THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
\
ai
O
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
S7>
JJ
\
\
ui
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Rfi^on V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Xl,,^^'
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402 - Price $17.80 Per Set of Five Vols. (Sold in Seta Only)
Stock Number 5500-0064
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that once
the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can generate.
Environmentally, the fire has been lit!
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public concern-
ing the environment, we are experiencing a new American Revolution,
a revolution in our way of life. The era which began with the industrial
revolution is over and things will never be quite the same again. We
are moving slowly, perhaps even grudgingly at times, but inexorably
into an age when social, spiritual and aesthetic values will be prized
more than production and consumption. We have reached a point
where we must balance civilization and nature through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new ethic.
It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due regard is
given to the environmental consequences of actions by public and
private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompasses
basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing standards;
monitoring; and making delicate risks-benefit decisions aimed at
creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a shield
behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The greatest disser-
vice the Environmental Protection Agency could do to American
industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment would suffer,
public trust would diminish, and instead of free enterprise, environ-
mental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise and
well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent to regu-
latory activities, accepted agency actions as being for the "public
convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism make it
essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-founded but
that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not faith, is de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings, the
citizen should have access to the information available to the agency.
EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information,
without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any interested party. With
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal Authority was produced
not only for internal operations of EPA, but as a service to the public,
as we strive together to lead the way, through the law, to preserving
the earth as a place both habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were
cited in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, re-
quested that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched and
published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a working
document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a research
tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has been established
to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome task
of developing a better environment.
LANE WAED GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of EPA
was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus, Ad-
ministrator of EPA. The production of this compilation involved the
cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both within and outside
the Agency. The departmental libraries at Justice and Interior were
used extensively; therefore we express our appreciation to Marvin
P. Hogan, Librarian, Department of Justice; Arley E. Long, Land &
Natural Resources Division Librarian, Department of Justice;
Frederic E. Murray, Assistant Director, Library Services, Department
of the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to:
Gary Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently Direc-
tor, Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this project;
A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K. Kirke Harper, Jr.,
Special Assistant for Executive Communications; John Dezzutti,
Administrative Assistant, Office of Executive Communications;
Roland 0. Sorensen, Chief, Printing Management Branch, and
Jacqueline Gouge and Thomas Green, Printing Management Staff;
Ruth Simpkins, Janis Collier, Wm. Lee Rawls, Peter J. McKenna,
James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy Mott, Thomas H. Rawls,
John D. Whittaker, Linda L. Payne, John M. Himmelberg, and
Dana W. Smith, a beautiful staff who gave unlimited effort; and to
many others behind the scenes who rendered varied assistance.
LANE WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VI
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the legal
authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
operates. These documents are for the general use of personnel of the
EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set out by the Presi-
dent in creating the Agency. This work is not intended and should
not be used for legal citations or any use other than as reference of a
general nature. The author disclaims all responsibility for liabilities
growing out of the use of these materials contrary to their intended
purpose. Moreover, it should be noted that portions of the Con-
gressional Record from the 92nd Congress were extracted from the
"unofficial" daily version and are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legisla-
tive history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Reports.
To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal Compilation
is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
AIR
The chapter labeled "Air," and color coded light blue, contains the
legal authority of the Agency directly related to air pollution. Several
documents under this title are applicable to other areas of pollution,
and when this occurs, a reference is made back to "General" where
the full text appears. This method is used in order that the documents
are not needlessly reproduced in each chapter.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compilation
by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative History
begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system. Thusly, any
l.la, Lib, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws comprising the 1.1,
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legislative history.
The legislative history in each case consists of the House Report,
Senate Report, Conference Report (where applicable), the Congres-
sional Record beginning with the time the bill was reported from
committee.
Example:
1.1 Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970).
l.la Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955, P.L. 84-159, 69 Stat. 322.
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 389, 84th Cong.,
1st Sess. (1955).
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H.R. REP.
No. 968, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955).
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (1955):
(a) May 31: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7248-7250;
(b) July 5: Amended and passed House, pp. 9923-9925;
(c) July 6: Senate concurs in House amendment, pp. 9984-9985.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legislative
history, but indicates the procedure where only one section of a public
law appears. You will note that the Congressional Record cited pages
are only those pages dealing with the discussion and/or action taken
pertinent to the section of law applicable to EPA. In the event there
is no discussion of the pertinent section, only action or passage, then
the asterisk (*) is used to so indicate, and no text is reprinted in the
Compilation. In regard to the situation where only one section of a
public law is applicable, then only the parts of the report dealing with
same are printed in the Compilation.
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than have
this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary statutes
have been included where practical. These secondary statutes are
indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a bracketed cite
to the particular section of the major act which made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used through-
out the Statute section of the compilation.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
IX
Statute
Source
1.1 The Clean Air Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970).
1.2 Public Contracts, Advertisements
for Proposals for Purchases and
Contracts for Supplies or Services
for Government Departments;
Application to Government Sales
and Contracts to Sell and to
Government Corporations, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.3 Advances of Public Moneys,
Prohibition Against, as revised,
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946).
1.4 Contracts: Acquisition, Construc-
tion or Furnishing of Test Facilities
and Equipment, as amended, 10
U.S.C. §2353 (1956).
1.5 Record on Review and Enforcement
of Agency Orders, as amended,
28 U.S.C. §2112 (1966).
1.6 Disclosure of Confidential Informa-
tion Generally, as amended, 18
U.S.C. §1905
1.7 Per Diem, Travel and Transporta-
tion Expenses; Experts and Con-
sultants; Individuals Serving With-
out Pay, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
§5703 (1969).
1.8 Highway Safety Act of 1966, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §402 (1970).
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended,
5 U.S.C. §§5305, 5332 (1970).
1.10 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
as amended, 49 U.S.C. §1301 et seq.
(1970).
1.11 Department of Transportation Act,
as amended, 49 U.S.C. §1651
et seq. (1968).
1.12 The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4332(2) (c)
(1970).
1.13 The Public Health Service Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243,
246 (1970).
1.14 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5 (1964).
1.15 Reorganization Plan No. 14 of
1950, 64 Stat. 1267 (1950).
Directly transferred to EPA in Reorg.
Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857b-l(a)(2)(D).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857b-l(a)(2)(D).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857b-(a)(2)(D).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§ §1857c-5(f) (2) (B), 1857f-5(b) (2) (B) (ii).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857c-9(c), 1857d(j)(l), 1857f-6(b),
1857h-5(a)(l).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857d(i), 1857e(e), 1857f-6e(b)(2).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857f-6b(2).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857f-6e(b)(3)(A).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§§1857f-10(a), (b), 1857f-12.
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857f-10(b).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857h-7(a).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857i(b).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857j-3.
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857j-3.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.16 Regulations Governing Contractors
and Subcontractors, as amended,
40 U.S.C. §276c (1958).
1.17 Federal Aid Highway Act, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h), (j)
(1970).
1.18 Airport and Airway Development
Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§§1712(f), 1716(c)(4), (e)(1970).
1.19 Amortization of Pollution Control
Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969).
1.20 Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§103 (1969).
Referred to in the Clean Air Act at
§1857j-3.
Direct reference in Act to EPA and air
pollution at §109(h), (i), (j).
Direct reference in Act to air pollution
at §§1712(f), 1716(e)(l).
§169d(l)(B) makes direct reference to
the Clean Air Act.
At §103 (c) (4) (F) industrial development
bonds are exempt from taxes on air
pollution control facilities.
Executive Orbers
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to more
than one area of the pollution chapters.
Regulations
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2, etc.).
Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which the Agency
has direct contact.
Guidelines and Reports
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.). In
this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of EPA,
published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than EPA's and
inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency dis-
tribution and made available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA Legal
Compilation.
-------
CONTENTS
B. Air
VOLUME I
Page
1. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1.1 Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970) 1
l.la Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955, P.L. 84-159, 69 Stat.
322 81
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
389, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) 83
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 968, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1955) 93
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 101 (1955):
(a) May 31: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
7248-7250 104
(b) July 5: Amended and passed House, pp. 9923-
9925 106
(c) July 6: Senate concurs in House amendment,
pp. 9984-9985 110
l.lb Extension of §5-a of Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955,
September 22, 1959, P.L. 86-365, 73 Stat. 646 114
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 960, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959) 115
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
182, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 123
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1187,
86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 136
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959):
(a) Sept. 1: Passed House, pp. 17584-17586 140
(b) Sept. 9: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
18733-18734 144
(c) Sept. 10, 11: House and Senate ask for con-
ference, pp. 18997, 19046 146
(d) Sept. 14: House and Senate agree to conference
report, pp. 19704-19705, 19434-19435 146
l.lc Motor Vehicle Exhaust Study Act of June 8, 1960,
P.L. 86-493, 74 Stat. 1625 153
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 814, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1959) 154
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 1410, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960) 171
xi
-------
xii CONTENTS
Page
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 105 (1959), Aug. 17: Passed House, pp.
16074-16080 176
(b) Vol. 106 (1960), May 26: Passed Senate, p.
11209 191
l.ld Amendment of Act of July 14, 1955, October 9, 1962,
P.L. 87-761, 76 Stat. 760 192
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1083, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 193
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 2265, 87th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1962) 199
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 107 (1961), Sept. 20: Passed Senate, pp.
20417-20418 220
(b) Vol. 108 (1962), Sept. 17: Amended and passed
House, pp. 19658-19661 223
(c) Vol. 108 (1962), Sept. 26: Senate concurs in
House amendments, pp. 20802-20803 232
l.le The Clean Air Act, December 17, 1963, P.L. 88-206,
77 Stat. 392 235
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 508, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1963) 247
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
638, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 277
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1003,
88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 295
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 109 (1963):
(a) July 24: Considered and passed House, pp.
13273-13281; 13283-13285 305
(b) Nov. 19: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. 22321-22326; 22329-22331 328
(c) Dec. 10: House and Senate agree to conference
report, pp. 23954; 23959-23966; 21083-21085._ 344
l.lf Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, and Solid
Waste Disposal Act, October 20, 1955, P.L. 89-272,
79 Stat. 992 364
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
192, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) 377
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 899, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1965) 410
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) May 18: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
10779; 10782-10783 431
(b) Sept. 23: Considered in House, pp. 24941-
24943 434
(c) Sept. 24: Considered and passed House,
amended, pp. 25049-25059; 25061-25065;
25072 436
-------
CONTENTS xiii
Pai/e
(d) Oct. 1: Senate concurred in House amendments,
pp. 25847; 25850-25851 471
l.lg Clean Air Amendments of 1966, October 15, 1966, P.L.
89-675, 80 Stat. 954 473
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1361, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 475
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 2170, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1966) 493
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2256,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 514
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) July 11: Considered in Senate, p. 15169 517
(b) July 12: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
15248-15262 518
(c) Oct. 3: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. 24853-24855 549
(d) Oct. 13: House agreed to conference report, p.
26596 555
(e) Oct. 14: Senate agreed to conference report,
p. 26808-26809 557
l.lh Air Quality Act of 1967, November 21, 1967, P.L.
90-148, 81 Stat. 485 560
VOLUME II
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
403, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 593
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1967) 703
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 916,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 834
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) July 18: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
19164, 19171-19186 839
(b) Nov. 2: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. 30939-30963; 30975-30981; 30988-30989;
30999 872
(c) Nov. 9: Senate rejected House amendments,
pp. 32072-32073; 32079 965
(d) Nov. 13: House insisted on amendments and
agreed to conference, p. 32213 965
(e) Nov. 14: Senate and House adopted conference
report, pp. 32475-32479 966
l.li Authorization for Fuel and Vehicle Research, 1969,
December 5, 1969, P.L. 91-137, 83 Stat. 283 973
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-286, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 973
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-349, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969) 990
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-690,
91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969) 997
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) July 8: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
18540-18541; 18544 1000
(b) Sept. 3, 4: Considered and passed House,
amended, pp. 24005-24006; 24356-24372;
24374-24378 1003
(c) Nov. 25: House and Senate agreed to conference
report, pp. 35640; 35805-35807 1050
l.lj Extension of Clean Air Act, July 10, 1970, P.L. 91-316,
84 Stat. 416 1054
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-941, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1054
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) June 25: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
21363-21364 1056
(b) June 30: Considered and passed House, p.
22095 1056
l.lk Clean Air Amendments of 1970, December 31, 1970,
P.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676 1057
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 1115
VOLUME III
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1189
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1783,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1367
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) June 10: Considered and passed House, pp.
19200-19244 1391
(b) Sept. 21, 22: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. 32837; 32900-32928; 33072-
33121 1493
(c) Dec. 18: Senate and House agreed to conference
report, pp. 42381-42395; 42519-42524 1672
(5) The President's Remarks Upon Signing the Bill into
Law, Dec. 31, 1970, Weekly Compilation of Presi-
dential Documents, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 4, 1971
(p. 11) 1717
1.11 Technical Amendments to the Clean Air Act, November
18, 1971, P.L. 92-157, §302, 85 Stat. 464 1719
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-258, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1971) 1720
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 92-251, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 1720
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-578,
92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 1720
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) July 1: Considered and passed House; * 1721
(b) July 14: Considered and passed Senate, amended
in lieu of S. 934; * 1721
(c) Oct. 19: Senate agreed to conference report; *__ 1721
(d) Nov. 9: House agreed to conference report. *.. 1721
1.2 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Purchases
and Contracts for Supplies or Supplies for Government Depart-
ments; Application to Government Sales and Contracts to Sell
and to Government Corporations, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5
(1958). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a)(2)(D)]. (See,
"General 1.14" for legislative history). 1721
1.3 Advances of Public Moneys, Prohibition Against, as revised,
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-
l(a)(2)(D) 1722
1.3a Advances of Public Moneys; Prohibition Against, August
2, 1946, R.S. §3648, §11, 60 Stat. 809 1722
1.3b E.O. 10410, Specification of Laws From Which the
Escapee Program Administered by the Department of
State Shall be Exempt, November 14, 1952, 17 Fed.
Reg. 10495 1723
1.3c E.O. 11223, Relating to the Performance of Functions
Authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
May 12, 1965, 30 Fed. Reg. 6635 1723
1.4 Contracts: Acquisition, Construction or Furnishing of Test
Facilities and Equipment, as amended, 10 U.S.C. §2353 (1956).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857b-l(a)(2)(D)] 1726
1.4a Act of July 16, 1952, P.L. 82-557, 66 Stat. 725 1726
(1) House Committee on Armed Services, H.R. REP.
No. 548, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) 1730
(2) Senate Committee on Armed Services, S. REP. No.
936, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) 1743
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 97 (1951), Oct. 19: Objected to in Senate,
p. 13530 1755
(b) Vol. 98 (1952), July 3: Passed Senate, pp.
9053-9054 1756
(c) Vol. 98 (1952), July 4: Passed House, pp.
9374-9375 1757
1.4b An Act to Revise, Codify and Enact Into Law Title X
of the United States Code, August 10, 1956, §2353,
70AStat. 149 1759
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
970, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) 1760
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Pages
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
2484, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 1761
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 101 (1955), Aug. 1: Amended and passed
House, p. 12719 1762
(b) Vol. 102 (1956), July 23: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 13953 1762
(c) Vol. 102 (1956), July 25: House concurs in
Senate amendment, p. 14455 1762
1.5 Record on Review and Enforcement of Agency Orders, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §2112 (1966). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C.
§§1857c-5(f)(2)(B), 1857f-5(b)(2)(B)(ii)] 1763
1.5a Record on Review and Enforcement of Agency Orders,
August 28, 1958, P.L. 85-791, §2, 72 Stat. 941 1765
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
842, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 1768
VOLUME IV
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
2129, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 1777
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 103 (1957), Aug. 5: Amended and passed
House, pp. 13617-13618 1802
(b) Vol. 104 (1958), Aug. 14: Passed Senate, p.
17537 1804
1.5b Rules of Civil Procedure, November 6, 1966, P.L.
89-773, §5(a), (b), 80 Stat. 1323 1804
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
1406, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1805
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
2153, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1814
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) July 27: Passed Senate, p. 17306 1824
(b) Oct. 20: Passed House, p. 28141 1825
1.6 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as amended,
18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857c-9(c),
1857d(j)(l), 1857f-6(b), 1857h-5(a)(l)]. (See, "General 1.16a-
1.16a(3)(d)" for legislative history) 1828
1.7 Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as amended,
5 U.S.C. §5703 (1969). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857(d)(i),
1857e(e), 1857f-6e(b)(2)]. (See, "General 1.15a-1.15b(3)(c)"
for legislative history). 1828
1.8 Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §402
(1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-6b(2)] 1829
1.8a Highway Safety Act of 1966, September 9, 1966, P.L.
89-564, Title I, §101, 80 Stat. 731 1832
-------
CONTENTS xvii
Page
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1302, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1838
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 1700, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 1861
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1920,
89th Cong., 2d Sees. (1966) 1885
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) June 27: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
14936-14938 1898
(b) Aug. 18: Amended and passed House, pp.
19926-19939; 19940-19944 1898
(c) Aug. 31: House agrees to conference report, pp.
21355-21358 1937
(d) Sept. 1: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
21595-21596 1944
1.8b Highway Safety Program, August 23, 1968, P.L. 90-495,
§13, 82 Stat. 822 1946
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
1340, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) 1946
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1584, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) 1950
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1799,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) 1952
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) July 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 19552 1952
(b) July 3: Amended and passed House, p. 19950_ 1952
(c) July 26: House agrees to conference report, p.
23713 1952
(d) July 29: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 24038 1952
1.8c Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, December 31, 1970,
P.L. 91-605, Title II, §§202(c)-(e), 84 Stat. 1740, 1741 __ 1953
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1554, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1954
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1254, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1962
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1780,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 1970
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Considered and passed House, p. 40096_. 1971
(b) Dec. 7: Amended and passed Senate, p. 40095__ 1971
(c) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 42514-42523 1972
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report,
pp. 42714-42723 1979
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§5305, 5332 (1970).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-6e(b)(3)(A)] 2002
1.9a General Schedule, September 6, 1966, P.L. 89-554,
80 Stat. 467 2007
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) 2008
526-704 O - 74 - 2
-------
xviii CONTENTS
Page
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 2010
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. Ill (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p.
22954 2012
(b) Vol. 112 (1966), July 25, 27: Amended and
passed Senate, pp. 17010 2012
(c) Vol. 112 (1966), Sept. 11: House concurred in
Senate amendments, p. 19077 2014
1.9b Registers, Individuals Receiving Compensation,
September 11,1967, P.L. 90-83, §1(18), 81 Stat. 199 2014
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
124, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2015
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
482, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2015
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 3: Amended and passed House, p. 8109_. 2015
(b) Aug. 4: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21414 2016
(c) Aug. 24: House concurs in Senate amendments,
pp. 23904-23905 2016
1.9c Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, Decem-
ber 16, 1967, P.L. 90-206, Title II, §202(a), 81 Stat. 624. 2016
(1) House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
H.R. REP. No. 722, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2016
(2) Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
S. REP. No. 801, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2025
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1013,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 2027
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) Oct. 10, 11: Amended and passed House, pp.
28410, 28412, 28648-28649, 28655 2030
(b) Nov. 28, 29: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
33975, 34013-34014, 34227-34228, 34261 2037
(c) Dec. 11: House recedes from its disagreement to
the Senate amendment, and concurs therein,
with an amendment, p. 35842 2044
(d) Dec. 12: Senate concurs in House amendment to
Senate amendment, pp. 36104 2044
1.9d E.O. 11413, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective July 1,
1969, June 11, 1968, 33 Fed. Reg. 8641 2047
1.9e E.O. 11474, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective July 1,
1969, June 16, 1969, 34 Fed. Reg. 9605 2050
1.9f E.O. 11524, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective First Pay
Period on or After December 27, 1969, April 15, 1970,
35 Fed. Reg. 6247 2053
1.9g E.O. 11576, Adjustment of Pay Rates Effective January
1, 1971, January 8, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 347 2056
1.9h E.O. 11587, Federal Executive Salary Schedule, March
15, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 4973 2059
1.10 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
§1301 et seq. (1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857f-10(a),
(b), 1857f-12] 2060
-------
CONTENTS xix
* Page
l.lOa The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, August 23, 1958,
P.L. 85-726, §§101-701, 72 Stat. 731 2132
(1) Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, S. REP. No. 1811, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1958) 2153
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 2360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1958) 2161
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2556,
85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 2163
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958):
(a) July 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
13621-13636, 13645-13650 2164
(b) Aug. 4: Amended and passed House, p. 16088__ 2179
(c) Aug. 11: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 16887 2179
(d) Aug. 13: House agrees to conference report,
p. 17457 ._, 2179
l.lOb Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, December
29, 1970, P.L. 91-596, §31, 84 Stat. 1619 2179
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
S. REP. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).__ 2180
(2) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R.
REP. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2181
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1765,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2182
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Nov. 17: Amended and passed Senate, p.
37632 2183
(b) Nov. 24: Amended and passed House, p.
H10711 2183
(c) Dec. 16: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
41764 2183
(d) Dec. 17: House agrees to conference report, p.
42209 2183
l.lOc Clean Air Amendments of 1970, December 31, 1970,
P.L. 91-604, §ll(b)(l), 84 Stat. 1705 2183
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1970) 2184
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2186
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1783,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 2190
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) June 10: Considered and passed House, p. 19228_ 2192
(b) Sept. 22: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, p. 33105 2192
(c) Dec. 18: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 42391 2192
(d) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report,
p. 42519 2193
-------
xx CONTENTS
Page
l.lOd Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956,
November 18,1971, P.L. 92-159, §2a, 85 Stat. 481 2193
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-202, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1971) 2194
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-421, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) . 2195
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) May 17: Considered and passed House, pp.
H3973-H3977 2196
(b) Nov. 4: Considered and passed Senate, amended,
p. 517630* 2196
(c) Nov. 5: House concurred in Senate amendments,
p. H10550* 2196
l.lOe Airport and Airway Programs, November 27, 1971,
P.L. 92-174, §§5(b), 6, 85 Stat. 492 2197
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-459, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.
(1971) 2197
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-378, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2197
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-394, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2198
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-624,
92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2198
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) Sept. 22: Considered and passed House* 2198
(b) Oct. 12: Considered and passed Senate,
amended* 2198
(c) Nov. 8: Senate agreed to conference report* 2198
(d) Nov. 16: House agreed to conference report*-_ 2198
l.lOf Noise Control Act of 1972, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-574,
86 Stat. 1234 2198
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972) 2202
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-1160, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 2207
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) Feb. 29: Considered and passed House, pp.
H1508-H1539 2250
(b) Oct. 12: Considered in Senate, pp. S17743-
S17764, S17774-S17785 2278
(c) Oct. 13: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S17988-S18014 2305
(d) Oct. 18: House concurred in Senate amendment,
with an amendment, pp. H10261-H10262,
H10287-H10300 2327
(e) Oct. 18: Senate concurred in House amendment,
pp. S18638-S18646 2330
1.11 Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C.
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
§1651 et seq. (1968). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-10b].
(See, "General 1.5a-1.5c(3)(d)" for legislative history) 2334
1.12 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
§4332(2)(c) (1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857h-7(a)].
(See, "General 1.2a-1.2a(4)(e)" for legislative history) 2334
1.13 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243,
246 (1970). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857i(b)]. (See, "General
1.12a-1.12ae" for legislative history) 2335
1.14 The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5
(1964). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3]. (See, "General
1.13a-1.13h" for legislative history) 2353
1.15 Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267 (1950).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3] ... 2357
1.16 Regulations Governing Contractors and Subcontractors, as
amended, 40 U.S.C. §276c (1958). [Referred to in 42 U.S.C.
§1857j-3] 2357
1.16a Secretaries of Treasury and Labor Shall Make Regula-
tions for Contractors and Subcontractors, June 13, 1934,
P.L. 73-324, §2, 48 Stat. 948 2358
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
803, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) 2358
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1750, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) 2359
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934):
(a) April 26: Passed Senate, p. 7401 2360
(b) June 7: Passed House, p. 10759 2360
1.16b Amendments to Act of June 13, 1934, May 24, 1949, P.L.
81-72, §134, 63 Stat. 108 2360
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949) 2361
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
303, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949) 2362
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 95 (1949):
(a) April 4: Passed House, p. 3819 2364
(b) May 6: Passed Senate, p. 5827 2365
1.16c Amendment of 1958, August 28, 1958, P.L. 85-800, §12,
72 Stat. 967 2365
(1) Senate Committee on Government Operations, S.
REP. No. 2201, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 2365
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1958): 2368
(a) Aug. 14: Passed Senate, p. 17539
(b) Aug. 15: Passed House, p. 17909 2368
VOLUME V
1.17 Federal Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h), (j)
(1970). (See, "General 1.6a-1.6d(4)(f)" for legislative history). 2369
1.18 Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended,
-------
xxii CONTENTS
fage
49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c)(4), (e) (1970). (See, "General
1.7a-1.7a(4)(d)" for legislative history) 2369
1.19 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended,
26 U.S.C. §169 (1969). (See, "General 1.4a-1.4a(5)(c)" for
legislative history) 2369
1.20 Interest on Certain Government Obligations, Int. Rev. Code
of 1954, as amended, §103, 26 U.S.C. §103 (1969). (See,
"General 1.9a-1.9d(4)(dV for legislative history) 2369
1.21 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§1961-1964 2369
1.21a Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act, October
20, 1972, P.L. 92-513, Title III, §301 (b)(2), 302(b)(l),
86 Stat. 960 2372
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
413, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 2375
(2) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 92-1033, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972) 2375
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1476,
92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 2375
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 117 (1971), Nov. 3: Considered and passed
Senate, p. S17570-S17575, S17578-S17591* 2376
(b) Vol. 118 (1972), May 22: Considered and passed
House, amended in lieu of H.R. 11627, p.
H4754-H4755, H4774-H4793* 2376
(c) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 4: House agreed to con-
ference report, p. H9138-H9139* 2376
(d) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 6: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, p. S17175-S17176* 2376
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS
2.1 E.O. 11282, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air Pollu-
tion by Federal Authorities, May 28, 1966, 31 Fed. Reg.
7663 (1966) 2379
2.2 E.O. 11507, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 5,1970, 35 Fed.
Reg. 3573 (1970) 2382
2.3 E.O. 11523, National Industrial Pollution Control Council,
April 9, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 5993 (1970) 2388
2.4 E.O. 11587, Placing Certain Positions in Levels IV and V of the
Federal Executive Salary Schedule, March 15, 1971, 35 Fed.
Reg. 475 (1971) 2389
2.5 E.O. 11602, Providing for Administration of the Clean Air Act
with Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans, June 29,
1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 12475 (1971) 2390
3. REGULATIONS 2395
3.1 Entry of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines Under
Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, Bureau of Customs, 19
C.F.R. §12.73 (1972)
3.2 Grants for Air Pollution Control Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 42 C.F.R. §§456.1-456.45 (1971)
-------
CONTENTS xxiii
3.3 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards Envinnmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§50.1-
50.11 (1971)
3.4 Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§51.1-51.32 (1971)
3.5 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §52 (1972)
3.6 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§60.1-60.85
(1971)
3.7 Prior Notion of Citizen Suits, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§54.1-54.3 (1971)
3.8 Prevention, Control and Abatement of Air Pollution from
Federal Government Activities: Performance Standards and
Techniques of Measurement, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§76.1-76.9 (1971)
3.9 Registration of Fuel Additives, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§79.1-79.31 (1971)
3.10 Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria and Control Techniques,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§81.1-81.114
(1971)
3.11 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicle Engines, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§85.1-85.327 (1972)
4. GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
4.1 Environmental Protection Agency, Reports to Congress as
required by the Clean Air Act 2399
4.la "The Economics of Clean Air," Report to Congress by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, December 1970 2399
4.1b "Progress in the Prevention and Control of Air Pollu-
tion," Report to Congress by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1971 2561
4.1c "Development of Systems to Attain Established Motor
Vehicle and Engine Emission Standards," Report to
Congress by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1971 2587
4.Id "Progress in Prevention and Control of Air Pollution,"
Report to Congress by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, February 1972 2626
4.2 Criteria and Control Techniques Summaries 2640
4.2a Criteria 2640
(1) "Criteria for Carbon Monoxide," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, March 1970 2640
(2) "Criteria for Hydrocarbons," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, March 1970 2651
(3) "Criteria for Particulate Matter," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, January 1969 2658
(4) "Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants," National
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
Air Pollution Control Administration, January
1969 2672
(5) "Criteria for Sulfur Oxides," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, January 1969 2690
(6) "Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides," Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1971 2707
4.2b Control Techniques 2725
(1) "Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide from
Stationary Sources," National Air Pollution Control
Administration, March 1970 2725
(2) "Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide, Nitro-
gen Oxide and Hydrocarbons from Mobile Sources,"
National Air Pollution Control Administration,
March 1970 2727
(3) "Control Techniques for Hydrocarbons and Organic
Solvents from Stationary Sources," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, March 1970 2732
(4) "Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
from Stationary Sources," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, March 1970 2737
(5) "Control Techniques for Particulates," National Air
Pollution Control Administration, January 1969 2744
(6) "Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxides," National
Air Pollution Control Administration, January
1969 2753
4.3 Selected Reports 2759
4.3a Semiannual Report, Prepared by the Committee on
Motor Vehicle Emissions of the National Academy of
Sciences, January 1, 1972 2759
4.4 Interagency Agreements 2822
4.4a Interagency Agreement Between Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2822
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1777
1.5a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 2129, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AUTHORIZING ABBREVIATED RECORDS IN REVIEWING
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY PROCEEDINGS
AUGUST 4,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 6788]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill
(H. R. 6788) to authorize the abbreviation of the record on the
review or enforcement of orders of administrative agencies by the
courts of appeals and the review or enforcement of such orders on
the original papers and to make uniform the law relating to the
record on review or enforcement of such orders, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon,
without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to save time and
expense by permitting the several courts of appeals to adopt rules
authorizing the abbreviation of the transcript and other parts of
the record made before Federal administrative agencies when the
orders of those agencies are to be reviewed by the courts of ap-
peals. If review proceedings have been instituted in two or more
courts with respect to the same order, the bill would require the
Federal administrative agency involved to file the record in that
court in which the proceeding was first instituted, but in the
interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, such
court may thereafter transfer the proceedings to another court of
appeals.
[p-i]
-------
1778 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
STATEMENT
1. ORIGIN AND PRIOR CONSIDERATION
This proposal emanates from the Judicial Conference of the
United States. It was submitted to the Congress after substantial
consideration by the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the
Judicial Conference and the Judicial Conference itself. After sub-
mission, it was the subject of a hearing before a subcommittee of
the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 17, 1956, and sub-
jected to agency comments. It was thereafter revised and reintro-
duced and again subjected to review by the administrative agencies.
Following this, the Judiciary Committee after adopting several
amendments, reported the bill to the House of Representatives,
which later approved it.
The bill has been approved in principle by the American Bar
Association, and it incorporates a recommendation of the Presi-
dent's Conference on Administrative Procedure. It likewise carries
the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
2. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Most of the present statutes which provide for judicial review
or enforcement by the courts of appeals of the orders of adminis-
trative agencies require that a transcript of the entire record of
the proceedings before the agency be prepared by the agency and
physically filed with the court. Such a requirement frequently
operates to delay court proceedings and to impose upon the agency
large and unnecessary expenditures of money and effort. In many
types of cases the agency record involves persons other than the
petitioner for review. The record may, therefore, be unnecessarily
voluminous and much of it irrelevant to the review.
The object of the instant legislation is to eliminate the filing of
the entire record except in those instances where it is required for
an adequate determination or where the abbreviation of the record
would prove more costly than the transmission of the entire rec-
ord. This objective could have been accomplished by a general
statute repealing all inconsistent provisions of the various acts
providing for judicial review of agency action. Such a course,
however, would have left a residuum of doubt as to whether spe-
cific provisions would have been repealed by implication. This
legislation avoids that difficulty by direct amendment of the many
existing statutes providing for judicial review of administrative
determinations and orders.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1779
The bill is not intended to apply to the review of decisions of the
Tax Court, which is not an administrative agency within the con-
templation of this measure, or to the review of such agency orders
as are by law reviewable by the district courts, such as exclusion
and deportation orders.
Many of the statutes providing for the enforcement or review of
agency orders provide that the courts of appeals acquire jurisdic-
tion upon the filing of the petition for review. Many others pro-
vide, however, that jurisdiction is not acquired by the courts until
the filing of the transcript of the record. This latter provision has
sometimes proved both illogical and unwise—illogical, since it
places authority within the Federal agency to delay the acquisition
of full jurisdic-
[p-2]
tion by a Federal appellate court; and unwise, since it raises
a serious question concerning the extent of the court's
authority to make orders relating to the filing of the record or
other preliminary orders between the time of filing the petition
for review and the time when the record is actually filed. Accord-
ingly, this legislation proposes to amend various statutes to pro-
vide that in all cases the reviewing court shall acquire jurisdiction
upon the filing of a petition on review. However, the bill further
provides that although jurisdiction shall be immediately acquired
by the court upon the filing of a petition for review, the existing
jurisdiction of agencies, pending filing of the record, is preserved
and until such filing the jurisdiction shall be concurrent and shall
become exclusive in the appellate court only upon the filing of the
record. This provision was added in order to make clear that up to
the filing of the record or transcript, an agency may retain juris-
diction in order to permit that agency to entertain motions for
additional processes before the administrative agency, such as the
modification or setting aside of an order.
This legislation accomplishes its objective of permitting the
filing of abbreviated records by adding a new section, section 2112,
to title 28 of the United States Code, and amending the several
statutes relating to appeals from administrative agencies to bring
them into conformity with the provisions of this new section of
title 28. The bill seeks to accomplish its purposes in the following
ways:
(1) By giving the courts of appeals, with the approval of
the Judicial Conference, authority to adopt rules on the sub-
-------
1780 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ject, which are to be so far as practicable uniform in all
courts.
(2) By providing for the abbreviation of the record to
include only those materials which are relevant to the issues
involved as determined by the rules or special orders of the
court or by stipulation of the parties.
(3) By providing in appropriate cases which can be dis-
posed of on the pleadings, such as consent decrees, that no
record at all need be filed.
(4) By permitting the entire record to be filed in those
cases where the parties find it will be less expensive and time
consuming to do so than to select and copy portions of it for
filing. The selection of the relevant portions of the record to
be printed in the petitioner's appendix can sometimes better
be done at the brief-writing stage.
(5) By providing that the courts may permit an agency to
file in court merely a list of the materials in the record while
retaining in its custody the materials themselves until any
such materials are actually needed and sent for by the court.
(6) By authorizing the agency, if it finds it better to do so,
to transmit original papers, rather than copies, as the record
on review. These are, of course, to be returned to the agency
upon the termination of the proceeding, or earlier if needed.
The bill would further accomplish its objectives by amending
the various statutes now providing for the review and enforce-
ment of agency orders so as to bring about uniformity in their
provisions by—
(7) Providing that the record shall be filed in each case as
provided in the new section 2112 of title 28;
[p. 3]
(8) Providing that the jurisdiction of the court of appeals
shall attach in all cases upon the filing of the petition for
review or enforcement, while preserving the concurrent juris-
diction of the agency, in appropriate cases, until the record is
filed; and
(9) Providing that in all cases it shall be the duty of the
clerk of the court to transmit to the agency a copy of the
petition for review which has been filed with the court.
In addition, the bill meets the problem which is presented when
petitions by different aggrieved parties to review the same agency
order are filed in different circuits. It does so by providing that the
court of appeals in which the first petition is filed shall have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1781
exclusive jurisdiction of all the petitions but with power to trans-
fer them all to another court of appeals if the convenience of the
parties and the interests of justice so require. At present the
agency, by selecting the court in which it files the record, deter-
mines which court shall have jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
With the advent of an increasing number of bureaus and agen-
cies within the Federal Government, the Congress has seen fit to
authorize judicial review of the orders of such agencies and bur-
eaus in order to afford maximum protection to the interests of the
Government and the individual or corporate litigant. In many
cases this review function has been placed upon the Federal courts
of appeals, thereby increasing the workload of that part of the
Federal court system. Part of that workload involves the perusal
of records filed in connection with such appeals. These records are
frequently voluminous and are not edited, so as to encompass only
information relevant to the points at issue. The reduction of such
a record to its pertinent parts, as proposed here, should in most
cases serve as an aid to the expedition of appeals from orders of
administrative agencies. Thus, adoption of this measure is ex-
pected to facilitate the work of the Federal appellate courts. More-
over, this legislation is likewise expected to occasion a saving in
time and expense to the Federal Government in its role as litigant.
The cost of preparing the transcript in nearly all cases rests with
the agency and is, therefore, a charge upon the Federal Treasury.
Consequently, any reduction in the size of the record which must
be filed could result in reducing the cost of litigation to the Gov-
ernment.
In addition to these considerations, the authority conferred by
the bill contains sufficient flexibility to permit an appellate court to
adapt its procedures to the exigencies of cases presented to it.
Thus, if a litigant, either an individual or an agency, determined
that the cause of justice, or considerations of time or expense,
require the submission of a full record, that may be done. The
purpose of the proposal is expedition, but not expedition at the
expense of justice.
The bill was the subject of thorough consideration in the Judi-
cial Conference prior to its submission to the Congress, and since
its submission has been reviewed in detail by the administrative
agencies. It is also appropriate to note that the agency primarily
concerned with litigation involving the Federal Government, the
-------
1782 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Department of Justice, considers the proposal "a laudable effort to
eliminate un-
[p. 4]
necessary expenditures in time and money in the review of agency
orders by the courts of appeals." In short, the Department of
Justice recommends enactment of the measure.
The acceptance and approval of this bill by the bench and the
bar indicates that it may reasonably be calculated to accomplish
the worthwhile objective which it is designed to accomplish. Con-
sequently, the committee recommends favorable consideration of
the legislation.
Attached to this report is the letter of transmittal of the Ad-
ministrative Office of United States Court, dated April 5, 1957,
and the report of the Department of Justice under date of June
10, 1957, to which reference was made earier. The other agency
reports on the bill are incorporated in House Report No. 842 of
the 85th Congress, 1st session. In the interests of brevity they may
be considered as having been incorporated by reference in this
report.
[p. 5]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, 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) :
TITLE 28. UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 133. REVIEW—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
*******
2113. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders.
*******
§2112. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders.
(a) The several courts of appeals shall have power to adopt,
ivith the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
rules, which so far as practicable shall be uniform in all such
courts prescribing the time and manner of filing and the contents
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1783
of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of appeals
to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review or en-
force orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions, and
officers, to the extent that the applicable statute does not specifi-
cally prescribe such time or manner of filing or contents of the
record. Such-rules may auhorize the agency, board, commission, or
officer to file in the court a certified list of the materials compris-
ing the record and retain and hold for the court all such materials
and transmit the same or any part thereof to the court, when and
as required by it, at any time prior to the final determination of
the proceeding, and such filing of such certified list of the mate-
rials comprising the record and such subsequent transmittal of any
such materials when and as required shall be deemed full com-
pliance with any provision of law requiring the filing of the record
in the court. The record in such proceedings shall be certified and
filed in or held for and transmitted to the court of appeals by the
agency, board, commission, or officer concerned within the time
and in the manner prescribed by such rules. If proceedings have
been instituted in two or more courts of appeals with respect to
the same order the agency, board, commission or officer concerned
shall file the record in that one of such courts in which a proceed-
ing with respect to such order was first instituted. The other
courts in which such proceedings are pending shall thereupon
transfer them to the court of appeals in which the record has been
filed. For the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice
such court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings with re-
spect to such order to any other court of appeals.
[p. 8]
(b) The record to be filed in the court of appeals in such a pro-
ceeding shall consist of the order sought to be reviewed or en-
forced, the findings or report upon which it is based, and the
pleadings, evidence, and proceedings before the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1) as
the said rules of the court of appeals may require to be included
therein, or (2) as the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned, the petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement, as
the case may be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned or in the court in any such proceeding may con-
sistently with the rules of such court designate to be included,
therein or (3) as the court upon motion of a party or, after a pre-
hearing conference, upon its own motion may be order in any such
-------
1784 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
proceeding designate to be included therein. Such a stipulation or
order may provide in an appropriate case that no record need be
filed in the court of appeals. If, however, the correctness of a find-
ing of fact by the agency, board, commission, or officer is in ques-
tion all of the evidence before the agency, board, commission, or
officer shall be included in the record except such as the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned, the petitioner for review
or respondent in enforcement, as the case may be, and any inter-
venor in the court proceeding by written stipulation filed with the
agency, board, commission, or officer concerned or in the court
agree to omit as ivholly immaterial to the questioned finding. If
there is omitted from the record any portion of the proceedings
before the agency, board, commission, or officer which the court
subsequently determines to be proper for it to consider to enable
it to review or enforce the order in question the court may direct
that such additional portion of the proceedings be filed as a supple-
mental to the record. The agency, board, commission, or officer
concerned may, at its option and without regard to the foregoing
provisions of this subsection, and if so requested by the petitioner
for review or respondent in enforcement, shall file in the court the
entire record of the proceedings before it without abbreviation.
(c) The agency, board, commission, or officer concerned may
transmit to the court of appeals the original papers comprising
the whole or any part of the record or any supplemental record,
otherwise true copies of such papers certified by OM authorized
officer or deputy of the agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned shall be transmitted. Any original papers thus transmitted
to the court of appeals shall be returned to the agency, board, com-
mission, or officer concerned upon the final determination of the
review or enforcement proceeding. Pending such final determina-
tion any such papers may be returned by the court temporarily to
the custody of the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
if needed for the transaction of the public business. Certified cop-
ies of any papers included in the record or any supplemental rec-
ord may also be returned to the agency, board, commission, or
office concerned upon the final determination of review or enforce-
ment proceedings.
(d) The provisions of this section are not applicable to pro-
ceedings to review decisions of the Tax Court of the United States
or to proceedings to review or enforce those orders of administra-
tive agencies, boards, commissions, or officers which are by law
reviewable or enforceable by the district court.
[P. 9]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1785
SEC. 3. (a) The sixth sentence of subsection (b) of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (52 Stat. 112):
"Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for
review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or,
if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until
[the transcript of] the record in the proceeding has been filed in a
court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the
Commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such man-
ner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in
part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this
section."
(b) The second and third sentences of subsection (c) of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (52 Stat.
112-113) : "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission,
and thereupon the Commission [forthwith] shall [certify and]
file in the court [a transcript of] the [entire] record in the pro-
ceeding, [including all the evidence taken and the report and order
of the Commission] as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United
States Code. Upon such filing of the petition [and transcript] the
court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question
determined therein concurrently with the Commission until the
filing of the record and shall have power to make and enter [upon
the pleadings, evidence, and proceedings set forth in such tran-
script] a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of
the Commission, and enforcing the same to the extent that such
order is affirmed and to issue such writs as are ancillary to its
jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgment to prevent injury to
the public or to competitors pendente lite."
(c) Subsection (d) of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commis-
sion Act, as amended (52 Stat. 113) :
"(d) [The] Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdic-
tion of the court of appeals of the United States to affirm, enforce,
modify or set aside orders of the Commission shall be exclusive"
(15 U.S.C., §45, Federal Trade Commission).
SEC. 4. (a) The sixth sentence of the second paragraph of sec-
tion 11 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (64 Stat.
1127) : "Until [a transcript of] the record in such hearing shall
have been filed in a United States court of appeals, as hereinafter
provided, the Commission or Board may at any time, upon such
notice, and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set
aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued
by it under this section,"
526-704 O - 74 - 3
-------
1786 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(b) The first and second sentences of the third paragraph of
section 11 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (64 Stat.
1127):
"If such person fails or neglects to obey such order of the
Commission or Board while the same is in effect the Commission
or Board may apply to the United States court of appeals, within
any circuit where the violation complained of was or is being
committed or where such person resides or carries on business, for
the enforcement of its order, and shall [certify and] file [with its
application a transcript of] the [entire] record in the proceeding,
[including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the
Commission or Board] as provided in section 2112 of title 28,
United States Code. Upon such filing of the application [and tran-
script] the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such
person, and thereupon shall
[p. 10]
have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined
therein, concurrently with the Commission or Board until the fil-
ing of the record and shall have power to make and enter [upon
the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth in such trans-
script] a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order
of the Commission or Board."
(c) The second and third sentences of the fourth paragraph of
section 11 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (64 Stat.
1128): "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served upon]
transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission or Board
and thereupon the Commission or Board '[forthwith] shall
[certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the record in the
proceedings, as [hereinbefore] provided in section 2112 of title 28,
United States Code. Upon the filing of [the transcript] such
petition the court shall have the same jurisdiction to affirm, set
aside, or modify the order of the Commission or Board as in the
case of an application by the Commission or Board for the enforce-
ment of its order, and the findings of the Commission or Board
as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, determined
as provided in section 10 (e) of the Administrative Procedure Act,
shall in like manner be conclusive."
(d) The fifth paragraph of section 11 of the Act of October 15,
1914, as amended (64 Stat. 1128) :
"[The] Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdiction of
the United States court of appeals to enforce, set aside, or modify
orders of the Commission or Board shall be exclusive" (15
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1787
U. S. C., sec. 21, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Com-
munications Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Board of Gov-
ernors of the Federal Reserve System).
SEC. 5. The fourth and fifth sentences of the first paragraph of
section 2 of the Act of July 28, 1916 (39 Stat. 425) : "A copy of
such petition shall be forthwith [served upon] transmitted by the
clerk of the court to the Post Office Department and thereupon the
said department [forthwith] shall [certify and] file in the court
[a transcript of] the record [and testimony], as provided in
section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of such
[transcript] petition the court shall have jurisdiction to affirm,
set aside, or modify the order of the department" (39 U. S. C.,
sec. 576, Postmaster General (District of Columbia Circuit only)).
SEC. 6 (a) Subsection (c) of section 203 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 162) :
"(c) Until [a transcript of] the record in such hearing has
been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as provided
in section 204, the Secretary at any time, upon such notice and in
such manner as he deems proper, but only after reasonable op-
portunity to the packer to be heard, may amend or set aside the
report or order, in whole or in part" (7 U.S.C., sec. 193, Secretary
of Agriculture).
(b) Subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 204 of the Packers
and Stockyards Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 162) :
"(b) The clerk of the court shall immediately cause a copy of
the petition to be delivered to the Secretary, and the Secretary
shall [forthwith prepare, certify, and] thereupon file in the court
[a full and accurate transcript of] the record in such proceedings,
[including the complaint, the evidence, and the report and order]
as provided
[P. il]
in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. If before such
[transcript] record is filed, the Secretary amends or sets aside
his report or order, in whole or in part, the petitioner may
amend the petition within such time as the court may determine,
on notice to the Secretary.
"(c) At any time after such [transcript] petition is filed the
court, on application of the Secretary, may issue a temporary
injunction restraining, to the extent it deems proper, the packer
and his officers, directors, agents, and employees, from violating
any of the provisions of the order pending the final determination
of the appeal."
"(d) The evidence so taken or admitted [duly certified] and
-------
1788 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
filed as aforesaid as a part of the record, shall be considered by
the court as the evidence in the case. The proceedings in such
cases in the court of appeals shall be made a preferred cause and
shall be expedited in every way." (7 U.S.C., sec. 194, Secretary of
Agriculture.)
(c) The first sentence of subsection (h) of section 204 of the
Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 162) :
"(h) The court of appeals shall have [exclusive] jurisdiction,
which upon the finding of the record with it shall be exclusive, to
review, and to affirm, set aside, or modify, such orders of the
Secretary, and the decree of such court shall be final except that
it shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United
States upon certiorari, as provided in section [240 of the Judicial
Code] 1254- of title 28, if such writ is duly applied for within
sixty days after entry of the decree" (7 U.S.C., sec. 194, Secretary
of Agriculture).
SEC. 7. (a) The third and fourth sentences of paragraph (a) of
section 6 of the Commodity Exchange Act (42 Stat. 1001) : "The
clerk of the court in which such a petition is filed shall immedi-
ately cause a copy thereof to be delivered to the Secretary of
Agriculture, Chairman of said Commission, or any member there-
of, and the said Commission shall [forthwith prepare, certify,
and] thereupon file in the court [a full and accurate transcript
of] the record in such proceedings [including the notice to the
board of trade, a copy of the charges, the evidence, and the report
and order], as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code. The testimony and evidence taken or submitted before the
said Commission, duly [certified and] filed as aforesaid as a part
of the record, shall be considered by the court as the evidence in
the case." (7 U.S.C., sec. 8, Contract Market Commission.)
(b) The seventh and eighth sentences of paragraph (b) of sec-
tion 6 of the Commodity Exchange Act (42 Stat. 1002), as
amended: "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of
Agriculture [by delivering such copy to him] and thereupon the
Secretary of Agriculture shall [forthwith certify and] file in
the court [a transcript of] the record theretofore made, [includ-
ing evidence received] as provided in section 2112 of title 28,
United States Code. Urpon the filing of the [transcript] petition
the court shall have jurisdiction to affirm, to set aside, or modify
the order of the Secretary of Agriculture, and the findings of the
Secretary of Agriculture as to the facts, if supported by the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1789
weight of evidence, shall in like manner be conclusive" (7 U.S.C.,
sec. 9, Secretary of Agriculture).
SEC. 8. The third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph
of subsection (b) of section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended
[p. 12]
(49 Stat. 865): "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith
[served upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, or [upon] any officer designated by him
for that purpose, and thereupon the Secretary of the Treasury
shall [certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the record
upon which the order complained of was entered, as provided in
section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of
such [transcript] petition such court shall have exclusive juris-
diction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order, in whole or in
part" (19 U. S. C., sec. 1641, Secretary of the Treasury).
SEC. 9. The second sentence of subsection (a) of section 9 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 80) : "A copy of such petition
shall be forthwith [served upon] transmitted by the clerk of the
court to the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall
[certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the record upon
which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section
2112 of title 28, United States Code" (15 U. S. C., sec. 77i, Securi-
ties and Exchange Commission).
SEC. 10. The second and third sentences of subsection (a) of
section 25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 901) :
"A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served upon] trans-
mitted by the clerk of the court to any member of the Commission,
and thereupon the Commission shall [certify and] file in the court
[a transcript of] the record upon which the order complained of
was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code. Upon the filing of such [transcript] petition such court
shall have [exclusive] jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the
record shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, and enforce or set
aside such order, in whole or in part." (15 U. S. C. sec. 78y,
Securities and Exchange Commission.)
SEC. 11. The third sentence of subsection (c) of section 18 of
the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 1002) : "The clerk of the court
in which such a petition is filed shall immediately cause a copy
thereof to be delivered to the Board and it shall [forthwith pre-
pare, certify, and] thereupon file in the court [a full and accurate
transcript of] the record in the proceedings held before it under
-------
1790 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
this section, [the charges, the evidence, and the order revoking
the grant] as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code" (19 U. S. C., sec. Sir, Foreign Trade Zone Board).
SEC. 12. The second sentence of subsection (d) of section 402
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (66 Stat. 719) :
"Within thirty days after the filing of an appeal, the Commission
shall file with the court [a copy of the order complained of, a full
statement in writing of the facts and grounds relied upon by it in
support of the order involved upon said appeal, and the originals
or certified copies of all papers and evidence presented to and
considered by it in entering said order] the record upon which the
order complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112 of
title 28, United States Code (47 U. S. C., sec. 402, Federal Com-
munications Commission (District of Columbia Circuit only)) :
SEC. 13. (a) (Subsection (d) of section 10 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 147) :
"(d) Until [a transcript of] the record in a case shall have
been filed in a court, as hereinafter provided, the Board may at
any time,
[p. 13]
upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper,
modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made
or issued by it."
(b) The first, second, fifth, and seventh sentences of subsection
(e) of section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(61 Stat. 147) :
"(e) The Board shall have power to petition any court of ap-
peals of the United States '[(including the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia)], or if all the courts of
appeals to which application may be made are in vacation, any
district court of the United States [(Including the District Court
of the United States for the District of Columbia)], within any
circuit or district, respectively, wherein the unfair labor practice
in question occurred or wherein such person resides or transacts
business, for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate
temporary relief or restraining order, and shall [certify and]
file in the court [a transcript of] the [entire] record in the
proceedings [including the pleadings and testimony upon which
such order was entered and the findings and order of the Board],
as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon
[such] the filing of such petition, the court shall cause notice
thereof to be served upon such person, and thereupon shall have
jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1791
therein, and shall have power to grant such temporary relief or
restraining order as it deems just and proper, and to make and
enter [upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth
in such transcript] a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing
as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of
the Board. * * * If either party shall apply to the court for leave to
adduce additional evidence and shall show to the satisfaction of
the court that such additional evidence is material and that there
were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence
in the hearing before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, the
court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the
Board, its [members] member, agent, or agency, and to be made
a part of the [transcript] record. * * * [The] Upon the filing of
the record with it the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive
and its judgment and decree shall be final, except that the same
shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States court
of appeals if application was made to the district court as herein-
above provided, and by the Supreme Court of the United States
upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in [sections
239 and 240 of ] the Judicial Code, as amended [(U. S. C., title 28,
sees. 346 and 347] section 1254 of title 28."
(c) The second and third sentences of subsection (f) of sec-
tion 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61
Stat. 148): "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Board, and
thereupon the aggrieved party shall file in the court [a transcript
of] the [entire] record in the proceeding, certified by the Board
[including the pleading and testimony upon which the order
complained of was entered, and the findings and order of the
Board], as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code.
Upon [such] the filing of such petition, the court shall proceed
in the same manner as in the case of an application by the Board
under subsection (e) of this section, and shall have the same
[p. 14]
[exclusive] jurisdiction to grant to the Board such temporary
relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper, and in like
manner to make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying, and
enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the
order of the Board; the findings of the Board with respect to
questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole shall in like manner be conclusive"
(29 U. S. C., sec. 160, National Labor Relations Board).
-------
1792 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SEC, 14. The third and fourth sentences of subsection (h) of
section 4 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (49 Stat.
980), as amended: "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith
[served upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secre-
tary, or [upon] any officer designated by him for that purpose,
and thereupon the Secretary shall [certify and] file in the court
[a transcript of] the record upon which the order complained of
was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code. Upon the filing of such [transcript] petition such court
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside
such order, in whole or in part" (27 U. S. C., sec. 204. Secretary
of the Treasury).
SEC. 15. The second and third sentences of subsection (a) of
section 24 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (49
Stat. 834): "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to any member of the
Commission, or [upon] any officer thereof designated by the Com-
mission for that purpose, and thereupon the Commission shall
[certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the record upon
which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section
2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of such
[transcript] petition such court shall have [exclusive] jurisdic-
tion, which upon the filing of the record shall be exclusive, to
affirm, modify, or set aside such order, in whole or in part (15
U. S. C., sec. 79x, Securities and Exchange Commission).
SEC. 16. (a) Subsection (a) of section 313 of the Federal Power
Act, as amended, (49 Stat. 860), last sentence: "Until the record
in a proceeding shall have been filed in a court of appeals, as
provided in subsection (6), the Commission may at anytime, upon
reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem propert
modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made
or issued by it under the provisions of this Act."
(b) The second and third sentences of subsection (b) of section
313 of the Federal Power Act, as amended (49 Stat. 860) : "A
copy of such petition shall forthwith be [served upon] transmitted
by the clerk of the court to any member of the Commission and
thereupon the Commission shall [certify and] file with the court
[a transcript of] the record upon which the order complained of
was entered, as provided in section 2112 of tile 28, United States
Code. Upon the filing of such [transcript] petition such court
shall have [exclusive] jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the
record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1793
such order in whole or in part" (16 U. S. C. sec. 825 1, Federal
Power Commission).
SEC. 17. The second and third sentences of subsection (b) of
section 611 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (52
Stat. 961): "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmit-
to- 15]
ted by the clerk of the court to any member of the [Board]
Commission, or [upon] any officer thereof designated by the
[Board] Commission for that purpose, and thereupon the
[Board] Commission shall [certify and] file in the court [a
transcript of] the record upon which the order complained of
was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code. Upon the filing of such [transcript] petition such court
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether such can-
cellation or default was without just cause, and to affirm or set
aside such order." (46 U. S. C., sec. 1181 (b), Federal Maritime
Board (District of Columbia Circuit only)).
SEC. 18. Subsection (c) of section 1006 of the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1024) :
"(c) A copy of the petition shall, upon filing, be forthwith
transmitted to the Board by the clerk of the court; and the Board
shall thereupon [certify and] file in the court [transcript of]
the record, if any, upon which the order complained of was entered,
as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code" (49
U. S. C., sec. 646, Civil Aeronautics Board).
SEC. 19. (a) Subsection (a) of section 19 of the Natural Gas
Act (52 Stat. 831), last sentence: "Until the record in a proceed-
ing shall have been filed in a court of appeals, as provided in sub-
section (b), the Commission may at any time, upon reasonable
notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set
aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order mads or issued by
it under the provisions of this Act."
(b) The second and third sentences of subsection (b) of sec-
tion 19 of the Natural Gas Act (52 Stat. 831) : "A copy of such
petition shall forthwith be [served upon] transmitted by the clerk
of the court to any member of the Commission and thereupon
the Commission shall [certify and] file with the court [a tran-
script of] the record upon which the order complained of was
entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code.
Upon the filing of such petition [transcript] such court shall have
[exclusive] jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with
-------
1794 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in
whole or in part" (15 U.S.C., sec. 717r, Federal Power Commis-
sion).
SEC. 20. (a) The first and second sentences of paragraph (2) of
subsection (i) of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as added by the Act of July 22, 1954 (ch. 559, 68
Stat. 515):
"(2) In the case of a petition with respect to an order under
subsection (d) (5) or (e), a copy of the petition shall be forth-
with [served upon] transmitted, by the clerk of the court to the
Secretary, or [upon] any officer designated by him for that pur-
pose, and thereupon the Secretary shall [certify and] file in the
court [a transcript] the record of the proceedings [and the
record] on which he based his order, as provided in section 2112
of title 28, United States Code. Upon [such] the filing of such
petition, the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm or
set aside the order complained of in whole or in part."
(b) The first and second sentences of paragraph (3) of sub-
section (i) of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, as added by the Act of July 22, 1954 (ch. 559, 68 Stat. 515) :
[p. 16]
"(3) In the case of a petition with respect to an order such
subsection (1), a copy of the petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary
of Agriculture, or [upon] any officer designated by him for that
purpose, and thereupon the Secretary shall [certify and] file in
the court [a transcript] the record of the proceedings [and the
record] on which he based his order, as provided in section 2112
of title 28, United States Code. Upon [such] the filing of such
petition, the court shall have exclusive to affirm or set aside the
order complained of in whole or in part" (21 U. S. C., sec. 346a,
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Secretary of Agri-
culture) .
SEC. 21. (a) The second and third sentences of paragraph (1)
of subsection (f) of section 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (52 Stat. 1055), as amended: A copy of the petition
shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the
Secretary or other officer designated by him for that purpose.
fThe summons and petition may be served at any place in the
United States.] The Secetary [promptly upon service of the
summons and petition] thereupon shall [certify and] file in the
court the [transcript] record of the proceedings [and the record]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1795
on which the Secretary based his order, as provided in section
2112 of title 28, United States Code."
(b) The first sentence of paragraph 3 of subsection (f) of sec-
tion 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (52 Stat.
1055), as amended: "Upon the filing of the petition referred to in
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the [The] court shall have
jurisdiction to affirm the order, or to set it aside in whole or in
part, temporarily or permanently." (21 U.S.C., sec. 371, Secre-
tary of Health, Education, and Welfare.)
SEC. 22. The second and third sentences of subsection (a) of
section 10 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (52 Stat.
1065), as amended: "A copy of such petition shall forthwith be
[served upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secre-
tary, and thereupon the Secretary shall [certify and] file in the
court [a transcript of] the record of the industry committee
upon which the order complained of was entered, as provided in
section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of
such [transcript] petition such court shall have exclusive juris-
diction to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in
part, so far as it is applicable to the petitioner." (29 U. S. C.,
sec. 210, Secretary of Labor.)
SEC. 23. The fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth sentences of sub-
section (f) of section 5 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act, as amended (52 Stat. 1100) : "Within fifteen days after
receipt of service, or within such additional time as the court may
allow, the Board shall [certify and] file with the court in which
such petition has been filed [a transcript of] the record upon
which the findings and decision complained of are based, as pro-
vided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon [such]
the filing of such petition the court shall have exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the proceeding and of the question determined therein, and
shall give precedence in the adjudication thereof over all over civil
cases not otherwise entitled by law to precedence. It shall have
power to enter [upon the pleadings and transcript of the record,]
a decree affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Board, with or without remanding the cause for
[p. 17]
rehearing. * * * No additional evidence shall be received by the
court, but the court may order additional evidence to be taken
before the Board, and the Board may, after hearing such addi-
tional evidence, modify its findings of fact and conclusions and file
such additional or modified findings and conclusions with the court,
-------
1796 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and the Board shall file with the court [a transcript of] the addi-
tional record" (45 U. S. C., sec. 355, Railroad Retirement Board).
SEC. 24. (a) Subsection (c) of section 409 of the Federal Seed
Act (53 Stat. 1287) :
"(c) Until [a transcript of] the record in such hearing has
been filed in a court of appeals as provided in section 410, the
Secretary of Agriculture at any time, upon such notice and in
such manner as he deems proper, but only after reasonable op-
portunity to the person to be heard, may amend or set aside the
report or order, in whole or in part" (7 U. S. C., sec. 1599, Secre-
tary of Agriculture).
(b) The second, third, and fourth paragraphs of section 410
of the Federal Seed Act (53 Stat. 1288) :
"The clerk of the court shall immediately cause a copy of the
petition to be delivered to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall
[forthwith prepare, certify, and] thereupon file in the court
[a full and accurate transcript of] the record in such proceedings,
[including the complaint, the evidence, and the report and other]
as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. If be-
fore such [transcript] record is filed, the Secretary amends or
sets aside his report or order, in whole or in part, the petitioner
may amend the petition within such time as the court may deter-
mine, on notice to the Secretary.
"At any time after such [transcript] petition is filed the court,
on application of the Secretary, may issue a temporary injunction
restraining, to the extent it deems proper, the person and his
officers, directors, agents, and employees from violating any of
the provisions of the order pending the final determination of
the appeal.
"The evidence so taken or admitted [, duly certified] and filed
as aforesaid as a part of the record, shall be considered by the
court as the evidence in the case. The proceedings in such cases
in the court of appeals shall be made a preferred cause and shall
be expedited in every way." (7 U. S. C., sec. 1600, Secretary of
Agriculture.)
(c) The first and second sentences of section 411 of the Federal
Seed Act (53 Stat. 1288):
"SEC. 411. If any person against whom an order is issued under
section 409 fails to obey the order, the Secretary of Agriculture,
or the United States, by its Attorney General, may apply to the
court of appeals of the United States, within the circuit where
the person against whom the order was issued resides or has hia
principal place of business, for the enforcement of the order, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1797
shall [certify and] file [with its application a full and accurate
transcript of] the record in such proceedings, [including the
complaint, the evidence, the report, and the order] as provided in
section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon such filing of
the application [and transcript] the court shall cause notice
thereof to be served upon the person against whom the order
was issued" (7 U. S. C., sec. 1601, Secretary of Agriculture).
[P. 18]
SEC. 25. The second and third sentences of subsection (a) of
section 43 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
(54 Stat. 844): "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served
upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to any member of
the Commission or [upon] any officer thereof designated by the
Commission for that purpose, and thereupon the Commission shall
[certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the record upon
which the order complained of was entered, as provided in section
2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of such
[transcript] petition such court shall have [exclusive] jurisdic-
tion, which upon the filing of the record shall be exclusive, to
affirm, modify, or set aside such order, in whole or in part" (15
U. S. C., sec. 80a-42, Securities and Exchange Commission).
SEC. 26. The second and third sentences of subsection (a) of
section 213 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended
(54 Stat. 855) : "A copy of such petition shall be forthwith
[served upon] transmitted by the clerk of the court to any mem-
ber of the Commission, or [upon] any officer thereof designated
by the Commission for that purpose, and thereupon the Commis-
sion shall [certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the
record upon which the order complained of was entered, as pro-
vided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the
filing of such [transcript] petition such court shall have [exclu-
sive] jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record shall be
exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order, in whole or
in part" (15 U. S. C., sec. 80b-13, Securities and Exchange Com-
mission).
SEC. 27. (a) Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 632 of
the Act of July 1, 1944, as added by the Hospital Survey and
Construction Act (60 Stat. 1048) :
"(b) (1) If the Surgeon General refuses to approve any ap-
plication under section 625 or section 654, the State agency
through which the application was submitted, or if any State is
dissatisfied with the Surgeon General's action under subsection
-------
1798 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(a) of this section, such State may appeal to the United States
court of appeals for the circuit in which such State is located
[the summons and notice of appeal may be served at any place
in the United States] by filing with such court a notice of appeal.
The jurisdiction of the court shall attach upon the filing of such
notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be forthwith trans-
mitted by the clerk of the court to the Surgeon General, or any
officer designated by him for that purpose. The Surgeon General
shall [forthwith certify and] thereupon file in the court the
[transcript] record of the proceedings [and the record] on
which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28,
United States Code.
(b) The first sentence of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of
section 632 of the Act of July 1, 1944, as added by the Hospital
Survey and Construction Act (60 Stat. 1048);
"(2) The findings of fact by the Surgeon General, unless sub-
stantially contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be conclu-
sive ; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to
the Surgeon General to take further evidence, and the Surgeon
General may thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and
may modify his previous action, shall [certify to] file in the court
the [tran-
[P. 19]
script and] record of the further proceedings" (42 U. S. C., sec.
291j, Public Health Service).
SEC. 28. The fourth sentence of subsection (c) of section 205 of
the Sugar Act of 1948 (61 Stat. 927): "Within thirty days after
the filing of said appeal the Secretary shall file with the court the
[originals or certified copies of all papers and evidence presented
to him upon the hearing involved, a like copy of his decision
thereon, a full statement in writing of the facts and grounds for
his decisions as found and given by him] record upon which the
decision complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112
of title 28, United States Code, and a list of all interested persons
to whom he has mailed or otherwise delivered a copy of said notice
of appeal" (7 U. S. C. sec. 1115, Secretary of Agriculture (District
of Columbia Circuit only)).
SEC. 29. The second and third sentences of subsection (a) of
section 14 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 1001) :
"A copy of such petition shall be forthwith [served upon] trans-
mitted by the clerk of the court to the Board, and thereupon the
Board shall [certify and] file in the court [a transcript of] the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1799
[entire] record in the proceeding, [including all evidence taken
and the report and order of the Board] as provided in section
2112 of title 28, United States Code. [Thereupon] Upon the filing
of such petition the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding
and shall have power to affirm or set aside the order of the Board;
but the court may in its discretion and upon its own motion trans-
fer any action so commenced to the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the circuit wherein the petitioner resides" (50 U. S. C.,
sec. 793, Subversive Activities Control Board).
SEC. 30. (a) Subsection (e) of section 110 of the Internal Secu-
rity Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 1028):
"(e) Until [a transcript of] the record in a case shall have
been filed in a court, as hereinafter provided, the Board may at
any time, upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall
deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding
or order made or issued by it" (50 U. S. C., sec. 820, Detention Re-
view Board).
(b) The third and fifth sentences of subsection (c) of section
111 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 1028) : "The
Board shall thereupon file in the court [a duly certified transcript
of] the [entire] record of the proceedings before the Board with
respect to the matter concerning which judicial review is sought,
[including all evidence upon which the order complained of was
entered, the findings and order of the Board] as provided in sec-
tion 2112 of title 28, United States Code. * * * [Thereupon] Upon
the filing of such petition the court shall have jurisdiction of the
proceeding, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be
exclusive, and shall have power to affirm, modify, or set aside, or
to enforce as modified the order of the Board" (50 U. S. C., sec.
821, Detention Review Board).
(c) The first sentence of subsection (d) of section 111 of the
Internal Security Act of 1950 (60 Stat. 1029) :
"(d) If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence and shall show to the satisfaction of the court
that such additional evidence is material and that there were rea-
sonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the
hearing before the Board or its hearing examiner the court may
order such additional evidence to be taken before the Board or its
hearing ex-
[P. 20]
aminer and to be made a part of the [transcript] record" (50
U. S. C., sec. 821, Detention Review Board).
-------
1800 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
SEC. 31 (a) Section 6 of the Act of December 29,1950 (64 Stat.
1130) :
"SEC. 6. [Within the time prescribed by, and in accordance with
the requirements of, rules promulgated by the court of appeals in
which the proceeding is pending, unless] Unless the proceeding
has been terminated on a motion to dismiss the petition, the
agency shall file in the office of the clerk of the court of appeals in
which the proceeding is pending the record on review, [duly
certified, consisting of the pleadings, evidence, and proceedings
before the agency, or such portions thereof as such rules shall
require to be included in such record, or such portions thereof as
the petitioner and the agency, with the approval of the court of
appeals, shall agree upon in writing] as provided in section 2112
of title 28, United States Code" (5 U. S. C., sec. 1036, Federal
Communications Commission, Secretary of Agriculture, Federal
Maritime Board, Maritime Administration, Atomic Energy Com-
mission) .
(b) The second sentence of subsection (c) of section 7 of the
Act of December 29, 1950 (64 Stat. 1131): "The agency may
modify its findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the
additional evidence so taken and may modify or set aside its order
and shall file [a certified transcript of] in the court such addi-
tional evidence, such modified findings or new findings, and such
modified order or the order setting aside the original order" (5
U. S. C., sec. 1037, Federal Communications Commission, Secre-
tary of Agriculture, Federal Maritime Board, Maritime Admin-
istration, Atomic Energy Commission).
SEC. 32. Subsection (b) of section 207 of the Act of September
23, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 974), last three sentences: "The
local educational agency affected may file with the court a petition
to review such action. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith
transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commissioner, or any
officer designated by him for that purpose. Upon the filing of the
petition the court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the
action of the Commissioner in whole or in part." (20 U. S. C., sec.
277, Commissioner of Education).
SEC. 33. The fifth and sixth sentences of subsection (b) of sec-
tion 207 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as
amended (69 Stat. 564) : "Such petition for review must be filed
within sixty days after the date of mailing of the final order of
denial by said designee and a copy shall forthwith be transmitted
to the said designee by the clerk of the court [must be served on
the said designee]. Within forty-five days after receipt [service]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1801
of such petition for review, or within such further time as the
court may grant for good cause shown, said designee shall file an
answer thereto, and shall [certify and] file with the court [a
transcript of] the [entire] record of the proceedings with respect
to such claim, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States
Code." (22 U. S. C., sec. 1631f, Attorney General).
SEC. 34. The second and third sentences of section 9 of the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 138) :
[p. 21]
"A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted to the
Board by the clerk of the court [served upon the Board], and
thereupon the Board shall [certify and] file in the court [a tran-
script of] the record made before the Board, as provided in sec-
tion 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the filing of such
petition [the transcript] the court shall have jurisdiction to
affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the Board and to require
the Board to take such action with regard to the matter under
review as the court deems proper." (12 U. S. C., sec. 1848, Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System).
SEC. 35. This Act shall not be construed to repeal or modify any
provision of the Administrative Procedure Act.
[P. 22]
526-704 O - 74 - 4
-------
1802
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.5a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1.5a(3)(a) Vol. 103 (1957), Aug. 5: Amended and passed House,
pp. 13617-13618
ABBREVIATED RECORDS IN RE-
VIEWING ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY PROCEEDINGS
The Clerk called the bill (H. R.
6788) to authorize the abbreviation of
the record on the review or enforce-
ment of orders of administrative
agencies by the courts of appeals and
the review or enforcement of such or-
ders on the original papers and to
make uniform the law relating to the
record on review or enforcement of
such orders, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the analysis of
chapter 133 of title 28 of the United States
Code, immediately preceding section 2101 of
such title, is amended by inserting at the end
thereof the following additional item:
"2112. Record on review and enforcement of
agency orders
"Sec. 2. Chapter 133 of title 28 of the United
States Code is amended by inserting at the
end of such chapter immediately following
section 2111 an additional section, as follows:
"§2112. Record on review and enforcement of
agency orders
"(a) The several courts of appeals shall
have power to adopt, with the approval of the
Judicial Conference of the United States, rules
prescribing the time and manner of filing and
the contents of the record in all proceedings
instituted in the courts of appeals to enjoin,
set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise re-
view or enforce orders of administrative agen-
cies, boards, commissions, and officers, in
which the applicable statute does not specifi-
cally prescribe such time or manner of filing
or
[p. 13617]
contents of the record. Such rules may author-
ize the agency, board, commission, or officer
to file in the court a certified list of the
materials comprising: the record and retain
and hold for the court all such materials and
transmit the same or any part thereof to the
court, when and as required by it, at any time
prior to the final determination of the pro-
ceeding. The record in such proceedings shall
be certified and filed in or held for the court
of appeals by the agency, board, commission,
or officer concerned within the time and in
the manner prescribed by such rules. If pro-
ceedings have been instituted in two or more
courts of appeals with respect to the same
order the agency, board, commission, or officer
concerned shall file the record in that one of
such courts in which in its judgment the
proceedings may be carried on with the great-
est convenience to all the parties involved.
The other courts in which such proceedings
are pending shall thereupon transfer them to
the court of appeals in which the record has
been filed.
"(b) The record to be filed in the court of
appeals in such a proceeding shall consist of
the order sought to be reviewed or enforced,
the findings or report upon which it is based,
and the pleadings, evidence, and proceedings
before the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1)
as the said rules of the court of appeals may
require to be included therein, or (2) as the
agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned, the petitioner for review or respon-
dent in enforcement, as the case may be, and
any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned or in
the court in any such proceeding may consist-
ently with the rules of such court designate to
be included therein, or (3) as the court upon
motion of a party or, after a prehearing
conference, upon its own motion may by order
in any such proceeding designate to be in-
cluded therein. Such a stipulation or order
may provide in an appropriate case that no
record need be filed in the court of appeals.
If, however, the correctness of a finding of
fact by the agency, board, commission, or
officer is in question all of the evidence before
the agency, board, commission, or officer shall
be included in the record except such as the
agency, board-, commission, or officer con-
cerned, the petitioner for review or respon-
dent in enforcement, as the case may be, and
any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned or in
the court agree to omit as wholly immaterial
to the questioned finding. If there is omitted
from the record any portion of the proceed-
ings before the agency, board, commission, or
officer which the court subsequently deter-
mines to be necessary for it to consider to
enable it to review or enforce the order in
question the court may direct that such addi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1803
tlonal portion of the proceedings be filed as a
supplement to the record. If the rules of the
court of appeals in which a proceeding is
pending do not require the printing of the
entire record in that court the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned may, at its
option and without regard to the foregoing
provisions of this subsection, file in the court
the entire record of the proceedings before it
without abbreviation.
** (c) The agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned may transmit to the court of
appeals the original papers comprising the
whole or any part of the record or any
supplemental record, otherwise true copies of
such papers certified by an authorized officer
or deputy of the agency, board, commission,
or officer concerned shall be transmitted. Any
original papers thus transmitted to the court
of appeals shall be returned to the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned upon
the final determination of the review or en-
forcement proceeding. Pending such final de-
termination any such papers may be returned
by the court temporarily to the custody of the
agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned if needed for the transaction of the
public business. Certified copies of any papers
included in the record or any supplemental
record may also be returned to the agency,
board, commission, or officer concerned upon
the final determination of review proceed-
ings."
[p. 13618]
-------
1804 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.5a(3) (b) Vol. 104 (1958), Aug. 14: Passed Senate, p. 17537
[No Relevant Discussion of This Section]
1.5b RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
November 6, 1966, P.L. 89-773, §5(a), (b), 80 Stat. 1323
AN ACT
To amend sections 2072 and 2112 of title 28, United States Code,
with respect to the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to
repeal inconsistent legislation.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the catch-
line and first paragraph of section 2072 of title 28 of the United
States Code are amended so as to read as follows:
"§ 2072. Rules of civil procedure
"The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by gen-
eral rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and
the practice and procedure of the district courts and courts of
appeals of the United States in civil actions, including admiralty
and maritime cases, and appeals therein, and the practice and
procedure in proceedings for the review by the courts of appeals
of decisions of the Tax Court of the United States and for the
judicial review or enforcement of orders of administrative agen-
cies, boards, commissions, and officers."
SEC. 2. Sections 2073 and 2074 of title 28 of the United States
Code are repealed, but their repeal shall not operate to invalidate
or repeal rules adopted under the authority of one of those sec-
tions prior to the enactment of this Act, which rules shall remain
in effect until superseded by rules prescribed under the authority
of section 2072 of title 28 of the United States Code as amended by
this Act.
SEC. 3. Item 2072 in the analysis of chapter 131 of title 28 of the
United States Code, appearing immediately preceding section 2071
thereof, is amended so as to read as follows:
"Sec. 2072. Rules of civil procedure.",
and items 2073 and 2074 are stricken from such analysis.
SEC. 4. Section 2352 of title 28 of the United States Code and
item 2352 in the analysis of chapter 158 of title 28 of the United
States Code are repealed, but its repeal shal Inot operate to invali-
date or repeal rules adopted under the authority of that section
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1805
prior to the enactment of this Act, which rules shall remain in
effect until superseded by rules prescribed under the authority of
section 2072 of title 28 of the United States Code as amended by
this Act.
SEC. 5. (a) The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 2112
of title 28 of the United States Code is amended to read as fol-
lows : "The rules prescribed under the authority of section 2072 of
this title may provide for the time and manner of filing and the
contents of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of
appeals to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review
or enforce orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions,
and officers."
(b) The first sentence of subsection (b) of section 2112 of title
28 of the United States Code is amended by striking out the
phrase "the said rules of the court of appeals" and striking out the
phrase "the rules of such court" and inserting in lieu of each of
such phrases the phrase "the rules prescribed under the authority
of section 2072 of this title".
(c) The amendments of section 2112 of title 28 of the United
States Code made by this Act shall not operate to invalidate or
repeal rules adopted under the authority of that section prior to
the enactment of this Act, which rules shall remain in effect until
superseded by rules prescribed under the authority of section 2072
of title 28 of the United States Code as amended by this Act.
Approved November 6.1965.
[p. 1323]
1.5b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 1406, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
UNIFORM CIVIL APPELLATE RULES
JULY 22,1966—Ordered to be printed
Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3254]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill
(S 3254) to amend sections 2072 and 2112 of title 28, United
-------
1806 LEGAL COMPILATION — AIR
States Code, with respect to the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and to repeal inconsistent legislation, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon, without amendment, and rec-
ommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Su-
preme Court to extend the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to encompass practice and procedure in civil actions
conducted before the U.S. courts of appeals. The bill also codifies
in one section the rulemaking power with respect to civil rules,
admiralty rules and appeals from the Tax Court of the United
States. Rules for appeals of agency decisions will also be promul-
gated under the amended 28 U.S.C. section 2072.
STATEMENT
Current statutory law provides that the Supreme Court has the
power to prescribe rules for the trial and appeal of criminal cases,
18 U.S.C., sections 3771-3772, the trial and appeal of admiralty
and maritime cases, 28 U.S.C., section 2073, and the review of
decisions of the Tax Court of the United States, 28 U.S.C., section
2074. However, the statute which provides for the promulgations
of civil rules of procedure, 28 U.S.C., section 2072, extends only to
the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United
States, making no provision for governing the practice and proce-
dure in the courts of appeals.
Due to this omission in the existing statutory pattern, the
Rules of Civil Procedure cover only the preliminary procedure on
appeal from the filing of the notice of appeal in the district court
to the docketing of the appeal and the filing of the record in the
court of appeals. Appellate procedure beyond that point is con-
trolled by the individual rules of the courts of appeals to which the
particular appeal is taken. There are 11 courts of appeals and
consequently 11 different sets of rules governing appellate pro-
ceedings in the Federal system.
The Judicial Conference of the United States has considered the
problem of the diversity in appellate procedure, and its Advisory
Committee on Appellate Rules has been drafting a set of uniform
rules. In March 1964 the Conference reported :
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1807
The Conference considered the question as to the man-
ner in which a set of appellate rules, when finally per-
fected, can be promulgated. Upon recommendation of the
[Advisory] Committee, the Conference approved a draft
bill, submitted by the Committee, which would amend 28
U.S.C., section 2072, to enlarge the present civil rulemak-
ing authority of the Supreme Court of the United States
to include appellate rules. The bill, as drawn, would ex-
tend the civil rulemaking power of the Supreme Court to
include bankruptcy proceedings and proceedings for the
review and enforcement of orders of administrative
agencies. The bill would also consolidate the present ad-
miralty rulemaking power with that for all other civil
actions. (Annual Report of the Director of the Adminis-
trative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1964, at p. 22.)
Judicial Conference of the United States has informed the com-
mittee that it "urgently" recommends the passage of S. 3254.
The bill also has the effect of placing in one statutory section
substantially all of the rulemaking authority with respect to civil
proceedings. The bill will not alter the provisions of the third
paragraph of section 2072 of title 28, United States Code, and all
amendments to existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any
new rules proposed under the authority of S. 3254 would not take
effect until they had been reported to Congress at or after the
beginning of a regular session but not later than May 1 and only
after the expiration of 90 days after they had been so reported.
Under these provisions it would be necessary for Congress to
enact a law within the 90-day period to prevent a proposed rule
from taking effect. Even though section 2072 of title 28 provides
that rules must not affect substantive rights, as a practical matter
little opportunity is available for Congress to act upon a proposed
rule that might infringe upon this requirement.
This bill follows a procedure for the adoption of appellate rules
that parallels the procedures under existing law for the promulga-
tion of the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. In
following this procedure, however, it is not necessarily the inten-
tion of the committee to indicate renewed approval of this manner
of promulgating rules of court procedure. Members of the Su-
preme Court and of this committee have expressed reservations
about the way in which rules of court procedure are adopted, and
about the lack of opportunity for
[p. 2]
-------
1808 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
congressional review, and have suggested that the matter deserves
careful reexamination.
Federal practice and procedure now have the benefit of uniform
appellate rules for the prosecution of every type of appeal except a
civil appeal. This bill, if enacted, will extend this benefit to civil
appeals as well.
In view of these considerations, the committee recommends that
the bill, S. 3254, be considered favorably.
Attached hereto and made a part hereof is a letter in support of
the bill from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to the
Honorable James 0. Eastland, U.S. Senator, chairman of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, dated April 29,1966.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS,
Washington, B.C., April 29,1966.
Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND : This is in response to your letter of
April 25, 1966, transmitting for study and report S. 3254, a bill to
amend sections 2072 and 2112 of title 28, United States Code, with
respect to the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to
repeal inconsistent legislation.
This bill carries out a recommendation of the Judicial Confer-
ence of the United States to achieve what the Judicial Conference
regards as an urgent need for more uniformity of practice among
the courts of appeals. The bill would authorize the Supreme Court
to extend the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
include the entire course of the appellate procedure in civil actions
in U.S. courts of appeals.
At the present time the Rules of Civil Procedure cover only the
preliminary procedure on appeal from the filing of the notice of
appeal in the district court to the docketing of the appeal and the
filing of the record in the court of appeals. The appellate proce-
dure after that point is governed by the individual rules of the
court of appeals to which the particular appeal is taken. The
procedure throughout the Federal court system, therefore, is uni-
form up to the point of filing the record on appeal but after that
point becomes widely diverse in the 11 circuits. This largely unne-
cessary diversity in the details of the procedural rules of the 11
courts of appeals is the cause of much difficulty, confusion and
uncertainty for lawyers, both government and private, a great
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1809
many of whom are called upon to prosecute appeals in the various
circuits.
The Judicial Conference is of the view that a greater uniformity
of practice can be accomplished and that the best method of
achieving this is to extend the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as proposed in S. 2354. The problem and the need for
uniformity are the same with respect to the procedure for the
review and enforcement of orders of administrative agencies both
in the district courts and in the courts of appeals. Since these
proceedings are basically civil in nature, the Judicial Conference
believes that the procedure with respect to them also can appro-
priately be provided by authorizing
[p. 3]
the scope of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure to be extended
to cover them. S. 3254 would also accomplish this purpose.
Since admiralty cases are essentially civil actions or proceed-
ings, they are likewise included in S. 3254 as part of section 2072
of title 28, thus including in that one section substantially the
entire rulemaking authority with respect to civil proceedings. This
will make it possible to eliminate the entire section 2073 dealing
only with admiralty rules from title 28, United States Code. The
enactment of this bill, which is urgently recommended by the
Judicial Conference, will complete the rulemaking authority of the
Supreme Court with respect to procedure in the courts of appeals.
The bill does not in any way affect the requirement of the third
paragraph of section 2072 of title 28, United States Code, that all
amendments to the existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
all new rules which may be proposed under the authority which S.
2354 if enacted, would grant shall not take effect until they have
been reported to the Congress at or after the beginning of a
regular session but not later than May 1 and only after the expira-
tion of 90 days after they have been reported.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM E. FOLEY,
Deputy Director
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, 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
-------
1810 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman) :
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
§ 2072. [Rules of civil procedure for district courts.] Rules of
civil procedure
[The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by gen-
eral rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and
the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United
States in civil actions.]
The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by general
rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the
practice and procedure of the district courts and courts of appeals
of the United States in civil actions, including admiralty and mari-
time cases, and appeals therein, and the practice and procedure in
proceedings for the review by the courts of appeals of decisions of
the Tax Court of the United States and for the judicial review or
enforcement of orders of administrative agencies, boards, commis-
sions, and officers.
Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common
law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitu-
tion.
Such rules shall not take effect until they have been reported to
Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the beginning of a
regular session thereof but not later than the first day of May, and
until the expiration of ninety days after they have been thus
reported.
[p. 4]
All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force
or effect after such rules have taken effect. Nothing in this title,
anything therein to the contrary notwithstanding, shall in any
way limit, supersede, or repeal any such rules heretofore pre-
scribed by the Supreme Court.
[§ 2073. Admiralty rules for district courts
[The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by gen-
eral rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions and
the practice and procedure in admiralty and maritime cases in the
district courts of the United States and all courts exercising admi-
ralty jurisdiction in the Territories and Possessions of the United
States.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1811
[Such rules shall not abridge or modify any substantive right.
[Such rules shall not take effect until they have been reported to
Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the beginning of a
regular session thereof but not later than the first day of May, and
until the expiration of ninety days after they have been thus
reported.
[All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force
or effect after such rules have taken effect. Nothing in this title
anything therein to the contrary notwithstanding, shall in any
way, limit, supersede, or repeal any such rules heretofore pre-
scribed by the Supreme Court.]
[§ 2074. Rules for review of decisions of the Tax Court of the
United States.
[The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, and
from time to time amend, uniform rules for the filing of petitions
or notices of appeal, the preparation of records, and the practice,
forms, and procedure in the several United States Courts of Ap-
peals in proceedings for review of decisions of the Tax Court of
the United States.
[Such rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the sub-
stantive rights of any litigant.
[Such rules shall not take effect until they shall have been
reported to Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the begin-
ning of a regular session thereof but not later than the first day of
May, and until the expiration of ninety days after they have been
thus reported.]
§ 2112. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders
(a) [The several courts of appeals shall have power to adopt,
with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
rules, which so far as practicable shall be uniform in all such
courts prescribing the time and manner of filing and the contents
of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of appeals
to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review, or en-
force orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions, and
officers, to the extent that the applicable statute does not specifi-
cally prescribe such time or manner of filing or contents of the
record.] The rules prescribed under the authority of section 2072
of this title may provide for the time and manner of filing and the
contents of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of
appeals to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review
or enforce orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions,
and officers. Such rules may authorize the agency, board, commis-
-------
1812 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
sion, or officer to file in the court a certified list of the materials
comprising the record and retain and hold for the court all
[p. 5]
such materials and transmit the same or any part thereof to the
court, when and as required by it, at any time prior to the final de-
termination of the proceeding, and such filing of such certified list
of the materials comprising the record and such subsequent trans-
mittal of any such materials when and as required shall be deemed
full compliance with any provision of law requiring the filing of
the record in the court. The record in such proceedings shall be
certified and filed in or held for and transmitted to the court of
appeals by the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
within the time and in the manner prescribed by such rules. If
proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals
with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or
officer, concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in
which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted.
The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall
thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the
record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the
interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the pro-
ceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.
(b) The record to be filed in the court of appeals in such a
proceeding shall consist of the order sought to be reviewed or
enforced, the findings or report upon which it is based, and the
pleadings, evidence, and proceedings before the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1) as
[the said rules of the court of appeals] the rules prescribed under
the authority of section 2072 of this title may require to be in-
cluded therein, or (2) as the agency, board, commission, or officer
concerned, the petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement,
as the case may be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned or in the court in any such proceeding may con-
sistently with [the rules of such court] the rules prescribed under
the authority of section 2702 of this title designate to be included
therein, or (3) as the court upon motion of a party or, after a
prehearing conference, upon its own motion may by order in any
such proceeding designate to be included therein. Such a stipula-
tion or order may provide in an appropriate case that no record
need be filed in the court of appeals. If, however, the correctness
of a finding of fact by the agency, board, commission, or officer is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1813
in question all of the evidence before the agency, board, commis-
sion, or officer shall be included in the record except such as the
agency, board, commission, or officer concerned, the petitioner for
review or respondent in enforcement, as the case may be, and any
intervenor in the court proceeding by written stipulation filed with
the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned or in the court
agree to omit as wholly immaterial to the questioned finding. If
there is omitted from the record any portion of the proceedings
before the agency, board, commission, or officer which the court
subsequently determines to be proper for it to consider to enable it
to review or enforce the order in question the court may direct
that such additional portion of the proceedings be filed as a supple-
ment to the record. The agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned may, at its option and without regard to the foregoing
provisions of this subsection, and if so requested by the petitioner
for review or respondent in enforcement shall, file in the court the
entire record of the proceedings before it without abbreviation.
[p-6]
ACT OF DECEMBER 29, 1950 (CH. 1189, 64 STAT. 1132)
*******
[Sec. 11. The several courts of appeals shall adopt and promul-
gate rules governing the practice and procedure, including pre-
hearing conference procedure, in proceedings to review orders
under this Act: Provided, however, That such rules shall be ap-
proved by the Judicial Conference of the United States.] * * *
[p. 7]
-------
1814 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
L5b(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 2153, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
UNIFORM CIVIL APPELLATE RULES
SEPTEMBER 29,1966.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. CELLEE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3254]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 3254) to amend sections 2072 and 2112 of title 28, United
States Code, with respect to the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and to repeal inconsistent legislation, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and rec-
ommend that the bill do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 2, lines 19 and 20, strike the words "Section 11 of the
Act of December 29, 1950 (ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1132; 5 U.S.C. 1041),
is" and insert in lieu thereof the words "Section 2352 of title 28 of
the United States Code and item 2352 in the analysis of chapter
158 of title 28 of the United States Code, are".
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
Since this bill passed the Senate prior to the enactment into law
on September 6, 1966, of Public Law 89-554, the amendment is a
technical one. Under that public law, section 11 of the Hobbs Act
had been title 5, United States Code, section 1041, but is now,
under the enactment, section 2352 of title 28, United States Code;
therefore, it is necessary to amend the bill by striking out in
section 4 on page 2, lines 19 and 20, the words, "Section 11 of the
Act of December 29,1950 (ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1132; 5 U.S.C. 1041),
is" and inserting the new words, "Section 2352 of title 28 of the
United States Code and item 2352 in the analysis of chapter 158 of
title 28 of the United States Code, are". Thus, this amendment
conforms with the changes made in existing law by the enactment
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1815
of Public Law 89-554. In conformity with the repeal of section
2352 of title 28, United States Code, the chapter analysis is
amended.
[p. 1]
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Su-
preme Court of the United States to prescribe rules of procedure
for the district courts of the United States in civil actions, and
also authorizes the Court to prescribe rules of procedure in admi-
ralty and maritime cases in the district courts.
It also authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of proce-
dure in proceedings for the review by the courts of appeals of
decisions of the Tax Court of the United States, and also to pro-
mulgate rules of procedure in proceedings to review orders of
administrative agencies, boards, and commissions. The bill codifies
in one section the rulemaking power with respect to civil rules,
admiralty rules and appeals in the Tax Court of the United States.
Accordingly, it amends sections 2072, 2073, and 2074 of title 28 of
the United States Code.
STATEMENT
This legislation was originally sponsored by the Judicial Confer-
ence of the United States under an executive communication of the
88th Congress. Similar legislation was introduced in the House,
H.R. 11101, on which hearings were held. Subsequently, as indi-
cated in the letter of December 29, 1964, copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part of this report, certain changes were made
in the legislation. In the current Congress a similar bill containing
suggested changes was introduced in the House, H.R. 7538. Since
that time, as explained above, an amendment to the bill is made in
accordance with the enactment of Public Law 89-554.
Under present law, the Supreme Court has the power to pre-
scribe rules for the trial and appeal of criminal cases, the trial and
appeal of admiralty and maritime cases and review of the deci-
sions of the Tax Court of the United States. However, its author-
ity to promulgate civil rules of procedure is limited to the practice
and procedure of the district courts of the United States which
contains no provision for the supervision of the practice and pro-
cedure in the courts of appeals.
Thus, under the existing statutory pattern, the Rules of Civil
-------
1816 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Procedure encompass only the preliminary procedure on appeal
from the filing of notice of appeal in the district court to the
docketing of appeal and the filing of the record in the court of
appeals. The appellate procedure, therefore, beyond this point is
controlled by the individual courts, of which there are 11. There-
fore, there are 11 different sets of rules governing the appellate
proceedings in the Federal judicial system.
The Judicial Conference of the United States has considered the
problem of the diversity in appellate procedure, and its Advisory
Committee on Appellate Rules has been drafting a set of uniform
rules. In March 1964 the Conference reported:
The Conference considered the question as to the manner in
which a set of appellate rules, when finally perfected, can be pro-
mulgated. Upon recommendation of the [Advisory] Committee, the
Conference approved a draft bill, submitted by the Committee,
which would amend title 28, United States Code, section 2072, to
enlarge the present civil rulemaking authority of the Supreme
Court of the United States
[P. 2]
to include appellate rules. The bill, as drawn, would extend the
civil rulemaking power of the Supreme Court to include bank-
ruptcy proceedings and proceedings for the review and enforce-
ment of orders of administrative agencies. The bill would also
consolidate the present admiralty rulemaking power with that for
all other civil actions. (Annual Report of the Director of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1961, at p. 22.)
This legislation has been urgently approved by the Judicial Con-
ference of the United States and has received the subsequent ap-
proval of the Department of Justice. At its recent meeting in
September of this year it reaffirmed its support of this bill. In
view of the urgent need for this legislation and the unanimous
support it has received, it is the opinion of this committee that
uniformity of appellate procedure is urgently needed. Therefore,
the committee recommends that the bill, S. 3254, as amended, be
considered favorably.
Attached hereto and made a part of this report are letters from
the U.S. Department of Justice, the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, and the Honorable Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Albert
B. Maris.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1817
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., August 17,1965.
Hon. E MANUEL CELLER,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your telephone
request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning
H.R. 7538, a bill to amend sections 2072 and 2112 of title 28,
United States Code, with respect to the scope of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and to repeal inconsistent legislation.
Section 2072 of title 28, United States Code, authorizes the
Supreme Court to prescribe rules of procedure for the district
courts of the United States in civil actions. Section 2073 of title 28
authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of procedure in
admiralty and maritime cases in the district courts. Section 2074
of title 28 authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of
procedure in proceedings for the review by the courts of appeals
of decisions of the Tax Court of the United States. Section 11 of
the act of December 29, 1950 (64 Stat. 1132; 5 U.S.C. 1041),
authorizes the courts of appeals to promulgate rules of procedure
in proceedings to review orders of administrative agencies,
boards, and commissions.
The bill would amend section 2072 so as to authorize the Su-
preme Court to prescribe rules of procedure for the district courts
and courts of appeals in civil actions, including admiralty and
maritime cases, and appeals therein, and in proceedings for the
review by the courts of appeals of decisions of the Tax Court of
the United States, and for the judicial review or enforcement of
orders of administrative boards, commissions, and officers. The bill
would repeal sections 2073 and 2074 of title 28 of the United
States Code, and section 11 of the act of December 29, 1950 (5
U.S.C. 1041). Also, it would amend section 2112 of title 28, relat-
ing to the record on review and enforcement of agency orders, in
order to conform that section to the provisions of the legislation.
The effect of the legislation is to include within section 2072
authority of the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of procedure for
the
[p. 3]
courts of appeals and consolidate in such section the Court's
present authority to nrescribe rules in admiralty and maritime
526-704 O - 74 - 5
-------
1818 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
cases as well as in proceedings for review of decisions of the Tax
Court of the United States.
We are advised that a committee of the Judicial Conference of
the United States has before it a preliminary draft of proposed
"Uniform Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure." The bill would
authorize the Supreme Court to adopt these proposed rules.
The Department of Justice favors the enactment of the bill.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection
to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the admin-
istration's program.
Sincerely,
(S) RAMSEY CLARK,
Deputy Attorney General.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS,
Washington, D.C., September 28,1966.
Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER : This refers to S. 3254, 89th Con-
gress, a bill passed by the Senate on July 27, 1966, to amend
sections 2072 and 2112 of title 28, United States Code, with re-
spect to the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to
repeal inconsistent legislation.
This is to advise you that the Judicial Conference of the United
States at its meeting on September 22-23, 1966, voted to reaffirm
its support of S. 3254.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM E. FOLEY,
Deputy Director.
PHILADELPHIA, PA., December 29,1964.
Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CELLER: On behalf of the Judicial Conference of the
United States I enclose a draft bill to amend sections 2072 and
2112 of title 28, United States Code, so as to empower the Su-
preme Court to enlarge the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to include the procedure in the courts of appeals in civil
actions as well as the procedure in the district courts and the
courts of appeals for the judicial review or enforcement of orders
of administrative agencies. This is a redraft of H.R. 11101 which
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1819
Mr. Rodino introduced in the 88th Congress at the request of the
Judicial Conference. The enclosed draft modifies H.R. 11101 in the
following particulars:
1. It eliminated the bankruptcy procedure from the bill in view
of the fact that the Supreme Court has now been given full power
to prescribe rules of bankruptcy procedure by the act of October 3,
1964, Public Law 88-623.
2. The authority to make rules of procedure governing the re-
view of Tax Court decisions is transferred from section 2074 to
section 2072, as recommended by the Department of Justice.
[P. 4]
3. Appropriate technical amendments are made to the Hobbs
Act of December 29, 1950, and to section 2112 of title 28 as
suggested by the Department of Justice.
4. A few changes have been made in the interest of greater
precision of language.
In addition the bill transfers from section 2073 to section 2072
the admiralty rulemaking power, just as H.R. 11101 did, since
admiralty cases are essentially civil actions, and it is very much in
the public interest that the practice be unified as much as possible.
The enactment of the enclosed bill will complete the rulemaking
authority of the Supreme Court with respect to procedure in the
courts of appeals. At present the Supreme Court has authority to
make rules governing the procedure in the courts of appeals in
criminal cases under title 18, United States Code, section 3772, in
Tax Court cases under title 28, United States Code, section 2074,
and in bankruptcy proceedings under title 28, United States Code,
section 2075, but the Court does not presently have similar author-
ity with respect to civil actions, including admiralty cases, nor
with respect to proceedings to enforce or review orders of admin-
istrative agencies.
Uniformity of procedure in the 11 courts of appeals is today
sadly lacking and it is very much in the public interest that uni-
formity of such procedure be achieved. Acting under its existing
statutory authority the Judicial Conference through its Committee
on Rules of Practice and Procedure, of which I am Chairman, and
its Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, of which Judge E.
Barrett Prettyman is Chairman, has formulated a preliminary
draft of proposed uniform rules of procedure for the U.S. Courts
of Appeals, which is now being considered by the bench and bar.
A copy is enclosed. The enactment of the enclosed bill will enable
uniform rules of this type, after they have been thoroughly consid-
-------
1820 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ered and generally approved by the bench and bar and have been
recommended by the Judicial Conference, to be promulgated by
the Supreme Court.
We will be very grateful if you will introduce the enclosed bill
when the 89th Congress convenes and we hope that it will have
prompt and favorable consideration.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
(S) ALBERT B. MARIS,
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the House of Repre-
sentatives, there is printed below in roman existing law in which
no change is proposed by the bill as reported. Matter proposed to
be stricken by the bill as reported is enclosed in black brackets.
New language proposed by the bill as reported is printed in italic.
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
§ 2072. [Rules of civil procedure for district courts] Rules of
civil procedure
[The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by gen-
eral rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and
[p. 5]
the practice and procedure of the district courts of the United
States in civil actions.]
The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe by general
rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the
practice and procedure of the district courts and courts of appeals
of the United States in civil actions, including admiralty and mari-
time cases, and appeals therein, and the practice and procedure in
proceedings for the review by the courts of appeals of decisions of
the Tax Court of the United States and for the judicial review or
enforcement of orders of administration agencies, boards, commis-
sions, and officers.
Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common
law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitu-
tion.
Such rules shall not take effect until they have been reported to
Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the beginning of a
regular session thereof but not later than the first day of May, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1821
until the expiration of ninety days after they have been thus
reported.
All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force
or effect after such rules have taken effect. Nothing in this title,
anything therein to the contrary notwithstanding, shall in any
way limit, supersede, or repeal any such rules heretofore pre-
scribed by the Supreme Court.
[§ 2073. Admiralty rules for district courts
[The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, by gen-
eral rules, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions and
the practice and procedure in admiralty and maritime cases in the
district courts of the United States and all courts exercising admi-
ralty jurisdiction in the Territories and Possessions of the United
States.
[Such rules shall not abridge or modify any substantive right.
[Such rules shall not take effect until they have been reported to
Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the beginning of a
regular session thereof but not later than the first day of May, and
until the expiration of ninety days after they have been thus
reported.
[All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force
or effect after such rules have taken effect. Nothing in this title
anything therein to the contrary notwithstanding, shall in any
way limit, supersede, or repeal any such rules heretofore pre-
scribed by the Supreme Court.]
[§ 2074. Rules for review of decisions of the Tax Court of the
United States
[The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe, and
from time to time amend, uniform rules for the filing of petitions
or notices of appeal, the preparation of records, and the practice
forms and procedure in the several United States Courts of Ap-
peals in proceedings for review of decisions of the Tax Court of
the United States.
[Such rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the sub-
stantive rights of any litigant.
[Such rules shall not take effect until they shall have been
reported to Congress by the Chief Justice at or after the begin-
ning of a regular session thereof but not later than the first day of
May, and until the expiration of ninety days after they have been
thus reported.]
[p. 6]
2112. Record on review and enforcement of agency orders
(a) [The several courts of appeals shall have power to adopt,
-------
1822 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
with the approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States,
rules, which as far as practicable shall be uniform in all such
courts prescribing the time and manner of filing and the contents
of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of appeals
to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review or en-
force orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions, and
officers, to the extent that the applicable statute does not specifi-
cally prescribe such time or manner of filing or contents of the
record.] The rules prescribe under the authority of section 2072 of
this title may provide for the time and manner of filing and the
contents of the record in all proceedings instituted in the courts of
appeals to enjoin, set aside, suspend, modify, or otherwise review
or enforce orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions,
and officers. Such rules may authorize the agency, board, commis-
sion, or officer to file in the court a certified list of the materials
comprising the record and retain and hold for the court all such
materials and transmit the same or any part thereof to the court,
whon and as required by it, at any time prior to the final determi-
nation of the proceeding, and such filing of such certified list of
the materials comprising the record and such subsequent trans-
mittal of any such materials when and as required shall be deemed
full compliance with any provision of law requiring the filing of
the record in the court. The record in such proceedings shall be
certified and filed in or held for and transmitted to the court of
appeals by the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned
within the time and in the manner prescribed by such rules. If
proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals
with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in
which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted.
The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall
thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the
record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the
interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the pro-
ceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.
(b) The record to be filed in the court of appeals in such a
proceeding shall consist of the order sought to be reviewed or
enforced, the findings or report upon which it is based, and the
pleadings, evidence, and proceedings before the agency, board,
commission, or officer concerned, or such portions thereof (1) as
[the said rules of the court of appeals] the rules prescribed under
the authority of section 2072 of this title may require to be in-
cluded therein, or (2) as the agency, board, commission, or officer
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1823
concerned, the petitioner for review or respondent in enforcement,
as the case may be, and any intervenor in the court proceeding by
written stipulation filed with the agency, board, commission, or
officer concerned or in the court in any such proceeding may con-
sistently with [the rules of such court] the rules prescribed under
the authority of section 2072 of this title designate to be included
therein, or (3) as the court upon motion of a party or, after a
prehearing conference, upon its own motion may by order in any
such proceeding designate to be included therein. Such a stipula-
tion or order may provide in an appropriate case that no record
need be filed in the court of appeals. If, however, the correctness
of a finding of
[p. 7]
fact by the agency, board, commission, or officer is in question
all of the evidence before the agency, board, commission, or
officer shall be included in the record except such as the
agency, board, commission, or officer concerned, the petitioner for
review or respondent in enforcement, as the case may be, and any
intervenor in the court proceeding by written stipulation filed with
the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned or in the court
agree to omit as wholly immaterial to the questioned finding. If
there is omitted from the record any portion of the proceedings
before the agency, board, commission, or officer which the court
subsequently determines to be proper for it to consider to enable it
to review or enforce the order in question the court may direct
that such additional portion of the proceedings be filed as a supple-
ment to the record. The agency, board, commission, or officer con-
cerned may, at its option and without regard to the foregoing
provisions of this subsection, and if so requested by the petitioner
for review or respondent in enforcement shall, file in the court the
entire record of the proceedings before it without abbreviation.
Chapter 131. RULES OF COURTS
Sec.
*******
[2072. Rules of civil procedure for district courts.] Rules of civil procedure.
[2073. Admiralty rules for districts courts.]
[2074. Rules for review of decisions of the Tax Court of the United States.]
*******
Chapter 158.—ORDERS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES; REVIEW
Sec.
*******
[2352. Rules.]
[p. 8]
-------
1824
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.5b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 112 (1966)
1.5b(3)(a) July 27: Passed Senate, p. 17306
UNIFORM CIVIL APPELLATE
RULES
The bill (S. 3254) to amend sections
2072 and 2112 of title 28, United
States Code, with respect to the scope
of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure and to repeal inconsistent legis-
lation was considered, ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, read
the third time, and passed, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer-
ica in Congress assembled. That the catchline
and first paragraph of section 2072 of title 28
of the United States Code are amended so as
to read as follows:
"§ 2072. Rules of civil proedure
"The Supreme Court shall have the power
to prescribe by general rules, the forms of
piocess, writs, pleadings, and motions, and
the practice and procedure of the district
courts and courts of appeals of the United
States in civil actions, including admiralty
and maritime cases, and appeals therein, and
the practice and- procedure in proceedings for
the review by the courts of appeals of deci-
sions of the Tax Court of the United States
and for the judicial review or enforcement of
orders of administrative agencies, boards,
commissions, and officers."
Sec. 2. Section 2073 and 2074 of title 28 of
the United States Code are repealed, but their
repeal shall not operate to invalidate or repeal
rules adopted under the authority of one of
those sections prior to the enactment of this
Act, which rules shall remain in effect until
superseded by rules prescribed under the au-
thority of section 2072 of title 28 of the
United States Code as amended by this Act.
Sec. 3. Item 2072 in the analysis of chapter
131 of title 28 of the United States Code,
appearing immediately preceding section 2071
thereof, is amended so as to read as follows:
"Sec. 2072. Rules of civil procedure.",
and items 2073 and 2074 are stricken from
such analysis.
Sec. 4. Section 11 of the Act of December
29, 1950 (ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1132; 5 U.S.C.
1041), is repealed, but its repeal shall not
operate to invalidate or repeal rules adopted
under the authority of that section prior to
the enactment of this Act, which rules shall
remain in effect until superseded by rules
prescribed under the authority of section 2072
of title 28 of the United States Code as
amended by this Act.
Sec. 5. (a) The first sentence of subsection
(a) of section 2112 of title 28 of the United
States Code is amended to read as follows:
"The rules prescribed under the authority of
section 2072 of this title may provide for the
time and manner of filing and the contents of
the record in all proceedings instituted in the
courts of appeals to enjoin, set aside, suspend,
modify, or otherwise review or enforce orders
of administrative agencies, boards, commis-
sions, and officers."
(b) The first sentence of subsection (b) of
section 2112 of title 28 of the United States
Code is amended by striking out the phrase
"the said rules of the court of appeals" and
striking out the phrase "the rules of such
court" and inserting in lieu of each of such
phrases the phrase "the rules prescribed under
the authority of section 2072 of this title".
(c) The amendments of section 2112 of title
28 of the United States Code made by this
Act shall not operate to invalidate or repeal
rules adopted under the authority of that
section prior to the enactment of this Act,
which rules shall remain in effect until su-
perseded by rules prescribed under the author-
ity of section 2072 of title 28 of the United
States Code as amended by this Act.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD an excerpt from
the report (No. 1406), explaining the
purposes of the bill.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
The purpose of the proposed legislation is
to authorize the Supreme Court to extend the
scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to encompass practice and procedure in civil
actions conducted before the U.S. courts of
appeals. The bill also codifies in one section
the rule-making power with respect to civil
rules, admiralty rules and appeals from the
Tax Court of the United States. Rules for
appeals of agency decisions will also be pro-
mulgated under the amended 28 U.S.C. section
2072.
STATEMENT
Current statutory law provides that the Su-
preme Court has the power to prescribe rules
for the trial and appeal of criminal cases, 18
U.S.C., sections 3771-3772, the trial and ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1825
peal of admiralty and maritime cases, 28
U.S.C., section 2073, and the review of deci-
sions of the Tax Court of the United States,
28 U.S.C., section 2074. However, the statute
which provides for the promulgations of civil
rules of procedure, 28 U.S.C., section 2072,
extends only to the practice and procedure of
the district courts of the United States, mak-
ing no provision for governing the practice
and procedure in the courts of appeals.
Due to this omission in the existing statu-
tory pattern, the Rules of Civil Procedure
cover only the preliminary procedure on ap-
peal from the filing of the notice of appeal in
the district court to the docketing of the
appeal and the filing of the record in the
court of appeals. Appellate procedure beyond
that point is controlled by the individual rules
of the courts of appeals to which the particu-
lar appeal is taken. There are 11 courts of
appeals and conseauently 11 different sets of
rules governing appellate proceedings in the
Federal system.
The Judicial Conference of the United
States has considered the problem of the di-
versity in appellate procedure, and its Advi-
sory Committee on Appellate Rules has been
drafting a set of uniform rules. In March
1964 the Conference reported:
"The Conference considered the question as
to the manner in which a set of appellate
rules, when finally perfected, can be promul-
gated. Upon recommendation of the [Advis-
ory] Committee, the Conference approved a
draft bill, submitted by the Committee, which
would amend 28 U.S.C., section 2072, to en-
large the present civil rule-making authority
of the Supreme Court of the United States to
include appellate rules. The bill, as drawn,
would extend the civil rulemaking power of
the Supreme Court to include bankruptcy pro-
ceedings and proceedings for the review and
enforcement of orders of administrative agen-
cies. The bill would also consolidate the pres-
ent admiralty rulemaking power with that for
all other civil actions." (Annual Report of the
Di rector of the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, 1964, at p. 22.)
Judicial Conference of the United States
has informed the committee that it "urgently"
recommends the passage of S. 3254.
The bill also has the effect of placing in one
statutory section substantially all of the rule-
making authority with respect to civil pro-
ceedings. The bill will not alter the provisions
of the third paragraph of section 2072 of title
28, United States Code, and all amendments to
existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
any new rules proposed under the authority of
S 3254 would not take effect until they had
been reported to Congress at or after the
beginning of a regular session but not later
than May 1 and only after the expiration of
90 days after they had been so reported.
Under these provisions it would be neces-
sary for Congress to enact a law within the
90-day period to prevent a proposed rule from
taking effect. Even though section 2072 of
title 28 provides that rules must not affect
substantive rights, as a practical matter little
opportunity is available for Congress to act
upon a proposed rule that might infringe
upon this requirement.
This bill follows a procedure for the adop-
tion of appellate rules that parallels the pro-
cedures under existing law for the promulga-
tion of the Federal Rules of Civil and Crimi-
nal Procedure. In following this procedure,
however, it is not necessarily the intention of
the committee to indicate renewed approval of
this manner of promulgating rules of court
procedure. Members of the Supreme Court
and of this committee have expressed reserva-
tions about the way in which rules of court
procedures are adopted, and about the lack of
opportunity for congressional review, and
have suggested that the matter deserves care-
ful reexamination.
Federal practice and procedure now has the
benefit of uniform appellate rules for the
prosecution of every type of appeal except r-
civil appeal. This bill, if enacted, will extend
this benefit to civil appeals as well.
In view of these considerations, the commit-
tee recommends that the bill S. 3254, be con-
sidered favorably.
[p. 17306]
1.5b(3)(b) Oct. 20: Passed House, p. 28141
AMENDMENT OF UNITED
STATES CODE WITH RESPECT
TO SCOPE OF FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union be discharged from fur-
ther consideration of the bill S. 3254,
to amend section 2072 and 2112 of
title 28, United States Code, with re-
spect to the scope of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and to repeal
inconsistent legislation, to-
[p. 28140]
-------
1826
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
gether with committee amendments
which are technical, and ask for its
immediate consideration. The bill was
on the Consent Calendar and was ob-
jected to. The objector has now re-
moved his objection.
The bill was read by title.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, and I shall not
object, in light of my actions yester-
day in respect to the unanimous-con-
sent requests that were made in the
House with respect to Senate bills or
House bills with Senate amendments
thereto, and the explanation that I
gave to the House respecting the rea-
soning behind my numerous objection,
I am pleased to announce to the House
that the matters which I considered in
difference between this body and the
other body in the field of private legis-
lation, specifically covering 37 private
legislation bills, have been resolved.
This is to advise the Members of the
House that the white flag is now
flying in the other body.
I have been advised by the majority
leader of the other body that the Sen-
ate will act tomorrow on the 37 House
bills the rescue of which was the ob-
ject of my actions.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, with re-
spect to the House bills and the au-
thors identified thereby, which were
being summarily held up in the other
body, there were some 13 bills of
Members on this side of the aisle and
some 24 bills of Members on the other
side of the aisle. Bills introduced by
Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr.
FASCELL, Mr. MCCORMACK, the
Speaker, Mr. MADDEN, Mr. HELSTOSKI,
Mr. STEPHENS, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. FUL-
TON, Mr. FUQUA, Mr. WELTNER, Mr.
GRIDER, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. POLANCO-
ABREU, Mr. CONTE, Mr. MOORE, Mr.
GURNEY, Mr. SMITH of New York,
Mr. TEAGUE of California, Mr. Hos-
MER, Mr. POFP, and Mr. CRAMER
among others were being dealt with
unfairly in the other body.
I felt, in the interest of fair play
and the interest of seeing to it that
the other body kept its agreement
which its conferees had made with the
House conferees on another subject
respecting these bills, that it was nec-
essary that I for a moment display
the power of a single Member of the
House actually has in order to put the
full burden upon the other body and
bring to the attention of the Members
of the House that their bills were not
being dealt with fairly by the other
body.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reser-
vation.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as
follows:
S. 3254
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of Amer-
ica in Congress assembled, That the catchline
and first paragraph of section 2072 of title 28
of the United States Code are amended so as
to read as follows:
"§ 2072. Rules of civil procedure
"The Supreme Court shall have the power
to prescribe by general rules, the forms of
process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and
the practice and procedure of the district
courts and courts of appeals of the United
States in civil actions, including admiralty
and maritime cases, and appeals therein, and
the practice and procedure in proceedings for
the review by the courts of appeals of deci-
sions of the Tax Court of the United States
and for the judicial review or enforcement of
orders of administrative agencies, boards,
commissions, and officers."
Sec. 2. Sections 2073 and 2074 of title 28 of
the United States Code are repealed, but their
repeal shall not operate to invalidate or repeal
rules adopted under the authority of one of
those sections prior to the enactment of this
Act, which rules shall remain in effect until
superseded by rules prescribed under the au-
thority of section 2072 of title 28 of the
United States Code as amended by this Act.
Sec 3. Item 2072 in the analysis of chapter
131 of title 28 of the United States Code,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1827
appearing immediately preceding section 2071
thereof, is amended so as to read as follows:
"Sec. 2072. Rules of civil procedure.",
and items 2073 and 2074 are stricken from
such analysis.
Sec. 4. Section 11 of the Act of December
29, 1950 (ch. 1189, 64 Stat. 1132; B U.S.C.
1041), is repealed, but its repeal shall not
operate to invalidate or repeal rules adopted
under the authority of that section prior to
the enactment of this Act, which rules shall
remain in effect until superseded by rules
prescribed under the authority of section 2072
of title 28 of the United States Code as
amended by this Act.
Sec. B. (a) The first sentence of subsection
(a) of section 2112 of title 28 of the United
States Code is amended to read as follows:
"The rules prescribed under the authority of
section 2072 of this title may provide for the
time and manner of filing and the contents of
the record in all proceedings instituted in the
courts of appeals to enjoin, set aside, suspend,
modify, or otherwise review or enforce orders
of administrative agencies, boards, commis-
sions, and officers."
(b) The first sentence of subsection (b) of
section 2112 of title 28 of the United States
Code is amended by striking out the phrase
"the said rules of the court of appeals" and
striking out the phrase "the rules of such
court*' and inserting in lieu of each of such
phrases the phrase "the rules prescribed under
the authority of section 2072 of this title".
(c) The amendments of section 2112 of title
28 of the United States Code made by this
Act shall not operate to invalidate or repeal
rules adopted under the authority of that
section prior to the enactment of this Act,
which rules shall remain in effect until su-
perseded by rules prescribed under the author-
ity of section 2072 of title 28 of the United
States Code as amended by this Act.
With the following committee amendment:
On page 2, line 19, strike out "Section 11 of
the Act of December 29, I960 (ch. 1189, 64
Stat. 1132; 5 U.S.C. 1041), is" and insert in
lieu thereof "Section 2362 of title 28 of the
United States Code and item 23B2 in the
analysis of chapter 158 of title 28 of the
United States Code, are".
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be read a
third time, was read the third time,
and passed, and a motion to reconsi-
der was laid on the table.
[p. 28141]
-------
1828 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.6 DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
GENERALLY
As amended, 18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857c-9(c), 1857d(j)(l), 1857f-6(b),
1857h-5(a)(l)]
(See "General 1.16a-1.16a(3) (d)" for legislative history.)
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
GENERALLY
18 § 1905
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 employ-
ment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investi-
gation 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, confi-
dential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits,
losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corpora-
tion, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof
or any book containing any abstract or particulars 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 employment.
June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 791.
1.7 PER DIEM, TRAVEL, AND TRANSPORTATION
EXPENSES; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS;
INDIVIDUALS SERVING WITHOUT PAY
As amended, 5 U.S.C. §5703 (1969)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857(d)(i), 1857e(e), 1857f-6e(b)(2)]
(See "General 1.15a-1.15b(3) (c)" for legislative history.)
5 § 5703
(a) For the purpose of this section, "appropriation" includes
funds made available by statute under section 849 of title 31.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1829
(b) An individual employed intermittently in the Government
service as an expert or consultant and paid on a daily when-actual-
ly-employed basis may be allowed travel expenses under this sub-
chapter while away from his home or regular place of business,
including a per diem allowance under this subchapter while at his
place of employment.
(c) An individual serving without pay or at $1 a year may be
allowed transportation expenses under this subchapter and a per
diem allowance under this section while en route and at his place
of service or employment away from his home or regular place of
business. Unless a higher rate is named in an appropriation or
other statute, the per diem allowance may not exceed—
(1) the rate of $25 for travel inside the continental United
States; and
(2) the rates established under section 5702 (a) of this title
for travel outside the continental United States.
(d) Under regulations prescribed under section 5707 of this
title, the head of the agency concerned may prescribe conditions
under which an individual to whom this section applies may be
reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses of the trip, not
to exceed an amount named in the travel authorization, when the
maximum per diem allowance would be much less than these ex-
penses due to the unusual circumstances of the travel assignment.
The amount named in the travel authorization may not exceed—
(1) $40 for each day in a travel status inside the continen-
tal United States; or
(2) the maximum per diem allowance plus $18 for each day
in a travel status outside the continental United States.
Pub.L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 499; amended Pub.L.
91-114, § 2, Nov. 10, 1969, 83 Stat. 190.
1.8 HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
As amended, 23 U.S.C. §402 (1970)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-6b(2)]
§ 402. Highway Safety Programs
(a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths,
injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such pro-
-------
1830 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
grams shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated
by the Secretary. Such uniform standards shall be expressed in
terms of performance criteria. Such uniform standards shall be
promulgated by the Secretary so as to improve driver perform-
ance (including, but not limited to, driver education, driver test-
ing to determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver ex-
aminations (both physical and mental) and driver licensing) and
to improve pedestrian performance. In addition such uniform
standards shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for an
effective record system of accidents (including injuries and deaths
resulting therefrom), accident investigations to determine the
probable causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths, vehicle registra-
tion, operation, and inspection, highway design and maintenance
(including lighting, markings, and surface treatment), traffic con-
trol, vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of traffic for detection
and correction of high or potentially high accident locations, and
emergency services. Such standards as are applicable to State
highway safety programs shall, to the extent determined appropri-
ate by the Secretary, be applicable to federally administered areas
where a Federal department or agency controls the highways or
supervises traffic operations. The Secretary shall be authorized to
amend or waive standards on a temporary basis for the purpose of
evaluating new or different highway safety programs instituted on
an experimental, pilot, or demonstration basis by one or more
States, where the Secretary finds that the public interest would be
served by such amendment or waiver.
(b) (1) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be respon-
sible for the administration of the program through a State
agency which shall have adequate powers, and be suitably
equipped and organized to carry out, to the satisfaction of the
Secretary, such program.
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), shall be
subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the neces-
sary costs of administering the provisions of this section, and the
remainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30,
1969, such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his adminis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1831
trative discretion may deem appropriate and thereafter such
funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum in the ratio which the
population of each State bears to the total population of all the
States, as shown by the latest available Federal census, and 25 per
centum in the ratio which the public road mileage in each State
bears to the total public road mileage in all States. For the pur-
poses of this subsection, a "public road" means any road under the
jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to
public travel. The annual apportionment to each State shall not be
less than one-third of 1 per centum of the total apportionment.
After December 31, 1969, the Secretary shall not apportion any
funds under this subsection to any State which is not implement-
ing a highway safety program approved by the Secretary in ac-
cordance with this section. Federal aid highway funds apportioned
on or after January 1, 1970, to any State which is not implement-
ing a highway safety program approved by the Secretary in ac-
cordance with this section shall be reduced by amounts equal to 10
per centum of the amounts which would otherwise be apportioned
to such State under section 104 of this title, until such time as
such State is implementing an approved highway safety program.
Whenever he determines it to be in the public interest, the Secre-
tary may suspend, for such periods as he deems necessary, the
application of the preceding sentence to a State. Any amount
which is withheld from apportionment to any State under this
section shall be reapportioned to the other States in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law.
(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions relat-
ing to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the ex-
penditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply to
the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be incon-
sistent with this section, and except that the aggregate of all
expenditures made during any fiscal year by a State and its politi-
cal subdivisions (exclusive of Federal funds) for carrying out the
State highway safety program shall be available for the purpose
of crediting such State during such fiscal year for the non-Federal
share of the cost of any project under this section without regard
to whether such expenditures were actually made in connection
with such project. In applying such provisions of chapter 1 in
carrying out this section the term "State highway department" as
-------
1832 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
used in such provisions shall mean the Governor of a State for the
purposes of this section.
(e) Uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary to carry
out this section shall be developed in cooperation with the States,
their political subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such other public and private organizations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
(f) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of
uniform standards for the highway safety programs contemplated
by subsection (a) and in the administration of such programs.
Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate in such
preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
(g) Nothing in this section authorizes the appropriation or
expenditure of funds for (1) highway construction, maintenance,
or design (other than design of safety features of highways to be
incorporated into standards) or (2) any purpose for which funds
are authorized by section 403 of this title. Added Pub.L. 89-564,
Title I, § 101, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 731, and amended Pub.L.
90-495, § 13, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 822.
(h) Except in the case of those State safety program elements
with respect to which uniform standards have been promulgated
by the Secretary before December 31, 1970, the Secretary shall not
promulgate any other uniform safety standard under this section
unless at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such standard
he shall have submitted such standard to Congress.
Added Pub.L. 89-564, Title I, § 101, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 731,
and amended Pub.L. 90-495, § 13, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 822,
amended Pub.L. 91-605, Title II, §§ 202(c)-(e), 203(a), Dec. 31,
1970, 84 Stat. 1740, 1741.
1.8a HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
September 9, 1966, P.L. 89-564, Title I, §101, 80 Stat. 731
AN ACT
To provide for a coordinated national highway safety program through
financial assistance to the States to accelerate highway traffic safety
programs, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I—HIGHWAY SAFETY
SEC. 101. Title 23, United States Code, is hereby amended by
adding at the end thereof a new chapter:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1833
"Chapter 4.—HIGHWAY SAFETY
Sec.
"401. Authority of the Secretary.
"402. Highway safety programs.
"403. Highway safety research and development.
"404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
"§ 401. Authority of the Secretary
"The Secretary is authorized and directed to assist and cooper-
ate with other Federal departments and agencies, State and local
governments, private industry, and other interested parties, to
increase highway safety.
"§ 402. Highway safety programs
" (a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths,
injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such pro-
grams shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated
by the Sacretary. Such uniform standards shall be expressed in
terms of performance criteria. Such uniform standards shall be
promulgated by the Secretary so as to improve driver perform-
ance (including, but not limited to, driver education, driver test-
ing to determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver ex-
aminations (both physical and mental) and driver licensing) and
to improve pedestrian performance. In addition such uniform
standards shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for an
effective record system of accidents (including injuries and deaths
resulting therefrom), accident investigations to determine the
probable causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths, vehicle registra-
tion, operation, and inspection, highway design and maintenance
(including lighting, markings, and surface treatment), traffic con-
trol, vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of traffic for detection
and correction of high or potentially high accident locations, and
emergency services. Such standards as are applicable to State
highway safety programs shall, to the extent determined appropri-
ate by the Secretary, be applicable to federally administered areas
where a Federal department or agency controls the highways or
supervises traffic operations. The Secretary shall be authorized to
amend or waive standards on a temporary basis for the purpose of
evaluating new or different highway safety programs instituted on
an experimental, pilot, or demonstration basis by one or more
States, where the Secretary finds that the public interest would be
served by such amendment or waiver.
526-704 O - 74 - 6
-------
1834 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"(b)(1) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
"(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be res-
ponsible for the administration of the program.
"(B) authorize political subdivisions of such State to carry
out local highway safety programs within their jurisdictions
as a
[p. 731]
part of the State highway safety program if such local
highway safety programs are approved by the Governor and
are in accordance with the uniform standards of the Secre-
tary promulgated under this section.
"(C) provide that at least 40 per centum of all Federal
funds apportioned under this section to such State for any
fiscal year will be expended by the political subdivisions of
such State in carrying out local highway safety programs
authorized in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this par-
agraph.
"(D) provide that the aggregate expenditure of funds of
the State and political subdivisions thereof, exclusive of Fed-
eral funds, for highway safety programs will be maintained
at a level which does not fall below the average level of such
expenditures for its last two full fiscal years preceding the
date of enactment of this section.
"(E) provide for comprehensive driver training programs,
including (1) the initiation of a State program for driver
education in the school systems or for a significant expansion
and improvement of such a program already in existence, to
be administered by appropriate school officials under the su-
pervision of the Governor as set forth in subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph; (2) the training of qualified school in-
structors and their certification; (3) appropriate regulation
of other driver training schools, including licensing of the
schools and certification of their instructors; (4) adult driver
training programs, and programs for the retraining of se-
lected drivers; and (5) adequate research, development and
procurement of practice driving facilities, simulators, and
other similar teaching aids for both school and other driver
training use.
"(2) The Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement of
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, in whole
or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever he determines
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1835
that there is an insufficient number of local highway safety pro-
grams to justify the expenditure in such State of such percentage
of Federal funds during such fiscal year.
"(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway
safety programs approved in accordance with subsection (a),
shall be subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the
necessary costs of administering the provisions of this section, and
the remainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For
the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30,
1969, such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his adminis-
trative discretion may deem appropriate and thereafter such
funds shall be apportioned as Congress, by law enacted hereafter,
shall provide. On or before January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall
report to Congress his recommendations with respect to a nondis-
cretionary formula for apportionment of funds authorized to
carry out this section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
fiscal years thereafter. After December 31, 1968, the Secretary
shall not apportion any funds under this subsection to any State
which is not implementing a highway safety program approved by
the Secretary in accordance with this section. Federal aid highway
funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1969, to any State which
is not implementing a highway safety program approved by the
Secretary in accordance with this section shall be reduced by
amounts equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which would
otherwise be apportioned to such State under section 104 of this
title, until
[p. 732]
such time as such State is implementing an approved highway
safety program. Whenever he determines it to be in the public
interest, the Secretary may suspend, for such periods as he deems
necessary, the application of the preceding sentence to a State.
Any amount which is withheld from apportionment to any
State under this section shall be reapportioned to the other States
in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
"(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions relat-
ing to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the ex-
penditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply to
the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be incon-
-------
1836 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
sistent with this section. In applying such provisions of chapter 1
in carrying out this section the term 'State highway department'
as used in such provisions shall mean the Governor of a State for
the purposes of this section.
" (e) Uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary to carry
out this section shall be developed in cooperation with the States,
their political subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such other public and private organizations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
"(f) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of
uniform standards for the highway safety programs contemplated
by subsection (a) and in the administration of such programs.
Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate in such
preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
"(g) Nothing in this section authorizes the appropriation or
expenditure of funds for (1) highway construction, maintenance,
or design (other than design of safety features of highways to be
incorporated into standards) or (2) any purpose for which funds
are authorized by section 403 of this title.
"§ 403. Highway safety research and development
"The Secretary is authorized to use funds appropriated to carry
out this section to carry out safety research which he is authorized
to conduct by subsection (a) of section 307 of this title. In addi-
tion, the Secretary may use the funds appropriated to carry out
this section, either independently or in cooperation with other
Federal departments or agencies, for (1) grants to State or local
agencies, institutions, and individuals for training or education of
highway safety personnel, (2) research fellowships in highway
safety, (3) development of improved accident investigation proce-
dures, (4) emergency service plans, (5) demonstration projects,
and (6) related activities which are deemed by the Secretary to be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
"§ 404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee
"(a) (1) There is established in the Department of Commerce a
National Highway Safety Advisory Committee, composed of the
Secretary or an officer of the Department appointed by him, who
shall be chairman, the Federal Highway Administrator, and twen-
ty-nine members appointed by the President, no more than four of
whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, having due regard for the purposes of this chapter, shall be
selected from among representatives of various State and local
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1837
governments, including State legislatures, of public and private
interests contributing to,
[p. 733]
affected by, or concerned with highway safety, and of other public
and private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an
active interest in highway safety, as well as research scientists
and other individuals who are expert in this field.
"(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold
office for a term of three years, except that (i) any member
appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the
term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
for the remainder of such term, and (ii) the terms of office of
members first taking office after the date of enactment of this
section shall expire as follows: ten at the end of one year after
such date, ten at the end of two years after such date, and nine at
the end of three years after such date, as designated by the Presi-
dent at the time of appointment, and (iii) the term of any mem-
ber shall be extended until the date on which the successor's ap-
pointment is effective. None of the members appointed by the
President other than Federal officers or employees shall be eligible
for reappointment within one year following the end of his pre-
ceding term.
" (B) Members of the Committee who are not officers or employ-
ees of the United States shall, while attending meetings or confer-
ences of such Committee or otherwise engaged in the business of
such Committee, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed
by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including trav-
eltime, and while away from their homes or regular places of
business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, as authorized in section 5 of the Administra-
tive Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently. Payments under this
section shall not render members of the Committee employees or
officials of the United States for any purpose.
"(b) The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee shall
advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the Secretary
on matters relating to the activities and functions of the Depart-
ment in the field of highway safety. The Committee is authorized
(1) to review research projects or programs submitted to or rec-
ommended by it in the field of highway safety and recommend to
the Secretary, for prosecution under this title, any such projects
which it believes show promise of making valuable contributions
-------
1838 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to human knowledge with respect to the cause and prevention of
highway accidents; and (2) to review, prior to issuance, stand-
ards proposed to be issued by order of the Secretary under the
provisions of section 402 (a) of this title and to make recommen-
dations thereon. Such recommendations shall be published in
connection with the Secretary's determination or order.
"(c) The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee shall
meet from time to time as the Secretary shall direct, but at least
once each year.
"(d) The Secretary shall provide to the National Highway
Safety Committee from among the personnel and facilities of the
Department of Commerce such staff and facilities as are necessary
to carry out the functions of such Committee."
[p. 734]
1.8a(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 1302, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
JUNE 23, 1966—Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3052]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 3052) to provide for a coordinated national highway safety
program through financial assistance to the States to accelerate
highway traffic safety programs, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL, AS AMENDED
If enacted, as amended, S. 3052 would—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
(1) Direct the Secretary of Commerce (or the Secretary of
Transportation, if a Department of Transportation is estab-
lished) to assist and cooperate with other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, and other interested parties, to
increase highway safety;
(2) (a) Direct the Secretary to encourage and assist each
of the States in the establishment of a highway safety pro-
gram based on a comprehensive statewide plan and in accord-
ance with uniform standards to be approved by the Secretary,
which standards shall include, but not be limited to, provi-
sions for an effective accident record system, measures calcu-
lated to improve driver education and performance, motor
vehicle inspection and administration, highway design, sur-
face treatment and maintenance, traffic control, and surveil-
lance of traffic for detection and correction of high or poten-
tially high accident locations.
(b) Authorize the Secretary to amend or waive standards
on a temporary basis for the purpose of evaluating new or
different highway safety programs instituted on an experi-
mental or demonstration basis;
[p. 1]
(c) Authorize the Secretary to apply, where feasible, ap-
proved safety standards to federally administered roads;
(3) Provide for apportionment of funds to the States on a
50-50 matching basis, with 75 percent of the total funds to be
apportioned to the States on the basis of population and 25
percent at the discretion of the Secretary, and all funds to be
apportioned through the offices of the Governors of the States
or the applicable safety agencies designated by the Gover-
nors;
(4) Direct other executive departments and agencies to
cooperate with the Secretary in the preparation and adminis-
tration of uniform standards;
(5) Authorize the expansion of highway safety research
and demonstration activities under section 307 (a) of title 23,
United States Code, to cover all aspects of highway safety,
and authorize a program of grants to State and local agen-
cies, institutions and individuals for training or education of
highway safety personnel, research fellowships, demonstra-
tion projects and related activities at the discretion of the
Secretary;
(6) (a) Direct the Secretary to encourage and assist politi-
-------
1840 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cal subdivisions of the respective States to establish traffic
safety programs consistent with the statewide highway pro-
grams approved by the Secretary;
(b) Define political subdivision for the purposes of the act
as any city, county, combined city-county, multicounty or met-
ropolitan regional governmental unit which is predominantly
within a standard metropolitan statistical area of a popula-
tion of 50,000 or more;
(c) Authorize funds for apportionment to the States for
distribution by the Governors to eligible political subdivisions
on the basis of 75 percent according to metropolitan popula-
tion and 25 percent at the discretion of the Secretary, with no
State receiving more than 10 percent of the total apportion
ment;
(7) (a) Create a National Traffic Safety Advisory Com-
mittee of 30 members and the Secretary or his designee as
chairman, the members to represent State and local govern-
ments, State legislatures, public and private interests contrib-
uting to, affected by, or concerned with traffic and highway
safety, and research scientists in the field and related fields;
(b) Establish the term of office of the committee members
at 3 years, rotating 10 members each year following 1 year of
the date of enactment;
(c) Authorize the committee to review (i) research pro-
jects and programs, and (ii) standards proposed to be pro-
mulgated by the Secretary prior to issuance;
(8) authorize to be appropriated the following amounts:
(a) To carry out section 402 of title 23, United States
Code, which would provide for comprehensive statewide high-
way programs, the sum of $40 million for fiscal year 1967,
$60 million for fiscal year 1968, and $60 million for fiscal year
1969;
(b) To carry out section 403 of title 23, United States
Code, which would provide for highway safety research and
development, the sum of $10 million for fiscal year 1967, $20
million for fiscal year 1968, and $25 million for fiscal year
1969;
(c) To carry out section 405 of title 23, United States Code,
which would provide for community safety programs, the
sum of
tP-2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1841
$40 million for fiscal year 1967, $60 million for fiscal year
1968, and $60 million for fiscal year 1969.
NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
In 1965, 49,000 persons lost their lives in highway accidents,
1,500,000 suffered disabling injuries, and an equal number sus-
tained nondisabling injuries. Economic costs of highway accidents
which can be tabulated for the same year aggregated $8.5 billion.
Since the introduction of the automobile in the United States,
more Americans have lost their lives from highway accidents than
all the combat deaths suffered by America in all our wars.
Until recent years the death rate for American highways fol-
lowed a progressively descending curve, from 17.5 deaths per 100
million vehicle miles in 1925, to a low of 5.2 in 1961. However, the
rate then began to ascend, reaching 5.7 in 1964, and dropped only
slightly to 5.6 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles in 1965.
The magnitude of the problem is further revealed when it is
noted that there are today 90 million vehicles, operated by 100
million drivers on 3.7 million miles of roads and streets, accumu-
lating almost 900 billion miles of travel annually in the transpor-
tation of goods and people, and requiring a total annual outlay for
automotive transportation of almost $100 billion.
Despite the preeminent role of highway transportation in Amer-
ican society and in our national economy, we have failed to de-
velop a realistic and comprehensive safety program. As President
Johnson noted in his transportation message on March 2,
"The weaknesses of our present highway safety program must
be corrected:
"Our knowledge of causes is grossly inadequate. Expert opinion
is frequently contradictory and confusing.
"Existing safety programs are widely dispersed. Government
and private efforts proceed separately, without effective coordina-
tion.
"There is no clear assignment of responsibility at the Federal
level.
"The allocation of our resources to highway safety is inade-
quate.
"Neither private industry nor government officials concerned
with automotive transportation have made safety first among
their priorities. Yet we know that expensive freeways, powerful
engines, and smooth exteriors will not stop the massacre on our
roads."
-------
1842 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
It is, therefore, well past the time when the United States
should have a comprehensive nationwide program to reduce the
toll of death and destruction on our highways.
THE HISTORY OF HIGHWAY SAFETY LEGISLATION
Though the interest of the Congress in highway safety dates
back to the earliest days of Federal-aid highway legislation, it was
not until 1956 that this interest found a significant legislative
expression. In that year, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956,
the Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce to make a com-
prehensive investigation of the entire subject of highway safety.
A report of this investigation was published in 1959 under the
title "The Federal Role in Highway Safety," and still serves as a
basic document in the field.
[p. 3]
Another congressional step in traffic safety was enactment of
the Beamer resolution, Public Law 85-648, which gives advance
consent to interstate compacts in traffic safety. The States are now
in the process of implementing two compacts under this authority.
The driver license compact seeks to protect the public from unsafe
or poor-risk drivers, and is in effect in 19 States. The vehicle
equipment safety compact is designed to secure State adoption of
uniform standards for new or improved automobile safety equip-
ment, and is in effect in 44 States and the District of Columbia.
In the 88th Congress, the Roberts Act—Public Law 88-515—
was enacted, giving authority to the General Services Administra-
tion to establish passenger vehicle safety standards for Federal
vehicles. The GSA has already issued 17 such standards, and these
actions have demonstrated the Roberts Act to be an effective
means of stimulating the automotive industry to accept a greater
degree of responsibility for safety performance.
However, the most significant congressional action to date was
taken last year with enactment of section 135 of title 23, United
States Code, popularly known as the Baldwin amendment, after
the late Representative John F. Baldwin.
This measure clearly established the responsibility of the Fed-
eral Government to provide leadership and coordination for a na-
tional highway safety effort. In providing that each State should
have a highway safety program in accordance with uniform na-
tional standards approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the
Baldwin amendment began a new chapter in highway safety legis-
lation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1843
The pending legislation, S.3052, extends further recognition of
the Federal responsibility in highway safety by providing Federal
assistance to the States and their political subdivisions.
HEARINGS
On March 2, 1966, the administration's proposal for an overall
traffic safety program (S. 3005) was introduced. This measure
contained three titles, title I, providing for standards for auto
safety, title II, providing for the establishment of a Federal auto
safety research and testing facility, and title III, providing for
highway safety programs, highway safety research, and driver
registration service.
Because S. 3005 embodied provisions which fell within the juris-
diction of separate committees, title III of that bill was introduced
on March 8, 1966, as a new bill (S. 3052) and referred to the
Committee on Public Works.
On March 29, 30, and 31, and on April 5 and 14, the Subcommit-
tee on Roads conducted extensive hearings on S. 3052, and re-
ceived testimony from Sacretary of Commerce John T. Connor and
other administration officials, from Members of the Senate, from
representatives of State and local governments, from the highway
construction industry, the National Safety Council, highway and
traffic engineers, and from other professional and technical orga-
nizations involved in the problems of highway safety.
[p. 4]
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED
Section 101 of the bill amends title 23, United States Code, to
provide a new chapter 4—"Highway Safety."
Section 401 of the new chapter provides authority for the Secre-
tary to work with all public and private agencies to increase
highway safety.
Section 402 directs the Secretary to assist each of the States in
establishing a highway safety program based on a comprehensive
official statewide plan, which programs shall be in accordance with
standards approved by the Secretary.
The language of the bill specifies "uniform standards." The
value of uniformity is clear in such matters as uniform signs and
signaling devices, periodic inspection of motor vehicles, standards
for driver training and education, and periodic reexamination of
drivers.
-------
1844 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
However, the committee draws attention to the need for flexibil-
ity in formulating and administering standards in other matters
which are conditioned by topographical differences, traffic loads,
or other significant regional variables. For example, as noted in
testimony in the committee hearings, the National Safety Council
has recommended a standard of 3,000 man-days for the mainte-
nance of traffic signs per thousand miles of road. Such a standard
may be realistic for the less heavily traveled areas of the West and
Midwest, but would fall far short of the needs of such intensively
traveled States as Connecticut or California, the latter of which
expends approximately 7,500 man-days per thousand miles of
road. The committee therefore recommends that the Secretary
exercise discretion in the interpretation and application of the
concept of "uniform standards."
The standards to be approved by the Secretary shall include, but
not be limited to, provisions for an effective accident record sys-
tem, measures calculated to improve driver education and per-
formance, motor vehicle inspection and administration, highway
design, surface treatment and maintenance, traffic control, and
surveillance of traffic for detection and correction of high or po-
tentially high accident locations.
Though illumination standards are not specifically mentioned in
the bill, the committee strongly urges the Department of Com-
merce and the Bureau of Public Roads to give attention to this
factor. The committee received extensive and detailed testimony
on perceptual problems relating to the degree of illumination, and
the correlation between fatal accidents and the adequacy of illumi-
nation in specific instances.
For example, in 1945, Kansas City, Mo., initiated a master re-
lighting program. During the 3-year period from 1945 through
1947, when only 3 percent of the city streets had modern lighting,
there were 94 pedestrians killed, 70 of them during hours of dark-
ness. As the lighting program progressed, the number of pedes-
trian fatalities steadily decreased. During the 3-year period from
1954 through 1956, by which time 90 percent of the streets had
been relighted, only 44 pedestrians were killed, with but 13 killed
at night.
As a result of such testimony, the committee gave serious con-
sideration to the inclusion of illumination standards among those
to be approved by the Secretary. However, in order to prevent the
possibility of municipalities requesting a disproportionate amount
of the available Federal-aid funds for illuminating non-Federal-
aid streets, the committee did not include this category in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1845
language of the bill. The action of the committee in this respect
was taken only after
[P. 5]
assurance that the illuminating standards of the Bureau of Public
Roads for the Federal-aid systems would, by administrative action,
be raised to those recommended by the "American Standard Prac-
tice of Roadway Lighting."
The committee expects such action to be taken as soon as feasi-
ble, and urges the Secretary of Commerce to encourage the States
to upgrade roadway lighting. It is evident from the testimony
received by the committee that the field of highway illumination is
one in which further research and demonstration would yield a
high potential in the decrease in passenger as well as pedestrian
fatalities, and the committee recommends that Department
officials charged with responsibility for administration of the
highway safety program maintain continuous and close liaison
with the professional and technical societies experienced in this
field.
The committee also draws attention to another committee
amendment to the standards provisions of section 402(a), which
concerns "surface treatment." This provision is included on the
basis of evidence presented to the committee in executive session
which demonstrated significant success in the State of California
in reducing accidents from skidding, or hydroplaning, on wet
pavement. The State of California has recently initiated a re-
search and demonstration program of longitudinal grooving of
pavement at spot locations which have had a high incidence of
accidents during heavy rainfalls.
At one location, for example, there were 11 skidding accidents
during heavy rainfalls in a 3-year period, from 1962 to 1965. Since
grooving the surface there have been no skidding accidents. At
another location on Interstate 5 in the Tehachapi Mountains north
of Los Angeles, there had been seven such skidding accidents on
wet pavement during a 2-year period on a 1,600-foot section. In a
2-year period after the grooving, no such accidents occurred. The
committee therefore recommends this treatment method to the
Bureau of Public Roads for further demonstration and encourage-
ment of the other States to explore this method of surface treat-
ment.
The testimony of the witnesses, without exception, favored the
adoption of national standards for statewide safety programs. The
testimony also demonstrated a universal recognition of the Fed-
-------
1846 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
eral responsibility in this area, not only of the need to invest the
Secretary of Commerce with the authority to approve such stand-
ards, but also to bring Federal assistance to the States in develop-
ing their safety programs.
