of California. I served four years as  a naval aviator, flew air-
line with Pan American, spent five years as an experimental test pilot
with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (now NASA)
and North American Aviation, and twenty-five years as Airport Man-
ager.  I served as an airport representative on  the Aeronautics and
                                                         [p. 32]

-------
2412          LEGAL  COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT I


Space Engineering Board ad hoc study advisory committee which
resulted in the joint DOT/NASA civil aviation R&D policy recom-
mendation. I have kept in close contact with my former associates at
NASA and feel I have fairly good knowledge of the state of the art
of research and development.
  To solve the problem, we ask what is technologically and economi-
cally feasible. The airlines say they cannot afford to retrofit and they
cannot. We would take the position and state that aircraft must be
retrofitted  (including  new front  fan  treatment)  by a given  date,
then if we say how to finance it, we will have the solution. The NASA-
GE quiet engine research program has yielded noise reductions greater
than anticipated when the contract was let. We know that noise can
be reduced to about one-fourth of what it is now and, in the case
of the 707 and DC-8 aircraft, the noise footprint under the 90 PNDB
contour can be reduced ;from the present 47,500  acres to about 3,000
acres. If a,ll air carrier aircraft today were equipped with this new
generation of quiet engines, I believe that every air carrier airport in
the United States  would be environmentally acceptable from a noise
standpoint. This then states that by some year, say  1985, we will have
an environmentally acceptable industry. The problem is, then, how do
we live until that time. I believe that a strong, firm  act by the Federal
Government, such as you are proposing, is our only salvation.
  We have plotted the noise contours for the San Jose  Municipal
Airport and  have determined that we can meet State of  California
noise requirements, and have no residency inside the 65 CNEL curve
by purchasing houses in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, and
by having all aircraft equipped with the new generation of quieter
engines. Thus, the current state of technology has reached the plateaus
of offering known solutions. With continuing research,  even greater
strides can be made for the future.
  If your bill would provide the means  of financing retrofit, then
it might offer a clearer method of solving the problem. If society has
to pay for noise reduction, then the user should be given the oppor-
tunity to pay for that reduction. A passenger head charge of say $1.00
per  passenger  would currently  generate  some  175  Million Dollars
annually. The money could be borrowed against this revenue which
yields 1.75 Billion Dollars. I agree with James Carr that  the airline
passenger should be given the chance to pay to reduce the noise and
thereby improve the environment.
  The acoustically treated nacelle and the  new  treated  front fan
installation could be financed by this method by having the FAA levy
an enplanement tax, with the proceeds to go to a  trust fund to pay
for the retrofit. As James Carr has pointed out, the equivalent of the
retrofit cost could  be given to an airline if a noisy  aircraft is retired,
and new aircraft meeting new noise standards  is purchased. This is
an economical and not a technological problem. This alternative would
help modernize our air fleet and would stimulate our air  frame and
engine industry.
  For the above reasons, I support the addition of language that
requires all aircraft to meet Part 36  by January  1, 1976. We know
how to do it and it can be financed by a user tax.
  I think there might be  some problem in requiring retrofit of air-
craft manufactured after date of  enactment to  meet the  noise level
                                                          [p. 33]

-------
           NOISE	STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY     2413
of 15 EPKdB by 1976.1 would suggest that 10 EPNdB by 1975 would
be more realistic criteria. If the criteria is too severe and applies only
to new types of aircraft, it might tend to discourage design and de-
velopment of new aircraft unless some premium or assistance  were
offered. It would be more economical to continue to manufacture the
same  aircraft. I suggest that the language state that new aircraft
manufactured  after January 1, 1976 be clarified to include aircraft,
regardless of country of manufacture, or the foreign manufacturers
would have  an unfair advantage over United States manufacturers.
  I further suggest that the 707 and DC-8 aircraft can be reasonably
retrofitted with acoustically treated nacelles, and retirement may be
more attractive than subsequent engine retrofit; however, that would
be the airline's decision. The B-727, 737 and DC-9 are expected  to be
with us well into the 1980's. I suggest that the nacelle retrofit as you
propose be required by January 1, 1976 and that the new NACA front
fan be required by January 1,1979, with the airline having the option
of doing both  by January 1, 1976 if they desire, with payment being
made from the new trust fund. This would result in a mix of aircraft
that by 1980 would  consist principally  of  a re-engine 727, 737 and
DC-9, wide  body jets and some new aircraft with  the new generation
of quiet engines. The DC-8 and 707 will probably be retired in favor
of the new aircraft with quieter engines. This would result  in a  posi-
tive program that would stimulate  the  aircraft industry and would
give the general public which must  endure  the noise relief with pro-
grammed reduction for the future. The user  would pay the tab and the
United States would  set the pattern for the rest of the world to follow.
The rest of the world to follow. The rest of the world is waiting for the
United States to come to grips and solve the  noise problem before they
take a hard  stand.  This has come to light at  international meetings on
the noise problem.
  Specific recommendations were presented at the start of the letter
and I appreciate the  opportunity to offer my comments to you.
      V ery truly yours,
                                          JAMES M. NISSEN.
                                              Airport Manager.

                                      GENERAL ELECTRIC Co.,
                            West Lynn, Mass., September 14.1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTTNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Attention of: Mrs Jane Frank, Legislative Assistant.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: I am pleased to respond to your letter of
September 8 addressed to Fred J. Borch requesting specific comments
on the current state of engine noise technology with respect to retrofit
of the older aircraft types, retirement of these aircraft and their re-
placement by the new quieter types, the appropriateness of the FAR36
noise standard for all aircraft landing at U.S. airports after January
1,1976 and FAE36 minus 15 EPnL for new  aircraft types by January
1975. I have not attempted to address myself to the specific language
of vour Bill but rather to the basic issues raised in your letter.
  As you indicate in your letter, different approaches to  the  noise
problem may be appropriate for the different classes of aircraft.
P                                                        [p. 34]
 525-314 0-73-1

-------
 2414          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
   I believe that the 707/DC8 fleet represents the greatest problem and
is the main source of complaints (for such major airports as JFK and
Los Angeles). The first attached noise footprint chart illustrates this
problem. I am not aware of any practical way to retrofit their current
engines by nacelle treatment alone to achieve FAR36 noise. NASA is
now financing a technology program to test a redesigned fan section for
these engines which might show the technical feasibility of retrofitting
the 707/DC8 with these quieter engines plus new nacelles and reversers.
While we believe that it might be technically possible for such substan-
tially modified engines and nacelles to meet FAE36, we believe this
approach will prove to be a very poor investment for the industry and
the Government. These airplanes are already obsolete.
   A much better and proven solution to the 707/DC8 noise problems
already exists in the DC10/L1011/ and 747 series of wide-body jets.
These modern  aircraft,  incorporating the latest in noise  reduction
and smoke reduction technology have  already been certified at noise
levels below FAE36. The aircraft types using the  General Electric
GF6 engine in the 1971-1976  time period including the DC10-10,
DC10-30, 747-300, and A300B  have noise levels ranging from 3 to 7
EPnL below FAR36 on  a traded basis. This is a huge improvement
over the 707/DC8, as shown in the second chart attached, and is much
quieter than is possible with 707/DC8 engines retrofitted with new
fans,  nacelles, and reversers. I believe that it would be much more
sensible for the Government to find ways to accelerate the retirement
of these old aircraft in the 1973-1978  period and replace them with
the modern quieter aircraft available.
   The smaller aircraft such as the 727/DC9/737  can be approached
in a diiferent way. We believe it is possible for this class of aircraft
to have their nacelles modified in such a way that FAK36 can be met
and that their  noise footprints could  be reduced with proper con-
sideration of takeoff and approach aircraft operating procedures (such
as power cutback and 2 segment approaches).  Whether engine retro-
fit of the existing aircraft fleet is sensible is another matter—particu-
larly if the  dominant 707/DC8 noise can be handled by replacement
with available quiet wide-body transports, and if 727/DC9/737 noise
footprint areas can be ameliorated by  operating procedures alone.
  With regard to the retrofitting of the 727/DC9/737 fleet with their
existing engines rebuilt with new larger fans (development of which
is now funded by NASA) plus new nacelles and reversers, we believe
that this approach will also prove to be a very poor investment for its
incremental noise improvement. Here again, it  appears to me that the
wiser and more effective solution lies in the new aircraft types using
high bypass turbofans such as the CF6 or the new 20-25 000# thrust
turbofans now under consideration which will replace the 727/DC9/
737 fleet. Typical noise levels for such new aircraft are shown on the
third  chart.
  These new twinjets and trijets in the  150-180  passenger short to
medium haul category certificated in the 1976-1978 period may  be
able to meet FAR 36 minus 10 EPnL. Although this has not yet been
achieved in  an economically attractive way, it is our goal and we are
making progress toward  it. We consider  FAR36 minus 15 EPnL
                                                          [p- 35]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2415
out of reach for the 1970's, and furthermore, doubt that there is a need
to achieve this level when operating from current airports.
  In summary, I would like to emphasize that I believe that the real
problem of resolving the current noise situation with respect to meet-
ing FAK36 on any accelerated time schedule such as you propose is
primarily one of economics—not technological. This real problem is
not being addressed, in my opinion. The DC10/L1011/ and 747's can
solve most  of  the public problem—the question is how to get many
more of them in service sooner. Revised aircraft operating procedures
can help 727/DC9/737 noise now, newly manufactured 727/DC9/737
could have nacelle treatment added and new types of short and medium
haul twinjet/trijet transports with high bypass turbofans will com-
pletely solve the noise problem posed by this class of aircraft in the
post 1976 period. The U.S. Government should concentrate more on
helping to modernize the U.S. fleet with new wide-body high bypass
turbofan powered  transports than on the modification and retrofit
of obsolete engines and aircraft. If such a solution can be found, it
would be the  best solution for noise, pollution,  passenger comfort,
U.S. sales/jpbs/balance of trade,  and the general health of the air-
craft and airline industry.
      Sincerely,
                                           GERHARD NEUMANN.

      -40   -20    Q     20    40    80    SO   100   120   140,
                             Feet (GOO's)
                            FinuRE 1
                                                          [p. 36]

-------
2416
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
^
DC1
DO
A3(
ylC
CF8
0- —
-

0

10



"")"
H-Y.-Cfeiscgs
~*1~" I"
ior
<%
?d
llidi;ic,5 ii:'.'i
...^i/iv^.
I

i_ 	
r~
f ^ /f(iw/5t*»
i-i^ay^
-'toff vi.

:IJ;:L

i




f!

•**•#£)



\






\
ll
'
i
{JO /'»'V-P,?|
Ifrtl *H' ^' '4i' ^
& i
-f f—

f
101 j»3
r i




1







S88
'
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
^ Fesl (DOG's) J
^m i '. i i . ". — : 	 rr

FIOUBI 2

 /*
  DC8/707
   (Re-eRgin8)~~
                                  LB
                  80
                  I      (
                 -S4

        -40   -20    0    20   43    80   80   100  120   140
                              Feet(OOO's)
                           FIGURE 3
                                                       [p. 3T]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2417


                                 GILBERT, SEGALL & YOUNG,
                             Neiu York, Ar.T., September 14,1972.
 Senator JOHN V. TUNNET,
 Committee on  Public Works,
 U.S. Senate,
 Washington, T>.C.
   DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: I have your letter of September 8, 1972
 concerning S. 3342. Unfortunately, this did not reach me until yes-
 terday, after being forwarded through Washington and New Jersey.
 You will recall that your letter was addressed to me as President
 of Rolls-Eoyce, Inc., 45 Rockefeller Plaza. New York,  New  York,
 10020. Rolls-Royce, Inc. has since 1969 had no connection with avia-
 tion, and is strictly an importer and distributor of Rolls-Royce and
 Bentley motor  cars. It has not been located at 45 Rockefeller  Plaza
 for some years, and I no longer have any association with it or  its
 parent company in England.
   I am, however, U.S.A. counsel for Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, of
 London. Derby and Bristol, England, which is the successor to the gas
 turbine business of Rolls-Royce Limited, and for its subsidiary,  Rolls-
 Royce Aero Engines, Inc., of which I am also a Director. The address
 of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited headquarters is 14-15 Conduit Street,
 London WIA 4EY, England. The address of  Rolls-Royce Aero En-
 gines,  Inc. is 551 Fifth  Avenue, New  York,  New  York 10017.
   Since  receiving your letter yesterday I have learned from Mrs.
 Frank and Mrs.  Deller that the time schedule has been  speeded up
 so that you require comments by  Friday, September 15, 1972, rather
 than Monday,  September 18. I had hoped to make a truly useful
 reply to your inquiry, but unfortunately the time is really too short
 to do this.
   Perhaps, however, I can respond in a general way to certain aspects
 of your inquiry.
   1. It would appear to me that noise limitations upon the operation
 of aircraft should remain with  the Federal Aviation Administration
 rather than the EPA. I  say this because the nature of the problem
 requires careful consideration  of problems far beyond the normal
 concerns of the EPA. From the nature of the matters to which your
 letter addresses itself I infer that,  to some degree, you may agree.
 I suggest, therefore, that the bill should  not vest sole authority in the
 EPA,  but should leave it primarily in the FAA which is currently
 engaged in very comprehensive  studies of all aspects of the  problem.
   2. I  would not think that  it would be wise to provide by statute
 that no aircraft can land at U.S. airports after a fixed date unless
 certain specific noise level standards are met. Rather, I think that the
 authority to fix and enforce noise level standards should be left pri-
 marily to the FAA. To impose a rigid statutory rule with rigid dates
 would, to my mind, lead to very unfortunate complications, both with
 respect to the entire aviation industry and all U.S.A. commerce, and
 with respect to  the commercial relations between the U.S.A. and for-
eign countries into  which U.S.  carriers  fly.
   3. Similarly, because of the complexity of the problem I would not
think that the imposition by statute of  arbitrary noise limits would
be desirable.  Rather, I would think that the best  results would be
obtained by leaving the matter primarily to the FAA, which is the
                                                         [p. 38]

-------
2418          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


expert public agency capable of taking into account all of the neces-
sary considerations. Further, the dates and standards the bill would
set appears to me to be very optimistic on the basis of present knowl-
edge, though I recognize that predictions in this area are very dif-
ficult.
  4.  As to your specific inquiries, it is not possible on such short notice
for me to give  you useful  responses.  Beyond that, 1 do not believe
that there is sufficient data presently available concerning retrofit, the
cost of retrofitting, lead times and procedures respecting specific types
of aircraft.  One can only be sure that retrofit of older aircraft, in-
cluding, as you suggest, new front fan treatment, would be enormously
costly and disruptive, but it would be premature to make any depend-
able estimate along these lines. Rolls-Royce, of course, like other engine
manufacturers,  is expending great efforts with respect to those of its
engines which  power commercial  aircraft. These  include  the  Spey
engine on the BAG 111 and Gulfstream II (efforts concerning the Spey
being the subject of an article in  Aviation Week for September 4,
1972), the Dart, which powers various types of aircraft, including the
FD27, the  Grumman Gulfstream  I,  the Viscount and others. The
Conway  engine, 'which is installed  on the VC-10 and certain models
of the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, is not in service with any U.S.
airline. All of the aircraft  powered by Rolls-Koyce engines do,  how-
ever, utilize U.S. airports in international travel. The RB 211, which
is installed on the Lockheed L-1011,  is, of course, a  new technology
high thrust  engine with outstanding noise characteristics, and it does
not, I believe, fall within the ambit of your inquiry.
   In a nutshell then, aside from my being able to make the remarks
above, I do not think that there has been time enough to collect reliable
data and to put it in a usable form for you. I am not at all sure that
even if more time were available I would be able to give you compara-
tive costs of retrofit and retirement and replacement,  nor do I believe
that I could make informed comments concerning aircraft which are
powered by engines other than Rolls-Royce. I regret that I cannot do
more at this time. If developments are such and the time available is
expanded so that we can be of assistance in the future, and if we can
be given sufficient advance notice to permit the development of appro-
priate data, we shall certainly do our best to assist you in any way we
can.
       Yours sincerely,
                                          PHIL E. GILBERT,  Jr.


                                  LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORP..
                             Burbmik. Calif., September U, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUXXEY,
U.8. Senate,
Committee on Public Works.
Washington, D.C.
   DEAR  SENATOR TUNNET: We  at Lockheed have  been doing every-
thing in our power to  see that our new L-1011 transport  has as low
a level of noise  as can practically be reached, and we are working hard
with propulsion manufacturers and NASA seeking out any new ideas
which will improve urban acceptability of future airplanes. I  think
                                                          [p- 39]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2419
we have demonstrated that a new "good neighbor" transport can be
developed without destroying the inherent efficiency which has made
our air transport system a mainstay of the national economy, and our
aircraft the major element in sustaining our international balance of
trade. I believe that the low certificated noise levels and our worldwide
demonstrations of the L-1011 attest to the success of our efforts.
  We appreciate the opportunity which you have afforded us to con-
tribute our  thoughts toward rational legislation for  improving the
over-all acceptability of an airport within a community, and we recog-
nize that more must be done. Addressing the points which you have
outlined in your letter, we have the following comments:

                      STATE OF TECHNOLOGY

  Knowing that we would have to work within the framework of
legislation and regulations when we  first addressed the  problem oi
reduced aircraft noise, we, with the rest of the Industry, pointed out
that it was impossible to create products with design lead-times of
three to five years, followed by production durations of- ten to fifteen
years, against a  "floating target" lor required noise performance.
  Although our L-1011 has bettered current noise standards by sev-
eral EPNdB, we see no reasonable way to achieve a 15 EPNdB im-
provement over Part 36 as your letter suggests. We have no promising
clues to pursue and must await the results of research programs that
have as yet not been formulated. The CARD Study done by the Depart-
ment of Transportation suggested the possibility of 10 EPNdB below
Part 36 might be possible in 1980. We believe that this is a reasonable
target for certification  of a new airplane, even though we still do not
know how to  achieve this goal with a practical design.
  In our efforts  to set targets for incorporating improvements as the
state of  the art changes, the  legislation should identify potential
certification dates rather than new airplane delivery dates. It is not
clear in your letter whether "new aircraft types manufactured after
date of enactment. . ." refers to any new airplane or only to new air-
plane types certificated after enactment. If it means "all new aircraft
manufactured" this will result in the shutting down of programs which
fulfilled  all regulations at their inception, and for which contracts
have been entered into.

            SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AIRCRAFT

  Your suggestion that the regulations be lowered 15 EPNdB for
any  new aircraft type  manufactured after date of the enactment of
the legislation leads to major inconsistencies in the permissible noise
levels of "old" and "new" aircraft. It would:
  a.  Allow the manufacture and operation of older type airplanes
indefinitely utilizing a refanned powerplant or modest suppression
techniques only meeting Part 36 noise requirements.
  b.  "New aircraft types'', on the other hand, would have to meet a
sound level 15 EPNdB below Part 36 by January of 1975. This would,
in effect, force redesign of current wide-bodied aircraft now  sold, all
of which have utilized everything practically available in the state
of the  art to  improve noise performance.  In Lockheed's case, this
                                                          [p. 40]

-------
2420          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


would affect 100 to 200 airplanes which now are under firm contracts,
or second  buys, or additional follow-on airplanes from present
customers.
  c.  If your reference to "new aircraft types manufactured. . . ." ac-
tually means "certified" after enactment, there is still a major problem
with new versions of present designs, such as twin conversions, long-
bodied modifications, extended range conversions, and similar models.
These would all have to incorporate entirely new powerplants, and
since we do not know how to meet a 16 EPNdB reduction, any such
extension of our current models would  be effectively stopped.

                            RETROFIT

  Although Lockheed does not have current large transport aircraft
which exceed the maximum noise level  standards of Appendix C of
Part 36 of the  Federal Aviation Regulations, we recognize that most
of the existing operational transports and some current  production
transports and business aircraft produce noise levels well above the
regulations.
  We also recognize that the airlines are in  no financial  position to
modify these  airplanes,  even  if a  powerplant existed which would
bring them into full compliance. The extent of the problem is drama-
tized by the estimates of research and development for such a power-
plant installation that vary between $100 million and $200  million. To
this must be added retrofit costs that approach $2 million for  each
four-engine transport. It is our estimate that between 400 and 500 of
these airplanes would still have a useful economic  life by January
of 1976, all of which suggests that development and retrofit  costs might
approach $1.25 billion to bring these aircraft into noise compliance—
a cost which the airlines  and the aircraft manufacturers could not af-
ford without major compensating increases in revenue.
   This estimate does not include retrofit of the smaller twin and trijet
transports which would certainly average $300,000 to $500,000 per air-
 craft. We estimate that approximately  1300 of these would still have
 an economic future in January 1976, and retrofit of this number would
 therefore be nearly another $700 million.
   By introducing these costs, we do not wish to leave the impression
 that we oppose retrofit; we only want to emphasize the financial im-
 pact of the legislation which you propose, and to suggest that normal
 channels for financing such an endeavor do not exist to our knowledge.
   It is our opinion that the best approach to retrofit is by the use of a
 new fan on existing four-engine aircraft to increase the bypass ratio
 of the powerplants. We believe that the alternate concept of massive
 muffing of present  powerplants which are inherently noisv leads to
 major cost burdens and inefficiency as well as excessive operational
 difficulties. This same comment holds true when the use of similar mas-
 sive suppression is proposed to achieve the  very last dB for more mod-
 ern engines which  are quiet to begin with. Modern high bypass en-
 gines could, indeed, be further suppressed, but the, noise alleviation is
 so small that it probably would be unrecognizable by the community.
 Furthermore, it is obtained at a cost in operational economy which will
 make new aircraft unattractive to domestic investors and  foreign pur-
 chasers alike.
                                                           [p. 41]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2421


  Iii summary, we recognize and applaud the natioanl emphasis on
aircraft noise reduction. The Industry, without special financial assist-
ance from the Government has made monumental efforts to respond,
and is now delivering "quiet" aircraft which have retained the earn-
ing power to make them attractive to domestic and foreign airlines.
The problem now is to bring the existing airline fleet into compliance
with the new noise standards which have already been set. This will
require  Government financing in some form, and  the dates for ac-
complishment must be compatible with this financial support to pre-
vent a disastrous turmoil within our air transport system. We urge
that the creators of new legislation recognize the strides we have made,
and address the real problem of making our existing fleet suitable for
the community. We also urge that the setting of  goals for future de-
velopment  remain with  the FAA  (DOT), ably supported by  the
technical talent within NASA.
      Very sincerely yours,
                                           D. J. HATTGHTON,
                                         Chairman of the Board.

                                          THE BOEING Co.,
                              Seattle, Wash., September 18,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
T1.8. Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Your letter of September 8, 1972, poses
many complex questions that are of vital interest to all parties con-
cerned with aircraft noise. The timing of your request and the com-
plexity  of the questions make complete answers difficult if not impos-
sible. My first impression is that passage of a law with the language
as suggested in your letter would inevitably bring air transportation,
as we know it today, to a standstill.
  My second impression is that  legislating technology and schedule
of accomplishment is unsound. There exists today industry and gov-
ernment sponsored research work aimed at producing a valid decision-
making base. It is not clear how new legislative acts can establish both
levels and schedules for noise reduction before government and indus-
try can develop the technology required to do the job. It seems there
is risk of establishing a law that is not enforceable.
   Your proposal to require all aircraft landing at U.S. airports to meet
Appendix C noise levels by January 1,1976, could have a far reaching
impact. It  would stop a major portion of domestic and international
air service. There is no apparent way the current JT8D and JT3D
fleet of commercial aircraft could be retrofit or replaced by January 1,
1976, as you suggest, regardless of research and development funding
or monetary support to the airlines.
  The suggested  15 EPNDB reduction by January 1, 1975, cannot be
commented on unless the specific meaning of "new aircraft types manu-
factured after" is interpreted. If this includes 747, DC-10 and L-1011
aircraft types, it would stop production of these new quieter airplanes.
If the requirement applies only to future new type designs, it would
stop development of new designs until that required noise reduction
technology could be developed. Although certainly later than 1975,
the timing for this accomplishment is unknown and is completely de-
pendent upon an adequately funded research program. In either case,
                                                          [p. 42]

-------
2422          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
the noise reduction capability to accomplish this objective does not
exist today.
  Boeing is taking part in both the nacelle retrofit feasibility program
and the new front fan program. Our original estimate for the required
new front fan E&D was for about 130 million dollars. We most em-
phatically endorse pursuing the new front fan concept because of its
great promise for meaningful noise reduction as well as airplane per-
formance improvement. However,  we are extremely concerned that a
partially funded program will not produce timely results.
  As you may know, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) has
been opposed to giving prime responsibility to the EPA for prescrib-
ing and amending aircraft noise standards. We consider it inadvisable
and potentially dangerous to the traveling public, as well as those liv-
ing under flight paths to give  authority to  a  new agency to rule on
matters that can affect flight safety.  Today air transportation has an
enviable flight safety record and no  action should be taken that puts
this in jeopardy.
  I share the frustrations that exist relative to the noise problem. Cur-
rently we have over 400 scientists, engineers and technicians at Boeing
directly  involved in noise reduction research  and development.  The
attachment to this letter contains a summary of expenditures at Boeing
since 1958 on noise  reduction  research. Over 43 million dollars of
Boeing funds have been spent on this problem. Even though we have
made significant progress through the use of these resources, the great-
est lesson we have learned is that the problem is complex; and that
simple, fast, inexpensive solutions do not exist.
  Although not answering your questions to the extent I'm sure you
desired, I hope these comments might be of help to the Public Works
Committee in their deliberations on this  very  significant legislation.
My recommendation for alternate  rule language would be to suggest
funding programs at a  level to accomplish noise reduction to the ex-
tent technically feasible and at the rate the  Congress and the Nation
desires.
       Very truly yours,
                                                   T. A WILSON.
   [Attachment.]
                      BOEING NOISE REDUCTION RESEARCH
                           [In millions of dollars]

                                             Boeing  Government
                                             R. & D.    contract       Total
Vear.
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962. .
1963.,.
1964. 	 	 ....
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969 .
1970 	 	
1971
1972

.601
.106
.282
.472
.550
.310
	 .140
1.384
2.528
3 197
	 10.957
	 	 	 8.508
	 4.447
3.594
6.031






.022
.330
.210
.925
2.484
6.878
2.873
1.082
9.788
10.918

.601
.106
.282
.472
.550
.332
440
1.594
3.453
6.661
17. 835
11.381
5.529
9.382
16. 948

    Total.		     43.107     32.410      75.567

  Note: Above expenditures do not include production development costs for airplane noise reduction activities totaling
 over $23,000,000.
                                                            [p.  43]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY     2423


                               MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.,
                              St. Louis. Mo., September 15.1972.
 Hon. JOHN V. TUNNET,
 U.S. Senate,
 Washington, D.O.
  DEAR SENATOR TXJNNEY : I am writing; in response to your letter of
 September 8 addressed to J. S. McDonnell, concerning provisions of
 the noise pollution control act  (S. 3342) introduced by you and Sena-
 tor Muskie. Clearly there is too much noise around airports and we
 are determined to do our part to help.
  The attached letter from Jack McGowen, President of our Douglas
 Aircraft Company, to Jack Shaffer,  Administrator of FAA,  in re-
 sponse to his request for informal comments on tentative  FAA regu-
 lations in this area, is a good statement of our position.
  I would like particularly to emphasize that the current state  of
 the art in technology  makes it impossible to promise today that com-
 mercially viable airplanes and engines can be produced which generate
 far Jess noise than the requirements of F.A.R.,  Part 36. without cost
 nnd other penalties in excess of what the taxpaying public  will accept.
 Research and development  can undoubtedly improve our ability  to
 produce airplanes which generate  less noise, but there is no way to
 reliably evaluate the cost of reaching  specific quantitative goals until
 after adeauate research, development,  testing and evaluation has been
 accomplished. I therefore urge that the government place great em-
 phasis on expediting the necessary RDT & E so as to  establish what
 is feasible, and only then stipulate dates when mandatory accomplish-
 ment will be required.
  The FAA has experience in regulations of this kind, whereas the
 EPA has little. We would urge that advantage be taken  of such ex-
 perience  in  establishing the requirements and their administration.
  McDonnell Douglas is devoting a great deal of attention to the prob-
 lem of noise. If you or your staff would be interested in having one of
 our technical specialists provide a briefing covering the many complex
 aspects of this problem, I would be most happy to arrange it.
      Sincerely,
                                            KENDALL PERKINS.


