THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
DO
\
\
U)
Supplement I
Volume V
Noise
-------
THE UNITED, STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
Supplement I
Volume V
Noise
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $16.66 per 6 vol. set. Sold in sets only
Stock Number 5500-00086
-------
FOREWORD
No nation in the history of the world has ever developed as fast as
the United States. Starting virtually from scratch, we created in one
century the world's first industrial society on a continental scale. Since
we derived such great benefits from the exploitation of natural re-
sources, it is not surprising that we equated all forms of growth with
progress.
Today, however, there is a new mood in this country. We are dis-
posed to look more carefully at our past assumptions, including those
which brought us wealth, comfort, and convenience. We have learned
a great deal, especially in the last decade. We have acquired a more
comprehensive perception of the problems of modern society and how
persistent and intractable they can be. But these problems are not be-
yond solution. They give way before ingenuity, perseverance, and
mutual cooperation.
I think this nation is well on its way to a new era of environmental
stewardship. We are beginning to realize that the earth itself, the
whole biosphere, is an environment from which we cannot insulate
ourselves. We are learning that while we may alter that environment,
we must also be prepared to protect it and to foresee the full effects of
our actions on tomorrow's world.
When future historians look back on this period, they should say
it was an age of enlightenment when man first imderstood that his
limitless capacity to innovate always takes place within nature, not
outside it, and that preserving the life systems of the earth is his most
sacred task.
It will take decades of heavy investment, generations of strenuous
effort, and many hard years of learning to live with new habits and
imperatives. But in the end we shall restore the earth—not perhaps
to what it was in the past, for the past is unrecoverable— but to a new
condition of wholeness, where man may live in peace.
Such a world is ours for the making.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHATJS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were cited
in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, requested
that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched and pub-
lished.
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.
This particular volume, which constitutes the first supplement, is a
product of a permanent office in the Office of Legislation, established
to perform the updating function.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome task of
developing a better environment.
MART LANE REED WARD GENTRY, JJD.
Assistant Director, Office of Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
2-EPA
INSTRUCTIONS
This new publication is intended to do two things. It is designed
first to update the EPA Legal Compilation, which first appeared in
1973. But it is also intended to stand alone as a collection and
presentation in one document of the text and legislative history of
the major environmental legislation enacted during the Second Ses-
sion of the 92d Congress.
In the first instance, for those using this publication in conjunction
with the Compilation, the point system employed there will be con-
tinued here. Although in that work at each solely numerical point
(1.1, 1.2, etc.) the complete then current text of the pertinent statutes
was provided, in this publication ONLY the public law text of the
latest amendment will be used because the new legislation has not yet
been codified. The public law texts appear at the appropriate numeri-
cal-alphabetical point (1.32a, 1.2r, etc.) of the legislative history.
For those using this publication as an independent document, the
Table of Contents has a listing of the materials included by specific
environmental area.
Finally, this work is intended for general legal reference and in-
formation, not as one which may be formally cited in the legal sense,
and the author disclaims responsibility for liability arising from its
use. In this connection, it should be noted that the many quotations
from the Congressional Eecord for the 92nd Congress were taken
from the "unofficial" daily version which is subject to subsequent
modification by the Members prior to the publication of the final of-
ficial record, not available at this time.
From the outset, our concern was to make this important material
available to the public as quickly as possible and we recognized that
in order to accomplish this, we would have to diminish its official
character to some extent. We think that it was a fair trade-off.
-------
CONTENTS
Volume I-III
WATER
1.2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33
U.S.C. § 1251 etseq_ 1
1.2p Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, October 18, 1972, P.L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816.__ 1
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 90
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP.
No. 92-911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 205
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
1465, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 628
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 117 (1971), Nov. 2: Considered and
passed Senate, pp. S17396-S17487; 785
(b) Vol. 118 (1972), Mar. 27-29: Considered
and passed House, amended in lieu of H.R.
11896, pp. H2478-H2545, H2584-H2647,
H2718-H2800; , 967
(c) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 4: House and Senate
agreed to conference report, pp. S16869-
S16895, H9114-H9135; 1395
(d) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 17: Senate overrode
veto, pp. S18534-S18535, S18546-S18554;___ 1489
(e) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 18: House overrode
veto, pp. H10266-H10273 1510
1.32 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33
U.S.C. § 1401 et seq 1525
1.32a Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972, October 23, 1972, P.L. 92-532, 86 Stat.
1052___ 1525
ix
-------
x CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. EEP. No. 92-361, 92d Cong.,
IstSess. (1971) 1537
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-451, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 1609
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-
1546, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 1654
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) Sept. 8, 9: Considered and passed House,
pp. H8182-H8199, H8225-H8255; 1673
(b) Nov. 24: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S19629-S19655; 1768
(c) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 13: Senate and House
agreed to conference report, pp. S17962-
S17963, H9904-H9908 1823
Volume IV
PESTICIDES
1.1 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as
amended, 7 U.S.C. §§136-136y 1835
l.lk Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972,
October 21, 1972, P.L. 92-516, 86 Stat. 973 1835
(1) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP No.
92-511, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 1862
(2) Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
S. REP. No. 92-838, 92d Cong., 2d Sess (1972). _ 1944
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No.
92-970, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 2091
(4) Committee of Conference, S. REP. No. 92-1540,
92d Cong., 2dSess. (1972) 2137
(5) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 117 (1971), Nov. 8, 9: Considered and
passed House, pp. H10674-H10680, H10726-
H10774; 2172
(b) Vol. 118 (1972), Sept 26: Considered and
passsed Senate, amended, p. S15885-
S15900; 2281
(c) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 5: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, pp. S16977-S16981; 2312
(d) Vol. 118 (1972), Oct. 12: House agreed to
conference report, pp. H9795-H9798 2320
-------
CONTENTS xi
Volume V
NOISE
Page
1.4 Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq 2328
1.4a Noise Control Act of 1972, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-
574, 86Stat. 1234 2328
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.E. REP. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2d
Sess. (1972) 2345
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-1160, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972) 2384
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) Feb. 29: Considered and passed House, pp.
H1508-H1539 2345
(b) Oct. 12: Considered in Senate, pp. S17743-
S17764, S17774-S17785; 2499
(c) Oct. 13: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, pp. S17988-S18014; 2567
(d) Oct. 18: House concurred in Senate amend-
ment, with an amendment, pp. H10261-
H10262, H10287-H10300; 2621
(e) Oct. 18. Senate concurred in House amend-
ment, pp.S18638-S18646 2651
-------
2328 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
1.4 NOISE CONTROL ACT
42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.
(Since the Act has not been codified, see "1.4a" for text)
1.4a NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
October 27,1972, P.L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234
To control the emission of noise detrimental to the human environment, 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".
FINDINGS AND POLICT
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing dan-
ger to the health and welfare of the Nation's population, particu-
larly in urban areas;
(2) that the major sources of noise include transportation
vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances, and other prod-
ucts in commerce; and
(3) that, while primary responsibility for control of noise rests
with State and local governments, Federal action is essential to
deal with major noise sources in commerce control of which re-
quire national uniformity of treatment.
(b) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States
to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that
jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of
this Act to establish a means for effective coordination of Federal
research and activities in noise control, to authorize the establishment
of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in com-
merce, and to provide information to the public respecting the noise
emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) The term "person" means an individual, corporation,
partnership, or association, and (except as provided in sections
11 (e) and 12(a)) includes any officer, employee, department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States, a State, or any
political subdivision of a State.
(3) The term "product" means any manufactured article or
goods or component thereof; except that such term does not
include—
(A) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance,
as such terms are defined in section 101 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act of 1958 5 or
(B) (i) any military weapons or equipment which are
designed for combat use; (ii) any rockets or equipment which
are designed for research, experimental, or developmental
work to be performed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; or (iii) to the extent provided by regulations
of the Administrator, any other machinery or equipment
designed for use in experimental work done by or for the
Federal Government.
(4) The term "ultimate purchaser" means the first person who
in good faith purchases a product for purposes other than resale
[P- 1]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2329
(5) The term "new product" means (A) a product the equitable
or legal title of which has never been transferred to an ultimate
purchaser, or (B) a product which is imported or offered for
importation into the United States and which is manufactured
after the effective date of a regulation under section 6 or section 8
which would have been applicable to such product had it been
manufactured in the United States.
'(6) The term "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the
manufacturing or assembling of new products, or the importing
Of new products for resale, or who acte for, and is controlled by,
any such person in connection with the distribution of such
^products.
(7) The term "commerce" means trade, traffic, commerce, or
transportation—
•(A) between a place in a State and any place outside
thereof, or
'(B)1 which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or transporta-
tion described in subparagraph (A).
(8) The_ term "distribute in commerce" means sell in, offer for
sale in, or introduce or deliver for introduction into, commerce.
'(9) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Kico, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term "Federal agency" means an executive agency
(as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) and
includes the United States Postal Service.
(11) The term "environmental noise" means the intensity,
duration, and the character of sounds from all sources.
I-EDERAL HIOGRAMB
SEC. 4. (a) The Congress authorizes arid directs that Federal
agencies shall, to the fullest extent consistent with their authority
under Federal laws administered by them, carry out the programs
within their control in such a manner as to further the policy
declared in section 2(b).
(b) Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government—
(1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or
(2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in
the emission of noise,
shall comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements
respecting control and abatement of environmental noise to the same
extent that any person is subject to such requirements. The President
may exempt any single activity or facility, including noise emission
sources or classes thereof, of any department, agency, or instrumen-
tality in the executive branch from compliance with any such require-
ment if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United
States to do so; except that no exemption, other than for those
products referred to in section 3(3) (B) of this Act, may be granted
from the requirements of sections 6, 17, and 18 of this Act. No such
exemption shall be granted due to lack of appropriation unless the
President shall have specifically requested such appropriation as a
part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to
make available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall
be for a period not in excess of one year, but additional exemptions
may be granted for periods of not to exceed one year upon the
President's making a new determination. The President shajl report
each January to the Congress all exemptions from the requirements
[p. 2]
-------
2330 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
of this section granted during the preceding calendar year, together
with his reason for granting such exemption.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall coordinate the programs ot aU
Federal agencies relating to noise research and noise control. Each
Federal agency shall, upon request, furnish to the Administrator such
information as he may reasonably require to determine the nature,
scope, and results of the noise-research and noise-control programs of
the agency. / . .
(2) Each Federal agency shall consult with the Administrator in
prescribing standards or regulations respecting noise. If at any time
the Administrator has reason to believe that a standard or regulation,
or any proposed standard or regulation, of any Federal agency respect-
ing noise does not protect the public health and welfare to the extent
he believes to be required and feasible, he may request such agency to
review and report to him on the advisability of revising such standard
or regulation to provide such protection. Any such request may be
published in the Federal Register and shall be accompanied by a
detailed statement of the information on which it is based. Such agency
shall complete the requested review and report to the Administrator
within such time as the Administrator specifies in the request, but such
time specified may not be less than ninety days from the date the
request was made. The report shall be published in the Federal Reg-
ister and shall be accompanied by a detailed statement of the findings
and conclusions of the agency respecting the revision of its standard
or regulation. "With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration,
section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (as amended by section
7 of this Act) shall apply in lieu of this paragraph.
(3)' On the basis of regular consultation with appropriate Federal
agencies, the Administrator shall compile and publish., from time to
time, a report on the status and progress of Federal activities relating
to noise research and noise control. This report shall describe the noise-
control programs of each Federal agency and assess the contributions
of those programs to the Federal Government's overall efforts to con-
trol noise.
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES ; NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 5. (a)(l) The Administrator shall, after consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies and within nine months of the date of
the enactment of this Act, develop and publish criteria with respect
to noise. Such criteria shall reflect the scientific knowledge most useful
in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on the public
health or welfare which may be expected from differing quantities and
qualities of noise.
(2) The Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate
Federal agencies and within twelve months of the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, publish information on the levels of environmental
noise the attainment and maintenance of which in defined areas under
various conditions are requisite to protect the public health and wel-
fare with an adequate margin of safety.
(b) The Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate
Federal agencies, compile and publish a report or series of reports
(1) identifying products (or classes of products) which in his judg-
ment are major sources of noise, and (2) giving information on tech-
niques for control of noise from such products, including available
data on the technology, costs, and alternative methods of noise control
The first such report shall be published not later than eighteen months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
[p. 3]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2331
(c) The Administrator shall from time to time review and, as
appropriate, revise or supplement any criteria or reports published
under this section.
(d) Any report (or revision thereof) under subsection (b)(1) iden-
tifying major noise sources shall be published in the Federal Register.
The_ publication or revision under this section of any criteria or infor-
mation on control techniques shall be announced in the Federal Reg-
ister, and copies shall be made available to the general public.
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOE PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED IN COMMERCE
SEC. 6. (a) (1) The Administrator shall publish proposed regula-
tions, meeting the requirements of subsection (c), for each product—
(A) which is identified (or is part of a class identified) in any
report published under section 5(t>) (!) as a major source of noise,
(B) for which, in his judgment, noise emission standards are
feasible, and
(C) which falls in one of the following categories:
(i) Construction equipment.
(ii) Transportation equipment (including recreational
vehicles and related equipment).
(iii) Any motor or engine (including any equipment of
which an engine or motor is an integral part).
(iv) Electrical or electronic equipment.
(2) (A) Initial proposed regulations under paragraph (1) shall be
published not later than eighteen months after the date of enactment
of this Act, and shall apply to any product described in paragraph (1)
which is identified (or is a part of a class identified) as a major
source of noise in any report published under section 5(b)(l) on or
before the date of publication of such initial proposed regulations.
(B) In the case of any product described in paragraph (1) which
is identified (or is part of a class identified) as a major source of noise
in a report published under section 5(b) (1) after publication of the
initial proposed regulations under subparagraph (A) of this para-
graph, regulations under paragraph _(1) for such product shall be
proposed and published by the Administrator not later than eighteen
months after such report is published.
(3) After proposed regulations respecting a product have been pub-
lished under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall, unless in his
judgment noise emission standards are not feasible for such product,
prescribe regulations, meeting the requirements of subsection (c), for
such product—
(A) not earlier than six months after publication of such pro-
posed regulations, and
(B) not later than—
(i) twenty-four months after the date of enactment of this
Act, in the case of a product subject to proposed regulations
published under paragraph (2) (A), or
(ii) in the case of any other product, twenty-four months
after the publication of the report under section 5(b)(l)
identifying it (or a class of products of which it is a part) as
a major source of noise.
(b) The Administrator may publish proposed regulations, meeting
the requirements of subsection (c), for any product for which he is
not required by subsection (a) to prescribe regulations but for which,
in his judgment, noise emission standards are feasible and are requisite
to protect the public health and welfare. Not earlier than six months
after the date of publication of such proposed regulations respecting
such product, he may prescribe regulations, meeting the requirements
of subsection (c), for such product. ,
-------
2332 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
(cHl) Any regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b)I of
this section (and any revision thereof) respecting a product shall
include a noise emission standard which shall set limits on noise emis-
sions from such product and shall be a standard which in the Adminis-
trator's judgment, based on criteria published under section 5, is
requisite to protect the public health and welfare, taking into account
the magnitude and conditions of use of such product (alone or in
combination with other noise sources), the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of the best available technology,
and the cost of compliance. In establishing such a standard for any
product, the Administrator shall give appropriate consideration to
standards under other laws designed to safeguard the health and
welfare of persons, including any standards under the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the Clean Air Act, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Any such noise emission stand-
ards shall be a performance standard. In addition, any regulation
under subsection (a) or (b) (and any revision thereof) may contain
testing procedures necessary to assure compliance with the emission
standard in such regulation, and may contain provisions respecting
instructions of the manufacturer for the maintenance, use, or repair
of the product.
(2) After publication of any proposed regulations under this sec-
tion, the Administrator shall allow interested persons an opportunity
to participate in rulemaking in accordance with the first sentence of
section 553 (c) of title 5, United States Code.
(3) The Administrator may revise any regulation prescribed by
him under this section by (A) publication of proposed revised regula-
tions, and (B) the promulgation, not earlier than six months after the
date of such publication, of regulations making the revision; except
that a revision which makes only technical or clerical corrections in a
regulation under this section may be promulgated earlier than six
months after such date if the Administrator finds that such earlier
promulgation is in the public interest.
(d) (1) On and after the effective date of any regulation prescribed
under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the manufacturer of each
new product to which such regulation applies shall warrant to the
ultimate purchaser and each subsequent purchaser that such product is
designed, built, and equipped so as to conform at the time of sale with
such regulation.
(2) Any cost obligation of any dealer incurred as a result of any
requirement imposed by paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
borne by the manufacturer. The transfer of any such cost obligation
from a manufacturer to any dealer through franchise or other agree-
ment is prohibited.
(3) If a manufacturer includes in any advertisement a statement
respecting the cost or value of noise emission control devices or systems,
such manufacturer shall set forth in such statement the cost or value
attributed to such devices or systems by the Secretary of Labor
(through the Bureau of Labor Statistics). The Secretary of Labor,
and his representatives, shall have the same access for this purpose to
the books documents, papers, and records of a manufacturer as the
Comptroller General has to those of a recipient of assistance for pur-
poses of section 311 of the Clean Air Act.
(e) (1) No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce— r
(A) with respect to any new product for which a regulation
has been prescribed by the Administrator under this section any
law or regulation which sets a limit on noise emissions from such
[p. 5]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2333
new product and which is not identical to such regulation of the
Administrator; or
(B) with respect to any component incorporated into such new
product by the manufacturer of such product, any law or regula-
tion setting a limit on noise emissions from such component when
so incorporated.
(2) Subject to sections 17 and 18, nothing in this section precludes
or denies the right of any State or political subdivision thereof to
establish and enforce controls on environmental noise (or one or more
sources thereof) through the licensing, regulation, or restriction of the
use, operation; or movement of any product or combination of
products.
.AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS
SEC. 7. (a) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested persons, shall conduct
a study of the (1) adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration flight
and operational noise controls; (2) adequacy of noise emission stand-
ards on new and existing aircraft, together with recommendations on
the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of
identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around
airports; and (4) additional measures available to airport operators
and local governments 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 Commerce and
Public Works of the Senate within nine months alter 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:
'•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 Administrator of the Environ-
mental 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 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 appli-
cation of such standards and regulations in the issnanee, amendment,
modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized by
this title. No exemption with respect to any standard or regulation
under this section may be granted under any provision of this Act
unless the FAA shall have consulted with EPA before sur-h exemp-
tion 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 sec-
tion 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 stand-
ards and regulations in accordance with this section which apply to
such aircraft and which protect the public from aircraft noise and
sonic boom, consistent with the considerations listed in subsection (d).
[p. 6]
525-314 O - 73 - 2
-------
2334 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
"(c)(l) Not earlier than the date of submission of the report
required by section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 19T2, 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 author-
ity 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 sub-
mitted 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 pub-
lication, the FAA shall commence a hearing at which interested per-
sons 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}, 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 Eegister a notice that it is not
prescribing any regulation in response to EPA's submission of
proposed regulations, together with a detailed explanation provid-
ing reasons for the decision 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 (1) (B) of this subsection does 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, 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 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 for public inspection. The FAA's report shall be published
in the Federal Register, except in a case in which EPA's request pro-
posed 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 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 con-
tain 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) EP'A's proposed
regulations.
[p. 7]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2335
" (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, development,
testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act
and the Department of Transportation Act;
"(2) consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agencies
as he deems appropriate;
"(3) consider whether any proposed standard 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 standard or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appro-
priate for tne particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine, appli-
ance, or certificate to which it will apply; and
•"(5) consider the extent to which such standard or regulation
will contribute to carrying" out the purposes of this section.
" (e) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certifi-
cate 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 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."
(c) All—
(1) standards, rules, and regulations prescribed under section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and
(2) exemptions, granted under any provision of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, with respect to such standards, rules, and
regulations,
which are in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, shall con-
tinue in effect according to their terms until modified, terminated,
superseded, set aside, or repealed by the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration in the exercise of any authority vested in
him, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
LABELING
SEC. 8. (a) The Administrator shall by regulation designate any
product (or class thereof)—
(1) which emits noise capable of adversely affecting the public
health or welfare; or
(2) which is sold wholly or in part on the basis of its effective-
ness in reducing noise.
(b) For each product (or class thereof) designated under sub-
section (a) the Administrator shall by regulation require that notice
be given to the prospective user of the level of the noise the product
emits, or of its effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case may be. Such
regulations shall specify (1) whether such notice shall be affixed to
the product or to the outside of its container, or to both, at the time of
its sale to the ultimate purchaser or whether such notice shall be given
to the prospective user in some other manner, (2) the form of the
notice, and (3) the methods and units of measurement to be used.
Sections 6(c) (2) shall apply to the prescribing of any regulation
under this section.
(e) This section does not prevent any State or political subdivision
thereof from regulating product labeling or information respecting
products in any way not in conflict with regulations prescribed by the
Administrator under this section. r g-i
-------
2336 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
IMPORTS
SEC. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, in consultation with
the Administrator, issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this
Act with respect to new products imported or offered for importation.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 10. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), the
following acts or the causing thereof are prohibited:
(I) In the case of a manufacturer, to distribute in commerce
any new product manufactured after the effective date of a regu-
lation prescribed under section 6 which is applicable to such prod-
uct, except in conformity with such regulation.
(2) (A) The removal or rendering inoperative by any person,
other than for purposes of maintenance, repair, or replacement,
of any device or element of design incorporated into any product
in compliance with regulations under section 6, prior to its sale
or delivery to the ultimate purchaser or while it is in use, or
(B) the use of a product after such device or element of design
has been removed or rendered inoperative by any person.
(3) In the case of a manufacturer, to distribute in commerce
any new product manufactured after the effective date of a
regulation prescribed under section 8(b) (requiring information
respecting noise) which is applicable to such product, except in
conformity with such regulation.
(4) The removal by any person of any notice affixed to a
product or container pursuant to regulations prescribed under
section 8 (b), prior to sale of the product to the ultimate purchaser.
(5) The importation into the United States by any person of
any new product in violation of a regulation prescribed under
section 9 which is applicable to such product.
(6) The failure or refusal by any person to comply with any
requirement of section ll(d) or 13(a) or regulations prescribed
under section 13(a), 17, or 18.
(b) (1) For the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demon-
strations, or training, or for reasons of national security, the Admin-
istrator may exempt for a specified period of time any product, or
class thereof, from paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of subsection
(a), upon such terms and conditions as he may find necessary to pro-
tect the public health or welfare.
(2) Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) shall not
apply with respect to any product which is manufactured solely for
use outside any State and which (and the container of which) is
labeled or otherwise marked to show that it is manufactured solely
for use outside any State; except that such paragraphs shall apply
to such product if it is in fact distributed in commerce for use in
any State.
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 11. (a) Any person who willfully or knowingly violates para-
graph (1), (3), (5), or (6) of subsection (a) of section 10 of this
Act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.
If the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction
of such person under this subsection, punishment shall be by a fine
of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment
for not more than two years, or by both.
(b) For the purpose of this section, each day of violation of any
paragraph of section 10 (a) shall constitute a separate violation of
that section.
[p. 9]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2337
(c) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction
of actions brought by and in the name of the United States to restrain
any violations of section 10 (a) of this Act.
(d) (1) Whenever any person is in violation of section 10(a) of
this Act, the Administrator may issue an order specifying such relief
as he determines is necessary to protect the public health and welfare.
(2) Any order under this subsection shall be issued only after
notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554
of title 5 of the United States Code.
(e) The term "person," as used in this section, does not include a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
CITIZEN surrs
SEC. 12. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person
(other than the United States) may commence a civil action on his
own behalf—
(1) against any person (including (A) the United States, and
(B) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the
extent permitted oy the eleventh amendment to the Constitution)
who is alleged to be in violation of any noise control requirement
(as defined in subsection (e)), or
(2) against—
(A) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency where there is alleged a failure of such Adminis-
trator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is
not discretionary with such Administrator, or
(B) the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration where there is alleged a failure of such Adminis-
trator to perform any act or duty under section 611 of*the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which is not discretionary with
such Administrator.
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without
regard'to the amount in controversy, to restrain such person from
violating such noise control requirement or to order such Adminis-
trator to perform such, act or duty, as the case may be.
(b) No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a) (I1)—
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice
of the violation (i) to the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (and to the Federal Aviation
Administrator in the case of a violation of a noise control
requirement under such section 611) and (ii) to any alleged
violator of such requirement, or
(B) if an Administrator has commenced and is diligently
prosecuting a civil action to require compliance with the noise
control requirement, but in any such action in a court of
the United States any person may intervene as a matter of
right, or
(2) under subsection (a) (2) prior to sixty days after the
plaintiff has given notice to the defendant that he will commence
such action.
Notice under this subsection shall be given in such manner as the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall prescribe
by regulation.
(c) In an action under this section, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, if not a party, may intervene as a
matter of right. In an action under this section respecting a noise con-
trol requirement under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
[p. 10]
-------
2338 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
1.4a(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. Rep. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972)
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, if not a
party, may also intervene as a matter of right.
(d) The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of litigation
(including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party,
whenever the court determines such an award is appropriate.
(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person
(or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to
seek enforcement of any noise control requirement or to seek any other
relief (including relief against an Administrator).
(f) For purposes of this section, the term "noise control requirement"
means paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 10(a), or a
standard, rule, or regulation issued under section 17 or 18 of this Act
or under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 13. (a) Each manufacturer of a product to which regulations
under section 6 or section 8 apply shall—
• (1) establish and maintain such records, make such reports,
provide such information, and make such tests, as the Adminis-
trator may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether
such manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this
Act,
(2,} upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by
the Administrator, permit such officer or employee at reasonable
times to have access to such information and the results of such
tests and to copy such records, and
(3) to the extent required by regulations of the Administrator,
make products coming off the assembly line or otherwise in
the hands of the manufacturer available for testing by the
Administrator.
(b) (1) All information obtained by the Administrator or his rep-
resentatives pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, which infor-
mation contains or relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to
in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, shall be con-
sidered confidential for the purpose of that section, except that such
information may be disclosed to other Federal officers or employees,
in whose possession it shall remain confidential, or when relevant to
the matter in controversy in any proceeding under this Act.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall authorize the withholding of
information by the Administrator, or by any officers or employees
under his control, from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.
(c) Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, repre-
sentation, or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or
other document filed or required to be maintained under this Act or
who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any moni-
toring device or method required to be maintained under this Act,
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000,
or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.
RESEARCH, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
SEC. 14. In furtherance of his responsibilities under this Act and
to complement, as necessary, the noise-research programs of other
Federal agencies, the Administrator is authorized to:
(1) Conduct research, and finance research by contract with
any person, on the effects, measurement, and control of noise
including but not limited to— '
TD. Ill
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2339
(A) investigation of the psychological and physiological
effects of noise on humans and the effects of noise on domestic
animals, wildlife, and property, and determination of accepta-
ble levels of noise on the basis of such effects;
(B) development of improved methods and standards for
measurement and monitoring of noise, in cooperation with
the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce;
and
(C) determination of the most effective and practicable
means of controlling noise emission.
(2) _ Provide technical assistance to State and local governments
to facilitate their development and enforcement of ambient noise
standards, including but not limited to—
(A) advice on training of noise-control personnel and on
selection and operation of noise-abatement equipment; and
(B) preparation of model State or local legislation for noise
control.
(3) Disseminate to the public information on the effects of
noise, acceptable noise levels, and techniques for noise measure-
ment and control.
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-NOISE-EMISSION PRODUCTS
SEC. 15. (a) For the purpose of this section:
(1) The term "Committee" means the Low-Noise-Emission
Product Advisory Committee.
(2) The term "Federal Government" includes the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches of the Government of the United
States, and the government of the District of Columbia.
(3) The term "Ipw-noise-emission product" means any product
which emits noise in amounts significantly below the levels speci-
fied in noise emission standards under regulations applicable
under section 6 at the time of procurement to that type of product.
(4:) The term "retail price means (A) the maximum statutory
price applicable to any type of product; or (B) in any case
where there is no applicable maximum statutory price, the most
recent procurement price paid for any type of product.
(b) (1) The Administrator shall determine which products qualify
as low-noise-emission products in accordance with the provisions of
this section.
(2) The Administrator shall certify any product—
(A) for which a certification application has been filed in
accordance, with paragraph (5) (A) of this subsection;
(B) which is a low-noise-emission product as determined by
the Administrator; and
(C) which he determines is suitable for use as a substitute for
a type of product at that time in use by agencies of the Federal
Government. •,..-•;.
(3) The Administrator may establish a Low-Noise-Emission
Product Advisory Committee to assist him in determining which
products qualify as low-noise-emission products for purposes of this
section. The Committee shall include the Administrator or his desig-
nee, a representative of the National Bureau of Standards, and repre-
sentatives of such other Federal agencies and private individuals as
the Administrator may deem necessary from time to time. Any mem-
ber of the Committee not employed on a full-time basis by the United
States may receive the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
in effect for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule for each day such
[p. 12]
-------
2340 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
member is engaged upon work of the Committee. Each member of
the Committee shall be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by section 5703 of title 5,
United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently. .
(4) Certification under this section shall be effective for a period
of one year from the date of issuance.
(5) (A) Any person seeking to have a class or model of product
certified under this section shall file a certification application in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator.
(B) The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a
notice of each application received.
(C) The Administrator shall make determinations for the purpose
of this section in accordance with procedures prescribed by him by
regulation.
(D) The Administrator shall conduct whatever investigation is
necessary, including actual inspection of the product at a place desig-
nated in regulations prescribed under subparagraph (A).
(E) The Administrator shall receive and evaluate written com-
ments and documents from interested persons in support of, or in
opposition to, certification of the class or model of product under
consideration.
(F) Within ninety days after the receipt of a properly filed cer-
tification application the Administrator shall determine whether such
product is a low-noise-emission product for purposes of this section.
If the Administrator determines that such product is a low-noise-emis-
sion product, then within one hundred and eighty days of such
determination the Administrator shall reach a decision as to whether
such product is a suitable substitute for any class or classes of products
presently being purchased by the Federal Government for use by its
agencies.
(G) Immediately upon making any determination or decision under
subparagraph (F), the Administrator shall publish in the Federal
Register notice of such determination or decision, including reasons
therefor.
(c) (1) Certified low-noise-emission products shall be acquired by
purchase or lease by the Federal Government for use by the Federal
Government in lieu of other products if the Administrator of General
Services determines that such certified products have procurement costs
which are no more than 125 per centum of the retail price of the least
expensive type of product for which they are certified substitutes.
(2) Data relied upon by the Administrator in determining that a
product is a certified low-noise-emission product shall be incorporated
in any contract for the procurement of such product,
(d) The procuring agency shall be required to purchase available
certified low-noise-emission products which are eligible for purchase
to the extent they are available before purchasing any other products
for which any low-noise-emission product is a certified substitute.
In making purchasing selections between competing eligible certified
low-noise-emission products, the procuring agency shall give priority
to any class or model which does not require extensive periodic main-
tenance to retain its low-noise-emission qualities or which does not
involve operating costs significantly in excess of those products for
which it is a certified substitute.
(e) For the purpose of procuring certified low-noise-emission
products any statutory price limitations shall be waived.
(f) The Administrator shall, from time to time as he deems appro-
priate, test the emissions of noise from certified low-noise-emission
products purchased by the Federal Government. If at any time he
finds that the noise-emission levels exceed the levels on which certifi-
[p- 13]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2341
cation under this section was based, the Administrator shall give the
supplier of such product written notice of this finding, issue public
notice of it, and give the supplier an opportunity to, make necessary
repairs, adjustments, or replacements. If no such repairs, adjust-
ments, or replacements are made within a period to be set by the
Administrator, he may order the supplier to show cause why the
product involved should be eligible for recertification.
(g) There are authorized to be appropriated for paying additional
amounts for products pursuant to, and for carrying out the provi-
sions of, this section, $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and $2,000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal years.
(h) The Administrator shall promulgate the procedures required
to implement this section within one hundred and eighty days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
JUDICIAL REVIEW; WITNESSES
SEC. 16. (a) A petition for review of action of the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency in promulgating any stand-
ard or regulation under section 6,17, or 18 of this Act or any labeling
regulation under section 8 of this Act may be filed only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and a
petition for review of action of the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration in promulgating any standard or regulation under
section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 may be filed only in
such court. Any such petition shall be filed within ninety days from
the date of such promulgation, or after such date if such petition is
based solely on grounds arising after such ninetieth day. Action of
either Administrator with respect to which review could have been
obtained under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review
in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.
(b) If a party seeking review under this Act applies to the court
for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction
of the court that the information is material and was not available
at the time of the proceeding before the Administrator of such Agency
or Administration (as the case may be), the court may order such
additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken
before such Administrator, and to be adduced upon the hearing, in such
manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem
proper. Such Administrator may modify his findings as to the facts,
or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken,
and he shall file with the court such modified or new findings, and his
recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his
original order, with the return of such additional evidence.
(c) With respect to relief pending review of an action by either
Administrator, no stay of an agency action may be granted unless the
reviewing court determines that the party seeking such stay is (1}
likely to prevail on the merits in the review proceeding and (2)
will suffer irreparable harm pending such proceeding.
(d) For the purpose of obtaining information to carry out this Act,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may issue
subpenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the pro-
duction of relevant papers, books, and documents, and he may adminis-
ter oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage
that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. In cases of
contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person under
this subsection, the district court of the United States for -any district
in which such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon
application by the United States and after notice to such person,
[p. 14]
-------
2342 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to appear
and give testimony before the Administrator, to appear and produce
papers, books, and documents before the Administrator, or both, and
any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such
court as a contempt thereof.
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 17. (a) (1) Within nine months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall publish proposed noise emission
regulations for surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce by rail-
road. Such proposed regulations shall include noise emission standards
setting such limits on noise emissions resulting from operation of the
equipment and facilities of surface carriers engaged in interstate com-
merce by railroad which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
through the application of the best available technology, taking into
account the cost of compliance. These regulations shall be in addition
to any regulations that may be proposed under section 6 of this Act.
(2) Within ninety days after the publication of such regulations as
may be proposed under paragraph (1) of this subsection, and subject
to the provisions of section 16 of this Act, the Administrator shall
promulgate final regulations. Such regulations may be revised, from
time to time, in accordance with this subsection.
(3) Any standard or regulation, or revision thereof, proposed under
this subsection shall be promulgated only after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation in order to assure appropriate considera-
tion for safety and technological availability.
(4) Any regulation or revision thereof promulgated under this
subsection shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation,
to permit the development and application of the requisite technology ft
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within'
such period. •
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the
Administrator, shall promulgate regulations to insure compliance with
all standards promulgated by the Administrator under this section.
The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out such regulations
through the use of his powers and duties of enforcement and inspec-
tion authorized by the Safety Appliance Acts, the Interstate Com-
merce Act, and the Department of Transportation Act. Regulations
promulgated under this section shall be subject to the provisions of
sections 10,11,12, and 16 of this Act.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) but notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, after the effective date of a regulation under
this section applicable to noise emissions resulting from the operation
of any equipment or facility of a surface carrier engaged in interstate
commerce by railroad, no State or political subdivision thereof may
adopt or enforce any standard applicable to noise emissions resulting
from the operation of the same equipment or facility of such carrier
unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to noise
emissions resulting from such operation prescribed by any regulation
under this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall diminish or enhance the rights of
any State or political subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environmental noise, or to control,
license, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of any
product if the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation determines that such standard, control, license, regula-
tion, or restriction is necessitated by special local conditions and is not
m conflict with regulations promulgated under this section
' [p- 15]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2343
(d) The terms "carrier" and "railroad" as used in this section
shall have the same meaning as such terms have under the first section
of the Act of February 17, 1911 (45 U.S.C. 22).
MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 18. (a) (1) Within nine months after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall publish proposed noise emission
regulations for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. Such
proposed regulations shall include noise emission standards setting
such limits on noise emissions resulting from operation of motor car-
riers engaged in interstate commerce which reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application of the best available
technology, taking into account the cost of compliance. These regula-
tions shafl be in addition to any regulations that may be proposed
under section 6 of this Act.
(2) \Within ninety days after the publication of such regulations
as may be proposed under paragraph (1) of this subsection, and sub-
ject to the provisions of section 16 of this Act, the Administrator shall
promulgate final regulations. Such regulations may be revised from
time to time, in accordance with this subsection.
(3) Any standard or regulation, or revision thereof, proposed under
this subsection shall be promulgated only after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation in order to assure appropriate con-
sideration for safety and technological availability.
(4) Any regulation or revision thereof promulgated under this
subsection shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to
permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.
(b)_ The Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the
Administrator shall promulgate regulations to insure compliance with
all standards promulgated by the Administrator under this section.
The Secretary of Transportation shall carry out such regulations
through the use of his powers and duties of enforcement and inspec-
tion authorized by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Department
of Transportation Act. Regulations promulgated under this section
shall be subject to the provisions of sections 10, 11, 12, and 16 of this
Act.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection but notwith-
standing any other provision of this Act, after the effective date of a
regulation under this section applicable to noise emissions resulting
from the operation of any motor carrier engaged in interstate com-
merce, no State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce
any standard applicable to the same operation of such motor carrier,
unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to noise emis-
sions resulting from such operation prescribed by any regulation under
this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall diminish or enhance the rights of
any State or political subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environmental noise, or to control,
license, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of any
product if the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, determines that such standard, control, license, regu-
lation, or restriction is necessitated by special local conditions and is
not in conflict with regulations promulgated under this section.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term "motor carrier" includes
a common carrier by motor vehicle, a contract carrier by motor vehicle,
[p. 16]
-------
2344 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
and a private carrier of property by motor vehicle as those terms are
denned by paragraphs (14), (15), and (17) of section 203(a) of the
Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 303 (a)).
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 19. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act
(other than section 15) $3,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973; $6,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974; and
$12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1975.
Approved October 27, 1972. \
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY;
HOUSE REPORT No. 92-642 (Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commeroe).
SENATE REPORT No. 92-1160 accompanying S. 3342 (Comm. on Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972):
Feb. 29, considered and passed House.
Oct. 12, 13, considered and passed senate, amended, in lieu olr S. 3342.
Oo"t. 18, House concurred in Senate amendment, with an amendment}
Senate concurred in House amendment.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44:
Oct. 28, Presidential statement. r „
[p. 17]
o
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2345
1.4A(1) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 92-842, 92d Cong, 2d Sess. (1972)
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
FEBRUARY 19, 1972.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11021]
The Committee on. Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 11021) to control the emission of noise detri-
mental to the human environment, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is ad follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof a
substitute which appears in the reported bill in italic type.
[P- 1]
-------
2346 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
SUMMABY OF LEGISLATION
Purpose
The objective of the Noise Control Act of 1972, ". . . to promote
an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare . . ." (sec. 2(b)) is to be achieved in the
following manner:
Coordination of Federal noise control and research activities
(1) by requiring all Federal agencies to promote this objective in
carrying out the programs under their control (sec. 4(a));
(2) by requiring the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to coordinate the programs of all Federal agencies relating
to noise research and noise control (sec. 4(b)(l));
(3) by requiring each Federal agency (except the Federal Aviation
Administration to which special provisions apply) to consult with the
Administrator when prescribing regulations respecting noise, and by
authorizing the Administrator to request any such agency to review
noise control regulations when he has reason to believe that such
regulations do not protect the public health and welfare to the extent
he believes to be required and feasible (sec. 4(b)(2));
(4) by requiring the Administrator to report from time to tune on
the status and progress of Federal noise research and control activities
(sec.4(b)(3));
Identification of major noise sources and publication of noise control
information
(5) by requiring the Administrator to develop and publish noise
criteria identifying the effects on health and welfare of differing quan-
tities and qualities of noise (sec. 5(a));
(6) by requiring the Administrator to identify, and publish a com-
pilation of products which constitute major noise sources (sec. 5(b));
Noise emission standards for new products
(7) by requiring the Administrator to establish noise emission stand-
ards for new products in the following four categories, if they have
been identified as major noise sources, and if noise emission standards
are feasible:
I. Construction equipment
II. Transportation equipment
III. Motors or engines, or equipment of which motors and engines
are integral parts
IV. Electrical or electronic equipment
and by providing detailed time schedules for the establishment
of such standards (sec. 6(a));
(8) by authorizing the Administrator to establish noise emission
standards for other new products for which such standards are feasible
and requisite to protect the public health and welfare (sec. 6(b));
State and local noise control of use of any product
(9) by leaving intact State or local authority to control the use,
operation or movement of any product (sec. 6(d));
[p. 2]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2347
Interagency coordination with regard to aircraft noise standards
(10) by directing the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration to consult with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in prescribing noise control standards and regula-
tions under the applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Act; by
authorizing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection1
Agency to request the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration to review any standard or regulation which the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency has reason to believe
does not adequately protect the public from aircraft noise or sonic
boom, and to submit a report to the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency on the results of such review; and by pro-
hibiting the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
from issuing an original type certificate for any aircraft for which
substantial noise abatement can be achieved through regulations,
unless he prescribes noise or sonic boom regulations applicable to the
aircraft (sec. 7);
Informative labeling of new products
(11) by requiring the Administrator to issue regulations requiring
informative labeling (or other suitable methods of informing prospec-
tive users) with respect to any product (or class thereof) which emits
noise capable of adversely affecting the public health or welfare, or
which is sold wholly or in part on the basis of its effectiveness in
reducing noise (sec. 8);
Imports
(12) by requiring the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation
with the Administrator to carry out the provisions of this legislation
with regard to imports (sec. 9);
Enforcement
(13) by authorizing the Administrator (and a State under an agree-
ment with the Administrator) to assess and to collect in a civil action,
civil penalties of not more than $25,000 for each violation of any of the
prohibitions of this legislation relating to the sale of any new product
which does not conform with a noise emission standard; the removal or
rendering inoperative of any device incorporated in any product hi
compliance with such standard; the use thereafter of any such product;
the removal prior to sale to an ultimate purchaser of any informative
labeling attached to any new product; the importation of any new
product in violation of this legislation; or the failure to maintain
records or furnish any report, or information required by this legisla-
tion (sections 10 and 11)^
Citizen suits
(14) by authorizing the institution of a citizen suit against any
violator of a noise control requirement under the bill or against the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Administration for an alleged
fpilure to perform any act under this legislation which is not discre-
tionary with such Administrator (sec. 12);
Records, reports, and information
(15) by requiring manufacturers to maintain records or to furnish
reports and information reasonably required by the Administrator to
-------
2348 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
secure compliance with this legislation, and by requiring manufac-
turers to make new products available for testing by the Administrator
(sec. 13);
Research
(16) by authorizing the Administrator to conduct research or to
finance research by others to- determine the effects, measurement and
control of noise as well as acceptable levels of noise; to provide tech-
nical assistance to States and local governments in training enforce-
ment personnel and in preparing model State or local noise control
legislation (sec. 14);
Low-noise-emission products
(17) by directing the Administrator to determine which products
qualify as low noise emission products and to certify such products as
suitable for use as substitutes for other products in use at that time by-
federal agencies, and by directing such agencies to use any such certi-
fied product if the Administrator of General Services' determines that
the procurement costs of such certified product are not more than 125
per centum of the retail price of the least expensive type of product for
which such certified product is to serve as a substitute; and by au-
thorizing $1 million for fiscal year 1972 and $2 million for each of the
two succeeding fiscal years for paying the additional costs of such
certified products (sec. 15);
Authorization of appropriations
(18) by authorizing for purposes of carrying put the provisions of
this legislation the appropriation of the following sums: $3 million
for fiscal year 1972; $6 million for fiscal year 1973; and $12 million
for fiscal year 1974. (sec. 16).
HEARINGS ON THE LEGISLATION
Your Committee, acting through its Subcommittee on Public Health
and Environment, conducted a series of hearings on the problems of
noise pollution. Hearings focused on the Administration bill, H.R.
5275, which was introduced on March 1, 1971, by Chairman Staggers
and Congressman Springer, and several other bills introduced by
various Members of Congress which would provide for a comprehen-
sive program for the control of noise. Hearings were held on June 16,
17, 22, 23, and 24, 1971, and testimony was received from a variety
of witnesses representing government, industry, and professions con-
cerned with noise and its effects on human health and welfare. The
Committee also received extensive written material involving the sub-
ject of noise abatement as an aspect of environmental quality.
Following the hearings and Subcommittee consideration, a clean
bill, H.R. 11021, was introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Rogers
and seven other members of the Subcommittee. On February 8, 1972
the bill was ordered reported by voice vote.
REPORT ON NOISE REQUIRED BY TITLE IV OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Title IV of the Clean Air Act (the "Noise Pollution and Abatement
Act of 1970") required the Environmental Protection Agency to
undertake a complete investigation of noise and its effect on the
public health and welfare, to identify and classify the sources of noiae,
[p. 4]
-------
NOISE — STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2349
° determine projected growth levels of the problem to the year
2000. The Agency was required to undertake research, conduct public
hearings, and to report to the President and Congress within one year
the results of such investigations along with recommendations as to
legislation or any other action. The EPA "Report to the President
and the Congress on Noise" was submitted to the Congress on Jan-
uary 26, 1972. In the opinion of your Committee, the report sub-
stantiates the urgent need for a coordinated Federal, State and local
effort to control and abate noise in order to protect the public health
and welfare and demonstrates the need for legislation such as that
recommended in the reported bill.
MAJOR ISSUES PRESENTED
The Committee in examining the proposed legislation for noise
control, was concerned with the following major issues:
(1) The nature and extent of noise as an element of environ-
mental concern.
(2) The adequacy of technology to deal with the problem of
noise abatement.
(3) The extent and effectiveness of present Federal programs for
noise control and the cost of noise control.
(4) The responsibilities of the Federal Government, the States
and their political subdivisions in abating and controlling noise.