The urgent need for expanding the Federal responsibility in
highway safety—in the areas of standard setting, research and
demonstration, and financial assistance to the States—is strikingly
evident when we consider such individual categories as motor
vehicle inspection, driver testing procedures and driver education
programs in the States. For example: we know today that only 21
States have legislation requiring periodic inspection of vehicles.
General experience indicates that vehicles inspected are more
often than not deficient in components that are important to
safety.
Our information on reliable driver testing procedures is inade-
quate for measuring the capability and quality of the driver; and
additional work is needed to assure that sound, objective criteria
are developed to cover medical aspects of driver licensure. Police
training programs, including specialized studies in accident inves-
tigation, are established
[p. 6]
in 27 States. Similar training is needed in all States and Federal
grants would be made available to support these programs.
The highway traffic accident is the top killer among the youth of
our Nation. Nearly two-thirds of the increase in automobile acci-
dent deaths in 1965 involved persons under 24 years of age. Only
45 percent of eligible students were enrolled in driver education
courses in the Nation's secondary schools.
Available evidence also shows that the beginning driver is likely
to have more accidents than the experienced driver. We need to
assess driver education in our schools to evaluate curriculum con-
tent and assure that validated teaching techniques are employed.
The above examples are indicative of some of the gaps and inade-
quacies that exist in our national safety effort.
The committee further amended the administration draft of
section 402 (a) to provide the Secretary with authority to amend
or waive standards on a temporary basis for the purpose of evalu-
ating new or different highway safety programs instituted on an
experimental basis in one or more of the States. This provision
would, for example, allow a State to experiment with new sign and
signaling devices or new median-strip dividers which might not
conform to national standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1847
Finally, with reference to section 402(a), the committee bill
authorizes the Secretary to apply approved safety standards,
where appropriate and feasible, to federally administered areas
where a Federal department or agency controls the roads or su-
pervises traffic operation. It was noted during the hearings that a
wide disparity of safety standards exists among lands adminis-
tered by different agencies and that there is little uniformity of
signing and signal devices.
Section 402 (b) provides for the apportionment of funds for the
administration of this section and section 404 of this chapter
(National Driver Registry Service), the latter section having been
referred by the Committee on Public Works with its recommenda-
tions to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Apportionment shall be made as follows : 75 percent on the basis
of population and 25 percent at the discretion of the Secretary.
The commitee views the discretionary authority of the Secretary
as an important and desirable provision which will allow the Sec-
retary to give additional assistance to States which initiate partic-
ularly significant and innovative programs, or conversely, to those
States which have a need disproportionate to their ability to
finance their programs.
In order to assure that the State programs will be comprehen-
sive systematically developed and well integrated, the committee
bill provides that all funds apportioned to the States shall be
allocated through the office of the Governor of each State or the
applicable State highway safety agency designated by the Gover-
nor.
Perhaps the most complete assessment of our national needs in
the field of highway safety is that made by the National Safety
Council. In 1964 the council estimated that the States and cities
reporting in the annual traffic inventory would need $500 million
per year additional to bring their programs up to minimum levels.
In 1965 the scope of the estimate was broadened to include all
cities and counties with a reported aggregate need of $958 million
annually. The current estimate and summary analysis by the Na-
tional Safety Council is as follows:
[p. 7]
The greater portions of the cost for cities is the need
for all eligible high school students to complete the stand-
ard driver education course. This amounts to approxi-
mately $40,560,000 for 1,015,300 students.
-------
1848 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The remaining funds would be required for establish-
ment and supervision of student accident reporting sys-
tems in schools where none exist as reported in the traffic
inventory.
Public traffic safety education
Estimated costs:
States . _. $4,800,000
Cities 6,900,000
Total _ _ ___ 11,700,000
The estimated total cost includes only materials such
as driver manuals, sponsored ads, posters, and special
printed items. While this section of the inventory empha-
sizes measurement of quality, it is possible to estimate
additional cost needs only on quantitative items. As re-
gards staff, these deficiencies are included in those noted
for the organization for traffic safety improvement sec-
tion, the police traffic supervision section, and to a very
limited extent, the traffic engineering section. The public
traffic safety education function is carried out by staffs
of agencies performing those other functions.
Organization for traffic safety improvement
Estimated costs:
States
Cities
Total _ . . . _ _ .
$5,100,000
4,800,000
_. _ 9.900.000
In addition to existing official, citizen, and joint needs
among the States and among cities over 5,000 population,
there are additional needs amounting to $4,860,000 for
staff, $3,660,000 for programing, and $1,400,000 for
administration.
These additional funds entail expenditures for coordi-
nating committee functions, citizen organizations to pro-
mote traffic safety, both statewide and in communities,
and program projects to obtain public support for traffic
safety improvements.
Except for approximately $75 million in inspection fees, the
funds required to fulfill the needs of the national traffic safety
inventory would have to be supplied from tax revenues. It is quite
evident that such funds are not presently available from Federal,
State or local sources.
The committee is well aware of the gap between the authoriza-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1849
tion of $375 million for a 3-year period proposed by S. 3052, and
the estimated need of $958 million annually. It is to be noted in
this regard, however, that the committee bill, by adding section
405, which provides for community safety programs, has doubled
the administration proposal for funds available for grants. Based
on the testimony presented to the committee, greater sums than
this could not be effectively spent for a balanced and comprehen-
sive program until the administration and the States have a
clearer conception of the priorities.
[p. 13]
The committee attempted to elicit testimony from all the wit-
nesses—governmental as well as nongovernmental—which would
give some guidelines or assignment of priorities for investment in
the various categories of comprehensive statewide safety pro-
grams. None of the witnesses was able to establish such priorities.
The committee has considered the recommendations for substan-
tial increases in proposed Federal grant funds, to be made availa-
ble for assistance to the States in driver education and to improve
State vehicle inspection programs. Though the purposes of both
proposals are unarguable, the committee would point out that
these are but 2 of the 17 categories for a safety program recently
set forth in a speech by Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Deputy Under
Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, and each of the other
15 categories is similarly underfinanced.
The committee would further note that while only 20 States and
the District of Columbia have periodic motor vehicle inspection
requirements, there is no evidence to support the assumption that
this inadequacy is due principally to insufficient funds. On the
contrary, the rejection of such requirements by some States, and
the recent repeal of statutes in this field by other States would
indicate that the lack of motor vehicle inspection requirements is
governed primarily by political considerations rather than finan-
cial. This view is strengthened by the fact that the motor vehicles
inspection program is virtually the only safety measure which
produced revenue and is at least partially self-supporting.
The committee has therefore rejected the proposed amendments
for specific authorization for driver education and motor vehicle
inspection as piecemeal proposals which are premature at this
time and would tend to fracture the effort to achieve a comprehen-
sive program.
In this regard, the committee emphasizes that its decision to
limit the authorizations for section 402, as for the entire bill, to 3
526-704 O - 74 - 7
-------
1850 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
years instead of the 6 years proposed by the administration, does
not reflect a lack of concern. On the contrary, the committee has a
deep sense of the urgency of the problems of highway safety. The
3-year limitation is based on two considerations: first, the inade-
quate knowledge among all authorities which prevents the present
establishment of guidelines or assignment of priorities for long-
term investment of Federal funds, and second, the conviction of
the committee that when such guidelines are established it will be
evident that the Federal responsibility will require Federal funds
of a much greater magnitude than the sums proposed by the
administration for the fiscal years of 1970, 1971, and 1972. The
committee action in this regard is, therefore, definitely not to be
interpreted as signifying a weakening of congressional intent to
provide Federal assistance for a long-term highway safety pro-
gram. Rather, it signifies the committee's determination to review
the program after the Secretary reports to the Congress by Janu-
ary 10, 1968, as required by the committee bill, and thereby base
its future actions on more accurate and complete information that
is now available.
Section 403 authorizes the Secretary to expand highway safety
research and demonstration activities to cover all aspects of high-
way safety, including, but not limited, to highway safety systems
research and development relating to vehicle, highway, and driver
characteristics, accident investigations, communications, emer-
gency medical care, and transportation of the injured.
[p. 14]
This section is predicated on the grounds that traffic safety
research must be conducted from a total systems point of view.
The research program will attack the three basic areas of accident
phenomena: Accident prevention, the minimization of their effects
after occurrence, and effective emergency services and investiga-
tion after the accident. A comprehensive data collection and analy-
sis system and a research correlation system are integral features
of the proposed research program to insure a comprehensive ap-
proach which will leave no facet overlooked and no potentially
useful result ignored or unused.
Accident prevention investigations will include the drivers' cap-
abilities—physical, mental, and psychological; driver education
and licensing procedures; the hazards of alcohol and narcotics;
and the behavior of pedestrians.
Research into the minimization of effects after the occurrence of
an accident will investigate such factors as the body tolerances of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1851
various age groups, vehicle features to provide vehicle stability
and occupant safety in a crash situation, and the most effective yet
acceptable forms of restraints and "packaging" for safety.
Investigation into emergency services for the injured will con-
centrate on improvement in methods of communication and trans-
portation as well as the need for improved equipment and trained
personnel.
Accident investigation is also important to determine both im-
mediate and underlying causes in furtherance of the accident pre-
vention program. Thus, methodology and personnel for trained
and skilled accident study teams, for prompt selective and ex-
tended investigation of accidents, need to be developed. Finally,
adequate methods of traffic handling at the accident scene, and
means for prompt removal of damaged vehicles and debris from
the roadway are also needed.
RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS
Presently there is a lack of professionals in both research and
operating fields in highway safety. The support of fellowships will
be an important programing element of the research and develop-
ment program contemplated under the Traffic Safety Act. These
fellowships are not funded separately since they will be considered
an integral part in the overall development of a national compe-
tence in each of the major program areas outlined above.
Section 404 of the draft bill, which would expand the National
Driver Register Service, has been deleted from the committee bill
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, where the original
jurisdiction for this provision lies, with the recommendations of
the Committee on Public Works.
Section 405 is a committee amendment which directs the Secre-
tary to assist political subdivisions of the respective States to
establish traffic safety programs which will be consistent with the
statewide highway safety program approved by the Secretary pur-
suant to section 402(a). The community programs may include,
but not be limited to, study, training, research, demonstration,
experimentations, and implementation of safety programs; im-
provement of laws and ordinances; accident recordkeeping; driver
education; motor vehicle inspection and administration; police
traffic control; traffic courts; public information; citizen support
and medical care and transportation for the injued.
[p. IB]
-------
1852 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 101
This section would add a new chapter (ch. 4: Highway Safety)
to title 23, U.S.C., and provide the necessary codifying and repeal-
ing language. The Secretary of Commerce is now charged with the
administration of the provisions of title 23. This responsibility
will be transferred to the Secretary of Transportation if the Con-
gress approves the creation of that Department.
The new chapter would contain the following sections:
Section 401
This section authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, or Trans-
portation if that Department is created, to carry out the highway
safety program envisioned in the act, and in doing so, to assist and
cooperate with other Federal agencies, State and local govern-
ments, private industry, and others. This section is a revision and
enlargement of 23 U.S.C. 313, which is repealed in its entirety
elsewhere in the bill. New section 401 would give the Secretary a
broader directive than now contained in 23 U.S.C. 313 to provide
unified Federal leadership in highway safety by cooperation with
all public and private groups involved in highway safety activities.
Section 402 (a)
This is modeled on the "Baldwin amendment" (23 USC 135)
which is repealed elsewhere in the bill. It spells out the idea of
Federal assistance in developing comprehensive statewide pro-
grams on all highways and roads. The uniform standards which
will be developed by the Secretary pursuant to this section guiding
the various program areas will form the foundation for a coopera-
tive system involving State projects which, under existing law,
cannot now be financially supported by the Federal Government;
e.g., driver licensing, vehicle inspection, police enforcement, and
driver teacher training. The Secretary may waive the uniform
standards on a temporary basis to take advantage of experimental
or pilot, programs.
Section 402 (6)
This subsection provides the mechanism by which Federal finan-
cial support for State highway safety programs can be accom-
plished. Specifically, it provides that 75 percent of the funds au-
thorized to be appropriated to carry out section 402 (a) will be
apportioned among the several States on the basis of population,
and 25 percent as the Secretary deems appropriate. In this fash-
ion, it provides the Secretary with flexibility to provide additional
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1853
moneys to States which have particularly promising innovative
projects or to any State with a pressing need to improve one or
another aspect of its total program. Apportionments are to be
made through the Governor of the State or the State safety agency
designated by him. This section also would provide for a deduction
from the authorized appropriations for the cost of administering
the State aid programs in the amount necessary to provide ade-
quate Federal administrative support. To the extent applicable,
provisions of chapter 1 of title 23 (relating to highway
[p. 19]
construction) are to be followed in the financial administration of
the program, it being expressly intended that the same statutory
procedures for authorization, approval, obligation, Federal share
payable, period of availability and the like, of the Federal-aid
primary highway program will apply to the Federal-aid highway
safety program. This section provides, however, that any funds
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1967 will be appor-
tioned when authorized since the ordinary operation of chapter 1
of title 23 would have required apportionment on January 1, 1966.
By incorporating the formula for cost sharing of the Federal-aid
primary highway program, a Federal-State matching program,
with each partner sharing equally, is created.
Section 402 (c)
This subsection would permit the Secretary to obtain the assist-
ance of any Federal agency having special expertise, for example,
the Public Health Service or the National Bureau of Standards, in
developing standards for elements of State programs, for example,
emergency medical services. He could also arrange to have another
agency administer the expenditure of funds for certain State pro-
gram areas which are particularly within the agency's compe-
tence. This will aid him in a unified handling of needed project
funding and permit the investment of funds in the areas which
will provide the greatest returns. Thus, the Secretary could make
money available from appropriations under this act to augment
programs being carried on in other agencies, under existing law
and appropriations, which programs relate to the State efforts
under this section, e.g., the activities of the Public Health Service
in accident investigation and emergency medical services and the
methods of driver and traffic safety education carried on by the
Office of Education.
-------
1854 LEGAL COMPILATION — AIR
Section
This section authorizes an expanded highway safety research
effort to augment the research now done pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
307 (a) and specifies that all areas of highway safety and their
interactions will be included in this research, thus permitting aug-
mentation of on-going activities of other agencies. The Secretary
may, as provided in 23 U.S.C. 307 (a) , act cooperatively with other
agencies and he could make these funds available to such agencies
as HEW to carry out the programs for which they have existing
related research authority as an intensification of programs in
which they are already involved. This section also authorizes the
Secretary to use the funds appropriated for expanded research for
grants to States, institutions and individuals for research, train-
ing and education grants, demonstrations, and other necessary
activities. Thus, he can augment Federal research and develop-
ment activities now performed outside of Federal facilities.
Section 405
This section would provide for a program of Federal grants to
local communities which are predominantly in standard metropoli-
tan statistical areas. The program is a local counterpart of the
States programs authorized in proposed 23 U.S.C. 402. It is based
on the belief that certain safety programs can be effectively pur-
sued on the local level and the program areas outlined for inclu-
sion in the overall local programs reflect this. The Secretary's
efforts are to be subject to agreement with the Governor of the
State in which the local community is located. The same appor-
tionment formula and administrative scheme is provided for this
[p. 20]
program as for the State program authorized in section 402.
Under the community safety program provision, no more than 10
percent of the money authorized may be apportioned within any
single State.
Section 101 (a)
This section establishes a National Traffic Safety Advisory
Committee composed of 30 members appointed by the President,
plus the Secretary as chairman. The members are to be selected
from State and local governments, pertinent public and private
interests, agencies, and organizations, and experts in the field.
They would be appointed for staggered, 3-year terms. Provision is
made for Committee members who are not Federal employees to
receive per diem while on official business. This committee is to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1855
advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary
on Department safety activities. It is authorized to review and
make recommendations on research projects and programs and to
review the uniform standards proposed under section 402 prior to
their issuance.
Section 102
These subsections constitute the necessary repealer and con-
forming language associated with the proposed chapter 4, title 23.
Section 103
This section authorizes a total of $160 million for fiscal years
1967 through 1969 for grants to aid the States in carrying out the
activities envisioned in proposed section 402, title 23.
Section 10'4
This section authorizes a total of $55 million for fiscal years
1967 through 1969 for the expanded highway safety research and
development referred to in proposed 23 U.S.C. 403 in addition to
the funds otherwise available under 23 U.S.C. 104(a), 307(a) for
safety research activities now conducted by the Bureau of Public
Roads. This section provides for the costs of administration and
allows funds to remain available until expended.
Section 105
This section authorizes a total of $160 million for fiscal years
1967 through 1969 for grants to aid communities in carrying out
the activities envisioned in proposed section 405, title 23.
Section 106
This section adds to 23 U.S.C. 101 a definition of "State high-
way safety agency" to simplify the Federal-State relationships in
the administration of the State highway safety programs of pro-
posed section 402, title 23, and to clarify the applicability of perti-
nent sections of chapter 1, title 23.
Section 107
This section adds to 23 United States Code 105 a subsection
which directs the Secretary to give priority in approving Federal-
aid highway programs to projects which incorporate improved
safety standards and features.
[p. 21]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Stand-
-------
1856 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ing Rules of the Senate, 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) :
Title 23, United States Code, is hereby amended by adding at
the end thereof a new chapter:
CHAPTER 4—HIGHWAY SAFETY
401. Authority of the Secretary.
402. Highway safety programs.
403. Highway safety research and development.
405. Community safety programs.
406. National Traffic Safety Advisory Committee.
§ 401. Authority of the Secretary
The Secretary of Commerce, or, in the event of the establish-
ment of a Department of Transportation, the Secretary of Trans-
portation is authorized and directed to assist and cooperate with
other Federal departments and agencies, State and local govern-
ments, private industry, and other interested parties, to increase
highway safety.
§ 402. Highway safety programs
(a) The Secretary shall encourage and assist each of the States
to establish a highway safety program based upon a comprehen-
sive official statewide plan designed to reduce traffic accidents and
deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such
programs should be in accordance with uniform standards ap-
proved by the Secretary which standards shall include, but not be
limited to, provisions for an effective accident record system,
measures calculated to improve driver education and perform-
ance, motor vehicle inspection and administration, highway design,
surface treatment and maintenance, traffice control, and surveil-
lance of traffic for detection and correction of high or potentially
high accident locations. The Secretary shall be authorized to
amend or waive standards on a temporary basis for the purpose
of evaluating new or different highway safety programs instituted
on an experimental, pilot, or demonstration basis by one or more
States, where the Secretary finds that the public interest would
be served by such amendment or waiver. The pertinent standards
for State highway safety programs shall, to the extent determined
appropriate by the Secretary, be applicable to federally admini-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1857
stered areas where a Federal department or agency controls the
roads or supervises traffic operation.
(b) Any funds authorized to be appropriated to aid the States
to conduct the highway safety programs described in subsection
(a) shall be subject to a deduction for the necessary costs of ad-
ministering the provisions of this section and section 404 of this
chapter, and the remainder shall be apportioned among the several
States as follows: 75 per centum on the basis of population and
25 per centum as the Secretary in his
[p. 23]
administrative discretion may deem appropriate. All provisions of
chapter 1 of this title that are applicable to Federal-aid primary
highway funds (except the apportionment formula) and except
the limitation of expenditures of these funds to the Federal-aid
systems, including the provisions relating to obligation, period of
availability, Federal share payable (50 per centum), and expendi-
ture of such funds, shall govern the administration of the highway
safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion, except as determined by the Secretary to be inconsistent with
this section. However, the Secretary shall apportion to the States
through the office of the Governor of each of the States or the
applicable State highway safety agency designated by the Gover-
nor any funds authorized for the purposes of this section, and
any funds authorized for the fiscal year ending June 30,1967, shall
be apportioned as soon as they shall be authorized.
(c) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of
uniform standards for the highway safety programs contem-
plated by subsection (a) and in the administration of such pro-
grams. Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate
in such preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
§ 403. Highway safety research and development
For the purpose of strengthening the highway safety program
of the Federal Government, the Secretary is authorized to expand
the highway safety research and development activities under
section 307 (a) of title 23, United States Code, to cover all aspects
of highway safety which shall include, but not be limited to, high-
way safety systems research and development relating to vehicle,
highway, and driver characteristics, accident investigations, com-
munications, emergency medical care, and transportation of the
injured. The Secretary may use the funds appropriated for any
fiscal year for the purposes of this section, independently or in
-------
1858 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
cooperation with other Federal departments or agencies, for
grants to State or local agencies, institutions, and individuals for
training or education of highway safety personnel, research fel-
lowships in highway safety, development of improved accident in-
vestigation procedures, community emergency medical service
plans, demonstration projects, and for related activities which are
deemed by the Secretary to be necessary to carry out the
purposes of this section.
§ 405. Community safety programs
(a) The Secretary, in agreement with the Governor of each
State or his designee, shall encourage and assist political sub-
divisions of the respective States to establish traffic safety pro-
grams designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries and
property damage resulting therefrom. Such programs shall be
consistent with the statewide highway safety program approved
by the Secretary pursuant to section 402(a); and may include,
but not be limited to, study, training, research, demonstration,
experimentations and implementation of safety programs; im-
provement of laws and ordinances; accident recordkeeping; driver
education; motor vehicle inspection and administration; police
traffic control; traffic courts; public information; citizen support
and medical care and transportation for the injured.
(b) "Political subdivisions" shall, for the purposes of this Act,
mean any city or county, a combined city-county, a multicounty
or metropolitan
[p. 24]
regional governmental unit, which is predominantly within a
standard metropolitan statistical area.
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be subject to a deduction for the necessary costs of
administering the provisions of this section, and the remainder
shall be apportioned by the Secretary to the States for distribution
by the Governors to eligible political subdivisions to carry out the
provisions of subsection (a) and said apportionment to be made
on the basis of 75 per centum according to metropolitan popula-
tion, and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his administrative
discretion may deem appropriate, with no State receiving more
than 10 per centum in accordance with criteria to be determined
by the Secretary, such criteria to include, but not be limited to,
consideration of need, the incidence of traffic accidents, and such
other factors as the Secretary may deem appropriate. All provi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1859
sions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable to Federal-aid
primary highway funds (except the apportionment formula and
the Federal-aid system limitation in expending funds), including
the provisions relating to obligation, period of availability, Fed-
eral share payable (50 per centum), and expenditure of Federal-
aid primary highway funds, shall govern the administration of
the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be
inconsistent with this section.
§ 406. National Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
(a)(l) There is established in the Department of Commerce
(Transportation) a National Traffic Safety Advisory Committee,
composed of the Secretary or an officer of the Department ap-
pointed by him, who shall be chairman, and thirty members ap-
pointed by the President, no more than five of whom shall be
Federal officers or employees. The appointed members, having due
regard for the purposes of section 101 of this Act, shall be selected
from among representatives of various State and local govern-
ments, including State legislatures, of public and private interests
contributing to, affected by, or concerned with traffic and highway
safety, and of other public and private agencies, organizations, or
groups demonstrating an active interest in traffic and highway
safety, as well as research scientists and other individuals who are
expert in this field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold
office for a term of three years, except that (i) any member ap-
pointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the
term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
for the remainder of such term, and (ii) the terms of office of
members first taking office after the date of enactment of this
section shall expire as follows: ten at the end of one year after
such date, ten at the end of two years after such date, and ten at
the end of three years after such date, as designated by the Presi-
dent at the time of appointment, and (Hi) the term of any member
shall be extended until the date on which the successor's appoint-
ment is effective. None of the members appointed by the President
other than Federal officers or employees shall be eligible for reap-
pointment within one year following the end of his preceding term.
(B) Members of the Council who are not officers or employees
of the United States shall, while attending meetings or conferences
of such Council or otherwise engaged in the business of such
Council, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the
-------
1860 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including traveltime,
and while away from their homes or regular places of business
they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu
of subsistence, as authorized in section 5 of the Ad-
[P- 25]
ministrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons
in the Government service employed intermittently.
(b) The National Traffic Safety Advisory Committee shall ad-
vise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the Secretary
on matters relating to the activities and functions of the Depart-
ment in the field of traffic and highway safety. The Committee is
authorized (1) to review research projects or programs submitted
to or recommended by it in the field of traffic and highway safety
and recommended to the Secretary, for prosecution under this Act,
any such projects which it believes show promise of making valu-
able contributions to human knowledge with respect to the cause
and prevention of traffic or highway accidents; and (2) to review,
prior to issuance, standards proposed to be issued by order of the
Secretary under the provisions of section 402 (a) of title 23 of the
United States Code as amended hereby, and to make recommenda-
tions thereon. Such recommendations shall be published in con-
nection with the Secretary's determination or order.
[§ 135. Highway safety programs
[After December 31, 1967, each State should have a highway
safety program, approved by the Secretary, designed to reduce
traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage result-
ing therefrom, on highways on the Federal-aid system. Such high-
way safety program should be in accordance with uniform stand-
ards approved by the Secretary and should include, but not be
limited to, provisions for an effective accident records system, and
measures calculated to improve driver performance, vehicle
safety, highway design and maintenance, traffic control, and sur-
veillance of traffic for detection and correction of high or poten-
tially high accident locations.]
[§ 313. Highway Safety Conference
[The Secretary is authorized and directed to assist in carrying
out the action program of the President on highway safety, and to
cooperate with the State highway departments and other agencies
in this program to advance the cause of safety on highways. Not
to exceed $150,000 out of the administrative funds made available
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1861
in accordance with subsection (a) of section 104 of this title may
be expended annually for the purposes of this section. (Pub. L.
85-767, Aug. 27,1958, 72 Stat 915.) ]
[p. 26]
1.8a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 1700, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
JULY 15,1966.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 13290]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 13290) to amend title 23 of the United States Code to
provide for highway safety research and development, certain
highway safety programs, a national driver register, and a
highway accident research and test facility, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment to the text strikes out all after the enacting
clause and inserts a substitute text shown in italic type in the
reported bill.
The other amendment amends the title to conform it with the
text of the bill.
[REPORT MATERIAL ON H.R. 13290]
*******
[p-1]
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 401 is a general statement of authority and direction to
-------
1862 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the Secretary of Commerce to assist a*id cooperate with the States
and all interested parties, public and private, to increase highway
safety.
Assistance to the States in Developing and Improving Highway
Safety Programs
Section 402 is the heart of the legislation. It requires, as did the
original Baldwin amendment, that each State shall have a high-
way safety program approved by the Secretary which is in accord-
ance with uniform standards to be promulgated by the Secretary.
The committee does not intend that the Secretary shall act uni-
laterally in developing these standards. On the contrary, subsec-
tion 402 (f) in the reported bill specifically requires that the Secre-
tary shall work with the States, their political subdivisions, other
Federal departments, and public and private organizations, in de-
veloping these standards.
The Baldwin amendment has been law for almost a year. No
meaningful progress has been made in the development of stand-
ards under that legislation. The committee intends, by the lan-
guage of subsection 402 (f) and of section 203 of the bill, which
requires that the Secretary report to the Congress by no later than
January 10, 1967, the standards to be initially applied in carrying
out section 402, that the Secretary shall substantially broaden his
avenues of consultation, that he shall seek the guidance of people
who are experienced in the many aspects of highway safety, that
he shall, as required in subsection 405 (d) in the bill, submit his
proposed standards to review by the National Highway Safety
Advisory Committee which this legislation would establish, and
that he shall do all of this without delay.
The Federal Government can and must assume a position of
leadership in this field. The actual working programs must remain
in the hands of the States. Surely all of these safeguards are
sufficient to ensure that the Federal program, working through
the Secretary
[p. 7]
of Commerce, will enhance, not impair, the responsibilities of the
States.
Section 402 (a) in the bill requires that the standards shall be
expressed in terms of performance criteria—that is, they must be
written in language sufficiently specific to be susceptible of evalua-
tion as to their success or failure in actual application under the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1863
State programs. We have had enough of broad generalized recom-
mendations. It is time to get down to business.
To that end, section 402 enumerates the standards which must
be covered, but it does not limit the Secretary's determination of
desirable standards only to those enumerated. He may add others
if and as they are needed. He must initially, however, require that
the State programs subscribe to standards which cover the follow-
ing areas of action:
Measures calculated to improve driver performance, including
driver education, driver testing to determine proficiency in opera-
ting motor vehicles, driver examination—both physical and men-
tal, and driver licensing
While there are no really reliable statistics as to the effect of
driver education, there is widespread agreement that driver edu-
cation in our high schools can be a significant influence in reduc-
ing highway accidents. Approximately 8,000 secondary school age
children reach driving age every day—4 million of them every
year.
Young drivers who have not had drivers' education courses have
the worst record of any, yet these drivers-to-be potentially have
the capacity to be the best drivers. Less than half of all the eligible
students are enrolled in driver education courses. Only 31 States
and the District of Columbia, according to the National Safety
Council, give some type of financial support for driver education.
(This figure is a good example of the conflicting statistics in
highway safety. One witness said 28 States; another reliable orga-
nization reports 24 States. Whatever the figure really is, it isn't
enough.)
A large percentage of our cities do not have a qualified school
supervisor or coordinator for safety education. There is a shortage
of trained driver education teachers; many of the courses being
offered do not meet minimum quality requirements, either as to
instructor qualifications, hours of instruction and driving practice,
or the kind of equipment (practice driving facilities, simulators,
and similar training aids, for example) that can be effective;
institutions of higher education are not devoting enough effort to
driver education curriculum and methods of instruction and test-
ing ; even where they help provide some financing, most States are
not maintaining adequate supervision over the program; too many
States are doing nothing at all.
We are investing billions of dollars educating our children, but
-------
1864 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
we have been unwilling to spend the relatively small additional
amount it would take to teach them how to stay alive.
The statistics we do have indicate that the 15 to 24 age group is
probably the most dangerous, at least in terms of single-car acci-
dents. By 1970 there will be 35 million young people in this age
category, yet, of the 3V
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1865
a car through a couple of blocks of routine driving. Some require a
vision test, but only on initial licensing. Only one State requires a
physical examination as part of its licensing procedure.
In most States drivers' licenses are renewed automatically upon
the payment of the renewal fee, usually by mail. Once a driver
obtains a license, he can drive for a lifetime with little or no
interference. Injury, disease, or mental deterioration may befall
him, but in most States he is free to continue driving for decades
without any controls to determine whether his eyesight or his
health may have been impaired to an extent which makes him a
hazard to himself and to others on the highway.
The wide variation from State to State, and the failure to
achieve any semblance of control or uniformity, bespeak pressures
and adherence to customs long out of date. Driver licensing is
apparently more a source of revenue than a safety control. A
person licensed to drive in one State, however, is in fact licensed
to drive anywhere. State lines are not barriers to drivers in our
highly mobile society, nor would anyone want them to be. But
strict uniform licensing and renewal procedures must be developed
and adopted, covering minimum age limits, mandatory physical
and eyesight examinations, competent skills tests and written or
oral examinations on traffic laws, varieties of traffic conditions,
and emergency situations that arise in the operation of an automo-
bile.
[P. 9]
Licensing fees should ultimately be geared to make the im-
proved program self-supporting, but they should not be employed
as a source of additional general revenues. The driving citizen will
be paying an increased dollar price for highway safety in several
ways; he should not be asked to pay direct fees deliberately in-
flated to cover other governmental activities. If he is, he may
ultimately come to the cynical but not unjustified conclusion that
the price of safety is a little more than he cares to pay.
Improved pedestrian performance
Last year 8,000 pedestrians were killed. There are no statistics
on how many accidents occur when drivers panic at the sudden
appearance of a pedestrian in front of them. In urban areas nearly
83 percent of the pedestrians killed or injured were crossing or
entering a trafficway. However, more persons under the age of 14
were killed or injured while crossing or entering between intersec-
tions than at intersections. Children are particularly vulnerable.
-------
1866 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
They lack experience and judgment. They have always been pro-
tected and they quite naturally assume that they always will be, so
they ride their bicycles, propel their roller skates, and wheel their
wagons into the streets and highways—and oncoming death. It
has been said so often we have all but forgotten its meaning: a
ball bouncing in the street has a child bouncing after it.
No safety program will be adequate that does not include re-
quirements with respect to pedestrian education beginning at the
elementary school level, as well as signs and traffic signals specifi-
cally designed for pedestrian protection, construction of sidewalks
as part of residential street construction, continuing enforcement
of pedestrian traffic laws, and any other program that can be
devised to keep both drivers and pedestrians aware that all the
fatalities are not inside the cars.
Effective record system of accidents (including injuries and death
resulting therefrom,) and accident investigations to determine
the probable causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths.
Though improved accident investigation procedures and the es-
tablishment and maintenance of effective accident record systems
are two separate subjects for action, they necessarily go hand in
hand. The most efficient computerized record system that can be
devised will be only as good as the accident investigation that
supplies it with raw data. Conversely, the most definitive, objec-
tive, and specialized accident investigation of which we are capa-
ble will be useless unless its results can be fed into a record
system, correlated with other relevant data, and made to serve
some purpose other than mere accumulation.
This is not to suggest, however, that we are not in need of more
accumulation; we are. Few States collect adequate accident statis-
tics; the Federal Government collects practically none at all. The
only source of long-term accident data is the National Safety
Council, and even the council concedes that its limited statistics
leave considerable room for improvement. There are statistics
scattered throughout this report. All of them were obtained from
reputable reliable organizations, but in the field of accident statis-
tics no one is really willing to say that any given set of figures is
accurate. We must work, for the present, with what there is.
[P.10]
On this subject, the committee invited the insurance industry,
which presumably has substantial quantities of impersonal but
significant accident statistics available to it, to testify during the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1867
hearings on highway safety. The industry declined to participate.
Uniform, complete, and accurate accident reports, stored in one
center in every State, subject to rapid retrieval and analysis, and
compatible with a national record system at the Federal level, can
tell us not only how many accidents we have, but what kind of
accidents they are, where and when they occur, the physical cir-
cumstances and the people, and the injuries and death and dam-
age, they involve, what emergency services and enforcement agen-
cies responded and how, and what judicial actions resulted, to
mention only the most obvious possibilities.
This information, at both the State and Federal level, can help
us to determine which safety program elements need strengthen-
ing and which ones are good prospects for productive expansion.
It can be useful for education, licensing, traffic engineering, high-
way design and maintenance, vehicle inspection, traffic surveil-
lance, and virtually every other aspect of highway safety.
If we are capable of designing and producing the system that
put Surveyor on the moon on target, we certainly must be capable
of devising this record system, and in short order. Indeed, the
accident record system is the one aspect of the total State program
that the committee believes can and should be developed and at
work by the end of 1967.
There is equally little doubt that we are capable of putting at
the scenes of our accidents personnel who are capable of examin-
ing all the factors involved, so that accident investigation will be
comprehensive and meaningful. Only in this way are we going to
learn all the contributing causes and then be able to act to correct
those causes. Only in this way, too, will we learn what elements
contribute specifically to injuries and deaths, and how these can be
alleviated or prevented.
We do not now foresee the day when automobiles will have
ceased to collide, with each other or with something, but we do
believe that it must be possible to substantially reduce the number
and results of collisions.
This will require data equipment, and people trained to operate
the equipment. It will require personnel competent in accident
investigation and reporting. This kind of capital investment and
personnel will be expensive, at least initially, and it will involve all
of the agencies responsible for all areas of highway safety. No
other part of the State program is as basic to ultimate success, nor
as demanding of complete cooperation at every jurisdictional level.
-------
1868 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
That is another reason why it is undoubtedly the element in which
we should invest the most time and the most money in 1967.
Vehicle registration
Except for general commendatory references to vehicle regis-
tration, no testimony was presented to the committee on this sub-
ject. Nevertheless, all of the organizations interested in safety
have supported uniform motor vehicle registration and it is ob-
vious that a single, central motor vehicle registration and titling
system in each State designed to fully and accurately describe
each vehicle and its owner is essential as a control mechanism in
any safety program.
[P.ll]
In a society as extremely mobile as ours, the need to be able
rapidly to identify vehicle ownership is paramount. Some States
have no titling system at all, and vehicle registration is limited to
license plate numbers assigned to named individuals. Others have
fairly comprehensive central, cross-referenced, registration and
titling systems. Expanded and set up electronically, such a system
would make it possible to identify a vehicle by as simple a process
as the license number or as remote a process as, perhaps, its color
and one or more of its exterior design characteristics. Vehicle
registration is an indispensable tool to investigation and law en-
forcement.
This committee has not, as a legislative matter, concerned itself
with vehicle safety standards. However, in terms of the practical
application of the safeguards contemplated in that aspect of high-
way safety, the ability to identify vehicles of a given make and
model and their owners is clearly vital.
It must be possible to relate numbers of accidents, and kinds of
accidents, to numbers of vehicles and kinds of vehicles and ages of
vehicles, and perhaps even when and where the vehicle was built.
It must be possible to relate numbers of vehicles to numbers of
licensed drivers. It must be possible to relate vehicle ownership to
operator age categories. It must be possible to relate vehicle own-
ership to vehicle inspection requirements. It must be possible to
relate numbers of vehicles to highway construction requirements.
It must be possible to relate vehicle ownership to enforcement
procedures.
In the main, vehicle registration has been viewed, probably even
more than driver licensing, as a source of revenue. Registration
fees for automobiles vary from State to State from as low as $2 to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1869
as high as $35. So far as the committee has been able to determine,
there is little or no relationship between the amount of the fee and
the extent to which the registration system is used as a control
mechanism.
Minimum uniform registration and titling procedures must be a
part of any approved safety program.
A few States already have extensive registration systems. Per-
haps it would be well for the Secretary to explore the possibility of
using one or more of these existing State systems in a pilot project
to determine how much of the kinds of information we need can be
obtained through this source, how rapidly, what the potential val-
ues may be, and what refinements are required.
Vehicle inspection
We will obviate the value of every program element involved in
this effort if State safety programs do not include vehicle inspec-
tion requirements. Until we discover how to achieve perpetual
motion, the best engineered machine we can build is going to wear
out. Like the human body, it starts to die the day it is born.
Adequate maintenance can help to keep them in safe operating
condition and to prolong their useful lives—and the lives of their
drivers. We might reasonably assume that a prudent man would
automatically do whatever was necessary to protect an investment
as large as the cost of today's automobiles. The evidence indicates,
however, that he doesn't.
Only 20 States and the District of Columbia have vehicle inspec-
tion laws. Only 25 percent of the Nation's vehicles are now regu-
larly inspected at least once a year. There is considerable variation
in how the inspection programs are operated, what minimum re-
quire-
[p. 12]
ments must be met, what fees are charged, and what followup
enforcement takes place.
Official inspection records of 13 States revealed that 46 percent
—almost half—of all vehicles were rejected for some deficiency. It
is possible, of course, to operate a car with bald tires, weakened
brakes, poorly aligned wheels, a defective exhaust system, no horn,
defective steering, no turn signals, misdirected lights, wornout
windshield wipers, broken windows, a stalling carburetor, a bro-
ken gas gage, and a host of other mechanical impairments, any
and all of which represent a potential hazard to the driver and to
everyone else on the road. It might make some sense to let the
-------
1870 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
driver be a rugged individualist and run his own risks, if he did
his driving on a highway nobody else ever had to use. It does not
make sense to permit the driver who does not keep his car in safe
operating condition to thereby endanger the lives of others.
Vehicle inspection is one of the safety programs that experts
have been trying to persuade the States to adopt for years. Some
States have adopted it and then repealed it. It has been the subject
of widespread publicity campaigns both for it and against it. It is
a perennial proposal in many State legislatures. It has been repre-
sented as an invitation to corruption and graft, and without
proper control that may be true. It has been represented as a
deliberate setup for auto repair shops to gouge car owners on
correction of inspection deficiencies, and perhaps that, too, could
occur.
Of the 20 States which had motor vehicle inspection laws in
1965, 17 operated their programs with privately-owned, State-su-
pervised inspection stations; 3 operated their programs with
State-owned and State-operated stations. Of the six rated out-
standing in a National Safety Council survey, five required that
the inspectors be specially trained, examined and certified by the
State. In these five States, the vehicle rejection rate varied from
41 to 62 percent. In the one State which did not require that the
inspectors be trained, examined and certified, the rejection rate
was only 9 percent. Three of the six States derived no income
from the inspection program. In two of the remaining three
States, income from the program exceeded expenditures for the
program.
It seems clear that if minimum standards require that the State
itself administer the inspection program, either by using merit
system employees who are trained to do the inspection required
and who are adequately paid, working at State-owned inspection
stations properly equipped, or by using privately-owned licensed
stations required to meet equipment standards and employing
trained, State-examined and certified inspectors, the objection as
to graft and corruption should be eliminated.
If the State allows the motorist a reasonable period for repairs,
the motorist will be able to protect himself against predatory price
practices by comparative shopping. It might even be desirable for
the State to maintain, for information purposes, a record—sup-
plied by the motorists—of repair costs on inspection items. Such a
record could be very useful in protecting the motorist by making
available to him information on what average repair costs on
given items have been.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1871
Competent inspection personnel will be in short supply. Medio-
cre inspection personnel would be worse than none at all. Automo-
bile manufacturers maintain training schools for the service de-
partments
[p. 13]
of their dealerships. It should be possible to establish similar
training centers for vehicle inspection personnel, staffed by com-
petent automotive engineers. These could be established on a re-
gional basis, with operating costs shared by the States within the
service area. Initially this part of the program could be under-
taken by the Federal Government under section 403, for subse-
quent absorption by the States under section 402 as advancement
and financing permit.
Competently administered inspection programs can also alert
State and Federal officials, and drivers, regarding high-wear com-
ponents or repeatedly encountered mechanical faults, and to poten-
tial avenues to their improvement or correction.
Realistically a State vehicle inspection service should eventually
be self-supporting. Once again, inspection fees should be adequate
to cover the cost of the inspection. If revenue from the inspection
program does exceed expenditures for the program, certainly
those added revenues should be required to be devoted to other
elements of the State's overall safety program.
Highway design and maintenance (including lighting, marking,
and surface treatment) and detection and correction of high
accident or potentially high accident locations
Poor roads impose upon the driver demands of judgment, deci-
sion, and reaction that he cannot possibly meet adequately in the
few seconds he usually has in which to meet them.
The Committee on Public Works, the Bureau of Public Roads,
the State highway departments, and the roadbuilding industry
have all been striving for years to achieve highway geometric and
construction standards as near perfect as technology and financing
will permit. Millions of dollars have been spent in both the public
and private sectors of the economy to achieve maximum safe high-
way design standards.
The 41,000-mile, divided-lane, limited-access Interstate System
is acknowledged to be the best engineered and finest highway
system in the world. Now half complete, it is estimated to save a
life a year for every 5 miles open to traffic. Thus, when the system
is complete, it is expected to save 8,000 lives a year.
-------
1872 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Unfortunately, the Interstate System represents only slightly
more than 1 percent of the total road mileage in the United States,
although it does account for 20 percent of all vehicle travel.
According to the Bureau of Public Roads, we have 3,644,069
miles of roads and streets in this country; 3,152,577 of them are in
rural areas; the remaining 491,492 miles are urban roads and
streets. Of the total mileage, 76 percent is under local control. 1.7
million miles, or 48 percent of the total, are county roads. 61
percent of the total mileage is either unsurfaced or the surface is
soil, gravel, crushed stone, or slag. Thus, only 39 percent of our
total road mileage has what we consider paved surface, and even
then, if the particular stretch of road is old and not well main-
tained, it is likely to seem more gravel than paved.
Most of our accidents occur in urban areas; most of our fatali-
ties occur in rural areas. Two conclusions immediately leap to
mind—there are more cars to produce accidents in the urban
areas, and the conditions which lead to fatal accidents more fre-
quently exist in the rural areas.
[p. 14]
All the problems are not in the rural areas, of course. Increas-
ing traffic congestion in urban areas is a serious safety problem.
Heavy, high-speed, freeway traffic volume dumped into narrow,
poorly controlled city streets is another.
Even very good roads in rural areas contribute to the problems,
because sooner or later the driver has to leave the good road for a
poor one. Apart from the road's characteristics, the demands of
making these multiple adjustments from one kind of highway to
another create real safety hazards.
Our long-range problem, relatively speaking, is not so much that
we need more roads as that we need better roads. We need to
rebuild a vast percentage of the roads we already have to design
standards that will provide a safe operating base. We can't go on
for much longer running 1966 cars, and we certainly can't in the
future run 1976 cars, on 1926, or 1936, or 1946, or even 1956
roads.
Present costs of road construction coupled with other demands
on resources make it impossible to undertake a task of that magni-
tude on a crash basis. We are already operating at revenue capac-
ity on the Federal aid program. But even under present financing,
we must face up to the fact that there is no logic whatever in
constructing tomorrow's high accident locations. If, to get safer
highways for present construction dollars, we must build fewer
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1873
miles of roads and streets, then we must build those fewer, safer
miles.
There are, however, a great many things we can do in highway
design, maintenance, and construction to improve their contribu-
tion to safety.
We can require that all new construction and reconstruction,
regardless of where it is, be built to no less than Federal-aid
primary design standards, even if this does mean building fewer
miles, and we can require that those primary geometric design
standards be substantially raised.
We can require wider rights-of-way; flatter slopes; broad, even
shoulders; less severe curves; removal of all obstructions of all
kinds from the right-of-way; the installation of traffic controls at
intersections; and the inclusion of turnout or slow lanes in all
mountainous or other limited visibility areas.
We can require that median barriers and guardrails be con-
structed of impact absorption materials that return cars with the
least possible damage to positions parallel to traffic, and we can
require that this be done immediately. We can also start replacing
the present impact-dangerous barriers and guardrails with the
improved types.
We can require the construction of sidewalks whenever we con-
struct streets, and we can require that when residential housing
development permits are granted, they require that the develop-
ment be planned to include sidewalks and to eliminate steep
grades and sharp curves.
We can require that maintenance standards and practices be
high enough to keep highways up to original construction stand-
ards.
We can require that pedestrain protection features be incorpo-
rated in our roads and streets.
We can require that lighted advance signs, lighted barricades,
and many other known or potential devices be used on construc-
tion projects where traffic must be maintained, and we can require
that there be continuous competent traffic direction through con-
struction during working hours.
[p. 15]
We should require that the recommendations of the Institute of
Traffic Engineers and the Illuminating Engineering Society be
considered in developing standards of highway lighting. Adequate
lighting, properly designed, installed, and maintained, effects a
significant reduction in night accidents. More than half of our
-------
1874 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
traffic fatalities occur at night, when traffic volume is only one-
third that of the daytime hours.
Night traffic accidents in Indianapolis decreased 54 percent fol-
lowing a comprehensive street lighting program. The death rate
on a continuously lighted Chicago expressway is one-third the
national expressway death rate. New lights were installed at nine
high-accident locations in Virginia and a careful followup study
was made. Traffic accidents at these locations dropped 38 percent
and fatalities dropped 90 percent.
This is a specific area in which the highway engineers should
defer to the expertise of the traffic and illuminating engineers, not
only on the aforementioned changes in standards but on future
developments as well. The committee expects that the Bureau of
Public Roads will take immediate steps to improve highway light-
ing standards.
One of the principal contributing factors in many accidents is
skidding on wet pavement. Emergency stops often result in panic
skids or spins. The National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion has been studying the problem of water pavement skidding.
Most people think that an automobile slips on wet roads because
water is slippery, but NASA engineers, studying plane skids,
learned that this is only part of the problem. Watching a tire
spinning on a wet belt one day, they saw the tire come to a full
stop for no known reason, while the belt continued to travel at 60
miles an hour. Later, in full-scale experiments, it was found that
at less than 35 miles an hour the front tires of an automobile
begin to lose contact with wet pavement. At 50 miles an hour they
are lifted up on a rough film of water and only the outer ribs are
touching. At 55 miles an hour the front tires of the average pas-
senger car lose all contact with the road's surface and are, in fact,
hydroplaning.
This phenomenon is now being studied by highway engineers,
and one solution to the problem has been tested by the State of
California. Mr. J. C. Womack, the California State highway engi-
neer, reports that when a car traveling at a high rate of speed
runs into water on the pavement, its tires literally become water
skis and skim across the water surface. If water depth and speed
are high enough, the tires rise entirely off the pavement, with
consequent loss of directional stability and braking capabilities.
During a 3-year period from June 1962 to June 1965, 11 skid-
ding accidents occurred during heavy rainfalls on a curve on In-
terstate 80 in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. All of these accidents
occurred in one direction of travel involving a turning movement.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1875
Working on the assumption that water buildup was causing hy-
droplaning, and to improve vehicular control under these condi-
tions, longitudinal grooves were cut into the concrete to improve
both water runoff and tire-to-pavement traction. The grooving
was completed in the summer of 1965, and since then no skidding
accidents have occurred at this location during rain.
A similar situation existed at a location on Interstate 5 in the
Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles. The same procedure
[p. 16]
was followed, and in a 2-year period since, no accidents of this
type have occurred.
This experience indicates that grooving of pavement at selected
locations may substantially reduce accidents resulting from skid-
ding. The committee expects that the Bureau of Public Roads and
the State highway departments will give serious consideration to
this method of surface treatment and other methods of surface
treatment. To the extent that special surface treatment has no
substantial undesirable side effects, it is something the States
could undertake immediately to produce early beneficial results.
The committee also expects that the Bureau of Public Roads will
seriously consider, encourage, and test imaginative efforts, no
matter who suggests them, to improve highway technology. The
committee believes that both the Bureau and the State highway
departments have been less responsive to innovation than they can
and should be. We realize that it is a human tendency to cling to
the familiar, but the familiar (even when it seems cheaper) hap-
pens to be costing us thousands of lives and millions of dollars in
property damage. We also realize that in the process of being
willing to try new ideas, a lot of failures will come and go, but if a
receptive, imaginative approach results in even one good new acci-
dent prevention standard or procedure, it will have more than
justified the cost and the frustrations of all the ideas that didn't
work out.
The Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments
must also take a new look at and a new approach to performance
in highway signs and markings. Substantial technological ad-
vances are being made in this field. The relevant industries, in-
cluding the electrical industry, and traffic engineers, and designers
and technicians in the graphic arts, should be consulted. On the
basis of new expertise, the standards for uniform traffic devices
should be revised. Substantial assistance should also be provided
-------
1876 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
for as much conformance as can possibly be obtained on non-Fed-
eral aid roads and streets.
A frequent complaint relating to signs on freeways and belt-
ways is that interchange signs, while they may be large, present
inadeqate and confusing information and are too close to the
interchange to which they relate to permit the driver to know
where or when to turn, or to allow him the slowdown time needed
to safely negotiate the all-too-often severe curves on interchange
ramps. Prompt correction should be made of these deficiencies,
including, eventually, the curves.
"Safe speed" signs on curves are a sound aid to safe driving.
But what they mean in one State is frequently not what they mean
in another. If the indicated safe speeds in one State are under-
stated, the driver quickly learns that fact and compensates h;s
speeds upward accordingly. When that same driver finds himself
in another State, where safe speeds are accurately stated, he runs
a serious risk of also availing himself of that State's hospital
facilities, not because he is a poor driver but because he has
reasonably concluded that highway signs don't mean what they
say and can't be relied upon.
The Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments
are already conducting a program for the detection and correction
of high or potentially high accident locations. It should be contin-
ued and expanded, but it is the committee's recommendation that
the
[p. 17]
Bureau exercise substantially increased supervision over the selec-
tion of projects approved for this program. The Bureau has re-
ported that 800 projects have been approved under the program in
the last 2 years. The committee has not had the opportunity to
complete a thorough analysis of these projects, but from a cursory
review of a summary list of them, certain facts indicate a critical
need for a more careful basis for project selection and approval.
For example, a large percentage of the projects selected show
no backup statistics on accident experience of any kind. A large
percentage of the projects involve construction or reconstruction
of bridges. [For the period October 1965 through February 1966,
392 projects were approved. Eighty percent had no accident
backup, and one-third of them involved bridges.] Some of the
projects, simply by virtue of their size, character, and cost, would
seem to demand accident experience justification, but none is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1877
shown, for example, for construction of a complete community
bypass, or for construction of concrete ladders up the sides of a
depressed freeway to provide "escape" routes in case of explo-
sions. In several instances, a single accident location has been
broken down into several "projects" indicating that while there
may be 800 projects, they will not correct anywhere near that
number of high accident locations.
The committee believes this is an extremely valuable program in
behalf of highway safety and expects that the Bureau will give it
the kind of supervision it deserves to insure that it will in fact
serve the safety purposes for which it is intended.
The committee wishes to make it clear that while the cost of
surveillance of traffic to detect high accident locations is properly
a highway safety program cost, the cost of the construction to
correct the high accident location is properly chargeable against
highway construction funds and not against highway safety
funds.
Traffic control and vehicle codes and laius
Traffic control involves, first, traffic surveillance to provide a
sound basis for traffic control programs and devices. Traffic sur-
veillance is properly the province of traffic engineers and traffic
police, working together. Traffic safety personnel are in short sup-
ply and part of the safety program will have to include grants to
States and institutions to develop adequate numbers of them. In-
creasing traffic volumes demand new and improved methods of
dealing with movement and congestion and the hazards they cre-
ate.
Considerable experimental work is already being done on elec-
tronic communications and control systems, closed circuit TV sur-
veillance systems, and other major innovations. Their use to deter-
mine feasibility for widespread application should be expanded,
and traffic authorities should be encouraged and assisted to ex-
plore every possible technological advance. The use of radio facili-
ties to communicate information, warnings, and instructions to
drivers in congested or otherwise dangerous areas and on high-
speed roads and expressways should be promptly developed and
used.
Advanced traffic control techniques should be applied as soon as
they become available. Existing techniques should be expanded.
Here again, substantial improvement can be made in traffic signals
and highway signs; controlled speeds, for example, can be em-
ployed to move freeway traffic onto older, narrower streets at
-------
1878 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
more stable volume levels: 65 miles an hour on a relatively free
driving expressway, fol-
[p. 18]
lowed by 10 miles an hour bumper to bumper in town does not cut
travel time and it does cause accidents. Traffic engineers assert
that controlled speeds on freeways during rush hours would sub-
stantially alleviate congestion in connecting downtown areas, and
that this would result in both decreased travel time and a de-
creased accident rate.
When new highway construction or reconstruction is planned,
routing should be carefully correlated with traffic changes and
requirements that will affect adjoining areas, and installation of
the necessary traffic controls in adjoining areas should be made
concurrent with completion of the construction.
Traffic control devices, signs, and signals on all highways and
streets should be uniform, and standards should be continually
reviewed and upgraded.
A major element of traffic control is the police force, be it city,
county, or State. Few, if any, jurisdictions have traffic police
forces of adequate size and training. They must be improved and
expanded, the policies and practices they enforce must be consist-
ent, impartial, and uniformly applied to all street and highway
users, and they must not be financially dependent upon a fee
system or any other system, official or informal, related to the
adjudication of court proceedings involving motor vehicle laws.
Their records should be open to the public.
The States must reappraise and revise their traffic court sys-
tems. Traffic courts should be a regularly established part of the
State judicial system, with full-time judges and staffs, assigned
quarters, and operating procedures which insure reasonable avail-
ability of court services for alleged offenders. No traffic court or
any of its personnel should be financially dependent upon any fee
system, fines, costs, or other revenue resulting from processing
violations of motor vehicle laws, and strict accounting procedures
regarding collection of fees, fines, and costs should be instituted.
Unpopular as the requirement may be, basic motor vehicle codes
and traffic ordinances should be made uniform throughout the
Nation. The laws in this field are literally a jungle of confusion.
There is a vast array of changing and conflicting traffic laws and
control systems as we drive from State to State. Most vehicle and
traffic laws do not meet today's, much less tomorrow's needs. Some
States enacted the then uniform vehicle code verbatim 20 or 30
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1879
years ago and haven't touched it since. Many nonconforming
amendments have been added in various States. Others have en-
acted parts of the code, but with so many variations and defeating
loopholes as to make it virtually unworkable. This situation not
only makes it impossible for the driver to know what the law is,
but it encourages him to ignore the law. Whether he does it as a
result of outrage and frustration, or simply because he is willing
to gamble to suit his convenience, the result is the same. The
situation must be corrected.
Emergency services
When accidents occur, it is essential that every available re-
source be mobilized to save lives, lessen the severity of injuries,
protect property, and restore the movement of traffic. An essential
part of the State safety program should be the development of an
emergency facilities system. This will require the advice and serv-
ices of experts and personnel in medicine, law, engineering, com-
munications, and law enforcement, at a minimum.
[P. 19]
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON STANDARDS
This extended discussion of the standards listed in section 402
of title 23 as contained in the bill is not intended to be limiting;
rather it is intended to serve as guidelines to what the Congress
intends should be included among the minimum elements of the
State highway safety programs. They must necessarily be ex-
panded and revised as changing conditions demand.
The committee recognizes, however, that in spite of the mount-
ing accident rate with all its attendant damage, many States have
failed, whatever the reason, to act in many of these areas. If the
failure is deliberate rather than simply indifferent or as a result
of financing problems, then this exposition of congressional intent
should be helpful in persuading the States that inaction no longer
serves the public interest.
This Congress is not interested in having the Federal Govern-
ment issue drivers' licenses, or title and register motor vehicles, or
conduct driver education courses, or manage highway police
forces, or sit as traffic courts, or operate any of the other safety
programs here outlined for the States, but if, with the leadership
and financial assistance which this legislation will provide, the
-------
1880 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
States do not act, promptly and decisively, some future Congress
may very well find itself faced with just that alternative.
*******
[p. 20]
Chapter 4.—HIGHWAY SAFETY
Sec.
401. Authority of the Secretary.
402. Highway safety programs.
403. Highway safety research and development.
404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
§ 401. Authority of the Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and directed to assist and cooperate
with other Federal departments and agencies, State and local
governments, private industry, and other interested parties, to
increase highway safety.
§ 402. Highway safety programs
(a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths,
injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. Such pro-
grams shall be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated
by the Secretary. Such uniform standards shall be expressed in
terms of performance criteria. Such uniform standards shall be
promulgated by the Secretary so as to improve driver perform-
ance (including, but not limited to, driver education, driver test-
ing to determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver
examinations (both physical and mental) and driver licensing)
and to improve pedestrian performance. In addition such uniform
standards shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for an
effective record system of accidents (including injuries and deaths
resulting therefrom), accident investigations to determine the
probable causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths, vehicle registra-
tion, operation, and inspection, highway design and maintenance
(including lighting, markings, and surface treatment), traffic con-
trol, vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of traffic for detection
and correction of high or potentially high accident locations, and
emergency services. Such standards as are applicable to State
highway safety programs shall, to the extent determined appro-
priate by the Secretary, be applicable to federally administered
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1881
areas where a Federal department or agency controls the high-
ways or supervises traffic operations.
(b)(l) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be respon-
sible for the administration of the program.
(B) authorize political subdivisions of such State to carry
out local highway safety programs within their jurisdictions
as a part of the State highway safety program if such local
highway safety programs are approved by the Governor and
are in accordance with the uniform standards of the Secre-
tary promulgated under this section.
(C) provide that at least 25 per centum of all Federal funds
apportioned under this section to such State for any fiscal
year will be expended by the political subdivisions of such
State, in carrying out local highway safety programs author-
ized in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(D) provide that the aggregate expenditure of funds of
the State and political subdivisions thereof, exclusive of Fed-
eral funds, for highway safety programs will be maintained
at a level which does not fall below the average level of such
expenditures for its last two full fiscal years preceding the
date of enactment of this section.
(2) The Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement of
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, in whole
or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever he determines
that there is an insufficient
[p. 70]
number of local highway safety programs to justify the expendi-
ture in such State of such percentage of Federal funds during such
fiscal year.
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a) shall be
subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the necessary
costs of administering the provisions of this section, and the
remainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30,
1969, such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his adminis-
trative discretion may deem appropriate and thereafter such funds
526-704 O - 74 - 9
-------
1882 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
shall be apportioned as Congress, by law enacted hereafter, shall
provide. On or before January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall report
to Congress his recommendations with respect to a nondiscretion-
ary formula for apportionment of funds authorized to carry out
this section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and fiscal
years thereafter. After December 31, 1967, the Secretary shall not
apportion any funds under this subsection to any State which is
not implementing a highway safety program approved by the Sec-
retary in accordance with this section. Federal aid highway funds
apportioned on or after January 1,1968, to any State which is not
implementing a highway safety program approved by the Secre-
tary in accordance with this section shall be reduced by amounts
equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which would otherwise be
apportioned to such State under section 104 of this title, until
such time as such State is implementing an approved highway
safety program. Whenever he determines it to be in the public
interest, the Secretary may suspend, for such periods as he deems
necessary, the application of the preceding sentence to a State.
Any amount which is withheld from apportionment to any State
under this section shall be reapportioned to the other States in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions
relating to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the
expenditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply
to the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be
inconsistent with this section. In applying such provisions of chap-
ter 1 in carrying out this section the term "State highway depart-
ment" as used in such provisions shall mean the Governor of a
State for the purposes of this section.
(e) No State activity or project shall be approved by the Secre-
tary for utilization of funds apportioned to carry out this section
which would require the expenditure for a period of more than
three years, from the date of approval of such activity or project,
of Federal funds appropriated under authority of this section.
(/) Uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary to carry
out this section shall be developed in cooperation with the States,
their political subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such other public and private organizations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
(g) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1883
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of
uniform standards for the highway safety programs contemplated
by subsection (a) and in the administration of such programs.
Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate in such
preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
[p. 71]
(h) Nothing in this section authorizes the appropriation or
expenditure of funds for (1) highway construction, maintenance,
or design (other than design of safety features of highways to be
incorporated into standards) or (2) any purpose for which funds
are authorized by section 403 of this title.
§ 403. Highway safety research and development
The Secretary is authorized to use funds appropriated to carry
out this section to carry out safety research which he is author-
ized to conduct by subsection (a) of section 307 of this title. In
addition, the Secretary may use the funds appropriated to carry
out this section, either independently or in cooperation with other
Federal departments or agencies, for (1) grants to State or local
agencies, institutions, and individuals for training or education of
highway safety personnel, (2) research fellowships in highway
safety, (3) development of improved accident investigation pro-
cedures, (4) emergency service plans, (5) demonstration projects,
and (6) related activities which are deemed by the Secretary to
be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
§ 404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee
(a) There is hereby established in the Department of Com-
merce a National Highway Safety Advisory Committee composed
of the Secretary, who shall be Chairman, the Federal Highway
Administrator, and twenty-nine members appointed by the Presi-
dent as follows:
(1) six from among persons who are chief executives of
States or political subdivisions,
(2) four from among persons who are public administra-
tors in the fields of highway safety.
(3) four from affected industries,
(4) one from among automotive engineers, one from among
highway engineers, and one from among traffic engineers,
(5) four from among persons who are research scientists
in the fields of highway safety, and
(6) eight from among the general public, except that at
-------
1884 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
least one so appointed shall be a lawyer, one a doctor, and
one an educator.
(b) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of four years, except that (1) any member appointed
to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for
which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the
remainder of such term, and (2) the terms of office of members
first taking office after the date of enactment of this section shall
expire as follows: seven at the end of one year after such date,
seven at the end of two years after such date, seven at the end of
three years after such date, and eight at the end of four years
after such date, as designated by the President at the time of
appointment, and (3) no person appointed pursuant to paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall hold office as a
member of the Committee after he ceases to serve as a chief
executive, or public administrator, as the case may be, and (4)
the term of any member shall be extended until the date on which
the successor's appointment is effective.
(c) Members of the Committee who are not officers or em-
ployees of the United States shall, while attending meetings or
conferences of such Committee or otherwise engaged in the busi-
ness of such Committee, be entitled to receive compensation at a
rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem,
including traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular
places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including
[p. 72]
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized in section 5 of the
Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for per-
sons in the Government service employed intermittently.
(d) The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee shall
advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the Secretary
on matters relating to his activities and functions in the field of
highway safety. The Committee is authorized (1) to review
research projects or programs in the field of highway safety and
recommend to the Secretary, for prosecution under this title, any
such projects which it believes show promise of making valuable
contributions to human knowledge with respect to the cause and
prevention of highway accidents; (2) to review, prior to issu-
ance, standards proposed to be issued by order of the Secretary
under section 402(a) of this title and to make recommendations
thereon. Such recommendations shall be published in connection
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1885
with the Secretary's determination or order, and shall be reported
annually to Congress.
(e) The National Highioay Safety Advisory Committee shall
meet from time to time as the Secretary shall direct, but at least
once each year.
(/) The Secretary shall provide to the National Highway Safety
Committee from among the personnel and facilities of the Depart-
ment of Commerce such staff and facilities as are necessary to
carry out the functions of such Committee.
[P. 73]
1.8a(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 1920, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
AUGUST 30, 1966.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 3052]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3052) to
provide for a coordinated national highway safety program
through financial assistance to the States to accelerate highway
traffic safety programs, and for other purposes, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:
-------
1886 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
TITLE I—HIGHWAY SAFETY
SEC. 101. Title 23, United States Code, is hereby amended by
adding at the end thereof a new chapter:
"Chapter 4.—HIGHWAY SAFETY
Scr.
401. Authority of the Secretary.
402. Highway safety programs.
403. Highway safety research and development.
404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
"§ 401. Authority of the Secretary
"The Secretary is authorized and directed to assist and coop-
erate with other Federal departments and agencies, State and
local governments, private industry, and other interested parties,
to increase highway safety.
"§ 402. Highway safety programs
"(a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved
by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths,
injuries, and
[p. 1]
property damage resulting therefrom. Such programs shall
be in accordance with uniform standards promulgated by
the Secretary. Such uniform standards shall be expressed in terms
of performance criteria. Such uniform standards shall be pro-
mulgated by the Secretary so as to improve driver performance
(including, but not limited to, driver education, driver testing to
determine proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver examina-
tions (both physical and mental) and driver licensing) and to im-
prove pedestrian performance. In addition such uniform stand-
ards shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for an effective
record system of accidents (including injuries and deaths result-
ing therefrom), accident investigations to determine the probable
causes of accidents, injuries, and deaths, vehicle registration, op-
eration, and inspection, highway design and maintenance (includ-
ing lighting, markings, and surface treatment) traffic control,
vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of traffic for detection and
correction of high or potentially high accident locations, and
emergency services. Such standards as are applicable to State
highway safety programs shall, to the extent determined appro-
priate by the Secretary for applicable to federally administered
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1887
areas where a Federal department or agency controls the high-
ways or supervises traffic operations. The Secretary shall be au-
thorized to amend or waive standards on a temporary basis for
the purpose of evaluating new or different highway safety pro-
grams instituted on an experimental, pilot, or demonstration basis
by one or more States, where the Secretary finds that the public
interest would be served by such amendment or waiver.
"(b)(l) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
"(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be respon-
sible for the administration of the program.
"(B) authorize political subdivisions of such State to carry
out local highway safety programs within their jurisdictions
as a part of the State highway safety program if such local
highway safety programs are approved by the Governor and
are in accordance with the uniform standards of the Secre-
tary promulgated under this section.
"(C) provide that at least 40 per centum of all Federal
funds apportioned under this section to such State for any
fiscal year will be expended by the political subdivisions of
such State in carrying out local highway safety programs
authorized in accordance with subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph.
"(D) provide that the aggregate expenditure of funds of
the State and political subdivisions thereof, exclusive of Fed-
eral funds, for highway safety programs will be maintained
at a level which does not fall below the average level of such
expenditures for its last two full fiscal years preceding the
date of enactment of this section.
" (E) provide for comprehensive driver training programs,
including (1) the initiation of a State program for driver ed-
ucation in the school systems or for a significant expansion
and improvement of such a program already in existence, to
be administered by appropriate school officials under the su-
pervision of the Governor as set forth in subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph; (2) the training of qualified school in-
structors and their certification; (3) appropriate regulation
of other driver training schools, including licensing of the
schools and certification of their instructors; (-4) adult driver
training programs, and programs for the retraining of se-
lected drivers; and (5) adequate research, development and
procurement of practice driv-
[p-2]
-------
1888 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ing facilities, simulators, and other similar teaching aids for
both school and other driver training use.
"(2) The Secretary is authorized to waive the requirement of
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, in whole
or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever he determines
that there is an insufficient number of local highway safety pro-
grams to justify the expenditure in such State of such percentage
of Federal funds during such fiscal year.
"(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), shall be
subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the necessary
costs of administering the provisions of this section, and the re-
mainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For the
fiscal years ending June 30,1967, June 30,1968, and June 30,1969,
such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis of
population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his administra-
tive discretion may deem appropriate and thereafter such funds
shall be apportioned as Congress, by law enacted hereafter, shall
provide. On or before January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall report
to Congress his recommendations with respect to a nondiscretion-
ary formula for apportionment of funds authorized to carry out
this section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and fiscal
years thereafter. After December 31, 1968, the Secretary shall not
apportion any funds under this subsection to any State which is
not implementing a highway safety program approved by the
Secretary in accordance with this section. Federal aid highway
funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1969, to any State which
is not implementing a highway safety program approved by the
Secretary in accordance with this section shall be reduced by
amounts equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which would
otherwise be apportioned to such State under section 104 of this
title, until such time as such State is implementing an approved
highway safety program. Whenever he determines it to be in the
public interest, the Secretary may suspend, for such periods as
he deems necessary, the application of the preceding sentence to a
State. Any amount which is withheld from apportionment to any
State under this section shall be reapportioned to the other States
in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.
"(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions relat-
ing to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1889
penditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply to
the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be in-
consistent with this section. In applying such provisions of chapter
1 in carrying out this section, the term 'State highway depart-
ment' as used in such provisions shall mean the Governor of a
State for the purposes of this section.
"(e) Uniform standards promulgated by the Secretary to carry
out this section shall be developed in cooperation with the States,
their political subdivisions, appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such other public and private organizations as the
Secretary deems appropriate.
"(f) The Secretary may make arrangements with other Federal
departments and agencies for assistance in the preparation of
uniform standards for the highway safety programs contemplated
by subsection (a) and in the administration of such programs.
Such departments and agencies are directed to cooperate in such
preparation and administration, on a reimbursable basis.
[p. 3]
"(g) Nothing in this section authorizes the appropriation or
expenditure of funds for (1) highway construction, maintenance,
or design (other than design of safety features of highways to be
incorporated into standards) or (2) any purpose for which funds
are authorized by section 403 of this title.
"§ 403. Highway safety research and development
"The Secretary is authorized to use funds appropriated to carry
out this section to carry out safety research which he is authorized
to conduct by subsection (a) of section 307 of this title. In addi-
tion, the Secretary may use the funds appropriated to carry out
this section, either independently or in cooperation with other
Federal departments or agencies, for (1) grants to State or local
agencies, institutions, and individuals for training or education of
highway safety personnel, (2) research fellowships in highway
safety, (3) development of improved accident investigation pro-
cedures, (4) emergency service plans, (5) demonstration projects,
and (6) related activities which are deemed by the Secretary to
be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
"§ 404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee
"(a) (1) There is established in the Department of Commerce a
National Highway Safety Advisory Committee, composed of the
-------
1890 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Secretary or an officer of the Department appointed by Mm, who
shall be chairman, the Federal Highway Administrator, and twen-
ty-nine members appointed by the President, no more than four
of whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed
members, having due regard for the purposes of this chapter, shall
be selected from among representatives of various State and local
governments, including State legislatures, of public and private
interests contributing to, affected by, or concerned with highway
safety, and of other public and private agencies, organizations, or
groups demonstrating an active interest in highway safety, as
well as research scientists and other individuals who are expert
in this field.
"(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold
office for a term of three years, except that (i) any member ap-
pointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the
term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed
for the remainder of such term, and (ii) the terms of office
of members first taking office after the date of enactment of
this section shall expire as follows: ten at the end of one year
after such date, ten at the end of two years after such date,
and nine at the end of three years after such date, as designated
by the President at the time of appointment, and (Hi) the term of
any member shall be extended until the date on which the suc-
cessor's appointment is effective. None of the members appointed
by the President other than Federal officers or employees shall be
eligible for reappointment within one year following the end of his
preceding term.
"(B) Members of the Committee who are not officers or employ-
ees of the United States shall, while attending meetings or con-
ferences of such Committee or otherwise engaged in the business
of such Committee, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate
fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including
traveltime, and while away from their homes or regular places of
business they may be allowed travel expenses including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, as authorized in section 5 of the Adminis-
trative Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently. Payments under this
section shall not render members of the Committee employees or
officials of the United States for any purpose.
[p. 4]
"(b) The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee shall
advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the Secretary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1891
on matters relating to the activities and functions of the Depart-
ment in the field of highway safety. The Committee is authorized
(1) to review research projects or programs submitted to or rec-
ommended by it in the field of highway safety and recommend to
the Secretary, for prosecution under this title, any such projects
which it believes show promise of making valuable contributions
to human knoivledge with respect to the cause and prevention of
highway accidents; and (2) to review, prior to issuance, standards
proposed to be issued by order of the Secretary under the pro-
visions of section 402 (a) of this title and to make recommendations
thereon. Such recommendations shall be published in connection
with the Secretary's determination or order.
" (c) The National Highway Safety Advisory Committee shall
meet from time to time as the Secretary shall direct, but at least
once each year.
"(d) The Secretary shall provide to the National Highway Safe-
ty Committee from among the personnel and facilities of the De-
partment of Commerce such staff and facilities as are necessary
to carry out the functions of such Committee."
Sec. 102. (a) Sections 135 and 313 of title 23 of the United States
Code are hereby repealed.
(b) (1) The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
is hereby amended by deleting:
"135. Highway safety conference."
(2) The analysis of chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, is
hereby amended by deleting:
"313. Highway safety conference."
(3) There is hereby added at the end of the table of chapters at
the beginning of title 23, United States Code, the following:
"4. Highway safety __ 401."
Sec. 103. Section 307 of title 23, United States Code, is amended
(1) by inserting in subsection (a) thereof immediately after
"section 104 of this title" the following: ", funds authorized to
carry out section 403 of this title," and (2) by adding at the end
of such section the following new subsection:
"(d) As used in this section the term 'safety' includes, but is
not limited to, highway safety systems, research, and develop-
ment relating to vehicle, highway, and driver characteristics, acci-
dent investigations, communications, emergency medical care, and
transportation of the injured."
-------
1892 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Sec. 101*. For the purpose of carrying out section 402 of title
23, United States Code, there is hereby authorized to be appro-
priated the sum of $67,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1967; $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968; and
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969.
Sec. 105. For the purpose of carrying out sections 307(a) and
403 of title 23, United States Code, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated the additional sum of $10,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967; $20,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1968; and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1969.
Sec. 106. AH facts contained in any report of any Federal
department or agency or any officer, employee, or agent thereof,
relating to any highway traffic accident or the investigation there-
of conducted pursuant to chapter 4 of title 23 of the United States
Code, shall be available for use in
[p. 5]
any civil, criminal, or other judicial proceeding arising out of
such accident, and any such officer, employee, or agent may be
required to testify in such proceedings as to the facts developed
in such investigation. Any such report shall be made available to
the public in a manner which does not identify individuals. All
completed reports on research projects, demonstration projects,
and other related activities conducted under sections 307 and 403
of title 23, United States Code, shall be made available to the
public in a manner which does not identify individuals.
TITLE II—ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING
Sec. 201. The Secretary shall carry out the provisions of the
Highway Safety Act of 1966 (including chapter 4 of title 23 of
the United States Code) through a National Highway Safety
Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"), which he shall
establish in the Department of Commerce. The Agency shall be
headed by an Administrator who shall be appointed by the Presi-
dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall
be compensated at the rate prescribed by level V of the Federal
Executive Salary Schedule established by the Federal Executive
Salary Act of 1964. The Administrator shall be a citizen of the
United States, and shall be appointed with due regard for his fit-
ness to discharge efficiently the powers and the duties delegated to
him. The Administrator shall have no pecuniary interest in or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1893
own any stock in or bonds of any enterprise involved in (1) manu-
facturing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or (2)
constructing highways, nor shall he engage in any other business,
vocation, or employment. The Administrator shall perform such
duties as are delegated to him by the Secretary. On highway mat-
ters the Administrator shall consult with the Federal Highway
Administrator. The President is authorized to carry out the pro-
visions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 through the Agency and Administrator authorized by this
section.
Sec. 202. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
President for transmittal to the Congress on March 1 of each year
a comprehensive report on the administration of the Highway
Safety Act of 1966 (including chapter 4 of title 23 of the United
States Code) for the preceding calendar year. Such report should
inchide but not be restricted to (1) a thorough statistical com-
pilation of the accidents and injuries occurring in such year; (2) a
list of all safety standards issued or in effect in such year; (3) the
scope of observance of applicable Federal standards; (4) a state-
ment of enforcement actions including judicial decisions, settle-
ments, or pending litigation during the year; (5) a summary of
all current research grants and contracts together with a descrip-
tion of the problems to be considered by such grants and con-
tracts; (6) an analysis and evaluation of completed research activ-
ities and technological progress achieved during such year together
ivith the relevant policy recommendations flowing therefrom; (7)
the effectiveness of State highivay safety programs (including
loca1 highway safety programs) and (8) the extent to which tech-
nical information ivas being disseminated to the scientific com-
munity and consumer-oriented material was made available to the
motoring public.
(b) The annual report shall also contain such recommendations
for additional legislation as the Secretary deems necessary to
promote cooperation among the several States in the improvement
of highway safety and to strengthen the national highway safety
program.
[p. 6]
Sec. 203. The Secretary of Commerce shall report to Congress,
not later than July 1, 1967, all standards to be initially applied in
carrying out section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code.
Sec. 204. The Secretary of Commerce shall make a thorough
-------
1894 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
and complete study of the relationship between the consumption
of alcohol and its effect upon highway safety and drivers of motor
vehicles, in consultation with such other government and private
agencies as may be necessary. Such study shall cover review and
evaluation of State and local laws and enforcement methods and
procedures relating to driving under the influence of alcohol. State
and local programs for the treatment of alcoholism, and such
other aspects of this overall problem as may be useful. The results
of this study shall be reported to the Congress by the Secretary on
or before July 1, 1967, and shall include recommendations for
legislation if warranted.
Sec. 205. The Federal Highway Administrator and any other
officer who may subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act
become the operating head of the Bureau of Public Roads shall
receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level IV of the
Federal Executive Salary Schedule established by the Federal
Executive Salary Act of 1964.
Sec. 206. Section 105 of title 23, United States Code, is hereby
amended by adding the following subsection at the end thereof:
"(e) In approving programs for projects on the Federal-aid sys-
tems pursuant to chapter 1 of this title, the Secretary shall give
priority to those projects which incorporate improved standards
and features with safety benefits."
Sec. 207. In order to provide the basis for evaluating the con-
tinuing programs authorized by this Act, and to furnish the
Congress with the information necessary for authorization of
appropriations for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1969, the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Governors or the appropriate
State highway safety agencies, shall make a detailed estimate of
the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The Secretary
shall submit such detailed estimate and recommendations for Fed-
eral, State, and local matching funds to the Congress not later
than January 10,1968.
Sec. 208. This Act may be cited as the "Highway Safety Act of
1966."
And the House agree to the same.
JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI,
JIM WRIGHT,
ROBERT E. SWEENEY,
JAMES J. HOWARD,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1895
WILLIAM H. HARSHA,
DON H. CLAUSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
ERNEST GRUENING,
FRANK E. Moss,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 7]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the bill (S. 3052) to provide for a coordinated national
highway safety program through financial assistance to the States
to accelerate highway traffic safety programs, and for other pur-
poses, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect
of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in
the accompanying conference report:
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
Section 101 of the House amendment to S. 3052 amended title 23
of the United States Code to add thereto a new section 402 which
generally requires States to have highway safety programs ap-
proved by tne Secretary designed to reduce highway accidents and
deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom. These
programs are to be in accordance with uniform standards estab-
lished by the Secretary, and these standards are to be such as to
improve driver performance, provide for an effective record sys-
tem of accidents, accident investigations, vehicle registration, op-
eration and inspection, highway design and maintenance, traffic
control, vehicle codes and laws, surveillance of traffic for detection
and correction of high or potentially high accident locations, and
emergency services.
The proposed conference substitute also amends title 23 to add
to it a new section 402. Section 402 of the proposed conference
substitute is the same as section 402 of the House amendment
except as follows:
-------
1896 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
(1) The Secretary is specifically authorized to amend or waive
standards on a temporary basis for the purpose of evaluating new
or different highway safety programs instituted on an experimen-
tal, pilot, or demonstration basis by one or more States when the
Secretary finds the public interest would be served thereby. This
provision is the same as a provision in the Senate bill.
(2) Subsection (b) (1) (C) provided in the House amendment
that at least 25 percent of all Federal funds apportioned under
this section would be expended by political subdivisions in carry-
ing out local highway safety programs. The proposed conference
substitute provides that at least 40 percent of all such Federal
funds will be expended by political subdivisions of States in carry-
ing out local highway safety programs.
(3) Subsection (c) of section 402 in the House amendment
provided that after December 31, 1967, the Secretary should not
apportion any funds to a State not implementing a highway safety
program and further provided a reduction of 10 percent of Feder-
al-aid highway funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1968, to
any State not so implementing a highway safety program. The
proposed conference substitute is the same as the House amend-
ment in this regard except
[p. 8]
that each date has been moved back 1 year. The conferees agreed
to extend these deadlines for 1 year in order to afford the States
ample opportunity for whatever legislative action may be neces-
sary to provide for these State highway safety programs, as well
as to afford the Secretary ample opportunity to consult with the
States and political subdivisions in developing these standards.
(4) Subsection (e) of this section in the House amendment
provided that no State activity or project was to be approved by
the Secretary if it would require the expenditure of funds under
this section for a period of more than 3 years. The proposed
conference substitute does not contain this provision. The manag-
ers on the part of the House agreed to the deletion because they
believe that the annual reports required by section 202 of the bill
will provide adequate opportunity for congressional review of the
administration of the program.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Section 404 of title 23 as added by the House amendment to S.
3052 provided for the establishment in the Department of Com-
merce of a National Highway Safety Advisory Committee com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1897
posed of the Secretary, the Federal Highway Administrator, and
29 members appointed by the President as follows: 6 from among
chief executives of States and political subdivisions, 4 from among
highway safety administrators, 4 from industry, 3 engineers, 4
research scientists, and 8 from the general public including a
lawyer, a doctor, a farmer, and an educator. These members were
to be appointed for terms of 4 years on a basis that would provide
for staggered terms and their duties were to advise, consult with,
and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters relating
to highway safety.
Section 404 as it is proposed to be added to title 23 by the
conference substitute establishes a National Highway Safety Ad-
visory Committee, also composed of the Secretary or his designee
as Chairman, the Federal Highway Administrator, and 29 mem-
bers, not more than 4 of whom shall be Federal officers, or employ-
ees. These members shall be selected from among representatives
of State and local governments, of public and private institutions
contributing to, affected by, or concerned with highway safety,
and other public and private agencies, organizations, or groups
demonstrating an active interest in highway safety, as well as
research scientists and other individuals expert in this field. The
members are to be appointed on a staggered basis for terms of 3
years and are to advise, consult with, and make recommendations
to the Secretary on matters relating to his activities and functions
in the field of highway safety. A specific provision has been added
to insure that the acceptance of per diem payments by a member
of the committee who is not an officer or employee of the United
States will not be deemed to make him such an officer or employee
for any purpose.
AUTHORIZATIONS
Sections 103, 105, 106, and 107 of the Senate bill authorized for
fiscal year 1967 a total of $105 million to carry out the purposes of
the bill (other than research). These sections also authorized $150
million for fiscal year 1968 and $155 million for fiscal year 1969.
[p. 9]
526-704 O - 74 - 10
-------
1898
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.8a(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 112 (1966)
1.8a(4)(a) June 27: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14936
HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the vote
by which the bill (S. 3052) to provide
for a coordinated national highway
safety program through financial as-
sistance to the States to accelerate
highway traffic safety programs, and
for other purposes, was passed last
Friday, be reconsidered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Connecticut? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. RTBICOFF. Mr. President, due
to an inadvertent error last Friday
while the Senate was acting on the
Highway Safety Act of 1966, my
amendments to S. 3052 were not
printed in the act, as passed by the
Senate, in the form agreed on by the
manager of the bill, the senior Sena-
tor from West Virginia and myself.
I therefore ask unanimous consent
that S. 3052 be amended with the fol-
lowing corrections:
In "Section 404 (a)," delete the following:
"June 30, 1968, and for the four succeeding
fiscal years," and insert in lieu thereof, "June
30, 1967, and for the two succeeding fiscal
years.";
In "Section 405 (a)," delete the following:
"June 30, 1968, and for the four succeeding
fiscal years," and insert in lieu thereof, "June
30, 1967, and for the two succeeding fiscal
years,";
And in Section 106, delete the following:
"$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1969." and insert in lieu thereof,
"$30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1969."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Connecticut? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, and was read the
third tme.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is, shall the bill pass? (Put-
ting the question.)
The bill (S. 3052) was passed * * *
[p. 14396]
1.8a(4)(b) Aug. 18: Amended and passed House, pp. 19926-19939,
19941-19944
HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
Mr. KLUCZNYSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 13290) to
amend title 23 of the United States
Code to provide for highway safety
research and development, certain
highway safety programs, a national
driver register, and a highway acci-
dent research and test facility.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Illinois.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill, H.R.
13290, with Mr. Brooks in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1899
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
KLUCZYNSKI] will be recognized for
1 hour and the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. CRAMER] will be recognized for
1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Public Works, the gentle-
man from Maryland [Mr. FALLON]
such time as he may consume.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
13290 as reported from the Public
Works Committee is the Highway
Safety Act of 1966. It is the product
of long and careful consideration, and
I believe that it will provide a sound
framework within which the several
States will be able to develop and
effectively operate highway safety
programs that will ultimately contrib-
ute greatly to reduction of highway
accidents and the terrible toll of
death, injuries, and property damage
that arise from those accidents.
The bill sets forth the minimum
areas in which the Secretary must
promulgate standards to which the
States must subscribe under the pro-
gram. Combined with the guidelines
outlined in the committee report, I be-
lieve a strong and productive safety
program will emerge.
This legislation places responsibility
for action on highway safety in the
States, where it properly belongs. It
requires that the Secretary work
closely with the States in the develop-
ment of standards, research, demon-
stration projects, and related activi-
ties.
It establishes the National Highway
Safety Agency for administrative
purposes, and the National Highway
Safety Advisory Committee for advi-
sory purposes. It protects the right of
our citizens to full information on re-
search and investigative work done
under the law, and it directs the Sec-
retary to make a full study of the
relationship between alcoholism and
highway safety, a serious and per-
plexing problem.
H.R. 13290 continues the policy of
meaningful cooperation between the
States and the Federal Government on
highway matters. I believe it is a firm
step forward in the struggle to save
lives, and I urge that we act with
strong voice to put it into effect.
The Committee on Public Works
therefore recommends the enactment
of H.R. 13290, as amended.
In doing so, we pause to express a
debt of gratitude. John Baldwin, the
author of the Baldwin amendment
upon which
[p. 19926]
this Highway Safety Act is based,
served on the Public Works Com-
mittee from the time he came to
the Congress from California in Janu-
ary 1955. His death on March 9, 1966,
1 week after the President's safety
message was received by the House,
saddened every member of this com-
mittee. But even in death, as he had
so often done in life, he strengthened
us. However it may become known,
whoever may wear the mantle of
credit for it, for the members of the
Public Works Committee this legisla-
tion will always evoke the image of
John Baldwin. We would be less than
the men we would like to be if we
failed here to acknowledge our debt to
him for his leadership in meeting the
Federal responsibility in highway
safety. No man worked harder—nor
left behind him a committee of col-
leagues more determined to see his
task completed and his goal achieved.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 13290, the
Highway Safety Act of 1966, as re-
-------
1900
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ported, requires, as did the original
Baldwin amendment which the House
passed by an overwhelming majority
last year, that each State must have a
highway safety program, approved by
the Secretary of Commerce, which is
in accordance with uniform standards
to promulgate by the Secretary, on or
before December 31, 1967.
The uniform standards to be pro-
mulgated by the Secretary must in-
clude, but are not limited to, stand-
ards for improved driver perform-
ance, including driver education, test-
ing, and licensing, and for improved
pedestrian performance; an effective
accident record system; improved ac-
cident investigation procedures; vehi-
cle registration and inspection; high-
way design and maintenance as they
relate to safety, including lighting,
highway markings, and surface treat-
ment; traffic control; vehicle codes
and laws; the detection and correction
of high accident locations; and emer-
gency services.
The committee's report on this bill
spells out, in considerable detail,
guidelines for the Secretary in formu-
lating these minimum standards.
The Secretary is required by the
language of the bill itself to work
with the States, localities, and other
public and private organizations in
the development of these standards.
If a State does not have an ap-
proved program by December 31,
1967, it is subject to a reduction in its
Federal-aid highway funds of 10 per-
cent. The Secretary is authorized to
waive this 10-percent reduction if he
believes it is in the public interest to
do so.
This does not mean that every State
must be moving full speed on every
aspect of highway safety by December
31, but rather that it must have sub-
scribed to the minimum standards and
be implementing at least some parts
of a comprehensive program based on
those minimum standards.
The committee is well aware that
the possible 10 percent reduction in
highway funds is a potentially severe
penalty. The committee also believes,
however, that if we are going to com-
mit Federal funds to this program to
the extent contemplated, effective per-
formance should be required.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. Do they have any mini-
mum standards now under this Fed-
eral highway program?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. No. No mini-
mum safety standards whatsoever.
Mr. HAYS. In other words, the
Federal Government has no control. If
a State comes in and wants its 90
percent for an interstate highway,
they get it without showing anything?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Yes, they do
get it.
Mr. HAYS. But they do have some
kind of standards, do they not?
Mr. KLUCZNYSKI. Yes. Set by the
Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. HAYS. Are you aware that the
Bureau of Public Roads allowed the
State of Pennsylvania to build Inter-
state 70 on both the west end and east
end up to and onto the Pennsylvania
Turnpike, which is a worn-out, over-
crowded, dangerous highway, with no
separation between the eastbound and
westbound lanes except an iron rail,
and they funneled all of that traffic
onto an already overcrowded highway
and charged the people a toll and
caused uncounted deaths on that 90
miles of crowded highway? Will this
bill prevent that kind of thing going
on?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKT. If the gentle-
man will wait until I conclude my
statement, I will be happy to answer
to give you all the necessary informa-
tion.
Mr. HAYS. I will appreciate it if
the gentleman will speak to that spe-
cific point.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1901
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
less than a year ago this Congress
enacted the Highway Beautification
Act. It is mandatory upon the States
to the extent that if they fail to com-
ply with its provisions, they face a
reduction of their Federal-aid high-
way funds. In initially submitting the
beautification legislation to the Con-
gress, the administration proposed a
reduction of 100 percent of highway
funds for noncompliance. The Con-
gress reduced that to a 10-percent re-
duction. In submitting proposed high-
way safety legislation to the Con-
gress, the administration proposed
that the entire program be wholly vol-
untary, with no requirement for com-
pliance. We are dealing here with an
effort to save lives, and the committee
believes that such an effort is surely
at least as urgent and essential to the
public welfare as highway beautifica-
tion.
The bill as reported makes the Gov-
ernor of each State the official respon-
sible for the State's highway safety
program, but it places no restriction
on his power to delegate his functions
for administrative purposes.
As the report on the bill makes
clear, the committee believes that both
driver education and vehicle inspec-
tion are essential elements in the
highway safety program. However,
we do not believe that these two sub-
jects should be singled out for special
statutory treatment or special fund-
ing-, as against the other equally im-
portant subjects included in the speci-
fied minimum standards. The commit-
tee believes that splitting off these two
subjects can only lead to imbalance
and confusion in the handling of the
safety program as a whole.
The bill establishes the National
Highway Safety Agency within the
Department of Commerce to adminis-
ter the highway safety program and
sets forth the general qualifications of
the agency's administrator, as well as
his salary level and that of the Fed-
eral Highway Administrator. We have
been informed that the executive
branch plans to establish an agency
within the Department of Commerce
to handle highway safety, and it is the
committee's opinion that safety is suf-
ficiently important to justify the
agency's creation by statute, with ap-
propriate requirements to keep high-
way design and construction and high-
way safety in proper perspective.
H.R. 13290 as reported also estab-
lishes the National Highway Safety
Advisory Committee, specifically em-
powered to work with the Secretary in
developing standards and recommend-
ing research projects. The committee
believes that the kind of membership
on the committee specified in the bill
is essential, so that it will be widely
representative and with people on it
whose knowledge and standing will in-
spire enthusiasm, confidence, and co-
operation in the safety program.
Without public confidence and cooper-
ation, we cannot hope to achieve re-
sults in highway safety.
The reported bill authorizes a sub-
stantial research program in highway
safety, designed to put to use the re-
search that has already been done in
the field and to provide the additional
information needed to enable us to de-
velop sound long-range safety pro-
grams. A total of $55 million is au-
thorized for the fiscal years 1967,
1968, and 1969. This is the amount the
administration recommended for re-
search in that 3-year period.
For allocation to the States for
their highway safety programs, H.R.
13290 authorizes the appropriation of
a total of 215 million for fiscal years
1967, 1968, and 1969. One-fourth of
that amount is required to be used for
local highway safety programs. The
committee believes that specific local
participation is an essential compo-
nent of the State program. This total
$215 million authorization is $55 mil-
-------
1902
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
lion more than the authorization the
administration recommended for the
3-year period. The committee believes
that the administration's recommen-
dation was too low, in view of the
magnitude of the accident and death
rates, and particularly in view of the
need for programs at the local level.
These funds are to be apportioned
to the States 75 percent on the basis
of population and 25 percent at the
discretion of the Secretary, for the
next 3 years. The committee believes
that 3 years is
[p. 19927]
long enough to give us some basic ex-
perience in this field, and that there-
after the Secretary's authority to
allocate 25 percent of the funds should
be eliminated. Therefore, in January
1969 the Secretary is required to sub-
mit to the Congress his recommenda-
tions for a nondiscretionary formula
for apportionment of 100 percent of
these funds to the States after fiscal
year 1969.
The reported bill specifically prohib-
its the appropriation of these funds
from the highway trust fund except to
the extent that additional funds are
specifically appropriated to the trust
fund for this purpose.
H.R. 13290 as reported requires
that the information developed
through accident investigations con-
ducted by Federal officials and
through research projects be made
available to interested parties and to
the public. The committee does not be-
lieve there is either sufficient experi-
ence or sufficient evidence to justify
withholding this information devel-
oped through research conducted by a
public agency using public funds. The
committee is also convinced that if it
is the intent of the Congress that the
maximum information should be made
available to the public, it is necessary
that the legislation so specify, and the
reported bill clearly does that.
It also requires that detailed re-
ports on all phases of the highway
safety program—both the State pro-
grams and the research programs—be
submitted to the Congress each year,
so that the Congress may properly
evaluate the action being taken, the
progress being made, and the needs
for the future.
Present statistics indicate that alco-
hol is a factor present to some degree
in about 50 percent of all accidents.
This is a serious problem, and a per-
plexing one. Its alleviation and control
will be extremely difficult, but it is
obviously too serious, in terms of
highway safety, to be evaded. Accord-
ingly, H.R. 13290 directs the Secre-
tary of Commerce to make a study of
the relationship between alcoholism
and highway safety, and to report the
results of that study to the Congress
by July 1, 1967, together with his re-
commendations for any legislation
that he believes could help to alleviate
this growing problem.
H.R. 13290 as reported is considera-
bly stronger than the legislation rec-
ommended by the administration. It is
also far more specific in terms of the
authorities it grants, requires, or
withholds. The committee believes
that this legislation is essential to the
national welfare, but it also believes
that the carefully drafted language
contained in the bill, together with the
legislative history contained in the re-
port, is essential if we are to succeed
in enlarging, rather than impairing,
the power and ability of the States to
deal with the highway safety problem.
The committee also believes that it
is absolutely essential that the Con-
gress maintain continuing watch over
this program; it is for that reason
that appropriation authorizations ex-
tend only through 1969, rather than
for 6 years as the administration rec-
ommended.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I will be happy
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1903
to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to congratulate the distinguished gen-
tleman from Illinois for the very fine
job that he does on this committee and
in presenting these bills.
Mr. Chairman, as I have often said,
Congress passes a lot of good legisla-
tion but sometimes we get some pretty
poor administration.
I realize that the gentleman cannot
personally look after all of these
things which the Department of Com-
merce should look at.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to support
the gentleman's bill because I think
we all believe in highway safety, but I
submit to you, it is a little bit foolish
to spend money to try to teach people
safe driving habits when this same
Department of Commerce that is
going to administer this allows a situ-
ation to exist—not only allows it to
exist but encourages it and condones
it—as exists between Breezewood, Pa.,
and New Stanton, Pa., where they put
all of Interstate 70's traffic onto an
overcrowded wornout toll road.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that
the gentleman would find some time
—and I know that he is as busy as we
all are—to call these people up and
point out to them what an idiotic
thing this is to allow conditions like
that to exist and to condone them and
give them money to do it with.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I assure the
gentleman from Ohio that the House
Committee on Public Works will check
into the matter, and we will call you
in the near future.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, I drive
this highway. I do not mind paying
the toll. I would be glad to pay twice
as much toll for a decent highway.
But I would like to point out that 2
weeks ago Sunday when I came back
from Ohio I had to travel at 65 miles
an hour or get run over. There are
two lanes of traffic each way, with
bumper-to-bumper traffic—and I mean
bumper-to-bumper—going 65 miles an
hour in a driving rain. In one accident
alone I saw 14 cars involved.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Perhaps I can help
clarify the situation for the gentle-
man. Under present law there are two
sections relating to safety matters.
Both of them relate solely to Federal
aid to highways. The Pennsylvania
Turnpike is not a Federal aid high-
way. Up to this point the Federal
Government has had no jurisdiction
over safety features relating to the
Pennsylvania Turnpike. However, as
this bill is drafted, the language on
page 10, line 11, providing for a spe-
cific highway design, includes all high-
ways, and in the future will include
the Pennsylvania Turnpike and any
other highway in any State relating
to accident-free standards.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield at that point?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. I am glad that the gen-
tleman clarified it, but the point I was
making, and the point that disturbs
me, was that the Federal Government
gave the State of Pennsylvania 90
cents on the dollar to build Interstate
70 from the Maryland line to Breeze-
wood on the Pennsylvania Turnpike,
and then gave them 90 cents on the
dollar to take the traffic off at New
Stanton to the West Virginia line
where, 15 miles later, it comes into my
State. We in Ohio have built it border
to border now. It is either completed
or under construction. I say that the
Federal Bureau of Public Roads gave
Pennsylvania the money to make this
dangerous situation exist, and that is
what I object to.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, I
-------
1904
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
will say to the gentleman that under
this legislation that will not be possi-
ble in the future.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SAYLOR. I am delighted to
hear the gentleman from Ohio make
his statement, because we in the State
of Pennsylvania have complained that
the Department of Commerce made
the State of Pennsylvania accept as a
portion of its Interstate System, the
Pennsylvania Turnpike, and we have
not received a nickel for it. It does
create a bad situation, and if the De-
partment of Commerce would only
allow the State of Pennsylvania to
have its mileage and not charge them
with mileage on the Interstate Sys-
tem, which was not a part of it, but
paid for entirely by the people of
Pennsylvania and those who use the
road, we would eliminate that situa-
tion.
Mr. HAYS. I am blaming the Bu-
reau of Public Roads, as apparently
the gentleman is, and I sincerely hope
that the committee will do whatever is
necessary to make them correct that
before hundreds more people get
killed.
Mr. SAYLOR. I am happy to coop-
erate not only with the committee, but
with the gentleman from Ohio and any-
one else to eliminate and correct that
situation.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I thank the
gentleman, and I assure both of you
that I shall check into the matter with
the highway department, the depart-
ment of roads, and the Commerce De-
partment, and report to you.
Mr. HAYS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further on that
same question?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I will say to the
gentleman from Ohio and the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania that we also
held lengthy hearings on toll road fa-
cilities, and the very tight problem the
gentleman mentioned with regard to
the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Under
present law, the Bureau of Public
Roads of the Federal Government
cannot put any money that it has in
the Interstate System into improving
toll roads. This is one of the issues
that is before the Highway Investi-
gating Subcommittee. The
[p. 19928]
gentleman's point is well taken, and
it has been given full consideration by
that subcommittee.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield—
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I merely
want to say to the gentleman that I do
not want him to improve that toll
road. It is carrying all it can carry. I
just want them to build Interstate 70,
perhaps right beside it, if you want
to. At least you will have two high-
ways running to capacity instead of
one highway running to double capac-
ity.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
CRAMER].
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES].
(By unanimous consent, Mr.
BYRNES of Wisconsin was allowed to
proceed out of order.)
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment
ago, there are presently only two stat-
utory sections relating to highway
safety in the law today. One is the
general requirement relating to Fed-
eral-aid highways that they be de-
signed in a manner conducive to
safety, and the other is the Baldwin
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1905
amendment to Senate Joint Resolution
81 adopted last year.
This legislation, H.R. 13290, imple-
ments the Baldwin amendment.
I should like to take a few moments
in view of the fact that the lengthy
committee hearings were in fact held
in memoriam—and so far as I am
concerned the consideration of this
legislation is in memoriam, to pay
great tribute to a deceased Member of
the House of Representatives, the late
John Baldwin of California.
I had the privilege of coming to
Congress with John Baldwin some 12
years ago. I know of no man who was
more dedicated to full-time service to
the public than was John Baldwin. I
know also, having spoken to him about
it many times, of his devoted interest
in this serious highway accident prob-
lem throughout the entire Nation.
Highway safety to him meant some-
thing that happened in his district
which he felt was wrong and which he
thought legislation might be able to
cure. This indicates to me the heart of
the man who felt that if there were
anything which could be done by the
Federal Government in cooperation
with the States and local interests
that it should be done. That was the
nexus of the Baldwin amendment
which was adopted not only in this
House but as a result of the confer-
ence. It is in the statutes now, and it
requires the adoption of certain stand-
ards by the States in cooperation with
the Federal Government.
This bill implements the Baldwin
amendment. I am proud to stand on
the floor of this House at this time
speaking on this bill. I only wish John
Baldwin were here to hear this discus-
sion, because as far as I am concerned
this discussion and this bill is being
considered in memoriam to a great
Congressman, a dedicated public serv-
ant, and someone whom we will miss a
great deal for many years to come,
John Baldwin.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the
gentleman for yielding. I certainly
subscribe to what he has just said. I
was very much impressed on reading
the report that the committee paid
such a fine tribute to John. I think his
orginal amendment went into this
field at quite some length. I believe it
was passed in the committee and
House but watered down in the con-
ference. However, if the original ap-
proach of John Baldwin had been en-
acted into law when he proposed it, we
would have been well along the road
toward solving this problem long be-
fore now. I think that would be a true
statement, and I wonder if the gentle-
man from Florida will agree with me
on that.
Mr. CRAMER. I will say to the
gentleman that the late gentleman
from California wanted to withhold
all funds if highway safety programs
were not promulgated. That was com-
promised in conference, and the pen-
alty was deleted. This legislation im-
plements the Baldwin amendment, and
attempts to identify and provide solu-
tions for the administrative problems.
There is no question but what the gen-
tleman was a man devoted in his in-
terest to this problem. I want to make
sure that proper acknowledgment is
given him, and I join with the distin-
guished chairman of our subcommit-
tee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
KLUCZYNSKI], and the chairman of
our full committee, the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. FALLON], in
that respect.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from California [Mr.
SISK].
Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I want to
join with the distinguished gentleman
-------
1906
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
from Florida in paying tribute to our
late and very good friend, John Bald-
win. I happen to know of John's long
interest in highway safety and his
concern about it. Some of it came
about through some similarities in our
travels across country from California
to Washington and back, because John
did bring his family across with him.
We had some similar experiences in
lack of standardization and many
other problems. I know of his great
interest in this matter and join with
the gentleman from Florida in the
comments he has made here today. I
appreciate it, because I, too, came to
Congress along with John Baldwin
some 12 years ago, and he was cer-
tainly a dedicated public servant.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the
need for a vigorous effective highway
safety program is obvious. Today
there are 90 million motor vehicles
traveling the 3,644,069 miles of high-
ways, roads, and streets in the United
States. By 1975 there will be nearly
120 million vehicles. Last year, 49,000
persons were killed in motor vehicle
accidents, and recent estimates predict
that up to 55,000 people may be killed
this year. Unless we act decisively and
now, as many as 100,000 persons may
be killed in 1975, just 9 years hence.
The toll of Americans killed on our
highways since the introduction of the
automobile is truly unbelievable. It is
1.5 million, more than all the combat
deaths suffered in all our wars.
To the extent that there has been
governmental leadership in highway
safety over the years, it has come
from the States. Nevertheless, admi-
rable as the progressive programs in
a few States are, they are insufficient
and there are far too few of them.
Safety has become this year's most
popular crusade, which is all to the
good, but accident reduction is quite
another matter. Everyone is eager to
participate in the safety dialog, but
there is a curious reluctance to face
up to and shoulder the actual burden
of reducing highway accidents. It ap-
pears that the only solution is a man-
datory safety program.
STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
Mr. Chairman, the heart of this leg-
islation is the requirement that each
State shall have a highway safety
program approved by the Secretary of
Commerce, designed to reduce traffic
accidents and deaths, injuries, and
property damage resulting therefrom.
Such programs are to be in accord-
ance with uniform standards promul-
gated by the Secretary.
It is not intended that the Secretary
shall act unilaterally in preparing
these standards. On the contrary, the
bill expressly requires that the stand-
ards be developed in cooperation with
the States, their political subdivisions,
appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, and such public and private
organizations as the Secretary deems
appropriate. To assure that this con-
cept is carried out and to give the
Congress an opportunity to review the
standards, the Secretary is required to
report to Congress, not later than
January 10, 1967, all standards to be
initially applied.
To obtain nationwide application of
effective highway safety programs the
Federal Government must assume a
position of leadership in the field. But
the actual working programs should
remain in the hands of the States.
That is what H.R. 13200 strives to
accomplish.
The standards are required to be
expressed in terms of performance
criteria—that is, they must be written
in language sufficiently specific to be
susceptible of evaluation as to their
success or failure in actual applica-
tion under the States' programs.
There have been enough broad gener-
alized recommendations written in in-
volved and largely unintelligible jar-
gon. It is time to have done with these
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1907
opiate platitudes and to get down to
business if we expect to lessen the ap-
palling and ever-increasing highway
slaughter.
To that end, the bill provides that
the standards shall be promulgated so
as to improve driver performance (in-
cluding, but not limited to, driver edu-
cation, driver testing to determine
proficiency to operate motor vehicles,
driver examinations, both physical
and mental, and driver licensing) and
to improve pedestrian performance.
Certain things are
[p. 19929]
enumerated in the bill which must be
included in the standards. They are
provisions for, first, an effective record
system of accidents; second, accident
investigations to determine the prob-
able causes of accidents, injuries, and
deaths; third, vehicle registration,
operation, and inspection; fourth,
highway design and maintenance, in-
cluding lighting, markings, and sur-
face treatment; fifth, traffic control;
sixth, vehicle codes and laws; seventh,
surveillance of traffic for detection and
correction of high or potentially high
accident locations; and eighth, emer-
gency services.
The Secretary is not limited to
these standards. He may add others
which he determines are needed. But
initially, he must require that the
State programs subscribe to standards
which at least cover the specified
areas.
H.R. 13290 authorizes the appropri-
ation of a total of $215 million to be
apportioned among the States—less
up to 5 percent for administrative ex-
penses—for fiscal years 1967, 1968,
and 1969 for carrying out the State
highway safety programs. For the
first 3 years, these funds are to be
apportioned 75 percent on the basis of
population and 25 percent as the Sec-
retary in his discretion may deter-
mine. By January 1, 1969, the Secre-
tary is to report to the Congress his
recommendations with respect to a
nondiscretionary formula for appor-
tionment of funds for fiscal year 1970,
and fiscal years thereafter.
All of the provisions of chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, that are
applicable to Federal-aid primary
highway funds, other than provisions
relating to the apportionment formula
and provisions limiting the expendi-
ture of such funds to the Federal-aid
system, apply to the highway safety
funds. Therefore, the Federal share of
the cost of projects to carry out the
States highway safety programs will
be the same as for Federal-aid pri-
mary highway projects—50 percent,
plus the sliding scale in public lands
States.
The States' highway safety pro-
grams are to apply to all highways,
roads, and streets, and are not to be
limited to the Federal-aid system or to
the State highway system. Death on
our highways does not distinguish be-
tween highway jurisdictions. In keep-
ing with this concept and to insure
that the political subdivisions of a
State play an active role in the States'
highway safety program, H.R. 13290
requires that at least 25 percent of
the funds apportioned to a State be
spent by political subdivisions of the
State in carrying out local highway
safety programs. These local pro-
grams must be in accordance with the
standards promulgated by the Secre-
tary, be a part of the overall State
highvay safety program, and be ap-
proved by the Governor. Many coun-
ties, cities, towns, and other political
subdivisions should be in a position to
make real contributions to highway
safety through comprehensive local
highway safety programs.
To finance these local highway pro-
grams, which were not included in the
administration's proposal, the commit-
tee increased the funds authorized to
be appropriated for carrying out the
State programs 25 percent over the
-------
1908
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
amounts recommended by the adminis-
tration for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and
1969. If there are not enough local
highway safety programs to justify
the allocation to political subdivisions
of the full 25 percent, the Secretary is
authorized to waive any or all of the
25 percent local expenditure.
The Senate passed bill, S. 3052,
would set up a separate program of
Federal grants to communities which
are predominantly within a standard
metropolitan statistical area—that is
an area with a population of 50,000 or
more. This program would be the local
counterpart of, but separate from, the
State highway safety program, and
funds in amounts equal to that au-
thorized to be appropriated for the
State programs are authorized to be
appropriated for the community pro-
grams.
In most States a wide variety of
officials and State agencies now are
responsible for various aspects of
highway safety activities. The Com-
mittee considers it essential to admin-
istrative workability and the success
of the program that there be one cen-
tral authority responsible to the Sec-
retary for the State's highway safety
program. Accordingly, H.R. 13290 re-
quires that the Governor of the State
be the responsible official. Of course,
there is no limitation on his power to
delegate his authority, but he is the
State official responsible to the Fed-
eral Government for conduct of the
State's program.
This legislation is intended to assist
the States initiating safety program
elements which they do not now have
and in improving those which they do
have. It is intended to guide and assist
in financing additional action. Accord-
ingly, the bill requires that the ex-
penditures by a State and its political
subdivisions of their own funds for
highway safety be not less than the
average level of such expenditures for
the last 2 fiscal years preceding the
date of enactment of the Highway
Safety Act of 1966.
In addition, to insure that Federal
funds will not be used for the pay-
ment of salaries or other administra-
tive expenses of continuing, perma-
nent activities over an extended pe-
riod of time, the bill prohibits ap-
proval of Federal participation any
project or activity which would re-
quire the expenditure of Federal
funds for a period of more than 3
years.
Grants to the States for carrying
out State highway safety programs
cannot be used for research or for
highway construction, maintenance, or
design, except for design of safety
features of highways which could ulti-
mately be incorporated into standards.
Research and highway construction
and maintenance are provided for by
other Federal and State programs,
and it is intended that this legislation
not be converted into merely another
research or highway construction pro-
gram, but rather that it produce
effective highway safety action pro-
grams.
In October of 1965, the Congress en-
acted the Highway Beautification Act
of 1965. It is mandatory upon the
States to the extent that if they fail
to comply with its provisions, they
face a reduction of their Federal-aid
highway funds. In submitting pro-
posed highway beautification legisla-
tion to the Congress, the administra-
tion recommended that any State fail-
ing to comply with its provisions lose
all Federal aid for highway construc-
tion. The Congress reduced the pen-
alty to 10 percent of a State's Feder-
al-aid highway funds for failure to
control outdoor advertising and a sim-
ilar 10-percent penalty for failure to
control junkyards.
In submitting proposed highway
safety legislation to the Congress, the
administration recommended that the
entire program be voluntary. The
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1909
committee believes that highway
safety is more urgent and essential to
the public welfare than highway beau-
tification. Accordingly, the bill as re-
written by the committee provides
that Federal-aid highway funds ap-
portioned on or after January 1, 1968,
to any State which is not implement-
ing an approved highway safety pro-
gram shall be reduced 10 percent. The
Secretary may waive this penalty
when he determines it to he in the
public interest.
HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVEL-
OPMENT
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 13290 author-
izes the Secretary of Commerce, first,
to make grants to States, local agen-
cies, institutions, and individuals for
the training or education of highway
safety personnel; second, to establish
research fellowships in highway
safety; third, to develop improved ac-
cident investigation procedures and
emergency service plans; fourth, to
conduct demonstration projects, and
fifth, to undertake other related activ-
ities which he deems necessary to
carry out highway safety research
and development.
An amount of $55 million is author-
ized to be appropriated for the first 3
years to carry out these purposes and
to conduct safety research now au-
thorized by section 307(a) of title 23,
United States Code.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
H.R. 13290 establishes in the De-
partment of Commerce a National
Highway Safety Advisory Council
composed of the Secretary, the Fed-
eral Highway Administrator, and 29
members to be appointed by the Presi-
dent. The Council will advise, consult
with, and make recommendations to
the Secretary on matters relating to
highway safety; review highway re-
search projects or programs; review,
prior to issuance, standards proposed
to be issued by the Secretary for guid-
ance of State highway safety pro-
grams; and make recommendations
relative to research projects or pro-
grams and standards.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
Mr. Chairman, the administration,
in its proposed legislation, recom-
mended that no part of any report of
any Federal agency, or officers, em-
ployees, or agent thereof, relating to
any highway traffic accident or inves-
tigation thereof be admitted as evi-
dence in any civil or criminal action
and that no such officer, employee, or
agent be required to testify in such
proceedings as to facts developed in
such investigation. It is also the po-
[p. 19930]
sition of the administration that all
records and reports developed from re-
search activities should be unavailable
to anyone except for research pur-
poses and then only upon the approval
of the Secretary.
The committee believes that facts
developed in highway accident investi-
gations should be available to the in-
terested parties. H.R. 13290, as re-
ported by the committee, provides that
all facts, as distinguished from opin-
ions and conclusions, in any report of
any Federal department or agency, or
any officer, employee, or agent thereof,
relating to any highway traffic acci-
dent or the investigation thereof con-
ducted pursuant to chapter 4 of title
23, United States Code, shall be avail-
able for use in any civil or criminal
proceeding arising out of the accident,
and any such officer, employee, or
agent may be required to testify in
such proceedings as to the facts devel-
oped in the investigation.
The bill, as reported by the commit-
tee, further provides that such reports
shall be made available to the public
-------
1910
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in a manner which does not identify
individuals. Also, all completed re-
ports on research projects, demonstra-
tion projects, and other related activi-
ties conducted nnder authority of the
Highway Safety Act or section 307 of
title 23, United States Code, are to be
made available to the public in a man-
ner which does not identify individu-
als.
FINANCING
H.R. 13290, similar to the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1966, prohibits
the appropriation of funds from the
highway trust fund for highway
safety or highway beautification, ex-
cept to the extent that additional
funds, either from a 1-percent auto-
mobile excise tax or from the general
fund of the Treasury, are first appro-
priated to the Trust Fund for such
purposes.
ALCOHOL AND HIGHWAY SAFETY THE
CRAMER AMENDMENT
Mr. Chairman, testimony before the
committee indicated that alcohol is
present to some degree in 50 percent
of all highway accidents. This is a
serious problem, and a perplexing one.
Its alleviation and control will be ex-
tremely difficult, but its magnitude
precludes its evasion. At my insist-
ence, the committee wrote a provision
into the bill upon my motion to re-
quire the Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with other Government
and private agencies, to make a com-
prehensive study of alcoholism and
the consumption of alcohol and their
effects upon and relation to highway
safety, including review and evalua-
tion of State and local laws and en-
forcement procedures concerning driv-
ing while under the influence of alco-
hol, and State and local programs for
the treatment or rehabilitation of al-
coholics and habitual drunkards.
The Secretary is to report the re-
sults of his study to the Congress by
July 1, 1967, together with recommen-
dations for needed legislation, if any.
Some people have asked me to sub-
mit a list of possible State actions to
implement highway safety programs,
and I do so herewith:
1. Measures to improve driver performance:
Establish or improve driver education courses,
by establishing State regulations and supervi-
sion concerning instructor qualifications, hours
of instruction, subjects to be covered (includ-
ing minimum hours of actual driving prac-
tice) and training aids.
Establish and enforce strict driver license
and renewal procedures, including minimum
age limits and mandatory periodic physical
and eyesight examinations, skills tests, and
written or oral examination.
2. Improve pedestrian performance: Pedes-
trian education programs beginning at the
elementary school level;
Installation of signs and traffic signals spe-
cifically designed for pedestrian protection;
Enforcement of pedestrian traffic laws.
3. Effective record system of accidents and
accident investigations: Utilize efficient com-
puterized record systems, operated by trained
personnel, in order to assure that accident
reports are subject to rapid retrieval and
analysis;
Employ personnel trained and competent in
accident investigation and reporting, to make
comprehensive meaningful investigations as to
the exact cause of accidents and recommenda-
tions for preventive action.
4. Vehicle registration, operation and
inspection: Establish comprehensive central,
cross-referenced registration and titling sys-
tems, to make it possible to identify a vehicle
with limited information, as an indispensable
tool to investigation and law enforcement.
Provide for mandatory, periodic motor vehi-
cle inspections at either State-owned or pri-
vately-owned, State-supervised inspection sta-
tions, and operated by inspectors trained, ex-
amined and certified by the State.
5. Highway design and maintenance:
Conduct expanded research into the features
of highways themselves which may constitute
traffic hazards;
Adopt stringent standards for highway de-
sign which emphasize highway safety and do
not subordinate safety to highway beauty or
considerations of economy of construction and
maintenance.
6. Traffic control and vehicle codes and
laws: Utilize advanced traffic control tech-
niques as soon as they become available, in-
cluding electronic communication and control
systems, closed circuit TV surveillance sys-
tems, etc.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1911
Improve and expand traffic police forces, by
employing an adequate number of trained per-
sonnel;
Reappraise and revise traffic court systems,
where necessary, to assure that traffic courts
are a regularly-established part of the State
judicial system, with full-time judges and
staffs, assigned quarters and operating proce-
dures which assure reasonable availability of
court services for alleged offenders;
Enact basic motor vehicle codes and traffic
ordinances which are up-to-date and uniform
throughout the Nation.
7. Emergency services: Establish measures
to insure the fastest possible notification of an
emergency, such as the installation of call
boxes, aerial surveillance, patrols, etc.;
Establish control centers, manned and
equipped to send to an emergency scene peo-
ple and equipment capable of providing medi-
cal care, transportation of the injured,
prompt assessment of all of the elements in-
volved in the accident, and restoration of
traffic movement.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I have
some questions regarding this bill.
This will not take very long. I realize
that you are familiar with the bill and
the report on the bill that was passed
yesterday.
Mr. CRAMER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. DOWDY. But separate and
apart from the bill and the committee
report of yesterday, there are certain
duplications in this bill that I wonder
whether they might be pretty expen-
sive. I do not believe the gentleman
would be wishing to promote certainly
the proliferation of agencies which
seems to be going on in the Govern-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, each of these bills—
the one we passed yesterday and the
one we are discussing today—create
an agency. The one yesterday created
a National Traffic Safety Agency and
it is to be administered by an Admin-
istrator who will be appointed by the
President, with the advice and consent
of the Senate, at salary level V. The
bill sets out his qualifications and
what he has to do.
Mr. CRAMER. Yes.
Mr. DOWDY. This one creates an
agency similar to the National Traffic
Safety Council, a National Highway
Safety Agency, to be headed by an
Administrator to be appointed by the
Secretary at a level V with identical
qualifications.
Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate the
gentleman's question which, if he
wishes me to answer as to how it
came about and how I contemplate
that it will be administered, I will be
glad to so indicate.
Mr. DOWDY. In other words, I
think this is a good bill and I am glad
it came out but I would like at least to
have this question answered and one
further question, if I may.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman's
point is well taken.
Mr. Chairman, I would contemplate
that the Highway Safety Council in
this bill as well as the Council in the
automobile safety bill that if the ad-
ministration wants to do so, the same
person could act as the Administrator
for both.
May I say secondly that the bill to
create a Department of Transporta-
tion, which I understand we are going
to consider, specifically provides for a
safety Administrator who will proba-
bly take over the functions of both of
these Administrators.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore say to
the gentleman that when we consider
the transportation bill, I understand
proper amendments will be offered at
that time to coordinate this legislation
with the automobile safety legislation
and with the safety division within
the Department of Transportation.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man for one other question.
Mr. DOWDY. I think you see my
point in relating highway and auto-
mobile safety, there seems to be a
duplication.
-------
1912
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. CRAMER. I do not contemplate
a duplication.
Mr. DOWDY. Then there is one
other place in the bill—if the gentle-
man will yield further.
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man.
[p. 19931]
Mr. DOWDY. Section 202 in this
bill and section 120 in the one we
passed yesterday provides for a report
from the Secretary that is almost
identical—well, I believe this bill has
almost every item in it in this report
as is in the one we passed yesterday.
For instance, one thing—and I am
reading: "a thorough statistical com-
pilation of the accidents and injuries
occurring in such year; second, a list
of Federal motor vehicle safety stand-
ards prescribed or in effect in such
year; third, the degree of observance
of applicable Federal motor vehicle
standards—these are almost identical
to the ones in this bill that we are
considering today.
Mr. CRAMER. I would say to the
gentleman that I do not see a duplica-
tion there in that this relates to high-
way safety and the other relates to
automobile safety. Admittedly, there
are certain aspects, one relating to au-
tomobiles and the other to highways
that have similar descriptions, but I
do not think there is a duplication
there.
Mr. DOWDY. But there is much of
it that is identical.
Mr. CRAMER. I understand that,
but this only relates to highway
safety and that relates to automobile
safety.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. SWEENEY. The gentleman
raises a very interesting question in
his first question about the necessity
of having a provision in the bill, and
it does appear that it might be a du-
plicate of the effort to appoint a
safety agency. I would like to point
out, in supplementing what the gentle-
man pointed out earlier, that neither
the Senate traffic safety bill nor the
Senate highway bill contain provisions
for a safety agency, and a safety ad-
ministration, and we in the House
have no assurance that in taking these
two bills to conference, an agency and
an administrator would be included in
the legislation finally adopted. So we
feel it would be wise to maintain the
provisions so that we can take it to
conference.
I quite agree with the statement
made by the gentleman in the well
that it would be in order that the
Highway Administration be under a
single agency for both the Traffic
Highway Safety Act and the Highway
Safety Act.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HOWARD].
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, let
us put this traffic safety legislation in
its proper context.
This is a bill designed to save lives,
to keep people out of hospitals and off
of crutches, and to keep them from
losing their life savings because of
auto accidents.
It is just that plain and simple.
In the hearings on this legislation,
the issue of establishing safety stand-
ards in the automobile industry won
most of the headlines.
But I submit we almost overlooked
the most important thing—that for
the first time in history this Nation is
going to have a truly national pro-
gram of highway safety. We will be
putting a better driver in our better
automobile.
Much more important than the ve-
hicle standards, I suggest, is the as-
sistance we are offering to the States
and local communities to help them
achieve truly effective highway safety
programs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1913
This legislation provides $215 mil-
lion over a 3-year period for the
States to get into phases of highway
safety that most of them have not
been able to afford heretofore.
It will enable them to inaugurate or
vastly improve such things as driver
education, driver testing, driver licen-
sing, vehicle inspection and even the
performance of pedestrians who also
have to cope with today's traffic.
It also will enable them to do a bet-
ter job of investigating accidents,
seeking the actual cause rather than
simply trying to establish liability.
Through it, they will be able to im-
prove traffic control facilities—better
lighting, better markings, better sur-
veillance, better planning, better pro-
graming and the like.
We in the public life these days
have a tendency to become inured to
such oftused phrases as "driver educa-
tion" or "vehicle inspection."
Reading the committee report on
this legislation, however, I was
brought up short when I read this
sentence:
We are investing billions of dollars educat-
ing our children, but we have been unwilling
to spend the relatively small additional
amount it would take to teach them how to
stay alive.
I was startled to learn that every
day of the year 8,000 secondary school
children reach driving age—4 million
of them every year.
I do not have to tell you that insur-
ance company statistics show that
these young drivers who have not had
any driver education have the worst
record of any.
Yet less than half of the eligible
students are enrolled in driver train-
ing courses.
Even the statistics in this field are
unreliable. The committee report says
one source reported that 31 States
offer financial assistance support for
driver education. Another source said
28 States. Still another 24.
Regardless of how many, however, I
must assert that we are not doing
enough in this field, and that this bill
is the opening step, the seed, if you
will, to get us started on driver train-
ing on truly a national scale.
This alone, would make the legisla-
tion worthwhile, I believe.
Almost the same case can be made
for vehicle inspection. Only 20 States
and the District of Columbia have ve-
hicle inspection. Yet records show that
from 41 to 62 percent of cars in-
spected are rejected as not safe
enough for travel on the highways.
This traffic safety legislation will
give this program a big shot in the
arm, too.
All of us here are familiar with the
relationship of the Federal Govern-
ment and the States and local com-
munities in the business of roadbuild-
ing. This is an example of democratic
partnership unmatched anywhere else
in the world.
This legislation seeks to put our
traffic safety effort on the same foot-
ing.
I urge my colleagues to support it
unanimously.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the gentleman from South
Carn?ina [Mr. DORN].
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of this legislation. It is
timely, urgent, and needed. I wish to
commend the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. KLUCZYNSKI] for the splendid
and outstanding job he has done in
bringing this bill to the floor, and for
the magnificent way he has led the
debate here in the Committee of the
Whole. May I commend my distin-
guished chairman, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. FALLON], for his guid-
ance, his splendid cooperation, and his
leadership.
I also wish to commend the staff of
the committee for their dedication and
for their extra effort in bringing this
bill before us.
526-704 O - 74 - 11
-------
1914
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. Chairman, the time for action
in stopping the wasteful and tragic
carnage on our highways has long
been with us. The performance of the
American automobile, and the great
numbers in which it is produced, is
one of the great triumphs of the
American free enterprise system. But
we have allowed slaughter on the
highway to become a national dis-
grace.
More people have been killed on the
highways of the United States since
the advent of the automobile than in
all of the wars combined since colonial
days. More people have been injured
and maimed, many for life, than in all
the wars combined since the time of
Plymouth Rock and Jamestown. Every
13 minutes a man, woman, or child is
killed in traffic. Every 18 seconds
someone is injured in traffic. Every 30
seconds the financial losses from
traffic accidents is $450,000.
Yesterday we passed a bill to pro-
mote the mechanical safety of the au-
tomobile. That automobile, no matter
how mechanically safe, is still a po-
tentially lethal instrumentality of
death without a trained, sober driver.
What is called for, Mr. Chairman,
is a balanced attack on highway
slaughter. We have dealt with the in-
strument; we must now deal with the
operator. We must consider all facets
of the problem of highway safety.
The legislation before the House
today would do this by promoting
driver education and training, re-
search into the causes and the preven-
tion of accidents, and, for the first
time, uniform testing procedures and
requirements for drivers' licenses
throughout the country.
Many people have expressed con-
cern, and much research has been
done by various agencies and groups.
All this must be continued and in-
creased. What has been lacking, how-
ever, is coordination of information
and standards and procedures as they
relate to driver regulation and acci-
dent prevention. We are not setting
up a Federal traffic czar in this bill.
What we are doing is simply giving
the Commerce Department a sensible
role of leadership and coordination in
developing and improving highway
safety programs. The actual work-
[p. 19932]
ing of the programs will remain in the
hands of the States; the effectiveness
and responsibility of State officials
will be enhanced. This is a States
rights bill.
Mr. Chairman, last year's tragic
toll of 47,700 Americans killed in auto
accidents points up the immediate ur-
gency of this legislation. This is nec-
essary and worthwhile legislation, and
I strongly support it.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. BENNETT].
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman,
today I rise to speak on a subject
which is of monumental importance to
our Nation. As we sit in this Cham-
ber, every 13 minutes some man,
woman, or child is killed in traffic.
Every 18 seconds somebody is injured
seriously enough to be disabled. Fi-
nancial losses are piling up at a rate
of $15,000 per second, around the
clock, and traffic is becoming heavier
every day—more drivers, more vehi-
cles, more miles of travel, and more
chances of accidents.
For over a decade, I have sponsored
legislation designed to help rid our
country of these horrible statistics,
and in this session my two bills are
H.R. 414 and H.R. 9303, to establish
safety standards for certain automo-
bile equipment, and require that
equipment on all automobiles sold in
interstate commerce. The chairman's
bill from the Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee in this field
passed the House yesterday I am glad
to say.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1915
Today we have an unprecedented
opportunity to take action where these
critical situations exist—on our Na-
tion's highways. In my State alone,
the rate of motor vehicle deaths has
increased by a shocking 21 percent,
and in just 2 years. This example can
be duplicated in almost every State in
the Union, until we find that the
yearly arithmetical sum equals 22,000
human beings. Since the Battle of
Lexington in 1775, 606,979 Americans
have laid down their lives in all of our
wars. Yet, 1,501,000 lives have boen
snuffed out in the twisted carnage of
highway accidents, just since the be-
ginning of this century.
Our country is producing automo-
biles at a fantastic rate—over a mil-
lion a year. And we are killing our
citizens at an equally fantastic rate.
We need action now. We need a pro-
gram that will provide our States
with the proper tools and funds to de-
velop adequate highway safety sys-
tems. I believe that H.R. 13290, the
Highway Safety Act of 1966, will as-
sist in giving us a firm beginning in
saving valuable American lives. Presi-
dent Johnson has said:
The people of America deserve an aggres-
sive highway safety program.
I urge that the House of Represent-
atives tell him that our people shall
have it, and pass the Highway Safety
Act of 1966.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to a distinguished member of
our great committee, the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. KEE].
Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
13290 is an outstanding bill. I join
wholeheartedly with those Members
here who have highly commended the
distinguished chairman of the House
Public Works Committee, the gentle-
man from Maryland [Mr. FALLON],
and the chairman of the Public Roads
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Il-
linois [Mr. KLUCZYNSKI], and the
members of the staff of the committee,
for their dedicated work which re-
sulted in bringing before the House
today this legislation, which actually
will be and is a landmark in highway
safety. I have every confidence that
this measure will pass by a unanimous
vote this afternoon.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN].
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in enthusiastic support of
this legislation, and in particular I
wish to express my sincere apprecia-
tion to the chairman, the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. FALLON], and
our very able ranking member, the gen-
tleman from Florida [Mr. CRAMER],
for their kindly and considerate ex-
pressions relating to our late colleague,
John Baldwin of California.
As the lone Californian on the
Roads Subcommittee, this gesture is
of major significance to me, and I am
sure all Californians. We feel, that in
the passage of this bill, today, the
Highway Safety Act of 1966, will
serve as a fitting memoriam to one of
the most dedicated legislators of our
time. The Nation will appreciate his
contributions from this day forward
—hopefully, it will establish a trend
toward the saving of lives, as was his
objective and intent in offering his
original amendment.
I believe it can be stated that Mr.
Baldwin, certainly through the intro-
duction of the now famous Baldwin
amendment which summarily stated
that "after December 31, 1967, no
funds shall be apportioned under sec-
tion 104 of this title 23 to any State
which does not have a highway safety
program," established the motivation
resulting in the Highway Safety Act
being passed today.
Certainly every one of us believes
that the distinguished chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KLUC-
ZYNSKI], has presented the contents
-------
1916
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
of the bill very adequately. But I
would also like to admonish the Mem-
bers of this body that we fully realize,
as members of the committee, there
are certain and definite engineering
limitations as we look to adequate
safety programs.
At this time I want to commend the
testimony of the Automotive Safety
Foundation for revealing to our com-
mittee some of the major problems re-
lating to safety, and I relate specifi-
cally to the problem of drinking and
the problem of education. I would sug-
gest that each Member of the Con-
gress read this testimony as included
in our hearings.
I understand there will be amend-
ments offered, and I am hopeful that
we will place the emphasis on the gen-
uine need when we give consideration
to amendments. I am referring to
placing the emphasis on driver educa-
tion and driver responsibility.
There was one recommendation
made that I hope to bring to the at-
tention of the House and to the atten-
tion of the country, which the Auto-
motive Safety Foundation recom-
mended. That was the need to develop
simulators in the schools of America
to assist in teaching our young people
that which will be required of them as
they become, hopefully, intelligent and
responsible drivers of the future.
There was one other item that I be-
lieve was a major step forward, and it
represents, certainly, a credit to this
committee. That is the recognition of
a safety program for the local govern-
mental level. The National Associa-
tion of County Officials came to some
of us, as members of the committee,
and pointed out something that has
been overlooked for a long time. This
is the proper recognition of the fact
that we need to extend safety pro-
grams and revenue allocations to the
primary and secondary highway sys-
tems, principally sponsored by local
governments. The Federal Govern-
ment has preempted most of the tax
sources, but has not given adequate
consideration to the needs of local
government. I believe the members of
the committee have recognized this
problem and at least started a pro-
gram of assistance that is badly
needed. We must be constantly vigi-
lant in recognizing the need to main-
tain balanced highway programs in
keeping with our constitutionally es-
tablished federal system of govern-
ment.
I want to thank the National Asso-
ciation of County Officials for bring-
ing this to our attention.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I had
asked the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House if it were possible
to recognize John Baldwin, posthu-
mously, by asking everyone on the
floor of the House to stand in silent
memoriam to him. I was told that this
request was not acceptable under the
House rules of procedure. But I would
like to ask the Members who are pres-
ent on the floor of the House today to
at least join me in a round of ap-
plause for our departed colleague, the
late John Baldwin, of Contra Costa
County, Calif. The ring of your ap-
plause I am certain will be heard and
appreciated by this outstanding
American—the real author of the
Highway Safety Act of 1966.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man and Members of the Committee,
yesterday we had a bill on this subject
and at that time, knowing what the
Committee on Public Works had done
in this field and the bill they were to
present today I praised highly on sev-
eral occasions the bill that we have
under consideration. I said yesterday,
and I say again, that I have been in
this field professionally for some time
—6 of the years were spent as man-
ager of the Omaha chapter of Na-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1917
tional Safety Council, and then as
mayor of my city of 300,000. Under
our form of government I had charge
of all safety, be it fire, traffic, public,
or whatever. So I believe I
[p. 19933]
know something about what this prob-
lem is all about.
I would say that, in my opinion, the
bill we passed yesterday is a farce so
far as contributing to traffic safety is
concerned.
I voted for it. I do not want any-
body to say I am against traffic
safety, so I want to be among the an-
gels, too. But it will not solve this
problem or even make a dent in it.
The thrust of the bill we passed
yesterday had to do with the design of
the automobile. We could build one
like a Sherman or Patton tank, and
yet make no headway in eliminating
accidents. This fact is on the record.
In my opinion this bill from the
Public Works Committee is excellent.
It gets at the problem. I certainly
want to congratulate the members of
the committee for bringing this bill to
us.
I want to say also that the report is
excellent—it is exceptionally well
done. I have never seen a report which
indicated more knowledge by the peo-
ple who prepared it—and that would
be the committee and the staff. They
proved they understand the cause of
accidents and they had the solutions
and an intelligent approach to the
problem, of traffic safety.
Actually, the report could be used
as a blueprint by all safety organiza-
tions, because it gets at the problems
which cause traffic accidents, as con-
trary to the bill we passed yesterday,
which will not do any such thing.,
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN, Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. I wanted
to express my thanks to the gentle-
man, for finally recognizing that we
do have the best staff of any commit-
tee in the Congress of the United
States. To have their excellence and
hard work recognized is appreciated
by all of us serving on the Public
Works Committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have always
respected your staff. Having all the
background I have in this field, when
I read this report I knew you had an
exceptionally good staff.
The bill we passeu yc~-erday, I be-
lieve, ought to be called the Nader
bill. He is a sensational young "punk"
with no expsrience in this field who
wrote a sensational book and the news
media made a big deal of it, and there
was a lot of agitation and a lot of
emotion, so the Commerce Committee
passed a bill. The thrust of it is the
design of so-called safer cars. I have
gone into the reasons why it will not
work.
So we will give the gentleman who
wrote the book and who is capitalizing
financially on his book and all the
other writings he has made due credit
for getting the House to pass a bill.
But it will not solve the problem.
There is some little question in my
mind, and I have discussed it with the
distinguished chairman of the commit-
tee [Mr. FALLON] and the ranking
minority member [Mr. CRAMER]. I be-
lieve language in the form of an
amendment should be offered to clar-
ify one particular portion of the bill,
and we will go into that later when
the bill is read. I hope we can get that
amendment adopted, to clarify one
facet of this very fine program.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am cer-
tainly glad to yield to the gentleman,
and I want to congratulate the gentle-
man from Illinois personally for the
good work he has done.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
-------
1918
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
gentleman from Nebraska has ex-
pired.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield the gentleman 3 additional
minutes.
I thank the gentleman from Ne-
braska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM] for the
splendid statement he has made. Ever
since the gentleman came to Congress
I have noticed he has been a champion
of highway safety.
Many things have been said about a
gentleman who was one of our great-
est Members, who passed away ear-
lier, the author of the famous Baldwin
amendment. As the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER] said in his re-
marks, we will miss him. This is the
day we hoped Mr. Baldwin would be
alive, to see what the Congress is
doing, since it is something close to
his heart.
Again I want to thank the gentle-
man from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNING-
HAM] for his statement about this re-
port being the finest report ever writ-
ten. I am sure we all agree to that.
We have one of the finest staffs on the
Hill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you,
sir. I will conclude by saying that I
have somewhat of a record of not
wanting to spend money needlessly. I
do not like to be tagged one way or
the other, but I feel I am rather mod-
erate, and I do want to save money
wherever I can. Nevertheless, I feel
we should have put a little more in
this because it is such a big problem
and causes billions of dollars in losses.
This is beside the point, however, and
it is water over the dam. I hope we
will watch this program carefully,
and if it needs more funds as it is
developed, I hope that this body will
look on it kindly.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. PICKLE].
Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this
time to inquire of the chairman of the
committee or of the members on either
side regarding section 404, the Na-
tional Highway Safety Advisory Com-
mittee. In section (a) and in parts
that follow the bill lists a total of 31
persons who are going to serve on this
committee. I think this is a good
spread of top people. I am glad to see
it is given this kind of standing and
prestige. For the purpose of making
legislative history, I assume, in the
establishment of the National High-
way Safety Advisory Committee that
the Secretary, and the Congress by
passing this act, are saying this group
is a board of directors for the Secre-
tary in establishing the various high-
way safety programs. Is that correct?
Mr. SWEENEY. If the gentleman
will yield, yes; the gentleman in the
well is exactly correct in that observa-
tion.
Mr. PICKLE. Let me say first that
on page 17, line 9, of the bill it says
that—
The committee shall advise, consult with,
and make recommendations to, the Secretary
on matters relating to his activities and func-
tions in the field of highway safety.
You go a little further on page 17
to subparagraph (2) on line 17, and it
says, "to review, prior to issuance,
standards proposed to be issued by
order of the Secretary under section
402 (a) of this title and to make rec-
ommendations thereon."
Now, if you turn back to section
402(a), it is as broad as it can be
because it touches on everything in
this big program. If the Highway
Safety Advisory Committee is sup-
posed to be a board of directors and
the Board is going to be informing
and recommending to the Secretary
these programs, it seems to me kind of
odd that it shows on line 23 of page 17
that this committee "shall meet at
least once a year." It seems to me if
they are going to have a vital part in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1919
this—and this committee must be—
then why should they just meet once a
year? It seems to me what you are
saying is: you call them once a year
and let them rubherstamp what the
Secretary is ordering. Is that your in-
tent?
Mr. SWEENEY. No. If the gentle-
man will yield to me, it would be the
intent of the committee that the use of
the word "once" would be the absolute
minimum requirement that we would
contemplate, and we certainly express
the hope on the record here today that
the regular advisory meetings would
be held more than once a year, cer-
tainly, and they would be held at reg-
ular intervals in order to accomplish
their purpose.
Mr. PICKLE. I thank the gentle-
man.
On line 17, on page 17, where it
says, "to review, prior to issuance,
standards proposed to be issued by
order of the Secretary," I assume it
does not mean a one-shot proposition,
and you establish them at one time
and call them in, but every time a new
standard is issued this group will be
called in and their opinion asked. Is
that correct?
Mr. SWEENEY. That is correct.
Mr. PICKLE. I ask the gentlemen
on both sides of the aisle. I hope that
is the situation, because there has
been a great deal said about the ne-
cessity for a highway program. I
agree with it, but some criticism has
been leveled at the States that they
have not done anything- in this field. I
happen to feel that the States have
done a great deal and, as a matter of
fact, they have carried out the only
highway safety program known today.
If we do not give the States a strong
voice in this advisory committee, it
will be a mistake.
I do not think that this body intends
for the Federal Government to get
into any kind of Federal police action
on the part of any Federal highway
agency; is that correct?
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, that
is absolutely correct. And, it would be
the
[p. 19934]
intent of the committee that this bill
would foster the greatest liaison be-
tween Federal, State and local au-
thorities in order to accomplish an
overall highway traffic safety pro-
gram.
Mr. PICKLE. Then, surely, it must
be operated in that fashion, because
there must be a good partnership on
the Federal and State basis, and I
want to be positive that it is your
intent to say to the Secretary or to
the Administrator he appoints that
this body is supposed to give its ad-
vice and consent.
Mr. SWEENEY. The gentleman is
correct, and we are very grateful to
the gentleman from Texas for his con-
tribution.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKLE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman from
Texas is expressing, certainly, the
sentiments of the gentleman from
Florida, and I believe of the Commit-
tee. That is the reason why we wrote
in subsection (f) at page 14, the sec-
ond proviso to the effect that:
Uniform standards promulgated by the Sec-
retary to carry out this section shall be devel-
oped in cooperation with the States, their
political subdivisions, appropriate Federal de-
partments and agencies, and such other public
and private organizations as the Secretary
deems appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, it is clearly the in-
tent that the States and local com-
munities should not only be consid-
ered, but should have a part in the
decisionmaking process relating to
such standards.
Mr. PICKLE. I thank the gentleman
from Florida.
-------
1920
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. HALPERN].
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I
am not a member of this committee,
but I am intensely interested in this
subject and truly appreciate the op-
portunity given to me here to express
my views. I wish to commend the com-
mittee—the majority and minority of
the Committee on Public Works for its
excellent work in preparing this legis-
lation for us.
Mr. Chairman, I have long advo-
cated the kind of programs which will
be established by this bill, in fact, as
already suggested, I have introduced a
good deal of similar legislation since I
came to this House. Since my days in
the New York State Senate, where for
8 years I served as chairman of the
Joint Legislative Committee on High-
way Safety, I have been calling for a
more active governmental role in pro-
moting highway safety.
It is high time that the Federal
Government took effective action to
end the carnage on our highways. The
highway safety bill, along with the
traffic and motor vehicle safety bill we
have already passed, will enable us to
finally get going. It would be almost
criminally negligent to delay any
longer.
Yesterday I had the privilege of
speaking out in favor of a strong
motor vehicle safety bill. I recom-
mended that bill as part of a vital
multifaceted Federal assault upon the
problem of traffic safety. Today we
are considering the complement of
that bill, the proposed Highway
Safety Act of 1966. This bill, though
less publicized than the Motor Vehicle
Act, is probably even more essential if
we are to make any real progress in
reducing our horrendous accident
rate. It must be passed in as effective
a form as possible.
The motor vehicle bill deals amply
with only one of the major compo-
nents of the traffic safety problem—
the motor vehicle itself. It is the high-
way safety bill, H.R. 13290, which
deals with the other major compo-
nents: the road, the driver, and law
enforcement. The bill provides for an
extensive program of research and
training activities related to these
three areas of the problem. It also
provides that minimum safety stand-
ards be established by the Secretary
of Commerce acting in cooperation
with appropriate Federal, State, local,
and private organizations. Standards
are to include criteria for programs to
improve driver and pedestrian per-
formance as well as provisions for ac-
cident recording and investigation;
vehicle registration, operation, and
inspection; traffic control; emergency
services; and vehicle codes &-d lavs.
The bill directs each State to establish
a highway safety program by Decem-
ber 1967 in accordance with these
standards. It authorizes $215 million
to help the States develop and conduct
these programs. If any State does not
implement a safety program by the
1967 deadline, the Secretary is author-
ized to reduce by 10 percent the Fed-
eral-aid highway funds to which that
State would normally be entitled.
By requiring all States to have a
safety program by the end of 1967
and setting a penalty for their failure
to do so, H.R. 13290 goes a good deal
farther than the Senate passed ver-
sion of the Highway Safety Bill, S.
3052, which is designed only to en-
courage the States to establish pro-
grams and sets neither deadline nor
penalty. I believe the House Commit-
tee on Public Works should be com-
mended for strengthening the bill in
this way. Wide State variations on
traffic safety regulations, as well as
outright laxity in many areas of the
country, imperil the lives of millions
of interstate travelers. We simply
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1921
cannot afford the luxury of waiting
for fully voluntary acceptance of na-
tional safety standards.
The Senate bill, however, is a good
deal stronger in terms of funding—it
authorizes $195 million more for the
3-year highway safety package than
H.R. 13290 does. In a bill of my own,
H.R. 15060, which is very similar in
effect to the Highway Safety hill be-
fore us, I advocated a total authoriza-
tion even larger than that contained
in the Senate bill. I recommend that
we in the House consider raising the
authorization provided for by the hill
reported to us, for I believe that an
appropriation at least as large as that
of the Senate bill would represent a
much more realistic response to the
urgent need for rapid and widespread
action in the field of highway safety.
I would also like to recommend that
two provisions not contained in our
Dill be added to it. These provisions
are contained, in one form or another,
'n both the Senate version of the high-
way safety bill and in two of my own
Jills, H.R. 9629, and H.R. 15060. They
jrovide for incentive grants to States
,o aid and encourage them in estab-
ishing programs for drivers' educa-
,ion and motor vehicle inspection.
3oth provisions would greatly
strengthen our overall attack on the
national accident rate.