                                    DOUGLAS  AIRCRAFT Co.,
                                              August  18. 1972.
Hon. JOHN  H. SHAFFER,
 A dministrator. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
  DF^R JACK : Your letter of August 11, 1972, in which you discussed
a notice of proposed rule making that would require noise  levels 10
EPNdB below FAR Part 36 for future production  aircraft, has con-
 vinced me that you take the airport  noise problem as seriously as I do.
 I really believe we must think in such terms if we are to achieve an air
transportation system that meets the requirements  for compatibility
with communities around our airports.
  I'm not suggesting that  we know  how to  accomplish  reductions
which are in all cases as large as 10 EPNclB, nor  am I suggesting that
we could accomplish significant reductions by July 1, 1976. However,
I believe that the industry and the FAA should get together to deter-
                                                         [p- 44]

-------
 2424          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


 mine the noise reductions that can be accomplished and the time re-
 quired to accomplish them. A quick look at our DC-10 would say we
 might be able to achieve noise levels between 5 and 10 EPNdB below
 FAB 36 depending on the  reference location. Some of our research
 programs with your organization and with the NASA may also lead
 to similar possibilities for the low bypass ratio turbofan powered air-
 craft. Perhaps additional research may lead the way to the full  10
' EPNdB below FAR Part 36.
   One word of caution.  All our studies show that regardless of how
 quiet we make the future production aircraft, the overall community
 noise situation will not benefit significantly until something is done to
 also reduce the noise of the JT3D and JTSD powered aircraft now in
 the fleet. Those aircraft must be considered along with future produc-
 tion aircraft. We recognize that the airlines do not have the resources
 to pay  for a noise retrofit  program and investigations to  develop
 means of financing such a program should be conducted along  with
 the research to develop the technology.
   Frankly, I believe that other modifications to Part 36 that are cur-
 rently being considered, such as temperature/altitude accountability
 and requiring future production aircraft to meet Part 36 offer no help
 to the noise problem and should be dropped in favor of a single modi-
 fication to Part 36  which addresses the total problem and requires
 that all practical steps be taken to solve it. I would pledge my support
 to a program to develop such a modification.
   We, at Douglas, will be most happy to work with you and your peo-
 ple both directly and through the Aerospace Industries Association to
 find solutions to this most serious problem.
   With best regards.
       Sincerely,
                                         JACKSON R. McGowEN.
                                    UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP.,
                           Hartford, Conn., September 16, 1972.
 Hon. JOHN  V. TUNNEY,
 Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate,
 Washington, D.C.
   DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY :  In your letter of September 8, 1972, you
 asked for comments on proposed changes by the Senate Public Works
 Committee to the aircraft noise control provisions of the noise pollu-
 tion control  act (S. 3342). As indicated in your letter, it is proposed
 that all existing aircraft comply with the maximum noise level stand-
 ards in Appendix C of FAR Part 36 after January  1, 1976, and that
 all aircraft  which could not be retrofitted economically  to comply
 be replaced by a new generation of quieter aircraft. It is also proposed
 that new  aircraft  types  manufactured after January  1,  1975 meet
 a noise level  at least 15 EPNdB lower than FAR Part 36.
   Because of the  very short response time requested in your letter,
 my comments  must be brief and general  in nature since there is in-
 sufficient time to provide in-depth replies to your proposals.
   We do not believe it is possible, either technically or logistically, to
 retrofit or replace current aircraft with quieter versions meeting FAR
 36 noise requirements by January 1,1976. The existing fleet of aircraft
                                                           [p. 45]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2425


in question currently provides approximately 80% of the present U.S.
domestic seat capacity, and  we estimate that in 1976 these aircraft
will still represent approximately  60% of the domestic seat capacity.
  Both the FAA  and NASA  are  funding extensive programs to
establish noise reductions possible on 727, 737, DC-9, 707 and DC-8
aircraft through a retrofit program. The FAA retrofit feasibility pro-
gram includes nacelle acoustical treatment and jet suppressors while
the  NASA  program includes nacelle treatment and new  front fan
engine modifications. Most of the JT8D powered aircraft (727, 737
and DC-9) could probably be retrofitted with nacelle treatment alone
to meet the noise limits of  FAR 3(5.  Because these  aircraft are at
present so close to meeting  the FAR 36 requirement,  however, the
improvement  resulting from such  action would hardly be perceptible
to the human ear, and thus would not provide any appreciable noise
relief to the airport communities. The current FAA and NASA pro-
grams are planned to accomplish reductions in jet noise as well as
fan  noise for both JT8I) and JT3D  powered aircraft in order to
obtain meaningful  community noise reduction. Provided these  pro-
grams continue at adequate funding levels, a decision on the appro-
priate action for a  retrofit program  is expected by late 1973 or early
1974. On this basis, aircraft retrofit could not be initiated sooner than
1976 or be completed earlier than 1979.
  With regard to the proposal that current aircraft which  cannot
be economically retrofitted be replaced with new generation quieter
aircraft already under construction, there are  no new quiet aircraft
under development to  directly replace  the smaller 727/737/DC-9
class of aircraft or the 707/DC-8 aircraft serving low density routes.
Such new aircraft are not likely to  be available in quantities earlier
than the 1980's.
  In the case  of new aircraft/engine designs, industry does not have
in hand either the technology or adequate funds to accomplish a noise
level 15 EPNdB lower than FAR  Part 36 for aircraft manufactured
after January 1, 1975.  With strong government support, the tech-
nology may be developed during  the next  few years to accomplish
a noise level 10 EPNdB lower than FAR Part 36 for aircraft, manu-
factured in the late 197()'s or early 1980's.
  We strongly recommend that prior to establishment of aircraft, noise
standards for future application, a  joint task force, consisting of FAA,
NASA and industry personnel, be  established to recommend the noise
levels which can be practically achieved within the 1970 and 1980 time
periods. We further recommend that the  FAA, for reasons of safety,
be continued in the  primary role for  regulation of aircraft noise, with
the EPA taking the advisory role.
  As I am sure you know, the United States airlines have been suffer-
ing severe economic problems for several years. The financial burden
of any prescribed retrofit program  which provides no> economic return
to the airlines presents a major obstacle to its accomplishment, and
may require that the government  plan a significant role in making
such a program financially possible.
  Please be  assured of our vital interest in the noise reduction ques-
tion. We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us to comment
                                                          [p. 46]

-------
2426          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


on your proposal, and we would be pleased to participate in further
disciissions or in any task force established to further define future
requirements for noise certification.
      Sincerely,
                                         B. H. TORELL,
                                        Division President,
                            Pratt &  Whitney Aircraft Division.
                               NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWEIJL,
                           ElSegundo, Calif., September 15, J972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,  Washington, D.C.
Attention: Mrs.  Jane Frank
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: In Bob Anderson's absence, I am replying
to your letter of September 8 asking for our comments on the addi-
tions which are being proposed to the noise pollution control act (S.
3342).
  We are, of course, in general agreement that control of airport noise
is an important  objective and  believe that industry would welcome
assistance from the Government in the further development of noise
abatement technology. However, in view of the present state of the art,
we do not believe it is desirable to incorporate firm requirements in
federal legislation at this time.
  The specific questions which you have asked concerning the technical
and economic aspects of retrofit can better be responded to by those
companies who manufacture commercial aircraft. Our endeavors have
been limited to general aviation aircraft. Airplanes of this type are a
smaller part of the overall aircraft noise problem which is dominated
by  the large commercial aircraft. For one thing, it is not clear what
portion of the airport noise problem results from the operation of
general aviation  aircraft. In this connection, we would particularly
welcome the opportunity to .work with Government, agencies to de-
velop the information necessary to determine the kinds of constructive
actions which would be required.
  Most of the engines for general aviation aircraft are well over ten
years in production, and there  are few practical engines in the 3,000-
pound to 5,000-pound thrust class that would be available in the next
few years. For engines in this  class, we believe there is limited tech-
nical information available with respect to noise reduction. This has
contributed to the impracticality of working up economics of retrofit
or retirement and replacement.
  In general, taking into account  the wide spectrum between very
small general aviation aircraft and the large commercial airliners as
well as the limited technology  regarding noise abatement, we believe
that it is premature to establish absolute standards by legislation and
that the flexibility permitted by regulatory rather than legislative
control is desirable. A further point we would make is that separation
                                                          [P- 47]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2427
of authority  over noise control from responsibility  for operational
safety could lead to safety problems.
  I am sorry that the timing of action by your committee on this bill
does not permit us to give you a more extensive reply.
      Sincerely,
                                          WALLACE  W. BOOTH.


      AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES  ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.,
                           Washington, D.C., September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington,  D.C.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : We are in receipt of your letter of Septem-
ber 8,1972, informing us of proposed amendments to S. 3342 calling for
new aircraft noise reductions.
  First, it is the firm finding of our member companies, which make up
the bulk of the transport aircraft manufacturing industry and as such
are amply qualified to make such judgments, that the new aircraft noise
reduction schedule of 15 EPNdB below the Part 36 standard by Janu-
ary 1, 1975, proposed in your letter would  be impossible to achieve. A
10 EPNdB reduction by 1981 was suggested by the Civil Aviation Re-
search and Development Policy Study (CARD) published by the De-
partment  of  Transportation.  Industry  considers this  an attainable
goal, providing  the  costly technological development  involved con-
tinues to receive appropriate funding, both public and private.
  Second, to prohibit any aircraft  which does not comply  with the
maximum standards in Part 36 by January 1, 1976, from landing in
the United States could have the practical effect of ending commercial
air service here as of that date.
  It is difficult to believe that diminution of progress in  either of these
areas is the intention of the Committee on Public Works. It would
certainly seem that further study of these proposed measures would be
in order.
  For instance, in response to  your inquiry about the current state of
technology with respect to front fan treatment in addition to nacelle
treatment we can refer you to a NASA contract awarded this year
on this very subject. The engine in question is an experimental rather
than a production model, however, and the results of that contract will
not be available for three years. Furthermore, this is not the  only rel-
evant research now underway. As you must be aware, the transport
aircraft and  engine  manufacturers have, at great expense, made tre-
mendous reductions  in aircraft engine noise  during  the past several
years and are acutely aware of the need for  further reductions.  Un-
fortunately the  availability of the  technology to accomplish these
additional decreases cannot be effectively legislated,
  We urge you  to delve into the existing knowledge on this subject
and for your convenience include a copy of an article  on the subject
which appeared in the Association's Aerospace Magazine.
  In addition, we would again recommend that the FAA, for reasons
of safety, exercise the primary responsibility,  in consultation with the
                                                          [p.  48]

-------
2428          LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
EPA, for setting aircraft noise standards. In the present context, we
would urge also that the standards-setting agency not be limited by
legislated noise reduction goals.
      Yours very truly,
                                              KARL G. HARE, Jr.

                                       AMERICAN AIRLINES,
                             Neio York, N.Y., September 15,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you for  the  opportunity to com-
ment on the proposed modifications to the Noise Pollution Control Act
(S. 3342). We are mindful of the need to help develop solutions to the
noise problem. Our commitment to this goal is illustrated by the fact
that American Airlines developed the noise abatement specifications
that were built into both the DC-10 and L-1011.
  Because of the admitted urgency of finding a solution to noise de-
veloped by our older aircraft, we have been studying this matter in
considerable depth from both the technical and financial point of view.
We have come to certain conclusions which I am  pleased to pass along
to you:
  (1) We believe it is technically possible to modify aircraft now in
service to meet FAR 36 specifications, if sufficient time is made avail-
able to do so.
  (2) The cost of retrofit, even within the minimum time limits that
we consider achievable, is beyond the capability of the airline indus-
try to support, and would require public funding.
  (3) The January  1,1976 date is not feasible.  The earliest achievable
date in our opinion is January 1,1978.
  (4) There are promising options to reduce the noise level of opera-
tions at such points as Los Angeles by altering take-off and approach
procedures. These revised procedures offer a reasonable hope for more
prompt relief than could be  accomplished through aircraft retrofit.
  (5) The proposed January 1,  1975 requirement for new aircraft to
comply with FAR 36 minus lodB is unrealistic.
  Regarding conclusion (1), we  believe that with the knowledge and
material  available to us today, it appears possible to develop a modi-
fication for each type of aircraft now in service so that compliance
with these levels can be obtained. This cannot be done, however, with-
out adequate time to design and  test the specific hardware to be used.
The retrofit design  must not  only produce the required noise levels,
but must also be thoroughly tested to assure continued operational
safety and reliability required to maintain airline service in the public
interest.
  To avoid unnecessary waste of resources, it is necessary to deter-
mine which retrofit approach is  most effective and desirable.  As you
note in your letter,  there are two basic approaches to noise reduction
now being funded by the government: the nacelle and jet suppression
treatment and the new front fan design. The latter approach  is most
desirable from an operational point of view, but  it is already clear to
us that the conversion cost is much higher.  Given the magnitude of
                                                          [p. 49]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY      2429
the retrofit problem, it  would be unconscionable to make a forced
choice between these two approaches until thorough testing of both
solutions have been completed. This process can be expected to take at
least two years at the rate at which the government has been f raiding
these studies.
  When the preferred approach is determined, our engineers estimate
that it will take at least  three years from the time of delivery of the
first kit to install a modification on our complete fleet, assuming that
all  air carrier  airplanes were simultaneously modified.  The cost to
our industry of attempts to speed up this time span increases at an
enormous rate and I would estimate that our costs would double if, for
example, a two-year time period were required. For the same reason,
a considerable reduction in cost would be possible if the time period
were extended.
  With regard to conclusion (2), the cost of retrofit, we estimate that
to comply with these programs by January 1, 1978, which we believe
to be the earliest achievable date, the cost to American Airlines would
range from $120 to $315  million, depending on whether nacelle treat-
ment or a new front fan  approach is chosen. We believe these figures,
expressed in 1972 dollars, are  accurate to within plus or minus 20%.
American Airlines cannot conceivably fund a program of this magni-
tude. The suggested alternative, which is to replace these  airplanes by
that date, is also  unworkable. We would be required to retire ninety-
seven 707-type  aircraft. Even  assuming that  our route structure and
traffic demand would permit replacement of the lift provided by these
aircraft with DC-10's (which is not the case), we, would have to pur-
chase fifty-seven new DC-10's  at a cost of approximately $1.1 billion.
Faced with these staggering costs, which we believe are entirely realis-
tic estimates, I cannot in any good conscience support a  retrofit pro-
gram of this nature, unless it is accompanied by an outright financial
grant to make this modification in the public interest.
  The foregoing explains  the basis for  our conclusion (3) that the
proposed January 1. 1976 date is not feasible. If we were required to
comply with FAR 36 by January 1,1976, it would be impossible for us
and other airlines to meet the  public need for transportation and the
requirements of our certificates  of public convenience and necessity.
Under such restrictions we could not provide service on a majority of
the  routes we are certificated to serve. While it is more  difficult and
time-consuming- to  modify some types of aircraft  than others, the
January 1,1976 proposal is, in my opinion, impossible to  achieve.
  Regarding conclusion  (4), we believe that strict  compliance with
FAR 36 by engine or nacelle retrofit may not be the most effective way
to reduce  noise. There are  several  promising  options to reduction of
noise  level by altering take-off  and approach  procedures. We have
already implemented new take-off and  approach procedures which
have reduced noise exposure, but considerably greater progress can be
achieved,  we believe, through our program  of active testing, with
support from NASA, of two-segment approach procedures. We believe
it can already be established that noise relief of the magnitude you seek
is possible by the iise of this technique. This approach offers the best
hope, in my opinion, of reasonably prompt relief in the Los Angeles
area.
                                                          [p.  50]
 525-314 O - 73 - 8

-------
2430          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


  Noise abatement achieved by revised approach procedures could re-
solve a significant concern over another aspect of the retrofit proposal.
Specifically, the difference between the current noise levels of certain
aircraft (in our case the 727's)  and the requirements of FAR 36 will be
so minimal as to be almost imperceptible to the public. It would be a
tragic  waste  of resources to effect this retrofit only to find  that  the
public is wholly unsatisfied. Eelief through modification of approach
procedures may consequently offer a better solution than retrofit, both
in terms of cost impact and more prompt conformity with FAR 36.
This is certainly true with respect to the quieter of the older aircraft,
such as the 727's, and might provide an acceptable solution to the prob-
lem of the 707 and DC-types as well.
  Regarding our conclusion (5), the proposed requirement that new
types of aircraft to be manufactured after January 1, 1975 comply
with FAR 36 minus 15dB is  in the  opinion of our engineers totally
unrealistic. Such a requirement would  necessitate the use of  a new
engine vastly quieter than any now  existing. It has been our experi-
ence that an absolute minimum  of four years is required to develop
such a new engine even when the technology  is in hand to permit
commitment to the project.
  It is also  worth pointing out that prohibiting  operation  to  the
United States of aircraft of foreign registry that do not comply with
these noise levels would present a most difficult international problem
for our country.  Foreign governments  could hardly be expected to
permit U.S. carriers to serve their countries if the operation of their
own flag carriers to the U.S. was prohibited.
      Sincerely,
                                            GEORGE A. SPATEE.


                                   TRANS WORLD AIRLINES,
                             New York. N.Y., September U, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.G.
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : TWA is  pleased to have this opportunity
to respond to your letter query of September 8 on the control of air-
craft noise.
  As you knows perhaps, TWA  has been instrumental and successful
through the years in forcing the development of quieter and more pol-
lution  free aircraft. TWA, along with several other leading airlines,
has always contractually required the incorporation of the latest noise
attenuation technology that is practical and effective when procuring
aircraft. This continues to be our policy and our objective. Current
examples of good progress are the Boeing 747 and Lockheed 1011.
  TWA  has  also studied the various programs and designs  targeted
toward the development  of retrofit technology which have existed
throughout the jet age. It is also familiar with current programs in-
cluding the front  fan and nacelle treatment programs mentioned in
your letter. In fact, TWA just completed a comprehensive review of
all known possibilities and programs  last week.
  Through the years, TWA has encouraged the development of those
technologies  which stand to  reduce external aircraft  noise. It was
                                                          [p.  51]

-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2431
hoped  that by now  practical designs  for effectively reducing noise
from the older aircraft in our airport communities would be in hand.
This is not the case and, unfortunately, little prospects for early prac-
tical solutions exist. However, all reasonable efforts to advance appli-
cable technologies and to develop suitable designs should continue.
  As matters now stand, either the predicted noise improvements are
so low as to be completely cost ineffective or they are impossibly ex-
pensive and would occur in a time frame that would not permit com-
pletion of retrofit programs prior to the 1977-1981 time period. This
is too late since by then the majority of the older narrow bodied four-
engine jets will either have been retired or will be on the eve of retire-
ment from commercial service.
  You may be interested to know that four-engine aircraft retrofit
capital costs are estimated to run from approximately $1,200,000 per
airplane for the quiet nacelle to approximately $1,900,000 per airplane
for the new and as yet undeveloped front fan.  Parts obsolescence costs,
revenue loss from added fuel consumption and/or empty weight in-
creases, and loss of utilization during the conversion period are all in
addition and  would total a very appreciable amount. The capital
costs alone would result in a minimum increase in seat mile cost of from
approximately 7.0% to 13%. Capital required for TWA aircraft alone
could total as much as  $300 Million. This quite  obviously would be
totally unacceptable.
  Costs and timing indicated herein are preliminary estimates since
neither the quiet nacelles nor the new front fans are fully developed or
have been tested in flight. The quiet nacelle being developed by Boeing
Wichita will not fly until next year and the new front fan won't be in
the air for several years and then only if engine ground tests are suc-
cessful. It is of the  greatest importance that such devices be tested
for acceptability by human ears on  a controlled empirical basis. His-
tory shows that meters and  forecasted  results simply are not reliable
in this regard. In no event  should retrofit programs or implementa-
tion schedules be adopted until this is done.
  Thus, summarily,  the suggested FAR 36 compliance date of Jan-
uary 1, 1976 ior all aircraft operating into U.S. airports is totally
unrealistic and cannot be achieved. At this  time it is  impossible to
rationally set a date for the  mandatory achievement of this objective.
Applicable technologies must be advanced, noise reduction effectivity
determined by flight tests and economic feasibility  established first.
Any language additions to S. 3342 along the lines suggested in your
letter of September 8 are premature and ill advised.
  As to the proposed requirement that new types of aircraft manu-
factured after January 1,1975 comply with noise standards 15 EpnDB
less than FAR 36 App. C., TWA understands this subject is currently
being considered by the FAA. TWA doubts that the attainment of a
15 ErmDB reduction is realistic  by then and suggests that a 5 to 8
EpnDB reduction would  be more realistic. However, since  action is
under way, language additions to S. 3342 would seem unnecessary and
duplicative.
  TWA respectfully suggests that prior to the inclusion of any lan-
guage  in S. 3342 on aircraft noise alleviation requirements or retrofit
schedules that an informal meeting be held between you and/or your
                                                          [p. 52]

-------
2432          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I


staff and selected airline representatives. Such a meeting could serve
to discuss and clarify significant facets of retrofit to a greater extent
than is practical in this  letter. If you consider such a meeting appro-
priate, TWA would, of course, be happy to participate.
      Very truly yours,
                                                   F. C. WISER.


                   INSTITUTE or NOISE CONTROL ENGINEEKING,
                            Cambridge, Mass.. /September 18,1972.
Senator JOHN V. TUNNEY,
New Senate Office Building.
Was h ing ton,D.C.
Attention: Mrs. Jane Frank
  DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: I am pleased to respond to your letter of
12 September 1972 in which you solicit my views in regard to the Noise
Pollution Control Act (S. 3342). The comments offered herein are
based on assessment of the status of aircraft acoustics technology and
regulation available to me as a Member of  the Aeronautics and space
Engineering Board of the National Academy of Engineering and upon
jet engine and airport noise  research in studies performed oy me  and
my colleagues at Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
  The current state of technology supports the addition of language to
S. 3342 that, "No aircraft could land at U.S. airports after 1 January
1976, unless such  aircraft complied with the maximum noise level
standards in Appendix C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regula-
tion." However, the reqirement that new aircraft meet a noise level 15
EPNdB lower than the FAE Part 36 standard by 1 January 1975 is
incompatible  with development,  manufacturing, and  certification
schedules and possibly beyond the state of art of noise-control tech-
nology for large transport aircraft. A careful look at available noise
control technology and at the length of time it takes for manufacturing
and certification schedules to be accomplished, convinces me that  new
aircraft could realistically be required to meet noise regulations  that
are 10 EPNdB lower than FAE Part 36 by 1 January 1978. In making
this statement I have not balanced the technological and time schedule
against economic considerations because I  feel that this balance must
be made by government and not by engineering people. A 15 EPNdB
reduction below FAE Part  36 might be feasible by 1982, but further
study is necessary to confirm this statement.
  I strongly recommend that the Environmental Protection Agency be
given the responsibility for specifying and enforcing noise exposure
criteria for communities near airports. Although, the Federal Avia-
tion Administration and the Department of Transportation along with
NASA have supported technology development in this area, the FAA
has shunned the responsibility  for setting aircraft community noise
exposure criteria. The EPA  should be given the authority for selecting
and enforcing these criteria, but the specific methods and individual
aircraft numbers involved in meeting these goals should be selected in
collaboration  with NASA,  which has responsibility for aeronautics
research, and with the FAA, which has the ultimate responsibility for
                                                          [p. 53]

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY      2433
the refinement and application of aviation technology to the civil air
transportation system.
  If the Noise Pollution Control Act is still an issue during the next
session of Congress, my colleagues in this country, in particular the
NAE Board, INGE, and Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. and other re-
search companies would be pleased to provide you with detailed com-
ments in regard to the present status of acoustical technology pertinent
to the subject of aircraft retrofit and new aircraft development.
      Sincerely,
                                           LEO L. BEKAKEK,
                                             President, INGE.
                                                         Lp- 54]

-------

-------
            NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY       2435
    1.4a(3)  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD, VOL. 118 (1972)

1.4a(3)(a)  Feb.  29:  Considered and passed  House,  pp. H1508-
H1539
                     NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972

                    Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, by di-
                  rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
                  up House Resolution 828 and ask for its
                  immediate consideration.
                    The Clerk read the resolution  as fol-
                  lows :
                                H. RES. 828
                    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
                  resolution it shall be in order to move, clause
                  27 (d) (4) of rule XI to the contrary notwith-
                  standing,  that the House  resolve itself into
                  the  Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union for  the consideration of
                  the bill (H.R. 11021) to  control the emission
                  of noise detrimental to  the human environ-
                  ment,  and for other purposes. After general
                  debate, which shall be  confined to the bill
                  and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to
                  be equally divided and controlled  by the
                  chairman  and ranking minority member of
                  the  Committee  on Interstate  and Foreign
                  Commerce, the bill shall be read for amend-
                  ment under the five-minute rule. It shall be
                  in order to consider the amendment in the
                  nature of  a substitute recommended by the
                  Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
                  merce  now printed in the  bill as an original
                  bill for the purpose of amendment under the
                  five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such
                  consideration, the Committee shall  rise and
                  report  the bill to the House with such amend-
                  ments as  may have  been  adopted, and any
                  Member may demand a separate vote in the
                  House  on any amendment adopted in the
                  Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the
                  committee amendment  in the nature of  a
                  substitute. The previous question shall  be
                  considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
                  ments thereto to final passage without inter-
                  vening motion except one motion to recom-
                  mit  with or without instructions.

                    Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield
                  30 minutes to the gentleman  from Ne-
                  braska (Mr. MARTIN), pending which  I
                  yield myself such time as I may consume.
                    (Mr. MATSUNAGA  asked  and  was
                  given  permission to revise and extend his
                  remarks.)
                    Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, with

                                            [p.  H1508]

-------
2436
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                                           ffi «*
                                     ..
            IpilP!
           aj3 tfoOoS'S 53

-------
 NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                                 2437
                    d O
   1

! .3 -9  +3l>y3!2'-'^i>>.ll'_-Clt»'-|-3C^W^J'tf'i^^tt7<^rH rffl M

            ^53t§gl*Sa§SglS§g|a§
            CS JS O Ci C M  C ,Q bD B W bf, £2 -3  ii S R C3 O1

-------
2438
  LEGAL COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT I
lljf
  pSs9.
    I:
-SJ3
, c3

                           •O

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                2439
           >>-« >>:
          ig-Ss^
                    CD (U
                    > •
w-5,'SS,dST;513iSg'(?,e  & | §•
^hll^|ia|fa  3f&
&  cSa'oj|'rt"isS§a^ ''° 'I? ^j
-------
2440
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                 -
    «-*J>^WW-*jOlr!tdcOrH(M S^HO. ^-U
                        u V .' 9
il  if I?
I-S .-SS^S  MgpIlbgSi-c'gllsSfl
                                  ^P^2l|P

                                  niisii^ii

                                   51 iP-^5
                                  '||S|llB>SSajrf
                                   Ii's-strili
                      Sal^lHlagSS^fSIS
-------
         NOISE	STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                2441
           iJi|§ifisIi^sa
           SSSlslSat^SSpS-g

                    IM aj 2 S

                    NlijlII
                  O  O ft £ G POi 0+3
D.5JS
>H O «i"-i3
c a ..»; o 8 o ^3
3
0) ?8 C -^ TJ 05 C
S^||||-S^
g^Spgfi*4
•HSSnSiM^-li'rt
fflg°3xJ«Srt
•gseglal05
'5flal:lil
i^sggp"|s
« ^"-£3§'S>9$
«M^Sa|l|
g+3gr3oSip^!2)+3
'-I
  f"^ I?   It U
8123*1*8
!^|SiE
a a >i S u o •«
SiSf^M
g^g^ss^
|8l8S-f§


«"S5I38

fl*Siil32
Illfb^ll
W w 10 O- o3 ^ {xt 4^ ^s
  -051

slHp

Is^1^
S^SSlZ
  3 '2 '" fl
ii a w I 2 §
gdw'§l.H
 . S r? w * 3
fe S 3 o«3
gSliia"
 agis*
 ,rf rt rt O
 C  -U ^H
 C M « 
-------
 2442
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                            si °.s§|
                                 •??! S3
  3|«£:3gs
|i|-f!|5lf
*Iilii!*i^
&&£ M9,,*8*»
  jS-agoo
  3 osSTS."
  5g n-"-§^
  tiS^SK
  S c! -2 S a,
  ^it^-0
  G 8 ft^3'S
  C31H (D W -g
  (D ri -G y O
  .5§S!g^
 c3 w tt »r 3 
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                2443
           bo; i
           c fl £
           5 O 
§1
                       n* 2 n S
B ^3 h
0 ° 'S „
'55 2 .a a> w
W C^ -+^» 73 QJ
'S ^
                                         I >=
                                             OJ v]
                                   "S-S o'S
         p>>
pi:-i^
e-lie«
 2
                                                 ll
                                               SHC

  > " S 3 ¥  *° ,..
                                             S ° "
                                                  j;3so
            9 0 "n
            ^-5 CO W
               ft


                        afeggS,.
                   3 «  .2 
-------
 2444
       LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                           §)£•£ a s


                            Hi
                            uS * -
                             
-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               2445
    fe I i-t M T3

<«2SW25
                          O *j
                          cS

                          •g-o
                       a  S-
                       < •"  a
                 1*111
                      -
                   -2 a
                   OS  rti
             SVH


             a a

             03 $
                 03  ai -

                 W-S-S »
                 hr S !2 h
                    S-, IH  O

                    Ml O C3 ^
  rsgals.!
  > 
o 3 u
3 o" 3
•a oj-a
o o
Si .-s

ni C3 SH •
SJ  a)
AJ jj iT


"11

fi**
go"
z
g
       SSII&1
    „  hfeoS^o
                         !•§.

                                               (U I - 1

                                               > CO
                                  Si 10
Oj





| I
                  'M4J>(Dr3'dfli>i| ,  a^Ssssllfias.
          s-^'gaia
             °? 3 O B 40  ^.
                =3 III
                 a^B^
                     aJ
                   J8

                   S


                   a

                   03

                   A!
             Q i I

             tt"


             1*|


             III
             '-'K-S.
             OS O ^

             is-
             §•5^
             ?! o oi
             a cs-a



             111



             ^'«s
                                       C3 
-------
2446
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
   3&S "^3

  ;S?8«a?5
   ^•aga-
    -  ^n &.§
          $H
  5-K3
  M£

  S^ilfi,
  53 •* M g B ^

  3538888

  saigas
  M^J.^OOC.-S
  ^riS^'rtOS^i-,,,
  5§!S .§ .3j,sS""5

 tjf S|
 ^ S n^
 te-Sl*
OM"  2«j«ri^5^^M


ill
              O B
              03 C^
. ^ . +» ^ « 3  ra •

'^llllS*9*
 u  (^Pbc^Up-H S.
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2447
                       1


skills-
-------
 2448
       LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
i;*i!
•I'
 •gi
^g
•-P StJWO SB •* » $
 Sl^gS^^s'gi
 5s  ,3 £ o  £ ;* 3
-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                    2449
      °5?I13sloS'a5a3S


Sfi^Ssg^i^lJtsaiaii
Lrt a 3ta+* «M0 §_>-!•*-a "MTJ -«P31
^l^^hS^iSS^asslB-gs^
                                  [3
Is!1
IS IP"
5 s afc.
'aailaiSSI;
                  MM
S^S's
o 5-ofi
 •i-» ^ **

i|l|
-•g-Sc
ilt!
-------
2450
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
            W**l3«*a
            _j•g w> ^;w s
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                2451
< ft
> a -2
 6073

Jiliffillirfl^SiMiliilHal^ii'
i?es'fB,:--|||p^|||S|||g|Sa|.ja?,g

      "   Iliryilllllle^llglll
                                    o! 
-------
2452
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
             tti o -S o *•" CT £
               •S O JH  O 03
                               rtg-sSSS
                               '3 g c * • "
       fl M


                                             " -S £ _ • 5 S
                                             D 
-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                              2453
! o 5 g-e B os
•00,2 %< ""
   03

   *8
   >>ti
   « »
   i

«aS|g2Sagg_

•sasjsSBSgtsBg
0:3 §•« fa  p,.2 fa o S
a £! w fa a  a - - - - c
                                                       •Sfi
 -
 •
 a •
 bo
            ~ •" °
  ijj s a
  JM D -•*
  , -^ w "^
  ?^,^ q
  •  "^ ^S  -BH  r^
  rt os  -' 3  S i
          3US'SHclg
           T3J3 a • y OQ


« 2-
u ^ S-
                                  i^ji+stt-t^o)  -*aa} .a  5 g °
                                    a'8  < 2
                                   •&Z,  -a
                     ^la^ssr^s^ai  is;;
                                        III
•SMgaisass^-ss--?
^
03
5-a«-g
«j £? o boOJ
P3«£
£36- g<55Sa
£,£}
o >>•« M m ;;
w tu ~* *
'o fi ft  o " «
— " if i fa QJ
•r; tl fa .S
a o CD o
mote a quiet and tranquil environment.
Technology is at hand for noise control.
What must be done is to apply it to every-
day use or. our streets, in our factories,
Hl
o
o
on our airways, in our offices, and in our
homes.
"M o>S
£S£
The right to a quiet, peaceful environ-
ment free from the intrusion of un-
wanted and harmful noise is as basic as
"5 g 5 C
^ rt fa 03
-------
2454
       LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
           so^^es10!!"
           SgM^ 60'3 Mjfli, g'Hd
           ssill?ll1«!l
   ^S
       •-oS«Qa3h«rH  . „, a, is .
                         S H
                         O K
                         32
                         n M
                         S S
                        Is
                        to 73 „ .
                        L*s'
                        s-al7f
                        ^ acs g s
                        llSP
iu s r<
s§^K^-$"
ojd'i'-wwg'gg

 fill's li
                            S o 5 o ^
: cs.
                      : >> o i
                      S158
!5§
to "
; >fS •
,§pll
.5§|li
 "" ^ '"J 73 a>
J 4J  W  r*
^&;ii
'si**-.
J|a|^
,8.aS-p'
                      « 5
                         6043
  i'aP-sS'Sgsli'oo^.
  i* 2 Sl-c-2-S'S « 2
  0« Ac4CQ+J4JKlwJ23
                       3 a
     J3i|i!^i
     S;3ig0'3fl^rt
     ia!«|«8|?§|
     &astlsi»l5?