(5) The proper roles of the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aircraft
noise.
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF NOISE AS AN ELEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Effects of noise pollution
As brought out by the witnesses testifying before the Committee,
and as described in detail in the EPA "Report to the President and
Congress on Noise", the effects of noise on people takes many forms,
and can be psysiological or psychological in nature. These effects in-
clude permanent hearing loss, interference with speech communica-
tion, stress reactions which could have significant long term health
implications, interference with communication and disturbance of
sleep. Moreover, noise may have sociological impacts within families
and in communities. In addition, it has been demonstrated that
acoustical energy can cause damage to buildings and structures.
The particular effects which may occur as a result of a given noise
environment are a function of the intensity of the noise and the total
exposure time. For example, except in the case of severe acoustic
trauma (such as an exposure to .the sound from an explosion) only
daily exposure to a very high noise intensity for several hours over a
period of months will cause a permanent hearing loss. Much _lower
noise intensities and brief exposure periods can and do produce irrita-
tion and annoyance effects. •
The testimony of Dr. David Lipscomb, Director of the Noise Study
Laboratory, University of Tennessee, concerning the implications of
non-occupational noise as a hazard to the health and welfare of the
.population of the nation was especially disturbing to the Committee.
[p. 5]
525-314 O - 73 - 3
-------
2350 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
Dr. Lipscomb presented to the Committee certain data obtained
during a four-year research study by the noise laboratory which
indicated a trend toward an inordinately high prevalence of high
frequency hearing reductions in young persons. For example, a survey
of 3000 freshmen between the ages of 16 and 21 entering the University
of Tennessee in the Fall of 1968 indicated that 32.9 percent experienced
loss of high frequency hearing acuity. To confirm that striking finding,
a portion of the incoming class was screened for hearing in the Fall of
1969. The second survey produced an even more striking finding; it
yielded an incidence indication of 60.7 percent. Most of these hearing
disorders probably were attributable to exposure to music played
at intense levels. This study clearly indicated to the Committee
that hearing acuity of young persons is being reduced many years
before such reductions should be expected. Studies cited in the
Agency's Report to Congress verify that the University of Tennessee
study did not depict a localized phenomenon. Indeed, there is ample
evidence that the current population of young persons will have much
more serious hearing problems in their middle years than the present
population.
The number of citizens affected by noise pollution
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 44
million persons in the United States have the utility of their dwellings
adversely affected by noise from traffic and aircraft, and 21 million
persons are similarly affected by noise associated with construction
activity. 40 minion persons are exposed to noise potentially capable of
producing hearing impairment due to the operation of noisy devices
and the number of such devices and the intensity of exposure is
steadily rising. Although obviously these figures are not additive,
noise appears to affect to a measurable degree of impact at least 80
million persons or approximately 40 percent of the present population
of the United States. Of that number, roughly one-half are risking
potential health hazards in terms of long duration exposures resulting
in hearing impairment.
There is a long history of occupational noise causing various de-
grees of hearing impairment in some of the working population. Re-
ports available to the Committee indicate that the number of persons
engaged in occupations in which there exists a definite risk of hearing
impairment may be as high as 16 million. The legal structure for the
protection of workers now exists through the provisions of the Occu-
pational Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mine Safety and Health
Act. Although it has been estimated that nonoccupational noise hearing
impairment of sufficient severity to require the use of a hearing aid for
adequate comprehension of speech affects almost 3 million persons in
the United States at the present time, these persons receive virtually
no protection from such noise by federal law.
Taking into account the growth and numbers of sources of noise and
the increase in energy associated therewith, residual noise levels in
urban areas is predicted to rise from 46 dBA to 50 dBA by the year
2000, according to EPA reports. Of more concern is the fact that with-
out more vigorous control methods, the acoustical energy dissemi-
nated into the environment from highway vehicles alone will double by
the year 2000. Moreover, the number of person hours of exposure to
hearing impairment risks from home appliances will increase approxi-
mately 2.25 times the 1970 exposures.
[p. 6]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2351
The Committee notes that most of the information relating to
noise exposures is concerned with specific sources rather than typical
cumulative exposures, to which urban and suburban dwellers com-
monly are exposed. There is a need for much greater effort to deter-
mine the magnitude and extent of such .exposures and the Committee
expects the EPA to promote studies on this subject and consider
development of methods of uniform measurement of the impact of
noise on communities. In the opinion of the Committee, there is also a
demonstrated need for further research leading to better information
on the non auditory physiological and psychological effects of noise,
and it is expected that the EPA will conduct and promote research in
this area,
THE ADEQUACY or TECHNOLOGY To DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF
NOISE ABATEMENT AND THE COST OF NOISE CONTROL
The testimony received from a variety of witnesses indicated that
most major sources of noise affecting the population of the United
States have noise reduction potential that can be attained with
application of today's technology. The Administration bill contained
no specific time schedules for the development of criteria documents
and for the setting of standards. Because of its finding that technology
is available for the control within adequate limits of noise emission of
the majority of products which .constitute major noise sources, the
Committee determined that a tune limit for the initiation of the
standard setting process was proper and indeed essential to prevent
the growth of the noise problem beyond reasonable limits. Accordingly,
the bill establishes time schedules within which the Administrator
of EPA must develop standards. The Committee expects that in con-
sidering whether it is feasible to propose standards for noise sources,
primary emphasis should be placed on protection of the public health
and welfare.
The Committee recognizes that different industries operate accord-
ing to different general patterns, and regulations may vary as between
particular products to take this into account. For example, the auto-
mobile industry makes changes in its products on a well-defined
model year basis. Therefore, a standard applying to automobiles
should include an effective date related to the start-up of a new
model year production.
The Committee found that there is a lack of adequate information
regarding the cost of noise control for some products and thus included
in the bill the requirement that in establishing final standards for
noise sources, appropriate consideration must be given to the economic
costs of such standards. The Committee also fully expects that ade-
quate consideration be given to the technical capability of industry to
meet noise control requirements.
THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS
FOR NOISE CONTROL
Noise responsibilities are vested in a number of Federal departments
and agencies as a collateral activity to their primary missions. Those
with significant involvement include the Environmental Protection
Agency; the Department of Defense; the Department of Transporta-
tion- the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Depart-
[P- 7].
-------
2352 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
ment of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Labor;
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. _More
moderate programs reported to the Committee include those in the
Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the General
Services Administration, the Department of Interior, the Postal
Service Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, the Treasury Department and the Department of
State. In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality has a limited
review and coordination authority with respect to noise pollution
matters as with all other aspects of environmental quality.
The Committee found that due to the wide divergence of noise
abatement programs within the Federal Government, the vast ma-
jority of Federal activities relating to noise have been conducted on
an ad hoc basis. As a result, different systems of measurement of noise
impact have been developed. Because of a demonstrated need for a
comprehensive Federal effort, the bill places responsibility on the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the co-
ordination of programs of all departments and agencies, rather than
merely promoting such coordination as proposed in the Administra-
tion's bill. The Committee anticipates that suitable mechanisms for
effective exchange of information will be achieved and expects that
greater joint participation of the principal agencies in research efforts
and suitable arrangements for joint utilization of facilities for research
will be achieved.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATES, AND
THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN ABATING AND CONTROLLING
NOISE
The Committee was presented with differing views as to the proper
roles of the Federal Government, the States and localities in the effort
to achieve noise abatement. In the Committee's bill the general con-
cept of Federal preemption for new products for which Federal stand-
ards have been established—the concept proposed by the Administra-
tion—was retained.
Section 6 of the Committee's bill affects the authority of States and
political subdivisions over noise emissions only in one respect: State
and local governments are preempted from prescribing noise emission
standards for new pioducts to which Federal standards apply, unless
their standards are identical to the Federal standards. A similar
provision applies to component parts. For products other than new
products to which Federal standards apply, State and local govern-
ments retain exactly the same authority they would have in absence of
the standard setting provisions of the bill. The authority of State and
local government to regulate use, operation, or movement of products
is not affected at all by the bill. (The preemption provision discussed
in this paragraph does not apply to aircraft. See discussion of aircraft
noise below.)
Nothing in the bill authorizes or prohibits a State from enacting
State law respecting testing procedures. Any testing procedures
incorporated into the Federal regulations must, however, be adopted
by a State in order for its regulations to be considered identical to
Federal regulations.
[p. 8]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2353
Localities are not preempted from the use of their well-established
powers to engage in zoning, land use planning, curfews and other
similar requirements. For example, the recently-enacted Chicago
Noise Ordinance provides that heavy equipment for construction
may not be used between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within 600 feet of
a hospital or residence except for public improvement or public
service utility work. The ordinance further provides that the motor
of a vehicle in excess of four tons standing on private property and
within 150 feet of residential propertymay not be operated for more
than two consecutive minutes unless within a completely enclosed
structure. Such local provisions would not be preempted by the
Federal Government by virtue of the reported bill.
The Committee gave some consideration to the establishment of a
Federal ambient noise standard, but rejected the concept. Establish-
ment of a Federal ambient noise standard would in effect, put the
Federal government in the position of establishing land use zoning
requirements on the basis of noise—i.e., noise levels to be permitted
in residential areas, in business areas, in manufacturing and residential
areas; and within those areas for different times of the day or night.
It is the Committee's view that this function is one more properly
that of the States and their political subdivisions, and that the Federal
Government should provide guidance and leadership to the States
in undertaking this effort.
The Committee felt it to be desirable to authorize the Administrator
of the EPA to enter into agreements with States which would au-
thorize State officials to .enforce violations of the Act, and adopted
the Administration provision to this effect.
THE PROPER ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT
TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
The Committee has established procedures whereby it is intended
that a combined EPA-FAA effort will have the effect of protection of
the public from excessive aircraft noise, a nationwide complaint. FAA
and EPA presently have a formal relationship with respect to emission
of air pollutants from aircraft, but no such arrangement exists with
respect to noise pollution. The reported bill establishes such a
relationship.
The Committee considered very carefully the Administration's
request for EPA veto power over standards and regulations pre-
scribed by the FAA Administrator relating to noise characteristics of
civilian aircraft. It also weighed proposals which would vest the Ad-
ministrator of the EPA with the authority to establish such standards.
It was determined that neither of these procedures was practical at this
time because of the lack of the necessary technical expertise with re-
spect to aircraft design within the EPA. For this reason, the bill re-
tains the authority of the FAA to establish such standards, but adds
the requirement that they may not be prescribed before EPA has
been consulted concerning the standards.
In addition to providing EPA with a statutory advisory and con-
sultation role with respect to aircraft noise standards, the bill provides
that after the date of enactment of this bill original type certificates
' [P- 9]
-------
2354 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
for aircraft for which substantial noise abatement can be achieved
cannot be issued unless the FAA Administrator has prescribed noise
standards which apply to such aircraft. _
In order to allow the EPA to assume a meaningful role with respect
to aircraft noise, the bill provides further that whenever the Adminis-
trator of EPA has reason to believe that an existing or proposed
standard or regulation or exemption therefrom or the issuance of an
original type certificate does not adequately protect the pubhc, he
shall request a review of such action as well as a report on the iAA s
findings upon review. EPA's request may be published in the Federal
Register and, unless FAA's report indicates an agreement to take
specific actions that have been requested by EPA, the FAA report
must also appear in the Federal Register. Any such report must
identify any environmental impact statements which have been filed
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect
to such action. .
Your Committee believes that these procedures, involving active
consultation and advice as well as public disclosure of both agencies'
recommendations and actions, will have a substantial effect on aircraft
noise abatement. The Committee intends to closely review this new
relationship between EPA and FAA. If this relationship does not
serve to provide the public with effective reductions in aircraft noise
within a reasonable time, further consideration will be given to the
problem of excessive aircraft noise and the Committee will take
whatever action it considers necessary to achieve adequate reduction.
No provision of the bill is intended to alter in any way the relation-
ship between the authority of the Federal Government and that of
State and local governments that existed with respect to matters
covered by section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 prior to
the enactment of the bill.
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
In compliance with Clause 7 of XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, there is set forth below an estimate made by your
Committee of the cost which would be incurred in carrying out H.R.
11021 in the current fiscal year and for each of the following fiscal
years for which appropriations are authorized by the bill.
ESTIMATE OF COSTS WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED IN CARRYING OUT H.R. 11021 FOR THE AUTHORIZED DURATION
OF EACH OF THE PROGRAMS
(In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year—
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
13
14
15
16
Section of bill; program
Federal programs
Noise criteria and control technology -
Noise emission standards for new products
Aircraft noise
Labeling
Imports
Enforcement
Records, reports and information
(1) research
(2 and 3) Technical assistance and public information
Authorization of appropriations -
1972
300
1,390
300
100
20
20
20
20
350
400
i 80
3,000
1973
700
2,100
1,000
300
90
40
80
40
600
900
1 150
6,000
1974
800
5,340
1,400
400
200
60
400
200
1,200
1,400
>600
12,000
1 In addition to program costs, the bill authorizes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1972 and $2,000,000 for each of the 2 succeed-
ing years for Federal agencies to pay necessary additional amounts for low-noise-emission products,
' [P. 10]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2355
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title and table of contents
This section provides that the bil] may be cited as the "Noise
Control Act of 1972", and contains a table of contents of the bill.
Section 2. Findings and policy
This section contains a statement of congressional findings and
policy. Subsection 2(a) sets forth the following findings: (1) that
noise, particularly in urban areas, presents a growing danger to the
public health and welfare; (2) that the major sources of noise include
a variety of products that move in commerce; and (3) that the Federal
Government bears a responsibility to deal with major sources of noise
requiring national uniformity of treatment. Subsection 2(b) declares
a Federal policy to promote an environment for all Americans free
from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. This subsection
further states that the purpose of the Act is to establish a means for
effective coordination of Federal noise control programs, to authorize
the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products
distributed in commerce, and to provide information to the public of
noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products.
Section 3. Definitions
Section 3 defines certain terms used in the bill.
(1) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) who is given the primary responsi-
bility for implementing the provisions of the bill.
(2) "Person" is denned as an individual, corporation, partner-
ship, or association, and includes any governmental officer, employee,
department, agency, or instrumentality with two exceptions—in the
enforcement section (section 11) "person" does not include a. Federal
department, agency, or instrumentality, and in the citizen suits
section (section 12) the United States cannot be a, plaintiff and a
State cannot be a defendant in cases in which the eleventh amendment
of the Constitution applies.
(3) "Product" is defined to include any manufactured Article or
goods or component thereof, with four general exclusions—(A)
"Product" does not include aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers or
appliances, as defined hi section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958. (The noise characteristics of aircraft and these aircraft com-
ponents are already subject to regulation under provisions of that
Act, which will continue in effect subject to the amendments in section
7 of the bill, discussed below.) (B) "Product" also excludes any mili-
tary weapons or equipment designed for combat use. The policy of
the Act does dictate, however, that all feasible steps be taken to
improve the noise characteristics of these articles. (C) "Product"
further excludes equipment designed for use in experimental work
performed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(D) To the extent provided by regulation by the Administrator of
EPA, the term also excludes certain other experimental equipment
used in work performed by or for Federal agencies.
(4) "Ultimate purchaser" is defined as the first person who purchases
a product for a use other than resale,
[p. 11]
-------
2356 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
(5) "New product" means a product the title to which has not yet
been transferred to an ultimate purchaser, or which is imported or
offered for importation into the United States and which.is manu-
factured after the effective date of a regulation under section 6 or
section 8 which would have been applicable to such product had it
been manufactured in the United States.
(6) "Manufacturer" means any person who manufactures or
assembles new products or imports new products for resale or who acts
on behalf of such a person in the distribution of new products.
(7) "Commerce" is defined as trade, traffic, commerce, or transpor-
tation, (A) between a place in a State and any place outside thereof, or
(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation described
in (A).
(8) "Distribute in commerce" is defined as sell in, offer for sale in,
or introduce or deliver for introduction into, commerce.
(9) "State" is defined to include the District of Columbia, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) "Federal agency" is defined as an executive agency (as defined
in section 105 of title 5, United States Code), plus the United States
Postal Service.
Section 4- Federal programs
Subsection 4 (a) authorizes and directs Federal agencies to adminis-
ter the programs within their control in such a manner as to further
the policy of the bill to the fullest extent consistent with their existing
authority.
Subsection 4(b) directs the Administrator to coordinate all Federal
programs relating to noise research and control, and to assist him in
exercising this responsibility, and directs Federal agencies to furnish
him with such information about such programs as he may reasonably
require. Further, in prescribing regulations each Federal agency
must consult with the Administrator. If the Administrator at any
tune has reason to believe that an existing or proposed standard
or regulation respecting noise does not adequately protect the public
health and welfare, he may request a review and report on the advis-
ability of revising such standard or regulation. Such a request may be
published in the Federal Register, but it must be accompanied by
supporting data. The requested review and report must be completed
within the time specified by the Administrator, but such specified time
may not be less than 90 days. The report must be published in the
Federal Register with a detailed statement of the findings and conclu-
sions. With respect to the Federal Aviation Administration, special
provisions are provided in section 7, discussed below.
This subsection also directs the Administrator, on the basis of
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, to publish a periodic
report covering the noise-related activities of all Federal agencies.
It is intended that this report will provide a means for assessing the
overall progress of Federal noise control efforts.
Section 5. Noise criteria and control technology
Section 5 gives the Administrator of EPA responsibility to develop
and publish basic documents on noise and its control. Subsection 5 (a)
directs him to develop criteria for noise, taking into account up-to-
date scientific knowledge on noise effects. These criteria should make
[p. 12]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOKY 2357
clear what quantities and qualities of noise are consistent with pro-
tection of the public health and welfare under differing circumstances.
Subsection 5(b) directs the Administrator to publish one or more
reports identifying products or classes of products which in his judg-
ment are major sources of noise and providing information on tech-
niques for controlling noise from such sources. Available data on
technology, costs, and alternative methods of control are to be
included. The first report must be published within 18 months after
the bill becomes law. Subsection 5(c) directs the Administrator to
review and, when appropriate, revise the criteria, noise source, and
the control technology documents published under this section.
Subsection 5(d) requires publication of major noise source lists in the
Federal Register and announcement of each publication or revision
of criteria or control technology documents in the Federal Register
and release of copies thereof to the public.
Section 6. Noise emission standards for new products distributed in
commerce
Under section 6 (a), the Administrator is required to propose regula-
tions for each product which is identified in a- report under section
5(b)(l) as a major noise source; for which, in his judgment, noise
emission standards are feasible; and which falls in one of the following
categories:
(i) Construction equipment.
(ii) Transportation equipment (including recreational ve-
hicles and related equipment).
(iii) Any motor or engine (including any equipment of which
an engine or motor is an integral part).
.(iv) Electrical or electronic equipment.
The Administrator must publish initial proposed regulations not
later than eighteen months after the date of enactment of the bill for
any product for which regulations are required and which is identi-
fied as a major noise source on or before the date the initial proposed
regulations are published. Regulations for a product for which noise
regulations are required, and which is identified as a major noise
source after the initial proposed noise regulations are published,
must be proposed by the Administrator not later than eighteen months
after the product is so identified. After proposed regulations have been
published respecting a product, the Administrator is required, unless
in his judgment noise emission standards are not feasible for the prod-
uct, to prescribe noise regulations for such product not earlier than
6 months after publication of proposed regulations for the product
and not later than 24 months after the enactment of the bill (in the
case of a product subject to the initial proposed regulations) or 24
months after the product is identified as a major noise source (in
the case of any other product).
Subsection 6(b) provides the Administrator with additional au-
thority to publish proposed regulations establishing noise emission
standards for products other than those for which regulations are
required above, if in his judgment such standards are feasible and
requisite to protect the public health and welfare. Regulations pre-
scribing such standards may not be earlier than six months after the
proposed regulations are published.
Any noise regulation prescribed under section 6 (a) or (b) (and
any revision thereof) respecting a product must include a noise
[p. 13]
-------
2358 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
emission standard which shall set limits on noise emissions from the
product and must be a standard which in the Administrator's judg-
ment, based on criteria published under section 5, is requisite to
protect the public health and welfare. In establishing a standard
for a product the Administrator must give appropriate consideration
to technological feasibility and economic .costs, and to standards
under other laws designed to safeguard the health and welfare of
persons, including any standard under the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or the Clean Air Act. Any noise
emission standard under this section must be a performance standard.
Noise regulations under this section may contain testing procedures
necessary to assure compliance with the noise emission standard in
the regulation, and may contain provisions respecting instructions
of the manufacturer for the maintenance, use, or repair of the product.
The Administrator is given broad authority to prescribe regula-
tions appropriate to the type of product regulated, and the noise
problem that it creates. Noise emission standards could apply to the
performance of the product at the time of manufacture, and compli-
ance could be ascertained by prototype testing or sampling methods,
or by other testing procedures. Alternatively, if the Administrator
determined that it was appropriate, the standards could apply to the
performance of the product over a specified period of operation, and
in such a case the Administrator could test prototypes or samples
off the assembly line to determine whether the product complied with
the standard over the specified period. In addition, the Administrator
could issue regulations requiring that the manufacturer recommend
in his maintenance instructions procedures to assure that the.noise
emission performance of the product would pot deteriorate unduly
during the period of its use. (It should be noted, however, that under
the enforcement provisions of the bill the Administrator has no au-
thority to regulate the use of products which do not conform with
his noise emission standards, or to require users to comply with
maintenance instructions.)
Section 6(d) prohibits any State or political subdivision from
adopting or enforcing any law or regulation which sets a limit on
noise emissions from a new product for which a noise regulation has
been prescribed .by the Administrator under section 6, unless the
non-Federal law or regulation is identical to the regulation of the
Administrator. In addition, States and political subdivisions are
prohibited from adopting or enforcing any law or regulation which
sets a limit on noise emissions from any component incorporated
by the manufacturer in a new product to which noise regulations
under section 6 apply. Section 6(d)(2) makes it clear however that
nothing in section 6 will diminish or enhance the rights of any State
or political subdivision thereof to control, regulate, or restrict the use,
operation, or movement of any product.
Section 7. Aircraft noise standards
Section 7 amends section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
which authorizes regulation of the noise characteristics of aircraft and
aircraft components, as follows:
New subsections (a), (b), (b)(2), and (c) are added; former sub-
section (a) is redesignated (b) (1) and amended, and the former sub-
sections (b) and (c) are redesignated as (d) and (e), respectively.
[p. W]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2359
Subsection 611(b)(l) is amended to direct that the Administrator
of EPA be consulted for his advice before standards or regulations are
promulgated or amended. However, all standards, rules, or regulations
(or exceptions thereto) in effect at the date of the enatcment of the
bill remain in effect until amended or revoked by subsequent action
(including granting an exemption) under the new procedures.
New subsection 611(b)(2) directs that after enactment of this bill
the Administrator of the FAA cannot issue an original type certificate
for any aircraft for which substantial -noise abatement can be achieved
by prescribing standards and regulations unless such standards and
regulations have been prescribed and are consistent with the redesig-
nated'subsection (d). Under that subsection the Administrator of
FAA must consider all relevant available data; consult with orther
governmental agencies as he deems appropriate; consider whether
such standards or regulations'are consistent with the highest degree of
safety; consider whether such standards or regulations would be
economically reasonable and technologically practicable; and consider
the extent to which they will carry out the purposes of section 611.
Under the new subsection 611(c) if the Administrator of the EPA
has reason to believe that (1) an existing or proposed standard or
regulation of the FAA under Section 611, or exemption therefrom,
or (2) the issuance of an original type certificate for which noise
abatement standards or regulations have not been prescribed, does
not protect the public from aircraft noise consistent with the con-
siderations in redesignated subsection (d) he shall consult with and
may request the Administrator of the FAA to review and report on
the advisability of revising such standard, regulation or exemption or
of the advisability of issuance of a type certificate as the case may be.
Such a request, which must include-supporting data, may be published
in the Federal Register. Except where EPA proposes specific action
which the FAA agrees to take, the report of the FAA must be pub-
lished in the Federal Register within a tune specified by the Adminis-
trator of the EPA (but he may not specify less than 90 days). The
published report must be accompanied by a detailed statement of
findings and reasons for the conclusions, must identify any environ-
mental impact statement filed under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 which relates to the action, standard or regulation
in question, and provide information respecting the availability of
such statement. If, in the case of a standard, regulation or exemption
therefrom, an environmental impact statement was not required and
if the report indicates no revision should be made, then the published
report must (if EPA so requests) contain a comparison of the environ-
mental effects of the existing or proposed standard, or regulation or
exemption therefrom and the revision proposed by the Administrator
of the EPA.
If the action contested by the EPA is the issuance of an original
type certificate for which an environmental impact statement was not
filed and the FAA report indicates that such a certificate should not
be preceded by a noise standard or regulation, the Administrator of
the FAA must file a statement similar to an environmental impact
statement if requested to do so by the Administrator of the EPA.
(The exemptions to which this section refers include exemptions
from noise standards and regulations, granted under section 601(c),
and exemptions from section 610(a) granted under section 610(b),
[p. 15]
-------
2360 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
to the extent the exemption under section 610(b) has the effect of
relieving foreign airmen or aircraft from compliance with noise
standards or regulations under section 611.)
Section 8. Labeling
Section 8 authorizes Federal noise labeling requirements for prod-
ucts distributed in commerce. Subsection 8 (a) directs the Adminis-
trator by regulation to designate any product (or class thereof) which
(1) emits noise capable of adversely affecting the public health and
welfare, or (2) is sold at least in part on the basis of its effectiveness in
reducing noise. Such products are not limited to those for which stand-
ards have been set in section 6 or for which a control technology report
has been developed under section 5. For a product so designated, sub-
section 8(b) directs the Administrator to require by regulation that
notice be given to the prospective user of the level of noise emission, or
of the effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case may be. Such regula-
tions must specify (1) whether such notice will be affixed to the product
or to the outside of its container (or to both) at the time of its sale to
the ultimate purchaser or whether such notice will be given to the pro-
spective user in some other manner, (2) the form of the notice, and (3)
the methods and units of measurement to be used.
Subsection 8(c) leaves intact any existing powers of the States and
their political subdivision to regulate product labeling and information
respecting products in any way not in conflict with Federal regulations.
This section affords the Administrator wide latitude in the drafting
of regulations concerning notification of noise levels. In the case of a
mass production product such as automobiles, the Committee bill does
not require that each individual must be tested and the specific noise
level of such unit be included in a special label on that unit. For
example, the Administrator may issue regulations providing for
measuring a representative sample of automobiles which will provide
information on the maximum amount of noise that is likely to be
emitted from any given product.
Section 9. Imports
Section 9 directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with
the Administrator, to issue regulations to carry out the provisions of
the bill with respect to new products imported or offered for importa-
tion.
Section 10. Prohibited Acts
Section 10 sets forth certain acts which are prohibited by the bill.
Paragraph 10(a)(l) forbids any manufacturer to distribute in com-
merce any new product manufactured after the effective .date of
applicable noise regulations under section 6 applicable to the product,
except in conformity with such regulations.
Paragraph 10 (.a) (2) forbids any person (1) to remove or render
inoperative, other than for maintenance, repair, or replacement, any
device or element of design incorporated into a product in compliance
with noise regulations prescribed under section 6, or (2) to use a
product after such device or element of design has been removed or
rendered inoperative by any person.
Paragraph 10 (a) (3) forbids any manufacturer to distribute in com-
merce any new product manufactured after the effective date of label-
ing regulations under section 8 that apply to such product, except in
conformity with such regulations. r 1 fil
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2361
Paragraph 10 (a) (4) forbids any person, prior to sale of a product to
the ultimate, purchaser, to remove a notice affixed to the product or its
container pursuant to labeling regulations prescribed under section
8(b).
Paragraph 10 (a) (5) forbids the importation into the United States
of any products in violation of regulations under section 9, discussed
above, relating to imports.
Paragraph 10(a) (6) forbids any person to fail to comply with the
provisions of section 13(a), discussed below, respecting required
records, reports, and tests.
Subsection 10(b) allows two exceptions to certain of these prohibi-
tions: (1) The Administrator is authorized to exempt for a specified
period of time any new product from paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5)
of subsection (a), upon such terms and conditions as he may find
necessary to protect the public health or welfare, for the purpose of
research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or for
reasons of national security. (2) A product which is manufactured
solely for export, and which product (and its container) is visibly
labeled or tagged to that effect, is exempted from the prohibitions of
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a), except that such
paragraphs shall apply to such a product if it is in fact distributed in
commerce for use in any State.
Section 11. Enforcement
Section 11 provides for enforcement of the prohibitions set out in
subsection 10(a) of .this Act. Paragraph ll(a)(l) establishes a civil
penalty of not more than $25,000 for each violation of subsection 10(a).
This provision provides for the imposition of the civil penalty (1)
by the Administrator and the collection thereof in a civil action
brought by the Federal Government in a district court in a proceeding
under this section, or (2) by a State, with an agreement under sub-
section ll(c), discussed below, through civil action in a State court.
Section ll(a)(l)(B) provides that a person who does any act in
violation of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 10(a), and who
establishes that he did not have reason to know hi the exercise of due
care that such act was in violation of that paragraph, shall not be
subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Paragraph 11 (a) (2) provides that hi any proceeding by the Admin-
istrator (or a State) for imposition of a civil penalty, the person
charged must be given notice and an opportunity to present his views,
and the Administrator (or such State), in determining the penalty
or the amount accepted in compromise, must consider the gravity
of the violation and the efforts of the person charged to achieve rapid
compliance after notification of the violation.
Paragraph 11 (a) (3) provides that when a civil penalty is imposed by
the Administrator under this subsection, if his determination of liability
is made on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, then in
any civil action to collect such civil penalty any findings of facts upon
which the above determination is based are conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
This section gives the Administrator two procedural alterna-
tives for assessing civil penalties. He may assess a penalty by giving
the violator notice and an opportunity to present his views, and then
by collecting the penalty in a full de novo trial hi the court in which
-------
2362 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
the collection action is brought. Alternatively, he may give the
violator a full administrative hearing on the violation, and make his
determination of liability on the record after notice and opportunity
for hearing. In this case, in any civil action bo collect the civil penalty,
the Administrator's findings of fact would be reviewed under the
substantial evidence rule. . ;-
For the purpose of imposing cumulative penalties, each day of
violation of any paragraph of section 10 (a) will be a separate viola-
tion under paragraph 11 (a) (4).
Subsection ll(b) authorizes the United States to bring a civil action
in the district courts of the United States to restrain any violations
of section 10 (a) of the bill.
Subsection ll(c) allows the Administrator, when authorized by
State law, to make an agreement with a State, with or without
reimbursement, authorizing appropriate State officials to impose civil
penalties under subsection (a)(l) above, and to bring civil actions in
appropriate State courts to impose civil penalties or restrain violations
under section 10.(a), and the courts of such State may entertain any
such civil action. Any civil penalty imposed by a State court is pay-
able one-half to the State and one-half to the Federal Government.
Subsection ll(d) exempts any department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the United States from the definition of "person" in
section 3(2) of this Act.
Section 12. Citizen suits
Section 12 provides a procedure for citizen suits in furtherance of
the purpose of the Act to protect the public health and welfare.
Subsection 12 (a) allows any person (other than the United States)
to commence a civil action on his own behalf, subject to subsection
(b), discussed below, against (1) any person (including the United
States, and any other governmental instrumentality or agency
to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitu-
tion) who is allegedly in violation of any noise control requirement,
discussed below under subsection (e), or (2) against the Administrator
of EPA or the Administrator of FAA for an alleged failure to carry
out non-discretionary duties under their respective authorities. The
Federal district courts are given jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy, to restrain the defendant from violating the
noise control requirement or to order the defendant Administrator to
perform such act or duty; as the case may be.
Subsection 12 (b) restricts the above action (1) prior to 60 days
after notice to the Administrator of EPA (and of FAA, when appro-
priate) when there is a violation of a noise control requirement and
to any alleged violator of such requirement, or if an Administrator
has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action to require
such compliance, in which case any person may intervene as a matter
of right, or (2) prior to sixty days after notice has been given to the
Administrator of EPA (and of FAA, if appropriate), as the defendant,
that such action will be commenced. Any notice must be given in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Administrator of EPA.
bubsection 12 (c) provides that an Administrator, if not a party,
may intervene as a matter of right.
Subsection 12 (d) makes it clear that no provision of this section
restricts any right of any person to institute proceedings under any
i [p. 18]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2363
statute or common law to seek enforcement of any noise control
requirement or other relief.
Under subsection 12(e) "noise control requirement" is defined for
purposes of this section as any provision of section 10 (a) (except
paragraph (6), relating to recordkeeping, etc.), or a standard rule, or
regulation under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
The provisions in section 12 with respect to citizen suits against
violators of noise control requirements axe intended-to apply only to
civil actions to require actual compliance with such a requirement.
Actions for the assessment or collection of civil penalties are governed
solely hy section 11.
Section IS. Recordst reports, and information
Subsection 13 (a) requires every manufacturer of a product covered
by standards under section 6 or labeling regulations under section 8
to (1) maintain such records, make such reports, provide such informa-
tion,'and make such .tests as the Administrator may reasonably require
to enable him to determine whether such manufacturer has acted or
is acting in compliance with the bill, (2) permit, upon request, a
representative of the Administrator to view such information and the
results of such tests and to copy such records, and (3) make products
coming off the assembly line or otherwise in the hands of the manu-
facturer available for testing by the Administrator to the extent
required by the regulations.
Subsection 13(b) provides that all information obtained by the
Administrator or has representatives pursuant to the above subsection
if it contains or relates to a matter referred to as confidential section
1905 of title 18 of the United States Code, shall be protected from
disclosure as provided in that section, except that it may be disclosed
to other Federal employees, with whom it must remain confidential or
when relevant to the matter in controversy in any proceeding under
the proposed act. Such information cannot be withheld from the duly
authorized committees of Congress.
Section 14- Research, technical assistance, and public information
Section 14 authorizes the Administrator of EPA, in furtherance of
his responsibilities under the bill, to conduct and assist noise research,
to provide technical assistance to State and local governments,
and to disseminate information'on noise to the public.
Section 15. Development of low-noise-emission products
This section encourages the use of present technology and further
research to develop low-noise-emission products.
To accomplish this objective the Administrator is directed to
determine which products qualify as low-noise-emission products.
For a product or class of products to qualify, a proper certification
application must be filed under procedures prescribed by regulation
and a notice of such application must be. published in the Federal
Register in order for the Administrator to receive and evaluate
comments and make a determination based upon such evaluation and
whatever other investigation is necessary, including inspection at a
place designated in the regulations. The Administrator has authority
to establish a Low-Noise-Emission Advisory Committee to assist him
in deterrtuning which products qualify. Within ninety days: after
receipt of a properly filed certification application a determina-
! [p. 19]
-------
2364 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
tion must be made as to whether such product qualifies as a low-
noise-emission product. Within one hundred and eighty days after
a determination that such product qualifies, a decision is to be made
as to whether it is suitable as a substitute for a product presently
being purchased for use in the Federal Government. Both the de-
termination and the decision are to be published immediately in the
Federal Register, including the reasons therefor.
Any product for which a proper certification application has been
received, which has been determined to be a low-noise-emission
product, and which has been decided to be a suitable substitute for a
product presently being purchased will be certified by the Adminis-
trator for a period of one year.
Such a certified product will be acquired by purchase for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other products if the Administrator of
General Services determines the procurement cost is no more than 125
per centum of the retail price of the least expensive product for which
it would be substituted. Statutory price limitations are waived for
procuring such products, and authorizations for appropriations for the
additional amounts needed for a three-year period are provided.
Tests of products certified and procured by the Federal Government
are to be made as the Administrator deems appropriate, and if noise
levels exceed those on which certification was based, he must give a
written nptice to the supplier as well as issue a public notice. The
supplier will be given an opportunity to make necessary repairs,
adjustments, or replacements.
Procedures to implement this section are to be prescribed within
one hundred and eighty days after this Act becomes law.
Section 16. Authorization of appropriations
To carry out this Act (other than section 15) appropriations are
authorized for: $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1972; $6,000,000 for fiscal
year 1973; and $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1974.
COMMITTEE VOTES
One record vote was taken during Committee consideration of the
bill. The vote was on the following amendment by Mr. Eckhardt,
which was defeated by a vote of 3 ayes, 16 nays:
Delete section 6(d)(l).
AGENCY REPORTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. HARLEY Q. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your requests for the
views of the Environmental Protection Agency on H.R. 6275 (and
5388), 6986, and 6989. We are also including comments on H.R. 923,
6002, 6984, and 6990, which are related proposals;
H.R. 5275 (also 5388) is the Administration's bill to control the
generation and transmission of noise detrimental to the human
environment.
Under a statement of congressional findings, that bill would provide
that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to public
[p. 20]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2365
health and welfare, particularly in urban areas; that the major sources
of noise include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery,
appliances, and other manufactured articles that move in commerce;
and that primary responsibility for control of noise in many respects
rests with States and local governments but that Federal action is
essential to deal with major noise problems which require national
uniformity of treatment. It would be the policy of the Federal Govern-
ment to promote an environment free from noise that jeopardizes
public health and welfare.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who
would have the primary responsibility for implementing the legisla-
tion, would be required to promote the coordination of all Federal
programs relating to noise research and control, and all other Federal
agencies would be required to furnish him with any information he
might reasonably request about their programs. On the basis of regu-
lar consultation with appropriate agencies, the Administrator would
publish periodic reports on the status and progress of Federal noise
abatement activities.
The Administrator would be given authority to develop and publish
criteria, after consultation with appropriate Federal Departments and
agencies, for noise for the protection of public health and welfare and
which would reflect the best scientific knowledge in identifying the
effects of differing quantities and qualities of noise. He would be
directed to confer with the Secretaries of Health, Education, and
Welfare and Labor to assure consistency with criteria and standards
for occupational noise exposure under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970. After compilation of initial criteria, the Adminis-
trator would compile and publish a report or series of reports to identify
major sources of noise and to give information on techniques for the
control of such noise which.would include available data on technology,
costs and alternative methods of control.
The Administrator would also be authorized to prescribe noise
standards for construction equipment, transportation equipment,
including recreation equipment and equipment powered by internal
combustion engines. In prescribing and amending standards, he would
have to consider whether it would be economically reasonable, techno-
logically practicable and appropriate for the particular products and
whether the particular products could be more effectively controlled
through Federal or State or local regulations. The standards so
prescribed would be those requisite to protect the public health and
welfare. Standards would apply only to those products manufactured
subsequent to the effective date of such standards. Any manufacturer
of a product covered by a proposed standard would have the right to
a public hearing.
Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, which authorizes the
regulation of noise or sonic boom characteristics of civil aircraft and
components thereof, would be amended to provide that standards,
rules and regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion subsequent to enactment of this legislation must be approved by
the Administrator of EPA. Further, after the effective date of the
proposed legislation, the FAA could not issue a type certificate for
any aircraft and components thereof unless he has already prescribed
standards, rules and regulations for the noise characteristics.
After the Administrator of EPA prescribed noise-generation stand-
ards for any product, no State or subdivision thereof could adopt or
[p. 21]
-------
2366 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
enforce different standards for such products. However, States or
subdivisions would retain the right to control, regulate, or restrict the
use, operation or movement of such products.
Under the provisions of this Administration proposal, the Admin-
istrator of EPA would also have the authority to designate products
or classes of products that (1) produce noise capable of adversely
affecting public health and welfare or (2) are sold wholly or in part
on the basis of their effectiveness in reducing noise. The Adminis-
trator could prescribe noise-generation or noise-reduction labeling
requirements for any products so designated to be affixed to the
product and the container. These labeling requirements would be far
reaching and apply to many categories of equipment beyond those
which would be subject to noise emission standards. States or sub-
divisions would retain the right to regulate product labeling in any
way not in conflict with Federal regulations.
Prohibitions included in the proposal would not allow any manu-
facturer of new products to sell a product after the effective date of
labeling regulations promulgated respecting either noise-generating
characteristics or noise reduction unless they conformed to such regula-
tions; or any person, prior to the sale to the ultimate purchaser to
remove the affixed notice or label. Products imported would be sub-
ject to the same general standards and labeling requirements as domes-
tic products. Two exceptions to these prohibitions would be provided—
the Administrator could exempt any new product upon such terms and
conditions as he might find necessary to protect the public health or
welfare, for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demon-
strations or training, or for reasons of national security; and products
intended solely for export.
Every domestic manufacturer covered by the noise regulations or
labeling regulations would be required to- maintain records, make re-
ports and provide such information as the Administrator may reason-
ably need to determine that such manufacturer was in compliance
with the Act. Information relating to trade secrets would, be kept
confidential.
In furtherance of his responsibilities, the Administrator would be
authorized to conduct and assist noise research, including the investi-
gation of effects on humans, domestic animals, wildlife, and property;
development of improved methods and standards for measurement
and monitoring of noise in cooperation with the National Bureau of
Standards; and determination of most effective and practicable means
of controlling noise. He would also provide technical assistance to
and prepare model legislation for State and local governments and
disseminate information to the public.
H.R. 5275 would provide for civil penalties of not more than $25,000
for each violation of the Act which could be imposed either by the
Administrator, after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, or by a
court. In determining the amount of the penalty, the Administrator
would consider the gravity of the violation and the efforts to achieve
compliance after the notice was given. Penalties could be judicially
enforced. The Administrator would be able to enlist the aid of any
State to enforce the Act either by suing to restrain violations, or by
imposing civil penalties. Any civil penalty thus imposed would be
payable one-half to the State and one-half to the Federal Government.
ihe Environmental Protection Agency recommends that the Ad-
ministration proposal, H.R. 5275, be enacted. This legislation would
[p. 22]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2367
provide for noise abatement control which, is appropriate and adequate
at this time. The Administrator of EPA would have flexibility of
management which would allow him to incorporate the best man-
agerial techniques and planning, and to apply the most suitable and
up-to-date technology available to carry out an effective program.
States and local governments "would retain responsibility to control
certain aspects of noise. The Federal: .Government would provide
technical assistance to them and address the major noise problems
where national uniformity is needed.
In summary, the functions that EPA, in consultation with other
agencies, would carry out under H.R. 5275 are:
1. Prescribe criteria for noise to protect the public health and
welfare.
2. Identify and set standards for the following major sources of
noise:
(a) Construction equipment;
(6) Transportation equipment (including recreational ve-
hicles and related equipment); and
(c) Equipment powered by internal combustion engines.
3. Establish labeling requirements for designate products or
classes of products.
4. Promote the coordination of Federal programs relating to
noise research and noise control.
H.R. 923 would provide for the establishment of an Office of Noise
Abatement Control within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Such office would be directed to conduct a complete
investigation and study of noise and its effects on pubjic health
and welfare. The results of the study, together with recommendations
for action, would be reported to the President and the Congress within
one year of the enactment of this bill., Appropriations of such amounts
as would be necessary for the purposes of the bill would be authorized.
EPA fully supports the purposes of H.R. 923, but does not rec-
ommend that it be enacted since its provisions closely parallel
requirements already enacted into law under the "Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970" (Title IV, P:L. 91-604) which places the
responsibility with the Environmental Protection Agency. Actions
mandated by the Congress in P.L. 91-604 are now in progress in
EPA.
H.R. 6002 would "provide for a comprehensive program for the
control of noise" under the direction of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Section 102 would authorize the Administrator to make grants to
States for the purposes of providing programs of noise control, re-
search into the causes and effects of noise, programs for the investiga-
tion of existing causes of excessive noise and research into new
techniques of controlling, preventing, and abating noisfr with an
authorization for appropriations escalating from $5 million for fiscal
year 1972 to $13 million for fiscal year 1976. Allocation and realloca-
tion formulas would be 'provided for these funds i6f those States-with
plans approved under conditions designated. .^'i; :
Section 103 wbuld authorize the Director (fathiftr than the Ad-
ministrator) to make grants to any public or nonprofit private agency,
organization or institution, or to make~ contracts for the service^
of any such agency, organization, institution or of any individual to
conduct research, provide training, and establish and conduct dem-
[p. 23]
-------
2368 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
onstration projects. Appropriations would be authorized on an es-
calated basis from $5 million for fiscal year 1972 to $12 million for
fiscal year 1975. • . . . .
Title II of this proposal would require the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to prescribe and
amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom
and to prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as may be
necessary. Standards, rules and regulations initially issued under this
section would include specified restrictions on such things as the dBA
level exposure to the nearest residential properties, times of takeoffs
in populated areas and ground runup intervals. Civil aircraft would
be prohibited from operating at supersonic speeds over land areas of
the United States. Injunction proceedings would be provided, and any
person violating any standard, rule or regulation under this title
would be fined not less than $1,000 for each violation. Section 611 of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1431) would be repealed.
Title III would direct the Administrator to prescribe standards;
rules and regulations applicable to the emission of noise from motor
vehicles sold in commerce which endanger health and welfare. Stand-
ards, rules and regulations initially issued would include prohibitions
against the operation of motor vehicles where the noise level of the
vehicle exceeds specified dBA levels at certain speeds. Injunction
proceedings and penalties would be the same as under Title II.
Title IV would direct the Administrator to prescribe standards,
rules and regulations applicable to occupational noise exposure.
Standards, rules and regulations initially issued would include specified
dBA limits throughout the workday and for impact noise during the
workday. Injunction proceedings and penalties would again be the
same as under Title II. Standards, .rules and regulations which would
be promulgated under this bill would supersede those set under the
Walsh-Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35, etseq..).
EPA generally supports the purposes of the bill but recommends
against the enactment of H.R. 6002. The Administration's bill,
H.R. 5275, for reasons enumerated below, provides a more compre-
hensive and effective approach to the problem.
Section 102 of H.R. 6002 is patterned upon existing State-aid
categorical program support authorities such as under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This authority overlaps, to a large
measure, that contained in Section 103 of the proposal under which
grants could be made to "any public or nonprofit private agency,
organization, or institution" to conduct research in the same areas.