Thorough and efficient inspection
systems are essential if State safety
Jrograms are to be effective. Unsafe
vehicles must be kept off our high-
ways. Today nearly one-half of all
;ars on the road are 6 years of age or
>lder. Yet only 20 States and the Dis-
,rict of Columbia have vehicle inspec-
-ion laws. There is also a good deal of
variation in how those inspection pro-
;rams which exist are operated—what
ninimum requirements must be met,
vhat followup enforcement takes
jlace, and so on. Congress must act
mickly to spur the inception and im-
jrovement of motor vehicle mainte-
standards. The incentive grants
provision I am recommending to you
would take a healthy step forward in
this direction.
It is probably not necessary to ex-
plain at any length why it is essential
that States be given special encour-
agement to begin or improve their
drivers' education programs. Nearly 4
million youngsters reach driving age
each year. Young drivers who have
not had drivers' education courses
have the very worst record of any
group in our Nation. There is no rea-
son to believe that these youngsters
lack the capacity to be good drivers.
An extensive education program
would help guarantee that this capac-
ity is developed. If we could thus
make sure that most of those who be-
come drivers each year start out as
safe drivers, we will have gone a long
way toward eliminating one of the
major causes of our problem.,
Let me just add in regard to the
provision setting up incentive grants
for drivers' education programs, that
I believe the Senate has acted wisely
in making the funds available to the
respective State Boards of Education.
These are certainly the bodies most
likely to be in a good position to de-
sign and administer educational pro-
grams aimed primarily at high school
students.
Again I want to commend the com-
mittee for its painstaking and thor-
ough work it has done to perfect this
legislation. I trust it will be approved
today by a unanimous vote by this
House.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. GROSS].
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I hope
the import of this highway safety bill
will not be lost upon any citizen or
public official who has driven or is
tempted to drive his automobile at 80
to 90 miles an hour over a public
highway, pass a car at the crest of a
-------
1922
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
hill and force an approaching car to
the shoulder of the highway, mean-
while drinking beer while steering
with one hand. I reiterate that I hope
the import of this bill will not be lost
upon any public official who has
[p. 19935]
operated a motor vehicle with such
recklessness.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG].
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this has been sort of
a safety week in Congress. Yesterday
we had the Automobile Safety Act
and today we have the 1966 Highway
Safety Act. I happen to believe that
for the past few years we have had
the cart before the horse because last
year we had the 1965 Highway Beau-
tification Act. At that time we seemed
to be more interested in planting flow-
ers and beautifying our highways
than we were in making them safe.
Mr. Chairman, I happen to be one
who believes we should have had the
1965 Highway Safety Act before we
had the Beautification Act. But as
long as the administration felt we
ought to have it the other way, I am
delighted that at least at this late
date we are recognizing the need for
highway safety.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
enthusiastically support H.R. 13290,
the Highway Safety Act. This legisla-
tion, coupled with the bill passed yes-
terday concerning automobile safety
standards, is a vital step toward con-
trol of the appalling and rising car-
nage on our highways.
It is shocking to me to view the
general public complacency toward
the deaths and injuries and damage
from automobile accidents. We get
worked up about any number of other
problems facing us but the automobile
is so much a part of us and our econ-
omy we seem able to accept 10 million
accidents a year, resulting in more
than 50,000 deaths. We get more ex-
cited over one airplane crash costing
100 lives than we do over 50,000
deaths. Fifty thousand deaths—that is
more than the population of Nashua,
N.H., the biggest city in my congres-
sional district. The experts tell us that
in 10 years the annual highway death
rate will be double that—two cities
the size of Nashua plus some villages
obliterated every year—unless some-
thing can be done.
National leadership firmly exercised
at the Federal level is urgently callec
for. It is provided in this legislation,
which, although it carries a due re-
spect for the rights of the individua
States, is also firm. It requires States
to establish highway safety programs
meeting uniform standards to be es-
tablished—in consultation with the
States—by the Secretary of Com-
merce.
Vast as his duties are already, the
Secretary of Commerce will have no
more important task than this.
This legislation comes unanimously
from my Committee on Public Works.
It deserves the support of the Con-
gress and of the States and all the
American people. It is designed tc
save our lives. It will permit coordina-
tion of efforts and of research for im-
proved highway-safety measures.
The House last year approved a
similar provision, long sponsored by
our colleague and my dear friend, the
late John Baldwin, of California. Un-
fortunately, it was watered down by
the Senate. The requirement for
States to adopt effective highway-
safety programs in accordance with
Federal standards was his proposa
and no matter what name is attachec
to the legislation, it will always be
known as the Baldwin amendment tc
those of us who served with him on
the Public Works Committee.
The committee's efforts to promote
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1923
highway safety were given tragic im-
petus when one of our Members, the
Honorable T. Ashton Thompson, of
Louisiana, was killed in a traffic acci-
dent last year. There is probably no
one in the House who has not had a
relative or a close friend killed or in-
jured by the automobile.
This bill will not save those destined
to be killed or hurt in a car this year
or next nor, perhaps, the next after
that. But its effects should be felt
after that. It is for our children, as
well as for ourselves and our parents.
Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, I
want to add my support to the High-
way Safety Act of 1966, largely for
the same reasons I supported the Na-
tional Traffic and Motor Vehicles
Safety Act of 1966.
These two bills are separate bills,
but in reality they are inseparable.
Both of the bills are designed to spare
the lives of Americans; they reduce
the risks which those of us who ride
the highways face every day. I look
forward to a safer America in which
to live when these bills become law.
I commend the Public Works Com-
mittee and its chairman, the gentle-
man from Maryland [Mr. PALLON],
for bringing this enlightening legisla-
tion to the floor.
Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER. Mr. Chair-
man, one serious problem left un-
touched by the legislation regulating
the automobile industry has been the
fundamental problem of what can be
done for traffic safety regarding the
man behind the wheel. The Public
Works Committee, of which I am a
member, has in this proposed legisla-
,ion come to grips with this most dif-
icult aspect of traffic safety.
The Public Works Committee bill
which we are now considering is de-
signed to assist the States in develop-
ng or improving highway safety pro-
grams. A major emphasis is on meas-
ires calculated to improve driver
)erf ormance by emphasis upon initiat-
ing or improving school driver educa-
tion programs, uniform driver testing
and examination, and the development
of an effective record system concern-
ing accidents and their effects. An-
other major factor is the development
of a motor vehicle inspection system
and a comprehensive program con-
cerning the relationship between alco-
holism and traffic safety.
In my estimation, this bill repre-
sents a meaningful effort to come to
grips with the exceedingly difficult
problems in the field of highway
safety. Every witness testifying be-
fore our committee expressed deep
and growing concern regarding im-
pairment by alcohol in relation to
traffic safety. Statistics indicate that
alcohol is a factor present in some de-
gree in about 50 percent of all acci-
dents. This bill authorizes a compre-
hensive study of this relationship, and
an evaluation of State and local pro-
grams for the treatment of alcohol-
ism.
Finally, it should be noted that we
are investing billions of dollars edu-
cating our children, but we have been
unwilling to spend the relatively small
additional amount it would take to
help teach them how to stay alive. I
believe this much needed legislation
will help to do this, and I strongly
urge approval of H.R. 13290.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, we
have already approved legislation
which will set safety standards for
the motor vehicle. Today we have be-
fore us a bill which will further ad-
vance the cause of motoring safety.
The Highway Safety Act of 1966
will provide Federal leadership for
State highway safety programs. It
will not only encourage but it will re-
quire—subject to a 10-percent reduc-
tion in Federal aid highway funds—
that States develop safety programs
that are realistic for this age of speed
and interstate travel. As the House
Committee on Public Works stated in
its report:
-------
1924
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
For forty years the various safety-related
organizations, both public and private, have
been trying to adopt at least minimum uni-
form regulatory statutes, with lamentable lack
of success.
It is lamentable indeed to reflect
that lives have been lost due to the
lack of uniformity in signs, signals,
and traffic laws. The hazards of the
road are many. It is inexcusable that
we have not removed those which are
relatively easy to correct.
Furthermore, this bill will provide
guidelines for other aspects of high-
way safety—licensing of drivers and
driver education, vehicle registration
and inspection, the collection of acci-
dent statistics, and local highway im-
provement. All of these matters must
be dealt with at the State level, but
Federal leadership is necessary to
remedy the current wide variations
from State to State.
Federal standards, however, will
not be developed capriciously. The
Secretary of Commerce is directed to
develop them in conjunction with the
States and other public and private
agencies. Proposed standards will also
be reviewed by a National Highway
Safety Advisory Committee. There
will be wide representation of affected
interests on this Committee including
public administrators, safety experts,
and the general public. Thus, there
are ample safeguards against arbi-
trary action.
This bill will also strengthen re-
search in highway safety. Research
fellowships and demonstration proj-
ects are among the programs author-
ized, and a special study concerning
the relationship between alcohol and
highway accidents will be made.
Safety research up until now has been
fragmented and little has been done
with the findings. We desperately need
a program of applied research to help
reduce the present fearful toll of
death and injury on our roads and
highways.
I would like to point out, however,
that regardless of how safely our au-
tomobiles are built and regardless of
the decreased hazards on the high-
ways due to uniform traffic regula-
tions, the ultimate factor in
[p. 19936]
our horrendous highway death rate is
the driver. Our States are licensing
anyone who knows the basic funda-
mentals of operating an automobile
and the few traffic rules required to
pass a simple written examination.
However, a stepped-up program of
driver education in our schools could
greatly enhance a student's knowledge
and awareness of safe motoring. This
has been proven time and time again
in those States which do have such
programs—including my own State of
Florida. There are approximately 1%
million boys and girls enrolled in
driver education this year. Another
1% million could be enrolled if suffi-
cient funds were available. Therefore,
I am wholeheartedly supporting the
amendment to this bill which would
require that the Secretary of Com-
merce approve only State highway
programs which include a driver edu-
cation program.
The whole area of highway safety
is too important to the American pub-
lic to permit it to remain in its pres-
ent haphazard status. This legislation
has been carefully designed to provide
Federal leadership in this crucial
area, and I wholeheartedly support
the Highway Safety Act of 1966.
Mr. ST GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman,
today we are considering a bill that
will provide us with the means of re-
ducing the slaughter that takes place
on our Nation's roads and highways.
Each year we become more con-
cerned with the problem of our citi-
zens killing each other on the high-
ways as the annual death tolls con-
tinue to rise, tut, up to the present
time, we have ilone little in the form
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1925
of a concerted effort to reduce the
number of deaths that take place.
The carnage which takes place on
our highways is an insult to our sense
of value of human life and an insult
to our ability to protect the American
people.
In 1 year we lose more lives than
the battlefields in Korea claimed dur-
ing the 3 years of that war.
While we fail to provide legislative
protection for our citizens, a popula-
tion the size of Newport, R.I., is vir-
tually wiped out on our Nation's roads
and highways each year. Nearly
50,000 Americans lose their lives
while riding on our highways each
year. Another 3 million are injured
due to automobile accidents that de-
stroy $8 million of our national
wealth annually.
Mr. Chairman, effectual legislation
is needed to help reduce the stagger-
ing losses of life and property that
occur each year in ever-increasing
numbers on our Nation's roads and
highways and such legislation is
available to us in the form of H.R.
13228 which I have had the privilege
of cosponsoring.
This bill would establish a National
Safety Research and Testing Center
which should become the focal point of
all study of the many complex ele-
ments involved in traffic accidents. It
will provide a more uniform traffic en-
vironment, more adequate standards
of safety in the manufacture of new
vehicles and inspection of vehicles in
use, and a better definition of fitness
;o drive.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to
delay action on this matter any
onger. Far too many lives have been
ost and are being lost each day on
>ur highways that could be saved
;hrough the fruits of this legislation.
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I sup-
jort H.R. 13290, the Highway Safety
Act of 1966.
Once again Congress is called upon
jy a pleading Nation to register its
concern over the mounting disaster
which negligence in the field of traffic
safety has produced. It is not neces-
sary to review again the gruesome
statistics which have recorded tragedy
after tragedy and death after death.
One needs only to recall the horrify-
ing sounds of squealing rubber
against slick pavement, of grinding
steel, and of the sirens which too
often are too late, in order to realize
the urgent need for this legislation.
At least three factors contribute to
motor vehicle accidents: the design
and construction of the motor vehicle,
the design and construction of roads
and highways, and, of course, the
driver. As legislators, as reasonable
and concerned citizens, and as drivers,
we must eliminate every variable
which modern science and research
deem a contributing factor to motor
vehicle accidents, but a factor which
can be corrected. Yesterday this
House took the first step by address-
ing itself to the first of the three fac-
tors by passing the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.
Now the House should reaffirm that
commitment to the elimination of
driving hazards by taking the com-
panion step and passing the Highway
Safety Act of 1966.
T introduced H.R. 13488, a bill
which would have established the
means under a single agency for deal-
ing with all the factors involved in
both motor vehicle and highway
safety. Congress has seen fit to report
two different bills covering the two
major aspects of traffic safety, motor
vehicle safety on the one hand and
highway safety on the other. Unfor-
tunately, this approach will result in
the loss of some degree of coordina-
tion and centralization of effort.
The pending bill does not require,
as I recommended in the legislation I
proposed, that each State create a sin-
gle agency to administer its traffic
safety programs, but rather permits
-------
1926
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
the Governor of each State to disburse
Federal funds to the many different
officials and agencies responsible for
various aspects of highway safety ac-
tivity in his State. Neither does this
bill call for a National Traffic Safety
Center, with centralized library, re-
search, and testing facilities, which I
included in my bill. On the other hand,
H.R. 13290 creates a National High-
way Safety Agency under an Admin-
istrator appointed by the Secretary of
Commerce.
Further, the proposed legislation
does recommend the establishment of
uniform standards for driver testing
and licensing, vehicle inspection and
registration, highway design and
maintenance, traffic control, and vehi-
cle codes and laws. The cross-country
driver is well aware of the confusion
caused by the discrepancy in traffic
codes and laws among the several
States and their subdivisions and of
the unfair advantage taken of such
confusion. Uniformity is very neces-
sary.
Mr. Chairman, the provision for the
keeping of accurate records and for
the increased surveillance of poten-
tially high accident locations, when
applied in conjunction with highway
safety research as authorized under
section 403, should encourage the de-
tection and correction of yet undiscov-
ered causes of accidents. New discov-
eries in the area of skidding on wet
pavement have been made, as House
Report No. 1700 on the Highway
Safety Act points out. The Secretary
is required in section 202 to make an
annual report to Congress on the ad-
ministration and effects of this act
and on the progress of research dur-
ing the preceding year.
There are two significant omissions
in the House bill as compared with the
Senate-passed bill, S. 3052.
In the first place, the Senate bill in
section 404 specifically authorizes the
Secretary to make grants to the
States to improve vehicle inspection
systems, and authorizes additional
funds to do so.
Secondly, section 405 of the Senate
bill specifically authorizes the Secre-
tary to make grants to the States to
establish, expand, or improve driver
education programs. Such programs
are vital to highway safety. The re-
port of the Public Works Committee
refers to young drivers-to-be as poten-
tially the best drivers on the road.
The Senate bill recognizes this poten-
tial and authorizes funds enabling the
Federal Government to pay up to 50
percent of the cost of driver education
programs.
For these two sections and for a
third section, section 406 of S. 3052 on
community safety programs, the Sen-
ate bill authorizes $195 million more
over the 3-year period than the House
program.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation we
have before us today is the result of
the growing awareness of the real
possibility of drastically reducing both
highway accidents and highway inju-
ries by uniformly applying the knowl-
edge and the technology made availa-
ble by recent highway and vehicular
research. However, this has been ham-
pered by the lack of an organized,
centralized stimulus and by a lack of
financial support. This bill offers a
chance to overcome the dangers inher-
ent in both haphazard highway con-
struction and poor driver education
and licensing programs. I urge my
colleagues to stimulate progress in the
modernization of highways, traffic
laws, and driver performance by vot-
ing for the Highway Safety Act of
1966.
Mr. HELSTOSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the pending legisla-
tion which would establish a program
of highway safety.
The passage of this measure would
set into motion a recommendation of
the President to enact a highway
traffic safety act, which he first sug-
gested in his message to Congress on
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1927
March 2, 1966, and in which he also
proposed a new Department of Trans-
portation.
Today we have about 90 million
motor vehicles traveling over our
highways. It
[p. 19937]
is estimated that by 1975 there will
be nearly 120 million, and for this
anticipated increase we must prepare
ourselves now, if we are to keep our
ever-rising traffic death rate under
control. The present rate of traffic
deaths is in the neighborhood of
50,000 persons a year. It is predicted
that by 1975, with the additional vehi-
cles on our Nation's roads, this car-
nage on the highways could reach
100,000 persons unless we act now and
make the proper decisions to avert
such a catastrophe.
The Highway Safety Act which we
are presently debating represents a
comprehensive, many-faceted program
for promoting automobile safety. It is
a program which should receive atten-
tion and wholehearted support of this
entire body.
We know how to build safer cars
and safer highways, and we know how
to enforce safety regulations and
train safe drivers. But to this end we
have been diversified on our traffic ef-
forts and problems under many pro-
grams of varying levels of govern-
ment and civic activity. Our Nation's
resources must be organized into one
vast national safety program which
would provide the needed financing
for the research of this matter and to
establish a countermeasure to reverse
the accident trend.
The automobile has come to domi-
nate our American way of life. Our
transportation system is the safest in
the world, but all efforts must be
taken to improve on its safety and
give increased attention to the auto-
motive traffic phase of this safety
which will involve additional high-
ways, additional drivers, and addi-
tional vehicles within the next decade.
Our efforts in the past have been
inadequate. Under this legislation we
shall cope with traffic safety on a na-
tional level. Much, for instance, must
be done to rid our highways of the
reckless driver. We have, at present,
the national driver registration file in
which drivers whose licenses have
been suspended for various infrac-
tions of the driving rules are listed.
The States have access to this file and
can ascertain whether a driver has
had his license suspended and is
applying for another one in another
State. This is a step forward in pro-
viding for highway safety, by keeping
a consistent violator of traffic rules off
the streets and highways of the Na-
tion.
Equally important, but far less rec-
ognized is the urgent need for the im-
provement of licensed drivers. Traffic
problems, motor vehicles, high-speed
highways have changed very drasti-
cally over the past few years, but no
attempt has been made to improve the
driver or driver habits up to date.
Each day we meet the backroads
Sunday driver trying to negotiate the
modern high-speed highways, and not
enough of them know how to drive on
these modern highways. There shall
be accidents unless these drivers learn
what the new traffic conditions de-
mand, and realize that the driving
habits they acquired 10 or 20 years
ago will not meet the requirements of
today.
A feature of this bill is the vehicle
inspection program. As of now, only
20 States and the District of Columbia
have such programs and if we do not
carry this message to the remaining
States this highway safety program
can be of no value. Vehicle inspection
should be of prime interest to the mo-
torist for his investment in a motor
vehicle is not one of minimum value.
It is a large portion of his everyday
expense and he should be willing to
protect it through periodical inspec-
-------
1928
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tions to correct any wear and tear
upon it. Adequate maintenance can
help to keep a vehicle in safe opera-
ting condition and prolong its life—
and the life of the driver and his pas-
sengers.
Another factor in the promotion of
highway safety is the proper design
and maintenance of our modern high-
way system. In anticipation of the in-
crease of motor vehicles during the
next decade, it is imperative that our
highways meet the needs of the driv-
ing public. Relatively speaking, it is
not only that we need more roads, but
also that we do need better roads.
Some of our early highways built
under the Federal Highway Act do
need remodeling to conform to pres-
entday operations. To achieve this
end, we must provide wide median
areas, better median barriers, and
safer guardrails—constructed of such
material that will lessen injuries upon
impact and placed in such a way that
will keep the vehicle parallel to traffic,
which would prevent broadside impact
from the following cars.
Attention should also be given to
the proper installation of traffic mark-
ers, lighting of intersections and turn-
offs, lighted barricades and lighted
advance warning signs.
Our construction engineers should
work closely together with road sur-
face suppliers to develop a better and
safer surface material, a material
which will prevent skidding on wet
pavement—a factor in many acci-
dents, especially in urban areas.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes
into consideration all of these recom-
mendations and should be passed as
an absolute essential to our transpor-
tation media. Failure to pass this leg-
islation would be a license to continue
our highway slaughter and the de-
struction of untold cost of property
involved in such highway accidents.
Someday in the future we can ex-
pect electronically controlled vehicles
on our major highways which will
probably be under the guidance of
computers. But until that time ar-
rives, we must do whatever is possible
to make our highways safe. This legis-
lation will go a long way to achieving
this desire.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, the com-
mittee wants to make it very clear
that, like the Federal-aid highway
program, this highway safety pro-
gram must be a cooperative effort.
The Secretary must conduct meaning-
ful consultation with the State Gover-
nors and their representatives, with
county officials and mayors, with other
public and private organizations in
the safety field, and with the Highway
Safety Advisory Committee which this
bill creates, before he issues stand-
ards.
Pro forma consultation will not be
sufficient. Before he finally determines
what these minimum standards shall
be, the Secretary must, as a practical
matter, have the concurrence of a ma-
jority of the States. Without such con-
currence, the program will be mean-
ingless, for it is the States who will in
fact be responsible for the operation
of this highway safety program, and
without their enthusiastic and dedi-
cated support, the program cannot
achieve its purpose. This is a good
bill. It will help save thousands of
lives if fully implemented. It will be
fully implemented if we all work to-
gether. We can start by passing the
bill today and then go on to work with
the States in launching this great
safety program. As a member of the
House Committee on Public Works I
am happy to join the other members
in congratulating our distinguished
friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. KLUCZYNSKI], the
subcommittee chairman on roads, for
his great work on this bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, the question of highway
safety is one that has concerned many
of us in the Nation and especially in
my own great State of California for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1929
many years. California not only is the
most populous State in the Nation but
also has one of the most extensive
road and highway systems of any
State in the country. Tragically this
will mean that California will proba-
bly be among the leaders in the Na-
tion in the number of tragic deaths
which this country will experience
this year and next. It has been esti-
mated that 50,000 people alive today,
enjoying their families and following
their normal occupations, will be dead
12 months from today, all due to
tragic accidents. Twenty-four months
from today, 100,000 or more will be
gone. In these periods hundreds of
thousands will be injured, and mil-
lions upon millions of dollars' worth
of damage will have been suffered.
I am proud that as a member of the
Public Works Committee I have been
associated with the continuing effort
over the past few years to do some-
thing about this senseless, wasteful
slaughter on the highways. Chairman
JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, of the Roads
Subcommittee of the Committee on
Public Works, and Chairman GEORGE
PALLON, of the full committee, have
been leaders in this effort and their
efforts should be commended. They
have fought through the full 2 years
of this Congress to establish a respon-
sible and farsighted program such as
is provided in H.R. 13290, the High-
way Safety Act of 1966.
It saddens me that one of the most
ardent advocates of a wise highway
safety program, the late Representa-
tive John Baldwin, is not with us
today to witness the progress which
we have made in this legislation. John
was responsible for the first step
which was taken last year along these
lines. This was a tentative step along
the way demanding a comprehensive
transportation planning program for
highway safety to be carried out by
State and local government. Some
progress has been made along these
lines.
[p. 19938]
I am pleased to say that the State
of California has taken a leading role
in the research efforts, for instance,
designed to discover and eliminate the
causes of highway accidents. I call to
your attention specifically as an exam-
ple of the work that is being done in
our Golden State the citation in the
House report which accompanies this
bill. You will note, on page 16, the
account of the investigation of a skid-
ding accident on a new highway, In-
terstate 80, which apparently was the
result of hydroplaning on wet sur-
faces which made it impossible to con-
trol moving vehicles. A few shallow
grooves in the surface were all that
were needed to improve driving and
eliminate accidents. If we can discover
the causes of accidents on a single
curve in Interstate 80 in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains, then we can dis-
cover the causes of accidents in other
areas of our Nation and eliminate
them.
It is essential that the legislation
which the Public Works Committee
has recommended and its various as-
pects including assistance to States in
developing and improving highway
safety, improving driver performance,
improving pedestrian performance,
accident reporting and records, vehicle
inspection and registration, highway
design and maintenance, research in
traffic control, emergency services
laws, and all the other programs,
move ahead if we are to reduce th?
carnage on our highways.
We have made a good beginning,
but let us take the next step. This we
are doing today with the passage by
the House of Representatives of the
Highway Safety Act of 1966.
Chairman FALLON, Chairman KLUC-
ZYNSKI, and all the members of the
committee, and especially those on the
526-704 O - 74 - 12
-------
1930
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Subcommittee on Roads, must be com-
mended for the progress they have
made. I hope and pray that the action
we are taking here today will reduce
greatly the tragic toll which highway
accidents now are claiming in this Na-
tion.
I am confident that this legislation
will achieve that purpose.
[p. 19939]
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GROSS
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page
16, line 3, after the word "doctor", insert the
words "one a farmer".
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
GROSS].
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
this seems like a real good amendment
to me. A farmer has a lot of good
commonsense, and I will be very
happy to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I want
to thank the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. KLUCZYNSKI], the floor manager
for this bill, and the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER], the ranking
minority member, for accepting this
amendment. Too often the farmers of
this country are not given proper rec-
ognition.
My only regret is that there are not
more Members present to witness the
fact that an amendment which I have
offered has been adopted.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SCHISLER
Mr. SCHISLER. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Schisler: On
page 11, following Line 18, insert the follow-
ing:
"(E) provide for comprehensive driver
training programs, including (1) the initia-
tion of a State program for driver education
in the school systems or for a significant
expansion and improvement of such a pro-
gram already in existence, to be administered
by appropriate school officials under the su-
pervision of the Governor as set forth in
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; (2) the
training of qualified school instructors and
their certification; (3) appropriate regulation
of other driver training schools, including li-
censing of the schools and certification of
their instructois; (4) adult driver training
programs, and progiams for the retraining of
selected drivers; and (5) adequate research,
development and procurement of practice
driving facilities, simulators, and other similar
teaching aids for both school and other driver
training use."
Mr. SCHISLER. Mr. Chairman. I
would like to congratulate the Public
Works Committee, on reporting this
valuable legislation to initiate a bold
approach to the problem of safety on
our highways. As a former educator,
however, I am aware of a weakness in
the bill as reported.
Driver education in our schools has
made a major contribution to traffic
safety. Only graduates of high school
driver education courses, for instance,
benefit from a substantially reduced
insurance rate on autos which they
drive. This year about 1% million
boys and girls are enrolled in high
school driver education—another 1%
million could be enrolled were suffi-
cient funds available.
A problem of administration of leg-
islation at the Federal level is locating
an agency that is common to all 50
States for administration of funds.
H.R. 13290 centers responsibility on
the Governor's office, and this is good.
Where funds for education are con-
cerned, however, the Governor also
has a State department of education.
This department exists in each of the
50 States and Federal funds for high
school driver education should be han-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1931
died through the Governor's office and
ultimately through the State depart-
ment of education.
It is recognized that high school
driver education programs are essen-
tial to comprehensive programing for
traffic safety. But, in some cases,
other agencies can assist with the
problem of training adults, out-of-
school youth, and chronic violators of
traffic laws.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment
would provide that appropriate school
officials will be responsible for driver
education in the schools and, at the
same time, will make provision for
other essential driver training pro-
grams.
Mr. Chairman, in providing the
States with the latitude this amend-
ment would insure, we may also look
forward to higher quality driver edu-
cation for those people who do not or
cannot obtain it through the public
school system, thus providing an even
broader area within which our people
will be able to meet the new, more
rigid minimum standards for driver
licensing which will grow out of this
safety program.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Chairman,
I have a copy of the amendment. I am
very happy to accept it.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. We on this side ac-
cept the amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield,
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am very
much interested in and am in favor of
this amendment. I have had one pre-
pared that would insure that driver
training would be available to both
public and private schools under this
bill.
I think we ought to make a little
history here. I would ask the gentle-
man this question: Will and can the
money in this bill be used for public
and nonpublic schools in the field of
driver training? Is that his under-
standing?
Mr. SCHISLER. I would say to the
gentleman that the money will come
down through the Governor, but ulti-
mately I hope it will be handled by the
State departments of education.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand
that. As I understand further, the
Secretary under this legislation would
be able to say that all schools, public
and private, shall be included in the
driver training program—and this re-
fers to students primarily—but would
include also adults and those who need
retraining. In other words, I have the
understanding that the Secretary can
rule, so far as driver training is con-
cerned—and driver training is a very,
very important part of traffic safety
—that both public and nonpublic, or
private, schools can be included, and
take advantage of any drive training
program. And there is nothing is this
bill which would exclude driver train-
ing to private school students.
Mr. SCHISLER. That is quite true,
any school, I would say to the gentle-
man.
Mr. FRTEDEL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. FRIEDEL. I also wish to asso-
ciate myself with this amendment. I
understand that this amendment will
permit public schools, as well as pri-
vate driving schools certified by the
State, to conduct, driver education pro-
grams in the classroom as well as be-
hind the wheel. The whole purpose of
this program is to develop good driv-
ing skills in adults as well as young
people attending school, and the ulti-
mate purpose is to reduce the slaugh-
-------
1932
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ter on our Nation's streets and high-
ways.
Mr. SCHISLER. The gentleman is
quite correct.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. I wish to take this time
to congratulate the gentleman from
Illinois, a former teacher. I know he
has studied this matter very carefully,
and feels strongly about driver train-
ing education. I know that his amend-
ment will add a great deal to the bill,
and I congratulate him for offering it.
We on the committee are happy to
accept the amendment.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Louisiana.
Mr. WAGGONNER. In answer to a
question by the gentleman from Ne-
braska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM], as to
whether or not the amendment would
apply to public and private schools as
well, the gentleman said that it was
his intention that this money would
come down from the Governor, and
ultimately, he hoped, be administered
by State departments of education.
Is it not the desire, clear intent and
purpose of this amendment that State
departments of education administer
this
[p. 19941]
money and be fully responsible in
administering this program to train
instructors in driver education, and
further, that they have control over
the expenditure of funds for the pur-
chase of driver education equipment,
such as simulator equipment and
other training equipment?
Mr. SCHISLER. No, I would say to
the gentleman that still the Governor
has the control. I am trying to encour-
age the Governors in the 50 States to
let the State departments of education
handle this.
Mr. WAGGONNER. To let the
State departments of education be
charged with the responsibility of
training instructors and the purchas-
ing of simulator and other training
equipment to be used in public
schools?
Mr. SCHISLER. Yes.
Mr. WAGGONNER. And private
schools?
Mr. SCHISLER. Right.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I believe
I might clarify this colloquy. Refer-
ring to page 10 in the bill, line 20, it
says :
(b) (1) The Secretary shall not approve any
State highway safety program under this sec-
tion which does not—
(A) provide that the Governor of the State
shall be responsible for the administration of
the program.
To be consistent with his amend-
ment, we should say that the Gover-
nor is being charged with responsibil-
ity for the administration of the pro-
gram, and therefore if he wants to
delegate that responsibility or refer it
to someone else, such as certain super-
intendents of public instruction, he
can. But the gentleman's amendment
is consistent with the rest of the bill.
Mr. SCHISLER. This is true.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield fur-
ther?
Mr. SCHISLER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, what the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. GRAY] said is true, but what we
are trying to do, as I understand it, is
to follow that procedure through the
Governor, and so on.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I announced my sup-
port of the amendment on the basis
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1933
that this did not substantially change
the present concept in the bill. I do
not believe it does. Our report clearly
indicates that the Governor can dele-
gate his authority to any agency he
believes may be capable of carrying
out the safety functions, including
training. I am supporting the amend-
ment because it seems to me it carries
out the original intent and the pur-
pose of the bill as drafted. For that
reason, I support it. If it had substan-
tially changed the concept, I would
have opposed it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Illinois [Mr. SCHISLER].
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MACKAY
Mr. MACKAY. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MACKAY: On
page 12, beginning with line 22, strike
through the peiiod on line 7, page 13.
Mr. MACKAY. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Committee, first I
would like to say I enthusiastically
support this bill. I believe it may be
the major part of the total traffic and
safety program that we all want to
see mounted in this country.
But I have offered an amendment
that does just one thing. It strikes the
10-percent penalty. I do not believe
there should be any illusion in the
minds of the Members of this House
that if a State does not do what the
Secretary says after the first of Janu-
ary 1968, the penalty is 10 percent of
all Federal aid money. This includes
primary, secondary, and interstate
funds. For illustration, for the State
of Georgia there is a $65 million allo-
cation for this year. There is just a
little fine of $6.5 million if the State
does not do what the Secretary says it
ought to do in the safety program.
I believe the success of our safety
program is tied to the cooperative ef-
forts of all the States. I believe it is
going to handicap the Secretary and
the Administrator, when he goes to
the several States, and he has this
kind of club.
We have provided an incentive, but
we are adding to it a club that is not
an incentive. I believe it is a serious
mistake. I have talked to proponents
of it. They said they did it in the case
of highway beautification and to re-
quire urban transportation plans.
I do not believe that is a justifica-
tion for the penalty. I may be heavily
oriented to a State legislative point of
view, but, with the reapportionment of
the legislatures of the several States,
we have an opportunity to enter into a
new era, an era of good feeling, of
partnership and mutual respect be-
tween the State and Federal legisla-
tures.
There is a deep policy question in-
volved in whether or not we should do
this. I feel very strongly and very
deeply about it.
I do not believe there is any man in
the House who wants to see effective
safety programs more than I, but I
call this a "bad faith" provision in
this bill.
I believe we have an opportunity
here to express good faith to the legis-
latures and State officials of America.
I would say that if they lag, that
would be another thing. We had State
legislators come before the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
urging us to pass this legislation, ask-
ing for national leadership. We do not
have to drag them kicking and
screaming into support of safety leg-
islation.
As a matter of fact, this happens to
be a provision by which one would cut
off his nose to spite his face, because
the rapid improvement of the Federal
highway system in this country is one
of the big factors contributing to im-
proved traffic safety in this country.
Does it really make sense for us to
state in the law that we are going to
-------
1934
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cut back on the Federal-aid programs
in any State as a punitive measure?
We know that is true. We have
seen, in some programs, unwise and
unfeeling actions of administrators in
the formulation of national standards
and in their execution.
I hope that whoever takes over the
leadership of this national traffic
safety program will be able to go be-
fore the American people and say,
"Congress has provided you an incen-
tive to help save the lives of 50,000
people a year," rather than just carry
a club. We need a new and positive
brand of leadership.
I believe this amendment to strike
the penalty should be supported. Con-
gress can add penalties later, if that
is necessary. I have more faith in the
American people than to believe they
have to be kicked into a safety pro-
gram.
I ask for support of the amendment.
As I said, I congratulate the commit-
tee on a splendid job. I heartily sup-
port the bill. I wish, however, that the
chairman would accept my line of rea-
soning. Let us find a fresh approach.
Let us not extend bad precedents.
This penalty is not in the Senate
bill. If the House does not go along
with my view, I hope the conference
will accept it and thereby create a bet-
ter climate between Congress and our
50 State legislatures.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The standards throughout the
States vary considerably. It is the
feeling of the committee that without
some penalty, as would be imposed in
the bill, we will not get any resembl-
ance of uniformity throughout the 50
States.
We believe it is time that the States
did get together with the commission
to be appointed, to set up standards
with strict criteria. To do less is not
going to cut down on the loss of
50,000 lives every year.
The committee reluctantly opposes
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Georgia, and we hope the
Committee of the Whole will vote it
down.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Very briefly, initially there was a
50-percent penalty in the bill before
the committee. The recommendation
which I made was to reduce it to 10
percent, and that was accepted.
The committee was in the position
of being faced with a 10-percent pen-
alty for billboards, a 10-percent pen-
alty relating to junkyards, and to
come up with a comparable formula
relating to an obviously even more im-
portant matter, safety, was the prob-
lem the committee had. It resolved it
with an equal penalty relating to
safety. We could do no less.
I am not an advocate of penalties,
but we are faced with that problem.
We solved it, I believe, in an equitable
manner.
I oppose the amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
In my opinion, if this amendment
were adopted it would gut the whole
bill. We have had the voluntary ap-
proach on the books since the Baldwin
amendment
[p. 19942]
was watered down in conference with
the Senate. So we have the voluntary
approach on the books now and it has
not brought results. If we do not have
some penalty there is no reason why
the States would jump in to do some-
thing about this problem.
I say it would certainly gut the bill
if this amendment were adopted.
So I do hope that this amendment
will be defeated. Otherwise we have
wasted a whole afternoon here on this
safety bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1935
tleman from Georgia [Mr. MACKAY].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, highway safety is
much to be desired. If we have any
differences in attempting to achieve
highway safety, those differences
would come about in the manner in
which we proceed. I am interested in
protecting the rights of the States—
the few left. This legislation makes
mandatory a national highway safety
program. It gives extensive authority
too much, I believe, to the Secretary.
Section 402, the highway safety pro-
gram section of the legislation, is the
heart of this entire proposal. It says:
Each State shall have a highway safety
program approved by the Secretary, designed
to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries,
and pioperty damage resulting therefrom.
It says further:
Such programs shall be in accordance with
uniform standards promulgated by the Secre-
tary.
I would like to ask some member of
the committee if the language of this
section of the legislation gives final
veto authority to the Secretary over
State proposed programs which he
finds some disagreement with?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am glad to
yield to my friend from Illinois.
Mr. GRAY. Let me say to the gen-
tleman that this is a very important
question. I believe the best way to an-
swer the gentleman's question would
be to make a statement that the com-
mittee wants to make it clear that,
like most Federal-aid highway pro-
grams, this highway safety program
must be a cooperative effort and the
Secretary must conduct meaningful
consultations with the State Gover-
nors and representatives and county
officials and others before he issues
the standards. Therefore, the veto
power, as the gentleman alludes to it,
would not be necessary if the Secre-
tary carries out the provisions of the
act and gets together and works out a
meaningful program with the States.
We hope that the States will be com-
pletely satisfied with the program that
the Secretary, in carrying out the act,
advocates to them, and in turn we
hope that the Secretary will agree
with all of the provisions recom-
mended by the States. The point is we
will not need a veto power if we do
this before instead of after.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Is it expected
or intended, as in the instance of the
Beautification Act, that the Secretary
will establish what he considers to be
minimum criteria and take these to
the States and say, here they are,
comply and not consult in advance
with them, but say that these are "my
standards," put them in force, or will
the States be allowed to recommend or
prepare a program for approval be-
fore the Secretary sets forth any
standards? We can talk about uni-
formity forever but special circum-
stances deserve special consideration.
Mr. GRAY. The gentleman is emi-
nently correct. A pro forma consulta-
tion will not be sufficient. We want the
States, as the gentleman pointed out,
to come to the Secretary and for them
to work out in agreement the stand-
ards before they are nut in'o effect.
The gentleman is exactly correct.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Section 402(a)
further says:
Such uniform standards shall be promul-
gated by the Secretary so as to improve driver
performance (including, but not limited to,
driver education, driver testing to determine
proficiency to operate motor vehicles, driver
examinations (both physical and mental) and
driver licensing).
Now, yesterday in the legislation
that this House passed having to do
with performance, attempting to
achieve automobile safety, one section
of this legislation made mandatory
the Federal recordkeeping program
-------
1936
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
which will require the reporting from
the several States of those people who
have had their drivers license sus-
pended or revoked for any reason.
Now, when we give to the Secretary
the authority to establish any stand-
ards for drivers licenses, are we tak-
ing another step toward a Federal
drivers licensing process and the abo-
lition of State licensing? If so, I must
oppose this bill. In other words, are
we removing from the States the au-
thority to establish the standards to
license drivers within a State? Are we
saying to the States that "You are
going to lose in the future revenues
from the State drivers licenses you
have heretofore been issuing," and in
time, are we going to let the Secre-
tary, if he determines some programs
or criteria weak or insufficient, to es-
tablish a Federal standard for drivers
licenses? Is this going to provide or
allow for the abolition of a State driv-
ers license and allow or require a Fed-
eral drivers license?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from Louisiana yield fur-
ther to me?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana has ex-
pired.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent to proceed
for 5 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am delighted
to yield to the gentleman from Illi-
nois.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, on be-
half of the committee, let me unequi-
vocally state to the gentleman that the
answer to that question is "No"; that
the Government has absolutely no
purpose in passing this bill, to impose
a Federal drivers license law upon the
States. But we do feel that we should
lay down guidelines as to what the
State should do in order to promote a
better safety program. But the licen-
sing and the various functions to be
carried out by your Secretary of
State, or whomever represents your
drivers licensing department in Louis-
iana, or any other State, will continue
under their existing law to license and
to relicense those people who drive
upon the highways of this country.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
I wonder if the gentleman from Illi-
nois would answer another question?
Under the language of this bill as
presently written—
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I
make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw the point of order.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman,
the question I was going to ask—and
this is my final question—before the
point of order was made and with-
drawn was this:
Can the Secretary under the lan-
guage of this proposal tell the State
authority in the several States which
now prescribe the criteria for issuing
a drivers license in that State, can he
exercise final veto authority over the
existing drivers licensing criteria in
the several States?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am glad to
yield further to the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. GRAY. The answer to the gen-
tleman's question is "No."
Mr. WAGGONNER. I thank the
gentleman from Illinois for the an-
swer to that question.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question re-
curs on the committee substitute, as
amended.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1937
The committee substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT) having assumed the chair,
Mr. BROOKS, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 13290) to amend title 23
of the United States Code to provide
for highway safety research and de-
velopment, certain highway safety
programs, a national driver register,
and a highway accident research and
test facility, pursuant to House Reso-
lution 964, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment
adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the rule the previous question is or-
dered.
[p. 19943]
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 318, nays 3, not voting 111
So the bill was passed.
[p. 19944]
1.8a(4)(c) Aug. 31: House agrees to conference report, pp. 21353-
21358
STATEMENT
The managers on the part of the House at
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House
to the bill (S. 3052) to provide for a coordi-
nated national highway safety program
through financial assistance to the States to
acceleiate highway traffic safety programs,
and for other pm poses, submit the following
statement in explanation of the effect of the
action agreed upon by the confeiees and ice-
ommended in the accompanying confeience
repoi t:
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
Section 101 of the House amendment to S.
3052 amended title 23 of the United States
Code to add theieto a new section 402 which
generally requires States to have highway
safety progi ams appi oved by the Seci etary
designed to reduce highway accidents and
deaths, injuiies and property damage result-
ing therefjom. These piogiams are to be in
accordance with uniform standards established
by the Secretai y, and these btandai ds ai e to
be such as to impiove driver peiformance,
provide for an effective record system of acci-
dents, accident investigations, vehicle legistia-
tion, operation and inspection, highway design
and maintenance, traffic control, vehicle codes
and laws, surveillance of traffic for detection
and cot rection of high or potentially high
accident locations, and emergency services.
The proposed conference substitute also
amends title 23 to add to it a new section 402.
Section 402 of the proposed conference substi-
tute is the same as section 402 of the House
amendment except as follows :
(1) The Seci etary is specifically authorized
to amend or waive standards on a temporary
basis for the purpose of evaluating new or
different highway safety piogiams instituted
on an experimental, pilot, or demoniti ation
basis by one or moie States when the Secre-
tai y finds the public interest would be served
thereby. This provision is the same as a pro-
vision in the Senate bill.
(2) Subsection (b) (1) (C) provided in the
House amendment that at least 25 percent of
all Federal funds apportioned under this sec-
tion would be expended by political subdivi-
sions in carrying out local highway safety
progiams. The proposed confeience substitute
provides that at least 40 pei cent of all such
Federal funds will be expended by political
subdivisions of States in can y ing out local
highway safety piogiams.
(3) Subsection (c) of section 402 in the
-------
1938
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
House amendment provided that after Decem-
ber 31, 1967, the Secretary should not appor-
tion any funds to a State not implementing a
highway safety program and further provided
a reduction of 10 percent of Federal-aid high-
way funds apportioned on or after January 1,
1968, to any State not so implementing a
highway safety program. The proposed con-
ference substitute is the same as the House
amendment in this regard except that each
date has been moved back one year. The
conferees agreed to extend these deadlines for
one year in order to afford the States ample
opportunity for whatever legislative action
may be necessary to provide for these State
highway safety programs, as well as to afford
the Secretary ample opportunity to consult
with the States and political subdivisions in
developing these standards.
(4) Subsection (e) of this section in the
House amendment provided that no State
activity or project was to be approved by the
Secretary if it would require the expenditure
of funds under this section for a period of
more than three years. The proposed confer-
ence substitute does not contain this provi-
sion. The managers on the part of the House
agreed to the deletion because they believe
that the annual reports required by section
202 of the bill will provide adequate opportu-
nity for Congressional review of the adminis-
tration of the program.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Section 404 of title 23 as added by the
House amendment to S. 3052 provided for the
establishment in the Department of Commerce
of a National Highway Safety Advisory Com-
mittee composed of the Secretary, the Federal
Highway Administrator, and 29 members ap-
pointed by the President as follows: 6 from
among chief executives of States and political
subdivisions, 4 from among highway safety
administrators, 4 from industry, 3 engineers,
4 research scientists and 8 from the general
public including a lawyer, a doctor, a farmer
and an educator. These members were to be
appointed for terms of four years on a basis
that would provide for staggered terms and
their duties were to advise, consult with, and
make recommendations to the Secretary on
matteis relating to highway safety.
Section 404 as it is proposed to be added to
title 23 by the conference substitute estab-
lishes a National Highway Safety Advisory
Committee, also composed of the Secretary or
his designee as chairman, the Federal High-
way Administrator, and 29 members, not more
than four of whom shall be Federal officers or
employees. These members shall be selected
from among representatives of State and local
governments, of public and private institu-
tions contributing to, affected by, or concerned
with highway safety, and other public and
private agencies, organizations or groups dem-
onstrating an active interest in highway
safety, as well as research scientists and other
individuals expert in this field. The members
are to be appointed on a staggered basis for
terms of three years and are to advise, consult
with, and make recommendations to the Secre-
tary on matters relating to his activities and
functions in the field of highway safety. A
specific provision has been added to insure
that the acceptance of per diem payments by
a member of the committee who is not an
officer or employee of the United States will
not be deemed to make him such an officer or
employee for any purpose.
AUTHORIZATIONS
Sections 103, 105, 106 and 107 of the Senate
bill authorized for fiscal year 1967 a total of
$105 million to carry out the purposes of the
bill (other than research). These sections also
authorized $150 million for fiscal year 1968
and $155 million for fiscal year 1969.
Section 104 of the House amendment au-
thorized (for purposes other than research)
$55 million for fiscal year 1967 and $80 mil-
lion per year for fiscal years 1968 and 1969.
Section 104 of the proposed conference sub-
stitute authorizes $67 million for fiscal year
1967 and $100 million per year for fiscal years
1968 and 1969. This represents a decrease of
$143 million from the amount authorized in
the Senate bill and an increase of $52 million
over the amount authorized in the House
amendment thereto.
Since the proposed conference substitute in-
creases the percentage of Federal funds ear-
marked for local safety programs from 25
percent to 40 percent, the increases in author-
izations correspond to that percentage in-
crease required to be devoted to local pro-
grams.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
The proposed conference substitute does not
contain a provision comparable to section 106
of the House amendment imposing certain
limitations on the use of the Highway Trust
Fund since an identical provision has been
provided in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1966.
HIGHWAY SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
Section 201 of the proposed conference sub-
stitute is the same as section 201 of the House
amendment and provides for the establishment
of a Highway Safety Agency to be headed by
a Highway Safety Administrator, the only
difference being that the proposed conference
substitute provides for the appointment of the
administrator by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, instead
of his appointment by the Secretary as pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1939
vided by the House amendment, and the addi-
tion of a sentence at the end of this section
which authoiizes the President to carry out
the National Traffic and Motor Vehi le Safety
Act of 19G6 through the agency and adminis-
trator authorized by this section.
REPORT ON INITIAL STANDARDS
Section 203 of the House amendment re-
quired the Secretary to report to the Congress
not later than January 10, 1967, all standards
to be initially applied in carrying out section
402 of title 23 of the United States Code.
Section 203 of the proposed conference sub-
stitute is the same with the exception that the
date for the report has been set at July 1,
1967.
[p. 21355]
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL AND HIGHWAY
SAFETY
Section 111 of the Senate bill required the
Secretary to make a study of the relationship
between consumption of alcohol and its effect
on highway safety which is to cover review
and evaluation of State and local laws and
enforcement methods and procedures relating
to driving under the influence of alcohol, State
and local programs for the treatment of alco-
holism, and such other aspects of the problem
as may be useful. A report is required to be
submitted to the Congress on or before July 1,
1967.
Section 204 of the House amendment pro-
vided for essentially the same study.
Section 204 of the proposed conference sub-
stitute adopts the language of the Senate bill
with respect to this study.
PRIORITY OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Section 109 of the Senate bill amends sec-
tion 105 of title 23 to add thereto a new
subbection which requires that in approving
piograms for projects on the Federal-aid sys-
tem pursuant to chapter 1 of title 23, the
Secretary shall give priority to those projects
which incorporate improved standards and
features with safety benefits.
The House amendment did not contain such
a provision.
Section 206 of the proposed conference sub-
stitute is the same as the Senate bill in this
respect.
COST STUDY
Section 112 of the Senate bill requires that
the Secretary make a detailed estimate of the
co^t of carrying out the provisions of this act
and submit a report thereon to the Congress
not later than January 10, 1968.
The House amendment contained no such
provision.
Section 207 of the proposed conference sub-
stitute is the same as the Senate bill in this
respect.
JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI,
JIM WRIGHT,
ROBERT E. SWEENEY,
JAMES J. HOWARD,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
WILLIAM H. HARSHA,
DON H CLAUSEN,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as the conference re-
port very clearly indicates, we have
before us the highway safety bill as
passed by the House with only minor
modifications.
We have, and I believe wisely,
strengthened the provisions for local
safety programs. We have required
that priority be given to those high-
way projects which incorporate safety
features, and we have provided for a
cost study on the entire program to be
submitted to the Congress in 1968. We
have provided additional flexibility in
the naming of the members of the ad-
visory committee. The conferees are
agreed that the changes are desirable
ones, and add to the strength of the
program.
In reporting to the House on this
conference, I would like to pay a
much-deserved and long overdue trib-
ute to Robert Mowson, of the House
Legislative Counsel's Office. Bob has
worked with the Public Works Com-
mittee on its legislative responsibil-
ities in all fields for many years.
I know I speak for the entire com-
mittee—and I am confident for other
committees of the House as well—
when I say that he is unquestionably
one of the outstanding professional
men who serve this body, with brilli-
ance and with dedication, and usually
without recognition. A substantial
share of the credit for the superior
legislation this body enacts belongs to
men like Bob Mowson, and certainly,
speaking for the Public Works Com-
mittee, we would not be able to pre-
sent the quality of legislation we do
-------
1940
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
bring to the floor, without Bob's ex-
traordinarily competent help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
CRAMER].
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker and
Members of the House, I join my dis-
tinguished colleague from Illinois [Mr.
KLUCZYNSKI] in support of the con-
ference report on S. 3052.
On behalf of the minority members
of the committee, I would also like to
join in paying proper appreciation
and extending grateful thanks to Bob
Mowson, who has for many years done
an outstanding and difficult job in
working out the many intricacies of
legislation before the committee. He is
a true professional in this respect. I
would also have to include in those
accolades Dick Sullivan, our majority
counsel; Clif Enfield, our minority
counsel; Bob May, who consults with
him; and the young lady who did a
magnificent job on this legislation,
Mrs. Audrey Warren. Without staff
cooperation on a bipartisan basis,
working in conjunction with the mem-
bers of the committee, we would not
have had nearly as effective a bill as
we have now before us.
I am very proud of this bill and
what it represents. I think it is one of
the finest pieces of legislation that has
ever come out of the Committee on
Public Works. From the very begin-
ning—in committee, on the House
floor, and in the conference committee
as well, it has been considered, I am
sure, by agreement of all Members,
as, in a sense, a memoriam to the late
John Baldwin, of California, who in
fact started this highway safety pro-
gram with the amendment which he
authorized last year to Senate Joint
Resolution 81.
The work of John Baldwin to make
our Nation's highways safer will live
on in this program.
The gentleman from Illinois has
discussed many of the matters agreed
upon and reported by the conference
committee. There are several other
matters that I would like to dwell
upon for just a moment. There was an
increase in authorizations, in one re-
spect, with regard to the combined
highway safety program agreed upon
in the House, meaning the funding of
local programs as well as the State
programs, over the House-passed ver-
sion ; however, it still remains sub-
stantially below the Senate-passed
version. The House-passed version au-
thorized sums in excess of the Senate
version for State highway safety pro-
grams only because of the addition of
the provision in the House bill for
earmarking 25 percent of those State
funds for local highway safety pro-
grams. The figures for the programs
to be administered solely by the States
remained the same in the House-
passed bill.
The amount authorized in the
House-passed version for fiscal years
1967, 1968, and 1969 for the State
highway safety program and the local
highway safety program combined
was $215 million. There was an addi-
tional authorization for those 3 fiscal
years of $55 million for research pro-
grams in the House-passed bill. Vehi-
cle inspection and driver education
were included in the figure of $215
million for the 3-year authorization.
Death on this Nation's highways
knows no jurisdictional boundary, and
the committee and the House saw the
necessity of providing for highway
safety programs on local levels and so
did. The House-passed figure for State
highway safety programs exceeded
the Senate-passed one only because of
the inclusion of these essential local
highway programs.
The other body had an additional
$90 million figure for the 3 years for
vehicle inspection and driver educa-
tion which were set up as separate
programs. The House conferees felt
there should be greater flexibility in
the administration of this program,
and that there should be a combined
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1941
amount of money. Nevertheless, it is
set out in the legislation and in the
conference report that there are spe-
cific requirements of all State pro-
grams. So there will of necessity have
to be in the future vehicle inspection
and driver education programs, but it
is flexible as to exactly when they
come into being and as to what extent
money will be spent for that purpose.
The Senate acceded to the House
position. The effect of the conferees'
actions, as it relates to the total ex-
penditures over the 3-year period, is
an increase of $52 million above the
House figure of $270 million to $322
million which is a decrease of $143
million from the original Senate
figure of $465 million. This is good.
This is approximately a 2-to-l ratio of
accession by the Senate conferees to
the House position which is better
than we usually do.
I believe the figure is justified, in
that the House got Senate agreement
to retain the administration-recom-
mended figure for the State programs
of $40 million for 1967, $60 million for
1968, and $60 million for 1969, or a
total of $160 million. The administra-
tion bill's recommendations for State
programs was passed by the Senate
and passed by the House. The House
total figure was larger only because of
the inclusion of the local safety pro-
grams. Authorizations for funds to be
used exclusively by the States, as rec-
ommended by the administration, re-
mained in all versions of the bill. The
Congress has not exceeded the admin-
istration request for authorizations
for States.
When we get into the question of
the municipal and county programs,
which are essential if this highway
safety program is going to succeed,
the House, as I have stated, provided
25 percent of the total funds for that
purpose; the other body had 50 per-
cent; and we struck an agreement of
40 percent to go for the local and mu-
nicipal purposes.
Therefore having changed the for-
mula from 25-75 to 60-40, we felt the
funds likewise should be increased by
a proportionate amount, which is pre-
cisely what was done. The figures
were increased to $67 million for 1967,
and from the $80 million
[p. 21356]
each year to $100 million each year
for 1968 and 1969. So we have a con-
sistent program of supporting the
President's figures on the State pro-
gram and voting a 40-percent amount
for the local and municipal programs,
and reducing the Senate figure by
$143 million.
Since there have been many ques-
tions which were properly asked and
which were considered in the debate
on the bill itself as to what happens
when a Safety Administrator for
Highways and a Safety Administrator
for Automobile Safety are appointed,
we provided for what I believe to be a
reasonable compromise. It has been
my consistent position that if, as this
matter progresses, it appears to be in
the best interests of both programs to
combine the Administrators, there
should be some machinery for doing
so. Therefore we wrote in a House
amendment, which provides that it is
possible to combine the two at a fu-
ture time if the President sees fit to
do so to carry out both programs. I
believe that is a logical approach.
This conference report on S. 3052
should be supported by the House.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the distin-
guished gentleman from Illinois and
the unofficial Washington manager of
the White Sox for yielding to me.
I should like to ask the gentleman
what, if anything, happened to my
amendment to put a farmer on the
Advisory Council?
-------
1942
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I did not hear
the question.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman will re-
call that during the original consider-
ation of the bill he very kindly ac-
cepted my amendment to provide for a
farmer on the Advisory Council. I
wonder if a farmer is still provided
for on the Advisory Council.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. He may he. I
remember accepting and adopting the
amendment. I was very happy to do it
for my very good friend from Iowa.
When we got to the conference, we
had so many requests for musicians
and for sewer diggers and a lot of
other people, we thought the farmer
was a very good thing. As I said, they
have to build some things. I thought
they would be helpful on this Advi-
sory Council.
The farmer is still in. I insisted on
it. I talked to the gentlemen in the
Senate and said, "I would like to see a
farmer, or two, if possible."
I am sure the gentleman's amend-
ment was adopted. We did not drop it.
Mr. GROSS. I appreciate that. I am
glad the gentleman from Illinois and I
can agree that there ought to be at
least one farmer on the Advisory
Council.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I agree. I have
some farmers in my district, since
they redistricted.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN].
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois for yielding to me. I wish to
join in support of what I believe is an
excellent conference report.
This having been my first opportu-
nity to serve as one of the conferees, I
am hopeful we have presented to the
House something of which we can all
be proud.
I am convinced that all the acco-
lades directed toward the staff mem-
bers certainly are well deserved.
In particular I believe we should
recognize the fact that for the first
time the local units of government
have been recognized by this commit-
tee and the Congress in the establish-
ment of local safety programs. Too
often the local units of government
are overlooked. I believe, by virtue of
our action, we have finally recognized
them and given them an opportunity
to establish a balanced safety pro-
gram throughout the Nation.
It seems as though there is a tend-
ency on our part to look toward the
development of interstate freeways
and intrastate freeways, but too often
local, city, and county roads are left
out of the programs. I believe this will
serve to the credit of the committee
for a long time to come. I know that
county officials throughout the Nation
will welcome this action today.
While it has been said we have a
good bill, I should like to bring to the
attention of Members a recent edi-
torial, in Life magazine. They feel
that this safety legislation is really
the safety legislation that will do
some good. I believe this also is to the
credit of the staff and the committee.
I again want to restate my apprecia-
tion to the members of our Public
Works Committee for carrying out the
desires and objectives of our late and
beloved colleague, John Baldwin, who
should appropriately be recognized as
the "Father of the Highway Safety
Program", now be enacted into law.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
HOWARD] .
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and ex-
tend my remarks and include an edi-
torial.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I wish
to congratulate the leadership of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1943
House Public Works Committee and
the staff for coming before us with
the conference report on this fine bill.
As we are all aware, the Public
Works Committee of the House held
highway safety hearings, as did the
Senate Public Works Committee,
which resulted in the important High-
way Safety Act and in this connection
I would like to call to your attention
the fine editorial in Life magazine of
September 2. This editorial lauds the
Highway Safety Act, stating "that it
is designed indeed to cut down the
number of accidents" and "the real
potential for lifesaving lies in the
Highway Safety Act." As a House
conferee on this measure, which has
been reported out of the Conference
Committee and will be passed by the
House today, I feel very strongly
about the need for this legislation.
At the present time we Americans
murder 50,000 of our fellow citizens a
year with a weapon known as the au-
tomobile. The Highway Safety Act of
1966 is a step toward eliminating this
wanton slaughter.
I want to take this opportunity to
commend the Public Works Committee
for this fine act and I cannot praise
too highly the leadership of Congress-
man GEORGE H. FALLON, chairman of
the Committee on Public Works, and
Congressman JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI,
chairman of the Subcommittee on
Roads, as well as express my appre-
ciation to all of the members of the
hard-working staff of this committee.
It has been a most gratifying experi-
ence to have worked with them on the
Highway Safety Act and to enact a
law safeguarding the lives of our citi-
zens.
I hereby insert in the RECORD the
Life magazine editorial, entitled "Why
Keep Safety in the Dark?"
Why Keep Safety in the Dark?
The auto safety hearings that produced
some of Washington's better dramatics of the
past season also pioduced two bills that should
make it a little less easy for American driveis
to kill themselves. The debates of the experts,
for one thing, established the point that in
most accidents theie are two collisions, not
one.
When a car strikes something solid enough,
it stops dead—the "first collision." Then, fol-
lowing an inexorable law of physics, the peo-
ple inside the car continue on with undimin-
'shed speed until they fetch up against some-
thing solid enough to stop them—-windshield,
dash or steering column. That is the "second
collision."
The auto safety hearings, which produced a
bill passed recently by oveiwhelming margins
in both the Senate and the House, was con-
cerned primarily with the "second collision,"
and making the interiors of cars less deadly
for flying humans.
It is too bad that the auto safety bill got all
the publicity, because trailing along in its
shadow was a second bill—the highway safety
act —that is designed indeed to cut down the
number of accidents, not soften their impact.
Without a "first collision," the "second colli-
sion" can't happen. Despite extravagant
claims made for padded dashes and collapsible
steering columns, the real potential for life-
saving lies in the highway safety act (which,
like the auto safety act, has passed both
houses and is certain of presidential ap-
proval) .
The act will allow the Secretary of Com-
merce to set minimum standards for, among
other things, driver education and licensing,
vehicle inspections, traffic control and highway
design. The states, which now have conflicting"
standards—or none at all—in these fields, will
get federal grants to help modernize. And, if
they don't agree to shape up, they face the
loss of 10% of their federal highway funds.
Stricter standards in every field of highway
safety are proven lifesavers and—in most
states—long overdue. Take the ease for hetter
highway lighting, for which the Secretary of
Commerce would be empowered to set stand-
ards :
In Chicago, a well-lighted sti etch of ex-
pressway has a death rate only one-third the
average on all American expressways.
In Indianapolis, auto fatalities dropped by
54
-------
1944
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
prompt action on new lighting and other
standards seems clear.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland, the chairman of the House
Committee on Public Works [Mr. FAL-
LON].
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I should
like to commend the Public Works
Committee and the conferees for a
fine job in bringing out a bill which is
not only a practical bill and a work-
able bill but also will contribute to the
safety of the motorists of this coun-
try. I hope it will cut down to a large
degree the highway accidents and the
slaughter on the highways today.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
wish to say earnestly at this time that
we have one of the finest committees
in the House of Representatives, the
House Committee on Public Works. It
just reminds me of one great big
happy family.
Mr. Speaker, on this highway
safety bill I want to thank the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr, CRAMER], the
minority leader, and the other mem-
bers of the minority, as well as the
members of the majority, for the
splendid job they have done. It is a
pleasure to work with people who
know their business, such as the gen-
tleman from Ohio [Mr. HARSHA], and
that great friend of ours, the poet, the
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr.
CLEVELAND], as well as, of course, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. CRA-
MER], the ranking minority member.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank each
and every one of them, because, as
conferees, they have come up with a
fine bill. I hope through this we will
stop the slaughter on our highways.
Mr. Speaker, there are no further
requests for time, and I move the pre-
vious question on the conference re-
port.
The question was taken; and there
were yeas 360, nays 3, not voting 69
So the conference report was agreed
to.
[p. 21358]
1.8a(4)(d) Sept. 1: Senate agrees to conference report, pp. 2159.">-
21596
HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of
the House to the bill (S. 3052) to pro-
vide for a coordinated national high-
way safety program through financial
assistance to the States to accelerate
highway traffic safety programs, and
for other purposes. I ask unanimous
consent for the present consideration
of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PROXMIRE in the chair). The report
will be read for the information of the
Senate.
The legislative clerk read the re-
port.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of August 81, 1966, CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD, pp. 21353-21356.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
the conference report authorizes ap-
propriations for State and local safety
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1945
programs and Federal highway safety
research for the fiscal years 1967,
1968, and 1969.
Though there were a number of rel-
atively minor and superficial differ-
ences between the Senate and House
versions of S. 3052, there were few
basic policy differences, all of which
were equitably resolved at the meeting
of the conferees on August 30.
The major difference between the
two versions was in the separate high-
way safety program for political sub-
divisions of the States authorized by
the Senate and funded at levels equiv-
alent to those for the State highway
safety programs. The conference sub-
stitute proposal recommends in one
section State and local
[p. 21595]
programs, to be coordinated through
the office of the Governor of each of
the States, and funded at levels of $67
million for fiscal 1967, $100 million
for fiscal 1968, and $100 million for
fiscal 1969, with 60 percent of the
funds to be allocated to the State
programs and 40 percent to be allo-
cated to local safety programs.
This represents $53 million less
than the Senate authorized for these
programs and $54 million more than
the House authorized.
The other major change between
the Senate version and that proposed
by the conference substitute is in the
deletion of the separate sections pro-
viding for driver education and vehi-
cle inspection, and the inclusion of
these aspects of the highway safety
programs as mandatory features of
the State safety programs. To assure
State action in the field of highway
safety, the conference substitute au-
thorizes the withholding of 10 percent
of Federal aid highway funds for fail-
ure of a State to comply with this act
by December 31, 1968.
Finally, the conference substitute
authorizes the establishment of a
Highway Safety Agency within the
Department of Commerce or the De-
partment of Transportation—if that
legislation becomes law—to be headed
by an officer appointed by the Presi-
dent with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The conferees expect that
this agency will administer both the
Highway Safety Act and the Traffic
Safety Act and that the congressional
intent in this respect will be imple-
mented by Executive order of the
President.
S. 3052, as recommended by the con-
ferees, represents a major step toward
reducing the toll of life and the de-
struction of property on our Nation's
highways and I wish to commend my
colleagues on the Committee on Public
Works and particularly the ranking
minority member of the committee
and the Subcommittee on Roads, the
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER],
for the diligent attention that they
have given to this urgent matter.
I move that the Senate accept the
conference substitute on S. 3052.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
motion is on agreeing to its conference
report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 2159G]
526-704 O - 74 - 13
-------
1946 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.8b HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM
August 23, 1968, P.L. 90-495, §13, 82 Stat. 822
SEC. 13. The fourth sentence of subsection (c) of section 402 of
title 23 of the United States Code is amended by striking out
"December 31, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "December 31,
1969", and the fifth sentence of such subsection is amended by
striking out "January 1, 1969" and inserting in lieu thereof "Jan-
uary 1,1970".
[p. 822]
1.8b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 1340, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968)
THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968
JUNE 28,1968.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH from the Committee on Public Works, submitted
the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 3418]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 3418) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970 and
1971 for the construction of certain highways in accordance with
title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
INTRODUCTION
S. 3418, as originally introduced, provided authorizations for
the Interstate System, the ABC system, and the Federal domain
highway programs together with authorizations for the safety and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1947
beautification programs. In addition to these funding provisions,
the bill proposed certain amendments to the substantive portions
of title 23, U.S.C., including authorizations to carry them forward
in the ensuing years.
As reported, S. 3418 is an expanded version of the legislation on
which hearings were held. It includes matters covered in other
hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on Roads. Among the
proposed changes are amendments which resulted directly from
subcommittee hearings on bridge safety and urban highway prob-
lems.
As reported to the Senate, the bill includes three titles: The
Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1968, the Highway Relocation and
Land Acquisition Practices Act of 1968, and the District of Col-
umbia Parking Facility Act.
Title I would provide —
(a) Authorizations for the use of the estimate of the cost
of completing the Interstate System submitted to the Con-
gress on January 12, 1968, for the purpose of making appor-
tionments of funds to the States for the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1970 and 1971 ;
(6) Authorization of $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion for fiscal
years 1970 and 1971 respectively, for the Federal-Aid pri-
mary and secondary system and their urban extensions ;
(c) Authorization for the 2 fiscal years 1970 and 1971 of
$250 million each for traffic operation projects in urban
areas ; and
(d) Authorization for the Federal domain programs in the
following amounts :
[In millions of dollars]
Forest highways
Public lands highways . . . .
Forest development roads and trails . .
Public lands development roads and trails. .
Park roads and trails . .
Parkways
Indian reservation roads and bridges
Fiscal
year 1970
33
16
170
3.5
30
Fiscal
year 1971
33
16
170
5
30
11
30
(e) Authorization for State and community highway safety
programs of $50 million for fiscal year 1970 and $75 million
for fiscal year 1971;
-------
1948 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(/) Authorization for highway safety research and devel-
opment programs of $30 million for fiscal year 1970 and $40
million for fiscal year 1971;
(g) Authorization of $85 million for each of the fiscal years
1970 and 1971 for highway beautification: $5 million would
be available for outdoor advertising control; $10 million for
junkyard control; and $70 million for landscaping and scenic
enhancement; and
(h) Authorization of $100 million for establishment and
annual replenishment of a fund for the advance acquisition of
rights-of-way.
In addition, title I would also authorize an urban area traffic
operations improvement program designed to reduce traffic
congestion and accidents and to facilitate the flow of traffic in
urban areas. This title would also permit States to use certain
highway funds for the development of fringe parking facilities,
and for the advance acquisition of rights-of-way. A number of
other adjustments in existing provisions of title 23 are also recom-
mended.
Title II would establish a broad gage program designed to in-
sure that those displaced and dislocated by Federal-aid highway
construction are aided and assisted in re-establishing their homes,
farms and businesses. These provisions are patterned after S. 698,
introduced by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, on which extensive
hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental
Relations of the Committee on Government Operations. The lan-
guage of title II of S. 3418, as reported, reflects the improved
understanding of relocation procedures which has developed in
large part as a result of Senator Muskie's long term efforts in this
area.
[p. 2]
The committee is particularly indebted to Senator Edmund S.
Muskie, of Maine, and to the staff of the Subcommittee on Inter-
governmental Relations for the leadership they have provided in
seeking workable legislative solutions in this important field of
relocation assistance.
Title III would provide for a public parking authority for the
District of Columbia.
HEARINGS
In all, the Subcommittee on Roads has conducted 19 days of
hearings on the various matters contained in S. 3418: 3 days of
hearings relating to bridge design, inspection and maintenance
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1949
were held on March 18, 19 and 20, 1968; 12 days of hearings
relating to urban highway planning, location and design were held
on November 14, 15, 16, 28, 29 and 30, 1967, and May 1, 6, 7, 8, 27
and 28, 1968; and 4 days of hearings were held on S. 3418 on June
4, 5, 10 and 11, 1968. The Federal-Aid Highway Act hearings also
covered bills introduced by Senator James 0. Eastland, of Missis-
sippi, S. 3381 and by Senator A. S. Mike Monroney, of Oklahoma,
S. 2888, portions of which are incorporated in S. 3418, as reported.
In the descriptions of the various provisions in the bill, as re-
ported, the results of these extensive and informative hearings
will be discussed.
AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF DEFENSE AND
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
Approximately 26,000 miles of the Interstate System are now
open to traffic. Of the remainir g 15,000 miles, approximately 6,000
are under construction and 8,500 are in the engineering design or
right-of-way acquisition stage. Approximately 1,000 miles have
had little or no work done on them. The remaining construction
activity involves some of the most difficult work to be encountered.
It should be noted that the percent of completion is comparable for
urban and rural mileage.
The cost of completing the system, as reported to the Congress
in the cost estimate submitted in January 1968, was estimated at
$56.5 billion, as compared to a 1965 cost estimate of $46.8 billion
and a 1961 cost estimate of $41 billion. The appendix contains a
summary of an analysis of the 1968 cost estimate prepared for the
Committee on Public Works by the Comptroller General. This
report indicates that the process of estimating cost has not yet
achieved the degree of precision which the Committee on Public
Works and the Congress must have in order to make final determi-
nations with respect to authorizations for completing the system.
Based on the review, it appears that the current best guess is that
the final cost will approximate $62 billion. It is conceivable that
this figure will go higher before the final authorizations for the
Interstate System are made.
In light of the foregoing observations, the Committee on Public
Works recommends that the authorizations established in the Fed-
eral-Aid Highway Act of 1966 for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971
be left unchanged. Those authorizations of $3.6 billion for each of
these years will enable the Interstate System program to move
forward in an orderly and reasonable fashion.
[p. 3]
-------
1950 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.8b(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 1584, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968
JUNE 25, 1968.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 17134]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 17134) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970
and 1971 for the construction of certain highways in accordance
with title 23 of the United States Code, 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 as follows :
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the matter
which appears in the reported bill in italic type.
CHAPTER 4.— HIGHWAY SAFETY
§ 402. Highway safety programs
*******
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), shall be
subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the neces-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1951
sary costs of administering the provisions of this section, and the
remainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30,
1969, such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his adminis-
trative discretion may deem appropriate and thereafter such
funds shall be apportioned as Congress, by law enacted hereafter,
shall provide. On or before January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall
report to Congress his recommendations with respect to a nondis-
criminatory formula for apportionment of funds authorized to
carry out this section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
fiscal years thereafter. After December 31, 1968, the Secretary
shall not apportion any funds under this subsection to any State
which is not implementing a highway safety program approved by
the Secretary in accordance with this section. [Federal aid high-
way funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1969, to any State
whieh is not implementing a highway safety program approved by
the Secretary in accordance with this section shall be reduced by
amounts equal to 10 per centum of the amounts which would
otherwise be apportioned to such State under section 104 of this
title, until such time as such State is implementing an approved
highway safety program. Whenever he determines it to be in the
public interest, the Secretary may suspend, for such periods as he
deems necessary, the application of the preceding sentence to a
State. Any amount which is withheld from apportionment to any
State under this section shall be reapportioned to the other States
in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.]
[p. 36]
-------
1952 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.8b(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 1799, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968
JULY 25,1968.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, From the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 3418]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3418) to
authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the
construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the
United States Code, and for other purposes, having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend
to their respective Houses as follows: . . .
1.8b(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 114 (1968)
1.8b(4)(a) July 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 19552
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.8b(4)(b) July 3: Amended and passed House, p. 19950
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.8b(4)(c) July 26: House agrees to conference report, p. 23713
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.8b(4)(d) July 29: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 24038
[No Relevant Discussion]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1953
1.8c FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1970
December 31, 1970, P.L. 91-605, Title II, §§202(c)-(e), 84 Stat. 1740, 1741
(c) Subsection (c) of section 402 of title 23, United States
Code, is amended by striking out beginning in the second sentence
thereof "as Congress, by law enacted hereafter," and all that fol-
lows down through and including the period at the end of the
third sentence thereof and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"75 per centum in the ratio which the population of each State
bears to the total population of all the States, as shown by the
latest available Federal census, and 25 per centum in the ratio
which the public road mileage in each State bears to the total
public road mileage in all States. For the purposes of this subsec-
tion, a 'public road' means any road under the jurisdiction of and
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. The
annual apportionment to each State shall not be less than one-
third of 1 per centum of the total apportionment."
(d) The first sentence of subsection (d) of section 402 of title
23, United States Code, is amended by striking out the period at
the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the
following: "and except that the aggregate of all expenditures
made during any fiscal year by a State and its political subdivi-
sions (exclusive of Federal funds) for carrying out the State
highway safety program shall be available for the purpose of
crediting such State during such fiscal year for the non-Federal
share of the cost of any project under this section without regard
to whether such expenditures were actually made in connection
with such project."
(e) Section 402 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
" (h) Except in the case of those State safety program elements
with respect to which uniform standards have been promulgated
by the Secretary before December 31, 1970, the Secretary shall not
promulgate any other uniform safety standard under this section
unless
[p. 1740]
at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such standard he
shall have submitted such standard to Congress."
[p. 1741]
-------
1954 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.8c(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 91-1554, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1970
OCTOBER 2, 1970—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 19504]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 19504) to authorize appropriations for the construction of
certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States
Code, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the
bill do pass.
TITLE II — HIGHWAY SAFETY
Earlier this year the Secretary of Transportation announced
that he was removing the National Highway Safety Bureau from
the Federal Highway Administration and establishing it as a new
Administration reporting directly to him. This Committee recog-
nizes the importance of the National Highway Safety Bureau, and
it is our hope that it may be more effectively and efficiently man-
aged after the reorganization. We believe, however, and the Secre-
tary of Transportation agrees, that the reorganization should take
place legislatively under the control of the Congress rather than
through an Executive Reorganization Plan.
The reorganization plan established in H.R. 19504 renames the
National Highway Safety Bureau the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. We believe this name is particularly ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1955
propriate as it describes the role and purpose of this Administra-
tion in dealing with the terrible toll on our nation's highways.
The Administration is to be headed by an Administrator ap-
pointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Sen-
ate. He would be compensated at Level III of the Executive Sched-
ule. There would also be a Deputy Administrator, likewise ap-
pointed by the President with the advice and consent of the other
body, to be compensated at Level V of the Executive Schedule.
This Committee specifically directs that while the Administrator
shall perform such duties as are delegated by the Secretary of
Transportation, he shall on all highway matters consult with the
Federal Highway Administrator.
Authority to carry out the provisions of the Highway Safety
Act of 1966 relating to Highway Design, Construction and Main-
tenance, Traffic Control Devices, Identification and Surveillance of
Accident Locations, and highway-related aspect of Pedestrian
Safety, are vested legislatively in the Federal Highway Adminis-
trator. It is our belief that this Administration is the most appro-
priate and most capable body to handle programs in this area. All
other uniform standards
[p. 26]
developed under the authority in the Highway Safety Act of 1966
are vested in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is given
the responsibility of carrying out the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.
The bill as reported provides the President may authorize any
person who immediately before the date of enactment of this Act
was holding the Office of Director of the National Highway Safety
Bureau to act as Administrator of the new Administration.
The Highway Safety Act (section 402, Title 23, U.S.C.), estab-
lished that funds for these State and community safety programs
would be apportioned among the States 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum at the discretion of the Secretary
until such time as a permanent formula is enacted, but not later
than fiscal year 1970. This bill provides for a permanent appor-
tionment formula of 75 per centum in the ratio that the population
of each State bears to the total population of all the States and 25
per centum in the ratio which the public road mileage in each
State bears to the total public road mileage. Public road mileage is
defined as "any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a
-------
1956 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
public authority and opened to public travel." Population will be
determined from the latest available Federal census.
As we indicated in House Report 91-644, the Comptroller Gen-
eral, on June 19, 1969, submitted a report to the Congress in
which he took the position that existing Department policy for
Federal participation in the cost of State highway safety activi-
ties, which permits the States to use the cost of their ongoing
safety activities for purposes of matching Federal funds, is im-
proper. We wish to make clear that we did affirmatively intend, in
1966, and we do affirmatively intend today, that the States should
be permitted to use their ongoing expenditures as matching credit
against their Federal apportionments under the Safety Act on a
program basis. Section 202(d), which amends subsection (d) of
section 402 of title 23, is designed to remove any doubt as to the
legislative intent in this regard.
With respect to those standards administered by the Federal
Highway Administration, we believe that restrictive interpreta-
tion of the provision in section 402 (g) of title 23 which prohibits
the expenditure of highway safety funds for highway construction
and maintenance has hampered the highway safety program. It is
the intent of the Congress that this subsection be interpreted in a
manner which will not preclude the use of such funds for installa-
tion of regulatory and warning signs on non-Federal-aid highways
and the installation of field reference markers designed specifically
to meet highway safety standard requirements.
The Committee is anxious to ensure that the existing highway
safety standards be implemented to their maximum effectiveness
before new standards are issued. H.R. 19504 precludes the issu-
ance of additional standards after December 31, 1970, unless spe-
cifically authorized by the Congress. We understand that before
the deadline the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
will issue two additional standards, one dealing with Pupil Trans-
portation and the other with Accident Investigation. The bill is
not meant to preclude these two
[P. 27]
additional standards if issued before the cut-off date. It is not
meant to preclude revising or eliminating any of the previously
issued standards.
Section 402 of Title 23, U.S.C. is the program of Federal Assist-
ance to State and Community Highway Safety Programs. For the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there is author-
ized $75 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972 and $100
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1957
million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. For the Federal
Highway Administration, there is authorized for the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1972 and June 30, 1973 $15 million out of the
Highway Trust Fund and $15 million out of the General Fund.
For carrying out Research and Development, by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration under section 403, of Title
23, U.S.C., there is authorized $30 million for fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972 and $45 million for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973.
For carrying out research and development by the Federal
Highway Administration, section 307 (a) and 403 of Title 23,
U.S.C., there is authorized $10 million for each of the fiscal years
ending June 30,1972 and June 30,1973.
The remaining unused authorization for section 402 of $175.0
million is repealed.
[p. 28]
TITLE II
Section 201. Short Title
This section provides that this title may be cited as the "High-
way Safety Act of 1970".
Section 202. Highway Safety
The provisions of this section recognize the administrative re-
organization of the Federal Highway Administration which oc-
curred on March 22, 1970, and provides the statutory authority
necessary to establish a new National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, with an Administrator, at the same organiza-
tional level as the other
[p. 53]
Administrations within the Department of Transportation. The
President may authorize any person who immediately before the
date of enactment of this Act held the office of Director of the
National Highway Safety Bureau to act as Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration until the first
Administrator is named.
Responsibilities for carrying out the provisions of the Highway
Safety Act of 1966 are divided between the Federal Highway
Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
-------
1958 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
istration, the same as has already been accomplished administra-
tively by the Secretary.
The Highway Safety Act of 1966 provides that the funds au-
thorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969
for State and local highway safety programs be apportioned
among the States 75 per centum on the basis of population and 25
per centum as the Secretary in his administrative discretion
deems appropriate, and that thereafter funds for such safety pro-
grams shall be apportioned as Congress shall subsequently provide
by law. This section authorizes the apportionment of funds to the
States 75 per centum on the basis of population and 25 per centum
on the basis of public road mileage.
After December 31, 1970, the Secretary shall not promulgate
any standards for State and local highway safety programs that
do not relate to safety program elements for which standards have
been previously promulgated, unless specifically authorized to do
so by statute hereafter enacted.
The appropriation of funds for carrying out the Highway
Safety Act of 1966 are authorized separately for those functions
to be administered through the Federal Highway Administration
and through the Federal Highway Traffic Safety Administration
as follows:
For highway safety programs administered by the Na-
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, $75 mil-
lion for fiscal year 1972 and $100 million for fiscal year
1973; and for highway safety programs administered by
the Federal Highway Administration, $30 million for
each of such fiscal years, of which $15 million is author-
ized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund.
For highway safety research and development admin-
istered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, $30 million for fiscal year 1972 and $45 million
for fiscal year 1973; and for that administered by the
Federal Highway Administration, $10 million for each of
the fiscal years.
Authorization for appropriations for fiscal years 1970 and 1971
is repealed, for no appropriations have been made, and none are
planned to be made, under this authority.
[p. 54]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1959
CHAPTER 4.—HIGHWAY SAFETY
Sec.
401. Authority of the Secretary.
402. Highway safety programs.
403. Highway safety research and development.
404. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
*******
§ 402. Highway safety programs.
*******
(b) (1) The Secretary shall not approve any State highway
safety program under this section which does not—
(A) provide that the Governor of the State shall be respon-
sible for the administration of the program through a State
highway safety agency which shall have adequate powers, and
be suitably equipped and organized to carry out, to the satis-
faction of the Secretary, such program.
*******
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety pro-
grams approved in accordance with subsection (a), shall be subject
to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the necessary costs of
administering the provisions of this section, and the remainder shall
[p. 79]
be apportioned among the several States. For the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30, 1969, such funds shall
be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis of population and 25
per centum as the Secretary in his administrative discretion may
deem appropriate and thereafter such funds shall be apportioned
[as Congress, by law enacted hereafter, shall provide. On or be-
fore January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall report to Congress his
recommendations with respect to a nondiscretionary formula for
apportionment of funds authorized to carry out this section for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and fiscal years thereafter.].
75 per centum in the ratio which the population of each State
bears to the toted population of all the States, as shown by the
latest available Federal census, and 25 per centum in the ratio
which the public road mileage in each State bears to the total
public road mileage in all States. For the purposes of this subsec-
tion, a "public road" means any road under the jurisdiction of and
maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. After
December 31, 1969, the Secretary shall not apportion any funds
-------
1960 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
under this subsection to any State which is not implementing a
highway safety program approved by the Secretary in accordance
with this section. Federal aid highway funds apportioned on or
after January 1, 1970, to any State which is not implementing a
highway safety program approved by the Secretary in accordance
with this section shall be reduced by amounts equal to 10 per
centum of the amounts which would otherwise be apportioned to
such State under section 104 of this title, until such time as such
State is implementing an approved highway safety program.
Whenever he determines it to be in the public interest, the Secre-
tary may suspend, for such periods as he deems necessary, the
application of the preceding sentence to a State. Any amount
which is withheld from apportionment to any State under this
section shall be reapportioned to the other States in accordance
with the applicable provision of law.
(d) All provisions of chapter 1 of this title that are applicable
to Federal-aid primary highway funds other than provisions relat-
ing to the apportionment formula and provisions limiting the ex-
penditure of such funds to the Federal-aid systems, shall apply to
the highway safety funds authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section, except as determined by the Secretary to be incon-
sistent with this section, and except that the aggregate of all
expenditures made during any fiscal year by a State and its politi-
cal subdivisions (exclusive of Federal funds') for carrying out the
State highway safety program shall be available for the purpose
of crediting such State during such fiscal year for the non-Federal
share of the cost of any project under this section without regard
to whether such expenditures were actually made in connection
with such project. In applying such provisions of chapter 1 in
carrying out this section the term "State highway department" as
used in such provisions shall mean the Governor of a State for the
purposes of this section.
*******
(h) Except in the case of those State safety program elements
with respect to which uniform standards have been promulgated
by the Secretary before December 31,1970, the Secretary shall not
promul-
[p. 80]
gate any other uniform safety standard tinder this section unless
specifically authorized to do so by a statute enacted after the date
of this subsection.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1961
§ 403. Highway safety research and development
(a) The Secretary is authorized to use funds appropriated to
carry out this [section] subsection to carry out safety research
which he is authorized to conduct by subsection (a) of section 307
of this title. In addition, the Secretary may use the funds appro-
priated to carry out this [section] subsection, either independ-
ently or in cooperation with other Federal departments or agen-
cies, for (1) grants to State or local agencies, institutions, and
individuals for training or education of highway safety personnel,
(2) research fellowships in highway safety, (3) development of
improved accident investigation procedures, (4) emergency serv-
ice plans, (5) demonstration projects, and (6) related activities
which are deemed by the Secretary to be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this [section] subsection.
(6) In addition to demonstration projects authorized by sub-
section (a) of this section, in order to demonstrate methods for
increasing the safety of travel on the Federal-aid systems, the
Secretary, in cooperation with Governors of the affected States,
shall undertake (1) demonstration projects for alcohol safety
action programs including related multidisciplinary crash investi-
gation teams, and (2) demonstration projects relating to enforce-
ment of motor vehicle and traffic laws. Not more than one demon-
stration project under each of the preceding clauses shall be
undertaken in any one State and all such projects shall be com-
pleted by June 30, 1974. The Secretary not later than June 30
of the years 1971, 1972, and 1973, shall submit to Congress a prog-
ress report on such projects, including his recommendations with
respect thereto, and not later than July 31, 1974, the final report
on such projects, including his recommendations with respect
thereto. There is authorized to be appropriated for the four fiscal
year period ending June 30, 1974, out of the Highway Trust Fund
to carry out alcohol safety programs under clause (1) of this
subsection not to exceed $171,600,000, for multidisciplinary crash
investigation teams under such clause (1) not to exceed $35,200,000,
and to carry out enforcement projects under clause (2) of this
subsection not to exceed $75,000,000.
[p. 81]
526-704 O - 74 - 14
-------
1962 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.8c(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-1254, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1970
SEPTEMBER 30,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted
the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 4418]
The Committee on Public Works, which has had under consider-
ation bills to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1972 and
1973 for the construction of certain highways in accordance with
title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes, reports
favorably thereon an original bill (S. 4418) in lieu of S. 4260 and
S. 4055, those bills which were considered by the Committee.
INTRODUCTION
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 is a response to the
broadened concept of highways as not only the principal means of
surface transportation in the United States but as an increasingly
important factor in determining the character and quality of our
national life.
In many respects, it is a continuation and refinement of earlier
highway legislation. It enlarges considerably on provisions of the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. It also approaches new prob-
lems with new ideas.
While the Congress is committed to the substantial completion
of the Interstate system, it is imperative that the groundwork for
highway programs for the post-Interstate period. Many factors
have contributed to the delay in completing the Interstate system.
The cost of the system far exceeds the original projections of
1956. It is now anticipated that the Interstate system can be com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1963
pleted by 1978, and this bill includes provision for a firm cut-off
date beyond which 90 percent
[p-i]
Federal participation in Interstate construction would not be
available. The Committee also anticipates that some highly con-
troversial and expensive sections of Interstate highways in urban
areas will not be built, thus reducing the cost and possibly the
time needed for completion.
Since highways affect virtually every aspect of our life, either
directly or indirectly, it is logical that responsibility for their
planning and execution should be broadly based so as to accurately
reflect the needs and wishes of the people who will pay be served
by these highways. This bill would meet this need by giving to the
elected representatives of the people, Governors, mayors, and
other local authorities a greater voice in highway decisions.
The effect of highways on the environmental, social, and eco-
nomic life of our communities is widely recognized. This bill con-
tains provisions which seek to assure that adverse impacts as a
result of highway construction are minimized, overcome, or
avoided. It sets forth what must be considered in the planning and
construction of highways and provides the mechanism and money
for meeting these requirements.
This bill provides that the highway safety and beautification
programs will be financed from the highway trust fund. Both of
these programs, which are closely related to safe, efficient highway
operations, have been seriously underfinanced in the past, so that
their full implementation has never been possible. Utilizing the
resources of the fund will provide reasonable assurance of sus-
tained financing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL
The Committee on Public Works is reporting a clean bill, the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970. This measure was approved
unanimously by the Committee in lieu of S. 4260, introduced by
Senator Randolph with 30 cosponsors, and S. 4055, the adminis-
tration recommendation, introduced by Senator Cooper with 12
cosponsors.
Those bills contained authorizations for the Interstate System,
A-B-C system, and the Federal-domain roads, in addition to other
provisions. Title II of S. 4260 proposed a comprehensive Statewide
planning process. Title II of S. 4055 proposed an administrative
-------
1964 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
reorganization of the Highway Safety Bureau. That bill also in-
eluded revisions of the highway beautification program.
As reported, the bill would authorize a 2-year extension of the
interstate program, through fiscal year 1976, and an additional
$9.775 billion from the highway trust fund for this program. The
committee recognizes that this authorization is less than the
amount indicated by the 1970 cost estimate. The cost estimate,
however, includes several interstate projects, the construction of
which appear unlikely. This estimate also was based on the 1968
cost-price index, which is already outdated. The Congress will
receive a new cost estimate on the interstate program in 1973, and
at that time will be in a better position to authorize funds for
completion of the program.
The bill also would authorize trust fund expenditures totaling
$1,815,500,000 for fiscal year 1972 and $2,002 million for fiscal
year 1973. These totals include $1.050 billion for each of the fiscal
years 1972 and 1973 for the Federal-aid primary and secondary
systems and their urban extensions.
[P-2]
Authorizations for Federal-domain roads total $198 million for
the fiscal year 1972 and $260 million for the fiscal year 1973 for
the following categories: Forest highways, public lands highways,
forest development roads and trails, public lands development
roads and trails, park roads and trails, parkways, and Indian
reservation roads and bridges.
The bill also would:
—Create an urban highway system designed to improve the
flow of traffic in metropolitan areas and implement an urban
transportation planning process.
—Set a 1973 deadline for States to decide on the construc-
tion or deletion of controversial segments of the Interstate
System.
—Establish a special $150 million a year program to re-
place old, unsafe bridges and an emergency relief program to
replace bridges already closed for safety reasons.
—Give States authority to provide housing for persons dis-
placed by road construction if no other housing is available.
—Create a territorial highway program for American
Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
—Tighten controls over economic, social, and environmen-
tal impact of highway construction.
—Authorize the addition of existing roads to the Interstate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1965
System provided States agree to upgrade them to Interstate
standards within 12 years utilizing regular highway funds,
not 90 percent Interstate money.
—Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to develop,
conduct and administer an equal employment opportunity
training program for highway construction workers.
[p. 3]
Section 4. Extension of Time for Completion of System
Subsection (a) would make technical amendments in section
101 (b) of title 23, extending the time for the completion of the
Interstate system until June 30, 1976. Subsection (b) would direct
the Secretary to submit to the Congress a revised Interstate Sys-
tem cost estimate in January 1973.
Section 5. Minimun One-Half Percent Apportionment Factor for
Interstate System.
This section would amend Section 104 (b) (5) of title 23, to
insure that no State receives less than one-half of one per centum
of the apportionment for the Interstate System in any year. This
provision is necessary because of the problem encountered in Dela-
ware, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, and North Da-
kota whose cost of completion of the Interstate System has become
so small in relationship to the total cost of completion of the
Interstate System as to make it difficult for each of these States to
maintain a meaningful level of construction activity on the Inter-
state System. This situation is the result, in part, of controversies
which have halted work on certain segments of the System, the
designation of the additional 1500 miles of Interstate System pro-
vided by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, and the fact that
the States involved have done an excellent job in bringing their
portions of the Interstate System to early completion.
This situation raises the problem of the transition from the
present Interstate program to any major post-Interstate program.
Therefore, subsection (b) would require the Secretary to make
recommendations by February 1, 1972, with regard to the appor-
tionment of funds and matching requirements on Federal-aid
highways in those States which will be completing construction of
the Interstate System during this funding period.
Section 6. Authorizations
This section would provide authorizations for fiscal years 1972
and 1973 for the regular Federal-aid highway program, the pri-
mary and secondary systems, and their urban extensions; the new
category, the Federal-aid urban system; and for the Federal-do-
-------
1966 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
main road program, including forest and public lands highways;
and for the highway safety and beautification programs.
Subparagraph (1) would authorize $1.050 billion for the pri-
mary and secondary systems and their urban extensions in areas
of less than 50,000 population. The funds would be divided 55 per
centum for the primary system; 35 per centum for the secondary
system and 10 per centum for their urban extensions.
Subparagraph (2) would authorize funds for the Federal-aid
urban system which would be created by Section 7 of the bill. The
authorization for this road program would be $375 million for
fiscal year 1972 and $450 million for fiscal year 1973.
The authorization changes in paragraphs (1) and (2) are the
first major departure in the schedule of authorizations for the
Federal-aid road program since the creation of the secondary sys-
tem and urban extension program in the Federal-aid Highway Act
of 1944 and the acceleration of construction of the Interstate sys-
tem in 1956.
[p-17]
The $1.425 billion which would be authorized in paragraphs (1)
and (2) for fiscal year 1972 is identical in amount to the authori-
zations for the regular Federal-aid program contained in the Fed-
eral-aid Highway Act of 1968. In that Act, $1.1 billion was au-
thorized for fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the regular ABC pro-
gram ; $125 million for a special AB program for rural roads; and
$200 million for the so-called TOPICS program, the Traffic Opera-
tions Improvement Programs in Urban Areas, for each of those
years.
The $1.050 billion which section 6 would authorize for the ABC
program was arrived at by factoring the existing $1.1 billion
authorization in accordance with the statutory division of 45 per
centum primary; 30 per centum secondary and 25 per centum
urban; and by factoring the $125 million AB program by its
statutory division of 60 per centum primary and 40 per centum
secondary:
Millions
For the primary system:
45 percent times $1,100,000,000 $495
60 percent times $125,000,000 75
Total 570
For the secondary system:
30 percent times $1,100,000,000 330
40 percent times $125,000,000 50
Total 380
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1967
The 1968 Act urban extension portion of the ABC system
amounted to $275 million. This was divided in the proportions in
which urban populations are located in areas of more than 50,000
and less than 50,000. According to information from the Census
Bureau, this is a 60-40 ratio. The results would be an allocation
for urban extensions in areas of less than 50,000 of $110 million.
While these amounts—$570 million for the primary system,
$380 million for the secondary system, and $110 million in urban
extensions—when added together come to $1.060 billion, the figure
was held to $1.050 billion.
The amount in paragraph (2) for the new urban system was
arrived at by taking the $200 million authorization in the existing
TOPICS program, adding to it $165 million (that portion of the
existing "C" system program which was attributable to urban
areas of 50,000 or more) and adding $10 million from the para-
graph (1) amounts.
This rearrangement approximates the present distribution of
funds among the systems.
All of these amounts would continue to be appropriated from
the trust fund and under existing law would be drawn from the
fund before any Interstate highway funds are available for appor-
tionment to the States.
The consolidations of authorizations effected by paragraphs (1)
and (2) would eliminate the need for continuing separate funding
for the special AB program for rural roads and for the Traffic
Operation Improvement Program (TOPICS).
Paragraph (3) of Section 6 would authorize $33 million for
each of the fiscal years 1972 and 1973 for forest highways and $16
million for each of these years for public lands highways. These
authorizations would be funded from the Highway Trust Fund for
the first time. In addition, this section would authorize funds for
the other Federal domain road programs from the general fund in
the following amounts.
[p. 18]
[In millions of dollars]
Category 1972 1973
Forest development roads and trails . 170 170
Public lands development roads and trails . 8 10
Park roads and trails . . . . , , 30
Parkways . . 20 20
Indian reservation roads and bridges . . . . 30
-------
1968
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The authorization for Public Lands Development Roads and
Trails for fiscal years 1972 and 1973, while small, would be a
substantial increase over prior authorizations. The bill would pro-
vide this increased funding because of the demands for roads to
facilitate proper resource development.
Authorizations for the Highway Safety and Beautification Pro-
grams, which for the first time would be funded from the High-
way Trust Fund, are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Category
Highway safety programs (i^f. 402)
Highway safety research and development (sec. 403) . . .
Control of outdoor advertising (sec 131)
Control of junkyards (sec 136) . .
Landscaping and scenic enhancement (sec. 319(b)) . ..
Administration of sees. 131, 136, and 319(b)) . .
1971
.. . 0
0
27.0
3.0
... 0
. . 1.5
1972
75.0
70.0
20.5
3.0
1.5
1 5
1973
100
115
50
5
10
3
The Committee believes that the Highway Safety Programs pro-
vided for in Sections 402 and 403 of the Highway Safety Act of
1966 should be funded from the Highway Trust Fund. Safety on
the highways is an integral part of the highway program. This
program is as directly highway oriented as the construction phase
and the same people whose taxes support the trust fund are those
who will benefit from an effective safety program.
The Committee has been disappointed in the progress that has
been made toward reversing the upward trend in highway acci-
dents since enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. It
believes that the Department of Transportation must be able to
support State and local governments in developing meaningful
safety programs. Assured financing from the trust fund will be a
significant aid in this direction.
[p. 19]
*******
Sec. 402. Highway safety programs
*******
(c) Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety
programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), shall be
subject to a deduction not to exceed 5 per centum for the neces-
sary costs of administering the provisions of this section, and the
remainder shall be apportioned among the several States. For the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968, and June 30,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1969
1969, such funds shall be apportioned 75 per centum on the basis
of population and 25 per centum as the Secretary in his adminis-
trative discretion may deem appropriate and thereafter such
funds shall be apportioned [as Congress, by law enacted hereafter,
shall provide. On or before January 1, 1969, the Secretary shall
report to Congress his recommendations with respect to a nondis-
cretionary formula for apportionment of funds authorized to
carry out this section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and
fiscal years thereafter] 75 per centum in the ratio which the
population of each State bears to the total population of all the
States, as shown by the latest available Federal census, and 25 per
centum in the ratio which the public road mileage in each State
bears to the total public road mileage in all States. For the pur-
pose of this subsection, a "public road" means any road under the
jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to
public travel. The annual apportionment to each State shall not be
less than one-third of 1 per centum of the total apportionment.
After December 31, 1969, the Secretary shall not apportion any
funds under this subsection to any State which is not implement-
ing a highway safety program approved by the Secretary in ac-
cordance with this section. Federal aid highway funds apportioned
[p. 71]
on or after January 1, 1970, to any State which is not implement-
ing a highway safety program approved by the Secretary in ac-
cordance with this section shall be reduced by amounts equal to 10
per centum of the amounts which would otherwise be apportioned
to such State under section 104 of this title, until such time as
such State is implementing an approved highway safety program.
Whenever he determines it to be in the public interest, the Secre-
tary may suspend, for such periods as he deems necessary, the
application of the preceding sentence to a State. Any amount
which is withheld from apportionment to any State under this
section shall be reapportioned to the other States in accordance
with the applicable provisions of law.
*******
Sec. 506. Replacement housing
[p. 72]
-------
1970 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.8c(3) COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1780, 91s Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1970
DECEMBER 17,1970 — Ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 19504]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 19504)
to authorize appropriations for the construction of certain high-
ways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and
for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: . . .
[p. 1]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1971
1.8c(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.8c(4)(a) Dec. 7: Considered and passed House, p. 40096
VACATING PROCEEDINGS ON
THE BILL, H.R. 19504, TO AU-
THORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF CER-
TAIN HIGHWAYS IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH TITLE 23, UNITED
STATES CODE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, AND RECONSIDERA-
TION
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker. I ask
unanimous consent that the proceed-
ings whereby the bill (H.R. 19504) to
authorize appropriations for the con-
struction of certain highways in ac-
cordance with title 23, United States
Code, and for other purposes, was
read a third time, passed, and the mo-
tion to reconsider laid on the table
and the bill then laid on the table, be
vacated.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I am at a loss to
understand why this request is being
made. What is the reason therefor?
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I will
say to the gentleman from Iowa, we
should not have vacated the House
number and substituted the Senate
bill, since title III of the bill is a re-
venue measure and must originate in
the House.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The engrossed House bill (H.R.
19504) was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 40096]
1.8c(4)(b) Dec. 7: Amended and passed Senate, p. 40095
HIGHWAY APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, on behalf of my able senior
colleague, the Senator from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), I ask that the
Chair lay before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives on
H.R. 19504.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GRAVEL) laid before the Senate H.R.
9504, to authorize appropriations for
;he construction of certain highways
n accordance with title 23 of the Un-
ted States Code, and for other pur-
joses.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I ask
manimous consent that the bill be
considered as having been read twice
and that the Senate proceed to its im-
mediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I move that all after the
enacting clauses be stricken and that
the language of S. 4418, as it passed
the Senate on October 2, 1970, be sub-
stituted therefor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the engrossment
of the amendment and third reading
of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read the
third time.
-------
1972
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The bill (H.R. 19504) was read the
third time, and passed.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I move that the Senate in-
sist upon its amendment and request
conference with the House, and that
the Chair be authorized to appoint the
conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding- Officer (Mr. GRAVEL) ap-
pointed Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. JORDAN of
North Carolina, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr.
SPONG, Mr. COOPER, Mr. BOGGS, and
Mr. BAKER conferees on the part of
the Senate.
[p. 40095]
1.8c(4)(c) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report, pp. 42514-
42523
CONFERENCE REPORT OF H.R.
19504, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY
ACT OF 1970
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill
(H.R. 19504) to authorize appropria-
tions for the construction of certain
highways in accordance with title 23
of the United States Code, and for
other purposes, and ask unanimous
consent that the statement of the
managers on the part of the House be
read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and state-
ment, see proceedings of the House of
December 17, 1970.)
[p. 42514]
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, the
conference report we are considering
now is on the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1970. I think it is accurate to
conclude that this report contains
some of the most significant and far-
reaching developments for the future
01 the highway program since the pas-
sage of the original Interstate High-
way Act of 1956.
The report now pending comes be-
fore this body as a result of very care-
ful and very deliberate and in some
instances rather difficult considera-
tions within the conference. For the
better part of three weeks the confer
ees for the House met with the confer-
ees of the other body, and in those
intensive conferences I am convinced
that we have worked out a conference
report which embodies the best fea-
tures both of the House bill and of the
bill enacted by the other body.
The composite legislation embodied
in this report does the following
things, essentially: It agrees to extend
the Interstate System through the
year 1976, and this extension thereby
increases the total authorization for
the interstate program by an amount
of $9,775,000,000.
In addition to this, the bill extends
the authorization for the regular ABC
programs—the primary, secondary,
and urban programs—through 1972
and 1973 by an amount of $1.1 billion.
The remaining traditional and nec-
essary programs for forest highways,
public lands highways, forest develop-
ment roads and trails, park roads,
parkways, and Indian reservation
roads and bridges are extended for
various amounts which are shown on
page 39 of the conference committee
report.
This legislation also creates for the
first time—and I believe this is wor-
thy of note—a Federal-aid urban sys-
tem to take care of the extremely ur-
gent problems of the movement of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1973
traffic within the urbanized and con-
gested areas of our country.
Additionally, the conference report
incorporates the basic House provision
of aid to urban highway public trans-
portation, so that high-speed express
lanes may be provided to link the
fringe parking areas authorized in the
1968 bill and made a permanent part
of the law in this bill, on the perime-
ters of our downtown urban areas, so
that they may be connected with the
downtown hearts of those central
cities by means of preferential bus
lanes, thus encouraging the movement
of more people by that form of mass
transportation and curtailing the glut
and congestion that is so often found
in our cities.
The conference report contains
other important features, among
which is the authorization of a 2-year
period for funding the highway safety
program partially out of the highway
trust fund. This was, quite frankly, a
compromise reached between the Sen-
ate position and the House position. It
was agreed that the portion of the
highway safety program already au-
thorized in existing law could be
funded to the extent of two-thirds
from the highway trust fund, with the
other one-third of that cost coming
"rom appropriated funds.
The House position on economic
growth center development highways
—so as to aid in the dispersal of pop-
jlation and the decentralization of in-
iustry out into those areas capable of
ibsorbing them, areas which are not
/et glutted beyond endurance by pol-
ution and overcrowding—is preserved
ind protected within the conference
•o"Tmittee report. This in my opinion
s one of the most innovative features
)f the bill. It was a House initiative,
sponsored originally by the gentleman
'rom California (Mr. DON H. CLAU-
SEN).
Also, the National Highway Insti-
-ute, which was authorized in the
louse bill, is preserved in the confer-
ence report. This was an original idea
fostered by the gentleman from Okla-
homa (Mr. EDMONDSON). We believe
that this is an excellent feature for
training those who in the future will
handle this ever-increasingly sophisti-
cated program of highway construc-
tion.
The bill authorizes completion of
the Inter-American Highway through
the Darien Gap below the Panama
Canal, and its linking up with the Pan
American Highway. This is a project
in which many of us have long been
interested—including the gentleman
from California (Mr. DON H. CLAU-
SEN) , the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. HOWARD), and myself.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of es-
tablishing a clear legislative record
and to place in that record the full
intent of the conferees in connection
with the section of the conference re-
port, entitled "Emergency Relief,"
section 109 of that report, I should
like to state that where the word
"State" appears in the following lan-
guage : "The repair and reconstruc-
tion of bridges which have been per-
manently closed to all vehicular traffic
by the State" it is intended by the
conferees that the word "State" shall
include any political subdivision of a
State, and that, of course, would in-
clude any authority authorized by
State law, including a bridge commis-
sion.
Mr. Speaker, I should like, on be-
half of the chairman of the full com-
mittee, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. FALLON], to express appreciation
to all the conferees on both sides of
the House, and of the Senate, for the
fine and painstaking work which has
produced this conference report. I be-
lieve it is worth our note that the
chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. FAL-
LON), labored long and hard in the
conference, devoting many hours to its
endeavors.
-------
1974
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Also, the chairman of our Roads
Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. KLUCZYNSKI), the gen-
tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. EDMOND-
SON), the ranking minority committee
member, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. CRAMER), the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. HARSHA), and the gentle-
man from New Hampshire (Mr.
CLEVELAND) devoted many hours to
this conference, and I am persuaded
that our joint labors were productive
of an excellent bill.
Permit me also to express to the
staff, which I am convinced is one of
the most professional and most compe-
tent staffs anywhere on the Hill, our
gratitude for their painstaking and
tireless work.
Particularly, I should like to com-
mend and single out the committee
engineering consultant, Lloyd Rivard,
who at this time is hospitalized. Mr.
Rivard, in the opinion of the commit-
tee, is one of the finest experts in the
field of highways in the entire United
States, and his contribution during
these hearings has been enormous.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to yield to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA),
but if the gentleman has no objection,
I would yield first to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. BINGHAM).
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I would like only to express my sat-
isfaction that the conference report
does authorize the interstate program
on through fiscal year 1976 rather
than through 1978, thus accepting the
amendment I offered for its considera-
tion.
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman is
quite correct. The Senate position was
to extend it only through 1976, and
this is one of the compromises
reached. It does not in any way fore-
close the continuation of the Inter-
state System to its permanent comple-
tion.
It is fair to state, I think, that
members of the committee on both
sides and the conferees from both
House and Senate are committed to
the ultimate completion of that sys-
tem. To this end, the House bill had
authorized the extension of that pro-
gram until 1978.
The gentleman is exactly correct;
however, we did agree with the Senate
position, which the gentleman from
New York espoused on the floor, to
continue it here until 1976.
Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I do indeed. I yield
to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio, a very effective ranking member
of the committee.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentle-
man for his kind remarks and for
yielding.
I would like to associate myself
with the remarks of the distinguished
gentleman from Texas insofar as they
relate to the commendation of the
staff. We have indeed a very dedi-
cated, excellent, expert, and effective
staff, without which I am sure we
could not come to this floor with the
kind of legislation we have here today.
I would also like to join him in com-
mending other members of the confer-
ence committee. We spent many
weeks, until late hours of the day in
each instance, and it was a difficult
task. The conferees were very elo-
quent in their expression of their dif-
ferent positions. We have come back
to this body with a bill that is proba-
bly one of the most significant pieces
of legislation since the inception of
the interstate highway program. We
have laid the groundwork for the so-
called after 75 program, which is the
Federal-aid highway program to fol-
low completion of the Interstate Sys-
tem. The committee and the Congress
should consider the enactment of leg-
islation for this program in 1972.
While it is true that we cut back
authorizations for the Interstate Sys-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1975
tern to fiscal year 1976, the conferees
and the
[p. 42515]
administration are totally committed
to the completion of the Interstate
System. So I do not think our action
represents a material departure from
the original House position.
In my judgment, this bill represents
substantially the position of the
House, with a number of economizing
measures. We cut back over $1 billion
in authorizations for the next fiscal
year and the year thereafter. These
are matters which are of deep concern
to the administration. We now have
this legislation in a form which I am
sure the administration will accept
and sign into law.
I do commend it to my colleagues.
We have come up with the most com-
prehensive bill that we could possibly
have. By and large, the conferees have
sustained the position of the House in
its original bill.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida, the ranking minor-
ity member of the committee.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I too
join in the remarks which have been
made with reference to this confer-
ence report. The conference, although
it was a long and difficult one, was one
in which I think the basic position of
the House evidenced over many, many
years—since the 1956 interstate de-
fense highway program was started
—the basic position of the House was
maintained.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate
the conferees and to say that I believe
this bill is one that should be sup-
ported.
I made my principal remarks on the
)ill itself. I am glad to say that in
conference we were able to maintain
;he basic House position on most of
,he fundamental policy positions in
contention for many years. I congrat-
ulate the gentleman from Ohio and
those who served in this very produc-
tive conference. This is a very com-
prehensive highway and safety meas-
ure. It means a great deal to this
country.
Mr. WRIGHT. I think at this point
it should be noted that the distin-
guished gentleman from Florida for
the past 16 years has been an active,
energetic, devoted member of this
committee and that the contributions
which he has made not only to high-
way legislation, but to all facets of
legislation emanating from the Public
Works Committee, have been truly
monumental.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I am glad to yield to
my good friend, the distinguished gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of the con-
ference report.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
I wonder if it would be possible to
get some explanation as to the action
taken by the conference in deleting
language from that passed by the
House on the demonstration projects
in title II under the highway safety
title?
It is my understanding that the ac-
tion of the conference in deleting this
separate program does not jeopardize
those ongoing demonstration projects
in alcohol and the others but, rather,
puts or adds provisions separate to
the action-type programs into the gen-
eral title of safety authorization con-
tained in the House bill. Am I correct
in that analysis?
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman is ex-
actly correct in his interpretation. It
does not do any violence to those ongo-
-------
1976
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ing projects but, rather, funds them
as regular parts of our highway activ-
ities. As I pointed out earlier, two-
thirds of the safety program will now
come directly from the trust fund.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. May I
inquire as to what happened to the
provision that was contained in the
House-passed bill that would have
said that not more than one demon-
stration project could be carried on in
any one State? Is that language,
therefore, not in the report?
Mr. WRIGHT. Inasmuch as there is
no language relating directly to spe-
cific demonstration projects anywhere
in the bill at this point, of course that
limiting language was left out.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. And,
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from
Texas will yield one more time—and I
am most grateful for his being willing
to yield, the provision found under
"Public Hearings" in the conference
report, for which there was no compa-
rable provision in the House
Mr. WRIGHT. Would the gentle-
man identify for me the page in the
conference report to which reference
is made?
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin, Page
56.
As I understand what was done,
due to the fact that there was no com-
parable House provision, you have
then taken what seems to be a more
lengthy procedure and in more detail
and end up with a sentence—and I am
asking this question to try and get
some understanding as to what is
meant—requiring that the certifica-
tion of the hearings be accompanied
by a report indicating the considera-
tion given to the economic, social, en-
vironmental, and other impacts of the
plan, highway location, and the design
and the various alternatives raised at
the hearings or otherwise considered
by the certifying officer.
Mr. WRIGHT. As the gentleman
will recall, there was some question
about this on the floor of the House
during our consideration of this bill,
in which some Members expressed
concern that some of the social and
environmental questions involved
would not be given adequate consider-
ation, even though public hearings
were held. As the gentleman is aware,
the existing law requires the holding
of hearings and requires that those
hearings should take into account cer-
tain factors including those named
here. If I understand correctly the
concern that has been expressed by
some Members on both sides of the
aisle, they fear that public hearings
might be held and yet nobody might
not come forward with valid data con-
cerning these particular considera-
tions.
It was the effort of the conferees to
embody in the law a requirement that
upon completion of the hearings they
be accompanied by a report certifying
that these matters had been taken into
account.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate very much the
explanation given by the gentleman
from Texas on that. I might say that
I think that this one provision at least
is certainly a step in the right direc-
tion, and I would hope would be han-
dled appropriately by the State agen-
cies and by the Federal Department
of Transportation in an effort to give
consideration to these other factors.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man from South Carolina (Mr.
DORN), a member of the committee—
and a member who, incidentally, made
significant contributions to the high-
way bill, including in particular the
provision to help eliminate dangerous
railroad crossings.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, I appre-
ciate the kind remarks of my distin-
guished and able friend from Texas
(Mr. WRIGHT). I want to join with the
distinguished gentleman from Texas
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1977
in commending the conferees from the
House and Senate. They labored tire-
lessly and have done a superb job in
commending our staff. I believe they
did a fine job, which is a continuation
of the fine work that they have done
here on our side of the Capitol. The
staff of the Public Works Committee
of the Senate are also to be com-
mended for their splendid service.
This is a very significant bill, and a
great piece of legislation which will
go down in history, a bill that is a
tribute to this conference, and to both
great committees.
Mr. Speaker, this is landmark legis-
lation. It would provide for the com-
pletion of the Interstate Highway
System, which is the greatest project
of its type in world history. It is my
high honor to serve on the Roads Sub-
committee of the House Public Works
Committee, for it was this subcommit-
tee and this full committee which
originated this legislation. And again
I would like to pay tribute to the pro-
gressive leadership of the subcommit-
tee's chairman, the honorable JOHN C.
KLUCZYNSKI, the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mary-
land (Mr. FALLON), and the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT).
Mr. Speaker, this bill in its entirety
is a highway safety bill. Merely by
completing the Interstate System we
will be saving lives by providing for
safer roads. The fatality rate on com-
pleted interstate highways expressed
in terms of deaths per hundred mil-
lion vehicle-miles traveled on the sys-
tem, is less than half the rate on other
heavily traveled highways. It is esti-
mated that for every 5 miles of inter-
state highway opened to traffic an av-
erage of one fatality will be avoided
each year. The completion of the en-
tire 42,500-mile system will lead to an
annual reduction of about 8,000 fatali-
ties year after year. So it is, Mr.
Speaker, that this bill merits our sup-
port as a safety bill, aside from its
many economic advantages.
Mr. Speaker, one highway safety
aspect of this legislation which partic-
ularly
[p. 42516]
pleases me is the section on rail cross-
ings. Our House legislation provided,
and the Senate accepted, a section
which would authorize a demonstra-
tion project for the elimination or
protection of certain public ground-
level rail-highway crossings in the
East from Washington to Boston and
also in my hometown of Greenwood,
S.C.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly and
especially proud that my hometown of
Greenwood has been authorized as a
demonstration project. The Greenwood
demonstration project will be a model
for the Nation. This will be a tribute
to the citizens of my hometown of
Greenwood, the railroads, the Federal
Highway Administration, and the
Federal Railroad Administration. The
local track-removal committee had
made careful studies and had taken
the initiative in making this necessary
safety project a reality. Accordingly,
our Public Works Committee was able
to turn to Greenwood as a demonstra-
tion project for the entire Nation.
Greenwood thus will afford a unique
opportunity to demonstrate in a single
project, whether or not an approach
to the rail-crossing problem will bring
about substantial improvement in both
traffic flow and safety.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois, chair-
man of the Public Building Subcom-
mittee.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank
my distinguished friend for yielding. I
just want to join my colleagues in ex-
tending commendations to the confer-
ees on this very important piece of
legislation, and to say to the commit-
tee that the National Safety Council
526-704 O - 74 - 15
-------
1978
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
just recently estimated that when the
Interstate System has been completed
it will save an estimated 8,000 lives
per year. I think this points up graph-
ically just how important this legisla-
tion is safetywise, and for the econ-
omy of our country.
Again I certainly want to commend
our conferees for doing a very great
job.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for his kind
words. I recall very well that in 1956,
during our consideration of the Inter-
state Highway Act, the gentleman
from Illinois made an eloquent appeal
for this system, based upon the saving
of human lives. I think it might be
worth noting that the number of high-
way fatalities measured per million
passenger miles on those completed
sections of the Interstate System
measure only approximately one-half
the rate of fatalities that are recorded
on the other road and street networks
of America.
From that I think it can be well
concluded that this program, a prod-
uct of this Congress, has certainly
saved human lives.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
strong support of the conference re-
port on H.R. 19504.
This is one of the most significant
pieces of highway legislation in many
years.
Among other things it authorizes an
extension of the Interstate System
construction through 1976 and author-
izes the ABC highway program and
other related programs for fiscal
years 1972 and 1973. It establishes an
urban system for metropolitan areas,
the first major system addition since
the creation of the Interstate System.
It provides for exclusive bus lane con-
struction to facilitate urban transit
systems by more effectively using the
Nation's highways. It funds the high-
way beautification program for a 3-
year period and creates a Commission
to report back firm recommendations
within 1 year on some of the thorny
problems involved in the beautification
program. In addition, it funds high-
way safety activities two-thirds from
the trust fund and one-third from the
general fund. It provides for a change
in the formula of allocation of funds
to States from the basic 50-50 for-
mula to 70-30, as of July 1, 1973. This
will be the cornerstone for a future
new Federal highway program.
These are some of the basic fea-
tures of this legislation. I am pleased
with the fact that the bill also author-
izes the funding out of the highway
trust fund of some $65 million for the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway in
the State of Maryland to bring that
portion of parkway to the geometric
and construction standards of the In-
terstate System. There is an urgent
need to bring the parkway to these
standards. The flow of traffic that
moves over it daily is probably among
the greatest in the entire Washington
Metropolitan area. The upgrading of
this portion of the parkway will bring
it up to the safety standards that we
established for such heavily traveled
roads. I anticipate that eventually the
balance of the parkway will at some
future date be developed to interstate
standards. I am certain that that day
will arrive.
I am also pleased to note that legis-
lation that I introduced to eliminate
railway grade crossings along the
route of the Metro system between
Washington-Boston is in the confer-
ence report and is funded properly so
that the work can be implemented as
expeditiously as possible. I have been
concerned with highway safety for
many years, not only on the problem
of elimination of grade crossing but
the overall problem of cutting down
the deaths and accidents on our high-
way system. The approach we take to
safety in this legislation is a major
step in the direction of solving this
problem. The highway safety program
for the first time is funded on a two-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1979
third basis from the trust fund and
one-third from the general fund. With
this funding and the cooperation be-
tween the various State agencies con-
cerned with safety and the responsible
Federal officials in Washington, I
would expect that we will finally get
moving to resolve the problem.
May I close by commending all my
fellow conferees for their diligence
and hard work on this report. I also
would like to thank the staff and in
particular an outstanding staff mem-
ber, the engineer consultant, Mr.
Lloyd Rivard.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker,
as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Roads of the Committee on Public
Works and as one of the conferees on
the conference report the House is
now considering, may I say that I
wholeheartedly recommend its adop-
tion to this body.
This conference report culminates
almost a full year's work by the
Roads Subcommittee on what I con-
sider to be the most important single
piece of highway legislation since the
passage of the 1956 act. This legisla-
tion extends the construction of the
Interstate System, it funds the pro-
gram ; it establishes an urban system;
it beefs up the highway safety pro-
gram.
It creates a commission to finally
resolve the thorny question of high-
way beautification. Let me comment
briefly on the Commission. There are
11 members on it, eight from the Con-
gress, three to be named by the Presi-
dent. This Commission if properly
funded will, we believe, give the Con-
gress the recommendations we need to
finally come up with a meaningful bill
in the field of beautification.
The conference report embodies the
best features of the House and Senate
bill.
I urge its adoption. May I close by
thanking my fellow conferees for
their fine work on this bill. May I
commend the staff for its work and, in
particular, its engineer, Lloyd A. Ri-
vard, the engineer consultant of the
Committee on Public Works.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the confer-
ence report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi-
dently a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant-at-Arms will notify ab-
sent Members, and the Clerk will call
the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 319, nays 11, not voting
103, ;10 ;10 ;10.
[p. 42517]
So the conference report was agreed
to.
[p. 42518]
1.8c(4)(d) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report, pp. 42714-
42723
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF
1970—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of
-------
1980
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 19504) to
authorize appropriations for the con-
struction of certain highways in ac-
cordance with title 23 of the United
States Code, and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the report.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. Is there objection to the
present consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of Dec. 17, 1970, pp.
42257-42266, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
Mr RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
may we have order, please?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The Senate will be in order.
If Senators want to continue their
conversations, they will please go in
the cloakrooms or elsewhere. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
hope the time is not running against
me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The time is not running
against the Senator and will not until
the Chair gets order.
The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized, and the time has now
begun to run.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
the conference committee on the Fed-
eral-Aid Highway Act of 1970, which
completed its work Thursday, met on
9 days in an effort to resolve the dif-
ferences in the bills passed by the
Senate and House. The report was ap-
proved in the House yesterday by a
vote of 39 to 11. While several similar
provisions appeared in both versions,
there were many other sections re-
flecting deep differences of viewpoint
and philosophy.
The conference was marked by hard
bargaining complemented by a spirit
of cooperation and the desire to pro-
duce legislation that would further
the proper development of our na-
tional highway program.
I believe we achieved the goals we
sought with equitable resolutions.
At this point I wish to pay tribute
to Representative GEORGE H. FALLON,
chairman of the House Public Works
Committee, who served as chairman of
the conference. Representative FAL-
LON, who retires at the end of this
session, along with our distinguished
colleague, Senator ALBERT GORE of
Tennessee, was instrumental in bring-
ing into being the accelerated inter-
state highway construction program,
which we extend in this act.
I wish the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. GORE) might be on the floor at
this time, because I shall briefly, but
very earnestly, express my tribute to
ALBERT GORE, who leaves the Senate
at the end of this term. It was under
his leadership that we were instru-
mental in bringing to passage the In-
terstate Highway construction pro-
gram.
Mr. FALLON exhibited great pati-
ence and leadership in achieving the
compromises which resulted in the bill
we are considering today.
Principal among the differences
which existed when the conference
began were questions of using reven-
ues from the highway trust fund for
other than construction purposes and
those problems concerned with the
building of interstate highways in the
District of Columbia.
The bill as reported by the confer-
ees provides for the continuation of
the Federal highway program on an
orderly basis. Authorizations for the
Interstate System are extended for 2
years, through fiscal year 1976, as
provided in the Senate bill. The con-
ferees recognized that this extensive
program will not be completed by 1976
and that additional authorization will
be required. The House bill called for
completion of the system by 1978, and
contained the authorization to do so.
In agreeing to the Senate approach,
tt.e conferees acknowledged that fur-
ther review of the program will occur
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1981
in 1972 and consideration will have to
be given to extending the interstate
program. At that time we will have
the benefit of a new cost estimate on
which to base our revised judgment as
to the final completion date.
As the Senator from Kentucky will
recall, when that program was envis-
aged at the outset, even those who
were expert in this field thought that
the total Federal cost of the National
System of Interstate and Defense
Highways, would run to approxi-
mately $27 billion. The current re-
vised figure for that system antici-
pates a cost of approximately $70 bil-
lion. Substantial increase in the costs
of rights-of-way, wages, and materials
all have made this larger estimate,
and even it will perhaps have to be
raised to the figure we must face in
the future.
[p. 42714]
Authorizations for the Interstate
System are maintained at the existing
level of $4 billion a year. Other trust
fund expenditures totaling1 §1.896 bil-
lion for 1972 and $1.914 billion for
1973 are authorized. General fund au-
thorizations total $413 million for
1972 and $422.5 million for 1973.
Programs for the primary and sec-
ondary systems and their urban ex-
tensions are authorized at a level of
$1.1 billion for each of the 1972 and
1973 fiscal years. The special pri-
mary-secondary program adopted in
1968 is authorized at $125 million for
each of these 2 years. The traffic op-
erations program to increase capacity
and safety—TOPICS—is authorized
at $100 million annually for the 2
years.
Also of great concern to the confer-
ees is the problem now being faced by
States which are nearing completion
of their portions of the Interstate
System. To assure that these States
can maintain an ongoing highway
program in the face of possible re-
duced interstate allocations, the con-
ference bill provides that each State
will receive a minimum of one half of
1 percent of the total National Inter-
state authorization. Also adopted was
the Senate provision directing the
Secretary of Transportation to study
this problem and make recommenda-
tion to the Congress by January 1972,
on how it might best be resolved. I
emphasize the importance of careful
development of this report and its
prompt presentation to the Congress.
Among the major innovations of the
1970 legislation is the creation of an
Urban Highway System. This was
proposed in both the Senate and
House bills, and is the first new sys-
tem created since the Interstate Sys-
tem was authorized in 1944. The final
form contains only variations in tech-
nical language.
Establishment of the Urban System
is an important step in responding to
the traffic movement requirements of
our metropolitan areas, where large
numbers of American people live and
travel. Implementation of this system
will involve local public officials in the
planning and execution of arterial
highways within their area.
Recognizing the need for increased
Federal participation in our Federal-
State road program, the Senate con-
ferees accepted House language pro-
viding for a 70 percent Federal share
of the cost of highway construction
starting in 1974.
The Senate approach to equal em-
ployment opportunity training pro-
grams was adopted and authorizations
of up to $5 million for each of 1972-73
were approved to implement this im-
portant work.
To improve the utilization of high-
ways as a mass mover of people, the
conferees agreed to the House provi-
sion authorizing construction of exclu-
sive or preferential bus lanes, high-
way traffic control devices, and bus
passenger loading areas and facilities.
This action was taken in conjunction
-------
1982
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
with approval of a provision from the
Senate bill establishing the construc-
tion of fringe and corridor parking as
a permanent part of the highway pro-
gram. Such action, the conferees be-
lieve, will improve the efficiency of
highways as a means of transporta-
tion.
A highway program for the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa
is authorized at a level of $2 million
each for the Virgin Islands and Guam
and $500,000 for American Samoa for
each of the 3 years beginning with
fiscal year 1971.
A program of training and research
fellowships to upgrade the skills of
Federal and State highway depart-
ments personnel, as included in the
House bill, was adopted by the confer-
ees.
The Secretary of Transportation is
directed to report to the Congress by
January 1972, and make recommenda-
tions on the future direction of the
Federal highway program in the pe-
riod 1976 to 1990.
Proposals concerning highway beau-
tification proved to raise some of the
most difficult and controversial ques-
tions faced by the conference. The
final action on beautification reflects
the only basis upon which agreement
could be reached.
Appropriations for the beautifica-
tion program are authorized from the
general fund for a 3-year period
rather than from the trust fund. It
was agreed that a Highway Beautifi-
cation Commission would be estab-
lished consisting of four members
from each of the Senate and the
House and three public members to be
appointed by the President. The Com-
mission is directed to study the high-
way beautification program and make
recommendations as to how it might
be more effectively implemented and
to recommend legislative changes to
carry out an effective program.
The conferees stress that creation
of the Commission should in no way
delay the implementation of the exist-
ing beautification program. This de-
sire is underlined by the 3-year au-
thorization contained in the bill.
Senate language to facilitate the
demonstration of billboard removal by
acquiring all of the nonconforming
signs on a company-by-company basis
was not adopted because the conferees
felt existing law already adequately
provides for such programs. We hope
that the Department of Transporta-
tion will utilize the money provided in
the 1971 Appropriation Act to test the
validity of this approach.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield at that point?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, I yield to
the knowledgeable Senator from Utah,
who has given particular attention to
this problem with his own legislation,
S. 1442, which has been before our
Subcommittee on Roads and enacted
by the Senate.
Mr. MOSS. I appreciate the chair-
man's yielding to me.
I, of course, have served under his
chairmanship for a number of years
on the Public Works Committee.
While I was serving there, I had to do
particularly with the matter under
discussion, the matter of billboard re-
moval.
It will be recalled that Congress
adopted in 1965 the Highway Beauti-
fication Act, Public Law 89-285, which
had in it the requirement that signs
and billboards adjacent to the inter-
state and primary highways be re-
moved by July 1, 1970. But since that
time, there has been great difficulty in
getting this accomplished.
In 1969, I introduced a bill (S.
1442) which was heard in the Public
Works Committee and passed by the
Senate, to provide for pilot control
programs. That bill, having passed
the Senate, was sent to the House of
Representatives. The House, in consid-
ering the bill, determined that it could
deal with this matter of signs in the
omnibus highway bill. The House re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1983
port on the conference now under con-
sideration says, as shown in the REC-
ORD of December 17:
The specific demonstration project author-
ized in the Senate amendment has been de-
leted since existing law, in the opinion of the
conferees, already authorizes this type of dem-
onstration project.
I am told that it is the opinion of
the Department of Transportation,
and I want to ask the chairman if it is
the opinion of the Senate conferees as
well as the House conferees, that, in-
deed, under the authority now in exis-
tence, the type of demonstration pro-
jects envisioned by that bill (S. 1442)
can indeed be carried out.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes; we felt so,
because we are cognizant of the prob-
lems of small business. We are cogni-
zant, of course, of the need to make
our highways as scenic as possible,
and these programs can, and I think
will, move forward. There is no lack
of appreciation on the part of the con-
ferees for the approach of the Senator
from Utah, and what he has said is
correct.
Mr. MOSS. The Senator has the
feeling that the Department now has
the authority, and can proceed under
existing law in the manner that would
have been provided had S. 1442 been
passed by the House of Representa-
tives as well as the Senate?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I reassure my
colleague that we think that would be
true, and we will watch what is done.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask un-
animous consent that an excerpt from
the report (No. 91-520) filed by the
chairman of the committee on S. 1442
be printed in the RECORD at this point.
It is not very lengthy.
There being no objection, the ex-
cerpt from the committee report was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SUMMARY OP THE BILL, AS AMENDED
S. 1442, as amended, would authorize the
Secretary of Transportation to enter into
agreements with one or more States for the
purpose of carrying out pilot programs to
determine the best means of accomplishing the
purposes of the control of outdoor advertising
provisions of section 131 of title 23, United
States Code.
As amended by the committee, the bill pro-
vides that preference would be given to any
State which has entered into agreements with
the Secretary and private individuals or busi-
nesses designed to carry out outdoor advertis-
ing control as provided for under present law.
The bill would authorize the appropriation
of $15 million to fund such pilot programs.
The Secretary would be directed to report to
the Congress the results of pilot programs
carried out under this legislation, together
with such recommendations as he deems nec-
essary to improve the implementa-
[p. 42715]
tion of the national policy of outdoor adver-
tising control.
BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING CONTROL PROGRAM
The enactment of Public Law 89-285, the
Highway Beautification Act of 1965, estab-
lished as a national policy that the erection
and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs,
displays, and devices in areas adjacent to the
Interstate and Primary Systems should be
controlled.
In carrying out that policy, the law stated
that after January 1, 1968, if a State was not
effectively controlling the erection and mainte-
nance of outdoor advertising signs, the Secre-
tary could withhold up to 10 percent of Feder-
al-aid funds from the State. Effective control
was denned to mean that after January 1,
1968, signs within 660 feet of the right-of-way
would be restricted to three categories: (1)
Directional and other official signs conforming
to national standards promulgated by the Sec-
retary; (2) signs advertising the sale or lease
of the property on which located; and (3)
on-premise signs.
The legitimate needs of business were recog-
nized by providing that advertising signs, dis-
plays, and devices along the interstate and
primary systems would be allowed in zoned
and unzoned industrial and commercial areas
subject to size, lighting, and spacing control,
such control to be consistent with customary
use of such signs in such i. reas in the particu-
lar spaces involved. Control of signs in zoned
and unzoned industrial and commercial areas
was to be determined by an agreement be-
tween the Secretary and the State.
Signs lawfully in existence as of September
1, 1965, which did not conform to require-
ments of the act, would not be required to be
removed until July 1, 1970.
Specific travelers' service information signs
within the right-of-way were authorized.
-------
1984
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
Just compensation was required for the tak-
ing of any sign and for the taking from the
owner of the real property on which the sign
is located the right to erect and maintain such
signs. The Federal share of such compensation
was set at 75 percent.
All public lands and reservations of the
United States were made subject to effective
control. States were permitted to establish
controls which would be more restrictive than
Federal requirements.
The act also required that, prior to the
promulgating of standards, criteria, rules and
regulations necessary to carry out the out-
door advertising provisions, the Secretary was
to hold public hearings in each State for the
purpose of gathering relevant information on
which to base such standards, criteria, rules,
and regulations. A report to the Congress by
January 10, 1967, on all the standards, cri-
teria, rules, and regulations to be applied
together with an estimate of the cost of car-
rying out the program was also requested.
The requested report was filed with the
Congress and published as Senate Document
No. 6, 90th Congress, first session. That re-
port estimated that the cost of removing non-
conforming outdoor advertising devices, some
889,000 signs, at $558,660,000.
As enacted, the Highway Beautification Act
of 1965 authorized the appropriation of not to
exceed $20 million for each of the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1966, and June 30, 1967.
During 1967, the Committee on Public Works
considered and the Senate adopted S. 1467
which would have authorized $5 million to
carry out the advertising control program for
fiscal year 1968. The House did not act on the
measure.
The Senate version of the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968 authorized $5 million for
each of the fiscal years 1970 and 1971. As
enacted by the Congress, Public Law 90-495
provided an authorization of $2 million for
fiscal year 1970. In addition that act delayed
the required removal of signs, displays and
devices if Federal funds to pay the Federal
share of the just compensation were not avail-
able.
Of the $42 million authorized for the pro-
gram, less than $3 million have been appro-
priated and only $1.9 million expended. Most
of the funds were expended on the sign inven-
tory conducted prior to the cost estimate filed
with the Congress in January, 1967. To date,
no nonconforming signs have been removed as
a result of the Highway Beautification Act of
1965.
Following the enactment of the 1965 act
through July 1, 1969, 33 States enacted legis-
lation relating to outdoor advertising control:
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Con-
necticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky.
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mis-
sissippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina.
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wyoming, District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico.
During the same period, 19 States, the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and Puerto Rico entered
into agreements with the Secretary to effec-
tuate control of outdoor advertising as pro-
vided for in the act.
On June 18 and 19, 1969, the Subcommittee
on Roads conducted hearings on the highway
beautification program. The committee had be-
fore it two bills: S. 561, a bill to amend
section 131 of title 23 of the United States
Code; and S. 1442, a bill to amend section 131
of title 23 of the United States Code, relating
to control of outdoor advertising along Feder-
al-aid highways, in order to authorize one or
more pilot programs for the purpose of such
section.
Testimony was received from 11 witnesses,
and statements on behalf of three organiza-
tions were submitted for inclusion in the
record of the hearings.
Testimony at the hearings indicated quite
clearly that small and medium-sized firms en-
gaged in outdoor advertising were being se-
verely harmed by the failure of Congress to
properly fund the program and require its
active implementation.
NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
While dissatisfaction with the outdoor ad-
vertising program enacted in 1965 has been
expressed by many people concerned with the
program, such as conservationists, sign com-
pany operators, advertisers, citizens generally,
and Members of the Congress, the law has
been in effect since October 22, 1965, and
action has been in effect since October 22,
1965, and action has been taken by States and
private parties in light of the requirements of
the law. The effect of the legislation to date
has been to introduce great uncertainty into
the operations of small- and medium-sized
sign companies doing business in predomi-
nantly rural areas and to increase rather than
reduce sign clutter along the Nation's high-
ways. This latter effect is the result of the
inability of many small- and medium-sized
operators to properly maintain their signs.
Testimony presented to the Subcommittee
on Roads by Senator Frank E. Moss of Utah,
the author of S. 1442, shows that of some 22
sign companies operating in his State 17 face
bankruptcy within the next year "if the pres-
ent Federal and State laws are enforced with-
out providing needed financing for the beauti-
fication program."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1985
Under the present situation, the law prohib-
its the erection of signs along the Interstate
and Primary Systems outside of zoned and
unzoned industrialized and commercial areas.
It requires the eventual removal of existing
nonconforming signs; that is, signs located in
rural areas outside of the excepted zones, even
though lawfully erected at the time of the
enactment of the 1965 act. The sign compa-
nies involved have been unable to properly
finance their ongoing operations and have
been unable to liquidate the investment in
order to go into other commercial activities.
In effect, the current situation involves the
subsidization of a supposedly Federal program
by private businesses to which the law prom-
ised just compensation for loss and sign re-
moval to carry out the national policy set
forth in section 131 of title 23 of the United
States Code.
In view of the substantial amount of money
involved in sign removal, which the 1967 cost
survey estimated in excess of $500 million,
new methods and new means of carrying
forward the outdoor advertising control pro-
gram must be found. At the same time steps
must be taken to assist adversely affected sign
companies to leave a declining industry and
start again in some new endeavor.
It is the committee's understanding that the
Department of Transportation is currently re-
viewing the highway, beautification program
in order to make recommendations for new
approaches. In the meantime it is important
that the Congress authorize pilot programs
which can demonstrate other methods of se-
curing sign removal at costs less than those
estimated in the Department of Transporta-
tion's 1967 report. One such idea was pre-
sented to the committee in some detail during
its hearings, the plan referred to as the
"Utah plan," or the "Snarr plan," which
envisions the State acquiring by contract all
the nonconforming signs of a company at one
time and provides that the company will dis-
mantle and remove such signs in accordance
with a predetermined schedule. This approach
would replace the sign-by-sign method of re-
moval on which the 1967 cost estimate was
based. Evidence presented to the committee by
the Department of Highways of the State of
Utah and Brigham Young University indi-
cated that a savings of between one-half and
two-thirds of the cost as originally forecast
can be realized.
The plan which the Committee on Public
Works urges the Department of Transporta-
tion to fund, in addition to others which may
be devised, require that—
(1) The State appraise all the nonconform-
ing signs of a single company within its
boundaries in accordance with already estab-
lished and approved appraisal procedures and
techniques;
(2) A contract be entered into between the
Slate and the sign company for the purchase
of all the company's nonconforming signs
within the State;
f 3) Such contract contain an agreed-upon
price for all such signs and contain a schedule
-etting forth the date upon which each sign is
to be removed (for the State of Utah it is
estimated that the 10,000 nonconfoiming signs
presently located along the Interstate and Pn-
m ary System could bo removed at the rate of
2,000 per year).
This program would enable sign companies
to phase out their operations while using
existing employees and plant equipment to do
the job. It would insure that nonconfoiming
Mgns would be lemoved by their owners
rather than abandoned when the companies
cease to be able to function as profitable
concerns. Such abandonments would of course
add to the burden of the State in implement-
ing the program.
Adoption of S. 1442 and the implementation
and execution of pilot projects designed to
•t-est variou-, methods of implementing the out-
door advertising control program would not
conflict with that program as enacted
[p. 42716]
in 1965 or as amended in the interim. It
should provide valuable information to the
Department of Transportation and the Con-
gress in considering legislation to improve the
program. It would enable outdoor advertising
companies which have been damaged by the
progiam to phase out their operations pend-
ing a final determination by the Congress as
to tha future of the highway beautification
program. Such pilot programs will enable
those States which art' desirous of actively
pursuing outdoor advertising control programs
to develop more effective methods of achieving
their goals.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Both the Senate
and House conferees agreed that steps
must be taken to determine which sec-
tions of the Interstate System will or
will not be constructed. A number of
segments of the system are currently
embroiled in controversy so that their
ultimate fate is unknown and plan-
ning for completion of the system is
hampered.
In addressing itself to this problem,
the bill requires that States establish
expenditure schedules by 1973 on all
interstate segments they intend to
construct. Plans, specifications and es-
timates for all of these segments must
-------
1986
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
be filed by 1975. Failure to meet either
of these deadlines will result in af-
fected interstate segments being elimi-
nated from the system. Only by such
procedures can the highway decision-
making process be brought to a head
and final determinations made on the
Interstate System.
The experience gained under the
highway program of the Appalachian
regional development program and
title V of the Public Works and Eco-
nomic Development Act of 1965 was
utilized in writing the section dealing
with economic growth center high-
ways. This section permits the Secre-
tary of Transportation to designate
communities as economic growth cen-
ters and to provide additional Federal
participation in the construction of
primary highways serving them. The
Secretary could provide an additional
20 percent of the construction cost,
but Federal participation would be
limited to a maximum of 95 percent of
the total expenditure.
The most controversial sections of
the two bills were those relating to the
construction of interstate highways in
the District of Columbia. Senate and
House provisions were different, and
arriving at a conference agreement
occupied considerable time and discus-
sion.
Behind the original positions of
both Houses were strongly held con-
victions : the Senate—that the District
of Columbia should be treated as a
State, as the highway law provides, in
determining the construction of high-
ways; the House—that nonconstruc-
tion in the District of Columbia has
seriously delayed completion of the In-
terstate System.
The conference decision, I believe,
was the only one we could reach to
avoid an impasse that would have im-
periled the national highway program.
It is a reasonable compromise in that
there is no mandating of freeway con-
struction in the city. The studies
which the bill directs in an effort to
determine the best way to resolve this
very difficult program could be carried
on without specific authorization.
The coordination of our total na-
tional transportation system will be
furthered by the bill's provision that
priority consideration be given to
roads providing access to airports and
water ports.
The problem associated with up-
grading several toll roads on the In-
terstate System was addressed by the
conference in agreeing to a provision
permitting the use of Federal funds to
reconstruct two-lane toll roads that
have been designated part of the In-
terstate System even though the
States have not yet acquired owner-
ship of the roads. Restrictions pro-
hibit the toll authorities from incur-
ring additional debt and require that
these roads be made free when exist-
ing indebtedness is retired.
One of the most important sections
of the report improves the machinery
to make the highway program more
responsive to public needs and wishes.
The Senate considered improvements
in the public hearing process to be a
central feature of this year's highway
legislation, and I am glad to report
that our approach generally was
adopted by the conference.
Public hearings are now required on
both the location and design of new
Federal-aid highways. The conferees
agreed on provisions requiring that
reports to the Secretary of Transpor-
tation on the consideration given to
economic, social, and environmental
aspects of highway construction
raised at the public hearings be filed
following all public hearings.
This, I believe, will lead to a more
effective critical analysis and consid-
eration of proposals raised at hear-
ings. It should do much to answer per-
sistent public criticism that little or
no attention is given to questions
raised at hearings. Through this sec-
tion we can be sure that in the hear-
ing process, the appearance of fair-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1987
ness is buttressed by the reality of
fairness.
Provisions to improve consideration
of economic, social, environmental and
other impacts in highway design and
construction were expanded by the
conferees to implement our belief that
highways should enhance communities
rather than degrade them. Proper de-
sign and engineering practices can, in
many instances, avoid, overcome or
minimize adverse impacts on people
and their surrounding1 environs.
In direct response to an extremely
troublesome problem, the report calls
for the issuance of guidelines to con-
trol soil erosion in connection with
highway construction projects. This
action expands provisions of the 1956
Highway Act which required consulta-
tion between the Departments of
Transportation and Agriculture on
developing such guidelines. Far too
many highway projects result in un-
controlled water runoff that spreads
silt over large areas and clogs
streams, damage that can be pre-
vented through the employment of
sound conservation practices.
The report directs the Secretary to
promulgate guidelines to assure that
all possible adverse economic, social,
and environmental aspects of road-
building be fully considered and that
plans, specifications, and estimates in-
clude the best engineering methods of
avoiding them. This section when
fully implemented will establish the
proper responsibility of highway
builders in protecting our environ-
ment and people. It also requires that
noise level standards be established
and highways be constructed in con-
formity with them.
In addition, the conference report
assures the implementation of the am-
bient air standards of the Clean Air
Act.
Continuing our desire to develop an
integrated transportation system, the
report calls for the designation of
critical transportation regions. This
provision was sponsored by the Sena-
tor from Kentucky, JOHN SHERMAN
COOPER.
The Baltimore-Washington Park-
way carries a heavy load of traffic, far
beyond that which it was originally
designed to accommodate. It is in ur-
gent need of improvement. The report
authorizes the expenditure of $65 mil-
lion to reconstruct the Federal park-
way portion of this important high-
way link in Maryland after which the
road will be turned over to the State
for incorporation in its highway sys-
tem.
Highway safety continues to be an
important part of our overall effort
and the conferees agreed to the
changes in the Highway Safety Act
proposed by the House with modifica-
tion. The safety program was given
increased financial strength by author-
izing two-thirds of its cost to be taken
from the Highway Trust Fund and
one-third remaining a general fund
expenditure. This breakdown reflects
the proportion of use of Federal-aid
and non-Federal-aid highways.