  ISsIstlgfS!
   liliaiisf:
   Illlll^!!
                             N
  l^a^l,
  rliill^l
                                          C
                                        0! 4) H O
                                 W
                                  c 2""'
                                  !;3S1||.
                                  IP o  c ^ <; s
                                  B If P| li
     ;i3S^T!^--g'g-5c^*-a-§3
     »  ^J d 4) 0) 03 ...   •S.SsuoJMS
     l^^pJUltg^,  1
                      o H 5
                       I H
                      g§2
                      8eS.
                                  o.™  >
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                            2455
> 5P  IH» J3 "*
 g a a
•SB « §

SlaS
^ o 5 a,
gs^|
a  o.S
g » so
3.2-0
u e« S*3
 •u C
CSCQ 0-d

ti  S" C
05^^
            •a> i orj'oai'wtuc

           l«is|si=Sl
           llfl|J|*

           CSCS83!-*!)
  s
                                            w -w r;
                                            •" « -S
                    _
                   t»o
  M -i-t rj
  L, r-J 'f^


 §sh
 O


 II
 w -^
     "CO
    >>ss
    feS^
                                   03 CU

                                   •fl 13
liilPa^gSsS'g..
S^  -3 S o ^ g,g S cs S-<'S
          T3 3 S
                                         a o
o
<
-------
 2456
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
>> v i
!* > O
O t-t I*

> Si a
(U W
      i to
      a> +3
1
o3
                           %
                           ^?d
                           g£
                          «sr
                          a) .$-°i«§flg*



                   !.siHia!i!
                                 itill^U.,
                                 3§|S-^"§§gS3l
                                 «H§j3^isii
                                 2 _> o> « Q,+> e8S S g
                                 ,qcStnK>?ro  flOHS'c!^;3.^otH»>HolS'afl<'s
                                  , a o C _
                                  as|«
-------
             NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2457
   -ss
d w 3
Q. S QJ
Ill
-------
 2458
       LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
  » i j3 i rj 0) i QJ QJ

  'rjC^S^bC^J>

  . S.Sgsia.Sfi^
                 •Jj-
                 p Co
                     -^

                     S
                     o

                     ti
aH g
               8
                 UU _jj  CSJ I
                 £ -Tn  -I-H i


                 2|p,

                  o3 d o !
                 QJ Oi " >  JH
         ^•23-
             ".S2

          g aj-sta^

               I  • W


               ifl§l
   ^3iiii3:igs.:i
o .a
a a
o o
o o
g°S
      i58^Nsssi;B^P'K!i:^«^:5s
    a.
{,«$.
c« d 
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                  2459
           3 CUSSES 3 5
           iss^.g^-sg
           ^« ^ "-t £  -* rn T3
                     J £ ti

           ^IJsillsJ:
    1 O  ^ •*"*

    'C rt t> £3 O
    p -9 o bo 'to '  fl

    p.c3 a*-t >^- CD**-*
                                        >>

                                       »^
                                       CU K
                                       f-* 3
                           ^IP
                           gai-S*
                           . .« n a fl !
                               a

                              III
                                          i.l«
           cu eu
           82 *'
   2^-r
   ft'S
Q, 43 u « -
S S S -3 (
jo n a cu •
'usgg-
 ^opg
         ,
       S.2
   OJ ^ -O O
   >j «•-* rt id
II1

lal
a||

Ss^
53 M4f
3 fl 'S
OSipH
sg

i'"
5S

§o
%-a
-------
2460
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                                     (U fl t*H I (D <*H '
                                    £ q o d.c o^
-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                      2461
?-H-S
bo O M
3£-S|!|g £
S-filS§

 1 fl t8 " >? -g
          3
 gis£i:wsi
casS^si ""Sg  §§
55>>Sf8'S??"^"'!:!
                     I  |iyisi|i
                     |  ||j>||§.gS|

                     8  <8'g-^.S^4i^ri



                     !  ill!!!!


                     8  Hgijil
                        tf.BS5.2S 3 o2
                        § S a a a  „£ a S
                   S0J55S»rt8^E?S^3

                   hiii£»!|4«!
                   * S § g O ° b>5 fl  -B §
                   £ ™£ ft ,T ti «-S fc d S .3 3
                    -aiSlslI'ail3
                     aa*g*p&§s|g§
                           « S'S a
S
         •1 S
            ^'^fiSasI^
            J||^Sgg||<^
              Q«. ^|«-e
     ; o"a
     |*S O
        |||




         81 ^
         h C3
         ^ 0)
  a; o -
  > !
  d a
        O -


       '?•§
     ;iJ
ill

            •&*i a^
            ^1^^
             *° eS
            :^il'iiiii":i
            ^.SSSlSolilsl';
 525-314 O - 73 - 10
-------
  2462
        LEGAL COMPILATION"—SUPPLEMENT I
o « -^
-t> 4) o
(U^^  »

l?si
eg W -u J>
•s aP

:gsiB


J5SSga
^ajg'SO-e

Jg^SS^ n
Sc^ggl
gg|S -


5111
     fK « S-B!
   3 "K M-Sa

   o'S^giSSgcu
   S^sSn01^^

     «".§»£§
       to o >•<
       ^ 5 CH 4J «M


      'i5o«0

      ' co if "o

      '" -^
   §I-8iia|HP^*«
   £<_•§§£ °3'3cu«-g^-S^
      •—t t—t . . . *-r •{-* -^ O
H ^N ,_, CO 01 -•-  u









'^3 O rQ  . ^

•rn tD r. m *^
         ag
    15 g-o o^,

   o'u€>3'S-s

-CN >CO<8^§|
•SStf-Ssi^iS
             c *«

             155
a l-s
?» 5s 9 :
         I G -^  t-l GJ 4J
         1 B _^ --3 _a ta
         1 oj ;=! m a is jS


         iSsss*t
           I i-t  r-t

                    & £ S
                    03 Ji fl

                    •3 * fe

                    •fflSs
                                         <•= s
                                  21? fi
                                     g >.-d i

                                     o?§-

                                     °^g fi
        °>
      CU

      Si
!2l3^|aS|-

!3i!*§shi

iilfsllit?
i,gflg,5fo5§§£
         |l|!^l
         s-gs-gi
              0 'S
                                       X! § P
                                        V CU

                                       3S^.
                                       1^
                                   tj
                                   3 a>
                                 lil
                                 !N!l
4i«

t»1-?
^§
    nisui!^,
    ilii^tnii
    fa  s? w S
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2463
control and prevent noise.
I also believe that the Congress must
act this year to lower the decibel level
for occupational noise from 90 decibels,
as is presently stated in the Walsh-
Healey Act, to 85 decibels. A 90-decibel
sound level is nearly half again as loud
as an 85-decibel sound level. In addi-
tion, ' 85 decibels is the level at which
hearing damage begins for an 8 -hour
exposure. Federal law should thus not be
above this acceptable level.
As I stated earlier, the bill we consider
today is an excellent beginning. Noise is
a negative fringe benefit of the man-
made environment of our industrial and
high density urban society. To the extent
to which this environment is becoming
increasingly manmade, noise is not likely
to go away, but only to become more
pervasive. The way to keep noise at levels
consonant with civilized life is thus
through the regulation of technology.
Some scientists believe that if city
noise continues to rise as it has been —
approximately one decibel per year —
there is a good chance that almost every-
one will be stone deaf by the year 2000.
A study by the University of Tennessee
Noise Study Laboratory reports:
Fearful speculation that the current popu-
lation of young persons will encounter much
more serious hearing problems in their mid-
dle years than the present group of 50 to 60
year olds.
This is why prompt action by this
Congress is necessary and why Chair-
-------
  2464
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
t ff-t Q
•~< at 45
a £2
  « g h -o s ,i
 S|S-SB^
                     ««g|
                          i^r
                           •a «j
                 t> i- *>.  H x! -s
                 J» P?S 3 I>-P H
                                      H=8-S  S  SS^!3

                                      S||§|l|g°S



-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                           2465
   ; tr rr L; . °3 co

   ^•St^H-

     •iaa-a«
03 CO

O 'O

^fl

8
i
      |0«Mg

lPa°8Sl|Sl»
SfiS.SS^'gSfii;^
     •§oi«*
 a>>s«l^«
wW'a'HOdijS
S§§|8a'Ss
g*3 0 01 ^ . (u
•sa)2-2mSco«
                    "M§l^a°a-a
                    5Hl^s^$i«l
                    Ig^WooSS-0^
                     « •« O
                     ~s8
1!^  icdSiii»g?n:^
i^l^iII^l^slP
floss  -SdSSfeti  s £093
                                   « g

                                   S u S
                                   « 60 •<*
                         fli  tH-3CQ'*"''-[< «* r •**
                         S  S-g'S^w-^^'^

                         Is^lags^Ssi.
                         ^^s-s"^:^*

          •o^gg^o-'S,,
          0  -ifl-g"5
-------
 2466
          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
8*
cS ®
si
O d O rt
^ 3 '343^
                     -* tfl 4^
                       J-,

        Ifi
        •C o
lilliaa
  •a g go-.
  ^IPS
- « » 2 S 5 *
si^llis,
^^a:&!
•d
§S
crS
                         & t,
                         fto
                         s a
                         cl'S
           H .3  >-
           O t^TJ O
           •3 M 2 , •
           >-s^
          p.g
          §S
          S g
          »s
          §8
         J*
          K M
£ i T3
3 (H O

ft»S.


1^



ft?


1 I"".

3so
                       «00
                       353
                       ocl2*£K2,afl.P
           1 » EH p 9 rl
                                 j fl S M*>
                                 i-cfg*
                                 5 o fi  3 „, -•
                                 ^lallS
                     en

                     la
                     5g
                                          a •*• «
                                          W OJ *rt
05 a o
^^o,
 •O o
S53
ala
a§s

°£!
 O
-a &«
0) S
e  W
^a*
Ǥ^
                                          m
                                                  N
                       ^•3
       bfloS..2r'.2S"«2^-g'S5^j3^«g
       •^sS^S— tSftas88sa>'3east'§S-s'E'S.2S|esg
       S5fl»^3oo§|gS§os^  os
         S 'SOOCnSCojO
         O1 M O ft ft M O ft^> 3
        3&S§
        3S§
 SS»J
 S o S;
 ra ra ffi <
                                         T&S
                                         '"ftS
            H r3 .3
            MB 3
             3 o1
     ai
     H5
     .S "S
      0 10

     3§g
     ^ a.2
     fe  o 5
                                      °2°ES |!
                                       2sl§ :j
                                        rJ y S -^ ;
                                            35£S^«?
                                            W  W r] .S *3
                                            lilill:
                                            ^ssiSi
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                             2467
 525
  0>
 w M HS
 fl o °

 'ifl§

Jsi
 fl) -4-» *•*

 **8
 o  ft

 ~3~
 £38
 S ai ^
 3 £ a
 iy1- o

 BSi

 *33
 S «a

 go«

 l»g

 £ >
 .&"§§


 till
             t*» O fl i "O i i >» ' O

             a ~«81 s .S § £ s;
    !s«l5

    lifll
    " 8  ail



    Iff
    2S|S°
    •S « ^ s S
    Pica*
    * » § | •§
    •S fl 'rt
         a*
        rf2s
        o fl>

        §•§§

        s.s^
  «s-
  w S 3
   2 to:
  . ,< V
  IN S-
  ^ 4J

   3S-.
        if!
        | 0 ,3
       ^ fl) 4^


       I!!
 a*~p««l
 ;.s^aa«l
 §2^3|§5«so

 plg&l^si-l
 .St^tss
                      8g!
                                fl SC*
                      &a^ .§«ga:

                      ft|° &-£§•§
                      - fl o m D S '3 o ,
*>:g o

«!§
dsl
s«s
p?
.H 2 S 3
 '
          ?
                    fi H 9  '8(1)5
                              *lltt

                              ^!|

                              1^1
                              01 o a "
                              &•§*•§

                              ^S2I
                              O rt  (S


                              IfP
                              *£§!
                              g«2«
                              ,^4^4^

                              alga
                              6 " S
                              " o>*
        5 H S i
               ^~5 U 2  c o •
               !^B| S-30J

               i ^ tn 'H > ^- o  w
                                            O 
-------
  2468
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
°&*$l3**$%
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                       2469
                                       >>"

                                       *!  &
                                       a °  o

                                       5S  £
                                       01 ~  I-M
1
 fill !iljiisf|s^ill^iil|!s

 n1  liill&mi*i«i«sj  I!


 "O°*'j|'3 ^Cg ^_ g  ^ •** 4^ ^j-^ S^. ^?odta«tl'S

             r»i5!  li jiur
 !!•  I1 l!.""i»!S P? § s Il:I
I ill                      iiiiiiu
O Pi JO 03 "w
 ' ^ih::m;ssiaa«!=
  •3"'
                                       I!
       ;p§ge|ag^|a?Ssi^|^:^l|?ga5|IS
       •s|||||||.||||ga|<|J°|§|a|l|)aaS?2i
-------
2470
        LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
8 3 <3 2 &
1^1!
asr«*
                          S .3 o
                          +3 p «
                          ti  *"  a
-------
            NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2471
O I 0) W I
.fi O ri "2 CJ
£ 
ietermin

o
3
g
<&
M
•P Oj
(0
§^
§£
^•q
^3


a
y> "-*
!i
S «
CO
s
111

S
V -
a"
0
subsecti

.a
S
 .
CQ
S

60^
gaj
ft-g



.2
-p
S
w
•s

a
.2
•s
3
>
>i








I|
fa

5

0 J
S cs
O -P
03 CQ
.a
-P
n
o
s
«r

i
^

s ,
a
&
t»
A
•53

S "
1:
s;
a •
V
£ '.

U i
W
S
•P
ti
-3
0)
03
S
V)
cS
I
Jl
S
s
4J
S S
*" H

!+3 *O
w
11
fg
Sa
•o
t«

1
1
1
w
g
•o

c
o
1
to
-P
S

£»
•P
S
trume:
S

s

&5
cl -S
O o3
bo-*-3
e3 K

w
B
&
m
2
CITIZE







subsec-
United
S^
-P
•d
1
>
o
hi
a
§
§
rt
£
i
^
Sa.
Srt
W
W ^

S
oi
i— i
d
N
02

a
£]
ca

A
g
4^>
tfl
£
§
a
0
u
a
'>
'o
ci
S
U8UIUI
8
t»
03

w
O
1
-p
CQ




1
<
5
•»H
•a
3
"y
govern-
1
-P
O
>>
_S-j rt
gffl
the ex-
udment
S
0)
t»«
a^
OJ -P
a
d
S
>»
•P
JH "" '—H
flJ -^
D.T35
>>S =
a * a

I

S
c
cu
>
OJ
"5
0>
£
>,
a
I

S
fcj
CJ
a
d
-P
-------
 2472
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
MHiSinmi-
£miJil&&g8'33
                                       c >» •** '
                                       is II
                    i w vi en
                    «H eS O ^
                  ?3|*S Sals
                  * * a « 3 ''•ego
                  111!! 111?
                                          03 M
                                           IS
-------
NOISE-—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                    2473


itfiesBe

                     Bi
  w m  w< t^ 03 t> t>>
  ^SScsigg
  o-asSs"18

  «*S!*!as
os°C'5"S«2S'S13S-SH-=




|tgf|35lS.|Sg||8
  Ifga^-



  S23M9B^^br? « fe # 2
-------
 2474
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


^ : oSS-B'ft^ M






3gSt3bi&s8.S
.£ .5 
-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                                2475
4iS.g
*•« *!3 "G
sil
J3 o< o
   tjj ^ ^
•+•* " /i\ ^ *h? C8 O I  wj ' H* ^^ [v ^^ "3 ij

^^s^^sulfei^l
§s  l§  Igrgssss  .ss
                                                  il!i
                                   •gjd 8 «  2S ?*v   ^ |
                                   S # « G d a s -^-  s » s-i
                                          ^
-------
2476
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

              S 3 .2 K „ : « » 0-5 ? <« .- 5 a •§ .2 "S
                                                                O U) O
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                              2477
yji^i

S!*':
pgM^l^-ll*
SshSgi-LssSSs
               Jl!*fS!JS??*
                *S35*8*i"
                =!PS^feg|H


                    *^~
                            S'S S §43 S
                            is la=s-g
                    £"ISaS
> P+»
5&Sgggg-afl*|Mg*





^jaSSsS-aaS'-e'3
 525-314 O - 73 - 11
-------
 2478
          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                   l-a-K-S-SSSS-S^ofiS
                   Ilalal-aal  as$ I
 ho w M -a
 ^a«^
 ! oj •** 0) S
?!^5
Ii«s
»S£
  « H«
  |h
Epi!
Il^
-*J vj F-( --
M O ^ O
i^s25
Ss^2s
LJ f*H i—1
«g^^§
 *> s >. S
i| Sp
SW o> a
 a?a«aa-s>,8ag«^wa-aga
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                       2479
  Ssa&BSSiisisi
  i?8ai§S;Sl^i

is! 3 1^
 . 3 c
S££
                         a
                         c3



                         io

                         s
                         be


                         ^
              fl   SS2x!
          h t
                         "3
                         '£
                         '>>
                  4> «>•§ g

                  fe.§§i
                  .C O !H B
                  B fl M 03
-------
  2480
           LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
I rfl *^ I
"On 5 3
£fe£ £0
D W t? 4)



:ip

5 -a




     -   o „,
                ia!2s§al!l
                ,X!oH«^1gaga
                1 ^s gS-dl^g"5
g
  *^ •*—* • -**• ™  M

  jUl|«l

siSi;*l$*
•g*^ «« ~°-3 MOT

|?3|iai«4
5;s|||^g

>>* Is e ^~ S-0 -•
o 43 F" H O E2 oi .
HSP5
•d -S g K « B

t-iQpa.. oj^^C'^

» * rf.S^-a-13Si?

2§S ^.ul  aS
r^ wCl«<^HC3rA.--»
5
!-|"5J

?li
  ,rf§5^:-a^_

•8|^8flp£i3
 •gfi s^ a &>-s g
  3 3ftSS^ ? 2
 a)S5*jS'3fc  »
is^^^l^-s^i


^11^°^^152
"gggg-s^^^SSS
  ':!«
    ^o«
    0 J3 fl
    "S^TS
  118*8

  ^°«^«

  III!

  8?il{

                            ai
                      aJS-g

                      SlS&t



            « o

            v SJ
              i*!f
              S«>?S
            w O
            (D W
            OS
            c; a


            ss
            > o
            Si

            «8
            aj o


            eSi
             ^2^
'^.§i
 «ss
III!

J*aj

1°
a»
              0 ° -o> w 213^  *> o> y. ra S


^i«i;^
  »^5:1^3
                               IlSlliSS
sgS^

5.8 8"s
a*3 js T)
SgBg

:^1

S3ll
                              Wa>
                       -

           i a oa -
        £<-,'. a «u M ni
        g<^ S< a*! *>>

     !|2^l£!fs
     S^-tJ£ ^-3 
-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                2481
Si*


                   i
     raM^S^a^OWHBli";-1" c8sT
   :> • O 36 feS .» s G R « c« .. 3 .S 3 o o > S w «

   'i^igi-iiin^iNitir^i
   .S S^^SSsfSaSSS SMW.Sg'fl-S^a
                              I O -P m
                              tt +S 0+S
                 .       .
                     .
        „,» i4Sl*MS^ S
        l^g^lS^S'"
      -s HS||als5SS
      - •«lw&^2«aoi|

      lA^Kh^o




      §l!l^!g?ri
      ^(U^^C^OCSOW
               ^*SS

              IIP;
             ^ W H   W ^
             ,•§& 3BS^
!§l
§
 rt

 •i
H-i9
S 9§
S ^ < a
g-S;
.» "-1:
    a>
    G!
-------
2482
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                 fill
                      I 
       So""!^05,,,"^
       i.^s^
-------
           NOISE — STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                             2483
O
ra
SB
    tMCJiwiOJ-t-ww-rjcacDi
                        ic3
                       o ^
                      I *.> 03
                      : B y.
                            .§
                                -Su 52^,
                                W  w TI

                                >,.?_•«§

:i  l|iii§iii!iii  ;s-
s"  6=^a-Hs-§»§5s»'ggSs
^O  **-'tOj_j*-i*Q  Q»"~1^™QJ(HajHr-«^,
3l  ^gSaS-g&-8g«fe6^g|&
     S ^ ^ Q (D
     n~ O 4* +^

     l^ss^



     pi!!
     S*i -M  r1 +»
     S S-gs a
     B o G  o a
     O «4H 4J *3 C
                                       U ,-j
                                       s a
                                      5-u S

                                      15:

                                      ;«s
                C w '
                tt c; c/i


                HI


                ll*
                leg

                ssl
                •^ ti 9*
                VH C P
                O .3 W

                •» « 2
                £! 0) rC

                §S"
                •2 CD
                yj w 'u O

               3"3l°

               3s|-gf
               .3 » * « §
               §."£ « «S
               Sas^o

               SSSSS
                  •K o
              "-1 • • O JH "^



              "II-
              'S .2 < 3 -J

              •g-g caO3

              '•SfcB  a
        C5 -S 'w -v ""•


        i^i-s
        S .5 « > c
        £! S  O V
        O 5 -K *" •£
        ' •a o
o *-< —


53 S to'g
 6O r< C
 O .S oj
q-S.^-g"5"  .

    §o9£
•H ri a q _ 5 s
S bog *
•d'S  Si'^*a
   ft (D J3
  i-  fi£

i:^
0? * 0
oi a) 43
H^ a>

--§
^i I
s^u«
73 o o3 s
T3 ^ O S


M;«
^•+3 g O
oi ^ §*=


fl&!f
S^5g

  s >>-s

181!
H 1-1 •O'C
     bo" tu aj

     !.S ^^^
     , o oO-y
     bo^ ,
  •"•o
  w a
we o

his

not?

the in
are
e
w

ly
y
o

e
  8s
; .s s s ° 12
! T *" ^ ft I
:§^S|?M

'3 §315
:g*g§&


 l^ofl
> 5  f ?? fi
. a *> g .g •-•
i p o o o a>
i.g-SsSg
>a2Sg^
= £ a a £ o
                                 i? fl o2
                                 OS O O « .,


                                 lǤil
                                 « O ts ° fl
                                 w«la>>

                                 °2-<3S

                                 asl^
                                   ni H*
             „, C o w    O

             fllai .i
             2 a, 3 •" &-3 g
             s i ^ -g 0 8 b

             a|||^|


             gsiiii!
             O rt - ^1 ^ 2 b.
             EJ S -a 3 $ a 5
             g ^ > O > c3 g






          .3^5 5.S^1^^












                                       QU ^
                                       c 2
                                       c5

-------
 2484
             LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
•SO  73 I
3 W  .-< SH

O   05 •*;
- —  w oi
 a!!






                                              !








 I O> (D I
^SSg


Jill
rt-0  O
•see's
1 g
w cS ^ ^3

s^l<

2pl
P. S w w
      .    .

        *3
       o
      73 13 3 M
      fl =8 S S
      CS J2 SS

      .2 .2 D •£


      a«e«
   j .  o*» ^ *3
   id  o <$ ' ^
   ;«  5 g s «
                  n-"
                  o S
                  0^3
                      . ^tJj
                            M 4)



         C3
 "33 «8 «
 •o  o

 utSi
 JQ CS IS



 Is!
 •WOO

 S3>,

 w o*

 .SW «

 Sol

 0) rQ O
 tU)*3^

 - 3 g .a ;

SM ea g •

IBS
            §fe^
            w to > cu


            CJ ^








                          "




-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                            2485
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MIKVA. If that is so, what is the
objection to my amendment, which
simply states that there will be no sonic
boom over the land areas of this coun-
try? I should like to share the hope that
our airlines will never try to fly such air-
craft, but suppose they do? In the past
the FAA has allowed them, or has issued
regulations suggestive of allowing them
to do so. My amendment would be a
statutory prohibition against sonic
booms over the land areas of this
country.
Mr. STAGGERS. There are some rea-
sons for leaving the matter where it is.
Some of them relate to testing they
might need, and there are other things.
But I would say to you that they are
adopting regulations. They already have
them prepared. They are in the Secre-
tary's office. I do not believe the' provi-
sion ought to be in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. MIKVA) .
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MIKVA
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment. The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MIKVA. Page
47, insert immediately after line 12 the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(c) (1) There is established the Airport
Noise Curfew Commission (hereafter referred
to as the 'Commission') . The Commission
shall study and make recommendations to
the Congress regarding the establishment
of curfews on non-military aircraft opera-
[p. H1533]

 .§s
^S

ID3
«  a
o3 43 _ r3 '£!
'SSr'gs
 &£*
J3 a £ -a b-°

s«llsns


sl-Illl
cs <£  -o >< P4 .S
MS !>,**
a& &_•

%££«
w «j n Vn
o3;

S2:
M-0 w 
-------
  2486
         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
«  £
*"3  M
-S  a

§  o
a
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                 2487
r^dO^C-t^r*-*-3^ -^Ti,
'SBSIga^gge-g M
                 stl-l5 *
                 lg°5  g 3
                 « S ., P a> 2 w

       aj S '3 71 -a
  0. SSS^So^a^c,
  **!s*3!i3a&;!
lji*ifiill
^ft^8l^-
 <£|ilM8-
 ^=lasfrio
-------
2488
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                    'M'*s»sa
    J . -4-1  ^"
    'O « jj _, rrt
   j-SSg'Sti
   S3Ǥ2^
       13*18
       ^ (H >,  W
       OJ « fl g o>
                         KSltilP
                         ,

-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2489
                                    -°d
                             2 " a
                          «-aSifiSsa^9«

        oSS5go
        5 Kfl o £
 |til«-sSi
l«:ik^f2HSt'
-------
  2490
    LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
^-
s«
      :
Ili^i5i-s--|:i
          •£ S :

                 & WJ ,n ^ & ^
                 iS«S9§S2
                x^g^iis.s
                "a Soa S nw
                S S & ., S? fi «
                   "sp'-a8
                   og^tiJ

                   •g^o-oS
                   t> d-t 
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                        2491
            "tTs-GgSw™
          o
          w « g -5 o 3

          133'S * a  °
             a w
                   •r; M«

                  ,£8
                   i? o
          I^&gsoil;?
          ir^.m
          olSlIli"l|
          -^ ^2-3 fi S^ a flfo
                    ?H +5 "

                    S ^5
                                        -^ W O

                                    o-so^f!
                                    :i^i-sr
                      r< W

                      & rf
                                      o
                                         O OJ

                                         0) A
•o-e
  _ pU ;i *** I-H SH !-< rti *H  r« fl\ _» ~r  O T;
O CD -t
      a   G  OO y oa -™i, »H ^ ^^ "*-•


      ^l^l'-a'HSS--s^'S'3*£
      j|^|.aS|^.g|g«

      ^.gS^»,|.2|&«|^
      , '3 o ., -rt 2 -^ « o3 a ., .a a -&
t||il|i;i«sj^.!

fl«l2s^slplll!
                         I  '2
3 ^ «

58S

5So
j  >H



ill
 sg
                                      a  -s-
                                          1>
S M
Q2
o

Ig
w.2
                                O  " in r' ^ a
                                 fl >

-------
2492
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
      3g





         gas •aSPiS  £ &



                        * "-•§ -ell"
                        *§fid~.s
                            gfljig
                            §*^S
                            *a*^a
               Isnc^a^g  „
               ^^I^IIIS
                         a s
                              d
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2493
                    i •*» >>„• a +i .M
                    C GQ »-J i—« rg ,-< M

                    Is35l!-
                       a a *"
                       as«_
                           "^
                           s
                     g 9J ° iJ ^1 'o3


              3 53 s a)  .Bo1"  • S  •
                           '

525-314 O - 73 - 12
-------
2494
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
               f

-------
       NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                         2495
            '&'
                    lll'g&Pl
      si s § a °
      d^gg?>

               111
                 J>
              sISS**
              S  o.S .8
              §Hfco8!i*
                 • € 3 „
                   wS
         ** M 5 «"•• S
        IgBfiSj
        •g^s^^l
        liH-gh
            3^
       _s ri in+3 2 XI






          !^Sb
siii^^i^igsB
ills
be u
se
IIP

MS s
o5 S
 •go*
w Wrt -^
I'gf S
fc-S£S
                      SSfe--
                      g a^ >