Duplication of research efforts would be wasteful and could lead to
confusion. We agree it is desirable to provide technical assistance
to States to develop noise control programs; however, we do not
believe it is necessary or appropriate for the Federal Government
to provide categorical program support to states as contemplated
in H.R. 6002. The more general authorities contained in Section 11
of H.R. 5275 would also provide greater flexibility in structuring
research programs to be conducted by both public and private agencies.
Further, the appropriation provision in Section 14 of H.R. 5275 is
preferable in that it would authorize appropriations for each fiscal
year beginning with 1972 for such sums as are necessary. This would
provide for essential flexibility in structuring programs needed to
take advantage of "breakthroughs" or unexpected new developments
in research.
[p. 24]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2369
Title II of H.R. 6002, which sets specific requirements on dBA
level exposure of aircraft to residential properties, times of takeoffs,
etc., is based on current technology and existing standards. Such
requirements would limit the Federal Government's authority to
establish more stringent standards keeping pace with new tech-
nology. Rather than repeal Section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958, Section 6(c) of the Administration's proposal would
amend Section 611 by making rules and regulations developed there-
under subject to the approval of the Administrator of EPA. The
Administration's proposal would also require that the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration not issue "type certificates"
under Section 603 of that Act unless he has prescribed standards, rules
and regulations subject to the approval of the Administrator of
EPA, and further that the Administrator of EPA may at any time
request the Administrator of FAA to report on the advisability of
revising standards, rules and regulations not believed to adequately
protect the public from aircraft noise or sonic boom. The Adminis-
tration's approach provides flexibility to tajse into account changes
in noise technology, noise monitoring, and noise control requirements.
Again under Title III of H.R. 6002, pertaining to control and
abatement of motor vehicle noise, numerical values and other condi-
tions for noise exposure are specified. In this instance, the proposed
limitations closely follow those established by the State of California,
except that they do not specify the point of measurement (number of
feet) nor do they take into account some of the research results now
being developed by the Highway Research Board of the National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, and National
Academy of Engineering. Therefore, the requirements that would be
fixed in the law would not reflect the latest developments, nor provide
for keeping pace with such developments. Title III covers only motor
vehicle noise, whereas, the Administration's proposal provides for
noise generation control for other internal-combustion engines such as
heavy construction equipment (compressors, generators, etc.). Vir-
tually all recent studies have concluded that the major sources of
noise in urban areas are from all forms of internal-combustion equip-
ment. H.R. 6002 thus deals with only a portion of the problem while
the Administration bill provides for the most important sources.
Title IV'of H.R. 6002 specifies numerical levels that must be
included in the regulations. The numerical regulations regarding the
8-hour "daily exposure are more restrictive than those presently
specified in the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (which have been
a source of controversy). This Title, in effect, would supersede the
authorities of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 regard-
ing occupational health vested in the Secretaries of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare. The environmental aspect of occupational
health and safety is only one segment of programs which involve a
combination of medical, engineering and educational functions that
should be conducted in an integrated, coordinated fashion. Removal
of responsibility, authority and accountability for one segment of the
industrial-environmental exposure would seriously weaken the overall
occupational health and safety effort. In addition to the environmental
controls, other measures are required, such as the setting of standards
for hearing ability associated with various tasks and occupations, and
pre-employment and periodic audiometric and other evaluations to
[p. 25]
-------
2370 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
differentiate effects of occupational noise from other sources of hearing
loss (illness or accident), and the problem of providing an overall
environmental control program operated in conjunction with other
medical and educational procedures.
The relationship between the occupational environment and the
general environment, recognizing the totality of environmental ex-
posures, is taken into account in Section 5 of the Administration bill
which would require that the Administrator of EPA assure consistency
between the criteria provided for in that proposal and the criteria and
standards for occupational noise exposure produced under the Oc-
cupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In our view, this represents
a better functional solution to the total environmental problem than
that proposed in H.R. 6002.
H.R. 6986 (and H.R. 6987) would amend the Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970.
Under Section 402, among other things, the Congress would, find
that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare,
that the level of noise in the United States has doubled since 1955;
the government has not taken steps necessary to provide for control
and abatement; that the Federal Government has a responsibility to
protect the health and welfare of its citizens; and that all citizens
are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment. The purpose of the
act would be to expand the functions and responsibilities of the Office
of Noise Abatement and Control; to establish means of effective
coordination of all Federal research and activities relating to noise
control; to establish standards to promote public health and welfare;
to provide grants, contracts and assistance to State and local govern-
ment; and to establish a Noise Control Advisory Council to provide
expert advice.
Section 403 would provide that the Administrator of EPA establish
an Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
Section 404 would authorize the Office in performing its functions
to undertake investigations, hearings, research, experiments, publish
reports and assist State and local governmental bodies with technical
assistance.
Section 405 would provide that this Office coordinate the efforts
of any arm of the Federal Government which has any responsibility
relating to the control of noise, and all Federal agencies must consult
with this Office on noise problems considered to be a public nuisance.
The Office would be required to publish periodic reports on the status
and progress of Federal activities.
Section 406 would provide that an annual report be submitted to
the Congress in July of each year which would include complete in-
formation on the results of its investigations, on the work and activities
of State and local governmental bodies and on the activities of other
recipients of grants or contracts.
Section 407 would establish a categorical grant program for. the
support of State and other local governmental bodies for developing,
establishing and conducting programs of noise control and for research
into the causes and effects of noise and new techniques.
Under Section 408 the head of the Office would be further authorized
to make grants or contracts to any public or nonprofit organization
lor the purpose of conducting research into noise pollution, training
professional and technical personnel, and conducting demonstrations
projects. ^
[p. 26]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2371
Section 409 would forbid Federal contract negotiations with persons
convicted of violation of Section 412 which lists "prohibited acts."
The head of the Office would establish procedures required, and
within 180 days after enactment of the legislation the President
would be required to issue an order requiring compliance by all
Federal agencies involved in procurement. The President could exempt
any contract, loan or grant where such exemption would be para-
mount to the interest of the United States, and he would be required
to report annually to the Congress regarding measures taken.
Section 410 would create a Noise Control Advisory Council to
advise the head of the Office .on its responsibilities and further to
review all project grants and contracts.
Section 411 would authorize the prescribing of standards, rules and
regulations applicable to any machine, or class of machinery, which
is determined contributes to, or may contribute to, the endangering
of the public health and welfare. Provision would be made for neces-
sary inspections and investigations to implement this section. Manu-
facturers for which regulations, rules or standards were promulgated
would be required to maintain records, make reports and provide
necessary'information. State or local governmental units would be
permitted to set stricter standards than those established under this
section.
H.R. 6986 further would provide for district courts to have jurisdic-
tion to restrain violations of the standards set and to impose civil and
criminal penalties for each violation with maximum fines set. If the
head of the Office fails to take action against a violator within 60 days
suits by private citizens would be authorized against the polluter or
the head of the Office, as may be appropriate. In any civil action to
which the head of the Office is a party, he would appoint attorneys to
represent him.
EPA supports the general objectives of H.R. 6986, but recommends
enactment instead of H.R. 5275.
Section 403 would continue the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control currently established by Title IV, P.L. 91-604 and deals with
responsibilities for undertaking investigations, hearings, research,
experiments and reports provided under P.L. 91-604. We would prefer
an approach whereby the Administrator of EPA would have manage-
ment flexibility of modern program planning and budget operation
and procedures.
Coordination of Federal activities under Section 405 carries forward
that requirement already in P.L. 91-604 and in the main, contains the
same proposals as in the Administration bill under Section 4. Section
405 would require the publication of a periodic report and Section 406
requires an annual report. While a report requirement is desirable, we
believe only one such requirement is preferable.
As in H.R. 6002, the grant programs provided in Section 407 and
408 would be duplicative. Again, the technical assistance provisions
contained in H.R. 5275, would provide a better basis for Federal
support of State and local programs and would give more flexibility
to take care of individual State needs. Section 407 and 408 would
also provide specific appropriation authorizations. As stated above,
we believe the legislation should authorize appropriation of such sums
as may be necessary. Studies that are underway in EPA will provide
a basis for determining the amounts that will be needed to carry out
an effective program. r g--.
-------
2372 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
Section 409 would provide for Federal procurement procedures for
with respect to noise control. Although the Administration's bill does
not specifically deal with this issue, we believe that consideration
should be given to the use of Federal procurement to further the pur-
poses of the Federal noise control program.
We concur in the desirability of obtaining advice and recommenda-
tions of an interdisciplinary group of nongovernmental experts.
However, we question the desirability of a Noise Control Advisory
Council to deal in the actual administration of grant and contract
awards. EPA is presently considering the establishment of an advisory
group. In this context we will take account of the need for experts
in the noise control field.
As provided in Section 411 standards, rules and regulations would
be applicable to machines, or classes of machinery, defined in Section
416 as any item of mechanical or electrical machinery or equipment.
This definition is vague and could cover almost anything. The Adminis-
tration bill deals with the major sources of noise in urban areas.
Studies that are now underway in EPA will be useful in identifying
other sources of noise that require attention and other steps that may
be needed on the part of Federal, State or local governments to reduce
noise.
An almost impossible situation for manufacturers would be created
by provision for State or local standards which are stricter than
those set by the Federal Government for products in interstate
commerce. While conditions in States may vary, it is envisioned
that the standards to be established by the Administrator of EPA
would be those most consistent with requirements for protection of
health and welfaie and the abatement of nuisances. Where more
restrictive requirements might be needed to meet special State
situations, the provision of the Administration's bill would preserve
the rights of States or sub-divisions to control, regulate, or restrict
use, operation, or movement of products emitting noise. We believe
that this is a far more satisfactory approach to the problem.
Section 414 provides that attorneys employed by the "head of the
Office" shall appear and represent him in any actions instituted
under the Act. We believe that the Attorney General of the United
States or his designee should represent the Federal Government in
any actions.
H.R. 6988 (and H.R. 6989) would require the disclosure of the
operational noise level of all new machinery distributed in interstate
commerce and imported into the United States one year after enact-
ment. "Machinery" is defined as an item of .mechanical or electrical
machinery or equipment, and "operational noise level" is defined
as the highest level of internally generated noise produced by
machinery when in operation under reasonably anticipated conditions
of use.
The proposal would require that disclosure be made of each
machine's operational noise level unless it has been specifically
exempted by the Administrator. Such an exemption would be based
upon the operation noise level being so low as to be negligible and
that such information would not be of value to the user
[p. 28]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2373
The bill would direct the Administrator to prescribe regulations
establishing standard procedures for measuring the operational noise
level of each class of machinery and the form and content of plates
or labels which would be required. He would be further authorized to
conduct such inspection and investigation as may be necessary to
implement the Act and to require manufacturers of new machinery
to keep records, make reports and provide such information as the
Administration may reasonably require.
The Administrator would be authorized to assess a civil penalty,
not in excess of $25,000 for each violation with a maximum penalty
not to exceed $500,000 for a related series of violations. Criminal
penalties could be imposed by a court up to $5,000 or imprisonment
not to exceed 180 days, or both. District courts would have jurisdiction
of any action. Civil action by private citizens would be authorized
against any violator or the Administrator if no action has been taken
within sixty days after notice of a violation. In any civil action to
which the Administrator is a party, he would appoint attorneys to
represent him,
EPA favors the purposes of H.K,. 6988, but prefers the Administra-
tion bill for the following reasons.
The definition of "machinery" in H.K. 6988 is so broad that
literally thousands of items would come under it. The definition of
"operational noise level" as representing the highest level of internally
generated noise produced by the machine adds new terminology
which would only serve to complicate the already°highly complex and
somewhat confused semantics relating to the noise problem. The
"operational noise level" would be a required specification or state-
ment to be included on plates or labels to be affixed to machines. We
see little merit hi affixing plates or labels which give no indication as
to the significance of the noise level information or its effect on health
and welfare or nuisance effects.
The Administration's proposal provides for a more manageable and
meaningful approach to the requirement to inform the public re-
garding noise generation associated with various products and its
significance. Greater flexibility would also be given to the Adminis-
trator in selecting the method of the notice and the units of measure-
ment and specification of the warning. This would allow the use of
the best scientific technology available to develop meaningful terms
applicable to the particular product and the noise therefrom. It
would also allow the Administrator to use information developed in
the course of hearings called for by Title IV, P.L. 91-604.
H.K. 6990 (and H.R. 6991) would amend the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 to require adoption of standards for the
purpose of providing effective protection to workers against the
deleterious effects of excessive noise.
This proposal would direct the Secretary of Labor to promulgate
noise standards in accordance with a dBA table provided.
Since the Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor
have the resporisibilitiesfor occupational health and safety matters,
EPA defers to their judgment as to the desirability of this proposal.
It is of interest, however, that the Administrator of EPA would
be required to assure consistency between criteria published under
[p. 29]
-------
2374 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
Section 5 (a) and standards for occupational noise exposure under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. We believe that the
progressive limitations may go far beyond health and safety require-
ments. Those suggested limitations should be thoroughly examined.
In summary, we favor the purposes of most of these propopals,
but we believe the Administration proposal is the most desirable.
We are advised by the Office of Management and Budget that there
is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM D. RTJCE.ELSHAUS,
Administrator.
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
' Washington, B.C., August 11, 1971.
Hon. HABLEY O. STAGGERS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for
the views of the Civil Service Commission on H.R. 5275, a bill "To
control the generation and transmission of noise detrimental to the
human environment, and for oth,er purposes."
The Commission has no comment on the bill.
The Commission finds no personnel management provisions or
implications in the bill. The staff required to support the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the new functions
assigned to him would be employed and managed under existing law
and regulations.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the stand-
point of the Administration's program there is no objection to the
submission of this report.
By direction of the Commission.
Sincerely yours,
JAYNE B. SPAIN,
Acting Chairman.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., April IS, 1971.
Hon. CARL B. ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, I am enclosing the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Noise Control Act of 1971.
This proposed legislation is part of the President's environmental
program as announced in his environmental message of February 8,
1971, and was transmitted to you on February 10, 1971. The bill
was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM D. RTJCKELSHAUS,
Administrator.
[p. 30]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2375
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A. Nature of the proposal
The bill is part of the President's environmental program as an-
nounced in his Environmental Message of February 8, 1971. It will be
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and was
developed in coordination with the Council on Environmental Quality.
The proposed legislation would expand and coordinate Federal
efforts to control noise, which presents a growing threat to the health
and welfare of the American people. Particularly in congested urban
areas, the noise produced by the products of our advancing technology,
and in the manufacture of those products, causes continual annoyance
and in some cases serious physical harm. While the States and localities
have the responsibility to deal with many aspects of noise, effective
Federal action is essential with respect to major noise problems
requiring national uniformity of treatment.
The proposed bill would achieve three primary functions. First, it
would establish in the Environmental Protection Agency authority
to coordinate existing Federal noise research and control programs,
and authority to publish criteria and control-technology documents
relating to noise. Second, it would supplement existing Federal
authority to regulate the noise characteristics of articles that are
major sources of noise, and authorize .Federal noise labeling require-
ments for such articles. Third, it would direct all Federal agencies to
administer their programs, consistent with existing authority, in
such a manner as to minimise noise.
In greater detail, the various sections of the bill provide as follows:
Section 1.—-States the title of the Act.
Section 2.—States findings of the seriousness of the noise problem
and of the need for more effective Federal actions; establishes a
Federal policy to promote an environment free from noise that jeop-
ardizes the public health or welfare.
Section 8.—Defines certain terms used in the bill.
Section 4-—Authorizes EPA to promote coordination of Federal
noise programs, and to publish periodic reports on the accomplish-
ments of such programs.
Section 5.—Authorizes EPA to develop and publish criteria for
noise, indicating what amounts and types of noise are consistent with
protection of the public health and welfare; authorizes EPA to pub-
lish reports identifying major sources of noise and discussing techni-
ques for controlling noise from those sources.
Section 6.—Authorizes the Administrator of EPA to prescribe
noise standards for construction equipment, transportation equip-
ment, and equipment powered by internal combustion engines that
he has identified as a major source of noise and for which he has
discussed control technology in a report published pursuant to
section 5.
Section 7.—Authorizes EPA to require noise labeling of products
that create significant noise.
Section 8.—Prohibits violation of the requirements of the Act or
regulations thereunder.
-------
2376 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
Section 9.—Requires every manufacturer of a product covered by
noise regulation or labeling regulations to maintain such, records,
make such reports, and provide such, information as the Administra-
tor may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether the
manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with the proposed
act.
Section 10.—Directs Federal agencies to promote noise control.
Section 11.—Authorizes EPA to perform noise research and related
activities.
Section 12.—Provides for enforcement of the prohibitions in the bill.
Section 13.—Directs the Administrator and the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue regulations to apply to imports the same general
standards and labeling requirements that are applied to like domestic
products.
Section ^-—Authorizes appropriations.
Section 15.—-Amends the Clean Air Act by deleting the requirement
that there be an Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
B. Analysis of environmental implications
1. The proposed bill should have several principal environmental
impacts:
(a) It would accelerate the growth of understanding of the effects
of noise and of means of noise control. EPA would perform and sup-
port research hi this area, and serve as a gathering point for the
results of research performed by others. The criteria and control-
technology reports published by EPA would bring together up-to-
date information for the benefit of all interested persons.
(6) It would establish for the first time an explicit Federal policy
to protect the environment from moise. Although there are existing
Federal programs for noise control, these presently lack a unifying
policy statement and a means of coordination, both of which the bill
would provide.
(c) It would enable EPA to legulate noise generation by certain
products in commerce that are major sources of noise. By means of
this authority, EPA would be able to ensure that noise reduction is
considered along with all other parameters in the design and manu-
facture of such products, and that they will be as quiet as technological,
economic and other constraints will permit. This direct regulation,
on a national level, would eliminate any competitive disadvantage
that might arise from State or private efforts to reduce noise from
such products.
(d) Its provision for Federal noise labeling requirements would
ensure that purchasers of products will be informed about the noise
characteristics of the various products available. This would increase
the effectiveness of the market mechanism in encouraging the develop-
ment of quieter products, and enhance awareness of the general
population to the problem of noise.
(e) It would ensure that noise regulation of aircraft by the FAA
comports with the noise criteria developed by EPA.
2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should
the bill be enacted.
The bill is not expected to have any adverse environmental con-
sequences.
[p. 32]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2377
It might be suggested that the assumption of a more active role by
the Federal Government would lead State arid local governments to
abandon their current efforts to control noise, producing a net detri-
ment to the environment. This is not expected to occur. The bill
expressly reaffirms the continuing role of the States, and contains
provisions for encouraging the States to adopt model noise-abatement
laws and improved methods of noise measurement and control. The
increased understanding of noise and technical assistance to the
States provided under the bill should promote more effective State
actions in those araes not preempted by the Federal Government.
3. Alternatives to the proposed bill.
Except for authority to control aircraft noise (P.L. 90-411), to set
standards for highway noise levels (P.L. 91-605), and to regulate
occupational noise exposures to workers in interstate industries (P.L.
91-596), the Federal Government has not yet assumed in the noise
field the dominant role that it has in combatting ah* and water pollu-
tion. This reflects in part the fact that noise does not have residues that
accumulate in the environment, and noise effects are therefore largely
local to the source. Therefore, a possible alternative to the proposed
bill is to leave the regulation of noise primarily to the States. However,
most products that would be regulated under this bill are manufac-
tured for a national market, making State regulation of their noise
characteristics impracticable. These considerations already have led
to assumption of Federal responsibility for aircraft noise and for
occupational noise exposure.
Alternatively, the Federal Government might undertake to regulate
not only the noise-generation characteristics of certain products in
commerce but also the levels of perceived noise in areas where such
levels are undesirably high. State and local restrictions on such "ambi-
ent noise" levels have not been highly effective. However, Federal
assumption of this essentially local responsibility does not appear
warranted. Centralized administration and enforcement of local noise
Emits would be unmanageable. The States and localities would be
aided in their efforts by the technical assistance provided under the
proposed bill, without taking from the local units of government the
power to determine the levels of perceived noise consistent with com-
munity aspirations.
If neither the Federal nor the State and local governments take
more effective action to control and abate noise, the noise levels in
populous areas, and along the routes of major transportation lines,
may be expected to become continually higher.
4. Relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity^
In the short term, substantial costs may be incurred in industry and
in government as steps are taken to enhance our understanding of
noise, improve noise-control technology, and redesign products and
processes to eliminate noise harmful to "the public health and welfare.
In certain instances product costs may be increased. However, it is
unrealistic to think that the growing noise problem can be ignored
indefinitely, and, as with many other forms of environmental degra-
dation, the long-term costs of noise control will be minimized if action
is begun promptly. Noise research will make possible identification of
the effects of noise in advance of further aggravation of the problem.
Early institution of product labeling and regulation of the major
[p. 33]
-------
2378 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
sources of noise will help to ensure that industry will give noise factors
adequate weight in design and investment decisions, avoiding long-
term commitments to courses of action inimical to the public interest
in noise contro1.
5. Any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.
The bill would tend to direct long-term commitment of industrial
resources toward production of goods with improved noise charac-
teristics. Implementation of the bill would commit modest amounts
of Federal funds to the study of-noise and the Administration of the
new regulatory machinery. The amounts of funds required would not
be such as to detract from full and adequate funding of other Federal
environmental programs.
C. Coordination with other agencies
The proposed bill was prepared in coordination with the Council on
Environmental Quality with the guidance and assistance of an inter-
agency task force including representatives of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology, the National
Aeronautics and Space Council, and the Departments of Commerce,
Interior, Labor, Transportation, State, Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, and Health, Education, and Welfare.
Comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement from the
Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, Housing and Urban
Development, and Transportation are attached.
DEPAETMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., February 8, 1971,
Mr. TIMOTHY ATKESON,
General Counsel, Executive Office of the President, Council on Environ-
mental Quality, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ATKESON: We have reviewed your proposed environ-
mental impact statements for the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1971, Proposed Noise Control Act of 1971, and Toxic
Substances Control Act of 1971. Each of them discusses and comments
upon one of the three legislative proposals. The statements indicate
you expect none of these proposals to have a significant adverse
impact upon the quality of the human environment.
Insofar as your proposed statements analyse and discuss the merits
of the three legislative proposals we have no comment beyond that
which we have already given directly to OMB in our proposed
legislative reports on these same proposals.
Insofar as the proposed statements predict the absence of any
significant adverse environment impact should the proposed legisla-
tion be enacted, we have no information or knowledge within the
area of our particular expertise which would indicate the contrary.
We believe that the bills will have a positive impact on the
environment.
Sincerely yours,
DONALD T. BLISS,
Special Assistant to the Secretary.
[p. 34]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2379
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Washington, March 9, 1971.
Mr. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Administration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. RUCKELSHAUS: This is in response to the request for
comment on the bill proposing the Noise Control Act of 1971 and the
draft 102(2)C Environmental Statement, dated January 22, 1971,
which accompanies this bill.
This Department interposes no objection to the environmental
impact of this bill which we find reasonable as a first step in developing
a coordinated national approach to noise control.
As an editorial refinement for focus and scope, we would extend the
title of Section 4 of the bill by adding the words "and policies" to
the title. We would also insert the words "and policies" after "pro-
grams" in both sentences in Section 4(a). We would avoid the false
inference that has been drawn from existing language to the effect
that this is primarily a research program oy omitting the words
"noise research and" in both sentences of 4 (a) and adding the words
"including supporting research" at the end of both sentences. The
draft environmental statement should be adjusted accordingly.
Sincerely,
CHARLES J. ORLEBEKE,
Deputy Under Secretary.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C., February 12, 1971.
Mr. TIMOTHY ATKESON,
General Counsel, CouncU on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ATKESON : As requested by your letter of January 28,
1971, we have reviewed the draft environmental impact statements for
proposed legislation in the areas of ocean dumping, noise control and
water pollution control. We have not yet received the impact state-
ment on the National Land Use Policy bill.
We have had an opportunity to review previously the proposed
ocean dumping legislation. The impact statement is consistent with
the bill, and we have no comments on it.
The proposed water pollution legislation appears to have few
transportation implications, and we have no comments on those
environmental impact statements. We would, however, call your
attention to the comments which the Department has sent to OMB
on the "Enforcement" and "Phosphate Control" legislation under
date of February 4, 1971.
We have several comments on the impact statement for the proposed
Noise Control Act of 1971. These comments parallel, to some extent,
our views on the legislation itself, as transmitted to OMB on Jan-
uary 29, 1971. Our comments on the legislation were intended to
strengthen the proposed act, particularly insofar as the abatement of
transportation generated and transmitted noise is concerned. If OMB
revises the proposed act per the Department's suggested changes and
comments, the subjectimpact statement should be revised accordingly.
[p- .86]
-------
2380 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
If the proposed act is not changed as suggested_by the Department,
the following comments pertain to the "Analysis of Environmental
Implications" section of the statement:
Par. l(c): This paragraph is too general. It presents an over-
simplified picture of the environment in the noise area. The use of
the phrase "as quiet in use as technology will permit" is misleading
and tells only one part of an extremely complicated problem. Economic,
social, political and jurisdictional considerations are not mentioned.
The second sentence should be' revised to read "By means of this
authority, EPA would be able to ensure that noise reduction is
considered along with all other parameters in the design and manu-
facture of such products, and that they will be as quiet as technological,
economic and other constraints will permit."
Par. 3: This paragraph is inconsistent. The Federal Government
has assumed the dominant role for noise (preempted for aircraft)
in three areas:
(a) P.L. 90-411: Standards for measurement and evaluation,
and for control of aircraft noise and sonic boom.
(6) P.L. 91-605, Section 136: Standards for highway noise
levels.
(c) Title 41 CFR, Part 50-204.10: Standards for occupational
noise levels.
This dominance should be noted and the reasons for altering it
presented in this paragraph on alternatives.
Another point, Section 11. (c) of the proposed act, states that the
Administrator of EPA shall not approve an airport development
project without certifying that "... the design and operation of
the airport development will be consistent with the protection of
the surrounding area from noise that adversely affects human health
or welfare." This essentially places the responsibility for the "ambient
level" of airport environs on EPA, since aircraft noise is predominantly
the highest of any type of noise around airports. It therefore follows
that the Federal Government is regulating, in effect, the "levels of
perceived noise in areas where such levels are undesirably high."
The impact statement says that the Federal assumption of this local
responsibility is not warranted. The impact statement is not con-
sistent with the proposed act, and should be changed.
As noted earlier (see items 3.a. and 3.b.), the Federal Government
is taking effective action to control and abate noise along the routes
of major transportation lines, and the impact statement should not
state nor imply otherwise.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these draft state-
ments, and we look forward to reviewing the draft statement on
National Land Use Policy when it becomes available.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL CAFFEKTY,
Acting Assistant Secretary Jor
Environment and Urban Systems.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law m which no change is proposed is shown in roman) •
[p. 36]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2381
SECTION 611 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958
CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
[SEC. 611. (a) In order to afford present and future relief and
protection to the public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic
boom, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,
after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall pre-
scribe and amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise
and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such rules and regula-
tions as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abate-
ment of aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the application
of such standards, rules, and regulations in the issuance, amendment,
modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized
by this title.]
SEC. 611. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term "FAA" means Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
(2) The term "EPA" means the Administrator oj the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
(6) (1) In order to afford present and future relief and protection to
the public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom, the FAA,
after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and with EPA,
shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of aircraft noise
and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such regulations as the
FAA may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom, including the application of such standards
and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or
revocation of any certificate authorized by this title. No exemption with
respect to any standard or regulation under this section may be granted
under any provision of this Act unless the FAA shall have consulted with
EPA before such exemption is granted, except that if the FAA determines
that aviation safety requires that such an exemption be granted before
EPA can be consulted, the FAA shall consult with EPA as soon as
practicable after the exemption is granted.
(2) The FAA shall not issue on original type certificate under section
60S(a) of this Act for any aircraft for which substantial noise abatement
can^ be achieved by prescribing standards and regulations in accordance
with this section, unless he shall have prescribed standards and regulations
in accordance with this section which apply to such aircraft and which
protect the public from aircraft noise and sonic boom, consistent with
the considerations listed in subsection (d).
(c) (1) If any time EPA has reason to believe that—
(A) a standard or regulation (or any proposed standard or regu-
lation) under this section, or any exemption, granted under any pro-
vision of this Act, with respect to such a standard or regulation,' or
(B) the action of the FAA in issuing an original type certincate
for an aircraft for which standards and regulations described in
subsection (b) (#) have not been prescribed,
does, not protect the public from aircraft noise or sonic boom consistent
with the considerations listed in subsection (d) of this section EPA shall
consult with the FAA and may request the FAA to review, and report to
EPA on, the advisability of such action or of revising such standard,
regulation, or exemption, as the case may be. Any such request may be
published in the Federal Register and shall include a detailed statement
[p. 3Y]
525-314 O - 13 - 5
-------
2382 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
of the information on which it is based. The FAA shall complete the re-
view requested and shall report to EPA within such time as EPA specifies
in the request, but such time specified may not be less than 90 days from
the date the request was made. The FAA's report shatt be accompanied by
a detailed statement of the FAA's findings and the reasons for the FAA's
conclusions; shatt identify any statementfikd pursuant to section 10%(2) (O)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to such
action or standard or regulation (or exemption therefrom); and shall specify
whether (and where) such statement is available for public inspection.
The FAA's report shall be published in the Federal Register, except in a
case in which EPA's request proposed specific action to be taken by the
FAA, and the FAA's report indicates such action will be taken.
(2) If, in the case of a matter described in paragraph (1)(A) of this
subsection with respect to which no statement is required to be filed under
such section 102(2)(O), the report of the FAA indicates that the revision
(if any) proposed by EPA should not be made, then EPA may request the
FAA to file a supplemental report, which shall be published in the Federal
Register within such time as EPA may specify (but such time specified
shall not be less than 90 days from the date the request was made), and
which shall contain a comparison of (A) the environmental effects (includ-
ing those which cannot be avoided) of the existing (or proposed) standard
or regulation of the FAA (or exemption therefrom) and (B) EPA's pro-
posed revision.
(.3) If, in the case of an action of the FAA described in paragraph
(1)(B) of this subsection with respect to which no statement is required
to be filed under such section 102(2)(C), the report of the FAA states that
issuance of an original type certificate should not be preceded by issuance
of a noise standard and regulation, the FAA shall, upon request of EPA,
file a° statement (of the type described in such section 102(2) (U)) with
respect to the issuance of such certificate. The requirements of such section
102(2) (C) relating to consultation, obtaining comments, and the avail-
ability of statements made pursuant to such section shatt apply to any
statement filed under the preceding sentence.
[(b)J (d) In prescribing and amending standards [, rules,J
and regulations under this1 section, the [Administrator] FAA shall—
(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise
and sonic boom, including the results of research, development,
testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act
and the Department of Transportation Act;
(2) consult with such Federal, State, and interstate agencies
as he deems appropriate;
(3) consider whether any proposed standard [, rule,] or regula-
tion is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce
or air transportation in the public interest;
(4)_ consider whether any proposed standard [, rule,] or regula-
tion is economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine,
appliance, or certificate to which it will apply; and
(5) consider the extent to which such standard [, rule.] or
regulation will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this
section.
[p. 38]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2383
[(c)] (e) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a
certificate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards
[, rules,] or regulations is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the
same notice and appeal rights as are contained in section 609, and in
any appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Board
may amend, modify, or reverse the order of the [Administrator]
FAA if it finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic
boom .and the public interest do not require the affirmation of such
order, or that such order is not consistent with safety in air commerce
or air transportation.
For the information of the Members, section 1905 of Title 18,
U.S.C., is set forth below:
SECTION 1905 OF TITLE 18, U.S.C.
§1905. Disclosure of confidential information generally.
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of
any department or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, discloses, or
makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law
any information coming to him in the course of his employment or
official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made
by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department
or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns
or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work,
or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or
source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person,
firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income
return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particu-
lars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided
by law; shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employ-
ment" [p. 39]
-------
2384 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
1.4a(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 92-1160 92d Cong. 2d Sess. (1972)
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
SEPTEMBER 19, 1972.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee on Public "Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 3342]
The Committee on 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.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The growing public awareness over the quality of the environment
has spotlighted another problem untouched by Federal regulation.
Noise—unwanted sound—is increasing in urban areas at a rate which
may double the average person's exposure to it within 10 years. Testi-
mony before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution indicates
clearly that the impact of noise goes well beyond mere unpleasantness,
stress and other psychic effects. It in fact may cause serious physio-
logical effects on the human body ranging from deafness to enhanced
risk of cardiovascular disease to alteration of fetal nervous systems.
As with other forms of pollution, noise pollution is man-made. It oc-
curs as a by-product of an enormous number of commercial and domes-
tic machines.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, noise has a
significant impact on more than 80 million Americans. Of those, about
40 million persons are literally listening to a health hazard, risking
hearing impairment and other physiological and psychological effects.
[p. 1]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2385
As many as 44 million Americans have the utility of their dwellings
adversely affected by noise from aircraft or traffic, and 21 million more
Americans are similarly affected by construction-related noise.
The acoustic vibrations which make up noise pollution are invisible.
They leave no residue, and they disappear almost instantly when the
source is turned off. However, noisemakers abound is our urban en-
vironment, making it almost impossible for the individual to find even
a short unbroken period of rest or retreat from noise. The effects which
occur as a result of a given noise environment depend on the intensity
and character of the noise, the total exposure time, and the activity
(such as conversation or rest) affected.
The myths and misconceptions perpetuated about the degrading
effects of noise on the health and welfare of individuals have per-
mitted the noise pollution problem to grow into a serious problem.
A single measure of the impact is demonstrated by the number of
compensation claims for hearing loss. These claims have increased
tenfold in recent years with every indication of judgments reaching
into the hundreds of millions of dollars in the near future. But the
economic costs of compensation are only part of the total impact of
noise pollution. An accurate estimate of the total costs would have to
include physical damage to structures, loss of property values, inter-
ruption of the educational process, interference with communication,
hearing loss and other health effects. The dollar costs cannot accu-
rately reflect the intangibles, which involve annoyance, frustration,
chronic stress, and suffering.
The Committee learned from audiologists and other expert wit-
nesses that there are many misconceptions about the effects of noise
on hearing, and other aspects of health. These result, in part from
the subtle and misleading symptoms which occur in the process of
gradually increasing hearing loss.
Individuals often have few clues which indicate the insidious pro-
gression of physiological damage to the ear. There is no pain—no
bleeding. Yet, during noise exposure, microscopically tiny hair cell
receptors, buried deep in the inner ear and delicately poised in their
fragile array, are torn from their roots or gradually beaten into
insensitivity by incessant vibrations.
The individual's perception of this process belies its true impact
on the delicate mechanism of hearing. Whether the individual is an
industrial worker or a member of a hard-rock band, hearing ability
following temporary hearing loss due to noise exposure, seemingly
returns to normal after a day or so of rest, suggesting to the unwary
victim that no permanent damage was incurred. Audiologists affirm,
however, that repeated acoustic insults to the ear leave a residual
permanent damage which accumulates over time.
Information presented to the Committee indicates that noise has
effects on other physiological systems in addition to hearing, and on
psychological factors as well. Noise appears to directly alter heart
rhythms and constricts blood vessels. The 1972 Keport on Noise of the
Environmental Protection Agency stated, ". ... there is some evidence
that worker exposed to high levels of noise have a higher incidence of
cardiovascular disease, ear-nose-and-throat disorders, and equilibrium
disorders than do workers exposed to lower levels of noise" and ". . .
there is evidence from animal research that high sound levels can inter-
[P- 2]
-------
2386 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
fere with sexual-reproductive functions (and) can interfere with re-
sistance to viral disease ..."
Individuals who are subjected to high noise levels for extended
periods, or who cannot rest or sleep in residential circumstances sub-
stantially quieter than their work place, appear to run a high risk of
psychological distress. One study of workers showed men working in
noisy conditions to be more aggressive, distrustful and even paranoiac
than similar workers in a quieter setting. The failure to obtain a mark-
edly lower noise level at home than in the working place, to provide a
recuperative period for mental processes, has been shown to have psy-
chological costs in family stability. Many individuals in this Nation,
already affected by health problems such as high blood pressure and
emotional illness, are especially susceptible and need protection from
the added stress of noise, according to information gathered by the
Committee.
Property values suffer markedly from high levels of noise. In a study
conducted by the City of Inglewood, California, a community affected
by noise from Los Angeles International Airport, land subject to noise
levels less than 80 PndB was valued an average 50% higher than land
subject to noise levels greater than 110 PndB. This appears to be related
not only to aircraft noise in residential areas but to the constant dis-
ruption of local schools by aircraft noise.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that no worker
be subjected to 115 dBA for more than 15 minutes or to 90 dBA for
more than eight hours. (The term "dBA" is a measurement of sound
intensity in decibels, on the A scale which is theoretically weighted
toward those frequencies predominant in human response. An increase
of lOdBA, since such units are logarithmic, would be an increase of
100%.) These standards which are a first step toward health protec-
tive standards moderated by considerations of cost and technology and
therefore protective of only 70 to 80% of exposed workers, are com-
monly exceeded in the non-occupational environment. A power mower,
a subway at 35 miles per hour, and a compressor at 20 feet each attain
95dBA. A jet flyover at 1000 feet is 103dBA, and a jet take-off reaches
110 to 120dBA. A rock band easily scales 108 to 114dBA. Obviously,
multiple sources dramatically increase the level to which any individ-
ual is exposed.
The success of any new legislation on noise pollution ultimately
will have to 'be measured in terms of a) its impact on reducing hearing
loss and other direct effects on health, b) its ability to establish levels
of noise in the environment conductive to good communication; and
c) its success in providing environments free of noise pollution at
times and in areas where relaxation and sleep are needed.
At the turn of the century, Robert Koch, the Nobel laureate who
worked to control contagious disease wrote: "The day will come when
men will have to fight noise as inexorably as cholera and plague." That
day is here, and this bill provides tools to begin the fight.
[p- 3J
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2387
MAJOR PROVISIONS
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS
The major regulatory thrust of this legislation is to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
noise emission standards for newly manufactured products which are
major sources of noise,, on-the theory that Federal action is needed to
effectively deal with the noise problems created by vehicles, construc-
tion equipment, and other machinery which move so commonly in
interstate commerce. As witli other types of environmental pollution,
control of emisions at the source is considered the most effective con--
tribution which the Federal Government can make in reducing levels
of environmental noise.
The standards would cover new products, those which have never
before been sold to a consumer, which are manufactured after the
effective date of standards. Kemanufactured -and rebuilt products
whose original functions have been restored by a manufacturer are
defined as new products. However, noise emission standards are to be
established for such rebuilt products on the basis of what can be
achieved for products of that class, i.e., rebuilt products, and not what
is being required of newly manufactured products of a similar type.
The term "manufacturer" is defined to exclude "dealers", unless a
dealer's assembly work involves modifications increasing the noise
characteristics of the product. The purpose of this distinction is to fix
responsibility for compliance with noise emission standards and lia-
bility for warranty costs on the party actually responsible for the
noise emission characteristics of the product.
The term "product" specifically excludes aircraft and related com-
ponents. The intention of the Committee is to separate the treatment of
aircraft under Title V from the treatment of products which are major
sources of noise under Tile IV, except where specifically included.
The bill also provides extensive research and investigation author-
ity, not only for noise emissions from products and aircraft, but for
examining the effects of noise on humans and other living systems.
The concept of the Audiological Data Bank has emerged as a valuable
means whereby individuals' attitudes about noise, hearing and hearing
loss can be recorded along with various indices of hearing ability.
Data in the bank must come from many sources, and cover the entire
age range. Each computerized record provides a longitudinal index
on individuals or groups, permitting a careful evaluation of the long
term effects of various noise environments, as well as changes or trends
which occur overtime. A Data Bank of this type, such as the one being
organized at the Stanford Medical School, should be supported by the
research and long-term health effects study funds available under sec-
tion 405. , [?• 5]
-------
2388 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CRITERIA
Section 407 (a) requires the Administrator to issue noise criteria
within nine months after enactment, reflecting all the identifiable
effects of differing quantities and qualities of noise on public health
or welfare. He will be expected to produce criteria documents very
much like those prepared under the Clean Air Act for similar uses.
These criteria must set forth the levels of environmental noise the
attainment and maintenance of which, in defined areas under various
conditions, are requisite to protect the public health and welfare with
an adequate margin of safety.
The concept of "environmental noise" is used through the bill to
describe the overall level of noise in a given area to which individuals
are exposed, including the intensity, duration, and character of sounds
from all sources. It also includes the concept of a limitation on noise
which would be applicable to every individual source in such a denned
geographic area.
STANDARDS FOR MAJOR SOURCES OF NOISE
Within fifteen months after enactment, the Administrator is re-
quired by section 407 (b) to publish reports identifying products which
appear to be major sources of noise. Identification as a major source of
noise is the first step in the development of noise emission standards
for particular products. Of course, the Committee expects the Adminis-
trator to begin drafting possible noise emission standards for a product
as soon as his initial investigations suggest that it might be identified
as a major source of noise. This is necessary because noise emission
standards must be promulgated for any product identified in the initial
list of major sources within 18 months after enactment.
In view of the special purposes, attributes and uses of motor racing
vehicles, such as Indianapolis cars and stock cars, it is the intent of the
Committee that the Administrator ,will not designate as a "major
source of noise" vehicles- or engines,, or any components or accessories
thereof, which are manufactured for modified for, or utilized exclu-
sively in organized competitive off-high way motorsports events. Like-
wise the Committee does not expect the Administration to identify
church bells or carill ons in maj or sources of noise.
Noise emission standards must be established for any major source
of noise which falls into the categories of construction equipment,
transportation equipment, motors or engines, turbines and compressors,
percussion and explosive equipment, or electrical and electronic equip-
ment (other than sound reproduction equipment). These standards
must take effect, with respect to products manufactured after that date,
no later than two years after the date of promulgation or any shorter
period which permits the application of the necessary technology. The
Administrator is given authority to define "effective date" in such a
way as to prevent the stockpiling of inventories to circumvent the pur-
pose of the standards.
Standards for new products are required to set limits on noise emis-
sions which in the Administrator's judgment reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application of the best available tech-
nology, taking into account the cost of compliance. The difficulty of
[p. 6]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2389
relating noise emissions from a given source to effects on public health
and welfare in an enforceable way, when standards are to be set on a
national basis without control of the circumstances of use or the num-
ber of products in a given area, led the Committee to conclude that im-
plementation of a technologically-based standard was preferable in
terms of uniformity and enforceability to one calling for protection of
the public health and welfare. While the intention of the whole bill is
to protect public health and welfare from environmental noise, the
Committee expects that the application of the best available tech-
nology will just begin to realize that goal in the foreseeable future.
After the effective date of standards applicable to a product, the
manufacturer must warrant to the purchaser and subsequent owners
of that product that it conforms with the standards at the time of sale
and that it is free from defects in materials and workmanship which
cause the product, under normal use, operation, and maintenance, to
fail to conform during its useful life. ITseful life is to be determined by
the Administrator, taking into account the range of uses to which such
product might be put.
This is a defects warranty, not a warranty that the product will in
fact perform up to the standards throughout its useful life. The Com-
mittee intends that the manufacturer be liable only for those changes
in noise emissions which are in fact within his control. This is the pur-
pose for including the consideration of the many possible, even unfore-
seeable uses to which the product may be put, and for requiring the user
to operate and maintain the product in a normal way. In fact, standards
may contain provisions dealing with manufacturers' instnictions for
the maintenance or use of the product.
PREEMPTION
Subsection 408 (d) of the bill deals with the responsibilities of the
Federal government and State and local governments in controlling
noise. For any product manufactured after the effective date of ah
applicable Federal standard, authority.to establish noise emission
standards for the product enforceable directly or indirectly against
the manufacturer is preempted. States and cities, however, retain com-
plete authority to establish and enforce limits on environmental noise
through the licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use, operation,
or movement of a product, or concentration or combination of products.
It is the intention of the Committee to distinguish between burdens
which fall on the manufacturers of products in interstate commerce
and burdens which may 'be imposed on the users of such products. In
the judgment of the Committee, noise emission standards for products
which must be met by manufacturers, whether applicable at the point
of introduction into commerce or at any other point, should be uniform.
On the other hand, States and local governments have the primary
responsibility under the bill for setting and enforcing limits on en-
vironmental'noise which in their view are necessary to protect public
health and welfare. This essentially local responsibility is not assumed
or interfered with by this bill, althoueh Federal leadership and tech-
nical assistance are provided in the criteria required by section 407(a)
which will set forth levels of environmental noise protective of pubhc
health and welfare. r *-]
-------
2390 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
The environmental impact statement prepared by the Administra-
tion for its proposed noise control legislation stated: "The States and
localities would be aided in their efforts by the technical assistance
provided under the proposed bill, without taking from the local units
of government the power to determine the levels of perceived noise
consistent with community aspirations." This also reflects the inten-
tion of the Committee in this bill. At a minimum, States and local
governments may reach or maintain levels of environmental noise
which they desire through (a) operational limits or regulations on
products in use (such as speed or load limits or prohibitions of use
in given areas or during given hours) ; (b) quantitative limits on en-
vironmental noise in a given area which may be enforced against any
source within the area, including zones adjacent to streets and high-
ways; (c) regulations limiting the environmental noise which may
exist at the boundary of a construction site; (d) nuisance laws; or
(e) other devices tailored to the needs of differing localities and land
uses which do not amount to a burden manufacturers must meet to
continue in business.
This discussion of preemption does not deal with regulation of noise
from interstate carriers such as railroads and motor carriers. Such
sources, which are regulated under Parts B and C of title V, are sub-
ject to State or local regulations only where the Administrator deter-
mines it to be necessitated by special local conditions or not in conflict
with regulations under Parts B or C.