The Nation has become acutely
aware in recent years of the need to
replace a iiumber of highway bridges
that are no longer capable of carrying
the traffic loads placed on them with
safety and efficiency. The conferees
agreed to a comprehensive bridge re-
placement program, authorizing $100
million for the 1972 fiscal year and
$150 million for the 1973 fiscal year.
Bridges would be scheduled for re-
placement on the basis of priority es-
tablished by the Secretary of Trans-
portation, with Federal participation
of up to 75 percent of the cost.
A serious safety problem was recog-
nized by the conference in adopting
House provisions setting up a demon-
stration program on the elimination
of highway-railroad grade crossings.
Finally, the conference report ex-
tends the highway trust fund for an
additional 5 years as recommended by
the House Ways and Means Commit-
-------
1988
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tee and agreed to by the Senate Fi-
nance Committee.
Mr. President, the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1970, is comprehen-
sive and far-reaching legislation. In
fiscal terms, it is substantial, provid-
ing additional authorizations from the
trust fund of $9.775 billion for the
Interstate System and more than $3.8
billion for other purposes, and
million from the general fund. I ask
unanimous consent that tables show-
ing the authorization categories be
printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[p. 42717]
AUTHORIZATIONS H.R. 19504
[Interstate System- $9,775,000,000,000 for fiscal years 1974,1975, and 1976, out of the Highway Trust Fund]
Category
Fiscal year 1972 Fiscal year 1973
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND AUTHORIZATIONS
Primary and secondary systems and their buran extensions
Primary and secondary systems exclusive of their urban extensions..
Federal-aid urban system
Traffic operations projects m urban areas
Forest highways
Public lands highways
One-half of 1 percent of total apportionment
Economic growth highways
Baltimore-Washington Parkway
Highway safety
Highway safety research
Highway safety desigh...
Design research
Bridge replacement
Railroad grade crossings
$1,100,000,000 $1,100,000,000
125,000,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
33,000,000
16,000,000
55,000,000
50,000,000
'65,000,000
50,000,000
46,666,000
20,000,000
6,666,000
100,000,000
>9,000,000
Totals
Total (funds to be available until expended).
1,802,332,000
74,000,000
GENERAL FUND AUTHORIZATIONS
Totals.
412,666,000
Total (funds to be available until expended)
Total, General fund authorization for fiscal 1971.
22,500,000
36,000,000
125,000,000
100,000,000
100,000,000
33,000,000
16,000,000
55,000,000
50,000,000
66,666,000
71,666,000
20,000,000
6,666,000
100,150,000
1,844,148,000
Forest development roads and trails ..
Public lands development roads and trails
Park roads and trails ._
Parkways
Indian reservation roads and bridges
Highway beautification, administrative expenses
Landscaping and scenic enhancement (sec. 319(b))
Territorial highways _. _.
Outdoor advertising control
Junkyard control ...
Highway safety
Research
Design safety
Design research
$170,000,000
5,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
=1,500,000
1,500,000
'4,500,000
i 100,000,000
'20,500,000
E3, 000, 000
i 500 000
20,000,000
23,333,000
10,000,000
3,333,000
'22,000,000
$170,000,000
10,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
23,000,000
10,000,000
M, 500, 000
> 50,000,000
' 5,000,000
33,333,000
43,333,000
10,000,000
3,333,000
422,499,000
1 Funds to be available until expended.
* $1,500,000 also authorized for fiscal year 1971.
' $4,500,000 also authorized for fiscal year 1971.
' $27,000,000 also authorized for fiscal year 1971.
* $8,000,000 authorized for fiscal year 1971.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1989
Mr. RANDOLPH. In substantive
terms, the new Urban System, the fa-
cilitation of more responsive public
hearings and the emphasis on the need
for the highest caliber design and con-
struction techniques to protect our en-
vironment make this bill one which I
am proud to present for approval to
my colleagues. This legislation is in
keeping with the tradition established
by our predecessors and in many ways
should remind my distinguished col-
league from Tennessee (Mr. GORE),
to whom I have already paid tribute,
that the standards which he set in the
mid-1950's in his handling of the basic
interstate legislation ara being main-
tained.
Members of the Senate Public
Works Committee were faithful in
their attendance and diligent in their
participation at conference sessions.
The Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. JORDAN) brought to us his expe-
rience as a seasoned legislator and his
wisdom in producing reasoned legisla-
tion. The Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. MONTOYA) was particularly
forceful in presenting the case for
provisions relating to additions to the
Interstate System. The Senator from
Virginia (Mr. SPONG) was an effective
negotiator for resolution of differences
on the highway safety program.
Minority conferees from the Senate
contributed significantly and by their
attitudes and cooperation showed once
again that party affiliation has no
meaning in the Senate Committee on
Public Works. The distinguished Sen-
ator from Kentucky and ranking mi-
nority member (Mr. COOPER) focused
his concern and abilities especially :in
the highway beautification and Dis-
trict of Columbia problems. Reasoned
judgment and forceful advocacy was
displayed throughout the conference
by the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS). The ability of the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BAKEK) to ses
issues clearly and to delineate the
paths to resolution was invaluable.
His help in fashioning the provision to
demonstrate that highways are an im-
portant tool for economic development
was outstanding.
Mr. President, the Senate could not
have been represented in this confer-
ence by a more dedicated team.
We urge the acceptance by the Sen-
ate of this conference report.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I want
to pay special tribute to the chairman
of the Committee on Public Works. I
know that it is not an easy job to
reconcile the differences between the
two Houses. The fact that he has been
willing to do this in the manner con-
tained in the conference again exhib-
its the type of leadership he has given
to the entire committee.
I want to offer a particular note of
thanks to him for recognizing the plea
of some of our citizens in southern
Indiana that the Markland Dam con-
tinue to have the authorized funds for
a bridge over the Ohio River. I know
that without the Senator's help, this
would not have been possible; and this
is a very worthwhile cause.
Having been there, and being very
familiar with this, and knowing the
tremendous effort that has been de-
voted to it by the citizens who live in
that area, I want to offer a word of
thanks in their behalf to our distin-
guished committee chairman, in addi-
tion to the other fine work he has
done.
Mr, RANDOLPH. Mr. President,
often, in bills that are national in na-
ture, opportunities are given to con-
ferees to accept something that might
be provincial; but that provincialism
takes the post'ire of helping a situa-
tion at a certain locality in the United
States. That is what we did with re-
spect to the matter which has been
spoken of by the Senator from Indi-
-------
1990
LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
ana. We were glad to do it, and I am
grateful for his words.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, we
have before the Senate the final form
of a bill—the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1970—which I believe is gener-
ally approved by Congress and by the
people of the United States.
Some sections in the bill have
aroused controversy. I may say, how-
ever, that in our deliberations with
the House, the Senate conferees, led
by our able chairman, the distin-
guished Senator from West Virginia,
made a strong fight to improve some
of the sections—not only those from
the House which we did not like, but
also in some that came from our com-
mittee.
There are several sections in this
bill which are of new interest and I
think, great importance. Safety on the
highways is one of the tragic prob-
lems of our time. More than 50,000
Americans were killed last year on the
highways, and thousands more were
injured. For the first time, the House
agreed to the proposal, which the Sen-
ate made in 1968 and which the ad-
ministration recommended this year,
that the highway safety program for
the Nation, which is under the super-
vision of the Department of Transpor-
tation, shall be funded from the high-
way trust funds. Heretofore, such
moneys as could be secured came from
general appropriations. I believe that
with the provision in this bill to pro-
vide the two-thirds of the safety funds
from the highway trust fund, we now
can embark on an adequate safety
program. For that reason alone, I
think this bill is worthwhile.
I pay tribute to our chairman for
his insistence that a Federal-Aid
urban highway system be established.
That highway system will now be es-
tablished and funded, and we hope it
will help relieve the traffic problems
and better serve the needs in cities of
more than 50,000 population, as the
bill provides.
There is a provision in the bill, new
section 109 (h) of title 23, which pro-
vides that standards and guidelines
shall be established to govern each
project—standards which take into
consideration the economic, social, and
environmental problems. That, I be-
lieve, will assure that projects under-
taken in our great highway system
will not be initiated without
[p. 42718]
a thorough review of their effects.
This is a change in emphasis, and a
very worthwhile one.
I am very pleased that the bill re-
tains, as a new subsection (b) of sec-
tion 134 of title 23, the provision I
offered in the Senate enabling the Sec-
retary of Transportation to designate
critical transportation regions and
critical transportation corridors. He
may establish planning bodies, and
provide them assistance, to undertake
coordinated intermodal transportation
planning for these critical interstate
corridors between great urban cen-
ters. I note that section 134 now pro-
vides for similar planning embracing
various modes of transport, but is
presently limited to the urban areas
themselves. While the conference bill
leaves discretion with the Secretary of
Transportation, I consider it of the
greatest importance that such plan-
ning be undertaken and vigorously
pursued without delay. I hope very
much that the Secretary, who has au-
thority to designate critical transpor-
tation regions and to pursue coordi-
nated transportation planning under
this provision, will seize the opportu-
nity to implement this provision and
begin this work early next year.
Our committee, for the first time,
provided assurance of "marine high-
ways"—ferry boats—to the new
States, Alaska and Hawaii, and im-
proved roads for the Virgin Islands,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1991
Guam, and American Samoa. The peo-
ple of Alaska and Hawaii should
know of the interest of their Senators,
of their steady appeal to the commit-
tee, which has had results.
The question of the District of Col-
umbia highways arose again. I still
consider, as I have for years, that the
Congress should not attempt to lay
out a highway system in the District
of Columbia. On our side, we strove
diligently to bring some order to this
problem; to put full responsibility
back where it belongs, with the
officials and people of the District of
Columbia. We held out as long as we
could for the Senate provision, to re-
peal section 23 of the 1968 act. There
was no sign by the House of accepting
the Senate provision, and we have
ended our work. Perhaps the courts
will now look at the proposed district
of Columbia highway system. We can-
not do it legislatively with any suc-
cess.
I thank my chairman, the Senator
from West Virginia, and every mem-
ber of the committee. I see a number
of them in the Chamber. I also thank
our staff. It was a pleasure to work
with them on a bill with many im-
provements over the present program.
Mr. President, 2 years ago when the
Senate considered the Federal-aid
Highway Act of 1968, I stated that
the Senate-House conference had been
the most difficult in which I had ever
participated. The conference report
before us today, on the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1970, is the result of
a Senate-House conference which was
of equal if not greater difficulty, but
this has been a Congress of many ar-
duous conferences.
In 1968 I did not sign the confer-
ence report and voted against final
passage of that bill. I have signed the
conference report this year and I will
vote for final passage of the 1970
Highway Act despite some reserva-
tions about certain provisions of this
legislation. I support its enactment be-
cause the bill contains several very
important sections which were part of
the Senate bill. These sections have
not received the public attention
which the beautification and District
of Columbia highway provisions have,
but they will have highly significant
impact on the future direction and
conduct of the Federal-aid highway
program.
The Senate bill extended authoriza-
tion of appropriations for interstate
highway construction for 2 additional
years, beyond the existing authoriza-
tion through fiscal year 1974. The au-
thorization for fiscal year 1974 is
raised to $4 billion, an increase of
$1.75 billion over existing authoriza-
tions for fiscal year 1974. For fiscal
year 1975 and 1976 a total of $8 bil-
lion is added, bringing the total of
funds authorized in this bill for con-
struction of the Interstate System to
$9.75 billion. This is consistent with
the request of the administration for
funding this program, and I am grati-
fied that the conference agreed to
maintain the Senate's position.
In a related area, the conference
version contains a title III extending
the Revenue Act, which provides
funds for the highway trust fund, for
5 additional years beyond its present
expiration date of October 1, 1972.
This title was added to the House ver-
sion of the Highway Act and had not
been included in the Senate version. It
is included in the conference version
and was discussed by the Senate Fi-
nance Committee, in executive session
only on December 2 following House
passage and while the House bill lay
at the desk awaiting referral. But it
is my feeling that as the administra-
tion favors a 3-year extension of the
fund, as opposed to a 5 year extension
and since the Senate as a whole has
not considered legislation concerning
the extension, we are moving with in-
sufficient attention to the importance
r* this title. The Secretary of Trans-
portation has indicated that he will
-------
1992
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
present to the Congress early in the
92d Congress proposals to create
greater equity and flexibility in the
funding of various modes of transpor-
tation. The Secretary so testified in
June before the Senate Public Works
Committee. Therefore, I feel that our
action in this legislation, extending
the highway trust fund for 5 years,
may be premature.
This bill also contains provisions
for the establishment of a new urban-
aid highway system. The Senate pro-
visions were designed to achieve two
goals, and I believe that the language
settled on by the conferees will
achieve those purposes. First, it was
designed to assure that more funds be
provided to urbanized areas which
currently contain 70 percent of the
Nation's population. Formerly, urban
areas were eligible for 25 percent of
funds apportioned for primary and
secondary road construction, as well
as for other funds in special categor-
ies, such as TOPICS. But the defini-
tion of urban areas used in the appor-
tionment of those 25-percent funds
was for any area over 5,000 popula-
tion.
Our second purpose was to assure
that local officials, and citizens speak-
ing through their elected leaders,
would have a more secure position in
the planning and programing of high-
way and street projects within their
localities. I believe that the language
settled upon by the conferees will
achieve this goal and bring greater
local execution of the determination to
the highway program in urban areas
•—except for Washington, B.C.
The conference version of the Fed-
eral-Aid Highway Act of 1970 pro-
vides for the establishment of full-
fledged road programs in the territo-
ries of Guam, American Samoa, and
the Virgin Islands. The Senate had
provided that these programs be
funded with trust fund revenues; the
House contended that since the terri-
tories contributed nothing to the trust
fund in terms of Federal taxes, the
funding of their highway programs
from trust funds would be inequitable.
Therefore, the programs will be
funded from general revenues, with
the future probability that once they
are firmly established with appropri-
ate revenue raising mechanisms, trust
funds can be used. There is precedent
for this procedure in the experience
with Puerto Rico and its highway pro-
gram.
The Senate Committee on Public
Works has had a role of active leader-
ship in the area of equal employment
opportunity in connection with the
Federal-aid highway program. The
conference settlement contains, in sec-
tion 110, further assistance designed
to bring truly equal opportunity in
employment practices and manpower
development in the highway costruc-
tion field. The language provides au-
thority for the conduct of training
programs on a year-round basis. This
is highly important to the develop-
ment of fully trained individuals to
work in all areas of highway con-
struction without discrimination or
bias.
One of the most significant sections
of the bill before us is that which al-
lows for a fixed deadline for the elimi-
nation of segments of Interstate Sys-
tem. With the establishment of the In-
terstate System in 1956, the country
took an extraordinary step which
called for the construction of a highly
specialized highway system for the
purposes of National Defense and in-
terstate movement of goods and peo-
ple. Despite our high goals, and the
substantially successful construction
which is providing safe travel to mil-
lions of people, I don't believe that we
were in 1956 wholly aware of the con-
sequences of the construction of the
Interstate system, of its economic im-
pact, and its developmental impor-
tance. Unfortunately many people
may have attributed to the original
projected routings benefits beyond
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1993
their worth. Certain segments have
come into intense controversy because
of the impacts they would have upon
the immediate locality. In most cases,
rerouting of these segments to avoid
irreversible damage to the areas in-
volved would not impair the success of
the Interstate System as a whole.
Such was the case with the Vieux
Carre section of highway in New Or-
leans, which was removed as part of
the Interstate System by Secretary
Volpe earlier this year. Section 124 of
the legislation we are now considering
would establish two dates, by which
time sections in question could be re-
moved as
[p. 42719]
part of the Interstate System. The
first deadline, July 1, 1973, would be
the date by which all segments must
be scheduled for obligation and ex-
penditure of funds for construction
and completion. The second deadline
is July 1, 1975, after which time any
project for which plans, specifications,
and estimates have not been submitted
for approval of the Secretary would
be redesignated. I believe it appropri-
ate to point out here that a 1968 pro-
vision added to title 23 provides that
routes built to interstate standards by
the States under the regular Federal-
aid program can be added to the Inter-
state System. So segments eliminated
under the 1970 provisions could later
be redesignated as interstate routes if
they are ever built up to standard. It
is also important to note that enact-
ment of this section should help as-
sure that we can see the end of the
interstate construction programs, with
its accentuated 90 to 10 funding incen-
tives which have resulted in a good
extent in the neglect and deteriora-
tion of our other road systems.
Mr. President, another section of
the bill would establish economic de-
velopment highways to stimulate the
growth of small cities and growth cen-
ters in rural areas. We have learned
through the experience in Appalachia
what a difference adequate and safe
roadways can make to the economic
recovery effort. The program of sup-
plementary grants for a number of
demonstration projects in the con-
struction of growth center highways,
initiated in this bill, will yield greater
understanding of the interrelationship
between highways and economic devel-
opment, and we hope may further the
process of formulating priorities for
highway construction.
Undoubtedly, one of the most sig-
nificant sections of the Senate bill was
that requiring development by the
Secretary of Transportation of guide-
lines for construction of highways
which will take full account of the
social, environmental, and economic
consequences and impact of highway
construction. I am pleased that the
conference committee determined to
retain this section, for its value can-
not in my view be underestimated.
The chairman of the Committee on
Public Works, Senator RANDOLPH,
has dealt with this subject, so I will
not say more than this: These impacts
must be considered at the earliest
stages, when decisions as to whether,
where, and how to build are being
made. I hope very much that this sec-
tion will assure better development
and construction of highways in the
future.
Mr. President, there are a number
of sections in this bill which do not
please me in any way. I do not wish to
take much time in discussing them,
but I would not feel right about tell-
ing my colleagues about this bill un-
less they were mentioned. I have al-
ready mentioned the length of the
trust fund extension, which troubles
me in title III of the bill.
Another section, which also deals
with the funding of the Federal-aid
highway program, is the section which
provides that starting in fiscal year
1974 the matching share of Federal to
State funds for primary, secondary,
526-704 O - 74 - 16
-------
1994
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and urban highways will be increased
from 50 to 70 percent. It is true that
the 70 to 30 percent matching formula
has been discussd before the Commit-
tees on Public Works and across the
land—but in connection with the fol-
low-on program after completion of
the Interstate System. The goals at-
tached to such a change in matching
formula are quite clear, it seems to
me, and of merit. For example, the
exceedingly favorable Federal funding
for interstate mileage has proved a
great incentive to pursuing its con-
struction; in fact its 90 to 10 match-
ing has created a situation in which
that system has priority over all oth-
ers, often to the detriment and deteri-
oration of the primary and secondary
systems. The 70 to 30 matching has
been discussed as a uniform ratio to
be applicable to all systems, thereby
leaving the States in a freer economic
position to make judgments and set
priorities for the kinds of roads they
wish to build, according to the needs
of their States. With the same match-
ing, whether the needed road were ex-
pressway, limited access, secondary,
primary, urban arterial, rural or
•whatever, States would be in a better
position to weigh alternatives and put
resources to best use. The 70 to 30
formula has also been discussed in the
context of decentralization of Federal
control over the highway program.
But the proposal contained in this
legislation is different, because noth-
ing is done to reduce the Interstate
matching formula from 90 to 10 at the
same time as the 50 to 50 formula is
raised. This action is a promise—and
premature in my view—of the match-
ing formula for the follow-on pro-
gram, at a time when the outline and
shape of the follow-on program has
not yet been determined. We have not
yet decided what kind of highway pro-
gram will follow the construction of
the Interstate System; yet in this bill
we appear to establish the future
matching formula. This is, in my
opinion, unwise. What it means in
simplest terms, is that the Federal
moneys are going to be increased and
the surplus in the Trust Fund—$2.8
billion in 1971, on which interest is
paid—will be absorbed. Alternatively,
as my colleague on the committee,
Senator BOGGS, has pointed out, the
change in matching formula means
that less mileage will be constructed
with the same amount of money ex-
pended. If the same amount of new
miles are to be constructed under the
new formula as under the old, more
and higher taxes will have to be
raised. I believe that our committee
has not given these questions adequate
consideration and our action is there-
fore premature.
Another section which troubles me
greatly is the beautification section.
The administration strongly sup-
ported the Senate provisions of the
Federal-aid Highway Act of 1970. For
the first time since the passage of the
Beautification Act, an administration
made positive recommendations for
the program's improvement, strongly
urging its implementation. The pro-
gram has been plagued by inadequate
funding and confusing implementa-
tion, and the recommendatons pro-
posed by the administration would
have done much to improve the situa-
tion. But those recommendations, in-
cluding trust funding of the program,
were not retained by the conference
committee.
The beautification program has
been studied and restudied, indepen-
ently and at the request of Congress.
The bill before us authorizes yet an-
other study. This time the body to
m
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1995
Commission will study the existing
program and many areas which the
current program does not cover, such
as commercial areas and on premise
signs. I believe those areas may need
to be studied, but to spend $200,000 in
a year so that the committees already
having jurisdiction over this program
can study it again can only be called
silly.
The saving features of the sections
on beautification are those which au-
thorize significant amounts for vigor-
ously pursuing the existing program
for the next 3 years, as proposed by
the administration, and the assurance
in the statement of House managers
that "the creation of this Commission
is not construed as derogating in any
way from active implementation of
the existing program without reduc-
tion and as authorized during this
study." With that assurance, I hope
that the money will be appropriated to
finally give the beautification program
a chance to prove its worth.
Mr. President, the last section
whch concerns me is that reference to
construction of highways in the Dis-
trict of Columbia. My colleagues will
remember that I voted against final
passage of the Federal Aid Highway
Act of 1968 because of the presence of
section 23 in that act, which in my
view attempted to displace the rights
of the citizens of the District to be
treated as all other citizens of the Un-
ited States in determining their own
highway program. I was glad when
the Public Works Committee of the
Senate, and the whole Senate, this
year supported repeal of section 23 of
the 1968 act. It was especially impor-
tant that we took that action, for the
bill which issued from the House Pub-
lic Works Committee included provi-
sions which went even further than in
1968 in attempting to require the con-
struction of interstate highways
within the District—and without the
fundamental provision which we were
able to attach in 1968, so often over-
looked, that all construction must be
carried out according to all applicable
provisions of title 23 of the United
States Code.
The result of the conference was to
reject any mandate for any new high-
way construction, or for designation
or removal of designation of inter-
state routes, within the District of
Columbia. The conference agreed to
no more than another study by the
District of Columbia government and
the Department of Transportation of
the North Central Freeway, and also
of the East and the North Legs. Of
course, these routes have
[p. 42720]
been studied before, and a study of
the North Central Freeway is now
being carried out, and the administra-
tion supported the Senate position in
this matter.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed at this
point in the RECORD the text of a let-
ter from the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, John Volpe, expressing the ad-
ministration's position with respect to
repeal of section 23 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1968, and that
excerpts from the Senate report on
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970
and my views from that report also be
included.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C., December IS, 1S70.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
Senate Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR COOPER: In response to your
request, I am hereby stating my views on the
sections of the proposed 1970 highway legisla-
tion regarding projects for the District of
Columbia now pending before the House-Sen-
ate Conference Committee.
As you know, although I totally support a
balanced transportation program for the
Washington metropolitan area, including nec-
essary freeway projects as well as a subway
system, I would prefer that specific highway
-------
1996
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
projects be planned, designed, and constructed
in accordance with the same procedures as
apply to other cities and states under the
interstate program.
Should the Congress in its "wisdom deter-
mine to repeal those provisions of Section 23
of the 1968 Highway Act calling for construc-
tion of specific projects for the District of
Columbia, I would nonetheless assure the Com-
mittee that work on the construction of the
Three Sisters Bridge will proceed as expedi-
tiously as possible within the requirements of
the law and the decisions of the courts—both
because this Department and the District gov-
ernment are already committed to this project
and because I believe it is necessary for a
balanced transportation system for the area.
In the absence of Congressional action re-
pealing those provisions of the 1968 Act, I
would hope that no further construction or
studies would be required by the Congress. As
you know, my Department is already engaged
in a 16-month study of the North Central
Freeway which, again, will continue no mat-
ter what the Conference action is because I
believe such a study to be needed.
Warm personal regards.
Sincerely,
JOHN A. VOLPE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The committee recommends the repeal of
section 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1968. Section 23 mandates the construction of
certain segments of the Interstate System in
the District of Columbia. That action was a
departure from the traditional Federal-State
relationship which has been the principal
characteristic of the Federal-aid program dur-
ing its more than 50 years of operation.
Basic to the Federal-aid highway program
is its reliance on local decisions with regard
to planning and execution of projects, includ-
ing those on the Interstate System. Federal-
aid highway law defines the District of Colum-
bia as a State, and gives to the officials of the
District responsibility for initiating projects.
The responsibility of the Federal Government
is approval of such plans, review of their
implementation, and reimbursement of the
Federal share of the costs of construction.
Local initiative and execution are essential.
By adopting section 23 of the 1968 act, the
Congress directly interceded in this process.
The section effectively superseded local respon-
sibility and initiative in the District of Colum-
bia, and could create a precedent for similar
action with respect to highway controversies
in the several States.
Section 23 has resulted in confusion and
conflicts in interpretation. Court action has
stopped construction of two projects required
by section 23, the Three Sisters Bridge and
the east leg of the inner loop.
The committee emphasizes that the rep eal
of the section would neither initiate nor halt
any specific highway project. It would not
affect lawful actions taken pursuant to section
23 during the time it was in effect, nor is it
intended to reverse any local decision properly
made with respect to highways and bridges. It
would simply remove the uncertain effects of
section 23 and make clear that the District of
Columbia has the same prerogatives respect-
ing highway construction enjoyed by any
State.
It is essential that Federal-aid highway law
not direct the construction of specific highway
segments or bridges in any State. The elimi-
nation of section 23 would remove the Con-
gress from involvement in local decisions
which rightly belong to the citizens of the
District of Columbia, their responsible officials,
and the Department of Transportation.
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA HIGHWAYS
I am very pleased with the action of the
committee in reporting a Federal-Aid High-
way Act of 1970 which includes repeal of
section 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1968—the section which was the cause of my
refusal to sign the report of the Senate-House
conference in 1968 and my subsequent vote
against final passage.
In section 23 the Congress for the first time
—and the only time to my knowledge—directly
interceded in the process of planning and
approving specific projects in the Federal-aid
highway program. Section 23 directed the Dis-
trict of Columbia and the Department of
Transportation to construct all projects in-
cluded in the District 1968 cost estimate "in
accordance with all applicable provisions of
title 23 of the United States Code." As to four
projects, section 23 directed that work com-
mence within 30 days following enactment.
Remaining projects were to be given further
study and a report "including any recom-
mended alternative routes or plans" made to
Congress within 18 months.
Section 23 contradicted the principles of
federalism underlying the Federal-aid highway
program. Under title 23 the District of Col-
umbia is defined as a State, and the States
are given responsibility for initiating the
planning and approval of specific projects.
The Federal Government then approves the
plans and the process of their local develop-
ment at a number of stages, and reimburses a
portion of the cost of construction. Local
initiative and execution is essential. I said in
1968 that I believed Members of Congress
lacked the expertise, experience, and authority
necessary to determine the need, desirability,
location, and design of specific highway pro-
jects. The major objection which I raised was
that the section effectively superseded local
responsibility and initiative in the District of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1997
Columbia and created a dangerous precedent
for similar action with controversial highways
in the several States.
Section 23 has created confusion and dismay
in the District of Columbia. It has, in my
opinion, been misinterpreted by some, to re-
quire the construction of all highways in-
cluded in the 1968 cost estimate without re-
gard to any local or Federal laws. In fact,
however, its directive was specifically qualified
by a clause requiring that all action be taken
according to all applicable provisions of title
23. Judge Skelly Wright of the U.S. court of
appeals pointed out in an opinion involving
one of the projects included in section 23, an
interpretation which "would result in discrim-
ination between District residents * * * and
all other residents affected by highway pro-
jects in their localities" would condemn sec-
tion 23 as unconstitutional.
Section 23 was not included in the Senate
version of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1968. Much of the confusion about its mean-
ing has resulted from the statement of House
managers, which accompanied the conference
bill, and which set forth detailed location and
design instruction. I do not believe that the
manager's statement reflected the views or the
understanding of the Senate conferees.
A great deal of the confusion created by
section 23 has resulted from conflicting inter-
pretation by the same District and Federal
officials. At President Johnson's direction, the
National Capital Planning Commission and
the District of Columbia developed and
adopted, in December of 1968, a comprehen-
sive highway plan that omitted two of the
most controversial projects included in section
23 and modified the location and design of
others. But last summer, faced with the threat
of discontinuing the rail rapid transit system
construction for the District because of
blocked appropriations, the District govern-
ment and the Department of Transportation
decided, in effect, to follow the directions in
the statement of House managers without re-
gard to any other laws. Citizens' lawsuits
have not resulted in stopping construction of
two of the projects included in section 23—the
Three Sisters Bridge and the east leg of the
inner loop—until all applicable provisions of
title 23, United States Code, are complied
with.
Mr. President, rather than solve the contro-
versy in the District of Columbia, section 23
has inflamed it. Events in the Nation's Capi-
tal in the past 2 years have confirmed the
Senate's wisdom in not attempting to approve
construction of specific highway projects. Sec-
tion 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1968 should be repealed.
The Department of Transportation has
acted with care and concern in fulfilling the
study requirements of section 23. I included
their report in the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD of February 24, 1970, and applauded
the report of the Secretary of Transportation
for its goals and direction. The Department
has not, however, in my view dealt accord-
ing to their own procedures in requiring the
adherence to all the planning and approval
requirements of title 23, with respect to the
most controversial segments of the District's
highways. They have, rather, accepted the
judgment of Congress, which in this case, in
my judgment, is neither qualified, nor author-
ized by law, to make such decisions.
The action of the committee in repealing
section 23 does not express support or opposi-
tion to any highway system or specific part of
a system for the District of Columbia. It
expresses the principle which had been ad-
hered to by the Congress prior to 1968. That
principle is, that it is not the function of the
Congress to prescribe and force upon the
citizens of a State or the District of Columbia
a particular highway construction program. It
is certain that the Congress would not at-
tempt to direct the highway program of the
50 States for local initiative is crucial to the
success of the Federal-aid highway program
—it should not be ignored in the Nation's
Capital.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, this is
important legislation. It continues one
of the most significant building pro-
grams in the history of the Nation,
and perhaps in the history of man-
kind. We are becoming increasingly
aware of the myriad consequences of
this tremendous
[p. 42721]
program, and this bill contains sec-
tions which recognize those conse-
quences. My hope is that we will con-
tinue codifying the program in future
years to meet new and more fully
recognized needs.
I want to express my appreciation
for the position of the Secretary of
Transportation—his open and con-
structive advice and proposals. His
work had contributed very much to
this bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We did have the
cooperation of our colleagues, and we
had the valuable service of the staff
members of the committee. All of the
members of the Committee on Public
Works are most appreciative of the
-------
1998
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
outstanding contributions of the staff
in bringing this legislation to fruition.
We thank our staff director, Richard
B. Royce, the assistant chief clerk, mi-
nority, Bailey Guard, counsel M.
Barry Meyer, assistant staff director,
J. B. Huyett, together with the profes-
sional staff, both majority and minor-
ity, John Yago, Adrien Waller, and
Hal Bragman, and the clerical staff,
Kathleen Porcum, Pauline Medlin,
LaVerne Douglas, Ann Brown, and
Hester Dungan. In concert with the
staff of the individual members they
aided our efforts greatly.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I am
pleased that the conference report on
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970
includes provision for designation by
the Secretary of Transportation of
economic growth center highways.
The implementation of the section
should help revitalize the economy of
the Nation's rural areas and, hope-
fully, will help stem the population
migration from rural communities to
metropolitan centers.
The report authorizes the Secretary
to provide an additional 20 percent of
the construction costs of primary
highways serving communities desig-
nated as economic growth centers.
Total Federal participation will be
limited to 95 percent of the total ex-
penditure.
I also am pleased that the conferees
agreed in principle to the use of re-
venue from the highway trust fund
for financing a share of the highway
safety program. The effectiveness of
the program has been hampered in the
past by the uncertainty of the tradi-
tional appropriations process. While
the flow of trust fund revenue for
highway safety will continue to be
tied to a degree to general fund ap-
propriations, I hope the mechanism
established in the report will enhance
the operation of safety programs.
The efficiency of highways in urban
areas no doubt will be improved
through the authorization for con-
struction of exclusive or preferential
bus lanes, and bus passenger loading
facilities. We have established on a
permanent basis the authorization for
construction of fringe and corridor
parking.
Mr. President, the reconciliation of
the Senate and House provisions deal-
ing with the freeway system in the
District of Columbia proved to be dif-
ficult.
Highway development in the Dis-
trict is embroiled in controversy and
litigation under existing law. Having
concluded that any additional legisla-
tion might contribute to the turmoil, I
would have preferred that both the
Senate and House provisions be
stricken. I reluctantly acceded to the
compromise, which provides for addi-
tional studies but mandates no addi-
tional construction.
I wish to acknowledge and pay trib-
ute to the leadership of our able com-
mittee chairman, the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH), who demonstrated great
patience and understanding through-
out the conference, I appreciate the
contributions of my fellow Senate con-
ferees, the Senator from North Caro-
lina (Mr. JORDAN), the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS) , and the Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mr. BAKER).
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, in the
interest of time, I will not have the
opportunity to go into what affects
Alaska in this bill. It is probably the
most significant bill concerning
Alaska since statehood itself, cer-
tainly in economic terms.
I feel a great deal of gratitude to
the chairman and to the ranking mi-
nority member of the committee for
what has taken place in this regard. It
can only cap it by adding one piece of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1999
admiration that has been foremost in
my mind ever since I have been a
member of the Committee on Public
Works. Many people can show leader-
ship; many people can have the abil-
ity to compromise. The chairman, the
Senator from West Virginia, is a
quiet man, but he has been unusually
gifted in his ability to effect leader-
ship and at the same time meld com-
promise. In many regards, in a legis-
lative career, that is probably the
most important gift a person can
have. I am happy he has that gift. I
am happy that that gift can shower
benefit upon States such as my own
and the entire Nation. For that I
thank him, not only in behalf of Alas-
kans but in behalf of all residents of
this great country as well.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am very grate-
ful. This is my personal expression.
But, for the committee, we are cogni-
zant of the greatness of Alaska and of
the need of its people. We are not
going to forget Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia
yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I join my colleague
from Alaska in commending the work
of the chairman of the Public Works
Committee and the ranking minority
Member the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. COOPER) on the provisions which
are in this bill for Alaska. They are
farsighted. Both Senator GRAVEL and
I discussed these matters with the
Senators from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) and from Kentucky (Mr.
Cooper) and I say to my friends on
the conference committee that the re-
visions which have been made in the
conference are understandable. We
applaud the Senator from West Vir-
ginia and his colleagues on the com-
mittee for the fact that he has been
able to bring back so much for
Alaska, because there was so much in
this bill that we did not know how
much would actually survive the con-
ference.
All the people of Alaska are grate-
ful for what has been provided for us
in this bill.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The two Senators
from Alaska have been most under-
standing and have assisted us and we
are grateful for their cooperation.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia
yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. I shall not detain the
Senate long and will not impose on
the time of the Senator from West
Virginia, but I do want to take this
opportunity to pay him an accolade
and to offer my sincere congratula-
tions to him as chairman and to the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER)
as the ranking member of the Public
Works Committee, and as conferees,
in producing a bill that is meaningful,
and in navigating through a difficult
conference, and finally reporting this
piece of legislation that not only is
appropriate to these times and cir-
cumstances but is even more appropri-
ate in trying to set an example. We
compromised where difficult judg-
ments needed to be made if Congress
was to adjourn.
This spirit of give-and-take between
the House and Senate, so well exem-
plified by both the chairman and the
ranking member, the conferees in both
Houses took to heart. It took us many
days to get a bill. One particular sec-
tion, the District of Columbia section,
was a highly volatile issue, I dare say
as emotional as almost any other
issue, if not any issue that has been
before the Senate in the past several
days. But it was worked out according
to an old Tennessee adage that if no
one is really happy with it, therefore
it must be very good. But it was
worked out, and we have a bill, and
we will be using that as a point of
departure for getting even better bills
in the future.
-------
2000
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
So, without further detaining the
Senate, I want to say, as a junior
conferee on this and other bills ema-
nating from the Public Works Com-
mittee, I think a good job has been
done in an expeditious way under the
most competent leadership on both
sides of the aisle.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The keenness of
the Senator from Tennessee and his
incisiveness was shown in our work in
the subcommittee, in the committee,
and in the conference. I know that the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER)
and I are both grateful for such men
as the Senator from Tennessee and all
others who have served with us.
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, I
was privileged to be involved in the
development of the Federal-Aid High-
way Act of 1970 from its considera-
tion in the Senate Roads Subcommit-
tee through its completion in the Sen-
ate-House conference which completed
work on Thursday. I consider it excel-
lent legislation which furthers the de-
velopment of our national highway
system.
There were several provisions of the
bill in which I was particularly inter-
ested and which are related to my
other legislative responsibilities.
I call the Senate's attention to the
section which provides for the future
des-
[p. 42722]
ignation of interstate highways. This
section opens the door to expansion of
this nationwide system of freeways
without creating an additional finan-
cial commitment on the Federal Gov-
ernment of the type now utilized for
interstate construction.
Under this provision, the Secretary
of Transportation may, at the request
of any State, designate any primary
highway which is a logical addition or
connection to the Interstate System as
a future part of that system. This
could be done, however, only if the
affected State or States promised to
bring this highway up to interstate
standards within 12 years.
In order to prevent confusion or
avoid misleading road users, there
would be no reference to the highway
as a part of the Interstate System,
including signs, until it is actually
constructed to interstate standards.
This section responds to the re-
quests of many communities through-
out the United States for assistance
in obtaining interstate connections
with other parts of the country.
The provision which evolved from
the conference, while not as strong as
the original Senate bill language, will
enable the citizens of communities not
now served by the interstate system to
effectively petition their State govern-
ments so that the economic benefits
which follow from location on or near
the interstate system will be part of
their future. The language of the bill
is based on the record developed at
hearings by the Committee on Public
Works in Carson City and Ely, Nev.,
in Roswell, N. Mex., and in Washing-
ton, D.C. There are at least five major
interstate connections which could be
designated under this provision. These
connections are essential to the people
of the areas involved. There is the
U.S. 219 route from Buffalo, N.Y., to
Bluefield, W. Va., covering New York,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West
Virginia; the route from Augusta,
Ga., to Tallahassee, Fla.; and the
route from Birmingham, Ala., to
Memphis, Tenn., through northern
Mississippi; the route 1-70 from the
Nevada-Utah border to San Francisco
and U.S. 70 from Amarillo, Tex., to
Las Cruces, N. Mex., which would
serve one of the great areas of poten-
tial growth and development in east-
ern and south central New Mexico.
The adoption of this provision and
the completion of the interstate sys-
tem in the latter part of this decade
will enable the people of these areas
to achieve parity with those who are
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2001
and will be served by the present
42,500 mile interstate system.
Another provision with potentially
widespread impact is that authorizing
;he designation of economic growth
center highways. This section allows
;he Secretary of Transportation to
irovide additional financial assistance
for the construction of primary high-
ways leading to cities he declares to
je economic growth centers.
An authorization of $50 million for
each of the fiscal years 1972 and 1973
would be available to supplement the
Federal share of eligible projects with
an additional 20 percent of the cost,
except that the Federal share would
'n no case be more than 95 percent.
This provision is patterned after
and based on the same philosophy be-
lind development highways con-
structed under the Appalachian Re-
gional Development Act and authority
'or regional transportation planning
'n title V of the Public Works and
Economic Development Act, as
amended in 1969.
It was my pleasure to chair the
hearings which developed the 1969
amendments to the Public Works and
Economic Development Act. It was
during those hearings that I became
convinced that there was a need for a
developmental highway program to
demonstrate the positive force in eco-
nomic development which highways
are. The experimental program con-
tained in this bill will undoubtedly be
helpful in bringing a better standard
of living to rural America. This pro-
gram should provide a better under-
standing of the direct relationship be-
tween proper economic growth and
rural development and highway loca-
tion.
Highways are generally recognized
as a central factor in the economic
development of a region, and a mod-
ern highway system is felt to be es-
sential to any region which is at-
tempting to strengthen its economic
base. This provision of the bill would
be an important aid to many commun-
ities and would essentially expand
what we believe to be a valid and
proven program now operating in a
limited number of States.
Mr. President, these are but two of
the important provisions of the Feder-
al-Aid Highway Act of 1970, but they
are of great concern and importance
to many people and communities.
I hope the Senate will keep them in
mind as we act affirmatively on this
conference report.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
move adoption of the conference re-
port.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. 42723]
-------
2002 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9 Federal Salary Act, as amended 5 U.S.C. §§5305, 5332 (1970)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-6e(b)(3)(A)]
§ 5305. Annual pay reports and adjustments
(a) In order to carry out the policy stated in section 5301 of
this title, the President shall—
(1) direct such agent as he considers appropriate to pre-
pare and submit to him annually, after considering such
views and recommendations as may be submitted under the
provisions of subsection (b) of this section, a report that—
(A) compares the rates of pay of the statutory pay
systems with the rates of pay for the same levels of work
in private enterprise as determined on the basis of ap-
propriate annual surveys that shall be conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics;
(B) makes recommendations for appropriate adjust-
ments in rates of pay; and
(C) includes the views and recommendations submit-
ted under the provisions of subsection (b) of this sec-
tion;
(2) after considering the report of his agent and the find-
ings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Federal Pay reported to him under section 5306 (b) (3) of
this title, adjust the rates of pay of each statutory pay system
in accordance with the principles under section 5301 (a) of
this title, effective as of the beginning of the first applicable
pay period commencing on or after October 1 of the applica-
ble year; and
(3) transmit to Congress a report of the pay adjustment,
together with a copy of the report submitted to him by his
agent and the findings and recommendations of the Advisory
Committee on Federal Pay reported to him under section
5306 (b) (3) of this title.
(b) In carrying out its functions under subsection (a) (1) of
this section, the President's agent shall—
(1) establish a Federal Employees Pay Council of 5 mem-
bers who shall not be deemed to be employees of the Govern-
ment of the United States by reason of appointment to the
Council and shall not receive pay by reason of service as
members of the Council, who shall be representatives of em-
ployee organizations which represent substantial numbers of
employees under the statutory pay systems, and who shall be
selected with due consideration to such factors as the relative
numbers of employees represented by the various organiza-
tions, but no more than 3 members of the Council at any one
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2003
time shall be from a single employee organization, council,
federation, alliance, association, or affiliation of employee or-
ganizations ;
(2) provide for meetings with the Federal Employees Pay
Council and give thorough consideration to the views and
recommendations of the Council and the individual views and
recommendations, if any, of the members of the Council re-
garding—
(A) the coverage of the annual survey conducted by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics under subsection (a) (1)
of this section (including, but not limited to, the occupa-
tions, establishment sizes, industries, and geographical
areas to be surveyed);
(B) the process of comparing the rates of pay of the
statutory pay systems with rates of pay for the same
levels of work in private enterprise; and
(C) the adjustments in the rates of pay of the statu-
tory pay systems that should be made to achieve compar-
ability between those rates and the rates of pay for the
same levels of work in private enterprise;
(3) give thorough consideration to the views and recom-
mendations of employee organizations not represented on the
Federal Employees Pay Council regarding the subjects in
paragraph (2) (A)-(C) of this subsection; and
(4) include in its report to the President the views and
recommendations submitted as provided in this subsection by
the Federal Employees Pay Council, by any member of that
Council, and by employee organizations not represented on
that Council.
(c) (1) If, because of national emergency or economic condi-
tions affecting the general welfare, the President should, in any
year, consider it inappropriate to make the pay adjustment re-
quired by subsection (a) of this section, he shall prepare and
transmit to Congress before September 1 of that year such alter-
native plan with respect to a pay adjustment as he considers
appropriate, together with the reasons therefor, in lieu of the pay
adjustments required by subsection (a) of this section.
(2) An alternative plan transmitted by the President under
paragraph (1) of this subsection becomes effective on the first day
of the first applicable pay period commencing on or after October
1 of the applicable year and continues in effect unless, before the
end of the first period of 30 calendar days of continuous session of
Congress after the date on which the alternative plan is transmit-
ted, either House adopts a resolution disapproving the alternative
-------
2004 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
plan so recommended and submitted, in which case the pay adjust-
ments for the statutory pay systems shall be made effective as
provided by subsection (m) of this section. The continuity of a
session is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die,
and the days on which either House is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in
the computation of the 30-day period.
(d) Subsections (e)-(k) of this section are enacted by Con-
gress—
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respec-
tively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be
followed in the House in the case of resolutions described by
this section; and they supersede other rules only to the extent
that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of ei-
ther House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner,
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.
(e) If the committee, to which has been referred a resolution
disapproving the alternative plan of the President, has not re-
ported the resolution at the end of 10 calendar days ^fter its
introduction, it is in order to move either to discharge the commit-
tee from further consideration of the resolution or to discharge
the committee from further consideration of any other resolution
with respect to the same plan which has been referred to the
committee.
(f) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual
favoring the resolution, is highly privileged (except that it may
not be made after the committee has reported a resolution with
respect to the same recommendation), and debate thereon is lim-
ited to not more than 1 hour, to be divided equally between those
favoring and those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the
motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(g) If the motion to discharge is agreed to, or disagreed to, the
motion may not be renewed, nor may another motion to discharge
the committee be made with respect to any other resolution with
respect to the same alternative plan.
(h) When the committee has reported, or has been discharged
from further consideration of, a resolution with respect to an
alternative plan, it is at any time thereafter in order (even though
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2005
a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to
move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion
is highly privileged and is not debatable. An amendment to the
motion is not in order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider
the vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
(i) Debate on the resolution is limited to not more than 2 hours,
to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing
the resolution. A motion further to limit debate is not debatable.
An amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution is not in
order, and it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by
which the resolution is agreed to or disagreed to.
(j) Motions to postpone, made with respect to the discharge
from committee, or the consideration of, a resolution with respect
to an alternative plan, and motions to proceed to the consideration
of other business, are decided without debate.
(k) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the
application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representa-
tives, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution
with respect to an alternative plan are decided without debate.
(1) The rates of pay which become effective under this section
are the rates of pay applicable to each position concerned, and
each class of positions concerned, under a statutory pay system.
(m) If either House adopts a resolution disapproving an alter-
native plan submitted under subsection (c) of this section, the
President shall take the action required by paragraphs (2)_ and
(3) of subsection (a) of this section and adjust the rates of pay of
the statutory pay systems effective as of the beginning of the first
applicable pay period commencing on or after the date on which
the resolution is adopted, or on or after October 1, whichever is
later.
(n) The rates of pay that take effect under this section shall
modify, supersede, or render inapplicable, as the case may be, to
the extent inconsistent therewith—
(1) all provisions of law enacted prior to the effective date
or dates of all or part (as the case may be) of the increases;
and
(2) any prior recommendations or adjustments which took
effect under this section or prior provisions of law.
(o) The rates of pay that take effect under this section shall be
printed in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regula-
tions.
(p) An increase in rates of pay that takes effect under this
section is not an equivalent increase in pay within the meaning of
section 5335 of this title.
-------
2006 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(q) Any rate of pay under this section shall be initially ad-
justed, effective on the effective date of the rate of pay, under
conversion rules prescribed by the President or by such agencies
as the President may designate.
(r) This section does not impair any authority purusant to
which rates of pay may be fixed by administrative action.
Added Pub.L. 91-656, § 3(a), Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1946.
§ 5332. The General Schedule
(a) The General Schedule, the symbol for which is "GS", is the
basic pay schedule for positions to which this subchapter applies.
Each employee to whom this subchapter applies is entitled to basic
pay in accordance with the General Schedule.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2007
1.9a GENERAL SCHEDULE
September 6, 1966, P.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 467
SUBCHAPTER III—GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY RATES
§5331. Definitions; application
(a) For the purpose of this subchapter, "agency", "employee",
"position", "class", and "grade" have the meanings given them by
section 5102 of this title.
(b) This subchapter applies to employees and positions to which
chapter 51 of this title applies.
§5332. The General Schedule
(a) The General Schedule, the symbol for which is "GS", is the
basic pay schedule for positions to which this subchapter applies.
Each employee to whom this subchapter applies is entitled to basic
pay in accordance with the General Schedule.
GENERAL SCHEDULE
Annual rates and steps
Grade
123456789 10
GS-1
GS-2 .
GS-3
GS-4
GS~5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-I8
$3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
10
12
14
16
18
21
24
,385
,680
,005
,480
,000
,505
,050
,630
,220
,900
,650
,250
,075
,170
,460
,935
,445
,500
$3,500
3,805
4,140
4,630
5,165
5,690
6,250
6,850
7,465
8,170
8,945
10,605
12,495
14,660
17,030
19,590
22,195
$3,615
3,930
4,275
4,780
5,330
5,875
6,450
7,070
7,710
8,440
9,240
10,960
12,915
15,150
17,600
20,245
22,945
$3,730
4,055
4,410
4,930
5,495
6,060
6,650
7,290
7,955
8,710
9,535
11,315
13,335
15,640
18,170
20,900
23,695
$3,845
4,180
4,545
5,080
5,560
6,245
6,850
7,510
8,200
8,980
9,830
11,670
13,755
16,130
18,740
21,555
24,445
$3,960
4,305
4,680
5,230
5,825
6,430
7,050
7,730
8,445
9,250
10,125
12,025
14,175
16,620
19,310
22,210
$4,075
4,430
4,815
5,380
5,990
6,615
7,250
7,950
8,690
9,520
10,420
12,380
14,595
17,110
19,880
22,865
$4,190
4,555
4,950
5,530
6,155
6,800
7,450
8,170
8,935
9,790
10,715
12,735
15,015
17.600
20,450
23,520
$4,305
4,680
5,085
5,680
6,320
6.985
7,650
8,390
9,180
10,060
11,010
13,090
15,435
18,090
21,020
24,175
$4,420
4,805
5,220
5,830
6,485
7,170
7,850
8,610
9,425
10,330
11,305
13,445
15,855
18,580
21,590
(b) When payment is made on the basis of an hourly, daily,
weekly, or biweekly rate, the rate is computed from the appropri-
ate annual rate of basic pay named by subsection (a) of this
section in accordance with the rules prescribed by section 5504 (b)
of this title.
[p. 467]
-------
2008 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 901, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, "GOVERNMENT ORGA-
NIZATION AND EMPLOYEES"
AUGUST 31, 1965.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10104]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 10104) to enact Title 5, United States Code, "Government
Organization and Employees," codifying the general and perma-
nent laws relating to the organization of the Government of the
United States and to its civilian officers and employees, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Purpose.—The purpose of this bill is to restate in comprehen-
sive form, without substantive change, the statutes in effect before
July 1, 1965, that relate to Government employees, the organiza-
tion and powers of Federal agencies generally, and administrative
procedure, and to enact title 5 of the United States Code. In the
revised title 5, simple language has been substituted for awkward
and obsolete terms, and superseded, executed, and obsolete stat-
utes have been eliminated. This bill is a part of the program of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives to
enact into law all fifty titles of the United States Code.
[P. l]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2009
SECTION 5332
Derivation: United States Code Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
(a) 5 U.S.C. 1113 (less (c)) Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 603 (less
(d)), 63 Stat. 965.
Oct. 24, 1951, ch. 554, § l(a), 65
Stat. 612.
Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1208, § 109 (less
(c)), 68 Stat. 1108.
June 28, 1955, ch. 189, § 2(a), 69
Stat. 172.
June 20, 1958, Pub. L. 85-462, §
2(a), 72 Stat. 203.
July 1, 1960, Pub. L. 86-568, § 112
(a), 74 Stat. 298.
Oct. 11, 1962, Pub. L. 87-793, § 602
(a), 76 Stat. 843.
Aug. 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88-426, §
102(a), 78 Stat. 400.
(b) 5 U.S.C. 1113(c) Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 603(d), 63
Stat. 965.
Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1208 § 109(c), 68
Stat. 1108.
[p. 76]
In subsection (a), the words "the symbol for which is 'GS' " are
added on authority of former section 1111 which is carried into
section 5104. So much as related to the Crafts, Protective, and
Custodial Schedule is omitted as repealed effective not later than
Sept. 11, 1955, by the Act of Sept. 1, 1954, §§ 109(b), 110(b), 68
Stat. 1108.
In subsection (b), reference to payment made on the basis of a
"monthly" rate is omitted since section 5504(b), former section
944 (c), no longer provides for converting a basic annual rate to a
basic monthly rate.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions ap-
plicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the
report.
[p. 77]
526-704 O - 14 - 17
-------
2010 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 1380, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, "GOVERNMENT ORGA-
NIZATION AND EMPLOYEES"
JULY 21, 1966.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ERVIN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10104]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill
(H.R. 10104), to enact title 5, United States Code, "Government
Organization and Employees," codifying the general and perma-
nent laws relating to the organization of the Government of the
United States and to its civilian officers and employees, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments,
and recommends that the bill, H.R. 10104, as amended, do pass.
[p. 1]
SECTION 5332
Derivation: United States Code Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
(a) 5 U.S.C. 1113 (less (c)) Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 603 (less
(d)), 63 Stat. 965.
Oct. 24, 1951, ch. 554, § l(a), 65
Stat. 612.
Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1208, § 109 (less
(c)), 68 Stat. 1108.
[p. 96]
Derivation: United States Code Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
June 28, 1955, ch. 189, § 2(a), 69
Stat. 172.
June 20, 1958, Pub. L. 85-462, §
2(a), 72 Stat. 203.
July 1, 1960, Pub. L. 86-568, § 112
(a), 74 Stat. 298.
Oct. 11, 1962, Pub. L. 87-793, § 602
(a), 76 Stat. 843.
Aug. 14, 1964, Pub. L. 88-426, §
102(a), 78 Stat. 400.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2011
(b) 5 U.S.C. 1113(c) Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 603(d), 63
Stat. 965.
Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1208, § 109(c),
68 Stat. 1108.
In subsection (a), the words "the symbol for which is 'GS' " are
added on authority of former section 1111 which is carried into
section 5104. So much as related to the Crafts, Protective, and
Custodial Schedule is omitted as repealed effective not later than
Sept. 11, 1955, by the Act of Sept. 1, 1954, §§ 109(b), 110(b), 68
Stat. 1108.
In subsection (b), reference to payment made on the basis of a
"monthly" rate is omitted since section 5504(b), former section
944(c), no longer provides for converting a basic annual rate to a
basic monthly rate.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions ap-
plicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the
report.
[p. 97]
-------
2012
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1.9a(3)(a) Vol. Ill (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p. 22954
ENACTMENT OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE
The Clerk called the bill (H.R.
10104) to enact title 5, United States
Code, "Government Organization and
Employees," codifying the general and
permanent laws relating to the orga-
nization of the Government of t^e
United States and to its civilian offi-
cers and employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the bill?
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I note that this bill
is some 367 pages. In the interest of
economy and in accordance with pre-
cedent, I ask unanimous consent that
we waive the printing of the bill in
the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the present consid-
eration of the bill?
There was no objection.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion
to reconsider was laid on the table.
[p. 22954]
1.9a(3)(b) Vol. 112 (1966), July 25, 27: Amended and passed Sen-
ate, pp. 17010, 17306
STATEMENT
H.R. 10104 was referred to the Subcommit-
tee on Revision and Codification of the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate.
On September 30, 1965, a notice of the pend-
ency of H.R. 10104 was inserted in the Con-
gressional Record. Briefly, the purpose of this
notice was to advise any and all interested
parties of the consideration of this legislation
by the subcommittee and to request that those
interested inform the subcommittee of their
interest therein, together with such sugges-
tions or modifications that would from their
point of view be reasonable and desirable. In
addition thereto, agencies, departments, and
committees of the Senate, were advised by
writing of the pendency of this legislation and
were requested to submit their comments there-
on. As the result of such notice and letters
many communications were received by the
committee. Some of the received reports ex-
pressed approval of the legislation while oth-
ers recommended amendments and modifica-
tions to the bill. All of these communications
were studied and as a result of the sugges-
tions, numbers of the proposed amendments
or modifications were accepted while others
were rejected. In many instances where there
were rejections, such acts were based upon
the fact that the committee deemed that they
were unnecessary or constituted a substantive
change in existing law which is not within
the concept of a codification.
Purpose.—The purpose of this bill is to
restate in comprehensive form, without sub-
slantive change, the statutes in effect before
July 1, 1965, that relate to Government em-
ployees, the organization and powers of Fed-
ei al agencies generally, and administrative
procedure, and to enact title 5 of the United
States Code. Queries have been raised as to
the effect of this bill on laws passed subse-
quent to July 1, 1965. This bill will in no way
affect them. Only those laws existing prior to
July 1, 1965, are the subject matter of this
bill. The amendatory effect of laws effective
on or after July 1, 1965, which will be covered
by a supplemental codification bill, is pre-
served by section 7 (a) of the bill. The bill,
like any codification, does not constitute a
current legislative endorsement of the substan-
tive provisions of statutes in effect before
July 1, 1965, some of which are being ceur-
rently studied by Congress for possible sub-
stantive amendment. As stated in the House
report (No. 901) on H.R. 10104, in the re-
vised title 5, simple language has been substi-
tuted for awkward and obsolete terms, and
superseded, executed, and obsolete statutes
have been eliminated. This bill is a part of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2013
the program of the Committee on the Judici-
ary of the House of Representatives to enact
into law all BO titles of the United States
Code.
[p. 17010]
UNIFORM CIVIL APPELLATE
RULES
The bill (S. 3254) to amend sec-
tions 2073 and 2112 of title 28, United
States Code, with respect to the scope
of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure and to repeal inconsistent leg-
islation was considered, ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, read
the third time, and passed, * * *.
[p. 17306]
-------
2014
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9a(3)(c) Vol. 112 (1966), Sept. 11: House concurred in Senate
amendments, p. 19077
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.9b Registers, Individuals Receiving Compensation
September 11,1967, P.L. 90-83, §1(18), 81 Stat. 109
(18) Section 5332 (a) is amended to read as follows:
" (a) The General Schedule, the symbol for which is 'GS', is the
basic pay schedule for positions to which this subchapter applies.
Each employee to whom this subchapter applies is entitled to basic
pay in accordance with the General Schedule.
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
Annual rates and steps
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS 16
GS-1 7
GS-18
$3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
12
15
17
20
22
25
1
,609
,925
,269
,776
,331
,867
,451
,068
,696
,421
,221
,927
,873
,106
,550
075
760
810
2
$3,731
4,058
4,413
4,936
5,507
6,005
6,664
7,303
7,957
8,709
9,536
11,306
13,321
15,629
18,157
20 745
23 520
3
$3,853
4,191
4,557
5,096
5,683
6,263
6,877
7,538
8,218
8,997
9,851
11,685
13,769
16,152
18,764
21 415
24 280
4
$3,975
4,324
4,701
5,256
5,859
6,461
7,090
7,773
8,479
9,285
10,166
12,064
14,217
16,675
19,371
22 085
25 040
5
$4,097
4,457
4,845
5,416
6,035
6,659
7,303
8,008
8,740
9,573
10,481
12,443
14,665
17,198
19,978
22 755
25 800
6
$4,219
4,590
4,839
5,576
6,211
6,857
7,516
8,243
9,001
9,861
10,796
12,822
15,113
17,721
20,585
23 425
7
$4,341
4,723
5,133
5,736
6,387
7,055
7,729
8,478
9,262
10,149
11,111
13,201
15,561
18,244
21,192
24 095
8
$4,463
5,856
5,277
5,896
6,563
7,253
7,942
8,713
9,523
10,437
11,426
13,580
16,009
18,767
21,799
24 765
9
$4,585
4,989
5,421
6,056
6,739
7,451
8,155
8,948
9,784
10,725
11,741
13,959
16,457
19,290
22,406
25 435
10
$4,707
5,122
5,565
6,216
6,915
7,649
8,368
9,183
10,045
11,013
12,056
14,338
16,905
19,813
23,013
••
[p. 199]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2015
1.9b(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 124, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
TITLES 5,14, AND 37, UNITED STATES CODE
MARCH 14, 1967.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5876]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 5876) to amend titles 5, 14, and 37, United States Code, to
codify recent law, and to improve the code, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
[p.l]
Sec. 1 (18)
Section of title 5 Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
5332(a) 5 App.: 1113(b) Oct. 29, 1965, Pub. L. 89-301, § 2(a), 79 Stat. 1111.
July 18, 1966, Pub. L 89-504, 5 102(a), 80 Stat. 288.
[P. 6]
1.9b(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 482, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.9b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 113 (1967)
1.9b(3)(a) April 3: Amended and passed House, p. 8109
[No Relevant Discussion]
-------
2016 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9b(3)(b) Aug. 4: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21414
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.9b(3)(c) Aug. 24: House concurs in Senate amendments, pp.
23904-23905J
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.9c POSTAL REVENUE AND FEDERAL
SALARY ACT OF 1967
Dec. 16, 1967 P.L. 90-206, Title II, §202(a), 81 Stat. 624
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.9c(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
H.R. REP. No. 722, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
POSTAL REVENUE AND FEDERAL SALARY ACT OF 1967
SEPTEMBER 28, 1967.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DULSKI, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 7977]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 7977) to adjust certain postage rates, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
AMENDMENTS
The committee proposes two amendments to the bill: "An
amendment to the text and an amendment to the title."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2017
AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT
The amendment proposed by the committee to the text of the
bill strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts in lieu
thereof a substitute text which is contained in italic type in the
reported bill. The explanation of the provisions of the substitute
text is contained in the explanation of the bill set forth hereinaf-
ter in this report.
AMENDMENT TO THE TITLE
The amendment proposed by the committee to the title of the
bill is intended to reflect more accurately the text of the bill as
proposed to be amended by the committee.
[p.l]
PURPOSE
The major purposes of this legislation are—
To increase postal rates in order to provide postal revenues
approximately equal to postal operating costs after public
service expenses have been deducted, as authorized by the
congressional policy set forth in 39 U.S.C. 2202 (c) (4) ;
To increase salaries of Government employees and provide
authority to complete the implementation of the congressional
policy specified in 1962, 5 U.S.C. 5301(2), to bring Federal
salary schedules to levels that are comparable to those in
private enterprise; and
To regulate the mailings of pandering advertisements.
It is also the purpose of this legislation—
To improve the mailing privileges for members of the
Armed Forces; and
To modernize the provisions relating to mail matter for the
blind, and to include within the benefits of such provisions
persons who cannot read conventionally printed material be-
cause of physical impairment.
EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
The postal rate legislation is based on the recommendations of
the President included in his message to the Congress on April 5,
1967, House Document No. 95, 90th Congress. A detailed explana-
tion of the recommendations is included in the Postmaster Gener-
al's report to the Congress dated April 17, 1967, entitled "Survey
of Postal Rates," House Document No. 106, 90th Congress. The
-------
2018 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
draft of legislation on postal rates was submitted by the Postmas-
ter General to the Congress by letter dated April 5, 1967. The
legislation recommended is included in H.R. 7977 as introduced.
The draft of legislation on Federal salaries was submitted by
the Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, on April 5, 1967,
and is included in H.R. 8261 as introduced.
The President's message is set forth, as follows:
To the Congress of the United States:
Two weeks ago in my Message to the Congress on the
Quality of American Government, I stated:
"The machinery of our Government has served us well. It
has been the vehicle of the greatest progress and prosperity
any nation has ever achieved.
"But this record should give us no cause for complacency.
For any realistic review today reveals that there are substan-
tial improvements to be made."
Today I ask the Congress to take two vital steps to help
bring about those improvements:
—Increase the salaries of Government employees.
—Increase postal rates and improve postal services.
In America we demand the highest level of excellence in the
public service. If we expect high quality,
—We must be able to attract and keep highly competent
career employees.
—We must be willing to give them the machinery they
need to do an effective job.
[p. 2]
SALARY INCREASES
Through the years, this Nation has built a corps of public serv-
ants whose quality is unmatched by any other country in the
world.
Our career employees are well-trained and experienced. In
ever-increasing numbers, they are skilled professionals. They in-
clude not only administrators and managers, but doctors, lawyers,
diplomats, economists, scientists, engineers, actuaries, systems an-
alysts, law enforcement officers, nurses—and many others criti-
cally needed to provide public services in a complex world.
These men and women come to the public service not by chance,
but by choice. They come because they are challenged by problems
that are far-reaching—and fateful. They come because Govern-
ment offers unique opportunities for unselfish service.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2019
From them, we expect unusual dedication. In turn, they have a
right to expect from their Government rewards that match their
contributions.
We have made great progress recently toward a pay scale which
approaches that of private industry. Since 1962, civilian employees
have received pay increases amounting to more than 23 percent.
We have improved retirement and other fringe benefits so that
they now compare favorably with benefits in private industry.
There have been corresponding increases in military pay, and
fringe benefits have been improved substantially.
Yet we still fall short of comparability with private industry.
The Annual Report of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commis-
sion and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget describes the
gap which remains between Government and industry pay scales.
I am transmitting that report to the Congress today with the
renewed conviction that this gap must be closed.
To close the gap in one year would require an average pay
increase of 7.2 percent. With a similar increase for the Armed
Forces, the cost would be more than $2.5 billion per year.
In view of today's fiscal and economic conditions, my advisers
inform me that a pay raise of this magnitude would not be pru-
dent. While inflationary pressures in the economy have lessened in
recent months, they have not disappeared. They could easily recur.
We must therefore continue to seek restraint in private wage
settlements and to exercise restraint in the operations of Govern-
ment.
But a pay raise for the Government's employees clearly is
needed. We must avoid placing the Government at a serious disad-
vantage in recruiting and retaining competent workers—and we
must keep faith with our employees.
To do so requires that we achieve comparability with private
pay levels—and that we do it in a way which does not endanger
our unparalleled economic prosperity.
As President Kennedy said five years ago, "to pay more than
this is to be unfair to American taxpayers—to pay less
[p. 3]
is to degrade the public service and endanger our national secur-
ity."
I recommend a 4-5 percent pay increase for civilian employees
effective October 1,1967.
I recommend that the Congress take the final step this year to
achieve full comparability with private industry. I propose a two
-------
2020 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
stage plan to remove the remaining comparability lag in all grades
by October 1, 1969. The first step would take effect in October
1969 and the second a year later.
For our military personnel, pay alone can never reflect the full
measure of our debt. On the battlefields, in outposts where there is
tension but no battle, in the vast defense installations of our coun-
try, these men and women protect our national security. We must
assure them and their families that they will be compensated for
their service on a scale which is comparable to that of their 2.5
million civilian coworkers. As civilian pay goes up, so should the
pay of the armed services.
7 recommend an increase in regular military pay similar to the
raise for civilians—an average Jt.5 percent effective October 1,
1967.
This year the Secretary of Defense has been conducting a
searching review of the principles underlying the military com-
pensation system. When these studies have been completed, I will
recommend further changes in the Armed Forces pay system.
We must also take steps to ensure the adequacy of salaries for
top officials in the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of
the Government. To this end, I have established a special Commis-
sion headed by Frederick R. Kappel to study executive pay in the
three branches of the Federal Government. When I have reviewed
its report, I will make recommendations for appropriate adjust-
ments in these areas.
Salary reform for the government of an increasingly complex
and ever-changing society is never complete. The entire structure
and interrelationships of all Federal pay systems, civilian and
military, should be continually reviewed and improved. The ade-
quacy of the basic pay system itself must be periodically re-exam-
ined.
7 recommend that a special Joint Salary Commission, represent-
ing the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches, be estab-
lished to examine all Federal pay systems and report to the Presi-
dent and Congress within two years.
[p. 4]
TITLE II—FEDERAL SALARY ACT OF 1967
The purposes of this title and the official recommendation of the
President for general Federal civilian salary adjustments are set
forth at the beginning of this report.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2021
STATEMENT
In view of the repetition this year of the perennial struggle
between conflicting interests involved in all Federal civilian salary
legislation, certain observations are deemed in order to establish a
proper frame of reference for the committee salary recommenda-
tions contained in title II of the committee amendment to H.R.
7977.
The Government's 3 million employees constitute the largest
single work force in the world. The $18 billion annual civilian
payroll for the salary systems, covered by title II, constitutes 14
percent of the total Federal administrative budget. Even a modest
adjustment in such an immense payroll, therefore, is a formidable
undertaking, demanding most careful examination and weighing
of all of the interests concerned. These interests arise from three
principal sources.
There are the employees, who have families to clothe, house, and
feed, children to educate, and all of the problems and expenses of
other Americans. Salaries are matters of first importance to these
employees and their dependents, who often have no other source of
income.
There are the fiscal responsibilities of the President and the
administration. Federal salaries are but one aspect of a total
budget involving high economic policy, the dangers of inflation,
the financing of a war, conflicting demands for available funds,
and innumerable other problems.
Finally, there are the taxpayers who must pay the costs of any
Federal salary increase. With a $30 billion fiscal year deficit fac-
ing their Government and the Congress trying to cut expenditures
in every category, the taxpayers are sympathetic to the efforts of
the administration to control the amount of any salary increases.
The committee devoted serious attention to all of these interests,
and had the benefit of a wealth of information developed in exten-
sive hearings before the Subcommittee on Compensation, as well
as the carefully worked out legislative recommendation of the
subcommittee. The subcommittee listened sympathetically to argu-
ments by the administration and by employee groups, while keep-
ing in mind the interests of the taxpayers.
It has been impossible, as usual, to bring forth a bill that fully
satisfies all interests. The pay raises recommended by the Subcom-
mittee on Compensation are well below many employee group re-
quests, but in their entirety represent the most liberal salary
-------
2022 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"package" proposed in many years. The raises are moderately
more liberal than those recommended by the President, but are
regarded as not unreasonably beyond his recommendations.
[p. 58]
In the judgment of the committee, the salary bill reported by
the Subcommittee on Compensation strikes a fair and realistic
balance between all of the major interests concerned. It is a suita-
ble compromise, consistent with the best interests of the taxpay-
ers, the Government, and the employees. Accordingly, title II of
the committee bill adopts the subcommittee proposal virtually
without change.
The chief thrust of title II is toward the achievement, finally, of
comparability between Federal civilian salaries and those in pri-
vate enterprise, as guaranteed by the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1962, without aggravating the critical budget problems of most
immediate concern to the administration and the taxpayers. This
title adopts the President's recommendation for a 4.5-percent in-
crease, effective in October of 1967, for all statutory salary sys-
tems except the postal field service, and adds 1.5 percent to the
President's proposal for that service. This first-phase increase
costs only $63 million more than the increase recommended by the
President for the current fiscal year, in terms of the salary sys-
tems included in the President's recommendation.
Both the President's proposal and title II are designed to
achieve full comparability with two added adjustments following
the first-phase increases. The difference is that the President rec-
ommended a longer period of time than is provided in title II of
the committee bill to reach full comparability.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR POLICIES IN TITLE II
OCTOBER 1967 SALARIES
The present 20-level postal field service salary schedule will be
changed to a 21-level schedule, and all employees subject to the
present schedule will be advanced by one numerical salary level.
The advancement in salary level will give each employee a 6-per-
cent salary increase effective in October of 1967. Rural carriers
will receive the same increases as are granted city carriers.
Employees subject to the General Schedule (classified), Foreign
Service Officer, and Foreign Service Staff Schedules, Veterans'
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2023
Administration medical and surgical salary ranges, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation county committee pay schedule,
judicial branch pay rates or ranges, and legislative branch pay
rates, all will receive 4i/£-percent pay raises effective in October of
1967.
JULY 1968 SALARIES
Postal employees will receive a second-phase increase of 5 per-
cent in July of 1968. Employees in other pay systems will receive
adjustments in July of 1968 to close one-half of the difference
between their salary levels and comparable private enterprise sal-
ary levels (based on the June 1967 Bureau of Labor Statistics
salary survey) but not less than 3 percent. The necessary salary
adjustments for these other employees will be made by the Presi-
dent, without further legislative action.
APRIL 1969 SALARIES
Both postal and other employees will receive a final, third-phase
adjustment in April of 1969 to bring all of their salaries up to a
par
[p. 69]
with private enterprise salaries, as determined by the June 1968,
Bureau of Labor Statistics salary survey. This final adjustment
also will be made by the President without further legislative
action.
EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE SALARIES
Salaries for executive levels III, IV, and V are increased from
$28,500, $27,000, and $26,000, to $29,500, $28,750, and $28,000,
respectively, in order to accommodate the general salary increases
proposed for career employees.
COMMISSION ON EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL SALARIES
A "Quadrennial Commission" is established to determine proper
levels for executive congressional, and judicial salaries once every
4 years. Each Commission will make a study for a full fiscal year
every fourth year (beginning with the 1969 fiscal year) and must
submit its recommendations to the President by the end of the
-------
2024 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
calendar year in which the study is completed. The President shall
include, in the next budget he transmits to the Congress after
receiving the Commission's report, his recommendations for the
exact rates of pay, and the kinds and amounts of expenses and
allowances, for Federal executives, judges, and Members of Con-
gress. The recommendations transmitted to the Congress by the
President in his budget will become effective the first pay period
beginning more than 30 days after transmittal of the budget,
unless the Congress has enacted a statute fixing specific rates of
pay and amounts and kinds of expenses and allowances or unless
one House or the other has specifically disapproved any or all of
the President's recommendations.
STATUTORY SCHEDULES—SALARY LINKAGE
The Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962, among other matters,
established the principle of "salary linkage" of postal field service
salaries and General Schedule salaries, as a necessary means for
orderly establishment of appropriate relationships between the
two salary systems, for purposes of determining comparability
with private enterprise rates, because a great many postal field
service positions have no counterpart for comparison of duties and
responsibilities in the private sector.
It is the committee's intention that this direct salary linkage of
the postal field service and the General Schedule salary systems be
maintained, as a necessary adjunct of the comparability policy,
even though the salary rates in the committee bill provide a 6-per-
cent initial increase for postal field service employees and a 4.5-
percent increase for General Schedule empoyees. The variance is
due entirely to budgetary considerations, and does not alter the
substantive principle of linkage of the levels of duties and respon-
sibilities. The direct salary linkage, heretofore in effect, will be
restored through the salary adjustments the President is to make
in July of 1968 and April of 1969. The final schedules to be pre-
scribed by the President in 1969 will establish the same salary
ranges for postal field service level 21 and General Schedule grade
17, for postal field service level 12 and General Schedule grade 11,
and for the first 10 step-rates of postal field service level 5 and
General Schedule grade 5.
[p. 60]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2025
TABLE OF EMPLOYMENT AND COSTS
Statutory salary system
General Schedule
Postal field service
Veterans' Administration, Department of Medicine and Surgery. .
Foreign Service
Total, executive branch
Judicial branch
Legislative branch
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation county committee
Total all systems
Fiscal year costs (in millions of dollars,
Number of cumulative)
1,200,000
715,000
21,000
16.000
1,952,000
5,000
6,550
21,350
1,984,900
1968
$354.9
250.0
8.3
7.S
621.0
1.75
1.99
4.10
628.84
1969
$1,170.1
649.2
32.1
32.4
1,883.8
5.68
6.25
12.90
1,908.63
1970
$1,207.8
117.3
50.0
50.7
2,619.8
8.55
9.24
19.75
2,657.34
EXPLANATION OF TITLE II BY SECTIONS
Section 201 of title II provides a short title—"Federal Salary
Act of 1967."
The schedule in section 202 (a) provides 4.5-percent pay raises
for all General Schedule (GS) employees, substantially as recom-
mended by the President, effective the first pay period in October
1967. Subsection (b) provides the usual rules to convert employees
to the new salary schedule.
[p. 61]
1.9c(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
S. REP. No. 801, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
POSTAL RATES AND FEDERAL SALARIES
NOVEMBER 21,1967.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MONRONEY, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7977]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 7977) to adjust certain postage rates, to
526-704 O - 74 - 18
-------
2026 LEGAL COMPILATION — Am
adjust the rates of basic compensation for certain officers and
employees in the Federal Government, and to regulate the mailing
of pandering advertisements, and for other purposes, having con-
sidered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
TITLE II
FEDERAL SALARIES
Title II provides for pay adjustments for civilian employees of
the Government subject to the four statutory salary schedules and
employees of the legislative and judicial branches and in county
offices of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
These increases are to take effect in three stages, beginning
October 1, 1967, and ending July 1, 1969. When fully effective, the
salaries paid will reflect the most recent available Bureau of Labor
Statistics evidence of salaries in private enterprise for positions of
similar levels of work and responsibility. The total estimated cost
of the three-stage increase for all employees is presented in the
charts below :
Statutory salary system
General Schedule
Postal field service
Veterans' Administration, Department of Medicine and Surgery. .
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation county committee
Total, all systems
Fiscal year costs (in millions of dollars,
Number of cumulative)
1,200,000
715,000
21,000
16,000
1,952,000
5,000
6,550
21,350
1,984,900
1968
$354.9
250.0
8.3
7.8
621.0
1.75
1.99
4.10
628.84
1969
$957.5
623.5
26.1
26.2
1,638.3
4.66
5.43
10.58
1,658.67
1970
Jl.807.3
711.3
50.0
50.7
2,619.8
8.58
9.64
19.78
2,657.84
[p. 20]
Section 202 provides a 4.5-percent across-the-board increase for
employees subject to the general schedule of the Classification Act.
There are currently 1,188,577 employees under the schedule.
The 4,5-percent increase will cost $354.9 million for fiscal year
1968.
[p. 88]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2027
1.9c(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 1013, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
POSTAL RATES AND FEDERAL SALARIES
DECEMBER 7,1967.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DULSKI from the committee of conference, submitted the fol-
lowing
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7977]
The committtee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
7977) to adjust certain postage rates, to adjust the rates of basic
compensation for certain officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and to regulate the mailing of pandering advertise-
ments, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Postal Revenue and Federal
Salary Act of 1967.
[P-l]
EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL SCHEDULE
Sec. 202. (a) The General Schedule contained in section 5332 (a)
of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
[p. 12]
*******
(b) Except as provided in section 5303 of title 5, United States
Code, the rates of basic pay of officers and employees to whom the
General Schedule set forth in the amendment made by subsection
-------
2028 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(a) of this section applies shall be initially adjusted as of the
effective date of this section, as follows:
(1) If the officer or employee is receiving basic pay im-
mediately prior to the effective date of this section at one of
the rates of a grade in the General Schedule, he shall receive
a rate of basic pay at the corresponding rate in effect on and
after such date.
(2) If the officer or employee is receiving basic pay im-
mediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate
between two rates of a grade in the General Schedule, he shall
receive a rate of basic pay at the higher of the two corre-
sponding rates in effect on and after such date.
(3) If the officer or employee is receiving basic pay im-
mediately prior to the effective date of this section at a rate
in excess of the maximum rate for his grade, he shall receive
(A) the maximum rate for his grade in the new schedule, or
(B) his existing rate of basic pay increased by 4~5 per cen-
tum, rounded to the next highest dollar, if such existing rate
as so increased is higher.
(4) If the officer or employee, immediately prior to the
effective date of this section, is receiving, pursuant to section
2(b)(4) of the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of
1955, an existing aggregate rate of pay determined under
section 208(b) of the Act of September 1, 1954 (68 Stat.
1111), plus subsequent increases authorized by law, he shall
receive an aggregate rate of pay equal to the sum of his
existing aggregate rate of pay on the day preceding the effec-
tive date of this section, plus the amount of increase made by
this section in the maximum rate of his grade, until (i) he
leaves his position, or (ii) he is entitled to receive aggregate
pay at a higher rate by reason of the operation of this Act or
any other provision of law; but, when such position becomes
vacant, the aggregate rate of pay of any subsequent appointee
thereto shall be fixed in accordance with applicable provisions
of law. Subject to clauses (i) and (ii) of the immediately
preceding sentence of this subparagraph, the amount of
the increase provided by this section shall be held and
considered for the purposes of section 208(b) of the Act of
[p. 13]
TITLE II—FEDERAL SALARY INCREASES
With one significant exception the differences between the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2029
House bill and the Senate amendment were relatively minor and
technical.
The one exception was the Commission on Executive, Legisla-
tive, and Judicial Salaries contained in the House bill which was
struck out in the Senate amendment. The provision establishing
the Commission has been retained in the conference substitute
with an amendment requiring that the recommendations to be
submitted by the President are restricted solely to the proper
levels for executive, congressional, and judicial salaries.
The conference substitute does not contain the provision of the
House bill requiring the executive agencies to absorb certain costs
of the salary increase. However, it is the firm intent of the House
conferees that the Bureau of the Budget require all the depart-
ments and agencies to absorb, to the maximum possible extent, the
additional cost above the amounts budgeted for fiscal year 1968
through attrition, not filling vacancies, and other actions aimed at
achieving economies.
[p. 41]
TITLE II—FEDERAL SALARY INCREASES
Pay conversion rules
The rujes under the House bill for conversion of employees to
the new salary schedules provide that an employee receiving basic
pay immediately prior to the effective date of the new schedules at
a rate in excess of the maximum rate for his grade shall be
converted to—
(1) The maximum rate for his grade at the new schedule, or
(2) His existing rate of basic pay if such existing rate is
higher.
This rule is applied under the House bill to General Schedule
employees under section 202 (b) (3) and to postal field service
employees under section 205 (e) (4) and section 205 (g) (2).
[p. 46]
The conference substitute added a requirement that the existing
rate, when higher than the new maximum rate, be increased by
the amount of the applicable pay increase.
[P. 47]
-------
2030 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9c(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 113 (1967)
1.9c(4)(a) Oct. 10, 11: Amended and passed House, pp. 28410;
28412; 28648-28649; 28655; 28671-28672
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I regret
the manner in which this bill is being
brought before the House today, with
the limited opportunity for debate. I
am particularly concerned with title
II of the bill, the Federal salary in-
creases. The salary portion of the bill
consists of pages 35 through 76. This
portion of the bill was not considered
by the full committee to the same ex-
tent as the postal rate increase. Time
after time we had motions to cut off
debate. The previous question was de-
manded before we had adequate time
in the committee to consider various
portions of the pay bill.
As the bill is being presented to the
House it provides for a 6-percent in-
crease for the postal workers, and a
4.5-percent increase for the classified
employees and for all other civilian
employees of the Government. It
would be interesting to know when the
military pay bill comes before this
House whether it will be proposed to
give the military a 6-percent increase
in pay as is being proposed for the
postal workers, or a 4.5-percent in-
crease as is being suggested for all of
our other employees.
I intend at the proper time to offer
an amendment to provide for a 6-per-
cent increase for all civilian employ-
ees the first year and for equality of
treatment for the subsequent 2 years.
It seems that it is fair and equitable
to treat all Government employees in
the same manner.
[p. 28410]
EMPLOYEE'S PAY
Mr. DULSKI.
The President recommended a gen-
eral 4.5-percent civilian salary in-
crease effective in October of 1967
and, also, that the Congress take the
additional steps necessary to achieve
full comparability of Federal and pri-
vate enterprise salary rates over a 2-
year period.
The committee adopted the 4.5-per-
cent recommendation for all except
postal employees. Postal employees
will receive 6 percent in October, fol-
lowed by another 5 percent in July of
1968. The other employees at that
time will receive increases closing
one-half of the amounts by which
their pay lags behind private enter-
prise rates. Then, in April 1969, both
postal and other employees will re-
ceive third-phase adjustments to bring
their pay to a par with private enter-
prise pay rates.
The committee pay recommenda-
tions are substantially below many
employee group requests, but repre-
sent a generous salary "package" that
will finally achieve the salary compar-
ability guaranteed by the 1962 Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act. The raises
are only moderately more liberal than
those recommended by the President.
[p. 28412]
Mr. SCOTT (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendments be consid-
ered as read and printed in the RE-
CORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that the amend-
ments be considered en bloc.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2031
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment simply provides that a
pay raise of 6 percent effective Octo-
ber 1 of this year be given to all em-
ployees covered by the bill rather than
the initial 6 percent for postal work-
ers and 4% percent for all other em-
ployees. It does not relate to the ac-
tion taken in 1968 or 1969 which is
covered in another portion of the bill
because none of us are aware at this
time of what action the House will
take on these portions of the bill.
Therefore, this amendment is related
only at the initial phase.
What the committee bill says, in ef-
fect, is that postal workers are enti-
tled to "more comparability" than any
other group of Government employees.
I find no justification for this sugges-
tion.
In a pamphlet printed last year by
the committee entitled "Salary and
Retirement Amendment Increases of
Federal Classified and Postal Employ-
ees, 1945-66," there is a table on page
1 indicating all of the pay raises re-
ceived from July 1, 1945, to date, and
it indicates that classified workers'
pay has been increased by 100.2 per-
cent. A similar table on page 2 relates
to postal employees for the same pe-
riod of time, and it indicates they
have received increases totalling 139.4
percent. I have these tables with me if
any member would like to look at
them. Mr. Chairman, I am not argu-
ing to give postal employees less but
to give classified workers more. The
report of the committee on this bill
contains a message from the President
which states on page 3 that an in-
crease of 7.2 percent is necessary to
close the comparability gap.
However, according to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, this 7.2-percent
gap existed in March 1966. Between
March 1966 and July 1967 pay for
private industry increased an addi-
tional 5 percent, bringing the compar-
ability gap not to 7.2 percent but to
12.2 percent at the beginning of this
fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that
each Member of this body wants to be
fair to all Government employees and
does not respond, as some of the news-
papers have indicated, by giving
greater increases to those employees
who have the most effective lobbyists
on the Hill. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do
believe in economy in government and
will continue to vote against many of
the spending programs. There is no
question but that we must have a sys-
tem of priorities in Government
spending. However, these are employ-
ees of our Government. They are the
people we and the public deal with
daily. I believe they are entitled to
fair and equal treatment. The amend-
ment was prepared by the committee
staff with instructions to give identi-
cal treatment to all employees. It is
the right thing to do. I urge its adop-
tion.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot
of talk around here about economy
and you are going to have a chance to
cast an economy vote on this amend-
ment because the amount carried
under this proposed pay bill is over
the President's budget as a result of
the compromises which we have had to
make. In other words, you are going
to add $157 million more if you adopt
this amendment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me tell the
members of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the
Union for just a moment why this is
true.
Mr. Chairman, the committee de-
cided to give an increase of 6 percent
to postal workers and an increase of
4.5 percent in this first phase to clas-
sified workers. It is important that the
members of the Committee understand
-------
2032
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
this. We were faced with a tremen-
dously difficult job and problem. We
were shot at by the postal unions who
have a real grievance. We were under
fire also by the administration which
has a real budget problem. We had
one serious problem with reference to
the classified people who have been
promised comparability for a period
of at least 5 years. In other words, we
were dealing with a very fragile situ-
ation or, in other words, a stool which
rested upon three legs. In the first
place the first leg was represented by
the administration budget and the
problem of the deficit with which we
are confronted. We had to hold the
impact of this proposal down and
limit it to what could be expended
upon pay raises. As a result of this,
we came down somewhere between
$300 and $400 million.
Second, 220 Members of this House
of Representatives l.ave said that the
postal people have a real grievance
and as an indication of that griev-
ance, 220 bills were introduced, bills
designed to reclassify postal employ-
ees. We had to do something about it.
We had also to do something about
full comparability for the classified
people. So the compromise was that
this year in the first phase we will
make it 1% percent extra for the
postal people, but not as an expression
of favoritism for one group, but as a
reclassification action as well.
Mr. Chairman, in the classified
service
[p. 28648]
grade changes go on all the time. In
other words, you can change a GS-9
to a GS-10 or you can change a GS-6
to a GS-7. However, you cannot re-
classify a postal employee under the
same guidelines as you can a classi-
fied employee. So, the postal employ-
ees are getting 6 in this phase, 5 next
year, for a total of 11 percent. And,
by doing that we reclassify them and
give them this level 5, an action which
the majority of this House has said
they are entitled to.
But, next year, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
SCOTT'S classified employees will begin
to get the bigger raises and they will
have full comparability in 1969. I
would like to give them full compara-
bility this year, but we cannot do it.
So, we propose to handle it in three
phases. We see that they get to the
point where eventually they will have
their comparability. There is some-
thing in this proposed pay raise for
everyone.
However, Mr. Chairman, we have a
delicate compromise which is involved
here represented, as I stated earlier,
by a three-legged stool, and I hope the
members of the Committee will not
pull this one leg out from under me.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment
ought to be defeated on those grounds
and on the ground of economy.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CORBETT. If we were to in-
crease the classified employees' rates
by 1% percent this year, it would
mean that next year they would get a
1% percent less raise?
Mr. UDALL. Precisely, under the
formula.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think, like others
of the committee who have suffered
under the constant accusation that
there is something discriminatory in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2033
this carefully balanced bill. A bill that
attempts to give equity and special at-
tention to those who need it most.
Consider for the moment the employ-
ees involved and what they would like,
but remember what you are trying to
do through this legislation to
strengthen the postal service, and you
must realize that we are in trouble.
One of the places where we are in
trouble, and everyone recognizes it but
we have not done much about it is the
glaring deficiency of postal wages in
high wage areas where the postal
service cannot hire and retain the
kind of people we need for the ever-in-
creasing burden which this essential
service is carrying. We cannot con-
tinue to compete for his labors when
the letter carrier or clerk finds him-
self living on a block where his earn-
ings are so far below that of the par-
ents of children who are tW contem-
poraries of his children and all of the
kids who go to school with his chil-
dren. In other words, we are in seri-
ous and deep trouble.
We have more women carrying
mailbags today than ever before be-
cause it has become a less desirable
job than ever before when compared
with other jobs and unfortunately
women are still getting the toughest
and lowest paying jobs in many parts
of our country. One cannot make
enough money as a letter carrier to
compete with the buying power of
other persons having similar jobs in
private industry in that area. But
more important than anything else is
this: There is no discrimination with
regard—
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. UDALL
was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield
further?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. There is
no discrimination with regard to com-
parability under this bill as it was
written by our subcommittee and
adopted by the full committee. Every
Federal employee is to reach compara-
bility on the same day. That is the
beauty of the Udall bill. It is true that
the postal employees will receive 6
percent this year, and 5 percent in
July of next year, but the amount that
they receive in April of 1969 will be
based on comparability the same as
any other class of employee. All they
can receive in April of 1969 is that
amount necessary to bring them to
comparability. It is true that we are
taking the letter carriers and the
clerks and other postal employees to
their first step toward comparability a
little bit quicker than the other em-
ployees, but there are good and sound
reasons for doing this. And on April
1, 1969, every single employee of the
Federal Government will have reached
comparability if the administration
carries out the intent and purpose of
this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLURE. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Virginia [Mr. SCOTT].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, in re-
sponse to the comment that was made
by the gentleman from Michigan, cer-
tainly I have no intention of discrimi-
nating in any way against the postal
workers, but I do suggest that it is
-------
2034
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
fair to give equal treatment to all em-
ployees. This amendment does not
only relate to classified workers, it re-
lates to those legislative employees
which so many tears were shed about
on the other side of the aisle a few
minutes ago, these competent assist-
ants of ours; it relates to the Veter-
ans' Administration employees, and to
all of the other white collar employees
covered by the bill.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona referred to Mr. SCOTT'S clas-
sified employees. I would say for the
benefit of this House that the staff
furnished me with a list of the num-
ber of classified employees in every
State of our Nation, and in every
State there are at least twice as many
classified employees as there are
postal workers. So these are your em-
ployees as well as Mr. SCOTT'S employ-
ees.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman,
I ask unanimous consent that the gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. BRASCO]
may extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the Scott amendment.
Over 80 percent of the postal employ-
ees are in the first five levels of the
pay scale. These employees are mostly
mailhandlers, clerks, and carriers. A
large proportion of these positions are
held by married men with families to
support on comparatively low salaries.
There is little or no opportunity for
them to be promoted to higher pay
levels. Therefore, the greatest need at
this time is for action which will give
them a substantial increase to help
them meet the greatly increased cost
of living, and make it possible for
them to come closer to supporting a
decent standard of living for their
families.
Employees in other services have
greater opportunity for promotion
and, generally, are single employees
entering the service right out of
school at salary levels the equivalent
of those paid married postal employ-
ees with many years of service.
In the opinion of the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee these facts
justify the additional 1% percent
being granted postal field service em-
ployees in the first stage increase.
Bear in mind that title II of H.R.
7977 in the second- and third-stage
pay increases places all employees—
postal field service, Classification Act,
and all other groups—on the same
basis. It provides that they all receive
salaries comparable to those paid by
private business for the work they are
performing.
I would hope that the House does
not disturb this delicate balance and
would vote down the Scott amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendments offered by the gen-
tleman from Virginia [Mr. SCOTT] .
The amendments were rejected.
[p. 28649]
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MACKEN
Mr. MACHEN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Machen: On
page 36, strike out all of the General Schedule
immediately preceding line 1 and insert in
lieu thereof the following :
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2035
GENERAL SCHEDULE
Grade
Annual rates and steps
10
GS-1
GS-2 . ...
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8 . .
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-18 . ..
$3
4
4
5
5
6
... .6
7
8
8
9
11
13
15
18
21
23
27
790
1?1
484
015
,S98
,160
774
4?1
081
84?
,fR?
,474
•i?l
,863
411
080
898
181!
$3,918
4,261
4,635
5,183
5,783
6,368
6,998
7,668
8,355
9,145
10,013
11,872
13,991
16,412
19,068
21,784
24,696
$4,046
4,401
4,786
5,351
5,968
6,576
7,222
7,915
8,629
9,448
10,344
12,270
14,461
16,961
19,705
22,488
25,494
$4,174
4,541
4,937
5,519
6,153
6,784
7,446
8,162
8,903
9,751
10,675
12,668
14,931
17,510
20,342
23,192
26,292
$4,302
4,681
5,088
5,687
6,338
6,992
7,670
8,409
9,177
10,054
11,006
13,066
15,401
18,059
20,979
23,896
27,090
$4,430
4,821
5,239
5,855
6,523
7,200
7,894
8,656
9,451
10,357
11,337
13,464
15,871
18,608
21,616
24,600
$4,558
4,961
5,390
6,023
6 708
7,408
8,118
8,903
9,725
10,660
11 668
13,862
16,341
19,157
22,253
25,304
$4,686
5,101
5,541
6,191
6,893
7,616
8,342
9,150
9,999
10,963
11,999
14,260
16,811
19,706
22,890
26,003
$4,814
5,241
5,692
6,359
7,078
7,824
8,566
9,397
10,273
11,266
12,330
14,658
17,281
20,255
23,527
26,712
$4,942
5,381
5,843
6,527
7,263
8,032
8,790
9,644
10,547
11,569
!2,661
15 056
17,751
20,804
24,164
Mr. UDALL (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with and
that it be printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona.
There was no objection.
Mr. MACHEN. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to propose an amendment
to section 202 (a) of H.R. 7977 to sub-
stitute a 5-percent pay increase for
Federal classified workers instead of
the 4.5-percent increase now provided
for in the bill.
I do not believe I need go into a
detailed explanation of why this addi-
tional one-half percent is necessary.
In view of the wealth of information
available on what pay increase is
needed to bring Federal classified em-
ployee salaries to the point where they
are comparable to those paid in pri-
vate industry, I believe it is obvious
that while a 5-percent increase is not
nearly enough, it is certainly better
than 4.5 percent.
In his message last April, President
Johnson indicated that, based on a
survey conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the Department of
Labor, a 4.5-percent raise for all Fed-
eral employees was in order. The re-
port the President referred to was
dated February-March 1966. It has
now been over 18 months since mate-
rial for that report was gathered.
During that time wages paid by pri-
vate industry have again increased.
Therefore, I believe that the 5-percent
raise I propose for Federal classified
workers, coupled with the 6-percent
postal workers' raise provided for in
the bill we are now considering, repre-
sent the bare minimum we can, in
good conscience, offer our Federal
civil servants.
Through the years, this Nation has
built up a corps of public servants
whose ability and dedication is une-
qualed. Our career employees are well
trained and experienced. They are, in
more and more instances, skilled pro-
fessionals. They include not only ad-
ministrators and managers but doc-
tors, lawyers, diplomats, and a broad
spectrum of others who are critically
-------
2036
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
needed now more than at any other
time in the Nation's history to con-
tinue to provide the topflight services
which taxpayers rightfully demand.
Very few of these men and women
come to the Federal service by chance.
They come because they see the chal-
lenge of the many varied and far-
reaching problems which the Nation
faces today on the domestic as well as
the international scene. They come be-
cause the Federal service offers them
a chance to take a hand in building a
greater America through creative fed-
eralism.
The principle that Federal employ-
ees should receive salaries at least
equal to those of employees in the pri-
vate sector of the economy doing simi-
lar work has been with us for some
time. The Federal Pay Reform Act of
1962 extended to these employees the
promise that pay comparability would
at last be reached. This, as we all
know too well, was 5 long years ago.
Year after year the annual survey
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics has
shown plainly that salaries of like po-
sitions in private enterprise were
above those paid in the Federal serv-
ice. Year after year, our employees
have been told that this was not the
year to take up all the slack, that this
was not the year to pay the debt
which in effect, the Federal Govern-
ment owed them.
Each time the Federal pay raise
question is considered, our employees
have hoped that perhaps at last the
1962 pledge of pay comparability
would be redeemed. However, it is
only human nature to grow weary of
yesterday's guarantees which have be-
come only today's assurances of a bet-
ter tomorrow. Federal employees are
now becoming impatient, as I am be-
coming impatient, and I believe they
have every right to feel that their em-
ployer has, in a sense, let them down.
Last year, and the year before, we
were forced to accept token raises for
Government employees because of the
threat of a veto. I had hoped that this
year pay comparability would at last
be reached and I introduced a bill
early in this session which would have
reached this end.
However, the bill we are consider-
ing today represents a compromise be-
tween the President's initial request
of 4.5 percent and pay comparability
by October 1969, and what many of us
strongly believe is needed.
Therefore, the amendment I propose
today represents a greater step to-
ward comparability but one that is
economically feasible. In view of our
longstanding pledge to meet the goal
of full comparability, I urge my col-
leagues to accept my amendment for a
5-percent Federal classified pay raise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Maryland [Mr. MACHEN].
The amendment was rejected.
[p. 28655]
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 319, nays 89, answered
"present" 1, not voting 23, * * * .
[p. 28671]
*****
So the bill was passed.
[p. 28672]
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2037
1.9c(4)(b) Nov. 28, 29: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 33975,
34013-34014,34227-34228,34261
EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL SCHEDULE
SBC. 202. (a) The General Schedule con-
tained in section 5332(a) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(b) Except as provided in section 5303 of
title 5, United States Code, the rates of
basic pay of officers and employees to whom
the General Schedule set forth in the amend-
ment made by subsection (a) of this section
applies shall be initially adjusted as of the
effective date of this section, as follows:
(1) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this section at one of the rates of a
grade in the Grand Schedule, he shall re-
ceive a rate of basic pay at the corresponding
rate in effect on and after such date.
(2) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this section at a rate between two
rates of a grade in the General Schedule,
he shall receive a rate of basic pay at the
higher of the two corresponding rates in
effect on and after such date.
(3) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this section at a rate in excess of
the maximum rate for his grade, he shall
receive (A) the maximum rate for his grade
in the new schedule, or (B) his existing rate
of basic pay increased by 4.5 per centum,
rounded to the next highest dollar, if such
existing rate as so increased is higher.
(4) If the officer or employee, immediately
prior to the effective date of this section is
receiving, pursuant to section 2(b)(4) of the
Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of
1955, an existing aggregate rate of pay de-
termined under section 208(b) of the Act of
September 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 1111), plus sub-
sequent increases authorized by law, he shall
receive an aggregate rate of pay equal to the
sum of his existing aggregate rate of pay on
the day preceding the effective date of this
section, plus the amount of increase made by
this section in the maximum rate of his
grade, until (i) he leaves his position, or (ii)
he is entitled to receive aggregate pay at a
higher rate by reason of the operation of this
Act or any other provision of law; but, when
such position becomes vacant, the aggregate
rate of pay of any subsequent appointee
thereto shall be fixed in accordance with
applicable provisions of law. Subject to
clauses (i) and (ii) of the immediately pre-
ceding sentence of this subparagraph, the
amount of the increase provided by this sec-
tion shall be held and considered for tlvj
purposes of section 208 (b) of the Act of
September 1, 1954, to constitute a part of
the existing rate of pay of the employee.
(5) If the officer or employee, at any time
during the period beginning on the effective
date of this section and ending on the date of
enactment of this title, was promoted from one
grade under the General Schedule contained in
section 5332 (a) of title 5, United States Code,
to another such grade at a rate which is above
the minimum rate thereof, his rate of basic
pay shall be adjusted retroactively from the
effective date of this section to the date on
which he was so promoted, on the basis of the
rate which he was receiving during the period
from such effective date to the date of such
promotion and, from the date of such promo-
tion, on the basis of the rate for that step of
the appropriate grade of the General Schedule
contained in the amendment made by subsec-
tion (a) of this section which corresponds
numerically to the step of the grade of the
General Schedule to which such officer or em-
ployee was promoted as in effect (without re-
gard to this title) at the time of such promo-
tion.
(6) If the officer or employee, at any time
during the period beginning on the effective
date of this section and ending on the date of
enactment of this title, became subject to the
General Schedule and his rate of basic pay was
set above the minimum rate of the grade on
the basis of a previously earned rate above
such minimum rate, his rate of basic pay shall
be adjusted retroactively to the date on which
he became subject to the General Schedule on
the basis of the rate of the appropriate grade
of the General Schedule contained in this sec-
tion which corresponds numerically to the rate
of the grade at which the pay of such officer
or employee was set at the time he became
subject to the General Schduled.
-------
2038
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
GENERAL SCHEDULE
Grade
Annual rates and steps
10
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-1 7
GS-18
$3
4
. . 4
4
5
6
6
7
... . 8
8
9
11
13
15
18
. . 20
23
27
,776
,108
,466
,995
%•;
137
,734
,384
,054
821
6"i7
461
,507
,841
,404
,982
,788
,055
$3,902
4,245
4,615
5,161
5,751
6 342
6,959
7,630
8,323
9 115
9,979
11,843
13,957
16,369
19,017
21,681
24,581
$4,028
4,382
4,764
5,327
5,937
6 547
7,184
7,876
8,592
9 409
10,301
12,225
14,407
16,897
19,630
22,380
25,374
$4,154
4,519
4,913
5,493
6,123
6 752
7,409
8,122
8,861
9,703
10,623
12,607
14,857
17,425
20,243
23,079
26,167
$4,280
4,656
5,062
5,659
6,309
6 957
7,634
8,368
9,130
9 997
10,945
12,989
15,307
19 953
20,856
23,778
26,960
$4,406
4,793
5,211
5,825
6,495
7 162
7,859
8,614
9,399
10 291
11,267
13,371
15,757
18,481
21,469
24,477
$4 532
4,930
5,360
5,991
6,681
7 367
8 084
8,860
9,668
10 585
11,589
13,753
16,207
19 009
22 082
25 176
$4 658
5 067
5 509
6,157
6,867
7 572
8 309
9 106
9,937
10 879
11,911
14,135
16,657
19 537
22 695
25,875
$4 784
5 204
5 658
6,323
7,053
7 777
8 534
9 352
10,206
11 173
12,233
14,517
17,107
20 065
23 308
26 574
$4 910
5 341
5 807
6,489
7,239
7 982
8 759
9 598
10 475
11 467
12,555
14,899
17,557
20 593
23 921
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I
wish to express my deep appreciation
to the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service for the excellent statement he
made today with respect to the con-
tents of the bill dealing with postal
pay and postal rates.
The chairman was most generous to
the members of the minority during
several weeks of hearings. We also
met several days in executive session.
He was tireless in his efforts with re-
spect to the bill. He was most kind
and generous with those of us who
disagreed with some sections of the
bill. I believe that the bill is before the
Senate today largely as a result of the
patience, the endurance, and the kind-
ness of the distinguished chairman of
the committee. It has been a pleasure
to work with him.
It is true that there are some areas
of disagreement, as there were in
committee. We shall no doubt discuss
some of them before action on the bill
is concluded.
This bill brings me great satisfac-
tion, because for the first time we
have been able to bring comparability
to the Federal employees.
[p. 33975]
Mr. President, in 1962 we passed
what was known as the Federal Sal-
ary Reform Act of that year. I helped'
to write that legislation and I have
been greatly disappointed that
through past years we have been una-
ble to raise the comparability pay for
employees, postal and classified. This
bill reaches that and I shall discuss it
briefly.
To make the 6-percent pay increase
for our postal employees and the 4.5-
percent pay increase for classified,
Foreign Service, and Veterans' Ad-
ministration professional employees
effective October 1, 1967, is to make
amends to these employees in some
small measure for the delay of which
they have been the victims for 5 long
years.
The Federal Salary Reform Act of
1962 made the solemn promise that
"Federal salary rates shall be compa-
rable with private enterprise rates for
the same levels of work." We must
preserve this principle of comparabil-
ity of Federal pay with that in pri-
vate industry, but we cannot do it by
contributing needlessly to the lag
which exists between Government and
industry pay. We are trying to close
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2039
that gap and we can do it only by
making these catchup annual in-
creases available to employees at the
earliest date possible. This we have
done in this particular legislation.
The President in his message to
Congress last April made the admis-
sion that to close the comparability
gap in 1 year "would require an aver-
age pay increase of 7.2 percent." In
view of "today's fiscal and economic
conditions" the President recom-
mended a 4.5-percent pay increase for
civilian employees effective October 1,
1967.
The bill which we bring here today
provides a 6-percent increase for
postal workers in the first year and a
4.5 percent for classified workers in
the first year. The following year
postal workers will receive a 5-percent
increase and classified workers not
less than 3 percent and whatever is
necessary to bring them to full com-
parability.
There is no incontrovertible evi-
dence that economic conditions in this
country have so deteriorated or have
reached such an acute state of im-
pending national disaster that Con-
gress should fail to live up to the re-
commendation of the President and to
fulfill its own promise of making this
4.5-percent pay increase effective no
later than October 1 of 1967.
These official annual statistical sur-
veys have indicated that a certain per-
centage of pay increase should be en-
acted. Repeatedly we have scaled this
percentage down for one reason or an-
other, always with the implied prom-
ise that "this is not the year, but next
year we will give you what you de-
serve." Certainly the time has come to
put an end to these broken promises.
Comparison of the pay line based on
the 1966 BLS salary survey with ac-
tual salaries in 1960, prior to enact-
ment of the comparability principle,
shows that a year ago classified sala-
ries lagged behind industry from 2.3
percent in GS-3 to 14.2 percent in
GS-15. The gap was not all in the
top-most grades. It was 8.6 percent in
GS-7, 9.3 percent in GS-9, and 10.5
percent in GS-11.
This meant that in February-March
1966 an increase of 8.2 percent was
needed to raise salaries on an average
to comparability. Meanwhile, clerical
salaries alone in private industry have
increased an average of 4.4 percent.
Since professional and administrative
salaries were shown to have increased
[p. 34013]
in greater proportion than clerical
pay, the intervening increase during
the year since February-March 1966
was estimated as 5.5 percent.
Mr. President, I shall now turn to
the other phase of the bill that deals
with postage rates. I agree fully with
the statement of Postmaster General
O'Brien who said this was the most
complex postal rate bill ever submit-
ted to Congress. Again I commend the
distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee for his untiring efforts in
bringing this bill to the floor of the
Senate. It is a real achievement and
represents one of our most difficult
proposals.
I have always felt that the Post
Office was a public service operation. I
have never shared the view of those
people who are concerned about the
operation from a fiscal standpoint.
I stated earlier this afternoon that
the deficit in the Post Office was $1.2
billion.
I further stated that with these in-
creased rates and the increased pay
we are voting in the pending bill, that
on a 3-year phase, which is the rate
extended in this bill on postal rates,
and the pay bill, that the deficit on
June 30, 1970, will be $1.2 billion.
I firmly believe that and I have no
doubt, based on past experience in the
Department—and this was not the
fault of the Department, it is a fac-
tual situation—that will prevail. I am
-------
2040
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
not greatly concerned about it because
I feel the Department is the one pub-
lic service operation of our Federal
Government.
For that reason I am hopeful that
while we increase these rates it will
make an effort to reduce them for it is
still a public service operation for our
people.
[p. 34014]
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, if
someone started out to find a way to
wreck the efficiency of the U.S. Gov-
ernment here and abroad he could not
have dreamed up a better way to do it
than to produce a motion of the kind
produced by the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. CURTIS] and the Senator
from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS].
This bill does take care of a large
number of well deserving employees.
These are the faithful postal employ-
ees, 90 percent of whom are below the
$8,000 provided in this bill. Those em-
ployees who receive $8,000 would re-
ceive the benefits of the 6 percent in-
crease we are providing in this bill.
Above that level there are the su-
pervisors, the men who must plan and
design the mail schemes, those who
make contracts with railroads and
airlines, those who run all of the exec-
utive departments of the Post Office,
all of whom would be denied any in-
crease whatsoever.
Mr. President, under the amend-
ment, it would be possible and proba-
ble that men who have menial tasks
—and this would benefit them almost
solely—would be able to go above
their supervisors in salary, and those
who have already reached above
$8,000 in salary would see their subor-
dinates in menial capacities paid more
than they are.
Ninety percent of the postal em-
ployees are below the $8,000 figure.
Those who serve in a supervisory ca-
pacity, or an executive capacity, those
who plan the entire $8 billion system,
would have no increase whatsoever.
Although the degiee of comparability
with private industry is high at the
extreme low level, it goes down in
comparability to 75 percent or 80 per-
cent in the management-type position.
This measure puts the emphasis in
that area where we have the greatest
difficulty in recruiting and keeping
competent Federal employees. If there
is any way to save money, anyone who
has studied high school economics will
tell you that it is good management. I
do not see how we can have good man-
agement if we are paying less than
the man across the street is paying.
Ninety percent of GS employees are
paid below $8,000. The others are
their supervisors, directors, and plan-
ners, and the specialists in all agen-
cies of interstate commerce.
I respect and admire the lower level
menial employees and I want to see
them rewarded in a pay increase, but
this increase cannot be denied to man-
agement.
We are losing those who are in
management now because of the inad-
equate pay and lack of adequate pro-
motional opportunity. How much is
going to be saved by this proposal?
We are not going to save all that it is
thought will be saved because of the
large percentage of employees below
the $8,000 grade. There will be saved,
according to the committee statistics
that were given us, if we cut all above
$8,000, only $68 million a year out of
$500 million in the pay bill. We would
sacrifice the incentives necessary to
preserve management and the skills
that are necessary.
Do Senators think they could hire a
doctor or keep a doctor, and—we have
to have thousands of them in our Vet-
erans' Administration, Public Health
Service and of various facilities—un-
less they receive a pay increase, when
the medical orderly below them would
be getting a raise?
Do we think we will be able to em-
ploy and keep nurses? That is proba-
bly the greatest shortage we have. No
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2041
nurse above the beginning salary
today is paid under $8,000. So these
great ladies who care for the wounded
and come back after discharge from
the military hospitals where they are
military personnel, cannot be hired.
Certainly they are not going to stay,
as much as they love Government
work, when the hospital down the
street, or in some other city, is paying
the going rate. We are already having
great difficulty on that.
[p. 34227]
We will not hire any dentists, be-
cause they are above that salary. We
will not be able to keep them.
We are having trouble keeping air
traffic control experts. They are all
paid above $8,000. Certainly, these
men are necessary.
The FBI is going to be ashamed to
see its agents leaving for better jobs,
being unable to compete in the promo-
tional opportunities with supervisors
at the lowest level of the FBI.
We are not going to be able to keep
any researchers in the billion-dollar
enterprises of research and all the
things we do there.
Engineers cannot be hired for
$8,000, so the men we have are going
to move on because there are ample
opportunities elsewhere in those fields.
Scientists, supervisors, test training
pilots who go along with certifying
training programs and checking out
the pilots at the airlines, we will not
be able to hire them.
We will eliminate by necessity all
the top level of congressional offices.
Mr. President, judge for yourself, we
can keep the boy in the folding room
by giving him a raise, and we can
keep the elevator operator by giving
him a raise; yet the most effective and
efficient administrative assistants, the
personal secretaries, the girls on
whom we so much depend for the
efficiency of our office work, are all
paid better than $8,000 a year in
order to get the kind of talent we
need. They will all be hired away
from us downtown or hired by others.
This is an amendment which puts
the emphasis on the wrong syllable.
We do not save the money that it says
we have.
The best way to do it, if we gentle-
men wish to effect it, is to tear out the
whole section on pay increases. Let us
not say that because the votes are
over here in the great numbers of
postal employees—90 percent of the
votes are at the lowest level, "Let's go
for broke, boys. To hell with the
efficiency of the U.S. Government."
In this time of crisis, I do not be-
lieve even though we do have a diffi-
cult time with the budget, that we
want to destroy and kill off our man-
agement and management opportuni-
ties.
I have never seen anything that
would work as inequitably, which
would put the management of the var-
ious departments of Government in
the position of having their subordi-
nates paid more than they are. I do
not see how anyone can think we can
keep a man in the Federal employ-
ment at that rate. I do not know how
anyone could have thought this
through properly. I do not know how
anyone could expect we could get a
bill if we are going to have to crank
all this junk into it. The bill was con-
sidered for 4 long months in the
House and for 2 months in the Senate.
I do not know anyone who knows
more about this subject than the mi-
nority member on the committee, the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON],
who has made such a great contribu-
tion to this bill.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I
concur in the statement just made by
the distinguished chairman, the Sena-
tor from Oklahoma.
This is absolutely the wrong way to
deal with the Federal employment pic-
ture. It is also unfair. It is based on
the 1966 Bureau of Labor Statistics
salary survey on what the actual sala-
526-704 O - 74 - 19
-------
2042
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ries were in 1960 prior to the enact-
ment of the comparability principle,
which shows that the salaries of clas-
sified Federal employees lagged be-
hind by 2.3 percent in GS-3; 4.3 per-
cent in GS-15.
In 1962, we adopted the comparabil-
ity principle. The pending bill is
trying to carry out that principle.
As the distinguished chairman
stated, it is most fair to close up the
gap because they are further behind
in comparability.
As I mentioned, in GS-3 it was 2.3
percent behind; in GS-15, 4.3 percent
behind; in GS-7, 6.6 percent; in GS-9,
9.3 percent; GS-11, is 10.3 percent be-
hind.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that all
Senators will consider this proposal
seriously, and reject the motion.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Kansas yield?
Mr. CARLSON. I am happy to yield
to the Senator from California.
Mr. MURPHY. Do those figures in-
clude the so-called fringe benefits,
such as insurance, and all other bene-
fits that are important in comparing
salaries in government with those in
private industry?
Mr. CARLSON. These are consid-
ered on a salary basis only. They do
not include fringe benefits.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. MONRONEY. Let me say to
my distinguished colleague from Cali-
fornia, who represents a most pro-
gressive State in a most progressive
way, that the fringe benefits are much
less today in Government than they
were. They used to be much superior.
But on insurance and retirement, they
do not match the equivalents of out-
side employment today. The salary
level there, as to the total cost of the
bill or the total cost of the salary level
we have quoted, adds $38 million for
insurance benefits to the total. This is
provided in the last title.
Mr. MURPHY. In other words, a
comparison of the fringe benefits
would be on approximately the same
percentage basis as a comparison of
the actual total figure; is that not cor-
rect?
Mr. MONRONEY. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Oklahoma
has expired.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I yield
myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Oklahoma
has expired.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr, President, I yield
myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Nebraska is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I lis-
tened with much interest to what the
distinguished chairman had to say. I
should like to say that during World
War II there were pay raises greatly
favoring the lower paid workers.
Today, we are at war. The dollar is
imperiled. We have the highest deficit
in our history.
Now it is being said that this would
save only a few million dollars.
Mr. President, that is not true.
If we go on record of having no pay
increases over these upper brackets
until we balance the budget, then I
believe that we will get a balanced
budget.
The eloquent Senator from Hawaii
[Mr. FONG] pointed out that we have
not had a balanced budget since 1960,
but we have added four pay raises.
One of the virtues of this thing is
that it is an incentive. It will not hurt
research. It will see that the money
vested in research is conserved, that
we will then be able to get a balanced
budget, and then we shall be able to
put on a pay increase.
*****
[p. 34228]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2043
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY INCREASES
WELL DESERVED AND OVERDUE
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President,
historically it has been all too true
that Federal salaries for classified
and postal workers have tended to lag
behind when the cost of living is on
the rise. I am glad to speak in favor
of H.R. 7977 which attempts to over-
come some portion of this lag.
The vast majority of Federal civil
servants are conscientious, loyal, ca-
pable, and hard working.
Having spent a good many years in
both the executive and legislative
branches of the Federal Government
and having during these years worked
with thousands of career Federal em-
ployees, I know that I am not exag-
gerating in so describing them and
their work.
I am repeatedly told by highly
placed executives in private industry
coming to work for the Federal Gov-
ernment for the first time of their
amazement to find Federal employees
so dedicated to the best interests of
the Government, so scrupulously fair
in their dealings with the general pub-
lic, and so highly intelligent and
knowledgeable about the intricacies of
our ever more complex governmental
machinery.
And they remain so despite the
abuse to which they are all too fre-
quently subjected. Thus we have re-
cently seen an example of the entire
body of employees of the Office of Eco-
nomic Opportunity being singled out
and refused a pay increase because
there are some who wanted to ex-
press their dislike of that program—a
program enacted by the Congress and
which those employees were duty
bound to administer. I am pleased
that that attempted discrimination
has been removed in the Senate ver-
sion of the pay raise bill.
I am happy to vote in favor of these
increased salaries for Federal employ-
ees, just as I have voted in favor of
similar increases in the past every
time they were proposed in the Con-
gress since I have been in the Senate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr.
SPONG] was on the floor this afternoon
when he received word of a death in
his family. He took a great interest in
this bill and desired very strongly to
be present to vote in favor of its final
passage. However, the last transpor-
tation available to him to permit to
reach the funeral services left this
afternoon at 6 o'clock and he was re-
quired, therefore, to absent himself
from this vote. I might add that Sena-
tor SPONG took the care to determine
the risk to the legislation by his early
departure this afternoon and was as-
sured by the leadership that the bill
or any of its provisions would not be
in jeopardy by his departure this late
in the afternoon, since only the vote
on final passage remained and the
leadership anticipated a generous
margin to secure its final passage.
In addition, I assured Senator
SPONG that it was our intention to at-
tempt to reach final passage on the
military companion pay bill immedi-
ately after this vote and that the lead-
ership anticipated another generous
margin on that bill.
*****
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
and all time having expired, the ques-
tion is, Shall it pass? On this question
the yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
*****
The result was announced — yeas 85,
nays 2.
So the bill (H.R. 7977) was passed.
[p. 34261]
-------
2044
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.9c(4)(c) Dec. 11: House recedes from its disagreement to the
Senate amendment, and concurs therein, with an amendment,
p. 35842
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.9c(4)(d) Dec. 12: Senate concurs in House amendment to Senate
amendment, pp. 36104; 36106; 36108-36109
Mr. FONG
Another important feature of this
measure is the Federal employee sal-
ary increase section. This section is
landmark legislation. It will increase
Federal classified employee salaries by
4.5 percent and postal employee sala-
ries by 6 percent, retroactive to Octo-
ber 1, 1967. Also included in the bill
are two future automatic pay in-
creases effective July 1, 1968 and July
1, 1969. These two additional in-
creases will bring Federal classified
and postal employees up to compara-
bility with their counterparts in pri-
vate industry. The Congress over-
whelmingly approved the comparabil-
ity principle in the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962. However, at no
time since then have Federal salaries
been comparable to those paid for sim-
ilar positions in private industry. The
three-stage salary increase contained
in H.R. 7977 will make comparability
a reality in 1969. This will fulfill a
promise Congress made to the almost
2 million dedicated Federal employees
7 years ago.
Several times during the Senate-
House conference it appeared that the
Conferees were hopelessly deadlocked
and a final conference agreement
could not be obtained. A number of
compromises were suggested on the is-
sues in disagreement and intensely de-
bated on both sides of the table.
[p. 36104]
Mr. YARBOROUGH.
*****
We know there is a brain drain out
of the Federal service, with officers
and employees leaving, particularly in
the higher echelons and in the higher
GS grades. We hope that this bill will
make it possible to keep these employ-
ees in the Federal service.
In this country we hear about the
shortage of labor, but the greatest
shortage is in those who are skilled in
management. People who know how to
manage and get things done are in
extremely short supply. We have at-
tempted to try to hold these people
and keep them in the Federal service
by raising their status. There is not
much raise in money but there is in
status.
I commend the distinguished Sena-
tor from Oklahoma for his leadership
on this bill, and for the excellence of
his staff. I have never seen excelled
the skill of the staff of the committee
and the technical know-how they dis-
played. In the past, we have had to
have experts from Civil Service pres-
ent to answer difficult questions. The
Senator from Oklahoma now has a
highly trained staff so that it is not
necessary to call in people from the
Civil Service Commission dealing with
these highly complicated matters, and
there are many difficult questions with
3 million employees covered in one
bill.
Mr. President, the 1967 Federal pay
bill provides a long-needed wage in-
crease for our many fine Federal em-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2045
ployees. The U.S. Government is the
largest employer in the world. Today
there are almost 3 million civilian em-
ployees in all branches of the Govern-
ment, The 700,000 postal employees
will receive a 6-percent increase re-
troactive to October 1, so in addition
to a salary raise they will get a little
extra for Christmas. In July of 1968,
they will receive an additional 5-per-
cent increase.
As chairman of the Postal Affairs
Subcommittee I have long had an in-
terest in postal salaries and have
gladly supported each increase in the
past 11 years. This year 1 was able to
work for the increase in the commit-
tee, on the floor of the Senate, and
in the Senate-House conference com-
mittee where we assured that the raise
for our postal employees would be
maintained.
Other Federal employees will also
receive salary increases. I am proud
that there are nearly 150,000 persons
who will benefit directly from this bill
in my own State of Texas. The wage
increase is certainly justified by the
testimony I heard in the many days of
hearings held on this bill.
For many years, those who chose
Federal service received less for their
work than persons in private sectors
of our economy doing comparable
work. Those private occupations,
based, of course, on profits and incen-
tives, responded more quickly to price
increases and to individual talents of
employees. Federal employees, with
wages periodically set by Congress,
seemed destined to lag always behind.
The result was that the Government
had a problem in recruiting the many
doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other
professional and staff persons it
needed. And even after recruitment,
increasing salaries and fringe benefits
in the private sector lured away many
of the most promising employees. Our
Government and the employees on
which it depends must be second to
none. And that means that we must be
a fair employer and pay a fair wage.
Under the leadership of President
Kennedy, the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962 was passed. That ?,ct es-
tablished as a goal of Government,
and as a commitment to its employees,
wages which are comparable to those
paid in private enterprise. There is a
direct and proved relationship be-
tween adequate pay and the willing-
ness of any employee anywhere to do
his best. The Government must follow
the principle of equal pay for equal
work for Government employees.
Comparability will be given our
Federal employees in three steps, be-
ginning with a 4%-percent increase
now. One-half of the gap between
Government salaries and salaries in
comparable private jobs will be closed
in July 1968, and the full comparabil-
ity will be reached in April 1969. I am
proud to have participated in the pas-
sage of the bill whereby this pledge to
3 million American workers will be
kept.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
thank the able and competent Senator
from Texas. I wish I could live up to
his kind words but I do appreciate the
compliment. It is credit which I do not
justly deserve.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield so that I may ask a
few questions?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. MUNDT. Undoubtedly during
my absence from the Chamber the
Senator has discussed the Commission
on Legislative, Executive, and Judicial
Salaries.
Mr. MONRONEY. Yes.
Mr. MUNDT. It was not in the bill
at the time it was passed by the Sen-
ate but it was put in, I presume, at
the insistence of the House. Does that
include all of the salaries which would
be covered in the present bill?
Mr. MONRONEY. I do not under-
stand the Senator.
Mr. MUNDT. Would it include all
-------
2046
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
salaries included in the present bill?
Mr. MONRONEY. Senators' sala-
ries are not included and neither are
executives, nor the judiciary.
Mr. MUNDT. In the bill as we
passed it.
Mr. MONRONEY. As we passed
the bill the Commission, which the
House insisted on until the last 5 min-
utes of our conference when we were
ready to break up and postpone action
until after Christmas, this was the
final result between the House, and
was strongly insisted on in order to
get the higher rate for third-class
mail. The Senate strongly insisted on
our position to throw out the Presi-
dent's Commission. Any Member can
move to veto the recommendation, not
only of the entire package of legisla-
tive, judicial, or executive, but sepa-
rately as to legislative, judicial, or ex-
ecutive, or as to any ratio within
those groups.
This was the final compromise that
broke the logjam and made it possible
for agreement on the bill.
[p. 36106]
Mr. MONRONEY. We could vote
separately, and, if Congress wished, it
could reduce congressional salaries
and accept the recommendation of the
Commission on the Executive and Ju-
diciary Salaries. This provision makes
possible a direct individual vote on
matters involving the Members of the
House and the Senate or anyone else.
Mr. THURMOND. Suppose Con-
gress favored raising some salaries,
but the President brought in a plan
that puts some salaries at a certain
figure and some at higher or lower
figures, and that was not in accord-
ance with what the Congress wanted.
The only way to show that disap-
proval would be to kill the whole plan.
Mr. MONRONEY. We could vote
on the separate parts. It takes only a
majority of one of either the House or
the Senate to reject it. I am not a
constitutional lawyer. Many great
men in the Senate area. But this fol-
lows the test we had in the reorgani-
zation plan, in which Congress said
these recommendations can be made
by a Presidential commission, submit-
ted to the Congress, and either House,
by a majority of one, can veto it. So
we did surrender similar constitu-
tional power that we had in order to
permit reorganization of many de-
partments of government.
Mr. THURMOND. The Constitution
provides that Congress shall legislate,
which means it will pass legislation
fixing salaries. If this plan is adopted
and the President comes up with a
plan in which he fixes salaries, Con-
gress does not fix them. Congress will
go along with what he recommended
for the executive branch or turn them
all down. Does not the Senator think
that is depriving Congress of the
right to readjust salaries as Congress
would wish, rather than have a whole
plan rammed down our throats?
Mr. MONRONEY. This provides
for a separate vote. We would have a
separate vote on the executive and a
separate vote on the legislative.
Mr. THURMOND. I am talking
about salaries within the executive
branch.
Mr. MONRONEY. If the Senator
does not like those salaries, a majority
of one in either body can veto that
plan and Congress can fix those sala-
ries legislatively. We have not surren-
dered any power. We have the right to
exercise that power whenever such a
plan does not meet the consensus of a
majority of one in either House.
Mr. THURMOND. Would not one
plan be presented for the Executive
and for the Judiciary and for the Leg-
islative?
Mr. MONRONEY. It would likely
come down from the Presidential
Commission as one proposal. When
that plan reached the floor, it could be
separated and we could vote on it one
by one. Any Member rising in his
place can move to reject each section
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2047
of the proposal. We can vote on each
separately. Either House, by a major-
ity of one, can reject or modify the
plan. So the power rests with the con-
gressional branch. We must accept the
responsibility for accepting any rec-
ommendations that may come to us.
There is the other alternative. If it
should go through by a majority of
three or four, Senators can say, "I do
not care for that pay raise. I will send
back the rest of the money." I do not
expect many to do that.
Mr. THURMOND. Again, the Sena-
tor had a plan for the Executive.
Mr. MONRONEY. I did not have a
plan—
Mr. THURMOND. I mean if the
President submits a plan, the plan
will come, one for the Executive, one
for the Judiciary, and one for the con-
gressional branch. The President,
though, is going to fix those salaries.
Yes, we can turn them down. We can
turn any one plan down, but the sala-
ries for any of those branches of the
Executive, the Legislative, and the Ju-
diciary will be fixed by the President.
Then the whole plan can be voted up
or down.
I take the position that that is de-
priving Congress of the right to legis-
late.
Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. President, I ask for a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the motion to concur in
the House amendment to the Senate
amendment. On this question the yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced—yeas 72,
nays 0.
[p. 36108]
So the Senate concurred in the
House amendment to the Senate
amendment.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill was passed.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
[p. 36109]
1.9d E.G. 11413, ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1969, JUNE 11, 1968
33 Fed. Reg. 8641
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11413
June 11, 1968, 33 F.R. 8641
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES, EFFEC-
TIVE JULY 1, 1968
By virtue of the authority vested in me by
section 212 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967
(Public Law 90-206, 81 Stat. 634) [set out as
a note under section 5304 of this title], and
after seeking the views of employee organiza-
tions as provided therein, it is hereby ordered
as follows:
[p. 19]
General Schedule
Section 1. (a) The rates of basic pay in the
General Schedule contained in section 533-2 (a)
of title 5, United States Code [subsec. (a) of
this section], are adjusted as follows:
-------
2048
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
"Grade
Annual rates and steps
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8 .
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14 ..
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-18
$3
4
4
5
... 5
. ... 6
6
7
8
. . . 9
10
12
14
... 16
. . 19
22
26
... . *30
,889
,281
,600
,145
,732
,321
,981
,699
,462
,297
,203
,174
,409
,946
,780
,835
?64
,239
$4,019
4,372
4 753
5,316
5,924
6,532
7,214
7,956
8,744
9,607
10 543
12,580
14 889
17,511
20,439
23,596
27,138
$4,149
4,513
4,907
5,487
6,115
6,743
7,447
8,213
9,026
9,917
10,883
12,986
15,309
18,076
21,098
24,357
*28,014
$4,279
4,655
5 000
5,658
6,307
6,995
7,680
8,470
9,368
10,227
11,223
13,392
15,849
18,641
21,757
25,118
*28,889
$4,408
4,796
5,214
5,829
6,498
7,166
7,913
8,727
9,590
10,537
11,563
13,798
16,329
19,206
22,416
25,879
*29,764
$4,538
4,937
5,367
6,000
6,690
7,377
8,146
8,984
9,872
10,847
11,903
14,204
16,809
19,771
23,075
26,640
$4,668
5,078
5,521
6,171
6,891
7,588
8,379
9,241
10,154
11,157
12,243
14,610
17,299
20,336
23,734
27,401
$4,798
5,219
5,674
6,342
7,073
7,799
8,612
9,498
10,436
11,467
12,583
15,016
17,769
20,901
24,303
*28,162
$4,928
5,360
5,828
6,513
7,265
8,010
8,845
9,755
10,718
11,777
12,923
15,422
18,240
21,466
25,052
*28,923
$5,057
5,501
5 981
6,684
7,456
8,221
9,078
10,012
11,000
12,087
13,263
15,828
18,729
22,031
25,711
"*The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section 216 of the Federal Salary Act
of 1967 [set out as a note under section 60e-14 of Title 2, The Congress] to the rate for level V
of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective date of this salary adjustment, $28,000)."
(b) Except as provided in section 5303 of
title 5, United States Code [section 5303 of
this title], the rates of basic pay of officers
and employees to whom the General Schedule
set forth in this section applies shall be ini-
tially adjusted as of the effective date of this
order as follows:
(1) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this order at one of the rates of a
grade in the General Schedule, he shall receive
a rate of basic pay at the corresponding rate
in effect on or after such date.
(2) If the officer or employee is receiving:
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this order at a rate between two
rates of a grade in the General Schedule, he
shall receive a rate of basic pay at the higher
of the two corresponding rates in effect on
and after such date.
(3) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this order at a rate in excess of the
maximum rate for his grade, he shall receive
his existing rate of basic pay increased by
the amount of increase made by this section
in the maximum rate for his grade.
(4) If the officer or employee, immediately
prior to the effective date of this ord-er, is
receiving, pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of the
Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of
1955, an existing aggregate rate of pay deter-
mined under section 208 (b) of the Act of Sep-
tember 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 1111), plus subsequent
increases authorized by law, he shall receive
an aggregate rate of pay equal to the sum of
his existing aggregate rate of pay on the day
preceding- the effective date of this section,
plus the amount of increase made by this sec-
tion in the maximum rate of his grade, until
(i) he leaves his position, or (ii) he is entitled
to receive aggregate pay at a higher rate by
reason of the operation of this Act or any
other provision of law; but, when such posi-
tion becomes vacant, the aggregate rate of pay
of any subsequent appointee thereto shall be
fixed Jn accordance with applicable provisions
of law. Subject to clauses (i) and (ii) of the
immediately preceding sentence of this sub-
paragraph, the amount of the increase pro-
vided by this section shall be held and consid-
ered for the purposes of section 208 (b) of the
Act of September 1, 1954, to constitute a part
of the existing rate of pay of the employees.
Schedules for the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration
Sec. 2. The schedules contained in section
4107 of title 38, United States Code [section
4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits], for cer-
tain positions within the Department of Medi-
cine and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration, are adjusted as follows:
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $30,239*.
"Medical Director, $26,264 minimum to
$29,764* maximum.
"Director of Nursing Service, $19,780 mini-
mum to $25,711 maximum.
"Director of Chaplain Service, $19,780 mini-
mum to $25,711 maximum.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2049
"Chief Pharmacist, $19,780 minimum to
$25,711 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $19,780 minimum to $25,711
maximum.
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade, $22,835 minimum to $28,923*
maximum.
"Executive grade, $21,223 minimum to $27,586
maximum.
"Chief grade, $19,780 minimum to $25,711
maximum.
"Senior grade, $16,946 minimum to $22,031
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $14,409 minimum to
$18,729 maximum.
"Full grade, $12,174 minimum to $15,828 max-
imum.
"Associate grade, $10,203 minimum to $13,263
maximum.
[p. 20]
"Nurse Schedule
"Assistant Director grade, $16,946 minimum
to $22,031 maximum.
"Chief grade, $14,409 minimum to $18,729
maximum.
"Senior grade, $12,174 minimum to $15,828
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $10,203 minimum to
$13,263 maximum.
"Full grade, $8,462 minimum to $11,000 maxi-
mum.
"Associate grade, $7,330 minimum to $9,526
maximum.
"Junior grade, $6,321 minimum to $8,221
maximum.
"*The salary for employees of these rates is
limited by section 216 of the Federal Salary
Act of 1967 [set out as a note under section
60e-14 of Title 2. The Congress] to the rate
for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of
the effective date of this salary adjustment,
$28,000)."
Foreign Service Schedules
Sec. 3 (a) The per annum salaries of For-
eign Service officers in the schedule contained
in section 412 of the Foreign Service Act of
1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867) [section 867
of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse],
are adjusted as follows:
"Class 1
Class?
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class?
Class 8
$28
22
17
14
11
9
8
6
,170
,376
,943
,409
,762
,721
,153
,981
f?q
23
18
14
12
10
8
7
nn
,122
,541
,889
,154
,045
,425
,214
$30,239
23,868
19,139
15,369
12,546
10,369
8,697
7,447
$24,614
19,737
16,849
12,938
10,693
8,969
7,680
J25
20
16
13
11
9
7:
,360
,335
,329
,330
,017
,241
,913
$26
20
16
13
11
9
8
,106
,933
,809
,722
,341
,513
,146
$26,852
21,531
17,289
14,114
11,665
9,785
8,379"
[A 186]
"*The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section 216 of the Federal Salary Act
of 1967 [set out as a note under section 60e-14 of Title 2, The Congress] to the rate for level V
of the Executive Schedules (as of the effective date of this salary adjustment, $28,000)."
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers
and employees in the schedule contained in
section 416 of the Foreign Service Act of
1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) [section
870 (a) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and
Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
"Classl
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class?
Class 8
Class 9
Class 10
. $17,
. 14,
. 11,
9
8
. .. 7,
. ... 7,
6,
... 5,
5
943
401
7fi?
771
718
112
742
MS
$18 541
14 889
12,154
10,045
9,009
8,084
7,349
6 519
5,934
5,316
$19,139
15,369
12,546
10,369
9,300
8,345
7,586
6,729
6,125
5,487
$19,787
15,849
12,938
10,693
9,591
8,606
7,823
6,939
6,317
5,658
$20,335
16,329
13,330
11,017
9,882
3,867
8,060
7,149
6,509
5,829
$20,933
16,809
13,722
11,341
10,173
9,128
8,297
7 369
6,700
6,000
$21,531
17,289
14,114
11,665
10,464
9,389
8,534
7,569
6,892
6,171
$22,129
17,769
14,506
11,989
10,755
9,650
8,770
7 780
7,083
6,342
$22,727
18,249
14,898
12,313
11,046
9,911
9,007
7,990
7,275
6,513
$23,325
18,720
15,290
12,637
11,337
10,172
9,244
8,200
7,466
6,684"
[A 186]
-------
2050
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Salary Limitation
Sec. 4. In accordance with section 216 of
the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (Public Law
90-206, 81 Stat. 638) [set out as a note under
section 60e-14 of Title 2, The Congress], and
notwithstanding the adjustments effected by
sections 1, 2 and 3 of this order, no salary
rate shall be paid which is in excess of the
rate for level V of the Executive Schedule in
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code
[section 5316 of this title]. If the rate for level
V is increased during the period the adjust-
ments effected by sections 1, 2 and 3 are In
effect, the new higher rate for level V or the
appropriate rate as shown in the schedules,
whichever is the lesser, shall automatically
become effective.
Effective Date
Sec. 5. This order shall become effective on
the first day of the first pay period beginning
on or after July 1, 1968.
[p. 21]
1.9e E.O. 11474, ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1969, JUNE 16, 1969
34 Fed. Reg. 9605
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11474
June 16, 1969, 34 F.R. 9605
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES EFFEC-
TIVE JULY 1, 1969
By virtue of the authority vested in me by
section 212 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967
(Public Law 90-206. 81 Stat 634) [set out as
a note under section 5304 of this title], and
after seeking the views of employee organiza-
tions as provided therein, it is hereby ordered
as follows:
General Schedule
Section 1. (a) The rates of basic pay in the
General Schedule contained in section 5332 (a)
of title 5, United States Code [subsec. (a) of
this section], are adjusted as follows:
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
"Annual rates and steps
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5.
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8.
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-18
$3
4
. . 4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
18
21
25
28
33
1
88n
%n
,117
,w>
17fi
,SR?
639
449
i?n
71?
?W
389
81?
'ill
•>R9
044
,976
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2051
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this order at one of the rates of a
grade in the General Schedule, he shall receive
a rate of basic pay at the corresponding rate
in effect on and after such date.
(2) If the officer or emplovee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this order at a rate between two rates
of a grade in the General Schedule, he shall
receive a rate of basic pay at the higher of
the two corresponding rates in effect on and
after such date.
(3) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic pay immediately prior to the effective
date of this order at a rate in excess of the
maximum rate of his grade, he shall receive
his existing rate of basic pay increased by the
amount of increase made by this section in
the maximum rate for his grade.
(4) If the officer or employee, immediately
prior to the effective date of this order, is
receiving, pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of the
Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of
1955, an existing aggregate rate of pay deter-
mined under section 208(b) of the Act of
September 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 1111), plus subse-
quent increases authorized by law, he shall
receive an aggregate rate of pay equal to the
sum of his existing aggregate rate of pay on
the day precedirij the effective date of this
order, plus the amount of increase made by
this section in the maximum rate of his
grade, until (i) he leaves his position, or (ii)
he is entitled to receive aggregate pay at a
higher rate by reason of the operation of any
provision of law; but, when such position
becomes vacant, the aggregate rate of pay of
any subsequent appointee thereto shall be
fixed in accordance with applicable provisions
of law. Subject to clauses (i) and (ii) of the
immediately preceding sentence of this para-
graph, the amount of the increase provided by
this section shall be held and considered for
the purposes of section 208 (b) of the Act of
September 1, 1954, to constitute a part of the
existing rate of pay of the employee.
[p. 22]
Schedules for the Postal Field Service
Sec. 2. (a) The rates of basic compensation
in Postal Field Service Schedule II contained
in section 3542 (a) of title 39, United States
Code [section 3542(a) of Title 39, The Postal
Service], are adjusted as follows:
"POSTAL FIELD SERVICE SCHEDULE
"Annual rates and steps
PFS-l...
PFS-2....
PFS-3...,
PFS-4....
PFS-5....
PFS-6. . . .
PFS-7....
PFS-8
PFS-9....
PFS-IO...
PFS-11..
PFS-12...
PFS-13..
PFS-14...
PFS-15..
PFS-16..
PFS-17. .
PFS-18..
PFS-19..
PFS-20...
PFS-2I . . .
1
... $4,522
... 4,889
. .. 5,236
. . 5,715
. . 6,176
.. 6,675
. 7,216
7 802
.. 8,434
.. 9,101
10,110
.. 11,233
12,478
.. 13,864
15,404
17,114
19,011
21,122
.. 23,467
.. 26,071
.. 28,976
2
$4,673
5,052
5,462
5,905
6,382
6,898
7,457
8,002
8,715
9,404
10,447
11,007
12,894
14,326
15,017
17,684
19,645
21,826
24,249
26,940
29,942
3
$4,824
5,215
5,638
6,005
6,583
7,121
7,698
8 322
8,996
9,707
10,784
11,981
13,310
14,788
16,430
18,254
29,279
22,530
25,031
27,809
30,908
4
$4,975
5,378
5,814
6,285
6,794
7,344
7,930
8,582
9,277
10,010
11 121
12,355
13,726
15,250
16 943
18,824
20,913
23,234
25,813
28,678
31,874
5
$5,126
5,541
5,980
6,475
7,000
7,567
8,180
8 842
9,558
10,313
11 458
12,729
14,14?
15,712
17 456
19 394
21,547
23 933
26,595
29,547
32,840"
6 7
$5,277 $5,428
5,704 5,867
6,166 6,342
6,665 6,855
7,266 7,412
7,790 8,013
8,421 8,662
9 102 9,362
9,839 10,120
10,616 10,919
11 795 12,132
13,103 13,477
14 558 14,074
16,174 16,636
17 969 18,482
19 964 20,534
22 181 22,815
24 642 25,346
27,377 28,159
30,416 21,285
8
$5,579
6,030
6,518
7,045
7,618
8,236
8,903
9,622
10,401
11,222
12,469
13,851
15,390
17,098
18,995
21,104
23,449
26 080
23,941
32,154
9
$5,780
6,193
6,604
7,235
7,824
8,459
9,144
9 882
10,882
11,525
12 806
14,225
15,806
17,560
19 503
21 074
24,083
26 754
29,723
10
$5,881
6,356
6,870
7,425
8,080
8,632
9,385
10 142
10,963
11,823
13 143
14,599
16 222
18,022
20 021
22 244
24,717
27 456
30,505
11
$6,032
6,519
6,046
7,615
8,236
8,905
9,626
10 402
12
$6,783
6,682
7,222
7,805
8,442
9,128
9,867
[A 3151]
(b) The rates of basic compensation in the
Rural Carrier Schedule II contained in section
3543 (a) of title 39, United States Code [sec-
tion 3543 (a) of Title 39, The Postal Service],
are adjusted as follows :
-------
2052
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"RURAL CARRIER SERVICE
"Annual rates and steps
1
10
11
12
"Fixed compensation . $2,786 $2,932 $3,073 $3,224 $3,370 $3,516 $3,662 $3,808 $3,954 $4,100 $4,246 $4,932"
For each mile up to 30
miles of route.. . . 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 119 121 123 125
For each mile of route
over 30 .... 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25"
[A 3152]
(c) The basic compensation of each em-
ployee subject to the Postal Field Service
Schedule or the Rural Carrier Schedule imme-
diately prior to the effective date of this order
shall be determined as follows:
(1) Each employee shall be assigned to the
same numerical step for his position which he
had attained immediately prior to such effec-
tive date. If changes in levels or steps would
otherwise occur on such effective date without
regard to the provisions of this order, such
changes shall be deemed to have occurred
prior to conversion.
(2) If the existing basic compensation is
greater than the rate to which the employee is
converted under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, the employee shall be placed in the
lowest step which exceeds his basic compensa-
tion. If the existing basic compensation ex-
ceeds the maximum step of his position, his
existing basic compensation shall be increased
by the amount of increase made by this sec-
tion in the maximum rate of his level.
Schedules for the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration
Sec. 3. The schedules contained in section
4107 of title 38, United States Code [section
4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits], for cer-
tain positions within the Department of Medi-
cine and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration, are adjusted as follows:
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $33,495.
[p. 23]
"Medical Director, $28,976 minimum to $32,840
maximum.
"Director of Nursing Service, $21,589 mini-
mum to $28,069 maximum.
"Director of Chaplain Service. $21,589 mini-
mum to $28,069 maximum.
"Chief Pharmacist, $21,589 minimum to
$28,069 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $21,589 minimum to $28,069
maximum.
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade, $25,044 minimum to $31,724
maximum.
"Executive grade, $23,273 minimum to $30,257
maximum.
"Chief grade, $21,589 minimum to $28,069
maximum.
"Senior grade, $18,531 minimum to $24,093
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $15,812 minimum to
$20,555 maximum.
"Full grade, $13,389 minimum to $17,403 max-
imum.
"Associate grade, $11,233 minimum to $14,599
maximum.
"Nurse Schedule
"Assistant Director grade, $18,531 minimum
to $24,093 maximum.
"Chief grade, $15,812 minimum to $20,565
maximum.
"Senior grade, $13,389 minimum to $17,403
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $11,233 minimum to
$14,599 maximum.
"Full grade, $9,320 minimum to $12,119 maxi-
mum.
"Associate grade, $8,037 minimum to $10,449
maximum.
"Junior grade, $6,882 minimum to $8,943
maximum.
Foreign Service Schedules
Sec. 4. (a) The per annum salaries of
Foreign Service officers in the schedule con-
tained in section 412 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867)
[section 867 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and
Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2053
"Class 1
"Class 2
"Class 3
"Class 4.
"Class 5
"Class 6
"Class 7
"Class 8
. $31
'4
19
15
12
10
8
7
,705
867
704
812
,848
fim
916
639
$17,
?1,
in
16
IS,
10
q
7,
76'
646
161
SS9
?7fi
%?
?1S
D14
$3?
?6
?1
16
1?