                      *g€fl
            l i O i O 73
            >> a - s o g

  5-
w -+^> r O
o>-£ -d"c3
> 03 (D M
•gS-s«


ftl^i
-fljl
               ^G
                         §g&
                         s h M
                        *'5 3 a

                        lip
                        o,.a§
               « rt i *rt «w ,

             ^g|'§I..°^
                g|p;l?«ifl3fil
                "^a* «ag ages
flS18.
8^§
sS^
5§i
*> I
8SS.
Has?
                           gissj^iissi  i§§
                           i||^i^P||g°g
                           lol-r^g^^i^*  sa.«
                           H^l:sl^l^|^:i
                           fcgjusigo^'g'g^-sso!
                           •3gaS'Oo3[0cg
                           •S XI  g * o o Q..S2 fl 3 S3 v o a)
                           B^&sa3;g||gS||
                                  3 ** U -^ i w i3 
-------
  2496
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
EnfeOO

      I o fc 8 a 51

      51 S*f*5
      d B «i . =3 S -P 3
               -•s

             4 IS  111 Pill
             •8 S a*.. w^s^boEM
             S OfCWiJiJ'M^iJiJ.'iJ
1^'^lt

^SSlbl
  4^ tW>.r^-'Nl'HH^1'^ •


  aei^g^^s^Ia
     S   m
                                   a >
                                             &§§>«.
       ^S*3? *8 08 OCJO W OOJOjdXjBS-iH^S O H H QlM.4343+S-p4343434343+3 P >>fC3 W CD
                     a [0 !0 03 03 CD WtQ M CQ 03 W CD M
                                                    asi
                                                    SSj
                i!i!i€i!ilfilj|iiii«a5ia^
                	"~~ ™a—aJS-Qaa

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                2497
 8
 §
 <3
   S*5 o 3  „ t»  3_M3H S
« Sas&lsa  l$«*l31sgSd
IlJgllHISlliSlSillgl

33a33333333333i33iia533figa5£3£533a33
                                       < w o
3
•8
V
1
M
a quorum is
S'^
•a 5
s+=>
O.TJ
0)
Mr. NELSEN.

c
1
0>
s
§
"o
11
-^
!
«M
O
+3
'8
n
S
4^>
0)
-t^
a quorum is
i >— *
•° «
c8 o
>.«
«M -J
?^
5-B
presen
dently
1»
w rfi
10 1 present and
hat a quorum
The SPEAKE
s
^

« »
So
§ 0)
+3
C3
iot present.
The Sergeant
a

+3
!
ent Members,
he roll.
W -4J
S3
4) ^
S M
^l
-U
1
rt
-4^
I
§
N
CO
1
a


The question
•ere — yeas 356,
s follows:

[S
CS
U3 «
•0 S
• °?
U
§ W
Q^ »•**


                                i 5 a
                       O
                    OOODDOO
•oqpPpRpi3pPPRRflPR'§HwSf

           a
-------
-------
                 NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                 2499
    1.4a(3)(b)  Oct.  12:  Considered  in Senate,  pp.  S17743-S17764,
    S17774-S17785
ENVIRONMENTAL  NOISE AIR CON-
           TROL ACT OF 1972

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STAF-
FORD) .  Under  the previous order,  the
Senate will proceed to the consideration
of S. 3342, which  the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  Calendar No. 1105 (S. 3342) a bill to amend
title IV of the Clean Air Act, and for other
purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to the considera-
tion of the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Public  Works
with  an  amendment to  strike  out  all
after the enacting  clause and insert:
  SECTION  1.  This Act may be cited as the
"Environmental  Noise Control Act of 1972".
  SEC. 2. Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970  is  amended to read as follows:
     "SHORT TITLE; TABLE OP CONTENTS
  "SEC. 401. This Act, including the follow-
ing table  of contents,  may  be cited as the
'Environmental  Noise  Control Act'.
           "TABLE OF CONTENTS
"Sec. 401. Short  title;  table of contents.
"Sec. 402. Findings and policy.
"Sec. 403. Office  of  Noise  Abatement  and
            Control.
"Sec. 404. Definitions.
"Sec. 405. Research,  investigation, training,
            and other activities.
"Sec. 406. Federal programs.
"Sec. 407. Noise  criteria and  control tech-
            nology.
"Sec. 408. Noise  emission standards for  new
            products.
"Sec. 409. Labeling.
"Sec. 410. Imports.
"Sec. 411. Prohibited acts.
"Sec. 412. Enforcement.
"Sec. 413. Citizen suits.
"Sec. 414. Emergency situations.
"Sec. 415. Judicial review.
"Sec. 416. Records, reports,  and information.
"Sec. 417. Federal procurement.
"Sec. 418. Grants for  support of environ-
            mental noise planning and con-
           trol  programs.
"Sec. 419. Development of  low-noise-emis-
            sion products.
"Sec. 420. Authorization of  appropriations.
           "FINDINGS AND POLICY
  "SEC. 402. (a)  The  Congress finds—
  "(1)  that environmental noise  presents a
growing danger to the health and welfare of
the Nation's population, particularly in ur-
ban areas;
  "(2)  that the major sources of noise emis-
sions  include  aircraft,  vehicles, machinery,
appliances, and other products in commerce;
and
  "(3)  that, while primary  responsibility for
control  of environmental  noise rests  with
State  and  local  governments, Federal regu-
latory action is essential to deal with major
noise  emission  sources, and  Federal  assist-
ance is  necessary to encourage and support
programs for the control of environmental
noise.
  "(b) The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States  to promote an
environment for all Americans  free from.
noise that jeopardizes their public health or
welfare. To that end,  it is the purpose of
this Act to establish a means for  effective
coordination of Federal research and  activi-
ties in environmental  noise control, to au-
thorize  the establishment  of Federal noise
emission standards for  new products, to pro-
vide information to  the public of the noise
emission and noise reduction characteristics
of new  products, to encourage and support
State  and municipal programs for the con-
trol of  environmental  noise through  plan-
ning and program grants to State and local
environmental  noise control  agencies, and
to provide  information to the public on the
control of environmental noise through regu-
lation of use of products and other methods
and  procedures  to  reduce  environmental
noise.
  "(c)  Public participation in the develop-
ment, revision,  and enforcement of any reg-
ulation, noise emission standard, program or
plan established by the Administrator or any
State  or municipality  under this Act shall
be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
the Administrator and the  States and mu-
nicipalities. The Administrator, in coopera-
tion  with  the  States  and  municipalities,
within ninety days  after enactment of this
section, shall develop and publish regulations
specifying  minimum guidelines  for  public
participation in such processes.

  "OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
  "SEC. 403. (a) The Administrator  shall es-
tablish  within the Environmental Protection
Agency  an  Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, and shall  carry out through such
Office a full and complete  investigation and
study of noise and  its effect on  the public
health and welfare  and administer  the pro-
visions of this Act.
  "(b)  The  Administrator  is  authorized
to prescribe  such regulations as- are neces-
sary  to carry out his function  under this
Aot. The Administrator may delegate to any
officer  or  employee of  the Environmental
Protection  Agency  such of his powers and
duties under this Act,  except the making of
regulations, as  he  may deem necessary or
expedient.
  "(c) Upon the request of an environmental
noise  control agency, personnel of  the En-
vironmental Protection Agency may  be de-
tailed  to such  agency for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions  of this Act.
  "(d)  Payments under grants made under
this  Act may be made  in  installments, and
in adavnce or by way  of reimbursement, as
may be determined by  the  Administrator.
                                                                        [p. S17743J
-------
2500
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

               t«"•" TJ  ' a o '
               ^i»25|a
               -|»§33s.°

                1|!
                .ȣǣ Sa o
                       fs*|allls 381 §a|§?|
                       sllt°a«^ i§g !|g§^











SS, - ** a S « M*
«t5«-3§*5S

•
  b v
  $&

  II
  55
  aw


                       '-
    flo83Bh^gi*flSS
^iiKiSis.Slf8i2s
So "— S ^•"So*i.ts "oissjS
           s2a>§^w
           ^2 -H fl O _, *3
                iiislatilllilllig-iilifiil
                »rtj|35l*«'!S;ah«'
                                S H   "^  "— O O '
                                ^Ssti^soggi
               ;Sd.°gi
                     iss-saj
                      isilii^fi
                           8§5SS*!S!S!!3
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                     2501
.  .
3 a 3
S.°a
"•O C
« 3 °
.5 8 0!
bD I .2

af §


11
o •

S;
3 '
 »H '
        IS
                        IliiHlffM
 0) S 53 J3 . t?« 0 t>, . *> " H £<


 Sl!8li*?s&fli!8
 r3 -H fl ^3 .. M - .s L* 40 tv. C *y
  a 3 M ^*  w  « -4-*

  £5 S ..S^sggS
     is^sisii
       !s!^>
      r^ °
      ; a S
  o- ~
  -W ™ fl>
  efefl
     " -S 'S  ° « o * 3 *•

      iPilr^i

         = sftsi
     w 4T« y ~ o O
    g510'p^ H~« o
     Jl°
^li |ii!:iiP
   S*3 w 2 3S5«-


   l^ll^l1.
              S § S g S S a 5 5 3 o a » S 3 ~ - a
              ^ifi°>f*ss:i^t°3
                      ft»t|stpf|

                      |B|;g1«-«w
                         o
      n to 40  O'C'"^—.'SeSojt^tiJDt/i^T^

      S«l3b§]?£l3«lS3jfi
ff, o 5! » >> 3 5 C."S S
?3£s'St:ssrg3
                                  §2!
                                  5+" 5
               oo.C)'§s32.s«&s<5^|*«  ^
               •25'§>|sg|g5So«g^53.s?-3
               §gas5sasis2S-sa<3SS.gs
*?22
•»«s§
a^^S

1^1

H!i

|§2&
a o Sot,
rtS   ^*
             ,„ - - o ,q e8
             ^2 o S &«3 cS-e

             IM.M«|«Ui;
-------
  2502
             LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
  A.^aSs-S'S-S'SoS.ddi
  »38»*j;i*;j2g'
ree
e
olo
ia
!S^£S3>>«B0S2-S!n^
^gi5C-a,rtgSflOl§«o^m
l^si*l»l~^:s
3oS,S8S«^8..-B o -S«
 : -a H o n  MM
 '„3s 8 8 3.0
 ^^-^Illlls-
 _' rt • w ^ -- 7^ to -'O 3SKI5>J,«S
prescribed un
his section
g instructi
intenance
roposed
dminis-
rtunity
ordance
States
y p
e A
ppo
acc
ited
3oo'g§'OK=a
^IH-.SOHO+^T;
     " a '
     o a-i
rj (H
ag'S^
a .g^P "43
o § | g ^ £ |
S^fip c efl
s
r
e
t
.i^^>>5:«g
 aa^gliE0
 §2|^rt.sg
and
b
(
e
?g3lPliSS«!a^
S§§§.5flB.giseSy<§5
151 et
ubsect
contain provis
the manufactu
of the produc.
"(2) After publication of any
regulations under this section, the
trator shall allow the public an o
to participate in rulemaking in
with section 553 of title 5, U
si
u
t.
                                  ^'Ris-'gsS^S
                                  sags^ssga.
                                  ^5s«SBSi-5
I I TJ t t-, OJ
CO fi QJ 3 O -*J
2&3S^5
JsIJs?
fa 4-> 'H -U 2 *S

Hslfli
o.- s s>3»
Sfll^IS
a* §"s^
sSlSsI
•^ *J tl J3 fl +>
Cj O O, 03  d
«fi««2 g
•2 » S o g S
a - 5 > & B
affsSfll
sasea^
^ « S » o «_,
ssi^s^
H n «S n g
                                      ^.2°£6|
                                      -^^ o o  a
                                      : a ,
                                           3_3  s oo
                                         .2 o1 fl   x a
                                         +i (P C3
                                ^"^SH^fajS ^^ W
                                latsSKaflHi
                                !fi.llil|Hl!
                                4^ 4n ft-w> c3c3'ORwo3Gci
                                               ^"rfS § '
                                               °lt^
                                               I«8S|
                                              j S o S S fe
                                             -a*35^
                                             -P rj fa w S

                                             P!l!|

                                             -If
                                              CS  iS S S t3
-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                  2503
  3*
   s
  ^< ^
  57;

        0 1 - .'. T3 C m
          = 3 *£
               > fl o h
               , .9 * oj
               '-. 5 4^ «
               ? -»  +^


                -.-S
                "«!
                      > ' a «> «s
                      a g c a
                      — .s -5 h P
                      t.^ o  §
                      T2  0 ^ V)
                             ) ' ;n >3 « £
                 °'3g'Q» o &
                  •31
      i"s gs-

      ia«!jr:
      £l^&6g^
      3 >
                        * a a
             «S
             8:-s^
             --ftgy

                *"-
                            4^> C3
              U
             ; ^ s
                     C3 o "O ^ w .  w
                     ~ fc S 5 s fi «
                       S o S 2 § 2
                       o a M +3 g o
                           ,OJ« O
        u "tr w
        rf 03 «-<
        ""•SO'
        s M a

        i;*i
         t* O -t
        • «2 !

        «i>:


        ?1^
         •e o "
         e« o >
                                    i s a "
                                    <05|^
                                      S £ S
                                   S|
                                            2J  ri

                                         -
. a g s t, os g


 *< S S?1? a-t;
 O  (L H t, O
  «  3 o cs
-t3 o t*  y ^
 0.3 * S a 3
 "•S'g °" |

  C^ aj 4J ni H
   -^ t/1 3

  ^•rt '2 O ^
  S  -a e-S
                             3 « <" 5. £
                                       S2:
                                       ti +->
                                   :5S:
      G o
      c4 3
 ^ I t. I  >, I to

 S S « " a 5 'o
 S a  *M  o a
 Q.L,^ °  * H ca
 •3S2,S>"Sa
 C^ d  rf  Q. TJ "H
 » stj^  aa t.
 £.sSc><«5°.


 llfslll

 jMsaii
 a S aS  Sc2
 s ° S S15" 2 «>

 §3*1^^
 s51^| 15
. 3 « ^ S  g fl ^
                          i i 4-1 rt i fl

                          S .2 g a S i
                          an « 5 t" ?
     v
g^Saa
CL- - rf * .
57   S xj o a
hi   CJ)+^ oj c3
-------
 2504
            LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
a 3 a
Ǥ2
c3 S a
Q P-S
•£S
   as
^fslslg
•*33i!g^
Es:1°i°!lsll°§!
     •S23TS
  SoS5S5w"'S0ss

 l£l^!!ililsll
                    —mo^q
^15^ •§§•§§
eg 

                                    'S •H a
                                    o o O
                                              I i 63

                                              «3 fl

                                                -
i a »:
B »•"
     &83
     tis-s
                     B a
                     '^ o m x' S n o '

                       s%ri§iii
                          Sb? °»5 a
                              "S fi (II
    Bll:0Sa.l3jS§S3o-8a|rgh«s8g
    ->ia-'JSd'~i'p™lrtw  d d o »SS«^*o 23-*-*


      I
     §s|ll2^-r^iss
                               ft?

                             ^ rt -,'
                             "2  fl)

                             ^al
                                       .d

                                       i|!^
          '.slilHi".?!8*!!
          S"BaMflflsa»ss
          i*Ni h£i*i;ti
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2505
                                                 as
-: 31
^—' 43 fl
-------
 2506
        LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                           c- :- - -r" i r- '— ( C -^ V ' "^ d  O i «•>
                           / c ri w *-• "d ^ " ^tf-c^^Go^- ^

                           5Si!^lKt*!ffi!i

Ss*8iil?;
         8 a
• a "•
j g °
'Is
j5«
:s§
J^i
> >.•§
^§<
5 4> rj
0 MO
5< 3
5a w
III

ill
s p< s
^•3 a
il*
•^ rt !l
t'^23-::
^aS^sIl
gaga o°^s
«5> w +* _. a S1^1^-^
g^^gaial^
sl"l^s|sa
a .2' <«s a 2 <
u
ic
district
have juri
The
shal
is!e IB
5118.11
muss
G * O*
S ^ (u o
d +^ M -p
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                 2507
            «  §lf
         .hi;
       4-°- pS » <« g "•
                                     "SS^SS
                                           S tyD7-{
                                      •O _ MX3 fl S


              ?s.l|fl!
                 " s § a OB'S
                  •ysa of
                  A 10 4i b b
?JS3SJ.§'0-3*

     O ^1
 ; « 5 " t; . ^j "O cs
VJ "-' H H w (H
nj -  H SH ^ K
£ -  B o 5 o
a  < +3 a +5

-------
2508
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                        i5»5«o.
                      SSflSJsltS
                           -§!l§«
                               "c*
                            e--Ms?Bl5ol


                  j  t>,i-H IH I O i
                  isitilf
                  VlfliH
                    i!H}J«s
                  ii v

                  f o
                  a a
                  P
                  aa
II3SS
  " > a
•8-2_°-
i*1 a
s IK
«^&€g
sjggs
fi&dSofe^,
 §^^^•0"
IMS "gS-g
|8|S.S|
Bg.3S|5S
•s«sS§IS
g^S^ ag-
Sog^SgB

s««illl
a >
5 a

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                  2509
                                                .s ®  *b C
                                               .. t^ rf ^ 8
                                               Ul W  CO Q(

                                               &«3]?sii


                                               M*SS
                                               " '3 in 5
                                         !>.


                                         a ~ § |  " g5 S

                                         &S»L|5S15
                                                   *&
                                          T- -. - i. _  — » «
                                          Ma >>3 sSpo^
                                          IH (i> C i-< — aj *•* .C 2r
                                                 5 ft+* rt

                                               &§flS|

                                               ^25-5
                  K w -r ,_,  TOr-rH,,-—-™-oo<;vi ^-^ "^ 7 '


                                   53CNgfl = g*
                                   +J P,M il +J -J3 -w .!
                                                  Q tn
                                   3 2 o *
                                   ff s  "*H ^
                   §•2°
                   aiss


                   ii I
                   o -3 8 fe
                   0 3 S S
                    o > o
                   «s§§>
                   S" 2
                   ? oj'jss
                   f1 +3 ^ o .5

                   gl^il

                   ^Iss!


                   eiPielllli

                   «S'°'2-cwsa?0'^
                   ="3«'3Sr« *g uT
                    o 'o t> Q  3 .3 o a
                          2 „ £
                          oS w
                       ID  O ° .2

                  BStfg|5B.lfl

                  ^?oa^,^^2's

                  aS.flsS^fta
                  |w=s52c|gg
                  go   £ "•  -°'S
                  ° 0 o v  & a $~
                  «_i!o'P^C|-ao

                          s§l
                                   J^
                                   a a
                     li^S
                      o ~ g ~
                     aS 2-°^
                     : O :  S -
                      h  OS 1
                      a  J3 -
                                                  A v
                                                  ^•8
                     .5 +> «
                       o a
                       3 «
J

; ^^ s •B
? .3 & '> 2
     €3
     a ^»
                     &1
                     a £
                     » ^
to I 1 6Q I
8S2os

53 S O.
 3 a
osi
              J ii JV w ^ V ^ -C
              !^ "  &&„ S
              i f a ~*' c3 rt

115

111
    ^ 35Q.  flS-
               r--




      9 "* "3
      C3 ^ tn
      „_, -^ +0
      °§§
      aj (fl o
      w .,_.
      3 o S
      2 «o
      5.2 a
      •g o a
      Sss

     2:1.1

     *lsl
     Slo-s


      an
  m^°
   o 5 * £
 . 0) o
                                          O
                                         3 v< O
                                         £V  ^

                                          R *"
                                             S c ^"o * "w
                                             « H cJ  «M ^-i
                               «" o
                                        T< 5
                                          33 g;
" w ^- oj a ^^,
Sag- «B

laSHi:
'•" a oj £30*

'fiillli
                                        rti U)

                                        « §
                                        J) -
                                       . s £
                                         S°S-
                                         S7S
                                             ".2 <
                                       is £ "3
                      •S -M W

                      :§§
                                   i5- SH
                                   c?^aS

                                   M .O S _-
                                                • 0) 5 S rj
  525-314 O - 73 - 13
-------
 2510
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
u o "O d d "S c8 bfljc +*a>od-So,SJo

i$ni»& !t!Si

Ml^isSal!!
                  d >> >» ' O




                  III!
                        UiOJdtfl   & 'tf 'd Q> < I *•< 4> < b 45IOI

                                   15 3-e
                                o*> „ a S-K
                                s«s;»:sa
                                          Ii!
                                „, £ S 'S S .. oS --1 « .,
2&a
            1 w p "•* a?

          3 « fi S t» "3 J3 ^ —

          ».§ S^S^^^ fe^
          H +3 -p W ft-p •** O ^—'
                   KMlMVsla;m5§l«!i
                   ?i$;?^itii  ^tfia«ailst?i«
               S6iniia^:i«i
                   Sab^^Ssa0
                   a!|s§! 5ls
                   +3 w c3 c3 w
                        (BwOhSo^^SoS
                        <0 ON «Si5 J-S'TS*5 £



                   ??SI"§§S*§ar<3§&
                     OCOM-S-S O MO 5 P  £S«
«i* !|s|S*!flfs
  S&bl§HlS"'S1o™3p82S5«5'
KJaS-grfgls^-S^ii^gSg.?


«!4f«! Ji;1*'
-PCJlHIdS ^O W
« a _ s & « *>
                      K >. «



                      ^g^
                  <5f
                         ^^BStSSag-^-SS^gcg-feSSglg
                                      ^S*-S2*'S«5

                              iiiri!ir°Ir°lc,i
"2>.^;-^ssss§1°i5l3^o§S5?s>8£«0sp^o|sll
slfsjr
S^S^i
                           «lHl8SllgS8

       -5iiipielii:8pii:'.i|isi!!i!ilii^i
       Sigiii" illfess" §ia3g.^illgiss§-as8ial
                                        SSflfe*!
                                           fl?







o^o-^&c'^H+'S'S 3»«§3»M


 i ft 0) -H O *3

>,g*§S*
             sS

           S's^liijsssg*^8

           l|il^|^!n:i
           J3BS  •Mp+;.t>
            - d 9 09 o S. a ..
                 **< fl}
                                ?2'"oco&
                 a Ba g

                 is:ss«g
                 •2 > Tj«, -p -a


               ^oSSS
                           Ui:!!s^iji
                            S ^5 ni *rt 5; -»^ n^ rA p> oj
                      ll^llllli



                                       •§« * S n. *
                      543 b S

                      tǤS.lo?,
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                    2511
8§
    O I « O
    £*°s
      aw W -

 -  *«>§
I3*i3|3
•fl 2 fl "d fc.  (0
w hn 0)  *i -, +3

5?M:ii
...in o >.« a o
r1 to n t- 3 
-------
 2512
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
I "H rj I I H

sllaas
°o»S w.0
      i +a aj ^ >»ii i *d t3 *y

      i^iaiiia:
      •5  tnra.. .. na.r*
                 rJM ^I^OlCd^Jh
                 SinO PtrtQ^Venx^Q

                 '-" ?*13^3ll^l
          iitli
bs S3 sa
°a«Jsg'l
- O B o u o>

 0 MS

«S3l*a
-S».5g)
      fl^ss
      f3§||33jl


      iiiiliS
55-
Sd-i
a a
15
      2 0.08 fi
      d a-t>
      u « -
Mi^i^lJ
IbSag9!^


      B • 3B w S*? 6
      • »  i^ w


                                     ,if?.l
                                     23|&fi
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                2513
•"« 2 p a 0,2
 +j ,Q "^ Co ;r* CO

!OA'

Ssi^It:
3«a Mg£ o

lgl°l^
a^f^gSnga
aMa^^M-

IS^ll^Xa
d d o,3-B- *• "
e3 3  3 3
U 7. h &« -a d> 3 ^ -

gll5!l^^°I
              -SS&a§:
              Mini .a MI'S
              asttaas!

 P^&.SOd'SS
 *M!«s!
            sl|i§ii




_43u*-'[/ji-';5n ^*m
^wcD3S5-H43,ft
^•gcQwo;  ^^Sfl
^H   fer*"035)O
&g«-goo"g'2s



§3etIliQiS
S^oiS8'-'5^'2
O.-H < O O S
             Islals"

             i?!ji!i
5 o °t5»H5«
,"5^(i)3S5a-S
l&f^lill
-------
   2514
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
   JORGE ORTUZAR-VARAS AND
    MARIA PABLA DE ORTUZAR
  Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I-ask
unanimous  consent that  the pending
business be laid  aside  temporarily and
that the Senate turn to the considera-
tion of Calendar No. 1230. This  matter
has been cleared all the way around.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
  The legislative clerk  read  as follows:
  A bill (H.R. 14128) for  the relief of Jorge
Ortuzar-Varas and Maria Pabla de Ortuzar.

  The bill was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
            ACT OF 1972

  The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 3342)  to amend title IV
of the  Clean Air  Act, and for  other
purposes.
  Mr.  TUNNEY. Mr. President,  I ask
unanimous consent  that  the following
members of the staff of the Committee
on Public Works be permitted to be on
the floor  during the consideration and
any  votes on  S.  3342: Barry  Meyer,
Philip Cummings,  John Yago,  Leon G.
Billings, Bailey  Guard, Richard  Hell-
mann,  Don  Alexander, and Charlene
Sturbitts  and Jane  Frank of my staff,
and  Mr.  Hal  Brayman  of  the  staff
of the Committee on Public Works.
  The PRESIDING  OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
  Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
  Mr.  CANNON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that during the con-
sideration of this bill  Robert  Ginther,
Bill Frank, and  Mike Pertschuk be per-
mitted on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I can
think of no better way  to introduce the
subject of environmental noise control
than to read a letter which I recently
received from a constituent.
  She wrote:

  DEAR SENATOII TUNNEY:  I heard you were
out here in California checking on the noise.
Where you went of course [there] wouldn't
                    be any noise .  . . Come to my house—stay
                    one day—let no one know you are here. You
                    will hear with your own ears—I will take
                    you around—see the other sections that are
                    affected.
                      The noise Is so bad at my house—you could
                    cry—it hurts  your  ears so  much. When a
                    plane  comes  directly  over  my  house—it
                    shakes the  house and that squeal is so bad
                    for the ear drums....
                      When children will start crying  when a
                    plane flies overhead you know their ears will
                    soon be deafened (so they will not hear that
                    screech).
                      Do you know that seven schools are under
                    the south runway [and] are going to be taken
                    down.  Look at all  that money wasted.  So
                    easy to have  just  a westerly landing and
                    that would be all removed.
                      Please, please—on bended knees, help us—
                    do something . , . make it a law. . . .

                      Well, we have worked hard to  "make
                    it a law" on this subject. S. 3342, the En-
                    vironmental  Noise Control Act of 1972,
                    would go a long way toward solving the
                    aircraft noise problem, as well as the din
                    from other major noise sources ranging
                    from motorcycles  to vacuum cleaners, to
                    jackhammers to electric blenders. For the
                    first time, in the version of the legislation
                    reported by  the  Senate  Public  Works
                    Commitee, we would  establish a com-
                    prehensive Federal program—including
                    grants to  States  and cities to support
                    programs geared to local needs—to deal
                    with  noise pollution in much  the same
                    way and at the same level of priority as
                    the Congress has dealt with air and water
                    pollution.
                      Treating the subject of noise pollution
                    as a  total  system, the legislation would
                     require  the   Environmental  Protection
                     Agency to set noise emission levels from
                     major noise  sources adequate to protect
                     the public health and welfare. It would
                     provide  technical and financial  assist-
                     ance to the States and cities while leav-
                     ing them  free to  set the strongest pos-
                     sible noise control programs.
                       The legislation has broad-based sup-
                     port  from such widely divergent groups
                     as labor unions,  the Airport Operators
                     Council,   environmental   organizations,
                     the American Public Health Association,
                     the League of Cities, Council of Mayors,
                     the National Governors Conference, and
                     representatives of the industry. Support
                     is especially strong for title V, which in-
                     cludes provisions for establishing the En-
                     vironmental Protection Agency  as lead
                     agency in setting noise emission stand-
                     ards for aircraft.
-------
                 NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                                2515
  This legislation was thoroughly  con-
sidered  in legislative hearings and ex-
tensive executive sessions. The hearings
on  the  legislation  pointed  up  some
startling statistics about the subtle and
pervasive effects of noise on hearing and
other aspects of  health. According  to
EPA, 80 million Americans are adversely
affected by noise. Of these, about 40 mil-
lion persons are literally listening to a
health hazard, risking hearing  impair-
ment and other physiological and psy-
chological effects.  This figure does not
include an additional 17 million  workers
who have incurred job-related  hearing
damage.  Fifteen million people who live
near airports all around the country are
adversely affected  by aircraft noise and
                         [p. 817751]
-------
2516
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                             > " aj i i • • o i tn i
                             £££•3* g tsg£ 5
                             ga-^S-S tl Sw.5
                             a) aj 3 a?-"  . fe J§ o
                             Soj'OCB n w
                             *"" 3  u'O
                             •3fefl35§


                             slti?*«

                              isi


                             J^l


                             fi
                             _S 23 ^  s o 5"


                              Hll!i
                              w^^ «° a
                            a-SllSSge^s
                            * S**-SS  S§
                                 ife&
                                 ! >d
                                 i rij 4^
              I 0) ' C

              8ll5B-a«

               "C^S a"3 •§!§»,-
              •H^ b a  -a g S S o
             i:;i:-ii^,i
             S M-C
                                  •s

                                  |5P|||o§|


                                    H1-§|I"
                                    ^l^^^ss^

-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2517
                                      SI I—I
                                      d CM
                                    •gSg
                                  .SiiSS
                                  -I&JCQ

                                   aS-a ft

                             wjS'
                              81
                             -T5!
                             • S J, w 'S
      ^l|!l°
-------
 2518
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                          I
                                           Sra

                                           IsSls
                                           °£2<5§
                                               a
•g -w ci>



i'lps
•3§p

c3S^|

^.-sg
•H » 3 t»


Sills!
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2519
•a
QJ
-l^>
g
O,
o
X!
s
TJ ••
£ M
II
S§
4» «
•^ -T 0 1 	 1
3 £ X! CO
0 S -^ >0
SB S^:
B« ^^
"> fl m CD
•* a & •
«s 1 p.
 1 	 1
s»..s
rt M tOrt
gUS.|fl
i^glg
.PH O J3 ^
rri fl - °^
UJ f~l *& It-l


                       O 
-------
  2520
       LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
  ~
  o 2
                «N|E85al*^|l§  °£PJfs
                !is|oi;j|||i:^^!i!!if
                                        •8
                                        c
9 HI
M-M «


  c-^
" a> S a
ij 2 S o
S «^«

 l-l
 03 W Q
Sc
c3 ri

^1
       a*T*x
       g^S.
       simtn cs
 ^..-sa  g^S
•g^oSStiH™   .
°fe^^5is"s?
S^lasa^sil
s^^sl^  -sss
S"SOP
^Sg'-fe'"
S3SS-S5

|S5^
CNto'o.S?
03 O TH 'S W
fl'-'o-g a>
4J >5§

 s«*!i-
 7,  pj rj cd —
 w «3 « M S 53
 SIMMS'0
                                   ^^.s-s
                                           !S
S3c »Ms
   !xS V £
:£i?tgs°
                               'S.S&io
g s % s

M^
Saga.
s^c^-§5
b^S-S"
S 3 *» *> _
3 M 2 03 9) -O
3£SSS§
                                       Ma
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                               2521
                          as.s-SESogS'3

                          9-^fC!
im
*H £<« S
2§°l
> O-p O
I*|s  s
             1
             •s
             o
             g

             i
             +3


             I
             o
       a a •
 fc, » M
dj 3 < p
    £ p ID >>, a
       < -rt P* ti cj
        ?gss
i trf d
^ ^-1 c

ins

t« I-,

|'S

5 M
^ c
                                    §2

                                    S«
                                   ! a) o
                                    « o
                                                >j 03
                   „S o rt
                            o.2
                                        o
                                        a
                              »-  S-3
                                        8
                                   3s^g
                                 En*
                                    fl.2
                              l!
        ^-i £iQ TO w


        !Qj  O fl o!