ENFORCEMENT
The bill generally parallels the enforcement authority of the Clean
Air Act. This includes criminal penalties of $25,000 or one year's im-
prisonment for the first violation of the prohibited acts section appli-
cable to manufacturers. The bill also provides authority to enjoin any
violation. In addition, the bill makes it a criminal violation for a
manufacturer or dealer to assist any person in removing or discon-
necting a noise suppression device or the giving of information to any
person on how to remove or disconnect such device for purposes not
allowed by the bill.
EXPORTS
Standards apply to all new products except those intended solely
for export. Exported products have only to comply with the standards
of the importing country. It is not the intention of the Committee to
require the United States government to enforce the noise emission
standards of other countries. Rather, this language in section 411 (b)
is intended to make clear that exported U.S. products must comply
with applicable foreign standards.
The bill also provides authority for citizens to sue in the Federal
district courts to abate violations of the requirements of the law. This
section is nearly identical to the citizen suit provisions in the Clean
Air Act (section 304) and the Committee intends that it be utilized
and interpreted in a similar fashion.
[p. 8]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2391
AIRCRAFT NOISE
Excessive noise from aircraft has been identified as the major noise
problem for many Americans. One of the concerns which the Com-
mittee addressed in considering means to reduce aircraft noise was the
relative roles of the Environmental Protection Agency, created in
1970 to centralize the Federal government's environmental regulation,
and the Federal Aviation Administration, charged with complete
responsibility for aircraft operations and safety.
Presently, un'der section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, the FAA
has authority to set standards for noise emissions from aircraft and
aircraft engines. Current standards cover only certain new aircraft
types certificated after the effective date of those standards. Proposed
standards recently published in the Federal Register would extend
coverage to newly manufactured aircraft of existing types. Under
section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to review and
comment on regulations of FAA and other agencies.
In the judgment of the Committee, the proper role and expertise
of the Environmental Protection Agency is in identifying levels of
environmental noise associated with adverse effects on public health
and welfare, and, as in the Clean Air A ct and Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, in assessing the availability of technology to attain such
levels. The special expertise and responsibility of the Federal Aviation
Administration is recognized by the Committee in the area of aircraft
engine and airframe design and. construction, aircraft operations, and,
above all, safety in air commerce.
Accordingly, section 501 of tho reported bill requires the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate stand-
ards for the measurement of aircraft noise and to identify levels of
noise emissions from aircraft and aircraft engines which in his judg-
ment are adequate to protect the public health and welfare with an
adequate margin of safetv. 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 welfare.
Standards for noise emissions from aircraft, which actually define
what aircraft manufacturers and air carriers must attain, would
be promulgated on the basis of the degree of noise reduction achiev-
able through the application of the best available demonstrated tech-
nology, taking into account the cost of compliance. Technological
availability and the reasonableness of compliance costs would be
jointly determined by the Administrators of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration, since they
share expertise in these matters. However, standards may be promul-
gated only after the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration determines them to be consistent with the highest deigree of
safety in air commerce, and technologically available for application
to the particular aircraft or engine type in question. Air safety is to
be the paramount consideration, and the FAA's responsibility in as-
[p. 9]
-------
2392 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
suring safety is recognized in tliis veto over aircraft noise emission.
standards.
The bill provides that existing standards promulgated under section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act will continue in effect until modified
in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency is directed to review those
standards within 9 months after enactment for consistency.with the
reqiiirements of this bill. Original type certificates cannot be issued
after July 1, 1973, unless noise emission standards which apply to
such aircraft have been promulgated. Any standards would be imple-
mented and enforced through the authority of the Federal Aviation
Administration, under its on-going program of inspection and certifi-
cation of aircraft. In addition, violations of the standards would be
subject to the penalties and abatement procedures until Title IV, in-
cluding citizen suits to abate violations.
The Committee considered approaches to controlling aircraft noise
based on a concept of cumulative noise exposure, involving the level
of noise from aircraft to which individuals in the areas surrounding
airports are exposed and the effects of such exposure on public health
and welf are. While methods other than noise emission standards can
be effectively utilized to reduce aircraft noise, the Committee felt that
it had insufficient knowledge as to the precise regulatory mechanism
for cumulative aircraft noise exposure. Therefore, the Committee
included in the bill, in place of any regulatory scheme dealing with
^community noise around airports, a one year study by the EPA of the
implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise
exposures around airports. The results of this study, submitted to the
Committees on Public Works and Commerce of the Senate and the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House with
legislative recommendations, will form the basis for any legislation on
aircraft noise in the next Co ngress.
Also included in this study are the adequacy of FAA flight and
operational noise controls, the adequacy of noise emission standards
on new and existing standards on new and existing aircraft (together
with the Environmental Protection Agency's recommendations on the
retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft), and any additional
measures available to airport operators and local governments to con-
trol aircraft noise. In the context of the development of this legislation,
inquiries were sent by one member of the committee to manufacturers,
airlines, trade organizations, government agencies, and independent
consultants concerning the possibility of mandating retrofit and phase-
out requirements. (See appendix for text of letter and replies.)
Tools other than noise emission standards do exist for reducing
aircraft noise. It is the intention of the Committee in section 501 (c) 01
the bill that all existing authority over aircraft or aircraft noise be
utilized to reduce that noise, including, among other things, the con-
sideration of flight and operational changes such as the two-segment
landing approach and the adjustment of take-off, approach and flight
paths to impact fewer people, and review of traffic flow with regard to
adequacy of load factor.
States and local governments are preempted from establishing ol
enforcing noise emission standards for aircraft unless such standards
are identical to standards prescribed under this bill. This does not
[p. 10]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2393
address responsibilities or powers of airport operators, and no provi-
sion of the bill is intended to alter in any way the relationship between
the authority of the Federal government and that of State and local
governments that existed with respect to matters covered by section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 prior to the enactment of the
bill.
STATE AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
PROGRAMS
The Administrator is authorized to grant a total of $22.5 million
over a three fiscal year period to State and local environmental noise
control agencies. Grants are limited to two-thirds of planning and de-
velopment costs and one-half of maintenance costs, in order to high-
light the importance of getting new programs off the ground. No one
State may receive more than 10% of the total funds, and, where an en-
vironmental noise control agency program encompasses more than one
State, fluids are apportioned.
Specific requirements must be met before an agency may qualify for
a grant. First, the agency must meet the qualifications of the definition
of "environmental noise control agency" contained in section 404. It
must be established pursuant to 'State law or local ordinance and have
jurisdiction over the prevention and control of noise. Secondly, there
must be adequate representation of local, State and international inter-
ests, where appropriate. Thirdly, the Administrator must be assured
that the agency has the capability of developing and enforcing a com-
prehensive environmental noise control program. To qualify, the
agency must have authority to regulate the location, modification, and
construction of individual noise sources. It must have authority to as-
sure that products in use will not exceed applicable noise levels, and
that controls on environmental noise can be enforced against individual
sources. Noise monitoring equipment must be available in the field to
monitor compliance with required standards and levels, and the agency
must have authority to issue abatement orders.
By conditioning funding on effective enforcement authority of State
and local environmental noise control agencies, the Committee intends
to implement one of the major policies of the Act: the encouragement
and support of adequate State and local programs to control environ-
mental noise. r 1in
[p. 11J
-------
2394 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution conducted three
days of hearings in 1972 on noise control legislation. Bills before the
Subcommittee included S. 1016, the Administration proposal as in-
troduced by Senator Cooper and 32 cosponsors; H.E. 11021, as passed
by the House of Representatives; and S. 3342, introduced by Senators
Tunney and Muskie.
The first day of hearings was held March 25,1972, in San Francisco,
California, in a State which has given considerable legislative attention
to its noise problem. Hearings were held in Washington, B.C., on
April 12 and 13, 1972, to receive testimony from the Environmental
Protection Agency, representatives of State and local governments,
and national trade associations.
A total of 26 witnesses were heard, including Federal, State, and
local officials, technical and scientific experts on noise and spokesmen
for industry, and trade, governmental and citizen organizations.1 Ad-
ditional statements and supporting materials filed with the Subcom-
mittee and included in the printed hearing record totaled 62.
VOTES DURING COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
No rollcall votes were taken in committee during consideration of
this legislation. The bill was ordered reported by a voice vote.
COST OF LEGISLATION
Section 252 (a) (1) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
requires publication in this report of the Committee's estimate of the
costs of reported legislation, together with estimates prepared by any
Federal agency. The bill authorizes $18,000,000 in fiscal year 1973,
$36,000,000 in fiscal year 1974, and $50,000,000 in fiscal year 1975 for
the general implementation of Titles IV and V. These sums were de-
rived by the committee from estimates prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the cost of carrying out earlier drafts of this
legislation. The Environmental Protection Agency did not support
grants to State and local environmental noise control agencies or Fed-
eral incentive purchases of low-noise-emission products, and did not
submit estimates of the costs of these programs.
The following is a summary of funds which would be authorized
for fiscal years 1973,1974, and 1975 :
[p- 13]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2395
[In millions]
Program 1973 1974 1975 Total
General authorizations
Grants to State and local environmental noise control agencies (sec. 418)...
Incentive purchases of low-noise-emission products (sec. 419).
Totals
$18
5
1
24
$36
7.5
2
45.5
$50
10
2
62
$104
22.5
5
131.5
COMMITTEE VIEWS
Although, there have been sporadic efforts to control the noise prob-
lem in the past, and State and local governments have recently been
quite vigorous in their response to the local effects of various noise
sources, it is now clear that the Congress must consider noise as a gen-
eral pollution problem and develop a regulatory framework which will
achieve effective control of this form of environmental degradation.
For this reason, and because delay would disrupt the developing
noise control program of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Committee recommends passage of this bill.
-------
2396 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
TITLE IV
Section 4.01. Short Title.—This section designates the Act -as the
"Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972" and contains the table of
contents for Title IV.
Section 4D2. Statement of Congressional Finding and Policy.—This
section expresses Congress' concern with the growing danger to health
and welfare of environmental noise. States retain primary responsi-
bility to control environmental noise, but Federal action is declared
necessary to deal with major sources of noise. A national policy for
protection of public health and welfare from effects of noise is declared,
including encouragement of and support for State and local programs
to control environmental noise. Public participation in all procedures
and activities under the Act is required.
Section lf.03. Office of Noise Abatement and Control.—This section'
amends existing law to' continue the authority of the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control in the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Office's authority is extended to implementation of the provisions
of this Act. Basic rulemaking and administrative authority are pro-
vided to the Administrator.
Section 404- Definitions.—This section defines terms for purposes of
administering and interpreting the Act.
Section 405. Research, Investigation, Training, and Other Activi-
ties.—This section authorizes the Administrator to conduct basic and
applied research and development programs related to environmental
noise. The Administrator also is authorized to provide technical and
financial assistance, to disseminate information, to cooperate with
relevant agencies and to contract with other public agencies in carry-
ing out research and development. The Administrator also is author-
ized to provide manpower training assistance and educational assist-
ance programs.
Section 406. Federal Programs.—This section requires all Federal
agencies to operate all Federal facilities and programs under Federal
law in a manner consistent with the standards and policies of this Act.
The Administrator also is authorized to coordinate all Federal agency
programs related to environmental noise research and control. The
Administrator is required to comment publicly on noise control pro-
grams and regulations established by other Federal agencies.
Section 407. Noise Criteria and Control Technology.—This section
requires the Administrator to develop and publish criteria for noise,
identifying the effects of various levels of noise, and setting forth levels
of environmental noise which will protect public health and welfare.
The Administrator also is required to compile and publish reports
identifying products which are major sources of noise and providing
[p. 15]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2397
information on techniques to control the noise from these products, as
well as information on methods and techniques for controlling environ-
mental noise by means other than controls on noise emissions of new
products.
Section 408. Noise Emission Standards for N&w< Products.—This
section directs the Administrator to promulgate regulations within
18 months after enactment establishing noise emission standards for
categories of new products which he has found to be major sources of
environmental noise. These sources include construction equipment,
transportation equipment, any motor or engine, turbines and com-
pressors, percussion and explosive equipment, and electrical and elec-
tronic equipment. The Administrator is required to promulgate ad-
ditional regulations as he adds new products to the list of major sources
of environmental noise. Noise emission standards must be established
on the basis of the reduction in noise emissions achievable with the
application of the best available control technology, taking into ac-
count the cost of compliance. The effective date of regulations, after
which new products must be designed and manufactured to meet the.
standards, would be no later than two years after promulgation of
the standards. The entry of non-conforming products into commerce is
prohibited after such effective date, and inventories could not be
built up to circumvent the effective date.
This section also provides for a design warranty of products, covered
by noise emission standards, which requires manufacturers to warrant
that defects in materials or workmanship will not cause a new product
under normal use and maintenance to fail to conform to emission
standards over its useful life, taking into account the range of uses
for such product.
Authority to establish noise emission standards enforceable against
the manufacturer for any product manufactured after the effective
date of an applicable Federal standard is preempted, while States and
cities retain the authority to establish and enforce limits on environ-
mental noise through licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use,
operation, or movement of any product or combination of products.
Regulation of noise emissions from railroads and motor carriers is
separately treated, 'because of movements in interstate transportation
(see Title V, Part B). Products which comply with standards before
the actual effective date are covered by preemption from the date of
compliance, rather than after the effective date.
/Section 409. Labeling.—This section authorizes the Administrator
to establish labeling requirements for any product which he finds to
be a major source of environmental noise, or which is sold as effective
in reducing noise.
Section 410. Imports.—This section authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Administrator, to issue regulations
to carry out the purposes of the Act with respect to products imported
into'the United States.
Section 4H- Prohibited Acts.—This section describes the activities
for which enforcement is authorized under the Act. Standards apply
to all new products except those intended solely for export.
/Section 4.12. Enforcement.—This section authorizes criminal penal-
ties for introduction into commerce and importation of products in
violation of Federal standards. Criminal sanctions parallel to those of
[p. 16]
525-314 C
-------
2398 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
the Clean Air Act of 1970 are included, with fines up to $25,000 and
one year in prison for first offenses, and $50,000 and two years in
prison for subsequent offenses. Injunctive authority is provided, and
the Administrator may order such relief from violations of .the Act
as he determines necessary to protect the public health and welfare,
in accordance with due process.
Section 413. Citizen Suits—-This section authorizes citizens to sue
in the Federal courts for violations of the Act, and to compel the EPA
Administrator and the FAA Administrator to perform non-discre-
tionary duties. This section conforms with the citizen suit provision
enacted in the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
Section 414. Emergency Situations.—This section authorizes the
Administrator or the Attorney General to bring expedited civil
actions against any product the noise emissions from which are an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health. Belief can
include notice to purchasers and the public, recall, correction, or
seizure.
Section 415. Judicial Review.—This section provides for the judicial
review of standards and regulations under titles IV and V, with
getitions to be filed within 90 days after promulgation in the United
tates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Stays of agency
action during review are limited.
Section 416. Records, Reports and Information.—This section
authorizes the Administrator to require information, records and
other access to information concerning the establishment of, and
compliance with, noise emission standards. Subpoena powers are
granted for obtaining information to carry put Title IV or Title V.
Protection of proprietary information is provided only after a showing
satisfactory to the Administrator that the information is entitled to
such protection. Noise emission data are not entitled to proprietary
protection under any circumstances. Criminal penalties for violations
of requirements are included.
Section 417- Federal Procurement.—This section authorizes the
Administrator to forbid Federal procurement contracts for persons
convicted of criminal violations of this Act and is similar to provisions
in the Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Section 418. Grants for Support of Environmental Noise Plannmg
and Programs.—This section authorizes the Administrator to make
planning and program grants to State and local environmental noise
control agencies. Before making program grants, the Administrator
is required to determine that tJhe State or local agency program
includes adequate authority to regulate noise levels. Authorizations
of $22.5 milion for three years are provided for this section.
Section 419. Development of Low-Noise-Emission Products.—This
section authorizes incentive purchases of low-noise-emission products,
similar to the program for cleaner motor vehicles under the Clean Air
Act. Over three fiscal years, $5 million are authorized.
Section 1$0. Authorization of Appropriations.—This section au-
thorizes a total of $104 million for the next three fiscal years ($18
million in FY 1973, $36 million in FY 1974, and $50 million in
FY 1975) to implement provisions of the Act for other than State
grants and the low-noise-emission product incentive purchases. n
[p. 171
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2399
TITLE V
Part A—Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom
This part (section 501 through 508) provides that the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate standards
for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom, and regulations
with respect to noise emissions from aircraft which in his judgment
are adequate to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate
margin_ of safety. Standards actually applicable to noise emissions
from aircraft must reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
through the application of the best available demonstrated technology,
taMng into account the cost of compliance, as jointly determined by
the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Federal Aviation Administration. Such standards can be promulgated
only after the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
has determined that they are consistent with the highest degree of
safety in air commerce, and technologically available for application
to particular types of aircraft. Standards under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act continue in effect until modified in accordance
with this part. The implementation and enforcement of aircraft noise
standards, through inspection and certification, is the responsibility of
the Federal Aviation Administration.
Section 502 of this part directs the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to conduct a one year study of a) the ade-
quacy of FA_A flight and operational noise controls; b) the adequacy
of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft, together
with recommendations on the retrofitting and phase out of existing
aircraft; c) the implications of identifying and achieving levels of
cumulative noise exposures around airports; and d) additional meas-
ures available to airport operators and local governments to control
aircraft noise. The Administrator is required to submit his report and
recommendations for legislation to the Committees on Public Works
and Commerce of the Senate and the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce of the House of ^Representatives.
Section 508, on civil aircraft sonic boom, forbids commercial flights
of supersonic aircraft over the United States and its territorial waters
or the contiguous zone at supersonic speeds, but would permit research
and development flights of supersonic aircraft. Enforcement of this
ban under Section 412 of this Act is authorized.
Part B—Railroad Noise Emission Standards
This part (sections 511 through 514) provides a Federal regulatory
scheme for noise emissions from surface carriers engaged in interstate
commerce by railroad. The Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is required to publish within 9 months after enact-
ment and promulgate within 90 days after publication noise emission
standards for railroad equipment and facilities involved in interstate
transportation, including both new and existing sources. Such stand-
ards must be established on the basis of the reduction in noise emissions
achievable with the application of the best available technology, tak-
ing into account the cost of compliance.
Standards take effect after the period the Administrator determines
necessary to develop and apply the requisite technology, and are im-
[p. 18]
-------
2400 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
plem&nted and enforced through the safety inspection and regulatory
authority of the Secretary of Transportation, as well as through Title
IV.
Based on the interrelationship between the need for active regulation
of moving noise sources and the burdens imposed on interstate carriers
by differing State and local controls, the Federal regulatory program
for railroads under this part completely preempts the authority of
State and local governments to regulate such noise after the effective
date of adequate Federal standards, except where the Administrator
determines it to be necessitated by special local conditions or not in
conflict with regulations under this part.
Part C—Motor Carrier Noise Emission Standards
This part (sections 521 through 524) provides a Federal regulatory
scheme for noise emissions from motor carriers engaged in interstate
commerce. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency is required to publish within 9 months after enactment and
promulgate within 90 days after publication noise emission standards
for motor carrier operations involved in interstate transportation,
including both new and existing sources. Such standards must be estab-
lished on the basis of the reduction in noise emissions achievable with
the application of the best available technology, taking into account
the cost of compliance.
Standards take effect after the period the Administrator determines
necessary to develop and apply the requisite technology, and are imple-
mented and enforced through the safety inspection and regulatory
authority of the Secretary of Transportation, as well as through Title
Based on the interrelationship between the need for active regula-
tion of moving noise sources and the burdens imposed on interstate
carriers by differing State and local controls, the Federal regulatory
program for interstate trucks and buses under this part completely
preempts the authority of State and local governments to regulate
such noise after the effective date of adequate Federal standards,
except where the Administrator determines it to be necessitated by
special local conditions or not in conflict with regulations under this
part.
[p. 19]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2401
MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. MUSKIE
The Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972 (S. 3342) was intro-
duced on March 14, 1972 by Senator John V. Tunney and myself.
That legislation was different than either the House-passed bill (H.E.
11021) or the Administration's bill, S. 1016, in purpose and intent.
The bill which we introduced was not primarily designed tc relieve
product manufacturers from the effect of State noise pollution regu-
latory programs. Nor was it designed primarily to relieve transpor-
tation companies, particularly the airlines, from effective noise regula-
tions.
Our intent was to establish a means to reduce, as rapidly as pos-
sible through the application of available control measures available,
the exposure of people to noise by reducing noise at its source, by
changing the way noisy products are used, by controlling noisy activ-
ities, and by such other means that are available.
Our bill was an environmental regulatory measure.We recognized
that the regulation of noise would have an impact on commerce, but
we also recognized that the purpose of regulation must be the reduc-
tion in the volume, intensity and character of noise to which people
are exposed in their daily lives from sources over which they have
no control.
While only recently recognized as a major environmental pollutant,
noise may be one of the most perplexing. Unlike the common air and
water pollutants, noise does not accumulate in the environment. Noise
is not subject to collective treatment and reduction processes. And,
noise is not subject to easy regulation. As a practical matter, the pri-
mary method by which noise will be reduced is through the applica-
tion of noise emission control regulations at the source of sufficient
stringency so that products will not, alone or in combination with
other noise sources, present a problem.
To a degree, the legislation reported by the Committee moves to-
ward this goal. Through the establishment of a regulatory mechanism
which permits the Administrator to impose noise emission restrictions
attainable through the application of the best available technology,
the Administrator will have an opportunity to press the limits of our
capability to reduce noise from new products.
The bill does not, however, provide adequate options in those cases
in which best available technology is not adequate to achieve environ-
mentally acceptable levels of noise. It does not recognize adequately
the responsibility of States and local government to protect the en-
vironment in which their citizens live. It does not assure States an
opportunity to ban the sale of Federally-regulated products /which
emit unacceptable levels of sound. At the same time, it does not ex-
pedite Federal regulation, thus holding out the hope _ of a quieter
environment with no guarantee of early environmental improvement.
[p- 21]
-------
2402 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
By preempting State authority to restrict sale of noisy products,
the bill places the burden on the consumer to take the risk of buying
products which cannot be used in the manner intended at the time of
purchase. The preemption provision limits State authority to restric-
tion of the manner of use of noisy products regulated by the Federal
government. «
The Committee on Public Works is not unfamiliar with the problem
of preemption. The Air Quality Act of 1967, which I sponsored, pro-
vided for Federal preemption of the authority to regulate air pollu-
tion emissions from new automobiles, except in California. That policy
may have had an effect opposite of that which was intended. It appears
that the preemption provision of that Act did not cause the auto com-
panies to focus their research efforts and investments on one set of
national standards. Rather, the - auto companies' efforts have been
focused on undermining those national standards.
Again in 1970, preemption was discussed in relation to regulation of
air pollution emissions from aircraft. The Congress decided on a
preemption provision effective on enactment and set deadlines for
standards to be developed.
Section 231 (a) of the Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental
Protection Agency must begin an investigation of air pollution from
aircraft within 90 days of date of enactment. Within 180 days after
commencing that investigation, the Environmental Protection Agency
is required to report on the investigation and propose emission stand-
ards for any class of aircraft or aircraft engines which contributes
to air pollution which endangers public health and welfare. Ninety
days thereafter (one year after enactment), EPA was to issue final
regulations. The proposed standards were due nearly one year ago,
September 27, 1971. Today, no report or proposed standards have
been published.
This is a classic example of Federal preemption leading to Federal
failure to protect public health. The Federal Aviation Administration
has undoubtedly discouraged active efforts by the Administrator. And
the efforts that the Environmental Protection Agency has made have
run aground in the Office of Management and Budget.
Therefore, in consideration of the pending legislation, I expressed
reservations regarding a broad preemption provision for product and
aircraft emission standards. The States have moved actively in this
field. Federal noise pollution responsibility is new and little significant
authority or responsibility exists. Conversely, a number of States have
regulatory programs which impose emission controls on noisv products
which controls are enforceable, both at the point of sale and the point
of use.
I cannot support Federal preemption which protects product manu-
facturers and the air transportation industry without effective regula-
tory programs which will enhance the quality of the environment. Sub-
stitution of Federal law for State law without assurance that public
health will be protected is poor public policy.
The second point of concern with the legislation reported from the
Committee has to do with the problem of aircraft noise and regulatory
mechanism recommended to deal with that problem. To date, regula-
tion of aircraft noise pollution has been the sole responsibility of the
£ ederal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation Administra-
[p. 22]
-------
NOISE—-STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2403
tion has had this responsibility since its inception. It has had a specific
legislative mandate for the past four years. And its record is wholly
inadequate.
I understand why the Federal Aviation Administration's response
has been inadequate. The FAA's responsibility is not to reduce the
environmental impact caused bj aircraft noise. Its primary responsi-
bility is to promote air commerce and to protect safety. Regulation of
noise from aircraft is not consistent with that primary mission.
In the proposed rulemaking in January, 1969, FAA set forth a
"noise floor" at 80 EPNdB as "an objective to aim for, and to achieve
where economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appro-
priate to the particular design" and went on:
However, this objective is important because it makes it
clear to all applicants that no increment of noise above 80
EPNdB can be considered acceptable, in and of itself, where
it can be eliminated practically and reasonably. This figure
is proposed as a reasonable boundary between noise levels that
are high enough to interfere with communications and to ob-
struct normal life in homes or other buildings that are not de-
signed with specific acoustical objectives, and lower noise
levels which, while not completely benign, nevertheless allow
those activities to proceed. Where this goal can be reached in
a given case, and can be justified as economically reasonable,
technologically practical, and appropriate to the particular
type design, the FAA does not intend to ignore this potential
reduction.
And yet, subject to industry pressure, the FAA dropped this 80
EPNdB "objective" from the promulgated regulations stating:
The FAA has determined that the request to remove the
noise "floor" of 80 EPNdB from the regulatory language is
reasonable and should be granted. This noise floor, not being
currently achievable, could have no immediate legal effect.
The attitude of the Federal Aviation Administration as regards
regulation of aircraft noise was more clearly spelled out in the follow-
ing excerpt from a draft report on noise pollution prepared by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency:
Both directly and by unmistakable inference, a number of
important conclusions arise from the information gathered
on Federal noise control programs.
Most plainly, the control of unwanted sound is not a high
priority issue for virtually any Federal agency or department.
Only when an Agency's primary mission absolutely requires a
commitment of time, manpower and funding to noise control
to assure the smooth functioning of that primary mission (as
with for instance, FAA and NASA) is even a modest venture
into noise suppression undertaken. For the FAA, aircraft
noise is only an annoying interference in the basic goal of the
Agency: the most efficient, safest and swiftest air travel
possible.
While.this statement was deleted from the final report transmitted
to the Congress, it is indicative of FAA's attitude toward noise from
aircraft. Unfortunately, the bill, as reported, would continue domi-
nance of the FAA. Not only would FAA have veto over safety of
[p. 23]
-------
2404 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
noise reduction technology, but also EPA could make no judgment
as to the availability of technology or cost of achieving noise reduc-
tions without FAA approval.
Continuation of the Federal Aviation Administration in a role of
determining the degree to which noise emissions from aircraft will
be reduced is not justified in the record. While the Committee bill
takes steps to establish the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency as the determinator of those levels of aircraft noise
required to protect public health and welfare, EPA.will have little
authority to enforce standards to meet those requirements.
Members of the Committee, including myself, recognized that air-
craft were unique because of the safety requirements and the inter-
relationship of safety to the engine system. Therefore, I agreed with
the Committee's judgment and supported the amendments of Sena-
tor Cooper and Senator Stafford which would retain the Federal Avia-
tion Administration lead role in making any final determination 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 bs available to meet noise
emission goals combined with the assumption that technology could
be vetoed because of FAA safety judgment, lead to the conclusion
that there must be a mechanism to assure maximum pressure to develop
safe technology while at the same time reducing the impact of noise
in the environments of impacted airports. The Committee considered
and rejected a provision that would have required achievement of
health and welfare protective of noise levels in airport environments,
whether or not specific aircraft engine emission control technology
was available.
Without an action-forcing mechanism such as enforceable "cumula-
tive noise exposure levels", neither FAA nor the airlines would have
any incentive to press technology and achieve the goals EPA would
be authorized to establish. A combination of cumulative noise levels
and emission standards would create that pressure. Obviously if tech-
nology exists to achieve the levels of noise emission reduction to pro-
tect public health, achievement of emission standards would reduce any
economic burdens on the airline industry caused by controls imposed
to achieve cumulative noise levels. And such local environmental noise
requirements would require a reduction in the number and .frequency
of nights if technology did not exist.
The Committee bill considered and rejected a provision which would
have required the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to identify any airports in the country -with aircraft noise
problems of a magnitude to cause a violation of cumulative noise
exposure levels. The proposal defined "cumulative noise exposure
levels" as those levels of noise in the environments of airports asso-
ciated with aircraft operations which were adversely affecting the
health and welfare of people around airports. Under these regulatory
provisions, airports with significant problems would be the subject
of a conference to determine the alternatives available to reduce ex-
posure levels and protect health and property. Each conference would
result in a report by the Administrator setting forth potential alterna-
tives including flight and operational patterns, on-ground noise con-
trol methods, modification in the frequency and number of flights,
[p. 24]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2405
modification in the hours of airport use, and land use methods. Each
Federal agency including the Federal Aviation Administration and
the Civil Aeronautics Board would apply existing authority to achieve
maximum noise reductions possible through additional regulatory
procedures.
But, most importantly, this provision would have imposed a positive
burden upon the operator of the airport &o exercise responsibility to
regulate the number, the frequency and the hours of flight or to impose
land use controls so as to eliminate noise as an environmental problem
in the area of that airport. And the airport operator's duty and respon-
sibility to carry out such responsibilities would be established by
statute.
This concept is not unique. In 1970, the Congress enacted legislation
which requires a development of a clean car by 1975. That law recog-
nized that reliance on technology alone would not result in elimination
of auto-related pollution as a health hazard until existing vehicles
were off the road—perhaps mid-1985 or later. Therefore, the bill es-
tablished a procedure to regulate the use of automobiles in areas in
which automobile-related air pollution was unacceptably high to as-
sure that public health would be protected at an early date (in this
instance, 1975-1976).
The combination of emission reduction technology and air quality
implementation plans have proved to be a useful mechanism both to
improve air quality and to apply pressure on local governments to
seek alternatives to reliance on motor vehicles. Also, this mechanism
will apply pressure to the auto industry to develop clean cars if they
wish to preserve existing markets.
I suggest that this mechanism can and should be applied to aircraft
related noise problems. I suggest that it recognizes the limitations of
-technology while providing a means to protect the health and welfare
of those seven and a quarter million people who live in airport en-
vironments and who are adversely affected by aircraft noise. I suggest
to do anything less in this legislation is to fail to meet responsibly
the demands of the American public for a safe, healthy and peaceful
environment.
Without a provision of this type, I believe the bill to be inadequate.
Without a provision of this type, the bill does not address in meaning-
ful way the real problem faced by people who are confronted now with
unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. The reported bill would force
these people to wait for emission control technology to be developed
and applied.to new and existing aircraft, or on the courts to impose
sufficient penalties or damaged claims against the airlines and the air-
port operators for creating a public nuisance before relief will be
achieved. To turn over to the courts the responsibility of making ad
hoc decisions to solve environmental noise problems is equally un-
acceptable. I think it is inadequate to rely on claims for damages,
penalties against the airlines and injunctions as a substitute for posi-
tive regulatory programs.
Mr. President, I think it is inadequate to enact a Federal law which
ignores the most basic and most significant problem of noise as per-
ceived by people.
On September 5, Senator Tunney, in remarks on the Senate floor,
pointed out that aircraft noise was adversely affecting the hearing
[p. 25]
-------
2406 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
capacity of school children in the vicinity of Los Angeles Airport.
Senator Tunney said:
According to the report, continuous exposure to a 90-
decibel level is a health hazard and peak jet noises in the
seven schoolyards surveyed ranged from 95 to 115 decibels.
In the classrooms of those schools, jet noises resulted in levels
of from 80 to 96 decibels, which, in one example, prevented
childem from distinguishing among the words "where",
"we're", and "wear', because they could not hear the difference
in sounds. To the physical and emotional effects from exces-
sive noise must be added these problems in vocal response.
Already, two schools around the Los Angeles Airport have
been forced to close.
But the Administration wants a bill. Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator, William D. Kuckelshaus, told the Commit-
tee on Public Works in executive session in September of this year,
that he was not interested in the merits or the demerits of noise pol-
lution legislation which might be. forthcoming. He said the Admin-
istration wants a bill and he did not care what provisions that bill
included.
This fact, combined with the decision of the Senate, that no con-
troversial measures reported after September 15 would be considered
on the floor, has resulted in an inadequate bill. These inadequacies
must be corrected before the Senate concurs.
EDMUND S. MUSKEE.
[p. 26]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2407
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
Subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the Standing Eules of the
Senate requires that changes in existing law proposed to be made by
any reported legislation be plainly indicated in the accompanying
report.
Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), added to the
Act in 1970 by P.L. 91-604, provides for the creation of an Office of
ISToise Abatement and Control within the Environmental Protection
Agency, to carry out a comprehensive study of noise and its effect on
the public health and welfare. A report on the results of such study
was required within one year after enactment, and such a report was
submitted to the Congress in January of 1972. Title IV also provides
that any Federal agency shall consult with the Administrator to deter-
mine possible means of abating noise from Federal activities, and
authorizes $30,000,000 for carrying out the purposes of the Title.
S. 3342 would completely replace Title IV of the Clean Air Act as
it presently exists and add a new Title V. Only the authority for an
Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the responsibility to carry out a continuing investi-
gation of noise and its effect on the public health and welfare would
remain, in subsection (a) of section 403.
-------
2408 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
APPENDIX
Responses to Letter From Senator Tmrney Concerning Establish-
ment of a Mandatory Schedule for Achieving Reductions in
Aircraft Noise Emissions
{Letter from Senator Tunney to which the following are responses']
SEPTEMBER 3, 1972.
Mr. JOHN H. SHAFFER,
Administrator. Federal Aviation Administration. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street NW., Washington, D.G.
DEAR ADMINISTRATOR SHAFFER: As you know, the Senate Public
Works Committee has been marking up a noise pollution control act
(S. 3342) which I introduced Avith Senator Muskie in March, 1972.
In the context of provisions respecting control of aircraft noise, it
has been suggested that a retrofit schedule be established in the legis-
lation. In order to meet the deadlines, aircraft which could not he-
retrofitted economically could be retired and replaced by the new gen-
eration of quieter aircraft already under construction.
Suggested language to be added to S. 3342 would provide that no-
aircraft could land at U.S. airports after January 1,1976, unless such
aircraft complied with the maximum noise level standards in Appen-
dix C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e., 108'
EpndB). New aircraft types manufactured after date of enactment
would be required to meet best available technology, or. at a minimumr
a noise level 15 EpndB lower than the Part 36 standard by January lr
1975. Additionally, the EPA Administrator would be required tx>
identify further noise reductions which -would be contemplated
thereafter.
Because of the press of Committee business and the short time left
in this session of Congress, I am writing to solicit your views on this
subject which, I am aware< has been discussed in the context of previ-
ous legislation and subjected to considerable study in the industry and
Administrative agencies.
Specifically, I hope you will address yourself to the current state of
technology respecting retrofit (and will consider new front fan treat-
ment in addition to nacelle treatment), costs of retrofit or retirement
and replacement and suggestions as to which procedure might be more
appropriate for certain types of aircraft, necessary lead times, alterna-
tive specific language which could be inserted in the legislation.
If I could receive your comments by Monday, September ] 8,1 would
be in a position to advise my colleagues on'the Committee of your
views. I recognize that you are not given much time in which to re-
spond, but I hope that you will be able to cooperate with us. Cor-
[p. 29]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2409
respondence should be brought to the attention of Mrs. Jane Frank, my
legislative assistant.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. The Public
Works Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, and I would
hope that we will be able to report the bill to the Senate floor at.that
time.
Sincerely,
JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senator.
AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNET,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.G.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNET: Thank you for the opportunity to com-
ment 011 your proposal that the Noise Pollution Control Act (S. 3342)
include language which calls for either the retrofitting or retirement
of noisy aircraft that do not meet FAR 36 maximum noise require-
ments by January 1, 1976. Your proposal also specifies that new
aircraft types manufactured after the date of enactment would be
required tor,,meet the best available technology or, at a minmum, a
noise level 15 EPNdB lower than the Part 36 standard by January 1,
1975. Airport operators believe this is an excellent approach. We have
long recognized that aircraft noise pollution constitutes a primary
constraint upon the U.S. aviation system.
The proposal to include a specific date at which time all aircraft
must meet or better the noise levels of FAR Part 36 is an Absolutely
essential component of any noise abatement plan. Progress in noise
reduction will foe 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 dearly
indicated that the technology existed to retrofit existing aircraft, the
FAA 'began another comprehensive study regarding retrofit. These
studies are nearing completion. A flight test of the retrofitted 727 will
take place this fall with a final report due in the first quarter of 1973.
A flight test of a retrofitted 707 will take place during the summer of
1973 with a final report due in the fourth quarter of 1973. Contracts
have been awarded for studies of the DC-8 and DC-9 with their com-
pletion dates scheduled for late 1973. A contract for the study of
retrofitting the 737 will fee awarded this fall with the completion date
as yet undecided. Preliminary test results from the above studies, that
is static ground tests and other acoustical data, indicated that it is
technologically possible to retrofit aircraft to meet FAR Part 36.
These studies strongly support your proposed additions to S. 3342.
While it is clear that the technology exists to mandate retrofit, the
decision to either retrofit or retire should be left to the individual
airlines. The language that is suggested would permit the owner of the
aircraft to consider any option, that is, retrofit, retirement or other
conforming use; We do-not believe that the airlines can be burdened
with the costs of retrofit or retirement to an extent that would seriously
impair their financial position. It is very important that this country
[p. 30]
-------
2410 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
have a financially healthy national air transportation system. Several
different approaches exist for providing financial assistance to an air-
craft owner if that assistance is needed or requested. They include:
accelerated tax depreciation benefits, Federal funding and loan guaran-
tees, or a small increase in passenger ticket and cargo waybill user
charges for the short period of time required to assist in financing the
above options. Another economic consideration which must be con-
sidered is the great boost that a decision to retrofit, or replace noisy
aircraft, would give to the sagging aerospace industry. We believe
that your second concept requiring that new types of aircraft manu-
factured after January 1, 1975 meet either the best available tech-
nology or, at a minimum, a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than Part 36
is a laudable goal.
In summary, we believe that the proposal to require that all aircraft
after January 1,1976 meet FAR Part 36 is an excellent one. We fur-
ther support the proposal for setting a goal of reducing the noise by 15
EPNdB within three years. I would refer you to our more detailed
presentation before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution
on April 13,1972 at which time we discussed at some length our sup-
port for these proposals. There must be action now to reduce aircraft
noise pollution. We believe that the best way to accomplish this with-
out incurring further delays is to mandate the agency which is con-
ducting investigations and studies in this field at this time to issue
such regulations. This would be the Federal Aviation Administration.
Further delays in the implementation of aircraft noise regulations
only increase the grave threat that noise pollution presently poses to
our national air transportation system.
Sincerely,
J. DONALD BJEILLY,
Executive Vice President.
THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY,
New York. N.Y., September 18,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TCJNNEY,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you for your letter of Septem-
ber -12, concerning proposed changes to'the noise pollution control bill
(S.3342):
We believe that language such as that suggested in your third para-
graph is essential if the new bill is to result"'in timely and effective re-
duction of aircraft noise. The best information available to us indicates
that January 1,1976 is a reasonable target date for a retrofit program
if action is started now. Of critical importance, however, is the devel-
opment of a financing program for the capital required to accomplish
retrofit. Without Federal Government leadership in this area, I am
afraid that retrofit will be jeopardized.
The suggested limit of 15 EPNdB below FAR Part 36 seems ex-
cessive for the present state of the art. The joint DOT-NASA
CARD- Study indicated that a 10 dB reduction seemed feasible
withmlO years. We suggest that, in the language of Part 36, new
aircraft for which application for a type certificate is submitted on or
[p. 31]
-------
NOISE-—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2411
after January 1, 1975, be required to meet noise levels at least 10
EPNdB lower than those of present Part 36. Only by early action of
this sort can the public be assured that developing technology will be
applied to further noise reduction rather than increased payload and
range.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these aspects of
S. 3342.
Sincerely,
NEAL E. MONTANTTS.
CITY OF SAN JOSE,
San Jose, Calif., September 14-, 197%.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNET,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNET : Your letter of September 8,1972 to Donald
Keilly 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 EASSC relative to our Bay Area Systems Study.
I feel rather strongly en the subject and would like to comment further.
I would like to offer you a summary of recommendations, my cre-
dentials, and discussion giving reasons for the recommendations. In
summary, it is technologically and economically feasible to 'accomplish
these recommendations. It is specifically recommended that:
1. FAA be required to establish a retrofit trust fund with the monies
to come from a national enplanement tax levied against the air
passenger;
2. That the FAA establish a formula for paying for the retrofit, said
formula to consider cost of retrofit and tax credits;
3. The retrofit program be as follows:
(a) That existing aircraft not now meeting FAE 36, be required to
have nacelle retrofits and meet FAE 36 by January 1,1976, with funds
from the trust fund;
.(b) The same aircraft be required to re-engine or incorporate the
new NACA front fan treatment by January 1, 1979, with funds from
the trust fund;
(c) That both (a) and (b) may be accomplished by January 1,1976
if desired by the air carrier, with total payment to come from the trust
fund formula;
(d) That in lieu of retrofit, an air carrier may choose to retire ex-
isting aircraft from service, in favor of purchasing new, quieter air-
craft, and that in such cases, the equivalent of retrofit be awarded from
the trust fund to the air carrier toward purchase of the new aircraft;
4. That any language relative to new aircraft be explicit to include
new aircraft, regardless of country of manufacture.
As to my credentials, I graduated from the University of California
at Berkeley, with a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering, with an
aeronautics option. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the
State of California. I served ifour years as a naval aviator, flew air-
line with Pan American, spent five years as an experimental test pilot
with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (now NASA)
and North American Aviation, and twenty-five years as Airport Man-
ager. I served as an airport representative on the Aeronautics and
[p. 32]
-------
2412 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
Space Engineering Board ad hoc study advisory committee which
resulted in the joint DOT/NASA civil aviation E&D policy recom-
mendation. I have kept in close contact with my former associates at
NASA and feel I have fairly good knowledge of the state of the art
of research and development.
To solve the problem, we ask what is technologically and economi-
cally feasible. The airlines say they cannot afford to retrofit and they
cannot. We would take the position and state that aircraft must be
retrofitted (including new front fan treatment) by a given date,
then if we say how to finance it, we will have the solution. The NASA-
GE quiet engine research program has yielded noise reductions greater
than anticipated when the contract was let. We know that noise can
be reduced to about one-fourth of what it is now and, in the case
of the 707 and DC-8 aircraft, the noise footprint under the 90 PNDB
contour can be reduced from the present 47,500 _acres to about 3,000
acres. If 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 Airport, and
by having all aircraft equipped with the new generation of quieter
engines. Thus, the current state of technology has reached the plateaus
of offering known solutions. With continuing research, even greater
strides can be made for the future.
If your bill would provide the means of financing retrofit, then
it might offer a clearer method of solving the problem. If society has
to pay for noise reduction, then the user should be given the oppor-
tunity to pay for that reduction. A passenger head charge of say $1.00
per passenger would currently generate some 175 Million Dollars
annually. The money could be borrowed against this revenue which
yields 1.75 Billion Dollars. I agree with James Carr that the airline
passenger should be given the chance to pay to reduce the noise and
thereby improve the environment.
The acoustically treated nacelle and the new treated front fan
installation could be financed by this method by having the FAA levy
an enplanement tax, with the proceeds to go to a trust fund to pay
for the retrofit. As James Carr has pointed out, the equivalent of the
retrofit cost could be given to an airline if a noisy aircraft is retired,
and new aircraft meeting new noise standards is purchased. This is
an economical and not a technological problem. This alternative would
help modernize our air fleet and would stimulate our air frame and
engine industry.
For the above reasons, I support the addition of language that
requires all aircraft to meet Part 36 by January 1, 1976. We know
how to do it and it can be financed by a user tax.
I think there might be some problem in requiring retrofit of air-
craft manufactured after date of enactment to meet the noise level
[p. 33]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2413
of 15 EPNdB by 1976.1 would suggest that 10 EPNdB by 1975 would
be more realistic criteria. If the criteria is too severe and applies only
to new types of aircraft, it might tend to discourage design and de-
velopment of new aircraft unless some premium or assistance were
offered. It would be more economical to continue to manufacture the
same aircraft. I suggest that the language state that new aircraft
manufactured after January 1, 1976 be clarified to include aircraft,
regardless of country of manufacture, or the foreign manufacturers
would have an unfair advantage over United States manufacturers.
I further suggest that the 707 and DC-8 aircraft can be reasonably
retrofitted with acoustically treated nacelles, and retirement may be
more attractive than subsequent engine retrofit; however, that would
be the airline's decision. The B-727, 737 and DC-9 are expected to be
with us well into the 1980's. I suggest that the nacelle retrofit as you
propose be required by January 1,1976 and that the new NACA front
fan be required by January 1,1979, with the airline having the option
of doing both by January 1, 1976 if they desire, with payment being
made from the new trust fund. This would result in a mix of aircraft
that by 1980 would consist principally of a re-engine 727, 737 and
DC-9, wide 'body jets and some new aircraft with the new generation
of quiet engines. The DC-8 and 707 will probably be retired in favor
of the new aircraft with quieter engines. This would result in a posi-
tive program that would stimulate the aircraft industry and would
give the general public which must endure the noise relief with pro-
grammed reduction for the future. The user would pay the tab and the
United States would set the pattern for the rest of the world to follow.