1?
q
ft
m
"i?"!
niR
R0fi
,701
116
•>10
149
$27 354
21 675
17 393
14,132
11,670
9 807
8 404
$78
11
17
11
1'
10
ft
IRS
SS'
9'0
%n
,0'4
im
6"iq
$29 012
22 989
18 447
14 988
12,378
10,401
8 914
$29,841
23,646
18,974
15,416
12,732
10 698
9,169
[A 3153]
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers
and employees in the schedule contained in
section 415 of the Foreign Service Act of
1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) [section
870(a) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and
Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
"Class 1
Class 2.
Class 3.
Class 4.
Class 5.
Class 6
Class?.
Class 8.
Class 9.
Class 10.
[A 187]
$19
15
12
10
9
8
7
6
6
5
704 $20 361 $21 018
,812 16 339 16 866
843
608
517
536
655
865
,158
,522
Effective
Sec. 5.
the first
13,276
10 962
9,834
8,820
7 910
7,094
6,363
5,706
Date
This order shall become
day of the
first
13 704
11 316
10 151
9 104
8 165
7 323
6 568
5,890
$21 675
17,393
14,132
11,670
10,468
9,388
8,420
7,552
6,773
6,074
effective on
pay period beginning
$22 332
17,920
14,560
12,024
10,785
9,672
8,675
7,781
6,978
6,258
on or
$22 989 $23 646 $24 303
18,447 18.871 19.501
14,988
12,378
11,102
9 956
8 930
8,010
7,183
6,442
after July
15,416
12,732
11,419
10,240
9,135
8,239
7,388
6,626
1, 1969
15,844
13,086
11 736
10 524
9 440
8 468
7,593
6,810
$24 960
20,023
16,272
13,440
12,053
10,808
9,690
8,690
7,793
6,994
$25,617
20,555
16,700
13,794
12,370
11,092
9,950
8,926
8,003
7,178"
ElCHABD NIXON
[p. 24]
1.9f E.O. 11524, ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES
EFFECTIVE FIRST PAY PERIOD ON OR AFTER
DECEMBER 27, 1969, APRIL 15, 1970
35 Fed. Reg. 6247
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11524
Apr. IS, 1S70, SS F.R. 6247
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES EFFEC-
TIVE FIRST PAY PERIOD ON OR AFTER
DEC. 27, 1969
By virtue of the authority vested in me by
the Constitution and statutes of the United
States, including the Federal Employees Sal-
ary Act of 1970 [set out as a note under this
section] and section 301 of title 3 of the
Unitfd States Code [section 301 of Title 3,
The President], it is hereby ordered aa fol-
lows:
General Schedule
Section 1. The rates of basic pay in the
General Schedule contained in section 5332(a)
of title 5, United States Code [subsec. (a) of
this section], are adjusted as follows:
-------
2054
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
"Grade
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16 . ..
GS-17
GS-18
"Annual rates and steps
i
$4
4
5,
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
14
.. 16
19
. .. 22
. ... 26
, . 30
35
I
,125
,621
,212
,853
,548
,294
,098
,956
,881
,840
,995
,192
,760
,643
,885
,547
,714
,505"
2
$4,262
4,775
5,386
6,048
6,766
7,537
8,368
9,255
10,210
11,231
12,392
14,665
17,319
20,208
23,648
27,432
31,738
3
$4,399
4,929
5,560
6,243
6,984
7,780
8,688
9,554
10,539
11,593
12,699
15,138
17,878
20,953
24,411
28,317
32,762
4
J4.536
5,083
5,734
6,488
7,202
8,023
8,908
9,853
10,868
11,935
13,096
15,611
18,437
21,608
25,174
29,292
33,786
5
$4,673
5,237
5,903
6,633
7,420
8,266
9,178
10,152
11,197
12,317
13,493
16,684
18,968
22,263
25,937
30,087
34,810
6
$4,810
5,391
6,082
6,828
7,638
8,509
9,443
10,451
11,526
12,879
13,890
16,557
19,555
22,918
26,700
30,972
7
$4,947
5,545
6,256
7,023
7,856
8,752
9,713
10,750
11,855
13,041
14,287
17,080
19,114
23,573
27,463
31,857
8
$5,084
5,699
6,430
7,218
8,074
8,995
9,988
11,049
12,184
13,463
14,684
17,563
20,673
24,223
28,226
32,742
9
$5,221
5,353
6,604
7,413
8,292
9,238
10,258
11,348
12,513
13,765
15,081
17,978
21,233
24,888
28,989
33,627
10
$5,356
6,007
6,773
7,608
8,510
9,481
10,328
11,647
12,842
14,127
15,478
18,449
21,791
25,588
29,752
[A 1569]
Schedules for the Postal Field Service
Sec. 2. (a) The rates of basic compensation
in the Postal Field Service Schedule contained
in section 3542 (a) of title 39, United States
Code [section 3542(a) of Title 39, The Postal
Service], are adjusted as follows:
"POSTAL FIELD SERVICE SCHEDULE
"Level
"Annual rates and steps
10
[A 1670]
12
PFS-1....
PFS-2. . . .
PFS-3....
PFS-4....
PFS-5....
PFS-6. . . .
PFS-7 ...
PFS-8....
PFS-9 . . .
PFS-10. . .
PFS-11.
PFS-12...
PFS-13 . . .
PFS-14. . .
PFS-15. . .
PFS-1 6. . .
PFS-17...
PFS-18...
PFS-19...
PFS-20...
PFS-21 . . .
.. $4,794
.. 5,182
.. 5,602
.. 6,056
.. 6,548
.. 7,077
.. 7,650
.. 8,269
. 8,940
.. 9,645
. 10,717
. 11,905
. 13,227
. 14,695
.. 16,328
. 18,138
.. 20,162
.. 22,390
.. 24,875
.. 27,636
. . 30,714
$4,954
5,355
5,789
6,268
6,786
7,313
7,905
8,545
9,238
9,967
11 074
12,302
13,668
15 183
16,372
18,743
20,824
23,136
25,704
28,567
31,738
$5,114
5,528
5,976
6,460
6,984
7,549
8,160
8,821
9,536
10,289
11 431
12 609
14,109
15,675
17,416
19,348
21,496
23,882
26,533
29,478
32,762
$5,274
5,701
6,163
6,662
7,202
7,785
8,415
9,097
9,834
10,611
11 788
13,096
14,559
16,165
17,990
19,953
22,168
24,626
27,362
30,399
33,786
$5,434
5,874
6,360
6,864
7,420
8,021
8,670
9,373
10,132
10,933
12,145
13,493
14,991
16,655
18,504
20,558
22,840
25,374
28,191
31,320
34,810"
$5,594
6,047
6,537
7,066
7,633
8,257
8,925
9,649
10,480
11,255
12 502
13,800
15,432
17,145
19,043
21,163
23,542
26,120
29,020
32,241
$5,754
6,220
6,724
7,268
7,856
8,493
9,180
9,925
10,728
11,577
12 869
14,287
15 873
17,685
19,592
21,768
24,184
26,866
29,849
33,162
$5,914
6,393
6,911
7,470
8,074
8,729
9,435
10,201
11,028
11,899
13 216
14 684
16,344
18 125
20,136
22,373
24,856
27,612
30,673
34,683
$6,074
6,566
7,093
7,672
8,292
8,963
9,600
10,477
11,324
12,221
13 573
15 081
16 735
18 515
20,680
22,978
25,528
28,358
31,507
$6,234
6,739
7,285
7,874
8,510
9,201
9,945
10,753
11,622
12,543
13 980
15 473
17 193
19 105
21 224
23,683
26,260
29,104
32,386
$6,394
6,912
7,472
8,076
8,728
9,487
10,260
11,029
$6,554
7,085
7,639
8,278
8,948
9,673
10,455
[p. 25]
(b) The rates of basic compensation in the
Rural Carrier Schedule contained in section
3543 (a) of title £9, United States Code [sec-
tion 3543 (a) of Title 39, The Postal Service],
are adjusted as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2055
RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE
"Annual rates and steps
1
10
11
12
"Fixed compensation $2,930 $3,088 $3,246 $3,404 $3,562 $3,720 $3,878 $4,036 $4,194 $4,352 $4,510 $4,668
For each mile up to 30
miles of route 110 112 114 116 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132
For each mile of route
over30 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50 26.50"
[A 1571]
Schedules for the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration
Sec. 3. The schedules contained in section
4107 of title 38, United States Code [section
4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits], for cer-
tain positions within the Department of Medi-
cine and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration, are adjusted as follows:
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $35,605.
"Medical Director, $30,714 minimum to $34,810
maximum.
"Director of Nursing Service, $22,885 mini-
mum to $29,752 maximum.
"Director of Chaplain Service, $22,885 mini-
mum to $29,752 maximum.
"Chief Pharmacist, $22,885 minimum to
$29,752 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $22,885 minimum to $29,752
maximum.
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade, $26,547 minimum to $33,627
maximum.
"Executive grade, $24,671 minimum to $32,069
maximum.
"Chief grade, $22,885 minimum to $29,752
maximum.
"Senior grade, $19,643 minimum to $25,538
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $16,760 minimum to
$21,791 maximum.
"Full grade, $14,192 minimum to $18,449 max-
imum.
"Associate grade, $11,905 minimum to $15,478
maximum.
"Nurse Schedule
"Assistant Director grade, $19,643 minimum
to $25,538 maximum.
"Chief grade, $16,760 minimum to $21,791
maximum.
"Senior grade, $14,192 minimum to $18,449
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $11,905 minimum to
$15,478 maximum.
"Full grade, $9,881 minimum to $12,842 maxi-
mum.
"Associate grade, $8,519 minimum to $11,075
maximum.
"Junior grade, $7,294 minimum to $9,481
maximum.
Foreign Service Schedules
Sec. 4. (a) The per annum salaries of
Foreign Service officers in the schedule con-
tained in section 412 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867)
[section 867 of Title 22, Foreign Relations
and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
Classl $33,609 $34,729
Class2 26,358 27,237
Class3 20,888 21,584
Class4 16,760 17,319
ClassS 13,618 14,072
Class6 11,245 11,620
Class? 9,450 9,765
ClassS 8,098 8,368
$35,505
28,116 $28,995 $29,874 $30,753
22,280 22,976 23,672 24,368
17,878
14,526
11,995
10,080
8,638
18,437
14,980
12,370
10,395
8,908
18,996
15,434
12,745
10,710
9,178
19,555
15,888
13,120
11,025
9,448
$31,632
25,064
20,114
16,342
13,495
11,340
9,718
[A 1572]
[p- 26]
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers
and employees in the schedule contained in
section 415 of the Foreign Service Act of
1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870 (a)) [sec-
tion 870(a) of Title 22, Foreign Relations
and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
-------
2056
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Class 1
Class 2 . .
Class 3.
Class 4.. . .
Class 5.. ..
Class 6.
Class 7
Class 8.. ..
Class 9
Class 10 .. ..
$20
.. 16
. 13
11
... 10
. . 9
8
.. 7
6
.. . 5
RRR
,760
,618
,245
,088
,045
m
,276
,853
$21 584
17,319
14,072
11,620
10,424
9,347
8,385
7,519
6,743
6,048
$22 280
17,898
14,526
11,995
10 760
9,649
8,655
7,762
6,961
6,243
$22 976
18,437
14,980
12,370
11,096
9,951
8,925
8,005
7,179
6,438
$23 672
18,996
15,434
12,745
11,432
10,253
9,105
8,248
7,397
6,633
$24 363
19,555
15,888
13,120
11,768
10,555
9 465
8,401
7 615
6,828
$25 064
20,111
16,342
13,495
12,104
10,857
9,735
8,734
7,833
7,023
$25 760
20,673
16,796
13,870
12,440
11,159
10,005
8,977
8,051
7,218
$26 458
21,232
17,250
14,245
12,776
11,461
10,275
9,229
8,260
7,413
$27 152
21,791
17,704
14,620
13,112
11,763
10,545
9,463
8,487
7,603
[A 1678]
Conversion Rules
Sec. 5. (a) The officers hereinalter desig-
nated shall prescribe such rules as may be
necessary to convert the rates of basic pay,
basic compensation or salaries of officers
and employees to the rates prescribed in
this order:
(1) General Schedule, the Civil Service
Commission.
(2) Postal Field Service including the Rural
Carrier Schedule, the Postmaster General.
(3) Schedules for the Department of Medi-
cine and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration, the Administrator of Veterans' Af-
fairs.
(4) Foreign Service schedules, the Secretary
of State.
(b) Subject to the provisions of this order,
rules prescribed pursuant to subsection (a)
shall conform as nearly as may be practica-
ble to the provisions with regard to conver-
sion contained in the Federal Salary Act of
1967, 81 Stat. 624. Entitlement to retroac-
tive pay under such rules shall be subject to
the provisions of section 5 of the Federal
Employees Salary Act of 1970 [set out as a
note under this section]
Effective Date
Sec. 6. This order shall take effect as of the
first day of the first pay period beginning on
or after December 27, 1969.
[p. 27]
1.9g E.O. 11576, ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1971, JANUARY 8, 1971
36 Fed. Keg. 347
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11576
Jan. 8. 1971, 36 F.R. 347
ADJUSTMENT OF PAY HATES EFFECTIVE JAN. 1, 1971
By virtue of the authority vested in me by subchapter 1 of chapter 53 of title 5 of the United
States Code [subchapter I of this chapter], as amended by the Federal Pay Comparability Act
[p. 190]
of 1970 [Pub. L. 91-656], and section 3(c) of that Act [set out as a note under section B305 of
this title], it is hereby ordered as follows:
General Schedule
Section 1. The rates of basic pay in the General Schedule contained in section 5332(a) of
title 5 of the United States Code [subsec. (a) of this section] are adjusted as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2057
"GENERAL SCHEDULE
Grade
GS-1...
GS-2 ..
GS-3 ..
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10 .
GS-11 .
GS-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17 .
GS-1 8. .
Annual rates and steps
... $4
... 4
... 5
... 6
... 6
7
8
... 9
.. 10
... 11
... 12
.. 15
17
20
24
28
. 32
. 37
1
,326
,897
,524
,202
,938
,727
,532
,493
,470
,517
,615
,040
,761
,815
,251
,129
,546
,624*
2
$4,470
5,060
5,708
6,409
7,169
7,935
8,863
9,800
10,819
11,901
13,036
15,541
18,353
21,509
25,059
29,067
33,631
3
$4,614
5,223
5,892
6,616
7,400
8,243
9,154
10,125
11,168
12,285
13,457
16,042
18,945
22,203
26,867
30,095
34,716
4
$4,758
5,388
6,076
6,823
7,631
8,501
9,410
10,441
11,517
12,669
13,878
16,543
19,537
22,897
26,675
30,943
35,801
5
$4,902
5,549
6,260
7,030
7,862
8,759
9,726
10,757
11,866
13,053
14,299
17,044
20,129
23,591
27,488
31,881
36,886*
6
$5,046
5,712
6,444
7,237
8,003
9,017
10,012
11,073
12,215
13,437
14,720
17,545
20,721
24,235
28,291
32,819
7
$5,100
5,875
6,623
7,444
8,324
9,275
10,298
11,339
12,564
13,821
15,141
18,046
21,313
24,979
29,099
33,757
8
$5,334
6,038
6,812
7,651
8,555
9,533
10,584
11,705
12,913
l',205
15,562
18,547
21.905
25,673
29,907
34,695
9
$5,478
6,201
6,996
7,858
8,786
9,791
10,870
12,021
13,262
14,589
15,983
19,048
22,407
26,367
30,715
35 633
10
$5,622
6,364
7,180
8,063
9,017
10,010
11,156
12,337
13,611
14,973
16,404
19,540
23,089
27,061
31,523
"*The rate of basic pay for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title
5 of the United States Code, as added by the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 [sec-
tion 5308 of this title], to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective
date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
[A 3655]
Schedules for the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration
Sec. 2. The schedules contained in section 4107 of title 38 of the United States Code [section
4107 of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits], for ceitain positions within the Department of Medicine
and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, ale adjusted as follows:
"Section 4103 Schedule
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $37,624*.
"Medical Director, $32,546 minimum to $36,886 maximum*.
"Director of Nursing Service, $24,251 minimum to $31,523 maximum.
"Director of Chaplain Service, $24,251 minimum to $31,523 maximum".
"Director of Chaplain Service, $24,251 minimum to $31,523 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian $24,251 minimum to $31,523 maximum.
"Physician and Dentist Schedule
"Director grade $28,129 minimum to $35,633 maximum.
"Executive grade, $26,143 minimum to $33,982 maximum.
"Chief grade, $24,251 minimum to $31,523 maximum.
"Senior grade, $20,815 minimum to $27,061 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $17,761 minimum to $23,089 maximum.
"Full grade, $15,040 minimum to $19,549 maximum.
"Associate grade, $12,615 minimum to $16,404 maximum.
"Nurse Schedule
"Assistant Director grade, $20,815 minimum to $27,061 maximum.
"Chief grade, $17,761 minimum to $23,089 maximum.
"Senior grade, $15,040 minimum to $19,549 maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $12,615 minimum to $16,404 maximum.
"Full grade, $10,470 minimum to $13,611 maximum.
"Associate grade, $9,026 minimum to $11,735 maximum.
"Junior grade, $7,727 minimum to $10,049 maximum.
526-704 O - 73 - 20
-------
2058 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
"*The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title 6 of the United
States Code, as added by the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 [section 5308 of thia title],
to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of the effective date of this salary
adjustment, $36,000).
[p. 191]
Foreign Service Schedule
Sec. 3. (a) The per annum salaries of Foreign Service officers in the schedule contained in
section 412 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867) [section 867 of Title
22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse], ar adjusted as follows:
Class 1 $35,617 $36,804 $37,624
ClassZ 27,935 28,806 29,797 $30,728 $31,669 $32,690 $33,521
ClassS 22,125 22,373 23,611 24,349 25,087 25,825 26,563
Class4 17,761 18,353 18,945 19,537 20,129 20,721 21,313
Class5 14,432 14,913 15,394 15,875 15,363 15,837 17,316
Class6 11,918 12,315 12,712 13,109 13,606 13,963 14,300
Class? 10,014 10,343 10,632z 11,613 11,360 11,664 12,015
ClassS 8,582 8,868 9,164 9,400 7,726 10,013 10,298
"The salary for employees at these rates is limited by section 5308 of title 5 of the United States Code, as added by the
Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 [section 5308 of this title], to the rate for level V of the Executive Schedule (as of
the effective date of this salary adjustment, $36,000)."
[A3656J
(b) The per annum salaries of staff officers and employees in the schedule contained in
section 415 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) [section 870(a)
of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse], are adjusted as follows:
Class 1..
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class?
ClassS
Class9
Class 10
$22
17
.. . 14
11
10
.. . 9
8
.. . 7
.. . 6
6
IIS
,7M
43?
948
,(W
,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2059
1.9h E.O. 11587, FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SALARY
SCHEDULE, MARCH 15, 1971
36 Fed. Reg. 4973
Amending Executive Order No. 11248, Placing Certain Positions
in Levels IV and V of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 5317 of
title 5 of the United States Code, as amended, section 2 of Execu-
tive Order No. 11248 of October 10, 1965, as amended, placing
certain positions in level V of the Federal Executive Salary Sched-
ule, is further amended by substituting for the words "Commis-
sioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Depart-
ment of the Interior," in item (8) thereof, the words "Commis-
sioner, Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency."
[p. 4973]
-------
2060 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10 THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
as amended, 49 U.S.C. §1301 et seq.
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§1857f-10(a), (b), 1857f-12]
SUBCHAPTER I.—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
1301. Definitions.
1302. Consideration of matters in public interest by Board.
1303. Consideration of matters in public interest by Administrator.
1304. Public right of transit.
SUBCHAPTER II.—CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD; GENERAL POWERS
1321. Agency of the United States.
(a) Continuation; membership; removal of members; political
affiliation; chairman; compensation.
(b) Qualifications of members.
(c) Quorum; principal office; seal.
1322. Officers and employees.
(a) Secretary of Board; secretaries and administrative assistants
for members; other personnel.
(b) Repealed.
(c) Temporary personnel.
(d) Cooperation with other Federal agencies.
1323. Authorization of expenditures and travel.
1324. General powers and duties of the Board.
(a) Performance of acts; conduct of investigations; orders, rules,
regulations, and procedure.
(b) Cooperation with State aeronautical agencies.
(c) Exchange of information with foreign governments.
(d) Report of proceedings and investigations; publication; evidence.
1325. Annual report to Congress.
SUBCHAPTER III.—ORGANIZATION OP AGENCY; POWERS AND
DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR
1341. Federal Aviation Agency.
(a) Establishment; administrator; appointment; compensation;
powers and duties.
(b) Qualifications of Administrator.
(c) Principal office; seal.
1342. Deputy Administrator; appointment; compensation; powers and
duties; qualifications.
1343. General powers and duties of Administrator.
(a) Military participation; detail of members of Armed Forces;
report to the Congress.
(b) Exchange of information.
(c) Development of plans for discharge of responsibilities in event
of war; legislative proposal; transfer of functions.
(d) Officers and employees.
(e) Study of special personnel problems; report to the Congress.
(f) Scientific or professional personnel.
(g) Advisory committees and consultants.
(h) Repealed.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2061
Sec.
(i) Cooperation with other agencies.
1344. Administration of Agency.
(a) Authorization of expenditures and travel.
(b) Supplies and materials for overseas installations.
(c) Acquisition and disposal of property.
(d) Delegation of functions.
1345. Presidential authority to transfer certain functions.
1346. Fostering of civil aeronautics and air commerce.
1347. National defense anl civil needs.
1348. Airspace control and facilities.
(a) Use of airspace.
(b) Air navigation facilities.
(c) Air traffic rules.
(d) Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act.
(e) Exemptions.
(f) Exception for military emergencies.
1349. Expenditure of Federal funds for certain airports and air navigation
facilities; location of airports, landing areas, and missile and
rocket sites.
1350. Establishment or construction of airports and landing areas not
involving expenditure of Federal funds.
1351. Meteorological service.
1352. Collection and dissemination of information.
1353. Development planning.
(a) Use of navigable airspace; location of landing areas, Federal
airways, radar installations, and air navigation facilities.
(b) Aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances.
(c) Research and development.
1354. Other powers and duties of Administrator.
(a) Generally.
(b) Report of proceedings and investigations; publication of re-
ports, orders, decisions, rules and regulations; use as evi-
dence.
(c) Power to conduct hearings and investigations.
(d) Training schools.
(e) Annual report to the President and Congress.
1355. Delegation of powers and duties to private persons; application for
reconsideration.
SUBCHAPTER IV.—AlK CARRIER ECONOMIC REGULATION
1371. Certificate of public convenience and necessity.
(a) Essentiality.
(b) Application.
(c) Notice of application; filing of protest or memorandum; hear-
ing.
(d) Issuance.
(e) Terms, conditions, and limitations.
(f) Effective date and duration.
(g) Alteration, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation.
(h) Transfer.
-------
2062 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Sec.
(i) Rights in the use of airspace, airways, landing areas, or air-
navigation facilities.
(j) Abandonment of routes.
(k) Compliance with labor legislation.
(I) Carriage of mail.
(m) Application for new mail service.
(n) Additional powers and duties of Board with respect to supple-
mental air carriers.
1372. Permits to foreign air carriers.
(a) Necessity.
(b) Issuance.
(c) Application.
(d) Notice of application; filing of protest or memorandum; hear-
ing.
(e) Terms, conditions, and limitations.
(f) Alteration, modification, amendment, suspension, cancellation,
or revocation.
(g) Transfer of permit.
1373. Tariifs of air carriers.
(a) Filing, posting, and publication; rejection of tariffs.
(b) Observance of tariffs; granting of rebates.
(c) Notice of change in tariff.
(d) Filing of divisions of rates and charges.
1374. Rates for carriage of persons and property; duty to provide service,
rates, and divisions; discrimination.
1375. Transportation of mail.
(a) Postal rules and regulations.
(b) Mail schedules.
(c) Maximum mail load.
(d) Tender of mail.
(e) Foreign postal arrangement.
(f) Transportation of foreign mail.
(g) Evidence of performance of mail service.
(h) Emergency mail service.
(i) Experimental airmail service.
(j) Free travel for postal employees.
1376. Rates for transportation of mail.
(a) Authorization to fix rates.
(b) Rate-making elements.
(c) Payments for transportation of mail.
(d) Treatment of proceeds of disposition of certain property.
(e) Statements of Postmaster General and carrier.
(f) Weighing of mail.
(g) Availability of appropriations.
(h) Payments to foreign air carriers.
1377. Accounts, records, and reports.
(a) Filing of reports.
(b) Disclosure of stock ownership.
(c) Disclosure of stock ownership by officer or director.
(d) Form of accounts, records, and memoranda.
(e) Inspection of accounts and property.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2063
Sec.
1378. Consolidation, merger, and acquisition of control.
(a) Prohibited acts.
(b) Application to Board; hearing; approval; disposal without
hearing.
(c) Interests in ground facilities.
(d) Jurisdiction of accounts of noncarriers.
(e) Investigation of violations.
1379. Prohibited interests; interlocking relationships; profit from transfer
of securities.
1380. Loans and financial aid; aircraft loan guarantees.
1381. Methods of competition.
1382. Pooling and other agreements; filing; approval by Board.
1383. Form of control.
1384. Legal restraints.
1385. Inquiry into air carrier management.
1386. Classification and exemption of carriers.
1387. Special operating authorizations.
(a) Authority of Board to issue.
(b) Terms of authorization.
(c) Procedure.
SUBCHAPTER V.—NATIONALITY AND OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT
1401. Registration of aircraft nationality.
(a) Necessity; aircraft of national-defense forces; transfer of
ownership.
(b) Eligibility for registration.
(c) Issuance of certificate.
(d) Applications.
(e) Suspension or revocation.
(f) Effect of registration.
1402. Registration of engines, propellers, and appliances.
1403. Recordation of aircraft ownership,
(a) Establishment of recording system.
(b) Recording of releases, cancellations, discharges, or satisfactions.
(c) Validity of conveyances or other instruments; filing.
(d) Effect of recording.
(e) Form of conveyances or other instruments.
(f) Index of conveyances and other instruments.
(g) Regulations.
(h) Previously unrecorded ownership of aircraft.
1404. Limitation of security owners' liability.
1405. Dealers' aircraft registration certificates.
1406. Law governing validity of certain instruments.
SUBCHAPTER VI.—SAFETY REGULATION OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
1421. Powers and duties of Administrator.
(a) Minimum standards; rules and regulations.
(b) Consideration of needs of service; classification of standards,
rules, regulations, and certificates.
(c) Exemptions.
-------
2064 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
Sec.
1422. Airman certificates.
(a) Authorization to issue.
(b) Application; issuance or denial; petition for review; hearing;
determination; issuance of certificates to aliens.
(c) Form and recording.
1423. Aircraft certificates.
(a) Authorization to issue; application; investigation; tests; issu-
ance of type certificate.
(b) Production certificates.
(c) Airworthiness certificates.
1424. Air carrier operating certificates; authorization to issue; minimum
safety standards; application; issuance.
1425. Mantenance of equipment in air transportation; duty of carriers
and airmen; inspection of aircraft and equipment.
1426. Air navigation facility rating; issuance of certificate.
1427. Air agency rating; issuance of certificate.
1428. Form of applications for certificates.
1429. Reinspection or reexamination; amendment, suspension, or revocation
of certificates; notification; hearing; appeal to Board; judicial
review.
(a) Procedure.
(b) Violation of certain laws.
1430. Violations; exemption of foreign aircraft and airmen.
1431. Control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom.
(a) Consultations; standards; rules and regulations.
(b) Considerations determinative of standards, rules and regula-
tions.
(c) Amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of certifi-
cate; notice and appeal rights.
1432. Airport operating certificates.
(a) Power to issue.
(b) Issuance; terms and conditions.
SUBCHAPTER I.—GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 1301. Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires—
(1) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency.
(2) "Aeronautics" means the science and art of flight.
(3) "Air carrier" means any citizen of the United States who
undertakes, whether directly or indirectly or by a lease or any
other arrangement, to engage in air transportation; Provided,
That the Board may by order relieve air carriers who are not
directly engaged in the operation of aircraft in air transportation
from the provisions of this chapter to the extent and for such
periods as may be in the public interest.
(4) "Air commerce" means interstate, overseas, or foreign air
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2065
commerce or the transportation of mail by aircraft or any opera-
tion or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any Federal
airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly
affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce.
(5) "Aircraft" means any contrivance now known or hereafter
invented, used, or designed for navigation of or flight in the air.
(6) "Aircraft engine" means an engine used, or intended to be
used, for propulsion of aircraft and includes all parts, appurte-
nances, and accessories thereof other than propellers.
(7) "Airman" means any individual who engages, as the person
in command or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, in the
navigation of aircraft while under way; and (except to the extent
the Administrator may otherwise provide with respect to individu-
als employed outside the United States) any individual who is
directly in charge of the inspection, maintenance, overhauling, or
repair of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances; and
any individual who serves in the capacity of aircraft dispatcher or
air-traffic control-tower operator.
(8) "Air navigation facility" means any facility used in, availa-
ble for use in, or designed for use in, aid of air navigation, includ-
ing landing areas, lights, any apparatus or equipment for dissemi-
nating weather information, for signaling, for radio-directional
finding, or for radio or other electrical communication, and any
other structure or mechanism having a similar purpose for guid-
ing or controlling flight in the air or the landing and take-off of
aircraft.
(9) "Airport" -means a landing area used regularly by aircraft
for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo.
(10) "Air transportation" means interstate, overseas, or for-
eign air transportation or the transportation of mail by aircraft.
(11) "Appliances" means instruments, equipment, apparatus,
parts, appurtenances, or accessories, of whatever description,
which are used, or are capable of being or intended to be used, in
the navigation, operation, or control of aircraft in flight (includ-
ing parachutes and including communication equipment and any
other mechanism or mechanisms installed in or attached to air-
craft during flight), and which are not a part or parts of aircraft,
aircraft engines, or propellers.
(12) "Board" means the Civil Aeronautics Board.
(13) "Citizen of the United States" means (a) an individual
who is a citizen of the United States or of one of its possessions,
or (b) a partnership of which each member is such an individual,
or (c) a corporation or association created or organized under the
-------
2066 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
laws of the United States or of any State, Territory, or possession
of the United States, of which the president and two-thirds or
more of the board of directors and other managing officers thereof
are such individuals and in which at least 75 per centum of the
voting interest is owned or controlled by persons who are citizens
of the United States or of one of its possessions.
(14) "Civil aircraft" means any aircraft other than a public
aircraft.
(15) "Civil aircraft of the United States" means any aircraft
registered as provided in this chapter.
(16) "Conditional sale" means (a) any contract for the sale of
an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or spare part
under which possession is delivered to the buyer and the property
is to vest in the buyer at a subsequent time, upon the payment of
part or all of the price, or upon the performance of any other
condition or the happening of any contingency; or (b) any con-
tract for the bailment or leasing of an aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, appliance, or spare part, by which the bailee or lessee
contracts to pay as compensation a sum substantially equivalent to
the value thereof, and by which it is agreed that the bailee or
lessee is bound to become, or has the option of becoming, the
owner thereof upon full compliance with the terms of the contract.
The buyer, bailee, or lessee shall be deemed to be the person by
whom any such contract is made or given.
(17) "Conveyance" means a bill of sale, contract of conditional
sale, mortgage, assignment of mortgage, or other instrument af-
fecting title to, or interest in, property.
(18) "Federal airway" means a portion of the navigable air-
space of the United States designated by the Administrator as a
Federal airway.
(19) "Foreign air carrier" means any person, not a citizen of
the United States, who undertakes, whether directly or indirectly
or by lease or any other arrangement, to engage in foreign air
transportation.
(20) "Interstate air commerce", "overseas air commerce", and
"foreign air commerce", respectively, mean the carriage by air-
craft of persons or property for compensation or hire, or the
carriage of mail by aircraft, or the operation or navigation of
aircraft in the conduct or furtherance of a busines or vocation, in
commerce between, respectively—
(a) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and a place in any other State of the Un-
ited States, or the District of Columbia; or between places in
the same State of the United States through the airspace over
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2067
any place outside thereof; or between places in the same
Territory or possession of the United States, or the District
of Columbia;
(b) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and any place in a Territory or possession
of the United States; or between a place in a Territory or
possession of the United States, and a place in any other
Territory or possession of the United States; and
(c) a place in the United States and any place outside
thereof;
whether such commerce moves wholly by aircraft or partly by
aircraft and partly by other forms of transportation.
(21) "Interstate air transportation", "overseas air transporta-
tion", and "foreign air transportation", respectively, mean the
carriage by aircraft of persons or property as a common carrier
for compensation or hire or the carriage of mail by aircaft, in
commerce between, respectively—
(a) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and a place in any other State of the Un-
ited States, or the District of Columbia; or between places in
the same State of the United States through the airspace over
any place outside thereof; or between places in the same
Territory or possession of the United States, or the District
of Columbia;
(b) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and any place in a Territory or possession
of the United States; or between a place in a Territory or
possession of the United States, and a place in any other
Territory or possession of the United States; and
(c) a place in the United States and any place outside
thereof; whether such commerce moves wholly by aircraft or
partly by aircraft and partly by other forms of transportation.
(22) "Landing area" means any locality, either of land or
water, including airports and intermediate landing fields, which is
used, or intended to be used, for the landing and take-off of air-
craft, whether or not facilities are provided for the shelter, servic-
ing, or repair of aircraft, or for receiving or discharging passen-
gers or cargo.
(23) "Mail" means United States mail and foreign-transit mail.
(24) "Navigable airspace" means airspace above the minimum
altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations issued under this
chapter, and shall include airspace needed to insure safety in
take-off and landing of aircraft.
-------
2068 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(25) "Navigation of aircraft" or "navigate aircraft" includes
the piloting of aircraft.
(26) "Operation of aircraft" or "operate aircraft" means the
use of aircraft, for the purpose of air navigation and includes the
navigation of aircraft. Any person who causes or authorizes the
operation of aircraft, whether with or without the right of legal
control (in the capacity of owner, lessee, or otherwise) of the
aircraft, shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation of aircraft
within the meaning of this chapter.
(27) "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corpo-
ration, company, association, joint-stock association, or body poli-
tic; and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or other similar
representative thereof.
(28) "Propeller" includes all parts, appurtenances, and accesso-
ries thereof.
(29) "Possessions of the United States" means (a) the Canal
Zone, but nothing herein shall impair or affect the jurisdiction
which has heretofore been, or may hereafter be, granted to the
President in respect of air navigation in the Canal Zone; and (b)
all other possessions of the United States. Where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof, references in this chapter to possessions of the United
States shall be treated as also referring to the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
(30) "Public aircraft" means an aircraft used exclusively in the
service of any government or of any political subdivision thereof,
including the government of any State, Territory, or possession of
the United States, or the District of Columbia, but not including
any government-owned aircraft engaged in carrying persons or
property for commercial purposes.
(31) "Spare parts" means parts, appurtenances, and accessories
of aircraft (other than aircraft engines and propellers), of air-
craft engines (other than propellers), of propellers and of appli-
ances, maintained for installation or use in an aircraft, aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance, but which at the time are not
installed therein or attached thereto.
(32) The term "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United
States" includes the following aircraft while in flight—
(a) aircraft of the United States;
(b) aircraft of the national defense forces of the United
States; and
(c) any other aircraft—
(i) within the United States, or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2069
(ii) outside the United States which has its next
scheduled destination or last point of departure in the
United States provided that in either case it next actually
lands in the United States.
For the purpose of this definition, an aircraft is considered to be
in flight from the moment when power is applied for the purpose
of takeoff until the moment when the landing run ends.
(33) "Supplemental air carrier" means an air carrier holding a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to
engage in supplemental air transportation.
(34) "Supplemental air transportation" means charter trips,
including inclusive tour charter trips, in air transportation, other
than the transportation of mail by aircraft, rendered pursuant to
a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to
section 1371 (d) (3) of this title to supplement the scheduled serv-
ice authorized by certificates of public convenience and necessity is-
sued pursuant to sections 1371 (d) (1) and (2) of this title. Noth-
ing in this paragraph shall permit a supplemental air carrier to
sell or offer for sale an inclusive tour in air transportation by
selling or offering for sale individual tickets directly to members
of the general public, or to do so indirectly by controlling, being
controlled by, or under common control with, a person authorized
by the Board to make such sales.
(35) "Ticket agent" means any person, not an air carrier or a
foreign air carrier and not a bona fide employee of an air carrier
or foreign air carrier, who, as principal or agent, sells or offers
for sale any air transportation, or negotiates for, or holds himself
out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as one who sells,
provides, furnishes, contracts or arranges for, such transporta-
tion.
(36) "United States" means the several States, the District of
Columbia, and the several Territories and possessions of the Un-
ited States, including the territorial waters and the overlying air-
space thereof.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title I, § 101, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 737; Pub.L.
87-197, § 3, Sept. 5, 1961, 75 Stat. 467; Pub.L. 87-528,§ 1, July
10, 1962, 76 Stat. 143; and amended Pub.L 90-514, § 1, Sept. 26,
1968, 82 Stat. 867; Pub.L. 91-449, § 1(1), (2), Oct. 14, 1970, 84
Stat. 921.
§ 1302. Consideration of matters in public interest by Board
In the exercise and performance of its powers and duties under
this chapter, the Board shall consider the following, among other
-------
2070 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
§ 1304. Public right of transit
There is recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen
of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through
the navigable airspace of the United States. Pub.L. 85-726, Title I,
§ 104, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 740.
SUBCHAPTER II.—CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD GENERAL POWERS
§ 1321. Agency of the United States—Continuation; member-
ship; removal of members; political affiliation; chairman
(a) (1) The Civil Aeronautics Board, created and established
under the name "Civil Aeronautics Authority" by section 201 of
the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 and redesignated as the "Civil
Aeronautics Board" by Reorganization Plan No. IV of 1940, is
continued as an agency of the United States, and shall continue to
be composed of five members appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, for terms of six years,
beginning upon the expiration of the terms for which their prede-
cessors were appointed, except that any person appointed to fill a
vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which
his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the
remainder of such term; but upon the expiration of his term of
office a member shall continue to serve until his successor is
appointed and shall have qualified.
(2) The members of the Board may be removed by the Presi-
dent for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. No
more than three of the members shall be appointed from the same
politial party. The President shall designate annually one of the
members of the Board to serve as chairman and one of the mem-
bers to serve as vice chairman, who shall act as chairman in the
absence or incapacity of the chairman.
Qualification of members
(b) The members of the Board shall be appointed with due re-
gard to their fitness for the efficient dispatch of the powers and
duties vested in and imposed upon the Board by this chapter. Each
member of the Board shall be a citizen of the United States and no
member of the Board shall have any pecuniary interest in or own
any stock in or bonds of any civil aeronautics enterprise. No
member of the Board shall engage in any other business, vocation,
or employment.
Quorum; principal office; seal
(c) Three of the members shall constitute a quorum of the
Board. The principal office of the Board shall be in the District of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2071
things, as being in the public interest, and in accordance with the
public convenience and necessity:
(a) The encouragement and deveopment of an air-transporta-
tion system properly adapted to the present and future needs of
the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, of the
Postal Service, and of the national defense;
(b) The regulation of air transportation in such manner as to
recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of, assure the
highest degree of safety in, and foster sound economic conditions
in, such transporation, and to improve the relations between, and
coordinate transporation by, air carriers;
(c) The promotion of adequate, economical, and efficient service
by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discrimina-
tions, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive
competitive practices;
(d) Competition to the extent necessary to assure the sound
development of an air-transporation system properly adapted to
the needs of the foreign and domestic commerce of the United
States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense;
(e) The promotion of safety in air commerce; and
(f) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil
aeronautics. Pub.L. 85-726, Title I, § 102, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat.
740.
§ 1303. Consideration of matters in public interest by Adminis-
trator
In the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under
this chapter the Administrator shall consider the following,
among other things, as being in the public interest:
(a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best
promote its development and safety and fulfill the requirements of
national defense;
(b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil
aeronautics;
(c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the
United States and the regulation of both civil and military opera-
tions in such airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of
both;
(d) The consolidation of reserach and development with respect
to air navigation facilities, as well as the installation and opera-
tion thereof;
(e) The development and operation of a common system of air
traffic control and navigation for both military and civil aircraft.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title I, § 103, Aug. 23,1958, 72 Stat. 740.
-------
2072 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Columbia where its general sessions shall be held, but whenever
the convenience of the public or of the parties may be promoted,
or delay or expense may be prevented, the Board may hold hear-
ings or other proceedings at any other place. The Board shall have
an official seal which shall be judicially noticed and which shall be
preserved in the custody of the secretary of the Board. Pub.L.
85-726, Title II, § 201, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 741, amended
Pub.L. 88-426, Title III, § 305(16) (A), Aug. 14, 1964, 78 Stat.
424.
§ 1322. Officers and employees—Secretary of Board; secretaries
and administrative assistants for members; other personnel
(a) The Board is authorized, without regard to the civil-service
and classification laws, to appoint and prescribe the duties and fix
the compensation of a secretary of the Board, and to fix the com-
pensation of a secretary and an administrative assistant for each
member, and subject to the civil-service and classification laws, to
select, employ, appoint, and fix the compensation of such officers,
employees, attorneys, and agents as shall be necessary to carry out
the provision of this chapter, and to define their authority and
duties.
(b) Repealed. Pub.L. 87-367, Title I, § 103(2), Oct. 4, 1961, 75
Stat. 787.
Temporary personnel
(c) The Board may, from time to time, without regard to the
provisions of the civil-service laws engage for temporary service
such duly qualified consulting engineers or agencies, or other qual-
ified persons as are necessary in the exercise and performance of the
powers and duties of each, and fix the compensation of such engi-
neers, agencies, or persons without regard to the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended, and the expenses of such employment shall
be paid out of sums appropriated for the expenses of the Board.
Cooperation with other Federal agencies
(d) The Board is authorized to use, with their consent, the
available services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of other
civilian or military agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal
Government, on a reimbursable basis when appropriate, and on a
similar basis to cooperate with such other agencies and instrumen-
talities in the establishment and use of services, equipment, and
facilities of the Board. Pub.L. 85-726, Title II, § 202, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 741; Pub.L. 87-367, Title I § 103(2), Oct. 14, 1961,
75 Stat. 787.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2073
§ 1323. Authorization of expenditures and travel
(a) The Board is empowered to make such expenditures at the
seat of government and elsewhere as may be necessary for the
exercise and performance of the powers and duties vested in and
imposed upon the Board by law, and as from time to time may be
appropriated for by Congress, including expenditures for (1) rent
and personal services at the seat of government and elsewhere;
(2) travel expenses; (3) office furniture, equipment and supplies,
lawbooks, newspapers, periodicals, and books of reference (includ-
ing the exchange thereof); (4) printing and binding; (5) mem-
bership in and cooperation with such organizations as are related
to, or are part of, the civil-aeronautics industry or the art of
aeronautics in the United States or in any foreign country; (6)
making investigations and conducting studies in matters pertain-
ing to aeronautics; and (7) acquisition (including exchange), op-
eration, and maintenance of passenger-carrying automobiles and
aircraft, and such other property as is necessary in the exercise
and performance of the powers and duties of the Board: Provided,
That no aircraft or motor vehicle purchased under the provisions
of this section, shall be used otherwise than for official business.
(b) Travel by personnel of the United States Government on
commercial aircraft, domestic or foreign, including travel between
airports and centers of population or posts of duty when incidental
to travel on commercial aircraft, shall be allowed at public expense
when authorized or approved by competent authority, and trans-
portation requests for such travel may be issued upon such au-
thorizations. Such expense shall be allowed without regard to com-
parative costs of transportation by aircraft with other modes of
transportation.
(c) The Board, on behalf of the United States, is authorized to
accept any gift or donation of money or personal property, or of
services, where appropriate, for the purposes of its functions
under subchapter VII of this chapter. For adequate compensation,
by sale, lease, or otherwise, the Board, on behalf of the United
States, is authorized to dispose of any such personal property or
interest therein: Provided, That such disposition shall be made in
accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Serv-
ices in Act of 1949, as amended. Pub.L. 85-726, Title II, § 203,
Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 742; Pub.L. 87-810, § 5, Oct. 15, 1962, 76
Stat. 921.
§ 1324. General powers and duties of the Board—Performance of
acts; conduct of investigations; orders, rules, regulations, and pro-
cedure
526-704 O - 73 - 21
-------
2074 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(a) The Board is empowered to perform such acts, to conduct
such investigations, to issue and amend such orders, and to make
and amend such general or special rules, regulations, and proce-
dure, pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this chap-
ter, as it shall deem necessary to carry out the provisions of, and
to exercise and perform its powers and duties under, this chapter.
Cooperation with State aeronautical agencies
(b) The Board is empowered to confer with or to hold joint
hearings with any State aeronautical agency, or other State
agency, in connection with any matter arising under this chapter
within its jurisdiction, and to avail itself of the cooperation, serv-
ices, records, and facilities of such State agencies as fully as may
be practicable in the administration and enforcement of this chap-
ter.
Exchange of information with foreign governments
(c) The Board is empowered to exchange with foreign govern-
ments, through appropriate agencies of the United States, infor-
mation pertaining to aeronautics.
Report of proceedings and investigations; publication; evidence
(d) Except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter, the
Board shall make a report in writing in all proceedings and inves-
tigations under this chapter in which formal hearings have been
held, and shall state in such report its conclusions together with
its decision, order, or requirement in the premises. All such re-
ports shall be entered of record and a copy thereof shall be fur-
nished to all parties to the proceeding or investigation. The Board
shall provide for the publication of such reports, and all other
report, orders, decisions, rules, and regulations issued by it under
this chapter in such form and manner as may be best adapted for
public information and use. Publications purporting to be pub-
lished by the Board shall be competent evidence of the orders,
decisions, rules, regulations, and reports of the Board therein con-
tained in all courts of the United States, and of the several States,
Territories, and possessions thereof, and the District of Columbia,
without further proof or authentication thereof. Pub.L. 85-726,
Title II, § 204, Aug. 23,1958, 72 Stat. 743.
§ 1325. Annual report to Congress
The Board shall make an annual report to the Congress, copies
of which shall be distributed as are other reports transmitted to
Congress. Such report shall contain in addition to a report of the
work performed under this chapter, such information and data
collected by the Board as may be considered of value in the deter-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2075
mination of questions connected with the development and regula-
tion of civil aeronautics, together with such recommendations as
to additional legislation relating thereto as the Board may deem
necessary, and the Board may also transmit recommendations as
to legislation at any other time. Pub.L. 85-726, Title II, § 205,
Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 744.
SUBCHAPTER III.—ORGANIZATION OF AGENCY ; POWERS AND DUTIES
OP ADMINISTRATOR
§ 1344. Federal Aviation Agency—Establishment; Administra-
tor; appointment; powers and duties
(a) There is established the Federal Aviation Agency, referred
to in this chapter as the "Agency". The Agency shall be headed by
an Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Administrator
shall be responsible for the exercise of all powers and the dis-
charge of all duties of the Agency, and shall have authority and
control over all personnel and activities thereof. In the exercise of
his duties and the discharge of his responsibilities under this
chapter, the Administrator shall not submit his decisions for the
approval of, nor be bound by the decisions or recommendations of,
any committee, board, or other organization created by Executive
order.
Qualifications of Administrator
(b) The Administrator shall be a citizen of the United States,
and shall be appointed with due regard for his fitness for the
efficient discharge of the powers and duties vested in and imposed
upon him by this chapter. At the time of his nomination he shall
be a civilian and shall have had experience in a field directly
related to aviation. The Administrator shall have no pecuniary
interest in or own any stock in or bonds of any aeronautical
enterprise nor shall be engage in any other business, vocation, or
employment.
Principal office; seal
(c) The principal office of the Agency shall be in or near the
District of Columbia, but it may act and exercise all its powers at
any other place. The Agency shall have an official seal which shall
be judicially notice. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 301, Aug. 23, 1958,
72 Stat. 744, amended Pub.L. 88-426, Title III, § 305(16) (B),
Aug. 14, 1964, 78 Stat. 424.
§ 1342. Deputy Administrator; appointment; powers and duties;
qualifications
-------
2076 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(a) There shall be a Deputy Administrator of the Agency who
shal be appointed by the President by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The Deputy Administrator shall perform
such duties and exercise such powers as the Administrator shall
prescribe. The Deputy Administrator shall act for, and exercise
the powers of, the Administrator during his absence or disability.
(b) The Deputy Administrator shall be a citizen of the United
States, and shall be appointed with due regard for his fitness for
the efficient discharge of the powers and duties vested in and
imposed upon him by this chapter. At the time of his nomination
he shall have had experience in a field directly related to aviation.
He shall have no pecuniary interest in nor own any stocks in or
bonds of any aeronautical enterprise, nor shall be engage in any
other business, vocation, or employment. Nothing in this chapter
or other law shall preclude apointment to the position of Deputy
Administrator of an officer on active duty with the armed serv-
ices ; except that if the Administrator is a former regular officer of
any one of the armed services, the Deputy Administrator shall not
be an officer on active duty with one of the armed services or a
retired regular officer or a former regular officer of one of the
armed services. Any officer on active duty or any retired officer,
while serving as Deputy Administrator, shall continue to hold
rank and grade not lower than that in which serving at the time
of his appointment as Deputy Administrator, and shall be entitled
to receive (1) the compensation provided for the Deputy Adminis-
trator by subsection (a) of this section, or (2) the military pay
and allowances (including personal money allowance) or the re-
tired pay, as the case may be, payable to a commissioned officer of
his grade and length of service, whichever he may elect. Whenever
any officer serving as Deputy Administrator elects to receive his
military pay and allowances (including personal money allow-
ance) , or his retired pay, as the case may be, the appropriate
department shall be reimbursed from any funds available to de-
fray the expenses of the Agency. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, §
302(a), (b), Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 744, amended Pub.L. 88-426,
Title III, § 305(16) (C), Aug. 14, 1964, 78 Stat. 424.
§ 1343. General powers and duties of Administrator—Military
participation; detail of members of Armed Forces; report to the
Congress
(a) (1) In order to insure that the interests of national defense
are properly safeguarded and that the Administrator is properly
advised as to the needs and special problems of the armed services,
the Administrator shall provide for participation of military per-
-------
STATUTES ANB LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2077
sonnel in carrying out his functions relating to regulation and
protection of air traffic, including provision of air navigation facil-
ities, and research and development with respect thereto, and the
allocation of airspace. Members of the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force, the Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard may be detailed by
the appropriate Secretary, pursuant to cooperative agreements
with the Administrator, including such agreement on reimburse-
ment as may be deemed advisable by the Administrator and the
Secretary concerned, for service in the Agency to effect such par-
ticipation.
(2) Appointment to, acceptance of, and service as Deputy Ad-
ministrator or under such cooperative agreements shall in no way
affect status, office, rank, or grade which commissioned officers or
enlisted men may occupy or hold, or any emolument, perquisite,
right, privilege, or benefit incident to or arising out of any such
status, office, rank, or grade. No person so detailed or appointed
shall be subject to direction by or control by the department from
which detailed or appointed or by any agency or officer thereof
directly or indirectly with respect to his responsibilities under this
chapter or within the Agency.
(3) The Administrator, within six months of August 23, 1958
and semiannually thereafter, shall report in writing to the appro-
priate committees of the Congress on agreements entered into
under this subsection, including the number, rank, and positions
of members of the armed services detailed pursuant thereto, to-
gether with his evaluation of the effectiveness of such agreements
and assignments of personnel thereunder in accomplishing the
purposes of such subsection.
Exchange of information
(b) In order to assist the Administrator further in the dis-
charge of responsibilities under this chapter, the Administrator
and the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator and the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion, are directed to establish by cooperative agreement suitable
arrangements for the timely exchange of information pertaining
to their programs, policies, and requirements directly relating to
such responsibilities.
Development of plans for d'scharge of responsibilities in event of war;
legislative proposal; transfer of functions
(c) The Administrator shall develop, in consultation with the
Department of Defense and other affected Government agencies,
>lans for the effective discharge of the responsibiities of the
Agency in the event of war, and shall propose to Congress on or
-------
2078 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
before January 1, 1960, legislation for such purpose: Provided,
That in the event of war the President by Executive order may
transfer to the Department of Defense any functions (including
powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of functions) of the
Agency prior to enactment of such proposed legislation. In connec-
tion with any such transfer, the President may provide for appro-
priate transfers of records, property, and personnel.
Officers and employees
(d) The Administrator is authorized, subject to the civil-service
and classification laws, to select, employ, appoint, and fix the com-
pensation of such officers, employees, attorneys, and agents as
shall be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and
to define their authority and duties, except that the Administrator
may fix the compensation for not more than twenty-three posi-
tions at rates not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the
General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
Study of special personnel problems; report to the Congress
(e) The Administrator shall make a study, in consultation with
other affected Government agencies, of personnel problems inher-
ent in the functions of the Agency, giving due consideration to the
need for (1) special qualifications and training, (2) special provi-
sions as to pay, retirement, and hours of service, and (3) special
provisions to assure availability, responsiveness, and security sta-
tus of essential personnel in fulfilling national defense require-
ments, and shall report the results thereof, and make recommen-
dations for legislation thereon, to Congress on or before January
1, 1960.
Scientific or professional personnel
(f) The Administrator is authorized to establish and fix the
compensation for not to exceed twenty positions of officers and
employees of the Agency of a scientific or professional nature
without regard to the Classificaton Act of 1949, as amended, each
such position being established to effectuate those research, devel-
opment, and related activities of the Agency which require the
services of specially qualified scientific or professional peronnel.
The rates of basic compensation for positions established pursuant
to this subsection shall not exceed the maximum rate payable
under sections 1161-1163 of Title 5, and Title V of the Act of July
31, 1956 (Public Law 854, Eighty-fourth Congress), and shall be
subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission. Positions
created pursuant to this subsection shall be included in the classi-
fied civil service of the United States, but appointment to such
positions shall be made without competitive examination upon ap-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2079
proval of the proposed appointee's qualifications by the Civil Serv-
ice Commission or such officers or agents as it may designate for
this purpose.
Advisory committees and consultants
(g) The Administrator is authorized to appoint such advisory
committees as shall be appropriate for the purpose of consultation
with and advice to the Agency in performance of its functions
hereunder and to obtain service authorized by section 55a of Title
5, at rates not to exceed $100 per diem for individuals, and for not
to exceed one hundred days in any calendar year in the case of any
individual. Members of such committees shall be entitled to travel
expenses and per diem as authorized by the Administrative Ex-
penses Act of 1946, for all persons employed intermittently as
consultants or experts receiving compensation on a per diem basis.
(h) Repealed. Pub.L. 87-367, Title I, § 103(2), Oct. 4, 1961, 75
Stat. 787.
Cooperation with other agencies
(i) The Administrator is authorized to use with consent the
available services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of other
civilian or military agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal
Government, on a reimbursable basis when appropriate, and on a
similar basis to cooperate with such other agencies and instrumen-
talities in the establishment and use of services, equipment, and
facilities of the Agency. The Administrator is further authorized
to confer with and avail himself of the cooperation, services, rec-
ords, and facilities of State, Territorial, municipal or other local
agencies. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III,§ 302(c)-(k), Aug. 23, 1958, 72
Stat. 745; Pub.L. 87-367, Title I, § 1032), Title II, § 205, Oct. 4,
1961, 75 Stat. 787, 791; Pub.L. 87-793,§1001(h),Oct.ll,1962,
76 Stat. 864.
§ 1344. Administration of Agency
(a) The Administrator is empowered to make such expendi-
tures at the seat of government and elsewhere as may be neces-
sary for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties
vested in and imposed upon him by law, and as from time to time
nay be appropriated for by Congress, including expenditures for
(1) rent and personnel services at the seat of government and
elsewhere; (2) travel expenses; (3) office furniture, equipment
ind supplies, lawbooks, newspapers, periodicals, and books of ref-
srence (including the exchange thereof) ; (4) printing and bind-
ing; (5) membership in and cooperation with such organizations
is are related to, or are part of, the civil aeronautics industry or
;he art of aeronautics in the United States or in any foreign
-------
2080 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
country; (6) payment of allowances and other benefits to employ-
ees stationed in foreign countries to the same extent as authorized
from time to time for members of the Foreign Service of the
United States of comparable grade; (7) making investigations
and conducting studies in matters pertaining to aeronautics; and
(8) acquisition (including exchange), operation and maintenance
of passenger-carrying automobiles and aircraft, and such other
property as is necessary in the exercise and performance of the
powers and duties of the Administrator: Provided, That no air-
craft or motor vehicles, purchased under the provisions of this
section, shall be used otherwise than for official business.
Supplies and materials for overseas installations
(b) When appropriations for any fiscal year for the Agency
have not been made prior to the first day of March preceding the
beginning of such fiscal year, the Administrator may authorize
such officer or officers as may be designated by him to incur obliga-
tions for the purchase and transportation of supplies and materi-
als necessary to the proper execution of the Administrator's func-
tions at installations outside the continental United States, includ-
ing those in Alaska, in amounts not to exceed 75 per centum of the
amount that had been made available for such purposes for the
fiscal year then current, payments of these obligations to be made
from the appropriations for the next succeeding fiscal year when
they become available.
Acquisition and disposal of property
(c) The Administrator, on behalf of the United States is au-
thorized, where appropriate: (1) to accept any conditional or un-
conditional gift or donation of money or other property, real or
personal, or of services; (2) within the limits of available appro-
priations made by the Congress therefor, to acquire by purchase,
condemnation, lease, or otherwise, real property or interests
therein, including, in the case of air navigation facilities (includ-
ing airports) owned by the United States and operated under the
direction of the Administrator, easements through or other inter-
ests in airspace immediately adjacent thereto and needed in
connection therewith: Provided, That the authority herein
granted shall not include authority for the acquisition of space in
buildings for use by the Federal Aviation Agency, suitable accom-
modations for which shall be provided by the Administrator of
General Services, unless the Administrator of General Services
determines, purusant to section l(d) of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 18, 1950, that the space to be acquired is to be utilized
for the special purposes of the Federal Aviation Agency and is not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2081
generally suitable for the use of other agencies; (3) for adequate
compensation, by sale, lease, or otherwise, to dispose of any real or
personal property or interest therein: Provided, That, except for
airport and airway property and technical equipment used for the
special purposes of the Agency, such disposition shall be made in
accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Serv-
ices Act of 1949, as amended; and (4) to construct, improve, or
renovate laboratories and other test facilities and to purchase or
otherwise acquire real property required therefor. Any such acqui-
sition by condemnation may be made in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Act of August 1, 1888, the Act of February 26, 1931,
or any other applicable Act: Provided, That in the case of condem-
nations of easements through or other interests in airspace, in
fixing condemnation awards, consideration may be given to the
reasonable probable future use of the underlying land.
Delegation of functions
(d) The Administrator may, subject to such regulations, super-
vision, and review as he may prescribe, from time to time make
such provision as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the per-
formance by any officer, employee, or administrative unit under
his jurisdiction of any function under this chapter; or, with its
consent, authorizing the performance by any other| Federal depart-
ment or agency of any function under section 1348 (b) of this title.
Negotiation of purchases and contracts; report to Congressional Committees
(e) The Secretary of Transportation may negotiate without
advertising purchases of and contracts for technical or special
property related to, or in support of, air navigation that he deter-
mines to require a substantial initial investment or an extended
period of prepration for manufacture, and for which he deter-
mines that formal advertising would be likely to result in addi-
tional cost to the Government by reason of duplication of invest-
ment or would result in duplication of necessary preparation
which would unduly delay the procurement of the property. The
Secretary shall, at the beginning of each fiscal year, report to the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce of the Senate all
transactions negotiated under this subsection during the preceding
fiscal year. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 303, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat.
747, amended Pub.L. 91-258, Title I, § 51 (a) (1), May 21, 1970,
84 Stat. 234.
§ 1345. Presidential authority to transfer certain functions
The President may transfer to the Administrator any functions
(including powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of func-
-------
2082 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tions) of the executive departments or agencies of the Govern-
ment or of any officer or organizational entity thereof which relate
primarily to selecting, developing, testing, evaluating, establish-
ing, operating and maintaining systems, procedures, facilities, or
devices for safe and efficient air navigation and air traffic control.
In connection with any such transfer, the President may provide
for appropriate transfers of records, property, and for necessary
civilian and military personnel to be made available from the
other office, department, or other agency from which the transfer
is made. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 304, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat.
749.
§ 1346. Fostering of civil aeronautics and air commerce
The Administrator is empowered and directed to encourage and
foster the development of civil aeronautics and air commerce in
the United States and abroad. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 305, Aug.
23, 1958, 72 Stat. 749.
§ 1347. National defense and civil needs
In exercising the authority granted in, and discharging the du-
ties imposed by, this chapter, the Administrator shall give full
consideration to the requirements of national defense, and of com-
mercial and general aviation, and to the public right of freedom of
transit through the navigable airspace. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, §
306, Aug. 23,1958, 72 Stat. 749.
§ 1348. Airspace control and facilities—Use of airspace
(a) The Administrator is authorized and directed to develop
plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the
navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the
use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and
limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may
modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public
interest.
Air navigation facilities
(b) The Administrator is authorized, within the limits of avail-
able appropriations made by the Congress, (1) to acquire, estab-
lish, and improve air-navigation facilities wherever necessary;
(2) to operate and maintain such air-navigation facilities; (3) to
arrange for publication of aeronautical maps and charts necessary
for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in air navigation
utilizing the facilities and assistance of existing agencies of the
Government so far as practicable; and (4) to provide necessary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2083
facilities and personnel for the regulation and protection of air
traffic.
Air traffic rules
(c) The Administrator is further authorized and directed to
prescribe air traffic rules and regulations governing the flight of
aircraft, for the navigation, protection, and identification of air-
craft, for the protection of persons and property on the ground,
and for the efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, including
rules as to safe altitudes of flight and rules for the prevention of
collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water
vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.
Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act
(d) In the exercise of the rulemaking authority under subsec-
tions (a) and (c) of this section, the Administrator shall be sub-
ject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, not-
withstanding any exception relating to military or naval functions
in section 1003 of Title 5.
Exemptions
(e) The Administrator from time to time may grant exemptions
from the requirements of any rule or regulation prescribed under
this subchapter if he finds that such action would be in the public
interest.
Exception for military emergencies
(f) When it is essential to the defense of the United States
because of a military emergency or urgent military necessity, and
when appropriate military authority so determines, and when
jrior notice thereof is given to the Administrator, such military
authority may authorize deviation by military aircraft of the na-
;ional defense forces of the United States from air traffic rules
ssued pursuant to this subchapter. Such prior notice shall be
jiven to the Administrator at the earliest time practicable and, to
;he extent time and circumstances permit, every reasonable effort
shall be made to consult fully with the Administrator and to ar-
*ange in advance for the required deviation from the rules on a
mutually acceptable basis. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 307, Aug. 23,
.958, 72 Stat. 749.
§ 1349. Expenditure of Federal funds for certain airports and
ir navigation facilities; location of airports, landing areas, and
tiissile and rocket sites
(a) No Federal funds, other than those expended under this
hapter, shall be expended, other than for military purposes
-------
2084 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(whether or not in cooperation with State or other local govern-
mental agencies), for the acquisition, establishment, construction,
alteration, repair, maintenance, or operation of any landing area,
or for the acquisition, establishment, construction, maintenance,
or operation of air navigation facilities thereon, except upon writ-
ten recommendation and certification by the Administrator that
such landing area or facility is reasonably necessary for use in air
commerce or in the interests of national defense. Any interested
person may apply to the Administrator, under regulations pre-
scribed by him, for such recommendation and certification with
respect to any landing area or air navigation facility proposed to
be established, constructed, altered, repaired, maintained, or oper-
ated by, or in the interests of, such person. There shall be no
exclusive right for the use of any landing area or air navigation
facility upon which Federal funds have been expended.
(b) In order to assure conformity to plans and policies for
allocations of airspace by the Administrator under section 1348 of
this title, no military airport or landing area, or missile or rocket
site shall be acquired, established, or constructed, or any runway
layout substantially altered, unless reasonable prior notice thereof
is given the Administrator so that he may advise with the appro-
priate committees of the Congress and other interested agencies as
to the effects of such acquisition, establishment, construction, or
alteration on the use of airspace by aircraft. In case of a disagree-
ment between the Administrator and the Department of Defense
or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration the matter
may be appealed to the President for final determination. Pub.L.
85-726, Title III, § 308, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 750.
§ 1350. Establishment or construction of airports and landing
areas not involving expenditure of Federal funds
In order to assure conformity to plans and policies for, and
allocations of, airspace by the Administrator under section 1348 of
this title, no airport or landing area not involving expenditure of
Federal funds shall be established, or constructed, or any runway
layout substantially altered unless reasonable prior notice thereof
is given the Administrator, pursuant to regulations prescribed by
him, so that he may advise as to the effects of such construction on
the use of airspace by aircraft. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 309,
Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 751.
§ 1351. Meteorological service
The Administrator is empowered and directed to make recom-
mendations to the Secretary of Commerce for providing meteorol-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2085
ogical service necessary for the safe and efficient movement of
aircraft in air commerce. In providing meteorological services, the
Secretary of Commerce shall cooperate with the Administrator
and give full consideration to such recommendations. Pub.L. 85-
726, Title III, § 310, Aug. 23,1958, 72 Stat. 751.
§ 1352. Collection and dissemination of information
The Administrator is empowered and directed to collect and
disseminate information relative to civil aeronautics (other than
information collected and disseminated by the Board under sub-
chapters IV and VII of this chapter) ; to study the possibilities of
the development of air commerce and the aeronautical industry;
and to exchange with foreign governments, through appropriate
governmental channels, information pertaining to civil aeronau-
tics. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 311, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 751.
§ 1353. Development planning—Use of navigable airspace; loca-
tion of landing areas, Federal airways, radar installations, and ai*r
navigation facilities
(a) The Administrator is directed to make long range plans for
and formulate policy with respect to the orderly development and
use of the navigable airspace, and the orderly development and
ocation of landing areas, Federal airways, radar installations and
all other aids and facilities for air navigation, as will best meet
;he needs of, and serve the interest of civil aeronautics and na-
;ional defense, except for those needs of military agencies which
ire peculiar to air warfare and primarily of military concern.
Aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances
(b) The Administrator is empowered to undertake or supervise
iuch developmental work and service testing as tends to the crea-
,ion of improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appli-
mces. For such purpose, the Administrator is empowered to make
)urchases (including exchange) by negotiation, or otherwise, of
sxperimental aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances,
vhich seem to offer special advantages to aeronautics.
Research and development
(c) The Administrator shall develop, modify, test, and evaluate
ystems, procedures, facilities, and devices, as well as define the
lerformance characteristics thereof, to meet the needs for safe
nd efficient navigation and traffic control of all civil and military
viation except for those needs of military agencies which are
ieculiar to air warfare and primarily of military concern, and
elect such systems, procedures, facilities, and devices as will
-------
2086 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
best serve such needs and will promote maximum coordination of
air traffic control and air defense systems. Contracts may be en-
tered into for this purpose without regard to section 529 of Title
31. When there is any substantial question as to whether a matter
is of primary concern to the military, the Administrator is author-
ized and directed to determine whether he or the appropriate
military agency shall have responsibility. Technical information
concerning any research and development projects of the military
agencies which have potential application to the needs of, or possi-
ble conflict with, the common system shall be furnished to the
Administrator to the maximum extent necessary to insure that
common system application potential is properly considered and
potential future conflicts with the common system are eliminated.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 312, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 752.
§ 1354. Other powers and duties of Administrator
(a) The Administrator is empowered to perform such acts, to
conduct such investigations, to issue and amend such orders, and
to make and amend such general or special rules, regulations, and
procedures, pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this
chapter, as he shall deem necessary to carry out the provisions of,
and to exercise and perform his powers and duties under, this
chapter.
Report of proceedings and investigations; publication of reports, orders,
decisions, rules and regulations; use as evidence
(b) Except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter, the
Administrator shall make a report in writing on all proceedings
and investigations under this chapter in which formal hearings
have been held, and shall state in such report his conclusions
together with his decision, order, or requirement in the premises.
All such reports shall be entered of record and a copy thereof shall
be furnished to all parties to the proceeding or investigation. The
Administrator shall provide for the publication of such reports,
and all other reports, orders, decisions, rules, and regulations is-
sued by him under this chapter in such form and manner as may
be best adapted for public information and use. Publications pur-
porting to be published by the Administrator shall be competent
evidence of the orders, decisions, rules, regulations, and reports of
the Administrator therein contained in all courts of the United
States, and of the several States, Territories, and possessions
thereof, and the District of Columbia, without further proof or
authentication thereof.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2087
Power to conduct hearings and investigations
(c) In the conduct of any public hearings or investigations
authorized by this chapter, the Federal Airport Act, or the Air-
port and Airway Development Act of 1970, the Administrator
shall have the same powers to take evidence, issue subpenas, take
depositions, and compel testimony as are vested in members of the
Board and its duly designated examiners by section 1484 of this
title. Actions of the Administrator in such cases shall be governed
by the procedures specified in section 1484 of this title and be
enforced in the manner provided therein.
Training schools
(d) The Administrator is empowered to conduct a school or
schools for the purpose of training employees of the Agency in
;hose subjects necessary for the proper performance of all author-
ized functions of the Agency. He may also authorize attendance at
courses given in such school or schools of other governmental
Dersonnel, and personnel of foreign governments, or personnel of
;he aeronautics industry: Provided, That in the event the attend-
ance of such persons shall increase the cost of operation of such
school or schools, the Administrator may require the payment or
;ransfer of sufficient funds or other appropriate consideration to
jffset the additional costs. In providing any training to employees
}f the Agency or of other agencies of the Federal Government, the
\dministrator shall be subject to the provisions of the Govern-
nent Employees Training Act. Funds received by the Administra-
tor hereunder may be credited (1) to appropriations current at
,he time the expenditures are to be or have been paid, (2) to
ippropriations current at the time such funds are received, or (3)
n part as provided under clause (1) and in part as provided
inder clause (2).
Annual report to the President and Congress
(e) The Administrator shall submit to the President and to the
Congress an annual report. Such report shall contain, in addition
;o a report of the work performed under this chapter, such
nformation and data collected by the Administrator as may be
onsidered of value in the determination of questions connected
vith the development and regulation of civil aeronautics, the utili-
ation of national airspace, and the improvement of the air navi-
;ation and traffic control system, together with such recommenda-
ions as to additional legislation related thereto as the Administra-
or may deem necessary, and the Administrator may also transmit
ecommendations as to legislation at any other time. Pub.L.
-------
2088 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
85-726, Title III, § 313, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 752, amended
Pub.L. 91-258, Title I, § 52(b) (4) (A), May 21, 1970, 84 Stat.
235.
§ 1355. Delegation of powers and duties to private persons;
application for reconsideration
(a) In exercising the powers and duties vested in him by this
chapter, the Administrator may, subject to such regulations, su-
pervision, and review as he may prescribe, delegate to any prop-
erly qualified private person, or to any employee or employees
under the supervision of such person, any work, business, or func-
tion respecting (1) the examination, inspection, and testing neces-
sary to the issuance of certificates under subchapter VI of this
chapter, and (2) the issuance of such certificates in accordance
with standards established by him. The Administrator may estab-
lish the maximum fees which such private persons may charge for
their services and may rescind any delegation made by him pur-
suant to this subsection at any time and for any reason which he
deems appropriate.
(b) Any person affected by any action taken by any private
person exercising delegated authority under this section may
apply for reconsideration of such action by the Administrator. The
Administrator upon his own initiative, with respect to the author-
ity granted under subsection (a) of this section, may reconsider
the action of any private person either before or after it has
become effective. If, upon reconsideration by the Administrator, it
shall appear that the action in question is in any respect unjust or
unwarranted, the Administrator shall reverse, change, or modify
the same accordingly; otherwise such action shall be affirmed:
Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
modifying, amending, or repealing any provisions of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act. Pub.L. 85-726, Title III, § 314, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 754.
SUBCHAPTER iv.—AIR CARRIER ECONOMIC REGULATION
§ 1371. Certificate of public convenience and necessity
(a) No air carrier shall engage in any air transportation unless
there is in force a certificate issued by the Board authorizing such
air carrier to engage in such transportation.
Application
(b) Application for a certificate shall be made in writing to the
Board and shall be so verified, shall be in such form and contain
such information, and shall be accompanied by such proof of serv-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2089
ice upon such interested persons, as the Board shall by regulation
require.
Notice of application; filing of protest or memorandum; hearing
(c) Upon the filing of any such application, the Board shall give
due notice thereof to the public by posting a notice of such appli-
cation in the office of the secretary of the Board and to such other
persons as the Board may by regulation determine. Any interested
person may file with the Board a protest or memorandum of oppo-
sition to or in support of the issuance of a certificate. Such appli-
cation shall be set for public hearing, and the Board shall dispose
of such application as speedily as possible.
Issuance
(d) (1) The Board shall issue a certificate authorizing the
whole or any part of the transportation covered by the applica-
tion, if it finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able to per-
form such transportation properly, and to conform to the provi-
sions of this chapter and the rules, regulations, and requirements
of the Board hereunder, and that such transportation is required
by the public convenience and necessity; otherwise such applica-
tion shall be denied.
(2) In the case of an application for a certificate to engage in
temporary air transportation, the Board may issue a certificate
authorizing the whole or any part thereof for such limited periods
as may be required by the public convenience and necessity, if it
finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to per-
form such transportation and to conform to the provisions of this
chapter and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Board
hereunder.
(3) In the case of an application for a certificate to engage in
supplemental air transportation, the Board may issue a certificate,
to any applicant not holding a certificate under paragraph (1) or
(2) of this subsection, authorizing the whole or any part thereof,
and for such periods, as may be required by the public convenience
and necessity, if it finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able
properly to perform the transportation covered by the application
and to conform to the provisions of this chapter and the rules,
regulations, and requirements of the Board hereunder. Any certif-
icate issued pursuant to this paragraph shall contain such limita-
tions as the Board shall find necessary to assure that the service
rendered pursuant thereto will be limited to supplemental air
transportation as defined in this chapter.
526-704 O - 73 - 22
-------
2090 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Terms, conditions, and limitations
(e) (1) Each certificate issued under this section shall specify
the terminal points and intermediate points, if any, between which
the air carrier is authorized to engage in air transportation and
the service to be rendered; and there shall be attached to the
exercise of the privileges granted by the certificate, or amendment
thereto, such reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations as the
public interest may require.
(2) A certificate issued under this section to engage in foreign
air transportation shall, insofar as the operation is to take place
without the United States, designate the terminal and intermedi-
ate points only insofar as the Board shall deem practicable, and
otherwise shall designate only the general route or routes to be
followed. Any air carrier holding a certificate for foreign air
transportation shall be authorized to handle and transport mail of
countries other than the United States.
(3) A certificate issued under this section to engage in supple-
mental air transportation shall designate the terminal and inter-
mediate points only insofar as the Board shall deem practicable
and otherwise shall designate only the geographical area or areas
within or between which service may be rendered.
(4) No term, condition, or limitation of a certificate shall res-
trict the right of an air carrier to add to or change schedules,
equipment, accommodations, and facilities for performing the au-
thorized transportation and service as the development of the
business and the demands of the public shall require; except that
the Board may impose such terms, conditions, or limitations in a
certificate for supplemental air transportation when required by
subsection (d) (3) of this section.
(5) No air carrier shall be deemed to have violated any term,
condition, or limitation of its certificate by landing or taking off
during an emergency at a point not named in its certificate or by
operating in an emergency, under regulations which may be pre-
scribed by the Bord, between terminal and intermediate points
other than those specified in its certificate.
(6) Any air carrier, other than a supplemental air carrier, may
perform charter trips (including inclusive tour charter trips) or
any other special service, without icgard to the points named in
its certificate, or the type of service provided therein, under regu-
lations prescribed by the Board.
Effective date and duration
(f) Each certificate shall be effective from the date specified
therein, and shall continue in effect until suspended or revoked as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2091
hereinafter provided, or until the Board shall certify that opera-
tion thereunder has ceased, or, if issued for a limited period of
time under subsection (d) (2) of this section, shall continue in
effect until the expiration thereof, unless, prior to the date of
expiration, such certificate shall be suspended or revoked as pro-
vided herein, or the Board shall certify that operations thereunder
have ceased: Provided, That if any service authorized by a certifi-
cate is not inaugurated within such period, not less than ninety
days, after the date of the authorization as shall be fixed by the
Board, or if, for a period of ninety days or such other period as
may be designated by the Board any such service is not operated,
the Board may by order, entered after notice and hearing, direct
that such certificate shall thereupon cease to be effective to the
extent of such service.
Alteration, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation
(g) The Board upon petition or complaint or upon its own
initiative, after notice and hearings, may alter, amend, modify, or
suspend any such certificate, in whole or in part, if the public
convenience and necessity so require, or may revoke any such
certificate, in whole or in part, for intentional failure to comply
with any provision of this subchapter or any order, rule, or regu-
lation issued hereunder or any term, condition, or limitation of
such certificate: Provided, That no such certificate shall be re-
voked unless the holder thereof fails to comply, within a reasona-
ble time to be fixed by the Board, with an order of the Board
commanding obedience to the provision, or to the order (other
than an order issued in accordance with this proviso), rule, regu-
lation, term, condition, or limitation found by the Board to have
been violated. Any interested person may file with the Board a
protest or memorandum in support of or in opposition to the
alteration, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of
the certificate.
Transfer
(h) No certificate may be transferred unless such transfer is
approved by the Board as being consistent with the public inter-
est.
Rights in the use of airspace, airways, landing areas,
or air-navigation facilities
(i) No certificate shall confer any proprietary, property, or
exclusive right in the use of any airspace, Federal airway, landing
area, or air-navigation facility.
-------
2092 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Abandonment of routes
(j) No air carrier shall abandon any route, or part thereof, for
which a certificate has been issued by the Board, unless, upon the
application of such air carrier, after notice and hearing, the Board
shall find such abandonment to be in the public interest. Any
interested person may file with the Board a protest or memoran-
dum of opposition to or in support of any such abandonment. The
Board may, by regulations or otherwise, authorize such temporary
suspension of service as may be in the public interest.
Compliance with labor legislation
(k) (1) Every air carrier shall maintain rates of compensation,
maximum hours, and other working conditions and relations of all
of its pilots and copilots who are engaged in interstate air trans-
portation within the continental United States (not including
Alaska) so as to conform with decision numbered 83 made by the
National Labor Board on May 10, 1934, notwithstanding any limi-
tation therein as to the period of its effectiveness.
(2) Every air carrier shall maintain rates of compensation for
all of its pilots and copilots who are engaged in overseas or for-
eign air transportation or air transportation wholly within a Ter-
ritory or possession of the United States, the minimum of which
shall be not less, upon an annual basis, than the compensation
required to be paid under said decision 83 for comparable service
to pilots and copilots engaged in interstate air transportation
within the continental United States (not including Alaska).
(3) Nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting
the right of any such pilots or copilots, or other employees, of any
such air carrier to obtain by collective bargaining higher rates of
compensation or more favorable working conditions or relations.
(4) It shall be a condition upon the holding of a certificate by
any air carrier that such carrier shall comply with sections
181-188 of Title 45.
(5) The term "pilot" as used in this subsection shall mean an
employee who is responsible for the manipulation of or who ma-
nipulates the flight controls of an aircraft while under way includ-
ing take-off and landing of such aircraft, and the term "copilot" as
used in this subsection shall mean an employee any part of whose
duty is to assist or relieve the pilot in such manipulation, and who
is properly qualified to serve as, and holds a currently effective
airman certificate authorizing him to serve as, such pilot or copi-
lot.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2093
Carriage of mail
(1) Whenever so authorized by its certificate, any air carrier
shall provide necessary and adequate facilities and service for the
transportation of mail, and shall transport mail whenever re-
quired by the Postmaster General. Such air carrier shall be enti-
tled to receive reasonable compensation therefor as hereinafter
provided.
Application for new mail service
(m) Whenever, from time to time, the Postmaster General shall
find that the needs of the Postal Service require the transportation
of mail by aircraft between any points within the United States or
between the United States and foreign countries, in addition to the
transportation of mail authorized in certificates then currently
effective, the Postmaster General shall certify such finding to the
Board and file therewith a statement showing such additional
service and the facilities necessary in connection therewith, and a
copy of such certification and statement shall be posted for at least
twenty days in the office of the secretary of the Board. The Board
shall, after notice and hearing, and if found by it to be required by
the public convenience and necessity, make provision for such
additional service, and the facilities necessary in connection there-
with, by issuing a new certificate or certificates or by amending
an existing certificate or certificates in accordance with the provi-
sions of this section.
Additional powers and duties of Board with respect
to supplemental air carriers
(n) (1) No certificate to engage in supplemental air transporta-
tion, and no special operating authorization described in section
1387 of this title, shall be issued or remain in effect unless the
applicant for such certificate or the supplemental air carrier, as
the case may be, complies with regulations or orders issued by the
Board governing the filing and approval of policies of insurance,
in the amount prescribed by the Board, conditioned to pay, within
the amount of such insurance, amounts for which such applicant
or such supplemental air carrier may become liable for bodily
injuries to or the death of any person, or for loss of or damage to
property of others, resulting from the negligent operation or
maintenance of aircraft under such certificate or such special op-
erating authorization.
(2) In order to protect travelers and shippers by aircraft oper-
ated by supplemental air carriers, the Board may require any
supplemental air carrier to file a performance bond or equivalent
security arrangement, in such amount and upon such terms as the
-------
2094 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Board shall prescribe, to be conditioned upon such supplemental
air carrier's making appropriate compensation to such travelers
and shippers, as prescribed by the Board, for failure on the part
of such carrier to perform air transportation services in accord-
ance with agreements therefor.
(3) If any service authorized by a certificate to engage in sup-
plemental air transportation is not performed to the minimum
extent prescribed by the Board, it may by order, entered after
notice and hearing, direct that such certificate shall thereupon
cease to be effective to the extent of such service.
(4) The requirement that each applicant for a certificate to
engage in supplemental air transportation must be found to be fit,
willing, and able properly to perform the transportation covered
by his application and to conform to the provisions of this chapter
and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Board under
this chapter, shall be a continuing requirement applicable to each
supplemental air carrier with respect to the transportation au-
thorized by, and currently furnished or proposed to be furnished
under, such carrier's certificate. The Board shall be order, entered
after notice and hearing, modify, suspend, or revoke such certifi-
cate, in whole or in part, for failure of such carrier (A) to comply
with the continuing requirement that such carrier be so fit, will-
ing, and able, or (B) to file such reports as the Board may deem
necessary to determine whether such carrier is so fit, willing, and
able.
(5) In any case in which the Board determines that the failure
of a supplemental air carrier to comply with the provisions of
paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, or regulations or
orders of the Board thereunder, requires, in the interest of the
rights, welfare, or safety of the public, immediate suspension of
such carrier's certificate, the Board shall suspend such certificate,
in whole or in part, without notice or hearing, for not more than
thirty days. The Board shall immediately enter upon a hearing to
determine whether such certificate should be modified, suspended,
or revoked and, pending the completion of such hearing, the Board
may further suspend such certificate for additional periods aggre-
gating not more than sixty days. If the Board determines that a
carrier whose certificate is suspended under this paragraph comes
into compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (1), (3), and
(4) of this subsection, and regulations and orders of the Board
thereunder, the Board may immediately terminate the suspension
of such certificate and any pending proceeding commenced under
this paragraph, but nothing in this sentence shall preclude the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2095
Board from imposing on such carrier a civil penalty for any viola-
tion of such provisions, regulations, or orders.
(6) The Board shall prescribe such regulations and issue such
orders as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
subsection. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 401, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat.
754; Pub.L. 87-528, §§ 2-4, July 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 143, amended
Pub.L. 90-514, § 3, Sept. 26, 1968, 82 Stat. 867.
§ 1372. Permits to foreign air carriers—Necessity
(a) No foreign air carrier shall engage in foreign air transpor-
tation unless there is in force a permit issued by the Board author-
izing such carrier so to engage.
Issuance
(b) The Board is empowered to issue such a permit if it finds
that such carrier is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such
air transportation and to conform to the provisions of this chapter
and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Board hereun-
der, and that such transportation will be in the public interest.
Application
(c) Application for a permit shall be made in writing to the
Board, shall be so verified, shall be in such form and contain such
information, and shall be accompanied by such proof of service
upon such interested persons, as the Board shall by regulation
require.
Notice of application; filing of protest or memorandum; hearing
(d) Upon the filing of an application for a permit the Board
shall give due notice thereof to the public by posting a notice of
such application in the office of the secretary of the Board and to
such other persons as the Board may by regulation determine. Any
interested person may file with the Board a protest or memoran-
dum of opposition to or in support of the issuance of a permit.
Such application shall be set for public hearing and the Board
shall dispose of such application as speedily as possible.
Terms, conditions, and limitations
(e) The Board may prescribe the duration of any permit and
may attach to such permit such reasonable terms, conditions, or
limitations as, in its judgment, the public interest may require.
Alteration, modification, amendment, suspension, cancellation,
or revocation
(f) Any permit issued under the provisions of this section may,
after notice and hearing, be altered, modified, amended, sus-
pended, canceled, or revoked by the Board whenever it finds such
-------
2096 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
action to be in the public interest. Any interested person may file
with the Board a protest or memorandum in support if or in
opposition to the alteration, modification, amendment, suspension,
cancellation, or revocation of a permit.
Transfer of permit
(g) No permit may be transferred unless such transfer is ap-
proved by the Board as being in the public interest. Pub.L. 85-726,
Title IV, § 402, Aug. 23,1958, 72 Stat. 757.
§ 1373. Tariffs of air carriers—Filing, posting, and publication;
rejection of tariffs
(a) Every air carrier and every foreign air carrier shall file
with the Board, and print, and keep open to public inspection,
tariffs showing all rates, fares, and charges for air transportation
between points served by it, and between points served by it and
points served by any other air carrier or foreign air carrier when
through service and through rates shall have been established, and
showing to the extent required by regulations of the Board, all
classifications, rules, regulations, practices, and services in connec-
tion with such air transportation. Tariffs shall be filed, posted, and
published in such form and manner, and shall contain such infor-
mation, as the Board shall by regulation prescribe; and the Board
is empowered to reject any tariff so filed which is not consistent
with this section and such regulations. Any tariff so rejected shall
be void. The rates, fares, and charges shown in any tariff shall be
stated in terms of lawful money of the United States, but such
tariffs may also state rates, fares, and charges in terms of curren-
cies other than lawful money of the United States, and may, in the
ease of foreign air transportation, contain such information as
may be required under the laws of any country in or to which an
air carrier or foreign air carrier is authorized to operate.
Observance of tariffs; granting of rebates
(b) No air carrier or foreign air carrier shall charge or demand
or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for
air transportation, or for any service in connection therewith,
than the rates, fares, and charges specified in its currently effec-
tive tariffs; and no air carrier or foreign air carrier shall, in any
manner or by any device, directly or indirectly, or through any
agent or broker, or otherwise, refund or remit any portion of the
rates, fares, or charges so specified, or extend to any person any
privileges or facilities, with respect to matters required by the
Board to be specified in such tariffs, except those specified therein.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit such air carriers or foreign
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2097
air carriers, under such terms and conditions as the Board may
prescribe, from issuing or interchanging tickets or passes for free
or reduced-rate transportation to their directors, officers, and em-
ployees (including retired directors, officers, and employees who
are receiving retirement benefits from any air carrier or foreign
air carrier), the parents and immediate families of such officers
and employees, and the immediate families of such directors; wid-
ows, widowers, and minor children of employees who have died as
a direct result of personal injury sustained while in the perform-
ance of duty in the service of such air carrier of foreign air
carrier; witnesses and attorneys attending any legal investigation
in which any such air carrier is interested; persons injured in
aircraft accidents and physicians and nurses attending such per-
sons; immediate families, including parents, of persons injured or
killed in aircraft accidents where the object is to transport
such persons in connection with such accident; and any person or
property with the object of providing relief in cases of general
epidemic, pestilence, or other calamitous visitation; and, in the
case of overseas or foreign air transportation, to such other per-
sons and under such other circumstances as the Board may by
regulations prescribe. Any air carrier or foreign air carrier, under
such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe, may grant
reduced-rate transportation to ministers of religion on a space-a-
vailable basis.
Notice of change in tariff
(c) No change shall be made in any rate, fare, or charge, or any
classification, rule, regulation, or practice affecting such rate, fare,
or charge, or the value of the service thereunder, specified in any
effective tariff of any air carrier or foreign air carrier, except
after thirty days' notice of the proposed change filed, posted, and
published in accordance with subsection (a) of this section. Such
notice shall plainly state the change proposed to be made and the
time such change will take effect. The Board may in the public
interest, by regulation or otherwise, allow such change upon notice
less than that herein specified, or modify the requirements of this
section with respect to filing and posting of tariffs, either in par-
ticular instances or by general order applicable to special or pe-
culiar circumstances or conditions.
Filing of divisions of rates and charges
(d) Every air carrier or foreign air carrier shall keep currently
on file with the Board, if the Board so requires, the established
divisions of all joint rates, fares, and charges for air transporta-
-------
2098 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion in which such air carrier or foreign air carrier participates.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 403, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 758; Pub.L.
86-627, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 445.
§ 1374. Rates for carriage of persons and property; duty to
provide service, rates, and divisions; discrimination
(a) It shall be the duty of every air carrier to provide and
furnish interstate and overseas air transportation, as authorized
by its certificate, upon reasonable request therefor and to provide
reasonable through service in such air transportation in connec-
tion with other air carriers; to provide safe and adequate service,
equipment, and facilities in connection with such transportation;
to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable individual
and joint rates, fares, and charges, and just and reasonable classi-
fications, rules, regulations, and practices relating to such air
transportation; and, in case of such joint rates, fares, and
charges, to establish just, reasonable, and equitable divisions
thereof as between air carriers participating therein which shall
not unduly prefer or prejudice any of such participating air car-
riers.
(b) No air carrier or foreign air carrier shall make, give, or
cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any
particular person, port, locality, or description of traffic in air trans-
portation in any respect whatsoever or subject any particular
person, port, locality, or description of traffic in air transportation
to any unjust discrimination or any undue or unreasonable preju-
dice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever. Pub.L. 85-726,
Title IV, § 404, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 760.
§ 1375. Transportation of mail—Postal rules and regulations
(a) The Postmaster General is authorized to make such rules
and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this chap-
ter, or any order, rule, or regulation made by the Board thereun-
der, as may be necessary for the safe and expeditious carriage of
mail by aircraft.
Mail schedules
(b) Each air carrier shall, from time to time, file with the
Board and the Postmaster General a statement showing the points
between which such air carrier is authorized to engage in air
transportation, and all schedules, and all changes therein, of air-
craft regularly operated by the carrier between such points, set-
ting forth in respect of each such schedule the points served
thereby and the time of arrival and departure at each such point.
The Postmaster General may designate any such schedule for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2099
transportation of mail between the points between which the air
carrier is authorized by its certificate to transport mail, and may,
by order, require the air carrier to establish additional schedules
for the transportation of mail between such points. No change
shall be made in any schedules designated or ordered to be estab-
lished by the Postmaster General except upon ten days' notice
thereof filed as herein provided. The Postmaster General may by
order disapprove any such change or alter, amend, or modify any
such schedule or change. No order of the Postmaster General
under this subsection shall become effective until ten days after its
issuance. Any person who would be aggrieved by any such order
of the Postmaster General under this subsection may, before the
expiration of such ten-day period, apply to the Board, under such
regulations as it may prescribe, for a review of such order. The
Board may review, and, if the public convenience and necessity so
require, amend, revise, suspend, or cancel such order; and, pend-
ing such review and the determination thereof, may postpone the
effective date of such order. The Board shall give preference to
proceedings under this subsection over all proceedings pending
before it. No air carrier shall transport mail in accordance with
any schedule other than a schedule designated or ordered to be
established under this subsection for the transportation of mail.
Maximum mail load
(c) The Board may fix the maximum mail load for any schedule
or for any aircraft or any type of aircraft; but, in the event that
mail in excess of the maximum load is tendered by the Postmaster
General for transportation by any air carrier in accordance with
any schedule designated or ordered to be established by the Post-
master General under subsection (b) of this section for the trans-
portation of mail, such air carrier shall, to the extent such air
carrier is reasonably able as determined by the Board, furnish
facilities sufficient to transport, and shall transport, such mail as
nearly in accordance with such schedule as the Board shall deter-
mine to be possible.
Tender of mail
(d) From and after the issuance of any certificate authorizing
the transportation of mail by aircraft, the Postmaster General
shall tender mail to the holder thereof, to the extent required by
the Postal Service, for transportation between the points named in
such certificate for the transportation of mail, and such mail shall
be transported by the air carrier holding such certificate in ac-
-------
2100 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
cordance with such rules, regulations, and requirements as may be
promulgated by the Postmaster General under this section.
Foreign postal arrangement
(e) (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to abrogate or
affect any arrangement made by the United States with the postal
administration of any foreign country with respect to transporta-
tion of mail by aircraft, or to impair the authority of the Postmas-
ter General to enter into any such arrangement with the postal
administration of any foreign country.
(2) The Postmaster General may, in any case where service
may be necessary by a person not a citizen of the United States
who may not be obligated to transport the mail for a foreign
country, make arrangements, without advertising, with such per-
son for transporting mail by aircraft to or within any foreign
country.
Transportation of foreign mail
(f) (1) Any air carrier holding a certificate to engage in for-
eign air transportation and transporting mails of foreign coun-
tries shall transport such mails subject to control and regulation
by the United States. The Postmaster General shall from time to
time fix the rates of compensation that shall be charged the
respective foreign countries for the transportation of their mails
by such air carriers, and such rates shall be put into effect by the
Postmaster General in accordance with the provisions of the
postal convention regulating the postal relations between the Un-
ited States and the respective foreign countries, or as provided
hereinafter in this subsection. In any case where the Postmaster
General deems such action to be in the public interest, he may
approve rates provided in arrangements between any such air
carrier and any foreign country covering the transportation of
mails of such country, under which mails of such country have been
carried on scheduled operations prior to January 1, 1938, or in
extensions or modifications of such arrangements, and may permit
any such air carrier to enter into arrangements with any foreign
country for the transportation of its mails at rates fixed by the
Postmaster General in advance of the making of any such ar-
rangement. The Postmaster General may authorize any such air
carrier, under such limitations as the Postmaster General may
prescribe, to change the rates to be charged any foreign country
for the transportation of its mails by such air carrier within that
country or between that country and another foreign country.
(2) In any case where such air carrier has an arrangement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2101
with any foreign country for transporting its mails, made or ap-
proved in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this
subsection, it shall collect its compensation from the foreign coun-
try under its arrangement, and in case of the absence of any
arrangement between the air carrier and the foreign country con-
sistent with this subsection, the collections made from the foreign
country by the United States shall be for the account of such air
carrier: Provided, That no such air carrier shall be entitled to
receive compensation both from such foreign country and from
the United States in respect of the transportation of the same mail
or the same mails of foreign countries.
Evidence of performance of mail service
(g) Air carriers transporting or handling United States mail
shall submit, under signature of a duly authorized official, when
and in such form as may be required by the Postmaster General,
evidence of the performance of mail service; and air carriers
transporting or handling mails of foreign countries shall submit,
under signature of a duly authorized official, when and in such
form as may be required by the Postmaster General, evidence of
the amount of such mails transported or handled, and the compen-
sation payable and received therefor.
Emergency mail service
(h) In the event of emergency caused by flood, fire, or other
calamitous visitation, the Postmaster General is authorized to con-
tract, without advertising, for the transportation by aircraft of
any or all classes of mail to or from localities affected by such
calamity, where available facilities of persons authorized to trans-
port mail to or from such localities are inadequate to meet the
requirements of the Postal Service during such emergency. Such
contracts may be only for such periods as may be necessitated, for
the maintenance of mail service, by the inadequacy of such other
facilities. No operation pursuant to any such contract, for such
period, shall be air transportation within the purview of this
chapter. Payment of compensation for service performed under
such contracts shall be made, at rates provided in such contracts,
from appropriations for the transportation of mail by the means
normally used for transporting the mail transported under such
contracts.
Experimental airmail service
(i) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to
repeal in whole or in part the provisions of section 470 of Title 39.
The transportation of mail under contracts entered into under
-------
2102 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
such section shall not, except for sections 1371 (k) and 1386 (b) of
this title, be deemed to be "air transportation" as used in this
chapter, and the rates of compensation for such transportation of
mail shall not be fixed under this chapter.
Free travel for postal employees
(j) Every air carrier carrying the mails shall carry on any
plane that it operates and without charge therefor, the persons in
charge of the mails when on duty, and such duly accredited agents
and officers of the Post Office Department, and post office inspec-
tors, while traveling on official business relating to the transporta-
tion of mail by aircraft, as the Board may by regulation prescribe,
upon the exhibition of their credentials. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, §
405, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 760.
§ 1376. Rates for transportation of mail—Authorization to fix
rates
(a) The Board is empowered and directed, upon its own initia-
tive or upon petition of the Postmaster General or an air carrier,
(1) to fix and determine from time to time, after notice and
hearing, the fair and reasonable rates of compensation for the
transportation of mail by aircraft, the facilities used and useful
therefor, and the services connected therewith (including the
transportation of mail by an air carrier by other means than
aircraft whenever such transportation is incidental to the trans-
portation of mail by aircraft or is made necessary by conditions of
emergency arising from aircraft operation), by each holder of a
certificate authorizing the transportation of mail by aircraft, and
to make such rates effective from such date as it shall determine to
be proper; (2) to prescribe the method or methods, by aircraft-
mile, pound-mile, weight, space, or any combination thereof, or
otherwise, for ascertaining such rates of compensation for each
air carrier or class of air carriers; and (3) to publish the same.
Rate-making elements
(b) In fixing and determining fair and reasonable rates of
compensation under this section, the Board, considering the condi-
tions peculiar to transportation by aircraft and to the particular
air carrier or class of air carriers, may fix different rates for
different air carriers or classes of air carriers, and different
classes of service. In determining the rate in each case, the Board
shall take into consideration, among other factors, (1) the condi-
tion that such air carriers may hold and operate under certificates
authorizing the carriage of mail only by providing necessary and
adequate facilities and service for the transportation of mail; (2)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2103
such standards respecting the character and quality of service to
be rendered by air carriers as may be prescribed by or pursuant to
law; and (3) the need of each such air carrier (other than a
supplemental air carrier) for compensation for the transportation
of mail sufficient to insure the performance of such service, and,
together with all other revenue of the air carrier, to enable such
air carrier under honest, economical, and efficient management, to
maintain and continue the development of air transportation to
the extent and of the character and quality required for the com-
merce of the United States, the Postal Service, and the national
defense. In applying clause (3) of this subsection, the Board shall
take into consideration any standards and criteria prescribed by
the Secretary of Transportation, for determining the character
and quality of transportation required for the commerce of the
United States and the national defense.
Payments for transportation of mail
(c) The Postmaster General shall make payments out of appro-
priations for the transportation of mail by aircraft of so much of
the total compensation as if fixed and determined by the Board
under this section without regard to clause (3) of subsection (b)
of this section. The Board shall make payments of the remainder
of the total compensation payable under this section out of appro-
priations made to the Board for that purpose.
Treatment of proceeds of disposition of certain property
(d) In determining the need of an air carrier for compensation
for the transportation of mail, and such carrier's "other revenue"
for the purpose of this section, the Board shall not take into
account—
(1) gains derived from the sale or other disposition of
flight equipment if (A) the carrier notfies the Board in writ-
ing that it has invested or intends to reinvest the gains (less
applicable expenses and taxes) derived from such sale or
other disposition in flight equipment, and (B) submits evi-
dence in the manner prescribed by the Board that an amount
equal to such gains (less applicable expenses and taxes) has
been expended for purchase of flight equipment or has been
deposited in a special reequipment fund, or
(2) losses sustained from the sale or other disposition of
flight equipment.
Any amounts so deposited in a reequipment fund as above pro-
vided shall be used solely for investment in flight equipment either
through payments on account of the purchase price or construe-
-------
2104 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion of flight equipment or in retirement of debt contracted for the
purchase or construction of flight equipment, and unless so rein-
vested within such reasonable time as the Board may prescribe,
the carrier shall not have the benefit of this paragraph. Amounts
so deposited in the reequipment fund shall not be included as part
of the carrier's used and useful investment for purposes of this
section until expended as provided above: Provided, That the
flight equipment in which said gains may be invested shall not
include equipment delivered to the carrier prior to April 6, 1956:
Provided further, That the provisions of this subsection shall be
effective as to all capital gains or losses realized on and after April
6, 1956, with respect to the sale or other disposition of flight
equipment whether or not the Board shall have entered a final
order taking account thereof in determining all other revenue of
the air carrier.
Statements of Postmaster General and carrier
(e) Any petition for the fixing of fair and reasonable rates of
compensation under this section shall include a statement of the
rate the petitioner believes to be fair and reasonable. The Post-
master General shall introduce as part of the record in all proceed-
ings under this section a comprehensive statement of all service to
be required of the air carrier and such other information in his
possession as may be deemed by the Board to be material to the
inquiry.
Weighing of mail
(f) The Postmaster General may weigh the mail transported by
aircraft and make such computations for statistical and adminis-
trative purposes as may be required in the interest of the mail
service. The Postmaster General is authorized to employ such cler-
ical and other assistance as may be required in connection with
proceedings under this chapter. If the Board shall determine that
it is necessary or advisable, in order to carry out the provisions of
this chapter, to have additional and more frequent weighing of the
mails, the Postmaster General, upon request of the Board shall
provide therefor in like manner, but such weighing need not be for
continuous periods of more than thirty days.
Availability of appropriations
(g) Except as otherwise provided in section 1375 (h) of this
title, the unexpended balances of all appropriations for the trans-
portation of mail by aircraft pursuant to contracts entered into
under the Air Mail Act of 1934, as amended, and the unexpended
balance of all appropriations available for the transportation of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2105
mail by aircraft in Alaska, shall be available, in addition to the
purposes stated in such appropriations, for the payment of com-
pensation by the Postmaster General as provided in this chapter,
for the transportation of mail by aircraft, the facilities used and
useful therefor, and the services connected therewith, between
points in the continental United States or between points in Ha-
waii or in Alaska or between points in the continental United
States and points in Canada within one hundred and fifty miles of
the international boundary line. Except as otherwise provided in
section 1375 (h) of this title, the unexpended balances of all appro-
priations for the transportation of mail by aircraft pursuant to
contracts entered into under the Act of March 8, 1928, as
amended, shall be available, in addition to the purposes stated in
such appropriations, for payment to be made by the Postmaster
General, as provided by this chapter, in respect of the transporta-
tion of mail by aircraft, the facilities used and useful therefor,
and the services connected therewith, between points in the United
States and points outside thereof, or between points in the conti-
nental United States and Territories or possessions of the United
States, or between Territories or possessions of the United States.
Payments to foreign air carriers
(h) In any case where air transportation is performed between
the United States and any foreign country, both by aircraft owned
or operated by one or more air carriers holding a certificate under
this subchapter and by aircraft owned or operated by one or more
foreign air carriers, the Postmaster General shall not pay to or for
the account of any such foreign air carrier a rate of compensation
for transporting mail by aircraft between the United States and
such foreign country, which, in his opinion, will result (over such
reasonable period as the Postmaster General may determine, tak-
ing account of exchange fluctuations and other factors) in such
foreign air carrier receiving a higher rate of compensation for
transporting such mail than such foreign country pays to air
carriers for transporting its mail by aircraft between such foreign
country and the United States, or receiving a higher rate of com-
pensation for transporting such mail than a rate determined by
the Postmaster General to be comparable to the rate such foreign
country pays to air carriers for transporting its mail by aircraft
between such foreign country and intermediate country on the
route of such air carrier between such foreign country and the
United States. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 406, Aug. 23, 1958, 72
Stat. 763; Pub.L. 87-528, § 5, July 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 145; and
amended Oct. 15, 1966, Pub.L. 89-670, § 8 (a), 80 Stat. 942.
526-704 O - 73 - 23
-------
2106 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
§ 1377. Accounts, records, and reports—Filing of reports
(a) The Board is empowered to require annual, monthly, peri-
odical, and special reports from any air carrier; to prescribe the
manner and form in which such reports shall be made; and to
require from any air carrier specific answers to all questions upon
which the Board may deem information to be necessary. Such
reports shall be under oath whenever the Board so requires. The
Board may also require any air carrier to file with it a true copy
of each or any contract, agreement, understanding, or arrange-
ment, between such air carrier and any other carrier or person, in
relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this chapter.
Disclosure of stock ownership
(b) Each air carrier shall submit annually, and at such other
times as the Board shall require, a list showing the names of each
of its stockholders or members holding more than 5 per centum of
the entire capital stock or capital, as the case may be, of such air
carrier, together with the name of any person for whose account,
if other than the holder, such stock is held; and a report setting
forth a description of the shares of stock, or other interest, held
by such air carrier, or for its account, in persons other than itself.
Any person owning, beneficially or as trustee, more than 5 per
centum of any class of the capital stock or capital, as the case may
be, of an air carrier shall submit annually, and at such other times
as the board may require, a description of the shares of stock or
other interest owned by such person, and the amount thereof.
Disclosure of stock ownership by officer or director
(c) Each officer and director of an air carrier shall annually
and at such other times as the Board shall require transmit to the
Board a report describing the shares of stock or other interests
held by him in any air carrier, any person engaged in any phase of
aeronautics, or any common carrier, and in any person whose
principal business, in purpose or in fact, is the holding of stock in,
or control of, air carriers, other persons engaged in any phase of
aeronautics, or common carriers.
Form of accounts, records, and memoranda
(d) The Board shall prescribe the forms of any and all ac-
counts, records, and memoranda to be kept by air carriers, includ-
ing the accounts, records, and memoranda of the movement of
traffic, as well as of the receipts and expenditures of money, and
the length of time such accounts, records, and memoranda shall be
preserved; and it shall be unlawful for air carriers to keep any
accounts, records, or memoranda other than those prescribed or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2107
approved by the Board: Provided, That any air carrier may keep
additional accounts, records, or memoranda if they do not impair
the integrity of the accounts, records, or memoranda prescribed or
approved by the Board and do not constitute an undue financial
burden on such air carrier.
Inspection of accounts and property
(e) The Board shall at all times have access to all lands, build-
ings, and equipment of any carrier and to all accounts, records,
and memoranda, including all documents, papers, and correspond-
ence, now or hereafter existing, and kept or required to be kept by
air carriers; and it may employ special agents or auditors, who
shall have authority under the orders of the Board to inspect and
examine any and all such lands, buildings, equipment, accounts,
records, and memoranda. The provisions of this section shall
apply, to the extent found by the Board to be reasonably necessary
for the administration of this chapter, to persons having control
over any air carrier, or affiliated with any air carrier within the
meaning of section 5(8) of this title. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV,
§ 407, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 766, amended Pub.L. 91-62,
§ 1(1), Aug. 20, 1969, 83 Stat. 103.
§ 1378. Consolidation, merger, and acquisition of control—Pro-
hibited acts
(a) It shall be unlawful unless approved by order of the Board
as provided in this section—
(1) For two or more air carriers, or for any air carrier
and any other common carrier or any person engaged in any
other phase of aeronautics, to consolidate or merge their
properties, or any part thereof, into one person for the own-
ership, management, or operation of the properties thereto-
fore in separate ownerships;
(2) For any air carrier, any person controlling an aircar-
rier, any other common carrier, or any person engaged in any
other phase of aeronautics, to purchase, lease, or contract to
operate the properties, or any substantial part thereof, of any
air carrier;
(3) For any air carrier or person controlling an air carrier
to purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties, or
any substantial part thereof, of any person engaged in any
phase of aeronautics otherwise than as an air carrier;
(4) For any foreign air carrier or person controlling a
foreign air carrier to aquire control, in any manner what-
-------
2108 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
soever, of any citizen of the United States engaged in any
phase of aeronautics;
(5) For any air carrier or person controlling an air car-
rier, any other common carrier, any person engaged in any
other phase of aeronautics, or any other person to acquire
control of any air carrier in any manner whatsoever: Pro-
vided, That the Board may by order exempt any such acquisi-
tion of a noncertificated air carrier from this requirement to
the extent and for such periods as may be in the public inter-
est;
(6) For any air carrier or person controlling an air carrier
to acquire control, in any manner whatsoever, of any person
engaged in any phase of aeronautics otherwise than as an air
carrier; or
(7) For any person to continue to maintain any relation-
ship established in violation of any of the foregoing subdivi-
sions of this subsection.
Application to Board; hearing; approval; disposal without hearing
(b) Any person seeking approval of a consolidation, merger,
purchase, lease, operating contract, or acquisition of control, speci-
fied in subsection (a) of this section, shall present an application
to the Board, and thereupon the Board shall notify the persons
involved in the consolidation, merger, purchase, lease, operating
contract, or acquisition of control, and other persons known to
have a substantial interest in the proceeding, of the time and place
of a public hearing. Unless, after such hearing, the Board finds
that the consolidation, merger, purchase, lease, operating contract,
or acquisition of control will not be consistent with the public
interest or that the conditions of this section will not be fulfilled, it
shall by order approve such consolidation, merger, purchase, lease,
operating contract, or acquisition of control, upon such terms and
conditions as it shall find to be just and reasonable and with such
modifications as it may prescribe: Provided, That the Board shall
not approve any consolidation, merger, purchase, lease, operating
contract, or acquisition of control which would result in creating a
monopoly or monopolies and thereby restrain competition or jeop-
ardize another air carrier not a party to the consolidation, merger,
purchase, lease, operating contract, or acquisition of control: Pro-
vided further, That if the applicant is a carrier other than an air
carrier, or a person controlled by a carrier other than an air
carrier or affiliated therewith within the meaning of section 5(8)
of this title, such applicant shall for the purposes of this section be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2109
considered an air carrier and the Board shall not enter such an
order of approval unless it finds that the transaction proposed will
promote the public interest by enabling such carrier other than an
air carrier to use aircraft to public advantage in its operation and
will not restrain competition: Provided further, That, in any caso
in which the Board determines that the transaction which is the
subject of the application does not affect the control of an air
carrier directly engaged in the operation of aircraft in air trans-
portation, does not result in creating a monopoly, and does not
tend to restrain competition, and determines that no person dis-
closing a substantial interest then currently is requesting a hear-
ing, the Board, after publication in the Federal Register of notice
of the Board's intention to dispose of such application without a
hearing (a copy of which notice shall be furnished by the Board to
the Attorney General not later than the day following the date of
such publication), may determine that the public interest does not
require a hearing and by order approve or disapprove such trans-
action.
Interests in ground facilities
(c) The provisions of this section and section 1379 of this title
shall not apply with respect to the acquisition or holding by any
air carrier, or any officer or director thereof, of (1) any interest
in any ticket office, landing area, hangar, or other ground facility
reasonably incidental to the performance by such air carrier of
any of its services, or (2) any stock or other interest or any office
or directorship in any person whose principal business is the
maintenance or operation of any such ticket office, landing area,
hangar, or other ground facility.
Jurisdiction of accounts of noncarriers
(d) Whenever, after the effective date of this section, a person,
not an air carrier, is authorized, pursuant to this section, to ac-
quire control of an air carrier, such nerson thereafter shall, to the
extent found by the Board to be reasonably necessary for the
administration of this chapter, be subject, in the same manner as
if such person were an air carrier, to the provisions of this chap-
ter relating to accounts, records, and reports, and the inspection of
facilities and records, including the penalties applicable in the case
of violations thereof.
Investigation of violations
(e) The Board is empowered, upon complaint or upon its own
initiative, to investigate and, after notice and hearing, to deter-
mine whether any person is violating any provision of subsection
-------
2110 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(a) of this section. If the Board finds after such hearing that such
person is violating any provision of such subsection, it shall by
order require such person to take such action, consistent with the
provisions of this chapter, as may be necessary, in the opinion of
the Board, to prevent further violation of such provision.
Presumption of control; beneficial ownership
(f) For the purposes of this section, any person owning benefi-
cially 10 per centum or more of the voting securities or capital, as
the case may be, of an air carrier shall be presumed to be in
control of such air carrier unless the Board finds otherwise. As
used herein, beneficial ownership of 10 per centum of the voting
securities of a carrier means ownership of such amount of its
outstanding voting securities as entitles the holder thereof to cast
10 per centum of the aggregate votes which the holders of all the
outstanding voting securities of such carrier are entitled to cast.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 408, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 767; Pub.L.
86-758, § 1, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 901; and amended Pub.L.
91-62, § 1(2), (3) (A), Aug. 20, 1969, 83 Stat. 103,104.
§ 1379. Prohibited interests; interlocking relationships; profit
from transfer of securities
(a) It shall be unlawful, unless such relationship shall have
been approved by order of the Board upon due showing, in the
form and manner prescribed by the Board, that the public interest
will not be adversely affected thereby—
(1) For any air carrier to have and retain an officer or
director who is an officer, director, or member, or who as a
stockholder holds a controlling interest, in any other person
who is a common carrier or is engaged in any phase of aero-
nautics.
(2) For any air carrier, knowingly and willfully, to have
and retain an officer or director who has a representative or
nominee who represents such officer or director as an officer,
director, or member, or as a stockholder holding a controlling
interest, in any other person who is a common carrier or is
engaged in any phase of aeronautics.
(3) For any person who is an officer or director of an air
carrier to hold the position of officer, director, or member, or
to be a stockholder holding a controlling interest, or to have a
representative or nominee who represents such person as an
officer, director, or member, or as a stockholder holding a
controlling interest, in any other person who is a common
carrier or is engaged in any phase of aeronautics.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2111
(4) For any air carrier to have and retain an officer or
director who is an officer, director, or member, or who as a
stockholder holds a controlling interest, in any person whose
principal business, in purpose or in fact, is the holding of
stock in, or control of, any other person engaged in any phase
of aeronautics.
(5) For any air carrier, knowingly and willfully, to have
and retain an officer or director who has a representative or
nominee who represents such officer or director as an officer,
director, or member, or as a stockholder holding a controlling
interest, in any person whose principal business, in purpose
or in fact, is the holding of stock in, or control of, any other
person engaged in any phase of aeronautics.
(6) For any person who is an officer or director of an air
carrier to hold the position of officer, director, or member, or
to be a stockholder holding a controlling interest, or to have a
representative or nominee who represents such person as an
officer, director, or member, or as a stockholder holding a
controlling interest, in any person whose principal business,
in purpose or in fact, is the holding of stock in, or control of,
any other person engaged in any phase of aeronautics.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any officer or director of any air
carrier to receive for his own benefit, directly or indirectly, any
money or thing of value in respect of negotiation, hypothecation,
or sale of any securities issued or to be issued by such carrier, or
to share in any of the proceeds thereof. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, §
409, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 768.
§ 1380. Loans and financial aid; aircraft loan guarantees
The Board is empowered to approve or disapprove, in whole or
in part, any and all applications made after the effective date of
this section for or in connection with any loan or other financial
aid from the United States or any agency thereof to, or for the
benefit of, any air carrier. No such loan or financial aid shall be
made or given without such approval, and the terms and condi-
tions upon which such loan or financial aid is provided shall be
prescribed by the Board. The provisions of this section shall not be
applicable to the guaranty of loans by the Secretary of Commerce
under the provisions of such Act of September 7, 1957, as
amended, but the Secretary of Commerce shall consult with and
consider the views and recommendations of the Board in making
such guaranties. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 410, Aug. 23, 1958, 72
Stat. 769; Pub.L. 87-820, § 8, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 936.
-------
2112 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
§ 1381. Methods of competition
The Board may, upon its own initiative or upon complaint by
any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent, if it considers
that such action by it would be in the interest of the public,
investigate and determine whether any air carrier, foreign air
carrier, or ticket agent has been or is engaged in unfair or decep-
tive practices or unfair methods of competition in air transporta-
tion or the sale thereof. If the Board shall find, after notice and
hearing, that such air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent
is engaged in such unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods
of competition, it shall order such air carrier, foreign air carrier,
or ticket agent to cease and desist from such practices of methods
of competition. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 411, Aug. 23, 1958, 72
Stat. 769.
§ 1382. Pooling and other agreements; filing; approval by Board
(a) Every air carrier shall file with the Board a true copy, or, if
oral, a true and complete memorandum, of every contract or
agreement (whether enforceable by provisions for liquidated dam-
ages, penalties, bonds, or otherwise) affecting air transportation
and in force on the effective date of this section or hereafter
entered into, or any modification or cancellation thereof, between
such air carrier and any other air carrier, foreign air carrier, or
other carrier for pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, traffic,
service, or equipment, or relating to the establishment of transpor-
tation rates, fares, charges, or classifications, or for preserving
and improving safety, economy, and efficiency of operation, or for
controlling, regulating, preventing, or otherwise eliminating de-
structive, oppressive, or wasteful competition, or for regulating
stops, schedules, and character of service, or for other cooperative
working arrangements.
(b) The Board shall by order disapprove any such contract or
agreement, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds
to be adverse to the public interest, or in violation of this chapter,
and shall by order approve any such contract or agreement, or any
modification or cancellation thereof, that it does not find to be
adverse to the public interest, or in violation of this chapter;
except that the Board may not approve any contract or agreement
between an air carrier not directly engaged in the operation of
aircraft in air transportation and a common carrier subject to the
Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, governing the compensa-
tion to be received by such common carrier for transportation
services performed by it. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 412, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 770.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2113
§ 1383. Form of control
For the purposes of this subchapter, whenever reference is
made to control, it is immaterial whether such control is direct or
indirect. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 413, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat.
770.
§ 1384. Legal restraints
Any person affected by any order made under sections 1378,
1379, or 1382 of this title shall be, and is hereby, relieved from the
operations of the "antitrust laws", as designated in section 12 of
Title 15, and of all other restraints or prohibitions made by, or
imposed under, authority of law, insofar as may be necessary to
enable such person to do anything authorized, approved, or re-
quired by such order. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 414, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 770.
§ 1385. Inquiry into air carrier management
For the purpose of exercising and performing its powers and
duties under this chapter, the Board is empowered to inquire into
the management of the business of any air carrier and, to the
extent reasonably necessary for any such inquiry, to obtain from
such carrier, and from any person controlling or controlled by, or
under common control with, such air carrier, full and complete
reports and other information. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 415,
Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 770.
§ 1386. Classification and exemption of carriers
(a) The Board may from time to time establish such just and
reasonable classifications or groups of air carriers for the pur-
poses of this subchapter as the nature of the services performed
by such air carriers shall require; and such just and reasonable
rules and regulations, pursuant to and consistent with the provi-
sions of this subchapter, to be observed by each such class or
group, as the Board finds necessary in the public interest.
(b) (1) The Board, from time to time and to the extent neces-
sary, may (except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsec-
tion) exempt from the requirements of this subchapter or any
provision thereof, or any rule, regulation, term, condition, or limi-
tation prescribed thereunder, any air carrier or class of air car-
riers, if it finds that the enforcement of this subchapter or such
provision, or such rule, regulation, term, condition, or limitation is
or would be an undue burden on such air carrier or class of air
carriers by reason of the limited extent of, or unusual circumstan-
ces affecting, the operations of such air carrier or class of air
carriers and is not in the public interest.
-------
2114 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(2) The Board shall not exempt any air carrier from any provi-
sion of subsection (k) of section 1371 of this title, except that (A)
any air carrier not engaged in scheduled air transportation, and
(B), to the extent that the operations of such air carrier are
conducted during daylight hours, any air carrier engaged in sched-
uled air transportation, may be exempted from the provisions of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of such subsection if the Board finds,
after notice and hearing, that, by reason of the limited extent of,
or unusual circumstances affecting, the operations of any such air
carrier, the enforcement of such paragraphs is or would be such
an undue burden on such air carrier as to obstruct its development
and prevent it from beginning or continuing operations, and that
the exemption of such air carrier from such paragraphs would not
adversely affect the public interest: Provided, That nothing in this
subsection shall be deemed to authorize the Board to exempt any
air carrier from any requirement of this subchapter, or any provi-
sion thereof, or any rule, regulation, term, condition, or limitation
prescribed thereunder which provides for maximum flying hours
for pilots or copilots. Pub.L. 85-726, Title IV, § 416, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 771.
§ 1387. Special operating authorizations—Authority of Board to
issue
(a) If the Board finds upon an investigation conducted on its
own initiative or upon request of an air carrier—
(1) that the capacity for air transportation being offered
by the holder of a certificate of public convenience and necess-
ity between particular points in the United States is, or will
be, temporarily insufficient to meet the requirements of the
public or the postal service; or
(2) that there is a temporary requirement for air transpor-
tation between two points, one or both of which is not regu-
larly served by any carrier; and
(3) that any supplemental air carrier can provide the addi-
tional service temporarily required in the public interest;
the Board may issue to such supplemental air carrier a special
operating authorization to engage in air transportation between
such points.
Terms of authorization
(b) A special operating authorizational issued under this sec-
tion—
(1) shall contain such limitations or requirements as to
frequency of service, size or type of equipment, or otherwise,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2115
as will assure that the service so authorized will alleviate the
insufficiency which otherwise would exist, without significant
diversion of traffic from the holders of certificates for the
route;
(2) shall be valid for not more than thirty days and may be
extended for additional periods aggregating not more than
sixty days; and
(3) shall not be deemed a license within the meaning of
section 1008 (b) of Title 5.
Procedure
(c) The Board shall by regulation establish procedures for the
expeditious investigation and determination of requests for such
special operating authorizations. Such procedures shall include
written notice to air carriers certificated to provide service be-
tween the points involved, and shall provide for such opportunity
to protest the application in writing, and at the Board's discretion
to be heard orally in support of such protest, as will not unduly
delay issuance of such special operating authorization, taking into
account the degree of emergency involved. Pub.L. 85-726, Title
IV, § 417, as added Pub.L. 87-528, § 6, July 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 145.
SUBCHAPTER V.—NATIONALITY AND OWNERSHIP OP AIRCRAFT
§ 1401. Registration of aircraft nationality—Necessity; aircraft
of national-defense forces; transfer of ownership
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or navigate
any aircraft eligible for registration if such aircraft is not regis-
tered by its owner as provided in this section, or (except as pro-
vided in section 1508 of this title) to operate or navigate within
the United States any aircraft not eligible for registration: Pro-
vided, That aircraft of the national-defense forces of the United
States may be operated and navigated without being so registered
if such aircraft are identified, by the agency having jurisdiction
over them, in a manner satisfactory to the Administrator. The
Administrator may, by regulation, permit the operation and navi-
gation of aircraft without registration by the owner for such
reasonable periods after transfer of ownership thereof as the Ad-
ministrator may prescribe.
Eligibility for registration
(b) An aircraft shall be eligible for registration if, but only
if—
(1) It is owned by a citizen of the United States and it is
not registered under the laws of any foreign country; or
-------
2116 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(2) It is an aircraft of the Federal Government, or of a
State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the
District of Columbia, or of a political subdivision thereof.
Issuance of certificate
(c) Upon request of the owner of any aircraft eligible for
registration, such aircraft shall be registered by the Administra-
tor and the Administrator shall issue to the owner thereof a cer-
tificate of registration.
Applications
(d) Applications for such certificates shall be in such form, be
filed in such manner, and contain such information as the Admin-
istrator may require.
Suspension or revocation
(e) Any such certificate may be suspended or revoked by the
Administrator for any cause which renders the aircraft ineligible
for registration.
Effect of registration
(f) Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of nationality
for international purposes, but not in any proceeding under the
laws of the United States. Registration shall not be evidence of
ownership of aircraft in any proceeding in which such ownership
by a particular person is, or may be, in issue. Pub.L. 85-726, Title
V, § 501, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 771.
§ 1402. Registration of engines, propellers, and appliances
The Administrator may establish reasonable rules and regula-
tions for registration and identification of aircraft engines, pro-
pellers, and appliances, in the interest of safety, and no aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance shall be used in violation of any
such rule or regulation. Pub.L. 85-726, Title V, § 502, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 772.
§ 1403. Recordation of aircraft ownership—Establishment of
recording system
(a) The Administrator shall establish and maintain a system
for the recording of each and all of the following:
(1) Any conveyance which affects the title to, or any inter-
est in, any civil aircraft of the United States;
(2) Any lease, and any mortgage, equipment trust, con-
tract of conditional sale, or other instrument executed for
security purposes, which lease or other instrument affects the
title to, or any interest in, any specifically identified aircraft
engine or engines of seven hundred and fifty or more rated
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2117
takeoff horsepower for each such engine or the equivalent of
such horsepower, or any specifically identified aircraft propel-
ler capable of absorbing seven hundred and fifty or more
rated takeoff shaft horsepower, and also any assignment or
amendment thereof or supplement thereto;
(3) Any lease, and any mortgage, equipment trust, con-
tract of conditional sale, or other instrument executed for
security purposes, which lease or other instrument affects the
title to, or any interest in, any aircraft engines, propellers, or
appliances maintained by or on behalf of an air carrier certif-
icated under section 1424 (b) of this title for installation or
use in aircraft, aircraft engines, or propellers, or any spare
parts maintained by or on behalf of such an air carrier, which
instrument need only describe generally by types the engines,
propellers, appliances, and spare parts covered thereby and
designate the location or locations thereof; and also any as-
signment or amendment thereof or supplement thereto.
Recording of releases, cancellations, discharges, or satisfactions
(b) The Administrator shall also record under the system pro-
vided for in subsection (a) of this section any release, cancella-
tion, discharge, or satisfaction relating to any conveyance or other
instrument recorded under said system.
Validity of conveyances or other instrumnts; filing
(c) No conveyance or instrument the recording of which is
provided for by subsection (a) of this section shall be valid in
respect of such aircraft, aircraft engine or engines, propellers,
appliances, or spare parts against any person other than the per-
son by whom the conveyance or other instrument is made or given,
his heir or devisee, or any person having actual notice thereof,
until such conveyance or other instrument is filed for recordation
in the office of the Administrator: Provided, That previous record-
ing of any conveyance or instrument with the Administrator of
the Civil Aeronautics Administration under the provisions of the
Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 shall have the same force and effect
as though recorded as provided herein; and conveyances, the re-
cording of which is provided for by subsection (a) (1) of this
section made on or before August 21, 1938, and instruments, the
recording of which is provided for by subsections (a) (2) and (a)
(3) of this section made on or before June 19, 1948, shall not be
subject to the provisions of this subsection.
Effect of recording
(d) Each conveyance or other instrument recorded by means of
-------
2118 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
or under the system provided for in subsection (a) or (b) of this
section shall from the time of its filing- for recordation be valid as
to all persons without further or other recordation, except that an
instrument recorded pursuant to subsection (a) (3) of this sec-
tion shall be effective only with respect to those of such items
which may from time to time be situated at the designated loca-
tion or locations and only while so situated: Provided, That an
instrument recorded under subsection (a) (2) of this section
shall not be affected as to the engine or engines, or propeller or
propellers, specifically identified therein, by any instrument
theretofore or thereafter recorded pursuant to subsection (a) (3)
of this section.
Form of conveyances or other instruments
(e) Except as the Administrator may by regulation prescribe,
no conveyance or other instrument shall be recorded unless it shall
have been acknowledged before a notary public or other officer
authorized by the law of the United States, or of a State, territory,
or possession thereof, or the District of Columbia, to take ac-
knowledgment of deeds.
Index of conveyances and other instruments
(f) The Administrator shall keep a record of the time and date
of the filing of conveyances and other instruments with him and of
the time and date of recordation thereof. He shall record convey-
ances and other instruments filed with him in the order of their
reception, in files to be kept for that purpose, and indexed accord-
ing to—
(1) the identifying description of the aircraft, aircraft en-
gine, or propeller, or in the case of an instrument referred to
in subsection (a) (3) of this section, the location or locations
specified therein, and
(2) the names of the parties to the conveyance or other
instrument.
Regulations
(g) The Administrator is authorized to provide by regulation
for the endorsement upon certificates of registration, or aircraft
certificates, of information with respect to the ownership of the
aircraft for which each certificate is issued, the recording of dis-
charges and satisfactions of recorded instruments, and other
transactions affecting title to or interest in aircraft, aircraft en-
gines, propellers, appliances, or parts, and for such other records,
proceedings, and details as may be necessary to facilitate the de-
termination of the rights of parties dealing with civil aircraft of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2119
the United States, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or
parts.
Previously unrecorded ownership of aircraft
(h) The person applying for the issuance or renewal of an
airworthiness certificate for an aircraft with respect to which
there has been no recordation of ownership as provided in this
section shall present with his application such information with
respect to the ownership of the aircraft as the Administrator shall
deem necessary to show the persons who are holders of property
interests in such aircraft and the nature and extent of such inter-
ests. Pub.L. 85^726, Title V, § 503, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 772;
Pub.L. 86-81, §§ 1, 3, 4, July 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 180, 181; and
amended Pub.L. 88-346, § 2, June 30,1964, 78 Stat. 236.
§ 1404. Limitation of security owners' liability
No person having a security interest in, or security title to, any
civil aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller under a contract of
conditional sale, equipment trust, chattel or corporate mortgage,
or other instrument of similar nature, and no lessor of any such
aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller under a bona fide lease of
thirty days or more, shall be liable by reason of such interest or
title, or by reason of his interest as lessor or owner of the aircraft
aircraft engine, or propeller so leased, for any injury to or death
of persons, or damage to or loss of property, on the surface of the
earth (whether on land or water) caused by such aircraft, air-
craft engine, or propeller, or by the ascent, descent, or flight of
such aircraft, aircraft engine, of propeller or by the dropping or
falling of an object therefrom, unless such aircraft, aircraft en-
gine, or propeller is in the actual possession or control of such
person at the time of such injury, death, damage, or loss. Pub.L.
85-726, Title V, § 504, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 774; Pub.L. 86-81,
§ 2, July 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 180.
§ 1405. Dealers' aircraft registration certificates
The Administrator may, by such reasonable regulations as he
may find to be in the public interest, provide for the issuance, and
for the suspension or revocation, of dealers' aircraft registration
certificates, and for their use in connection with the aircraft eligi-
ble for registration under this chapter by persons engaged in the
business of manufacturing, distributing, or selling aircraft. Air-
craft owned by holders of dealers' aircraft registration certificates
shall be deemed registered under this chapter to the extent that
the Administrator may, by regulation, provide. It shall be unlaw-
ful for any person to violate any regulation, or any term, condi-
-------
2120 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tion, or limitation contained in any certificate, issued under this
section. Pub.L. 85-726, Title V, § 505, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 774.
§ 1406. Law governing validity of certain instruments
The validity of any instrument the recording of which is pro-
vided for by section 1403 of this title shall be governed by the laws
of the State, District of Columbia, or territory or possession of the
United States in which such instrument is delivered, irrespective
of the location or the place of delivery of the property which is the
subject of such instrument. Where the place of intended delivery
of such instrument is specified herein, it shall constitute presump-
tive evidence that such instrument was delivered at the place so
specified. Pub.L. 85-726, Title V, § 506, as added Pub.L. 88-346, §
1 (a), June 30, 1964, 78 Stat. 236.
SUBCHAPTER VI—SAFETY REGULATION OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
§ 1421. Powers and duties of Administrator—Minimum stand-
ards; rules and regulations
(a) The Administrator is empowered and it shall be his duty to
promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by pre-
scribing and revising from time to time:
(1) Such minimum standards governing the design, mate-
rials, workmanship, construction, and performance of air-
craft, aircraft engines, and propellers as may be required in
the interest of safety;
(2) Such minimum standards governing appliances as may
be required in the interest of safety;
(3) Reasonable rules and regulations and minimum stand-
ards governing, in the interest of safety, (A) the inspection,
servicing, and overhaul of aircraft, aircraft engines, propel-
lers, and appliances; (B) the equipment and facilities for
such inspection, servicing, and overhaul; and (C) in the dis-
cretion of the Administrator, the periods for, and the manner
in, which such inspection, servicing, and overhaul shall be
made, including provision for examinations and reports by
properly qualified private persons whose examinations or re-
ports the Administrator may accept in lieu of those made by
its officers and employees;
(4) Reasonable rules and regulations governing the reserve
supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances,
and aircraft fuel and oil, required in the interest of safety,
including the reserve supply of aircraft fuel and oil which
shall be carried in flight;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2121
(5) Reasonable rules and regulations governing, in the in-
terest of safety, the maximum hours or periods of service of
airmen, and other employees, of air carriers; and
(6) Such reasonable rules and regulations, or minimum
standards, governing other practices, methods, and procedure,
as the Administrator may find necessary to provide ade-
quately for national security and safety in air commerce.
Consideration of needs of service; classification of standards,
rules, regulations, and certificates
(b) In prescribing standards, rules, and regulations, and in
issuing certificates under this subchapter, the Administrator shall
give full consideration to the duty resting upon air carriers to
perform their services with the highest possible degree of safety
in the public interest and to any differences between air transpor-
tation and other air commerce; and he shall make classifications of
such standards, rules, regulations, and certificates appropriate to
the differences between air transportation and other air com-
merce. The Administrator may authorize any aircraft, aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance, for which an aircraft certificate
authorizing use thereof in air transportation has been issued, to be
used in other air commerce without the issuance of a further
certificate. The Administrator shall exercise and perform his pow-
ers and duties under this chapter in such manner as will best tend
to reduce or eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, acci-
dents in air transportation, but shall not deem himself required to
give preference to either air transportation or other air commerce
in the administration and enforcement of this subchapter.
Exemptions
(c) The Administrator from time to time may grant exemptions
from the requirements of any rule or regulation prescribed under
this subchapter if he finds that such action would be in the public
interest.
Installation of emergency locator beacons; aircraft subject to coverage
(d) (1) Except with respect to aircraft described in paragraph
(2) of this subsection, minimum standards pursuant to this sec-
tion shall include a requirement that emergency locator beacons
shall be installed—
(A) on any fixed-wing, powered aircraft for use in air
commerce the manufacture of which is completed, or which is
imported into the United States, after one year following
December 29, 1970; and
526-704 O - 73 - 24
-------
2122 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
(B) on any fixed-wing, powered aircraft used in air com-
merce after three years following such date.
(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to jet-pow-
ered aircraft; aircraft used in air transportation (other than air
taxis and charter aircraft) ; military aircraft; aircraft used solely
for training purposes not involving flights more than twenty miles
from its base; and aircraft used for the aerial application of
chemicals.
Aviation fuel standards; establishment, implementation and enforcement
(e) The Administrator shall prescribe, and from time to time
revise, regulations (1) establishing standards governing the com-
position or the chemical or physical properties of any aircraft fuel
or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or eliminating air-
craft emissions which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (pursuant to section 1857h—1 of Title 42)
determines endanger the public health or welfare, and (2) provid-
ing for the implementation and enforcement of such standards.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 601, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 775; Pub.L.
91-596, § 31, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1619; Pub.L. 91-604, § 11 (b)
(1), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1705.
§ 1422. Airman certificates—Authorization to issue
(a) The Administrator is empowered to issue airman certifi-
cates specifying the capacity in which the holders thereof are
authorized to serve as airmen in connection with aircraft.
Application; issuance or denial; petition for review; review; hearing;
determination; issuance of certificates to aliens
(b) Any person may file with the Administrator an application
for an airman certificate. If the Administrator finds, after investi-
gation, that such person possesses proper qualifications for, and is
physically able to perform the duties pertaining to, the position
for which the airman certificate is sought, he shall issue such
certificate, containing such terms, conditions, and limitations as to
duration thereof, periodic or special examinations, tests of physi-
cal fitness, and other matters as the Administrator may determine
to be necessary to assure safety in air commerce. Except in the
case of persons whose certificates are, at the time of denial, under
order of suspension or whose certificates have been revoked within
one year of the date of such denial, any person whose application
for the issuance or renewal of an airman certificate is denied may
file with the Board a petition for review of the Administrator's
action. The Board shall thereupon assign such petition for hearing
at a place convenient to the applicant's place of residence or em-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2123
ployment. In the conduct of such hearing and in determining
whether the airman meets the pertinent rules, regulations, or
standards, the Board shall not be bound by findings of fact of the
Administrator. At the conclusion of such hearing, the Board shall
issue its decision as to whether the airman meets the pertinent
rules, regulations, and standards and the Administrator shall be
bound by such decision: Provided, That the Administrator may, in
his discretion, prohibit or restrict the issuance of airman certifi-
cates to aliens, or may make such issuance dependent on the terms
of reciprocal agreements entered into with foreign governments.
Form and recording
(c) Each certificate shall be numbered and recorded by the
Administrator; shall state the name and address of, and contain a
description of, the person to whom the certificate is issued; and
shall be entitled with the designation of the class covered thereby.
Certificates issued to all pilots serving in scheduled air transporta-
tion shall be designated "airline transport pilot" of the proper
class. Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 602, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 776.
§ 1423. Aircraft certificates—Authorization to issue; applica-
tion; investigation; tests; issuance of type certificate
(a) (1) The Administrator is empowered to issue type certifi-
cates for aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers; to specify in
regulations the appliances for which the issuance of type certifi-
cates is reasonably required in the interest of safety; and to issue
such certificates for appliances so specified.
(2) Any interested person may file with the Administrator an
application for a type certificate for an aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance specified in regulations under paragraph
(1) of this subsection. Upon receipt of an application, the Admin-
istrator shall make an investigation thereof and may hold hear-
ings thereon. The Administrator shall make, or require the appli-
cant to make, such tests during manufacture and upon completion
as the Administrator deems reasonably necessary in the interest
of safety, including flight tests and tests of raw materials or any
part or appurtenance of such aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance. If the Administrator finds that such aircraft, air-
craft engine, propeller, or appliance is of proper design, material,
specification, construction, and performance for safe operation,
and meets the minimum standards, rules, and regulations pre-
scribed by the Administrator, he shall issue a type certificate there-
for. The Administrator may prescribe in any such certificate the
duration thereof and such other terms, conditions, and limitations
-------
2124 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
as are required in the interest of safety. The Administrator may
record upon any certificate issued for aircraft, aircraft engines, or
propellers, a numerical determination of all of the essential fac-
tors relative to the performance of the aircraft, aircraft engine, or
propeller for which the certificate is issued.
Production certificates
(b) Upon application, and if it satisfactorily appears to the
Administrator that duplicates of any aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance for which a type certificate has been issued
will conform to such certificate, the Administrator shall issue a
production certificate authorizing the production of duplicates of
such aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances. The Ad-
ministrator shall make such inspection and may require such tests
of any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance manufac-
tured under a production certificate as may be necessary to assure
manufacture of each unit in conformity with the type certificate
or any amendment or modification thereof. The Administrator
may prescribe in any such production certificate the duration
thereof and such other terms, conditions, and limitations as are
required in the interest of safety.
Airworthiness certificates
(c) The registered owner of any aircraft may file with the
Administrator an application for an airworthiness certificate for
such aircraft. If the Administrator finds that the aircraft con-
forms to the type certificate therefor, and, after inspection, that
the aircraft is in condition for safe operation, he shall issue an
airworthiness certificate. The Administrator may prescribe in
such certificate the duration of such certificate, the type of service
for which the aircraft may be used, and such other terms, condi-
tions, and limitations, as are required in the interest of safety.
Each such certificate shall be registered by the Administrator and
shall set forth such information as the Administrator may deem
advisable. The certificate number, or such other individual desig-
nation as may be required by the Administrator, shall be displayed
upon each aircraft in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator. Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 603, Aug. 23, 1958,
72 Stat. 776.
§ 1424. Air carrier operating certificates; authorization to is-
sue; minimum safety standards; application; issuance
(a) The Administrator is empowered to issue air carrier opera-
ting certificates and to establish minimum safety standards for the
operation of the air carrier to whom any such certificate is issued.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2125
(b) Any person desiring to operate as an air carrier may file
with the Administrator an application for an air carrier operating
certificate. If the Administrator finds, after investigation, that
such person is properly and adequately equipped and able to con-
duct a safe operation in accordance with the requirements of this
chapter and the rules, regulations, and standards prescribed there-
under, he shall issue an air carrier operating certificate to such
person. Each air carrier operating certificate shall prescribe such
terms, conditions, and limitations as are reasonably necessary to
assure safety in air transportation, and shall specify the points to
and from which, and the Federal airways over which, such person
is authorized to operate as an air carrier under an air carrier
operating certificate. Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 604, Aug. 23,
1958, 72 Stat. 778.
§ 1425. Maintenance of equipment in air transportation; duty of
carriers and airmen; inspection of aircraft and equipment
(a) It shall be the duty of each air carrier to make, or cause to
be made, such inspection, maintenance, overhaul, and repair of all
equipment used in air transportation as may be required by this
chapter, or the orders, rules, and regulations of the Administrator
issued thereunder. And it shall be the duty of every person en-
gaged in operating, inspecting, maintaining, or overhauling equip-
ment to observe and comply with the requirements of this chapter
relating thereto, and the orders, rules, and regulations issued there-
under.
(b) The Administrator shall employ inspectors who shall be
charged with the duty (1) of making such inspections of aircraft,
aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances designed for use in air
transportation, during manufacture, and while used by an air
carrier in air transportation, as may be necessary to enable the
Administrator to determine that such aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers, and appliances are in safe condition and are properly
maintained for operation in air transportation; and (2) of advis-
ing and cooperating with each air carrier in the inspection and
maintenance thereof by the air carrier. Whenever any inspector
shall, in the performance of his duty, find that any aircraft, air-
craft engine, propeller, or appliance, used or intended to be used
by any air carrier in air transportation, is not in condition for
safe operation, he shall so notify the carrier, in such form and
manner as the Administrator may prescribe; and, for a period five
days thereafter, such aircraft, air craft engine, propeller, or appli-
ance shall not be used in air transportation, or in such manner
to endanger air transportation, unless found by the Administrator
-------
2126 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
or his inspector to be in condition for safe operation. Pub.L.
85-726, Title VI, § 605, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 778.
§ 1426. Air navigation facility rating; issuance of certificate
The Administrator is empowered to inspect, classify, and rate
any air navigation facility available for the use of civil aircraft, as
to its suitability for such use. The Administrator is empowered to
issue a certificate for any such air navigation facility. Pub.L.
85-726, Title VI, § 606, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 779.
§ 1427. Air agency rating; issuance of certificate
The Administrator is empowered to provide for the examination
and rating of (1) civilian schools giving instruction in flying or in
the repair, alteration, maintenance, and overhaul of aircraft, air
aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, as to the adequacy of
the course of instruction, the suitability and airworthiness of the
equipment, and the competency of the instructors; (2) repair
stations or shops for the repair, alteration, maintenance, and over-
haul of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances, as to
the adequacy and suitability of the equipment, facilities, and mate-
rials for, and methods of, repair, alteration, maintenance, and
overhaul of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances,
and the competency of those engaged in the work or giving any
instruction therein; and (3) such other air agencies as may, in his
opinion, be necessary in the interest of the public. The Adminis-
trator is empowered to issue certificates for such schools, repair
stations, and other agencies. Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 607, Aug.
23, 1958, 72 Stat. 779.
§ 1428. Form of applications for certificates
Applications for certificates under this subchapter shall be in
such form, contain such information, and be filed and served in
such manner as the Administrator may prescribe, and shall be
under oath whenever the Administrator so requires. Pub.L.
85-726, Title VI, § 608, Aug. 23, 1958, 72 Stat. 779.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2127
§ 1429. Reinspection or reexamination; amendment, suspension,
or revocation of certification—Procedure; notification; hearing;
appeal to National Transportation Safety Board; judicial review
(a) The Administrator may, from time to time, reinspect any
civil aircraft, aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance, air navigation
facility, or air agency, or may reexamine any civil airman. If, as a
result of any such reinspection or reexamination, or if, as a result
of any other investigation made by the Administrator, he deter-
mines that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the
public interest requires, the Administrator may issue an order
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking, in whole or in
part, any type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness cer-
tificate, airman certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air
navigation facility certificate (including airport operating certifi-
cate), or air agency certificate. Prior to amending, modifying,
suspending, or revoking any of the foregoing certificates, the Ad-
ministrator shall advise the holder thereof as to any charges or
other reasons relied upon by the Administrator for his proposed
action and, except in cases of emergency, shall provide the holder
of such a certificate an opportunity to answer any charges and be
heard as to why such certificate should not be amended, modified,
suspended, or revoked. Any person whose certificate is affected by
such an order of the Administrator under this section may appeal
the Administrator's order to the National Transportation Safety
Board and the National Transportation Safety Board may, after
notice and hearing, amend, modify, or reverse the Administrator's
order if it finds that safety in air commerce or air transportation
and the public interest do not require affirmation of the Adminis-
trator's order. In the conduct of its hearings the National Trans-
portation Safety Board shall not be bound by findings of fact of
the Administrator. The filing of an appeal with the National
Transportation Safety Board shall stay the effectiveness of the
Administrator's order unless the Administrator advises the Na-
tional Transportation Safety Board that an emergency exists and
safety in air commerce or air transportation requires the immedi-
ate effectiveness of his order, in which event the order shall re-
main effective and the National Transportation Safety Board shall
finally dispose of the appeal within sixty days after being so ad-
vised by the Administrator. The person substantially affected by
the National Transportation Safety Board's order may obtain ju-
dicial review of said order under the provisions of section 1486 of
this title, and the Administrator shall be made a party to such
proceedings.
-------
2128 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Violation of certain laws
(b) The Administrator, in his discretion, may issue an order
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any airman certifi-
cate upon conviction of the holder of such certificate of any viola-
tion of subsection (a) of section 742j—1 of Title 16 regarding the
use or operation of an aircraft.
As amended Pub.L. 92-159, § 2(a), Nov. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 481;
Pub.L. 92-174, § 6, Nov. 27, 1971, 85 Stat. 492.
§ 1430. Violations; exemption of foreign aircraft and airmen
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(6) For any person to operate a seaplane or other aircraft of
United States registry upon the high seas in contravention of the
regulations proclaimed by the President pursuant to section 143 of
Title 33;
(7) For any person holding an air agency or production certifi-
cate, to violate any term, condition, or limitation thereof, or to
violate any order, rule, or regulation under this subchapter relat-
ing to the holder of such certificate; and
(8) For any person to operate an airport serving air carriers
certificated by the Civil Aeronautics Board without an airport
operating certificate, or in violation of the terms of any such
certificate.