        W  S w ^

        'o ^ 5 w w):

        c  S t; 5;
                                     t3 o
                                 ••^ *U " -?H Q)


                                I g I -s I s
                                S§S«'H -
                                 cS

                               'S*
               ;pl

                 !§!
                 ) O o3
      <3







    =1
    to g

    jJ O


    C°
    S (U
    w jz
      -4^
    a;
    OT CU


    Is


    ^g
Sa

^a

o a
fl js


B'£
o .
T3-S



ll

§§



I |



* S
3X!
                                              c«
   O i-5
•ag^S
C  a) o>
^•sS1'

§111

is* i
£-?i

ScS o
                                           S  a
                                           go&


                                           Si?l'


                                           sis
                                             4^ 03
                                             3 ,a
                                             «^>
                                        ag


                                        sB^

                                        22"
                                        ^ d) 
-------
  2522
          LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                                  T3 Q) i Q O w "—< frt

                                  3-83"**=


S5ivi?sS!!!!i^!sg| lsa|^lifl!p-3Is

                    !PP!  i!lll!llaij-^
                               iPs!l«i:s
                                  nS-^Swsa^
                                    «  ^ r| B S3
                                    tj 5^sfe.2&sg^a gsla-^l^ *sslsgSi-aa
         S -dSo-o^2^'5!^ S§cg 2S§ Sg-s"^-32^'§^
         S§^|g||s°«Gfi gl-s^-sa! ^"-s-g^^^^is
         |i|r.«l^s|s?-«*§g&|Sssi al°-3^°sggl
         Ill^§|ll"l53l^|&^^ §fl|3i38|l3|
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                            2523

   « 2'
   jj »"^ r
 " r* _•

 11?
   >> .2 _

    3 •»
   _j *^ >M\
  5|§
  3 .PH w
r3§
boo i
S«:
•o S
^s
IP
:li
   i ^ h
   -^ "> >
    ^S IB'H
    O^^gS
                      w  i  i i -rt w J~> !
                      §  MSisli
splsi-
"lllr*
                                    <« o 5 S "1 3 S -S „, S  G P S, 'P. '3 §
                „ >> 2 " 3 S
                r* bD H O w 03
                •-! O ™ •"* M G

                f!M|:
                       03
                         « S rj
                        rfgaf
                              •MM

                            "j-saS
                            °3 t3 ^ b
                            Qj " O C5
                            .•3§GS
                 G

               ~2
               03 u
                  a o.s
                              j-8 "
                              < (U
                              !S BJ
                              i n a

                               oil
T3 >*

11

^
•a •a
*•* 0
(* 44
sT a>

|S'

11


^1
*j ft
                     •3 <"
                     H
osg

!«
TO O
c-§
c3 °^
 a
                                              £ ^
                                              IK ~
.5 g? 2
OS -S ^

^S^?
13 5s 42
| a I

SS a
^S S
>> bo h
73 G -^
to -^ i>
™ ^ 2
o *a G
> >> "
•O G n
cs! 03 .3
S "S "
            ^-So»«SS
           °S5-S,
               be
            S08gSSg«'25d|a?>g
            §SSs-si85§|3Egas
              e«1ili
-------
  2524
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
wgSgii'S'S


*«*m*j
           3*3
           P e~>
                    0)
              so £
              3 a
                   I
                   I a
                   o G

                  si
Is.
li";
     "3 o •
         °s«l«  a-S-gSssg*!
Ijjf.s-S.gS'H  |*Sg-gg||8
55g<32iSise8«fl-s~f,g§2.2!2
., sTffG
                      o
                      ^



                                   Kg w " &
 13 >>
 o B
 a «
 &a
 2*
 
                 ho O
                    n,K —   c-
                 |fia?
                 |8Sg

                 t>|3

                 o g S
                 ^ o M
                 HsS
                  d cS
§ag


i"i
a, wfe
H CO
5-2
^«"5

rj in S)

•2SS
ol§
'Sq-c
5, a? [3

§&fi
*»S
 «S

o0 '3 * *

                                      6I,€S

                                      ^3all
ri-fe-S
*3 co fi
                                        _£
                                       3 3
                                             •«5
                                             a1?
                                             3$

                                             1"
                                           *ts
                                           ^s8?
                                           f^s
                                           !S3
                                          ^2
                                          3
                                        a S a
                                       ^8g?
                     bfi

                     2
I
  I 4^ W »-4 I i2 ^ cs~3 m
< ft
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
        2525


     :alf«5
      'HI
        •S fr £ £ S S in s a#" S -fc >>- - <» H .
        Ssoo30o5^s3moas? . S S » a
     .a  HSsHo,Shooto^c5tH(i» «) -d'


!-as™
S * ^ w O J>53 £ ~


K-glSSSIll
 ST3 OS 03 afl o "rt
'ffl
u
.2
o
"o
o
1
o
V
D1
I
.2
To
vironmental regulation. They will im-
-------
2526
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                           ilatfs*1
         g*5 ,£82.58

          rifeii
         SNS-38f' =
         , l»?iaa?S|«

         ^l&l^ll £


         |S!lai!is!
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                          2527
.sf I

s 3 2,
o M 3
>>» o
a


if J
*a a
SCO
ri
E to
     bO M aC 'ri ,
            i -a
    mimm**
    5 a
     fti* g |^2 1
                                 6 •§ 5 '3 5
aEfrslSSiilS
      ja^ssf
          1 S «
          2 s>
                      j  «
                  to
                  a

                  3
                  e
                  ci
> 05.2
'  f a
'•Sfl 3
 Sog
    !S3S
    ! •»
  aSS|o.2S»>c3S


  fb§lPg*l



           -rt"-s«s  a«-
           rH ^ U ^  fll +?
             ^^
                             d +3
                             a*
I °§

U a?
•fl • fl 9
4J W -^ d
 » 2 -Q

n;i
                                   •3 o w ;
                                   S a-*3
^^«'

1^2:
§.,«:
1  J-t o_t


^1

all
o-" «
3^1
*CO


Id
S
lla^§,^llifs«!l
?;n^!ii!^§!^

O o a>
                        hfliJi i I i(H' I 'tT!i
                        .s^.^ia^gull

                        ll^.BSl^^Ij&E
                        |3 -S^Wg CS^^^ 3"S




                     S  S&J2 . a" f » a 
-------
 2528
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
il'^

                                    -i-es.
 xa«  „  n 3  g $ S
 "3.8-a.a.  H o1 rj o3 a> >a _
                              lls
        43 88 §§,
s •« a ^
853 fl

^Hi
?- s s
  •^dP8H

 ."MSI*
 S|&g|*|i
 "s|lBlii
 -i - 9* M ^ 3 ° I
 SSf5«g-f«!
    S5J3;

 s   asl°^
 agSl3|S:
 l«ltlag'
 0!?ss§^s-
2gSg«g"32
"3 -S ra •> _, J2 ;> fl r
             I TO J

             ^1

        '  C « _9
        i§|3i
   1838-.fSSg

   ill|lt?l;
   |^t^5||S|

  !j;^s?ii*l
  '*&$%t'3°a2a
3  Bii^jgsaiis
 rS^hl'iHai
i;pi!!!^!ti
u0wS§i".2'3-|wo32<
^li^l"s§5^
 ^^io|°|^|,;
 TJ    +J"~*(-(Ot(;33;
             4°l««i
                          1 to j-: >rt flj i i to O ' t>i
                          slsg^ss-ssas




                          ^^ft^^sS--?"
                          S'3M .,, 0)
                                       S as
                           -t oJ c
-------
           NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2529
>i-|J 
-------
  2530
             LEGAL, COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT I
                                                 *!**
                                                 fall
                                                 *O
                        ioPflCafigSSej
                      5^2- S^ojSfl^Sfivc.-s:
                      i53  S oS M ftp tain 5 a ft ^
                     •fSSSlo_af:54J fjj3,~---ej
                            » g g 8 -g 2. "3 g
                                     -  .. a
                                     •dfl g
                                     — fl S
                                   *°5S1
                                   |§>?§i»

                                   I'll!
          '•3 SI
«  I
Ql *M OJ d
^°S§
•g 4)  S
O o-O""
fl g S h
3«  S
•o  'c3 d
^S-g-
|§^
^g S S
  o o> _

01 M S1 a x .2
gK.ls.s«
g aj -a J5 fl •"
B .a e .g •" -•

lsSl-§^

                         •°-  §ais
                             s|S
••SS-tiSS«o
sS||-«scs
^a-s^«a-tl
•e-- -gS
-------
      NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                      2531
.s a

        \m
                  a*1lM|fi!i!if^
                                    •
                                    (S 0.
                                      S^t
                                      •3

                                    •O

                                    C S
                                   * S •
[SflSis's^atJisgtffloSgssflsa.BgaJig^

ra?-&a^llIsia|illg'P5"i|«lt||
r^
is
                                      a go &i
                                      •a S * -a I
   S^l-9
                                JJllli
-------
  2532
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                            ..
                          Viri^Sfafi
                          sfi^lisggi;^-
                          sI^SllsleslBl-s
 " £ W ^  "Pi .r^ i* .S 
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2533
                               JSNlils
proval of such plan under subsection (b) of
this section.
Mr. TUNNEY. Will the Senator per-
mit 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 hav-
ing 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 com-
mittee from Randall L. Hurlburt, of the
city of Inglewood, Calif., addressed to
me, dated March 24, 1972, in which he
said:
DEAB ME. MUSKIE: I hope to convince your
Committee that:
I. 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 under-
stand 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 REC-
ORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
-------
 2534
      LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
l £ £3 <2 n
 JH ft bfl^ (U .

i^Ss?1
>>>gS£2

*sl*l~

 S|l*i!
a -p tfi o O W
 *s«"s

 *5*
 _g 2 .Sf s w •
 2 a .& S •

 3 o o t» i
! g P.g.0

 » SB'S
     o > 2 !
     ! a •£ b
     l4 >> 2 .a 6
                        oos^ a o g

                        !.S£5"«
tl 33 £i3-3« g-O,, '
 S^iga-sSs-
 5**:til^:
 ill-:  sP-

 iisian->
 alpil  p
   f>i?yf;-p4->Cuj
                         u —i w 
                              s -g 3 'O o
                               5 03 > o _. _
^•Sgig?
s a > ^ ^ -^ &
 •
                                       m
                                       m
                    '3ss'S-s£feSi,S'§^~S«3S

                    1  °gp^l|l5lsl^l
                    -s^:&ss§^-si^i^gs|
          lsgss||^

          - - ?-"s^^lls
5-B'fta 5

^§•§0
° 13 W fl

?8-a

O -SU^g

i.SU.g'2


sl^sn
EH 05 ti "O '
^ 0) CO 1J ^ !
    cs a
o  ^ a s a
       . a a) ^ +» *< 3
             o
     3§a
     ., 4>



     fP
       V
     	XI


     "&«

     15 » 2
     w^! S
i*
       o'o&lsSj.Sao^-^sggsgw

       ^^iiiiiiiil!  3i?;iSi§ii
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                              2535
     3 is
     60 * -
      -3 «
     O OS

§13|ga;
                      art I a
                      03 «) OJ -s
                     4»   ^ 4»
                     a '3 a g ri

                     ° ? « * a
                         (3 2 -d ' r3  <—i
                         83 03 OJ 2 «  rH

                         S*1S-S  £

                         agl&s .£
                         •SJ „«*.§<«

                         SgSSlSi
                         .« §  3 ta-w '—'
                         & 35 g « -  *<
                          faiC ."
 o  o o
 o oj fj 33
 to H  rt
 « a s a i
 •^ t< fi 60 '

        -
       tlft
R.
p.
s
CQ
                  3 -g
llf ijsipff p!
oo., SaS^-nS tr S °»- •-<,, -a
                   smmi-^,S:
       8 8 os £
i o ' w t>> rt 08
4) +J d) >»,Q

XM1*
°2"sS §e
    +3« cO* «_
    w w .3 O w , oj ^
 ..-H^o28
 > p >. O +> +> « 7!i
 icS^ a

 ^°"IcSS

 ^|aSl"

 ^33^

 o 9"-
we are no longer acting alone. The commu-
nities most affected by jet noise in this coun-
try 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 indi-
vidual 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 philosphy of the Inglewood
City Council in adopting the Ten Point Ingle-
wood program accepts jet aircraft as desir-
able, 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 reason-
able 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 en-
tire society and not just the traveling public
when building, flying, and regulating Amer-
ica's growing fleet of jet planes.
WHAT INGLEWOOD CAN DO
Pour of the ten points in the Onglewood
program are things the City of luglewood
can and will do to better adjust to jet planes.
Point 1 — Building code revisions and sound-
proofing
The City Building Code should be revised
to require soundproofing of all affected new
construction and remodeling.
-------
2536
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                      ?-< >>, C •»	^T3"o>-WjJ";i*!Sl"J^H'iH
                      liS|«gislS|s8?a|§s5s
                      1-1-1 §13* ^"^"a**
                      o g2f ^Mg'Sl
               S^ISS'SS  3S-S

         J3o g «
        !>5  a^als
           Mjs""3
       i^c
       t, JJ 3^3
       'MRS
     £
       itjS
o|^
       SSiSlSlfllaiS
       |jI;ssl«|,2S
       ||||!|5|||||
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                              2537
•SgfgSs

If1 5*
- 3l"" ~: o
     ,*
                       I5

S ^il
 " 0?)03§s
5-eo
IPllff
+3 pi|  o3 T3 ft ^
   o
   B

   &
   •a
Pi M
        S .a .2 ;
  i ' JJ -g  o 5 5 I
 I a S 5 I'd ««-g '.i
sl^-dl^filS ««'
§||1§§  11*!'

' I >>T3 4) I M (1)11 05
w^aiS^i-iwsoaj
OyrjSiia-drH^ -rS
a^3+3-!-i 5 »

saaw
^^*aa
S* T3 •
£«§S
SS g.s?
^lsfl«
HI O
•oS
A ?2-S
1^1-
-------
 2538
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
SJ
                                       nXlalla
                                       Si-P-riilMQ£«iS
      o ~ „,« a s = g
     Qiftartrt--.£&!>
     ^S,§3'd«

     Ps*
                                       "isa  g^-o^
                                        £VJlls!


                  alillil?
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2539
                                  III
                                  8|g
p,  ^3 ^j +3 o
-------
  2540
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
    SO I •O M M I to

    fl'O <0   43
i
I l.sfi§llll^0
§ llf l^sSls
* ^s-3 « a> 3 8 c5 3 ft
 •a «> « i T
 -l'~H*3''i  .3S
                 |S'gSc>sM.^« s-Sg.

                 as-? 1i«jm
0)
c
H^FH»H- S^H—JJ^^ STOiQ^!e3-*3oCi

;|s!l!tiill*«i(i.if-3
«1 SSaallSa
                       eS Sh3«afti,H
              ra5 *gS >
              llt^P&^2
              A S--< 2 
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                        2541
si! a;;
&,.• s,d  a ..• °
csggS  g £0
•MM o £  w S'3
ogs^.cQ &S"i
8i3§'g2^-S'l^l
gg|"^Sgg-aS
•S.;|IS2l--S5
sssiifis
  isg  *
        II si
             ra J2
       H gg-grfSS-a-g
      a>  . fig .-Ofigg
            H O u  r< c!


     ^^18^^"
5S-
               ^« a

           S S S 2 £ 3 .$

        Ss r3 IH o t< c
        S "S-a fi n-S
             'BBSJ58  SS-S2
1 • i «rt a) i %H «-<


                         a-^-gSg^g^iaS'-g

                         S|§ggg'3^S^g
                          «^ G.M M o-oM 3B fe
                                   ps^5allsl?«
525-314 O - 73 - 15
-------
-------
               NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               2543
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
            ACT  OF  1972

  The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 3342) to amend title IV of
the Clean Air Act, and  for other pur-
poses.

  Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I now
ask for the yeas and nays on my amend-
ment.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

  Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to
express  my  strong support for S. 3342,
the Environmental Noise Control  Act of
1972.  This legislation,  I  believe,  repre-
sents  a major first step toward a better
environment through the elimination of
excessive and unnecessary noise.
  In a 20th  century urban society, all of
us are subjected to a continual onslaught
of noise. This occurs literally from  the
time we wake up in the morning until we
go to sleep  at night—if  we can  get to
sleep  with the racket  going  on outside
our window.
  Consider  a  typical day.  The average
American is subjected to a wide  range
of  household noises,  electric shavers,
dishwashers,  garbage   disposals,   and
dozens of other sources, including  our
neighbors' stereo set, or an overhead jet.
  On our way to  work,  our nerves  are
jangled by the noise of car horns, trucks,
construction equipment,  buses, or sub-
ways, depending on where we live.
  At our office or factory, we may be as-
saulted  by noisy machinery and  equip-
ment.
  After work, the  cycle begins again, in
reverse.
   To an extent, we seem to be able to
 adapt to such noise—to an extent. The
 average citizen may well be totally un-
 aware of the.range of noises to which he
 is subjected during his day, and of the
 total effect  of  continual  exposure  to
 noise.
   Yet, all of us are aware  of the need
 for quiet.
   When planning  a vacation, do not we
 tend  to choose a  retreat, at least par-
 tially, because it is  quiet?
   Apart from the health problems  as-
 sociated  with noise, American society
 seems to seek a quieter environment for
 its own sake. If we can cut down on the
 excessive  and  unnecessary  noise, the
 quality of our lives will be improved.
   Mr. President, the bill before us today
 is an important and valuable piece  of
 legislation. I support it fully, because we
 need  a coordinated, Federal program to
 control noise pollution.
  By directing the Administrator of the
 Environmental Protection Agency to set
 standards on major noise sources based
 on the best available noise control tech-
 nology, we will achieve a quieter environ-
 ment based on a reasonable standard.
  I know some members  believe EPA
 should not have authority over aircraft
 noise. I disagree. I  believe the legislation
 giving EPA the  responsibility for setting
 the standard, with a  Federal Aviation
 Administration  veto  based  on safety, is
 the best course, because the  agency re-
 sponsibile for protecting the environ-
 ment can best make this decision.
  But let us  not assume that this is a
problem which can be solved by govern-
mental action alone. Private citizens can
-------
 2544
     LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
          ss:saiig
          IfiflSSSS
                          *«'%';
                                    i 80 SU>
                                     (3
                              II
                      5 8-2* 8=3

                      ISafJKPllll

                          "3 +* g g^.
                       !*  c8 rj o " •


                       1*1I**


                       ^«g|sl^r

              I* O W .C T3 .
              s» .1 /ii *r^ -4J
                a S
  i^liii   | fis
     mV  t-i"^^^ jiv ^ '^

               ol?

•S • ««
8 a 4)-^ a>
" O fl
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY   2545

                                       fills

*fl^isP$l!i-i  sllll^ifisiiifills


03

•o . o*g
^HtO-M.Tn {S^hbm^r'cSH (j-t -^ •'
S « «,, •=> £ 'S3 *> •£ s § ° -o »< o « ,
•SoSgJcu  o->^«)° '•''-'"

.0 OS
&• *H
P 3
 -tJ
 C3
!
-------
  2546
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
       d     5
       -111!
         Ms
>-i 73 W 3
   c3
12 as
gar1'"
•S
             SW 2 bo ,0 «
             '£  a •§ "3
                'U -^j fi -4-3
                •*!&§
                  ra o o
                  a> t*i
                 • S a >.

                ^."l

             NUjlSI
              *> Sz*» °
              2 o& « 4>rt
              » a g -g « S
                fi^I3
            
S h °M,Q
            2§ S s§ s *'H
            60 M 3  J£ S
            & 03 C  ^ 4J
                    JS
o ht>
 s "
 -°s
 ?go?
I1
§I^M
e« n*1 w
I'isl _
3   -H >; ei
fl«P«|lf
O-1^ o3 SJj bD"^ ^tflS


^«i«ai^l|

   al'oH §=S S
   S 1-. M  .S O M ^2
                    >•
        «?«S^I

              13 o3
              fl ^
              S CD
              e-o
                             »^-s>
                             ' d  «^
                             03 <*H H 	.
                             fc< O  "p
                                      t< . -u
                                      c3 m S '
                 0,^0
                           o^^S^wcS—j^pSlj 033*
                           ~*t~  oC3"-(CUc-'*->  hoSifi'
                  liSiifiiB  ^lll§I^lll|
                                         fl] n-( W hH
             S S
             •2°5!33w
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2547
                       piii!
               3^0
-------
2548
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                  £.9 Sag
                  S°|sl
                  •§ 03 S * <
                  5*1*

                    .Sa>
             illllf!p^l|«
             I*3.2 at SI OpC!*3 _'O S-a«i HCa  >,
             i*83alfilaS|!^I
               l^||^||ff|I|
               p^|a^ia:«|-
               !si=L!389lssi
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2549
                                               § to

                   S+*i-»'tt-t(WQJ^2-4J"-'CQajjjO(V)
                 ~ c««^'S'aa!cSg^«flg

                 al'iissss^sa!!
Ill ^IlllS I °l'i*g
li|3S3£*si|aa&«.s
an a S no 03

•araH'rt.S M
 O
?H n-t r-t _c! flJ EH
D % S £ -3 3 3
Legislation to control levels of envi-
ronmental noise is necessary now to
check the rising crescendo of unwanted
sound associated with our industrial so-
ciety and to conserve the hearing and the
mental peace of our citizens.
S. 3342, the Environmental Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972, as reported by the Com-
mittee on Public Works, provides a reg-
ulatory framework which will achieve
effective control of this form of environ-
mental degradation. Senator TTJNNEY in
his remarks has described the provisions
of the bill in detail. I will emphasize to
Members of the Senate several provi-
sions which I think to be important.
First, the bill as reported by the com-
mittee addresses the problem of aircraft
noise, a problem which our investigations
indicated to be one of the most serious,
yet one of the most difficult with which
to deal. Under the present law, the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration is charged
with the responsibility for establishing
noise emission standards for all types of
aircraft. At the same time, of course,
the Federal Aviation Administration is
required to fullfill its primary mission of
facilitating safe and efficient air com-
merce.
In 1970, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency was created to centralize
Federal regulation of environmental
problems. A major question which the
Committee faced in developing S. 3342
was the proper roles of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in controlling
aircraft noise. It is clearly my under-
OoS
fcS S a
a .. &n3
® S a a 3^s
g^HsBsSs
§§SSo|||§^
H^|-3t-3Kl22»qf!

S3
iviuao
Pearson
Randolp
Roth
                     5 ra a   s
                     s < y oSB
                     o£S^Ssl
                                        tv_^C320tHwt,
                                    "Ho3Q>iU(l)CJ~O >>" >>
                                     • • -- — -- pq pq pq pq pq
-------
 2550
      LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                                tJr^aj'U'^i^^cJ'ds
3 c's  § B-S 8 $^3
~ .S {•> . fr f*  h^O
flSH^^^COo^^-
s-Ssg^.S'SagTg1
^-§-3
M fio O £3
i Q> i i-t <

«!««.
awisSi
•S^^SgcuP,
  3 M^raC
3 a?
 H o
          3&-3fg
            « b ^13
            S-o-gS
            *H S " °
          O C 03 03 m
          -rS-§
            g!£S
            ^Jlg
              •O o
            -  'al
          •SHI
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2551
                                    h I—I
                                   *£*-
                                  als£

                                  i«l^
                                  laS«j
                                •a a g (

                                ifir
                                  « vi 3

                                  s|s
                        |-8*s-i1gs §al
                        s«l|°.s^|s5|*
                        fliuai-^tSS^d^ «c!.Q
      M«"55a«(y^.adklfis.*:»







      "'§&i-25-|.2'3.S^:S§^


      iPS^lallill£Sll.sl
    lf^P-P^-si°ii
    iP^-s!j^H^°|f
    ^isi^ilg^a-s^sll^
    -*gg1Oiiu»og0.c3ci3gGJ.gHD(aj.;
    if T^^S^-jJW-G^So^'

    !^!i!;-^!|^

        Il8lia|Sll?|f
                  s as .a w
                  a^^'^
-------
 2552
         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
M H!Pl!li!pP!
_  »><>-2-.8p2ra.1,pP.'g«=:
5j o> ~ E  !
O W 4J+3 t»'
a" S m" ,
   i till
                   siliP^
                   >»-sa««
                SS 3S»3|1
        i§gg8fp|s
        jpfssl^i!
        3 55^ p •§ .. ••?«•§
                S^tf

                gfa
       DDiJ H V '
      ^a§6S|
      Bl3«
      "Sag
        «

      It
      s£.
    'a a a 8-a a" ^S §3 2
     dg, 3Bo-o3 g o'S-5'2
        s o S o a s a
        •3 o in ci cS 43 a!
iiuii'fffjfjltt
      iijfnli!
So ««
 i5Sgf
               !Wi*!«S
               i^MS^i
               i^lllfll

               s:.-_..2^^ss
 i^°§r4i
* O |j    .C  ft >S
tS&|§2||2s
|gs"P^||
^ 55fig.S5§§
       :!|=!|l!J|^i!lfplH


           ^S§»T*wofl3§*5B--*g-Bg

           8lal!!l=si!l!l! !«.!I
           «&jJE35
           S S a
             ^l^lallSPilgf
              s,-isaflir-isal6
                  o*»a'S*i!g»

-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                                        2553
VI i "O v
> a h c s
2 g « 3 o

  SB'
                    Orjc!^;"'-  rCXO^cSO-'-'z:
                    C3 K O W TO CG  -^aiPj,li-(->4JC/2^
                        « « r g
                        SP'C
                        n «
                        o S3

 f
iijiit
slls-'i1
Ci -^ ^ cj  V
-------
  2554
             LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
 o.2


 gl



 1«
 IQ 53

 aS
 9 -1

 •d
 
JS
o3g«5>-2S

sf'sssi10
*s*§ls»^
Sw2|a»5°
^^glsSgg
-•P8§I4S'§I
Co ,H (H


111!
^§sa
31
a8
 CO CG-g O *" t"' "Q O"1"*
«flS3°S05vg,§xiS3>1^g.

ii8Misa£Sfi:i8i9
                                                o a
       ._, — - jj -P

       •g^oSgsaoS'oa
       pgflpi(p!aaaoa
       d S -^ „ -soW^fl
     Ififilliyilaa^ts
llsSiSalilllg
u 4J '  wr)l4J^l"~(
««i5^!I§?«il
?II3
§Ssfe
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                          2555
        o s M

        '    "
             §.s
I5^l
S  £> TO
< -p ,5 -p
3 j-i > w

 S^»
   0l
   61) S
       No

       S 2
       ° c
            3
           ; <° is

           !|S

           s^
+
25
£3 -p
43 a
            .2 «s'
4? u
a> a
   P £
   o £
    5 a
    O <&
                     o &0
                     43 3

                    !H
                     §£
                    •• a v
  ;s

  §>
  >,.2
  fl^
  OS H
S C ™ a
S.2  o

°a§s

1l.a«


ll'o
4J .H t-l O
H^'Sil

as??

is'::
C a -a a
S2.
* & a s
« ^ 3 &o
2 i.-" «
Si . aj
° ^ c ^
> .. o S

gg^"
° 43 3 +=


^11
«a&

&«>s
C O 0 43
&lss
3^5 5


8^1

,cas

sa|

S"°
53* «
•" SPo
°g&

§Sa
S a; 43


'||S

££>

ii?
•« »•=
s^^
3  S
•" Tt *-•
s|«
ft< H
t>5 OJ 0)
S g *

c = a
o -P >
bo *-< ^

•S^£
« " 2

§&^

%°°
S c3 " -g


laSs

s§^t.
S^Sg1:

!es|
S -!£
p: bo « o
   bD bO

»• s .s .a
3 o * fl i
S^oo1
ftO S rt
                              O « i
                              -p o! s


                              o g M
                                      *> CD W
                                                   I W rj 0 I	1
                                                   •a a «•»» o
                                   i &0
                                    e
                                              fl o
                                                .rt
                                                a § * « a S
-------
 2556
        LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I


                  £ S
               -• a! o  o

                ^^S

                S* £:
                l°l>o|'lg 'S'S

                £<»S 3SS §2

                3lSi»f£ *8

                osS33Sw

                flE»|gS

                a § S .3 S 5 s
            £%"*'$*&$.*&•
            ^•°slB»^»"
            JsBS »  *M»«
            ^H.88Sli&-


                               ww V
                               . to g
                              ts P 3
    •d S
 -- - a S o.