The rest of the world to follow. The rest of the world is waiting for the
United States to come to grips and solve the noise problem before they
take a hard stand. This has come to light at international meetings on
the noise problem.
Specific recommendations were presented at the start of the letter
and I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments to you.
Very truly yours,
JAMES M. NISSEN.
Airport Manager.
GENERAL ELECTRIC Co.,
West Lynn, Mass., September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNET,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.O.
Attention of: Mrs Jane Frank, Legislative Assistant.
DEAR SENATOR TTJNNET : I am pleased to respond to your letter of
September 8 addressed to Fred J. Borch requesting specific comments
on the.current state of engine noise technology with respect to retrofit
of the older aircraft types, retirement of these aircraft and their re-
placement by the new quieter types, the appropriateness of the FAE36
noise standard for all aircraft'landing at U.S. airports after Janntiry
1,1976 and FAK36 minus 15 EPnL for new aircraft types by January
1975. I have not attempted to address myself to the specific language
of vour Bill but rather to the basic issues raised in your letter.
As you indicate in your letter, different approaches_to the noise
problem may be appropriate for the different classes of aircraft.
[p. 34]
525-314 O - 73 - 'I
-------
2414 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
I believe that the 707/DC8 fleet represents the greatest problem and
is the main source of complaints (for such, major airports as JFK and
Los Angeles). The first attached noise footprint chart illustrates this
problem. I am not aware of any practical way to retrofit their current
engines by nacelle treatment alone to achieve FAE36 noise. NASA is
now financing a technology program to test a redesigned fan section for
these engines which might show the technical feasibility of retrofitting
the 707/DC8 with these quieter engines plus new nacelles and reversers.
While we believe that it might be technically possible for such substan-
tially modified engines and nacelles to meet FAE36, we believe this
approach will prove to be a very poor investment for the industry and
the Government. These airplanes are already obsolete.
A much better and proven solution to the 707/DC8 noise problems
already exists in the DC10/L1011/ and 747 series of wide-body jets.
These modern aircraft, incorporating the latest in noise reduction
and smoke reduction technology have already been certified at noise
levels below FAE36. The aircraft types using the General Electric
GF6 engine in the 1971-1976 time period including the DC10-10,
DC10-30, 747-300, and A300B have noise levels ranging from 3 to 7
EPnL below FAE36 on a traded basis. This is a huge improvement
over the 707/DC8, as shown in the second chart attached, and is much
quieter than is possible with 707/DC8 engines retrofitted with new
fans, nacelles, and reversers. I believe that it would be much more
sensible for the Government to find ways to accelerate the retirement
of these old aircraft in the 1973-1978 period and replace them with
the modern quieter aircraft available.
The smaller aircraft such as the 727/DC9/737 can be approached
in a different way. We believe it is possible for this class of aircraft
to have their nacelles modified in such a way that FAE36 can be met
and that their noise footprints could 'be reduced with proper con-
sideration of takeoff and approach aircraft operating procedures (such
as power cutback and 2 segment approaches). Whether engine retro-
fit of the existing aircraft fleet is sensible is another matter—particu-
larly if the dominant 707/DC8 noise can be handled by replacement
with available quiet wide-body transports, and if 727/DC9/737 noise
footprint areas can be ameliorated by operating procedures alone.
With regard to the retrofitting of the 727/DC9/737 fleet with their
existing engines rebuilt with new larger fans (development of which
is now funded by NASA) plus new nacelles and reversers, we believe
that this approach will also prove to be a very poor investment for its
incremental noise improvement. Here again, it appears to me that the
wiser and more effective solution lies in the new aircraft types using
high bypass turbofans such as the CFG or the new 20-25 000 # thrust
turbofans now under consideration which will replace the 727/DC9/
737 fleet. Typical noise levels for such new aircraft are shown on the
third chart.
These new twinjets and trijets in the 150-180 passenger short to
medium haul category certificated in the 1976-1978 period may be
able to meet FAE 36 minus 10 EPnL. Although this has not yet been
achieved in an economically attractive way, it is our goal and we are
making progress toward it. We consider FAE36 minus 15 EPnL
[p. 35]
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2415
out of reach for the 1970's, and furthermore, doubt that'there is a need
to achieve this level when operating from current airports.
In summary, I would like to emphasize that I believe that the real
problem of resolving the current noise situation with respect to meet-
ing 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 question is how to get many
more of them in service sooner. Revised aircraft operating procedures
can help 727/DC9/737 noise now, newly manufactured 727/DC9/737
could have nacelle treatment added and new types of short and medium
haul twinjet/trijet transports with high bypass turbofans will com-
pletely solve the noise problem posed by this class of aircraft in the
post 1976 period. The U.S. Government should concentrate more on
helping to modernize the U.S. fleet with new wide-body high bypass
turbof an powered transports than on the modification and retrofit
of obsolete engines and aircraft. If such a solution can be found, it
would be the best solution for noise, pollution, passenger comfort,
U.S. sales/jpbs/balance of trade, and the general health of the air-
craft and airline industry.
Sincerely,
GERTTAKD NEUMANN.
^
AIRCRAFT
r*i
te
fPB i i i
IHI j ! ...!...
^~^sfr'~'==r\r~-—
v_
-2Q. 0 20 40 80 60 100 120 140,
Feet (OOO's) . ^
FIGURE i
[p. 36]
-------
2416
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Feet (OOO's)
FldtJBE 2
^A
DC8/707
(Re-engine)"
17-
-94J 87-
-40 -20 0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140
Feet (OOO's]
FIGORE 8
[p. 37]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2417
GILBERT, SEGALL & YOUNG,
New York, N.Y., September 14,197%.
Senator JOHN V. TUNNET,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNET: I have your letter of September 8, 1972
concerning S. 3342. Unfortunately, this did not reach, me until yes-
terday, after being forwarded through Washington and New Jersey.
You will recall that your letter was addressed to me as President
of Rolls-Royce, Inc., 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York,
10020. Rolls-Royce, Inc. has since 1969 had no connection with avia-
tion, and is strictly an importer and distributor of Rolls-Royce and
Bentley motor cars. It has not been located at 45 Rockefeller Plaza
for some years, and I no longer have any association with it or its
parent company in England.
I am, however, U.S.A. counsel for Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, of
London, Derby and Bristol, England, which is the successor to the gas
turbine business of Rolls-Royce Limited, and for its subsidiary, Rolls-
Royce Aero Engines, Inc., of which I am also a Director. The address
of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited headquarters is 14-15 Conduit Street,
London TVPLA. 4EY, England. The address of Rolls-Royce Aero En-
gines, Inc. is 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
Since receiving your letter yesterday I have learned from Mrs.
Frank and Mrs. Deller that the time schedule has' been speeded up
so that you require comments by Friday, September 15, 1972, rather
than Monday, September 18. I had hoped to make a truly useful
reply to your inquiry, but unfortunately the time is really too short
ta do this.
Perhaps, however, I can respond in a general way to certain aspects
of your inquiry.
1. It would appear to me that noise limitations upon the operation
of aircraft should remain with the Federal Aviation Administration
rather than the EPA. I say this because the nature of the problem
requires careful consideration of problems far beyond the normal
concerns of the EPA. From the nature of the matters to which your
letter addresses itself I infer that, to some degree, you may agree.
I suggest, therefore, that the bill should not vest sole authority in the
EPAr but should leave it primarily in the FAA which is currently
engaged in very comprehensive studies of all aspects of the problem.
2. I would not think that it would be wise to provide by statute
that no aircraft can land at U.S. airports after a fixed date unless
certain specific noise level standards are met. Rather, I think that the
authority to fix and enforce noise level standards should be left pri-
marily to the FAA. To impose a rigid statutory rule with rigid dates
would, to my mind, lead to very unfortunate complications, both with
respect to the entire aviation industry and all U.S.A. commerce, and
with respect to the commercial relations between the U.S.A. and for-
eign countries into which U.S. carriers fly.
3. Similarly, because of the complexity of the problem I would not
think that the imposition by statute of arbitrary noise limits would
be desirable. Rather, I would think that the best results would be
obtained by leaving the matter primarily to the FAA, which is the
[p. 38]
-------
2418 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
expert public agency capable of taking into account all of the neces-
sary considerations. Further, the dates and standards the bill would
set appears to me to be very optimistic on the basis of present knowl-
edge, though I recognize that predictions in this area are very dif-
ficult.
4. As to your specific inquiries, it is not possible on such short notice
for me to give you useful responses. Beyond that, 1 do not believe
that there is sufficient data presently available concerning retrofit, the
cost of retrofitting, lead times and procedures respecting specific types
of aircraft. One can only be sure that retrofit of older aircraft, in-
cluding, as you suggest, new front fan treatment, would be enormously
costly and disruptive, but it would be premature to make any depend-
able estimate along these lines. Eolls-Eoyce, of course, like other engine
manufacturers, is expending great efforts with respect to those of its
engines which power commercial aircraft. These include the Spey
engine on the BAG 111 and Gulfstream II (efforts concerning the Spey
being the subject of an article in Aviation Week for September 4,
1972), the Dart, which powers various types of aircraft, including the
FD27, the Grumman Gulfstream I, the Viscount and others. The
Conway engine, -which is installed on the VC-10 and certain models
of the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, is not in service with any U.S.
airline. All of the aircraft powered by Kolls-Eoyce engines do, how-
ever, utilize U.S. airports in international travel. The B,B 211, which
is installed on the Lockheed L-1011, is, of course, a new technology
high thrust engine with outstanding noise characteristics, and it does
not, I believe, fall within the ambit of your inquiry.
In a nutshell then, aside from my being able to make the remarks
above, I do not think that there has been time enough to collect reliable
data and to put it in a usable form for you. I am not at all sure that
even if more time were available I would be able to give you compara-
tive costs of retrofit and retirement and replacement, nor do I believe'
that I could make informed comments concerning aircraft which are
powered by engines other than Eolls-Eoyce. I regret that I cannot do
more at this time. If developments are such and the time available is
expanded so that we can be of assistance in the future, and if we can
be_given sufficient advance notice to permit the development of appro-
priate data, we shall certainly do our best to assist you in any way we
can.
Yours sincerely,
PHIL E. GILBERT, Jr.
LocitTrEED AIRCRAFT CORP.,
Burlank, Calif., September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN Y. TUNXEY,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUJSHSTET: We at Lockheed have been doing every-
thing in our power to see that our new L-1011 transport has as low
a level of noise as can practically be reached, and we are working hard
with propulsion manufacturers and NASA seeking out any new ideas
which will improve urban acceptability of future airplanes. I think
[p. 39]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2419
we have demonstrated that a new "good neighbor" transport can be
developed without destroying the inherent efficiency which has made
our air transport system a mainstay of the national economy, and our
aircraft the major element in sustaining our international balance of
trade. I believe that the low certificated noise levels and our worldwide
demonstrations of the L-1011 attest to the success of our efforts.
We appreciate the opportunity which you have afforded us to con-
tribute our thoughts toward rational legislation for improving the
over-all acceptability of an airport within a community, and we recog-
nize that more must 'be done. Addressing the points which you have
outlined in your letter, we have the following comments:
STATE OF TECHNOLOGY
Knowing that we would have to work within the framework of
legislation and regulations 'when we first addressed the problem 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 sev-
eral EPNdiB, we see no reasonable way to achieve a 15 EPNdB im-
provement'over Part 36 as your letter suggests. We have no promising
clues to pursue and must await the results of research programs that
have as yet not been formulated. The CARD Study done by the Depart-
ment of Transportation suggested the possibility of 10 EPNdB below
Part 36 might be possible in 1980. We believe that this is a reasonable
target for certification of a new airplane, even though we still do not
know how to achieve this goal with a practical design.
In our efforts to set targets for incorporating improvements as the
state of the art changes, the legislation should identify potential
certification dates rather than new airplane delivery dates. It is not
clear in your letter whether "new aircraft types manufactured after
date of enactment..." refers to any new airplane or only to new air-
plane types certificated after enactment. If it means "all new aircraft
manufactured" this will result in the shutting down of programs which
fulfilled all regulations at their inception, and for which contracts
have been entered into.
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AIRCRAFT
Tour 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 ppwerplant or modest suppression
techniques only meeting Part 36 noise requirements.
b. "New aircraft types1', on the other hand, would have to meet a
sound level 15 EPNdB below Part 36 by January of 1975. This would,
in effect, force redesign of current -wide-bodied aircraft now sold, all
of which have utilized everything practically available in the state
of the art to improve noise performance. In Lockheed's case, this
[p. 40]
-------
2420 LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
would affect 100 to 200 airplanes which now are under firm contracts,
or second buys, or additional follow-on airplanes from present
customers.
cusome.
c If your reference to "new aircraft types manufactured. ... ac-
tually means "certified" after enactment, there is still a major problem
with new versions of present designs, such as twin conversions, long-
bodied modifications, extended range conversions, and similar models.
These would all have to incorporate entirely new powerplants, and
since we do not know how to meet a 15 EPNdB reduction, any such
extension of our current models would be effectively stopped.
Although Lockheed does not have current large transport aircraft
which exceed the maximum noise level standards of Appendix C of
Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, we recognize that most
of the existing operational transports and some current production
transports and business aircraft produce noise levels well above the
regulations.
We also recognize that the airlines are in no financial position to
modify these airplanes, even if a powerplant existed which would
bring them into full compliance. The extent of the problem is drama-
tized by the estimates of research and development for such a power-
plant installation that vary between $100 million and $200 million. To
this must be added retrofit costs that approach $2 million for each
four-engine transport. It is our estimate that between 400 and 500 of
these airplanes would still have a useful economic life by January
of 1976, all of which suggests that development and retrofit costs might
approach $1.25 billion to bring these aircraft into noise compliance —
a cost which the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers could not af-
ford without major compensating increases in revenue.
This estimate does not include retrofit of the smaller twin and trijet
transports which would certainly average $300,000 to $500,000 per air-
craft. We estimate that approximately 1300 of these would still have
an economic future in January 1976, and retrofit of this number would
therefore be nearly another $700 million.
By introducing these costs, we do not wish to leave the impression
that we oppose retrofit ; we only want to emphasize the financial im-
pact of the legislation which you propose, and to suggest that normal
channels for financing such an endeavor do not exist to our knowledge.
It is our opinion that the best approach to retrofit is by the use of a
new fan on existing four-engine aircraft to increase the bypass ratio
of the powerplants. We believe that the alternate concept 'of massive
muffing of present powerplants which are inherently noisy leads to
major cost burdens and inefficiency as well as excessive operational
difficulties. This same comment holds true when the use of similar mas-
sive suppression is proposed to achieve the very last dB for more mod-
ern engines which are quiet to begin with. Modern high bypass en-
gines could, indeed, be further suppressed, but the noise alleviation is
so small that it probably would be unrecognizable by the community.
Furthermore, it is obtained at a cost in operational economy which will
make new aircraft unattractive to domestic investors and foreign pur-
chasers alike.
[p. 41]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2421
In summary, we recognize and applaud the natioanl emphasis on
aircraft noise reduction. The Industry, without special financial assist-
ance from the Government has made monumental efforts to respond,
and is now delivering "quiet" aircraft which have retained the earn-
ing power to make them attractive to domestic and foreign airlines.
The problem now is to bring the existing airline fleet into compliance
with the new noise standards which have already been set. This will
require Government financing in some form, and the dates for ac-
complishment must be compatible with this financial support to pre-
vent a disastrous turmoil within our air transport system. We urge
that the creators of new legislation recognize the strides we have made,
and address the real problem of making our existing fleet suitable for
the community. We also urge that the setting of goals for future de-
velopment remain with the FAA (DOT), ably supported by the
technical talent within NASA.
Very sincerely yours,
D. J. HATTGHTON,
Chairman of the Board.
THE BOEING Co.,
Seattle, Wash., September 18,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNEY,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TTJNNEY: Your letter of September 8, 1972, poses
many complex questions that are of vital interest to all parties con-
cerned with aircraft noise. The timing of your request and the com-
plexity of the questions make complete answers difficult if not impos-
sible. My first impression is that passage of a law with the language
as suggested in your letter would inevitably bring air transportation,
as we know it today, to a standstill.
My second impression is that legislating technology and schedule
of accomplishment is unsound. There exists today industry and gov-
ernment sponsored research work aimed at producing a valid decision-
making base. It is not clear how new legislative acts can establish both
levels and schedules for noise reduction before government and indus-
try can develop the technology required to do the job. It seems there
is risk of establishing a law that is not enforceable.
Your proposal to require all aircraft landing at U.S. airports to meet
Appendix C noise levels by January 1,1976, could have a far reaching
impact. It would stop a major portion of domestic and international
air service. There is no apparent way the current JT8D and JT3D
fleet of commercial aircraft could be retrofit or replaced by January 1,
1976, as you suggest, regardless of research and development funding
•or monetary support to the airlines.
The suggested 15 EPNDB reduction by January 1, 1975, cannot be
commented on unless the specific meaning of "new aircraft types manu-
factured after" is interpreted. If this includes 747, DC-10 and L-1011
aircraft types, it would stop production of these new quieter airplanes.
If the requirement applies only to future new type designs, it would
stop development of new designs until that required noise reduction
technology could be developed. Although certainly later than 1975,
the timing for this accomplishment is unknown and is completely de-
pendent upon an adequately funded research program. In either case,
[p. 42]
-------
2422 LEGAL COMPILATION — SUPPLEMENT I
the noise reduction capability to accomplish this objective does not
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 em-
phatically endorse pursuing the new front fan concept because of its
oreat promise for meaningful noise reduction as well as airplane per-
formance improvement. However, we are extremely concerned that a
partially funded program will not produce timely results.
A.S you may know, the Aerospace Industries Association (A1A) has
been opposed to giving prime responsibility to the EPA for prescrib-
ino- and amending aircraft noise standards. We consider it inadvisable
and potentially dangerous to the traveling public, as well as those liv-
ino- under flight paths to give authority to a new agency to rule on
matters that can affect flight safety. Today air transportation has an
enviable flight safety record and no action should be taken that puts
this in jeopardy. .
I share the frustrations that exist relative to the noise problem. Cur-
rently we have over 400 scientists, engineers and technicians at Boeing
directly involved in noise reduction research and development. The
attachment to this letter contains a summary of expenditures at Boeing
since 1958 on noise reduction research. Over 43 million dollars of
Boeing funds have been spent on this problem. Even though we have
made significant progress through the use of these resources, the great-
est lesson we have learned is that the problem is complex ; and that
simple, fast, inexpensive solutions do not exist.
Although not answering your questions to the extent I'm sure you
desired, I hope these comments might be of help to the Public Works
Committee in their deliberations on this very significant legislation.
My recommendation for alternate rule language would be to suggest
funding programs at a level to accomplish noise reduction to the ex-
tent technically feasible and at the rate the Congress and the Nation
desires.
Very truly yours,
T. A WILSON.
[Attachment.]
BOEING NOISE REDUCTION RESEARCH
(In millions of dollars)
Boeing Government
R. & D. contract Total
Year:
1958
1959...
I960—
1961..
1962
1963. .
1964...
1965
1966
1967.
1968..
1969 .. .
1970
1971
1972
.601
106
282
472
.550
.310
140
1.384
2.528
3.197
10 957
8 508
4 447
3.594
6.031
.022
330
210
925
2 484
6 878
2 873
1 082
9 788
10.918
.601
.106
.282
.472
.550
.332
440
1.594
3.453
6.661
17. 835
11. 381
5.529
9.382
16. 948
Total 43.107 32.410 75.567
Note: Above expenditures do not include production development costs for airplane noise reduction activities totaling
over $23,000,000.
[p. 43]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2423
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.,
St. Lou-is, 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 provisions of
the noise pollution control act ('S. 3342) introduced by you and Sena-
tor Muskie. Clearly there is too much noise around airports and we
are determined to do our part to help.
The attached letter from Jack McGowen, President of our Douglas
Aircraft 'Company, to Jack Shaffer, Administrator of FAA, in re-
sponse to his request for informal comments on tentative FAA regu-
lations in this area,- is a good statement of our position.
I would like particularly to emphasize -that the current state of
the art in technology makes it impossible to promise today that com-
mercially viable airplanes and engines can be produced which generate
far Jess noise than the requirements of F.A.R., Part 36, without cost
pnd other penalties in excess of what the taxpaying public will accept.
Research and development, can undoubtedly improve our ability to
produce 'airplanes which generate less noise, but there is no way to
reliably evaluate the cost of reaching specific quantitative goals until
after adequate research, development, testing and evaluation has been
accomplished. I therefore urge that the government place great em-
phasis on expediting the necessary RDT & E so as to establish what
is feasible, and only then stipulate dates when mandatory accomplish-
ment will be required.
The FAA has experience in regulations of this kind, whereas the
EPA has little. We would urge that advantage be taken of such ex-
perience in establishing the requirements and their administration.
McDonnell Douglas is devoting a great deal of attention to the prob-
lem of noise. If you or your staff would be interested in, having one of
our technical specialists provide a briefing covering the many complex
aspects of this problem, I would be most happy to arrange it.
Sincerely,
KENDALL PERKINS.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT Co.,
August 18, 1972.
Hon. JOHN H. SHAFFER,
A dmvnistrator. Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR JACK : Your letter of August 11, 1972, in which you discussed
a notice of proposed rule making that would require noise levels 10
EPNdB below FAR Part 36 for future production aircraft, has con-
vinced me that you take the airport noise problem as seriously as I dp.
I,really believe we must think in such terms if we are to achieve an air
transportation system that meets the requirements for compatibility
with communities around our airports.
I'm not suggesting that we know how to accomplish reducti6ns
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]
-------
2424 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
mine the noise reductions that can 'be accomplished and the time re-
quired to accomplish them. A quick look at our DC-10 would say we
miflit be able to achieve noise levels between 5 and 10 EPNdB below
FAR 36 depending on the reference location. Some of our research
proo-rams with your organization and with the NASA may also lead
to similar possibilities for the low bypass ratio turbofan powered air-
craft. Perhaps additional research may lead the way to the full 10
' EPNdB below FAR Part 36.
One word of caution. All our studies show that regardless of how
quiet we make the future production aircraft, the overall community
noise situation will not benefit significantly until something is done to
also reduce the noise of the JT3D and JT8D powered aircraft now in
the fleet. Those aircraft must be considered along with future produc-
tion aircraft. We recognize that the airlines do not have the resources
to pay for a noise retrofit program and investigations to develop
means of financing such a program should be conducted along with
the research to develop the technology.
Frankly, I believe that other modifications to Part 36 that are cur-
rently being considered, such as temperature/altitude accountability
and requiring future production aircraft to meet Part 36 offer no help
to the noise problem and should be dropped in favor of a single modi-
fication to Part 36 which addresses the total problem and .requires
that all practical steps be taken to solve it. I would pledge my support
to a program to develop such a modification.
We, at Douglas, will be most happy to work with you and your peo-
ple both directly and through the Aerospace Industries Association to
find solutions to this most serious problem.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
JACKSON R. McGowEN.
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP.,
Hartford, Conn., September 16, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Committee on Public Works, V..S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : In your letter of September 8, 1972, you
asked for comments on proposed changes by the Senate Public Works
Committee to the aircraft noise control provisions of the noise pollu-
tion control act (S. 3342). As indicated in your letter, it is proposed
that all existing aircraft comply with the maximum noise level stand-
ards in Appendix C of FAR Part 36 after January 1, 1976, and that
all aircraft which could not be retrofitted economically to comply
be replaced by a new generation of quieter aircraft. It is also proposed
that new aircraft types manufactured after January 1 1975 meet
a noise level at least 15 EPNdB lower than FAR Part 36.
Because of the very short response time requested in your letter,
mv comments must be brief and general in nature since there is in-
sufficient time to provide in-depth replies to your proposals.
We do not believe it is possible, either technically or logistically, to
retrofit or replace current aircraft with quieter versions meeting FAR
36 noise requirements by January 1,1976. The existing fleet of aircraft
[p. 45]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2425
in question currently provides approximately 80% of the present U.S.
domestic seat capacity, and we estimate that in 1976 these aircraft
will still represent approximately 60% of the domestic seat capacity.
Both the FAA and NASA are funding extensive programs to
establish noise reductions possible on 727, 737, DC-9, 707 and DC-8
aircraft through a retrofit program. The FAA retrofit feasibility pro-
gram includes nacelle acoustical treatment and jet suppressors while
the NASA program includes nacelle treatment and new front fan
engine modifications. Most of the JT8D powered aircraft (727, 737
and DC-9) could probably be retrofitted with nacelle treatment alone
to meet the noise limits of FAR 36. Because these aircraft are at
present so close to meeting the FAR 36 requirement, however, the
improvement resulting from such action would hardly be perceptible
to the human ear, and thus would not provide any appreciable noise
relief to the airport communities. The current FAA and NASA pro-
grams are planned to accomplish reductions in jet noise as well as
fan noise for both JT8D and JT3D powered aircraft in order to
obtain meaningful community noise reduction. Provided these pro-
grams continue at adequate funding levels, a decision on the appro-
priate action for a retrofit program is expected by late 1973 or early
1974 On this basis, aircraft retrofit could not be initiated sooner than
1976 or be completed earlier than 1979.
With regard to the proposal that current aircraft which cannot
be economically retrofitted be replaced with new generation quieter
aircraft already under construction, there are no new quiet aircraft
under development to directly replace the smaller 727/737/DC-9
class of aircraft or the 707/DG-8 aircraft serving low density routes.
Such new aircraft .are not likely to be available in, quantities earlier
than the 1980's.
In the case of new aircraft/engine designs, industry does not have-
in hand either the technology or adequate funds to accomplish a noise
level 15 EPNdB lower than FAR Part 36 for aircraft manufactured
after January 1, 1975. With strong government support, the tech-
nology may fee developed during the next few years -to .accomplish
a noise.lever 10 EPNdB lower than FAR Part 36 for aircraft manu-
factured 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, consisting of FAA,
NASA and industry personnel, be established to recommend the noise
Levels which can be practically, achieved within the 1970 and 1980 time
periods. We further recommend that the FAA, for reasons of safety,
be continued in the primary role for regulation of aircraft noise, with
the EPA taking the advisory role. -
As I am sure you know, the United States' airlines have been suffer-
ing severe economic problems for several yea,rs. The financial burden
of any prescribed retrofit program which provides1 no economic return
to the airlines presents a major obstacle to its accomplishment, and
may require that the government plan a significant role in making
such a program financially possible.
Please be assured of our vital interest in the noise reduction ques-
tion. We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us to comment
[p. 46]
-------
2426 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
on your proposal, and we would be pleased to participate in further
discussions or in any task force established to further define future
requirements for noise certification.
Sincerely,
B. H. TORELL,
Division President,
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division.
NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL,
El Segundo, Calif., September 15,19T2.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.
Attention: Mrs. Jane Frank
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : In Bob Anderson's absence, I am replying
to your letter of September 8 asking for our comments on the addi-
tions which are being proposed to the noise pollution control act (S.
3342).
We are, of course, in general agreement that control of airport noise
is an important objective and believe that industry would welcome
assistance from the Government in the further development of noise
abatement technology. However, in view of the present state of the art,
we do not believe it is desirable to incorporate firm requirements in
federal legislation at this time.
The specific questions which you have asked concerning the technical
and economic aspects of retrofit can better be responded to by those
companies who manufacture commercial aircraft. Our endeavors havfc
been limited to general aviation aircraft. Airplanes of this type are a
smaller part of the overall aircraft noise problem which is dominated
by the large commercial aircraft. For one thing, it is not clear what
portion of the airport noise problem results from the operation of
general aviation aircraft. In this connection, we would particularly
welcome the opportunity to .work with Government, agencies.to de-
velop the information necessary to determine the kinds of constructive
actions which would be required.
Most of the engines for general aviation aircraft are well over ten
years in production, and there are few practical engines in the 3,000-
pound to 5,000-pound thrust class that would be available in the next
few years. For engines in this class, we believe there is limited tech-
nical information available with respect to noise reduction. This has
contributed to the impracticality of working up economics of retrofit
or retirement and replacement.
In general, taking into account the wide spectrum between very
small general aviation aircraft and the large commercial airliners as
well as the limited technology regarding noise abatement, we believe
that it is premature to establish absolute standards by legislation and
that the flexibility permitted by regulatory rather than legislative
control is desirable. A further point we would make is that separation
[p. 47]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2427
of authority over noise control from responsibility for operational
safety could lead to safety problems.
1 am sorry that the timing of action by your committee on this bill
does not permit us to give you a more extensive reply.
Sincerely,
WALLACE W. BOOTH.
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION or AMERICA, INC., ,
Washington, D.O., September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
UJS. Senate,
New Senate Oifice Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : We are in receipt of your letter of Septem-
ber 8,1972, informing us of proposed amendments to S. 3342 calling for
new aircraft noise reductions.
First, it is the firm finding of our member companies, which make up
the bulk of the transport aircraft manufacturing industry and as such
are amply qualified to make such judgments, that the new aircraft noise
reduction schedule of 15 EPNdB below the Part 36 standard by Janu-
ary 1, 1975, proposed in your letter would be impossible to achieve. A
10 EPNdB reduction by 1981 was suggested by the Civil Aviation Re-
search and Development Policy Study (CARD) published by the De-
partment of Transportation. Industry considers this an attainable
goal, providing the costly technological development involved con-
tinues to receive appropriate funding, both public and private.
Second, to prohibit any aircraft which does not comply with the
maximum standards in Part 36 by January 1, 1976, from landing in
the United States could have the practical effect of ending commercial
air service here as of that date.
It is difficult to believe that diminution of progress in either of these
areas is the intention of the Committee on Public Works. It'would
certainly seem that further study of these proposed measures would be
in order.
For instance, in response to your inquiry about the current state of
technology with respect to front fan treatment in addition to nacelle
treatment we can refer you to a NASA contract awarded this year
on this very subject. The engine in question is an experimental rather
than a production model, however, and the results of that contract will
not be available for three years. Furthermore, this is not the only rel-
evant research 'now underway. As you must be aware, the transport
aircraft and engine manufacturers have, at great expense, made tre-
mendous reductions in aircraft engine noise during the past several
years and are acutely aware of the need for further reductions. Un-
fortunately the availability of the technology to accomplish these
additional decreases cannot be effectively legislated.
We urge you to delve into the existing knowledge on this subject
and for your convenience include a copy of an article on the subject
which appeared in the Association's Aerospace Magazine.
In addition, we would again recommend that the FAA, for reasons
of safety, exercise the primary responsibility, in consultation with the
[P- 48]
-------
2428 LEGAL .COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
EPA, for setting aircraft noise standards. In the present context, we
would urge also that the standards-setting agency not be limited by
legislated noise reduction goals.
Yours very truly,
KAEL G. HARE, Jr.
AMERICAN AIRLINES,
Neio York, N.T., September 15,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNET,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNET: Thank you for the opportunity to com-
ment on the proposed modifications to the Noise Pollution Control Act
(S. 3342). We are mindful of the need to help develop solutions to the
noise problem. Our commitment to this goal is illustrated by the fact
that American Airlines developed the noise abatement specifications
that were built into both the DC-10 and L-1011.
Because of the admitted urgency of finding a solution to noise de-
veloped by our older aircraft, we have been studying this matter in
considerable depth from both the technical and financial point of view.
We have come to certain conclusions which I am pleased to pass along
to you:
(1) We believe it is technically possible to modify aircraft now in
service to meet FAR 36 specifications, if sufficient time is made avail-
able to do so.
(2) The cost of retrofit, even within the minimum time limits that
we consider achievable, is beyond the capability of the airline indus-
try to support, and would require public funding.
(3) The January 1,1976 date is not feasible. The earliest achievable
date in our opinion is January 1,1978.
(4) There are promising options to reduce the noise level of opera-
tions at such points as Los Angeles by altering take-off and approach
procedures. These revised procedures offer a reasonable hope for more
prompt relief than could be accomplished through aircraft retrofit.
(5) The proposed January 1, 1975 requirement for new aircraft to
comply with FAR 36 minus lodB is unrealistic.
Regarding conclusion (1), we believe that with the knowledge and
material available to us today, it appears possible to develop a modi-
fication for each type of aircraft now in service so that compliance
with these levels can be obtained. This cannot be done, however, with-
out adequate time to design and test the specific hardware to be used.
The retrofit design must not only produce the required noise levels,
but must also be thoroughly tested to assure continued operational
safety and reliability required to maintain airline service in the public
interest.
To avoid unnecessary waste of resources, it is necessary to deter-
mine which retrofit approach is most effective and desirable. As you
note in your letter, there are two basic approaches to noise reduction
now being funded by the government: the nacelle and jet suppression
treatment and the new front fan design. The latter approach is most
desirable from an operational point of view, but it is already clear to
us that the conversion cost is much higher. Given the magnitude of
[p- 49]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2429
the retrofit problem, it would be.unconscionable to make a forced
choice between these two approaches until thorough testing of both
solutions have been completed. This process can be expected to take at
least two years at the rate at which the government has been funding
these studies.
When the preferred approach is determined, our engineers estimate
that it will take at least three years from the time of delivery of the
first kit to install a modification on our complete fleet, assuming that
all air carrier airplanes -were simultaneously modified. The cost to
our industry of attempts to speed up this time span increases at an
enormous rate and I would estimate that our costs would double if, for
example, a two-year time period were required. For the same reason,
a considerable reduction in cost would be possible if the time period
were extended.
With regard to conclusion (2), the cost of retrofit, we estimate that
to comply with these programs by January 1, 1978, which we believe
to be the earliest achievable date, the cost to American Airlines would
range from $120 to $315 million, .depending on whether nacelle treat-
ment or a new front fan approach is chosen. We believe these figures,
expressed in 1972 dollars, are accurate to within plus or minus 20%.
American Airlines cannot conceivably fund a program of this magni-
tude. The suggested alternative, which is to replace these airplanes by
that date, is also unworkable. We would be required to retire ninety-
seven 707-type aircraft. Even assuming that our route structure and
traffic demand would permit replacement of the lift provided by these
aircraft with DC-10's (which is not the case), we would have to pur-
chase fifty-seven new DC-10's at a cost of approximately $1.1 billion.
Faced with these staggering costs, which we believe -are entirely realis-
tic estimates, I cannot in any good conscience support a retrofit pro-
gram of this nature, unless it is accompanied by an outright financial
grant to make this modification in the public interest.
The foregoing explains the basis for our conclusion (3) that the
proposed January 1, 1976 date is not feasible. If we were required to
Comply with FAR 36 by January 1,1976, it would be impossible for us
and other airlines to meet the public need for transportation and the
requirements of our certificates of public 'convenience and necessity.
Under such restrictions we could not provide service on a majority of
the routes we are certificated to serve. While it is more difficult and
time-consuming to modify some types of aircraft than others, the
January 1,1976 proposal is, in my opinion, impossible to achieve.
Regarding conclusion (4), we believe that strict compliance with
FAR 36 by engine or nacelle retrofit may not be the most effective way
to reduce noise. There are several promising options to reduction of
noise level by altering take-off and approach procedures. We have
already implemented new take-off and approach procedures which
have reduced noise exposure, but considerably greater progress can be
achieved^ we believe, through our program of active testing, with
support from NASA, of two-segment approach procedures. We believe
it can already be established that noise relief of the magnitude you seek
is possible by the use of this technique. This approach offers the best
hope, in my opinion, of reasonably prompt relief in the Los Angeles
area- r Km
[p. 50]
-------
2430 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
Noise abatement achieved by revised approach procedures could re-
solve a significant concern over another aspect of the retrofit proposal.
Specifically, the difference between the current noise levels of certain
aircraft (in our case the 727's) and the requirements of FAR 36 will be
so minimal as to be almost imperceptible to the public. It would be a
traoic waste of resources to effect this retrofit only to find that the
public is wholly unsatisfied. Kelief through modification of approach
procedures may consequently offer a better solution than retrofit, both
in terms of cost impact and more prompt'conformity with FAR 36.
This is certainly true with respect to the quieter-of the older aircraft,
such as the 727's, and might provide an acceptable solution to the prob-
lem of the 707 and DC-types as well.
Regarding our conclusion (5), the proposed requirement that new
types of aircraft to be manufactured after January 1, 1975 comply
with FAR 36 minus 15dB is in the opinion of our engineers totally
unrealistic. Such a requirement would necessitate the use of a new
engine vastly quieter than any now existing. It has been our experi-
ence that an absolute minimum of four years is required to develop
such a new engine even when the technology is in hand to permit
commitment to the project.
It is also worth pointing out that prohibiting operation to the
United States of aircraft of foreign registry that do not comply with
these noise levels would present a most difficult international problem
for our country. Foreign governments could hardly be expected to
permit U.S. carriers to serve their countries if the operation of their
own flag carriers to the U.S. was prohibited.
Sincerely,
GEORGE A. SPATER.
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES,
Neio York, N.T., September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.G.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : TWA is pleased to have this opportunity
to respond to your letter query of September 8 on the control of air-
craft noise.
As you knows perhaps, TWA has been instrumental and successful
through the years in forcing the development of quieter and more pol-
lution free aircraft. TWA, along with several other leading airlines,
has always contractually required the incorporation of the latest noise
attenuation technology that is practical and effective when procuring
aircraft. This continues to be our policy and our objective. Current
examples of good progress are the Boeing 747 and Lockheed 1011.
TWA has also studied the various programs and designs targeted
toward the development of retrofit technology which have existed
throughout the jet age. It is also familiar with current programs in-
cluding the front fan and nacelle treatment programs mentioned in
your letter. In fact, TWA just completed a comprehensive review of
all known possibilities and programs last week.
Through the years, TWA has encouraged the development of those
technologies which stand to reduce external aircraft noise. It was
[p. 51]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2431
hoped that by now practical designs for effectively reducing noise
from the older aircraft in our airport communities would be in hand.
This is not the case and, unfortunately, little prospects for early prac-
tical solutions exist. However, all reasonable efforts to advance appli-
cable technologies and to develop suitable designs should continue.
As matters liow stand, either the predicted noise improvements are
so low as to be completely cost ineffective or they are impossibly ex-
pensive and would occur in a time frame that would not permit com-
pletion of retrofit programs prior to the 1977-1981 time period. This
is too late since by then the majority of the older narrow bodied four-
engine jets will either have been retired or will be on the eve of retire-
ment from commercial service.
You may be interested to know that four-engine aircraft retrofit
capital costs are estimated to run from approximately $1,200,000 per
airplane for the quiet nacelle to approximately $1,900,000 per airplane
for the new and as yet undeveloped front fan. Parts obsolescence costs,
revenue loss from added fuel consumption and/or empty weight in-
creases, and loss of utilization during the conversion period are all in
addition and would total a very appreciable amount. The capital
costs alone would result in a minimum increase in seat mile cost of from
approximately 7.0% to 13%. Capital required for TWA aircraft alone
could total as much as $300 Million. This quite obviously would be
totally unacceptable.
Costs and timing indicated herein are preliminary estimates since
neither the quiet nacelles nor the new front fans are fully developed or
have been tested in flight. The quiet nacelle being developed by Boeing
Wichita will not fly until next year and the new front fan won't be in
the air for several years and then only if engine ground tests are suc-
cessful. It is of the greatest importance that such devices be tested
for acceptability by human ears on a controlled empirical basis. His-
tory shows that meters and forecasted results simply are not reliable
in this regard. In no event should retrofit programs or implementa-
tion schedules be adopted until this is done.
Thus, summarily, the suggested FAR 36 compliance date of Jan-
uary 1, 1976 for all aircraft operating into U.S. airports is totally
unrealistic and cannot be achieved. At this time it is impossible to
rationally set a date for the mandatory achievement of this objective.
Applicable technologies must be advanced, noise reduction effectivity
determined by: flight'.tests rand economic" feasibility established first.
Any language additions to S. 3342 along the lines suggested in your
letter of September 8 are premature and ill advised.
As to the proposed requirement that new types of aircraft manu-
factured after January 1,1975 comply with noise standards 15 EpnDB
less than FAR 36 App. G., TWA understands this subject is currently
being considered by the FAA. TWA doubts that the attainment of a
] 5 EbnDB reduction is realistic by then and suggests that a 5 to _8
EpnDB reduction would be more realistic. However, since action is
under way, language additions to S. 3342 would seem unnecessary and
duplicative.
TWA respectfully suggests that prior to the inclusion of any lan-
guage in S. 3342 on aircraft noise alleviation requirements or retrofit
schedules^ that an informal meeting be held between you and/or your
[p- 52]
-------
2432 LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
staff and selected airline representatives. Such a meeting could serve
to discuss and clarify significant facets of retrofit to a greater extent
than is practical in this letter. If you consider such a meeting appro-
priate, TWA would, of course, be happy to participate.
Very truly yours,
F. C. WISER.
INSTITUTE OF NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING,
Cambridge, Mass.. September 18,1972.
Senator JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Neio Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Attention: Mrs. Jane Frank
DEAR SENATOR TTJNNET : I am pleased to respond to your letter of
12 September 1972 in which you solicit my views in regard to the Noise
Pollution Control Act (S. 3342). The comments offered herein are
based on assessment of the status of aircraft acoustics technology and
regulation available to me as a Member of the Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board of the National Academy of Engineering and upon
jet engine and airport noise research in studies performed by me and
my colleagues at Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
The current state of technology supports the addition of language to
S. 3342 that, "No aircraft could land at U.S. airports after 1 January
1976, unless such aircraft complied with the maximum noise level
standards in Appendix C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regula-
tion." However, the reqirement that new aircraft meet a noise level 15
EPNdB lower than the 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 tech-
nology for large transport aircraft. A careful look at available noise
control technology and at the length of time it takes for manufacturing
and certification schedules to be accomplished, convinces me that new
aircraft, could realistically be required to meet noise regulations that
are 10 EPNdB lower than 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 Avia-
tion Administration and the Department of Transportation along with
NASA have supported technology development in this area, the FAA
has shunned the responsibility for setting aircraft community noise
exposure criteria. Tt.e EPA should be given the authority for selecting
and enforcing these criteria, but the specific methods and individual
aircraft numbers involved in meeting these goals should be selected in
collaboration with NASA, which has responsibility for aeronautics
research, and with the FAA, which has the ultimate responsibility for
[p. 53]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2433
the refinement and application of aviation technology to the civil air
transportation system.
If the Noise Pollution Control Act is still an issue during the next
session of Congress, my colleagues in this country, in particular the
NAE Board, INGE, and Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. and other re-
search companies would be pleased to provide you with detailed com-
ments in regard to the present status of acoustical technology pertinent
to the subject of aircraft retrofit and new aircraft development.
Sincerely,
LEO L. BERANEK,
President, INGE.
[p. 54]
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 2435
1.4a(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 118 (1972)
1.4a(3)(a) Feb. 29: Considered and passed House, pp. H1508-
H1539
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
Mr. MATStJNAGA. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 828 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as fol-
lows:
H. RES. 828
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be In order to move, clause
27 (d) (4) of rule XI to the contrary notwith-
standing, that the House resolve Itself Into
the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration of
the bill (H.B. 11021) to control the emission
of noise detrimental to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes. After general
debate, which shall be confined to the bill
and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to
be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, the bill shall be read for amend-
ment under the five-minute rule. It shall be
in order to consider the amendment In the
nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce now printed in the bill as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such
consideration, the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such amend-
ments as may have been adopted, and any
Member may demand a separate vote in the
House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the
committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without inter-
vening motion except one motion to recom-
•mit with or without instructions.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Ne-
braska (Mr. MARTIN) , pending which I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, with
[p. H1508]
-------
the din of the heated debate on the Union
Calendar over, I believe we can now shift
our attention to noise pollution and its
effect on our health. But while on the
subject of health, I heard on my way
over to the floor that the people of Tai-
wan have discovered something worse
than the Hong Kong flu; it is "the Pe-
king flight."
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and' was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 828 provides for consideration
of H.R. 11021, which, as reported by our
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, provides for a program to
control the emission of noise which is
detrimental to the human environment.
Because the committee report was not
filed until Saturday, February 19, 1972,
and, excluding Sunday and the legal
holiday which followed, the 3 calendar
days had not intervened before the bill
was scheduled for floor consideration, as
required under rule XI, clause 2T(d) (4),
the resolution provided for a waiver of
that requirement to avoid any point of
order. However, since the bill was re-
scheduled for floor consideration for to-
day the waiver is no longer required.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides an
open rule with 1 hour of general debate,
and also makes it in order to consider
the committee substitute now printed
in the bill as an original bill for the pur-
pose of amendment under the 5-minute
rule. Upon conclusion of consideration of
H.R. 11021, the resolution further pro-
vides that the Committee of the Whole
shall rise and report the bill to tne House
forcement machinery must be provided.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 11021 is designed
to do all of these things. Except for air-
craft noise control standards and regu-
lations, over which the Federal Aviation
Agency will exercise primary responsi-
bility, the Environmental Protection
Agency is empowered to carry on a com-
prehensive program of noise abatement
and control. Citizen suits are authorized
against violators and the EPA admin-
istrator is authorized to assess and col-
lect in civil action penalties of not more
than $25,000 for each violation.
The bill also authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $3 million for fiscal
year 1972, $6 million for fiscal year 1973,
and $12 million for fiscal year 1974, plus
$1 million for fiscal year 1972 and $2
million for each of the next 2 fiscal years
for the payment of additional costs of
certifying low-noise-emission products.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 828 in order that H.R.
11021 may be considered.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, does it not
appear to the gentleman that with this
$12 million for the fiscal year 1974 that
there will be a very nice little empire of
employees built under the terms of the
money to be authoriated and appropri-
ated for this new outfit in Government?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I do not believe so.
As the gentleman may well concede, $12
million is much too small a sum with
which to build an* empire. "With costs as
high as they are today even Caesar could
this bill out considered all the questions
that the gentleman now raises.