§ 1431. Control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom
—Definitions
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term "FAA" means Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
(2) The term "EPA" means the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
Consultations; standards; rules and regulations;
aircraft certificates
(b) (1) In order to afford present and future relief and pro-
tection to the public health and welfare from aircraft noise and
sonic boom, the FAA, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and with EPA, shall prescribe and amend stand-
ards for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2129
shall prescribe and amend such regulations as the FAA may find
necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft
noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards
and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspen-
sion, or revocation of any certificate authorized by this subchap-
ter. No exemption with respect to any standard or regulation
under this section may be granted under any provision of this
chapter unless the FAA shall have consulted with EPA before
such exemption is granted, except that if the FAA determines that
safety in air commerce or air transportation 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 an original type certificate under
section 1423 (a) of this title 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 sec-
tion which apply to such aircraft and which protect the public
from aircraft noise and sonic boom, consistent with the considera-
tions listed in subsection (d) of this section.
Submission of proposed regulations to FAA by EPA; publica-
tion; hearing; review of prescribed regulations; report and sup-
plemental report
(c) (1) Not earlier than the date of submission of the report
required by section 4906 of Title 42, EPA shall submit to the FAA
proposed regulations to provide such control and abatement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom (including control and abatement
through the exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory authority
over air commerce or transportation or over aircraft or airport
operations) as EPA determines is necessary to protect the public
health and welfare. The FAA shall consider such proposed regula-
tions submitted by EPA under this paragraph and shall, within
thirty days of the date of its submission to the FAA, publish the
proposed regulations in a notice of proposed rulemaking. Within
sixty days after such publication, the FAA shall commence a hear-
ing at which interested persons shall be afforded an opportunity
for oral (as well as written) presentations of data, views, and
arguments. Within a reasonable time after the conclusion of such
hearing and after consultation with EPA, the FAA shall—
(A) in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, pre-
-------
2130 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
scribe regulations (i) substantially as they were submitted by
EPA, or (ii) which are a modification of the proposed regula-
tions submitted by EPA, or
(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice that it is not
prescribing any regulation in response to EPA's submission
of proposed regulations, together with a detailed explanation
providing reasons for the decision not to prescribe such regu-
lations.
(2) If EPA has reason to believe that the FAA's action with
respect to a regulation proposed by EPA under paragraph (1)
(A) (ii) or (1) (B) of this subsection does not protect the public
health and welfare 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 prescribing the
regulation originally proposed by EPA. Any such request shall be
published in the Federal Register and shall include a detailed
statement of the information on which it is based. The FAA shall
complete the review requested and shall report to EPA within
such time as EPA specifies in the request, but such time specified
may not be less than ninety days from the date the request was
made. The FAA's report shall be accompanied by a detailed state-
ment of the FAA's findings and the reasons for the FAA's conclu-
sions; shall identify any statement filed pursuant to section
4332(2) (C) of Title 42 with respect to such action of the FAA
under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and shall specify whether
(and where) such statements are available for public inspection.
The FAA's report shall be published in the Federal Register, ex-
cept 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.
(3) If, in the case of a matter described in paragraph (2) of
this subsection with respect to which no statement is required to
be filed under such section 4332(2) (C) of Title 42, the report of
the FAA indicates that the proposed regulation originally submit-
ted by EPA should not be made, then EPA may request the FAA
to file a supplemental report, which shall be published in the Fed-
eral Register within such a period as EPA may specify (but such
time specified shall not be less than ninety days from the date the
request was made), and which shall contain a comparison of (A)
the environmental effects (including those which cannot be
avoided) of the action actually taken by the FAA in response to
EPA's proposed regulations, and (B) EPA's proposed regulations.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2131
Considerations determinative of standards, rules,
and regulations
(d) In prescribing and amending standards and regulations
under this section, the FAA shall—
(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft
noise and sonic boom, including the results of research, devel-
opment, testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant
to this chapter and chapter 23 of this title;
(2) consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agen-
cies as he deems appropriate;
(3) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation
is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air com-
merce or air transportation in the public interest;
(4) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation
is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft en-
gine, appliance, or certificate to which it will apply; and
(5) consider the extent to which such standard or regula-
tion will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this sec-
tion.
Amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of
certificate; notice and appeal rights
(e) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certif-
icate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards
or regulations is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same
notice and appeal rights as are contained in section 1429 of this
title, and in any appeal to the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Board may amend, modify, or reverse the order of the
FAA if it finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic
boom and the public health and welfare do not require the affir-
mation of such order, or that such order is not consistent with
safety in air commerce or air transportation.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 611, as added Pub.L. 90-411, § 1, July
21, 1968, 82 Stat. 395, and amended Pub.L. 92-574, § 7(b), Oct.
27,1972, 86 Stat. 1239.
§ 1432. Airport operating certificate—Power to issue
(a) The Administrator is empowered to issue airport operating
certificates to airports serving air carriers certificated by the Civil
-------
2132 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Aeronautics Board and to establish minimum safety standards for
the operation of such airports.
Issuance; terms and conditions
(b) Any person desiring to operate an airport serving air car-
riers certified by the Civil Aeronautics Board may file with the
Administrator an application for an airport operating certificate.
If the Administrator finds, after investigation, that such person is
properly and adequately equipped and able to conduct a safe oper-
ation in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and the
rules, regulations, and standards prescribed thereunder, he shall
issue an airport operating certificate to such person. Each airport
operating certificate shall prescribe such terms, conditions, and
limitations as are reasonably necessary to assure safety in air
transportation. Unless the Administrator determines that it would
be contrary to the public interest, such terms, conditions, and
limitations shall include but not be limited to terms, conditions,
and limitations relating to the operation and maintenance of ade-
quate safety equipment, including firefighting and rescue equip-
ment capable of rapid access to any portion of the airport used for
the landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft.
Pub.L. 85-726, Title VI, § 612, as added Pub.L. 91-258, Title I, §
51 (b) (1), May 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 234, and amended Pub.L.
92-174, § 5(b), Nov. 27,1971, 85 Stat. 492.
l.lOa THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
August 23, 1958, P.L. 85-726, Sees. 101-104, 204, 303, 304, 311, 312,
401(a)-(k), 601, 603, 604, 609, 72 Stat. 731
AN ACT
To continue the Civil Aeronautics Board as an agency of the United States,
to create a Federal Aviation Agency, to provide for the regulation and pro-
motion of civil aviation in such manner as to best foster its development and
safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of the airspace by both
civil and military aircraft, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act,
divided into titles and sections according to the following table of
contents, may be cited as the "Federal Aviation Act of 1958":
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2133
TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 101. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
(1) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency.
(2) "Aeronautics" means the science and art of flight.
(3) "Air carrier" means any citizen of the United States who
undertakes, whether directly or indirectly or by a lease or any
other arrangement, to engage in air transportation: Provided,
That the Board may by order relieve air carriers who are not
directly engaged in the operation of aircraft in air transportation
from the provisions of this Act to the extent and for such periods
as may be in the public interest.
(4) "Air commerce" means interstate, overseas, or foreign air
commerce or the transportation of mail by aircraft or any opera-
tion or navigation or aircraft within the limits of any Federal
airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly
affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or
foreign air commerce.
(5) "Aircraft" means any contrivance now known or hereafter
invented, used, or designed for navigation of or flight in the air.
(6) "Aircraft engine" means an engine used, or intended to be
used, for propulsion of aircraft and includes all parts, appurte-
nances, and accessories thereof other than propellers.
(7) "Airman" means any individual who engages, as the person
in command or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, in the
navigation of aircraft while under way; and (except to the extent
the Administrator may otherwise provide with respect to individu-
als employed outside the United States) any individual who is
directly in charge of the inspection, maintenance, overhauling, or
repair of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances; and
any individual who serves in the capacity of aircraft dispatcher or
air-traffic control-tower operator.
(8) "Air navigation facility" means any facility used in, availa-
ble for use in, or designed for use in, aid of air navigation, includ-
ing landing areas, lights, any apparatus or equipment for dissemi-
nating weather information, for signaling, for radio-directional
finding, or for radio or other electrical communication, and any
other structure or mechanism having a similar purpose for guid-
ing or controlling flight in the air or the landing and take-off of
aircraft.
-------
2134 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
(9) "Airport" means a landing area used regularly by aircraft
for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo.
(10) "Air transportation" means interstate, overseas, or for-
eign air transportation or the transportation of mail by aircraft.
(11) "Appliances" means instruments, equipment, apparatus,
parts, appurtenances, or accessories, of whatever description,
which are used, or are capable of being or intended to be used, in
the navigation, operation, or control of aircraft in flight (includ-
ing parachutes and including communication equipment and any
other mechanism or mechanisms installed in or attached to air-
craft during flight), and which are not a part or parts of aircraft,
aircraft engines, or propellers.
(12) "Board" means the Civil Aeronautics Board.
(13) "Citizen of the United States" means (a) an individual
who is a citizen of the United States or of one of its possessions,
or (b) a partnership of which each member is such an individual,
or (c) a corporation or association created or organized under the
laws of the United States or of any State, Territory, or possession
of the United
[p. 737]
States, of "which the president and two-thirds or more of the
board of directors and other managing officers thereof are such
individuals and in which at least 75 per centum of the voting
interest is owned or controlled by persons who are citizens of
the United States or of one of its possessions.
(14) "Civil aircraft" means any aircraft other than a public
aircraft.
(15) "Civil aircraft of the United States" means any aircraft
registered as provided in this Act.
(16) "Conditional sale" means (a) any contract for the sale of
an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or spare part
under which possession is delivered to the buyer and the property
is to vest in the buyer at a subsequent time, upon the payment of
part or all of the price, or upon the performance of any other
condition or the happening of any contingency; or (b) any con-
tract for the bailment or leasing of an aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, appliance, or spare part, by which the bailee or lessee
contracts to pay as compensation a sum substantially equivalent to
the value thereof, and by which it is agreed that the bailee or
lessee is bound to become, or has the option of becoming, the
owner thereof upon full compliance with the terms of the contract.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2135
The buyer, bailee, or lessee shall be deemed to be the person by
whom any such contract is made or given.
(17) "Conveyance" means a bill of sale, contract of conditional
sale, mortgage, assignment of mortgage, or other instrument af-
fecting title to, or interest in, property.
(18) "Federal airway" means a portion of the navigable air-
space of the United States designated by the Administrator as a
Federal airway.
(19) "Foreign air carrier" means any person, not a citizen of
the United States, who undertakes, whether directly or indirectly
or by lease or any other arrangement, to engage in foreign air
transportation.
(20) "Interstate air commerce", "overseas air commerce", and
"foreign air commerce", respectively, mean the carriage by air-
craft of persons or property for compensation or hire, or the
carriage of mail by aircraft, or the operation or navigation of
aircraft in the conduct or furtherance of a business or vocation, in
commerce between, respectively—
(a) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and a place in any other State of the
United States, or the District of Columbia; or between places
in the same State of the United States through the airspace
over any place outside thereof; or between places in the
same Territory or possession of the United States, or the
District of Columbia;
(b) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and any place in a Territory or possession
of the United States; or between a place in a Territory or
possession of the United States, and a place in any other
Territory or possession of the United States; and
(c) a place in the United States and any place outside
thereof; whether such commerce moves wholly by aircraft or
partly by aircraft and partly by other forms of transporta-
tion.
(21) "Interstate air transportation", "overseas air transporta-
tion", and "foreign air transportation", respectively, mean the
carriage by aircraft of persons or property as a common carrier
for compensation or hire or the carriage of mail by aircraft, in
commerce between, respectively—
(a) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and a place in any other State of the United
States, or
[p. 738]
-------
2136 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the District of Columbia; or between places in the same State
of the United States through the airspace over any place
outside thereof; or between places in the same Territory or
possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia;
(b) a place in any State of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and any place in a Territory or possession
of the United States; or between a place in a Territory or
possession of the United States, and a place in any other
Territory or possession of the United States; and
(c) a place in the United States and any place outside
thereof; whether such commerce moves wholly by aircraft or
partly by aircraft and partly by other forms of transporta-
tion.
(22) "Landing area" means any locality, either of land or
water, including airports and intermediate landing fields, which
is used, or intended to be used, for the landing and take-off of
aircraft, whether or not facilities are provided for the shelter,
servicing, or repair of aircraft, or for receiving or discharging
passengers or cargo.
(23) "Mail" means United States mail and foreign-transit mail.
(24) "Navigable airspace" means airspace above the minimum
altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations issued under this Act,
and shall include airspace needed to insure safety in take-off and
landing of aircraft.
(25) "Navigation of aircraft" or "navigate aircraft" includes
the piloting of aircraft.
(26) "Operation of aircraft" or "operate aircraft" means the
use of aircraft, for the purpose of air navigation and includes the
navigation of aircraft. Any person who causes or authorizes the
operation of aircraft, whether with or without the right of legal
control (in the capacity of owner, lessee, or otherwise) of the
aircraft, shall be deemed to be engaged in the operation of aircraft
within the meaning of this Act.
(27) "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, cor-
poration, company, association, joint-stock association, or body
politic; and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or other simi-
lar representative thereof.
(28) "Propeller" includes all parts, appurtenances, and accesso-
ries thereof.
(29) "Possessions of the United States" means (a) the Canal
Zone, but nothing herein shall impair or affect the jurisdiction
which has heretofore been, or may hereafter be, granted to the
President in respect of air navigation in the Canal Zone; and (b)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2137
all other possessions of the United States. Where not otherwise
distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent
thereof, references in this Act to possessions of the United States
shall be treated as also referring to the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
(30) "Public aircraft" means an aircraft used exclusively in the
service of any government or of any political subdivision thereof,
including the government of any State, Territory, or possession of
the United States, or the District of Columbia, but not including
any government-owned aircraft engaged in carrying persons or
property for commercial purposes.
(31) "Spare parts" means parts, appurtenances, and accessories
of aircraft (other than propellers), of propellers and of appli-
ances, maintained for installation or use in an aircraft, aircraft
engine, propeller, or appliance, but which at the time are not
installed therein or attached thereto.
(32) "Ticket agent" means any person, not an air carrier or a
foreign air carrier and not a bona fide employee of an air carrier
[p. 739]
or foreign air carrier, who, as principal or agent, sells or offers
for sale any air transportation, or negotiates for, or holds himself
out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as one who sells,
provides, furnishes, contracts or arranges for, such transporta-
tion.
(33) "United States" means the several States, the District of
Columbia, and the several Territories and possessions of the
United States, including the territorial waters and the overlying
airspace thereof.
DECLARATION OF POLICY : THE BOARD
SEC. 102. In the exercise and performance of its powers and
duties under this Act, the Board shall consider the following,
among other things, as being in the public interest, and in accord-
ance with the public convenience and necessity:
(a) The encouragement and development of an air-transporta-
tion system properly adapted to the present and future needs of
the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, of the
Postal Service, and of the national defense;
(b) The regulation of air transportation in such manner as to
recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of, assure the
highest degree of safety in, and foster sound economic conditions
526-704 O - 73 - 2"i
-------
2138 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
in, such transportation, and to improve the relations between, and
coordinate transportation by, air carriers;
(c) The promotion of adequate, economical, and efficient service
by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discrimina-
tions, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive
competitive practices;
(d) Competition to the extent necessary to assure the sound
development of an air-transportation system properly adapted to
the needs of the foreign and domestic commerce of the United
States, of the Postal Service, and of the national defense;
(e) The promotion of safety in air commerce; and
(f) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil
aeronautics.
DECLARATION OF POLICY : THE ADMINISTRATOR
SEC. 103. In the exercise and performance of his powers and
duties under this Act the Administrator shall consider the follow-
ing, among other things, as being in the public interest:
(a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best
promote its development and safety and fulfill the requirements of
national defense;
(b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil
aeronautics;
(c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the
United States and the regulation of both civil and military opera-
tions in such airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of
both;
(d) The consolidation of research and development with respect
to air navigation facilities, as well as the installation and opera-
tion thereof;
(e) The development and operation of a common system of air
traffic control and navigation for both military and civil aircraft.
PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT
SEC. 104. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in
behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of free-
dom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United
States.
[p. 740]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2139
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OP THE BOARD
GENERAL POWERS
SEC. 204. (a) The Board is empowered to perform such acts, to
conduct such investigations, to issue and amend such orders, and
to make and amend such general or special rules, regulations, and
procedure, pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this
Act, as it shall deem necessary to carry out the provisions of, and
to exercise and perform its powers and duties under, this Act.
COOPERATION WITH STATE AERONAUTICAL AGENCIES
(b) The Board is empowered to confer with or to hold joint
hearings with any State aeronautical agency, or other State
agency, in connection with any matter arising under this Act
within its jurisdiction, and to avail itself of the cooperation, serv-
ices, records, and facilities of such State agencies as fully as may
be practicable in the administration and enforcement of this Act.
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
(c) The Board is empowered to exchange with foreign govern-
ments, through appropriate agencies of the United States, infor-
mation pertaining to aeronautics.
PUBLICATIONS
(d) Except as may be otherwise provided in this Act, the Board
shall make a report in writing in all proceedings and investiga-
tions under this Act in which formal hearings have been held, and
shall state in such report its conclusions together with its decision,
order, or requirement in the premises. All such reports shall be
entered of record and a copy thereof shall be furnished to all
parties to the proceeding or investigation. The Board shall provide
for the publication of such reports, and all other reports, orders,
decisions, rules, and regulations issued by it under this Act in such
form and manner as may be best adapted for public information
and use. Publications purporting to be published by the Board
shall be competent evidence of the orders, decisions, rules, regula-
tions, and reports of the Board therein contained in all courts of
the United States, and of the several States, Territories, and pos-
sessions thereof, and the District of Columbia, without further
proof or authentication thereof.
[p. 743]
-------
2140 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGENCY
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES AND TRAVEL
SEC. 303. (a) The Administrator is empowered to make such
expenditures at the seat of government and elsewhere as may be
necessary for the exercise and performance of the powers and
duties vested in and imposed upon him by law, and as from time to
time may be appropriated for by Congress, including expenditures
for (1) rent and per-
[p. 747]
sonal services at the seat of government and elsewhere; (2) travel
expenses; (3) office furniture, equipment and supplies, lawbooks,
newspapers, periodicals, and books of reference (including the
exchange thereof); (4) printing and binding; (5) membership
in and cooperation with such organizations as are related to, or
are part of, the civil aeronautics industry or the art of aeronautics
in the United States or in any foreign country; (6) payment of
allowances and other benefits to employees stationed in foreign
countries to the same extent as authorized from time to time for
members of the Foreign Service of the United States of com-
parable grade; (7) making investigations and conducting studies
in matters pertaining to aeronautics; and (8) acquisition (includ-
ing exchange), operation and maintenance of passenger-carrying
automobiles and aircraft, and such other property as is necessary
in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the
Administrator: Provided, That no aircraft or motor vehicles,
purchased under the provisions of this section, shall be used
otherwise than for official business.
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS FOR OVERSEAS INSTALLATIONS
(b) When appropriations for any fiscal year for the Agency
have not been made prior to the first day of March preceding the
beginning of such fiscal year, the Administrator may authorize
such officer or officers as may be designated by him to incur obliga-
tions for the purchase and transportation of supplies and materi-
als necessary to the proper execution of the Administrator's func-
tions at installations outside the continental United States, includ-
ing those in Alaska, in amounts not to exceed 75 per centum of the
amount that had been made available for such purposes for the
fiscal year then current, payments of these obligations to be made
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2141
from the appropriations for the next succeeding fiscal year when
they become available,
ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY
(c) The Administrator, on behalf of the United States, is au-
thorized, where appropriate: (1) to accept any conditional or
unconditional gift or donation of money or other property, real or
personal, or of services; (2) within the limits of available appro-
priations made by the Congress therefor, to acquire by purchase,
condemnation, lease, or otherwise, real property or interests
therein, including, in the case of air navigation facilities (includ-
ing airports) owned by the United States and operated under the
direction of the Administrator, easements through or other inter-
ests in airspace immediately adjacent thereto and needed in
connection therewith: Provided, That the authority herein
granted shall not include authority for the acquisition of space in
buildings for use by the Federal Aviation Agency, suitable accom-
modations for which shall be provided by the Administrator of
General Services, unless the Administrator of General Services
determines, pursuant to section 1 (d) of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 18, 1950 (64 Stat. 1270; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15 note), that
the space to be acquired is to be utilized for the special purposes of
the Federal Aviation Agency and is not generally suitable for the
use of other agencies; (3) for adequate compensation, by sale,
lease, or otherwise, to dispose of any real or personal property or
interest therein: Provided, That, except for airport and airway
property and technical equipment used for the special purposes of
the Agency, such disposition shall be made in accordance with the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as
amended; and (4) to construct, improve, or renovate laboratories
and other test facilities and to purchase or otherwise acquire real
property required therefor. Any
[p. 748]
such acquisition by condemnation may be made in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of August 1, 1888 (40 U.S.C. 257;
25 Stat. 357), the Act of February 26, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 258a-258e;
46 Stat. 1421), or any other applicable Act: Provided, That in the
case of condemnations of easements through or other interests
in airspace, in fixing condemnation awards, consideration may
be given to the reasonable probable future use of the underlying
land.
-------
2142 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
(d) The Administrator may, subject to such regulations, super-
vision, and review as he may prescribe, from time to time make
such provision as he shall deem appropriate authorizing the per-
formance by any officer, employee, or administrative unit under
his jurisdiction of any function under this Act; or, with its con-
sent, authorizing the performance by any other Federal depart-
ment or agency of any function under section 307 (b) of this Act.
AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT To TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNCTIONS
SEC. 304. The President may transfer to the Administrator
any functions (including powers, duties, activities, facilities, and
parts of functions) of the executive departments or agencies of
the Government or of any officer or organizational entity thereof
which relate primarily to selecting, developing, testing, evaluating,
establishing, operating and maintaining system, procedures, fa-
cilities, or devices for safe and efficient air navigation and air
traffic control. In connection with any such transfer, the President
may provide for appropriate transfers of records, property, and
for necessary civilian and military personnel to be made available
from the other office, department, or other agency from which the
transfer is made.
[P- 749]
COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
SEC. 311. The Administrator is empowered and directed to col-
lect and disseminate information relative to civil aeronautics
(other than information collected and disseminated by the Board
under titles IV and VII of this Act) ; to study the possibilities of
the development of air commerce and the aeronautical industry;
and to exchange with foreign governments, through appropriate
governmental channels, information pertaining to civil aeronau-
tics.
[p. 751]
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
GENERAL
SEC. 312. (a) The Administrator is directed to make long range
plans for and formulate policy with respect to the orderly develop-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2143
ment and use of the navigable airspace, and the orderly develop-
ment and location of landing areas, Federal airways, radar instal-
lations and all other aids and facilities for air navigation, as will
best meet the needs of, and serve the interest of civil aeronautics
and national defense, except for those needs of military agencies
which are peculiar to air warfare and primarily of military con-
cern.
AIRCRAFT
(b) The Administrator is empowered to undertake or supervise
such developmental work and service testing as tends to the crea-
tion of improved aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appli-
ances. For such purpose, the Administrator is empowered to make
purchases (including exchange) by negotiation, or otherwise, of
experimental aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances,
which seem to offer special advantages to aeronautics.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(c) The Administrator shall develop, modify, test, and evaluate
systems, procedures, facilities, and devices, as well as define the
performance characteristics thereof, to meet the needs for safe
and efficient navigation and traffic control of all civil and military
aviation except for those needs of military agencies which are
peculiar to air warfare and primarily of military concern, and
select such systems, procedures, facilities, and devices as will best
serve such needs and will promote maximum coordination of air
traffic control and air defense systems. Contracts may be entered
into for this purpose without regard to section 3643 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529). When there is any substan-
tial question as to whether a matter is of primary concern to the
military, the Administrator is authorized and directed to deter-
mine whether he or the appropriate military agency shall have
responsibility. Technical information concerning any research and
development projects of the military agencies which have poten-
tial application to the needs of, or possible conflict with, the com-
mon system shall be furnished to the Administrator to the maxi-
mum extent necessary to insure that common system application
potential is properly considered and potential future conflicts with
the common system are eliminated.
[p. 762]
-------
2144 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
TITLE IV—AIR CARRIER ECONOMIC REGULATION
CERTIFICATE OP PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
CERTIFICATE REQUIRED
SEC. 401. (a) No air carrier shall engage in any air transporta-
tion unless there is in force a certificate issued by the Board
authorizing such air carrier to engage in such transportation.
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE
(b) Application for a certificate shall be made in writing to the
Board and shall be so verified, shall be in such form and contain
such information, and shall be accompanied by such proof of serv-
ice upon such interested persons, as the Board shall by regulation
require.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
(c) Upon the filing of any such application, the Board shall
give due notice thereof to the public by posting a notice of such
application in the office of the secretary of the Board and to such
other persons as the Board may by regulation determine. Any
interested person may file with the Board a protest or memoran-
dum of opposi-
[p. 754]
tion to or in support of the issuance of a certificate. Such appli-
cation shall be set for public hearing, and the Board shall dispose
of such application as speedily as possible.
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE
(d) (1) The Board shall issue a certificate authorizing the
whole or any part of the transportation covered by the applica-
tion, if it finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able to per-
form such transportation properly, and to conform to the provi-
sions of this Act and the rules, regulations, and requirements of
the Board hereunder, and that such transportation is required by
the public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application
shall be denied.
(2) In the case of an application for a certificate to engage in
temporary air transportation, the Board may issue a certificate
authorizing the whole or any part thereof for such limited periods
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2145
as may be required by the public convenience and necessity, if it
finds that the applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform
such transportation and to conform to the provisions of this Act
and the rules, regulations, and requirements of the Board hereun-
der.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATE
(e) Each certificate issued under this section shall specify the
terminal points and intermediate points, if any, between which the
air carrier is authorized to engage in air transportation and the
service to be rendered; and there shall be attached to the exercise
of the privileges granted by the certificate, or amendment thereto,
such reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations as the public
interest may require. A certificate issued under this section to
engage in foreign air transportation shall, insofar as the operation
is to take place without the United States, designate the terminal
and intermediate points only insofar as the Board shall deem
practicable, and otherwise shall designate only the general route
or routes to be followed. Any air carrier holding a certificate for
foreign air transportation shall be authorized to handle and trans-
port mail of countries other than the United States. No term,
condition, or limitation of a certificate shall restrict the right of
an air carrier to add to or change schedules, equipment, accommo-
dations, and facilities for performing the authorized transporta-
tion and service as the development of the business and the de-
mands of the public shall require. No air carrier shall be deemed
to have violated any term, condition, or limitation of its certificate
by landing or taking off during an emergency at a point not
named in its certificate or by operating in an emergency under
regulations which may be prescribed by the Board, between termi-
nal and intermediate points other than those specified in its certif-
icate. Any air carrier may make charter trips or perform any
other special service, without regard to the points named in its
certificate, under regulations prescribed by the Board.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF CERTIFICATE
(f) Each certificate shall be effective from the date specified
therein, and shall continue in effect until suspended or revoked as
hereinafter provided, or until the Board shall certify that opera-
tion thereunder has ceased, or, if issued for a limited period of
time under subsection (d) (2) of this section, shall continue in
effect until the expiration thereof, unless, prior to the date of
-------
2146 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
expiration, such certificate shall be suspended or revoked as pro-
vided herein, or the Board shall certify that operations thereunder
have ceased: Provided, That
[p. 755]
if any service authorized by a certificate is not inaugurated within
such period, not less than ninety days, after the date of the au-
thorization as shall be fixed by the Board, or if, for a period of
ninety days or such other period as may be designated by the
Board any such service is not operated, the Board may by order,
entered after notice and hearing, direct that such certificate shall
thereupon cease to be effective to the extent of such service.
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY, SUSPEND, OR REVOKE
(g) The Board upon petition or complaint or upon its own
initiative, after notice and hearings, may alter, amend, modify, or
suspend any such certificate, in whole or in part, if the public
convenience and necessity so require, or may revoke any such
certificate, in whole or in part, for intentional failure to comply
with any provision of this title or any order, rule, or regulation
issued hereunder or any term, condition, or limitation of such
certificate: Provided. That no such certificate shall be revoked
unless the holder thereof fails to comply, within a reasonable time
to be fixed by the Board, with an order of the Board commanding
obedience to the provision, or to the order (other than an order
issued in accordance with this proviso), rule, regulation, term,
condition, or limitation found by the Board to have been violated.
Any interested person may file with the Board a protest or memo-
randum in support of or in opposition to the alteration, amend-
ment, modification, suspension, or revocation of the certificate.
TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATE
(h) No certificate may be transferred unless such transfer is
approved by the Board as being consistent with the public inter-
est.
CERTAIN BIGHTS NOT CONFERRED BY CERTIFICATE
(i) No certificate shall confer any proprietary, property, or
exclusive right in the use of any airspace, Federal airway, landing
area, or air-navigation facility.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2147
APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT
(j) No air carrier shall abandon any route, or part thereof,
for which a certificate has been issued by the Board, unless, upon
the application of such air carrier, after notice and hearing, the
Board shall find such abandonment to be in the public interest.
Any interested person may file with the Board a protest or memo-
randum of opposition to or in support of any such abandonment.
The Board may, by regulations or otherwise, authorize such tem-
porary suspension of service as may be in the public interest.
COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR LEGISLATION
(k) (1) Every air carrier shall maintain rates of compensation,
maximum hours, and other working conditions and relations of all
of its pilots and copilots who are engaged in interstate air trans-
portation within the continental United States (not including
Alaska) so as to conform with decision numbered 83 made by the
National Labor Board on May 10, 1934, notwithstanding any limi-
tation therein as to the period of its effectiveness.
(2) Every air carrier shall maintain rates of compensation for
all of its pilots and copilots who are engaged in overseas or for-
eign air transportation or air transportation wholly within a Ter-
ritory or
[p. 756]
possession of the United States, the minimum of which shall be
not less, upon an annual basis, than the compensation required
to be paid under said decision 83 for comparable service to pilots
and copilots engaged in interstate air transportation within the
continental United States (not including Alaska).
(3) Nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting
the right of any such pilots or copilots, or other employees, of any
such air carrier to obtain by collective bargaining higher rates of
compensation or more favorable working conditions or relations.
(4) It shall be a condition upon the holding of a certificate by
any air carrier that such carrier shall comply with title II of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended.
(5) The term "pilot" as used in this subsection shall mean an
employee who is responsible for the manipulation of or who ma-
nipulates the flight controls of an aircraft while under way includ-
ing takeoff and landing of such aircraft, and the term "copilot" as
used in this subsection shall mean an employee any part of whose
duty is to assist or relieve the pilot in such manipulation, and who
-------
2148 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
is properly qualified to serve as, and holds a currently effective
airman certificate authorizing him to serve as, such pilot or copi-
lot.
[p. 757]
TITLE VI—SAFETY REGULATION OF CIVIL AERONAU-
TICS
GENERAL SAFETY POWERS AND DUTIES
MINIMUM STANDARDS; RULES AND REGULATIONS
SEC. 601. (a) The Administrator is empowered and it shall be
his duty to promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air com-
merce by prescribing and revising from time to time:
(1) Such minimum standards governing the design, materials,
workmanship, construction, and performance of aircraft, aircraft
engines, and propellers as may be required in the interest of
safety;
(2) Such minimum standards governing appliances as may be
required in the interest of safety;
(3) Reasonable rules and regulations and minimum standards
governing, in the interest of safety, (A) the inspection, servicing,
and overhaul of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appli-
ances; (B) the equipment and facilities for such inspection, serv-
icing, and overhaul; and (C) in the discretion of the Administra-
tor, the periods for, and the manner in, which such inspection,
servicing, and overhaul shall be made, including provision for
examinations and reports by properly qualified private persons
whose examinations or reports the Administrator may accept in
lieu of those made by its officers and employees;
(4) Reasonable rules and regulations governing the reserve
supply of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and
aircraft fuel and oil, required in the interest of safety, including
the reserve supply of aircraft fuel and oil which shall be carried in
flight;
(5) Reasonable rules and regulations governing, in the interest
of safety, the maximum hours or periods of service of airmen, and
other employees, of air carriers; and
(6) Such reasonable rules and regulations, or minimum stand-
ards, governing other practices, methods, and procedure, as the
Administrator may find necessary to provide adequately for na-
tional security and safety in air commerce.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2149
NEEDS OF SERVICE TO BE CONSIDERED; CLASSIFICATION OF STAND-
ARDS, ETC.
(b) In prescribing- standards, rules, and regulations, and in
issuing certificates under this title, the Administrator shall give
full consideration to the duty resting upon air carriers to perform
their services with the highest possible degree of safety in the
public interest and to any differences between air transportation
and other air commerce; and he shall make classifications of such
standards, rules, regulations, and certificates appropriate to the
differences between air transportation and other air commerce.
The Administrator may authorize any aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance, for which an aircraft certificate authoriz-
ing use thereof in air transportation has been issued, to be used in
other air commerce without the issuance of a further certificate.
The Administrator shall exercise and perform his powers and
duties under this Act in such manner as will best tend to reduce or
eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, accidents in air
transportation, but shall not deem himself required to give prefer-
ence to either air transportation or other air commerce in the
administration and enforcement of this title.
[p. 775]
EXEMPTIONS
(c) The Administrator from time to time may grant exemptions
from the requirements of any rule or regulation prescribed under
this title if he finds that such action would be in the public inter-
est.
AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATES
TYPE CERTIFICATES
SEC. 603. (a) (1) The Administrator is empowered to issue
type certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, and propellers; to
specify in regulations the appliances for which the issuance of
type certificates is reasonably required in the interest of safety;
and to issue such certificates for appliances so specified.
[p. 776]
(2) Any interested person may file with the Administrator an
application for a type certificate for an aircraft, aircraft engine,
-------
2150 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
propeller, or appliance specified in regulations under paragraph
(1) of this subsection. Upon receipt of an application, the Admin-
istrator shall make an investigation thereof and may hold hear-
ings thereon. The Administrator shall make, or require the appli-
cant to make, such tests during manufacture and upon completion
as the Administrator deems reasonably necessary in the interest
of safety, including flight tests and tests of raw materials or any
part or appurtenance of such aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance. If the Administrator finds that such aircraft, air-
craft engine, propeller, or appliance is of proper design, material,
specification, construction, and performance for safe operation,
and meets the minimum standards, rules, and regulations pre-
scribed by the Administrator, he shall issue a type certificate there-
for. The Administrator may prescribe in any such certificate the
duration thereof and such other terms, conditions, and limitations
as are required in the interest of safety. The Administrator may
record upon any certificate issued for aircraft, aircraft engines, or
propellers, a numerical determination of all of the essential fac-
tors relative to the performance of the aircraft, aircraft engine, or
propeller for which the certificate is issued.
PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE
(b) Upon application, and if it satisfactorily appears to the
Administrator that duplicates of any aircraft, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance for which a type certificate has been issued
will conform to such certificate, the Administrator shall issue a
production certificate authorizing the production of duplicates of
such aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances. The Ad-
ministrator shall make such inspection and may require such tests
of any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance manufac-
tured under a production certificate as may be necessary to assure
manufacture of each unit in conformity with the type certificate
or any amendment or modification thereof. The Administrator
may prescribe in any such production certificate the duration
thereof and such other terms, conditions, and limitations as are
required in the interest of safety.
AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE
(c) The registered owner of any aircraft may file with the
Administrator an application for an airworthiness certificate for
such aircraft. If the Administrator finds that the aircraft con-
forms to the type certificate therefor, and, after inspection, that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2151
the aircraft is in condition for safe operation, he shall issue an
airworthiness certificate. The Administrator may prescribe in
such certificate the duration of such certificate, the type of service
for which the aircraft may be used, and such other terms, condi-
tions, and limitations as are required in the interest of safety.
Each such certificate shall be registered by the Administrator and
shall set forth such information as the Administrator may deem
advisable. The certificate number, or such other individual desig-
nation as may be required by the Administrator, shall be displayed
upon each aircraft in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator.
[p. 777]
AIR CARRIER OPERATING CERTIFICATES :
POWER TO ISSUE
SEC. 604. (a) The Administrator is empowered to issue air
carrier operating certificates and to establish minimum safety
standards for the operation of the air carrier to whom any such
certificate is issued.
ISSUANCE
(b) Any person desiring to operate as an air carrier may file
with the Administrator an application for an air carrier operating
certificate. If the Administrator finds, after investigation, that
such person is properly and adequately equipped and able to con-
duct a safe operation in accordance with the requirements of this
Act and the rules, regulations, and standards prescribed thereun-
der, he shall issue an air carrier operating certificate to such
person. Each air carrier operating certificate shall prescribe such
terms, conditions, and limitations as are reasonably necessary to
assure safety in air transportation, and shall specify the points to
and from which, and the Federal airways over which, such person
is authorized to operate as an air carrier under an air carrier
operating certificate.
[p. 778]
AMENDENT, SUSPENSION, AND, REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES
SEC. 609. The Administrator may, from time to time, reinspect
any civil aircraft, aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance, air navi-
-------
2152 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
gation facility, or air agency, or may reexamine any civil airman.
If, as a result of any such reinspection or reexamination, or if, as
a result of any other investigation made by the Administrator, he
determines that safety in air commerce or air transportation and
the public interest requires, the Administrator may issue an order
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking, in whole or in
part, any type certificate, production certificate, airworthiness cer-
tificate, airman certificate, air carrier operating certificate, air
navigation facility certificate, or air agency certificate. Prior to
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any of the forego-
ing certificates, the Administrator shall advise the holder thereof
as to any charges or other reasons relied upon by the Administra-
tor for his proposed action and, except in cases of emergency, shall
provide the holder of such a certificate an opportunity to answer
any charges and be heard as to why such certificate should not be
amended, modified, suspended, or revoked. Any person whose cer-
tificate is affected by such an order of the Administrator under
this section may appeal the Administrator's order to the Board
and the Board may, after notice and hearing, amend, modify, or
reverse the Administrator's order if it finds that safety in air
commerce or air transportation and the public interest do not
require affirmation of the Administrator's order. In the conduct of
its hearings the Board shall not be bound by findings of fact of the
Administrator. The filing of an appeal with the Board shall stay
the effectiveness of the Administrator's order unless the Adminis-
trator advises
[p. 779]
the Board that an emergency exists and safety in air commerce
or air transportation requires the immediate effectiveness of his
order, in which event the order shall remain effective and the
Board shall finally dispose of the appeal within sixty days after
being so advised by the Administrator. The person substantially
affected by the Board's order may obtain judicial review of said
order under the provisions of section 1006, and the Administrator
shall be made a party to such proceedings.
[p. 780]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2153
1.10a(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 1811, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
JULY 9 (legislative day, JULY 7), 1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MONRONEY, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3880]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (S. 3880) to create an independent Federal
Aviation Agency, to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
airspace by both civil and military operations, and to provide for
the regulation and promotion of civil aviation in such manner as
to best foster its development and safety, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend
that the bill as amended do pass.
I. SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The present measure, to be cited as the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, reenacts the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 substantially
changed to create a separate Federal Aviation Agency. The Ad-
ministrator of the new Agency (1) would be given full responsi-
bility and authority for the advancement and promotion of civil
aeronautics generally, including the promulgation and enforce-
ment of safety regulations, and (2) would be charged with the
management of the national airspace, including responsibility for
prescribing air traffic rules and for the development and operation
of air navigation facilities. Appropriate military participation in
the latter function is also provided for.
In addition, the bill makes technical and perfecting amendments
in existing aviation law, to conform to the new organization.
526-704 0-73-26
-------
2154 LEGAL COMPILATION — AIR
II. TiTLE-BY-TlTLE SUMMARY
Title I. General provisions: Contains no important changes in
existing law. The list of definitions has been amended in several
respects to accommodate substantive changes made by the pro-
posed act, to reflect current judicial interpretations, or to delete
obsolete material.
The declaration of congressional policy is divided into two sec-
tions, one addressed to the Civil Aeronautics Board and the other
to the Administrator of the newly created Agency. This is fol-
lowed by a reamrmation of the public right of freedom of transit
through the navigable airspace.
Title II. Organization and general powers of Board: Reestab-
lishes the present Civil Aeronautics Board as a statutory body,
retaining current provisions regarding membership, appointment,
qualifications, and tenure. Provisions granting necessary general
powers to the Board are strengthened by allowances for super-
grades and for technical training of employees.
Title III. Organization of Agency and powers and duties of
Administrator: Is almost entirely new. It establishes a new Fed-
eral Aviation Agency under the direction of a civilian Administra-
tor and a Deputy Administrator who may be a member of the
Armed Forces. Both shall be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Administrator is empowered to regulate the use of the
navigable airspace ; to acquire, establish, operate, and improve air
navigation facilities ; to prescribe air traffic rules for all aircraft ;
and to conduct related research and development activities. In
addition, his approval would be required for the location or sub-
stantial alteration of any military or civilian airport, or rocket or
missile site, involving the expenditure of Federal funds. Prior
notice to him would also be required for the construction of any
other landing area. Provision is made for exceptions and for a
general exemption from the Administrator's air traffic control
powers in case of a military emergency.
In the exercise of these functions the Administrator is to be
assisted by a staff of military personnel. The President may also
transfer military air traffic control functions and personnel to the
Agency. Provision is made for future reports to Congress on the
effective employment of military staff personnel as well as with
regard to special problems involving the status of operational per-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2155
sonnel. A special study on legislation for wartime operations is
also called for.
Title III also extends appropriate administrative powers and
duties to the Administrator including provisions for the employ-
ment, training, and transfer of personnel; for delegation of func-
tions; acquisition and transfer of property and appropriations;
collection of information; conduct of hearings and investigations;
and publication of required reports.
Title IV. Air carrier economic regulation: Reenacts the current
law governing this subject, deleting or modernizing obsolete lan-
guage. Its provisions cover the following subjects: certificates of
public convenience and necessity; permits to foreign air carriers ;
air carrier tariffs; rates for carriage of persons and property;
rates for transportation of mail; accounts, records and reports;
consolidation, merger and acquisition of control; prohibited inter-
ests ; loans and financial aid; methods of competition; pooling and
other agreements; form of control; legal restraints; inquiry into
air carrier management; and classification and exemption of car-
riers.
Title V. Nationality and ownership of aircraft: Reenacts pres-
ent law regulating the registration of aircraft, vesting responsibil-
ity in the Administrator. It includes a new section 505 authorizing
the issuance of dealers' aircraft certificates as provided in the bill,
S. 3016, which was passed by the Senate on March 3,1958.
[p. 2]
Title VI. Safety regulations of civil aeronautics: Retains most of
the substantive portions of law now regulating the promulgation
of safety rules; issuance of airman, aircraft, and air carrier oper-
ating certificates; inspection and rating of air agencies and facili-
ties ; and listing of prohibited acts, including the violation of the
terms of air agency certificates as provided in S. 1749 passed by
the Senate on March 6, 1958. In addition to CAA's present certifi-
cation, rating and inspection authority, all safety rulemaking pow-
ers are transferred to the Administrator from the Board. The
right of an airman to appeal to the Board the Administrator's
denial or nonrenewal of a certificate is retained and strengthened,
while a party whose right to his current certificate or rating is
questioned as a result of the Administrator's reinspection is enti-
tled to a hearing and to an appeal to the Board from any subse-
quent unfavorable order and thence an appeal to the courts.
Title VII, Aircraft accident investigation: Continues in substan-
tial effect present Board responsibility for the conduct and report
-------
2156 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
of aircraft accident investigations, and continues appropriate par-
ticipation by the Agency. New sections provide for cooperation
with military authorities in accident cases involving military air-
craft, and for the convening of a special public board to investi-
gate major air disasters.
Title VIII. Other administrative agencies: Is substantially
identical to existing law, continuing the requirement of Presiden-
tial approval of Board orders involving overseas or foreign air
transportation, and providing for appropriate consultation and
coordination by the Secretary of State and Weather Bureau with
the Board and Agency.
Title IX. Penalties: Amends existing law principally to adapt
its terms to the changed requirements of the proposed act. Civil
penalties are additionally provided for violations of titles III and
XII, while present criminal penalties and procedures are contin-
ued in effect for forgery, interference with navigation, granting of
rebates, failure to file or filing of false reports, divulging of infor-
mation (amended to exempt congressional testimony), refusal to
testify, and transporting of explosives. In addition, a new section
is added to incorporate the provisions of sections 11 (b) and (c) of
the Air Commerce Act relating to violations of customs and quar-
antine reglations.
Title X. Procedure: Is also amended only to reflect or clarify
changes made elsewhere in the existing law, except in section 1001
which would specially provide for the participation of the Board
as an interested party in rulemaking proceedings by the Adminis-
trator. Otherwise, the current provisions relating to the conduct of
proceedings, complaints, and investigations, joint CAB-ICC
boards, the taking of evidence, matters involving orders and no-
tice, and judicial review and enforcement are continued essentially
in their present form.
Title XL Miscellaneous: Contains no substantial revision of
sections dealing with hazards to air commerce, the applicability of
international agreements, and use of documents filed. Section
1104, relating to private requests to withhold information, is made
inapplicable to information sought by committees of Congress.
Former sections 1107 through 1110, containing repealing and
amendatory matter, are deleted as obsolete and replaced by the
provisions from the Air Commerce Act dealing with the public use
of facilities, foreign aircraft, and the application of certain ship-
ping, customs, and quarantine laws.
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2157
Title XII. Security provisions: Provides for the establishment
of restricted airspace zones for the security identification of air-
craft. Current law is amended to transfer primary responsibility
to the Administrator as an exercise of his previously granted
authority to regulate airspace use.
Title XIII. War-risk insurance: Authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce, with Presidential approval, to provide otherwise unob-
tainable insurance or reinsurance against losses arising from war
risks, and sets forth detailed requirements for its issuance. This
title contains no change whatever in existing law.
Title XIV. Repeals, amendments, and related provisions: Re-
peals the Air Commerce Act of 1926, the Civil Aeronautics Act of
1938, sections 7 of Reorganization Plans III and IV of 1940, Re-
organization Plan No. 10 of 1953, and the Airways Modernization
Act of 1957. Technical amendments required by the establishment
of the Agency and consequent transferring of functions are made
to all appropriate statutes. This title also contains appropriate
savings and separability clauses, and an effective date of 90 to 180
days following enactment, as determined by the Administrator.
[p. 4]
V. DISCUSSION OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS
The present legislation attempts to correct two fundamental
deficiencies which now exist in the exercise of our Federal Govern-
ment's responsibility for aviation matters. Discussed in a previous
section, these two shortcomings may be stated as follows:
[p.»]
(1) Diffusion of authority for the general regulation of civil
aeronautics together with a subordination of aviation interests
within the Government; and
(2) Lack of clear statutory authority for centralized airspace
management and essentially related activities.
The way in which S. 3880 meets each of these problems will be
discussed in turn, followed by a review of the bill's provision for
military participation.
A. UNIFIED REGULATION OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
The proposed legislation abolishes the present unnatural divi-
sion of responsibility between the Civil Aeronautics Administra-
tion and the Civil Aeronautics Board for the promotion of civil
-------
2158 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
aeronautics generally, and gives full authority in this field to a
new Federal Aviation Agency. The Agency, headed by a civilian
administrator, would replace the present Civil Aeronautics Ad-
ministration, assuming all of its existing functions as well as all
safety regulatory functions of the Civil Aeronautics Board. It
would be independent of any other Government agency and re-
sponsible only to the Congress, the President and the public.
The Civil Aeronautics Board, in addition to its economic regula-
tory functions, would retain accident investigation responsibilities
and would continue to exercise other quasi-judicial powers with
respect to Agency action involving individual airman, aircraft,
and related safety certificates.
Safety rule-making
The question of transferring to the Agency power to prescribe
rules and standards for civil aviation safety—those powers enu-
merated in title VI of the present act—was one which gave your
committee particular concern. The transfer was supported by the
executive representatives and by a significant segment of private
industry spokesmen, including the Air Transport Association. It
was specifically opposed by other industry groups as well as by the
Civil Aeronautics Board.
The gist of the argument for retaining these powers in the
Board is that they involve quasi-legislative functions which should
not be entrusted to a possibly arbitrary or capricious administra-
tor. Your committee has considered this argument carefully but
feels it is not completely applicable to the realities of the situation.
In actual practice, the promulgation of safety standards is now
very often carried out by the Civil Aeronautics Administration
under section 601 (c) authorizing delegation of this responsibility
by the Board. That so much of this responsibility has been dele-
gated is, we believe, a recognition of the natural competence which
an operating agency possesses in this field. Furthermore, rules
promulgated by the Board are normally amplified by more detailed
interpretive regulations issued by the CAA.
The theory that rulemaking is to be done only by a body of
judicially minded, disinterested laymen applies well in the field of
economic regulation. There the problem is one of balancing com-
peting business interests; technical problems, if existent, are
largely incidental. The theory tends to break down, however, when
applied to the promulgation of minimum aviation safety stand-
ards. Here, the competition,
[p. 10]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2159
if any, is between men and machines; the standard to be applied
being principally determined by existing technical considerations.
Competing economic interests may indeed be involved, but here
it is they that are indicental..
In no area of its activities is the Board more completely depend-
ent upon its staff of experts than in the field of safety rulemaking.
It might well be said that it is the staff rather than the Board
which formulates the rule—and then usually only after close con-
sultation with personnel of the CAA, the operating agency, who
bear the day-to-day responsibility for air navigation safety.
As long as such close consultation exists, the problem of the
present division of safety regulatory authority would not be so
great. However, this is not always the case. For example, in at
least one vitally important area, the prescription of physical
standards for airmen, which your committee has studied in
connection with other proposed legislation pending before it, we
have been informed that Board action is normally taken without
primary consideration being given to recommendations of the
CAA medical staff.
It is principally for these reasons, and in the belief that aviation
safety is essentially indivisible, that your committee recommends
the provisions of S. 3880 transferring these functions to the new
Agency.
As originally proposed, S. 3880 would have permitted the appeal
of safety-rule-making action by the Administrator to the Board
whenever economic hardship might be involved. Your committee
has deleted this provision, however, since in practical effect it
would have allowed virtually all such rules to be appealed, thus
frustrating and inhibiting the efficient discharge of this vital func-
tion by the Administrator, and continuing the present dichotomy
in rulemaking. An appeal to the Board would still be allowed for
persons adversely affected by certificate denial, modification, or
revocation actions with certain exceptions. In these cases it is
quasi-judicial competence which is especially called for.
Section 609 of the proposed legislation makes slight modification
of the present system of appeals. Under the new legislation, the
Administrator would be authorized to issue a preliminary order
directing the amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation
of any airman or other safety certificate. This differs from the
present law under which the administrator of the CAA cannot
take such action except in the case of an emergency, seeking sus-
pension or revocation with the Civil Aeronautics Board, which,
after a formal hearing, may suspend or revoke. This procedure
-------
2160 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
has caused substantial delays. The present measure authorizes the
Administrate! to issue a preliminary order amending, modifying,
suspending, or revoking any airman or other safety certificate.
However, the Administrator can do this only after he has advised
the holder of the certificate of the charges against him and pro-
vided such person an opportunity to informally present his de-
fenses to the Administrator. Thereafter, if the holder of the certifi-
cate remains dissatisfied with the action of the Administrator, he
still has his right to appeal to the Civil Aeronautics Board, where
he will be given full hearing, complying in all respects with the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
So far as the danger of arbitrary or capricious Agency action is
concerned, the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally
would apply to Agency rulemaking processes, offers an effective
safeguard.
[p. 11]
In addition, section 1001 has been amended to provide that the
Board may appear as a specially interested party in all rule-
making hearings by the agency.
In this connection, a fear has also been expressed that by trans-
ferring rulemaking activities from the Board, Congress will have
divested itself of its present supervisory powers over the exercise
of such functions. Your committee believes such fears to be un-
warranted. The origin of the rulemaker's responsibility to Con-
gress is constitutional. It is distinctly not the intention of the
present measure to make the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Agency in any way less responsive to Congress than is the
present Board. The point was nowhere better expressed than by
Louis S. Rothschild, Under Secretary of Commerce for Transpor-
tation, in the hearings on this measure:
Our courts are our constant safeguard against the exercise of
power arbitrarily—Congress is our safeguard against the
exercise of authority unwisely.
[P. 12]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2161
1.10a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 2360, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
AUGUST 2, 1958.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To acompany S. 3880]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (S. 3880), to create a Civil Aeronautics Board
and a Federal Aviation Agency, to provide for the regulation and
promotion of civil aviation in such manner as to best foster its
development and safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient
use of the airspace by both civil and military aircraft, having con-
sidered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment to the text of the bill strikes out all after the
enacting clause and inserts a substitute which appears in the
reported bill in italic type.
The committee also has amended the title of the bill to conform
to the changes made in the text.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The principal purpose of this legislation is to establish a new
Federal agency with powers adequate to enable it to provide for
the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by both civil
and military operations.
Therefore, it proposes to establish a separate Federal Aviation
Agency with the powers described below. The new Agency would
replace the present Civil Aeronautics Administration.
The Administrator of the new Federal Aviation Agency (1)
-------
2162 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIE
would be given full responsibility and authority for the advance-
ment and promotion of civil aeronautics generally, including the
promulgation and enforcement of safety regulations, and (2)
would be charged with
[p.l]
the management of the national airspace, including responsibility
for establishing and enforcing air traffic rules and for the develop-
ment and operation of air-navigation facilities. Appropriate mili-
tary participation in the Agency is provided.
At the same time, the legislation would continue the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, with the same authority it now has with respect to
air carrier economic regulation. The Board's responsibility for the
conduct and report of aircraft accident investigations is continued
substantially as under present law, with appropriate participation
by the Federal Aviation Agency. New provision is made for coop-
eration with military authorities and for the convening of a special
public board to investigate major air disasters. The Civil Aero-
nautics Board is given authority to hear and determine two types
of appeals. Appeals can be taken to the Board from actions of the
Administrator involving airmen's certificates and the certification
of aircraft on reinspection by the Administrator.
The new Federal Aviation Agency would be headed by a civilian
Administrator with plenary authority to—
(a) Allocate airspace and control its use by both civil and
military aircraft;
(&) Make and enforce air traffic rules for both civil and
military aircraft;
(c) Develop and operate a common system of air naviga-
tion facilities for both civil and military aircraft;
(d) Make and enforce safety regulations governing the
design and operation of civil aircraft.
[p. 2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2163
1.10a(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2556, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
AUGUST 12, 1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HARRIS, from the committee of conference, submitted
the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 3880]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3880) en-
titled "An Act to create a Civil Aeronautics Board and a Federal
Aviation Agency, to provide for the regulation and promotion of
civil aviation in such manner as to best foster its development
and safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
airspace by both civil and military aircraft", having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do rec-
ommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the text of the Senate bill and agree to the same
with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following: That this Act, divided into titles
and sections according to the following table of contents, may be
cited as the "Federal Aviation Act of 1958."***.
-------
2164
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10a(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 104 (1958)
1.10a(4)(a) July 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 13621,
13645,13650
FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
—PROPOSED FEDERAL AVIA-
TION AGENCY
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 3880) to create an
independent Federal Aviation Agency,
to provide for the safe and efficient
use of the airspace by both civil and
military operations, and to provide for
the regulation and promotion of civil
aviation in such manner as to best
foster its development and safety,
which had been reported from the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, with an amendment, to
strike out all after the enacting
clause and insert:
That this act, divided into titles and sec-
tions according to the following table of con-
tents, may be cited as the "Federal Aviation
Act of 1958" ......
[p. 13621]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CLARK in the chair). The question is
on agreeing to the committee amend-
ment, which is in the nature of a com-
plete substitute. Under the precedents
it will be considered as original text
for the purpose of amendment.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
urge immediate Senate approval of S.
3880, the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, as amended by the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce. I
believe its passage at this session of
Congress is as urgent as any matter
which will come before us. I believe
that the failure to do so will cost
human lives. I believe that this is a
good bill. It is the result of thorough
hearings, long study, hard work, and
the cooperative effort of every major
segment of American aviation and
every affected department or agency
of the Federal Government. It repre-
sents the kind of bipartisan job which
Americans can perform when the pub-
lic interest requires it.
I am proud of this bill. But I am
more proud of the men and women
who have contributed to its prepara-
tion from their knowledge and experi-
ence in aviation and in government.
They have given of their time; they
have dealt with the committee with
frankness and courage; they have put
aside special interests and special
causes, however just, in order to com-
plete the principal job at hand—the
creation of an adequate modern avia-
tion agency capable of coping with the
problems of the air age. They have my
heartfelt thanks. They deserve the
Nation's thanks.
I wish particularly to single out two
men who spent many nights and many
early morning hours putting together
the bill which is before us, which rep-
resents a complete codification of al
the aviation law. It totals approxi-
mately 250 pages. Because of the nu-
merous changes required in the avia-
tion statutes, we determined that it
would be best completely to modernize
all the law which had been written,
amended, changed, or modified by re-
organization plans, so that when we
finally passed the bill we would b«
able to place in the hands of hundreds
of thousands of people in the vital
dynamic business of aviation, a compi-
lation of laws which would meat
something, to which they could readil;
turn to find out what the law pro
vided. This made it desirable that th(
obsolete or no longer useful sections
of the law be repealed or dropped.
The two men to whom I make spe
cial reference are Mr. Robert Murphy
attorney for the Aviation Subcommit
tee of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, and my ad
ministrative assistant, Thomas I
Finney, Jr. Through their contact
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2165
and discussions with those interested
in the proposed legislation, the differ-
ences which developed in connection
with the first drafts of the bill led to
dozens of changes and amendments,
which I believe will command nearly
100 percent support by users of the
airspace, both civilian and military.
There are, of course, some differ-
ences of opinion over minor features
of the bill, and there is one difference
which is not so minor.
I believe that most users of the air-
space will agree that, on net balance,
;he bill will mark a great milestone in
aviation law, and will give us the kind
of organizational plan which will ena-
)le the industry to carry the ex-
;remely heavy extra load placed upon
t by the advent of the jet air age.
The committee has attempted in its
report to discuss fully and frankly the
listory of our aviation statutes, the
jonditions which compel their modern-
zation, and the provisions of the
lending bill. In addition, each Senator
las been supplied with a text of the
)ill showing changes proposed to be
nade in existing law, and explaining
>riefly the nature of each such
:hange. I therefore feel that it is un-
lecessary that T take the time of the
Members for a long and detailed dis-
cussion of each provision of the bill.
lather, I shall attempt to indicate, a?
iriefly as possible, what is sought to
ie accomplished by this measure, and
he methods proposed to be used.
The first basic Federal aviation
tatute was the Air Commerce Act of
926. It placed responsibility for regu-
ation of civil aviation on the Secre-
ary of Commerce, and resulted in the
reation of a bureau within the De-
artment of Commerce for this pur-
ose. However, it gave to the Presi-
ent authority to reserve airspace for
jecial purposes, and this grant of
lower has survived to this day.
The years that followed demon-
,rated the growth capacity of air
ommerce and the incapacity of the
Air Commerce Act. They saw the air-
mail contract scandals, the fiasco of
military transport of mail, and a se-
ries of tragic accidents which culmi-
nated in the death of a beloved Mem-
ber of the Senate. More effective regu-
lation was obviously required, and for
several years Congress debated its
method.
Finally, in 1938, the Congress
passed the Civil Aeronautics Act. Its
author was the late great Senator
McCarran.
This act recognized the need for a
unified aviation agency, and created
the Civil Aeronautics Authority com-
posed of a five-member board, an op-
erating segment headed by an admin-
istrator, and a semi-autonomous Air
Safety Board. Almost before the ink
was dry on the act it was altered by a
reorganization plan. The Air Safety
Board was abolished; the five-member
Authority became the Civil Aeronau-
tics Board; and the operating segment
became a part of the Department of
Commerce under the name "Civil Aer-
onautics Administration."
Since that time the operating
agency has continued as a subordinate
branch of this Department, while
safety rulemaking, economic regula-
tion, and accident investigation have
been performed by the CAB. Thus
while the CAA operated the airways,
the CAB made air traffic rules, and
the President continued to reserve air-
space under the 1926 act. Research
and development—the only source of
real progress in air navigation and
traffic control—was left to chance.
Air traffic and air speeds doubled,
and doubled, and doubled again. What
were once "limitless oceans of air" be-
came a vanishing resource. Two thou-
sand commercial and sixty thousand
private planes, subject to civil air reg-
ulations and traffic rules, competed for
the airspace with over thirty thousand
military aircraft, which have been
largely exempt from effective air
traffic control. Years of subordination
-------
2166
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and neglect of civil aviation, and dif-
fusion of civil and military responsi-
bility, prevented the development of
an adequate common system of air
traffic control for all users of the air-
space. Diffuse and conflicting organi-
zation was attempted to be cured by
ad hoc committees, panels, confer-
ences, boards, and, on the part of
those who flew the airways, by silent
prayer. Only the latter can account
for the fact that more Americans
have not died in mid-air collisions.
Enough have died so that every wit-
ness before the committee was at last
ready to admit that something must
be done.
Numerous people—in and out of
Government—have contributed and
are contributing to the solution of
these problems. Indispensable to their
final solution is adequate government
organization—it is this need which the
present measure seeks to fill.
This is the organization which the
bill provides.
First. It creates a unified Federal
aviation agency, headed by a civilian
Administrator, with plenary authority
to—
(a) Allocate airspace and control
its use by both civil and military air-
craft;
(b) Make and enforce air traffic
rules for both civil and military air-
craft ;
(c) Develop and operate a common
system of air navigation facilities for
both civil and military aircraft; and
(d) Make and enforce safety regu-
lations governing the design and oper-
ation of civil aircraft.
[p. 13645]
Second. It creates a statutory Civil
Aeronautics Board, retaining its
present composition, its present re-
sponsibilities for investigation of air
accidents, and its present economic
regulation of air transportation.
Third. It provides for special boards
of inquiry, with public members ap-
pointed by the President at the re-
quest of the CAB, to investigate
major air accidents; and it makes spe-
cial provision for investigation of ac-
cidents involving military aircraft.
Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I am very happy
to yield to the distinguished Senator
from Minnesota, who has been very
helpful in all matters pertaining to
aviation.
Mr. THYE. The question I have to
propound relates to the Civil Aero-
nautics Board. The Senator has
touched on it in his remarks. Will the
Civil Aeronautics Board continue in
existence if the bill is enacted into
law?
Mr. MONRONEY. Indeed it will,
save for the one function dealing with
safety rules which are now handled by
the Civil Aeronautics Board. Rules
and regulations dealing with the
clearing of certain obstructions bj
aircraft, for example, have beer
transferred to the Administrator, ir
the belief that, as the head of the op-
erating agency, he is more familial
with the problems and more keenh
aware of the urgency of the need o
prescribing such rules and regula
tions. The provision dealing wit
safety regulations is the one changi
wih respect to the present jurisdic
tion of the Civil Aeronautics Boari
which has been made.
Under the provisions of this bil
even in that respect, the Board i
given the right to hear and determin
two types of appeals. Appeals can b
taken from the Federal Aviation Ac
ministrator on questions involving ail
men's certificates and the certificatio
of aircraft on reinspection by the Ac
ministrator.
Mr. THYE. If the Senator wi
yield further I should like to ask hit
another question. As I look at the bil
at page 27, I note there is certain lar
guage which has been stricken. It a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2167
>ears in subparagraph (c), and
•eads:
"(c) The Board may, on its own initiative
r upon the request of an affected person,
uspend for review any rule, regulation, or
linimum standard issued by the Administra-
or under this section, when the Board finds
here are reasonable grounds to believe that
uch rule, regulation, or minimum standard
rill impose substantial economic hardship on
ersons affected thereby without sufficient
ause."
That deals with one part of the
uestion I wished to ask the Senator
rom Oklahoma. By striking out that
mguage we would take from the
oard the right to look into the affairs
aviation companies. The Adminis-
•ator will have supervision, as he
roceeds to prescribe rules. The Ad-
ilnistrator, as one individual, would
>me from one part of the Nation.
owever, the members of the Board
re selected on a nationwide basis. I
ondered about the wisdom of taking
tat power away from the Board.
hat was what concerned me.
The language reads, further:
"In the event of such finding and suspen-
>n, the Board shall immediately initiate pro-
edings for review of such rule, regulation,
minimum standard, and shall, insofar as
acticable, give priority to such proceedings
er all others under this act. If upon such
view the Board finds that such rule, regula-
>n, or minimum standard would impose sub-
intial economic hardship on persons affected
ereby without sufficient cause, i. shall have
2 authority to order such modification as it
ly deem necessary to eliminate such sub-
intial economic hardship: Provided, That
thing in this subsection shall be construed
amending, modifying, or repealing any pro-
lion of the Administrative Procedure Act.";
Let us assume that company A in
rizona finds that a rule developed
id put into effect by the Administra-
r will have an adverse effect upon it.
that company had the right of ap-
:al to the Board, and the Board
uld exercise its good judgment, we
uld make certain that the company's
,erest would be protected. I have no
ason for referring to company A in
Arizona. I use it merely as an exam-
ple.
Mr. MONRONEY. When the bill
was first drafted and introduced in
the Senate, it contained a provision
for an appeal on economic grounds.
After very careful study by the execu-
tive departments interested in an ap-
propriate overall agency and a proper
extension of authority to deal with the
problems of air navigation and air
traffic controls, they were unanimous
in insisting that the right of appeal
on economic matters would subject
any rule made in the interest of
safety by the new Federal Adminis-
trator to a continuing review.
I agreed with them, after I heard
their arguments. There is hardly any
safety rule made by the Administra-
tor which would not have some eco-
nomic implications.
Therefore, the necessity of meeting
the challenge for an adequate air
safety rule, put into effect by the Ad-
ministrator after full consultation
with all his experts, including the mil-
itary associates, requires the proce-
dure provided. The committee felt it
would be in the interest of expediting
matters and bringing about finality.
For example, a rule dealing with
deicing of propellers might be re-
quired to go into effect within a rea-
sonable time. However, if we were to
subject it because of economic reasons,
to a continuing review by the Civil
Aeronautics Board, the enforcement
of the rule could be delayed, and it
might not receive the expedition which
the centralization of authority in one
agency would otherwise give it.
Mr. THYE. I have one other ques-
tion to ask of the distinguished Sena-
tor.
Mr. MONRONEY. I am very happy
to yield.
Mr. THYE. I was so deeply con-
cerned about the striking of this sec-
tion that I had prepared an amend-
ment which I intended to offer and
support. That is why I am asking my
-------
2168
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
questions. Let us suppose a company
feels that a certain ruling, if it goes
into effect, •will ruin the company, and
therefore it wishes to appeal the rul-
ing. Where is there any provision in
the bill which will permit such an ap-
peal to the Board?
Mr. MONRONEY. With respect to
all decisions of the Administrator, a
company would have the right within
60 days, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, to go into a district
court and challenge the decision of the
Administrator, the same as in the case
of an appeal from any other Govern-
ment agency or Government adminis-
trator, including the Civil Aeronautics
Board, today. If the court finds that
the rule was made without the proper
authority, or if it was made arbitrar-
ily and capriciously, then the court
can set aside the ruling of the Admin-
istrator. Actually, the Board initiates
the rules themselves, so there is only
such administrative review in the
court today.
We are substituting, for the Board
of five, the Administrator; but we are
also substituting, in the rulemaking
position, a man who will be techni-
cally competent, because the bill re-
quires him to have had previous avia-
tion experience. We trust he will have
a staff of the most competent persons
in the United States in the field of
aviation. He will consult with them in
the making of the rules. Therefore, we
felt, after the hearings, and after
having listened to the Board explain
the rulemaking process, that the
transference of this power to the Fed-
eral Administrator would provide
more competence in the field of rule-
making than now exists in the Civil
Aeronautics Board.
Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. THYE. Will the Board have an
opportunity to review a rule which is
being contemplated by the Adminis-
trator before it is put into effect?
Mr. MONRONEY. The Board will
not have such an opportunity. The re-
view, as such, will be in the courts.
Today a person who is aggrieved by
safety rulemaking has no appeal ex-
cept to the courts. The Board can do
to him whatever it wishes in the way
of rulemaking. There is no guarantee
that 5 men who are not necessarily
technically experienced in aviatior
will make a better rule than 1 mar
who has been appointed by the Presi
dent because of his aviation compe
tence, whose nomination has been con
firmed by the Senate, and who wil
have a staff of many more competen
persons to advise him than the Boarc
now has.
Mr. THYE. I look upon the Boar<
in this particular instance as bein
somewhat like a jury. A person ma;
not be legally qualified as a lawyer o
a trial judge; yet he may make ai
excellent juror because he takes th
facts and applies common sense, to th
best of his ability, after listening t
the instructions of the judge and th
arguments of the prosecuting attorne
and the defense attorney. It is th
jury which finally makes the decisioi
I have the feeling that the Board
somewhat like a jury. If the Adminis
trator proposed a regulation which h
intended to make effective, governin
all
[p. 13646
commercial aviation companies, a
military flying, and all aviation opers
tions in the vicinity of an airport, an
then the Civil Aeronautics Board ha
an opportunity to review the proposi
before it became effective, I have tt
feeling that the Civil Aeronautii
Board would be acting as a jury.
I do not like to think that evei
company, regardless of its size or
nancial means, will have to go in
court to plead its case. That is n
done under the Food and Drug A
ministration Act. Yet that Admin'
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2169
tration deals with insecticides and
other harmful products.
Mr. MONRONEY. In that case a
person deals with the Administrator
of the Pood and Drug Administration.
In this instance he would deal with
the Federal Aviation Agency.
Mr. THYE. The Administrator has
to announce what he intends to do.
Mr. MONRONEY. But the an-
nouncement will have to be published
in the Federal Register. The manufac-
turers of food find themselves under
the jurisdiction of the Administrator
of the Pure Food and Drug Act. In
this instance, the aviation interests
will be under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Aviation Administrator; but
the rules promulgated by the Admin-
istrator must be published in the Fed-
eral Register.
Perhaps this will be of help to the
Senator from Minnesota. I read from
page 10 of the report.
The theory that rulemaking is to be done
only by a body of judicially minded, disinter-
ested laymen applies well in the field of eco-
nomic regulation. There the problem is one of
balancing competing business interests; techni-
cal problems, if existent, are largely inciden-
tal. The theory tends to break down, however,
when applied to the promulgation of mini-
mum aviation safety standards. Here, the
competition, if any, is between men and ma-
chines; the standard to be applied being prin-
cipally determined by existing technical con-
siderations. Competing economic interests may
be involved, but here it is they that are
incidental.
I read further from page 11:
As originally proposed, S. 3880 would have
permitted the appeal of safety-rule-making
action by the Administrator to the Board
whenever economic hardship might be in-
volved. Your committee has deleted this provi-
sion, however, since in practical effect it
would have allowed virtually all such rules to
be appealed, thus frustrating and inhibiting
the efficient discharge of this vital function by
the Administrator, and continuing the present
dichotomy in rulemaking. An appeal to the
Board would still be allowed for persons ad-
versely affected by certificate denial, modifica-
tion, or revocation actions with certain ex-
ceptions. In these cases it is quasi-judicial
competence which is especially called for.
We were so much worried about
this that we particularly wanted to
preserve—and I feel sure we are in
step with what the Senator desires—
the provision that the safety rules
shall be carefully considered and ex-
amined, not only by the Administra-
tor, not only by his advisory staff, but
by other interested persons. So we
wrote, as a substitute for the lan-
guage which the Senator is proposing,
a provision which appears on page 78
of the changes and amendments which
have been made to the existing law. I
read as follows:
SEC. 1001. The Board and the Administrator,
subject to the provisions of this act and the
Administrative Procedure Act, may conduct
their proceedings in such manner as will be
conducive to the proper dispatch of business
and to the ends of justice. No member of the
Board or Agency shall participate in any
hearings or proceedings in which he has a
pecuniary interest. Any person may appear
before the Board or Agency and be heard in
person or by attorney.
This means that after notice has
been given in the Federal Register,
any interested person may appear be-
fore the Administrator, as heretofore
he could appear before the Board, and
have his day before this Agency.
Furthermore—and I think this is
important because it was included as
an additional safeguard:
The Board, in its discretion, may enter its
appearance and participate as an interested
party in any proceeding conducted by the
Administrator under title III of this act, and
in any proceeding conducted by the Adminis-
trator under title VI of this act from which
no appeal is provided to the Board. Every
vote and official act of the Board and the
Agency shall be entered of record, and the
proceedings thereof shall be open to the public
upon request of any interested party, unless
the Board or the Administrator determines
that secrecy is requisite on grounds of na-
tional defense.
If the Board is dissatisfied with the
proposed rule which is advertised to
be considered, then the Board will ap-
pear in its own right before the Ad-
ministrator and have its say. Believe
me, if the Board waves a red flag and
526-704 O - 73 - 27
-------
2170
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
indicates that there is danger in the
rule proposed to be made, then, make
no mistake about it, the Administra-
tor will surely reserve and reassess
his position and try to determine if
the proposed rule is absolutely and
completely tested as to its validity.
This provision gives this other agency
of the Government which deals with
aviation matters the right publicly to
appear and to voice its doubt or its
approval of a proposed rule.
Mr. THYE. In other words, the
Board is left with all the responsibil-
ity and authority it now possesses,
with one exception, namely, as to the
safety regulations which are to be im-
posed upon the operation of airports,
and the flying operations in or out of
such airports, whether by commercial
or military planes.
Mr. MONRONEY. That is correct;
but the Administrator, under the con-
cept of the bill, having charge of all
airspace, air navigation, and traffic
regulation, must have the authority to
make rules if he is to have the respon-
sibility to administer them.
All the witnesses who testified, and
who had experience, save the Civil
Aeronautics Board alone, were in
favor of providing this authority.
As a matter of fact, in practice the
responsibility for a substantial per-
centage of the air safety rules is now
delegated by the Civil Aeronautics
Board to the Civil Aeronautics Ad-
ministrator, on the basis that even
today he has greater competence
along certain lines, and that that is
the way to expedite the necessary
rulemaking. Consequently, even today
the responsibility for rulemaking has,
to a substantial degree, been turned
over to him.
Mr. THYE. To whom will the
inspectors and technicians who con-
stantly are checking on the crews of
the commercial planes and checking
on operational instructions and on the
general flight conduct of the planes be
responsible?
Mr. MONRONEY. They will be re-
sponsible to the operating Administra-
tor or the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Agency, much the same
as they are today to the Civil Aero-
nautics Administrator. In other
words, the existing duties of the Civil
Aeronautics Administrator will
largely be transferred to the Adminis-
trator of the Federal Aviation
Agency. So there will not be a shift of
those powers as regards the inspec-
tion, and certification, and standards
of performance of aircraft. That re-
sponsibility has always been vested in
the Civil Aeronautics Administrator.
Inasmuch as the Civil Aeronautics
Administration will be the largest
segment of the Federal Aviation
Agency, those powers will remain in-
tact and, under the bill, will be trans-
ferred to the Federal Aviation Admin-
istrator.
Mr. THYE. In other words, the
Board will be stripped of that respon-
sibility, will it?
Mr. MONRONEY. The Board never
has had that responsibility, except in
the case of its own technicians and in
connection with rulemaking. Other-
wise, the Board has not played a part
in that field. It makes no inspections
of aircraft; it does not make tests of
the pilots. All that is now done
through the Civil Aeronautics Admin-
istration.
Mr. THYE. But the Civil Aeronau-
tics Administrator will not be respon-
sible to the Board.
Mr. MONRONEY. He never has
been; he has been independent of the
Board. The Board essentially has an
economic function which we propose
be left to it. It has the duty to investi-
gate accidents; and we propose that it
continue to have that duty. But the
operational responsibility has histori-
cally—since 1938—been with the Civil
Aeronautics Administrator. Those du-
ties fall on him; and they will, by
means of the bill, fall on the Adminis-
trator of the Federal Aviation Agency
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2171
to much the same degree as they have
since 1938 fallen on the present Ad-
ministrator, except that under the
provisions of the bill the Administra-
tor will be independent of the Depart-
ment of Commerce; he will have an
agency in his own right—he will no
longer be subject to any other depart-
ment or agency.
Mr. THYE. However, the Civil Aer-
onautics Board has some responsibil-
ity in connection with the selection of
the personnel who come under that di-
vision.
Mr. MONRONEY. No; I completely
disagree. The Board is completely sep-
arate. It chooses the technicians and
inspectors it uses; it has its own per-
sonnel. There is an almost airtight
compartmentation between the CAA,
the operating agency, and the CAB,
which is a quasi-judicial agency and
largely settles the
[p. 13647]
problems regarding which airlines
shall be assigned various routes, and
so forth. The Board has no operational
responsibility for our civil airways
and how they are maintained. Its only
contact in this area is through the
rulemaking powers it has, much of
which it has already delegated to the
Administrator. It turns over to the
Administrator the enforcement of the
rules and the investigation of certain
accidents. As I have said under this
bill, those matters will be handled in
exactly the way they have been.
Mr. THYE. I am very much con-
cerned, because aviation is still in its
developmental stage; I believe there
will be vast changes in the future,
just as there have been in each of the
past two decades. But I am most vi-
tally concerned with the question of
whether the bill will virtually set up a
dictator over all aviation operations
and all the companies which operate
commercially. My purpose is to make
certain that the Congress does not set
up a virtual dictator, with the result
that the companies have no opportu-
nity, except in the district courts, to
argue their cases.
Mr. MONRONEY. So far as I
know, the bill has met with the ap-
proval of every element of the civil
aviation industry, including the Air-
plane Owners and Pilots Association,
the Business Aircraft Association, the
General Aviation Facilities Planning
Group, and all members of the Air
Transport Association, both the large
operators and the small operators, ex-
cept one, namely, Lake Central, I be-
lieve. The distinguished Senator from
Minnesota is voicing the fears of that
one airline. It is true that the Airline
Pilots Association has a question
about this section of the bill. The wit-
nesses for those two groups are the
only ones who raised the question the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota
is raising. The other witnesses ac-
cepted the Administration's position
—namely, that to make provision for
the appeal of every case would be to
negate and put to an end the gains
which would be made by having cen-
tralized authority and thus giving the
Administrator the requisite powers in
order to provide for air safety.
If provision were made for the ap-
peal of every case, then, first, there
would have to be timely notice in the
Federal Register. Thereafter, follow-
ing the decision—which perhaps
would take 60 days—anyone who was
dissatisfied with the result could bring
up the matter before the Civil Aero-
nautics Board. Then more time would
elapse for a Board review and deci-
sion. This would be followed by an
appeal to the courts under the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act.
If the Senator from Minnesota has
had the experience that most of us
have had with the Board, he knows
that no Government agency is more
greatly overburdened than the Civil
Aeronautics Board; and he knows it
takes from 1 year to 5 years for the
Board to settle a case—for instance,
-------
2172
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to decide which feeder airlines will
serve the Midwest area. How much
more work does the Senator from
Minnesota desire to place on the
Board, so far as air-safety matters
are concerned, and, also, in the case of
the necessary air-safety rules, merely
because someone is not inclined to
trust the Administrator on these mat-
ters?
We are going to trust the Adminis-
trator with human lives; we propose
that he be given the responsibility of
trying to prevent the holocaust which
otherwise will occur if we do not enact
a bill which will place on the Federal
Administrator the full responsibility
for air-safety rulemaking. If we
divide this responsibility again, we
shall find that the condition which will
develop will be as bad as the one
which we are seeking to correct by
means of the bill.
Mr. THYE. Then am I to under-
stand that the representatives of all
the large commercial companies who
appeared at the hearing and testified
regarding the bill were satisfied with
the striking out of the language which
now appears on page 27 of the bill,
and believed that thus a substantial
gain would be made?
Mr. MONRONEY. The representa-
tives of all the operating companies
and all the smaller aviation groups
Mr. THYE. Incidentally, Mr. Presi-
dent, let me say that I am not speak-
ing now for the company mentioned
by the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONE~i. It is the Lake
Central. Its representatives testified
at the hearings held by the House
committee, not at our hearings.
Mr. THYE. I am not speaking in
support of that company. But I have
heard so many questions about the
striking out of this section of the bill
and what the result might be so far as
the Board is concerned, that when I
learned that the bill was being ex-
plained by the Senator from Okla-
homa, I left the Appropriations Com-
mittee, and came to the Senate Cham-
ber.
Let me say that there are very few
persons for whom I have greater re-
gard than that I have for the Senator
from Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
have even greater regard for the dis-
tinguished senior Senator from Min-
nesota.
Mr. THYE. The ability of the Sena-
tor from Oklahoma is outstanding. As
chairman of the subcommittee, the
Senator from Oklahoma has done ex-
cellent work in recodifying all the
aviation laws. It has been a tremen-
dous task. The Senator has my hearty
commendation for what he has done. I
am merely clarifying a few questions
in my own mind when I propound my
inquiries to the Senator from Okla-
homa.
I know there are other amendments.
I have had a communication from the
Airline Pilots Asociation that raises
a question relative to a proposed
amendment which I find on my desk,
about which I shall probably ask ques-
tions later.
Am I to understand that all the
commercial companies were in accord
with the committee's action when it
struck the language out of the bill
which appeared on page 27, and for
which language there has been a sub-
stitute?
Mr. MONRONEY. That is correct.
The ATA, which represents the feeder
lines, the major trunk lines, and the
international lines, testified they are
satisfied and happy with the provi-
sions worked out by the committee.
The only element of aviation I know
of which up to today has publicly op-
posed the transference of any safety
rulemaking authority is the Airline
Pilots Association, which is a very
distinguished and representative
group headed by an experienced and
distinguished president, Mr. Clancy
Sayen, whom I greatly admire. Much
-------
STATLTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2173
of the bill's genesis is due to that or-
ganization's interest and to the help
which they have given us. But there
are a thousand provisions in the bill.
The very fact that 99 segments of the
industry may be in favor while 1 seg-
ment is in opposition shows the care-
ful study and consideration of the
committee and the sacrifice and com-
promise which have been made in
transferring rulemaking power so
that it may be more expeditiously ex-
ercised and more efficiently performed,
to the end that there may be greater
air safety. What we are seeking ulti-
mately is air safety.
Mr. THYE. Did the Civil Aeronau-
tics Board make any statement on the
question ?
Mr. MONRONEY. The Civil Aero-
nautics Board opposed it on the basis
that, as a Board, it was a quasi-judi-
cial group—the very same argument
the distinguished Senator has made.
We recognized that contention. It is
one reason why we have provided the
right for the Board to appear publicly
and blast any proposed rule it opposes
in a rulemaking proceeding. That is
about as good a provision as can be
made for review of any ruling the
Board may not approve.
Mr. THYE. So in the event the Ad-
ministrator proposes a certain change
or a specified rule, the Civil Aeronau-
tics Board may protest it. It does not
have to come to the committee hat in
hand.
Mr. MONRONEY. No; the right to
appear is written into the bill.
Mr. THYE. The Board can say,
"We do not like this proposal. We tell
you why we do not like it. We are
going to fight it with all the ability we
possess as the Civil Aeronautics
Board." The Board has that right, has
it not?
Mr. MONRONEY. Yes; and it is
written into the bill. Furthermore,
Mr. James T. Pyle, administrator of
,he Civil Aeronautics Administration,
which is the corresponding agency to
the proposed Federal Aviation
Agency, was asked if he believed the
Civil Aeronautics Board could so ap-
pear. He said it not only could, but
should appear. That statement is con-
tained in the record of the hearings.
Much careful thought has gone into
the consideration of the question. By
providing that the Civil Aeronautics
Board may appear when it has doubts
about an air safety regulation or its
effect on air commerce, we have cre-
ated as effective an appeal as possible,
because it becomes an appeal to public
opinion, when the Board disagrees
with a proposed rule the Administra-
tor is about to consider. For that rea-
son, I think we have protected every-
one against an extravagant abuse of
power of which an administrator
might be guilty.
Mr. THYE. That was my concern. I
wish to say further to the distin-
guished
[p. 13648]
chairman of the subcommittee that he
and his committee have rendered out-
standing services to the United States
and to commercial aviation, as well,
in making provision for rules for con-
duct for aviation operations which
will assure greater safety than in the
past. For that accomplishment the
Senator has my hearty commendation.
My only concern was to make certain
that we do not write into the law
provisions which may result in in-
justices to any company which is
struggling to keep itself out of the
red. Some of the companies are hav-
ing a real struggle. Some of them are
not successful. It is a new field. There
is much yet to be done before all the
administrative "bugs" are taken out
of commercial aviation. The Senator
has my hearty commendation.
Mr. MONRONEY. I thank my dis-
tinguished colleague, who has done
much in matters affecting aviation.
Not only does the bill provide organi-
zational safeguards, but I assure the
-------
2174
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Senator the appropriate committees of
the Senate and the House will be
watchful to see that no arbitrary ac-
tion will be taken by the administra-
tor which will tend to affect adversely
any segments of aviation, or the per-
sonnel who work in them. After con-
sideration by the executive agencies,
there is always an appeal to the peo-
ple's branch of the Government. We
feel that this also will help to insure
some degree of wisdom in the deci-
sions.
I thank the distinguished Senator
for his inquiries, because they help de-
velop more fully the philosophy the
committee had in mind in writing this
250-page codification and amendments
of the aviation law.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to my
distinguished colleague from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I wish to com-
mend the able Senator from Oklahoma
for his usually fine job in the presen-
tation of proposed legislation before
the Senate. The basic reason why this
bill is being recommended is that the
present system has not functioned
successfully. Is that correct?
Mr. MONRONEY. The reason is
that aviation has literally exploded, in
the sense that there are more air-
planes in the air than anyone could
have anticipated, and in the sense of
airplane speed, which is beyond that
which it was imagined could be at-
tained. The combination of too many
airplanes flying at supersonic speed
and our entry into the jet air age
have made necessary a more modern
governmental agency to make use of
the technological advances which are
occurring in the aviation field.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Is it not a fact
that if the bill recommended by the
able Senator is not adopted, the situa-
tion which exists today will become
considerably worse, based on the ad-
vent of the jet airliner in commercial
aviation and the increased activity of
jet planes in our military service?
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator
from Missouri is an expert on avia-
tion, and was the first Secretary of
the Air Force. He knows that military
airplanes, for which he helped lay the
predicate and which he helped put on
the drawing boards, are now in the jet
air age. Super Sabers and other Delta
wing planes travel at 1,400 miles an
hour, and come together at a closing
speed of 2,800 miles an hour, which is
a speed beyond the ability of human
sight and beyond the ability of human
reflexes. Since the combat forces, and
even the transport forces, soon will
have jet airplanes, and because of the
advent of the jet air age in civilian
aviation, something must be done, and
done now, if we are to have the degree
of air safety we feel aviation must
attain.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
congratulate the distinguished Sena-
tor from Oklahoma. He is the author-
ity in this body on civilian aviation.
We all very much respect his opinion
in this matter.
I might add that the last dozen
times I have traveled by commercial
airlines I do not think there has been
one time when the captain or a mem-
ber of the crew has failed to ask what
were the prospects for the passage of
the bill presently under consideration.
All aviation men are very much inter-
ested in the bill. Those men know they
are flying under increasingly difficult
handicaps, and they know there have
already been some very serious occur-
rences as a result of the present situa-
tion.
I hope the Senate will pass the bill
which has been recommended by its
authority in this field, and I thank the
Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONEY. I thank my dis-
tinguished colleague from Missouri
very much. I will say that no one can
be completely happy about every de-
tail of a bill which contains so many
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2175
provisions. Because of the very situa-
tion the Senator from Missouri has
mentioned pilots of the airliners, pi-
lots of the military planes, pilots of
the sport planes and executive air-
craft all realize something must be
done. All those men have yielded on
individual items in the bill so that we
could put together in the very best
possible agreed legislation necessary
for this jet air age.
I thank my distinguished colleague
for his sponsorship of the bill, and the
great cooperation he has given.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
outlined the organizational structure
before the colloquies with my distin-
guished colleagues.
There is thus created a unified avia-
tion agency, combining the present
aviation functions of the President,
the Civil Aeronautics Administration,
the Airway Modernization Board, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the
safety regulation functions of the
Civil Aeronautics Board. Provision is
made for the further transfer to the
agency of other related functions,
such as military air traffic control
towers, at the discretion of the Presi-
dent.
This is truly an enormous responsi-
bility. For this reason, every effort
has been made to provide the Admin-
istrator with every necessary tool to
discharge it. For this reason also, the
Administrator has been admonished
that in its discharge he give full con-
sideration to the requirements of na-
tional defense, to the requirements of
commercial and general aviation, and
to the public right of freedom of
transit through the navigabk- air-
space.
Since military aviation will be sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of a civilian
Administrator in some important op-
erational aspects, the bill provides for
active military participation in the
Agency. It provides for a Deputy Ad-
ministrator, and permits, if the Presi-
dent so chooses, the appointment of an
officer on active military duty to this
position. It provides for the assign-
ment of military personnel for service
in the Agency, under cooperative
agreements between the Administra-
tor and the appropriate service Secre-
taries, to assist the Administrator in
carrying out his functions relating to
regulation and protection of air
traffic, including development and pro-
vision of air navigation facilities, and
the allocation of airspace. It prohibits
control of such military personnel by
their respective services during their
period of assignment to the Agency.
Because of the dependence of the
military services upon the operations
of the Agency, the Administration is
required to submit recommendations
as to any special legislation needed to
insure its proper function in time of
war. Deviation from the Administra-
tor's air traffic rules by military air-
craft is authorized in the event of mil-
itary emergency or urgent military
necessity.
This, in broad outline, is the organi-
zation which the bill provides. By no
means all of its provisions are new.
Many are taken almost verbatim from
existing law, as will be apparent from
the comparative print to which I have
referred. However, the new provisions
were sufficiently extensive that it was
desirable to reenact these provisions
of existing law in a comprehensive
aviation statute, pruning obsolete pro-
visions in the process. Thus the Air
Commerce Act, the Civil Aeronautics
Act, the Airways Modernization Act,
and several reorganization plans are
repealed outright, and their useful
provisions reenacted in the present
bill. This does not mean that all of the
provisions which are reenacted were
considered in the hearings. Provisions
of existing law relating to organiza-
tion of the Civil Aeronautics Board,
air carrier economic regulation, air-
craft registration, authority of the
-------
2176
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
President over foreign and overseas
air transportation, provision of avia-
tion weather data by the Weather Bu-
reau, numerous procedural matters,
and war risk insurance for aircraft
were reenacted, changing only obso-
lete terminology and deleting obsolete
provisions. Many of these provisions
may require detailed study and mod-
ernization in the future, but this has
been deferred because of the more ur-
gent need for basic organizational
changes. Their reenactment in a basic
comprehensive statute is thus a mat-
ter of convenience, and should not be
construed as an endorsement of their
every detail.
[p. 13649]
In summary, I feel I can safely say
that every element of our Nation con-
cerned with aviation matters has ap-
proved the broad principles of the bill
—the broad principles of organization
necessary to control safely our ever-
increasing air traffic of all kinds and
to provide for efficient use of our air-
space. This is not to say that every
single point of this far-reaching meas-
ure finds everyone in complete agree-
ment as to each individual detail. It
would be expecting the impossible to
find such agreement among human
beings and more particularly among
so many dedicated aviation enthusi-
asts ranging from air carriers with
their 600-mile-an-hour jet airliners to
the military leaders with their Mach 3
jet fighters and to the private fliers
with their lighter planes.
These are the broad outlines of the
organization which the airspace and
air navigation problem require for
all users—private, commercial, and
military:
First. A single Federal Aviation
Agency, headed by a civilian Adminis-
trator, who has the authority to allo-
cate all airspace and provide for uni-
form air traffic rules.
Second. Within this Agency the
equivalent of the Air Modernization
Board, operating to bring into being
without undue delay the electronic
and other devices to increase the
safety and capacity of our airways
system and our airports.
Third. Accident investigation to re-
main in the Civil Aeronautics Board
to insure an unbiased search for the
cause of these tragedies.
Fourth. Adequate participation in
our military authorities to insure that
national defense needs will be prop-
erly safeguarded in the new civilian
Agency.
This "Big 4" outline necessarily re-
quires a change in some authority now
vested in one agency or another. As
some functions are transferred from
the Civil Aeronautics Board to the
Administrator, such as the promulga-
tion of air safety rules, there are dif-
ferences in opinions among the var-
ious aviation interests. There are, as
will be developed during the consider-
ation of the bill, strong differences of
opinion within the military over the
authority of the Administrator to ap-
prove or reject locations of new air
bases or missile sites.
The committee and its staff have
worked for weeks to attempt to recon-
cile these differences of opinion.
Amendments have been made in an
effort to meet and to adjust these dif-
ferences—dozens have been satisfac-
torily worked out, but a few remain.
However, it is the committee's consid-
ered judgment that the bill has been
vastly improved as it has been
amended and adjusted in the long and
patient consultations with every ele-
ment of this dynamic industry and
with governmental authorities asso-
ciated with its activities.
The unanimous feeling of everyone,
private and governmental, was that
action must be taken by this Congress
if the ever-increasing speed and vol-
ume of air traffic is to move with
greater safety. All were agreed that
delay or postponement would be a
fatal mistake in view of the arrival of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2177
the jet air age. Old methods, old divi-
sions of authority and responsibility,
and old delays by intergovernmental
committees cannot be used to cope
with the new problems which the
march of aviation science creates.
The President and practically every
responsible person connected with
American aviation has urged the en-
actment of this proposed legislation
now. Thirty-three Members of the
Senate—from both sides of the aisle
—have endorsed its objective by co-
sponsorship. Almost every major news-
paper in the country has voiced the
public demand for early action.
I therefore urge that the Senate
take prompt action to meet the crisis
which is now upon us.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I am happy to
yield to my distinguished colleague
and member of the Aviation Subcom-
mittee, who has been so helpful in the
drafting and amending of the pro-
posed legislation.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, first I
thank the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma for his kind words. Primar-
ily, I commend the Senator from
Oklahoma for the able chairmanship
and leadership which he has given
with respect to the important bill now
before the Senate. I wish to associate
myself with the remarks he has made.
I noted during the hearings and in
the report specific mention was made
of the very tragic accident in my
home State between a military air-
craft and a civilian aircraft just out-
side of Las Vegas.
I recognize that unification and con-
trol of the allotment of the airspace,
as well as control of the airspace it-
self, now calls for a single Aviation
Agency. If such an Agency had been
'n existence and in operation for a
>eriod of a year or a year and a half,
would there have been a complete cor-
relation between the control towers,
militarywise and civilianwise?
Mr. MONRONEY. As I understand
the question, the Senator is asking
whether there would be coordination
of military control towers and civilian
control towers, and the air traffic cen-
ters dispatching through traffic. Had
that been available the accident over
Nellis Air Base could not have hap-
pened. That accident was due to the
lack of coordination of civilian avia-
tion with military aviation. The train-
ing plane was not even under the con-
trol of the tower operator, but under
an instructor who, without regard to
the air traffic above, was dispatching
the jet plane, with the pilot under a
hood, to make a simulated approach
landing across the airway assigned to
the United aircraft, which was in its
proper place and traveling on its
course.
I think that incident illustrates the
necessity for governmental machinery
to centralize the control of air traffic
in one agency, and to give the Admin-
istrator authority to act to coordinate
all air traffic rules. Otherwise we
might as well say that we could oper-
ate our ground traffic control system
by having a sheriff of a county oper-
ate all the red lights in the cities and
towns, with the mayor operating the
green lights from city hall. The same
man must operate both green and red
lights.
Mr. BIBLE. With a single Aviation
Agency, under the control of a civilian
Administrator, control of the airspace,
militarywise as well as civilianwise,
would be under one Agency; is that
correct?
Mr. MONRONEY. That is correct.
That is not to say that the military
would not be given airspace reserva-
tions; but when they are given air-
space reservations for training by the
civilian Administrator, he must bend
his airways around the airspace which
is given to the military. Both users of
airspace must be under the same con-
trol.
-------
2178
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. BIBLE. Would the military con-
trol tower receive orders directly froia
the civilian Aviation Agency?
Mr. MONRONEY. Under the'terms
of the bill as it is written, and in
accordance with the testimony, as the
distinguished Senator will remember,
it is probable that when a sufficient
number of control tower operators can
be trained by the Administrator of the
civilian Agency, the military will turn
over its control towers to civilian op-
erators certificated by the new Fed-
eral Aviation Agency. So they will be
under a common system, and a com-
mon program of handling traffic. That
will not be true immediately, because
we do not have a sufficient number of
trained civilian control tower opera-
tors to replace the 18,000 men—
largely enlisted men—now being used
by the military in the control tower
operations at the airbases.
Mr. BIBLE. In the military control
tower will there be a partnership be-
tween the military and the civilian op-
erators? There will be CAA control
tower operators there. Will there also
be military operators there?
Mr. MONRONEY. It is not likely
that the military will wish to have
military men in the control towers.
The testimony of the representatives
of the military service was that they
want to get out of the control tower
business and turn it over to qualified
civilian control tower operators. The
only question which arises, if that is
done, is this: Will the Congress pro-
vide a certain special status for con-
trol tower operators, under civil serv-
ice or otherwise, so that they will be
certain to remain on their jobs in the
event of war?
Mr. BIBLE. When that happens,
will there be coordination between the
military control towers and the civil-
ian control towers in my State of Ne-
vada, for example, in Clark County,
and in the locality where the accident
referred to occurred?
Mr. MONRONEY. I should say
that it would be inconceivable, if they
were both under a common civilian
Agency, not to have complete coordi-
nation, with perhaps a central control
tower operation, such as exists today
in connection with certain operations
from Boiling Air Force Base, Anacos-
tia, and Andrews Field. Instrument
flying under instrument conditions in
this area is governed from the Wash-
ington National control tower. Under
other conditions, planes can still land
on the other fields.
[p. 13650]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2179
1.10a(4)(b) Aug. 4: Amended and passed House, p. 16088
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10a(4)(c) Aug. 11: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 16887
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10a(4)(d) Aug. 13: House agrees to conference report, p. 17457
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10b OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF
1970
December 29, 1970, P.L. 91-596, §31, 84 Stat. 1619
EMERGENCY LOCATOR BEACONS
Sec. 31. Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is
amended by inserting at the end thereof a new subsection as
follows:
"EMERGENCY LOCATOR BEACONS
"(d) (1) Except with respect to aircraft described in paragraph
(2) of this subsection, minimum standards pursuant to this sec-
tion shall include a requirement that emergency locator beacons
shall be installed—
"(A) on any fixed-wing, powered aircraft for use in air
commerce the manufacture of which is completed, or which is
imported into the United States, after one year following the
date of enactment of this subsection; and
"(B) on any fixed-wing, powered aircraft used in air com-
merce after three years following such date.
" (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to jet-pow-
ered aircraft; aircraft used in air transportation (other than air
taxis and charter aircraft) ; military aircraft; aircraft used solely
for training purposes not involving flights more than twenty miles
from its base; and aircraft used for the aerial application of
chemicals."
[p. 1887]
-------
2180 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10b(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE
S. REP. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970
OCTOBER 6-(legislative day, OCTOBER 5), 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, from the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 2193]
The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2193) to authorize the Secretary of Labor to
set standards to assure safe and healthful working conditions for
working men and women, to assist and encourage States to partic-
ipate in efforts to assure such working conditions, to provide for
research, information, education, and training in the field of occu-
pational safety and health, and for other purposes, having consid-
ered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in
the nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as
amended) do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 2193 is to reduce the number and severity of
work-related injuries and illnesses which, despite current efforts
of employers and government, are resulting in ever-increasing
human misery and economic loss.
The bill would achieve its purpose through programs of re-
search, education and training, and through the development and
administration, by the Secretary of Labor, of uniformly applied
occupational safety and health standards. Such standards would
be developed with the assistance of the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, and both their promulgation and their en-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2181
foreement would be judicially reviewable. Encouragement is given
to Federal-state cooperation, and financial assistance is authorized
to enable states, under approved plans, to take over entirely and
administer their own programs for achieving safe and healthful
jobsites for the Nation's workers.
1.10b(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
LABOR
H.R. REP. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
JULY 9, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. PERKINS, from the Committee on Education and Labor, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 16785]
The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 16785) to assure safe and healthful working condi-
tions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of
the standards developed under the act; by assisting and encourag-
ing the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working
conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and
training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for
other purposes; having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
-------
2182 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10b(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1765, 91st Cong., 2d Sees. (1970)
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970
DECEMBER 16,1970.—Ordered to be printed
MR. PERKINS, from the committee on conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 2193]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 2193) to
authorize the Secretary of Labor to set standards to assure safe
and healthful working conditions for working men and women; to
assist and encourage States to participate in eiforts to assure such
working conditions; to provide for research, information, educa-
tion, and training in the field of occupational safety and health,
and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference,
have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment insert the following:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2183
1.10b(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.10b(4)(a) Nov. 17: Amended and passed Senate, p. 37632
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10b(4)(b) Nov. 24: Amended and passed House, p. 38724
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10b(4)(c) Dec. 16: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 41764
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10b(4)(d) Dec. 17: House agrees to conference report, p. 42209
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10c CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1970
December 31,1970, P.L. 91-604, §ll(b)(l), 84 Stat 1705
(b) (1) Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
U.S.C. 1421) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow-
ing new subsection:
"AVIATION FUEL STANDARDS
"(d) The Administrator shall prescribe, and from time to time
revise, regulations (1) establishing standards governing the com-
position or the chemical or physical properties of any aircraft fuel
or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or eliminating air-
craft emissions which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act)
determines endanger the public health or welfare, and (2) provid-
ing for the implementation and enforcement of such standards."
(2) Section 610(a) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 1430(a)) is
amended by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (7) ; by
striking out the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting
in lieu thereof "; and" and by adding after paragraph (8) the
following new paragraph:
"(9) For any person to manufacture, deliver, sell, or offer
for sale, any aviation fuel or fuel additive in violation of any
regulation prescribed under section 601 (d)."
(3) That portion of the table of contents contained in the first
-------
2184 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
section of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which appears under
the side heading
"Sec. 601. General Safety Powers and Duties."
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(d) Aviation fuel standards."
[p. 170&]
1.10c(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970
JUNE 3,1970.—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. 17255]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 17255) to amend the Clean Air Act to
provide for a more effective program to improve the quality of the
Nation's air, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts in lieu thereof a substitute which appears in the reported
bill in italic type.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of the legislation reported unanimously by your
committee is to speed up, expand, and intensify the war against
air pollution in the United States with a view to assuring that the
air we breathe throughout the Nation is wholesome once again.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2185
The Air Quality Act of 1967 (Public Law 90-148) and its prede-
cessor acts have been instrumental in starting us off in this direc-
tion. A review of achievements to date, however, make abundantly
clear that the strategies which we have pursued in the war against
air pollution have been inadequate in several important respects,
and the methods employed in implementing those strategies often
have been slow and less effective than they might have been.
Section 11. Extension of authorizations
Section 11 amends section 104 (c) of the Clean Air Act (which
authorizes appropriations for research relating to fuels and vehi-
cles) by authorizing the following additional appropriations :
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $75 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $100 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $125 million.
This section would also amend section 309 of the Clean Air Act,
authorizing appropriations for activities other than research re-
lating to fuels and vehicles by authorizing the following additional
appropriations.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $125 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $150 million.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $200 million.
In addition, the section would authorize such sums not to exceed
1 percent of such appropriations to be available for evaluation
(directly or by grants or contracts) of any program authorized by
the Clean Air Act.
CONCLUSIONS
Air pollution in the United States is the result of pollution from
numerous highly diversified sources. They range from millions of
automobiles driven on city streets or interstate highways to a
relatively limited number of facilities and plants which are large-
scale polluters such as powerplants burning coal or fuel oil.
In fashioning effective strategies in the campaign for clean air
in the United States, the different pollutants which affect our
health and welfare in different ways and in varying degrees of
severity, and the different sources from which they emanate must
be controlled. Effective technologies to reduce or eliminate particu-
lar pollutants must be developed.
While the basic strategies in the Nation's war against air pollu-
tion must be developed in a unified and consistent way by the
526-704 O - 73 - 28
-------
2186 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Federal Government, the implementation and enforcement of
these strategies will have to be effected in every community in the
United States. Therefore, prompt and effective regional, State, and
local efforts are needed to win the campaign for clean air.
The legislation reported by your committee is designed to
achieve these several objectives and to do so without delay.
[p. 15]
"Aviation Fuel Standards
(d) The Administrator may prescribe, and from time to time
revise, regulations (1) establishing standards governing the com-
position or the chemical or physical properties of any aircraft fuel
or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or eliminating air-
craft emissions which the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare (pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act) determines
endanger the public health or welfare, and (2) providing for the
implementation and enforcement of such standards.
*******
[p. 49]
1.10c(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
8. REP. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Seas. (1970)
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ACT OP 1970
SEPTEMBER 17,1970.—Ordered to be printed'
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia (for Mr. MUSKIE) from the Committee
on Public Works, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 4358]
The Committee on Public Works, to which the bill (S. 4358), to
amend the Clean Air Act as amended, was referred having consid-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2187
ered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment. An
original bill (S. 4358) is reported in lieu of S. 3229, S. 3466, and
S. 3546 which were considered by the Committee.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The committee bill would restructure the methods available to
attack a critical and growing national problem of air pollution.
The legislation reported by the committee is the result of deep
concern for protection of the health of the American people. Air
pollution is not only an aesthetic nuisance. The Committee's con-
cern with direct adverse effects upon public health has increased
since the publication of air quality criteria documents for five
major pollutants (oxides of sulfur, particulates, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons and oxidants). These documents indicate that the
air pollution problem is more severe, more pervasive, and growing
at a more rapid rate than was generally believed.
The new information that carbon monoxide concentrations at
levels damaging to public health occur in Chicago more than 22
percent of the time, and that other cities have similar problems
with carbon monoxide and other pollutants, intensified the com-
mittee's concern to authorize a massive attack on air pollution.
This bill is designed to provide the basis for such an attack.
DISCUSSION OF INTENT
SECTION 104. RESEARCH RELATING TO FUELS AND VEHICLES
The Air Quality Act of 1967 provided increased emphasis on
research relating to fuels and vehicles. This provision included
two special features not contained in the general research author-
ity of section 103 of that act. First, appropriated funds were to
remain available until expended, providing needed flexibility in the
planning and scheduling of research and development and demon-
stration projects. Second, a legal basis was established for sup-
porting demonstration projects involving the construction and in-
stallation of pollution control equipment in profit making facilities
in order to gain maximum benefit from expertise in the practical
application of technology.
The amendments to section 104 contained in the bill, as re-
ported, would provide increased emphasis on (1) fuel cleaning
prior to combustion; (2) new and improved methods for combust-
-------
2188 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ing fuels which result in decreased atmospheric emissions; (3)
methods for producing synthetic or new fuels which have a lower
combustion potential for
[p. 4]
creating air pollution; and (4) increased efforts to develop and
demonstrate alternatives to the internal combustion engine.
The legislation also would provide authority to make fleet pur-
chases of low emission vehicles for research, development, and
testing purposes which would involve purchase of 300 or more
cars of a particular design, subject to actual operation and testing.
The National Air Pollution Control Administration has developed
a 6-year plan (fiscal 1970 to 1975) which contemplates expendi-
tures of $89.1 million for the development of low-emission alterna-
tives to the internal combustion engine. This plan includes both
the control of emissions from conventional motor vehicles, and the
development of unconventional low pollution motor vehicles. New
authority for purchase of cars for research, development, and
testing is intended primarily to facilitate this program.
The current research and development effort for controlling
emissions from stationary sources has emphasized fuel gas treat-
ment and fuel cleaning (removal of contaminants from fuels be-
fore use). Increased emphasis should be placed on fuel cleaning as
a method for reducing atmospheric emissions.
The Committee also intends that increased emphasis be placed
on improving fuel combustion efficiencies. Although flue gas con-
trol technology offers a potential for improvement, the long-term
answers may lie in magnetohydrodynamics, fuel cells and other
energy conversion processes which emit less pollution per unit of
fuel or per unit of energy.
The Committee recognizes that variations in the choice of fuels
among different regions may offer a potential for reducing air
pollution levels. However, fuels with a minimal adverse impact on
the environment—such as natural gas and low sulfur fuels—may
only be available in limited quantities. The bill therefore would
authorize the development and demonstration of methods to pro-
duce synthetic or new fuels for both stationary and moving
sources which will result in decreased atmospheric emissions.
The bill would authorize $450 million to carry out the provisions
of this section: $125 million for fiscal year 1971; $150 million for
fiscal year 1972; and $175 million for fiscal year 1973. Appropria-
tions at that level could substantially accelerate the nation's capac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2189
ity to reduce air pollution and to achieve and maintain high am-
bient air quality.
[p-5]
SECTION 212. REGULATION OF FUELS
Air pollution is a byproduct of the combustion of fuel. The
Committee therefore considers it appropriate to expand the exist-
ing authority requiring registration of fuels and to establish a
procedure for regulating the sale of fuels to the extent that the
combustion or evaporation of such fuels may adversely affect im-
plementation of the Act.
Under the procedure that would be established by the Commit-
tee bill, the Secretary could designate any fuel that is used for
vehicles. Once designated, the fuel would have to be registered by
the Secretary prior to sale. If such fuel had not been registered by
a date established by the Secretary, the fuel could not be intro-
duced into commerce. Violation of this provision would subject the
fuel manufacturer to a fine of $10,000 per day.
The bill would authorize a system under which the Secretary
shall seek and receive inf ormaton to assist him in determining the
potential affect of a particular fuel on the public health and wel-
fare or on operation of an emission control device.
The manufacturer of a designated fuel would have to notify the
Secretary of a fuel's commercially identifiable name, the manufac-
turer of any additives used in the fuel, the purpose of such addi-
tive, and the recommended use of the additive.
While additives themselves would not be controlled directly by
this provision, the manufacturer of fuel additives would have to
provide the Secretary, on request, with information on the chemi-
cal composition of the additive, analytical techniques needed to
detect its presence, the recommended concentrations of such addi-
tive, and the recommended use of the additive.
To establish a system to facilitate expeditious registration of
fuels, the Secretary would be required to prepare a system of test
procedures and protocols that any fuel manufacturer could expect
to undertake prior to registration. It is the Committee's belief that
such procedures would assist the Secretary in identifying any
health or welfare effects in the use of the fuel.
Should these procedures be ineffective, the Secretary could re-
quest added information from the manufacturer on the effects of
emissions and evaporation of the fuel.
Once the manufacturer had satisfied these requirements, the
-------
2190 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Secretary would be required to register the fuel for sale.
The Committee bill also would provide a procedure under which
the Secretary might either prohibit or control the sale of a fuel.
[p. 33]
1.10c(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1783, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1970
DECEMBER 17,1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17255]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17255)
to amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective pro-
gram to improve the quality of the Nation's air, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
"Part A—Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards"
(b)(l) Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
U.S.C. H21) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow-
ing new subsection:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2191
"Aviation Fuel Standards
"(d) The Administrator shall prescribe, and from time to time
revise, regulations (1) establishing standards governing the com-
position or the chemical or physical properties of any aircraft fuel
or fuel additive for the purpose of controlling or eliminating air-
craft emissions which the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act)
determines endanger the public health or welfare, and (2) pro-
viding for the implementation and enforcement of such standards."
(2) Section 610 (a) of such Act (49 U.S.C. 1430 (a)) is amended
by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (7); by striking out
the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting in lieu, there-
of "; and" and by adding after paragraph (8) the following new
paragraph:
"(9) For any person to manufacture, deliver, sell, or offer
for sale, any aviation fuel or fuel additive in violation of any
regulation prescribed under section 601 (d)."
(3) That portion of the table of contents contained in the first
section of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which appears under
the side heading
"Sec. 601. General Safety Powers and Duties."
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(d) Aviation fuel standards.".
[p. 32]
-------
2192
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10c(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
1.10c(4)(a) June 10: Considered and passed House, p. 19228
EXTENSION OP AUTHORIZATIONS
SBC. 11. (b) Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 1857 (1)) is amended (1) by strik-
ing out "and" immediately following "June
30, 1969,", and (2) by inserting before the
period at the end thereof the following:
"125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June SO, 1972, and $200,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973".
(c) Such section 309 is further amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
sentence: "Such portion as the Secretary maj-
determine, but not more than 1 per centum,
of any appropriation for grants, contracts, or
other payments under any provision of this
Act for any fiscal year beginning after June
30, 1970, shall be available for evaluation (di-
rectly, or by grants or contracts) of any
program authorized by this Act."
[p. 19228]
1.10c(4)(b) Sept. 22: Considered and passed Senate, amended,
p.33105
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10c(4)(c) Dec. 18: Senate agrees to conference report, p. 42391
Fuels and Fuel Additives. The House bill
contains a number of restrictive provisions on
the authority to fix standards respecting the
composition of fuels or fuel additives. For
example, standards on fuels and fuel additives
could be fixed under this authority only if the
Secretary could show that it is not otherwise
technologically or economically feasible to
achieve automobile emission standards. The
Senate does not contain similar restrictions.
The Administration recommended board au-
thority to regulate fuel and fuel additives,
because it believed that such authority, in
conjunction with controls over sources using
such fuels, is necessary in order to mount the
most effective overall attack on air pollution.
We recommend, therefore, that these provi-
sions be modified to conform with the Admin-
istration's air pollution bill, the essential pro-
visions of which on this matter are incorpo-
rated in the Senate bill.
Also in connection with fuels, we would
recommend that authority over aviation fuels
and additives be lodged in the Secretary of
HEW, who will have jurisdiction over all
other fuels and additives, rather than being
placed in the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, as the House bill
provides.
Sincerely,
ELLIOT RICHARDSON,
Secretary.
[p. 42391]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2193
1.10c(4)(d) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report, p. 42519
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.10d AMENDMENTS TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT
OF 1956
November 18, 1971, P.L. 92-159, §2a, 85 Stat. 481
AN ACT
To amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to provide a criminal
penalty for shooting at certain birds, fish, and other animals
from an aircraft.
*******
SEC. 2. (a) Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
(49 U.S.C. 1429) is amended by inserting "(a)" immediately
after "SEC. 609." and by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
"VIOLATION OF CERTAIN LAWS
"(b) The Administrator, in his discretion, may issue an order
amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any airman certifi-
cate upon conviction of the holder of such certificate of any viola-
tion of subsection (a) of section 13 of the Fish and Wildlife Act
of 1956, regarding Supra, the use or operation of an aircraft.".
[P. 1]
(b) (1) Immediately after the section heading of such section
609, insert the following:
"PROCEDURE"
(2) That portion of the table of contents contained in the first
section of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which appears under
the side heading
"Sec. 609. Amendment, suspension, and revocation."
is amending by adding the following:
"(a) Procedure.
"(b) Violation of certain laws.".
[p. 2]
-------
2194 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10d(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE
AND FISHERIES
H.R. REP. No. 92-202,92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
SHOOTING ANIMALS FROM AIRCRAFT
MAY 13,1971.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. GARMATZ, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5060]
[p. 1]
*******
SECTION 2
Subsection (a) of this section is a technical amendment. It
would amend section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
U.S.G. 1429) to designate the existing section 609 as subsection
(a) and to add at the end thereof a new subsection (b) described
below.
The new subsection (b) of section 609 of the act would author-
ize the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any
airman certificate upon the conviction of the holder of such certifi-
cate of any violation enumerated in subsection (a) of section 1 of
the reported bill, regarding the use or operation of an aircraft.
Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1968 authorizes the
Federal Aviation Administrator, among other things, to reinspect
[p. 5]
aircraft and reexamine civil airmen to see that safety in air com-
merce or air transportation and the public interest are adequate.
Your committee felt that hunting from aircraft or discharging
firearms from aircraft and harassing and chasing wildlife at low
altitudes would in general, produce a safety hazard. Your commit-
tee felt that it would be appropriate, acting under the powers of
the Congress to regulate commerce, which has been extended to
include navigable airspace, to authorize the Administrator to reg-
ulate the performance and behavior by aircraft and their pilots
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2195
and operators. Accordingly, the bill would amend the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 to give the Administrator the authority to
amend, modify, suspend, or revoke any airman certificate upon the
conviction of such holder of any violation under section 1 of the
bill.
Your committee would like to point out that it is not the intent
of this legislation to interfere with in any way the right of the
States to manage fish and wildlife within their respective bounda-
ries. Further, your committee would like to make it clear that it is
the intention of this legislation to supplement State law in this
regard by regulating the airspace of the United States in order to
prevent the type of activity covered by the legislation.
Subsections (b) (1) and (2) are technical amendments. They
would appropriately amend the section heading of such section 609
and the table of contents of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
[p. 6]
1.10d(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 92-421, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
SHOOTING ANIMALS FROM AIRCRAFT
NOVEMBER 2, 1971.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HART, from the Committee on Commerce,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5060]
[p. 1]
*******
SECTION 2
Subsection (a) of this section would amend section 609 of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1429) to designate the
existing subsection 609 as subsection (a) and to add at the end
thereof a new subsection (b) described below.
The new subsection (b) of section 609 of the act would author-
-------
2196 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ize the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any
airman certificate upon the conviction of the holder of such certifi-
cate of any violation enumerated in subsection (a) of section 1 of
the reported bill,
[p. 4]
regarding the use or operation of any aircraft. This would, of
course, be subject to the defense that the activity was permitted
pursuant to subsection (b) of the first section of the bill.
Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1968 authorized the
Federal Aviation Administrator, among other things, to revoke or
modify an airman certificate if safety in air commerce or air
transportation and the public interest require it. Hunting from
aircraft or discharging firearms from aircraft and harassing and
chasing wildlife at low altitudes would certainly produce a safety
hazard. Acting under the powers of the Congress to regulate inter-
state commerce, which would include licensing of aircraft opera-
tors, it would be appropriate to authorize the Administrator to
regulate the performance and behavior of aircraft and their pilots
and operators. Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
would be amended to give the Administrator the authority to
amend, modify, suspend, or revoke any airman certificate upon the
conviction of such holder of any violation under section 1 of the
reported bill.
Subsections (b) (1) and (2) of this section would appropriately
amend the section heading of section 609 and the table of contents
of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
[p. 5]
1.10d(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 117 (1971)
1.10d(3)(a) May 17: Considered and passed House, pp. H3973-
H3977
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10d(3)(b) Nov. 4: Considered and passed Senate, p. S17630
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10d(3)(c) Nov. 5: House concurred in Senate amendments, p.
H10550
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2197
1.10e AIRPORT AND AIRWAY PROGRAMS
November 27, 1971, P.L. 92-174, §§5(b), 6, 85 Stat. 492
AN ACT
To amend the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 to
further clarify the intent of Congress as to priorities for airway
modernization and airport development, and for other purposes.
[p.i]
SEC. 5. (a) Section 51 (b) (4) of the Airport and Airway De-
velopment Act of 1970 is amended by striking- out "two-year
period" and inserting in lieu thereof "three-year period".
(b) Subsection (b) of section 612 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1432(b)), as added by section 51 of the Air-
port and Airway Development Act of 1970, is amended by striking
out all after "transportation" in the third sentence thereof and
inserting in lieu thereof a period and the following: "Unless the
Administrator determines that it would be contrary to the public
interest, such terms, conditions, and limitations shall include
but not be limited to terms, conditions, and limitations relating to
the operation and maintenance of adequate safety equipment,
including firefighting and rescue equipment capable of rapid ac-
cess to any portion of the airport used for the landing, takeoff,
or surface maneuvering of aircraft."
SEC. 6. Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49
U.S.C. 1429) is amended by inserting "(including airport operat-
ing certificate)" immediately after "air navigation facility
certificate".
Approved November 27, 1971.
[p. 2]
1.10e(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 92-459, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10e(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 92-378, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
-------
2198 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.10e(3) SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
S. REP. No. 92-394, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10e(4) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 92-624, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10e(5) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 117 (1971)
1.10e(5)(a) Sept. 22: Considered and passed House
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10e(5)(b) Oct. 12: Considered and passed Senate, amended
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10e(5)(c) Nov. 8: Senate agreed to conference report
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10e(5)(d) Nov. 16: House agreed to conference report
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.10f NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234
AN ACT
To control the emission of noise detrimental to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Noise Control Act of
1972".
*******
"CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 611. (a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'FAA' means Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2199
"(2) The term 'EPA' means the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
"(b) (1) In order to afford present and future relief and
protection to the public health and welfare from aircraft noise and
sonic boom, the FAA, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and with EPA, shall prescribe and amend stand-
ards 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 aircraft
noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards
and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspen-
sion, 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 safety in air
commerce or air transportation 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 an 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 sec-
tion which apply to such aircraft and which protect the public
from aircraft noise and sonic boom, consistent with the considera-
tions listed in subsection (d).
[p. 6]
" (c) (1) Not earlier than the date of submission of the report
required by section 7 (a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA
shall submit to the FAA proposed regulations to provide such
control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom (including
control and abatement through the exercise of any of the FAA's
regulatory authority over air commerce or transportation or over
aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare. The FAA shall consider
such proposed regulations submitted by EPA under this para-
graph and shall, within thirty days of the date of its submission to
the FAA, publish the proposed regulations in a notice of proposed
rulemaking. Within sixty days after such publication, the FAA
shall commence a hearing at which interested persons shall be
afforded an opportunity for oral (as well as written) presenta-
-------
2200 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tions of data, views, and arguments. Within a reasonable time
after the conclusion of such hearing and after consultation with
EPA, the FAA shall—
"(A) in accordance with subsection (b), prescribe regula-
tions (i) substantially as they were submitted by EPA, or
(ii) which are a modification of the proposed regulations
submitted by EPA, or
"(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice that it is not
prescribing any regulation in response to EPA's submission
of proposed regulations, together with a detailed explanation
providing reasons for the decision not to prescribe such regu-
lations.
"(2) If EPA has reason to believe that the FAA's action with
respect to a regulation proposed by EPA under paragraph
(1) (A) (ii) or (1) (B) of this subsection does not protect the
public health and welfare from aircraft noise or sonic boom, con-
sistent 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 pre-
scribing the regulation originally proposed by EPA. Any such
request shall be published in the Federal Register and shall in-
clude a detailed statement of the information on which it is based.
The FAA shall complete the review requested and shall report to
EPA within such time as EPA specifies in the request, but such
time specified may not be less than ninety 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 statement filed pursuant to
section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 with respect to such action of the FAA under paragraph (1)
of this subsection; and shall specify whether (and where) such
statements are 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.
"(3) If, in the case of a matter described in paragraph (2) 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 proposed regulation originally submitted by
EPA should not be made, then EPA may request the FAA to file a
supplemental report, which shall be published in the Federal Reg-
ister within such a period as EPA may specify (but such time
specified shall not be less than ninety days from the date the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2201
request was made), and which shall contain a comparison of (A)
the environmental effects (including those which cannot be
avoided) of the action actually taken by the FAA in response to
EPA's proposed regulations, and (B) EPA's proposed regulations.
[P-7]
"(d) In prescribing and amending standards and regulations
under this section, the FAA shall—
"(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft
noise and sonic boom, including the results of research, devel-
opment, testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant
to this Act and the Department of Transportation Act ;
" (2) consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agen-
cies as he deems appropriate;
" (3) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation
is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air com-
merce or air transportation in the public interest;
" (4) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation
is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft en-
gine, appliance, or certificate to which it will apply; and
" (5) consider the extent to which such standard or regula-
tion will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this sec-
tion.
"(e) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a
certificate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom stand-
ards 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 FAA if it
finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic boom and
the public health and welfare do not require the affirmation of
such order, or that such order is not consistent with safety in air
commerce or air transportation."
[p. 8]
526-704 O - 73 - 29
-------
2202,. LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.10f(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
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
detrimental 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.
[p. 1]
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
*******
Interagency coordination with regard to aircraft noise standards
(10) by directing the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to consult with the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in prescribing noise control standards
and regulations under the applicable provisions of the Federal
Aviation Act; by authorizing the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to request the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration to review any standard or regu-
lation which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency has reason to believe does not adequately protect the pub-
lic from aircraft noise or sonic boom, and to submit a report to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on the
results of such review; and by prohibiting 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) ;
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2203
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 envi-
ronmental concern.
(2) The adequacy of technology to deal with the problem of
noise abatement.
(3) The extent and effectiveness of present Federal pro-
grams 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 control-
ling noise.
(5) The proper roles of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration with re-
spect to aircraft noise.
[p. 5]
THE PROPER ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT
TO AIRCRAFT NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
The Committee has established procedures whereby it is in-
tended that a combined EPA-FAA effort will have the effect of
protection of the public from excessive aircraft noise, a nation-
wide complaint. FAA and EPA presently have a formal relation-
ship 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 characteris-
tics of civilian aircraft. It also weighed proposals which would
vest the Administrator of the EPA with the authority to establish
such standards. It was determined that neither of these proce-
dures was practical at this time because of the lack of the neces-
sary technical expertise with respect to aircraft design within the
EPA. For this reason, the bill retains 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
consultation role with respect to aircraft noise standards, the bill
-------
2204 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
provides that after the date of enactment of this bill original type
certificates
[p. 9]
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 Administrator 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 indi-
cates an agreement to take specific actions that have been re-
quested by EPA, the FAA report must also appear in the Federal
Register. Any such report must identify any environmental im-
pact statements which have been filed under the National Environ-
mental 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 agen-
cies' 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 rela-
tionship does not serve to provide the public with effective reduc-
tions in aircraft noise within a reasonable time, further considera-
tion 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
relationship 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.
[p. 10]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2205
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
subsection (a) is redesignated (b) (1) and amended, and the for-
mer subsections (b) and (c) are redesignated as (d) and (e),
respectively.
[p. 14]
Subsection 611 (b) (1) is amended to direct that the Administra-
tor of EPA be consulted for his advice before standards or regula-
tions are promulgated or amended. However, all standards, rules,
or regulations (or exceptions thereto) in effect at the date of the
enactment 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 noise abatement
can be achieved by prescribing standards and regulations unless
such standards and regulations have been prescribed and are con-
sistent with the redesignated subsection (d). Under that subsec-
tion the Administrator of FAA must consider all relevant availa-
ble data; consult with other 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 (e) if the Administrator of the
EPA has reason to believe that (1) an existing or proposed stand-
ard 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 consist-
ent with the considerations 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,
-------
2206 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the report of the FAA must be published in the Federal Register
within a time specified by the Administrator 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 environmental impact state-
ment 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
environmental 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 Ad-
ministrator of the EPA.
(The exemptions to which this section refers include exemp-
tions from noise standards and regulations, granted under section
601 (c), and exemptions from section 610 (a) granted under sec-
tion 610 (b),
[p. 15]
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.)
[p. 16]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2207
1.10f(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 Public 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.
[P. 1]
*******
AIRCRAFT NOISE
Excessive noise from aircraft has been identified as the major
noise problem for many Americans. One of the concerns which the
Committee 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 Administra-
tion, 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 cer-
tain 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 and expertise
of the Environmental Protection Agency is in identifying levels of
-------
2208 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
environmental noise associated with adverse effects on public
health and welfare, and, as in the Clean Air Act and Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, in assessing the availability of tech-
nology to attain such levels. The special expertise and responsibil-
ity 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 com-
merce.
Accordingly, section 501 of the reported bill requires the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promul-
gate standards for the measurement of aircraft noise and to iden-
tify levels of noise emissions from aircraft and aircraft engines
which in his judgment are adequate to protect the public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. In this instance
the term "safety" refers to safety from adverse effects of noise on
public health and welfare. The Environmental Protection Agency
therefore establishes in the first instance the levels for aircraft
noise which would be necessary to protect public health and wel-
fare.
Standards for noise emissions from aircraft, which actually de-
fine what aircraft manufacturers and air carriers must attain,
would be promulgated on the basis of the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of the best available demon-
strated technology, taking into account the cost of compliance.
Technological availability and the reasonableness of compliance
costs would be jointly determined by the Administrators of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, since they share expertise in these matters. How-
ever, standards may be promulgated only after the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration 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]
suring safety is recognized in this veto over aircraft noise emis-
sion 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 di-
rected to review those standards within 9 months after enactment
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2209
for consistency with the requirements of this bill. Original type
certificates cannot be issued after July 1, 1973, unless noise emis-
sion standards which apply to such aircraft have been promul-
gated. Any standards would be implemented and enforced through
the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration, under its
on-going program of inspection and certification of aircraft. In
addition, violations of the standards would be subject to the penal-
ties and abatement procedures until Title IV, including 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 regulatory scheme dealing with community noise around air-
ports, a one year study by the EPA of the implications of identify-
ing and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposures around
airports. The results of this study, submitted to the Committees on
Public Works and Commerce of the Senate and the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House with legislative
recommendations, will form the basis for any legislation on air-
craft noise in the next Congress.
Also included in this study are the adequacy of FAA flight and
operational noise controls, the adequacy of noise emission stand-
ards on new and existing standards on new and existing aircraft
(together with the Environmental Protection Agency's recommen-
dations on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft), and
any additional measures available to airport operators and local
governments to control aircraft noise. In the context of the devel-
opment 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 phaseout requirements. (See
appendix for text of letter and replies.)
Tools other than noise emission standards do exist for reducing
aircraft noise. It is the intention of the Committee in section
501 (c) of the bill that all existing authority over aircraft or
aircraft noise be utilized to reduce that noise, including, among
other things, the consideration of flight and operational changes
-------
2210 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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]
address responsibilities or powers of airport operators, and 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.
[p. 11]
TITLE V
Part A—Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom
This part (sections 501 through 508) provides that the Adminis-
trator 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 ac-
tually 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 deter-
mined that they are consistent with the highest degree of safety in
air commerce, and technologically available for application to par-
ticular types of aircraft. Standards under section 611 of the Fed-
eral 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 re-
sponsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Section 502 of this part directs the Administrator of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency to conduct a one year study of a)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2211
the adequacy of FAA flight and operational noise controls; b) the
adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing air-
craft, 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 air-
ports; and d) additional measures available to airport operators
and local governments to control aircraft noise. The Administra-
tor 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 Com-
merce of the House of Representatives.
Section 508, on civil aircraft sonic boom, forbids commercial
flights of supersonic aircraft over the United States and its terri-
torial waters or the contiguous zone at supersonic speeds, but
would permit research and development flights of supersonic air-
craft. 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 regula-
tory scheme for noise emissions from surface carriers engaged in
interstate commerce by railroad. The Administrator of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency is required to publish within 9
months after enactment and promulgate within 90 days after pub-
lication noise emission standards for railroad equipment and facil-
ities involved in interstate transportation, including both new and
existing sources. Such standards must be established 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 deter-
mines necessary to develop and apply the requisite technology, and
are im-
[p. 18]
*******
MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. MUSKIE
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, regulation of aircraft noise pollution has been the sole re-
-------
2212 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
sponsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal
Aviation Admiriistra-
[P- 22]
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 re-
sponse has been inadequate. The FAA's responsibility is not to
reduce the environmental impact caused by aircraft noise. Its pri-
mary responsibility 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, FA A set forth a
"noise floor" at 80 EPNdB as "an objective to aim for, and to
achieve where economically reasonable, technologically practica-
ble, and appropriate to the particular design" and went on:
However, this objective is important because it makes it
clear to all applicants that no increment of noise above 80
EPNdB can be considered acceptable, in and of itself, where
it can be eliminated practically and reasonably. This figure is
proposed as a reasonable boundary between noise levels that
are high enough to interfere with communications and to
obstruct normal life in homes or other buildings that are not
designed with specific acoustical objectives, and lower noise
levels which, while not completely benign, nevertheless allow
those activities to proceed. Where this goal can be reached in
a given case, and can be justified as economically reasonable,
technologically practical, and appropriate to the particular
type design, the FAA does not intend to ignore this potential
reduction.
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
following excerpt from a draft report on noise pollution prepared
by the Environmental Protection Agency:
Both directly and by unmistakable inference, a number of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2213
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 pos-
sible.
While this statement was deleted from the final report transmit-
ted to the Congress, it is indicative of FAA's attitude toward noise
from aircraft. Unfortunately, the bill, as reported, would continue
dominance of the FAA. Not only would FAA have veto over safety
of
[p. 23]
noise reduction technology, but also EPA could make no judgment
as to the availability of technology or cost of achieving noise
reductions without FAA approval.
Continuation of the Federal Aviation Administration in a role
of determining the degree to which noise emissions from aircraft
will be reduced is not justified in the record. While the Committee
bill takes steps to establish the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency as the determinator of those levels of air-
craft noise required to protect public health and welfare, EPA will
have little authority to enforce standards to meet those require-
ments.
Members of the Committee, including myself, recognized that
aircraft were unique because of the safety requirements and the
interrelationship of safety to the engine system. Therefore, I
agreed with the Committee's judgment and supported the amend-
ments of Senator Cooper and Senator Stafford which would retain
the Federal Aviation Administration lead role in making any final
determination as to whether or not any technology available to
achieve noise emission levels would also be consistent with the
highest standards of safety. The assumption that technology
might not be available to meet noise emission goals combined with
the assumption that technology could be vetced because of FAA
safety judgment, lead to the conclusion that there must be a mech-
anism to assure maximum pressure to develop safe technology
-------
2214 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
while at the same time reducing the impact of noise in the envi-
ronments 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 environ-
ments, whether or not specific aircraft engine emission control
technology was available.
Without an action-forcing mechanism such as enforceable "cu-
mulative 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 cumula-
tive noise levels and emission standards would create that pres-
sure. Obviously if technology exists to achieve the levels of noise
emission reduction to protect public health, achievement of emis-
sion 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 Pro-
tection Agency to identify any airports in the country with air-
craft noise problems of a magnitude to cause a violation of cumu-
lative noise exposure levels. The proposal denned "cumulative
noise exposure levels" as those levels of noise in the environments
of airports associated with aircraft operations which were ad-
versely affecting the health and welfare of people around airports.
Under these regulatory provisions, airports with significant prob-
lems would be the subject of a conference to determine the alter-
natives available to reduce exposure levels and protect health and
property. Each conference would result in a report by the Admin-
istrator setting forth potential alternatives including flight and
operational patterns, on-ground noise control methods, modifica-
tion in the frequency and number of flights,
[P- 24]
modification in the hours of airport use, and land use methods.
Each Federal agency including the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion and the Civil Aeronautics Board would apply existing author-
ity to achieve maximum noise reductions possible through addi-
tional regulatory procedures.
But, most importantly, this provision would have imposed a
positive burden upon the operator of the airport to exercise re-
sponsibility to regulate the number, the frequency and the hours
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2215
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 responsibility to carry out such re-
sponsibilities would be established by statute.
This concept is not unique. In 1970, the Congress enacted legis-
lation which requires a development of a clean car by 1975. That
law recognized that reliance on technology alone would not result
in elimination of auto-related pollution as a health hazard until
existing vehicles were off the road—perhaps mid-1985 or later.
Therefore, the bill established a procedure to regulate the use of
automobiles in areas in which automobile-related air pollution was
unacceptably high to assure that public health would be protected
at an early date (in this instance, 1975-1976).
The combination of emission reduction technology and air qual-
ity implementation plans have proved to be a useful mechanism
both to improve air quality and to apply pressure on local govern-
ments 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 environments 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 inade-
quate. Without a provision of this type, the bill does not address in
a meaningful way the real problem faced by people who are con-
fronted now with unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. The re-
ported bill would force these people to wait for emission control
technology to be developed and applied to new and existing air-
craft, or on the courts to impose sufficient penalties or damaged
claims against the airlines and the airport 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 envi-
ronmental noise problems is equally unacceptable. I think it is
inadequate to rely on claims for damages, penalties against the
airlines and injunctions as a substitute for positive regulatory
programs.
Mr. President, I think it is inadequate to enact a Federal law
-------
2216 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
which ignores the most basic and most significant problem of noise
as perceived 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]
capacity of school children in the vicinity of Los Angeles Airport.
Senator Tunney said:
According to the report, continuous exposure to a 90-deci-
bel 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
children from distinguishing among the words "where",
"we're", and "wear", because they could not hear the differ-
ence in sounds. To the physical and emotional effects from
excessive noise must be added these problems in vocal re-
sponse. 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 pollution legislation which might be forthcoming. He said
the Administration wants a bill and he did not care what provi-
sions that bill included.
This fact, combined with the decision of the Senate, that no
controversial measures reported after September 15 would be con-
sidered on the floor, has resulted in an inadequate bill. These
inadequacies must be corrected before the Senate concurs.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
[p. 26]
APPENDIX
Responses to Letter From Senator Tunney Concerning Establish-
ment of a Mandatory Schedule for Achieving Reductions in
Aircraft Noise Emissions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2217
[Letter from Senator Tunney to which the following are re-
sponses]
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 Pub-
lic Works Committee has been marking up a noise pollution con-
trol 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
legislation. In order to meet the deadlines, aircraft which could
not be retrofitted economically could be retired and replaced by the
new generation 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 stand-
ards in Appendix C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regula-
tions (i.e., 108 EpndB). New aircraft types manufactured after
date of enactment would be required to meet best available tech-
nology, or, at a minimum, a noise level 15 EpndB lower than the
Part 36 standard by January 1, 1975. Additionally, the EPA Ad-
ministrator 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 previous 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
treatment 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, alternative specific language which could be inserted in
the legislation.
If I could receive your comments by Monday, September 18, I
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
526-704 O - 73 - 30
-------
2218 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
to respond, but I hope that you will be able to cooperate with us.
Cor-
[p. 29]
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. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senator.
AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
September 14, 1972.
HON. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
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 requirements by January 1, 1976. Your proposal also speci-
fies that new aircraft types manufactured after the date of enact-
ment would be required to meet the best available technology or,
at a minimum, 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 FAR Part 36 is an abso-
lutely 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 Federal 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 retrofit-
ted 727 will take place this fall with a final report due in the first
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2219
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 completion 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. Pre-
liminary 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 individ-
ual 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]
have a financially healthy national air transportation system. Sev-
eral different approaches exist for providing financial assistance
to an aircraft owner if that assistance is needed or requested.
They include: accelerated tax depreciation benefits, Federal fund-
ing and loan guarantees, or a small increase in passenger ticket
and cargo waybill user charges for the short period of time re-
quired to assist in financing the above options. Another economic
consideration which must be considered 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 manufactured after January
1, 1975 meet either the best available technology or, at a mini-
mum, 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 further support the proposal for setting a goal of reduc-
ing 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 support for these proposals. There must be
action now to reduce aircraft noise pollution. We believe that the
best way to accomplish this without incurring further delays is to
-------
2220 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
mandate the agency which is conducting investigations and stud-
ies 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 FORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY,
New York, N.Y., September 18,1972.
HON. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : Thank you for your letter of Sep-
tember 12, concerning proposed changes to the noise pollution
control bill (S. 3342).
We believe that language such as that suggested in your third
paragraph is essential if the new bill is to result in timely and
effective reduction of aircraft noise. The best information availa-
ble to us indicates that January 1, 1976 is a reasonable target date
for a retrofit program if action is started now. Of critical impor-
tance, however, is the development of a financing program for the
capital required to accomplish retrofit. Without Federal Govern-
ment leadership in this area, I am afraid that retrofit will be
jeopardized.
The suggested limit of 15 EPNdB below FAR Part 36 seems
excessive 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]
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 tech-
nology will be applied to further noise reduction rather than in-
creased payload and range.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2221
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 H, 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. I feel rather strongly on the subject and
would like to comment further.
I would like to offer you a summary of recommendations, my
credentials, and discussion giving reasons for the recommenda-
tions. In summary, it is technologically and economically feasible
to accomplish these recommendations. It is specifically recom-
mended 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 re-
quired 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 NAG A 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 total payment to come
from the trust fund formula;
(d) That in lieu of retrofit, an air carrier may choose to
retire existing aircraft from service, in favor of purchasing new,
quieter aircraft, 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.
-------
2222 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
As to my credentials, I graduated from the University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley, with a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering,
with an aeronautics option. I am a registered Professional Engi-
neer in the State of California. I served four years as a naval
aviator, flew airline 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 Manager. I served as an airport rep-
resentative on the Aeronautics and
[p. 32]
Space Engineering Board ad hoc study advisory committee which
resulted in the joint DOT/NASA civil aviation K&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 eco-
nomically feasible. The airlines say they cannot afford to retrofit
and they cannot. We would take the position and state that air-
craft 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 con-
tract 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 all
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 Air-
port, 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2223
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
opportunity to pay for that reduction. A passenger head charge of
say $1.00 per passenger would currently generate some 175 Mil-
lion 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 pur-
chased. 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
aircraft manufactured after date of enactment to meet the noise
level
[p. 33]
of 15 EPNdB by 1976. I 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 development 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 reason-
ably 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,
-------
2224 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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 en-
gines. The DC-8 and 707 will probably be retired in favor of the
new aircraft with quieter engines. This would result in a positive
program that would stimulate the aircraft industry and would
give the general public which must endure the noise relief with
programmed 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.
Very truly yours,
JAMES M. NISSEN,
Airport Manager
GENERAL ELECTRIC Co.,
West Lynn, Mass., September 14, 1972.
HON. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, B.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 replacement by the new quieter types, the ap-
propriateness of the FAR 36 noise standard for all aircraft land-
ing at U.S. airports after January 1, 1976 and FAR36 minus 15
EPnL for new aircraft types by January 1975. I have not at-
tempted to address myself to the specific language of your 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. 34]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2225
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 substantially modi-
fied engines and nacelles to meet FAR36, 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 prob-
lems 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 certi-
fied at noise levels below FAR36. The aircraft types using the
General Electric CF6 engine in the 1971-1976 time period includ-
ing 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 air-
craft available.
The smaller aircraft such as the 727/DC9/737 can be ap-
proached in a different way. We believe it is possible for this class
of aircraft to have their nacelles modified in such a way that
FAR36 can be met and that their noise footprints could be reduced
with proper consideration of takeoff and approach aircraft operat-
ing procedures (such as power cutback and 2 segment ap-
proaches) . Whether engine retrofit of the existing aircraft fleet is
sensible is another mater-—particularly 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 re-
versers, we believe that this approach will also prove to be a very
-------
2226 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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 CFG or the new 20-25 000 # thrust turbof ans 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 FAR36 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 considev "FAR36 minus 15
EPnL
[p. 35]
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 meeting FAR36 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 ques-
tion 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 completely 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 turbo-
fan 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/jobs/balance of trade, and the general health of the
aircraft and airline industry.
Sincerely,
GERHARD NEUMANN.
[Noise Footprints have been omitted.]
[p. 36]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2227
GILBERT, SEGALL & YOUNG,
New York, N.Y., September Ik, 1972.
Senator JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: I have your letter of September 8,
1972 concerning S. 3342. Unfortunately, this did not reach me
until yesterday, after being forwarded through Washington and
New Jersey. You will recall that your letter was addressed to me
as President of Rolls-Royce, Inc., 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York,
New York, 10020. Rolls-Royce, Inc. has since 1969 had no connec-
tion with aviation, 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 asso-
ciation 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 sub-
sidiary, 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 Engines, 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 opera-
tion of aircraft should remain with the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration 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.
-------
2228 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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
primarily 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 foreign 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]
expert public agency capable of taking into account all of the
necessary considerations. Further, the dates and standards the bill
would set appears to me to be very optimistic on the basis of
present knowledge, though I recognize that predictions in this
area are very difficult.
4. As to your specific inquiries, it is not possible on such short
notice for me to give you useful responses. Beyond that, I do not
believe that there is sufficient data presently available concerning
retrofit, the cost of retrofitting, lead times and procedures respect-
ing specific types of aircraft. One can only be sure that retrofit of
older aircraft, including, as you suggest, new front fan treatment,
would be enormously costly and disruptive, but it would be prema-
ture to make any dependable 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 Gulf stream 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-Royce engines do,
however, 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 characteris-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2229
tics, 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 re-
marks 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 comparative costs of retrofit and retirement and
replacement, nor do I believe that I could make informed com-
ments 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 appropriate
data, we shall certainly do our best to assist you in any way we
can.
Yours sincerely,
PHIL E. GILBERT, Jr.
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORP.,
Burbank, Calif., September 14, 1972.
HON. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : 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 fu-
ture airplanes. I think
[p. 39]
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 econ-
omy, and our aircraft the major element in sustaining our inter-
national 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
contribute our thoughts toward rational legislation for improving
the over-all acceptability of an airport within a community, and
-------
2230 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
we recognize 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 of
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" for required noise
performance.
Although our L—1011 has bettered current noise standards by
several EPNdB, we see no reasonable way to achieve a 15 EPNdB
improvement 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 Department of Transportation suggested the possibil-
ity 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 poten-
tial certification dates rather than new airplane delivery dates. It
is not clear in your letter whether "new aircraft types manufac-
tured after date of enactment . . ." refers to any new airplane or
only to new airplane 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2231
now sold, all of which have utilized everything practically availa-
ble in the state of the art to improve noise performance. In Lock-
heed's case, this
[p. 40]
would affect 100 to 200 airplanes which now are under firm con-
tracts, or second buys, or additional follow-on airplanes from pres-
ent customers.
c. If your reference to "new aircraft types manufactured. . . ."
actually means "certified" after enactment, there is still a major
problem with new versions of present designs, such as twin con-
versions, 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 15
EPNdB reduction, any such extension of our current models
would be effectively stopped.
RETROFIT
Although Lockheed does not have current large transport air-
craft which exceed the maximum noise level standards of Appen-
dix C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, we recog-
nize 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
dramatized by the estimates of research and development for such
a powerplant 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 devel-
opment 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 afford without major com-
pensating 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 aircraft. We estimate that appro.' imately 1300 of
these would still have an economic future in January 1976, and
retrofit of this number would therefore be nearly another $700
million.
-------
2232 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIK
By introducing these costs, we do not wish to leave the impres-
sion that we oppose retrofit; we only want to emphasize the finan-
cial impact 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 muffling of present powerplants which are
inherently noisy leads to major cost burdens and inefficiency as
well as excessive operational difficulties. This same comment holds
true when the use of similar massive suppression is proposed to
achieve the very last dB for more modern engines which are quiet
to begin with. Modern high bypass engines could, indeed, be fur-
ther suppressed, but the noise alleviation is so small that it proba-
bly 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 purchasers
alike.