«|s8&«
                  ?&--fci«s8i15|is»to^s.
                 2fl«'g»!'3glSShi!gp.a0'0s§«''3
                 -art2«"°««a.>,a...0cs*g'25ag
                                 SoL ^> 08 «
> >> a
Sg'S
  §o§as3|

,& *S8S88
iSSS-S^aS^
«°ls
s«v
a is o
S5
s
                       cS-w'


                                iH
            as^assigggsi^g^saag
            •o S £ H B.-3 § o. a £ & * 8 .S .2 S & ft
              . 3
             5 a a MM
             5§2«g

 Ulasg^gpa-^s!*
 l^l&:H9illi!!!gg
            ^*as;^2-t.^si§2i"^a|^|^
            SSS^OoSu   « 3 « 603 •SS'*",-,•** ** S fi
              liPsilltsIIHJspf
              «S"ilEsi!E*|s|Se;i
                 ^Ill^lll^^f!!
                    t-. .Z, Q) tJ 3

                    ft-d p o 4
                                 &*M.ai^^g
                     ^ ^
                     O to W w
                     Li O o! 4> a
                     o,o,a f> a
               * •subu« • ~ aF•
               o S1-2 « "t.^^o'J S

               sili-llilsi,
                                            2 fl1"
                                            a S o
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2557
                          aM|S«-
                           TS es 3 SSV
                                          O i  i *rt i
                                          •in -1 flJ in .
  w d
  aa
                                              §1^111
                                              a; g *^ -g ® •a
                                              |B-I*|SS
                                              0) O M« » o
                                          !ll«*gs»
                                                O S r**
                                                 ^ H -a

                                                  -S 5R
                                          SS5agB|l°
                                          a* *«•§,§&" g
                                          gra«B'C2^*Ho
                                          -||-T»*ISSS
                                          aogg'igias
                                            gas §"»5
                                          5|"|i;Sa"5«
                                          85P|NgS
                                          '"§g^a|w-o.g
                                          g>!gi^!o^

                                          3 VH ^ W -*-> 03 Ct C.
525-314 O - 73 - 1G
-------
 2558
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
    33

    s >>
       ss
       £ o
>j p EH i i  • tw p -p
ClSOcS'O^OoJt!

SgpS ^2aS«
a * g „ o g § &>«j
gSIEsSa
a S « t» ^s^B'SagS

I !i!l
         «u*02£§T)b

         !ia!&l!3J
         pX5^®oJ7!aMJi
p-a.


Us
a 3 o
                       «g
 £»S.SS- ^iS
 S^™. g|*

lo!!|!,i|I

 «l!38a!-i

                                      . o C -
                            i!

                            3

                            a.


                            0)
                            ^
l.s|

5|«
fe|3


Ml
O fl
O* u
as
— a




i>



I!
                      ^i^H3!t
                      S§"ga"2*i*iw
                      rsl|^|^?||s

                      gi"?!!ill-&!
                      B4;'aSoRilJ<3C>  O
                      2-,§  a«1°*B-;5a«
                      8 o 5 -o. S  . M 5 * o a
  S3 o »>.,,„ SSP-a^ji-Sp
  • "^"^^S- 8 -• a &a 8 «.


  i'iljIU   111 ==
  !sS"|ttf| assSl|Ss



  poEsSSa^ift4l2i^IM
         g8.fi

         i&a.

         2^-
         •*i O m

         §a£;
         8S.!
                      ilfcSsMa^a15
                      ill?t,flsl^^
                             ^•ST! o
                   !-££
                   §33
                      S+s-faS""*1


          j j-i to i o (y


          !gS|S§
          > -^ -r" . d '
          ilffin
                 s:
         >.  «*•« i
        -aS^l2§J


 f«ii»;!!!lttii;
             ^Sgfe
             •o§S§

           Mil!
                         N
          O
            10 '
 S "
 ^ to -
      "
          IKHfl
          :««K;

                               .3
          |fla§ss
          ! . -p  *" "
          : w S *
           S 0>Q 3 S O


          !:iillli
               1fi»;""g1&aS|26SSg
               p|Sl|gl§32|§g
                ^^»!5»aox!StsS«











                  S'S^S KfiS'S'g10

                  gH'SO'S^^82^
                  l2fe«''lfl>>c3'O o
          Ou


         -II
         fl -fl
Psi
eS p T3 r
              'o a

                                       8°
                                         )3to-(a 3 3

                                         '&S*2
                                           jasf
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                           2559
  :$i*
  Oj Q *5J >!
      
-------
2560
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
I*?.as ^•slt^sa Bfl3«£8iS5ssfi'di


               °.dflT?*«ofJ«j-..-=
               slll8s!ea*§
                   S  £
               ssl"  .^s^BiSg
               III  g|6as's^

                  ••I^S&'s
                  '38Shg*-8

               ?gjJaSflI^S
                o •§ I 2 & S g> a •"
                &aSb8^|«.
                «-s«^lssB

                  &SSa3sia»*
                  aij ^ c*-*3 e'-*i'3"5
                  T,i|aaifl-,5sir
                  •S a a*>
                  c« t,  « -
                    So  >>
              sS|^|aia'
              ss^iiisl
                a5>>^ o^
                s "•S  xs
                       :«<^^
                        S a S »
                        ^g|«
                        •3 s B p .s >»
                        «s«al,0'g3
                        ^gl,S2a'o
                        O *" oi g O »
                        a 5 «5 H * § ™

                       il3*llaii!
                       a3Ss*ssSsP
-------
NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
2561
             4-9  £> CS

             hn o3
       la.^-S&^l-Sll'S
       ^•Hi-id-SaikrsiS'U15.
 ^-|*g£|8^

                                 > ^ > .2 = 3 c. 5.

                                 """cDSSS
-------
2562
       LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                             ll
               s:°s§i!*Pl|l
               ijll ;i3a&!
               =!HpSl|l|;

               iSj£iSii?3
               • Si 0> H hn W =! 9 -M ^< S
                           iSl-S^aiS.sf
                           a^^aSsg-aSs
                           ^^gls^^g"!
                           SbS-,fe£Sa3t--S
                          ig-o^g ^73 ^«|
                          ifiBBls|5s«
                          i^|3-Rg|18
                          ^l^sTlllg

                          illS^^I-So-s
                          i5«S|iSs8»i3

                          §l*Sls^shsa
                             


                             1
                             CD
                             X
                             0)
 CQ «t-i o
 IS "* *>
 es a -
          o M o ^3 -S

         »?3SB16

      eS-3 3 3 '
       a o-oj
      498^8'
              o^J:
}11||


2 O °^ •** *H
    ca MI-"
    :sls
    °al^
I5|lpg§
sili&sii
§S*al
f|§o||
|IS|8!

Hiiii
linn
-i«i*
i;i^
jal-S'S
 °>^«
 ao343s
!sjj§!
-^t Ml
IS'S-S3

-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                        2563
£p
3*3
§as.
-«>,
 S tt
c -H

 5°

fsijs
§eS«
S o $3
45 s->"^
                              ."K ^



 2 a S
o £ tt a
52 HI ti ^«

loss
7n   (11
my time.

Mr. PERCY.
unanimous consent that Stuart S

of the staff of the Committee on

ernment Operations be permitte

present in the Chamber during t
O I 1 1 I  g


i?S!l!I
S'3'0'5 C 73 S"
^S^ rj
                                        II
-------
  2564
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
"d OS IH  .„- I I OS £ M I IH I

a J3 o  8 P d> S  . -S o e
                       •^ '/is wj  >s *~H o 'Ti **•*

                     •3 .5>£-g8Sg8.M
                     "rtw^rt S .gS-go
                      o „ s § g « n -a g.,



                              fl s.2 a
      ii3a|aia'sal^'&
      r> *P hn w > O ••"•  •*-•  2
      |»|ala«^«s-Ss
      S*>  +a S i\ fl^ QJ *\
           e ,

        ssl*:g8»fl
                     !liilii!!llJ!sss
                        2 2 S p g-
                        G P 4-C bDr-4
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                        2565
   a
   ,0
3 +» 4>

133
   ax-wis- tt a
   53 .5 E
   *j S EJ-S «
   SS 01 O M^. g
c-.  -S S § 
-------
   2566
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
 on the amendment has been yielded back.
   The question Is on agreeing to the
 amendment of the Senator from Maine.
 On this question the yeas and nays have
 been ordered, and the clerk will call the
 roll.
   The assistant legislative clerk called
 the roll.
   Mr.  ROBERT C. BYRD. I  announce
 that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. CAN-
 NON),  the  Senator from Florida (Mr.
 CHILES), the Senator from  Louisiana
 (Mrs. EDWARDS) , the Senator from Okla-
 homa  (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from
 Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , the Sen-
 ator  from South  Dakota (Mr. Mc-
 GOVERN) , the Senator from New Hamp-
 shire (Mr. MclNiYRE), the Senator from
 Montana  (Mr. METCALF),  the Senator
 from Minnesota  (Mr.  MONDALE),  the
 Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL) ,
 and  the Senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.
 SPONG)  are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present
 and  voting,  the   Senator from  New
 Hampshire (Mr. MC!NTYRE),  and  the
 Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL)
 would each vote "yea."
  Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce  that the
 Senator from Colorado  (Mr.  ALLOTT),
 the  Senator  from  Tennessee   (Mr.
 BAKER) , the Senator from New York (Mr.
 BUCKLEY),  the Senator from Nebraska
 (Mr. CURTIS) , the Senator from Arizona
 (Mr.  GOLDWATER),  the  Senator from
 Oregon  (Mr.  HATFIELD), the  Senator
from Iowa (Mr. MILLER),  the  Senator
 from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) , the Senator
 from South Carolina (Mr.  THURMOND),
 and  the  Senator  from Texas  (Mr.
 TOWER) are necessarily absent.
  The  Senator  from Kentucky  (Mr.
COOK) is absent on official business.
  The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
  The Senator from Arizona (Mr. FAN-
NIN)  and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
SAXBE) are detained on official business.
                     If present and  voting,  the Senator
                    from Nebraska  (Mr. CURTIS) , the Sena-
                    tor from Iowa  (Mr.  MILLER),  and the
                    Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) would
                    each vote "nay."
                     On this vote, the Senator from Oregon
                    (Mr. HATFIELD)  is paired with the Sena-
                    tor from  South Carolina  (Mr. THUR-
                    MOND) . If present and voting, the Sena-
                    tor from Oregon would vote "yea" and
                    the Senator from South Carolina would
                    vote "nay."
                     The  result was announced—yeas 30,
                    nays 45, as follows:
                               [No. 548  Leg.]
                                 YEAS—30
Aiken
Bayh
Bentsen
Brock
Brooke
Case
Church
Cranston
Eagleton
Pulbright

Allen
Anderson
Beall
Bellmon
Cotton
Dole
Dominick
Eastland
Ervln
Fong
Gambrell
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hart
Hruska
Gravel
Hartke
Rollings
Hughes
Inouye
Mansfield
McClellan
. Moss
Muskie
Nelson
NAYS — 45
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Burdick _
Humphrey
Jackson
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Long
Magnuson
Mathias
McGee
Montoya
Pearson
Percy
Packwood
Pastore
Proxmire
Bibicoff
Smith
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Tunney
Williams

Byrd,
Harry F., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Cooper
Randolph
Schweiker
Scott
Sparkman
S tennis
Stevens
Taft
Talmadge
Weicker
Young


NOT VOTING — 25
Allott
Baker
Buckley
Cannon
Chiles
Cook
Curtis
Edwards
Pannin
So Mr.
1740) was
Gold water
Harris
Hatfleld
Kennedy
McGovern
Mclntyre
Metcalf
Miller
Mondale
Mundt
Pell
Both
Saxbe
Spong
Thurmond
Tower


MUSKIE'S amendment (No.
rejected.
r_. o-i>r>Tosr1
-------
               NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                               2567
  1.4a(3)(c)  Oct.  13:  Considered and passed Senate, amended, pp.
  S17988-S18014
ENVIRONMENTAL  NOISE  CONTROL
             ACT OF 1972

  The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 3342) to amend title IV of
the Clean Air Act, and for other pur-
poses.
  Mr. TUNNEY.  Mr. President, I send
to the desk amendments and ask that
they be considered en bloc.
  The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.   The
amendments will be stated.
  The assistant  legislative  clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendments.
  Mr. TUNNEY. Mr.  President,  I  ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendments be  dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and, without
objection,  the  amendments  will  be
printed in the RECORD.
  The  amendments,   ordered  to  be
printed in the RECORD, are as follows:
  At page 89, line 14, strike out, "emissions
from" and insert  in lieu thereof, "emission
standard for".

  At  page 89, line 15,  strike  out, "in his
judgment are" and insert in lieu thereof, "he
determines are necessary and".
  At  page 89, beginning at line 18, amend
subsection (b) (1) to read as follows:

  "Any regulations under this  section or
amendments thereof, with respect to noise
emissions  from types of aircraft or aircraft
engines, shall reflect the degree of noise re-
duction achievable through the application
of  the best available  demonstrated tech-
nology, taking into account the reasonable-
ness of the cost of compliance and the de-
monstrable  public benefit that will result,
as determined by the Administrator 01 the
Environmental Protection  Agency after con-
sultation with the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration  and shall not
be promulgated until the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration has de-
termined  that such regulations are consist-
ent with the highest degree of safety in air
commerce and that any proposed standard,
rule,  or regulation has  been demonstrated
to be technologically  available  for applica-
tion to types of aircraft, aircraft engine, ap-
pliance, or certificate to which it will apply."
  At  page 90, line 16 after the period insert
the following sentence, "Provided, however,
that the Administrator of the Environmental
Portection Agency,  within nine months of
the date of enactment of  this Act, shall re-
view  all noise emission  standards, rules, or
regulations in effect under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended, prior to
the date of enactment of the title."
  At page 90, line 19 after the word "emis-
sions," strike out, "including the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration, and the Environmental Protection
Agency".
  At page 91, line 1, strike out "individuals"
and insert in lieu thereof "persons".
  At page 91, line 13, after the word "title"
strike  out the comma  and insert a period
and delete the remainder  of the sentence.
  At page 91,  line  15, strike out "The Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration", and insert in  lieu  thereof, "The
Secretary of Transportation."
  At page 92,  line  23, after the word "air-
craft"  delete the remainder of the sentence
and insert in lieu thereof, "unless such type
certificates apply all of the standards pro-
mulgated  by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency prior to the
date of issuance of such certificates."
  At page 93, line 1, delete section 505.
  At page 93,  line  12, strike out  "506" and
Insert in lieu thereof, "505".
  At page 93,  line  13, strike out the words-
"attempt to", and at line 14, after the word
"thereof" insert a period  and strike out the
remainder of the sentence.
  At page 93,  line  17, strike out  "507" and
insert in lieu thereof "506".
  At page 93,  line 20,  after the  period in-
sert  the  following, "Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, the sole author-
ity to establish aircraft noise emission stand-
ards Is contained in Part A of this title.".
  At page 93,  line  22, strike out  "508" and
Insert in lieu thereof "507".
  At page 94,  line  23, strike out the words
"Administrator of  the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency." and insert In lieu thereof
"Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration,  in  consultation  with the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.".
  At page 95, line  12, strike out "may" and
substitute "will".

  Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for about 3 minutes
for the purpose of addressing a question
to the distinguished manager of the bill?
  Mr. TUNNEY. I yiejd.
  Mr. PEARSON. I thank  the Senator.
  Mr. TUNNEY.  Does the Senator wish
me to yield  on these amendments?
  Mr. PEARSON. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator may proceed.
  Mr. PEARSON. I  intend to be very
brief.
  Some expression of apprehension has
been voiced on the part of  airline pilots
as to the mechanics of this particular
bill, given circumstances which in case

                           [p. S17988]
-------
 2568
      LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                  ^p3fi3fP^3*P£5lll
                  slab's  ££is&£  &3&&8si£i
  3*
  •3g
zia
   N
Isa^Sig
iiS^ii
^°!|^§
3|?*li!f
Pllii :;
0 . S Is „-! * S '"
Slra^l1^
O^k.ThOOrt^
^8ge^flal
(—1 r-47 H\ +^ hD  ij
        f C h 3
       HSI^"-s
       ^"Sd«^
       lrg«|

       ip>
        .•S«s^
       ^^ "S-a

        §fsS5


        IIiF
        sSSjjga
      _ ,g  ^ M O g O
Kww-|2ft?'d  o,
                              +s  i w j
                              O O <-> ni T3 
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                         2569
                               C 03 £3 I O J K" W I
                               |5||||& ;s
                              lag
Ililifl
        3 8 fi J2 •""•"««-«"£
        s-«lSgs|l^sa5


aaii.5^
ssssi^a
 -M ^ . S c o
Si^agg^g
 < 2

 --o
fi°«f!
     H 03+i
^•§-s
                                           (3 O
-------
 2570
            LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
8
3


g

J 03

SH

JS
•oa
   I"3! |

   Sg£ H

  6 Hfl $

  -*1  0>   Q2
  •O-g'Qlg M



  g|§§ .S


  ^•Blll-d


  gfi«^°|
       H ^
i -ag s
SH OS5 . O
ft   -a rt ,c!
  M o3 +3 *>

•a  ."1'^
al *"



lIlE


^Ml§-
•g'O SC ants ?3

|S^^^|gI
•S e . ^^S >   5<
bo!^«« .S^S







^W^fibOffl   o3 g  o5  rfS  03  5
                        • ^ a> n 5 .^ o £ „ « .  -.5 . "5 ^3 g o g

                       iaseiiaaiijia^^iif
                       ! «  oS ssrasS   ?, 3.S§^«j
                                                -
-------
 NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                            2571
  0> -4-» I W I . tOa
 a w^-g
•IM
 . •§ oS
aiu8
 CO
 S
d fl
ss
» A
-------
 ,2572
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
.2.52
o«

                               sSlill!8
        aggl885



           ©^^«a
           --  -S»
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                               2573

       ^ji*ti°l!
^sifSlllsss
 H-H  .,** t\) **;
>> O 73 £ i O
a> ^ .g 0


    as
                    S g g •§ g
                    0-BH2CH a
                                     - 0.S Dl4J4i§'3

                                   a g^S^S S"§ *
                                   ^i.^SoM^go

                                  i uj , -t v  ***

                                  NSa^gfi^
                    O " ' ^ •*•?• R r*

                    SSs^^s
                    o5|S|i|


                         —i CS tf

-------
2574
            LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                       •~ .^4 eg r<  ^wvoH-f^^MOPj ,-t ,=t
                       O3>
                       "^M  & ^"S-s S-S raoS^ -g-d co
                       ag.2*h£l§£.2,sS"§-*3-jg-s
                       to>H-t->H't5ri32rnT3   OJ C « «u w


                       il|Pl5^|^^.PKl
      'SPs^-ga0!^
      '^^^^opog-a

     •3
             Sl^l

            ilpli

        a-sc^raJg-aS-
        5l8l«l|«l
        gls«^-2^n
        1*S 'rH ^
       O OJ

       -^
           B§"».f1s
            J> C S
            1> .B w
        s .a ^ g •§.
        lllii
        gs|rs
        i^igs
        ^lll
        °l%.
        Illil
                                  2 53 S '3 'S
                                   £3 tin C    —


                                  *.g*ii5iis
                                   3 Sn O -!S .. w G
                                         ^r?


                                         •as-^
                                           60
                                        gswls
•as
§5
d O .
 M

  SPSS
°3 fl
              -
                            CD t3
     bo
           o ,.8

           £ S S g
                              ris-g
                 0)
                 -s
                 O ^ ^ "&""* *3 T^ "5
                  OoD^JfljOfHs.j

                 -w-gfi'cugsir;
                 Rg-pfi.5g"cS
               S^lllgo-

               •*> * a •£ m •O -O
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
         2575
           "HlgJJll
M   S « £
§.«.<» ESS 8
 - ^ -^
Jill
                                ^as|S|issi
                              a  s* .ilsslJi51
                              §  2°'gt«gi|'B»^B
                                SoS^nfSSiMcS
                              m  "IS^^^P^ggn

-------
 2576
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
•p 1
C3 cS
si a i^
*" s
. b §
grave threat
y poses to on
system.
3NALD REILLY,
ve Vice Presid
Hi a:§
SS *8
0 CD " H
S&S «
§«&*;
a o fi'S
"^ 13 P *^
>J*§
•- S t, d
§ a'^M
w o rt
as fi
o o 9
5 S *>
h i -^ ' rs *a
OO° W3 ^ (5
^ •" s£ sS §
.K s aa M d
>nCi ObDO -^®>,
6.B- >.«0 d $.3
° S «- jd c fl S « g
e«: 111 §^3
ifll H§| ^«
£*! ^-a §Sa
5§l §2I &2|
;«! %£% S°-o
P^ii sii ai;
!|feiggij |:a
"^^SrfS^ljf-S*
3g^§8°sl5;[>'&
|gl||||S|.Sg
t-3»iH,2 "tO^T, «,
§i!Sslrill
Ww§ £.§.3 Sa
Ulll
             "SKiafigltiliSfiUMi
             •acs<«s>.'a»'ol<-8«'q's.(DS^E'H-!3<.,'s-s
                                            nil
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                               2577
«
13
g
i
O
S
«
ij
<
w
2




H"
§
is
fe
Z
§
(H
f-
S
«^
t^
OS
"4
V
*H
I.
W
A
S
5
A
^ »
01 *
*z
.^* >y
:i
OCQ
^•g3
«§„
o>o a
•a c a)
 s S

^:i
 . .Q OJ
«  t.
a >a}rtH  ^H+;
 H^^icQ^E--  S*4
 '3 S£*a >^ fl y>
 w cs I-H -^ O A? n w
 (1+5 cj • ^  +5 J5 3 *


!a|MlsllBH
 t»S i??^ >j *S
! 1 73 « 3a K g,

 §fr«H  sS-§
1 -H 4) cl H +*  v "O
!£ "§1^913
:«"je^s14^
                       ) tT h

                       ;fe|
                       1 fco
                        1


S32

3*w
o » O

feSs
3S«I»52s
rt .  « ^« -. «

^§
           33
   .rtjail§1!|.-.
   iassSlasIa
ft d 5 ®~ g'gS

8StlS«il
i5fi§.Slla
                           He


                           la
                           o
                           A
                           •4->


                           I

                           82

                               -

                               I
                  &?«
               • S3§°*
               2S 5 o,a a

              ^ >i! ^S 25
               ti o +i ^ 4J W
               ? 3 * S a «3
                     So
            sa  ^3as5o
                       •P a
                               !,
                             .-  O 4>
                            5 §3
                            '
1


^ $=
g«
z«
H£>
>
2
S
o
**



>,

D
§
«N)
ts.
Cl
- **H
gv
«"<
ES COUNCIL
LNATIONAL, '.
September
1 O m "
1 ^ H S

K ^ |Z
SM a
° e
H
a ^
0 >
b >
o: g
                                        u r3 ^~-  .+* * '  '
                                        ilss'gaag
-------
2578
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

      :;illji«illi!i

         o i* hn 8 *j K « jidTiSoSSdfl.. am
           §»«S|?^BBS|s«11*?as?Sf§S|s^l

           8|IlJ!j|t!Sllll!!!tilIi^!!||i

                                    (y v

                                   bD^l *
                            '-'M-rHafQ' fl"*">"*J

                            5soa&«s»?

                            BH'o3S53^§
                              fi ca +> « Q •S fl
                           fcSSjSlSSlg
                           Sg3-aa§33
                           ^a^o-5-go^
                           Iss^-ss-s
                           "IsSS'SfflSiS
                           2 13 -S 3 : " "  "
                           asgissg^a
                           to a w n fl e &t o tf
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2579
          §!«§*
          &°3§13-p
           »°sSS*
  s-i "w O o3 fcO w -p
Sgl£3£gj3*
Ss&I^Sul

                          a

                         Ig
                         ?3)>
                         ^ H, « e"
                         •W S t-A O  jj
                         09 w C3 -w d w

                         'Ml«H

                          1211 Sft
        '•s •-Sfl'ss^^i!*'"!^
        il!8lSp^lB^IS«:
        Iflasaag^^isil

-------
 2580
    LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
S c3.§ "3 5
-H fl +a —
             43 I I O I*

             •^ fl) rH J_l fl
                        £.03
                         aj
                         °s
                    ^ssSag1^
                    SS-issjO.fla

                              SB'S.

                              o*.**
                                      ss~
                                          is
               SB

                5«f

                s^°J|l|lj|P||Ps

                      irSsislglli^af
                             i'D«os.2!§



               6ll^llllilll^!i!"°

                                            +*  tS
                                            0) ffl W i

                                            M *2 w
ilflWgiaifl

     \'l:!l
   4,Jt»?a^«
  ,5 ° S S o »«
  :°-2o§!^£§
                        4) bH Ql

                        « O »
                             3 a
                            >2 2
                            ) fl -w 3
                             -< rt £1

       i!i5^
       K§^.S,
    a SS'S 3*3
    " SBSs5
      y-*as-
        o*!
        w o 0,!
                            .So
                             0 fe

                             "§
                " H 2
                » d S
                ^ r •«
                CD b 3
                            ~ id
                            M O
                            "i> u
6 3 bo^-H
O +^ G -tJ «

>-a|oLo.a^-
11*|5 *
fia§?
oj a o
^tos^-
                                              P"
""slll

1^5

                                   ^( i i +* -t>* _r o TI ^-< to
                                   5agfl«caoE°«
                                   i^iaslaS,,*

                                   r.£23^=3 S^^a-SS
                                   >>oii>i'sa:3^5S

                                   iSjiSll181'
                                   ggI^I*S!s!2la
                                          r ^ +» r JH <* o •-
                                            Q 
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                        2581
types manu-
t . . ." refers
3W aircraft •
of enactmen
letter whether "ni
f actured after date
5> a a
d c -c
.28*
tSa
4^ A
*:*
«Mi
of programs
at their in-
ts have been
£S|sSg
tffil
SS§S§?3
« ^SshS
to any new airplan
types certified afte
"all new aircraft
result in the shu
which fulfilled all
ception, and for w
entered Into.
:w AIRCRAFT
w
K
g
k
1
§
SPECIFIC REQUIREI
igulations be
aircraft type
enactment of
Z*v
ogS
*&
^
SS3
*t-i i.
Your suggestion
lowered 15 EPNdB
.consistencies
a
WH
£
V
$
rt
manufactured aftei
the legislation lead
•8
d
CJ
2
p
,p .£ >•. M0 &° ^^ C
TJTTltO^ O*Oi3"T;w .WflP
25^-e ajrtgS^M-g^SR*
;ii*
ilgi s°--^8sK5f:!
fill n*5j&flsif
giacsB ^S^S03?13 -^tJo
CO JU ^H ^^w+^qj M4^jtiOflO
fli&^ ssasii:is§^
i:i^i%fl^5isel
J 0 % fl g, o 3 g .2 -S " '3 M P S
%sic iseHlsisl


customers.
                                   ||i|!!

                                   l|i«»!
                                   «sags*s
                                   ^ >.p O > » ^

                                   2S.',|«8
                                   « . 53 s ? of a
                                   53 a c*3 35
                                   Mfli
                                 o  2?%6S«
                                 •M  fa g j. d 3 •§ d
                                 •ap g3SlB|*
                                   &S^€.-arf
                                   aii&asl
                                   llolll
w power-
w how to
such ex-
uld be ef-

S17995]
all have to
plants, and
meet a 15
tension
fectively
slS
111
aaa
gd-3
§35
>> S JH
"? O fe
"? & -
Ss2
O «
K 03 n
^*
*«S
T>SP
pi
a
i^.&sisgs
«Iltl*fii«
cs« d o-
oS
"8
Illl»:.lj*i
1S"6||,.S2

«SiS!«
a'-S)14-? 23 S o
- d of S a * « *
H0OC3 5'Q'Oi3^J
o-sSo j S „ d 5 a
Sgaa g£|*«g
"£
-------
  2582
      LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
o
•o
d be £! -^

9, p d4" £

 (? M 3 « M-


 "t°?I i

 sgf-3 .

fl2a31s -
73 bfl to c3 O '

S » S * o S

•Ipla*
aj s S o m
-g^flg^S
-p +^ 4^ ^ ^ £

   )S£"C ^
ci> wp-i^giu WU^H^-<.H    —

!           tf;-1



                            n^«a-oocMoii^o«:
                            fjcOi—"fOin^-iO>LO^;

                              ' r-I e\j co o 06 ":
                US 3 sS'o
                ^s-5|s«"
                sS^iii
                *««s°ls
                                            o^


                                            to ,0
                                  •o e

                                  £&
                                            P a
                                        = es-
                                             ffib
                                i -P *> _r j
                                 '
                 ^ *d 3
                 "S^
                 338

                 *a°
                 4J »H
        U 4)
        .a I
        ?*
Sisg
?d«-
S^S.!
                           a 3
 o
w-g
°a
                      «8!ll8Srt-^
                      |««as|sa;aS

                      alS|«7j||BS
                      sl^lasfia
                          a-f
                          »|8


                          ;§§!