Mr. GROSS. I only asked the gentle-
man the question I did because he lauds
this as a great bill,
Mr. MATSUNAGA. As the gentleman
knows, noise is truly a big pollution
problem today. I support the bill because
it proposes a solution to this problem.
The $12 million will be an investment in
the good health of our people, particu-
larly those 80 million Americans whose
hearing is daily placed in jeopardy be-
cause of the existing sources of noise.
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps we should have
had it earlier this afternoon and applied
to what took place on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I re-
serve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
MARTIN) .
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, as the gen-
tleman from Hawaii has explained,
House Resolution 828 provides an open
rule with 1 hour of -debate for the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 11021), the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the
attention of the gentleman from Iowa
who just engaged in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Hawaii that the total
authorization in this bill is $26 million
rather than $21 million.
The gentleman overlooked $5 million
in this legislation.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield, I am sorry I made that mistake
and thank: the gentleman from Nebraska
to
oo
Oi
f
O
f
O
O
£
hd
P
O
3
i
-------
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and any Member may demand a
separate vote -in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole to the bill or to the com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency reports that noise ap-
pears to affect to a measurable degree
of impact at least 80 million persons, or
approximately 40 percent of the present
population of the United States. Of that
number, at least one-half are believed
to be risking potential health hazards,
hearing impairment in particular, as the
result of long enduring exposure to
noise.
On a more selective basis, occupa-
tional noise has long been known to
cause various degrees of hearing impair-
ment among some of the working popu-
lation. The number of persons engaged
in occupations in which there exists a
definite risk of hearing impairment is
estimated to be as high as 16 million.
The growth in numbers of sources of
noise in recent years underscores the need
for legislation such as H.R. 11021..Ob-
viously, not all noise will pose a poten-
tial hearing impairment hazard. There-
fore, any program to control noise must
be reasonable and, in order to be suc-
cessful, must be grounded on several
basic considerations: First, the sources
of noise that Jeopardize human health
or welfare must be identified; second,
noise emission standards must be estab-
lished; and, third, an abatement or en-
not do it.-This bill was reported out of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, without any objection, in its
recognition that there are many, many
items which are being produced today
which need to have their noise emission
controlled and the sum of $12 million
would constitute a mere drop in the
bucket, if it were sufficient at all.
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps a drop in the
noise bucket; is that it?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. We hope that when
the drop is made, its consequence will be
that there will be no deleterious noise.
Mr. GROSS. Does not the gentleman
agree that the expenditure of $21 million
will likely result in the creation of an-
other administrative empire, and espe-
cially in terms of this beautifully titled
new committee—the Low-Noise-Emis-
sion Product Advisory Committee.
' When they dream up better titles than
that, I do not know whether I want to
be around here. But when this section
goes on to provide that they can hire
an unlimited number of people at the
supergrade level of GS-18; does not the
gentleman think there ought to be some
brakes put into this legislation to con-
trol the hiring of people?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. As the gentleman
knows, the primary administrative func-
tion will be performed by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency which is an
agency already in being. Perhaps that
question should be put to the chairman
of the committee during the general de-
bate on the bill Itself. But I am confi-
dent that the committee in reporting
for his correction^
Mr. MARTIN. I know the gentleman is
a great student of legislation that we
have before us and I did want to call
that to his attention, because in addi-
tion to the $21 million, there is an addi-
tional program cost where the bill au-
thorizes $1 million for the fiscal year
1972 and $2 million for each of the 2 suc-
ceeding years for the Federal agencies to
pay the necessary additional amount for
low-noise emission products.
So the total authorization of the bill is
$26 million.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation was re-
ported out of the Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce unanimous-
ly. I support the rule and I support the
legislation. I reserve the remainder of
my time.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, hav-
ing no requests for time, I move the pre-
vious question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11021) to control the
emission of noise detrimental to the hu-
man environment, and for other pur-
poses.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. H1509]
o
EB
CO
I
H
H
GO
o
h-H
U)
I
g
0
%
o
to
rfi.
CO
-------
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.B. 11021, with
Mr. BENNETT in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
STAGGERS) will be recognized for 30 min-
utes, and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. NELSEN) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the House, I rise in support
of the bill which came out of our com-
mittee. I think it is a good bill. I think
it is one that we need. The legislation
looks ahead a little bit before the Nation
really gets into desperate trouble on the
noise situation. We are in enough trouble
already in this respect.
Noise is affecting millions of people
physiologically, psychologically, and so-
ciologically at the present time. We have
proof that many people in our mental
institutions have been put there as the
result of excessive noise and irritation
caused by noise. Noise affects the body
physically and can cause different di-
seases. Certainly it is a sociological
problem.
The bill had several days of hearings
in the subcommittee. It came out of the
subcommittee unanimously. It came to
the full committee, was discussed there
In executive session, and came out of the
and women—and I assume we would
have some women as part of that com-
mittee—who are experts and who will be
called in occasionally to advise and help
on noise problems. They are paid at the
GS-18 rate and only a per diem and only
for the time they are there. I think most
Federal agencies have such advisory
committees. As I say, these are people
who are specialists from the manufactur-
ing field, or other fields and who have
some special knowledge. They are
brought in to help.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman -will
yield, I would refer him to the language
on page 59 of the bill where he will find
there are no limitations as to numbers
of new employees and the limitation as
to pay is GS-18, which is a supergrade.
Mr. STAGGERS. We say that they
shall be a reasonable number on this ad-
visory committee, and they shall be paid
only for the days they work. I cannot
conceive of the administration bringing
in a vast group of people here to advise
on the noise issue. I just think it would
be a reasonable size group.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, this bill authorizes $21 mil-
lion, largely if not all of it for admin-
istrative purposes. Does it not?
Mr. STAGGERS. This authorization
is for 3 years. As I said, the bill requires
coordination of 18 different agencies, and
it does this too:
It applies to inspecting prototype en-
gines and other parts that contribute
and I do not see how people can get their
sleep and do their work in the daytime
under such conditions.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, there are other things that
are becoming serious in this country, and
one of them is the state of this Nation's
finances which is of crisis proportions.
Mr. STAGGERS. I would agree with
the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. I am going to look long
and hard before I vote for a total of $26
million to be expended in this fashion
and for this purpose.
Mr. STAGGERS. I agree with the gen-
tleman that this is one of the problems.
The administration and the committee
in its wisdom thought it was imperative
to be done and to be done now.
' With this explanation of this bill and
what it does, I urge every Member of the
House to vote for it. It is with vision,
looking into the future, that we need to
take care of the problem now.
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. ADDABBO. In view of the colloquy
held with the gentleman from Iowa, and
the growing problem of possible damage
to hearing, et cetera, could the gentle-
man explain to me why, under section 7,
"aircraft noise standards," the PAA is
retained as the custodian of noise deci-
bels and not the EPA, especially in view
of the fact that the PAA has had this
authority for the past 3 years and has
not set noise decibels, has not fulfilled
the obligation given to it by congression-
al direction?
co
00
o
>
f
o
o
IT1
1-9
VI
d
'-a
M
-------
full committee unanimously.
The subject was brought to our com-
mittee by the administration, and we
were told of the importance of the situa-
tion at the present time.
My colleague from Illinois (Mr.
SPRINGER) and I introduced the first bill
that was introduced. It came to the sub-
committee. There were substantial
changes made in it. The bill now before
the committee is, I think, a much better
bill than the first bill that was sent to
the Hill.
There are three or four main proposi-
tions stated in the bill.
The program would be administered
by the EPA, which already has an office
set up for that purpose. EPA would
coordinate the major noise control pro-
grams of seven Federal departments 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 con-
trol. We found that noise has to be con-
sidered 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
x noise that will be objectionable.
An objection was raised a moment or
two ago about a special committee that
would be established. There will be men
to noise. This is where the money will
be spent in this field. Just a small part
of the funds will be for the administra-
tion.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will yield
further, if the administrative is now in
being, why do we supply this additional
money? Why is this huge expansion pro-
vided for in the bill?
Mr. STAGGERS. We call for more re-
search and better testing methods. Ac-
tually they are going to buy certain pro-
totypes and test them and see how they
work. Then they are going to set stand-
ards on each one of those new products
which constitute major noise source's.
There will be on the labels which are
required under this bill information tell-
ing what noise will be of the product or
how much the product will reduce noise.
Each State or community will still
have the right to say this is a hospital
zone and certain vehicles cannot go
through there, or trucks may not use cer-
tain avenues. We leave that to the States
or localities. We do try to set standards
for new products and there will have to
be a great deal of research to find out
what the noise levels are that will hurt
human beings psychologically and physi-
ologically and sociologically.
We cannot wait until the year 2000,
until after everybody has serious prob-
lems with noise. We think that will be
too late. This is an attempt to look ahead
before that occurs. This is serious now.
If the gentleman happens to be in an area
where there is a serious noise problem,
he will know the people cannot sleep at
night. I have been in some of those areas,
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 hope-
fully 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, b.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 Air-
port, where they take off 24 hours a day.
We would rather have the EPA set the
noise decibels, with the FAA acting 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 research. 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 sup-
port H.R. 11021, the Noise Control Act of
[p. H1510]
o
h-f
CO
F
I
i—i
Ul
I
1—i
H
fcO
£»
GO
CO
-------
1972. Many of the provisions of this leg-
islation are similar to proposals which I
have sponsored or supported before and
I commend the members of the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee and
the Public Health and Environment Sub-
committee 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 co-
ordinate Federal programs relating to
noise research and control..
In my own Seventh Congressional Dis-
trict we are faced with a most serious
noise problem because of the aircraft
noise and pollution from aircraft at Ken-
nedy International Airport. It was for
that reason that I sponsored the Aircraft
Noise Abatement Act of 1968 which au-
thorizes the establishment of maximum
aircraft noise levels by the Federal Avia-
tion Administration. I have been a fre-
quent critic of the FAA for failing to en-
force that 1968 law effectively and I am
pleased that the committee has included
a provision in this bill to give the EPA
authority to request the FAA the review
standards which EPA finds do not ade-
quately 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 as-
sume this duty and I will therefore sup-
port the amendment to be offered to give
the EPA that power.
Millions of Americans live near our
in support of the bill as it was reported
by our committee. I believe the details
of the bill have been well covered.
Mr. Chairman, the objective of the
Noise Control Act of 1972 is to promote
an environment for all America free from
noise that jeopardizes their health and
welfare.
The testimony received by the Public
Health and Environment Subcommittee
indicates that as many as 44 million per-
sons in the United States have the utility
of their dwellings adversely affected by
noise from traffic and aircraft, and 21
million persons are similarly affected by
noise associated with construction ac-
tivities, and at least 40 million persons
are exposed to noise potentially capable
of producing hearing impairment due to
the operation of noisy devices and the
number of such devices and the intensity
of exposure is steadily rising. Although
obviously these figures are not additive,
noise appears to affect to a measurable
degree of impact at least 80 million per-
sons or approximately 40 percent of the
present population of the United States.
Of that number roughly one-half are
risking potential health hazards in terms
of long-duration exposure resulting in
hearing impairment.
Some may feel it is unnecessary to be
concerned about noise pollution in our
environment. Yet any farmer or indus-
trial worker who operates excessively
noisy equipment for a prolonged period
knows it can harm his hearing and cause
physical problems. Long exposure to ex-
cessive noise is known to damage human
health, to create explosive community
stress, and to cause structural damage to
The proper role of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Federal Avia-
tion Administration with respect to air-
craft noise has been resolved by the com-
mittee, and the bill leaves with the FAA
the authority to establish standards but
adds the requirement that they may not
be prescribed before EPA has been con-
sulted and given the opportunity to make
suggestions on standards for aircraft. To
carry out the purpose of the bill, an
authorization is provided for the next
three fiscal years in amounts of $3 mil-
lion, $6, and $12 million, respectively.
Each day there is an increasing aware-
ness of noise pollution, and the bill will
go far in helping to prevent significant
increases in noise levels by setting up
government machinery to help control
noise pollution—the greatest nonkilling
health hazard in America today. I recom-
mend the Noise Control Act to my col-
leagues for their approval.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CARTER) .
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I was
trying to get clear in my mind the other
day on the way to work, just what I
would say to my colleagues today to con-
vince them that passage of H.R. 11021,
the Noise Control Act of 1972, is essen-
tial.
It had just occurred to me to quote
Aquinas on the majesty of seclusion for
cogitation, but I lost the passage in my
mind as two buses swept past me.
Samuel Clemens had something quite
relevant to say of the solitude of life on
the river in a simpler time, but I forgot
his -remark as two workmen broke
through a concrete sidewalk with jack-
O
8
g
H
h- 1
O
CO
ci
H
-------
Nation's airport and they have yet to
obtain noticeable relief from the aircraft
noise problem. It is my hope that this
legislation will lead to more vigorous en-
forcement of existing law as well as pro-
vide the tools for combating the entire
noise problem.
The legislation also authorizes EPA to
set standards in the areas of construc-
tion equipment, transportation equip-
ment, motors or engines; and electrical or
electronic equipment. New York.City is
an area which should receive prime bene-
fits from this legislation because of the
heavy concentration of this kind of
equipment 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
PAA that they must move more expedi-
tiously in carrying out their responsibili-
ties.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R.
11021.
(Mr. ADDABBO asked and.was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and
I am pleased to submit for the RECORD a
statement that was just handed to me
from the Republican Policy Committee
buildings.
The Environmental Protection.Agency
studies indicate the current population
of young people will have much more
serious hearing problems in their middle
years than the present population, pri-
marily because of exposure to music
played at intense levels.
So we must make a start toward get-
ting the noise problem under control be-
fore our already overcrowded cities be-
come even more unliveable and explosive.
We need to encourage the development of
new equipment that will operate without
excessive noise. We do not have the
technology now to accomplish this task
over a reasonable time period.
The hearings on the noise Control Act
of 1972 brought out that 19 different de-
partments and agencies have fragmented
responsibilities for noise abatement. The
clear need is to coordinate their efforts
under the roof of the Environmental
Protection Agency and to permit EPA in
coordination with state and local au-
thorities to develop a program to reduce
noise that is clearly dangerous to human
health and community welfare.
The bill affects the authority of States
and political subdivisions over noise
emissions in only one respect. For prod-
ucts other than new products to which
Federal standards apply, State and local
governments retain exactly the same au-
thority they have in the absence of the
standard setting provisions of the bill.
The authority of State and local govern-
ments to regulate use, operation or
movement of products is not affected
by the bill.
hammers.
But that was all right because there
was still in my mind the vision of Lin-
coln as a lad sitting by the fireplace
studying alone the crinkled pages of a
book on English composition. Or at least
that was in my mind, until a 727, not
a foot overhead, screamed the image
from my senses.
Perhaps it was just as well that the
succession of interruptions continued.
If they had not, I would have probably
found the words of some long-dead tran-
quil fellow to bore you.
That would have been very put of place,
for the present does not seemingly belong
to those peaceful men who lived quietly
not so long ago.
Noise and the noisy have plainly come
to stay.
I urge those of you who would extend
these visitation privileges to oppose this
bill, naturally as noisily as possible.
I, however, support it because I recog-
nize this measure to be a strong first
step toward dealing with a basic infringe-
ment of one of the most personal rights,
the right to peace.
Of course, I do not mean peace in the
combatant sense, though sometimes it
surely sounds as if a full-scale engage-
ment is constantly in progress between
the holes and trenches that dot like ur-
ban sinkholes this and other cities.
I mean that people need peace from
the racket that can wrench from their
minds whatever concrete notions may be
cooking there in solitude and turn them
to quicksilver, gone for good.
My colleagues and I of the Subcom-
[p. H1511]
en
H
I
H
B
CO
0
F
H
Q
n
cn
tr1
ts
W
to
-------
mittee on Public Health and Environ-
ment have worked long and hard to make
this a sane and relatively inexpensive
undertaking, considering the peace and
quiet it is likely to regain for the Amer-
ican people.
The bill would impose fines of $25,000
a day on polluters of the Nation's ear-
drum. That is a sizable assessment, and
large enough to make noncompliance
genuinely unprofitable in short order.
The act is directed at noncombatant
and nonresearch equipment used by the
Defense Department, possibly one of the
worst violators of our national auditory
canal.
The EPA would gather and coordinate
data on noise gathered by 17 different
Federal agencies. All the information
would be in one place—in position to be
used against those who are deafening
America.
Also labeling would tell every consumer
precisely how great a headache he is
buying for himself each time he pur-
chases a nose machine.
And the price is right—$3 million this
first year, $6 million the next, and $12
million in 1974.
I cannot think of a better or more im-
portant piece of legislation for the health
and emotional well-being of future gen-
erations than this one. We offer this body
a comprehensive,-well-drawn plan that
covers a problem too long left to its own
noisy devices.
I cannot see how anyone on .this floor
can hear his way clear to oppose the
measure.
The CHAIRMAK. The time of the gen-
tleman lias expired.
Mr. CARTER. Yes; I yield to my col-
league from Minnesota.
Mr. NELSEN. I think the answer to the
question of the gentleman from Iowa is
that the manufacturer, if he puts a piece
of equipment up for public sale that vio-
lates the standards, he would be.subject
to the fine.
Mr. CARTER. That is right.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, the in-
dividual involved in this case, the young
fellow with that loud motorcycle that you
and I dislike so much, he would be reg-
ulated by local ordinances, if there are
any.
Mr. CARTER. Yes; and the right of a
person to bring up this objection in
Federal court.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. CARTER. Yes; I yield further to
the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. That is a substantial part
of the argument against this bill, that
States and municipalities can get this
job done if they want to do it by State
laws and ordinances.
Mr. CARTER. I hate to disagree with
my distinguished friend, but they have
not done it in the past 100 years and we
are taking this opportunity to assist them
in doing this.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. ROGERS) , the author of the bill and
the chairman of the subcommittee.
(Mr. ROGERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman
the University of Tennessee reflected the
fact that 40 percent—40 percent, mind
you, of the freshman class coming into
a university—had a hearing disability.
The experts that were conducting those
studies could not believe it. They said,
"We think it is impossible." So they said,
"Let us recheck all of our equipment, let
us make sure that our methods and pro-
tocol of doing this testing is strictly in
order."
The next year, after all of that check-
ing and when the freshman class was
checked, it was not 40 percent, it was
60 percent.
Now, the experts also tell us that un-
less we begin to attack this problem of
noise in this country, by the year 2000
we may expect that three-fourths of the
people of this Nation will have signifi-
cant hearing impairment.
So, this is not just a problem that
someone is dreaming up to try to solve. It
is here with us now. One of the reasons
it is with us is because of our urbaniza-
tion where by the year 2000, 85 percent
of the people in this Nation will live in
close proximity to each other.
The major factor which accounts for
the rise in noise levels and the number
of areas in which disturbing noise levels
exist is simply the increase in. the num-
ber of noise sources. Sounds of the past,
which were once regarded with affection
as agreeable signs of business and human
activity, have been replaced with the
shriek and clank of the subway, the deaf-
ening sounds of pneumatic hammers,
construction equipment, traffic, jet
planes, and electronically amplified
sound that becomes noise when one has
to
fe
F
H
O
>
F
O
O
g
-------
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman
from Minnesota for yielding this addi-
tional time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I am happy to yield to
my distinguished friend from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Where is the excluding
language in section (B) ? I am looking' at
page 50 of the bill, section (B), the lan-
guage that applies only to, did the gen-
tleman say, combat airplanes or combat
equipment of other kinds?
Mr. CARTER. That is excluded. That
is not included, I will say to my good
friend from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. That is not included, but
everything else is included?
Mr. CARTER. That is quite true. Yes,
sir.
Mr. GROSS. In other words, if some
young fellow took the muffler off his
motocycle or opened the exhaust pipe to
a direct outlet, he would be subject to a
fine of $25,000. Is that right?
Mr. CARTER. I hardly think they
would see fit to fine him that much, but
he would be subject to a fine.
Mr. GROSS. He would be subject to a
$25,000 fine; yes or no?
Mr. CARTER. I do not think that that
would happen and I doubt if the gentle-
man from Iowa thinks that. The munici-
pality, county, or State would have juris-
diction in case of the young man,
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
for yielding:, and will say, first of all, I
want to commend all the members of the
subcommittee who devoted a great deal
of time to this subject and to hearing a
great many witnesses.
Mr. Chairrtian, I rise in support of H.R.
11021, a bill which our Subcommittee on
Public Health and Environment devel-
oped after careful consideration. It is
our belief that this bill will assure an en-
vironment free from noise that injures
the public health or welfare.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the chair-
man of the full committee (Mr. STAGGERS)
has given an excellent summary of the
provisions of this bill, and his explana-
tion need not be repeated. I would like,
however, to briefly comment on the rea-
sons why this bill is vitally necessary and
give the Members the reasons why, in the
opinion of the subcommittee, certain pro-
visions of this legislation are vital to an
effective national noise abatement pro-
gram.
Although the effects on the environ-
ment caused by air and water pollution
are more noticeable today than the ef-
fects of noise pollution, many responsible
environmentalists believe that we are on
the verge of a noise crisis which can be
. avoided only through prompt, affirmative
legislative action.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the
experts tell us now that the noise level
in this country in the last few years has
increased 20 decibels, and in some urban
areas it appears to be getting noisier at
double that rate.
Recently, experiments conducted at
to listen to it against his will. Thus, if
the overall noise level in the United
States is to be lowered, much of the
abatement and control must be applied
to the noise source itself. This is the
principal premise on which this legis-
lation is based.
I believe that the provisions relating
to the limited effect of the "preemption"
section—Section 6(d)(l)—deserve ex-
planation.
Under this section, States and local-
ities are affected only with respect to
"new products" to which Federal stand-
ards apply.. A "new product" is defined in
the bill as a product the equitable or legal
title of which has never been transferred
to an ultimate purchaser. Thus, the only
effect on the authority of States or their
political subdivisions is that they are pre-
empted from prescribing noise emission
standards for new products to which
Federal standards apply, unless their
standards are identical to the Federal
standards. A similar provision applies to
component parts. For products other
than new products to which Federal
standards apply, State and local govern-
ments retain exactly the same authority
they would have on absence of the stand-
ards-setting provisions of the bill. The
authority of State and local governments
to regulate the use, operation or move-
ment of products is not affected at all by
this bill.
Second, I believe that comment on the
relationship between the EPA and the
FAA with respect to aircraft noise emis-
sions may be helpful.
[p. H1512]
V
I
H
cc
H
o
55
tr1
K)
bO
h^
00
-------
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 nationwide
complaint. FAA and EPA presently have
a formal relationship with respect to
emission of air pollutants from aircraft,
but no such arrangement exists with re-
spect to noise pollution. The reported bill
establishes such a relationship. The bill
retains the authority of the FAA to es-
tablish such standards, but adds the re-
quirement that they may not be pre-
scribed before EPA has been consulted
concerning the standards.
The FAA should have final responsibil-
ity for setting aircraft noise standards
because a comprehensive and detailed
knowledge of aviation technology and
flight operations is essential to setting
achievable standards. Federal Air Reg-
ulations 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 lev-
els for all new subsonic jet aircraft ap-
preciably, from about 120 EPISODE—ef-
fective 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 respect to
any standards affecting the aviation in-
dustry can realistically be vested only in
an agency thoroughly knowledgeable of
will get any subways built? It might be a
good thing if we did not.
But will we get subways built and
highways built?
Mr. ROGERS. Let me say to the
gentleman that of course there may be
items you cannot do anything about.
Mr. GROSS. Does this bill cover—what
do you call it?—rock music?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes; it could.
Mr. GROSS. I can tell you that can
just about tear your head off if you re-
main long enough where it is being
played.
Mr. ROGERS. I will agree with the
gentleman, and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. CARTER) took particular
interest in that. It is true that one of the
most damaging of noise sources is rock
music because it is amplified so loudly.
Mr. GROSS. Does the $25,000 fine
apply to that?
Mr. ROGERS. It could, if standards
are set on the equipment that amplifies
it. EPA may set a standard respecting
amplifiers; of course, we do not know as
yet whether it will. That is one of the
things they undoubtedly are going to look
into.
Mr. GROSS. You are going to spend
$26 million on that?
Mr. ROGERS. No; it is not $26 million
per year; it is for a 3-year term and
covers much more than that.
I think the gentleman will be pleased
with what the committee has tried to
fashion in a reasonable way, and with a
.relatively minor amount of money, con-
sidering the bill's implications.
Mr. WAGGO2STNER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
this proposal which will not allow the
EPA to do anything about any equip-
ment that is already in existence?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes. That is, as I recall,
the enforcement section goes only to
products manufactured after the date of
enactment.
Mi'. WAGGONNER. I want to be sure,
now; EPA will have no authority to come
back and require any owner of any equip-
ment, or factory or construction people,
to modify their presently existing equip-
ment hereafter by the establishment of
certain standards?
Mr. ROGERS. That is correct, because
EPA can enforce its standards only with
respect to a new product, for any new
products manufactured after a certain
date.
Mr. WAGGONNER. All right; it is for
new products?
Mr. ROGERS. That is correct. To en-
force standards with respect to noises
emitted from "old" products, your local
communities or your State, could con-
tinue to do anything they want to.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am going to get
to that point in a minute, because I think
there is a proposal in here that does away
with any State or local authority where
they differ from any standards that the
Federal Government hereinafter may
promulgate.
Mr. ROGERS. Only on new products
at the manufacturer's level.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Now this has to
do with construction equipment; trans-
portation equipment; motors or engines,
or equipment of which motors and en-
gines are integral parts; and electrical or
electronic equipment; Is that correct?
bO
O
o
o
d
hj
HJ
I
-------
all possible impacts and consequences.
The FAA is the only agency in Govern-
ment which has such knowledge. The
FAA is taking regulatory action as the
state of the art will permit; its actions
will be advised 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..
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that ac-
tion be initiated now, so that a national
"environmental crisis" does not develop
with respect to noise as has been the case
with other environmental insults. The
committee is of the opinion that the leg-.
islation proposed .will insure that this
environmental issue is met adequately
and in a timely manner so that maxi-
mum effectiveness can be achieved and
that the costly consequences of a fail-
ure to act will not be the case in this
instance. I urge the bill's adoption.
Mr. Chairman, this bill lays the
foundation to begin to do something
which will be significant to the health of
the people of this Nation.
I think you are going to be very proud
of this piece of legislation, because it is
a significant piece of legislation and will
protect the health of the people of this
Nation.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. So, I suppose we are go-
ing" to have to wait for silent piledrivers
and other heavy construction equip-
ment? I wonder if in the meantime we
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I do not believe that anyone would
purposely try to prevent the initiation
of any program which would help us
solve for now and for the future the
problems having to do with noise.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Florida has expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 additional minutes to the gentle-
man from Florida (Mr. ROGERS) .
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding me this addi-
tional time.
Mr. WAGGONNER. But the matter of
we go about this seems to me to be most
important, and this seems to be all the
more important since the Environmental
Protection Agency seems to be destined
to have a great deal of authority here.
I am not quite sure that we can be very
proud of what the EPA has done in solv-
ing some of the problems in some of the
other areas we have given them author-
ity over, having to do with water and air
pollution, for example. They have not
used much commonsense. They have been
rather impractical.
Now I would like to ask a number of
questions.
First of all, this proposal has only to
do with the manufacture of new equip-
ment and the standards which will re-
late to them?
Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.
Mr. WAGGONNER. There is a grand-
father clause then intended to be part of
Mr. ROGERS. Those are the main
categories. But if in the study they iden-
tify any other major noise factors, they
could also set standards for those at the
manufacturers' level.
Mr. WAGGONNER. What I am getting
at is—this has not only to do with the
products that a man might now manu-
facture, but the equipment that the plant
might utilize in the manufacture of that
product; am I correct?
Mr. ROGERS. No; this goes to the new
product itself. It does not go to the type
of equipment used to manufacture a
product.
Mr. WAGGONNER. What about a new
piece of equipment that the manufac-
turer uses as an integral part of a motor
in the manufacture of products or some
other product for sale—that manufac-
turing equipment would be included;
would it not?
Mr. ROGERS. If it is a new manufac-
tured piece—whoever manufactured it;
yes.
Mr. WAGGONNER. The gentleman
spoke a minute ago about a study that
had been done at the University of Ten-
nessee. Is the gentleman saying, after his
response to the gentleman from Iowa,
that the EPA agency headed by'one man
can, if he concludes after what we hope
would be proper investigation, set forth
standards having to do with the manu-
facture of musical instruments establish-
ing the maximum noise level at which
these instruments could" or would per-
form?
Mr. ROGERS. Well^ they would have
[p. H1513]
H
I
I
CO
s
O
55
F
1
w
h-t
CO
^3
O
to
£
Cn
-------
to be performance standards, as I am
sure the gentleman would realize.
Mr. WAGGONNEB. That Is just what
I am talking about—"have to perform at
standards."—At whose standards? The
operator of some discotheque, EPA or
somebody else?
Mr. ROGERS. I might say, this com-
mittee generally requires performance
standards, as you have in the Clean Air
Act.
What I think they would go to is not
so much the musical instruments as the
amplifier—that is the main problem.
Mr. WAGGONNER. And that is an
electronic instrument?
Mr. ROGERS. Sure. So I think EPA
will take a look—I would hope they
would—at these amplifiers so that if you
go into a place, you will be assured that
you are not going to be deaf when you
come out. This, I am sure, they will
look at.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I would bet that
if we put this vote off today and let the
young people of this country know
something about it, you would get more
protests against this legislation in 24
hours than you could answer—because
they do not know that this is intended
to be a part of this bill.
Mr. ROGERS. I do not agree with the
gentleman at all. I do not think that is
correct. I think the young people would
welcome this as much as anyone else.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I do not think
they would welcome a ceiling on the
output of these musical Instruments.
Let me talk to you about another sec-
tion—with reference to citizen suits.
This legislation provides for citizen
You have only an hour of time here
and some of us are entitled to talk about
this bill.
Mr. ROGERS. I thought perhaps we
could do that at the time of consider-
ation of amendments.
Mr. WAGGONNER. All right, now let
us talk about matters not being discre-
tionary. Let us assume that the PAA
with the help of EPA establishes noise
levels for planes coming into Wash-
ington National Airport or into any
airport.
Now this is discretionary on their
part, as I 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 PAA 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 discre-
tionary and there could not be a suit.
Mr. WAGGONNER. It is discretionary
and there could not be a suit?
Mr. ROGERS. There could not be a
suit.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am just trying
to get these things clear. That is all I am
trying to do.
Let me ask this question. The other
day we passed a bill providing for the
establishment of a Federal Legal Serv-
ices Corporation. These are to be attor-
neys representing supposedly the disad-
vantaged. Is the Federal Government
going' to be in the position of allowing;
Mr. ROGERS. I think this is one of the
areas where they say that we need fur-
ther study, and that is why we provide
for further study in these various cate-
gories.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Do you not think
that the Congress is getting on awfully
dangerous ground when we say that we
have a problem, that you in EPA should
do something about it, do what you think
ought to.be done? Do you not think that
we ought to make EPA come hack and
get congressional approval for what they
do finally propose to do?
Mr. ROGERS. We are telling them ex-
actly that. We are telling them also that
this is a 3-year bill, that we will look at
it again in 3 years, and that is why we
have a 3-year bill. This committee will
watch very carefully.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will
rise informally in order that the House
may receive a message.
to
fc
MESSAGE PROM THE PRESIDENT
The SPEAKER assumed the chair.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will receive
a message.
A message in writing from the Presi-
dent of the United States was commu-
nicated to the House by Mr. Leonard, one
of his secretaries, who also informed the
House that on February 15, • 1972, the
President approved and signed bills of
the House of the following titles:
H.B. 7987. An act to provide for the strik-
ing of medals in commemoration of the bi-
centennial of- the American Revolution;
H.B. 11487. An act to authorize the Ad-
ministrator at tbe National Aeronautics and
W
Q
O
O
§
H
—
en
d
-------
suits. This it appears is intended to be
available to any one individual who feels
that his hearing is being affected or
that he is being kept awake at night
because of some noise in the next block
from some construction job or some-
thing such as that. That man can enter
a citizens suit against the EPA, for ex-
ample; is that correct?
Mr. ROGERS. There is a provision
for a citizen suit in the EPA or against
the FAA but it goes only to matters that
are not discretionary.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Will the gentle-
man tell me exactly what he means
when he says—only to matters that are.
not discretionary?
Mr. ROGERS. For instance, where
an Administrator is required by law to
do something that is not within his dis-
cretion—for instance, if a law requires
that a study shall be made by such and
such a date and if he has not done that
study by that date a citizen could bring
a suit and ask why have you not done
the study?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida.has expired.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield the gentleman 3 additional min-
utes.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Let me pursue
this a little bit further.
• Mr. ROGERS. All right, but I do want
to try to cover some of the answers
here.
.Mr. WAGGONNER. These gentlemen
have been on the committee and the
gentleman has been at the hearings.
suits such as are provided for in this pro-
posal to be entered against the Federal
Government by those attorneys? '
Mr. ROGERS. This does not go to
that. The gentleman knows that. That is
OEO. The gentleman may have sup-
ported that bill. I did not.
• Mr. WAGGONNER. No- the gentle-
man did not.
Mr. ROGERS. Neither did I. But this
does not go to that.
Mr, WAGGONNER. The gentleman is
aware that there is no limitation in the
OEO legislation that did pass the House
to prevent those attorneys in the Legal
Services Corporation from entering suits
against the Federal Government, is he
not?
Mr. ROGERS. We cannot help that.
That is in another piece of legislation, as
the gentleman knows.
• Mr; WAGGONNER. It seems to me
that you are aggravating another prob-
lem, then, by allowing citizens suits here.
Mr. ROGERS. The fact is that the
provision applies with respect to nbndis-
cretionary matters. Discretionary mat-
ters are not subject to citizens suits.
Mr. WAGGONNER. The report makes
reference to a report by the President to
the Congress dated January 26, 1972.'
Can the gentleman or can anyone on the
committee tell me what that report has
to say about how much equipment in
operation today, in the four categories
that you give the EPA authority to es-
tablish the emission levels, they presently
believe exceeds' the acceptable noise"
standards?
Space Administration to convey certain lands
In Brevard County, Pla.; and
H.B. 12488. An act to change the name of
the Columbia Lock and Dam, on the Chat-
tahoochee River, Ala., to the George W. An-
drews Lock and Dam. '
The SPEAKER. The Committee wil}
resume its sitting.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. WAGGONNER).
Mr. WAGGONNER. I thank the dis-
tinguished Chairman for yielding.
Just as the committee rose a moment
ago, the gentleman from Florida said
there was a 'great deal that we did not
know about what needed to be done, and
as a result, we needed to do an awful lot
in the way of studying the problem be-
fore we took some specific action.
I would like the gentleman to look at
page 38 of the committee report, para-
graph (b) (2). Among other things, down
at the bottom of the page, we see that
the EPA Administrator is going to be
required to consult with- such Federal,
State, and interstate agencies as he deems
appropriate.
Now, what would lead us to believe
that knowledge exists within the Fed-
eral Government alone, and that people
in industry would not have some capa-
bility? Why is not the Administrator re-
quired to consult with industry sources
who have had years and years of expe-
§
H
Ul
s
CD
§
H
W
to
[p. H1514]
-------
rience, with medical authorities, as well
as to consult with Federal sources?
Mi-. ROGERS. This is present law the
gentleman is talking about in the report.
Mr. WAGGONNER. I am talking about
the language which is going to replace
it. You say you must, under the new pro-
posal, "consult with such Federal, State,
and interstate agencies as he deems ap-
propriate." Why not consult with indus-
trial and medical authorities as well?
Mr. ROGERS. I think you will find
that that is in present law that the gen-
tleman is referring to on page 38.
Mr. WAGGONNER. No, it does not.
Look at the language. It is deleting the
word "administrator" and adding this
other language.
Mr. ROGERS. All we are omitting are
the word "administrator" and the word
"rules." The section to which the gen-
tleman refers only shows changes in ex- -
isting law.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
take this time for the purpose of asking
a few questions relative to the preemp-
tion section of this particular bill. If I
could have the attention of the gentle-
man from Florida, I am referring to the
preemptive sections of the bill to be
found on page 41. As I read this legisla-
tion, I think the gentleman from Florida
referred to it heretofore, it is my under-
standing that this law is designed basi-
cally to control products in the hands of
the manufacturer and that as the par-
ticular product goes' into the hands of
ttie user—In other -words, title has
apply as far as those products are con-
cerned?
Mr. ROGERS. If the ordinance is a
zoning ordinance, it would not be af-
fected. We are not changing that au-
thority. Of course, all ordinances of this
type are subject to constitutional provi-
sions and review as to whether they are
reasonable or too limited, and whether
they would constitute a burden on inter-
state commerce.
Mr. BROTZMAN. I thank the gentle-
man for his response.
Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this
with the gentleman from Texas, and I
yield now to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his interest in this sub-
ject matter. Also I thank the committee
for the work they have done on this bill.
The gentleman knows I have had some
question about this provision of preemp-
tion. As a matter of fact, I offered an
amendment in the committee, but I am
thoroughly satisfied, in examining the
committee's report, that it satisfies the
objections I might have had. I went into
the question of the right of a local com-
munity to control use within that com-
munity.
I have a few questions to make a bit
of legislative history on this matter, if I
might address them to the chairman of
the subcommittee.
Mr. ROGERS. I shall be glad to.try to
answer.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Suppose there is a
law .in the State of New York that states
any -vehicle in the State of New York
shall not be so constructed as to cause
Mr. ECKHARDT. Now, suppose the
State of Texas should, unlike the State of
New York, enact a law directed wholly at
the use of a certain product. For instance,
suppose it prohibited the use of motor
boats on certain lakes of heavy residen-
tial development. Could this be done?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes, very clearly and
particularly, under subsection (d) (2) of
section 6.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Now, suppose the
State of Texas should attempt to accom-
plish essentially the same thing as the
New York statute concerning pile drivers
was intended to accomplish, but suppose
the Texas statute controlled use instead
of production or assembly. Thus, Texas
provides that no pile driver shall be used
within the confines of the State of Texas
which has a noise emission level above a
certain number of decibels. Could the'
State so regulate?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Though a noise
emission limit is provided, it is not ap-
plied in the area this bill is designed to
control; that is, primarily the manufac-
ture of equipment with a certain noise
potential. The preemption provision in
section 6(d) (1) applies only to State reg-
ulation of "new products," and "new
product" is defined in section 3.
Of course, we do know all-of this would
have to bear any constitutional over-
view as to the commerce clause and re-
quirements that statutes be reasonable
and not a burden on interstate com-
merce..
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. WYDLER) .
(Mr. WSTDLER asked and was given
to
l£-
rf^
00
o
>
tr1
in
d
-------
passed—the product is then vulnerable
to both the State and its political sub-
division's regulation.
My specific problem relates to the fact
that in Boulder, Colo., the city council
under the aegis of a Colorado law has
passed an all-purpose type of ordinance
which, I believe, will be more restrictive
in some of its application than would be
the proposed regulations by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The City
Council of Boulder has passed a resolu-
tion asking the Congress to be sure that
this ordinance of the city of Boulder will
not be preempted by this particular bill.
I think that states the general problem.
I would ask the gentleman if this bill is
passed, would the Federal law preempt
that local ordinance?
Mr. ROGERS. The only things we are
preempting, are new products for which
the administration has set standards.
We are not changing the present au-
thority of States and localities to enact
their ordinances with respect to use.
I think the gentleman would notice in
the bill, on page 41, that we actually
state:
(2) Nothing in this section shall diminish
or enhance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to control, regulate, or
.restrict the use, operation, or movement of
any product.
Mr. BROTZMAN. To state it another
way, if the ordinance applied to noise
caused by a jadkhammer owned by some-
body in Boulder,1 or a car, or a stationery
motor, then the ordinance would, in fact.
noise at the level above a certain num-
ber of decibels.
Then suppose H.R. 11021 becomes law,
but the Administrator has notxyet pre-
scribed a regulation setting a limit on
noise emissions from pile drivers. May
then the State continue to enforce its
law?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes; because really the
preemption clause contained in section 6
(d) (1) only prohibits a State or a politi-
cal subdivision from adopting or enforc-
ing any law or regulation "with respect
to any new product for which a regula-
tion has been prescribed by the Adminis-
trator." In the instance the gentleman
recites, the Administrator has not even
prescribed any regulation. " .
Mr. ECKHARDT. That is right. Sup-
pose the Administrator subsequently pre-
scribes a regulation governing the noise
emission of pile drivers? What is the situ-
ation then?
Mr. ROGERS. In that instance, since
the State of New York is purporting to
include in its regulation emission con-
trols with respect to a "new product"
which has never been transferred to an
ultimate purchaser, the preemption
clause would preclude New York from do-
ing that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the genT
tleman from Colorado has expired.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman from Colorado 1 addition-
al minute.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this legislation and I want
to compliment the committee on what I
believe has been a very competent and
very far-reaching job in this whole area
of noise control.
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 sub-
ject matter very thoroughly, and he him-
self in many cases, as I have read the re-
port and the record of hearings, was a
protagonist who was looking deeply into
this question of jet noise.
I was very much impressed by the
hearings and the report of the commit-
tee. But nevertheless I feel that in the
final analysis, although the committee
considered many steps that could be
taken in trying to fight jet noise, they
settled on a proposal and a course of ac-
tion 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 prob-
lems of aircraft in general or the prob-
lems 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]
o
f
§
H3
H
CO
o
t*
I
CQ
g
IS
0
SD
H
O
bo
>£•
rf^
CO
-------
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 PAA is competent
to do the job. The question we have to
answer in this House today is whether
the PAA intends to do the job and in-
tends to do anything to utilize the powers
that we gave them or whether they in-
tend to remain, as they apparently have
over the years, a very willing partner
of the airline industry in keeping effec-
tive regulations from being put' into ef-
fect.
Mr. Chairman, if you will look at the
record of the PAA in this field, you will
see that what I am saying is a fair and
just statement. The Congress three and
a half years ago in 1968 passed a bill
which would have given and in fact did
give the PAA the power to take action
in the area of reducing jet noise for pres-
ently flying aircraft. Those are the air-
craft making the noise and the aircraft
which will be making the noise for the
next decade or 15 years. We gave to the
PAA the power to reduce noise in those
aircraft and set limits which could have
meant that they would be retrofitted with
noise suppression devices to bring the
levels of noise down. For three and a
half years the PAA stalled us and the
American people and has taken the posi-
tion that industry wanted them to take
and done nothing.
This does not go to the competence of
the PAA to set the standards but, rather,
goes to their lack of desire to set the
standards. In that area, Mr. Chairman,
they have let us and the American peo-
ple down. That is •why I say today that
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 that area In
that particular location in New York.
Mr. WYDLER, The sad answer to the
gentleman's question is "No," because we
have to get on with the job of retrofit-
ting -our currently flying aircraft, and
there was no desire in PAA to do that.
As a matter of fact, there is a complete
indication here in Mr. Schaffer's state-
ment that they do not intend to do any-
thing about it. I have been after the PAA
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
procedures on such and such a day and
do this without^ fail. Yet right up to the
present time ttiey have refused to under-
take it.
All I am asking the committee to con-
sider—and I think they should consider
this—is not to throw the PAA 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 subcommittee.
Mr. ROGERS. I have shared the con-
cern of the gentleman from New York.
However, I will say to the gentleman that
we -went Into the problem in some detail
pertise in FAA. We have tried to bring
EPA into it as strongly as we can with-
out 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 inten-
tions of the gentleman are good, but I
think the EPA has access to the exper-
tise, if they utilize the people in PAA,
and I am sure that PAA will not with-
hold their counsel and advice.
-Mr. ROGERS. Let me give you an ex-
ample. EPA came forth with the pro-
posal before our committee that PAA
should have to set a noise standard
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 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.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further requests for time. However,
I do have a couple of minutes left and
I am happy to yield the balance of our
time to our distinguished chairman of
the full committee.
Mr. STAGGERS. I thank'the gentle-
man from Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman, X yield 1 minute to the
to
v£-
Ox
O
O
§
I
CO
cj
-------
the bill you are presenting to us, although
it "Is hopeful and with good intentions,
will not do the job.
Just a few days ago, to make matters
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 considers jet
noise will not be an issue by 19*78. I do
not know what- he means by that.. We
have clear testimony before my Commit- -
tee on Science and Astronautics that this
matter will certainly be a national issue
in 1978 and for years thereafter. Mr.
Shaffer indicated 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. GROVER. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WYDLER. Yes. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
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 at-
tended in a schoolroom, I was really
shocked at that time to see the impact,
the disruption in the classrooms and the
disorder created by the jet noise made
in these areas near the airport.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. NKLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
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 cranke'd in EPA
right-in the beginning and require them
to advise and consult with PAA. If EPA
is not satisfied as to what PAA has done
they can request PAA to revise its ac-
tions. 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 PAA takes some action.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, first of all,
the law will require that issuance of orig-
inal-type certificates must, In most in-
stances, be preceded by Issuance of
noise standards to protect the public.
This requires action.
Second, at any time EPA thinks there
has been inaction, EPA can direct PAA
to review existing regulations and in this
way make "inaction" a matter of public
record which puts it in immediate con-
troversy.
What we have tried to do is to be real-
istic.
We think PAA 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 ex-
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MIKVA) .
(Mr. MIKVA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MIKVA. I thank the distinguished
chairman of the committee. I am in gen-
eral support of the committee bill. How-
ever, at the proper time I will offer some
amendments. But I think overall the bill
is a good start in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 11021, the Noise Control Act of
1972. It is not as strong a bill as some of
us would have liked—it is weaker, for
example, than the package of noise
abatement bills which I sponsored last
March—but it is a long step in the right
direction.