[p. 41]
In summary, we recognize and applaud the national emphasis
on aircraft noise reduction. The Industry, without special financial
assistance from the Government has made monumental efforts to
respond, and is now delivering "quiet" aircraft which have re-
tained the earning 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 accomplishment must be compatible with
this financial support to prevent 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 development remain with
the FAA (DOT), ably supported by the technical talent within
NASA.
Very sincerely yours,
D. J. HAUGHTON,
Chairman of the Board.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2233
THE BOEING Co.,
Seattle, Wash., September 18, 1972.
HON. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. 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 concerned with aircraft noise. The timing of your request
and the complexity of the questions make complete answers diffi-
cult if not impossible. 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 sched-
ule of accomplishment is unsound. There exists today industry and
government 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 gov-
ernment and industry 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 re-
search and development funding or monetary support to the air-
lines.
The suggested 15 EPNDB reduction by January 1, 1975, cannot
be commented on unless the specific meaning of "new aircraft
types manufactured 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 accomplish-
ment is unknown and is completely dependent upon an adequately
funded research program. In either case,
[p. 42]
526-704 O - 73 - 31
-------
2234 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
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 R&D was for about 130 million
dollars. We most emphatically endorse pursuing the new front fan
concept because of its great promise for meaningful noise reduc-
tion as well as airplane performance 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
prescribing and amending aircraft noise standards. We consider it
inadvisable and potentially dangerous to the traveling public, as
well as those living 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.
Currently we have over 400 scientists, engineers and technicians
at Boeing directly involved in noise reduction research and devel-
opment. 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 greatest 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 extent technically feasible and at the rate the
Congress and the Nation desires.
Very truly yours,
T. A WILSON.
[Attachment.]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
BOEING NOISE REDUCTION RESEARCH
In millions of dollars
2235
Year:
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965 ,
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Total
Boeing
R. & D.
. 601
..106
..282
.472 ...
. . 550
..310
.140
1.384
2.528
3 197
10 957
8.508
4.447
3.594
6031
43107
contract
Government
.022
.330
.210
.925
2484
6.878
2.873
1.082
9.788
10.918
32460
Total
.601
.106
.282
.472
.550
.332
.440
1.594
3.453
6.661
17.835
11.381
5.529
9.382
16.948
75.567
Note: Above expenditures do not include production development costs for airplane noise reduction
activities totaling over $23,000,000.
[p. 43]
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.,
St. Louis, Mo., September 15, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : I am writing in response to your letter
of September 8 addressed to J. S. McDonnell, concerning pro-
visions of the noise pollution control act (S. 3342) introduced by
you and Senator 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 response to his request for informal comments on tenta-
tive FAA regulations 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
commercially viable airplanes and engines can be produced which
generate far less noise than the requirements of F.A.R., Part 36,
without cost and other penalties in excess of what the taxpaying
public will accept. Research and development can undoubtedly im-
-------
2236 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
prove our ability to produce airplanes which generate less noise,
but there is no way to reliably evaluate the cost of reaching spe-
cific quantitative goals until after adequate research, development,
testing and evaluation has been accomplished. I therefore urge
that the government place great emphasis on expediting the neces-
sary RDT & E so as to establish what is feasible, and only then
stipulate dates when mandatory accomplishment 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 experience in establishing the requirements and their admin-
istration.
McDonnell Douglas is devoting a great deal of attention to the
problem 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,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JACK: Your letter of August 11, 1972, in which you dis-
cussed a notice of proposed rule making that would require noise
levels 10 EPNdB below FAR Part 36 for future production air-
craft, has convinced 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 air-
ports.
I'm not suggesting that we know how to accomplish reductions
which are in all cases as large as 10 EPNdB, 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]
mine the noise reductions that can be accomplished and the time
required 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 FAR 36 depending on the reference location. Some of our
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2237
research programs with your organization and with the NASA
may also lead to similar possibilities for the low bypass ratio
turbofan powered aircraft. 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 some-
thing is done to also reduce the noise of the JT3D and JT8D
powered aircraft now in the fleet. Those aircraft must be consid-
ered along with future production aircraft. We recognize that the
airlines do not have the resources to pay for a noise retrofit pro-
gram 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
currently being considered, such as temperature/altitude account-
ability 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 modification to Part 36 which addresses the total prob-
lem and requires that all practical steps be taken to solve it. I
would pledge my support to a program to develop such a modifica-
tion.
We, at Douglas, will be most happy to work with you and your
people both directly and through the Aerospace Industries Asso-
ciation 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 pollution control act (S. 3342). As indicated in your letter, it
is proposed that all existing aircraft comply with the maximum
noise level standards in Appendix C of FAR Part 36 after Janu-
ary 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
-------
2238 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
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
insufficient 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 meet-
ing FAR 36 noise requirements by January 1, 1976. The existing
fleet of aircraft
[p. 45]
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 feasi-
bility program includes nacelle acoustical treatment and jet sup-
pressors 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 36. Be-
cause these aircraft are at present so close to meeting the FAR 36
requirement, however, the improvement resulting from such ac-
tion would hardly be perceptible to the human ear, and thus would
not provide any appreciable noise relief to the airport communi-
ties. The current FAA and NASA programs are planned to accom-
plish reductions in jet noise as well as fan noise for both JT8D
and JT3D powered aircraft in order to obtain meaningful commu-
nity noise reduction. Provided these programs continue at ade-
quate funding levels, a decision on the appropriate 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 quiet-
er aircraft already under construction, there are no new quiet
aircraft under development to directly replace the smaller 727/
737/DC-9 class 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOEY 2239
have in hand either the technology or adequate funds to accom-
plish a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than FAR Part 36 for aircraft
manufactured after January 1, 1975. With strong government
support, the technology may be developed during the next few
years to accomplish a noise level 10 EPNdB lower than FAR Part
36 for aircraft manufactured in the late 1970's or early 1980's.
We strongly recommend that prior to establishment of aircraft
noise standards for future application, a joint task force, consist-
ing 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
suffering severe economic problems for several years. The finan-
cial 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 sig-
nificant role in making such a program financially possible.
Please be assured of our vital interest in the noise reduction
question. We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us to
comment
[p. 46]
on your proposal, and we would be pleased to participate in fur-
ther discussions or in any task force established to further define
future requirements for noise certification.
Sincerely,
B. H. TOEELL,
Division President,
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division.
NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL,
El Segundo, Calif., September 15, 1972.
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 additions which are being proposed to the noise pollution con-
trol act (S. 3342).
-------
2240 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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 develop-
ment of noise abatement technology. However, in view of the
present state of the art, we do not believe it is desirable to incor-
porate 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. Air-
planes 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 develop the information neces-
sary 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 technical information available with respect to noise re-
duction. 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]
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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2241
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
September 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 indus-
try 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 January 1, 1975, proposed in your letter
would be impossible to achieve. A 10 EPNdB reduction by 1981
was suggested by the Civil Aviation Research and Development
Policy Study (CARD) published by the Department of Transpor-
tation. Industry considers this an attainable goal, providing the
costly technological development involved continues to receive ap-
propriate 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 mea-
sures 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 experi-
mental 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 relevant research now underway. As you must
be aware, the transport aircraft and engine manufacturers have,
at great expense, made tremendous reductions in aircraft engine
noise during the past several years and are acutely aware of the
need for further reductions. Unfortunately 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
-------
2242 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
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 rea-
sons of safety, exercise the primary responsibility, in consultation
with the
[p. 48]
EPA, for setting aircraft noise standards. In the present context,
we would urge also that the standards-setting agency not be lim-
ited by legislated noise reduction goals.
Yours very truly,
KARL G. HARR, Jr.
AMERICAN AIRLINES,
New York, N.Y., September 15, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, B.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 solu-
tions to the noise problem. Our commitment to this goal is illus-
trated 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
developed 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
available 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
industry 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
operations 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2243
(5) The proposed January 1, 1975 requirement for new aircraft
to comply with FAR 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 com-
pliance with these levels 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 operational 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 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]
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 funding these studies.
When the preferred approach is determined, our engineers esti-
mate 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 modi-
fied. 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 treatment 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 magnitude. The suggested alternative,
-------
2244 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
which is to replace these airplanes by that date, is also unworka-
ble. 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 purchase
fifty-seven new DC-10's at a cost of approximately $1.1 billion.
Faced with these staggering costs, which we believe are entirely
realistic estimates, I cannot in any good conscience support a
retrofit program 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 transporta-
tion and the requirements of our certificates of public convenience
and necessity. Under such restrictions we could not provide serv-
ice 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 opin-
ion, 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 proce-
dures. 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 ap-
proach procedures. We believe it can already be established that
noise relief of the magnitude you seek is possible by the use of this
technique. This approach offers the best hope, in my opinion, of
reasonably prompt relief in the Los Angeles area.
[p. 50]
Noise abatement achieved by revised approach procedures could
resolve a significant concern over another aspect of the retrofit
proposal. Specifically, the difference between the current noise lev-
els of certain aircraft (in our case the 727's) and the require-
ments 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. Relief
through modification of approach procedures may consequently
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2245
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 problem 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 engi-
neers totally unrealistic. Such a requirement would necessitate the
use of a new engine vastly quieter than any now existing. It has
been our experience 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. SPATER.
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES,
New York, N.Y., September 14, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : TWA is pleased to have this opportu-
nity to respond to your letter query of September 8 on the control
of aircraft noise.
As you know perhaps, TWA has been instrumental and success-
ful through the years in forcing the development of quieter and
more pollution free aircraft. TWA, along with several other lead-
ing 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 tar-
geted toward the development of retrofit technology which have
existed throughout the jet age. It is also familiar with current
programs including the front fan and nacelle treatment programs
mentioned in your letter. In fact, TWA just completed a compre-
-------
2246 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
hensive 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]
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 practical solutions exist. However, all reasonable efforts to
advance applicable 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 impossi-
bly expensive and would occur in a time frame that would not
permit completion 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 retirement 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 increases, and loss of utilization during the
conversion period are all in addition and would total a very appre-
ciable 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 successful. It is of the greatest impor-
tance that such devices be tested for acceptability by human ears
on a controlled empirical basis. History shows that meters and
forecasted results simply are not reliable in this regard. In no
event should retrofit programs or implementation schedules be
adopted until this is done.
Thus, summarily, the suggested FAR 36 compliance date of
January 1, 1976 for all aircraft operating into U.S. airports is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2247
totally unrealistic and cannot be achieved. At this time it is impos-
sible 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 feasi-
bility 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 man-
ufactured 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 EpnDB 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
language in S. 3342 on aircraft noise alleviation requirements or
retrofit schedules that an informal meeting be held between you
and/or your
[P- 52]
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 appropriate, TWA would, of course, be happy to partici-
pate.
Very truly yours,
F. C. WISER.
INSTITUTE OF NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING,
Cambridge, Mass., September 18, 1972.
SENATOR JOHN V. TUNNEY,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, 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 Acad-
emy of Engineering and upon jet engine and airport noise re-
-------
2248 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
search in studies performed by me and my colleagues at Bolt
Beranek and Newman Inc.
The current state of technology supports the addition of lan-
guage to S. 3342 that, "No aircraft could land at U.S. airports
after 1 January 1976, unless such aircraft complied with the maxi-
mum noise level standards in Appendix C of Part 36 of the Fed-
eral Aviation Regulation." However, the requirement that new
aircraft meet a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than the FAR 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 technology 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 FAR 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 FAR 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 Aviation Administration and the Department of
Transportation along with NASA have supported technology de-
velopment 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]
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 particu-
lar the NAE Board, INGE, and Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
and other research companies would be pleased to provide you
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2249
with detailed comments in regard to the present status of acousti-
cal technology pertinent to the subject of aircraft retrofit and new
aircraft development.
Sincerely,
LEO L. BERANEK,
President, INCE.
[p. 54]
526-704 O - 73 - 32
-------
2250
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.10f(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 118 (1972)
1.10f(3)(a) Feb. 29: Considered and passed House, pp. H1508-1539
Mr. STAGGERS.
*****
The program would be administered
by the EPA, which already has an
office set up for that purpose. EPA
would coordinate the major noise con-
trol programs of seven Federal de-
partments and agencies, as well as 12
minor programs conducted by other
agencies. Besides that, EPA would
work with the FAA in trying to solve
the noise problems of our airlines and
airplanes. Under the Federal Aviation
Act we have provided that there be
substantial noise research and control.
We found that noise has to be consid-
ered along- with safety and safety
comes first before we can consider any-
thing else. We shall try to work on
the noise problems and we shall make
progress.
We hope within the next few years
we will have planes that will not make
any noise that will be objectionable.
*****
Mr. ADDABBO. In view of the col-
loquy held with the gentleman from
Iowa, and the growing problem of
possible damage to hearing, et cetera,
could the gentleman explain to me
why, under section 7, "aircraft noise
standards," the FAA is retained as
the custodian of noise decibels and not
the EPA, especially in view of the
fact that the FAA has had this au-
thority for the past 3 years and has
not set noise decibels, has not fulfilled
the obligation given to it by congres-
sional direction?
Mr. STAGGERS. They are working
on it, I say to my colleague from New
York, and hope to come up with an
engine which will be within the limits,
and far below the limits. I believe this
is possible, from the information I
have received.
We said that safety should come
first. That is the reason why we left it
with the FAA. The EPA or some
other agency might not know about
safety, and might come out to say,
"you can have so many decibels of
noise on takeoff and landing," and
several hundred people or perhaps
thousands might be killed. We say it
has to be within the limits of safety.
They will reduce this noise, and
hopefully within the next 5 years will
have reduced this to the point where
people can sleep at night.
As the gentleman knows, in several
cities such as Washington, D.C. the
jets cannot come in after 11 o'clock at
night and cannot take off until after 6
o'clock in the morning.
Mr. ADDABBO. We do not have
that privilege in and around Kennedy
Airport, where they take off 24 hours
a day.
We would rather have the EPA set
the noise decibels, with the FAA act-
ing as consultant, rather than vice
versa.
Mr. STAGGERS. I do not believe
they can possibly do it. We set up the
noise control under the FAA. They
have been working on it faithfully.
They have been doing a lot of re-
search. I understand they will come
up with something within the next
few years and we will have aircraft
that will not be making excessive
noise.
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, I
support H.R. 11021, the Noise Control
Act of
[p. H1510]
1972. Many of the provisions of this
legislation are similar to proposals
which I have sponsored or supported
before and I commend the members of
the Interstate and Foreign Commerce
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2251
Committee and the Public Health and
Environment Subcommittee for their
outstanding work on this legislation.
The bill before the House today
would empower the Environmental
Protection Agency—EPA—to control
the emission of noise detrimental to
the environment and to human health.
The EPA would have the power to
enforce noise emission standards for
new products and to coordinate Fed-
eral programs relating to noise re-
search and control.
In my own Seventh Congressional
District we are faced with a most se-
rious noise problem because of the air-
craft noise and pollution from air-
craft at Kennedy International Air-
port. It was for that reason that I
sponsored the Aircraft Noise Abate-
ment Act of 1968 which authorizes the
establishment of maximum aircraft
noise levels by the Federal Aviation
Administration. I have been a fre-
quent critic of the FAA for failing to
enforce that 1968 law effectively and I
am pleased that the committee has in-
cluded a provision in this bill to give
the EPA authority to request the
FAA to review standards which
EPA finds do not adequately protect
the public but I believe that in view of
the fact the FAA has not fulfilled its
obligations to date by setting proper
noise levels the EPA should assume
this duty and I will therefore support
the amendment to be offered to give
the EPA that power.
Millions of Americans live near our
Nation's airports and they have yet to
obtain noticeable relief from the air-
craft noise problem. It is my hope
that this legislation will lead to more
vigorous enforcement of existing law
as well as provide the tools for com-
bating the entire noise problem.
The legislation also authorizes EPA
to set standards in the areas of con-
struction equipment, transportation
equipment, motors or engines; and
electrical or electronic equipment.
New York City is an area which
should receive prime benefits from
this legislation because of the heavy
concentration of this kind of equip-
ment and the volume of work in these
areas.
Of particular significance from the
standpoint of consumer protection—
and this is a consumer bill in a very
real sense—is the provision allowing
citizen suits against those who violate
noise standards or against agencies
failing to perform their duties under
the act. Such a provision will in my
opinion go a long way in convincing
agencies such as the FAA that they
must move more expeditiously in car-
rying out their responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues to vote for
H.R. 11021.
Mr. NELSON.
The proper role of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and the Federal
Aviation Administration with respect
to aircraft noise has been resolved by
the committee, and the bill leaves with
the FAA the authority to establish
standards but adds the requirement
that they may not be prescribed be-
fore EPA has been consulted and
given the opportunity to make sugges-
tions on standards for aircraft.
Mr. ROGERS.
[p. HI 511]
Second, I believe that comment on
the relationship between the EPA and
the FAA with respect to aircraft
noise emissions may be helpful.
[p. H1512]
The committee has established pro-
cedures whereby it is intended that a
combined EPA-FAA effort will have
the effect of protection of the public
from excessive aircraft noise, a na-
-------
2252
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
tionwide complaint. FAA and EPA
presently have a formal relationship
with respect to emission of air pollu-
tants from aircraft, but no such ar-
rangement exists with respect to noise
pollution. The reported bill establishes
such a relationship. The bill retains
the authority of the FAA to establish
such standards, but adds the require-
ment that they may not be prescribed
before EPA has been consulted con-
cerning the standards.
The FAA should have final respon-
sibility for setting aircraft noise
standards because a comprehensive
and detailed knowledge of aviation
technology and flight operations is es-
sential to setting achievable stand-
ards. Federal Air Regulations part 36,
the FAA noise rule, was developed on
the basis of foreseeable, technological
advances which could be applied to
newly designed aircraft. At the time
of publication of part 36—1969—the
standards set reduced existing noise
levels for all new subsonic jet aircraft
appreciably, from about 120 EPNDB
—effective perceived noise decibels—to
108 EPNDB. New aircraft, including
the 747 and DC-10, have met these
standards. In addition, the FAA has
several regulatory actions in progress
which will eventually reduce noise
from all types of aircraft including
sonic boom.
Final decision authority with re-
spect to any standards affecting1 the
aviation industry can realistically be
vested only in an agency thoroughly
knowledgeable of all possible impacts
and consequences. The FAA is the
only agency in Government which has
such knowledge. The FAA is taking
regulatory action as the state of the
art will permit; its actions will be ad-
vised upon and oversighted by EPA.
Also the Subcommittee on Public
Health and Environment will closely
monitor action by FAA and EPA in
the noise abatement field.
[p. H1513]
Mr. WAGGONNER. All right, now
let us talk about matters not being
discretionary. Let us assume that the
FAA with the help of EPA estab-
lishes noise levels for planes coming
into Washington National Airport or
into any airport.
Now this is discretionary on their
part, as 7 understand the bill that is
presented to us today. If, in their dis-
cretion, they establish a noise level at
which these planes are allowed to per-
form, would a citizen suit be in order
because the administrator of FAA or
EPA had used their discretionary au-
thority to do it?
Can somebody who lives close by or
in the traffic pattern of an airport
enter a suit to stop those flights?
Mr. ROGERS. That would be dis-
cretionary and there could not be a
suit.
[p. H1514J
Mr. WYDLER.
I am delighted to see the effort
which was made particularly by the
chairman of the subcommittee on the
issue of jet noise. I know that he went
into this subject matter very thor-
oughly, and he himself in many cases,
as I have read the report and the rec-
ord of hearings, was a protagonist
who was looking deeply into this ques-
tion of jet noise.
I was very much impressed by the
hearings and the report of the com-
mittee. But nevertheless I feel that in
the final analysis, although the com-
mittee considered many steps that
could be taken in trying to fight jet
noise, they settled on a proposal and a
course of action which is really going
to fall short of the mark and not do
the job for the American people in an
area where it should well and could
well be done.
I will not argue that the FAA is
not a competent agency to work on the
problems of aircraft in general or the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2253
problems of jet noise. Certainly they
have a competence in this field. The
problem is, however, although they
have competence they have shown to
the Congress of the United States and
to the American people a complete
and utter lack of willingness to use
the authority which we give them
[p. H1515]
to set the limits on jet noise which
they should be setting.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is
not enough to say that the FAA is
competent to do the job. The question
we have to answer in this House today
is whether the FAA intends to do the
job and intends to do anything to uti-
lize the powers that we gave them or
whether they intend to remain, as
they apparently have over the years, a
very willing partner of the airline in-
dustry in keeping effective regulations
from being put into effect.
Mr. Chairman, if you will look at
the record of the FAA in this field,
you will see that what I am saying is
a fair and just statement. The Con-
gress three and a half years ago in
1968 passed a bill which would have
given and in fact did give the FAA
the power to take action in the area of
reducing jet noise for presently flying
aircraft. Those are the aircraft mak-
ing the noise and the aircraft which
will be making the noise for the next
decade or 15 years. We gave to the
FAA the power to reduce noise in
those aircraft and set limits which
could have meant that they would be
retrofitted with noise suppression de-
vices to bring the levels of noise down.
For three and a half years the FAA
stalled us and the American people
and has taken the position that indus-
try wanted them to take and done
nothing.
This does not go to the competence
of the FAA to set the standards but,
rater, goes to their lack of desire to
set the standards. In that area, Mr.
Chairman, they have let us and the
American people down. That is why I
say today that the bill you are pre-
senting to us, although it is hopeful
and with good intentions, will not do
the job.
Just a few days ago, to make mat-
ters worse, the Administrator of the
FAA, Mr. Shaffer, made a speech in
New York City, which was reported in
Aviation Daily. He stated that he con-
siders jet noise will not be an issue by
1978. I do not know what he means by
that. We have clear testimony before
my Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics that this matter will certainly
be a national issue in 1978 and for
years thereafter. Mr. Shaffer indi-
cated at that meeting he did not think
it was a wise use of money to retrofit
airplanes in fact. He thinks it is a
waste of money, to do it.
Mr. GBOVER. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WYDLER. Yes. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. GROVER. I attended a couple
of years ago some ad hoc hearings
that the gentleman sponsored, and I
know he has been one of the leaders in
the Northeast in attempting to get a
handle on this matter of aircraft
noise. He had some hearings at very
appropriate locations. For example, at
the end of runways, with a decibel
machine, and one that I attended in a
schoolroom. I was really shocked at
that time to see the impact, the dis-
ruption in the classrooms and the dis-
order created by the jet noise made in
these areas near the airport.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 2 additional min-
utes.
Mr. WYDLER. I yield further to
the gentleman.
Mr. GROVER. I did want to ask the
gentleman, in the past several years
since attending those hearings,
whether anything has been done in
-------
2254
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
that area in that particular location
in New York.
Mr. WYDLER. The sad answer to
the gentleman's question is "No," be-
cause we have to get on with the job
of retrofitting our currently flying
aircraft, and there was no desire in
FAA to do that. As a matter of fact,
there is a complete indication here in
Mr. Schaffer's statement that they do
not intend to do anything about it. I
have been after the FAA for the last
three and a half years trying to get
them to start procedures—just start
rulemaking procedures—to set limits.
Promise after promise has been made
to me that they would start their pro-
cedures on such and such a day and do
this without fail. Yet right up to the
present time they have refused to un-
dertake it.
All I am asking the committee to
consider—and I think they should con-
sider this—is not to throw the FAA
out of the picture but, instead, to put
the EPA in the driver's seat. Let them
take control of the situation so that
they can get the procedures moving
and get us on the way to solving the
problem.
Mr. ROGERS. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WYDLER. I will be glad to
yield to the chairman of the subcom-
mittee.
Mr. ROGERS. I have shared the
concern of the gentleman from New
York. However, I will say to the gen-
tleman that we went into the problem
in some detail and this was one of the
thorniest ones we had to decide. I
think the committee did exercise
proper judgment in saying that the
final decision will be left with FAA.
However, we have cranked in EPA
right in the beginning and require
them to advise and consult with FAA.
If EPA is not satisfied as to what
FAA has done they can request FAA
to revise its actions. Then if EPA still
is not satisfied, they can require that
the disagreement and supporting data
be made part of the public record and
alert the whole Nation to the problem.
Mr. WYDLER. Although you give
EPA a consulting role they cannot do
anything unless FAA takes some ac-
tion.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, first of
all, the law will require that issuance
of original-type certificates must, in
most instances, be preceded by issu-
ance of noise standards to protect the
public. This requires action.
Second, at any time EPA thinks
there has been inaction, EPA can di-
rect FAA to review existing regula-
tions and in this way make "inaction"
a matter of public record which puts
it in immediate controversy.
What we have tried to do is to be
realistic.
We think FAA with reference to
noise from aircraft in the air must
have a final say on this problem.
Frankly, I do not think EPA yet has
the competence to move into this area.
They do not know all of the intricacies
involved in the design of aircraft or
flight patterns and other matters, but
there is presently expertise in FAA.
We have tried to bring EPA into it as
strongly as we can without risking
safety so they can alert the whole
public.
I can assure the gentleman that we
will be on top of it and that we will
work with EPA and FAA.
Mr. WYDLER. I know that the in-
tentions of the gentleman are good,
but I think the EPA has access to the
expertise, if they utilize the people in
FAA, and I am sure that FAA will
not withhold their counsel and advice.
Mr. ROGERS. Let me give you an
example. EPA came forth with the
proposal before our committee that
FAA should have to set a noise stand-
ard every time any type certificate
was issued. Does the gentleman know
how many type certificates are issued
for an aircraft? There could be 200 or
300 certificates. EPA simply does not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY
2255
have the competence at the present
time. They simply do not have the
knowledge yet, but they will.
We will look into this in 2 or 3
years and we will change it if need be,
and I assure the gentleman we will
stay on top of it.
Mr. WYDLER. I just do not want
the people to suffer for 2 or 3 more
years, Mr. Chairman.
[p. H1516]
Mr. MIKVA.
CONGRESS MUST FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF AGENCIES
The next crucial step will come
when the appropriate administrative
agencies—EPA and the Federal Avia-
tion Administration—FAA—establish
the specific standards and require-
ments called for in the act. By their
actions, these agencies can make this
a tough, effective bill or a farce. If the
past is any guide, we are not likely to
bring much relief to residents in the
vicinity of our airports by turning
over to the FAA the power to set
noise standards for airplanes.
Congress has a continuing oversight
responsibility to see that the agencies
implement the policy as well as the
provisions of the Noise Control Act.
We will watch with considerable in-
terest the proposed regulations sub-
mitted by the EPA and the FAA in
implementing the act. If they do their
job and we continue to do ours, the
citizens of the United States may see
the promise of noise pollution abate-
ment become a reality.
[p. H1517]
Mr. RYAN.
*****
I also believe that it is imperative
that the Environmental Protection
Agency be the agency responsible for
the setting of aircraft noise stand-
ards. The committee bill, however,
merely gives the Administrator of
EPA the authority to consult with the
Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration, while leaving the
authority for setting standards within
FAA. Unfortunately history has dem-
onstrated the reluctance of the FAA
to undertake a meaningful program of
aircraft noise abatement. In fact, even
most of the research being conducted
into jet noise suppression is being con-
ducted by NASA, not FAA. In light
of this and the need for a single core
for our Government's antinoise ef-
forts, the power to regulate aircraft
noise should be vested in the EPA
rather than FAA as it is now. My
Noise Abatement and Control Act
would have mandated such an action.
Mr. DRINAN.
[p. H1519]
I am extremely reluctant, however,
to endorse section 7 of the bill, provid-
ing for privileged status for the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration. Under
the terms of this section, the FAA
must consult with the EPA and the
Secretary of Transportation, then
draw up standards for aircraft noise
and sonic booms which are incorpo-
rated in the regulations under this
bill. In the original version of this leg-
islation the EPA had veto power over
the FAA-drafted standards, but in
this bill it has been stripped of that
power.
In view of the FAA's history of
being dominated by the very industry
it is supposed to regulate, I consider
this change highly unfortunate. Ac-
cording1 to an article in the Washing-
ton Star on October 12, 1971, the
FAA has already decided to let repre-
sentatives of the air transport indus-
try write their own regulations. Again
I say, this is most unfortunate. I
-------
2256
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
would prefer to see the EPA retain its
veto power, and I fail to see why the
airline industry merits special consid-
eration in the drafting of antinoise
regulations.
[p. H1520]
Mr. BADILLO.
Third, The bill fails to give the
EPA authority to set and enforce
noise limits on jet aircraft, continuing
the Federal Aviation Administration's
purview in this area. History has
demonstrated the folly of this. The
FAA continues to be dominated by the
airline industry which has consist-
ently opposed any retrofit requirement
for the existing jet fleet. As a result,
the din of jet noise over city and sub-
urb has become unbearable. Although
Congress gave the FAA authority to
set jet noise limits on current aircraft
nearly 4 years ago, the FAA has done
nothing but stall. Clearly, it is time
that the enforcement role in this area
should be given to the EPA, with the
FAA retaining only an advisory role.
[p. H1521]
*****
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, this
is excellent legislation which I am
happy to support, but it needs some
modification to meet the incessant
roar and rumble of jet aircraft.
The Federal Aviation Administra-
tion—FAA—has failed in the task as-
signed it by Congress 3 years ago—to
quiet the noise of jet aircraft operat-
ing in and out of our Nation's air-
ports. A major share of this responsi-
bility should now be turned over to
the Environmental Protection Agency,
which has been created since we first
asked the FAA to act. The facts are
that the FAA has apparently felt its
responsibility to promote aviation and
license aircraft and insure safe flight
has priority over its responsibility to
the public in the approaches to air-
ports. I support the Wydler amend-
ments to bring the EPA into the air-
craft noise picture.
In addition, amendments by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ro-
SENTHAL) deserve support. The first
would set up a commission to study
the question of curfews on nonmili-
tary aircraft during normal sleeping
hours. Many large airports in other
countries have turned to this idea.
Heathrow Airport, London, England,
will have a complete ban on takeoffa
between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. Frank-
furt, Germany, is considering a ban
on night takeoffs of jets. Jets are pro-
hibited from Tokyo and Osaka air-
ports between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. with
the exception of mailplanes. Let us
adopt the amendment to give this pro-
posal active study. It may be the only
way to let people have a decent
night's sleep.
The second amendment would pro-
hibit civilian planes from making
sonic booms in U.S. airspace. This ac-
tion is needed now before the arrival
of supersonic transports from the So-
viet Union or Western Europe. The
Noise Control Act of 1972 must pre-
vent sonic booms.
[p. H1523]
*****
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WYDLBR
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WYDLEB: Page
42, strike out line 11 and all that follows
down through line 20 on page 46, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(b)(l) In order to afford present and
future relief and protection to the public
from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic
boom, EPA (after consultation with the Sec-
retary of Transportation, the FAA, and the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration) shall prescribe
and amend standards for the measurement
of aircraft noise and sonic boom and shall
prescribe and amend such regulations as
EPA may find necessary to provide for the
control and abatement of aircraft noise and
sonic boom.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2257
"(2) Any standard or regulation prescribed
under paragraph (1) (and any revision there-
of) shall take effect after such period as EPA
finds necessary (after consultation with the
FAA and the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) to
permit the development and application of
the requisite technology, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within
such period.
"(c)(l) The FAA, after consultation with
EPA, sha.'l prescribe regulations to insure
compliance with all standards and regula-
tions prescribed under subsection (b) of this
section by EPA. The regulations of the FAA
shall include provisions making the stand-
ards and regulations of EPA applicable in the
issuance, amendment, modification, suspen-
sion, or revocation of any certificate au-
thorized by this Act. The FAA shall insure
that all necessary inspections are accom-
plished, and may execute any power or duty
vested in the FAA by any other provision of
law in the execution of all powers and du-
ties vested in the FAA under this paragraph.
"(2) No exemption with respect to any
standard or regulation under this section may
be granted under any provision of this Act
by the FAA, except with the approval of EPA.
"(d) EPA and the FAA, in prescribing and
amending standards and regulations under any
authority respectively vested in them under
this section, shall—
Page 46, line 2, strike out "he" and insert
in lieu thereof "EPA or the FAA, as the case
may be,".
Page 47, beginning on line 9, strike out
"by the Administrator" and all that follows
down through line 12, and insert in lieu there-
of "in accordance with law."
(Mr. WYDLER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, the
rill that is being considered today is
one to generally meet the problems of
noise in our society, and I thoroughly
agree with the committee, and with
,he bill that is before us today, that
.his is one of the problems of modern
society with which we in the Congress
must deal. Certainly the chairman of
,he subcommittee, the gentleman from
i'lorida (Mr. ROGERS) has pointed out
,he horrors of noise in our society, the
lamage it does to the people in our
society, and the damage it does to the
icaring of our children.
No part of this noise problem, Mr.
Chairman, is worse than the problem
of jet noise. It is the most fearsome
noise that we have in our society
today, and the fact is that under the
present law it is an essentially uncon-
trolled noise in our society.
Now what would the committee bill
do? The committee bill would continue
the present situation that exists in
our country. That present situation is
in effect that the FAA is given the
power to set limits on jet noise.
Now I think the FAA has the ex-
pertise in this field. I would not deny
that for a moment. They are skilled in
the questions of designing and build-
ing and certifying aircraft and they
should be a part of this process.
But I submit to this committee
today that continuing in the FAA the
power to act in this field by all the
evidence that we have in the past 3%
years and by the evidence we have
before us today is a waste of time
because they have proven that they
will do nothing about it and they have
told us, in effect, that they will do
nothing about it in the future.
First of all, let me say this. Under
the general terms of this bill, the En-
vironmental Protection Agency is
given all the power to control prob-
lems of noise in our country—all ex-
cept in one field and one field alone—
that is the field of jet noise. There it
is given to the FAA—not to the De-
partment of Transportation but to the
FAA and the FAA alone. They are
given the total, complete and sole
power to act.
What should we, as Members of the
Congress, think about their perform-
ance to date? Three and one-half
years ago we passed legislation giving
to the FAA the power to act in this
field. For 3% years they have not
used this power to require the reduc-
tion of noise from currently flying air-
craft. Those are the planes that are
driving people crazy around the air-
ports all over this country.
-------
2258
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
For 3% years they have done noth-
ing. When I asked them only a week
ago, before a committee of the Con-
gress, the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, when they would start
—when they would start making their
rulemaking procedures, they told me
they would not start their rulemaking
procedure, -which is just the first step
in taking act, for at least for another
year.
Now I have received promises that
they were going to start these proce-
dures time after time and vrar after
year for 3 years after the Congress
told these people to act. They are let-
ting down the Congress and they are
letting down the public. All we are
doing is saying, "We still trust you—
we still expect you to do something—
we still hope for the best."
I am offering you an alternative
which is better—not to throw the
FAA out of this picture, but to keep
them in the picture—but to put the
EPA in control. Let us give them con-
trol over the setting of these stand-
ards so they can start action.
What is the matter with the com-
mittee proposal? The committee pro-
posal says the EPA will consult with
the FAA, but they can never consult
with the FAA until the FAA takes
some action. There is nothing to con-
sult about. That is the situation we
have right now.
So I ask that we take some action to
give the EPA the power and the au-
thority to get this ball rolling. The
FAA will continue to play a signifi-
cant and important part in the rule-
makiig procedure—we are not taking
them out of that.
You are going to hear the issue of
safety raised. Just let me make thece
points.
Under the Clean Air Act passed by
this Congress, we gave to the EPA—
to the EPA and not to the FAA the
power.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has ex-
pired.
(Mr. WYDLER asked and was
given permission to proceed for 2 ad-
ditional minutes.)
Mr. WYDLER. Under the Clean Air
Act, we gave to the EPA—not to the
FAA—the power of controlling emis-
sion standards of jet engines—and
that means, the smoke that is emitted
from the back of those engines. That
also requires some expertise in the
way the aircraft are constructed and
the material and the equipment that is
going to be retrofitted.
We gave such power to the EPA
and told them to consult with the
FAA in carrying on that function.
That is exactly what I am propos-
ing we do here. We also gave power to
the EPA—and not to the FAA—to
come up with standards of jet fuel,
the actual fuel that the jet aircraft
would burn. That power was given to
the EPA—of course, they have to use
it in consultation with the FAA.
And that is what I am proposing to
do in this field of noise control as well.
I think the EPA should consult with
the FAA. My amendment would so
provide.
I think they should also consult
with the other agencies—such as
NASA, that is doing most of the work
in this jet noise reduction field, and I
think they will. EPA can give the peo-
ple something, something they have
not had to this date—and that is some
action in this area.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to remind the Committee
again that this is a new start in noise
control. I understand that about five,
six, or seven amendments have been
submitted to the bill. We are trying to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2259
bring before you a simple bill that
will apply to
[p. H1528]
new products. It is addressed to the
manufacturers of these products. If
some of the amendments are adopted,
we shall certainly divert ourselves
from the original purpose to make a
simple start. The fact is that the gen-
tleman's amendment should be offered
to the next airport and airway safety
bill, which will be before us before too
long. It belongs there.
I might add, too, that there has
been a start made in that direction.
We have empowered the PAA to do
so, and they have put in the Federal
Register a notice, "Civil Airport,
Sonic Boom—Notice of Proposed Rule-
making." They are going to work on
this problem. They have put that in
the Federal Register so everyone can
see it. They will provide an opportu-
nity for everyone who is interested to
come in and make their presentation.
Recently we passed an aviation
safety bill. It carried with it $5 billion
over 5 years to see to it that the air-
ways are safe for people to travel in.
Jo you mean to tell me that you are
joing to tell such an agency that has
jeen in the business all of these years
what is safe and what is not safe? I
do not think I would stand for it. I do
lot think any Members of the House
would stand for it. They have said
,hey are working on the problem.
The 747 is a much quieter plane
Jian the older planes. Would you have
.hem take all of the older planes out
>f the sky today? No; you would not.
"hey are making the new airplanes
uieter. They are acting with the ex-
pertise they have. These are tremen-
ously large planes, carrying
lundreds of additional passengers,
ind yet they are quieter than the
ilder planes.
There is not a plane in the United
States that causes a sonic boom except
or military aircraft. We can tell
them that they can go out over the
seas and do their experimenting. You
would not have the FAA say what the
military may do. If we do not have—
and we do not have—a plane that
breaks the sonic boom in our civil air-
craft today, then I believe we ought to
wait until we get to an aircraft and
airport bill and get that subject in the
place where it belongs. Then if we
want to say something about the mili-
tary, we can tell the military at that
time.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. First, I thank the
gentleman for his suggestion, and I
most certainly will take advantage of
it if it is appropriate at that time.
But I think it is very appropriate in a
noise abatement bill to consider the
subject of noise, particularly when the
chairman of the committee has offered
a provision which is almost word for
word with my provision, except that I
am giving the power to move, to do
something about environmental pro-
tection to the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency instead of to the FAA.
Is the chairman aware of the state-
ment made by the Administrator of
the FAA only within the last week to
the effect that he considers that air-
craft engine noise will cease to be an
issue? Is the chairman aware that he
made that statement to a group in
New York?
Mr. STAGGERS. What was the
statement?
Mr. WYDLER. As reported in
Aviation Daily, February 16 of this
year, Chairman Shaffer of the FAA
said he thought that with the record
of the 747's and the DC-8's, this was
a waste of money. He is the man who
has sole control.
Mr. STAGGERS. Let me say to the
gentleman that the newer planes, par-
ticularly the 747, are much quieter
-------
2260
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
than the older jet planes we have on
the market. They are making prog-
ress. There is no doubt about it. That
is their direction. They are under spe-
cial direction from the Congress to do
it. I have read to the gentleman the
docket which has been published in
the Federal Register: "Civil Airport:
Sonic Boom, Notice of Proposed Rule-
making." That gives everyone an op-
portunity to come in and be heard.
I do not believe that this is the
place or the time. I believe the amend-
ment ought to be offered to another
bill at the appropriate time. I am op-
posed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this proposed
amendment will be defeated.
It seems when we find an agency
not performing as we think they could
or should, we then pass a new law and
lay another layer on top of an exist-
ing layer. I would like to refer to a,
debate we had some time ago dealing
with cancer legislation, where an at-
tempt was made to move out of NIH
into a separate agency, but we felt we
should not fragment what we had al-
ready done. We admitted we had not
done enough. So then we put in some
new guidelines and added some new
pressure to accelerate and expand the
operation.
In this case in our committee we
went into this and we felt the layers
of research which had been done by
the FAA were far greater than and
far better than anything the EPA, a
new agency, really had done. The
EPA is set up as a sort of policeman
to direct and to work in this entire
field. We proceeded with the idea of
putting EPA into a position where
they will have a chance to influence
what is done, but at the same time we
require them to rely ultimately on the
FAA. If they are not doing enough,
maybe we should call them before our
committee to find out why they have
not done enough.
Mr. Chairman, I do hope the amend-
ment will be defeated.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. NELSEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I
agree with what the gentleman is say-
ing to this extent. I would say it
would be logical if we were starting a
new agency today and starting to
grant new power to the agency, to
consider very seriously giving such
power to the FAA. But the problem is
that FAA has had this power for 3%
years and they have not been using it.
I would say instead of waiting to see
if they would suddenly get religion
and change their attitude and their
way of doing things, and then do
something, I think the time to act is
now.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
would point out when we deal with an
engine, maybe in an automobile or an
airplane, there are certain things we
can do. If we are going to have the
horsepower, the engine is going to
make some noise. Maybe the thing to
do is to look to the future and work
with the manufacturer, and this has
been done. Things will be better. To
change some things in existence, they
tell me, would cost far more than the
good it would do.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. NELSEN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I op-
pose this amendment very strongly.
We went into this matter in great de-
tail. EPA does not have the compe-
tency to go into this. FAA does. There
must be a safety factor geared into it.
I must say to the gentleman tha
FAA has set standards. They are re-
ducing the effective perceived noise
decibels from 120 down to 108 an<
below in the 747's and the DC-10's.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2261
Futhermore, if the gentleman would
turn this authority over to EPA, I
might tell him what has just hap-
pened with respect to air pollution.
Prior to the implementation of the
Clean Air Act, the Department of
Transportation and the aircraft in-
dustry reached an agreement whereby
the industry agreed to reduce heavy
smoke emissions from aircraft by the
end of 1972. In many instances, this
requires retrofitting of the aircraft;
thus, through FAA efforts we can ex-
pect jet engines to be "smokeless" by
the end of this year. Moreover, prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act,
the FAA issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking respecting other
,ypes of air pollutants emitted from
aircraft. However, section 231 of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970 trans-
ferred the authority to prescribe regul-
ations with respect to emissions of
air pollutants from aircraft to EPA.
This made the FAA advance notice of
jroposed rulemaking moot. Section
231 required that within 270 days of
enactment of the Clean Air Amend-
ments—December 31, 1970, EPA must
ssue proposed emission standards ap-
jlicable to aircraft. The regulations
,hus were due on September 27, 1971.
''hey have not been published to date.
*Jow the amendment asks the EPA
wise office—with only 25 personnel—
o take on additional responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge defeat
if this amendment. I think it would be
rery unsound.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
lank the gentleman.
May I point out to the gentleman
rom New York (Mr. WYDLER), that I
link in the debate here the gentle-
lan's discussion is going to be help-
ul, because it does serve as a warning
3 EPA that they have not done
nough. I think this will trigger a lit-
e more pressure. Maybe our commit-
tee should also look into it. I thank
the gentleman for his contribution.
[p. H1529]
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
strong support of this amendment and
I commend our colleague from New
York (MR. WYDLER) for his excellent
efforts to curb the current jet noise
level.
The FAA has failed time after time
to move in regard to this jet noise
problem. Here in the Washington,
D.C., area anyone who lives along the
Potomac River Valley will be able to
tell you of the many problems caused
by the ceaseless jets that soar over
their homes and parks. Officers at the
National Airport Complaint Center
average about 70 calls per month com-
plaining about the jet noise level. One
of these officers—and these are the
people on the side of the FAA—has
said the great majority of the people
who call are "very reasonable folks
with legitimate gripes."
I believe it is high time we turned
over to EPA the authority to move in
this field. If we leave this authority
where it is presently it is like leaving
cabbage in with the goats.
In many instances, my own constit-
uents are seriously affected by the
noise level and do not hesitate to say
so. One concerned constituent, Dr.
Erich Buchmann, a leader in local ef-
forts to curb jet noise, writes that
present noise levels are "a farce and a
mockery of environmental concepts."
Another constituent, concerned with
the noise levels at the summertime
Watergate concerts calls the jet noise
"a violent invasion of public property.
The setting of these fine concerts is
unique. The immortal beauty of the
musical programs is drowned out vio-
lently. It is an insult to the people of
this great city."
Mr. Chairman, for some time the
jets have silenced the Congress. It is
high time for the Congress to act to
-------
2262
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
silence the jets. The Federal Aviation
Administration has had the authority
to impose jet noise restrictions for
some SVz years. Their lack of substan-
tive action to date would indicate to
me that, at best, a certain ennui has
settled over the FAA. I would only
wish that some of the rather obnox-
ious jet noise would settle there as
well.
The Environmental Protection
Agency was established specifically to
handle environmental pollution prob-
lems. EPA, therefore, has a legitimate
interest in noise control and should
rightfully be granted the authority
called for by this amendment. It has
my strong support.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUDE. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. I just wanted to
say, relative to the comment of the
gentleman from Florida regarding
setting air emission standards for jet
engines, truthfully I do not know ex-
actly what the procedural situation is
in regard to that. Let me tell the gen-
tleman of the testimony which was
given before the Committee on Science
and Astronautics, on which I serve.
We had industry spokesmen tell us
they are retrofitting aircraft to clean
up the air. They are in the process of
doing that. They assure us they have
it in hand and are moving fast.
Whatever the reason may be—they
may be afraid of EPA, or may be not
sure of what EPA would do—but,
whatever the reason, that problem is
being solved. We did give that power
to EPA. We might take a lesson from
it.
Mr. ROGERS. And EPA can have
that same effect here. They can have
them review it immediately.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the last word.
I will not take 5 minutes, but I
would like to propound a question to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
GUDE) .
The gentleman made the statement
that nothing has been done by FAA in
the Washington, D.C., area. Is it not a
fact that the FAA has imposed a cur-
few on jet aircraft?
Mr. GUDE. They imposed a curfew,
and then they have moved into a pe-
riod where they are violating their
own curfew.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. Is it not a
fact that the FAA has also imposed
operating standards for aircraft en-
tering and leaving this area for the
express purpose of reducing noise?
Mr. GUDE. They have set these
standards, but the jet noise continues
up along the river, and they continue
to operate jet airplanes into National
Airport at the same rate they have in
the past.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. I would like
to add this, Mr. Chairman: The one
thing which I believe is being over-
looked here is that it is not just jet
engines that produce noise in aircraft.
The configuration of the aircraft, the
design of the aircraft, and the manner
in which it is operated contribute sig-
nificantly to its noise.
I do not believe it is reasonable to
expect FAA to come up with a basic
standard for operating procedures to
reduce noise, because each of these
procedures must conform to the spe-
cific geographic requirements at var-
ious airports. The FAA is taking ac-
tion in this direction, and this ough
to be taken into consideration now.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, wil
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. I am glad tc
yield to my colleague on the committee
(Mr. CARTER).
Mr. CARTER. I thank the distin.
guished gentleman from Virginia foi
yielding. I know he has a particulai
expertise in this field, for he was i
pilot in World War II and has contin
ued since that time.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2263
Is it true that retrofitting the air-
craft would cost approximately $1.5
million or more, perhaps $2 million?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is my
understanding. We are talking about
commercial jet aircraft.
Mr. CARTER. And actually it
would cost approximately $1.5 billion
to retrofit all these planes which are
now in use; is that correct?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is the
understanding I have.
Mr. CARTER. These planes will be
phased out gradually, and by 1978 we
will have no more that are not retro-
fitted or have acceptable sound stand-
ards. Is that not correct?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is my
recollection of the testimony we re-
:eived.
Mr. CARTER. All of them will con-
orm at that time to the present re-
juirements and will have a low decibel
rating. I think in just a matter of
,ime this problem will take care of
tself. Immediate grounding for ret-
rofitting would ground 50 percent of
,he present fleet.
I thank the distinguished g-entlenian
'or yielding,
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will
he gentleman yield?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. I yield to the
•entleman from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER. The gentleman from
Virginia directed a question to the
;entleman from Maryland with re-
;ard to the curfew, and I did not quite
•et the gentleman's answer. The fact
f the matter is that the curfew has
ot been violated. I would like to have
im cite one instance where the cur-
ew, which requires all planes to land
n this area before 11 o'clock at night,
as been violated. I do not believe it
as been violated in one instance
'here planes have been allowed to
ind after 11 o'clock at night or be-
jre a certain time in the morning.
he regulation has not been violated.
Second, I remind the gentleman
that just a year before he came to this
body the Administrator of the FAA
made an effort to do something about
the Washington noise problem, and
that was to have all flights coming
into Washington from a distance of
over 500 miles away land at Dulles
airport. It was the Members of Con-
gress, and let us not kid ourselves on
that score, who opposed this and
stopped it. We could have gotten some
relief then. We did not get the relief
because certain Members of this body
preferred to land at Washington Na-
tional Airport because they did not
want to be inconvenienced. So, if we
are to blame anyone, do not blame the
FAA but, rather, the Members of this
body.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chair-
man, I want to conclude my remarks
by saying that I believe we are over-
simplifying this issue. One thing
which concerns me is that Congress
might place in the hands of an admin-
istrative agency the power to require
through standards that which exceeds
our technological capability to pro-
vide. I think we should leave these
decisions in the hands of the FAA
which possesses the necessary exper-
tise, if for no other reason than to
guarantee the maximum safety for
the traveling public.
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment of-
fered by my colleague from New York
(Mr. WYDLER).
I have been here for 12 years now
and I have heard the same argument
over and over again. I represent the
area of Kennedy Airport. The commit-
tee had said 12 years ago that they
cannot touch an airport noise because
it is outside the Federal Government's
jurisdiction. They said it is local. For
about 7 or 8 years we have had this
question raised, without any action
taken on it. We were still being ad-
versely affected by aircraft noise, and
then we found that we were able to
-------
2264
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
get through Congress a bill giving the
FAA the authority to set noise levels,
but all they have done in 3 years is set
them on new airplanes. The people liv-
ing near the Kennedy Airport do not
have the privilege—they do not have
the privilege—of getting a curfew.
They have 24 hours a day of continu-
ous noise. An airplane is
[p. H1530]
taking off or landing every 30 seconds
of the day, and we are asked that the
authority over this matter continue to
be given to the FAA to set the noise
levels. They have done nothing and
they have not implemented the au-
thority that we have given them.
Just recently, very recently, one of
the officers of the FAA had the audac-
ity—the audacity, mind you—to say
that the airline association would
work on that problem. The FAA has
been all along and for too long airline
oriented. We need a new agency which
should be people oriented so that the
people of my district do not have to
have a drive into Kennedy Airport to
try to focus attention on the problem
that they live with day in and day
out.
Under this bill, if the EPA has the
authority, then my people would be
able to bring an action, if no relief is
given, to get the relief to which they
are entitled and to which every person
living in and around an airport would
be entitled.
The people's health should not be
secondary to the economics of the air-
lines.
I ask for the passage of this amend-
ment so that the people may finally
look forward to a good night's sleep in
the near future.
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADDABBO. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. GUDE. The question was
raised earlier about violations of the
curfew. The violations have been so
bad that finally in September of 1971
citizens of Virginia brought suit to
ban all jet traffic after 11 p.m. The
post-11 p.m. traffic had been going on
since April of 1970. The suit which is
still pending in court asks that the
FAA act immediately to halt the
post-11 p.m. jet operations at Na-
tional and file reports on the environ-
mental impact of the stretch jets.
FAA's record of reducing airport
noise in the vicinity of National is a
miserable one. In the last 12 months
there has been a 6 percent increase of
operations at National with a half-
million more passengers while Friend-
ship operations are down 10 percen
with a loss of 200,000 passengers an(
Dulles operations are down 2 percen
handling 20,000 less passengers.
It is high time that we direct FAA
to divert this noisy, bothersome traffic
to Dulles and Friendship—in particu-
lar the Nation's taxpayers are entitlec
to have better utilization of Dulles ir
that they footed the bill for its con-
struction.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I mov<
to strike the requisite number o
words.
(Mr. ADAMS asked and was givei
permission to revise and extend hi;
remarks.)
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I ris<
in opposition to the amendment.
I think that the emphasis—and
want to echo the remarks of my co
league, the gentleman from Virgini:
(Mr. SATTERFIELD)—on the intricacie
of trying to regulate airport noise in
volves the fact that you are going t
have to regulate glide slope, you ar
going to have to regulate the ap
proach, you are going to have to regu
late the area, the altitude of the air
port, the type of plane involved. An
all of these factors go into the FAj
regulations as to what type of aj
proach you have, as to what type o
approach you use on a particular fiel
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2265
and at what place in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, the key factor that
must be dealt with and with which we
must be involved is the factor as to
whether or not that plane has enough
power to approach safely into a par-
ticular field.
The new planes are being changed,
but to retrofit all of the old ones, as
has been mentioned, will run into sev-
eral billions of dollars which the air-
lines do not have. So we simply would
move out of the airline traffic in the
United States at the present time all
of the planes that came in prior to the
passage of the statute which this Con-
gress enacted and which has been en-
forced by the FAA.
Mr. Chairman, to say that they are
not moving at all is to ignore the fact
that every airport in the United
States has a noise factor.
There is also present in many juris-
dictions of the United States, includ-
ing the jurisdiction of several Mem-
bers who have spoken on this amend-
ment, complaints by local people with
regard to the noise patterns of that
area. The committee very carefully
drafted this bill to say that that situa-
tion would be dealt with, and the com-
mittee was also very careful to see
that PAA answers were being looked
at. That is one reason why EPA is
mentioned in this bill.
You simply cannot have the EPA,
based upon the number of airports in
the United States, going to each of
those airports and say, "We are going
to have a certain type of engine that
can land at Huntington, W. Va., and
National Airport and the same kind
of approach pattern and have any
type of safety factor involved."
Mr. Chairman, the way to handle
local noise problems is to handle it in
two fashions. One is to let the local
jurisdiction determine what the pat-
tern will be and what they will allow
in their areas and the second—and
this applies directly to the FAA
equally—to determine whether or not
the noise to the approach pattern is
faulty. That type of challenge is being
made and met and is one of the rea-
sons why you have at National Air-
port a very stringent set of standards
that are not applicable at Dulles.
Mr. Chairman, those who sit on the
committee are very much aware of
this. I think the Subcommittee on
Public Health has done an excellent
job of trying to say, "All right; let us
have another agency watch the FAA,"
but please do not oversimplify what
you can do with an airplane in taking
off and landing in terms of the safety
of the traveling public.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADAMS. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. Well, to repeat,
there is no attempt in this amendment
to take FAA out of the picture. They
will still be in the picture because
they are still going to certify the air-
craft and issue the regulations.
The thing which would be accom-
plished by the adoption of my amend-
ment is the fact that we will have
EPA involved with FAA so that FAA
will start doing something about put-
ting out regulations to reduce jet
noise.
It is all right to try to do it with
procedures and special rules and this
kind of thing, but to get to the source
of the noise, the engine, requires some
action on the part of the FAA. They
refuse to take the necessary action to
reduce the noise in the currently
flying planes. They are the ones that
are driving the people crazy.
Mr. ADAMS. Also, you have the
situation of presently flying airplanes
which involves about 50 percent or 60
percent of your fleet and you deter-
mine, or EPA determines that all of
those airplanes do not meet a specific
engine standard, how can they meet
526-704 O - 73 - 31
-------
2266
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
that engine standard if they are land-
ing at so many feet above sea level,
but above that they cannot because
they are going to have to apply more
power?
Are you going to go to the airlines
and to the traveling public, and say
you have got one of two choices, either
50 percent of the planes are going to
be grounded, or you are going to take
a chance when you go in as to the
amount of power you will use?
That is why we are saying that the
EPA should look at what the FAA
does, but not to come in and try and
set those standards with the number
of aircraft of varying design and the
number of airports we have through-
out the Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Washington has ex-
pired.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. FRENZEL asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, in
most of our major cities land use of
areas surrounding airports is testi-
mony to the fact that the jet age
caught us by surprise. With few ex-
ceptions, our major airports are close
to, or surrounded by, residential
areas.
Prior to the development of modern
aircraft, the allotted area for airport
space seemed sufficient and noise was
not a severe problem. With our mod-
ern jets, noise has become a signifi-
cant environmental problem. The
problem is not likely to be solved until
Congress properly delegates to the ap-
propriate Federal agencies the respon-
sibility for establishing and enforcing
effective, yet realistic, noise controls.
The FAA has been charged with
this responsibility, but its willingness
to impose meaningful noise control
regulations is less than enthusiastic.
In my judgment, this authority, or at
least some of it, properly belongs to
the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA now sets noise emission stand-
ards for noise from sources other than
aircraft. It has a strong track record
as an advocate of environmental
causes, and it does not have the same
conflict of safety versus sound that is
inherent in FAA authority.
As a representative serving an area
which includes an international air-
port, I view the FAA versus EPA
question as more than an intramural
contest for jur-
[p. H1531]
isdictional authority. FAA is charged
with establishing safety standards,
and while these standards are not nec-
essarily in conflict with noise control
measures, the FAA will, and should,
always concentrate on its safety re-
sponsibility. Yet the aircraft noise
problem continues to be a source of
great irritation in addition to being
an environmental hazard. I believe we
can stand up for less noise without
sacrificing vital safety considerations.
We can give the EPA its appropriate
role in noise reduction without vitiat-
ing the FAA safety controls.
I ask the support of my fellow
Members for the Noise Control Act of
1972 and for the Wydler amendment.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, in
answer to the question propounded by
the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
ADAMS) , I would say this—that under
either proposal, the committee pro-
posal or my proposal, the final regula-
tions that would be established would
be a cooperative venture. In the com-
mittee bill between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the FAA, in
my bill between the Environmental
Protection Agency, the FAA and
NASA, who actually is doing most of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2267
the work in the noise reduction field,
but either way it would be a coopera-
tive effort, and the regulations would
take into account all of the technical
problems we are raising. And the ex-
pertise would be available that we are
talking about. There would be no
change in that. But EPA would be
able to start the rulemaking proce-
dures that FAA neglects. I also want
to tell the gentleman, because he does
not seem to be aware of, that we can
reduce the noise in the current en-
gines that are flying now.
I have in my hand a chart from the
National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration which was submitted to
our committee just in the last week
during the hearings we are conducting
on jet noise in the J3B, the J8B en-
gines, which are the engines in the
707's, the DC-8's and the 727's. That
is where the real noise is. These
charts show that we can achieve a re-
duction of more than 50 percent of the
noise in those planes of all types,
takeoff noise, approach noise, sideline
noise. This can be done. We have the
technology to do it. What we need is
somebody to say, "Let us do it." And
apparently after 3Vz years of waiting
for the FAA to start to do something,
I believe the Nation should have some
action in this field. If FAA does not
intend to do anything about it, then I
say that some action should be taken
on behalf of the public, not of the
airline industry. That is the real
safety we are talking about. We are
talking about the financial safety of
the airlines, and their economic prob-
lems, and that is important, but it is
also important to give the people who
live around these airports a little re-
lief, the relief that we in the Congress
of the United States promised them
SVz years ago, and that has not been
done to date.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Washington.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, in re-
sponse to the gentleman's statement, I
would say that I am very familiar
with the engines that the gentleman
has mentioned, and know the noise
suppression devices that would be
placed into them, but the factors we
are talking about, the major factors
will require, as the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. CARTER) pointed out a
little earlier, a retrofitting of the en-
tire power packs of those planes. And
when you retrofit that entire power
pack it means to take that plane and,
in effect, rebuild the entire engines,
and the craft itself. So the entire in-
dustry goes off the line.
As I stated before in my question to
you, the FAA is trying to handle it,
and with the new aircraft that they
are trying to handle it by noise stand-
ards, and whatever they can to reduce
that noise problem. But I do not think
the EPA can, if the gentleman wants
to put them in, be prepared to say,
"All right, we will put 50 percent of
the line out of business, or take the
chance on the safety of the flying pub-
lic."
Mr. WYDLER. If the gentleman
will yield further, I am not saying
that at all. These proposals, and they
are submitted as proposals, can be ret-
rofitted into the present aircraft. It
does not mean you have to put planes
out of service or out of fleet operation
at all, except for the period of time it
takes them to be retrofitted. But
smoke reduction equipment is a re-
quirement on the airlines today. Just
as on the question of everybody was
upset about that, and we required that
the airlines do that, to use the smoke
emission reduction equipment. They
did that and the airlines survived. I
did not say that we want the airline
industry to come to a complete halt.
We do not want to do that.
It will not do that. But I think what
-------
2268
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
we have to decide here—and this is an
environmental issue—is—are we
going to protect the people from this
horrible problem of noise or are we
not? Or are we going to consider only
the interests of the industry involved?
Mr. Chairman, 1 thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word and
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I will not take the full time allowed
except to say the committee has gone
into this subject very thoroughly. It is
a very significant action. We did this
by requiring the EPA to be consulted
by the FAA right at the beginning so
they will have the input into what the
standards will be. That must be done
right at the beginning. Then, if the
EPA is not satisfied with a standard,
they can require a review of that by
the FAA just by asking them. They
must respond under the law.
Furthermore, if that is not satis-
factory, they can require them to
point out in the environmental impact
statement how it would affect the
EPA proposed standard versus the
FAA. They have to tell the various
effects.
So we have the pressure on them.
Now the EPA still must come to the
FAA on safety. We all know that. We
have to be reasonable. So what we
have done is to assure the input of the
EPA, but we assure the public safety
by leaving the final decision to the
FAA. That is what ought to be done.
This amendment ought to be defeated.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentlman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the distin-
guished chairman.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to say in conclusion,
on the question of safety, we debated
this issue in this Congress not too
long ago and we put $5 billion in back
of it.
I say to the Members of this Con-
gress, by letting this amendment go
into this bill, there may be thousands
of people killed.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment
ought to be defeated at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. WYD-
LER).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MIKVA: Page 42,
lines 13, 16 and 18, strike out "and sonic
boom" wherever it appears in such lines.
Page 47, insert immediately after line 12 the
following new subsection:
"(c) It shall be unlawful to operate a civil
aircraft within the navigable airspace of the
United States at speeds which would produce
a sonic boom, thereby creating a measurable
or audible overpressure on the surface. For
the purpose of this subsection, the term
'navigable airspace' shall have the same
meaning given such term by Sec. 101(24) of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 USC
1301 (24))."
(Mr. MIKVA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, on be-
half of myself and my distinguished
colleague from New York (Mr. Ro-
SENTHAL) I intend to offer two impor-
tant amendments to the Noise Control
Act. Both amendments are intended to
make life a little less painful for peo-
ple living near major jetports. My
new district includes most of the
homes surrounding the Nation's busi-
est and loudest airport, O'Hare Field
in Chicago. Congressman ROSENTHAL'S
district includes the area around the
Nation's fourth busiest airport, La
Guardia Airport in Queens.
Our first amendment proposes to
prohibit sonic booms over U.S. land by
commercial jets. The second would set
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2269
up a commission to study the idea of
imposing a curfew on noisy jet flights
into and out of airports in populous
areas during normal sleeping hours of
the night.
Mr. Chairman, as I said in my
statement during the debate, the
Noise Control Act is basically a sound
bill, and I expect to vote for it. But it
needs to be strengthened in several
important respects.
This bill's treatment of the sonic
boom problem is most depressing. It
constitutes a license to operate the su-
personic transports in this country.
The FAA already has the authority
to set sonic boom standards; that au-
thority is not affected by this bill
which merely
[p. H1532]
provides that the Federal Aviation
Administrator must "consult" first
with the Secretary of Transportation
and the EPA Administrator. This is
hollow tokenism.
I urge this section be deleted and in
its place the House enact a total ban
on sonic booms by civil aircraft in
U.S. airspace.
We all know what a sonic boom is
and what it does. We also agree that
it is bad and that we do not want it.
The real question is how decisively we
are willing to assert ourselves.
H.R. 11021 leaves unacceptable
loopholes for squeezing through an
ear-shattering supersonic flight.
The FAA, under a proposed rule
written when that agency was still
vigorously trying to sell the American
people and the Congress an SST we
did not want, can permit supersonic
flights by civil aircraft over any part
of the United States if the sonic boom
does not reach the ground.* Excep-
tions are made for research and de-
velopment flights.
These exceptions give the FAA full
authority to go ahead and approve
sonic boom-producing flights for such
vague reasons as "assisting aircraft
development" or "studying sonic boom
effects." This is a significant erosion
of the Government's original promise
to prohibit civilian supersonic flights
over the United States.
The FAA has said it opposes any
legislative action prohibiting sonic
booms.
The FAA has said it feels sonic
boom prohibition should be done by
FAA regulation rather than by act of
Congress.
Why? Because regulations are more
flexible than laws. T' 3y can be
changed more easily.
The United States may be out of
the SST business for the time being,
but the aviation industry, the current
administration, and especially the
FAA hope we will be back in before
too long. Meanwhile, U.S. airlines
may very well be buying and flying
foreign-made SST's and certainly the
airlines of several friendly nations
will.
Concorde, the Anglo-French SST,
was designed and built to fly between
New York and Europe, especially Lon-
don and Paris. Both sponsor govern-
ments have invested billions of dollars
in the project along with their na-
tional pride and possibly their politi-
cal and economic futures. They do not
want to see their airplane fail. You
can be sure they will be willing to put
great pressure on the U.S. Govern-
ment, both directly and through their
friends in the aviation industry, to
relax threatening barriers to the Con-
corde.
Concorde, incidentally, is supernoisy
even at subsonic speeds. It is consider-
ably louder on the ground than any
other airliner in current use-—and we
know how noisy those are.
The sonic boom may not be a seri-
ous threat to inhabitants of the Un-
ited States for flights between London
and New York where most of the dis-
tance is over water.
But what happens when the U.S.
-------
2270
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
airlines, which invested heavily in
SST's to meet foreign competition on
their international routes, want to put
their supersonic planes to work on the
lucrative domestic routes, say New
York to Los Angeles?
Some conservationists say an SST
on such a flight would trail a thunder-
ous boom along a path 50 miles wide
and disturb the peace of 20 million
Americans. One noise expert contends
it could cause heart attacks and hear-
ing impairments for many of those 20
million.
Tests in West Germany, France,
and England as well as this country
show sonic booms cause structural
damage to buildings.
What happens when the airlines
want to use their SST's on U.S. do-
mestic routes? Will the FAA, in the
interest of promoting aviation, grant
them permission under its proposed
regulation in the guise of "assisting
aircraft development" or "studying
sonic boom effects?" Or will the regu-
lation be changed? Will the Govern-
ment and industry launch a public re-
lations campaign to tell the American
people that the boom is a nice thing to
have around—"a 20th century sound,"
as Boeing calls it—a symbol of pros-
perity and progress for the Nation?
Perhaps it will be explained in
terms of preserving and protecting
the free enterprise system and the
U.S. balance of payments. Or perhaps
the ban on the boom will be lifted to
meet a stirred-up public demand for
domestic SST service, implying the
boom must be good because some peo-
ple want the flights.
This Congress has decided that the
SST poses a threat to the environ-
ment, among other things. Approval
of H.R. 11201, with its gaping loop-
hole for intense noise pollution, would
contradict the already expressed will
of the Congress and of the American
people.
We must amend this bill so that it
decisively prohibits all sonic booms
produced by civilian aircraft. This is
too important to leave to the discre-
tion of others.
Secretary of Transportation Volpe
has said supersonic transports would—
Not be allowed to fly over populated areas
unless and until the noise factor conies "with-
in acceptable limits. [Emphasis added.]
"Acceptable" was never defined.
Who would determine "acceptable
limits?" The FAA, which makes the
rules and is charged with promoting
aviation?
Years of research still have not pro-
duced any method of eliminating the
sonic boom or even significantly muz-
zling it. Secretary Volpe is confident:
If we cannot lick the sonic boom problem
in 10 years, I do not know the United States
of America.
Many persons are wary of the
FAA's promise to protect them from
the sonic boom. They fear that some
day there will be boom-producing su-
personic flights over populated areas
even without Secretary Volpe's
hoped-for breakthrough. They fear it
will begin by allowing the boom "only
within acceptable limits" and then
subtly redefining what is "acceptable."
The sonic boom is clearly unaccept-
able.
And it is destructive. Just ask the
U.S. Air Force and the 12,000 persons
who filed damage claims as a result of
sonic boom testing. The Government
has paid about a half-million dollars
in settlements so far on sonic boom
damage claims.
Noise and health authorities have
said sonic booms could cause hearing
impairments and possibly worse dam-
age for persons in SST flight paths.
Because the sonic boom is unaccept-
able, the Congress should not give the
FAA such broad authority to regulate
and possibly permit this threat to the
public health and welfare. The Con-
gress should leave no doubt about its
abhorrence for the sonic boom.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2271
There must be an absolute ban on
sonic booms by civilian aircraft over
the United States.
I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment to "ban the boom."
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. STAGGERS. I respect the gen-
tleman from Illinois very much in
what he is trying to do. I should like
to say, first, that we do not have any
civil aircraft that will produce a sonic
boom at the present time. The gentle-
man mentioned the Concorde. We do
not know whether it will ever be
flying to this country or not, and if it
does, I am sure it will not be flying
across the country.
I might say to the gentleman that
the amendment is not necessary be-
cause the FAA states now that final
sonic boom regulations will be issued
by the FAA this year. They are now
in the Office of the Secretary oi
Transportation.
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
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
country? I should like to share the
hope that our airlines will never try
to fly such aircraft, 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
reasons 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 Secretary's office. I do not be-
lieve the provision ought to be in this
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman 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 fol-
lows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MIKVA. Page 47,
insert immediately after line 12 the following
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 Con-
gress regarding the establishment of curfews
on non-military aircraft opera-
[p. H1533]
tions over populated areas of the United States
during normal sleeping hours. The Commission
shall report its findings and recommendations
to the Congress no later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, at
which time the Commission shall cease to
exist.
"(2) The Commission shall be composed of
nine members, as follows: four appointed by
the Speaker of tbe House, three appointed by
the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration. One each of those
members appointed by the Speaker of the
House and the President Pro Tempore of the
Senate, respectively, shall represent the avia-
tion industry; the remaining such members so
appointed shall be private citizens not in-
volved in the aviation industry. One of the
public members shall be elected chairman. A
vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in
the manner in which the original appoint-
ment was made.
"(3) Except as provided in Paragraph (4),
members of the Commission shall each be
entitled to receive the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade
GS-18 of the General Schedule for each day
(including travel time) during which they
are engaged in the actual performance of
duties vested in the Commission.
"(4) Members of the Commission who are
full-time officers or employees of the United
-------
2272
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
States shall receive no additional pay on ac-
count of their service on the Commission.
"(5) While away from their homes or regu-
lar places of business in the performance of
services for the Commission, members of the
Commission shall be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
the same manner as persons employed inter-
mittently in the Government service are
allowed expenses under section 5703 (b) of
title 5 of the United States Code.
"(6) Subject to such rules as may be
adopted by the Commission, the Chairman
may appoint and fix the pay of such per-
sonnel as he deems desirable. The staff of the
Commission may be appointed without re-
gard to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the com-
petitive service, and may be paid without re-
gard to the provisions of chapter 51 and sub-
chapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating
to classification and General Schedule pay
rates.
"(7) Subject to such rules as may be
adopted by the Commission, the Chairman
may procure temporary and intermittent serv-
ices to the same extent as is authorized by
section 3109 (b) of title 5 of the United States
Code, but at rates for individuals not to
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate
of basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the
General Schedule.
"(8) Upon request of the Commission, the
head of any Federal agency is authorized to
detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the
personnel of such agency to the Commission
to assist it in carrying out its duties under this
title.
"(9) The Commission may for the purpose
of carrying out this title hold such hearings,
sit and act at such times and places, take
such testimony, and receive such evidence, as
the Commission may deem advisable.
"(10) When so authorized by the Commis-
sion, any member or agent of the Commission
may take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take by this section.
"(11) The Commission may secure directly
from any department or agency of the United
States information necessary to enable it to
carry out this title. Upon request of the Chair-
man of the Commission, the bead of such
department or agency shall furnish such in-
formation to the Commission.
"(12) The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and upon
the same conditions as other departments
and agencies of the United States.
"(13) The Administrator of General Serv-
ices shall provide to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis such administrative sup-
port services as the Commission may request.
"(14) The Commission shall have power to
issue subpenas requiring the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of
any evidence that relates to any matter which
the Commission is empowered to investigate by
this subsection. Such attendance of "witness
and the production of such evidence may be
required from any place within the United
States."
Mr. MIKVA (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the REC-
ORD. I will explain it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
(Mr. MIKVA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to offer an amendment to H.R. 11021
to take the first step toward solving
the problem of aircraft noise pollu-
tion. What I propose is a thorough'
study of the possibilities of establish-
ing curfews on nonmilitary flight op-
erations at the Nation's airports.
My amendment would set up a
nine-member Commission consisting
of the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Admin-
istrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, two representatives of
the aviation industry, and five public
members. They would report the find-
ings of their investigation and their
recommendations to the Congress
within 6 months of this act.
This Commission would be a tempo-
rary investigative body, not a new
governmental agency. It would exist
solely for the purpose of informing
the Congress and would go out of
existence upon submitting its report
and recommendations.
A curfew on aircraft operations is a
short-term solution to the problem and
is not meant to be an alternative to
such long-term answers as quieter en-
gines and improved operational proce-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2273
dures. Both approaches are needed;
they are complementary.
Mr. Chairman, the problem of ex-
cessive noise abuse from jet traffic has
dominated citizens' concerns ever
since the first jets began swooping
and soaring over their homes. The sit-
uation has deteriorated for residents
as jet traffic has increased to a point
of a constant bombardment of noise.
Studies amply demonstrating the psy-
chological and physical traumatic ef-
fects on people have been made on the
debilitating effects of jet noise. The
noise impact is 10 times more disturb-
ing during the normal sleeping hours,
when it is much more difficult to as-
similate sounds, than during the day.
One of the few successful attempts
at regulation has been the ban on late
evening and predawn jet traffic at
Washington National Airport. I
strongly urge other airports to follow
this example. It is normally, socially,
and environmentally necessary.
The community residents near
O'Hare Airport like those in other cit-
ies, suffer the consequences of dec-
ades of neglect of the noise pollution
problem. Most of them were there be-
fore the jets arrived.
They used to live in comfortable,
convenient neighborhoods which, while
noiser perhaps than rural areas, none-
theless struck a reasonable balance be-
tween city hustle and bustle and sub-
urban quietness. But today, that bal-
ance is gone. Now those people come
lome from their jobs and find them-
selves beneath an intolerable roar as
"etliner after jetliner screeches over
,heir roofs. The night does not bring
jeace to them because O'Hare and the
lirlines do not understand or recog-
nize the citizen's right to quiet.
Alleviation of this situation is not
.erribly difficult. A reasonable solution
would be to begin curtailment of all
lonmilitary air traffic from scheduling
iepartures and arrivals between 10
).m. and 7 a.m., the hours normally
reserved for sleeping.
The number of passenger flights oc-
curring during those hours is only 11
percent of the total at O'Hare. But
this number does not seem small if
you happen to live nearby. When
added to the cargo flights at those
hours, the din of the aircraft becomes
almost unbearable. Aircraft noise dur-
ing the normal sleeping hours has a
compounding impact on residents be-
cause the noise cannot be assimilated
as it is during the day with other
noises. One jetliner taking off at mid-
night has 10 times the effective noise
impact of the same plane taking off at
noon. Besides, some 491 cargo flights
occur during those hours at O'Hare.
Added together, sleep is hard to come
by the people who live near O'Hare.
Washington National Airport pro-
hibits scheduled jet commercial traffic
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The PAA,
which runs National, and the airlines
operating out of the airport, have a
voluntary agreement on the night
flight limitations. The agreement
began in 1966 and has worked rather
well. Only minor adjustments by the
airlines were needed in rescheduling
flights to conform. Similar agreements
exist in Los Angeles, and Fresno,
Calif., and Boise, Idaho, as well Lon-
don, England, and many major Euro-
pean cities.
The constitutional right of domestic
tranquility includes freedom from op-
pressive noise. Steps must be taken by
airport managements, airlines, and
public officials, including the Congress,
to protect and respect the right and to
halt the acoustic abuse heaped merci-
lessly upon the citizenry.
I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment establishing a commission
to look into the possibility of imposing
a curfew on the late night flights by
noisy jets.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment. I
hesitate to do this because of my
friendship with the gentleman, and I
-------
2274
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
know his sincerity, but I do not be-
lieve this is the place, and I do not
believe this
[p. H1534]
can be done on a nationwide basis. I
believe it would be setting up a use-
less commission that could not deal
with all the airports in America. It
would be superfluous. I do not believe
it should come in this bill. This is not
the proper place for it.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amend-
ment.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
take this moment to make a point on
the floor of the House, which I think
is important to the future of the air-
line industry in our country. Recently
we have had something called the
CARD Report issued as a national
policy for our aviation industry. That
report indicated one of the main prob-
lems facing the future of civil avia-
tion in our country is the problem of
jet noise. That report is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I warn the airline
industry that they are going to come
up short again if they do not take
cognizance of this jet noise problem.
For years they thought they could ig-
nore it and economically benefit by ig-
noring the problem. The result of that
has been that in the past decade they
have made themselves bad neighbors,
and they have not been able to find a
jet port site near many urban centers
in America. In the last decade nobody
has wanted them around. They are
hurting economically as a result.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to pre-
dict on the floor of the House that
unless they act to alleviate this jet
noise problem, and start retrofitting
programs, they will be sorry again,
because the result is going to be a
further economic loss to the airline
industry. The people will retaliate, as
they have a right to do, by curtailing
the use of the current jet ports in our
country. They will start closing the
jet ports down during the night—not
just National Airport in Washington,
but all major jet ports in America
will start to close down. People are
going to get—and rightly so—a re-
striction on the use of the current jet
airports which service our major pop-
ulation centers.
At that point the airline industry is
going to realize that what it thought
was economy by saving this money on
the retrofitting of planes and making
them quiet, bearable and livable, will
be a severe blow to them and civil
aviation in our country. I see that
coming. I predict it is going to come
as surely as we are meeting here
today. It has already started. It will
not be stopped unless the airline in-
dustry makes hard economic decisions
to give the people on the ground who
suffer from this problem the relief to
which they are entitled.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
House, I presently and for many
years have represented the district
which encompasses the busiest airport
in the world, O'Hare International. It
has operations every 37 seconds. I
think I would be remiss if I did not at
this time make as a matter of record
my comment with regard to the pend-
ing amendment of my good friend
from Illinois.
This problem of establishing cur-
fews and going to the FAA seeking
regulations which provide for relief
from the noise problem in the area is
nothing new. I served on the Aviation
Subcommittee 15 years ago when we
were dealing with this very problem.
But I think we ought to get one thing
straight: We have a curfew at Wash-
ington National Airport because
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2275
Washington National Airport and
Dulles are in a totally unique position.
They are not municipally operated but
instead under control of the Federal
Government. O'Hare International
Airport is operated by the Chicago
Municipal Airport Authority. There
would be not one plane going in or out
of O'Hare field after 11 o'clock at
night if the local airport authority did
not ap-
[p. H1535]
prove it. So it is well and good to
suggest bringing the complaints to
Washington and have the PAA do the
job when in reality the responsibility
presently exists with the local airport
authority.
So let us not beat around the bush
here. If we want this job done, I sug-
gest that if you have an interest in
providing this relief, you should go to
the Chicago Airport Authority, which
is an arm of the city administration
of Chicago, get relief at the source.
They have the power to stop any
flights after 11 o'clock if, in fact, we
want a curfew. I think that ought to
be made eminently clear, and I hope
have done so today.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. MIKVA).
The amendment was rejected.
[p. H1536]
Mr. COLLIER.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MB. COLLIER
Amendment offered by Mr. COLLIER : Page
47, insert after line 12 the following:
"(c)(l) For the purpose of assuring that
the public has adequate notice of and oppor-
tunity to present its views respecting the
construction of a public airport or the con-
struction or extension of a runway for such
an airport, which has the effect of increasing
noise levels in any community—
"(A) paragraph (1) of section 16(d) of
the Airport and Airway Development Act
of 1970 is amended by inserting '(A)' after
'certifies to the Secretary' and by inserting
before the period at the end of such paragraph
the following: '; and (B) that the public
agency sponsoring such project published
notice of each such public hearing not more
than thirty days and not less than fifteen days
before such hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation in each community affected by such
project, and further that the public agency
sponsoring such project notify by registered
mail the mayor or president of the towns,
cities or villages contiguous to such airport of
any proposed construction not less than sixty
days before beginning any such construction as
provided by regulations of the Secretary'; and
"(B) section 308 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
" 'PUBLIC HEARINGS
" '(c) No public airport (as defined in sec-
tion 1(12) of the Airport and Airway De-
velopment Act of 1970) may be constructed
and no runway for such an airport may be
constructed or extended unless, prior to the
commencement of such construction or ex-
tension, there has been afforded the public
notice and an opportunity for the public
hearings described in section 16(d)(l) of
such Act.'
"(2) The table of contents of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 is amended by inserting
immediately above the item relating: to sec-
tion 309 the following:
"'(c) Public hearings.'"
(Mr. COLLIER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, as is
probably obvious from my previous
remarks, I have had to wrestle with
the problem of air jet noise as it af-
fects the average citizen perhaps more
over the years than any other Member
of this body. I realize, however, that
many of my colleagues with districts
adjacent to busy commercial airports
can appreciate the deep concern and
the aggravation of their residents in
this regard.
I am not seeking to make any major
changes, and in fact I laud the com-
mittee for what I think is a sound and
sensible approach to this problem, but
I do think that my amendment would
accomplish one thing: I think that, if
nothing else, the residents in an area
adjacent to an airport should be ap-
-------
2276
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIK
prised of any construction that is
likely to increase the impact of noise
upon their everyday lives.
What my amendment does is to say
that where any commercial airport in-
stallation engages in an expansion, an
extension of runways, or anything
that would basically change the im-
pact of the noise on the people in the
area, they should at least be entitled
to advance notice that this construc-
tion is going to be taking place,
through a public hearing where they
would at least have their day in court.
This becomes essential because we
have on two different occasions expe-
rienced situations in my area where
construction was commenced with no
knowledge on the part of the local of-
ficials, no knowledge on the part of
the people living in the area. They
subsequently engaged in litigation
seeking to get an injunction, but they
failed.
So this merely says that where an
airport installation does expand,
where they make changes, then have
them give advance notice, 30 days be-
fore they commence work, and to no-
tify the local officials so the people can
at least come in, find out what is
going to happen to them, and have
their say in public hearings. That is
all it does.
I hope that this body would see my
amendment as a sensible amendment,
and one that they could support.
Thank you.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gen-
tleman from Illinois, I respect his pro-
posal very much. I enjoyed serving on
the House Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce with him for a
longer period of time. The gentleman
was a very valuable and hardworking
member of the committee. I know he
does know the problems of these air-
ports. He does an outstanding job for
his constituents whom he is trying to
protect.
But I would say, Mr. Chairman,
that this is a noise control bill. I be-
lieve the proper place for this amend-
ment is when we take up the airport
construction bill again. This is an air-
port construction matter. So far as I
know, in my part of the country,
everybody is advised when a new air-
port is to start. I can recall one in-
stance in which they notified all the
people and the courthouse was filled.
There was so much opposition at that
time to an airport being constructed
at a certain place that the PAA gave
it up and said that they would not
construct it there and that they would
have to select a better place.
Well, when they came up with an-
other place, another hearing was held
in the courthouse and everybody had
their say. There were a few who were
opposed to it there, but the majority
were for it.
Now I would say to the gentleman
from Illinois that this committee when
we have any other airport bill, cer-
tainly I would be very willing to put
the gentleman's amendment on such a
bill.
I do not think it should be put on
this bill. I would be willing to say to
him that this committee would give to
the FAA now notice that this should
be done until such time as we could
put it in the proper bill and in the
proper perspective.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, first
let me say that my amendment does
not direct itself to the construction of
new airports. This is for reasons I am
sure the gentle nan and I could not
only understand but agree on. So the
instance the gentleman mentions
would not be related to what this
amendment is directed to, and that is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2277
to the expansion of an existing facil-
ity.
Secondly, if the distinguished chair-
man for whom I have great respect,
would notify me at the time the air-
port act is up for amendment, I would
certainly yield to his wisdom by with-
drawing this amendment and offering
it at that time, because I do think
public hearings under the circumstan-
ces generally prevail where there is
an expansion of airport activity. That
is the right of the people who live in
that area.
Mr. STAGGERS. I can assure the
gentleman that when the bill comes up
that he would be notified and I will
certainly be in favor of his amend-
ment to that bill.
Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentle-
man and will ask to withdraw my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
[p. H1537]
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BIAGGI
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BIAGGI : On page
47 following line 12 insert:
(3) (1) Beginning on the expiration of the
three-year period beginning- on the date of
enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful
for any air carrier to operate an aircraft in
air transportation which has not had a noise-
suppression device installed.
(3) (2) Whoever violates the provisions of
subsection (1) of this section shall be sub-
ject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $10,-
000. If such violation is a continuing violation,
each day of such violation shall constitute a
separate offense.
(Mr. BIAGGI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to propose an amendment to require
the installation of noise suppression
devices on jet aircraft.
The provisions in this bill are too
weak. They are designed solely to give
the industry the time to retire all air-
craft with excessively noisy engines.
In the meantime, the people who live
in the vicinity of airports and under
flight path approaches to airports will
continue to suffer near unbearable lev-
els of noise.
Congress passed the Noise Abate-
ment Control Act in 1968 authorizing
the FAA to set noise limits and re-
quire the installation of jet noise sup-
pressors on existing aircraft. In No-
vember of 1970—almost 2 years after
receiving the authority—the FAA is-
sued an announcement of proposed
rulemaking to require installation of
noise suppression devices on existing
jets.
At the time, I lauded this action as
a definite step forward in reducing
noise pollution in metropolitan areas
such as New York. Had the FAA con-
tinued on its plan of action at that
time, a rule could have been formu-
lated by now and citizens could have
looked forward to less noise in a few
years.
But no, the FAA buckled down
under the pressure of the airlines in-
dustry and in the spring of this year
announced an 18-month delay in the
rulemaking procedure. I can only pre-
sume that this Agency intends to wait
until such a rule is no longer needed.
The present bill would only grant
authority once again to reduce jet
noise—authority already granted in
the 1968 bill. What we must set up is
a deadline for the installation of jet
noise suppressors. This is clearly nec-
essary after almost 4 years of delay
and procrastination by the FAA, My
amendment would establish a 3-year
-------
2278
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
deadline from the date of enactment
Earlier this year Congress author-
ized $2.5 billion in loans to bail out
corporations supposedly operating in
the national interest. All it did was
bail out the directors of these corpora-
tions and preserve annual dividends
for the wealthy stockholders. My
amendment would mean a little peace
and quiet for Americans living near
LaGuardia, JFK, as well as other jet
airports throughout the Nation.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise to oppose the amendment. I do so
very reluctantly because of my affec-
tion for the gentleman from New
York. He is one of the finest gentle-
man in this House. The record which
he has made is outstanding.
If we could do it and do it in a way
that would be effective, we would cer-
tainly accept the amendment, but I be-
lieve I have to oppose it on the same
ground on which we opposed the other
amendments. It belongs in an airport
safety bill. Also, if we put a noise
abatement device on a plane, we may
affect safety, and we have to give con-
sideration first, certainly, to the
safety of the traveling public. For
that reason, I believe the amendment
should be defeated. I hope the gentle-
man will bring this matter up at some
time when we have an airport bill be-
fore the House, and at that time we
can take care of it.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
did an outstanding job in bringing
this legislation to the House. I want to
thank all members for the work they
did on this
[p. H1538]
bill and I want to thank the staff as
well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is
on the amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. BIAGGI).
The amendment -was rejected.
[p. H1539]
1.10f(3)(b) Oct. 12: Considered in Senate, pp. S17743-17764,
SI 7774-17785
S17774-17785
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
STAFFORD) . Under the previous order,
the Senate will proceed to the consid-
eration of S. 3342, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows :
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 consid-
eration of the bill which had been re-
ported from the Committee on Public
Works with an amendment to strike
out all after the enacting clause and
insert:
[p. 817143]
SEC. 3. The Clean Air Act is amended to
add a new title V as follows:
"TITLE V—MAJOR MOVING SOURCES
"PART A—CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIB-
CRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 501. (a) In order to afford present
and future relief and provide protection to
public health and welfare from aircraft noise
and sonic boom—
"(1) the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, after consultation
with the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration, shall promulgate and
amend standards for the measurement of air-
craft and aircraft engine i\oise and sonic
boom ; and
"(2) the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency shall promulgate and
amend regulations with respect to noise emis-
sions from aircraft and aircraft engines which
in his judgment are adequate to protect the
public health and welfare with an adequate
margin of safety.
"(b) (1) Any regulations under this section,
or amendments thereto, with respect to noise
emissions from types of aircraft or aircraft
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2279
engines, shall reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application
of the best available demonstrated technol-
ogy, taking into account the cost of compli-
ance, as determined by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration, and shall not be promulgated until
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration has determined that such regu-
lations are consistent with the highest degree
of safety in air commerce and that any pro-
posed standard, rule, or regulation has been
demonstrated to be technologically available
for application to types of aircraft, aircraft
engine, appliance, or certificate to which it
will apply.
'* (2) All standards, rules, and regulations
prescribed pursuant to section 611 of the Fed-
eral Aviation Act, as amended, prior to the
date of enactment of the Environmental Noise
Control Act of 1972 shall remain in effect until
amended or revoked by subsequent standards,
rules, or regulations promulgated and ap-
proved pursuant to this part.
" (c) Each Federal agency with regulatory
authority over air commerce, aircraft or air-
port operations, or aircraft noise emissions,
including the Civil Aeronautics Board, the
Federal Aviation Administration, and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, shall exer-
cise such regulatory authority so as to re-
duce noise in airport environments and sur-
rounding areas.
"Sec. 502, The Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies and interested individuals,
shall conduct a study of the (a) adequacy of
Federal Aviation Administration flight and
operational noise controls; (b) adequacy of
noise emission standards on new and existing
aircraft, together with recommendations on
the retrofitting and phaseout of existing- air-
craft ; (c) implications of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure
around airports; and (d) additional measures
available to airport operators and local govern-
ments to control aircraft noise. He shall report
on such study to the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Com-
merce and Public Works of the Senate within
one year after enactment of this title, together
with his recommendations for legislation.
"SEC. 503. (a) The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, after con-
sultation with the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, shall pro-
mulgate regulations to insure compliance
with all standards promulgated by the Ad-
ministrator under section 501 of this Act.
The regulations of the Secretary of Trans-
portation shall include provisions making
such standards respecting noise emissions
from any type of aircraft applicable in the
issuance, amendment, modification, suspen-
sion, or revocation of any certificate author-
ized by the Federal Aviation Act, as amended,
or the Department of Transportation Act, as
amended. Such Secretary shall insure that
all necessary inspections are accomplished,
and may execute any power or duty vested in
him by any other provision of law in the
execution of all powers and duties vested in
him under this section.
"(b) In any action to amend, modify, sus-
pend, or revoke a certificate in which viola-
tion of aircraft noise or sonic boom stand-
ards, rules, or regulations applied to aircraft
or aircraft engines existing on the date of
enactment of the Environmental Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972, is at issue, the certificate
holder shall have the same notice and appeal
rights as are contained in section 609 of the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended, except that
in any appeal to the National Transportation
Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify,
or revoke the order of the Secretary of Trans-
portation only if it finds no violation of such
standards, rules, or regulations, and that such
amendment, modification, or revocation by the
Board is consistent with safety in air trans-
portation,
"SEC. 504. The Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration shall not issue
a type certificate under section 603 (a) of the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended, for any
aircraft, or for any aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance that affects significantly the
noise or sonic boom characteristics of any
aircraft, after July 1, 1973, unless standards,
rules, and regulations under this part which
apply to such aircraft, aircraft engine, pro-
peller, or appliance have been promulgated.
"SEC. 505. The Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, within nine
months of the date of enactment of this Act,
shall review all standards, rules, or regula-
tions (or any proposed standard, rule, or reg-
ulation) in effect under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended, prior to
the date of enactment of this title. If he de-
termines after public hearings, that such
standards, rules, or regulations do not com-
ply with section 501 (b) (1) of this Act, within
twelve months of the date of enactment of
this title he shall revise such standard, rule,
or regulation, in accordance with section 501
(b) of this Act.
"SEC. 506. No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any
standard respecting noise emissions from any
aircraft or engine thereof unless such stand-
ard is identical to a standard applicable to
such aircraft under this part.
"SEC. 507. Terms used in this part (other
than Administrator) shall have the same
-------
2280
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
meaning as such terms have under section
101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended.
"CIVIL AIRCRAFT SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 508. (a) No person may operate a
civil aircraft over the territory of the United
States, the territorial sea of the TJ nited
States, or the waters of the contiguous zone
(as defined under Article 24 of the Conserva-
tion of the Territorial Sea and the Contigu-
ous Zone) at a true flight mach number
greater than 1 except in compliance with the
conditions and limitations in an authoriza-
tion to exceed mach 1 issued to the operator
under this section.
"(b) For a research and development flight
in a designated flight test area an authoriza-
tion to exceed mach 1 may be issued if the
applicant shows one or more of the follow-
ing :
"(1) The flight is necessary to show com-
pliance with an airworthiness regulation or
is necessary for aircraft development.
"(2) The flight is necessary to determine
the sonic boom characteristics of the airplane,
or is necessary to establish means of reducing
or eliminating the effects of sonic boom.
"(3) The flight is necessary to demonstrate
the conditions and limitations under -which
speeds greater than a true flight mach num-
ber of 1 will not cause a sonic boom to reach
the land or water surface of the earth.
"(c) An application for an authorization to
exceed mach 1 must be made on a form and
in a manner prescribed by the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency. In
addition, for an authorization covered by sub-
section (b) of this section, each application
must contain—
"(1) information showing that operation at
speeds greater than mach 1 is necessary to
accomplish one of the purposes specified in
subsection (b) of this section;
"(2) a description of the flight test area
proposed by the applicant; and
"(3) conditions and limitations that insure
that no sonic boom will reach the land or
water surface outside of the designated flight
test area.
"(d) An application for an authorization to
exceed mach 1 shall be denied whenever the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency finds that such research and de-
velopment flight or flights may adversely aifect
public health or welfare or the quality of the
environment.
"(e) An authorization to exceed mach 1 is
effective until it expires, or until it is sur-
rendered, and shall be terminated by the Ad-
ministrator whenever he finds that such ac-
tion is necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the quality of the environment.
"(f) Any violation of this section shall he
[p. S17749]
subject to the penalties prescribed under sub-
section (a) of section 412 of this Act.
[p. S17750]
*****
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 SENATOR 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 af-
fected.
The noise is so bad at my house—you could
cry—it hurts your ears so much. When a
plane conies 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 he 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 Environmental Noise Con-
trol 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 mo-
torcycles to vacuum cleaners, to jack-
hammers to electric blenders. For the
[p. S17751]
Most frustrated of all are the peo-
ple—who are bringing billions of dol-
lars in damage suits against airport
authorities—and hundreds of millions
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2281
of dollars in compensation claims for
hearing loss.
At Los Angeles International Air-
port alone, $14 billion in nuisance
suits are pending—a situation which
prompted the city attorney of Los An-
geles to threaten to close down the
airport. He seems to have recanted,
but if the airport does close, thou-
sands of jobs will be lost. This is in
addition to the enormous impairment
to air commerce.
Another problem discussed at the
hearings was the decline of property
values due to high levels of noise. A
study conducted in Inglewood, Calif.,
shows land subject to noise levels less
than 80 PndB was valued an average
50 percent higher than land subject to
noise levels greater than 100 PndB.
[p. S17752]
In the case of aircraft, EPA would
set emission standards adequate to
meet the health needs. Standards for
noise emissions from aircraft, which
actually define what aircraft manu-
facturers and air carriers must at-
tain, would be promulgated on the
basis of the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of
best available demonstrated technol-
ogy, taking into account the cost of
compliance, as determined by EPA
and the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion. FAA would be given a twofold
veto over proposed standards, if tech-
nology were not available or stand-
ards were not consistent with the
highest degree of safety. Under this
scheme, each agency would take re-
sponsibility for those matters for
which it has demonstrated compe-
tence.
In addition, the bill provides that
existing standards promulgated under
section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act will continue in effect until modi-
fied 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 pro-
mulgated. Violations of the standards
would be subject to the penalties and
abatement procedures under title IV,
including citizen suits to abate viola-
tions.
The committee considered ap-
proaches 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 ex-
posed 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, and while many
members of the committee were
strongly in favor of utilizing such ad-
ditional methods, the committee felt
that it had insufficient knowledge as
to the precise regulatory mechanism
for cumulative aircraft noise expo-
sure. Therefore, the committee in-
cluded in the bill, in place of any reg-
ulatory scheme dealing with commu-
nity noise around airports, a 1-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 will
form the basis for any legislation on
aircraft noise in the next Congress.
Also included in this study are the
adequacy of FAA flight and opera-
tional noise controls, the adequacy of
noise emission standards on new and
existing standards on new and exist-
ing aircraft—together with the EPA's
recommendations on the retrofitting
and phaseout of existing aircraft—
ri26-704 O - 73 - 34
-------
2282
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and any additional measures available
to airport operators and local govern-
ments to control aircraft noise.
The EPA study and recommenda-
tion called for by section 502 is not
merely an extension of the investiga-
tions on this subject performed by
EPA as required by title IV of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970.
Rather, it is an effort to deal compre-
hensively with and develop an orderly
national program for an urgent prob-
lem that has heretofore been dealt
with on a piecemeal basis.
There are already in progress a
number of investigations and activi-
ties on the part of a variety of Fed-
eral agencies on the subject of air-
craft and airport noise. These include
among others: the report of the Avia-
tion Advisory Commission called for
by the Airways and Airport Improve-
ment Act of 1970, the research on de-
velopment of quiet engines being ac-
complished by the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration and the
research on aircraft engine retrofit re-
quirements being undertaken by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
In addition, it is known that the
executive branch of the Government
through the Office of Management and
Budget, and the National Aeronautics
and Space Council is conducting stud-
ies and evaluations on aircraft noise
problems and associated matters.
The Environmental Protection
Agency along with the Department of
Transportation and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development
have undertaken initial research on
community noise, measurement, evalu-
ation and description. It is also known
that within its limited resources the
Environmental Protection Agency has
also initiated a study on the -wide va-
riety of schemes and methods used for
aircraft noise, evaluation, and meas-
urement. The Department of Defense
through the U.S. Air Force Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratory is un-
dertaking a comprehensive investiga-
tion of the noise exposure forecast
sys'tem and the background material
upon which that system is based. All
of these studies are viewing the prob-
lem from different viewpoints and dif-
ferent considerations. Nowhere is
there presently established overview
authority. The purpose of section 502
is to insure that all of this related,
but presently disorganized, activity is
brought into perspective and evalu-
ated by an independent agency whose
primary concern is that of environ-
mental quality and the protection oi
health and welfare.
Tools other than noise emission
standards do exist for reducing air-
craft noise. It is the intention of the
committee in section 501 (c) of the bill
that all existing authority over air-
craft or aircraft noise be utilized to
reduce that noise, including, among
other things, the consideration of
flight and operational changes such as
the two-segment landing approach
and the adjustment of take-off, ap-
proach and flight paths to impact
fewer people, and review of traffic
flow with regard to adequacy of load
factor.
States and the 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 address
responsibilities or powers of airport
operators, and no provision 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 ex-
isted with respect to matters covered
by section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958 prior to the enactment of
the bill.
Commercial nights of supersonic
aircraft at supersonic speeds over the
United States are forbidden, except
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2283
for defined research and development
purposes.
* * * * *
In conclusion, the legislation pro-
vides the first comprehensive program
to control noise from all major noise
sources—including aircraft. We have
kept the people waiting: long enough.
We have their strong support for this
bill. It is time to move forward.
Mr. President, I yield to the Sena-
tor from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered; and,
without objection, the amendment will
be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, is as follows:
S. 3342
On page 90, beginning at line 24, strike out
all through line 14 on page 91 and insert, in
lieu thereof, the following:
"SEC. 502. (a) (1) Within 180 days after the
[p. S17753]
enactment of this Act, the Administration of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall
promulgate rules and regulations, based on
criteria published pursuant to section 407(a)
of this Act, to establish levels of cumulative
noise exposure in the environment of airports
and surrounding areas affected by noise from
aircraft which levels shall be adequate to
protect the public health and welfare with an
adequate margin of safety.
"(2) Within 90 days after promulgation of
regulations required by paragraph (1), the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency shall promulgate and amend
standards for the measurement of levels of
cumulative noise exposure.
"(b) Within 270 days after the promulga-
tion of rules and regulations establishing levels
of cumulative noise exposure, the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall identify and publish in the Federal Reg-
ister those airports in the vicinity of which he
has reason to believe such levels are or may
be exceeded, and at any time thereafter the
Administrator shall identify and publish in the
Federal Register any other airports for which
he subsequently receives evidence that levels
of cumulative noise exposure are being ex-
ceeded.
"(c) (1) Within 90 days after an airport is
identified pursuant to subsection (b) of this
section, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall monitor the
levels of cumulative noise exposure in the
vicinity of the airport, and shall install de-
vices to monitor on a continuing basis the
levels of cumulative noise exposure in the
vicinity of the airport and shall periodically,
but at least annually, examine the devices to
assure accuracy and make a determination
of the adequacy of the measures taken to
attain and maintain such levels;
" (2) The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall make public
the data derived from such monitoring, cor-
related with the levels of cumulative noise
exposure established pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section.
(d) (1) The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, after consultation
with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall develop and publish
information on alternatives for reducing noise
at airports and in the vicinity of airports,
which information shall indicate the maximum
degree of noise reduction control which can
be achieved with available technology which
is consistent with safety. Alternatives consid-
ered may include modifications and limitations
on the number and frequency of operations,
modifications of hours of airport operation,
any other adjustments in operation of such
airport, and any alternative controls or modi-
fications of the use of land (including1 use of
buildings and facilities, building code changes,
etc.) surrounding such airport.
" (2) Where an airport is identified pur-
suant to these procedures in subsection (b)
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall provide technical as-
sistance to the operator of such airport to
develop methods to attain and maintain levels
of cumulative noise exposure through imple-
mentation of alternatives such as those pub-
lished in accordance with paragraph (1) of
this subsection,
" (e) There are authorized to be appro-
priated to the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to carry out the
provisions of this section not to exceed- $15,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
-------
2284
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1973, and $15,000,000 annually for each of the
three succeeding fiscal years.
"(f) Nothing in this section shall limit the
authority of an airport operator for other
than emergencies to limit the number of fre-
quency of operations or modify or limit the
hours of airport operations in order to attain
or maintain such levels.
[p. S17754]
*****
Mr. MUSKIE.
*****
My second major concern with the
legislation reported from the commit-
tee deals with the problem of aircraft
noise and regulatory mechanism rec-
ommended to cope with that problem.
To date, the regulation of aircraft
noise pollution has been the sole re-
sponsibility of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Federal Aviation
Administration has had this responsi-
bility since its inception. It has had a
specific legislative mandate for the
past 4 years. And its record is wholly
inadequate.
I understand why the Federal Avia-
tion Administration's response has
been inadequate. The FAA's primary
mission is not to reduce the environ-
mental impact caused by aircraft
noise. Its mission is to promote air
commerce and to protect safety. Regu-
lation of noise from aircraft is not
consistent with that primary mission.
In the proposed rulemaking in Jan-
uary 1969, FAA set forth a "noise
floor" at 80 EPNdB as "an objective
to aim for, and to achieve where eco-
nomically reasonable, technologically
practicable, and appropriate to the
particular design" and went on:
However, this objective is important be-
cause 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 rea-
sonable boundary between noise levels that are
high enough to interfere with communications
and to obstruct normal life in homes or other
buildings that are not designed with specific
acoustical objectives, and lower noise levels
which, while not completely benign, neverthe-
less allow those activities to proceed. Where
this goal can be reached in a given case, and
can be justified as economically reasonable,
technologically practical, and appropriate to
the particular type design, the FAA does not
intend to ignore this potential reduction.
Yet after industry pressure, the
FAA dropped this 80 EPNdB "objec-
tive" from the promulgated regula-
tions 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 im-
mediate legal effect.
The attitude of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration as regards regulation of aircraft
noise was more clearly spelled out in the fol-
lowing excerpt from a draft report on noise
pollution prepared by the Environment Pro-
tection Agency:
Both directly and by unmistakable infer-
ence, 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 assume the smooth func-
tioning 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 annoy-
ing interference in the basic goal of the
Agency: the most efficient, safest and swiftest
air travel possible.
While this statement was deleted
from the final report transmitted to
the Congress, it is indicative of FAA's
attitude toward noise from aircraft.
Unfortunately, the bill, as reported,
would continue the dominance of the
FAA. Not only would FAA have veto
over safety of noise reduction technol-
ogy, but neither could EPA make any
judgment as to the availability of
technology or the cost of achieving
noise reductions without FAA ap-
proval.
Continuation of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration in a role of deter-
mining the degree to which noise
emissions from aircraft will be re-
duced is not justified in the record.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2285
While the committee bill takes steps
to establish the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency as
the determinator of those levels of
aircraft noise required to protect pub-
lic health and welfare, EPA will have
little authority to enforce standards to
meet those requirements.
Members of the committee, includ-
ing myself, recognized that aircraft
were unique because of the safety re-
quirements and the interrelationship
of safety to the engine system. There-
fore, I agreed with the committee's
judgment and supported the amend-
ments of Senator COOPER and Senator
STAFFORD which would retain the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration lead role
in making any final determination as
to whether or not any technology
available to achieve noise emission
levels would also be consistent with
the highest standards of safety.
The assumption that technology
might not be available to meet noise
emission goals combined with the as-
sumption that technology could be ve-
toed because of FAA safety judgment,
lead to the conclusion that there must
be a mechanism to assure maximum
pressure to develop safe technology
while at the same time reduce the im-
pact of noise in the environments of
impacted airports.
The committee considered and re-
jected a provision that would have re-
quired achievement of health and wel-
fare protection of noise levels in air-
port environments, whether or not
specific aircraft engine emission con-
trol technology was available. Without
an action-forcing mechanism such as
enforceable "cumulative noise expo-
sure levels," neither FAA nor the air-
lines would have any incentive to
press technology and achieve the goals
EPA would be authorized to establish.
A combination of cumulative noise
levels and emission standards would
create that pressure. Obviously if
technology exists to achieve the levels
of noise emission reduction to protect
public health, achievement of emission
standards would reduce any economic
burdens on the airline industry caused
by controls imposed to achieve cumu-
lative noise levels. And such local en-
vironmental noise requirements would
require a reduction in the number and
frequency of flights if technology did
not exist.
The committee considered and re-
jected a provision which would have
required the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to
identify any airports in the country
with aircraft noise problems of a
magniture to cause a violation of cu-
mulative noise exposure levels. The
proposal defined "cumulative noise ex-
posure 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.
Most importantly, this provision
would have imposed a positive burden
upon the operator of the airport to
exercise responsibility to regulate the
number, the frequency and the hours
of flight or to impose land use and
other controls so as to eliminate noise
as an environmental problem in the
area of that airport. And the airport
operator's duty and responsibility to
carry out such responsibilities would
be established by statute.
This concept is not unique. In 1970,
the Congress enacted legislation which
requires development of a clean car by
1975. That law recognized that reli-
ance on technology alone would not
result in elimination of auto-related
pollution as a health hazard until ex-
isting vehicles were off the road—per-
haps mid-1985 or later. Therefore, the
bill established a procedure to regu-
late the use of automobiles in areas in
which automobile-related air pollution
was unacceptably high to assure that
public health would be protected at an
early date—in this instance, 1975-76
-------
2286
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
The combination of emission reduc-
tion technology and air quality imple-
mentation plans has been a useful
mechanism both to improve air quality
and to apply pressure on local govern-
ments to seek alternatives to reliance
on motor vehicles. Also, this mecha-
nism will apply pressure to the auto
industry to develop clean cars if they
wish to preserve existing markets.
This mechanism can and should be
applied to aircraft-related noise prob-
lems. It recognizes the limitations of
technology, while providing a means
to protect the health and welfare of
those seven and a quarter million peo-
ple who live in airport environments
and who are adversely affected by air-
craft noise. To do anything less in
this legislation is to fail to meet re-
sponsibly the demands of the
[p. S17755]
American public for a safe, healthful
and peaceful environment.
Without a provision of this type, I
believe the bill to be inadequate. With-
out a provision of this type, the bill
does not address in a meaningful way
the real problem faced by people who
are confronted now with unacceptable
levels of aircraft noise. The reported
bill would force these people to wait
for emission control technology to be
developed and applied to new and ex-
isting aircraft, or on the courts to im-
pose sufficient penalties or damage
claims against the airlines and the
airport 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 unacceptable. I
think it is inadequate to rely on
claims for damages, penalties against
the airlines, and injunctions as a sub-
stitute for positive regulatory pro-
grams,
*****
Mr. President, the two amendments
I offer today would get at these points
I have just raised. The amendment
just reported is designed to determine
levels of airport noise which affect
public health and welfare and to es-
tablish procedures to identify and
monitor activities at airports where
levels of excessive environmental noise
exist. In recent years the primary im-
petus to develop Federal noise con-
trols has been citizen concern with ex-
cessive noise levels in the vicinity of
airports. Excessive airport noise may
be reduced someday, in part, by con-
trols on aircraft and aircraft engines
which are dealt with in other sections
of this bill.
But simply modifying aircraft and
aircraft engines will not alone solve
what has become known as the airport
noise problem—at least not soon
enough to help 7 million citizens who
face unacceptable noise levels every
day of their lives.
To solve the airport noise problem,
other programs integrated with air-
craft controls are necessary. Effective
programs will include curfews, con-
trols over operation or aircraft at and
around airports, limitations on the
number of airport operations per
hour, land use, zoning, building con-
struction and ground transportation
system regulations in the airport and
its vicinity, and other noise related
control efforts.
These controls are immediately
more important than aircraft engine
controls if airport noise problems are
to be reduced. But nowhere in the leg-
islation before us is a mechanism es-
tablished to determine specific levels
of airport noise which will protect
public health and welfare, to monitor
noise levels around airports, to give
advice to airport operators on various
approaches they can take to deal with
the other aspects of airport noise
problems, or to provide technical as-
sistance to airport operators which
they may need in implementing such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2287
controls. Nor does the bill assure air-
port operators that interim measures
can be taken locally to reduce airport
noise and thus the myriad of damage
actions pending and anticipated.
All that S. 3342 does, in section 502,
is call for a study of these matters.
This is not enough. Today we are told
we are enacting legislation to deal
with the aircraft noise problem, not to
study those problems but to have a
real commitment of Federal action. If
that is so, then we must include a real
Federal commitment to act against
airport noise.
The amendment I propose will re-
quire that within 180 days after en-
actment of this act, EPA publish reg-
ulations establishing levels of cumula-
tive noise exposure for airports and
surrounding areas which are adequate
to protect public health and welfare
with an adequate margin of safety.
Ninety days after publication of
these regulations, EPA will be re-
quired to publish standards for meas-
urements of levels of cumulative noise
exposure.
Within 9 months after measurement
regulations are published—about 18
months after enactment of the law—
EPA would be required to identify
those airports in the vicinity of which
unacceptable levels of cumulative
noise exposure exist. EPA would be
required to install at those airports
devices to monitor, on a continuing
basis, levels of noise exposure and
make available to the public data
which resulted from EPA monitoring
activities. This process would estab-
lish a single uniform basis for exam-
ining cumulative noise levels and de-
termining just what airport noise lev-
els and what airport activities result
in levels of noise harmful to public
health or welfare.
To aid the airports in reducing lev-
els of cumulative noise exposure, the
Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration, whom we all
agree has the greatest experience in
airport operations and safety, is di-
rected to develop and publish guide-
lines with suggested alternatives for
reducing airport noise and to provide
technical assistance to airports in
solving their noise problems.
Finally, my amendment would es-
tablish a clear, statutory recognition
of the duty and responsibility of air-
port operators to take necessary ac-
tion to reduce airport noise as deter-
mined necessary to prevent damage
actions and protect health and wel-
fare. I am particularly concerned that
this legislation clarify the role of the
FAA in working with airports to
solve their airport noise problems. Re-
cently, the FAA has taken the posi-
tion that airports cannot restrict air-
craft operations in order to reduce
noise. Thus, under FAA interpreta-
tion, aircraft operators must bear the
burden of noise damage suits without
authority to solve local problems and
defend themselves against such suits.
I ask unanimous consent that there
be included in the RECORD at this point
a complaint filed by the FAA against
the town of Morristown, N.J., charg-
ing- Morristown had violated Federal
law and grant agreements by restrict-
ing aircraft operations because of
noise.
There being no objection, the com-
plaint was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[p. S17756]
[Complaint omitted.]
*****
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, that
judgment requires the airport to un-
dertake certain procedures for han-
dling complaints and orders the adop-
tion of certain noise abatement proce-
dures.
If it is indeed a position of the
FAA, as indicated in its complaint,
that airports should not be allowed to
control aircraft operations to reduce
noise, then it is essential that the
-------
2288
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
FAA assist those airports to reduce
their noise exposure to levels which
are not harmful to the public health.
Either Federal law must provide a
clear method for airport operators to
solve their problems, or the Federal
Government must be held liable for
damage action brought against those
airports.
May I review the provisions of this
amendment: First, the EPA would set
levels of cumulative noise exposure
which are unhealthy in terms of public
health and welfare; secondly, it would
set standards for measuring those
noise levels; third, it would identify
those airports in the country which
exceed those levels.
That is the extent of the authority
of EPA under this amendment.
Then FAA, the agency which the
opponents of this amendment I take
it, argue is the agency which ought to
control aircraft operations, is charged
under this amendment with the re-
sponsibility of issuing guidelines to
airport operators and providing tech-
nical assistance so that they may
safely meet their environmental re-
sponsibilities of controlling noise lev-
els. I think FAA has that responsibil-
ity. But it is the aircraft operators
themselves, who are subject to damage
suits. Many of them are now in court
for this purpose, because they violate
public health and welfare levels of
noise emissions.
I think this is a minimal kind of
mechanism to deal with this problem.
The study provided in the bill is not
sufficient. It mandates nothing.
This amendment proposal gives
FAA the authority necessary to estab-
lish health and welfare standards. It
gives FAA power to veto it, in effect,
as well as the responsibility to issue
guidelines to meet those standards.
*****
Mr, TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
was saying that I shall have to oppose
this amendment. This matter was con-
sidered at great length in the commit-
tee, and I personally spent a great
deal of time on it. I wanted to see
something done in this area. It seemed
to me that, if we were going to have a
noise bill, we really should try to de-
velop a scheme whereby we can con-
trol cumulative noise levels around
airports.
The bill went through a number of
prints in which we tried to revise the
language so as to meet the health need
but also to various objections. As we
got deeper and deeper into it in the
markup session, we realized that we
just did not have adequate data on
which to base a rational judgment as
to the best mechanism to do the job. It
was the considered opinion of the com-
mittee that, instead of trying to push
through a scheme at a very late date,
without sufficient evidence as to its
precise ramifications, what we should
provide is a 1-year study which will
certainly keep the heat on and will
require the Environmental Protection
Agency to come to the Congress and
make proposals which I feel are
needed if we are going to be able to
reduce airport noise.
But there are more than a dozen
different systems for monitoring air-
port noise; and when you are dealing
with airport noise, you are dealing not
only with aircraft, but with railroads
that go past airports, and with high-
ways. National Airport is a good ex-
ample of what I mean. The question is
how do you differentiate between air-
craft noise, highway noise, and train
noise?
This issue is something which really
should be considered in a study, so
that the committee has all the facts
available to it before it rushes blindly
into a regulatory scheme that may or
may not be appropriate.
[p. S17758]
*****
It seems to me, Mr. President, that
in this bill we have done just about all
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2289
we could at this point in time. I was
deeply concerned in the committee, as
the debate progressed, that no one
really understood what the effect of
the mechanism that was put into the
bill would be. That mechanism called
for a conference to be held at a noise-
impacted airport at which the airport
operator, the FAA, the CAB, EPA,
local authorities, and the interested
public would discuss ways of cutting
down on airport noise.
At this airport conference various
measures to reduce noise, including
the adequacy of noise-emission stand-
ards for aircraft, and operational and
flight procedures, would be taken into
consideration. Also considered would
je the possibility of scheduling
changes, curfews, use of preferential
runways, substitution of quieter air-
craft, and, finally, as a last resort,
controls on land use.
But, as we got into the matter, it
Became very clear that we just did not
lave nearly enough information to be
ible to have this mechanism written
nto the law with a sufficient anticipa-
jon of all the possible consequences.
father than be accused of legislating
n the blind, we decided to have a
itudy by EPA and to have the matter
irought up again in Congress when
ve could have full hearings on this
.pecifie point.
In its present form, this amendment
ias not been considered by the Com-
nittee on Public Works. For this rea-
on, I would have to say that, no mat-
er how good this amendment may be
r may not be, because of its complex
ature and because perhaps no one
eally understands what it says except
le Senator from Maine, it is objec-
onable, and the Senate ought to re-
set the amendment.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I would
ke to take a minute or two to agree
ith the statement that the manager
the bill, the distinguished Senator
•om California (Mr. TUNNEY), has
just made in regard to the pending
amendment.
I am free to say, and I say at the
request of our colleague on the com-
mittee, the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), who is una-
ble to be here at the moment because
he is in a conference on the highway
bill, that he also supports the commit-
tee position. He has asked me to relay
that point of view.
It seems to me, as the distinguished
Senator from California has said, that
this amendment has not been fully
considered in committee. We have not
had hearings on it and we do not
really understand the full significance
of it. I do appreciate the objective and
the goal of the distinguished Senator
from Maine, the chairman of our sub-
committee, and I take this opportu-
nity, as always, to compliment him on
the outstanding work he has done as
chairman of our Subcommittee on Air,
and Water Pollution. His contribu-
tions are most valuable and immeas-
urable. However on this issue I find
myself in disagreement.
Another point that has not been
mentioned, which I do think is impor-
tant at this time, because it is impor-
tant to move forward with this noise
pollution control legislation, is that I
believe if the amendment were
adopted at this time, at this late point
in the session, it would probably com-
plicate forward movement and compli-
cate the chances of getting this bill
enacted at this session, because it
would undoubtedly involve committee
jurisdictional problems, which have
not been completely worked out.
Mr. President, I recommend that
this amendment be rejected at this
time. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. TUNNEY. I would like to yield
to the Senator from Nevada.
-------
2290
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how
much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine has 18 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 5 min-
utes to cover the points raised by the
Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
think it would be interesting to in-
clude, and ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the RECORD at this
point, the provision in the orignial bill
which covered this subject.
I think, second, there ought to be
included, and I ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the RECORD, the
modification of that provision which
was developed as the result of the
committee hearings and pressed by
Senator TUNNEY and myself in the
committee.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS
SEC. 3. Section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to
read as follows:
"CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 611. (a) In order to afford present
and future relief and provide protection to
public health and welfare from aircraft noise
and sonic boom, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, after con-
sultation with the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, shall prescribe and amend standards for
the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic
boom and shall prescribe and amend such rules
and regulations as he may find necessary to
provide for the control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom, including the ap-
plication of such standards, rules, and regula-
tions in the issuance, amendment, modifica-
tion, suspension, or revocation of any certifi-
cate authorized by this title. All standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed pursuant to
this section prior to the date of enactment of
the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972 shall
remain in effect until amended or revoked by
subsequent standards, rules, or regulations
prescribed and approved pursuant to this
section.
"(b) The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall not issue a type
certificate under section 603(a) of this Act
for any aircraft, or for any aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance that affects signifi-
cantly the noise or sonic boom characteristics
of any aircraft, unless the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall
have prescribed standards, rules, and regula-
tions under this section which apply to such
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or appli-
ance, and which protect the public health and
welfare from aircraft noise or sonic boom
consistent with the considerations listed in
subsection (d) of this subsection.
"(c) The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, within 6 months of
the date of enactment of the Noise Pollution
Control Act of 1972, shall review all stand-
ards, rules, or regulations (or any proposed
standard, rule, or regulation) in effect under
this section prior to the date of enactment of
the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972. If he
determines after public hearings that such
standards, rules, or regulations do not protect
the public health and welfare from aircraft
noise or sonic boom consistent with the con-
siderations listed in subsection (d) of this
section, he shall within 12 months of the date
of enactment of this Act, revise such stand-
ard, rule, or regulation.
"(d)(l) In prescribing and amending
standards, rules, and regulations under this
section, the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall—•
"(A) consider relevant available data re-
lating to aircraft noise and sonic boom and
the noise environments of airports, including
the results of research, development, testing,
and evaluation activities conducted pursuant
to this Act and the Department of Transpor-
tation Act;
"(B) consult with such Federal, State, in-
terstate, and municipal agencies as he deems
appropriate;
"(C) consider whether any proposed stand-
ard, rule, or regulation is consistent with the
highest degree of safety in air commerce or
air transportation in the public interest;
"(D) consider whether any proposed stand-
ard, rule, or regulation is technologically prac-
ticable for application to existing types of
aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or cer-
tificate to which it will apply.
"(2) Aircraft, aircraft engines, or appli-
ances which are manufactured or sold after
date of enactment of the Noise Pollution Con-
trol Act of 1972 shall meet the standards Pre-
scribed pursuant to this section.
"(e) In any action to amend, modify, sus-
pend, or revoke a certificate in which viola-
tion of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards,
rules, or regulations applied to aircraft or
aircraft engines existing on the date of en-
actment of the Noise Pollution Control Act
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2291
of 1972, is at issue, the certificate holder shall
have the same notice and appeal rights as are
contained in section 609, except that in any
appeal to the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Board may amend, modify, or re-
voke the order of the Secretary of Transpor-
tation only if it finds no violation such stand-
ards, rules, or regulations, and that such
amendment, modification, or revocation is con-
sistent with safety in air transportation."
"SEC. 502. (a) In order to attain and main-
tain the ambient levels of noise for airport
environments and surrounding areas estab-
lished under section 501 (a) (1) of this Act,
the operator of any airport "where such am-
bient levels are not presently attained shall
develop and adopt a plan for the achievement
and maintenance of such ambient levels,
[p. S17759]
after public hearings and consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation and any af-
fected State or political subdivision thereof.
Such plan may consider reductions in noise
emissions due to standards applicable to par-
ticular types of aircraft, controls on the
granting or acceptance of air service, controls
>n the frequency and scheduling of flights,
modifications of hours of airport operation,
changes in operational and flight procedures,
md land use regulation. The operator of any
)ther airport, or any State or political subdi-
vision thereof affected by aircraft noise, may
levelop and adopt such a plan with respect to
in airport not covered by a plan developed
inder the first sentence of this subsection.
"(b)(l) Any plan required by subsection
a) of this section, shall be submitted to the
Ldministrator of the Environmental Protec-
ion Agency and the Secretary of Transpor-
ation, within one hundred and eighty days
fter the promulgation of regulations estab-
shing ambient levels of noise for airport
nvironments and surrounding areas pursuant
3 section 501(a)(l) of this Act.
" (2) Within ninety days after such eub-
lission, the Secretary of Transportation shall
ransmit to the Administrator his determina-
on as to the consistency of such plan with
ir safety and air commerce, together with
is recommendation for approval or modifica-
on of such plan.
"The Administrator shall review such plan
> assure attainment of maintenance of such
nbient levels of noise established under see-
on 501 (a) (1) of this Act and, in accordance
ith the recommendation of the Secretary of
ransportation, shall approve or modify such
Ian within sixty days after such transmittal.
"(c) Where the implementation of an ap-
•Qved plan under this section requires the
•omulgation or modification of any regula-
rs under the authority of the Secretary of
Transportation or the Civil Aeronautics
Board, such regulations shall be promulgated
or modified within ninety days after the ap-
proval of such plan under subsection (b) of
this section.
Mr. TUNNEY. Will the Senator
permit a. correction? It was in print 6;
the sixth edition.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Let me say, Mr. President, there
was much discussion in the committee
of this issue about the desirability of
having this kind of control at the local
level.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a letter that is
in the record of the hearings of the
committee from Randall L. Hurlburt,
of the city of Inglewood, Calif., ad-
dressed to me, dated March 24, 1972,
in which he said:
DEAK MR. MUSKIE: I hope to convince your
Committee that:
1. Aircraft noise pollution is excessive, is
detrimental to the public welfare, and needs
to be reduced.
2. Aircraft noise pollution can be reduced
dramatically if the federal government uses
its authority to set aircraft and airport noise
standards.
The residents of Inglewood Bend 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
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA,
Inglewood, Calif., March U. 197t.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, U.S. Senate Public Workt
Committee, Washington, D.C.
Subject: Noise Pollution Hearings, San Fran-
cisco, California, March 24, 1972
DEAR MR. MUSKIE: I hope to convince your
Committee that:
1. Aircraft noise pollution is excessive, is
-------
2292
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
detrimental to the public welfare, and needs
to be reduced.
2. Aircraft noise pollution can be reduced
dramatically if the federal government uses
its authority to set aircraft and airport noise
standards.
The residents of Inglewood send you their
quiet prayers. They hope that you understand
fully the gravity of the work you are present-
ly doing. Your efforts in controlling noise
mean much more than just making life a
little more pleasant; they may mean life or
death to our city.
Inglewood has 90,000 residents. Most of
them live under or near the landing approach
corridors to Los Angeles International Air-
port. Most of the homes were built long be-
fore Los Angeles became a major airport.
Today the lives and homes of these people are
being destroyed by noise.
The Inglewood city government has become
deeply involved in protecting its citizens from
locally generated sources of noise pollution.
We have also strongly supported all measures
which promise meaningful relief from air-
craft noise.
Just to show the extent of our involvement
in the aircraft noise problem, to our knowl-
edge Inglewood is the only city in the world
which has an airport noise monitoring sys-
tem even though it does not own an airport.
Our system consists of four permanently lo-
cated stations on telephone poles under the
flight paths and one mobile station which can
make sound recordings anywhere in the city.
We have invested more than $50,000 in noise
measuring equipment. We are determined that
noise will not escalate above present levels,
and we will make every effort to assure that
noise is reduced quickly to acceptable levels.
We feel we have a thorough understanding
of the need for aircraft noise reduction and
how it can be accomplished. I'd like to share
a few of these ideas with you.
As part of a recent federal program which
studied the future of Inglewood, a survey was
made to ascertain community opinions on
important subjects. When asked, "How im-
portant to you is finding a solution to the
following issue—jet noise control?" 61% re-
sponded that it was of the greatest import-
ance. Twenty percent responded that it was
very important. Only the issue of crime con-
trol was considered more important with 73%
responding that solution to crime control was
of greatest importance and 17% responding
that it was very important. All other issues
had less than 33% responding "of the great-
est importance." It is therefore apparent that
the problem of jet noise rivals the problem
of crime control as the most important issue
facing the future development of Inglewood.
More detail on the results of Inglewood's
Community Review Program Questionnaire is
shown in Attachment 1.
Associated with the above-mentioned Com-
munity Review Program was a study relating
residential land values and vacancy rates to
aircraft noise levels. We found that there
was a statistically significant correlation be-
tween high noise levels and low land values.
On the average, land subject to noise levels
of less than 80 PndB was valued 50% higher
than land- subject to noise levels greater than
110 PndB. There was also a statistically sig-
nificant correlation between high noise levels
and high rental property vacancy rates. So
noise not only hurts our citizens physically,
psychologically, and emotionally, but also
economically. Attachment 2 summarizes in
somewhat more detail the results of this
correlation study.
Knowledge of the harm being caused by
noise would be of little value if there were
no way to stop it. But there are many steps
which can be taken to significantly alleviate
jet noise pollution. The City of Inglewood is
taking those steps which are within its au-
thority such as enforcement of our noise
ordinance, land use planning, and residential
soundproofing. A draft ordinance requiring
soundproofing in future residential construc-
tion is included as Attachment 3 and is cur-
rently under consideration by the Inglewood
City Council.
If the federal government would shoulder
its share of the responsibility for aircraft
noise abatement, the noise environment in
Inglewood could improve significantly in the
future. Attachment 4 shows the improve-
ment that could be achieved over time: a
75% reduction in noise exposure over the
next 15 years. Compatibility between air-
ports and communities could be established
by 1985. This could be accomplished through
a comprehensive planning approach to noise
abatement which would include engine nois«
reduction, procedural changes for noise abate
ment, flight schedule reductions, and nighttirm
curfews designed to increase airline efficienc;
and decrease total noise pollution. NAS^
research programs have already shown tin
feasibility of engine retrofit for noise abate
ment. A few airlines such as PSA and Na
tional have implemented steep approach pro
cedures which reduce landing noise at leas
10 PndB. The state of California has adopte
airport noise standards which use the com
prehensive noise exposure methodology.
The stumbling block to progress has bee
the FA A. They have consistently denied re
sponsibility for noise in airport environ
ments but will not allow local controls. Th
authority for elimination of aircraft nois
pollution must therefore be given to th
Environmental Protection Agency where '
belongs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2293
For the information of the Senate Public
Works Committee I have included a copy of
the testimony which we presented to the
Environmental Protection Agency's hearings
on noise control. This report is a very com-
prehensive review of Inglewood's noise pro-
gram and the possibilities for noise abate-
ment in the future. It covers other sources
of noise besides aircraft noise.
CONCLUSIONS
We feel there is clearly a need for major
actions to reduce aircraft noise pollution.
The means of accomplishing this reduction
are readily available. What is lacking is a
commitment by those in authority to make
use of available technology to improve the
environment for our citizens. The Federal
Aviation Agency has been unwilling to
accept this responsibility. Therefore, we
recommend that the United States Congress
place authority for aircraft noise abatement
in the Environmental Protection Agency and
demand that standards for aircraft noise
pollution be established and enforced with
the goal of eliminating incompatibility be-
tween airports and communities by no later
than 1985.
Respectfully yours,
RANDALL L, HUBLBURT,
Environmental Standards Supervisor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD
a 10-point action program for the alle-
viation of noise pollution in Ingle-
svood, Calif., dated January 1, 1970,
which lists an action program which
,he city of
[p. S17760]
nglewood has found possible to do,
sven without the assistance of the
federal Government.
There being no objection, the mate-
'ial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
THE 10-PoiNT ACTION PROGRAM FOR THE
ALLEVIATION OF NOISE POLLUTION IN INGLE-
WOOD, CALIF.
THE. PROBLEM
The problem of jet noise crosses political
trandariea and therefore cannot be solved
y any single local community acting alone.
lasting solution can only come from a
operative effort of the Federal Aviation
dministration, the air transport industry,
irline unions, aircraft, airframe and engine
anufacturers, airport operators, legislators.
and citizens. However, a solution must begin
with local communities. Local communities,
acting together can be the catalyst that
brings all other bodies together in a massive
attack on the problem of jet aircraft noise,
as well as all environmental noise pollutants.
AN ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITIES
Indeed, it now appears that a iorceful orga-
nization of communities is the only catalyst
that can bring the other bodies together in
the attack that is essential to protect our
society from jet noise pollution.
The City of Inglewood, and other commu-
nities throughout this country, have wrestled
with the jet noise problem for over ten years.
Each community has, for the most part, acted
alone. Our success has been less than desir-
able. There is more jet noise pollution to-
day than ever before and the trend is un-
mistakably upward. But we feel that our
efforts to this date have not been in vain.
We have reached a point where definite
progress can now be made. Our experience
has given us a "feel" for the magnitude and
extent of the problem, as well as for the
steps that must be taken to solve it. Also,
we are no longer acting alone. The commu-
nities most affected by jet noise in this coun-
try are beginning to band together.
As this nationwide organizational procesa
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 com-
bat jet noise will then be studied and orga-
nized into this single national effort. In
anticipation of this massive national task the
City of Inglewood has condensed ten years of
experience and effort into a Ten Point Action
Program, which Inglewood is pursuing on a
local level. Inglewood feels that many aspects
of this Ten Point Action Program -will be
incorporated in the national effort against
jet noise.
The general philosophy of the Inglewood
City Council in adopting the Ten Point 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
Four of the ten points in the Inglewood
-------
2294
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Program are things the City of Inglewood
can and will do to better adjust to jet planes.
Point i —Building code revisions and sound-
proofing
The City Building Code should be revised
to require soundproofing of all affected new
construction and remodeling.
Schools, public buildings, churches, apart-
ments, and dwellings should be retroactively
soundproofed if the sound levels are above
the acceptable standards when jet aircraft
fly overhead.
Point 2—Planning and development studies
Inglewood should begin rezoning, master
planning and redevelopment studies to de-
termine areas where incentive zoning, prop-
erty assembly, and alternate land use rede-
velopment might be useful to assist property
owners to enhance their property values
under the jet aircraft corridors.
Point 3—Comprehensive noise ordinance
Inglewood should enact a comprehensive
noise ordinance covering all sound in the
City, including jet aircraft. Legally the ordi-
nance must complement federal air regula-
tions. It can neither supplant nor conflict
with federal regulations.
Enforcement of such an ordinance is esti-
mated to require two fully equipped enforce-
ment trucks, costing about $30,000 each. An-
nual operating expenses for a technician and
helper for each truck will add another $23,-
000 per year. Eventual operating expenses -will
approach $125,000 per year for around-the-
clock comprehensive anti-noise enforcement.
It should be noted that our noise ordinance
is to include all noise, whether emitted from
aircraft, air conditioners, compressors, or am-
plification devices. Aircraft will not be
treated differently in any respect and fed-
erally certified aircraft flying within approved
federal regulation standards cannot, and will
not be proscribed within our proposed noise
ordinance.
(The above ordinance has been adopted by
the Inglewood City Council. In November,
1969, the City employed an Acoustical Engi-
neer to begin denning the specific equipment
needed for the enforcement of the ordinance.)
Point 4—Legal actions
The City Attorney should be given author-
ity to take appropriate legal action on be-
half of the City. The first action should be to
legally compel the City of Los Angeles De-
partment of Airports to extend the runways
to their maximum point westerly and thereby
relocate the landing threshold in such a
manner as to place landing aircraft at a
higher altitude over Inglewood.
The second action series should be to file a
claim against the City of Los Angeles for
damages on behalf of residents and property
owners living in Inglewood within or near
tfie landing corridors.
Next, the City Attorney should be author-
ized to file and maintain a legal action to
establish the legal right of adversely affected
residents and property owners to recover
monetary damages on the basis of a class
action.
(The legal actions proposed above have
been instituted by the City of Inglewood.)
WHAT THE FLYING INDUSTRY CAN DO
Inglewood feels that the flying industry
can and must do much more than they have
done in the past to insure the health and
safety of those who live under flight patterns
and near airports.
Four points of the Inglewood program are
directed specifically at the flying industry.
They are:
Point 5—Runway extensions
All runways at Los Angeles International
Airport should be extended to within a mini-
mum, distance of the beach highway, and a
displacement of the landing threshold an
equal distance to the west. A STOL (Short
Take Off and Landing) strip should be estab-
lished to segregate traffic, thereby reducing
the need to revise throttle settings on jet
approaches.
Point 6—Approach pattern revision
Inglewood should seek the addition of more
sophisticated and modern air traffic control
equipment and additional F.A.A. air traffic
controllers to man such equipment, thereby
permitting a revision in the air traffic pro-
cedures on approach to LAX. Planes could
then fly over Inglewood using less power.
Were no turns made by approaching aircraft
inside the outer marker at approximately the
Harbor Freeway, power settings could be
reduced by stabilizing approaches at a higher
altitude, permitting the use of less power on
final approach. Further, noise effects would
be highly restricted—to two relatively nar-
row corridors over Inglewood approaching the
two runway complexes.
This would reduce jet noise to the disap-
pearing point in several areas of the City.
Noise directly under the flight path could be
reduced by as much as 8 PnDb.
Point 7—Quieter engines
Inglewood should actively push for the de-
velopment of quieter and cleaner engines,
which can be developed. The City must en-
courage the air transport industry to recog-
nize the responsibility that goes with mature
citizenship and to begin a serious effort to
meet these responsibilities by investing as
much money and effort into noise suppression
as they have in things such as speed.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2295
Point 8—Glide slope increase
An increase in the glide slope angle to at
least 4 degrees is to be sought. With this in-
creased glide slope angle a professional air-
line captain should be able to descend at a
lower setting and still maintain adequate
standards of safety and comfort for his pas-
sengers. Such approaches were done for a
long period during the 1965 Watts riots, and
have become known locally as "a Watts ap-
proach."
Point 9—FAA, CAB, and State PUC
intervenor
The City should be an intervenor in all
Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aero-
nautics Board, and California Public Util-
ties Commission proceedings affecting noise.
Examples of such proceedings are proposed
rules concerning high density terminal areas,
airline terminal traffic flow restrictions, en-
gine noise standards, alternate terminal des-
ignations, and route hearings.
The City will thus serve notice on all regu-
latory bodies that airplanes and airports are
not merely exotic businesses, aloof from the
society that supports them; but rather they
are a vital part of the community, which
means they must behave like responsible
idults.
Point JO—Support national noise abatement
efforts
The City should not only support, but ini-
,iate, efforts to form a national organization
o combat jet noise and other environment
loise pollution. Efforts should be made to
ol.tact communities and other groups all
ver the country who suffer from jet noise
lollution. Only by pooling our efforts behind
united front can real and lasting progress
e made for society as a whole.
(In October, 1969, Inglewood, in conjunc-
on with Hempstead, New York, called a
teeting in Washington, D.C., of groups and
immunities interested in noise abatement.
t that meeting was born an organization
amed NOISE (National Organization to In-
ire a Sound-controlled Environment).
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read some of
lese points.
Point 5—runaway extensions; point 6—ap-
•oach pattern revision point 7—quieter en-
nes; point 8—glide slope increase; point 9—
AA, CAB, and State PUC intervenor; point
I—support national noise abatement efforts.
The city of Inglewood, which has
ien concerned with noise for some
me, has found it possible, within the
tnited scope of its experience, to sug-
ist practical steps, without further
study, to deal with the problem of air-
port noise.
[p. S17761]
What I am suggesting in my
amendment is that we back up local
efforts, efforts that emerge out of ex-
perience with noise that communities
already find unacceptable from the
point of view of health and public wel-
fare. Let us build on that experience
in terms of a national policy. The
amendment provides that we shall
deal initially only with those airports
that EPA identifies as areas where
there is unacceptable exposure to
noise. That is easy to do. Inglewood, I
am sure, would qualify by its own ex-
perience. There are others that can do
so as well.
Of course, there are breakthroughs
to be made in all the sciences related
to environmental pollution. But as I
have learned in the development of air
pollution legislation and the develop-
ment of water pollution legislation, if
all you ever require of an agency at
the Federal level is that at some point
they issue criteria or make a study,
you will postpone almost indefinitely
any effective action to deal with the
problem. That is why we did not move
as fast as we should in dealing with
air and water pollution.
The standards are not mandated to
be implemented instantly. They are
simply to establish criteria and stand-
ards, to then use such expertise as
FAA has—and I am sure FAA has
the expertise to do what the Ingle-
wood plan suggests—in a practical
way to begin to reduce the noise levels
in the beleaguered communities. That
is all this amendment asks. It is not
anything more than that. It is not a
monster. It is not something beyond
our reach. It is not something that
cannot be done. It is something that
would implement practical, already
tried—as in Inglewood—attempts to
reduce noise levels.
-------
2296
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
So, Mr. President, I urge the adop-
tion of the amendment.
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield myself 2
minutes, then I will yield to the Sen-
ator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I do not think any-
one could disagree with the stated
objectives of the Muskie amendment. I
certainly agree with them. I think
they are very good objectives, and I
wish it were possible to achieve them
overnight. Particularly, the people of
Inglewood wish they could be achieved
overnight. If we had quieter aircraft
engines and if it were possible over-
night to retrofit all the airline engines
that fly into the Los Angeles Interna-
tional Airport, we would be able to
solve the problem for the citizens of
Inglewood and the citizens of other
cities who live adjacent to airports.
But the problem is this: We have
not had the opportunity to study the
mechanism to achieve a reduction in
airport noise the way we must in
order to legislate in this area. As I
have indicated, in many airports some
of the major airport noise is created
as a result of trains running by the
airport and highways running by the
airport.
Is the Environmental Protection
Agency in concert with the FAA
alone to regulate the scheduling of
trains by the airport and to regulate
the buses and cars that go by the air-
port? Should not other agencies like
DOT be involved?
The only reason why I point this
out is that it demonstrates to me that
this issue has to be studied fully and
that we should have hearings on this
specific point. It was not adequately
covered in the hearings we had on S.
3342. Much as I would like to see the
Senator from Maine's objectives
achieved tomorrow, I believe it is im-
possible and it would not be wise leg-
islation.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator
from Nevada.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from California for
yielding to me.
Mr. President, I, too, want to join
him in saying that I recognize the
problem, the very great problem, to
which the Senator from Maine has ad-
dressed himself. However, I am com-
pletely opposed to the amendment that
the Senator from Maine has offered,
for many of the same reasons pointed
out by the Senator from California.
I may say that an added point that
I find very disturbing is that at the
last minute, in the closing days of the
session, attempts are made to modify
legislation or get legislation through
without full and adequate considera-
tion.
The Committee on Commerce has
jurisdiction over civil aeronautics and
matters relating to activities of the
FAA. We have held extended hearings
in relation to the problem of aircraft
noise to find out what can be done,
what procedural changes can be made
operations-wise, and what actions can
be taken to reduce the noise level
around airports.
I recognize that people who are liv-
ing close to an airport and who are
most immediately affected feel that
this job should have been done yester-
day, not tomorrow, and they have a
very valid point.
However, I should like to point out,
also, that people are still building res-
idential communities right around
airports, including Washington Na-
tional Airport, which is one of the
biggest causes of complaint of noise it
the area. We see high rises going ui
and people moving right into an ares
of great noise, as they did in Califor-
nia, as they built around the Los An*
geles Airport and many others aroum
the country. They are unwilling t<
build away from the airport, and the;
move in and build and then complaii
about the noise which is generated.
There are a number of bad feature;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2297
about this amendment, and I will read
one at this time:
SEC. 502(a)(l) Within 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall
promulgate rules and regulations, hased on
criteria published pursuant to section 407
(a) of this Act . . .
Mr. President, this is one of the ex-
amples I had in mind when I said
there is a haste to get legislation
through that is very ill-conceived and
ill-considered. Why? Because section
407(a) of the Act, to which that sec-
tion referred, says that the Adminis-
trator shall, after consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, and mu-
nicipal agencies and other appropriate
persons, within 9 months after the
date of the enactment of this section,
issue noise criteria.
So on the one hand you have the
Administrator given 9 months, or 180
days, in which to issue noise criteria,
and then in the amendment itself it is
said that, within 6 months after the
enactment of this act, he has to take
action pursuant to that noise criteria.
So the noise criteria promulgation
still has 3 months to go before it can
have been promulgated; yet, action
will be required by the EPA Adminis-
trator 3 months earlier than the cri-
teria have been published.
That is one of the examples that I
say point out the bad features of
trying to enact legislation in the clos-
ing hours of a session of Congress, on
the floor of the Senate, involving such
an emotional issue, an issue that has
to be given rational consideration.
Mr. President, in our hearings we
learned that the engine manufactur-
ers are attempting to do everything
they can to try to reduce the noise
level of new engines coming on
stream, and they are doing a fine job.
As a result, the aircraft coming out
now—the 747's, the DC-10's, the Lock-
heed 1011's—are all very substantially
ower in noise emission than the ear-
lier aircraft. But they are the new
planes coming on the line. It takes
time to build new engines and make
them more quiet. Also, it takes an-
other decision, and that is, from an
economic standpoint, is it economically
feasible for new engines to be built
and retrofitted to old aircraft reach-
ing the latter part of their years of
useful life? Those are some of the con-
siderations that have to be given
study and why I support the Senator
from California in his position that
the committee bill provide for a study.
That is what should be done because
we want to achieve the objective of
noise reduction. We cannot go at it on
a piecemeal basis but we must operate
as fast as we can.
One of the criteria from the Long
Beach area was the extension of run-
ways.
Mr. President, do you know how
long it takes to extend a runway? I
cannot be done tomorrow, or the next
day. Sometimes it takes a year and a
half to make an extension of a run-
way and put it into operation. It de-
pends on many factors: if the land
can be acquired for the right-of-way,
and to put houses out of the line for
extension. Another point would be,
presumably, that we would need less
power to get off the ground.
I have traveled a lot by air and I,
for one, would be reluctant to take
any action to see that the pilot of that
airplane not use all the power possible
in the airplane to get it off the ground
and into the air in as safe a manner
as possible. This would be one of the
problems.
Another problem, of the nine the
Senator mentioned from Long Beach,
would be the increase in the glide
slope. That is already being done and
the FAA is experimenting with that.
The plane comes in at a higher alti-
tude and we increase the steepness of
the glide slope so that we do not have
as much side exposure or underneath
-------
2298
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIK
exposure to the noise. These are steps
which are being taken now.
Thus, I would respectfully submit
that the amendment of the Senator
from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) should b->
defeated. It should be, in all good
judgment. The
[p. S17762]
committee provision for a study
should be agreed to, so that we can
find out what we can do and then get
on with the job.
* * * * *
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
join my distinguished colleague from
Nevada in opposing the amendment.
He knows what he is talking about so
far as airplanes are concerned. He
probably has more expertise in this
matter than any of us in the Senate,
or any one Senator.
This is a problem where we are all
agreed on the objective but we have to
be practical about some of these
things, too. I know that every genera-
tion of jet airplanes has been quieter
than the previous one, and that the
airplane manufacturers are doing ev-
erything they can to make the next
generation of jets quieter than before.
That is being done.