                          Ug|
               •K" 0
               M 3
               uw ,

f!!!tI!B!!l;!m!K-Jii;ii
  O • tT
  w&^

                                              2




                                      Sash's

                                   !s>. saslis
                                   SPT: B&^^CS
  !?! I        2|««1
 Jils^SMiHlillllllfl" "
 «.i=sasaS5:!HISsg,,s«
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY    2583

 1 I ' rn rti ' ^  ^4" H-T ' w ,* •*J>i4:'W(UfnlfljJ>iOTOClDIT3l-^cW^>1 *•< fl> .£ M '•j !J &fi OS
 i-Kf!1  !«P                   ?i\ llh
                                ml ixi

       J2

       Ssii
   •o i

iPiill
iPIl^
SSSap-aui gS£2SS§Sfe& Stto, to aSttSa SS  S o « S S S £ o
INalA3^S^I'3|  !§i!^i!!l-I^!!!!!£!
ii!siM!:nlb^s  iH!!s8ii;i!I^M«ii&
§ss^iils^|h«l?l
fSiisiMisS;^!!,
°s^»g£8^H-a3|gaa^r:

si.:siaiis?aia|a&s--i^yg.as;ggg|^|^|?si
6|ga;:SI5fi|jg|g-SsS^li a^fl i3fsf§ |
aag|°S3«TJ|a*Sfl|llllsi055L.!|fl&3Ml*sl?
-------
 2584
LEGAL COMPILATION	SUPPLEMENT I
                                         d w 2 "8 * «> ' w ID -U-
                                        §sili§s&ig§
                                           ***»•«£.}•
                                               a5  *g
                                               ls£>,|
                                                   a°
                                              ^S'3§3
                                           ^2al3ef^
a o
                             sj»fi§';;*.2£'§ 3 ,,"££>"-.£
                           3 atfi " off S±j iao3"iijj.3"
                           ^ghlaistl^H
                           3  "gSiJ^a^SSfl*

                           'itfO&llft
              r?-gR'-iyO+34i  >«
              S Sg»S^«i3  «s
              ^^"aSoSSw^i!
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                          2585
          » 2 too
          3 2 a g
          23d
          a K t. 43


         >^!l


          IiSi
          t-Sa1*

          85S»
            •3 ej H i

            •g > 
e
•rJ
s
cq
w .
l°-
°q.
e.» e"
-p 1 «
.&gs
go" A
S'Stog
ap-5l
Ss§l
§"§S
&S|o
• •age
SSg«
s o « <-«
^ 4J c3 o3
§ &-d 2
H^g-S
»-(
 TX
13
 ai
, •" M
j«S

 sl!s°i|!is;pll
.l^l95M3.1SS.g.|s
        Q"* -0 3 g o 6" * o
        ^HVt.4^oH>HW—,MO
^teS3'5.a™22£'^'amS78^
(pP'piSo.wHfi-p'^ajt-iai"!!)*-'.-, •


5ff!hSlS!g|ISs:iail
               o 5
 s-^SS^^-^&^a^-SSpp

 !NSflsf£:!3isiJUs!3sa&
 0 '3 rt 2 S1 o ° >:S J3 -a. s « a » o. o, = ^a
13si
-------
 2586
        LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I

     «
1-
1 o d 3 a ^ MW a —

2&S*§»«BS&
•So3fi.~o.giS*
> M o cs a ft  w a
(5) The proposed January 1, 1975 require-
ment for new aircraft to comply with FAB
36 minus 15dB is unrealistic.
Regarding conclusion (1), we believe that
with the knowledge and material available
to us today, it appears possible to develop
a modification for each type of aircraft now
in service so that compliance with these lev-
els can be obtained. This cannot be done,
however, without adequate time to design
and test the specific hardware to be used.
The retrofit design must not only produce
the required noise levels, but must also be
thoroughly tested to assure continued opera-
tional safety and reliability required to
maintain airline service in the public
interest.
To avoid unnecessary waste of resources, it
is necessary to determine which retrofit ap-
proach is most effective and desirable. As you
note in your letter, there are two basic ap-
proaches to noise reduction now being
funded by the government: the nacelle and
Jet suppression treatment and the new front
fan design. The latter approach is most de-
sirable from an operational point of view,
but it is already clear to us that the conver-
sion cost is much higher. Given the magni-
tude of the retrofit problem, it would be un-
conscionable to make a forced choice between
these two approaches until thorough testing
of both solutions have been completed. This
process can be expected to take at least two
years at the rate at which the government
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
2587
                                   i M Tj M i ' IE M'I—i
                                  £i§!-|1|§§
                  X^-»a°>-a&
                  >«3'3'S'*K
                  s^ - »
                       '0'0
                            og|f!l  &sl

-------
 2588
     LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
*i

Sf !
I g  55 S
      8 °
                                     fc-Sil-s*

                                     I  ri  8*i|2s!
                                     dOGQrt-d«O
 §
o,S
                        s
                       ! s ill

-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2589
< 2.a a

                    l^ssi «ai.
                    i-°»i5Sa*l  „
                           r,!.* § ..a
                       aS-S£§fl^Sjg
                       
-------
  2590
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
     S«£«ii*l
   Jus«!
       igig«fis«ss:s;
       iO'SS^'-rt^'°SS CD J2
•H Q, O
^liisillsps
< CO
                to s
                §^'^
                es
.3-3
"« s
 S>
 3s
«63P
c« tn o 55
S >£
     .. n
     00
 w   ... T3
oca13^8 '



K**d



HIP
Su,^
rt a  rf

Ills*
3 H -d 3 0) -d
2 5 fi S si a
SI? sx=H 3
"H-aS-J

ll-slll1
03 +3 M VH .S O *>
i.g g-^ H
 g-g.S3
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                    2591
    >> o g  g .a •;
' ' -CX! fe
•~ £ S 3 £
o a)
a *
If
     1*

 35 3 o r. a « w
siSSl jag,,?
                     >.  ^S-s
                     > *a a; +* a .
                     • %a-aB
                     !-e°gg:



        |g2G$1^2!3Ssffc*«
        S£oJtcgM-waa-c.Swb^1;x!
        Hl2a§llll^S|gS
        ^IP^Plll^^a
        SsM!g!sla«iiill
        o
        Ss
       s^?S«

      jj|Sil
      §^B.s-S
      73 s to a o
      SSsgl
a> 011—i
Pi
"isS
.P-.2M

P£
                                          cu
                                          p->-
                                          ai
                                     p^
                                5 H 0) S? X2 w •
                                3 §3 S S t*
                                J=sa W"E
                                3 5) O Q fcj
                                i^bsS
                               If55-!!
           «&
           551
           Hg
           ti
           a?
             a
                                          £3
                                CQ-
                              •«o ...
                              1-sg
                              ^SS
                             liiljll
                             • c! « .. S m 9
                 C'OJ-<  jj^H^tSo
                            I!
  M§i3fl2S?2s .
  isllS?!1?^
  i1^1£l!i||
  •SS1HMIS»
                   vj  "o "~* hot=q 35 "^ 
-------
2592
               LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
•H
'•5s
Illllllli'^s

£4 fan
!S G
^S
•-" a


SS
S 
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                          2593
   S S -i  S "S £ 2 2  2  a " 5 -

   "  '*  a?!!S  *  ?l?




        ^ o a> o* g2 ajW ® S •

                     s
                           I ;8§12:?lea
  °-| ^g-g^^^llSl^o^^
  .(jfl^ ^-;)5)4)^?SI'-Hl2;c^ro<1^  ric;,M
                      03 a
                      H u

                      'Q^:
                          S 5-«  a^'B M i "Si
                     m

                      2
                      73

                    is
                           ,j ^ t*>H ^  QJ
                           TO O3   "   f-i _j W
                           ewtH-ri,'c«.Sga)

                           Jil|s§ig§
                           ««C3W-— *3r=;
                     I q-H -
                     ! *H +»
                        O flJ [5
                        03 T3.o>
 U /2 O

 |2g
 ^  O
• bo o w
i-SJSS

'' &l«
i S * ^
                        SP

                        iJSf




            •2 XJ 3 'd ,
                        ^'-Ffl
                        •^•S EP
                   SnM^ §og
                   H r" . • i
S  O oS S fl ^ §3 O S W«S  S! -fi.S  g53a
I  |§S||5f|lg_ga  w|§§  a£|
                         ^i&

                         i|ll!
                         ^|-|
                            n">>a
        §!aiH!"
T3 &S
 'si
 ,E?I
 J5"*
 ) Cj
         8jg|

im^iT
M S .2 5 "3 > S S o c
                                              ^>Fj
                                          S tti w c8
-------
2594
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                           2« !»
                           s?il«gj»(
                          .212>*S'3-8~&
                          2 § g -, 8 § -2 * S
                          P cc A ^ w flj g ^j j^
                                               a fl
                      °SS-§
                        •o-aZ
 •O'SS'S'SS-"0

 s§i5i-s
     >i S» Q,r-H

               ^"S O S^^40 O1^
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                    259^
  a-  g"i|sg5-g6 ^IIII-s^
  T3%  (£ 0,0 ngjgM ft :=! 3 ^ £ £ S •
  c   «> JH  >, S e -^.« ^ -53 K>" 2 as ^ jj
 3!lSBif!J3fa s'iai
            ow^^


ft  C 03  T3
E-i  '"£  R


K  *!L ™
"  *-< p O*
H  « C 
r -4-3 ^
fe as
fa a> cs
O §•«
el's '^
b; C  ^-<
P P
? a ? a
M CQ
£ >> 5 >,
"^^ t10
»« Bts
^ 
4^ ^ ^ s
JH W fl) W
rt) U3 K M W »
tfi O E , S f •
CO " -Cf O " TJ
Oi M £ rH Cfl fj
»s * ® s *
S>3 « w>g w
03 > rt w ^ r->
ft? g ftP ^
rj 0) 43 ti 0) ^
:alsfli
r O rt : o
O CJ O (U CD C
s a „ c art
So §13 o 0
•S*i
3 v
I*
S c
CD
§s
™ cfi
^ ro

•si
fis
" s
. o
(X 0
|S
go
(He
^•3
sg
•4-3
Ul
                                            * r- w i i

                                              ""

                              1°.
                              t3
                                  O
                                  a
                                  o
                                       g°
                                       & a
         £1-
OOOO
^0^ S

-S£o

^S=3 >
flffl g S
53 Cd  c3
sS-g «
t3ftl S 'S>
(3  cJ 
-------
 2596
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
     £ W S-i •-«
     t? * a*
     •§^S«
     w cS^-O
     I Sal
     ;iiS
     §MM*
     •SgSo
     <«»3g
     . T3 0) S
     fc c^
S3"n'  8*sfi
fSssg^-s
•r; - £ "§ 0 ,52 33 g,
           I 
S-a,6"
SC-d
Sgg

138

|||
gfifrH
S
 CO)
_. *->
3a3
•^ W
3?
H §
*f*
B °
ss w

|2"8

£as
ol
o^
UO^H
 C o
                   *r ra T!
                   _, -wShoWOOiuS^aja'
                                      S
                   5«'§-Sh^-r)K:*iniz:ssb_i3a)&
                   S§S&3^|!S.Sgg||l°|5|
gc
o g

.SE-1
-U t«-l
"H O

"§£?
55
 

SM
M aj
KJ53
          «8^g|  ^
          ^«^«WS^-0
                  PSi^inpsl
MaiM?llSi;ia«;!lia5
3l1g3*>,g^SiBS?8Ss»?S-S.sS
                        is»ssgsi§«ii'
                        S5«Sa l^lIS!
                        •^  ^J^GMWhnrf-, cSCJ
                  •'-^s^s^e
                  tiiiODeB-'2*^
                  Ifi^S'SSJga
=3s^
to S °* S
^§5^
sfli
*> ® -B K
§s«l
w-g-S^
^'S|§
Hs§s

S||8
    ^  C c3 
                                     .^:«Ms?2-2S
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                2597
M B a ho.2 i ^.3

SSSfglp
 . Jj W-  fe o fi

 "^ -
l!l||2Sl=H

Sill
           •''

CO id
fli -4^ -r*


         -




 a?9«
 C3 > , '53 t,

S§&°
^Ocfg

Igga
•O O w 9J
•3  ^5

:il*


tfgl|
E-i W a> a
P5 PJ^J-O

S^l*

^sa-8!
SHSS^
   «5fi
  , • f_( f-t £ I
  £ OJ QJ S "O

  S^il
   3 3 § a
  eg"-"" S*

Ii2s|i

HHI
«!   S|»
  0-2 5 P
                    CO
                    o
                    o
                    00
                    T-4

                    O3



                    OH
            ^:s&i

            §Si  "-J
             CO
            - W - .
            S S^-^-e
                                           S Q-O
                                          tM -Q ^5 a)
                                          *"• <-s . . TS
      gg
'2 W 2


1^|1!1
                  •-,
                  QD «}
                  03 oj
ppslas§
   PQ § § .s a
•s s 5? fl a>
                                   (U'-w D 
-------
 2598
         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
f J ^ P ' ' I W 4) I

lyj-ii^p
.*5^g ass;;
  o  "S -^ *a SoOS
     ! U ^


 !ll:ir:
 he  o XJ  - • -
 cij  m -u>  bo K
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2599
                    83-a  HI
       it'll
                                .

                                       03 W M
-------
 2600
      LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

   a
   $a
%4*«*'

  |t«ll«~ls
.3 o
  K4^wWOtO3  •QC3tJ?&*
fi"5--
5?S1
S3SS
                                         o o
•gg^
^^a
1-^1 l-ip||l§s ^
 Ig:«flsljga58 .s
    ISag^SSgl
    jSP.4J|ciS-'Q-

        tH
                        ^wjj^Vl/" >./ SJW )_i,^i


               ^l55lft^fPlii^
               «lil||liraa5fi1^a
               llSISJ&fi1
               ^^""iS^-1"'
                    95°l-
                     d. i w o w i t
                     i-t o, JH -t-i •*» > <


                    eltlllSS.
                    aS»S-8s-3 g1
                    M D,   .o "g#-

                    •M o § "S"«.2,3 f
                    O -*^ »r-* W S *O
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                              2601
  QJ TO
  >'£
       g .2 S o
gsi3SSiiii
'«a*«liS
   'S5 iu-u

                           8gl«-|S<^!zil
                                   S8'II«P
-------
2602
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

>Z P *>H TO W W «*•( ^ *-' > C H-l

|iaiil*l&jjtt!
'S«- si0'!^!8^«**
iQ^§"M°!M'oI'd'u"S"°'i«
15» S. S «•? a S 4J « 3 O 2 >
• fl m 2 S'8 S S 3-a d  ^S
l^3o[".gSo3oSg!M5t>ij^;
! § sol2 S £ ^ a> -a * g g -55 -c J
[||!|iyi|!s»i°:
               •
              ^ n.S
                                    o S 
-------
        "NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                  2603
"S S >>


Hi
B S
c«*a S
•-H (4-1 TO

Sgg

£*S
 ""* -O
Sgg
4> 3 O


JU
S ^o
£; » to
                          Ii  |fl
                           ^SlSiB
slgs
 a O JH
Q.CJ M ^
«-1 n
S o a
**>~'
W (H w rt

o 2- »
- •" ^ a
                          a> oj
                          aS
n S fl H
                       ° 5 O « ^ rf rt

                   ppsilpw!
                      • *O QJ l~* J£ O I d I '
                         .^-|g*S
C 03 CD.
          iflifHiPjii
          i
-------
 2604
        LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
 I-

 n

 IL
 £n2-S
» » 6t
SflSSS
s2°^S


IPfi
o o


?? r,
•a
"3

'S,
S
•a
-------
           NOISE—STATUTES  AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2605
I
-i^>
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wi
objection, it is so ordered.
I-S
-
-------
2606
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
     s s

     M O

     gfi
     V ^-t
     C >
u/


-s^"s&
fi ^  ^
o 2« *

2 t* S
D, * "> "8
- 0.5 S
                            to to  i to



                            till?
                              £ tn » «-
                            t, 3 v M ,fi
                            go. "a*

                            ^5§|s
                            2HS.ao
                            . S - n -S 3
                         t».a:
                     £j _O tO -r*
P


s1§°
fe  ^rS<-;r8£.

P|r|§r^-a'
 2  •£*>
                     ij • o
                     «grt:
                  '*«
w *o "S ^J
 S ^
s&a

.2 S&o
£•0 '«33
                                               l'sssag°
                                               1:3 <= d ^ 3 S
                                               §5 g a o.S^
-------
NOISE—STATUTES  AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2607
    ''>
-------
  2608
         LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
CJ
w 1> '2

|«&3

 §23
M12 3
£ S«a
* o-S~
•2 fe-S ^
S5MS
« a «„
'' j S ^

 'f.C
2"S§
gg*S
^ 
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2609
        aKk«e.53--333'g
                                      fl o a i g
                                      o s 5 5 «*
                                S r3 a T *a &"o « 'o
                                   _- t-u — jj .^ "^ *•*
     iiSSiSSiill^i
-------
  2610
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                   i-H'S
                                           °0
                                           a a"

                          .a-^5&S|fgi«
                           « O ri f< O • .3 •" * -=• «_i fi
                           g



                           5
•   >,      >*•



jafli-rtU
    il&gsasgs5
    rv ^ 'Ofi^'M^.a'1'^
                               5J|j|y

                               MO So"3 ftS^
                                4J OJ >rt  rj ^
                               „, os K r fl n ^
                               Z'°ai§s«

                               ?§Ss"^r
                                        "~ a'B

                                        I£l«


                                        *flf
                                          a£r w *->
                                        - •" - Qi
d

                   M I  I TJ '
                   ssal-
                   +3 p,"oS

                   «a8d
 ialll^SfilS^sl
 iSM|po|^§8SS&
           i O O cl O
      -< ^ M
      5*0,
                   •2 -
                   rs£g;
                    3--S •
                                ?S5°
                                2 T^ W -tr
                                         •SS3
                             3 ." -p _, O  a
                             i ~ o B  a a
                                    S o-s
           ' £ S B a Ma
           n 2 a a S S, S
                                     ,,
SiS,sSsaSgiiJ  oS0"'B'ag

a)5.§lh>>*'3.alf>"5:Soi»23B_
|^-|gp|<£a|3|;i2»|
                 ; o os •
                 > f-i
                 in*-"'
                 -p O
              •sl&
               » -S (8 S
                                                3 2 § .2
                                                        «   ft




                                                        nfly
                                                           -
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                               2611
                                          SeiSSai

                                          131^1?
           « i X1 ' KI d '

           ;Hij«S
           *^ —t  r« rt fl) O
           £mai3 ws

           "    h I
               "  s
                 'a
                                  €^
                                      ' ' *j
               *H ." I*

               O S  ft
 .S +3 S ,is

 ;§•  l


 11  If
                                          8
                                          ^
                                         Q) O
 4Na
 § Sag>3
 «  >> h VI J

 ,€SSsl§

 1  -g*2
 ^rr»3Sft
             2 o 'S P<

             S||S
             g§
 'Q.'H i —^ o * i^aj i c]*-1*; ' w
4l!!i:l  Willis



*!SSM.ISlf.-J*
                                             * 01 .j jj


                                             111!
                                             CQ t> a ol
In £
                               J J - -
                           a t. o S S s >-
                           i! O +1 O M "H ft
-------
 2612
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                                       g8i§|ss&li
                                       XSx^-Pn^gJflcS
   illl11

                           o SJS69
                           S tP£s

^•3^   »^§s&||«
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                            2613
bo i i i <»
S $ 2 § $
51sSS
o  s .3 s
fc * e fl c
«*Slsj|

*i:i«
s*3?§
2 O 4*  V
jjSs*
llilll'is;
ililllli*
iwifS *sr""-
   t»o-^
XtS

                  &|^IB,g  g
            S a m  rt Q •— a
            S +" M « oS S 5
            2 B d a c .2 «H
                                     o 'S c o s 2 -5 =
                                     ?Ss*ga5as.^
-------
 2614
            LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
        OJ I rj 1 » W ^ tJ ' ti

        *aol°i!  °~I
        .SO'Sp.OksgS'O
                                              a •a
         ^^iUa^ffg
         oajtoojS  t*K+3

         ^l^^f-a

         £*S3a3atS
           SS^^dn'olS
         fiS- OCJ01DJ<
         § tti


                         *s«al&
                    *' « o S g>|
                       '"giuojaoobo- u -5 -
                    o3s«oaa*3SSo.
                   s;iaiisiiii*ir;

^Ili^PSi
  i«S?3S&&Sl
                        ,


    g S - g o 3 S § 3 o
    £iH'-3Sa>rt,_45H -t-jQ,
    gg^st,

                                ks.Jslissa9
                                  v. «>*B  flfl
                                 ^ « rl ™ W "i t>


                                              i  .3 ^ en ^, i
                                              56
                                              i o
                 si I!


 aSfiSsfil|te«°s.SS?a-€il3g
 3lsfl^g§|SflsSjil;f *flaS
                           o?C S £1 O ^j rt
                          S Sg-g^y^rt
                          s fa Sa^bS
0 o

      *

                         s s
                         Z o -
                         B« a
                         ftiS
•§ p-s
§pl
s^*
Bg^f
3 ft1"
3 ft O



%
i^s&fliisǤ
!il&ds§^l5g
;2^g,tf"Ssm8

i  Pillgsll
•"-  -1|| |
       n 1,13 O.
      S|5^&
      . --> fl ri
       -^^S
       o-g M5
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                 2615
3 3^&


11*1
o 2 «
  - S h
,_, ^-o o*
—< £» O
03 « JH MI
* S ac
» > 60 S S fe  " >>"8 ;
                     s cs - g g ab^o;
      \a v ,
      ia«
                        S 3§ o a « ^S 5{

                        &SSS? SspH'
                     1 S b o >>S«1
•O .!.

 .a



^^

§|S
 "l^l^p^
'! till JlLs^S ass ifa«
S§ •CM+aOaT"niSMSOtillm°1c84>43
fa-sSSflS-siaSsssTSBs^-0!

"^liillllilil!!!
 §.su§
                    : •§ 11 *
                    ifa05M
                    i „ - < %
II II
^|5g

a^^S
-Q (0 ^ O
««ll
a s « a>
^.?«3
•° 0,3 h
C3 ? S
o «£•"
.• a., S.-S
*ls
o " O
PM 00
$ T 	 1
SSCQ
«1d
^> — '
O O
*^
60,5
5
+?s5S » a s
il>^||
 H -a
a2^5
                        O •-' J^

                        •rg^ls-
                                         ,rt ^ ^ yj
                                   s^s'a

                                aii^^ls
00
•O fi ^5 >.
I -p V*
^!? 1
fi » o
{C W O
05 a s
1-1 5
IsS .S
•Swt8§2
p-sǤ
3f«I
g?IS5
4^>
03
V
a
a
OJ
A
_o
-p
c3
o
en
.p
t.
A>
O
rt
f
&
-------
  2616
            LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
a
     V V >>
     3 st a

    '"w*
     "°S
     O ^"M
    ' 0 ol



    :Pl
    i«g§
                          fl)>>t>>idjrj  fl'ri1  Mfljrjtni i


                          •ppil  IK  !pl
                          .S»5^g»  5Mt8  n5b..fi4i
                          0)

                          as

                      * a o S "a
                                       8S5e"F-3a
|^»™'ig°-»1|l5s§P
•-> -3 ™ ^ ~ °  ".fuSO^-Bh-e
      1&T
           i-R2 SS
j i i i ca v t M*p.'O(30i>OS
iisS^sagi

! * f ^ „ -d .2 S S 4>

'5igsi3asn
 ^«i« a ,,»(,*
S-§||

    ^sg^pi^s

^^ -S^iiflfisais?^

Illl^llslflllsll






           «.-ae.-a0ad4!g1v|igrf.3
&


|S

^

   5 O -JS fl "H 73

i*^ 5 ? S S 11 a e a -a^ o.-s a •s


g5JI!!.i;|l|i?i^l
«sg^3P9rt?«as.p^
                  -• fl « 8 w S n oi
                  Jf; ' tlj S  -rf O 4J 0>

                  *!a!3Sl!li

                  KiSSsi*8
                  l"B'Q^-S'a^S
M 0)

* 3




Jj

£S

a m-

B^
ft «
t! V O -^ J I H 4^ IH I -^
^s§|2agsc||

|5s5??|a«8ja
a>o«iiu(aflrtoaM

     S§
isiM:ift|9i
                               Si  V


                              ~««*


                              ^llfs^isggs

                              0-tf*)&»HSO_1-_0
          asȤ
                            iWliiilili
       xj-ip-eor-fju wiSfli
aj(»^K»CO  SO)  Cl O"y «H fe • S 3

l^§-S,3i9s5afa£lie
 iMii^;
       ,  « ^ 5 a u oS
        ju)Xai;3S^^S'^
        asoSg«ll>!?»'ii
 "rs-3-es«-C'C^«5^i«^

 o g^'g fe'S S 3 ^ S S aS" o h
 !3°i2^U««OOO.*Oa ° O,
                  |s.2s5|255Sg|&|gs S.&SS8
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                              2617
•a •a 2 i i it fi 1 »
SSSIH*8!
pp§«asgsj

mail's
«*-afl*
                        *S>

           rt <3  BJ •£ o o S fl "£ "w fl §*S
           §73  gS^gofc^ «a fl


           Vrt     C!?II^.
53S'
H<-

•H S
               >>




               §<
                                 W 0
                                        5S«3|°^
* a j

A
              Qj UJ -i

                                    ^S<

                           S a a * ->S °
                           S 3 S'STJ taS:

                           «Si|j^45^«-

                           Ss§l§fS"B
                           !H W M H *^ H AT . rrt i

      ss^j^^fllail8
    J!i*2!;*sa
          T* O
sw
-1 -*S>;|
•aga«Mo.§
Aoa* a ftO
to o rt p* v oS y
                               g;i?l«9!


     ^f™a'
      ^ga-i'a
D H «J ri *  P^X'^Ww;-rt-J''-
-------
  2618
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
V o 'a 8 »
p s .2 S g
   SJja.
   4* w ..


   I "I
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                              2619
                                     StfSgl^ssf IflS
                                     |<^|a^i'g:g|.a2
                                     *SP>.
                                     W5 ,IH
                          fillip
                                    w|3'i§3-s^S.|d
                                    • sg'ss.ssisats
                                      >C3v;3o.2
   ,- 10 I gi g .i !
            i-S fe
    s o S « "3 i
                S «
S 2 — .2 -
         or
         •o


                              !°a;
^3
5s
"H IIH





5-5!
   ,as^&" i»"ws'Srflgo>>u!
   [§5§SS S«d|6B|g^5i
   i*IiH!HHSll!^
                                            o .>
     M"
     a u 4
     Bg!
     a ., i

          iS§S-
•§a 84i
f5^^

I^SS
O  O S3
'•"K a.0 '
<•§ &»1
                                             •seSfi-aa
-------
-------
              NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                            2621
  1.4a(3) (d) Oct. 18: House concurred in Senate amendment, with an
  amendment, pp. H10261-H10262, H10287-H10300
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE  CONTROL
            ACT OF 1972

  Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take  from the
Speaker's  desk the bill (H.R. 11021) to
control the emission of noise detrimen-
tal to the  human environment, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amend-
ment thereto, and consider the Senate
amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from West
Virginia?
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, this bill, as the Members
well recognize,  is  the Environmental
Noise Control Act of 1972, to which  I
objected yesterday, principally on  the
basis of protest against the procedural
press of year-end legislation. Since then
and immediately thereafter I have been
importuned by the distinguished gentle-
man, the chairman of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and
many  people across  the  length and
breadth of the Nation, to withdraw my
objection. I  well know their  fears of
more stringent regulation in 1973,  but
rather than  acceptance, now,  I believe
they will gain amelioration in the com-
mittee's mature deliberation.  In  prin-
ciple I am  against  Federal  preemp-
tion of State rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I have gone into prayer-
ful consideration of this bill, which does
require unanimous  consent, because of
the legislative bind in which we find our-
selves. I have resurrected the legislative
file, with all my notes pertaining there-
unto, as it passed the  House by  a vote
of 356 to 32 on February 29 of this year,
with its amendments.
  Mr. Speaker,  I am one  of those who
voted against it at the time, on the basis
that it was not coordinated between the
new Environmental  Protection Agency
and responsibilities of the Federal Avia-
tion  Agency, which I understand from
my friend from West Virginia (Mr. STAG-
GERS),  is presumably corrected in the
House amendment to the Senate amend-
ments in the House-passed version of the
bill.  There has been no conference in
this  procedure,  and these is no printed
report  on which to base a mature judg-
ment.
  At the time of the original House con-
sideration, my objection was predicated
further on too severe penalties, the new
granted right for citizens to bring  civil
suits leading to these too severe penalties,
the fact it was applicable to much noise
abatement, besides those of the trans-
portation industry, and so forth.
  I felt, Mr. Speaker, it would come back
to haunt us as the occupational health
and safety bill has done. I also made an
annotation at that time that I thought
it was too costly for experimental legisla-
tion. I  have reviewed all of that and had
a conference   with  the distinguished
chairman this morning, but I regret to
say in my  heart  and in my most  con-
sidered judgment I  find, with the in-
crease  costs—doubled—offered in these
amendments, and as related  by the chair-
man yesterday on page  H10238 of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, that my convic-
tion is more deeply  founded and more
profound than ever, and therefore I must
object.
   The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
                        [p. H10262]
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE  CONTROL
            ACT OF 1972

  Mr.  STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I  ask
unanimous  consent  to  take from  the
Speaker's table the bill  (H.R. 11021) to
control the emission of  noise detrimen-
tal to  the human environment, and for
other  purposes, with  a  Senate amend-
   525-314 O - 73 - 20
-------
2622
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
 ) >> L
-------
            NOISE—STATUTES AND  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2623
8
   0)
CO  CQ
-------
2624
            LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                                      I f«&
                                      ^^aiajCoS  —-i in
                                      'g-lloi^l
                                      s^dS'ls  -

-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                         2625
           S "*« a b >>
           g c s o ° a

           I *I o § -- a „

           §?fa£.2o£°
                   !i!i*«
            F* i- *
            O 0)
           Ssas
             li*iJ!IitX:MlS;!s

             S!!!fSli!!l|!!|; ir
             S S? fl fe S1 £ v.2'3"fi«oe^J3i!e-'2
            £|S«g?s§-Bg-gBSS«s"gf
           ^aggsgi§fa5'6v :


                                gls.l|!g-
                                s g « 5 *: " «,
                                rtSSOiCoiC!
                               *! fl  O  ° « « '


                               IIIPl!^
                                ""w1
                               :^^Pi
                               "•o-sS&o^g
                               *H JH ^3 M a\ (H
                               UcSmUOfHVO)
                               EiD-rt ™ &, O £ -rt w
                               Qj ^H W ^"   ^ "ft

                               ^B^S^S^a

                               •a w««5t o-

                               ^n:||i
                               ° C t! O g £ a>

                               s°oas*&l

                               lg»*i&S.§
                               §|r5.s|«>

                               •3'> IScSS
        :i«ll£si
        SS.S,««-2S
o


li,
ss.s
S5:
o to
 Sos •*-* *rt 5  J-t "™* w ^* •'"
 Ss5o^»^sadgo
---{jj S a>ST3*^^3"^rf «^"
: Sooos«4i: Sw:
 S3>ifl^^s! ay
S 3 S 3 5 S S
c 5 o a o w u.