Noise pollution is not visible. We can-
riot taste it or breathe it. But we can feel
it—psychologically, physically, and fi-
nancially. According to the World Health
Organization, accidents, absenteeism,
inefficiency, compensation claims and
industrial clatter resulting1 from noise
pollution cost about $4 billion a year in
the United States. Even that stark sta-
tistic does not begin to convey the dis-
ruptive impact of noise pollution which
is all too evident to those of our fellow
citizens who reside near our major air-
ports. To the people who live around
O'Hare Airport outside of Chicago, this
bill offers a belated glimmer of hope for
some relief from the noise pollution
which so profoundly affects their lives.
In 1970, Congress directed the En-
vironmental Protection Agency—EPA—
to conduct a full study of the effects of
noise on the public health and welfare,
[p. H1516]
§
B
H
a
3
GO
H
a
55
I
H
0
O
S)
bO
-------
But we are now confronted with the
prospect that our very progress may have
led us—not to the American dream.—but
to the American nightmare.
Advancing technology has brought
smog to our cities; blackened and dying
waters to our lakes and rivers. And it has
brought its own fanfare—an ever in-
creasing din that disturbs our sleep, in-
terupts our conversation, creates anxiety
and annoyance, and adversely affects our
physical and mental health.
The hazards of this obnoxious and in-
trusive noise cannot be overstated. Ex-
cessive exposure to noise can result in
temporary and even permanent loss of
hearing. Research has shown that high
levels of noise can have adverse respira-
tory, glandular, cardiovascular, and neu-
rological effects. Noise can be a cause of
accidents by masking auditory warnings
and by increasing annoyance and fatigue
and decreasing alertness. It can even in-
fluence property values.
Too often the hazards of noise are
thought of only in terms of permanent
ear damage. But any standard relating
to noise control must take into account
the full range of ways in which excess
noise can adversely affect an individual's
well-being. It is well to note that the
World .Health Organization defines
health not merely as the absence of in-
firmity and disease, but as a state of
complete physical, mental, and social
well-being. ••
Unfortunately, the problem of noise
control has not been taken seriously
enough. Perhaps, as Robert Alex Baron,
the author of the "Tyranny of Noise,"
has suggested, we might have become
In the 91st Congress I introduced leg-
islation to begin a vigorous, comprehen-
sive Federal program for the control,
abatement, and prevention of noise. That
legislation—the Noise Control Act of
1970—was cosponsored by 20 Members
of the House. It provided for the estab-
lishment of an Office of Noise Control,
a Noise Advisory Council, and an exten-
sive program of grants to State and
local governments for noise research and
control efforts.
This legislation was in part embodied
in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970
(Public Law 91-604) which mandated the
establishment of an Office of Noise
Abatement and Control within the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
On February 8, 1971, I conducted an
ad hoc congressional hearing on the
problem of noise pollution in New York
City. The proposals brought forward at
that hearing, together with my past in-
volvement in the area of noise control,
and consultations with various experts,
led to the development of the compre-
hensive legislative package for the con-
trol, abatement, and prevention of noise
which I introduced on behalf of myself
and more than 35 Members of the House
on March 30, 1971.
"This package—The Noise Abatement
and Control Act of 1971 (H.R. 6986 and
H.R. 6987); the Noise Disclosure Act
(H.R. 6988 and H.R. 6989); the Occupa-
tional Noise Control Act of 1971 (H.R.
6990 and H.R. 6991); and the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control appropria-
tions bill (H.R. 5043, H.R. 6984 and H.R.
6985)—provided a tough, realistic, effec-
tive means to combat noise and its haz-
machinery which contributes to, or may
contribute to, noise which endangers, or
contributes to endangering the public
health and welfare.
The committee bill has significantly
strengthened the provisions relating to
standards suggested in the administra-
tion-sponsored legislation (H.R. 5275)
and has made them much more akin to
those in my legislation. Under the com-
mittee bill, the Administrator is directed
to set noise emission standards on new
products which he has identified as major
sources of noise for which noise emission
standards are feasible and which fall in
one of the following categories: con-
struction equipment, transportation
equipment, any motor or engine, and
electrical or electronic equipment.
As we are all too well aware, without
adequate enforcement even the best of
laws can be of little more use than scraps
of paper. One of the strong concepts en-
acted into law in the landmark Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970 was recourse
for beleaguered private citizens or groups
which failed to obtain relief by means
of a complaint to the appropriate Federal
agency. And I am pleased that the com-
mittee has included my citizen suit pro-
vision which allows any person to com-
merce civil action against an alleged vio-
lator of the act or against the Adminis-
trator, where there is an alleged failure
of the Administrator to perform a non-
discretionary-act or duty. Such actions
cannot be commenced prior to 60 days
after notice is given—more than adequate
time for the Administrator to initiate
action on behalf of the Government.
The. largest contractor in this coun-
fcO
Or
fcO
tr1
H
Q
o
o
o
I
d
tr1
-------
more alarmed if noise had1 a name like
''ac6ustio radiation."
But whatever the reason for our past
tolerance of an increasingly intolerable
condition, one thing is clear—we cannot
allow this problem to continue unabated.
Noise and the damage it produces have
been growing at an alarming rate. Am-
bient noise levels in midtown Manhattan
already are in excess of 80 decibels.
Urban noise has doubled since 1955 and
is expected to double againjDy 1980. And
evidence presented at a meeting last
June of the International Standardiza-
tion Organization in Geneva, Switzer-
land, indicated that if this increase con-
tinues, every urban dweller will be deaf
by the end of this century.
Clearly, the time to act is now.
Noise and its hazards do not have to
be the price of progress. Just as for any
other form of pollution, the control of
noise is not a matter of what we are able
to do but of what we are willing to do.
The sarne-technpiogy which has led to
the saturation of our communities which
abusive noise, can be put to use to pro-
mote a quiet and tranquil environment.
Technology is at hand for noise control.
What must be done is to apply it to every-
day use on our streets; in our factories,
on our airways, in our offices, and in our
homes.
The right to a quiet, peaceful environ-
ment free from the intrusion of un-
wanted and harmful noise is as basic as
the right to clean air and water and pure
food. And Government at all levels has a
responsibility to insure that this right is
safeguarded.
ards.
I am deeply gratified that a significant
number of the provisions of this legisla-
tion have been incorporated by the com-
mittee into the bill before us today (H.R.
11021).
Specifically, my legislation (H.R.
6986) directs the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control to coordinate
the efforts of the Federal Government
that relate, to noise control, abatement,
and prevention. To this end all instru-
mentalities, agencies, and Departments
of the Federal Government are directed
to furnish the Office with such informa-
tion as it may require. Further, each such
Federal entity is directed to carry out
the programs within its control in ac-
cordance with the purposes of the act—
the creation of a quieter environment. In
any case where an agency of the Federal
Government is carrying out or sponsor-
ing an activity which is detrimental to
the public health and welfare, such
agency must consult with the Office to
determine possible means of abating the
offending noise. And the Office is to com-
pile and publish a regular report as to the
efforts and activities of the Federal Gov-
ernment and its instrumentalities, agen-
cies, and departments in regard to noise.
The committee-reported bill fully in-
corporates these provisions, although it
vests authority in the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
rather than specifying the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control.
My Noise Abatement and Control Act
directs the setting of noise emissions
standards for any machine, or class of
try—for services, for goods—is the Fed-
eral Government. My Noise Amendment
and Control Act provides that this tre-
mendous Government purchasing power
be used, just at it is used in the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970, by providing
that each Federal agency which enters
into contracts or extends Federal assist-
ance by way of grant, loans, or contracts,
is to effectuate the purposes of this bill—
a quieter environment. Such a procure-
ment policy would greatly lower the level
of noise in our communities and serve
as incentive to manufacturers to produce
more quiet products.
Significantly, the commitee bill has
recognized the need for this approach,
and has included a section mandating the
use of low-noise emission products by
Federal agencies.
Both my legislation and the committee
bill authorize technical assistance to
State and local governments to facilitate
their development and enforcement of
noise control programs. And both our
bills provide for the publication and dis-
semination to the public of information
relating to the control, abatement and
prevention of noise.
The committee in its deliberations
specifically rejected the Federal preemp-
tion provision contained in the adminis-
tration's draft bill. That provision would
actually prevent States and local govern-
ments from setting any noise emission
standard different in any way from that
prescribed by the Administrator—even
if the State standard would be more
stringent.
It is essential that States and local gov-
[p. H1517]
2
CO
I
3
H
|
O
to
Or
CO
-------
and to report to the President and to
Congress. The Clean Air Act Amendments.
of 1970 also called for the formulation
within EPA of an Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control to conduct the research
for the etudy. Their report was released
in January of this year. It did an excel-
lent job of describing the effects of noise
pollution on our society. It outlined the
state of the art in antinoise technology,
and provided examples of the efforts of
Federal, State, and local governments to
reduce the increasing levels of noise
around the Nation. According to the re-
port, these efforts up to now have been
unsuccessful in controlling noise pollu-
tion, partly because of the lack of cen-
tralization and coordination. The report
concluded that the Federal Government
should take the initiative in antinoise
activities, and it proposed legislation
which was subsequently sponsored by the
administration.
f
THE NOISE CONTROL ACT IS A SUBSTANTIAL IM-
PROVEMENT OVER THE BILL PROPOSED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION
The administration's bill was not
nearly strong enough in several key
respects. It is to the credit of the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Com-
mittee that the bill before us today is
considerably stronger than the admin-
istration's version.
The Noise Control Act requires the En-
vironmental Protection Agency to set
noise standards for products that are
major sources of noise pollution; the ad-
ministration bill would have left standard
setting to the discretion of the Agency.
Second, the bill before us now includes
a broad classification of products which
H.R. 11021 A GOOD BILL THAT COULD BE BETTER
H.R. 11021 as it stands before the
House now would empower the Federal
Government to begin a coordinated
antinoise program, but it is only a be-
ginning. It is basically a sound bill, but
it does not go as far as it might.
The most important deficiency in the
Noise Control Act is the absence o.f any
authority or funds for making grants to
State and local governments to help
them devise and implement noise pollu-
tion control programs, including demon-
stration projects. As the administration
said repeatedly in testimony last year
before the House Subcommittee on Pub-
lic Health and the Environment, noise
pollution must be attacked at the local
level. State and local governments have
attempted to deal with noise through
antinoise ordinances and zoning laws,
but then- efforts have been unsuccessful
in reducing noise levels in our urban
communities. Local governments simply
do not have enough trained personnel to
undertake proper monitoring and en-
forcement.
H.R. 11021 will assist State and local
governments in working out model State
and local antinoise laws, but it will do
little to help relieve the lack of resources
which impedes enforcement of State and
local laws. The report of the EPA's Office
of Noise Abatement and Control, re-
leased in January, emphasized that-
One of the major problems in the state
and local levels of government Is that of
enforcement. In general, noise statutes, no
matter how well written, are rendered in-
effective because most state and local pro-
grams are insufficiently funded and
staffed . . . Unfortunately. enforcement
meat's antinoise programs, to provide
both Congress and the public with a focal
point for judging the success or failure
of those programs.
Mr. Chairman, all of the improvements
I have suggested can be found in the
package of noise pollution control bills
which I sponsored last March—H.R.
6985, H.R. 6987, H.R. 6989, and H.R.
6991. I am hopeful that some ox all of
them can be included as amendments to
this bill or in separate legislation follow-
ing the enactment of the Noise Control
Act. I plan to offer two such amend-
ments at the appropriate time, both re-
lating to excessive noise from airplanes
and airports. Hopefully, the bill will be
strengthened by these and other amend-
ments, but in any event, the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee is to
be commended for taking the first step
toward reducing the level of noise pol-
lution.
CONGRESS MUST FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF AGENCIES
The next crucial step will come when
the appropriate administrative agen-
cies—EPA and the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration—FAA—establish the spe-
cific standards and requirements 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 pro-
visions of the Noise Control Act. We
Ul
F
H
O
a
o
t-1
f
H
I
-------
are judged to be primary sources of noise
pollution. The administration version in-
cluded only construction equipment,
transportation equipment, and internal
combustion engines, leaving a gigantic
loophole since it excluded all forms of
electrically driven machinery or elec-
tronic equipment such as electric motors
and air conditioners. H.R. 11021 closes
that loophole.
Third, the committee included in the
bill a provision calling on the Federal
Government to encourage the manu-
facture of more quiet machinery by es-
tablishing a Federal procurement policy.
H.R. 11021 calls for EPA to certify low
noise-emitting products, which then
must be purchased in Federal contracts
instead of their noneertified counter-
parts, if they are not more than 25
percent more expensive than the cheap-
est such product on the market. The
Federal Government is the largest con-
tractor for goods and services in the
Nation, but the administration in its
proposed bill completely ignored this ob-
vious opportunity to promote the design
of quieter products.
Fourth, the Noise Control Act gives
individual citizens or citizen groups the
right to bring suit for violations of the
act. The right of citizens to bring suit is
a significant weapon in the battle against
all forms of pollution; it was included in
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,
but it was conspicuously absent from the
administration's proposed noise pollu-
tion bill.
strains the already overburdened budgets of
many of the nation's cities. .
I hope that ultimately the bill will
include provisions for a comprehensive
system of grants -to States, counties,
municipalities, and regional government
bodies to develop and to implement
noise abatement programs and projects.
A second important weakness in -the
bill reported by the committee is its am-
biguity regarding the authority of the
States to enact stricter noise pollution
control requirements than those adopted
by the EPA. We should apply the same
principle here as we have in the field of
air pollution, and leave the States free
to impose more stringent standards than
the minimum Federal requirements.
Third, the bill fails to require that all
machinery carry a label stating its oper-
ating noise level. This would be an ex-
tremely useful tool to consumers in de-
ciding which products to buy, and it
would encourage manufacturers to de-
sign the most quiet products possible.
The Noise Control Act presently before
us requires noise labels only on those
products which EPA judges to be poten-
tially injurious to the public, or those
which are marketed as noise reducers.
Finally, H.R. 11021 omits any refer-
ence to the EPA's Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control. This office has been
doing a creditable job in the field of noise
pollution research and control since its
inception in 1970, It should be given the
primary responsibility for coordination
and enforcement of the Federal Govern-
will watch with considerable interest the
proposed regulations submitted by the
EPA and the FAA- in implementing the
act. If they do their job and we con-
tinue to do ours, the citizens of the
United States may see the promise of
noise pollution abatement became a re-
ality.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. RYAN) . _ •
(Mr. RYAN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, for far too
long the problem of noise has been the
stepchild of the environmental move-
ment. It is an unfortunate fact that, al-
though we have become painfully aware
of the more visible signs of our rapidly
deteriorating environment, the very seri-
ous hazard of excessive and injurious
noise has often been overlooked.
Therefore, I want to commend the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Public Health and Environment
(Mr. ROGERS) for his concern and his
leadership in the effort to mount a ma-
jor Federal assault against noise and
its dangers.
The processes of pollution is~8he of the
great ironies of our society. Many of our
ancestors came to this country because
of her great natural wealth and beauty.
America was the land of plenty. And it
became more so as we, as our fathers
before us, turned this Nation into the
most technologically advanced society in
the world.
[p. H1518]
§
h-(
GO
H
I
fel
o
n
O2
§
3
a
|
o
to
rf^
Or
-------
eniments be afforded the opportunity to
protect their citizens from particular
noise conditions. Standards set for na-
tional application must obviously and un-
derstandably be broad. They cannot be
expected adequately to guard the health
and welfare of all the people in the count-
less specific situations that occur in com-
munities throughout the Nation. It
should clearly be the prerogative, in fact,
the responsibility, of the Federal Govern-
ment to establish basic standards and to
insist upon compliance throughout the
Nation. However, State and local govern-
ments should be free to decide if more
stringent standards should Joe applied
within then- jurisdiction.
Further, the establishment of total
Federal preemption would have dismem-
bered many of the significant noise con-
trol efforts that have already been under-
taken by various States and localities. It
has been argued that these levels of local
government would still be free to use
other means to combat noise pollution,
such as zoning and time use require-
ments. However, these methods have
proven insufficient in the past to come to
grips with the problem of excessive.noise.
The only truely effective way to limit
excessive and injurious noise is to limit
it at its source—the noise generating
product.
Therefore, my Noise Abatement and
Control Act of 1971 provides that States
may set more stringent, although not less
strict, noise emission standards than
those proposed by the Administrator.
Although the administration proposal
was not adopted, there remained con-
siderable uncertainty as to the exact
First, the committee bill does not in-
clude a program of grants to assist local
governments in their noise abatement
efforts. I believe that this oversight is
particularly puzzling in light of the rec-
ognized fact that States and local gov-
ernments have a large responsibility in
the control, abatement, and prevention
of noise. Yet there is no way of avoiding
the fact that local governments are ex-
tremely hard-pressed for funds; and this
pressure can only be relieved by the Fed-
eral Government.
Therefore, I intend to offer an amend-
ment at the appropriate time to provide
a comprehensive system of grants to
State and local governments to develop,
establish, and carry out noise abatement
programs and projects. I believe that
such a provision is essential to the
mounting of a comprehensive noise con-
trol effort at all levels of government.
The committee bill "ails to direct that
the Office of Noise Abatement and Con-
trol be utilized to the fullest extent in
carrying out the noise responsibilities
under this act. In light of the urgent
need for a specific focal point for the
Federal Government's noise abatement,
control, and prevention efforts, I intend
to offer an amendment directing that
this Office be fully utilized in the assault
against noise pollution. The need for
such specific language is best docu-
mented by reading the administration-
sponsored bill (H.B. 5275) which specif-
ically deleted the Office. Although the
committee did not adopt the administra-
tion's language, it did omit any mention
of this already established vehicle for
noise control. Now that the Office has
quiet must be a factor in each and every
purchase.
Further, such legislation would serve
as incentive for manufacturers to pro-
duce products with quiet in mind.
Unfortunately, the committee re-
ported bill limits the labeling of products
to those "which emits noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or
welfare; or which is sold wholly or in
part on the basis of its effectiveness in
reducing noise." I do not believe that
there is any need to be so restrictive. The
consumer has a right to know the noise
emissions of every product he buys. I
hope that the Senate will take a strong
look at this provision and make it more
inclusive when this legislation is before
that body.
I also believe that it is imperative that
the Environmental Protection Agency be
the agency responsible for the setting of
aircraft noise standards. The committee
bill, however, merely gives the Adminis-
trator of EPA the authority to consult
with the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, while leaving
the authority for setting standards within
FAA. Unfortunately history has demon-
strated the reluctance of the FAA to un-
dertake a meaningful' program of air-
craft noise abatement. In fact, even most
of the research being conducted into jet
noise suppression is being conducted by
NASA, not FAA. In light of this and the
need for a single core for our Govern-
ment's antinoise efforts, the power to reg-
ulate 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.
to
rf^
Ol
05
F
«
O
O
o
g
I
H
g
-------
degree of Federal .preemption involved
in the committee bill, which is now be-
fore us. Therefore, Congressman ECK-
HARDT and I intended to offer an amend-
ment at the appropriate time which.
.would have allowed States and local gov-
ernments to establish noise emission
decibel standards more stringent, al-
though not less strict, than those set by
the Federal Government. However, in
light of the colloquy between Mr. ECK-
HARDT and the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Public Health and
Environment (Mr. ROGERS) I feel that
this amendment is no longer necessary.
Their remarks make clear that the pre-
emption provision in section 6(d) (1) of
the committee bill applies only to .State
regulation of "new products."
"New product" is defined in section 3
as a product title to which has not passed
to the first person who purchases the
product for purposes other than resale.
Thus, once a" product for which Federal
standards have been set is in the hands
of the user, States and localities are not
precluded by the committee bill from
imposing their own noise emission decibel
standards.
The legislative history now makes it
clear that State and local governments
have the right to regulate the licensing,
use, operation and movement of noise
sources by all means—including decibel
limits once the product is in the hands
of the consumer.
Although, as I have ponted out, the
bill before us has many commendable
features, there do remain several areas in
which the legislation could and should
be strengthened.
completed the report mandated by the
Clean Air Act amendment, I fear that in
the absence of legislative language to the
contrary, the Office will be discon-
tinued—a severe blow to the fight against
noise.
One of the prime reasons that the
level of noise has increased so greatly
over the past few decades—having dou-
bled since 1955—is that the consumer
has been unable to obtain reliable in-
formation necessary to. take noise as a
factor when considering the purchase of
a product.
Thus, I introduced the Noise Disclo-
sure Act—H.R. 6988 and H.B. 6989—
which requires that all new mechan-
ical and electrical equipment trans-
ported in, sold in, or introduced into in-
terstate commerce must have affixed to
it a label or plate disclosing its opera-
tional noise level. The only items that
could be exempted from this provision
are those that have an operational noise
level "so low as to be negligible" and as
to which "information with. respect to
such noise level will not be of value to
the consumer."
This bill would allow the consumer
to know the noise-generating potential
of any mechanicai item he is contem-
plating buying, thereby affording him
the opportunity to take that product's
noise level into account as a factor in
his purchase decision. Thus, he could
choose not only the quieter of two auto-
mobiles but the quieter of two electric
razors.
It is esssential that—if we are to lower
the ambient noise'in our communities—
I also regret that the committee bill
excludes exports from those standards
set by the Administrator. Although I rec-
ognize that the rationale for this was
not to hamper American industry in
competing for markets abroad, I believe
that noise is a worldwide problem; and
I hope that the Senate will delete this
section.
And finally I would have hoped that
the committee bill would have adopted
my provision to allow the Administrator
to initiate court actions for violations of
the act rather than requesting the Jus-
tice Department to take action. Sadly,
the record of the Department of Justice
in environmental matters is less than
commendable. Again, I would urge the
Senate to take corrective action on this
measure.
The existence of noise pollution is not
new. Americans have been studying noise
for nearly 100 years; Europeans even
longer. But despite this consciousness of
the existence of noise and its hazards,
very little has been done to control it.
The legislation before us today—even
with its shortcomings—opens the way
for a concerted, comprehensive Federal
program to combat noise and its dangers
and to insure the right of all citizens to
a peaceful and quiet environment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from New York has expired.
Mr. DRTNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 11021, the Noise Control
Act of 1972. This legislation, championed
by the very-able chairmen of the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce (Mr. STAGGERS) and that Com-
mittee's Subcommittee on Public Health
o
t-t
m
H
I
o
H
W
HH
Cfi
H
O
Crc
[p. H1519]
-------
and Environment (Mr. ROGERS) , is a long
overdue first step toward the control of
a particularly harmful and often over-
looked form of environmental pollu-
tion—the pollution produced by noise.
The lives and livelihoods of millions
of people are affected by dangerously"
high levels of noise. Forty-four million
Americans "have the utility of their
dwellings adversely affected' by noise
from traffic and aircraft," in the words
of the committee report; 21.million peo-
ple are similarly affected by the noise
from construction sites. The committee
estimates that at least 80 million people
in all—a staggering 40 percent of the
Nation's total population—are affected
"to a measurable degree of impact" by
noise pollution.
What does this mean? It means a
higher incidence of deafness and partial
hearing loss. It means loss of sleep, with
resulting physiological and psychologi-
cal side effects. It means damage to
buildings and equipment. Most of all, it
means the continuing deterioration in
the quality of life, and of urban life in
particular—more inconvenience, more
distraction, and more physical pain.
Perhaps we should separate the two
component parts of noise pollution.
There is, first of all, "community
noise"—the roar of a diesel truck, the
shriek of a jet plane overhead, the blast
from a stereo record player. Each and
every one of us can think back on in-
stances when a loud noise broke our con-.
centration or limited our ability to func-
tion, when noise did not threaten our
health so much as it annoyed or incon-
a noise-saturated work place as a con-
dition of employment, out of their con-
cern for job security."
What is our responsibility as legislators
and lawmakers? Noise abatement pro-
grams in the past have been farcical. In
one industrial plant, for example, ear-
plugs were randomly distributed from a
large box to all workers, despite the fact
earplugs may be useless if not properly
fitted by a physician. The Federal Gov-
ernment has a haphazard assortment of
noise control programs with minimal co-
ordination between them. It is only re-
cently, in fact, that noise has even been
considered a form of pollution and given
the attention it deserves.
We must impose some form of coordi-
nation on the widely dispersed Federal
programs on noise control. We must
make provisions for careful, well-con-
ducted research on all phases of noise
pollution. And we must find sanctions
which we can use to terminate as rapidly
as possible the sources of noise pollution.
The legislation we consider today, H.R.
11021, addresses itself admirably to these
three responsibilities of ours. First, sec-
tion 4 of the bill authorizes the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to coordinate the efforts of
all Federal agencies in the area of noise
research and control. Second, section 14
provides for research and public infor-
mation programs, for which the sum of
$750,000 is allocated.
Third and most important, there are
strong noise emission standards outlined
in this bill, although, as I shall indicate
shortly, they are not as strong as I would
like them to be. Section 6 gives the EPA
Chairman, that the provisions included
in H.R. 11021 are long overdue. The bill
is comprehensive, manageable, and well-
designed. I urge its passage.
Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Chairman, as it
was with many other aspects of our en-
vironmental crisis, the noise problem
was allowed to, reach dangerous propor-
tions before adequate study and action
were contemplated. As a result, we are
today in the position of considering leg-
islation that should have been before
this House at least a decade earlier. We
are still playing catchup with the en-
vironment, which means with our very
survival.
If we have learned one thing about
noise pollution in recent years, it is that
this problem represents more than a
mere nuisance. It is now recognized as a
serious physical, mental, and economic
hazard.
Early last year, shortly after I first
took office. I cosponsored with 13 col-
leagues in the New York delegation, an
ad hoc hearing on noise pollution in New
York City. The record of that hearing led
to the development of a comprehensive
package of noise control legislation
which I cosponsored with its author,
Congressman WILLIAM F. RYAN, and a
number of other colleagues.
The first bill in the package appro-
priated money to fully fund the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control established
within the Environmental Protection
Agency by the Congress in 1970. The
•need for this bill was established by the
failure of the Nixon administration - to
request any funds at all for this office in
fiscal 1972.
to
rf^
Oi
00
f
w
Q
>
F
O
O
g
hd
hH
f
§
O
12!
-------
venienced us. According to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the so-called "annoyance trend" of
noise pollution is rapidly increasing,
from 23 percent of the population who
complained about the noise of city liv-
ing in 1948, to 50 percent in 1961, to al-
most 100 percent today.
There is also "industrial noise"—the
often overpowering noise conditions
under which many of the Nation's plant
and factory workers operate. Leonard
Woodcock 'drew this memorable picture
of working in a forge-drop plant:
It Is impossible to describe to anyone who
has not seen such an operation the stress of
noise and heat inflicted on the men whose
bodies shake and sweat and bounce with the
floor as the hammers descend into the hot
metal.
Noise pollution, then, has two effects:
It "annoys" people off-the-job, and poses
a serious health and life threat to those
on-the-job in certain industries. The
problem is compounded by two curious
properties of noise which make it unique
among pollutants. First, its effects tend
to be delayed. Only after prolonged ex-
posure to high levels of noise are the
physiological effects of exposure first
manifested, and in some cases it takes
years, even decades before the effects are
felt. Second, man has shown a remark-
able tendency to adapt to high levels of
noise, to shrug off intolerable noise pol-
lution as the necessary cost of perform-
ing certain types'of labor. We are left
with Leonard Woodcock's chilling con-
clusion that many men "accept the haz-
ard of hearing impairment and stress of
Administrator broad power to set and
enforce noise emission standards. Sec-
tion 8 requires the Administrator to is-
sue regulations for the labeling of any
product which emits a potentially dam-
aging amount of noise. Other sections
provide for citizens' suits, compliance
regulations, and strict enforcement pro-
visions.
/ I am extremely reluctant, however, to
endorse section 7 of the bill, providing
for privileged status for the Federal Avi-
ation 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 incorporated in the regulations un-
der this bill. In the original version of
this legislation 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 sup-
posed to regulate, I consider this change
highly unfortunate. According to an ar-
ticle in the Washington Star on Octo-
ber 12, 1971, the FAA has already de-
cided to let representatives of the air
transport industry write their own regu-
lations. Again I say, this is most unforr
tunate. I would prefer to see the EPA
retain its veto power, and I fail to see
why the airline industry merits special
consideration in the drafting of anti-
noise regulations.
Nevertheless, my reservations on this
section do not override my enthusiasm
for the bill as a whole. I emphasize, Mr.
The second bill broadened the func-
tions of the Office of Noise Abatement
and Control to take its functions out of
the area of mere research and into the
area of regulation and enforcement. The
bill directs the head of that office to pre-
scribe standards on all noise-generating
machinery that may endanger the pub-
lic health and welfare, and it also estab-
lished a system of grants and contracts
to enable local governments to combat
noise with. Federal assistance.
The third bill—the Noise Disclosure
Act—requires that all new mechanical
and electrical equipment transported or
sold in interstate commerce must have
affixed a plate or label disclosing its op-
erational noise level. The bill also gives
the Administrator of the EPA a directive
to prescribed regulations establishing
standard procedures for measuring noise
levels on such equipment.
In contrast to these bills is the admin-
istration's noise control proposal, intro-
duced in the Senate last year as S. 1016.
This bill, in my judgment, is by no means
adequate to really tackle the noise prob-
lem and unfortunately, the bill reported
by the Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce continues these inade-
quacies.
Among the major defects are these:
First. The bill fails to provide assist-
ance to States and localities in their ef-
forts to control, abate, and prevent
noise.
Second. The bill preempts State and
local authority to prescribe noise emis-
sion standards for new products for
which Federal standards apply. Thus, if
[p. H1520]
02
H
I
3
o
%
F
1
M
HH
DO
H
O
to
^
Cn
CD
-------
a city such as New York, or a State such
as California, should wish to set stand-
ards stronger than those set by the Fed-
eral Government, it could not do so.
Third. The biU fails to give the EPA
authority to set and enforce noise lim-
its on jet aircraft, continuing the Fed-
eral 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 consistently opposed any retrofit re-
quirement for the existing jet fleet. As a
result, the din of jet noise over city and
suburb 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 en-
forcement role in this area should be
given to the EPA, with the FAA retain-
ing only an advisory role.
I understand that amendments to cure
these serious defects will be offered to
the committee bill. It is essential that
they pass, and they will have my full and
enthusiastic support. The noise problem
cannot be attacked by. tokenism and
rhetoric.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I urge
support of H.R. 11021, the Noise Control
Act of 1972, which is designed to con-
trol noise emissions detrimental to the
human environment.
Over the past generations as this coun-
try grew and prospered and gave to its
citizens the best standard of living known
to man, we unwittingly took from our
natural environment and never gave
back to her. In our continuing struggle
to repair the damage we have done, we
tective requirements that are authorized
will be strictly enforced and effectively
applied in the public interest.
The very fervent desire of all of our
people, hi this tumultuous time, Mr.
Chairman, is to initiate "a generation of
peace." This afternoon, I most earnestly
hope this House will overwhelmingly act
to wholesomely expand the expression of
our common objective so that it will read,
"a generation of peace and quiet."
Mr. BROOMFEELD. Mr. Chairman,
only 10 years ago it would have been
inconceivable to suggest that the level of
noise in our environment might pose a
threat to our health and safety.
Regretfully, what would have been
termed folly then, is now all too sobering
reality. The growing volume and inten-
sity of noise generated in the home, office,
and our cities constitutes just another
menacing phenomenon of our modern
age.
No less than water or air pollution,
noise pollution is a problem which we
cannot delay in meeting head-on now
and one which we must solve soon. The
solution to this problem would be much
easier if its cause were limited to but a
few major sourc.es. However, this is not
the case; this pollution emanates from
an almost infinite variety of sources.
Since noise pollution is such a compre-
hensive and all pervasive threat to our
people and because it is'a threat to the
very quality of our lives, we must attack
it on a national scale. This measure does
just that and, if for no other reason than
that it represents a first step toward that
goal, it is worthy of our approval.
40 million are risking serious and perma-
nent hearing impediments.
Mr. Chairman, pollution of any kind,
whether it be of noise, water or air, is
distinguished by the fact that no indi-
vidual by his own efforts can escape it.
This enemy will fall only to a national
attack; a concerted and united plan by
this Government to control the level of
noise in our society before it truly does
become deafening. I, therefore, respect-
fully urge the passage of the Noise Con-
trol Act.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Chairman, I will be brief since there have
been those who have been critical of the
level of noise emission in this very
Chamber and have urged standards to-
ward dampening it.
We have all become more aware of
what technology now does for us and to
us. There was a time when the term
technology had a simple positive ring.
Recent years have made us recognize the
unforseen effects from the technicfication
of our society. Among the clear costs of
new technologies is a new and often un-
pleasant clangor in our lives. On the
grander scale there is the cracking of
sonic booms, the. hysterical wail in mill
and factory, the sharp crepitation of bad
exhaust, the furious shriek of subway
cars, the raucous thump of the pneu-
matic hammer in the streets.
But noise pollution touches us all on
much more mundane- levels, causing an
irritation or frustration that cancels a
bit of quality out of our days. Who of us
has not winced at the whine of power
mowers at early morn, at the motor boat
wracking a placid lake, at the motorized
to
(£>-
O5
o
f
w
o
a
o
g
-------
have taken great legislative strides. We
have sought and projected ways to clean
up our air and water, dispose of solid
•wastes and make our earth good again.
Now we have the opportunity to address
ourselves to another problem that our
technological achievements have creat-
ed—noise. Let us legislatively act, before
we do irreparable harm, to protect the
human ear and nervous system.
As we have heard so often a journey
of a thousand miles begins with one
small step. I believe that this bill1 is a
worthy first step toward protecting our
citizens from an unhealthy quantity of
decibels. H.B. 11021, as our initiative
action, requires the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to develop and publish
noise criteria, identifying the effects of
the various quantities and qualities of
noise on the health and welfare of Amer-
icans. Additionally, EPA must identify
products which are major sources of
noise and provide information on tech-
niques to control their noise emissions.
Within 18 months of enactment, EPA
must establish technologically and eco-
nomically feasible noise emission stand-
ards for construction equipment, trans-
portation equipment, motors or engines
and electrical or electronic equipment.
Aircraft noise and sonic boom stand-
ards will be prescribed by the Federal
.Aviation Administration in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation
and EPA. The bill further provides for
product labeling and other effective
means designed to insure that the pro-
Mr. Chairman, the scientific facts
which motivated this legislation are
worthy of review because they illustrate
just how real, how devastating the con-
sequences of excessive noise actually are.
We now know that prolonged and un-
usually high levels of noise cause emo-
tional stress which can have long-term
implications for many people. As for
physical effects, extreme noise can result
in partial or complete loss of hearing.
A study made at the University of Ten-
nessee has proven that an alarming num-
ber of incoming freshmen already have
reduced hearing faculties. These young
people between the age of 18 and 21 had
the hearing ability of people twice their
age. Just how this defect will accelerate
as they grow older no one can accurately
predict.
It is true that the high rate of hearing
defects among young people is due in
part to the fact that they often subject
themselves for long periods of time to
excessively loud music. However, the ef-
fect it has had upon them should serve
as a graphic example of the potentially
disastrous consequences of prolonged
noise pollution.
Mr. Chairman, by giving the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency the authority to prescribe ac-
ceptable noise limits we can roll back the
tide of noise which threatens to inundate
us all. Today, there are more than 80
million Americans, 40 percent of the
population, who are affected by noise
pollution. Furthermore, of that number,
golf cart ruining a putt? And for those
of us with kids the right age, there is the
stereo's blast from, upstairs of the latest
work of the Led Zeppelin or Santana.
Trivial examples perhaps, but did not
this Nation establish' a Constitution in
part to insure domestic tranquillity?
The authority proffered the Environ-
mental Protection Agency as consultant,
standard setter and researcher of noise
emissions under this bill is sensible. The
funding levels are modest. The ability of
States and localities to control and regu-
late the use or operation of products is
left unimpaired.
This is one time, gentlemen, when I
can say with emphasis, we have a sound
bill.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, for the
information of the Members of the
House of Representatives I would like to
insert at this time the House Republican
Policy Committee statement on. H.R.
11021, the Noise Control Act of 1972.
The House Republican Policy Committee
supports the passage of H.B. 11021, the Noise
Control Act of 1972.
In February of 1971, President Nixon for-
warded to the Congress recommendations to
"provide a method for measurably reducing
major noise sources, while preserving to State
and local governments the authority to deal
with then- particular noise problems." In
furtherance of the President's program, H.B.
11021, has been reported by the House Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
The proposed legislation would expand and
coordinate Federal efforts to control the
emission of noise detrimental'to the health
and welfare of the American people.
§
i—i
CO
w
3
F
a
o
W
M
on
H
O
5)
to
rf^
05
[p. H1521]
-------
The Environmental Protection Agency is
given the primary responsibility for imple-
menting the legislation. Its functions would
include:
First. The development and dissemination
of information on noise and its effects on
health and welfare;
Second. The identification and determina-
tion of standards for major sources of noise,
such as construction equipment, transporta-
tion equipment, and equipment powered by
internal combustion engines;
Third. The establishment of labeling re-
quirement for designated products or
classes of products; and
Fourth. The coordination of Federal efforts
relating to noise research and control.
Recognizing that centralized administra-
tion and enforcement of local noise limits
would be unmanageable, local units of Gov-
ernment retain the powsr to determine and
enforce noise abatement and control levels.
Federal action is limited to identification
of noise sources and. promulgation of feasible
noise standards for specific products.
H.R. 11021, the Noise Control Act of 1972, ,
provides for that degree of noise abatement •
and control which is appropriate and ade-
quafte at this time. It represents a compre-
hensive and effective approach to the growing
problem of noise detrimental to the human
environment. The House Republican Policy
Committee urges its passage.
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, noise
is far more than a mere annoyance—it is
a major health problem. This fact was
recognized by Congress some years ago
when the Walsh-Healey Act was passed
which applied to noise levels in industrial
establishments. Now it is well documented
that noise can be detrimental to health
in other settings and other contexts.
The sources of noise have been increas-
maker on the market does not mean that
States and local governments are power-
less to control the use to which that prod-
uct may be put. On the contrary, it is
expected that local units of Government,
having the overall problem of noise with
which to contend, will make rules for the
use of various equipment. For example,
gasoline power mowers could be banned
or regulated as to times of use. Outboard
motors can be restricted in times and
places of use. Trucks can be banned from
certain areas. This is the real heart of
noise control. It is not expected that all
products can be made noiseless and do
the job for which they are intended.
Perhaps they can be made less noisy. But
the bigger problem is the accumulation of
noise sources in any given area. That can
only be controlled locally and it is so
recognized by this bill.
In addition to noisy products there
are and will be many which can influ-
ence noise control. Most obvious, of
course, is insulation material. Things like
this can be most helpful if the consumer
is informed as to the exact results to be
expected from the product. This is a
matter of labeling and is provided for
in the bill in much the same flexible way
as standards for machinery. The more
obvious products can be designated fairly
rapidly, but many others may come and
go which should be considered and in-
cluded.
Noise control techniques will be ex-
plored by the Federal Government and
the information obtained will be widely
disseminated for the benefit of commu-
nities and individuals.
this instance Congress has a chance to
lock a barn before the horse is miles
away. I recommend the Noise Control Act
to my colleagues for their approval.
Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Chairman, as a
member of the Interstate and Foreign
Commerce Committee and as a sponsor
of a Noise Control Act myself, I rise to
express my support for H.R. 11021. While
this bill is not as strong as I would' like
it to be, it is an important first step in
the control of noise pollution.
For the first time we will have Federal
coordination of noise control and re-
search activities through the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Noise emis-
sion standards will be established for
new products, and labels will be required
for products which emit noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or
welfare. H.R. 11021 also authorizes citi-
zen suits against violators of noise con-
trol requirements established by this
bill. Finally, the Administrator of EPA
is authorized to provide technical assist-
ance to States and local governments in
training enforcement personnel and in
preparing model State or local noise con-
trol legislation.
There are weaknesses in the bill which
do concern me. One is the failure to give
EPA more authority over the aircraft
standards established by the Federal
Aviation Administration. Second, if a
State or local government wanted to
establish noise emission standards for
new products which would be stricter
than the Federal standards, they would
be prohibited from doing so. Third, the
bill fails ot provide a grant program to
assist State and local governments to
to
f
H
0
o
o
o
12!
-------
ing rapidly from the use of new devices
such as power mowers and snowmobiles
and also from the greater use of devices
already in the noise business such as
automobiles. The exact parameters of
this broader noise problem are rather
difficult to define and therefore difficult
to influence and control. Simple pro-
nouncements of desired noise levels for
varying environments would toe most dif-
ficult to establish and more difficult to
enforce.
The bill before us today does not try to
simply legislate quiet. It cannot be done
that way. The bill does try, however, to
set up some fairly flexible approaches to
help identify and then solve the noise
problems as they emerge.
Having already created an organiza-
tion directly concerned with the environ-
ment, it seems sensible to have that
agency, the Environmental Protection
Agency, charged with the responsibility
for determining first the necessity for
noise standards in .the manufacture of
various mechanical devices and then the
setting of those standards. Initially the
effort will apply to things which com-
monsense already indicates are noisy
such as construction equipment, trans-
portation equipment, engines, and elec-
trical equipment. Once standards are set
through the administrative procedures
applicable, manufacturers of those prod-
ucts may rely upon them and by certify-
ing compliance market those products
freely.
Being able to put a potential noise-
One rather sticky problem considered
by the committee in regard to noise con-
trol had to do with aircraft noise. At
present the responsibility rests with the
Federal Aviation Administration. Ba-
sically it should remain there but the
Environmental Protection Agency should
have an input and a chance to make per-
tinent suggestions on any proposed
standards for aircraft. This bill provides
for that relationship between the agen-
cies
Since the Federal Government is a big
user of noisy equipment it should lead
the way in eliminating unnecessary noise
from such sources. Under this bill the
Environmental Protection Agency will
recommend products which are suitable
but quieter for governmental purchase.
It also provides for procurement of such
products if they are not inordinately ex-
pensive.
To carry out the activities anticipated
under this bill we have provided author-
izations for the next 3 years in the
amounts of $3 million, $6 million, and
$12 million respectively.
Here we have a piece of legislation
which recognizes a major problem but
does not promise. Utopia. There is much
which we need to learn about noise and
noise control before we can take any
significant steps toward overall abate-
ment. By setting up this machinery of
Government now it will be possible to
stay ahead, of the game and head off the
really big problems as they appear. In
control and prevent noise.
I also believe that the Congress must
act this year to lower the decibel level
for occupational noise from 90 decibels,
as is presently stated in the Walsh-
Healey Act, to 85 decibels. A 90-decibel
sound level is nearly half again as loud
as an 85-decibel sound level. In addi-
tion, ' 85 decibels is the level at which
hearing damage begins for an 8-hour
exposure. Federal law should thus not be
above this acceptable level.
As I stated earlier, the bUl we consider
today is an excellent beginning. Noise is
a negative fringe benefit of the man-
made environment of our industrial and
high density urban society. To the extent
to which this environment is becoming
increasingly manmade, noise is not likely
to go away, but only to become more
pervasive. The way to keep noise at levels
consonant with civilized life is thus
through the regulation of technology.
Some scientists believe that if city
noises continues to rise as it has been—
approximately one decibel per year—
there is a good chance that almost every-
one will be stone deaf by the year 2000.
A study by the University of Tennessee
Noise Study Laboratory reports:
Fearful speculation that the current popu-
lation of young persons will encounter much
more serious hearing problems in their mid-
dle years than the present group of 50 to 60
year olds.
This is why prompt action by this
Congress is necessaiy and why Chair -
[p. H1522]
o
M
GO
H
GO
o
I
I
M
bo
OS
CO
-------
man ROGERS is to be congratulated for
expediting consideration of HJR. 11021.
I urge my colleagues to give this bill their
support.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 11021, the Noise Control
Act of 1972. This legislation, championed
by the very able chairmen of the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce (Mr. STAGGERS) and that commit-
tee's Subcommittee on Public Health and
Environment (Mr. ROGERS), is a long
overdue first step toward the control of
a particularly harmful and often over-
looked form of environmental pollu-
tion—the pollution produced by noise.
The lives and livelihoods of millions
of people are affected by dangerously
high levels of noise. Forty-four million
Americans "have the. utility of their
dwellings adversely affected by noise
from traffic and aircraft," in the words
of the committee report; 21 million peo-
ple are similarly affected by the noise
from construction sites. The committee
estimates that at least 80 million people
in all—a staggering 40 percent of the
Nation's total population—are affected
to a measurable degree of impact by
noise pollution.
What does this mean? It means a high-
er incidence of deafness and partial
hearing loss. It means loss of sleep, with
resulting physiological and psychological
side effects. It means damage to build-
ings and equipment. Most of ail, it means
the continuing deterioration in the quali-
ty of life, and of urban life in particu-
lar—more Inconvenience, more distrac-
tion, and more physical pain.
Perhaps we should separate the two
posure to high levels of noise are the
physiological effects of exposure first
manifested, and in some cases it takes
years, even decades before the effects are
felt. Second, man has shown a remark-
able tendency to adapt to high levels of
noise, to shrug off intolerable noise pol-
lution as the necessity cost of perform-
ing certain types of labor. We are left
with Leonard Woodcock's chilling con-
clusion that many men "accept the haz-
ard of hearing impairment and stress of
a noise-saturated work place as a condi-
tion of employmenl, out of their concern
for job security."
What is our responsibility as legisla-
tors and lawmakers? Noise abatement
programs in the past have been farcical.
In one industrial plant, for example, ear-
plugs were randomly distributed from a
large box to all workers, despite the fact
that earplugs may be useless if not prop-
erly fitted by a physician. The Federal
Government has a haphazard assortment
of noise control programs with minimal
coordination between them. It is only
recently, in fact, that noise has even
been considered a form of pollution and
given the attention it deserves.
We must impose' some form of coordi-
nation on the widely dispersed Federal
programs on noise control. We must make
provisions for careful, well-conducted
research on all phases of noise pollution.
And we must find sanctions which we
can use to terminate as rapidly as possi-
ble the sources of noise pollution.