I frankly prefer the House bill on
this matter, because it is a little more
practical. Moving ahead too swiftly,
with the amendment of the Senator
from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), is very ill
advised at this time. There has not
been any hearings on it. A study
should be made, Mr. President, and I
will tell you why. We have gone
through a good many hearings in the
Commerce Committee over the years
on this aspect of aviation, and it is
pretty hard to find noise experts who
agree on much. We had two or three
testify. I do not know whether they
were self-serving or not, but they said
they did not think there were over
four or five noise experts in the Un-
ited States.
This is a problem that is not only
highly technical but is a problem that
has to be placed in a practical
perspective as to how we proceed to-
ward the objective.
The Commerce Committee did not
see this amendment until 1 p.m. today.
That is why the study should go
ahead. I also understand it was dis-
cussed in the Committee on Public
Works and was rejected there.
If carried out to its extreme, it
would result in a drastic cutback in
air service.
I cannot believe that the FAA and
the EPA would be unreasonable. I
think we have to assume they will act
as reasonable people because both
have the same objective and we are
moving ahead. But on this business of
trying for hard and fast drastic rules
on limiting the use of airplanes, there
has got to be more study to determine
if this is wise and practical.
Mr. MUSKTE. Mr. President, may I
say to the distinguished Senator from
Washington that I doubt he under-
stands the amendment. He talks about
hard, drastic rules. There are no hard,
drastic rules in this amendment. It
provides, for the establishment of cri-
teria with respect to noise levels; it
provides for publishing the criteria,
and it also provides for giving the
FAA the authority to develop the
guidelines for implementing the cri-
teria. It provides for the FAA to give
technical assistance. There is nothing
hard and drastic about it.
But, Mr. President, my objection to
this bill is that it would undertake to
preempt the authority of State and
local governments to deal with this
problem and would substitute for
State and local action a Federa
study.
If we are not prepared to assume
the authority to do the job, then mj
views is, leave it to the States and th«
communities to continue what the;
are now struggling to do and no
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2299
preempt the field and throw a study at
them as the Federal answer.
Mr. President, on July 19, 1972, the
distinguished Senator from California
(Mr. TUNNEY) wrote me a letter on
the question of the FAA. Let the Sen-
ator from California give us the
facts:
I read in part:
For fourteen years the FAA has had au-
thority to control aircraft noise, and regu-
lations have existed for four years. The 1968
FAA regulations require that new aircraft
applying for type certification after Decem-
ber 1, 1969, meet a standard of 108 EPN dB.
Not only is this standard too weak, but only
the new DC-10, L-1011's, Cessna Citations,
and about ten percent of the Boeing 747's
are subject to it. The Airport Operators
Council estimates that by 1975, out of a fleet
of 2100 aircraft, only 393, or 18.6 percent
will be required to have noise certification.
Improvement in these figures is unlikely since
the trend has been to refit rather than retire
the existent fleet, as evidence by the new "wide
body look" given to the 707 interiors.
It is for this reason, as stated in the
Tunney letter, to me, why we must
have the development of cumulative
noise standards in the airport envi-
ronment.
Mr. President, that is why I offer
this amendment.
Let me read another portion of the
Tunney letter on the mechanisms of
the bill:
The mechanisms for controlling aircraft
noise is substantially parallel to other environ-
mental legislation including the Clean Air Act.
The Senator was correct.
Continuing reading:
The EPA Administrator would set perform-
ance levels for noise reduction in airport en-
vironments which must be met in order to
protect the public health and welfare. For
airports which exceed the target levels, a plan
must be developed and submitted by the air-
port operator which could include controls on
the frequency of flights, the hours of airport
aperation, changes in operational and flight
procedures, land use, and other techniques
which the Secretary of Transportation de-
;ermines to be appropriate and safe to achieve
,he levels established by EPA.
Mr. President, this amendment be-
fore us does nothing more than the
Senator from California (Mr. TUN-
NEY) urged on me in his letter of July
19.
I ask unanimous consent that the
full text of this letter be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., July 19, 1972.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED: On June 8, the Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution approved S. 3342,
the Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972. This
bill will be considered in full Committee next
Thursday, July 27, at 10:00 a.m. While there
continue to be several outstanding issues to
be decided, I firmly believe this bill offers a
comprehensive scheme for environmental
protection from noise pollution.
I am writing in advance of the markup
session to express my personal interest in
the bill, and my strong hope that it will be
passed in this session. I hope to contact you
personally prior to the markup session to
get your reactions to it. Before I do, how-
ever, I would like to share my views on the
need for the legislation and on the outstand-
ing issues.
The sixth print, a copy of which I attach,
is the draft reported out of Subcommittee. It
evolved from three days of legislative hear-
ings, the June 8 session, numerous meetings
of Staff, and additional comments by the Ad-
ministration, industry and environmental
groups. The latest version has again been
widely distributed, and I understand that
staff is compiling and will circulate comments
received. Additionally, I met earlier this month
with airport managers and operators, local
groups and local officials at three major air-
ports in California, where the noise problem is
particularly acute. Their helpful comments,
which will also be circulated, were supportive
of the need for comprehensive regulation of
airport and aircraft noise.
NEED
The effects of excessive noise on health are
well documented. In addition to hearing
loss—which may include cell damage and be
irreversible—there are all sorts of insidious
effects to many bodily and psychological func-
tions. The metabolic changes brought about
by noise continue to take place during sleep—
even when the noise is not loud enough to
cause arousal. Most disturbing is evidence that
-------
2300
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
noise can affect the unborn child, causing
changes in heart rate and skeletal muscular
contractions, and inhibiting weight gain.
There is also a statistically significant cor-
relation between high noise levels and low
land values—especially, high rental property
vacancy rates around airports.
ISSUES
Of all the major sources of noise pollution
aircraft noise is by far the most noxious.
Using the standard unit of measurement of
sound, the decibel, conversational speech will
typically be at the level of sixty dB, heavy
city traffic at ninety-two dB, and a jet air-
liner 500 feet overhead at 115 dB. Because
the decibel scale is a logarithmic scale, a
difference of ten units is actually 100 times
as intense. If a factor for the irritation of
high frequency sounds is taken into account,
aircraft noise measures even higher.
Residents of Inglewood, California were
recently asked how important to them it was
to find solutions to problems of jet noise,
crime, etc. 61 % responded that it was the
greatest importance to control jet noise, and
20% answered that it was very important.
These figures compare with 73% and 17% on
the issue of crime, and no figure higher than
33% for any of the other issues. In Ingle-
wood, therefore, the problem of jet noise
rivals the problem of crime control as the
most important issue to local residents. These
sentiments were echoed in Okland, Marin
County and San Diego.
THE FAA's FAILURE TO ACT
The extraordinary levels of aircraft noise
and their severe impact on the public health
havce led to repeated and increasing pressure
from many sectors for effective control. For
fourteen years the FAA has had authority
to control aircraft noise, and regulations have
existed for four years. The 1968 FAA regula-
tions require that new aircraft applying for
type certification after December 1, 1969,
meet a standard of 108 EPN dB. Not only is
this standard too weak, but only the new
DC-10, L-1011's Cessna Citations, and about
[p. S17763]
ten percent of the Boeing 747*s are subject
to it. The Airport Operators Council esti-
mates that by 1976, out of a fleet of 2100 air-
craft only 393, or 18.6 percent will be required
to have noise certification. Improvement in
these figures is unlikely since the trend has
been to refit rather than retire the existent
fleet, as evidence by the new *'wide body
look" given to the 707 interiors. It is pre-
dicted, further, that the increase in num-
bers of flights should more than offset noise
reductions from new quarter aircraft engines.
THE MECHANISM OF S. 3342
The mechanism for controlling aircraft
noise is substantially parallel to other envi-
ronmental legislation including the Clean
Air Act. The EPA Administrator would set
performance levels for noise reduction in air-
port environments which must be met in
order to protect the public health and wel-
fare. For airports which exceed the target
levels, a plan must be developed and sub-
mitted by the airport operator which could
include controls on the frequency of flights,
the hours of airport operation, changes in
operational and flight procedures, land use,
and other techniques which the Secretary
of Transportation determines to be appro-
priate and safe to achieve the levels estab-
lished by EPA.
DOT would have responsibility to ensure
that noise emission standards for aircraft are
safe and technologically available. It would
also review for purposes of safety and effect
on commerce any plans submitted by airport
operators to implement Federal ambient
standards.
Each agency would act consistent with its
mandate. As in most other areas of pollu-
tion, EPA would be empowered to prescribe
standards to protect the public health and
welfare. FAA would maintain sole responsi-
bility for aircraft safety and technology, and,
in coordination with the CAB, for developing
and promoting an air transportation system
which meets commercial needs while not de-
gradi ng environmental quality.
As in other areas, I feel strongly that envi-
ronmental programs should be implemented
by environmental agencies. At the same time
we must insist on safety and, to the maxi-
mum extent practicable, avoid disruption of
commerce. I think the Subcommittee bill meets
these tests and hope you will support early
action on effective regulation.
I will contact you personally within the
next week to get your reactions to this im-
portant issue.
Best regards,
JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senator.
P. S.—Thanks so much for your personal
letter of support for my position at the
Subcommittee Exec. sess. Leon has been a
terriffic help and I look forward to seeing you
both on Thursday.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do
this not to embarrass the Senator
from California but to make the point
that, of course, it is tough but, as the
Senator knows, in the water pollution
bill we sent to the President this
week, we require of the industry th«
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2301
development of a technology which
does not now exist. Because we know
as a committee, that unless we put
this kind of pressure on the industry,
we will not get the hardware. When
our only means of control is technical,
we have to build pressures into the
bill to develop the technology. What
we propose to do here is to do nothing
more than we did in the Clean Air Act
of 1970 or the Water Pollution Act of
this year. We propose to set targets
and to set standards which will force
industry and the technological commu-
nity to build the hardware necessary
to deal with this problem and in the
meantime permit the communities—
and the FAA has a veto in the field—
to take pragmatic approaches to the
problem which will enable them to
make at least a beginning toward re-
ducing the noise around airports.
Mr. President, I reserve the remain-
der of my time.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from California has 8 min-
utes remaining.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from California is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I am
very pleased that the Senator from
Maine read my letter because the es-
sence of that letter is still my position.
And the whole letter would be my po-
sition if we had committee print No. 6
of S. 3342 before us today.
I wrote my letter based on section
502 of print 6 of the bill which is a
far different provision than section
502 of the bill reported. I might say
that the pending Muskie amendment
is quite different both from print six
to which I addressed my letter and
from the version of the provision we
now have before us.
We had established in print six a
mechanism whereby a conference was
held at a local airport which included
participation by the airport operators,
FAA, EPA, and others. The Senator's
amendment, as I understand it, does
not contain such language.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I will yield in a mo-
ment.
For the Senator from Maine to say,
much as I respect him and have the
strongest regard for him, that he ad-
dressed the amendment to my letter is
not correct. My letter is addressed to
print No. 6, and that is quite different
from the bill before us today.
I am not saying that the Senator's
amendment might not be a superb
amendment. However, in the commit-
tee when we were asking tough ques-
tions as to how a mechanism to estab-
lish cumulative levels of noise should
work and we could not secure agree-
ment.
We want a bill that will start to
curb the noise around the airports
now. We are not willing to wait 2 or 3
years in order to preserve a purist
position. We fought to give EPA a
lead role in establishing aircraft noise
emission levels, and we won in com-
mittee.
I am going to fight to protect the
language of section 501, which estab-
lishes EPA as lead agency in setting
noise emission levels. It is good lan-
guage and should be maintained. But
it is quite different to say that I was
supportive of Senator MUSKIE'S
amendment to section 502 when I did
not know it existed and did not see it
until about 2 hours ago.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I
yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say
to the Senator from California that if
he wishes to offer a substitute for the
-------
2302
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
pending amendment the language con-
tained in print 6 covering the same
subject, I would accept it without res-
ervation. I would be happy to accept
that as a substitute for this. The lan-
guage in print 6 is similar to this lan-
guage. It says :
A plan must be developed and submitted
by the airport operator which could include
controls on the frequency of flights, the hours
of airport operation, changes in operational
and flight procedures, land use, and other
techniques which the Secretary of Transpor-
tation has laid out, and other techniques,
I still insist that those techniques
would be implemented in print 6 and
the language before us. Second, I read
the footnote on that letter of July 19,
1972:
P.S. — Thanks so much for your personal
letter of support for my position. . . .
Now the Senator makes an argu-
ment that is a little different. He says
that the only reason he will not go
along with the deletion of the provi-
sion is that he wants a bill that starts
now. The pending bill does not start
now on the problem. It just provides
for a study. It does not start now. I
am trying to help the bill to enable it
to start now. That is the rationale of
the amendment.
Mr. President, before I forget it, I
ask for the yeas and nays, or perhaps
I should suggest the absence of a quo-
rum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine does not have
enough time under the present rule to
suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that we may have
a quorum call with the time taken out
of neither side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, I would
have just one further response to the
Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we
have not given up our time. I want
the yeas and nays.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, will
this time be taken out of our time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It
will be taken out of the time of nei-
ther side.
Is there objection to the request of
the Senator from Maine? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, re-
serving the right to object, I first
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Missouri is recognized
for 2 minutes.
[p. 17764]
*****
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I now
ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
*****
Mr. BOGGS.
I know some members believe EPA
should not have authority over air-
craft noise. I disagree. I believe the
legislation giving EPA the responsi-
bility for setting the standard, with a
Federal Aviation Administration veto
based on safety, is the best course,
because the agency responsible for
protecting the environment can best
make this decision.
[p. S17774]
The excessive noise from aircraft
operations, particularly in the major
urban centers of the United States,
has been identified in EPA hearings
and other forums and publications as
the major noise problem for many of
our citizens. The committee was con-
cerned that the legislation which we
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2303
brought to the floor should address
this problem in a more responsible
fashion than the bill proposed by the
administration and the bill H.R. 11021
which the House passed. These latter
bills provide only for EPA to call into
question the standards for aircraft set
by the FAA if EPA believed they
would not meet the public health and
welfare standard.
Neither of these bills addressed the
critical problem of airport environ-
mental noise as distinguished from
the more narrow question of aircraft
noise emission. S. 3342 vests authority
in EPA to set standards for aircraft
and aircraft engines based on the
same standard as that for other
classes of equipment, that is, on the
basis of the degree of noise reduction
achievable by applying the best avail-
able demonstrated technology taking
into account the cost of compliance.
Of course, the committee deter-
mined that the safety of aircraft op-
erations must be protected at all cost.
Therefore, it reserved to PAA the
right to review and, if need be, veto
EPA proposed aircraft standards if
they do not insure the highest degree
of safety of, if the technology is not
available to implement the standards.
This division of authority will pro-
vide that the environmental regula-
tion is vested in the agency most con-
cerned with environmental protection,
as in the Clean Air Act and the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, and
in the provisions of this bill for con-
trol of noise emissions from other
classes of products. At the same time
-he special requirements of air safety
and the need to assure the application
of technological expertise by FAA is
Dreserved.
The committee had hoped to deal
with the problem of cumulative noise
exposure in areas surrounding air-
Dorts. However, we felt that in view
)f the lack of information as to how
,o solve this problem, it would be pref-
erable to authorize EPA to conduct a
comprehensive 1-year study of the air-
port noise problem and report back to
the Congress with its recommenda-
tions. S. 3342 will authorize such a
study.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
would like to point out once again
something that I made clear in my
opening remarks.
The bill presently contains section
501 (c) which states:
Each Federal agency with regulatory au-
tholity ovei air commerce, aircraft, or air-
port operations, or aircraft noise emissions,
including the Civil Aeronautics Board, the
Federal Aviation Administration, and the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall exer-
cise such regulatory authority so as to reduce
noise in airport environments and surround-
ing aieas.
That relates to such things as flight
and operational procedures, and any
other means within present regulatory
authority of relevant agencies. It re-
lates to all those matters. No one can
say the bill does not contain signifi-
cant, strong language now so that
these agencies must utilize their au-
thority to produce a quieter airport
environment. I do not want the REC-
ORD to appear that the committee and
the manager of the bill are not in
favor of reducing airport noise. This
language will insure that all existent
regulatory authority must be used.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I may
have to take more than a minute.
There is no provision in the bill, un-
less I have been greatly mistaken dur-
ing the course of committee work over
a period of weeks, that authorizes
noise standards or the issuance of cri-
teria, or which provides for the devel-
opment of plans for airport managers,
or to require the FAA to provide tech-
nical assistance. I am not aware that
it is there, but if it is we should have
unanimous support for this amend-
ment.
-------
2304
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
I gather the language the Senator
refers to is on page 90 of the bill
which reads, on line 17:
"(c) Each Federal agency with regula-
tory authority over air commerce, aircraft
or airport operations, or aircraft noise emis-
sions, including the Civil Aeronautics Board,
the Federal Aviation Administration, and
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall
exercise such regulatory authority so as to
reduce noise in airport environments and
surrounding areas.
I suggest that on its own with such
authority the FAA has not used such
authority, and if this means what it
says, the Senator should be glad to
incorporate in the bill the procedures
covered by the pending amendment.
[p. S17775]
So Mr. MUSKIE'S amendment was
rejected.
Mr. RANDOLPH.
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
Aviation Administration and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency in con-
trolling aircraft noise. It is clearly my
understanding, and I believe the un-
derstanding of the committee, that the
Federal Aviation Administration is
the agency intended by the Congress
to have primary responsibility for air-
craft operations and safety in air
commerce. The Nation's air commerce
system must be operated, first of all,
to assure safety for aircraft crews
and passengers and for those on the
ground, and second, to reduce the lev-
els of aircraft noise to which the pub-
lic is exposed, to the extent that aim
is consistent with the highest degree
of safety in air commerce.
Reflecting this understanding, the
bill reported by the committee pro-
vides that standards for noise emis-
sions from aircraft which manufac-
turers of aircraft and air carriers
must attain would be established on
the basis of a joint determination by
the Administrators of the Federal
Aviation Administration and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency as to
the availability of demonstrated con-
trol technology and the reasonableness
of compliance costs. However, air
safety is the paramount concern, and
the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration must deter-
mine that any proposed standards are
consistent with the highest degree of
safety in air commerce before such
standards could be promulgated.
The question of regulating commu-
nity noise around airports was dis-
cussed by the committee. However, it
was the judgment of the committee
that too little is known about the
measurement of noise levels around
airports and their effects on health or
welfare to justify at this time any
regulation of aircraft operations
based on levels of noise exposure in
the vicinity of airports. Instead, S.
3342 provides for a 1-year study by
the Environmental Protection Agency
of the implications of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative noise
exposures around airports. The study
also includes the retrofitting or phase-
out of existing aircraft and any addi-
tional aircraft noise control measures
which might be available to airport
operators and local governments. The
results and recommendations of this
study will form a sound base of infor-
mation for any legislation in this area
in the future.
[p. S17776]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2305
1.10f(3)(c) Oct. 13: Considered and passed Senate, amended, pp.
S17988-18014
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 I, 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 therof, "unless such type
certificates apply all of the standards pro-
mulgated by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency prior to the
date ox 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 12f 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 man-
ager of the bill?
Mr. TUNNEY, I yield.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Sena-
tor.
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 3342) to amend
title IV of the Clean Air Act, and for
other purposes.
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 read-
ing of the amendments be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out 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, beginning at line 18, amend
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)(l) 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 of 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-
;ermined that such regulations are consis-
tent with the highest degree of safety in air
:ommerce and that any proposed standard,
•ule, or regulation has been demonstrated
,o be technologically available for applica-
,ion to types of aircraft, aircraft engine, ap-
iliance, or certificate to which it will apply."
At page 90, line 16 after the period insert
he following sentence, "Provided, however,
hat the Administrator of the Environmental
'rotection Agency, within nine months of
-------
2306
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Mr. TUNNEY. Does the Senator
wish me to yield on these amend-
ments?
Mr. PEARSON. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator 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 par-
ticular bill, given circumstances which
in case
[p. S17988]
of emergency or unforeseen events
might require an acceleration of
power which, in and of itself, would
violate the standards of noise abate-
ment.
Their understanding is that this is
something that might be a, rather fre-
quent occasion. There is a concern
that the procedures under this partic-
ular bill would not lend themselves to
a review and a determination of ex-
tenuating circumstances.
I would like to inquire whether or
not, given that sort of hypothetical
case, there is protection here and
there is not an arbitrary sort of lift-
ing of the certification of any pilot
because of these circumstances.
Mr. TUNNEY. I am pleased the
Senator has brought this matter up on
the floor of the Senate because I
would like to make it absolutely clear
that it is the intention of the commit-
tee to make sure that airline pilots are
not going to be subject to administra-
tive penalty or criminal penalty for
going over the noise emission levels
through use of additional power if the
safety of the passengers is involved.
In the first place, the Federal Avia-
tion Administration can veto any
noise emission regulation which is not
consistent with the highest degree of
safety in air commerce.
So it is clear that the FAA has the
responsibility to make sure that regu-
lations which are developed are safe.
This responsibility is given solely to
the FAA.
Second, section 415 of the bill spe-
cifically provides for judicial review
of the final regulations promulgated
under section 501 and other sections
of the act. Thus, if the Airline Pilots
Association feels that the regulations
as promulgated do not protect their
interests, there is a right for judicial
review. Third, the Administrative
Procedure Act would also apply. And,
fourth, the 14th amendment to the
Constitution requires due process,
and, thus, it would be unconstitutional
to deny a person a hearing if he were
charged with violation of a regulation.
Mr. PEARSON. The Senator's
statement is most helpful. It will allay
some of the fears that have been ex-
pressed.
As I understand the Senator from
California, the procedures for review
are to come out of FAA regulations
existing now or to be promulgated by
them.
Mr. TUNNEY. The procedures for
review are included in section 415 of
the act. The APA and the 14th
amendment also apply.
Mr. PEARSON. Either.
Mr. TUNNEY. The FAA would
have the right to veto regulations pro-
mulgated under the act if they are
inconsistent with the highest degree
of safety. The FAA should guarantee
that regulations, which become effec-
tive, assure that airline pilots can fly
safely. If the Airline Pilots Associa-
tion is not satisfied with specific final
regulations, the bill provides for judi-
cial review of the regulation, so that
they could make their claim in a court
of law. In addition, the pilot will be
entitled to a full hearing as provided
by the Administrative Procedure Act
and to constitutional protection.
Mr. PEARSON. The hearing mech-
anism is not in this bill covering that
kind of situation; is it? It would re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2307
fleet back to FAA regulations or to
the Administrative Procedure Act. Is
that correct?
Mr. TUNNEY. Section 415 of this
bill does provide for periodical review.
However, this act would not affect any
rights to a hearing now afforded by
the FAA Act. FAA regulations would
remain in effect as provided in section
501 (b) (2) of this act. The Adminis-
trative Procedures Act would also
apply.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr. TUNNEY. I wish to thank the
Senator for bringing that point up,
because I would not want the pilots of
this country to feel that the passage
of this noise abatement bill was going
to subject them to any potential liabil-
ity if they used their best judgment in
trying to protect the safety of their
passengers by increasing power.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Sena-
tor for yielding.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to offer, on behalf of the Pub-
lic Works Committee, perfecting
amendments to part A of title V of S.
3342, respecting control and abate-
ment of aircraft noise and sonic boom.
Through certain small changes in lan-
•uage in some provisions of part A,
,hese amendments would clarify and
speed up the long overdue relief from
noxious aircraft noise.
The amendments will leave unim-
paired the basic regulatory frame-
vork for the section: EPA would be
ead agency in the setting of aircraft
smission standards to meet the health
\eed, with a twofold FAA veto on
;rounds of technological availability
md safety.
In section 510 (a) (2), language
hanges would insert the requirements
hat the health levels set in the EPA
tandards be "necessary" in addition
o "adequate" to meet the health
.eeds. This determination is made by
EPA and is consistent with the intent
of the committee.
In section 501 (b) (1) a certain am-
biguity respecting a joint determina-
tion by EPA and FAA on technology
and cost of compliance has been
cleared up. The amendment clarifies
the fact that the determination is
made by EPA, after consultation with
FAA—a result which is certain to ex-
pedite the promulgation process. It
will also assure that the issue of rea-
sonable cost has a thorough airing as
standards develop, but that such con-
siderations cannot be the basis for an
FAA veto of the standards. Moreover,
a second criterion—demonstrable pub-
lic benefit—is now added to the list of
factors to be considered in developing
the standards.
It is most appropriate that we
should be considering reasonable cost
and demonstrate public benefits when
we are establishing these regulations,
because we would not in any way
want, through some frivolous action,
to bankrupt the airlines. The net ef-
fect of this provision is to streamline
the process of promulgating regula-
tions, and the committee expects that,
pursuant to this provision, regulations
will be promulgated very, very soon.
In section 501(b)(2), language is
transferred from section 505 and will
require EPA to review all standards
under section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act within 9 months of enactment
of the bill. Failure to perform this
nondiscretionary duty would subject
EPA to citizen suits under section
413.
Names of specific agencies have
been deleted from section 501 (c) in
order that it will be clear that no spe-
cific agencies were meant to be ex-
cluded. The language in the report on
the bill explains the types of measures
contemplated by this section.
In section 502, the word "individu-
als" has been changed to "persons" in
order to make it clear that corpora-
-------
2308
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
tions can also be consulted. The last
phrase, "together with his recommen-
dations for legislation" has been de-
leted in order to make it clear that
EPA need not submit recommenda-
tions for legislation if it determines
that no additional legislation is
needed. However, it is anticipated that
EPA's report will include legislative
recommendations, arrived at after
consultation with relevant agencies.
In section 503, "Administrator of
FAA" is changed to "Secretary of
Transportation" in order to comport
with the existent regulatory frame-
work. Of course, implementing stand-
ards and inspections would be carried
out by the FAA, which has the appro-
priate powers.
Section 504 is clarified to refer to
"any original" type certificate, and to
require all such type certificates to
conform to applicable regulations. It
is thought that process set in motion
in 501 (a) (2) and expedited by the
changes in language in 501 (b) (1) will
result in thoroughly considered and
adequate standards and that, when
promulgated, such standards must
apply to the issuance of original type
certificates. The hope is that EPA will
move quickly to quiet as much of the
fleet as possible.
Section 505 is deleted, because the
requirement of EPA review is in-
serted in section 502 (b) (2).
Section 506 is clarified to preclude
States and localities from enacting
identical standards. This added pres-
sure was thought essential in the ab-
sence of a tough and effective regula-
tory program. However, requirements
of section 501 and enforcement provi-
sions in the legislation give sufficient
tools to accomplish a tough and coor-
dinated enforcement program on the
Federal level. There was no intention
in the committee bill to alter the rela-
tive powers of the Federal Govern-
ment, State and local government, and
airport operator, over the control of
aircraft noise. This amendment would
also retain the same powers for all
parties.
An additional sentence is added to
section 507 to clarify the relationship
of part A to the rest of the bill. Noise
emissions standards are tied into cer-
tain other parts of the bill, as specifi-
cally cross-referenced. However, au-
thority to establish aircraft noise
emissions standards is contained in
part A of title V only.
With the acceptance of these
changes, we in no way dilute the
strength of the bill as reported from
the Public Works Committee, rather
the bill is improved by clarifying the
process by which noise emission stand-
ards will be established. In addition,
we have assured that EPA's role as
lead agency in setting health
[p. S17989]
levels on aircraft emissions will not be
stalemated. At the same time we con-
tinue to accept the advisability of and
necessity for a two-fold FAA veto on
grounds of technological availability
and safety.
Several Senators addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Massachusetts is recog-
nized.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. CANNON. Have the amend-
ments been offered, and are they now
pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments are pending en bloc.
Mr. CANNON. Will the Senator
yield to me for a question on the
amendments?
Mr. BROOKE. I believe I have the
floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair has recognized the Senator
from Massachusetts. Who yields time?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2309
Mr. TUNNEY. I am prepared to
yield the Senator from Massachusetts
some time on the bill, but I believe
that the Senator from Nevada wants
to speak of these amendments that
have already been offered.
Mr. BROOKE. Very well.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the Senator
for yielding.
My question, Mr. President, relates
to section 501 (c). It is my understand-
ing' that section 501 (c) conveys no
new authority on any Federal agency
to regulate or control the air trans-
portation system of the United States.
I ask the Senator if that is correct?
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Mr. CANNON. With further refer-
ence to section 501 (c), is this provi-
sion in subsection (c) intended to en-
courage citizens to file suits of harass-
ment against Federal agencies
charged with the responsibility for
maintaining air commerce, in which
the citizens seek to disrupt the air
transportation system of the United
States?
Mr. TUNNEY. Absolutely not.
There is no desire at all on the part of
;he committee or on the part of the
iroponent of these amendments to dis-
rupt air commerce through harass-
ment-type suits.
As a matter of fact, section 501 (c)
adds no new authority to the mandate
*iven to any agency with regulatory
authority over air commerce, aircraft
>r airport operations, or aircraft
missions.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the Senator
'or yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
uestion is on agreeing to the amend
nents. Do the Senators yield back the
•emainder of their time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, who
ontrols the time in opposition to the
tmendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
enator from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. How much time does
the Senator want?
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to ask
the manager of the bill a few ques-
tions concerning the impact of this
proposal.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield the Senator
whatever time he needs.
Mr. STEVENS. As I understand
the compromise worked out here, EPA
will build up a force of experts to deal
with the safety aspects of aviation.
Does it decrease the authority of the
FAA in any way, in terms of the peo-
ple who now have the expertise and
are dealing with the safety aspects of
aviation in this country?
Mr. TUNNEY. No.
Mr. STEVENS. I am glad to hear
that. We had great concern about that
in the Commerce Committee, as I
think the distinguished chairman of
our subcommittee has reported.
I am fearful as to the ultimate re-
sult of what we are doing with regard
to EPA generally. It seems that in
almost every major bill this year, we
have given EPA a license to substan-
tially expand and threaten the exper-
tise of other agencies. They, as I un-
derstand it, will not promulgate the
regulations dealing with safety or
with financial aspects; those will orig-
inate with the FAA?
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Now, of course, EPA is going to be
promulgating regulations over air-
craft noise emission levels, which will
have an impact on safety, and what
we have done in this bill is given to
the FAA a veto power over any such
regulations.
In other words, the regulations that
come out governing noise emission lev-
els of aircraft are going to have to be
consistent with what the FAA consid-
ers to be the highest degree of safety.
Mr. STEVENS. I shall not speak to
this at length, because I understand
the time situation of Congress and the
hard work that our committee staff
-------
2310
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
and the chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Aviation in the Committee on
Commerce have done to try to work
out the matter. But I am still fearful
that the result will be that EPA will
have a little FAA under its wings,
and will start writing the regulations
and sending them over to FAA to
check them, and they will be permit-
ted to exercise their veto if the regu-
lations affect the financial and safety
aspects of aviation.
I do not believe that EPA should
expand itself to the position where it
is an action agency. As I understood,
they are a standards agency, and it
seems to me they should have taken
the regulations from the FAA in any
area where they affect safety or finan-
cial aspects of aviation.
Mr. TUNNEY. In effect, they are
going to have to take the FAA stand-
ards when it comes to safety and tech-
nological availability, factoring in a
reasonable cost.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Sena-
tor very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. TUNNEY. I am prepared to
yield back the remainder of my time,
if the Senator from Delaware yields
back his time.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). All remaining time having
been yielded back, the question is on
agreeing to the amendments, en bloc,
of the Senator from California.
The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk on be-
half of Senator MUSKIE and myself
and ask for its immediate considera-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amedment.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROOKE'S amendment is as fol-
lows:
On page 90, between lines 23 and 24, insert
the following:
"(d) Regulations shall be promulgated un-
der this section which require that, effective
not later than January 1, 1978, all subsonic
transport category aircraft and subsonic
turbojet aircraft, except aircraft owned or
operated by any military agency, shall op-
erate in compliance with either—
" (1) the maximum noise level standards
specified for new subsonic jet aircraft in
Appendix C of Part 36 of the Federal Avia-
tion Regulations as in effect on September 1,
1972; or
" (2) the best attainable noise level in ac-
cordance with the criteria established in sub-
section (b) (1),
whichever is the lower level:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. BROOKE. I yield myself such
time as I may require.
Mr. President, aircraft engine noise
is a serious environmental hazard af-
fecting the lives of millions of Ameri-
cans.
From Inglewood, Calif., and Oak
Lawn, 111., to East Boston, Mass., and
Queens, N.Y., and even to 1600 Penn-
sylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.,
our citizens are subjected to a regular
bombardment of noise from over-
flying aircraft.
The increasing size and power of
the 1960's generation of jet aircraft
first elevated aircraft noise to a pri-
mary national problem. Yet, despite
countless congressional hearings,
agency and industry studies, and citi-
zen protests, there has been distress-
ingly little aircraft noise reduction.
The airlines argue that the travel-
ing public demands swift aircraft
The first generation of jet aircraft
was built with this need in view. The
airlines contend that decreasing the
noise from this fleet would be too
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2311
great a cost burden for them or their
passengers to shoulder. This argu-
ment, together with the claim that the
technology was not yet available, gov-
erned our policy during the 1960's.
Over and against these arguments,
however, are the benefits of quieter jet
engines. Most obviously, of course, air-
port neighbors would no longer suffer
either the physical or mental torture
of jet noise. But there would be cost
benefits as well. For example, less
high-priced land would have to be
bought by airport authorities as a
buffer between the airport and the
neighboring community.
There would be less need to sound-
proof surrounding schools, businesses,
and homes. And, perhaps most impor-
[p. S17990]
tantly, residential property values in
these areas would be significantly en-
hanced.
Research on the development of
quieter engines has been in progress
for several years. Within the Govern-
ment, the most significant programs
have been coordinated by NASA and
the Department of Transportation.
DOT, which includes the Federal
Aviation Administration within its or-
;anization, has conducted programs to
modify aircraft flight and landing
jatterns in order to expose the planes j
as little as possible to inhabited areas.
A.lso, it has authorized experiments
Rrith various forms of acoustical
•reatment of the engines. But al-
,hough the Congress gave FAA the
wwer to regulate aircraft noise in
968, it regretably has not yet used
,hat power to require a reduction in
loise among the existing fleet.
More recently, the NASA Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology
las initiated work on a program to
•eplace the front fan of jet aircraft;
; is estimated that the resulting de-
rease in noise would be at least 75
tercent. Earlier this year, the Con-
gress appropriated $25 million for
continued research and development
of this important project.
In addition, several of the major
aerospace companies as well as the
airlines themselves have sponsored
studies on jet noise reduction. Yet, in
spite of all this research, there has
been painfully little reduction of noise
from the 1960's generation of jet air-
craft. There are encouraging signs
that the new generation of aircraft,
the 747's, the DC-10's, and the
L-1011's, will have significantly lower
noise levels. But this new technology
has not been applied to the 1960's gen-
eration of aircraft, which will be with
us for many years to come.
At the same time, Federal policy—
executive, judicial, as well as legisla-
tive—has preempted local or State ac-
tion to regulate aircraft noise through
such means as establishing municipal
noise levels or local landing pattern
regulations. The Federal Government
cannot continue an essentially hands-
off policy with respect to demands for
regulation of aircraft noise, and at
the same time deny other governmen-
tal authorities the right to adopt their
own policies.
Clearly, it is long past time when
Congress should lead the way off of
this treadmill, and enact the appropri-
ate and necessary legislation to relieve
millions of citizens across the Nation
of this serious noise problem.
Many Senators have argued that
the solution of this problem is essen-
tially a bureaucratic one: who will ad-
minister the program for the Govern-
ment. But I believe a more important
question must still be resolved:
namely, what will the program be?
Simply to shift some or all responsi-
bility from one agency to another will
not necessarily do anything more than
create another layer of personnel fa-
miliar with the problem. But, if Con-
gress establishes a goal that can be
achieved, then we can reasonably ex-
feet that any agency designated to ad-
-------
2312
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
minister and enforce that goal will
meet the congressional intent.
As a minimum goal, Congress
should require that all commercial jet
aircraft, except those owned or oper-
ated by a military agency, shall oper-
ate by January 1, 1978, in compliance
with maximum Federal noise regula-
tions. The specific standards would be
those set forth in appendix C of part
36 of the Federal Aviation Regula-
tions in effect on September 1, 1972.
This so-called part 36 noise level was
established by the FAA in 1969 as the
"technologically practicable" and "eco-
nomically reasonable" limits of air-
craft noise reduction technology. Re-
grettably, however, the setting of this
regulation has had little noticeable or
real effect on the current level of air-
craft noise.
It is true that the so-called part 36
regulations have been met by the new
wide-bodied passenger jets. However,
available projections show that the
numbers 727, 737, and DC-9 jet air-
planes will increase during the next
decade, until there will be more than
1,200 of these planes operating on
U.S. certificated scheduled airlines in
1980, as compared to fewer than 1,100
from these groups at the current time.
Each of these planes exceeds by a con-
siderable margin in the applicable
part 36 standard.
This situation can be changed. The
Joint DOT/NASA Noise Abatement
Office has been conducting extensive
research and development on pro-
grams to reduce the noise in these and
the other noisy jet aircraft now flying.
Charts and projections have been
made readily available to Members of
the Congress which show that these
agencies are now close to developing
the technology needed to retrofit these
jets, either by means of accoustical
treatment or through the replacement
of their front fans.
They anticipate ground tests for
some types of aircraft by the end of
1972, and ground and flight tests for
most of the remaining aircraft by the
end of 1973. The charts prepared by
the Noise Abatement Office also pro-
ject a notice of proposed rulemaking
during the early part of next year,
and the issuance of rules in 1974 re-
quiring the retrofitting. First deliver-
ies of the quieter airplanes should be
in 1975, and the targeted completion
date for all retrofitting is 1979.
Now, Mr. President, these projec-
tions are well known to many knowl-
edgeable Members of the Senate, as
well as the aircraft community itself.
In fact, the president of American
Airlines, in a letter to Senator TUN-
NEY reprinted in the Senate Public
Works Committee's report on the
pending legislation, stated that:
The earliest achievable date (to modify air-
craft now in service to meet FAR 36 specifi-
cations) in our opinion is January 1, 1978.
So, quite clearly, the Federal
projections are attainable and, more
likely, represent conservative esti-
mates.
I believe that these projections
should become a national commitment.
The aircraft noise reduction program
has received more than enough pre-
liminary study and planning. It is a
program that I believe is a realistic
national goal. In fact, as is indicated
by the plans which I earlier described,
there is every reason to believe that it
is already an accepted program of the
Joint DOT/NASA Noise Abatement
I Office.
Thus, to mandate a January 1, 1978
date for all nonmilitary commercial
jet aircraft to meet the part 36 dead-
line is not radical or unrealistic. In
fact, it is well within our grasp, and
Congress would be delinquent if we
did not do everything possible to in-
sure that the goal is reached.
The amendment which I propose
would grant the administrator of the
aircraft noise abatement program, as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2313
well as the airlines themselves, flexibil-
ity as to the means of meeting the
maximum noise levels of part 36. In
addition, the amendment is consistent
with the principles of the best use of
available financial resources, technol-
ogy, and safety factors as indicated in
both the original Senate and House
sections on the administration of Fed-
eral aircraft noise regulations. Thus,
any of a number of alternatives in-
cluding retirement of certain aircraft
can be chosen to meet the criteria in
this amendment by 1978.
Finally, there is one remaining but
vitally important issue that must be
resolved before aircraft noise abate-
ment can become a reality. There
must be a means of paying for the
program. Already, several proposals
have been put forward, including bills
introduced by Senator CRANSTON and
myself requiring limited Federal as-
sistance to finance retrofitting. Fur-
thermore, the administration is in the
midst of its own study to determine
the most appropriate means of financ-
ing a retrofitting program. Therefore,
it is my intention to introduce a sec-
ond amendment, following the disposi-
tion of the pending amendment, to re-
quire the Secretary of Transportation
to report to Congress by July 1, 1973,
his recommendations for financing the
program.
In summary, Mr. President, I be-
lieve that the pending legislation pro-
vides a logical and appropriate oppor-
tunity for the Senate to place itself on
record in support of an environmental
goal for which there is a demonstrable
need. It is a goal which is achievable,
and toward which the administration
itself is now striving. The adoption of
this amendment would be a clear sig-
nal that the Senate intends to act re-
sponsibly in meeting America's noise
problems. I urge its adoption.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, it
would be my hope that the Senator
from Massachusetts, whose amend-
ment I think points out one of the
most important areas of concern in
the reduction of noise, would with-
draw his amendment, and perhaps
next year this could be the subject of
legislation by Congress.
The matter has been studied by the
Committee on Public Works. Also,
hearings have been held by the Com-
mittee on Commerce, and at the pres-
ent time the Department of Transpor-
tation is also studying the matter. In
our bill, in section 501, we anticipate
that there will be retrofit.
Although we do not have a timeta-
ble, the very fact that we have set out
a program for the establishment of
noise emission levels necessary and
adequate to protect the public health
and welfare indicates that the only
way these levels are going to be
achieved is if there is retrofit or re-
tirement of noisy aircraft. Even so,
we did not set out a definite time in
the
[p. S17991]
bill, because it was felt that not
enough information had been devel-
oped so that we could set a specific
target date.
It seems to me that with the lan-
guage of the bill in section 501, which
requires that standards be set by
EPA, with the FAA veto over safety
and technological availability, and
with the provisions in section 502
whereby EPA must study the ade-
quacy of noise emission standards on
new and existing aircraft, together
with recommendations on the retrofit
and phase out of all existing aircraft,
we will be in a better position next
year to set a timetable for retrofit or
retirement than we are this year.
I am fully cognizant of the tremen-
dous problem the Senator has at
Logan Airport because I, having gone
to school at one point in the neighbor-
hood, and spent a good deal of time in
that area in my younger years. Par-
ticularly in South Boston there are
526-704 O - 73 - 36
-------
2314
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
terrible problems. Clearly we do need
a retroschedule or retirement sched-
ule; but it would seem to me to be
better to wait until next year when we
would have the benefit of the studies
that will be done, as mandated by this
legislation and of the studies on-going
by the Department of Transportation.
Then we would know precisely what
we are doing, and also so that we
would have developed a mechanism to
finance retrofit at the time that we
require it.
On this last point, I feel that the
subject of financing retrofit is one
which all of us have to be concerned
with, because it is not the intention of
any of us to bankrupt the airline in-
dustry. At the same time, we do not
want to destroy the health and wel-
fare of the citizens who live adjacent
to airports.
I might add a final point which is
that I am an enthusiastic supporter
personally of a retrofit or retirement
schedule; hopefully, next year we will
be able to establish such a schedule. I
am convinced that if we could have a
retrofit or retirement schedule, it
would provide thousands and thou-
sands of new jobs in the aerospace
industry. This nice side benefit will
require people to build the systems for
retrofitting, and in the case of some of
the older aircraft which would likely
be retired rather than retrofitted, it
will help the airframe manufacturers
as well. So that I think everyone will
benefit by a retrofit or retirement
schedule.
At this point in time, however, it is
my hope that the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts could find his way to with-
draw his amendment today with the
recognition that he has demonstrated
great leadership in bringing this mat-
ter to the attention of the Senate, and
that he will be demonstrating this
leadership next year when this matter
comes up before the Senate again.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished manager of
the bill. I ha^e been much concerned,
as has he, about the aircraft noise
abatement problem. Several years ago,
I presented to the Senate a program
for retrofitting, because I believed we
all understand that we will not get rid
of the existing fleet overnight. It will
take some time. Retrofitting repre-
sents an investment of hundreds of
millions of dollars. Although I have
been encouraged by what we have
done with the new "wide-bodied" jets,
nevertheless, we must be concerned
with the excessive noise from the
great majority of aircraft flying
today over the United States.
I recall that the distinguished Sena-
tor from California went to school in
Cambridge when he was in Massachu-
setts and I can assure him that the
people of Cambridge do not suffer as
much as do those of South Boston,
East Boston, Revere, and Winthrop
and other surrounding towns where
one literally cannot sleep at night.
When the planes take off and land, it
sounds like they are coming into your
own house. The value of these residen-
tial properties has decreased. And this
phenomenon has taken place not only
in towns surrounding Logan Airport
but at other airports across the coun-
try.
There is also a health problem and
a psychological problem affecting the
children who live close to airports. Of
course the economic costs of noisy air-
planes has already been discussed.
I believe the financing program and
the official commitment to retrofitting
are matters that can be resolved sepa-
rately. What I hope can be achieved
through the useful discussion of this
amendment is to get the Senate on
record as making a commitment to ret-
rofitting by a time certain. I think
that that time certain is not next year
or the year after because as a practi-
cal matter it just cannot be done. We
know that. But I do believe, and I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2315
hope that my colleagues agree, that
1978 is a realistic and attainable tar-
get.
I understand the position of the air-
lines. I know retrofitting will be
costly, but as I have indicated, even
one of the airlines agrees that 1978 is
an achieveable goal.
I am not going to belabor this mat-
ter. I will not ask for a rollcall vote
on this amendment. I have great faith
in the Senator from California's per-
sonal commitment to the program. I
am very much encouraged by the fact
that he will hold early hearings next
year. The distinguished ranking mem-
ber, the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS) has made a similar commit-
ment that we will have hearings and
see if we cannot move to making it
certain that by 1978, all U.S. aircraft
which do not already meet Federal
noise abatement limits, will be retro-
fitted. At least the American people
will know of the Federal Govern-
ment's plans for enforcing aircraft
noise limitations. And they are clearly
entitled to have some knowledge of
when they can expect that this will be
done, instead of people repeatedly say-
ing to them, "well, it is coming, it is
coming."
With the assurance of the Senator
from California and the Senator from
Delaware that we will have early
hearings next year on this matter,
and that the Senator from California
will consider making a commitment
for a time certain for retrofitting, I
would certainly agree to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr. TUNNEY. I should like to
thank my distinguished friend from
Massachusetts for doing that. He has
performed a very valuable service by
bringing this matter to the attention
of the Senate. When such a matter is
brought up solely before a Senate
committee, it does not get the public
attention that it has gotten today on
the Senate floor. He has performed a
valuable service by pointing out that
there has to be a time definite for ret-
rofit or retirement of noisy aircraft. I
think there should be, too.
I should like to point out to my good
friend that the letter I received from
the American Airlines dated Septem-
ber 15, 1972, which is included in the
appendix to the committee report on
the bill, stated that—
The earliest achievable date for requiring all
aircraft to meet the 108 EPNdB standard in
FAR36 in our opinion is January 1, 1978.
This was an opinion not generally
shared by other members of the air-
line industry and other aerospace
companies.
Mr. BROOKE. Does not the Senator
feel that this is a realistic goal?
Mr. TUNNEY. I think that it is a
realistic goal, and that we should be
pointing to it next year when we will
have the opportunity to evaluate some
of the studies. Then I would be most
enthusiastic to join the Senator as a
cosponsor of his bill, a retrofitting bill,
assuming that the studies demonstrate
that by 1978 we can, in fact, as we
push technology, achieve a full retro-
fitting schedule or a retirement sched-
ule.
Mr. BROOKE. I thank my colleague
from California very much.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Massachusets yield?
Mr. BROOKE. I yield.
Mr. BOGGS. I want to take this
opportunity to commend the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts
for his leadership and for his actions
in regard to the retrofitting program.
I join the distinguished Senator from
California (Mr. TUNNEY) in giving
assurance that certainly the commit-
tee will give every consideration to
this, and will hold hearings.
agree 100 percent with the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts that this is of
primary importance. I believe that
progress will be made on it and we
-------
2316
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
will accomplish our objective, under
the leadership and the understanding
and the drive which the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts has to
put this through. He is to be com-
mended.
Mr. BROOKE. Well, Mr. President,
that is more assurance than I need
from my good friends from Delaware
and California.
Mr. President, in keeping with that
understanding, I withdraw the amend-
ment.
[p. S17992]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
state the amendment.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 90, line 21, following "SEC. 502.",
On page 91, following line 14, add the fol-
lowing subsection:
"(b) The Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies and interested in-
dividuals, shall conduct a study of the means
of financing the retrofitting of existing jet
aircraft (excluding aircraft owned or op-
erated by any military agency) in order to
carry out the purposes of this part, and shall
make recommendations, taking into con-
sideration what is economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate
for the types of aircraft and aircraft engines
to which the recommendations will apply.
He shall report on such study to the Com-
mittees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
and Ways and Means of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and the Committees on Com-
merce, Finance, and Public Works of the
Senate by July 1, 1973, together with hia
recommendations for
may be required.
whatever legislation
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I be-
lieve this amendment is noncontrover-
sial, and I hope that the distinguished
Senator from California and the dis-
tinguished Senator from Delaware
will agree to accept it.
This amendment requires the Secre-
tary of Transportation to submit to
the Congress by next July 1, a report
on the various means of financing the
retrofitting of jet aircraft, and to rec-
ommend appropriate legislation to
achieve that goal.
While the Federal Government al-
ready has ample authority to promul-
gate noise standards for existing air-
craft, no action has yet been taken
officially to finance the means of meet-
ing these standards. Depending on the
extent of retrofitting, the estimated
cost will be between one billion dollars
and two and one-half billion dollars.
And, no matter what the ultimate
financing plan, the Federal Govern-
ment will have a role to play, if only
because airlines are a regulated indus-
try.
The retrofitting/financing issue al-
ready has received considerable atten-
tion in Congress, the executive
branch, and the industry itself.
On August 2, 1971, I introduced
S. 2398, which would provide grants to
the air carriers to pay for up to two-
thirds of retrofitting costs. The source
for these funds would be the trust
fund created by the Airport and Air-
way Development
[p.179999]
Act of 1970 as well as an increase
from 8 to 10 percent in the air user
tax.
My colleague Senator CRANSTON in-
troduced S. 1566 on April 19, 1971.
This bill would finance a retrofitting
program by means of guaranteed
loans. In addition, there have been
other proposals that would provide
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2317
financing through fare increases,
stepped-up tax depreciation, and as-
sumption of the costs by the airlines
themselves, among others. There are
advantages and disadvantages to each
of these plans, and I am confident that
I speak on behalf of both Senator
CRANSTON and myself when I say that
neither of us is wedded to our own
proposal. Ultimately, I believe that
the financing package will include a
mix of several of the proposals that
have heen made.
The amendment which I now offer
would allow us to have the benefit of
the views of the executive branch on
this crucial matter. In fact, it is my
understanding that such a study is al-
ready under review within the execu-
tive branch, including the Department
of Treasury and the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget. Thus, adoption of
this amendment will not require the
executive branch to undertake a new
study. It will simply set a date of July
1, 1973, for its completion, and require
that legislative recommendations be
made to the Congress if the Secretary
of Transportation finds legislation to
be necessary.
The amendment designates that
Secretary of Transportation conduct
the study because his Department has
been in the forefront of administra-
tion efforts to reduce aircraft noise.
Specifically, the Federal Aircraft
Noise Abatement Plan has been devel-
oped by the Office of Noise Abatement
within the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation.
The amendment also authorizes the
Secretary to consult with other appro-
priate Government and private agen-
cies and individuals. Since the Federal
Aviation Administration is within the
Department of Transportation, it goes
without saying that the FAA would
be asked to contribute its extensive
expertise in the formulation of the
financing proposals.
Again, Senators should understand
that this amendment complements
plans already established by the exec-
utive branch to develop both the tech-
nology and financing of aircraft ret-
rofitting. Its effect is simply to em-
phasize Congress' continuing interest
in this vital issue, and to make sure
that Federal programs will proceed
quickly, so that citizens across the Na-
tion can be relieved as soon as possible
from the bombardment of jet aircraft
noise.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
have had an opportunity to look over
this amendment with the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts.
I think it is a good amendment. It
demonstrates once again the leader-
ship role that the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts has played in this area. It
is quite true that studies are going on
in the executive branch. However, the
studies are no good unless they are
completed and unless the information
is available to the public at large and
to the Congress in particular.
So I am going to be able to accept
this amendment on behalf of the com-
mittee. I have discussed the matter
with the distinguished Senator from
Delaware, and he is also agreeable to
having this amendment accepted by
the committee.
We expect that any financing study
will consider proposals like a ticket
tax on airline users and not just con-
sider Government subsidies.
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. TUNNEY. I know that the
Senator from Massachusetts feels the
same way.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished floor manager
of the bill for accepting the amend-
ment. I want to say again that I am
very much encouraged that the Sena-
tor from California (Mr. TUNNEY)
and the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
BOGGS) are in the leadership role on
this particularly important issue be-
-------
2318
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
cause it is so important to so many
people across this country to have
their understanding and sympathetic
leadership on this important legisla-
tion. It is a matter of great consola-
tion to the people who have waited
and suffered so long to know that hope
is at last on the way.
I pledge if I am re-elected to the
Senate to continue to work very
closely with them during the years
ahead.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
thank my friend so much for those
words. He has certainly demonstrated
his leadership today and in years past
by calling this matter continually to
the attention of the Congress.
Mr. President, I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Massachu-
setts.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair recognizes the Senator from
California.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as fol-
lows:
SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
Sec. 509. No civil aircraft capable of flying
at supersonic speed shall land at any place
under the jurisdiction of the United States
unless in compliance with the noise levels
prescribed for subsonic aircraft by the Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration and in effect on September 1, 1972.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, in
March of this year I introduced two
proposals restricting supersonic trans-
ports such as the English-French Con-
corde and the Russian TU-144 in
flights over and landings in U.S. terri-
tory.
The first of my proposals, prohibit-
ing flight at supersonic speeds over
the United States and its territorial
waters or the contiguous zone, has
been incorporated into the bill we are
now considering and I think that is
one of the fine features of this meas-
ure.
I will not take up the time of this
body in outlining the need for such a
restriction, other than to point out
that if the Concorde were permitted to
fly coast to coast at supersonic speeds
it would create a path of successive
sonic booms 50 miles wide and 3,000
miles long. According to conservative
estimates, these sonic booms could
cause $35 million to $160 million in
property damages every flight.
My second proposal, which I have
just introduced as an amendment to
this bill, prohibits thece same aircraft
from landing in U.S. airports unless
they meet the same noise emission
standards which now are required for
subsonic aircraft under FAA regula-
tions.
At current levels, the Concorde pro-
duces 10 times the noise emitted by a
747. A single Concorde produces as
much noise when it lands as 10 747's.
Aircraft noise is measured in effective
perceived noise decibels. FAA regula-
tions now permit a maximum noise
level of 108 EPNDB for subsonic air-
craft. Measurement of the emission
level of the Concorde places it in a
range between 114 and 120 EPNDB.
When measured on a logarithmic
scale, as noise calculations are made,
the Concorde will produce between six
and 12 times more noise than is per-
mitted for subsonic planes. In terms
of the total noise environment around
an airport, this would be a dramatic
step backward. The progress we have
made toward making our environment
more livable will suffer a serious set-
back. Though a single Concorde pro-
duces the same noise when it lands as
10 747's, it carries only 150 passen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2319
gers compared to 350 carried by a 747.
That means it would need to make
more than twice the number of flights
to deliver the same number of passen-
gers while making 10 times the noise.
The high level of noise produced
was one of the major reasons the
American SST was discontinued. Can
we apply lesser standards to Euro-
pean supersonic transports? The air-
craft noise problem was realized, yet
work continued on the Concorde. Brit-
ain and France had no reason to be-
lieve our position would be different
on the Concorde than it was on the
American SST. If the Concorde can-
not meet acceptable noise standards,
then it should not be allowed to land
in the United States.
Mr. President, I want to stress that
this amendment does not raise the
questions about jurisdiction of FAA
that have been involved in some of the
controversy relating to this bill. I be-
lieve it is vitally necessary to protect
both the American aircraft industry
and the people who live around air-
ports from this particular problem
and the threat it poses to them.
If these planes start coming into
American airports no one will know
exactly what they are and there will
be a new uprising at and around air-
ports that will threaten our ability to
continue airport operations; there will
be new lawsuits and hang-ups, and
people around airports will be unable
to distinguish between new planes
bringing this new noise and American
planes.
All of us will suffer as a result.
I urge my colleagues to apply the
same standards to supersonic aircraft
as we mandated for subsonic aircraft.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
have had an opportunity to review
this
[p. S18000]
amendment with my distinguished
senior colleague. I have not had an
opportunity to consult with the distin-
guished Senator from Delaware. As
far as the majority side of the com-
mittee is concerned, I can accept this
amendment.
I think it is clear that we could re-
quire the same compliance for super-
sonic transport planes that we require
for other airplanes that are landing
at American airports. It is only fair
and there is no reason why the citi-
zens of our country who live adjacent
to international airports should be
subjected to the deafening roar of su-
personic aircraft simply because it is
from a foreign manufacturer and
owned by a foreign airline.
So on behalf of the majority of the
committee
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, be-
fore the Senator accepts the amend-
ment I would like to sound a note of
caution. This type amendment can be
very important with respect to inter-
national negotiations and the interna-
tional aspects of air transportation. I
would simply caution my friends that
I hope they have considered this in
consultation with the State Depart-
ment to try to take into full account
what the implications are that might
be involved.
I can see that if a foreign air car-
rier is denied the right to fly any
place in the United States with a par-
ticular aircraft, they might then im-
pose the same type of refusal to fly all
of our aircraft in foreign countries.
This could be much more devastating
to us than to them because we have
the largest air carrier system in the
world today, and it would be our car-
riers that would be affected if retalia-
tory action were taken.
Again, I am sounding a note of cau-
tion. I am not going to call for a roll-
call vote if the Senate wants to accept
it, but this is something that may
-------
2320
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
have very grave implications in the
field of international air transporta-
tion and may result in a very detri-
mental way to U.S. air carriers if it is
adopted without some provision made,
some escape provision or some outlet
being taken into consideration so that
these aircraft might be able to fly to
some particular location in this coun-
try.
Mr. TUNNEY. I appreciate the
Senator from Nevada raising those
points. I think they are points that
have been considered by the Senator
from California. I think that they are
strong points.
On the other hand, I cannot help
but feel, after the Senate rejected a
domestic SST which would have been
heavily subsidized by our Federal
Government, that we should say we
are not going to allow our noise emis-
sion levels, which are health levels, to
be violated by a foreign SST which is
landing at our airports.
It would be my hope that we would
not allow any American airline that
violates our noise levels to land at our
airports, so it is even-handed that we
ask that foreign aircraft landing at
our airports be subject to the same
standards of health and welfare that
our domestic lines are required to ad-
here to.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. CANNON. This is certainly a
subject that comes under the jurisdic-
tion of my Aviation Subcommittee. If
the Senator is not of a mind to press
this amendment at this time I would
assure him that we would hold hear-
ings on this very subject next year.
We want to take whatever steps
should be taken, but my caution comes
from the fact that this is an impor-
tant area of concern to our State De-
partment and it is an important area
of concern to U.S. carriers, and per-
haps there should be some area defin-
ing what could be done at someplace
in the country that would not be af-
fected. If the Senator would care not
to press the amendment my committee
can hold hearings next year and con-
sider these aspects and then if it is of
a mind to do something, we would
have the time because they are not
going to be able to fly in here until
next year.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Sena-
tor for his concern. It would seem to
me that if we were producing planes
that would be as noisy as foreign su-
personic planes when landing and tak-
ing off at subsonic levels of speed, we
would recognize the right of other
countries if they have standards to ex-
clude them.
I do not believe other nations will
retaliate against us in a totally arbi-
trary way not taking into account the
noise factor of our planes.
Therefore, I do not believe we will
have this sort of problem that has
been suggested as a possibility. Cer-
tainly, I grant that it is a possibility.
What I would prefer to do is to pro-
ceed with the amendment, but also to
proceed in conjunction with the Sena-
tor to see if there might be problems
that could indicate a modification of
the provision.
I am afraid if we drop this matter
it might not be possible for a vehicle
to exist to prevent this problem af-
fecting people who live around air-
ports and in the long run we may find
the American aircraft industry suf-
fers as a result of the noise, with the
accompanying lawsuits that would tie
up the airports.
My friend and colleague from Cali-
fornia has expressed a willingness to
accept the amendment, and I deeply
appreciate it. I took a moment of time
to talk to the Senator from Delaware
representing the minority on the com-
mittee. He said as far as he is con-
cerned, the minority on the committee
is perfectly willing to accept the
amendment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2321
Mr. CASE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I am delighted to
yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. I ask that my legislative
clerk, Mr. Gambock, be permitted to
be on the floor throughout the session
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that Bill Han-
cock of my staff be allowed on the
floor today and tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. I support the Senator's
amendment, and I want the record to
show that I do.
In that connection, I want to make
one point, and that is that I am deeply
distressed at the unwillingness of the
FAA to give what I regard as ade-
quate assurance to the neighborhoods
and communities near airports of its
consideration of their concerns about
expansion, noise pollution, and other
nuisances that are involved.
I have specifically in mind the com-
munity of Morris County, N.J., where
Morristown Airport is located. The
city of Morristown has an airport
which is not within the city's own geo-
graphical boundaries, but outside the
community where it is located and
others adjacent to it, and is properly
concerned about expansion without
due consideration of the needs and in-
terests of the residents.
I have been unable to get the kind
of assurance that I think these com-
munities are entitled to from the
agency, but I am not going to give up
trying.
I fully support the amendment,
partly on that account, but in general
on its own merits.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays on the
pending amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Would the Senator
be prepared, inasmuch as a yea-and-
nay vote is now ordered, to yield back
the balance of his time?
Mr. CRANSTON. Certainly. First,
I want to take a minute to make one
point.
In further reply to the Senator
from Nevada in regard to the ques-
tions he raised, no supersonic planes
will be ready to land in this country
until 1975 or 1976. That would allow
adequate time for the sort of hearings
and inquiries that the Senator would
like to make, to see if it is advisable to
make any modifications.
Second, it will serve notice on the
manufacturers of supersonic planes
that they must reduce their noise.
They have the capability technically
now to do this. This will give them
time to do that, and then we will not
have a problem.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I
yield back the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All
time has been yielded back. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from California (Mr.
CRANSTON).
[p. S18001]
*****
So Mr. CRANSTON'S amendment was
agreed to.
[p. S18002]
*****
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, it is
with great reluctance that I support
the provisions of this otherwise very
fine bill that relate to the control of
noise from aircraft. As the Senate
knows, this bill was only very recently
reported by the Public Works Com-
mittee and because of the lateness of
the date the Commerce Committee and
the Aviation Subcommittee, which I
chair, has had no opportunity what-
soever to formally consider it, nor
have we had a chance to hold hearings
on some of the issues which the bill
presents.
-------
2322
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. President, the consideration of
this bill in the form we are looking at
today is a dangerous precedent in the
legislative process. This bill has never
been considered nor have we heard
any witnesses on the vital aspects of
air transportation and the interests of
safety and reliability of transporta-
tion as affected by the bill. The Com-
mittee on Commerce has sole and total
jurisdiction over civil aeronautics, we
have the responsibility to protect the
safety of the public from transporta-
tion disaster—airline crashes—as well
as from unwarranted noise, but Mr.
President, we are in a position of hav-
ing a bill forced on us at a late hour
in this session because of the fact that
the American public and this Con-
gress wants relief from noise.
Mr. President, the goals of this leg-
islation are laudable and every Mem-
ber of the Senate, of course, can sup-
port them. The public wants and
needs protection from noise from all
sources, not only aircraft, but from
other transportation vehicles and
from other sources in everyone's daily
lives. The bill before the Senate today,
however, as it relates to regulation of
aircraft is far reaching in its scope
and is inconsistent with a decision of
Congress in 1958 in which we decided
that aviation safety was of such para-
mount concern, that all Government
regulation and control of aviation had
to be vested in one single agency. The
bill before us today negates that basic
principle which I believe is still sound.
But more importantly the process, as
it has worked, has completely circum-
vented the committee which has the
primary responsibility to insure
safety in air transportation. Ob-
viously the members of our committee
were reluctant to take any action on
the bill at this late hour which would
result in its not being brought up. We
were under great pressure to waive
our jurisdiction on the matter and to
simply acquiesce in the action of the
Public Works Committee which is De-
fore the Senate today. In the spirit of
cooperation, although feeling deeply
about it, we did acquiesce. We waived
the jurisdictional rights of our com-
mittee.
The Senator from California has
been most gracious in meeting with
me and discussing my concerns with
the legislation and seeking to come up
with amendatory language which
would ease some of the more serious
problems which I and the Committee
on Commerce found in the bill. While
I appreciate very much the support
and the kindness shown me and the
committee on this matter by the Sena-
tor from California, I still have grave
concern about the bill itself. The Com-
mittee on Commerce in executive ses-
sion decided that while it would waive
jurisdiction of the bill, it would offer a
floor amendment substituting tha
House passed language on aircraft
noise control to the provisions in the
Public Works bill. After considering
the House language we found it to be
responsible, workable and a step for-
ward in the regulation of aircraft
noise and a program that all could
live with. After taking that action,
however, we became convinced that
the forces seeking to protect the envi-
ronment were mobilized in strong op-
position to our position and were un-
willing to support passage of the
House language. Therefore, very re-
luctantly, Senator MAGNUSON and I
and others in the committee deter-
mined that we would seek to work out
an agreement with Senator TUNNEY
and others which we would hope
would be agreeable to all of us. There-
fore the committee determined that it
will not offer on the floor today an
amendment seeking to insert the
House language on this matter and
has reluctantly agreed to support the
language which the Tunney amend-
ment to the bill presently contains.
Nonetheless, it is important to note
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2323
the basic objection to the Tunney bill
still remains. That is the splitting up
of the authority to regulate noise
from aircraft into two different gov-
ernmental agencies both having vastly
different responsibility. Under the
Tunney proposal, as it is amended, the
regulation of aircraft noise will be
split between the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the Federal Avia-
tion Administration. It is my view
that any legislation which provides
for fractionated authority to regulate
in the public welfare is weak. It leads
to diffusion, delay, inaction, bickering
back and forth and often ineffective
regulations. A far preferable situation
would be to leave this authority
within the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, the supreme authority in the
field of air commerce, and charge the
administration with increasing its ac-
tivities to regulate noise from air-
craft. As the Senate knows well, the
FAA has ample statutory authority at
the present time under the bill passed
in 1968 to regulate aircraft noise.
Some think the FAA has gone too
slow. Mr. President, this is a difficult,
tedious and very costly matter and
while I sometimes think the agency
has not moved fast enough I am also
very sympathetic to the problems
faced by the agency and by the air
transportation industry in trying to
quiet its products.
There is no doubt that the industry
and the FAA have made significant
progress, as we all know. The new
generation of jet aircraft equipment
is quieter than older aircraft by half;
promising breakthroughs on other
phases are being made at this time.
Technology apparently has been devel-
oped which might make it possible to
reequip older jet aircraft with quieter
engines, without compromising safety
and reliability, and flying characteris-
tics. But the costs of this kind of pro-
gram could be very expensive, in fact,
it could be prohibitively so. And I
think while the Senate will hear much
more on the subject from others on
the floor today, we have not yet deter-
mined the feasibility and the practica-
bility of moving forward at the pres-
ent time with this new technology. I
mention it only to point out that there
has been much action in the area of
aircraft noise control despite what
some of the critics might have you
believe. The FAA has recently
adopted new regulations relating to
the way aircraft are flown, the flight
paths that must be followed and the
flight regimens which must be main-
tained by the crews. These new regu-
lations will result in aircraft being
kept higher over our urban areas
which will greatly reduce the amount
of noise reaching the ground. The air-
lines themselves are beginning on
their own initiative to impose certain
flying characteristics on their air-
planes and crews which result in re-
ductions in power, consistent with
safety, and of course protect the pub-
lic from excessive noise. These things
are being done today and they will
continue to be done whether this bill is
passed or not. But I also recognize
that there is great sentiment within
the Government and from without,
that all environmental programs be
coordinated by one agency; namely,
the Environmental Protection Agency.
While in most cases this may be a
wise course to follow, I am not con-
vinced of its wisdom in the area of
regulating aircraft noise, therefore,
my reservations with the Tunney bill.
But in the spirit of cooperation and in
the spirit of wanting to see noise leg-
islation enacted during this session of
Congress, I will vote for it despite my
doubts of its wisdom.
[p. S18004]
* * *
Mr. BUCKLEY.
-------
2324
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
If reports from my constituents
who live in New York's great metro-
politan areas are any indication, it is
the noise emitted from aircraft flyov-
ers which represents the most objec-
tionable form of noise pollution. It h?s
historically been the role of the Fed-
eral Government, acting through the
Federal Aviation Administration, to
control all aspects of air commerce.
This helps to establish the validity of
a Federal program to control noise
emitted from aircraft. These two
points convince me that if we are to
have a Federal noise control program,
it ought to be a program which places
effective control on aircraft noise. If
our bill is weak in the area of control-
ling aircraft noise, it is my personal
preference to have no bill at all.
The major controversial issue in
constructing an effective and responsi-
ble Federal program for aircraft noise
emission control is which agency shall
have the authority to set those admis-
sion standards: Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or Federal Aviation
Administration. It is clear that a
major portion of the expertise in the
performance of commercial aircraft
resides in the FAA. This agency has a
mission; that is, to promote the devel-
opment of an efficient, responsible, and
safe system of civil aviation in the
United States. By all indications, they
have done an excellent job. A recent
experience has indicated, however,
that regulation of noise from aircraft
is not necessarily consistent with that
mission. The FAA has not moved as
rapidly as some have expected in im-
plementing the noise reduction which
was required in the 1968 Federal
Aviation Act. Since that bill passed,
there has been created the EPA,
whose primary responsibility is to ef-
fect all of the Federal Government's
environmental policies. It is, there-
fore, appropriate that the EPA should
set the emission standards for the con-
trol of noise emissions from aircraft.
The EPA, of course, should consult
with those agencies having expertise
in the field but the determination of
the level of noise which would protect
the public health and welfare, includ-
ing taking into consideration a judg-
ment on the cost of compliance should
be made solely by the EPA. Of course,
the FAA because of its responsibil-
ities for air safety, should have a veto
over any standard promulgated by
EPA if the Administrator of the FAA
determines that such standard would
in any way jeopardize the safety of
air travel.
Happily, amendments made on the
floor now rest in the EPA, the appro-
priate authority, subject to the appro-
priate FAA veto where questions of
safety are concerned. To this extent,
the bill is constructive. But unfortun-
ately, its fundamental effects far ex-
ceed the good; defects are too exten-
sive to be subject to corrections
through amendments offered on the
floor.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, we now
have an opportunity to respond to the
unquestioned need for a comprehen-
sive Federal noise control program in
this country. The need for noise con-
trol legislation has been recognized by
the administration, by all cognizant
professional societies concerned about
noise pollution, by the major labor
unions, by countless citizens' organiza-
tions, and by millions of Americans
exposed to excessive or unnecessary
noise.
I feel very deeply about this issue
due to the fact that constant exposure
to the noise of aircraft engines and
machinegun fire, as a gunnery officer
in the Naval Air Corps in World War
II, destroyed my ability to hear cer-
tain higher frequency sound levels, a
disability that has handicapped and
bothered me ever since. Thank heav-
ens the widespread use of ear mufflers
at airports now and on firing ranges
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2325
helps to minimize this hazard for
those constantly exposed.
In 1972, the President's Council on
Environmental Quality—CEQ—in-
cluded a noise control proposal in the
administration's package of environ-
mental protection legislation. In
complying with title IV of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Act of 1970, the
newly created Environmental Protec-
tion Agency reported to the President
and Congress in December 1971, on
the organizational deficiencies for
noise control among several Federal
agencies and the inadequacy of exist-
ing laws to remedy the situation.
S. 3342, the Environmental Noise
Control Act of 1972, was reported fa-
vorably
[p. S18005]
by an overwhelming majority of the
Committee on Public Works, from
which so much of our environmental
protection legislation has originated. I
consider S. 3342, as reported, a consid-
erable achievement in reflecting a fine
balance between the concerns of af-
fected industry and those of environ-
mental purists. This bill consolidates
responsibility for the establishment of
national noise control standards and
guidelines from a variety of sources
within the EPA, the agency created to
deal with environmental problems.
Most importantly, in my judgment,
title V of the measure requires control
of noise and its exposure upon people
caused by transportation sources aris-
ing in interstate commerce—a re-
quirement the States and localities
cannot accomplish for themselves.
Approximately 80 million Ameri-
cans are adversely affected by noise.
In addition to hearing damage, other
health effects from noise include loss
of sleep, anxiety, and interference
with classroom learning and with nor-
mal conversation. Under this bill the
EPA would be given unchallenged au-
thority to regulate noise emissions
from such sources as electric blenders,
vacuum cleaners, jackhammers, buses,
trucks, and trains.
Neither logic nor the demands of a
comprehensive program justify ex-
cepting aircraft from this authority.
For the first time, through EPA-re-
quired actions, aircraft noise emission
levels would be based on public health
and welfare needs—with FAA review
on grounds of technological availabil-
ity and safety. Current FAA regula-
tions require that new planes, such as
the Boeing 747 and the McDonnell
Douglass DC-10 meet stringent noise
abatement standards. They do not,
however, set such standards for other
existing jet aircraft.
I think that the policy is totally in-
adequate, and I believe it is impera-
tive that existing jets be retrofitted or
otherwise be made to conform to strict
noise abatement standards, so that
our citizens living in the vicinity of
great airports such as O'Hare can live
more normal lives, free from earsplit-
ting intrusions throughout each day.
What then is the difficulty in pass-
ing S. 3342? It appears to be primar-
ily the airline industry that opposes
this needed legislation, although I
note that the airport operators,
through the Airport Operators Coun-
cil International, have strongly indi-
cated their support of S. 3342 with
strenghtening amendments.
What is the root of this opposition?
The airlines claim that shifting lead
agency responsibility for aircraft
noise control from FAA to EPA
might imperil flight safety procedures.
In this context, it is important to
look to the history of FAA, and before
it the Civil Aeronautics Administra-
tion—CAA—regulation of aircraft
noise. In summary, such regulation
has been virtually nonexistent. Per-
haps the best illustration of FAA in-
ertia in the area of aircraft noise con-
trol is the agency's failure to imple-
-------
2326
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
ment an operating rule for noise
abatement.
The "Report of the President's Air-
port Commission—The Airport and
Its Neighbors," submitted to Presi-
dent Truman in May 1952, urged
adoption of a variety of aircraft noise
abatement measures with particular
emphasis on the regulation of operat-
ing procedures. During the interven-
ing 20 years, the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, indi-
vidual airlines, the National Aircraft
Noise Abatement Council and, more
recently, the Boeing Co. have strongly
advocated the use of operating proce-
dures for reduced community noise.
That such procedures exist, have long
been available, and can be effective
cannot be denied. Let me quote the two
conclusions of the Boeing Co.'s testi-
mony before a public hearing held by
the EPA in Washington, D.C., Novem-
ber 10, 1971:
(1) Significant reductions in community
noise can be attained through early adoption
of readily available regulatory and procedural
operations changes in the vicinity of airports.
Such changes can be made at little cost, would
require no particular increase in pilot skill
or pilot workload, and are not considered to
have any effect on safety.
(2) Further noise reduction benefits are
available through certain additional operating
procedures requiring development of techniques
and equipment modifications to avoid increas-
ing pilot workload.
What has been the FAA's response
to Boeing and to the NASA and
American Airlines successful demon-
stration over a year ago of an effec-
tive and safe two-segment approach
procedure? I refer my colleague to a
letter from FAA Administrator John
Shaffer, dated July 17, 1972, respond-
ing to my inquiries regarding the
abominable noise conditions around
Chicago's O'Hara Airport. Mr. Shaf-
fer says:
The Federal Aviation Administration has
taken several recent steps at the national
level to reduce aircraft noise. Federal Air
Regulation Part 36 requires that all newly
certified turbo-jet aircraft meet stringent noise
requirements. As a result, new aircraft such
as the McDonnell-Douglas RC-10 and the
Lockheed-1011 are significantly quieter than
their predecessors. As more of these aircraft
are produced they will be replacing: older,
noisier turbo-jet aircraft. FAA is now eval-
uating a program to reduce engine noise
on the remaining jet fleet. We will proceed
with this program when it is determined to be
technically effective and economically feasible.
The FAA is also sponsoring a number of
other research projects on ways and means
of reducing engine noise. We work closely
with the Department of Defense and the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration
to assure a proper emphasis in their partic-
ular areas of interest and to prevent any du-
plication of effort in noise reduction research.
At O'Hara, as well as all other major termi-
nal areas, we are constantly working to de-
velop procedural innovations in handling air-
craft so as to reduce noise. For example, the
controllers keep jet aircraft as high as pos-
sible prior to landing and get them as high
as practical as soon as possible after depart-
ing. When weather conditions permit, run-
ways are changed periodically in order that
aircraft do not proceed over a given area for
long periods of time. When wind conditions
preclude shifting of runways, controllers will
vary the headings of departing aircraft after
leaving the runway to ensure that there will
not be a concentration of aircraft passing
over a small area for extended periods. Also
the preferential runway system used during
the night is designed to avoid the most noise-
sensitive areas, generally located east of the
airport.
To me, this response says that
"we're aware of the problem, trying to
do something about it and hope that
things will straighten themselves out."
My constituents near airports will not
consider that kind of response satis-
factory, particularly when FAA has
had, over the years, comprehensive
rulemaking authority to reduce air-
craft noise pollution which it stead-
fastly refuses to exercise.
In his communications to the Con-
gress and public pronouncements, Ad-
ministrator Shaffer calls attention to
the "exemplary cooperation" for noise
abatement purposes between the FAA
and the airlines. He refers to the "vol-
untary" adoption of a noise abatement
takeoff procedure in August of this
year by all the airlines. I am reliably
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2327
informed that all airlines do not fol-
low the "voluntary" procedure and
that it does not in fact provide mean-
ingful relief for close-in airport com-
munity residents, such as those
around O'Hara Airport, whose prob-
lem is most severe.
The PAA has abdicated the regula-
tory responsibilities Congress has en-
trusted to it. Provisions of the Fed-
eral Aviation Act of 1908 and the Air-
craft Noise Certification Act of 1968,
Public Law 90-411, require the Ad-
ministrator to adopt measures for
"the present and future relief from
aircraft noise—for the benefit of per-
sons on the ground."
The FAA claims that the reduced
noise generating qualities of second
generation high bypass ratio engines
and new aircraft types is attributable
to FAA and airline efforts. But should
not credit go to airframe and engine
manufacturers for their foresight and
ingenuity in introducing new quieter
aircraft with reduced exhaust emis-
sions?
While claiming on the one hand
that it alone has authority for the
regulation of aircraft operation for
aircraft noise abatement, the FAA si-
multaneously maintains aircraft noise
control is a local problem. Yet when
States and localities attempt measures
to protect citizens from excessive air-
craft noise levels, FAA asserts Fed-
eral preemption rights.
This is a situation which the Con-
gress cannot allow to continue. S. 3342
goes a long way toward correcting the
errors of the past and providing for a
responsible and comprehensive plan of
noise pollution control whatever the
source. I strongly urge adoption of
this vital legislation.
I would like to take this opportunity
to express my gratitude to George J.
Franks, chairman/president of the
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Coun-
cil, to Theodore Berland, president of
Citizens Against Noise, to John D.
Varble, village president of Bensen-
ville, 111., and director/secretary of
NOISE, and to Herbert H. Behrel,
mayor of the city of Des Plaines—
each of whom has taken a leadership
role in the worthy struggle for air-
craft noise abatement and, together
with many others, has endeavored to
keep me informed of the personal
traumas suffered by over more than
4% million Illinois citizens in some 21
communities subject to noise depreda-
tions around O'Hare Airport.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[p. 18006]
*****
So the bill (S. 3342) was passed.
1.10f(3)(d) Oct. 18: House concurred in Senate amendment, with
an amendment, pp. H10261-10262, H10287-10300
Mr. STAGGERS.
*****
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who
voted against it at the time, on the
basis that it was not coordinated be-
tween the new Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and responsibilities of the
Federal Aviation Agency, which I un-
derstand from my friend from West
Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS), is presuma-
bly corrected in the House amendment
to the Senate amendments in the
House-passed version of the bill.
There has been no conference in this
procedure, and these is no printed re-
port on which to base a mature judg-
ment.
[p. H10262]
-------
2328
LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
Mr. HALL.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I want
to be certain that the power of the
FAA to regulate safety and noise-pro-
ducing air transportation devices is
maintained, rather than granted, and
the other body would have done, to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the
difference being I have had a chance
to restudy the bill since the objections
of yesterday.
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, sir, if the
gentleman will yield. I can assure the
gentleman beyond any shadow of a
doubt that the safety of our airlines
still remains and will remain with
FAA. This is the intention of the
House. The reason why I objected to
the Senate amendments is that they
would give the noise-regulation au-
thority to the EPA. I can assure the
gentleman beyond any shadow of a
doubt the safety will remain with
FAA.
[p. H10294]
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. STAGGERS moves to concur in the Sen-
ate amendment with the following amend-
ment: In lieu of the matter proposed to be
inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the
following:
[p. H10295]
AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS
SEC. 7. (a) The Administrator, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies and interested persons, shall
conduct a study of the (1) adequacy of Fed-
eral Aviation Administration flight and op-
erational noise controls; (2) adequacy of
noise emission standards on new and existing
aircraft, together with recommendations on
the retofitting and phaseout of existing air-
craft; (3) implications of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure
around airports; and (4) additional measures
available to airport operators and local gov-
ernments to control aircraft noise. He shall
report on such study to the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the
House of Representatives and the Commit-
tees on Commerce and Public Works of the
Senate within nine months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read
as follows:
"CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OP AIRCRAFT NOISE
AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 611.(a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'FAA' means Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration.
"(2) The term 'EPA' means the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
"(b) (1) In order to afford present and fu-
ture relief and protection to the public health
and welfare from 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
aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the
application of such standards and regula-
tions in the issuance, amendment, modifica-
tion, suspension, or revocation of any cer-
tificate 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 ex-
emption is granted, except that if the FAA
determines that safety in air commerce or
air transportation requires that such an ex-
emption be granted before EPA can be con-
sulted, the FAA shall consult with EPA as
soon as practicable after the exemption is
granted.
" (2) The FAA shall not issue an original
type certificate under section 603(a) of this
Act for any aircraft for which substantial
noise abatement can be achieved by prescrib-
ing standards and regulations in accordance
with this section, unless he shall have pre-
scribed standards and regulations in accord-
ance with this section which apply to such
aircraft and which protect the public from
aircraft noise and sonic boom, consistent with
the consideration listed in subsection (d).
[p. H10296]
"(c)(l) Not earlier than the date of sub-
mission of the report required by section 7
(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA
shall submit to the FAA proposed regulations
to provide such control and abatement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom (including
control and abatement through the exercise
of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2329
air commerce or transportation or over air- j
cm ft 01 airpovt operations) a^ EPA deter-
mines is necessary to py*Mect the public
health and welfare. The FAA shall consider
such proposed regulations submitted by
EPA under this paragraph and shall, within
thirty days of the date of its submission to
the FAA, publish the proposed regulations in
a notice of proposed rulemaking. Within
sixty days after such publication, the FAA
shall commence a hearing at which inter-
ested persons shall be afforded an opportu-
nity for oral (as well as written) presenta-
tions of data, views, and arguments. Within
a reasonable time after the conclusion of
such hearing and after consultation with
EPA, the FAA shall—
" (A) in accordance with subsection (b),
prescribe regulations (i) substantially as they
were submitted by EPA, or (ii) which are
a modification of the proposed regulations
submitted by EPA, or
" (B) publish in the Federal Register a
notice that it is not prescribing any regula-
tion in response to EPA's submission of pro-
posed regulations, together with a detailed
explanation providing reasons for the deci-
sion not to prescribe such regulations.
"(2) If EPA has reason to believe that the
FAA's action with respect to a regulation
proposed by EPA under paragraph (1) (A)
(ii) or (I) (B) of this subsection does not
protect the public health and welfare 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
prescribing the legulation oiiginally pio-
posed by EPA. Any such request shall be
published in the Federal Register and shall
include a detailed statement of the informa-
tion on which it is based. The FAA shall
complete the review requested and shall
report to EPA within such time as EPA
specifies in the request, but such time spec-
ified may not be less than ninety 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 statement filed pursuant to sec-
tion 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 with respect to such action
of the FAA under paragraph (1) of this
subsection; and shall specify whether (and
where) such statements are available foi*
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.
"(3) If, in the case of a matter described
in paragraph (2) of this subsection with re*
spect to which no statement iri required to
be hied undei such section 102 (2) (C , the
jeport of the FAA indicator- thaf tl«o pin-
posed ' regulation originally submitted by
EPA should not be made, then EPA niaj-
request the FAA to file a &upi>lcnientaJ 11.
port, which bhall be puMisned m the Fed-
eral Register within such a period as EPA
may specify (but such time specified shall
not lie less than ninety day^ num the date
the request was made}, and \vh!i.'h bha'il
contain a comparison of (A) the environ-
mental effects (including those which can-
not be avoided) of the action actually taken
by the FAA in response to EPA's proposed
regulations, and (B} EPA's proposed reg-
ulations.
" (d) In pi escribing and amending stand-
ards and regulations under this section, the
FAA shall—
" (1) consider relevant available data re-
lating to aircraft noise and sonic boom, in-
cluding 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 stand-
ard or regulation is consistent with the
highest degree of safety in air commerce or
air transportation in the public interest;
"(4) consider whether any proposed stand-
ard or regulation is economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate
for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft
engine, appliance, or ceitificate to which it
will apply; and
" (5) consider the extent to which such
standard or regulation will contribute to car-
rying out the purposes of this section.
"(e) In any action to amend, modify, sus-
pend, or revoke a ceitificate in which viola-
tion of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards
or legislations is at iss,ue, the certificate holder
shall have the same notice and appeal rights
ab aie contained in section 609, and in any
appeal to the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Board may amend, modify, or re-
verse the order of the FAA if it finds that
control of abatement of airciaft noise or sonic
boom and the public health and welfare do not
require the affirmation of such order, or that
such order is not consistent with safety in air
commerce or air transportation/*
(c) All—
(1) standards, rules, and regulations pre-
scribed under section 611 of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, and
(2) exemptions, granted under any pro-
vision of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
with lespect to such standards, rules, and
legulations,
which are in effect on the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, shall continue in effect
-------
2330
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
according to their terms until modified, termi-
nated, superseded, set aside, or repealed by
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration in the exercise of any author-
ity vested in him, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
[p. H10297]
Mr. ROGERS.
Mr. Speaker, the principal differ-
ence between the House bill and the
Senate amendment was with respect
to aircraft noise. The House bill left
control of aircraft noise in the hands
of the FAA while the Senate gave
substantial control to EPA. The
amendment before the House today
combines the best of both. It retains
the existing law's provision which
provides the FAA with ultimate au-
thority to prescribe standards to regu-
late aircraft noise. This is necessary
to insure that noise control standards
will, through the benefit of FAA's ex-
pertise, be consistent with the highest
degree of aircraft safety.
However, recognizing that it is the
overall responsibility of EPA to in-
sure a sound environment, the amend-
ment provides that EPA play a sig-
nificant role in the development of
aircraft noise standards. This role in-
cludes the requirement that EPA pro-
pose to FAA a broad and comprehen-
sive range of regulations designed to
abate aircraft noise. The FAA, in
turn, must respond to the EPA pro-
posals quickly and substantively.
[p. H10300]
1.10f(3)(e) Oct. 18: Senate concurred in House amendment, pp.
518638-18646
Mr. TUNNEY.
Mr. President, the key provisions of
the legislation have been retained in
modified form. Both the Senate and
the House were most concerned with
the problem of aircraft noise and,
more specifically, with the need to pro-
tect public health and welfare in the
vicinity of airports from the impact of
noise from aircraft and aircraft oper-
ations. The House bill provided the
Federal Aviation Administration with
sole responsibility for regulation of
aircraft-related noise problems. The
Environmental Protection Agency, an
agency established with the approval
of the Congress to protect the envi-
ronment, was relegated to a second-
ary, consultative role to the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Under the Senate bill, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency had the re-
sponsibility to propose noise emission
standards for aircraft. Those stand-
ards were to reflect the degree of
noise reduction from aircraft required
to protect the public health and wel-
fare. However, under the Senate bill,
those standards could only be applied
after determination by the Federal
Aviation Administration that technol-
ogy is available and application of the
standards would be consistent with air
safety requirements.
Under the amendment as proposed
by the House, which we are now asked
to approve, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency would retain the author-
ity to initiate a regulatory process to
protect public health and welfare
from aircraft noise. The EPA would
be required to conclude within 9
months a study on aircraft noise prob-
lems, including the implications and
means of achieving levels of cumula-
tive noise around airports and the ad-
equacy of existing noise emission
standards and operational controls
and a study of the impact of aircraft
noise on public health and welfare.
Subsequent to that study the Adminis-
trator would be required to take the
lead on the control of aircraft noise,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2331
submitting regulations to protect pub-
lic health and welfare from aircraft
noise and sonic boom. Such regula-
tions would be required to include pro-
posed means of reducing noise in air-
port environments through the appli-
cation of emission controls on air-
craft, the regulation of flight patterns
and aircraft and airport operations,
and modifications in the number, fre-
quency, or scheduling of flights.
Within 30 days, the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion would be required to publish the
EPA-proposed regulations as its no-
tice of proposed rulemaking and,
within 60 days, to hold a public hear-
ing on the EPA proposal. On the basis
of that hearing and after consultation
with the EPA, the PAA must publicly
accept, modify, or reject the regula-
tions contained in the EPA proposal.
The FAA Administrator would be re-
quired, as the result of the hearing
process and after consultation with
EPA to prescribe regulations to im-
plement the proposed or modified rec-
ommendations.
Again, I stress that those regula-
tions would include, but would not be
limited to, the imposition of curfews
on noisy airports, the imposition of
flight path alterations in areas where
noise was a problem, the imposition of
noise emission standards on new and
existing aircraft—with the expecta-
tion of a retrofit schedule to abate
noise emissions from existing aircraft
—the imposition of controls to in-
crease the load factor on commercial
flights, or other reductions in the joint
use of airports, and such other proce-
dures as may be determined useful
and necessary to protect public health
and welfare.
Mr. President, the rest of this
amendment is similar to portions of
the aircraft provision passed by the
House. But the essence of the Senate
proposal has been retained, in estab-
lishing EPA as the lead agency with
respect to aircraft noise and in not
relying solely on controls on noise
emissions from aircraft. Under the
compromise both a technological re-
sponse in the form of emission stand-
ards and a regulatory procedure in
the form of operational and other air-
port noise controls must be estab-
lished.
It is not the intention of the Con-
gress that the phrase "economic rea-
sonableness" continue to be inter-
preted as it has in the past under sec-
tion 611 of the Federal Aviation Act.
By recasting the control of aircraft
noise in a new regulatory framework,
Congress intends that the reasonable-
ness of the cost of any regulation or
standard be judged in relation to the
purposes of this act, which is to pro-
tect public health and welfare from
aircraft noise. Costs are to be judged
against that goal, not for their effect
on air commerce or particular air car-
riers.
The key element in this proposal is
protection of the public health and
welfare. The key element is not, as
some may believe, protection of com-
merce. The Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration's regulatory responsibility is
retained in order to assure technologi-
cal availability and protect safety.
However the FAA, following the lead
of EPA, will be required to promul-
gate regulations which shall assure
protection of public health and wel-
fare in airport environments even
where it is not possible to achieve nec-
essary noise reductions through the
application of specific emission con-
trols on engines and aircraft.
The amendment offered by Senator
BROOKE, requiring a study by the Sec-
retary of Transportation of means of
financing the retrofitting of existing
aircraft, is deleted by the House
amendment. However, the question of
cost and means of financing will be a
part of the study and recommenda-
tions on a retrofit program which the
-------
2332
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
Environmental Protection Agency is
required to conduct under section
7(a). The Congress expects that the
Department of Transportation, which
is conducting a study now en retrofit-
ting1 of existing aircraft and means of
financing such a program, will com-
plete its study in time for the EPA to
utilize the data, along with other
sources, as it prepares its recommen-
dations on retrofitting and the financ-
ing thereof.
I wish to point out that the deci-
sions of the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration in ac-
cepting, modifying, or rejecting the
proposals of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, or in promulgating
regulations or standards for the con-
trol of aircraft noise, are subject to
judicial review under section 16 of the
bill before us. In addition, under the
citizen suit provision of this bill—sec-
tion 12—any individual can bring suit
against the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration for fail-
ure to perform an act or duty which is
not discretionary with him. This in-
cludes the mandate to him to establish
standards for the control of aircraft
noise in accordance with specific
standards and policies under this act.
In such a case, the test of the Admin-
istrator's action is not whether the ac-
tion taken is arbitrary or capricious,
but whether it is consistent with the
express requirements of the act, such
as the protection of the public health
and welfare.
Mr. President, the House amend-
ment does not contain the provision
offered by Senator Cranston which
would require supersonic transports
landing at U.S. airports to meet the
noise emission standards which have
been established for subsonic aircraft.
This provision, although it was
adopted by a substantial rollcall vote
in the Senate, was not acceptable to
the House in the negotiations which
led to the passage of the House
amendment.
Members of the House insisted that
hearings had not been held on this
matter or on the provisions of the
Senate-passed bill forbidding flights
of civil aircraft over the U.S. at su-
personic speeds. In addition, it was
stated emphatically that acceptance of
these provisions would
[p. S18664]
disturb jurisdictional arrangements in
the House of Representatives. There-
fore, although the Senate strongly
urged the inclusion of these provisions
because of their importance to the
total program of controlling aircraft
noise, these provisions could not be of-
fered in or accepted by the House, and
the passage of noise control legisla-
tion would have been blocked.
We expect, however, that the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, in stud-
ying and proposing noise emission
standards for new aircraft and new
aircraft types, and the Federal Avia-
tion Administration in promulgating
and implementing such regulations,
will impose limits on noise emissions
on supersonic aircraft using U.S. air-
ports at least as stringent as are re-
quired of subsonic aircraft. It is my
expectation and the Senate's clear in-
tention that such standards be pro-
posed and implemented for supersonic
transports under the provisions of
this bill before such aircraft are in
commercial service. Such standards,
including proposed restrictions on use
of U.S. airports, should be recom-
mended in the study under section
7(a).
* * * Mi *
The Senate bill required the Admin-
istrator to publish criteria on the lev-
els of environmental noise at which
adverse effects of public health and
welfare can be avoided, with an ade-
quate margin of safety. The House
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2333
has adopted an amendment which re-
quires the Administrator to develop
and publish information identifying
such levels. Information on levels of
environmental noise at which adverse
effects occur will be of valuable as=,;si -
ance to the public and to F^'«.;ial i
State, and local regulatory agc7:"ies in !
determining the degree to wK:"h 5;oi°v '
in the environment needs to be re-
duced. It will be essential to the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and to
the Federal Aviation Administration
and to citizens who live in the vicinity
of the airports who are concerned
about the levels of environmental
noise. And it will be essential to those
who enforce regulatory programs as a
•leans to determine the success of
'heir regulatory programs.
[p. S18645]
-------
2334 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
1.11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT,
AS AMENDED
49 U.S.C. §1651 et seq. (1968)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857f-10b]
(See "General 1.5-1.5c(3)(d)" for text and legislative history.)
1.12 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
42 U.S.C. §4332(2) (c) (1970)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857h-7(a)]
(See "General 1.2-1.2a(4) (e)" for text and legislative history.)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2335
1.13 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, AS AMENDED
42 U.S.C. §§211, 243, 246 (1970)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857i(b)]
(See, "General 1.12a-1.12ae" for legislative history.)
SUBCHAPTER II.—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES
Part A.—Research and Investigations
§ 241. Research and investigations generally
The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Service, and encour-
age, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate
public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the con-
duct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investigations,
experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes,
diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and men-
tal diseases and impairments of man, including water purification,
sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and streams. In carrying
out the foregoing the Surgeon General is authorized to—
(a) Collect and make available through publications and other
appropriate means, information as to, and the practical applica-
tion of, such research and other activities;
(b) Make available research facilities of the Service to appro-
priate public authorities, and to health officials and scientists en-
gaged in special study;
(c) Establish and maintain research fellowships in the Service
with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and sub-
sistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to procure the assist-
ance of the most brilliant and promising research fellows from the
United States and abroad ;
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories,
and other public or private institutions, and to individuals for
such research or research training projects as are recommended
by the National Advisory Health Council, or, with respect to can-
cer, recommended by the National Advisory Cancer Council, or,
with respect to mental health, recommended by the National Advi-
sory Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases,
recommended by the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental diseases and conditions, recommended by the
National Advisory Dental Research Council; and include in the
grants for any such project grants of penicillin and other anti-
biotic compounds for use in such project; and make, upon recom-
mendation of the National Advisory Health Council, grants-in-aid
to public or nonprofit universities, hospitals, laboratories, and
other institutions for the general support of their research and
reseai'ch training programs: Provided, That such uniform per-
centage, not to exceed 15 per centum, as the Surgeon General may
determine, of the amounts provided for grants for research or
-------
2336 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
research training projects for any fiscal year through the appro-
priations for the National Institutes of Health may be transferred
from such appropriations to a separate account to be available for
such research and research training program grants-in-aid for
such fiscal year;
(e) Secure from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and con-
sultants from the United States or abroad;
(f) For purposes of study, admit and treat at institutions, hos-
pitals, and stations of the Service, persons not otherwise eligible
for such treatment;
(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and appropri-
ate public and other nonprofit institutions and organizations, tech-
nical advice and assistance on the application of statistical meth-
ods to experiments, studies, and surveys in health and medical
fields;
(h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and each of the eight succeeding fiscal years, including con-
tracts for research in accordance with and subject to the provi-
sions of law applicable to contracts entered into by the military
departments under sections 2353 and 2354 of Title 10, except that
determination, approval, and certification required thereby shall
be by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
(i) Adopt, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
Health Council, or, with respect to cancer, upon recommendation
of the National Advisory Cancer Council, or, with respect to men-
tal health, upon recommendation of the National Advisory Mental
Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases, upon recommen-
dation of the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with respect to
dental diseases and conditions, upon recommendations of the Na-
tional Advisory Dental Research Council, such additional means as
he deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of
this section.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 301, 58 Stat. 691; July 3, 1946, c.
538, § 7(a, b), 60 Stat. 423; June 16, 1948, c. 481, § 4(e, f), 62
Stat. 467; June 24, 1948, c. 621, § 4(e, f), 62 Stat. 601; June 25,
1948, c. 654, § 1, 62 Stat. 1017; July 3, 1956 c. 510,§ 4, 70 Stat.
490; Sept. 15, 1960, Pub.L. 86-798, 74 Stat. 1053; Oct. 17, 1962,
Pub.L. 87-838, § 2, 76 Stat. 1073; Aug. 9, 1965, Pub.L. 89-115, §
3, 79 Stat. 448; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub.L. 90-174, § 9, 81 Stat. 540; and
amended Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title II, § 292, 84 Stat.
1308.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY 2337
Part B.—Federal-State Cooperation
§ 243. General grant of authority for cooperation—Enforce-
ment of quarantine regulations; prevention of communicable
diseases
(a) The Secretary is authorized to accept from State and local
authorities any assistance in the enforcement of quarantine regu-
lations made pursuant to this chapter which such authorities may
be able and willing to provide. The Secretary shall also assist
States and their political subdivisions in the prevention and sup-
pression of communicable diseases, shall cooperate with and aid
State and local authorities in the enforcement of their quarantine
and other health regulations and in carrying out the purposes
specified in section 246 of this title, and shall advise the several
States on matters relating to the preservation and improvement of
the public health.
Comprehensive and continuing planning; training of
personnel for State and local health work
(b) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities be-
tween the States with respect to comprehensive and continuing
plnninag as to their current and future health needs, the establish-
ment and maintenance of adequate public services, and
otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 246 of this title.
The Secretary is also authorized to train personnel for State and
local health work.
Problems resulting from disasters; emergencies; reimbursement
of United States
(c) The Secretary may enter into agreements providing for
cooperative planning between Public Health Service medical facil-
ties and community health facilities to cope with health problems
resulting from disasters, and for participation by Public Health
Service medical facilities in carrying out such planning. He
may also, at the request of the appropriate State or local author-
ity, extend temporary (not in excess of forty-five days) assistance
to States or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a
nature as to warrant Federal assistance. The Secretary may re-
quire such reimbursement of the United States for aid (other than
planning) under the preceding sentences of this subsection as he
may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances. Any
reimbursement so paid shall be credited to the applicable appro-
priation of the Public Health Service for the year in which such
reimbursement is received.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 311, 58 Stat. 693; Nov. 3, 1966,
Pub.L. 89-749, § 5, 80 Stat. 1190; Dec. 5, 1967 Pub. L. 90-174, § 4,
-------
2338 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
81 Stat. 536; and amended Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title II,
§ 282, 84 Stat. 1308.
§ 246. Grants and services to States—Comprehensive health
planning and services
(a) (1) In order to assist the States in comprehensive and
continuing planning for their current and future health needs, the
Secretary is authorized during the period beginning July 1, 1966,
and ending June 30, 1973, to make grants to States which have
submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans for
comprehensive State health planning. For the purposes of carry-
ing out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be appro-
priated $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, $17,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1973.
(2) In order to be approved for purposes of this subsection, a
State plan for comprehensive State health planning must—
(A) designate, or provide for the establishment of, a single
State agency, which may be an interdepartmental agency, as
the sole agency for administering or supervising the adminis-
tration of the State's health planning functions under the
plan;
(B) provide for the establishment of a State health plan-
ning council, which shall include representatives of Federal,
State, and local agencies (including as an ex officio member,
if there is located in such State one or more hospitals or other
health care facilities of the Veterans' Administration, the in-
dividual whom the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall
have designated to serve on such council as the representative
of the hospitals or other health care facilities of such Admin-
istration which are located in such State) and nongovernmen-
tal organizations and groups concerned with health, (includ-
ing representation of the regional medical program or pro-
grams included in whole or in part within the State) and of
consumers of health services, to advise such State agency in
carrying out its functions under the plan, and a majority of
the membership of such council shall consist of representa-
tives of consumers of health services;
(C) set forth policies and procedures for the expenditure
of funds under the plan, which, in the judgment of the Secre-
tary are designed to provide for comprehensive State plan-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2339
ning for health services (both public and private) and includ-
ing home health care, including the facilities and persons
required for the provision of such services, to meet the health
needs of the people of the State and including environmental
considerations as they relate to public health;
(D) provide for encouraging cooperative efforts among
governmental or nongovernmental agencies, organizations
and groups concerned with health services, facilities, or man-
power, and for cooperative efforts between such agencies, or-
ganizations, and groups and similar agencies, organizations,
and groups in the fields of education, welfare, and rehabilita-
tion;
(E) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Secretary that the funds paid under this subsection will
be used to supplement and, to the extent practicable, to in-
crease the level of funds that would otherwise be made availa-
ble by the State for the purpose of comprehensive health
planning and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Secre-
tary shall exercise no authority with respect to the selection,
tenure of office, and compensation of any individual employed
in accordance with such methods) as are found by the Secre-
tary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of
the plan;
(G) provide that the State agency will make such reports, in
such form and containing such information, as the Secretary
may from time to time reasonably require, and will keep such
records and afford such access thereto as the Secretary finds
necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such
reports;
(H) provide that the State agency will from time to time,
but not less often than annually, review its State plan ap-
proved under this subsection and submit to the Secretary
appropriate modifications thereof;
(I) effective July 1, 1968, (i) provide for assisting each
health care facility in the State to develop a program for
capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and ex-
pansion which is consistent with an overall State plan devel-
oped in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary
after consultation with the State which will meet the needs of
the State for health care facilities, equipment, and services
without duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and
-------
2340 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
economical manner, and (ii) provide that the State agency
furnishing such assistance will periodically review the pro-
gram (developed pursuant to clause (i)) of each health care
facility in the State and recommend appropriate modification
thereof;
(J) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection; and
(K) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection.
(3) (A) From the sums appropriated for such purpose for each
fiscal year, the several States shall be entitled to allotments deter-
mined, in accordance with regulations, on the basis of the popula-
tion and the per capita income of the respective States; except
that no such allotment to any State for any fiscal year shall be less
than 1 per centum of the sum appropriated for such fiscal year
pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such allotment to a State for a
fiscal year shall remain available for obligation by the State, in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection and the State's
plan approved thereunder, until the close of the succeeding fiscal
year.
(B) The amount of any allotment to a State under subpara-
graph (A) for any fiscal year which the Secretary determines will
not be required by the State, during the period for which it is
available, for the purposes for which allotted shall be available for
reallotment by the Secretary from time to time, on such date or
dates as he may fix, to other States with respect to which such a
determination has not been made, in proportion to the original
allotments to such States under subparagraph (A) for such fiscal
year, but with such proportionate amount for any of such other
States being reduced to the extent it exceeds the sum the Secre-
tary estimates such State needs and will be able to use during such
period; and the total of such reductions shall be similarly reallot-
ted among the States whose proportionate amounts were not so
reduced. Any amount so reallotted to a State from funds appropri-
ated pursuant to this subsection for a fiscal year shall be deemed
part of its allotment under subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year.
(4) From each State's allotment for a fiscal year under this
subsection, the State shall from time to time be paid the Federal
share of the expenditures incurred during that year or the suc-
ceeding year pursuant to its State plan approved under this
subsection. Such payments shall be made on the basis of estimates
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2341
by the Secretary of the sums the State will need in order to
perform the planning under its approved State plan under this
subsection, but with such adjustments as may be necessary to take
account of previously made underpayments or overpayments. The
"Federal share" for any State for purposes of this subsection shall
be all, or such part as the Secretary may determine, of the cost of
such planning, except that in the case of the allotments for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, it shall not exceed 75 per centum
of such cost.
Project grants for areawide health planning; authorization of appropriations;
prerequisite for grants; application; contents
(b) (1) (A) The Secretary is authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1973, to make, with
the approval of the State agency administering or supervising the
administration of the State plan approved under subsection (a) of
this section, project grants to any other public or nonprofit private
agency or organization (but with appropriate representation of
the interests of local government where the recipient of the grant
is not a local government or combination thereof on an agency of
such government or combination) to cover not to exceed 75 per
centum of the cost of projects for developing (and from time to
time revising) comprehensive regional, metropolitan area, or
other local area plans for coordination of existing and planned
health services, including the facilities and persons required for
provision of such services; and including the provision of such
services through home health care except that in the case of pro-
ject grants made in any State prior to July 1, 1968, approval of
such State agency shall be required only if such State has such a
State plan in effect at the time of such grants. No grant may be
made under this subsection after June 30, 1970, to any agency or
organization to develop or revise health plans for an area unless
the Secretary determines that such agency or organization pro-
vides means for appropriate representation of the interests of the
hospitals, other health care facilities, and practicing physicians
serving such area, and the general public. For the purposes of
carrying out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1968, $10,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1971, $30,000,00 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
(B) Project grants may be made by the Secretary under sub-
-------
2342 LEGAL COMPILATION—Are
paragraph (A) to the State agency administering or supervising
the administration of the State plan approved under subsection
(a) of this section with respect to a particular region or area, but
only if (i) no application for such a grant with respect to such
region or area has been filed by any other agency or organization
qualified to receive such a grant, and (ii) such State agency certi-
fies, and the Secretary finds, that ample opportunity has been
afforded to qualified agencies and organizations to file application
for such a grant with respect to such region or area and that it is
improbable that, in the foreseeable future, any agency or organi-
zation which is qualified for such a grant will file application
therefor.
(2) (A) In order to be approved under this subsection, an
application for a grant under this subsection must contain or be
supported by reasonable assurances that there has been or will be
established, in or for the area with respect to which such grant is
sought, an areawide health planning council. The membersip of
such council shall include representatives of public, voluntary, and
nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations con-
cerned with health (including representatives of the interests of
local government, of the regional medical program for such area,
and of consumers of health services). A majority of the members
of such council shall consist of representatives of consumers of
health services.
(B) In addition, an application for a grant under this subsec-
tion must contain or be supported by reasonable assurances that
the areawide health planning agency has made provision for as-
sisting health care facilities in its area to develop a program for
capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and expan-
sion which is consistent with an overall State plan which will meet
the needs of the State and the area for health care facilities,
equipment, and services without duplication and otherwise in the
most efficient and economical manner.
Project grants for training, studies, and demonstrations;
authorization of appropriations
(c) The Secretary is also authorized, during the period begin-
ning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1973, to make grants to any
public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or other organiza-
tion to cover all or any part of the cost of projects for training,
studies, or demonstrations looking toward the development of im-
proved or more effective comprehensive health planning through-
out the Nation. For the purposes of carrying out this subsection,
there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY 2343
fiscal year ending June 30,1967, $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969,
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $8,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, and $12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973.
Grants for comprehensive public health services; authorization, of appropria-
tions; State plans; allotments; payments to States; Federal share;
allocation of funds
(d) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated $70,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, $130,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $145,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$165,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1973, to enable the
Secretary to make grants to State health or mental health authori-
ties to assist the States in establishing and maintaining adequate
public health services, including the training of personnel for
State and local health work. The sums so appropriated shall be
used for making payments to States which have submitted, and
had approved by the Secretary, State plans for provision of public
health services, except that, for any fiscal year ending after June
30, 1968, such portion of such sums as the Secretary may deter-
mine, but no exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available to
the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or contracts)
of the program authorized by this subsection and the amount
available for allotments hereunder shall be reduced accordingly.
(2) In order to be approved under this subsection, a State plan
for provision of public health services must—
(A) provide for administration or supervision of adminis-
tration by the State health authority or, with respect to men-
tal health services, the State mental health authority;
(B) set forth the policies and procedures to be followed in
the expenditure of the funds paid under this subsection;
(C) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Secretary that (i) the funds paid to the State under this
subsection will be used to make a significant contribution
toward providing and strengthening public health services in
the various political subdivisions in order to improve the
health of the people; (ii) such funds will be made available to
other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and
organizations, in accordance with criteria which the Seere-
tary determines are designed to secure maximum participa-
tion of local, regional, or metropolitan agencies and groups in
-------
2344 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
the provision of such services; (iii) such funds will be used to
supplement and, to the extent practical, to increase the level
of funds that would otherwise be made available for the pur-
poses for which the Federal funds are provided and not to
supplant such non-Federal funds; and (iv) the plan is com-
patible with the total health program of the State;
(D) provide for the furnishing of public health services
under the State plan in accordance with such plans as have
been developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section;
(E) provide that public health services furnished under the
plan will be in accordance with standards prescribed by regu-
lations, including standards prescribed by regulations, includ-
ing standards as to the scope and quality of such services;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Secre-
tary shall exercise no authority with respect to the selection,
tenure of office, and compensation of any individual employed
in accordance with such methods) as are found by the Secre-
tary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of
the plan;
(G) provide that the State health authority or, with res-
pect to mental health services, the State mental health author-
ity, will from time to time, but not less often than annually,
review and evaluate its State plan approved under this sub-
section and submit to the Secretary appropriate modifications
thereof;
(H) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health author-
ity, will make such reports, in such form and containing such
information, as the Secretary may from time to time reasona-
bly require, and will keep such records and afford such access
thereto as the Secretary finds necessary to assure the correct-
ness and verification of such reports;
(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure the proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection;
(J) contain such additional information and assurances as
the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection;
(K) provide for services for the prevention and treatment
of drug abuse and drug dependence, commensurate with the
extent of the problem; and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2345
(L) provide for service for the prevention and treatment
of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, commensurate with the
extent of the problem.
(3) From the sums appropriated to carry out the provi-
sions of this subsection the several States shall be entitled for each
fiscal year to allotments determined, in accordance with regula-
tions, on the basis of the population and financial need of the
respective States, except that no State's allotment shall be less for
any year than the total amounts allotted to such State under
formula grants for cancer control, plus other allotments under this
section, for the fiscal year ending June 30,1967.
(4) (A) From each State's allotment under this subsection for
a fiscal year, the State shall be paid the Federal share of the
expenditures incurred during such year under its State plan ap-
proved under this subsection. Such payments shall be made from
time to time in advance on the basis of estimates by the Secretary
of the sums the State plan, except that such adjustments as may
be necessary shall be made on account of previously made under-
payments or overpayments under this subsection.
(B) For the purpose of determining the Federal share for
any State, expenditures by nonprofit private agencies, organi-
zations, and groups shall, subject to such limitations and con-
ditions as may be prescribed by regulations, be regarded as
expenditures by such State or a political subdivision thereof.
(5) The "Federal share" for any State for purposes of this
subsection shall be 100 per centum less that percentage which
bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the per capita
income of such State bears to the per capital income of the
United States; except that in no case shall such percentage be
less than 331/3 per centum or more than 66% per centum, and
except that the Federal share for the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands shall be 66% per
centum.
(6) The Federal shares shall be determined by the Secretary
between July 1 and September 1 of each year, on the basis of the
average per capita incomes of each of the States and of the "United
States for the most recent year for which satisfactory data are
available from the Department of Commerce, and such deter-
mination shall be conclusive for the fiscal year beginning on
next July 1. The populations of the several States shall be deter-
mined on the basis of the latest figures for the population of the
several States available from the Department of Commerce.
(7) At least 15 per centum of a State's allotment under this
-------
2346 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
subsection shall be available only to the State mental health au-
thority for the provision under the State plan of mental health
services. Effective with respect to allotments under this subsection
for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1968, at least 70 per centum
of such amount reserved for mental health services and at least 70
per centum of the remainder of a State's allotment under this
subsection shall be available only for the provision under the State
plan of services in communities of the State.
Project grants for health services and related training; authorization of
appropriations; review of application by appropriate areawide health
planning agency
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, $109,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$135,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$157,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, for grants to
any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization
to cover part of the cost (including equity requirements and amor-
tization of loans on facilities acquired from the Office of Economic
Opportunity or construction in connection with any program or
project transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity) of
(1) providing services (including related training) to meet health
needs of limited geographic scope or of specialized regional or
national significance, or (2) developing and supporting for an
initial period new programs of health services (including related
training). Any grant made under this subsection may be made
only if the application for such grant has been referred for review
and comment to the appropriate areawide health planning agency
or agencies (or, if there is no such agency in the area, then to such
other public or nonprofit private agency or organization (if any)
which performs similar functions) and only if the services as-
sisted under such grant will be provided in accordance with such
plans as have been developed pursuant to subsection (a) of tnis
section.
Repeal
Subsec. (f) of this section repealed (less applicability
to commissioned officers of the Public Health Service)
by Pub.L. 91-648, Title IV, §§ 403, 404, Jan. 5, 1971, 84
Stat. 1925, effective sixty days after Jan. 5,1971.
Interchange of personnel with States
(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State"
means a State or a political subdivision of a State or any agency
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2347
of either of the foregoing engaged in any activities related to
health or designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section; the term
"Secretary" means (except when used in paragraph (3) (D) the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the term
"Department" means the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(2) The Secretary is authorized, through agreements or other-
wise, to arrange for assignment to States of officers and employees
of the States to the Department and assignment to States of officers
and employees in the Department engaged in work related to
health, for work which the Secretary determines will aid the De-
partment in more effective discharge of its responsibilities in the
field of health as authorized by law, including cooperation with
States and the provision of technical or other assistance. The period
of assignment of any officer or employee under an arrangement
shall not exceed two years.
(3) (A) Officers and employees in the Department assigned to
any State pursuant to this subsection shall be considered, during
such assignment, to be (i) on detail to a regular work assignment
in the Department, or (ii) on leave without pay from their posi-
tions in the Department.
(B) Persons considered to be so detailed shall remain as officers
or employees, as the case may be, in the Department for all pur-
poses, except that the supervision of their duties during the period
of detail may be governed by agreement between the Department
and the State involved.
(C) In the case of persons so assigned and on leave without pay—
(i) if the rate of compensation (including allowances) for
their employment by the State is less than the rate of compen-
sation (including allowances) they would be receiving had
they continued in their regular assignment in the Depart-
ment, they may receive supplemental salary payments from
the Department in the amount considered by the Secretary to
be justified, but not at a rate in excess of the difference
between the State rate and the Department rate; and
(ii) they may be granted annual leave and sick leave to the
extent authorized by law, but only in circumstances consid-
ered by the Secretary to justify approval of such leave.
Such officers and employees on leave without pay shall, notwith-
standing any other provision of law, be entitled—
(iii) to continuation of their insurance under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, and coverage
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, so
-------
2348 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
long as the Department continues to collect the employee's
contribution from the officer or employee involved and to
transmit for timely deposit into the funds created under such
Acts the amount of the employee's contributions and the Gov-
ernment's contribution from appropriations of the Depart-
ment ; and
(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned officers of the Service,
to have their service during their assignment treated as pro-
vided in section 215 (d) of this title for such officers on leave
without pay, or (II) in the case of other officers and employ-
ees in the Department, to credit the period of their assign-
ment under the arrangement under this subsection toward per-
iodic or longevity step increases and for retention and leave
accrual purposes, and, upon payment into the civil service
retirement and disability fund of the percentage of their
State salary, and of their supplemental salary payments, if
any, which would have been deducted from a like Federal
salary for the period of such assignment and payment by the
Secretary into such fund of the amount which would have
been payable by him during the period of such assignment
with respect to a like Federal salary, to treat (notwithstan-
ding the provisions of the Independent Offices Appropriation
Act, 1959, under the head "Civil Service Retirement and Dis-
ability Fund") their service during such period, as service
within the meaning of the Civil Service Retirement Act;
except that no officer or employee or his beneficiary may receive
any benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, or the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, based on service during an
assignment hereunder for which the officer or employee or (if he
dies without making such election) his beneficiary elects to receive
benefits, under any State retirement or insurance law or program,
which the Civil Service Commission determines to be similar. The
Department shall deposit currently in the funds created under the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, the Federal
Employees Health Benfits Act of 1959, and the civil service retire-
ment and disability fund, respectively, the amount of the Govern-
ment's contribution under these Acts on account of service with
respect to which employee contributions are collected as provided
in subparagraph (iii) and the amount of the Government's contri-
bution under the Civil Service Retirement Act on account of serv-
ice with respect to which payments (of the amount which would
have been deducted under that Act) referred to in subparagraph
(iv) are made to such civil service retirement and disability fund.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2349
(D) Any such officer or employee on leave without pay (other
than a commissiond officer of the Service) who suffers disability
or death as a result of personal injury sustained while in the
performance of his duty during an assignment hereunder, shall be
treated, for the purposes of the ederal Employees' Compensation
Act, as though he were an employee, as defined in such Act, who
had sustained such injury in the performance of duty . When such
person (or his dependents, in case of death) entitled by reason of
injury or death to benefits under that Act is also entitled to bene-
fits from a State for the same injury or death, he (or his depend-
ents in case of death) shall elect which benefits he will receive.
Such election shall be made within one year after the injury or
death, or such further time as the Secretary of Labor may for
good cause allow, and when made shall be irrevocable unless other-
wise provided by law.
(4) Assignment of any officer or employee in the Department to
a State under this subsection may be made with or without reim-
bursement by the State for the compensation (or supplementary
compensation), travel and transportation expenses (to or from
the place of assignment), and allowances, or any part thereof, of
such officer or employee during the period of assignment, and any
such reimbursement shall be credited to the appropriation utilized
for paying such compensation, travel or transportation expenses,
or allowances.
(5) Appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations
or, with respect to commissioned officers of the Service, the joint
travel regulations, for the expenses of travel of officers and em-
ployees assigned to States under an arrangement under this
subsection on either a detail or leave-without-pay basis and, in
accordance with applicable law, orders, and regulations, for ex-
penses of transportation of their immediate families and expenses
of transportation of their household goods and personal effects, in
connection with the travel of such officers and employees to the
location of their posts of assignment and their return to their
official stations.
(6) Officers and employees of States who are assigned to the
Department under an arrangement under this subsection may (A)
be given appointments in the Department covering the periods of
such assignments, or (B) be considered to be on detail to the
Department. Appointments of persons so assigned may be made
without regard to the civil service laws. Persons so appointed in
the Department shall be paid at rates of compensation determined
in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, and shall not be
-------
2350 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
considered to be officers or employees of the Department for the
purposes of (A) the Civil Service Retirement Act, (B) the Fed-
eral Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, or (C) unless
their appointments result in the loss of coverage in a group health
benefits plan whose premium has been paid in whole or in part by
a State contribution, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
of 1959. State officers and employees who are assigned to the
Department without appointment shall not be considered to be
officers or employees of the Department, except as provided in
subsection (7), nor shall they be paid a salary or wage by the
Department during the period of their assignment. The supervi-
sion of the duties of such persons during the assignment may be
governed by agreement between the Secretary and the State in-
volved.
(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who is assigned to the
Department without appointment shall nevertheless be subject to
the provisions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209, of Title 18.
(B) Any State officer or employee who is given an appointment
while assigned to the Department, or who is assigned to the De-
partment without appointment, under an arrangement under this
subsection, and who suffers disability or death as a result of per-
sonal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty during
such assignment shall be treated, for the purpose of the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act, as through he were an employee,
as denned in such Act, who had sustained such injury in the
performance of duty. When such person (or his dependents, in
case of death) entitled by reason of injury or death to bene-
fits under that Act is also entitled to benefits from a State for the
same injury or death, he (or his dependents, in case of death)
shall elect which benefits he will receive. Such election shall be
made within one year after the injury or death, or such further
time as the Secretary of Labor may for good cause allow, and
when made shall be irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.
(8) The appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations,
during the period of assignment and in the case of travel to and
from their places of assignment or appointment, for the payment
of expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or given appoint-
ments by, the Department under an arrangement under this
subsection.
(9) All arrangements under this subsection for assignment of
officers or employees in the Department to States or for assign-
ment of officers or employees of States to the Department shall be
made in accordance with regulations of the Secretary.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2351
Consultation with State authorities; failure to comply with
statute or rules and regulations; definitions
(g) (1) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to
grants to States under subsection (a) of this section shall be made
after consultation with a conference of the State health planning
agencies designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section. All regulations
and amendments thereto with respect to grants to States under
subsection (d) of this section shall be made after consultation
with a conference of State health authorities and, in the case of
regulations and amendments which relate to or in any way affect
grants for services or other activities in the field of mental health,
the State mental health authorities. Insofar as practicable, the
Secretary shall obtain the agreement, prior to the issuance of such
regulations or amendments, of the State authorities or agencies
with whom such consultation is required.
(2) The Secretary, at the request of any recipient of a grant
under this section, may reduce the payments to such recipient by
the fair market value of any equipment or supplies furnished to
such recipient and by the amount of the pay, allowances, traveling
expenses, and any other costs in connection with the detail of an
officer or employee to the recipient when such furnishing or such
detail, as the case may be, is for the convenience of and at the
request of such recipient and for the purpose of carrying out the
State plan or the project with respect to which the grant under
this section is made. The amount by which such payments are so
reduced shall be available for payment of such costs (including the
costs of such equipment and supplies) by the Secretary, but shall,
for purposes of determining the Federal share under subsection
(a) or (d) of this section, be deemed to have been paid to the
State.
(3) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and oppor-
tunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appropriate,
the mental health authority of a State or a State health planning
agency designated or established pursuant to subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section, finds that,
with respect to money paid to the State out of appropriations
under subsection (a) or (d) of this section, there is a failure to
comply substantially with either—
(A) the applicable provisions of this section;
(B) the State plan submitted under such subsection; or
(C) applicable regulations under this section;
the Secretary shall notify such State health authority, mental
health authority, or health planning agency, as the case may be,
-------
2352 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
that further payments will not be made to the State from appro-
priations under such subsection (or in his discretion that further
payments will not be made to the State from such appropriations
for activities in which there is such failure), until he is satisfied
that there will no longer be such failure. Until he is so satisfied,
the Secretary shall make no payment to such State from appropri-
ations under such subsection, or shall limit payment to activities
in which there is no such failure.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(A) The term "nonprofit" as applied to any private agency,
institution, or organization means one which is a corporation
or association, or is owned and operated by one or more
corporations or associations, no part of the net earnings of
which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual; and
(B) The term "State" includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust of Territory
of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia and the term "United States" means the fifty States
and the District of Columbia.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 314, 58 Stat. 693; July 3, 1946, c.
538, § 9, 60 Stat. 424; June 16, 1948, c. 481, § 5, 62 Stat. 468; 1953
Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§ 5, 8, eft Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67
Stat. 631; Aug. 1, 1956, c. 852, § 18, 70 Stat. 910; July 22, 1958,
Pub.L. 85-544, § 1, 72 Stat. 400; Oct. 5, 1961, Pub.L. 87-395, §
2(a)-(d), 75 Stat. 824; Sept. 25, 1962, Pub.L. 87-688, § 4(a) (1),
76 Stat. 587; Aug. 5, 1965, Pub.L. 89-109, § 4, 79 Stat. 436; Nov.
3, 1966, Pub.L. 89-749, § 3, 80 Stat. 1181; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub.L.
90-174, §§ 2(a)-(f), 3(b) (2), 8(a), (b), 12(d), 81 Stat.
533-535, 540, 541.
As amended June 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-296, Title I, § 111 (b), Title
IV, § 401(b) (1) (C), (D), 84 Stat. 340, 352, Oct. 27, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-513, Title I, § 3(b), 84 Stat. 1241; Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L.
91-515, Title II, §§ 220, 230, 240, 250, 260(a), (b), (c) (1), 282,
84 Stat. 1304-1306, 1308; and amended Dec. 31, 1970, Pub.L.
91-616, Title III, § 331, 84 Stat. 1853.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2353
1.14 THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, AS AMENDED
40 U.S.C. §§276a—276a-5 (1964)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3]
(See "General 1.13-1.13h" for legislative history.)
§ 276a. Rate of wages for laborers and mechanics
(a) The advertised specifications for every contract in excess of
$2,000, to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a
party, for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including paint-
ing and decorating, of public buildings of public works of the
United States or the District of Columbia within the geographical
limits of the States of the Union, or the District of Columbia, and
which requires or involves the employment of mechanics and/or
laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to
be paid various classes of laborers and mechanics which shall be
based upon the wages that will be determined by the Secretary of
Labor to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers
and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the
contract work in the city, town, village, or other civil subdivision
of the State, in which the work is to be performed, or in the
District of Columbia if the work is to be performed there; and
every contract based upon these specifications shall contain a stip-
ulation that the contractor or his subcontractor shall pay all me-
chanics and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work,
unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without
subsequent deduction or rebate on any account, the full amounts
accrued at time of payment, computed at wage rates not less than
those stated in the advertised specifications, regardless of any
contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the
contractor or subcontractor and such laborers and mechanics, and
that the scale of wages to be paid shall be posted by the contractor
in a prominent and easily accessible place at the site of the work;
and the further stipulation that there may be withheld from the
contractor so much of accrued payments as may be considered
necessary by the contracting officer to pay to laborers and mechan-
ics employed by the contractor or any subcontractor on the work
the difference between the rates of wages required by the contract
to be paid laborers and mechanics on the work and the rates of
wages received by such laborers and mechanics and not refunded
to the contractor, subcontractors, or their agents.
(b) As used in sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title the term
"wages", "scale of wages", "wage rates", "minimum wages", and
"prevailing wages" shall include—
(1) the basic hourly rate of pay; and
(2) the amount of—
(A) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a
-------
2354 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third
person pursuant to a fund, plan, or program; and
(B) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontrac-
tor which may be reasonably anticipated in providing
benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an ©nfor-
cible commitment to carry out a financially responsible
plan or program which was communicated in writing to
the laborers and mechanics affected,
for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death,
compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupa-
tional activity, or insurance to provide any of the foregoing,
for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and sick-
ness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and holi-
day pay, for defraying costs of apprenticeship or other simi-
lar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but only
where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by
other Federal, State, or local law to provide any of such
benefits:
Provided, That the obligation of a contractor or subcontractor to
make payment in accordance with the prevailing wage determina-
tions of the Secretary of Labor, insofar as sections 276a to 276a
—5 of this title and other Acts incorporating sections 276a to 276a
—5 of this title by reference are concerned may be discharged by
the making of paym 3nts in cash, by the making of contributions of
a type referred to in paragraph (2) (A), or by the assumption of
an enforcible commitment to bear the costs of a plan or program
of a type referred to in paragraph (2) (B), or any combination
thereof, where the aggregate of any such payments, contributions,
and costs is not less than the rate of pay described in paragraph
(1) plus the amount referred to in paragraph (2).
In determining the overtime pay to which the laborer or me-
chanic is entitled under any Federal law, his regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or other alternative rate upon which premi-
um rate of overtime compensation is computed) shall be deemed
to be the rate computed under paragraph (1), except that where
the amount of payments, contributions, or costs incurred with
respect to him exceeds the prevailing wage applicable to him
under sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title, such regular or basic
hourly rate of pay (or such other alternative rate) shall be ar-
rived at by deducting from the amount of payments, contributions,
or costs actually incurred with respect to him, the amount of con-
tributions or costs of the types described in paragraph (2)
actually incurred with respect to him, or the amount determined
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2355
under paragraph (2) but not actually paid, whichever amount is
the greater.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 1, 46 Stat. 1494; Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49
Stat. 1011; June 15, 1940, c. 373, § 1, 54 Stat. 399; July 12, 1960,
Pub.L. 86-624, § 26, 74 Stat. 418; July 2,1964, Pub.L. 88-349, § 1,
78 Stat. 238.
§ 276a—1. Termination of work on failure to pay agreed wages;
completion of work by Government
Every contract within the scope of sections 276a to 276a—5 of
this title shall contain the further provision that in the event it is
found by the contracting officer that any laborer or mechanic
employed by the contractor or any subcontractor directly on the
site of the work covered by the contract has been or is being paid
a rate of wages less than the rate of wages required by the con-
tract to be paid as aforesaid, the Government may, by written
notice to the contractor, terminate his right to proceed with the
work or such part of the work as to which there has been a failure
to pay said required wages and to prosecute the work to comple-
tion by contract or otherwise, and the contractor and his sureties
shall be liable to the Government for any excess costs occasioned
the Government thereby.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 2, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—2. Payment of wages by Comptroller General from
withheld payments; listing contractors violating1 contracts
(a) The Comptroller General of the United States is authorized
and directed to pay directly to laborers and mechanics from any
accrued payments withheld under the terms of the contract any
wages found to be due laborers and mechanics pursuant to sec-
tions 276a to 276a—5 of this title; and the Comptroller General of
the United States is further authorized and is directed to distrib-
ute a list to all departments of the Government giving the names
of persons or firms whom he has found to have disregarded their
obligations to employees and subcontractors. No contract shall be
awarded to the persons or firms appearing on this list or to any
firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such per-
sons or firms have an interest until three years have elapsed from
the date of publication of the list containing the names of such
persons or firms.
(b) If the accrued payments withheld under the terms of the
contract, as aforesaid, are insufficient to reimburse all the laborers
and mechanics, with respect to whom there has been a failure to
pay the wages required pursuant to sections 276a to 276a—5 of
-------
2356 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
this title, such laborers and mechanics shall have the right of
action and/or intervention against the contractor and his sureties
conferred by law upon persons furnishing labor or materials, and
in such proceedings it shall be no defense that such laborers and
mechanics accepted or agreed to accept less than the required rate
of wages or voluntarily made refunds.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 3, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—3. Effect on other Federal laws
Section 276a to 276a—5 of this title shall not be construed to
supersede or impair any authority otherwise granted by Fed-
eral law to provide for the establishment of specific wage rates.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 4, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—4. Effective date of section 276a to 276a—5
Sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title shall take effect thirty
days after August 30, 1935, but shall not affect any contract then
existing or any contract that may thereafter be entered into pur-
suant to invitations for bids that are outstanding on August 30,
1935.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 5, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
§ 276a—5. Suspension of sections 276a to 276a—5 during emer-
gency
In the event of a national emergency the President is authorized
to suspend the provisions of sections 276a to 276a—5 of this title.
Mar. 3, 1931, c. 411, § 6, as added Aug. 30, 1935, c. 825, 49 Stat.
1011.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2357
1.15 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 14 OF 1950
64 Stat. 1267 (1950)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3]
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 14 OF 1950
Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the
House of Representatives in Congress assembled, March 13, 1950,
pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949,
approved June 20,1949.
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
In order to assure coordination of administration and consist-
ency of enforcement of the labor standards provisions of each of
the following Acts by the Federal agencies responsible for the
administration thereof, the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe ap-
propriate standards, regulations, and procedures, which shall be
observed by these agencies, and cause to be made by the Depart-
ment of Labor such investigations, with respect to compliance
with and enforcement of such labor standards, as he deems desira-
ble, namely: (a) The Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1494, eh.
411), as amended; (b) the Act of June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948, ch.
482) ; (c) the Act of August 1, 1892 (27 Stat. 340, ch. 352), as
amended; (d) the Act of June 19, 1912 (37 Stat. 137, ch. 174), as
amended; (e) the Act of June 3, 1939 (53 Stat. 804, ch. 175), as
amended; (f) the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1040, ch. 958) ;
(g) the Act of May 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 170, ch. 251), as amended;
and (h) the Act of July 15, 1949, ch. 338, Public Law 171, 81st
Congress, First Session.
1.16 REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS AS AMENDED
40 U.S.C. §276c (1958)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §1857j-3]
REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONTRACTORS
AND SUBCONTRACTORS
The Secretary of Labor shall make reasonable regulations for
contractors and subcontractors engaged in the construction, prose-
cution, completion or repair of public buildings, public works or
buildings or works financed in whole or in part by loans or grants
from the United States, including a provision that each contractor
-------
2358 LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
and subcontractor shall furnish weekly a statement with respect
to the wages paid each employee during the preceding week. Sec-
tion 1001 of Title 18 shall apply to such statements.
June 13, 1934, c. 482, § 2, 48 Stat. 948; May 24, 1949, c. 139, §
134, 63 Stat. 108; Aug. 28, 1958, Pub.L. 85-800, § 12, 72 Stat.
967.
1.16a SECRETARIES OF TREASURY AND LABOR SHALL
MAKE REGULATIONS FOR CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS
June 13,1934, P.L. 73-324, §2, 48 Stat 948
SEC. 2. To aid in the enforcement of the above section, the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior jointly
shall make reasonable regulations for contractors or subcontrac-
tors on any such building or work, including a provison that each
contractor and subcontractor shall furnish weekly a sworn affida-
vit with respect to the wages paid each employee during the pre-
ceding week.
Approved, June 13,1934.
[p. 948]
1.16a(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 803, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934)
TO PREVENT EVASION OF CERTAIN STATUTES
CONCERNING RATES OF PAY FOR LABOR
APPIL 17 (calendar day, APRIL 23), 1934.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STEPHENS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted.
the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3041]
The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under considera-
tion the bill (S. 3041) to effectuate the purpose of certain statutes
concerning rates of pay for labor, by making it unlawful to pre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2359
vent anyone from receiving the compensation contracted for
thereunder and for other purposes, reports the same favorably to
the committee and recommends that the bill do pass, with the
following amendments :
On page 2, line 2, immediately after the sign "Sj>", insert the
figures "5,000".
On page 2, line 2, immediately after the words "or imprisoned
not more than", insert the word "five".
On page 2, line 5, immediately after the word "Treasury", in-
sert the words "and the Secretary of the Interior jointly".
Hearings of the Senate Committee on Racketeering revealed
that large sums of money have been extracted from the pockets of
American labor, to enrich contractors, subcontractors, and their
officials. In the language of one of the great leaders of labor :
It has been a common practice for contractors constructing Federal build-
ings to pay the employees the prevailing rate as determined by the Secretary
of Labor and then have them return a certain amount to the contractor. That
is a most vicious practice.
The purpose of the last amendment above set out is to make the
legislation apply to P.W.A. grants.
1.16a(2) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 1750, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934)
TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF CERTAIN STATUTES
CONCERNING RATES OF PAY FOR LABOR, BY MAKING
IT UNLAWFUL TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM RECEIV-
ING THE COMPENSATION CONTRACTED FOR THERE-
UNDER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
MAY 23,1934.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. SUMNERS of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3041]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(S. 3041) to effectuate the purpose of certain statutes concerning
-------
2360 LEGAL COMPILATION — AIR
rates of pay for labor, by making it unlawful to prevent anyone
from receiving the compensation contracted for thereunder, and
for other purposes, after consideration, report the same favorably
to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass.
This bill is aimed at the suppression of the so-called "kick-back
racket" by which a contractor on a Government project pays his
laborers wages at the rate the Government requires him to pay
them, but thereafter forces them to give back to him a part of the
wages they have received. The maximum penalty prescribed for
violation of the bill which prohibits this practice is a fine of $5,000
or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.
The Administrator of Public Works has urged the passage of
this proposed legislation in the following letter to the Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary :
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, May 8, 19S^.
Hon. H. W. SUMNERS,
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR JUDGE SUMNERS : It has come to my attention that bill S. 3041 has
passed the Senate and is now under consideration by your committee. This bill
makes a misdemeanor the inducing1, by any manner whatsoever, of a "kick-
back" from wages received pursuant to a contract of employment on any
project financed in whole or in part with Federal funds.
I wish to impress you with the urgent need of the legislation to prevent a
very prevalent evil in the construction industry which, to the extent that it
exists on Public Works projects, defeats the purpose of title II of the National
Industrial Recovery Act and the success of our Public Works program.
Sincerely yours,
HAROLD L. ICKES, Administrator.
1.16a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 78 (1934)
1.16a(3)(a) April 26: Passed Senate, p. 7401
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.16a(3)(b) June 7: Passed House, p. 10759
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
1.16b AMENDMENTS TO ACT OF JUNE 13, 1934
May 24, 1949, P.L. 81-72, §134, 63 Stat 108
SEC. 134. Section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (chapter 482, 48
Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C., § 276c) is amended to read as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2361
"The Secretary of Labor shall make reasonable regulations for
contractors and subcontractors engaged in the construction, prose-
cution, completion or repair of public buildings, public works or
buildings or works financed in whole or in part by loans or grants
from the United States, including a provision that each contractor
and subcontractor shall furnish weekly a sworn affidavit with
respect to the wages paid each employee during the preceding
week."
[p. 108]
1.16b(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
H.R. REP. No. 352, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949)
AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18 AND TITLE 28, UNITED
STATES CODE
MARCH 30, 1949.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. BRYSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 3762]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 3762) to amend title 18, entitled "Crimes and Criminal
Procedure," and title 28, entitled "Judiciary and Judicial Proce-
dure," of the United States Code, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
The bill incorporates in titles 18 and 28 of the United States
Code, legislation which was enacted in the latter part of the second
session of the Eightieth Congress, either just before or subsequent
to the enactment of the revison of those titles on June 25, 1948. It
corrects typographical and other minor errors, and clarifies the
language of some sections to conform more closely to the original
law, or to remove ambiguities which have been discovered. The bill
-------
2362 LEGAL COMPILATION—Ant
also substitutes corrected phraseology in sections relating to the
armed forces to conform to the reorganization of such forces;
makes changes of nomenclature in other titles of the code to con-
form to new title 28; amends the section prescribing procedure for
the removal of cases from State courts so as to make it fit the
diverse procedural laws of the various States; and repeals incon-
sistent and superseded laws.
[p-l]
SECTION 134 OF BILL
This section restates section 2 of the 1934 kick-back statute to
eliminate reference to section 1 of that act which is now section
874 of title 18, U. S. C., and to conform to Reorganization Plan
No. IV, § 9, eff., June 30, 1940 (5 F. R. 2421, 54 Stat. 1236).
[p. 21]
1.16b(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
S. REP. No. 303, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949)
AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18 AND TITLE 28, UNITED
STATES CODE
APRIL 26 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1949.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. O'CONOR, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 3762]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H. R. 3762) to amend title 18, entitled, "Crimes and Criminal
Procedure," and title 28, entitled, "Judiciary and Judicial Proce-
dure," of the United States Code, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon, with amendments,
and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2363
PURPOSE
The purpose of the bill can be shown by quoting the following
excerpts from the House report on this bill, as follows:
The bill incorporates in titles 18 and 28 of the United States
Code, legislation which was enacted in the latter part of the second
session of the Eightieth Congress, either just before or subsequent
to the enactment of the revision of those titles on June 25, 1948. It
corrects typographical and other minor errors, and clarifies the
language of some sections to conform more closely to the original
law, or to remove ambiguities which have been discovered. The bill
also substitutes corrected phraseology in sections relating to the
armed forces to conform to the reorganization of such forces;
makes changes of nomenclature in other titles of the code to con-
form to new title 28; amends the section prescribing procedure for
the removal of cases from State courts so as to make it fit the
diverse procedural laws of the various States; and repeals incon-
sistent and superseded laws.
-------
2364
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.16b(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 95 (1949)
1.16b(3)(a) April 4: Passed House, pp. 3819-3820
SEC. 134. Section 2 of the act of June 13,
1934 (ch. 482, 48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C., sec.
276 (c) is amended to read as follows:
"The Secretary of Labor shall make reason-
able regulations for contractors and subcon-
tractors engaged in the construction, prosecu-
tion, completion or repair of public buildings,
public works or buildings or works financed in
whole or in part by loans or grants from the
United States, including a provision that each
contractor and subcontractor shall furnish
weekly a sworn affidavit with respect to the
wages paid each employee daring the preced-
ing week."
[p. 3819]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and
read a third time, was read the third time,
and passed, and a motion to reconsider was
laid on the table.
[p. 3820]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2365
1.16b(3) May 6: Passed Senate, p. 5827
[No Relevant Discussion]
1.16c AMENDMENT OF 1958
August 28,1959, P.L. 85-800, §12, 72 Stat 967
SEC. 12. Section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948), as
amended (40 U.S.C. 276c), is amended further—
(a) by striking out "sworn affidavit" and substituting
therefor "statement"; and
(b) by adding at the end thereof the following sentence:
"Section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code (Criminal
Code and Criminal Procedure) shall apply to such state-
ments."
Approved August 28,1958.
[p. 967]
1.16c(l) SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS
S. REP. No. 2201, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS
CONCERNS TO OBTAIN A FAIR PROPORTION OF GOV-
ERNMENT PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS, TO FACILI-
TATE PROCUREMENT OF PROPERTY AND SERVICES
BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
AUGUST 5,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. McCLELLAN, from the Committee on Government Operations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3224]
The Committee on Government Operations, to whom was re-
ferred the bill (S. 3224) to improve opportunities for small busi-
-------
2366 LEGAL COMPILATION—Am
ness concerns to obtain a fair proportion of Government pur-
chases and contracts, to facilitate procurement of property and
services by the Government, and for other purposes, having con-
sidered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments, and
recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
[P. l]
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to further amend the Federal Prop-
erty and Administrative Services Act of 1949; section 3709 of the
Revised Statutes; the codified Armed Services Procurement Act of
1947; and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act, which contain the
basic authority of law with respect to the procurement of supplies
and services by the departments and agencies of the Government.
The bill would increase from $1,000 (in some agencies $500) to
$2,500 the present open-market limitations for procurement
without formal advertising by the executive, legislative, and judi-
cial branches of the Government.
The bill would improve several aspects of procurement proce-
dure of Government agencies through the promotion of greater
uniformity and simplicity, in the interest of the Government and
of business particularly of small business. S. 3224 would facilitate
the extension to many Government agencies of a modernized code
of procurement procedures, including more suitable provision for
negotiated purchases and advance payments. It would simplify the
filing of payroll information on construction and public building
repair contracts financed by the Government as required by the
Copeland Act of 1934.
The bill will implement some of the recommendations of the
Cabinet Committee on Small Business, stated in its first progress
report, to remove needless inconsistencies, complexities and inequi-
ties in Government procurement procedures in order to improve
small-business participation in Government contract work.
[p. 2]
Section 12: Section 12 would amend the Copeland (Anti-Kick-
back) Act to simplify the filing of payroll information by contrac-
tors and subcontractors in connection with construction contracts
made or financed by the Government.
Section 12 (a) would authorize their furnishing a "statement"
of wages paid employees during the preceding week instead of a
"sworn affidavit" with respect thereto. Removal of the statutory
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2367
requirement for the affidavit will permit simplification of enforce-
ment procedures.
Section 12 (b) would apply the provisions and penalties of
section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, to the filing of these
statements. Hence, the criminal law will apply to false statements
as it does to false affidavits. The anti-kickback provision of the
Copeland Act will continue to be protected by the criminal law (18
U.S.C. 874).
[p. 9]
TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 276c
SEC. 276c. Same; regulations governing contractors and subcon-
tractors.
The Secretary of Labor shall make reasonable regulations for
contractors and subcontractors engaged in the construction, prose-
cution, completion or repair of public buildings, public works or
buildings or works financed in whole or in part by loans or grants
from the United States, including a provision that each contractor
and subcontractor shall furnish weekly a [sworn affidavit] state-
ment with respect to the wages paid each employee during the
preceding week. Section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code
(Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure) shall apply to such
statements. (June 13, 1934, ch. 482, § 2, 48 Stat. 948; 1940 Reorg.
Plan No. IV, § 9, 5 F. R. 2421, 54 Stat. 1236; May 24, 1949, ch.
139, § 134, 63 Stat. 108.)
[p. 26]
-------
2368
LEGAL COMPILATION—AIR
1.16c(2) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 114 (1958)
1.16c(2)(a) Aug. 14: Passed Senate, p. 17539
SEC. 12. Section 2 of the Act of June 13,
1934 (48 Stat. 948), as amended (40 U. S. C.
27 6c), is amended further—
(a) by striking out "sworn affidavit" and
substituting therefor "statement"; and
(b) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing sentence: "Section 1001 of title 18 of
the United States Code (Criminal Code and
Criminal Procedure) shall apply to such state-
ments."
[p. 17539]
1.16c(2)(b) Aug. 15: Passed House, p. 17909
SEC. 12. Section 2 of the Act of June 13,
1934 (48 Stat. 948), as amended (40 U. S. C.
276c), is amended further—
(a) by striking out "sworn affidavit" and
substituting therefor "statement"; and
(b) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing sentence: "Section 1001 of title 18 of
the United States Code (Criminal Code and
Criminal Procedure) shall apply to such state-
ments."
The bill was ordered to be read a third time,
was read the third time, and passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
[p. 17909]
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1974 O ~ 526-704
-------
U.S. l-r
RV/K-'. V, U'
230 Go^'ui f-^
rhk'djn, •'!^"J'
-------
------- |