-------
 2626      LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
i-4J-O+jA>-*JtlD^Oj'^1*-'1
 OOJeSdtiDOtiStf  OjgOojSocQOlSO'CJ.Qo  ^^^^^CJO WJOJO^
!fll3»iila  s-||lslilsli3  ^:§||:^is§
!-lls-lsa
 S-SSSB    ^.ag--s '-aa»'o'345'    Sa-aTjg-

    iii.|§|||Ei5fiss  |p|lg?|l|s2.|°ssi ls§
                    ii'IitstHli?!^!
                    ,^§8| gg^^-g,-
                    g«-i,Scoos^^'5§.3^31i
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
2627
                                           W *J r- w MH'

                                           « ^ O -O 0)
                                           
-------
2628
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                     ; :si:is|i&
-------
               NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2629
>> V ^J >*+> fe J3 W '
art o fl-g ol3s <=
C8+3 
-------
2630
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                               Hi mm*i'

                               Highlit:
                                 S° e,aa a «
                                  4J  « WJ.X3 bD * -
                                 boojU'S  a  *i  ">
                                 -"•ajtfijma

                                      ssfi|_5
                 PI!:sio|S
                 t*
                               SS°«d&^*M2l^
                               ^SSlHWSC10 rtTl  (
                                3^0 n 0 S ^?, rS I
                                          _ .
                                 ssr-d-sSS'Saa
                                 ?&' Sli?fl*II
                                      |«H»
                                      *6Kl5a


                                      Bi;i
                                       *• O d 13 B
                                      PS?.
                                       5 S i
                             gswa|-
                             t, « 5 ^fi O 8) g
                             °«§slse
                             - O W  W  >>
                              s^a-s*

                             5lssS«a=

                             !^i;ii^
                             m *> t. O O
                          !!5~s
                          O d --3
                          rj Co W
                          H +3 0) rtl

                         S»Sfl
                      la!*ij
                       -g O h<
                *i«s"PtiM^'a£i^3"
                «eass|sa§ga
                IlSlf^^ljs
                ** 3 ~  3  —^KO!*-"
                 fasf|||
                 P* Q +j O w ^ M


                 «H^iiii*




                         SllggSodooa^
                         «IJ|^§-aisS






                            S*a^l

                            [fl O M O
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                           2631


 ifti
 Iff!  8tlsSfs!illlJ|M
   s:
  ** .2 r<
 <»S5
S«*5«!i;!J!lilgi!
MMJhS'Ks''


-------
2632
 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

                JilHl i*g& 3ii5e*|?jj!f!2
                •iSi a !i«
         Sfca* ^Sf-SSS S5§sC'2&SgS":
         d«1^^°5-Qo.|^ ^SSo-S.a^-oS
         silliill^l !J|l!i=;l;l:
         8aiji !!ij tllllpi;
             |i|!Ui:i|f!^|1>;
             2slg|a^fiol*l§5s^s§
             «e°Mi^91§liM9!
                ^{§&!ife£i!-^|
                la?" g.g^§§5§&§
a«
3;
!£
J«
28

S|
                                   5 P
                                   I0*
                                   -S d
                                   §1
             spis^iis^yi & §!
             ^0!ii:i:Inll:.: v
• a i
   e 2*1 J.
  . - § 5 •§ S
  sllall

  iHfrt
p! fliJf*
HI i
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY   2633
II it ills3:'5r.lt(f8S«| l|::tS r«l  isK'l  j  I

ij                                           I

 !                                         5  A






S  PH«j3aai....'a—a ^MHiS-^rtflaMSiia) fioS.. H3«3^T!O  . fc

                               •JSi^llhHdMi
                               s?r!!i!ll!5"l
                               ^.as^lpisKg-*


                                           I

-------
2634
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
     o 
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                             2635
              SJ,-"
U 0 ° d
< 3 a %
A shall be terminated by the
whenever he finds that s
§g
- +^>
•O d
SJ3
^J W
Sa
£ S
o
essary to protect public healt]
he quality of the environmi
violation of this section shal:
0 V
0>
5*
•^ 4)
s J3
5 *
^g
d ?
fl
3
e penalties prescribed under s
of section 412 of this Act.

'SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
>5-^ ^
d o 5.
< *>


r"
0 £
g 0
S"o
gs



>>
«
V4
O
0>
s
d
I
-fj
3
u
'cS
*>
*o
o
&
00
g
u
u
CQ
§S
rsonic speed shall land at
the jurisdiction of the Un
o> t-<
a o
3 "0
M H
« 3

a £ 13
0+><
»4
:s in compliance wtih the n
ibed for subsonic aircraft by
Dr of the Federal Aviation
. and in effect on Septembe
3S3
aS 2
3 t-i m
» as
rtl W .^
rill!
C
2
u
a
a
tfl
3s
Is

I — RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
W
S
£


S3
•3 S
0 u
(a) Within nine months a
enactment of this title, the
shall publish proposed n
[illations for surface carriers
T-< VH
-1 O
ros
d d
a 73
?l
K *
2h
d S
J3 5
J2 "5
~3 M
§§
                                       < u d^.° jj W d>
a -a/
O a> E
;.iaH
w -3 S *3 *-•
d d oJ °J T!
w t«
•0 0
« M
sf
VH^
if
O ™
§1
+3 to
d
s«
0.3
w w
d«
•e°
^g
&i
S3
s>
o
0) O
03 fl
, ,
P
. ffl
-t-3 "^
ST!
0> M
rt rtt
h amendn
iy the Boi
;ulations, and that sue
ation, or revocation b
ou y
£•§
,
•a
. ?
«^
.2 o
4J X!
d £
4J
t! *H
ir transpc
istrator o
d S
CSS
" O
^<
^e
M H
^s
^»
-" 6
a a
S?3
» "
'w
1
w
+3
O
fi
S
•S
,o
'43
d
L,
go
§«
CO 0>
*d
ti c
o «
-*j n
O 03
«
w w
M d
««
3<
il Aviation Administ]
e a type certificate u
the Federal Aviation
t<
v
?*<
ffi O
1 >><•-<
2^ °
a§2
Si?
SSI
aircraft e
; affects s
m charac
§!l
t. OJ 0
as 'a
S|8
- S1 ><
*> P. 0
^3 rt
§sl
is o
<"£" ri
>l^J 0
S R-0
d M4 -f^
W3
tlficate
S
a
>>
+j
ri
t>
3
M
M
CQ
0
fl
J3
+j"
S
O
^
"3
>>
£5
c3
<4H
O
>1 '
^
(U — .
+> d
OS -t^
bCS
3§
(U
ssuanc

ply all of the standa
e Administrator of the
S1*
d -^>
3tion Agency prior to
such certificates.
4) >
nforce an
±>
aircraf
t»
C
d
o
i!
CO
c
ereof may adopt or e
;pecting noise emisslo:
engine thereof.
a
aj t<
£ 0
                          .s|E§00^^.SS'2§^S-§5sg,-43

                          sr:sss8ii?8iiff«S5fl!ia
                          lii^s^"!^!^!^!!!
                                »

                               :)
                               +:)^-iWr;

                                Miipl^l

                                i?si :i^l
                                J5!aif«Jii

                                 iip^?i
                                 - i5 ^ flv, §55
                                  dcnoeoNSS
 w > „ -a is i
      •a i:
          & & K
  •<*-aS.
            ;^"So

             • 13 3
U§o«|
 •> •» -g a B
   2 MS-H

 13stf2

ii«r^iisi^
  ^, r!J3t^Sa?'S

          fa OJ
           «do|^^
      •gl^H^?

      §S So^s
       s«-Cw to ^
          ^H
      5-a g
      5£fc M K-
      a..s|
        d S^ o

        .*> S
            d «5 SwS1
   -
   g to
           23<6-'§S»':S9SSoS


      3f^a Co«oS«e«g§S^S-g»  ~
      ^t;SiUd'SS5d- « & S V-i'c'Ocd
      dd-^bDdSiKjjn"
      S a.2 < S 8 « d S
          ^s&..
           3 i! °
           03 - "^

                     03 K  W O
-------
 2636
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I

HI
                  &ss«.itiii£fs5i!is
                'ij Hulls** 8i"si""i i^l**
                oSSdflC^ar.i t-i  3 n>,ddSPesfl. s»Ro
      'SoaS^MSsa^-  =5   2"2§ scs-g^g,
      -lj|i|K|3  i|«!i|i|:iii|.;|:
                                    "* v 3 L- « ° *
                              «"«*I*IM>||
                          s^!ll!I!;lll|llss
                          ii ^ >-£o.v»C!"«dm?BAio»i
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2637

              MliflllUi
               ^OojbcKSm^CaJ
525-314 O - 73 - 21
-------
2638
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                            gdjfl>»Oir2fl>fl)>»Oj3l'O1 '>»

                            i!aiMSSa;|ijiiii

                            s!*;rfs|aMja!»!

                              aJ"|l!l«Isajsfl^!
                                         M rt  0> V
                                         °-agsi
                                       -2fi§|*


                                       lg§5«a
                                       ri V .r i«	. .•»
                                   *?
                                   p
                                   o-S
                                   8J|
                                   
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                 2639
&i!ilK!«KUHH;!*..




I^^^S-SrttS^a^j^o&SsSSSfi
               §§
                s
               II
§§s*
S&§^s
«fl5SS
 «i°
§-3fl >f J?^:
•^unifl'
                 §VH

                 O
-------
  2640
        LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                 s«>i!:pi5f£|2i:
                 &»ll!lE3Sf fISSS
     ? 1) jrt

     !3§


     !»"
     lg&
 S >S
o 3 tQ &

 f, i*

r°g
> -P --5
> «e -^

 3»
 60 jg
    |5



    *S
1l|iS6Ilflll6l4Sa
'S S «

 ^"''"Iflltii
         •p
   ^^0,2

R,»^a.'
        «a

        o,S
 i:  ss

 u   >» d
 £S  rtS-

|Sil .-§

 li^l
 ^g.3sl
,Ssa g
:!-!8§
55 STJ
"fll-
§.11B -
Mhi
-If -a

If 5f

•3251?

Ills
           S S -a
          >>« is o

           -
                      a§5lagsg^^§ss;
                      «to*3Ra>a3c  35aSS
-g'^gpssgas
iliir--8*5
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2641
                     «Sw
                    lass

                    Irtf
                                      §«L0

                                    *fsH
                                    fl) 3 £ ^ ?
                                    J3 &D o -P oo
                                    H£|°S

                                    "Sg-S
                                      o «w fl> fe
                                      a ox! S
-------
2642
   LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                       II!!!.li
                IB!*!*"
                  S^S^^ogS

                  ^ass^a^g
         33.S *§3s§slls~
            liail^§
                               Hills-Is
                                   •g c<
                                  a S S_
                                 ^ 3 d. & a
                                 »•««> s

                                 '  5 ft


                                 MjH

                                 1:1^
                                 -^ « 13 ^ CJ
                                 PfitsM O'
                                 ~S5~3
                                  S< s.
    g>SSiAaS^fi2H55isa5^S
          'SIJp^sl^Sl
          as«i3sp--flo 5a^
           A
                 ^lU
         c"S
as:
              1111
                §.|-§?s| ?i
                (HO^^-iCclvt^ £^»p,Sp5>5ag

s&jj»§s*3«5fa3s'js92
l-!lll>-'a!g,i§^isS
               a 'S M S ^ S
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                          2643
        !!!!!!
           1 ^3 4^
   s - ii Ti  "— ** " a> *~* *^ b Q-
   L-gss-§aSass=«
    rg^scs|«"S||S

   l4»!Us!»!i?!8
                !H   3 %™*> O -^ j^ {S O 0 Q

                §   SeoSo«rtS§fl.q'+3o   s2t*"c?




                -  g S* g^lg ™ c~ iS^S a?"  SSijO

                S  S^S'^f>^S§l^£'^'"S-  ° .<" t> 8
                                  I^il
                                  *«s!
                                  So^,"
                                  g§S°
                I c«^a^1 o^a^g ob'-gS  |?^|

                "j|ll^ilj!||||i|||ll
                  :£*»••< cic-hH'5?^. ^'Wt«Orta)Q)C)«»:">
                                 •<3 cS « a) «TS Jf   IS*
                                 •p*»X3gSS  ~K33
                                  M.;,L)raCo  i-H  «t_.
             g'S
             ™
                  ST iqjinQj.'-^ajUQiQit'^aiQ}
                  ! 5 § S S « 2-5 ° « * a Z.° Q
                      5 ° h,
                      fii.S:
                       mil'-1""-
                           ^§SSl|
R fti "K3uw"3BK
SSoMCaiiMP.,,.-,'-1
PgSas«2am>^°
                    ;  X w C co
J;as0ass
i *S »•*. .* .-« n 73 p
       ?^S§s
-------
 2644
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
           s^jSJex
           ••>-«. 
  H  S B ~« '  ^2
  f  iss^^ «
  &  o'Qfrd d S
u
rwi
av
e
ned by the
.
uct t
sectio
(1)
make
and
deter
acted
Act.
 °<|of
 C8 IB & M 1o
 ^ss°s
 P&II
 |?|s;
 K«S g o
 a a ° § «>
 »lisi
 ^-^  W tfl In
• W >» . 4J
 lill
e p
oth
rer
or.
obtai
r
tu
rat
n
records, and
(3) to the extent requi
of the Administrator, mak
off the assembly line o
hands of the manufact
testing by the Administr
(b) (1) All informatio
Administrator or his representatives pursu
to subsection (a) of this section, which
ation contains or relates to a trade se
10 ^ «M fj t-« i QJ i
§1SI°2S§
sHail8^
l?P§"si
^?^s!§
aS^ISi&
s^3filfl&
 ™-» —« -*J *^ to 2 °5

«IK  il
r
h
o
w
tia
ro
or othe matt
of title 18 of
be considered c
that section, e
may be disclose
employees, in
main confide
matter in con
                                              ail
                                             is-3
                                             JsSS
                                             s«p
                                            i i-a c-3
                                            J- 
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                         2645

  &s:iMli8!^i!rsi
S*»SI3*?l3i^«S;a
p
lfi
:§§
 3j!s'1sia*sT>s|S>1gs:
Bi3&Iiii*i323sSli:
                   22
                      ,'O 2 
-------
 2646
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
        ll^siss&^sg^sI
        !5ss*s&i»3:.ss&93._§
        siss8.si*..3s*S8Ssis
        SlSSfuSllihaliSl.'


                                   *
                                     filling
* O vi
~*1 ?\ H -trfft. ft. 4::.flj[3  K *—* p*i
      a a-d S cs . <
                       3X!P
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY    2647
^ ji p-i flj i  - 43 JH i * i 03 ^ W 0> +* IQ   ** I fl) I -rt fi I I rt I fl> 1 ItOtt i •»
* P§ppp§;l .ai|i- g««s!!i3issa!33 g,
•o •§s'3§'3S«2'gwcSi '§"„•-'  <  rt_2™s  «„   MJ3  «;
               !i
|a|S|gl|S*||;

                                   jiaiS  Jill

                                         tlfi
                        t* •& *" a &*  ® r* ® 7* ^ r* & & &  ^ojO


3»!i!li!J>iH!>|lH!  'Pril fililisi!  i3!


                                         {! I





+a4^tJ+aOeB«fHOOCUO?^P«t*4SO)C 3 w
                                           °
                                      ftSSl'^l
                         _j»:sas sa°:§  CD  Offl  S
       !&  l3sa§§3aasg§§S5fl «§&as& ssa  ^s!s§5
-------
  2648
     LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
«6 i
2*
g « 
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTOBY
2649
-------
-------
              NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE  HISTORY
                              2651
   1.4a(3)(e)  Oct.  18:  Senate concurred in House amendment, pp.
   S18638-S18646
   NOISE CONTROL  ACT OP 1972

  Mr. TUNNEY.  Mr.  President, I  ask
that  the pending business be tempo-
rarily laid aside so that I may ask the
Chair to lay before the Senate the mes-
sage from the House of Representatives
on H.R. 11021.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FAN-
NIN) laid before the Senate the amend-
ment of the House of Representatives to
the amendment of the  Senate to the bill
(H.R. 11021)  to control the emission of
noise detrimental  to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes, which was
in lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by the Senate amendment, insert:
               SHORT TITLE
  SECTION 1. This Act  may  be cited as the
"Noise Control Act of 1972".
           FINDINGS AND POLICY
  SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds—
  (1) that Inadequately controlled noise pre-
sents  a  growing danger  to  the health and
welfare of the Nation's population., particu-
larly In urban areas;
  (2)  that the major sources of noise include
transportation vehicles and  equipment, ma-
chinery, appliances, and other products in
commerce; and
  (3)  that, while primary responsibility for
control of noise rests with State and local
governments,  Federal action is essential to
deal with major noise sources  In co. imerce
control of which require national uniformity
ot treatment.

  ^b) The Congress declares that it is the pol-
icy  of the  United States to promote an en-
vironment for all Americans free from noise
that Jeopardizes their health or welfare. To
that end, it Is the purpose of this Act to es-
tablish a means for effective coordination of
Federal research and activities  In noise con-
trol, to authorize the establishment of Fed-
eral noise  emission standards,  for products
distributed in commerce, and to provide in-
formation to the public respecting the noise
emission and noise reduction characteristics
of such products.
               DEFINITIONS
  SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:
  (1)  The term "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
  (2)  The terra "person" means an individ-
ual, corporation, partnership, or association,
and (except as provided In sections 11 (e)
and 12(a)) Includes any officer, employee, de-
partment, agency, or Instrumentality of the
                          [p. S18638]
-------
2652
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                                    lisaar&fs&zss



                                   rt^-.-^^SO3rf(DPSc543
                                   0*3 rf to M »S +a M •*» ^ wK+*S
                                        &g.
                                        S33

                                        S^
                                        S Sa
-------
NOISE-—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
    2653
                       >£"'SSftShSsSjaaS
                       £-*"frlOt,|H:S'  S g 3 
-------
 2654      LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
i^8||all|s3|fts|sjgg,
Cl«*si|2&6'»«g2'2£§'lIS

!Mil^PP5MlN^
S*f! 3!!t;&JS*ii5?P3si
            ^WtjrM "«1 W U f*  " "*-t M ^

            •"iS^I^s-Sjfa.gisy
  II!                                11  S
     FiHlSs!!5Il is.UIpIIilifiM!s I!  '
     111!is:i;gi?i^.h^!imiS!Si8^i t!

      ^iIl!!l§MlIi:|lF=p!IIi--slIii «  =o
                                  " « -3 S  S
                                  >« S R
  o



S

           S^3»^g§ S_SS,«-?a§S5a«g3"§SS,gflBg^  g
           T"?? .rKi-« 3eJ_.T^ntii'L ^sRX^S—'^O^rt'-'risaiG-^n^oa  t»


-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                             2655


                                  <  5
                                  < a

                                  im
„] g 'a H s
o :3 c ri a*
g 2 5 ° S
ag< S S
K r-l  O

£jif
       Klip
5 P- 3 f I


2JU«
S2^S
       o cl
         S'^b
           ,'SS
^ S-O S
«S£S
    O  r-l S .
««|i-^
S%«B-§1
g.o|rt esS
§ S «! 3 ~
SS<^.2^
•HS.fcgg"
  G) O to ,C
 S^S'OS
 «sr§:§
 i§°»«'
 3S§o§«gg-

 sllsiSlf
  ^ft nrA
               !«5
  ., - C8 60
  O £<
      : h a c! o
        ^ 2 o a t
        ?
              »-• S«g§

             iKfiU&^olS

             i£Sgg'SS5§
                        KB .3
35
                               13 5
                              - a ^P?
                            a -a " B &
                            &D V  -^ rj

                            lips

                             !pl
                            S a-S^ 8
                            •s-a ^gn
                            ««ll§
                            g-lps

                            Sl|s§
                         ^"fi bofl cS*.
                       •VJfliS'O^^OS O
                       3£|2§SSS3S

                        *ftM!-lf

                           ll^I
                          - 3 3 ^m a;
                     ^VJ».N r^*3£S W«^43
                     s  '*^b56c5e8rt"M"-'^w
                     fn«H PO-fltJd-C  ^C
                     ci O o A « 4^ S o  ^ o
-------
 2656
LEGAL  COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
            a   ah « & o §
                      •" S °
                      o w rH
                      0 IH


                     il5
                     *«
             l*°ia:^§
             o &S SedS o 2".
                j  g 3  s a
                           itos^g,?!;^*

                                         t» ^ OS


tj JJ t,
ss|^- -3
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2657
according to their terms until modified,
terminated, superseded, set aside, or repealed
by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration in the exercise of any au-
thority vested in him, by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
LABELING
SEC. 8. (a) The Administrator shall by
regulation designate any product (or class
thereof) —
(1) which emits noise capable of adversely
affecting the public health or welfare; or
(2) which is sold wholly or in part on the
basis of its effectiveness in reducing noisa
(b) For each product (or class thereof)
designated under subsection (a) the Admin-
istrator shall by regulation require that no-
tice be given to the prospective user of the
level of the noise the product emits, or of its
effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case
may be. Such regulations shall specify (1)
whether such notice shall be afflxed to the
product or to the outside of its container,
or to both, at the time of its sale to the
ultimate purchaser or whether such notice
shall be given to the prospective user in some
other manner, (2) the form of the notice,
and (3) the methods and units of measure-
ment to be used. Sections 6(c) (2) shall ap-
ply to the prescribing of any regulation under
this section.
(c) This section does not prevent any State
or political subdivision thereof from regulat-
ing product labeling or information respect-
ing products in any way not in conflict with
regulations prescribed by the Administrator
under this section.
IMPORTS
SEC. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury shall,
In consultation with the Administrator, issue
regulations to carry out the provisions of this
Act with respect to new products imported
or offered for Importation.
-------
 2658
           LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
» (S O t I O W -^ iriOJi^iflJOtaiOfl-pO) h -rt i -P
la§Sl||g s|ssSl|31«slia slsg

                        Si r
jiiie
                    la-s ^iss
a *
IE
is
  10
  «g
            is|pii!|!i in i n
                        1 1 f 1!
            gaS§fl«lS8flS S§5 I &*
                            QL flj  «^  W •
                            S|"""l|
                            gg§»B?5
                            ls|-|^

                            9wl;i
                            fi|H*9«
                            ?M|§I§
                            ^  aS-sSfe
                              o aa 5 u

           8l3sl
           fifjf

           *3Nf

           il*3s
           3" MOB
           o1? fl I °
           S St au
           oS ? t- S
           ra 3 o O O.
     W
    «j i


   ,.*J
     i
     ,-i
 &£•*«5js o$»3
 = s^sSosg."
 gao^s^ila
 las si § *« *:
 •sp2*&3f
 gflg«2gSa«
§^Sfli2S^Sgfi
*«-fl-J3««|§?
       sis
                 ^^ 1

                 O C D" 13 (3
                «S.3»S|g

                >ljlia»
                J>§BP3^0
•f -^ Ss~«>B-2S>« B

          «!Sp,
          lg3Sm<-
          ™ (H m ® flj
          »• S| §S^3
          "O ^ B -,  -^ ^
 iS H !
 S*1 *^ -^~- »M W ^-«. i-i *"^.O ^J '""^ fl) f~* *
_ 2 £ - 0 3 «•§ < „ -B-S O „ u .
M CS -gS-S 2 dS m mRfi
   &M? 0.^2.

    d d? ' i *2 -t3 •** i
    o§ h s g" &t»

    «^ll°li
    o  o " ^* "*1 M S
    "MS.nKlMj'H
    fl5*-s1,i*'«
    -•dt.35Ma!>,
    oS£Ma2.gg
    ^j OJ in  w Q, « d

    111  §  S

    g§g-"|°&
    » p I §"S  -a «
    2»?Si£Bg
     ^3 o * X  fl ^

     9odSsl^
    ,«?|3|l8

     o>S«s-°a
    j. rt TJ s* a" '

    SsS
            o +* "^ "oi
          silsil

          Is^ls
          ssso|S
          •!:!*oi
          j=i|§l
          pi^:
          Sl«:i|
          X Q> - 4)  P
          - m w •-( w o
          Hi;afl
           :-tI|°
          .ss-gSa
          Pl1^
          5idisa»
                                        ,11
                                        i ^ rn
                                   .» £H to

                            S"g2Sg^»a«5«

                            JS|Sl|2|g*I|
                            rt "J.C^H'"i ** V L. -* *«
                            3 c3 S Ad
                                    350.5- 5gs
                                         35bg«
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY    2659
 a
•°£.2 gjgf
•^ fl •*•* H* ° t£         _  ..                     ._,.

Ifi !iS|f|?|itPIllP*!f!!ii! I?H|i^giipI
 -« Sft^^&§§+i^3|-Sop«§^i>.l:S|||55 Is^l^Hg 5*S|S§
              lloS &S SO^ ^"iS iS ..» M-S 3 92 « « 1=8 &5 .°«5«



                                        li
-------
 2660
            LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
                               s|||8-;8
                               '?iniiii!3K*(if
                                   .*PpI

                                   mini
                                   S'lg1 sill's
                                   S"!2**!
                                   g (S3 S>t>0«J^
                                   '"oSgSS5
                                   'oS K a p a
                                   •e  M ff-fi o o
                                   t|3S*I!
                                   :SlfS§§|
                                       gli^s
                                       0 rt S o>ra
                                          !fi:I
                                          0  » 2 fe
                                          °I5!§
                                          •sBSS-s
                                          la^l
                                          gg2
      & O ^ L, B -^
      p||^

    ,3? •gS'§«&
    '  jS-Ssg

  ;«8SI!ltll
   S*35* 3«fl

  -gse^lilV.
   °c-go3 SteS
   M a! P-S w C.SH3
; o-".
                  852
             fegSS^.0«  -
             Ils53:l|i
            ib^Mi
             S9fiS«i§li«
              lisssl?8!
              !"«ru§'s
              >S5
 S.S"-E$ -
ss-gSftjjdaoo^,
6'g,Is^ilfli^'g^
 Sls^g*:^*!!:
 ;lssstii&fsi
Ow «t-^  S
                                   ss§
                                   ^»g
                                IS
                                1?
                g£
                & 01 '
                 /2-
       •o-a"^*
      J|3«!?
«^-S
o? o S
 3
JiH
•»«
I|S«fl38
a o 3 n „. „ -
•S o to a £ csifl
         o o "M 3 « S ;
         « ,,- 2 2 -3 * S
         5§§s|>.|-
         flSS8?!*-*- «
         So^pa aST
         «> a ° s a % » 5 S
         S«1?Sl|*«I
         M9g|s?8§SSA

         *8S^9iI8|
         lalgSIlSal1

         a-Sfl?
                     MTJ OT3
                     g <+3 a
                     •H  o O

                     -ss?
                     a g 5 c8
              31*
                                . 'o'
                                .0 3.
                  a«c
                                      ® « S« a
gl=5aag£,j
  o
•S"S'
43 B i
-------
         NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
             2661

                                         tf
-------
  2662
             LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
                            .

                                          •w rt  .(-.. 0) O °


                                          g-slllll
                                          ao'ggcg
                                           . S  S 

                                              1^

                                               es "^

    SrtS*JS^«

    «°-gs '
    S >> 6D-.5 a  ±:
    S-gaSagg
    3 5 3 s <" 'S «
    g^s-S-ac^
    ^ os^ "* a M g


    ; T3 •§ M « c3 ^w "g
    *3j a c.j a ^ "5? Si
    iSiSgSsg,

    ; p G3 g 2
 i 3
  o
    s
                       •a
                       ) O
                            Sm QI -
O I)

0
o
ja o>

"o S

•s«
J|S
IS
    o
    o
°  P

olM
W-SiX
&-:£
           sl!li§51s;ilt§3s-
          'I^g3|5|||.s|^g^^|
                                     3 H i


                                     §|

                                     IM f<"
        fc. 0^-"
        Oo^o

         d O1*"1

        s^a*
               p^-G g
                    P !>>•!

£•=!

0343

!S^
l3S8il-«fl
• u ii o » P
     SP.
                   w
-------
        NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                                      2663
    s-t I *> rj O ' 41 "
    .gJ/3 2-^.25?

    lisSS
  §i*g^i^ris£.2**i3i86.gs.ss£g:t


                                    sps3
                                    *> ft O M«
TJ ' '
                              i to i i >s 41 i fl o £ *O
                              41 os -o a £& a S +» S o>
                              ISfiSS-ifaSf
                      h g 5 g «8
                     ^> o ^H S S
                     338.13s
                         2§«

                       •^||2
                         ^3 -t-s w
                       O O &o c3 3
                          ^
 IlSlfilpI
 I! 111*15
     ^"^•3

?aSIISlI
 «il«
aajii!SH*!lWS
                   l
                  a »

     SS-BlllS

	^Ilgg^S
w55
-------
2664
           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
    0) W I O
    _M C! O,'-*

         rj-sps
                                  w c i -a w •» o> i
                                   03 §3 " !z S
                                         a I


                       i^iiwij.
                       '<2g2s'ei
                      *5^§*5lg^3

                  Flfilllilfi
                  sstfll«**is>,
                   v  /3 Jn C i!
                          o*"-a -T3
                        yy* — ao^K
                        IftSls.b's^
                         5fl
                     « wcs- S&'3«|
                        S.SBS«S
                                WM-P 0> !
                                ISM
                                wl^:
                                        ; r3 o rj a> i

                                        !!iil.B
      <-i^|^5^
           •ggaWS

           ^.s|-a

            ||«S
            03 
          _ ra jS < CJ *"H  f.  H^
                    i g a  g  §,<  . S "S'g:

                    ,'3 -s..n..2.5j oufc •§•§§.
                    'O1 S*343->;'_*:>'3t>c3
sS'3aS§>sg§^i
-------
          NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2665
                             „',-2"S i ix'S-S '  ri'di,
                                             S^fli

                                           a ails'
                                           03 TO P {? ^S
  9
  CO
-------
2666           LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT  I
                 Administrator will have an opportunity
                 to assure that the best which  can be
                 done is done, while at the same time
                 pushing  the  limits of  technology to
                 achieve greater  noise  emission  control
                 results protective of public  health  and
                 welfare.
                   Mr.  President, the funds authorized
                 by the House amendment for the ad-
                 ministration of this legislation are less
                 than those contained in the Senate bill.
                 Agreement to  this reduction was neces-
                 sary.  However, authorizations in  later
                 years can be increased if conditions so
                 require.
                   In  conclusion,  Mr.  President,  the
                 House  amendment now before  us retains
                 the essential features of the Senate bill,
                 and  retains the strong features of the
                 legislation  overwhelmingly  passed  by
                 the Senate on October 13, 1972.
                   Mr.  President, I move that the Sen-
                 ate concur  in the amendment of the
                 House  of Representatives.
                   The  motion was agreed to.
                                          [p. S18646]
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1973 O- 525-314
-------
-------
-------
U.S.  Environmental Protection  A£c~rv~,y
Region V, Library
230  South Dearborn  Street  .
Chicago, Illinois  60604
-------
-------