The legislation we consider today,
H.R. 11021, addresses itself admirably
to these three responsibilities of ours.
First, section 4 of the bill authorizes the
highly unfortunate. According to an ar-
ticle in the Washington Star on October
12, 1971, the FAA has already decided to
let representatives of the air transport
industry write their own regulations.
Again I say, this is most unfortunate. I
would prefer to see the EPA retain its
veto power, and I fail to see why the air-
line industry merits special considera-
tion in the drafting of antinoise regula-
tions.
Nevertheless, my reservations on this
section do not override my enthusiasm
for the bill as a whole. I emphasize, Mr.
Chairman, that the provisions included
in H.R. 11021 are long overdue. The bill
is comprehensive, manageable, and well-
designed. I urge its passage.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, this is
excellent legislation which I am happy
to support, but it needs some modifica-
tion to meet the incessant roar and
rumble of jet aircraft.
The Federal Aviation Administra-
tion—FAA—has failed in the task
assigned it by. Congress 3 years ago—•
to quiet the noise of jet aircraft operat-
ing in and out of our Nation's airports.
A major share of this responsibility
should now be turned over to the En-
vironmental 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 ap-
proaches to airports. I support the
Wydler amendments to bring the EPA
into the aircraft noise picture.
In addition, amendments by the gen tie-
to
^
C5
Q
>
f
rf>
d
hj
V
f
M
g
-------
component parts of noise pollution.
There is, first of all, community noise—
the roar of a diesel truck, the shriek of
a jet plane overhead, the blast from a
stereo recordplayer. Each and every one
of us can think back on instances when
a loud noise broke our concentration or
limited our ability to function, when
noise did not threaten our health so
much as it annoyed or inconvenienced
us. According to the' Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, the so-
called annoyance trend of noise pollution
is rapidly increasing, from 23 percent of
the population who complained about
the noise of city living in 1948, to 50
percent in 1961, to almost 100 percent
today.
There is also "industrial noise"—the
often overpowering noise conditions un-
der which many of the nation's plant and
factory workers operate. Leonard Wood-
cock drew this memorable picture of
working in a drop-forge plant:
It Is impossible to describe to anyone who
has not seen such an operation the stress of
noise and heat inflicted on the men whose
bodies shake and sweat and bounce with the
floor as the hammers- descend into the hot
metal.
Noise- pollution, then, has two effects:
It annoys people off the job, and poses
a serious health and life threat to those
on the job in certain industries. The
problem is compounded by two curious
properties of noise which make it unique
among pollutants. First, its effects tend
to be delayed. Only after prolonged ex-
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to coordinate the ef-
forts of alj Federal agencies in the area
of noise research and control. Second,
section 14 provides for research and pub-
lic information programs, for which the
sum of $750,000 is allocated.
Third and most important, there are
strong noise emission standards outlined
in this bill, although, as I shall indicate
shortly, they are not as strong as I would
like them to be. Section 6 gives the EPA
Administrator broad power to set and
enforce noise emission standards. Sec-
tion 8 requires the Administrator to is-
sue regulations for the labeling of any
product which emits a potentially dam-
aging amount of noise. Other sections
provide for citizens' suits, compliance
regulations, and strict enforcement pro-
visions.
I am extremely reluctant, however, to
endorse section 7 of the bill, providing
for privileged status for the Federal
Aviation Administration. Under the
terms of this section, the FAA must con-
sult with the EPA and the Secretary of
Transportation, then draw up standards
for aircraft noise and sonic booms which
are incorporated in the regulations
under this bill. In the original version of
this legislation 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 sup-
posed to regulate, I consider this change
man from New York (Mr. BOSENTHAI.)
deserve support. Tht first would set up a
commission to study the question of cur-
fews on nonmilitary aircraft during nor-
mal sleeping hours. Many large airports
in other countries have turned to this
idea. Heathrow Airport, London,, Eng-
land, will have a complete ban on take-
offs between 11:30p.m. and 6 a.m. Frank-
furt, Germany,/is considering a ban on
night takeoffs of jets. Jets are prohibited
from Tokyo and Osaka airports between
11 p.m. and 6 a.m. with the exception of
mailplanes. Let us adopt the amendment
to give this proposal active study. It may
be the only way to let people have a
decent night's sleep.
The second amndment would prohibit
civilian planes from making sonic booms
in U.S. airspace. This action is needed
now before the arrival of supersonic
transports from the Soviet Union or
Western Europe. The Noise Control Act
of 1972 must prevent sonic booms.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, we
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule,
the Clerk will now read the substitute
committee amendment printed in the-re-
ported bill as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United states of
America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. This Act, including the follow-
ing table of contents, may be cited as the
"Noise Control Act of 1972".
[p. H1523]
CO
H
I
H
Q
M
HH
SO
H3
O
bO
^
Oi
Cm
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and policy.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Federal programs.
Sec. 5. Identification of major noise sources;
noise criteria and control tech-
nology.
Sec. 6. Noise emission standards for prod-
ucts distributed in commerce.
Sec. 7. Aircraft noise standards.
Sec. 8. Labeling.
Sec. 9. Imports.
Sec. 10. Prohibited acts.
Sec. 11. Enforcement.
Sec. 12. Citizen suits.
Sec. 13. Records, reports, and information.
Sec. 14. Research, technical assistance, and
public information.
Sec. 15. Development of low-noise-emission
products.
Sec. 16. Authorization of appropriations.
FINDINGS AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that inadequately controlled noise
presents a growing danger to the health and
welfare of the Nation's population, particu-
larly in urban areas;
(2) that the major sources of noise include
transportation vehicles and equipment, ma-
chinery, appliances, and other products in
commerce; and
(3) that, while primary responsibility for
control of noise rests with State and local
governments, Federal action is essential to
deal with major noise sources in commerce
control of which require national uniformity
of treatment.
(b) The Congress declares that 4t is the
policy of the United States to promote an
environment for all Americans free from noise
that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To
that end, it Is the purpose of this Act to
establish a means for effective coordination
of federal research and activities In noise
ed or offered for importation into the United
States and which is manufactured after the
effective date of a regulation under section
6 or section 8 which would have been appli-
cable to such product had it been manufac-
tured in the United States.
(6) The term "manufacturer" means any
person engaged in the manufacturing or as-
sembling of new products, or the importing
of new products for resale, or who acts for,
and is controlled by, any such person in con-
nection with the distribution of such pro-
ducts.
(7) The term "commerce" means trade,
traffic, commerce, or transportation—
(A) between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or
(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce,
or transportation described in subparagraph
(A).
(8) The term "distribute in commerce"
means sell in, offer for sale in, or introduce
or deliver for introduction into, commerce.
(9) The term "State" includes the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pa-
cific Islands.
(10) The term "Federal -agency" means an
executive agency '(as defined in section 105
of title 5, United States Code) and includes
the United States Postal Service.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
SEC. 4. (a) The Congress authorizes and di-
rects that Federal agencies shall, to the full-
est extent consistent with their authority
under Federal laws administered by them,
carry out the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy
declared in sect-ion 2 (b).
(b) (1) The Administrator shall cdordinate
the programs of all Federal agencies relating
to noise research and noise control. Each
Federal agency shall, upon request,, furnish
to the Administrator such information as he
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOE NOISE SOURCES;
NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 5. (a) The Administrator shall, after
consultation with appropriate Federal agen-
cies, develop and publish criteria with respect
to noise. Such criteria shall reflect the scien-
tific knowledge most useful in indicating
the kind and etxent of all identifiable effects
on the public health or welfare which may
be expected from differing quantities and
qualities of noise.
(b) The Administrator shall, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal agencies,
compile and publish a report or series of re-
ports (1) identifying products (or classes of
products) which in his judgment are major
sources of noise, and (2) giving information
on techniques for control of noise from such
products, including available data on the
technology, costs, and alternative methods of
noise control. The first such report shall be
published not later than eighteen months
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) The Administrator shall from time
to time review and, as appropriate, revise or
supplement any criteria or reports published
under this section.
(d) Any report (or revision thereof) under
subsection (b) (1) identifying major noise
sources shall be published in the Federal
Register. The publication or revision under
this section of any criteria or information on
control techniques shall be announced in
the Federal Register, and copies shall be
made available to the general public.
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTED IN COMMERCE
SEC. 6. (a) (1) The Administrator shall pub-
lish proposed regulations, meeting the re-
quirements of subsection (c), for each prod-
uct—
(A) which is identified (or is part of a
class identified) in any report published un-
der section 5(b) (2) as a major source of
noise.
fcO
O5
O5
f
M
O
o
o
en
d
-------
control, to authorize the establishment of -
Federal noise emission standards for products
distributed In commerce, and to provide in-
formation to the public respecting the noise
emissipn and noise reduction characteristics
of-such products.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term "Administrator" means the
Administrator- of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
(2) The term "person" means an individual
corporation, partnership, or association, and
(except as provided In sections 11 (d) »nd
12(a)) includes any officer, employee, de-
partment, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States., a State, or any political sub-
division of a State.
(3) The term "product" means any manu-
factured article or goods or component
thereof; except that such term does not
include—•
(A) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance, as such terms are defined in sec-
tion 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958;
or
(B) (i) any military weapons or equipment
which are designed for combat use; (li) any
rockets or equipment which are designed for
research, experimental, or developmental
work to be performed by the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration; or (111)
to the extent provided by regulations of the
Administrator, any other machinery or
equipment designed for use in experimental
work done by or for the Federal Government.
(4) The term "ultimate purchaser" means
the first person who in good faith purchases
a product for purposes other than resale.
(5) The term "new product" means (A) a
product the equitable or legal title of which
has never been transferred to an ultimate
purchaser, or (B) a product which is import-
may reasonably require to determine the
nature, scope, and results of the noise-re-
search and noise-control programs of the
agency.
(2) Each Federal agency shall consult with
the Administrator In • prescribing standards
or regulations respecting noise. If at any
time the Administrator has reason to believe
that a standard or regulation, or any pro-
posed standard or regulation, of any Federal
agency respecting noise does not protect the
pvibllc health and welfare to the extent he
believes to be required and feasible, he may
request such agency to review and report to>
him on the advisability of revising such
standard or regulation to provide such pro-
tection. Any such request may be published
In the Federal Begister and shall be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the In-
formation on which it is based. Such agency
shall complete the requested review and re-
port to the Administrator within such time
as the Administrator specifies in the request,
but such time specified may not be less than
ninety days from the date the request was
made. The report shall be published in the
Federal Register and shall be accompanied
by a detailed statement of the findings and
conclusions of the agency respecting the
revision of Its standard or regulation. With
respect to the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, section 611. of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (as amended by section 7 of this
Act) shall apply in lieu of this paragraph.
(3) On the basis of regular consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, the Ad-
ministrator shall compile and publish, from
time to time, a report on the status and
progress of Federal activities relating to noise
research and noise control. This report shall
describe the noise-control programs of each
Federal agency and assess the contributions
of those programs to the Federal Govern-
ment's overall efforts to control noise.
(B) for which, in his Judgment, noise
emission standards are feasible, and
(C) which falls in one of the following
categories:
(i) Construction equipment.
(11) Transportation equipment (includr
Ing recreational vehicles and related equip-
ment) .
(ill) Any motor or engine (Including any
equipment of, which an engine or -motor is
an Integral part).
(iv) Electrical or electronic equipment.
(2) (A) Initial proposed regulations under
paragraph (1) shall be published not later
than eighteen months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and'shall apply to any
product described In paragraph . (1) which.
is identified (or is a part of a, class identified
as a major source of noise In any report pub-
lished under section 5(b)(1) on or before the
date of publication of such Initial proposed
regulations.
(B) In the case of any product described
in paragraph (1) which Is identified (or is
part of a class identified) as a, major source
of noise in a report published under section
5(b) (1) after publication of the Initial pro-
posed regulations under subparagraph (A)
of -this paragraph, regulations under para-
graph (il) for such product shall be proposed
and published by the Administrator not later
than eighteen months after such report is
published.
(3) After proposed regulations respecting'
a product have been published under para-
graph (2), the Administrator shall,'unless In
his judgment noise emission standards are
not feasible for such product; prescribe reg--
ulations, meeting the requirements of sub-
section (c), for such product—•
(A) not earlier than six months after pub-
lication of such proposed regulations, and
(B) not later than—
(1) twenty-four months after the date of
[p. H1524]
§
I
3
cc
o
w
CD
z
H
OJ
to
rf^
O5
-------
enactment of this Act, in the case of a prod-
uct subject to proposed regulations pub-
lished under paragraph (2) (A), or
(ii) in the case ol any other product,
twenty-four months after the publication of
the report under section 5(b) (1) identifying
it (or a class of products of which it is a
part)" as a major source of noise.
(b) The Administrator may publish pro-
posed regulations, meeting the requirements
of subsection (c), for any product for which
he is not required by subsection (a) to pre-
scribe regulations but for which, in his judg-
ment, noise emission standards are feasible
and are requisite to protect the public
health and welfare. Not earlier than six
months after the date of publication of such
proposed regulations respecting such prod-
uct, he may prescribe regulations, meeting
the requirements of subsection (c), for such
product.
(c) (1) Any regulation prescribed under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section (and
any revision thereof) respecting a product
shall include a noise emission standard
which shall set limits on noise emissions
from such product and shall be a standard
which in the Administrator's judgment,
based on criteria published under section 5,
is requisite to protect the public health and
welfare. In establishing such a standard for
any product, the Administrator shall give
appropriate consideration to technological
feasibility and economic costs, and to stand-
ards under other laws designed to safeguard
the health and welfare of persons, including
any standards under the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the
Clean Car Act. Any such noise emission
standard shall be a performance standard.
In addition, any regulation under subsection
(a) or (b) (and any revision thereof) may
contain, testing procedures necessary to as-
sure compliance with the emission standard
In such regulation, and may contain, provi-
sions respecting instructions of tbe mamz-
"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.
"(2) The term 'EPA' means the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
"(b) (1) In order to afford present and fu-
true relief and protection to the public from
unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom,
the FAA, after consultation with the Secre-
tary of Transportation and with EPA, shall
prescribe and amend standards for the mea-
surement of aircraft noise and sonic boom
and shall prescribe and amend such regula-
tions as the FAA may find necessary to pro-
vide for the control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom, including the
application of such standards and regulations
in the issuance, amendment, modification,
Suspension, or revocation of any certificate
authorized by this title. No exemption with
respect to any standard or regulation un-
der this section may be granted under any
provision of this Act unless the FAA shall
have consulted with EPA before such exemp-
tion is granted, except that if the FAA deter-
mines that aviation safety requires that such
an exemption be granted before EPA can be
consulted, the FAA shall consult with EPA
as soon as practicable after the exemption
is granted.
"(2) The FAA shall not issue an original
type certificate under section 603 (a) of this
Act for any aircraft for which substantial
noise abatement can be achieved by pre-
scribing standards and regulations in accord-
ance with this section, unless he shall have
prescribed standards and regulations In ac-
cordance with this section which apply to
such aircraft and which protect the public
from aircraft noise and sonic boom, con-
sistent with -the considerations listed In sub-
section (d).
"(o) (1) If at any time EPA lias reason to
to be filed under such section 102(2) (C), the
report of the FAA indicates that the revision ^
(if any) proposed by EPA should not be ^
made, then EPA may request the FAA to file O5
a supplemental report, which shall be pub- 00
lished in the Federal 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 ex- JH
isting (or proposed) standard or regulation
of the FAA (or exemption therefrom) and
(B) EPA's proposed revision.
"(3) If, in the case of an action of the
FAA described in paragraph (1) (B) of this
subsection with respect to w.hich no state-
ment is required to be filed under such sec-
tion 102(2).(C), the report of the FAA states
that issuance of an original type certificate
should not be preceded by issuance of a
'noise standard and regulation, the FAA
shall, upon request of EPA, file a statement
(of the type described in such section 102 I
(2)-(C)) with respect to the Issuance of such ^
certificate. The requirements of such sec- d
tion 102(2) (C) relating to consultation, ob- V
taining comments, and the availability of JS
statements made pursuant to .such section M
shall apply to any statement filed under the g
preceding sentence. H
"(d) In prescribing and amending stand- 2
ards and regulations under this section, the ^
FAA shall— M
"(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 ia consistent with the high-
est degree of safety In air commerce or air
Q
>
tr1
o
o
s
p
o
55
-------
facturer for the maintenance; use, or repair
of the product.
(2) After publication of any proposed
regulations under this section, the Admin-
istrator shall allow interested persons an
opportunity to participate In rulemaMng in
accordance with the first sentence of section
553 (c) of title 5, United States Code.
(8) The Administrator may revise any
regulation prescribed by him under this
section by (A) publication of proposed re-
vised regulations, and (B) the promulgation,
not earlier than six months after the date of
such publication, of regulations making the
revision; except that a revision which makes
only technical or clerical corrections In a
regulation under this section may be pro-
mulgated earlier than six months after such
date If the Administrator finds that such
earlier promulgation is in the public interest.
(d:) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), no State
or political subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce—
(A) with respect to any new product for
which a regulation has been prescribed by
the. Administrator under this section, any
law or regulation which sets a limit on noise
emissions from, such new product and which
is not identical to such regulation of the
Administrator; or
(B) with respect to any component in-
corporated into such new product by the
manufacturer of such product, any law or
regulation setting a limit on noise emissions
from such component when so incorporated.
(2) Nothing in this section shall diminish
or enhance the rights of any State or politi-
cal subdivision thereof to control, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product.
AUtCRAIT NOISE STANDARDS
SEC. 7. (a) Section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1431) is amended
to read as follows:
believe tnat—
" (A) a standard or regulation (or any pro-
posed standard or regulation) under this
section, or any exemption, granted under
any provision of this Act, with respect to such
a standard or regulation, or
"(B) the action of the FAA in issuing an
original type certificate for on aircraft for
which standards and regulations described In
subsection (b) (2) have not been prescribed,
does not protect the public from aircraft
noise or sonic boom consistent with the con-
siderations listed in subsection (d) of this
section, EPA shall consult with the FAA,
and may request the FAA to review, and re-
port to EPA on, the advisability of such ac-
tion or of revising such standard, regulation,
or exemption, as the case may be. Any such
request may be published in the Federal
Register and shall Include a detailed state-
ment 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 accompa-
nied by a detailed statement of the FAA's
findings and the reasons for the FAA's con-
clusions; shall identify any statement filed
pursuant to section 102(2) (C) of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969
with respect to such action or standard or
regulation (or exemption therefrom); and
shall specify whether (and where) such
statement is available for public inspection.
The FAA's report shall be' published in the
Federal Register, except in a case- in which
EPA's request proposed specific action to be
taken by the FAA, and the \FAA's report in-
dicates such action will be taken.
"(2) If, in the case of a matter described
in paragraph (1) (A) of this subsection with
respect to which no statement is required
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 alrcraft, aircraft en-
gine, appliance, or certificate to which It will
apply; and
"(5) consider the extent to which such
standard or regulation will contribute to
carrying out the purposes of 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 stand-
ards or regulations is at Issue, the certificate
holder shall have the same notice and ap-
peal rights as are contained in section. 609,
and in any appeal to the National Transport-
ation 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 interest
do not require the affirmation of such order,
or that such order is not consistent with
safety in air commerce or air transportation."
(b) 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 respect to such standards, rules, and
regulations.
which are in effect on the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, shall continue in effect ac-
cording 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 au-
thority vested in him, by a court of com-
petent Jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
I
1^
%
d
^
H
00
O
n
to
i
W
LABELING
SEC. 8. (a) The Administrator shall by
regulation designate any product (or class
thereof) —
[p. H1525]
SO
-------
(1) which emits noise capable of adversely
affecting the public health or welfare; or
(2) which is sold wholly or in part on the
basis of its effectiveness in reducing noise.
(b) For each product (or class thereof)
designated under subsection (a) the Admin-
istrator shall by regulation require that
,notice be given to the prospective user of the
level of the noise the product emits, or of its
effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case
may be. Such regulations shall specify (1)
whether such notice shall be affixed to the
product or to the outside of Its container, or
to both, at the time of Its sale to the ulti-
mate purchaser or whether such notice shall
be given to the prospective user In some
other manner, (2) the form of the notice, and
(3) the methods and units of measurement
to be used. Section 6(c) (2) shall apply to the
prescribing of any regulation under this sec-
tion.
(c) This section does not prevent any State
or political subdivision thereof from regulat-
ing product labeling or information respect-
ing products in any way not in conflict with
regulations prescribed by the Administrator
under this section.
IMPORTS
SEC. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury shall,
in consultation with the Administrator, issue
regulations to carry out the provisions of this
Act with respect to new products imported
or offered for importation.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 10. (a) Except as otherwise provided
In subsection (b), the following acts or the
causing thereof are prohibited:
(1) In the case of a manufacturer, to dis-
tribute in commerce any new product manu-
factured after the effective date of a regula-
tion prescribed under section 6 which Is ap-
plicable to such product, except la conform-
ity with such regulation.
(2) (A) The removal or rendering Inopera-
tive by any nerson. other than for ouruoses
uct if it is in fact distributed in commerce
for use in any State.
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 11. (a)(l)(A) Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), any person who violates
section 10 (a) of this Act shall be subject
to a civil penalty of not more than $26,000
for each violation. Such penalty may be as-
sessed by the Administrator and collected
in a civil action brought by the United
States in a United States district court, or
assessed by a State which is a party to an
agreement under subsection (c5 and collected
in a civil action brought by such State in a
court of such State as provided in such
subsection.
(B) A person who does any act in violation.
of paragraph (1), (2),.or (3) of section 10(a),
and who estaiblish.es that he did not have
reason to know in the exercise of-due care
that such act was in violation of such para-
graph, shall not be subject to a civil penalty
under subparagraph (A).
(2) In any'proceeding by the Adminis-
trator (or a State) to assess a civil penalty
under this subsection, no penalty shall be
assessed until the person charged shall have
been given notice and an oppotrunity to
present his views on such r.harge. In deter-
mining the amount of the penalty, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, the Ad-
ministrator (or such State) shall consider
the gravity of the violation, and the demon-
strated good faith of the person charged in
attempting to achieve rapid compliance after
notification by the Administrator (or such
State) of a violation.
(3) In case of any civil penalty assessed
against any person by the Administrator
under this subsection, if the Administrator's
determination that such person is liable for
such penalty Is made on the record after
notice and opportunity for hearing, then In
any civil action to collect such penalty (and
any other civil action reviewing sucn deter-
to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in
violation of any noise control requirement
{as defined in subsection (e)), or
(2) against—
(A) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency where there Is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act which
is not discretionary with such Administrator,
or
(B) the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration where there is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which is not
discretionary with such Administrator.
The district courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy, to restrain such per-
son from violating such noise control re-
quirement or to order such Administrator to
perform such act or duty, as the case may be.
(b) No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a) (1) —
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice of the violation (i) to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (and to the Federal Aviation
Administrator in the case of a violation of
a noise control requirement under such sec-
tion 611) and (ii) to any alleged violator of
such requirement, or
(B) if an Administrator has commenced
and is diligently prosecuting a civil action to
require compliance with the noise control
requirement, but in any such action in a
court of the United States any person may
intervene as a matter of riglht, or (2) under
subsection (a) (2) prior to sixty days after
the plaintiff has given notice to the defend-
ant that he will commence such action.
Notice under this subsection, shall be given
In such manner as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall pre-
scribe by regulation.
fcO
t£-
f
O
O
g
M
-------
of maintenance, repair, or replacement, of
any device or element of design Incorporated
Into any product in compliance with regula-
tions under section 6, prior to its sale or
delivery to the ultimate purchaser or while
it is in use, or (B) the use of a product
after such device or element of design has
been removed or rendered inoperative by
any person.
(3) In the case of a manufacturer, to dis-
tribute in commerce any new product manu-
factured after the effective date of a regula-
tion prescribed under section 8(b) (requiring
information respecting noise) which is ap-1
plicable to such product, except In conform-
ity with such regulation.
(4) The removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pur-
suant to regulations prescribed under section
8(-b), prior to sale of the product to the
ultimate purchaser.
(5) The Importation into the United States
by any person of' any new product in vio-
lation of a regulation prescribed under sec-
tion 9 which Is applicable to such product.
(6) The failure or refusal by any person
to comply with any requirement of section
13 (a) or regulations prescribed thereunder.
(b) (1) For the purpose of research, inves-
tigations, studies, demonstrations, or train-
Ing, or for reasons of national security, the
Administrator may exempt for a specified pe-
riod of time any product, or class there-
of, from paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of
subsection (a), upon such terms and con-
ditions as he may flnd necessary to protect
the public health or welfare.
(2) Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (a) shall not apply with respect
to any product which Is manufactured sole-
ly for use outside any State and which (and
the container of which) Is labeled or other-
wise marked to show that it is manufactured
solely for use outside any State; except that
such paragraphs shall apply to such prod-
minatlon of tine Administrator) any Bindings
of fact on which such determination is based
shall.be conclusive if supported by substan-
tial evidence on the record considered as a
whole.
(4) For the purpose of this subsection,
each day of violation of any paragraph of
section 10(a) shall constitute a separate
violation of that paragraph.
(b) The United States may 'bring a civil
action in the district courts of the United
States to restrain any violations of section
10(a) of this Act.
(c) When authorized by State law—
(1) the Administrator may, by agreement
with any State, with or without reimburse-
ment, authorize law enforcement officers or
other officers or employees of such State to
(a) (1) (A), and to bring civil actions in the
appropriate State courts to collect such civil
penalties or to 'restrain any person from
violating section 10(a); and
(2) the courts of such State may entertain
any such civil action.
In any action under this subsection to col-
lect a civil penalty, the penalty shall be
payable one-hall to the State and one-half
to the United States Treasury. Nothing in
this subsection shall affect the authority of a
State to commence a civil action under
section '12.
(d) The term "person", as used.in this
section, does not include a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United
States.
CITIZEN SUITS
SEC. 12. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tion (b), any person (other than the United
States) may commence a civil action on his
own behalf—
(1) against any person (including (A) the
United States, and (B) any other govern-
mental Instrumentality or agency to the ex-
tent permitted by the eleventh amendment
(c) In an action, under this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, if not a party, may intervene
as a matter of right. In an action under this
section respecting a noise control require-
ment under section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act of 1958, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation .Administration, if not a
party, may also intervene as a, matter of
right.
(d) Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of per-
sons) may have under any statute or com-
mon law to seek enforcement of any noise
control requirement or to seek any other re-
lief (including relief against an Administra-
tor).
(e) For purposes of this section, the term
"noise control requirement" means para-
graph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5)-of section
10(a), or a standard, rule/ or regulation is-
sued under section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act of 1958.
RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 13. (a) Each manufacturer of- a prod-
uct to which regulations under section 6 or
section 8 apply shall—
(1) establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, provide such information,
and make such tests, as the Administrator
may reasonably require to enable him to de-
termine whether such manufacturer has
acted or is acting In compliance with this
Act,
(2) upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, per-
mit such officer or employee at reasonable
times to have access to such information and
the results of such tests and to copy such
records, and
(3) to the extent required by regulations
of the Administrator, make products coming
off the assembly line or otherwise in the
hands of the manufacturer available for test-
ing by the Administrator.
[p. H1526]
H
0
OJ
H
O
to
-------
(b)(l) All information obtained by the
Administrator or his representatives pursu-
ant to subsection (a) of this section, which
information contains or relates to a trade
secret or other matter referred to ha section
1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the pur-
pose of that section, except that such Infor-
mation may be disclosed-to-other F_ederal_of -
fleers or employees, in whose possession It
shall remain confidential, or when relevant
to the matter in controversy in any pro-
ceeding under this Act.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall au-
thorize the withholding of information by
the Administrator, or by any officers or em-
ployees under his control, from the duly au-
thorized committees of the Congress.
RESEARCH, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND
PUBLIC INFORMATION
SEC. 14. In furtherance of his responsibili-
ties under this Act and to complement, as
necessary, the noise-research programs of
other Federal agencies, the Administrator is
authorized to:
(1) Conduct research, and finance re-
search by contract with any person, on the
effects, measurement, and control of noise,
including but not limited to—
(A) investigation of the psychological and
physiological effects of noise on humans and
the effects of noise on domestic animals,
wildlife, and property, and determination of
acceptable levels of noise on the basis of such
effects;
(B) development at Improved methods and
standards for measurement and monitoring
of noise, In cooperation with the National
Bureau of Standards, Department of Com-
merce; and
(C) determination of the most effective
and practicable means of controlling noise
emission.
(2) Provide technical assistance to State
and local governments to facilitate their de-
velopment and enforcement of ambient noise
(B) which is a low-noise-emission product
as' determined by the Administrator; and
(C) which he determines is suitable for
use as a substitute for a type of product at
that tune in use by agencies of the Federal
Government.
(3) The Administrator may establish a
Low-Noise-Emission Product Advisory Com-
jmittee^jto_assist^him in determining which
products qualEjTasTOTT-nolse-emlssion prod-
ucts for purposes of this section. The Com-
mittee shall include the Administrator or his
designee, a representative of the National
Bureau of StandardSj and representatives of
such other Federal agencies and private in-
dividuals as the Administrator may deem
necessary from time to time. Any member of
the Committee not employed on a full-time
basis by the United States may receive the
daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay in effect for grade GS-18 of "the General
Schedule for each day such member is en-
gaged upon work of the Committee. Each
member of the Committee shall be reim-
bursed for travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by
section 5703 of title 6, United States Code,
for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
(4) Certification under this section shall
be effective for a period of one year from the
date of issuance. .
(5) (A) Any person seeking to have a class
or model of product certified under this sec-
tion shall file a certification application In
accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator.
(B) The Administrator shall publish in
the Federal Register a notice of each appli-
cation received.
(C) The Administrator shall make deter-
minations for the purpose of this section In
accordance with procedures prescribed by
Trtim by regulation.
(D) The Administrator shall conduct
whatever" Investigation Is necessary, ttoclud-
for purchase to the extent they are available
before purchasing any other products for
which any low-noise-emission product is a
certified substitute. In making purchasing
selections between competing eligible certi-
fied low-noise-emission products, the pro-
curing agency shall give priority to any class
or model which does not require extensive
periodic maintenance to retain its low-noise-
emission qualities or which does not involve
operating costs significantly in excess of
those products for which it is a certified sub-
stitute.
(e) For the purpose of procuring certified
low-noise-emission products any statutory
price limitations shall be waived.
(f) The Administrator shall, from time to
time as he deems appropriate, test the emis-
sions of noise from certified low-noise-emis-
sion products purchased by the Federal Gov-
ernment. If at any time he finds tha/t the
noise emission levels exceed the levels on
which certification under this section was
based, the Administrator shall give the sup-
plier of such product written notice of this
finding, issue public notice of it, and give
the supplier an opportunity to make neces-
sary repairs, adjustments, or replacements.
If no such repairs, adjustments, or replace-
ments are made within a period to be set by
the Administrator,' he may order the supplier
to show cause why the product Involved
should be eligible for recertificatlon.
(g) There are authorized to be appro-
priated for paying additional amounts for
products pursuant to, and for carrying out
the provisions of, this section, $1,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, and
$2,000,000 for each of the two succeeding
fiscal years.
(h) The Administrator shall promulgate
the procedures required to Implement this
section within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
18. TUere are authorized to be appro-
to
5
to
o
o
o
Ul
cj
f
H
H
-------
Standards, including but not limited to—
(A) advice oil training of noise-control
personnel and on selection and operation of
noise-abatement equipment; and
(B) preparation of model State or local
legislation for noise control.
(3) Disseminate to the public Information
on the effects -of noise, acceptable noise lev-
els, and techniques for noise measurement
and control.
DEVELOPMENT OP LOW-NOISE-EMISSION
PRODUCTS
SEC. 15. (a) For tne purpose of this section:
(1) The term "Committee" means the
Low-Noise-Emission Product Advisory Com-
mittee.
(2) The term "Federal Government" in-
cludes the legislative, executive, and Judicial
branches of the Government of the United
States, and the government of the District
of Columbia.
(3) The term "low-noise-emission prod-
uct" means any product which emits noise
in amounts significantly ~below the levels
specified in noise emission standards under
regulations applicable under section 6 at
the time of procurement to that type, of prod-
uct.
(4) The term "retail price" means (A) the
maximum statutory price applicable to any
type of product; or (B) In any case where
there is no applicable maximum statutory
price, the most recent procurement price
paid for any type of product.
(b) (1) The Administrator shall determine
which products qualify as low-noise-emis-
sion products in accordance with the pro-
visions of this section.
(2) The Administrator shall certify any
product—
(A) for which a certification application
has been filed in accordance with paragraph
(5) (A) of this subsection;
Ing actual inspection of the product at a
place designated in regulations prescribed
under subparagraph (A).
(E) The Administrator shall receive and
evaluate written comments and- documents
from interested persons in support of, or In
opposition to, certification of" the class or
model of product under conside'ratlon.
(F) Within ninety days after the receipt
of a properly filed certification application
the Administrator shall determine whether
such product Is a low-nolse-emisslon prod-
uct for purposes of this section. If the Ad-
ministrator determines that such product
is a low-noise-emission product, then within
one hundred and eighty days of such deter-
mination the Administrator shall reach a de-
cision as to whether such product is a suit-
able substitute for any class or classes of
products presently being purchased by the
Federal Government for use by its agencies.
(G) Immediately upon making any de-
termination or decision under subparagraph
(F.), the Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Register notice of such determina-
tion or decision, including reasons therefor.
(c-) (1) Certified low-noise-emission prod-
ucts shall be acquired by purchase or lease
by the Federal Government for use by the
Federal Government In lieu of other prod-
ucts if the Administrator of General Serv-
ices determines that such certified products
have procurement costs which are no more
than 125 per centum of the retail price of
the least expensive type of product for which
they are certified substitutes.
(2) Data relied upon by the Administra-
tor in determining that a product is a certi-
fied low-noise-emlsslon product shall be in-
corporated in any contract for the procure-
ment of such product.
(d) The procuring agency shall be re-
quired to purchase available certified low-
noise-emission products which are eligible
priated to carry out this Act (other than
section 15) $3,000,OOO lor the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1972; $6,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973; and $12,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974.
Mr. STAGGERS (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute be considered as
read, printed in the RECORD, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there-objection to
the request of the gentleman from West
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count.
Forty-three Members are present, not
a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
[Boll No. 54]
Abourezk Clay Hebert
Anderson, Denholm Hulls
• Calif. Dennis Kemp
Anderson, Donohue Kyi
Tenn. Dorn Landgrebe
Andrews Dwyer Leggett
Ashbrook Edwards, La. McCloskey
Baring Evlns, Tenn. McKInney
Belcher Fisher Macdonald,
Bell Foley Mass.
Blatnik Frellnghuysen Mayne
Bow Galiflanakls Mazzoli
Caffery Grasso Melcher
Carey, N.T. Hanna Mollohau
Clark Hansen, Montgomery
Clausen, Wash. Murphy, HI.
Don H. Hastings O'Neill
[p. H1527]
§
%
H
1
I
d
CO
tei
o
W
h- I
O)
H3
o
-------
Patman
Podell
Pryor, Ark.
Pucluskl
Rallsback
Randall
Rees
Rosenthal
Rostenkowskl
Roybal
Scheuer
Slsk
Smith, Calif.
Springer
Stubblefleld
Tlernan
Vanlk
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wolff
Wright
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. BENNETT, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that the Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
H.R. 11021, and finding itself without a
quorum, he had directed the roll to be
called, when 365 Members responded to
their names, a quorum, and he submitted
herewith the names of the absentees to
be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. When the absence
of a quorum was noted, the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute
had been read and opened to amendment
at any point.
X AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WYDLER
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WYDLER: Page
42, strike out line 11 and ail that follows
down through line 20 on page 45, and Insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(to) (1) 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 snail
prescribe and amend sucli regrulatlons as
(Mr. WYDLER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, the bill
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 the bill that is
before us today, that this is one of the
problems of modern society with which
we in the Congress must deal. Certainly
the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. ROGERS)
has pointed out the horrors of noise in
our society, the damage it does to the
people in our society, and the damage it
does to the hearing 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 uncontrolled 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 ef-
fect that the PAA is given the power to
set limits on jet noise.
Now I think the PAA has the expertise
in this field. I would not deny that for a
moment. They are skilled in the ques-
tions of designing and building and cer-
tifying 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 Vz years and by the
evidence we nave before us today is a
people to act. They are letting 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 PAA out of
this picture, but to keep them in the pic-
ture—but to put the EPA in control. Let
us give them control over the setting of
these standards so they can start action.
What is the matter with the commit-
tee proposal? The committee proposal
says the EPA will consult with the PAA,
but they can never consult with the PAA
until the PAA takes some action. There
is nothing to consult 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 author-
ity to get this ball rolling. The PAA will
continue to play a significant and im-
portant part in the rulemaking proce-
dure—we are not taking them out of
that.
You are going to hear the issue of
safety raised. Just let me make these
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 gen-
tleman from New York has expired.
(Mr. WYDLER asked and was given
permission to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. WYDLER. Under the dean Air
Act, we gave to the EPA—not to the
PAA-—the power of controlling emission
standards of jet engines—and that
means, the smoke that Is emitted from
tO
M
O
O
O
f
>TJ
s
-------
•EPA may find necessary to provide lor the
control and abatement of aircraft noise and
sonic boom.
"(2) Any standard or regulation prescribed
under paragraph (1) (and any revision there-
of) shaia 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, shall prescribe regulations to insure
compliance with all standards and regula-
tions prescribed under subsection (b) of this
section by EPA. The regulations of the PAA
shaia 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 PAA 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'
thereof "in accordance with law."
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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency is given all the
power to control problems of noise in
our country—all except in one field and
one field alone—that is the field of jet
noise. There it is given to'the PAA—not
to the Department of Transportation
but to the PAA and the PAA 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
PAA the power to act in this field. Por
3 Vz years they have not used this power
to require the reduction of noise from
currently flying aircraft. Those are the
planes that are driving people crazy
around the airports all over this country.
Por 3Vz years they have done nothing.
When I asked them only a week ago,
before a committee of the Congress, 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 procedures
time after time and year after year for
3 years after the Congress told these
the back of those engines. That also re-
quires some expertise in the way the air-
craft 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 PAA in
carrying on that function.
That is exactly what I am proposing
we do here. We also gave power to the
EPA—and not to the PAA—to come up
with standards of jet fuel, the actual fuel
that the jet aircraft would bum. That"
power was > given to the EPA—of course,
they have to use it in consultation with
the PAA. .
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
PAA. 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 people 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 submit-
ted to the bill. We are trying to bring
before you a simple bill that will apply to
[p. H1528]
o
B
H
d
3
cc
a
g
I
H
0
CO
H3
O
Oi
-------
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 orig-
inal purpose to make a simple start. The
fact is that the gentleman'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 no-
tice, "Civil Airport, Sonic Boom—Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking." They are go-
ing to work on this problem. They have
put that in the Federal Register so every-
one can see it. They will provide an op-
portunity 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 airways are
safe for people to travel in. Do you mean
to tell me that you are going to tell such
an agency that has been 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- not think any Members of
the House would stand for It. They have
said they are working on the problem.
The 747 is a much quieter plane than
the older planes. Would you have them
take all of the older planes out of the sky
today? No; you would not. They are mak-
ing the new airplanes quieter. They are
acting with the expertise they have.
These are tremendously large planes,
carrying hundreds of additional passen-
gers, and yet they are quieter than the
older planes.
that statement to a group in New York?
Mr. STAGGERS. What was the state-
ment?
Mr. WYDLER. As reported in Aviation
Daily, February 16 of this year, Chair-
man 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 than
the older jet planes we have on the mar-
ket. They are making progress. There is
no doubt about it. That is their direction.
They are under special 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
Rulemaking." 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 amendment
ought to be offered to another bill at
the appropriate time. I am opposed to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman 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 existing layer.
I would like to refer to a debate we had
some time ago dealing with cancer legis-
lation, where an attempt -was made to
move out of NTFT Into a separate agency,
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 things 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 exist-
ence, 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 gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose
this amendment very strongly. We went
into this matter in great detail. EPA does
not have the competency to go into this.
FAA does. There must be a safety factor
geared into it.
I must say to the gentleman that FAA
has set standards. They are reducing the
effective perceived noise decibels from 120
down to 108 and below in the 747's and
the DC-10's.
Futhermore, if the gentleman would
turn this authority over to EPA, I might
tell him what has just happened with
respect to air pollution.
Prior to the implementation of the
Clean Air Act, the Department of Trans-
portation and the aircraft industry
reached an agreement whereby the in-
dustry agreed to reduce heavy smoke
emissions from aircraft by the end of
1872. In many instances, this requires
to
rf^
~J
O5
O
>
f
hj
-------
There is not a plane in the United
States that causes a sonic boom except
for 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 aircraft 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 military, we can tell the military at
that time.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. First, I thank the gen-
tleman 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 abate-
ment 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 protection to the Envi-
ronmental Protection 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 aircraft
engine noise will cease to be an issue?
Is the chairman aware that he made
but we felt we should not fragment what
we had already 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 re-
search 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 influ-
ence what is done, but at the same time
we require them to rely ultimately on the
FAA. If they are not doing enough, may-
be we should call them before our com-
mittee 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 gentleman
from New York.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, I agree
with what the gentleman is saying 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 FFA. 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
retrofitting of the aircraft; thus, through
FAA efforts we can expect 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 types of air pollutants emitted from
aircraft. However, section 231 of the
Clean Air Amendments of 1970 trans-
ferred the authority to prescribe regula-
tions with respect to emissions of air pol-
lutants from aircraft to EPA. This made
the FAA advance notice of proposed rule-
making moot. Section 231 required that
within 270 days of enactment of the
Clean Air Amendments—December 31,
1970, EPA must issue proposed emission
standards applicable to aircraft. The
regulations thus were due- on Septem-
ber 27, 1971. They have not been pub-
lished to date. Now the amendment asks
the EPA noise office—with only 25 per-
sonnel—to take on additional respon-
sibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge defeat
of this amendment. I think it would be
very unsound.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
May I point out to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. WYDLER), that I think
in the debate here the gentleman's dis-
cussion is going to be helpful, because
it does serve as a warning to EPA that
they have not done enough. I think this
will trigger a little more pressure. Maybe
our committee should also look into it.
I thank the gentleman for his contribu-
tion.
[p. H1529]
1
T
I
3
W
I—I
§
to
-------
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 PAA has failed time after time to
move in regard to this jet noise problem.
Here in the Washington, D.C., area any-
one who lives along the Potomac River
Valley will be able to tell you of theteany
problems caused by the ceaseless jets
that soar over their homes and parks.
Officers at the National Airport Com-
plaint Center average about 70 calls per
month complaining 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 constitu-
ents are seriously effected by the noise
level and do not hesitate to say so. One
concerned constituent. Dr. Erich Buch-
mann, a leader in local efforts 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 pro-
grams is drowned out violently. It is an
insult to the people of tnls great' city."
sure of what EPA would do—but, what-
ever 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 re-
view it immediately.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
I will not take 5 minutes, but I would
like to propound a question to the gentle-
man 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 curfew
on jet aircraft?
Mr. GUDE. They imposed a curfew,
and then they have moved into a period
where they are violating their own cur-
few.
Mr. SATTERFIELD. Is it not a fact
that the FAA has also imposed operating
standards for aircraft entering and leav-
ing this area for the express purpose of
reducing noise?
Mr. GUDE. They have set these stand-
ards, 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 overlooked here
is that it is not just jet engines that pro-
duce noise in aircraft. The configuration
of the aircraft, the design of the air-
,craft, and the manner in which it is op-
'erated contribute significantly to its
noise.
I do not believe It is reasonable to ex-
and will have a low decibel rating. I
think in just a matter of.tune this prob-
lem will take care of itself. Immediate
grounding for retrofitting would ground
50 percent of the present fleet.
I thank the distinguished gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER. The gentleman from
Virginia directed a question to the gen-
tleman from Maryland with regard to
the curfew, and I did not quite get the
gentleman's answer. The fact of the mat-
ter is that the curfew has not been vio-
lated. I would like to have him cite one
instance where the curfew, whlcih re-
quires all planes to land in this area
before 11 o'clock at night has been vio-
lated. I do not believe it has been vio-
lated in one instance where planes have
been allowed to land after 11 o'clock at
night or before a certain time in .the
morning. The 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 Wash-
ington noise probjem, 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 Mem-
bers of Congress, and let us not kid our-
selves 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
to
>£>•
-a
oo
o
o
f
§
B
-------
Mr. Chairman, for some time the jets
have silenced the Congress. It is high
time for the Congress to act to silence
the jets. The Federal Aviation Admin-
istration has had the authority to impose
jet noise restrictions for some 3% years.
Their lack of substantive action to date
would indicate to me that, at best, a cer-
tain ennui has settled over the' PAA. I
would only wish that some of the rather
obnoxious jet noise would settle there as
well.
The Environmental Protection Agency
was established specifically to handle en-
vironmental pollution problems. 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.
Mi-. 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 emis-
sion standards for jet engines, truthfully
I do not know exactly what the pro-
cedural situation is in regard to that.
Let me tell the gentleman of the tesd-
mpny which w'as given before the Com-
mittee on Science and Astronautics, on
which I serve. We had industry spokes-
men 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
pect FAA to come up with a basic stand-
ard for operating procedures to reduce
noise, because each of these procedures
must conform to the specific geographic
requirements at various airports. The
FAA is taking action in this direction,
and this ought to be taken into consider-
ation now.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? ••-
Mr. SATTERFtELD. I am glad to yield
to my colleague on the committee (Mr.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the distin-
guished gentleman from Virginia for
yielding. I know he has a particular ex-
pertise in this field, for he was a pilot in
World War H and has continued since
that time.
Is it true that retrofitting the aircraft
would cost approximately $1.5 million or
more, perhaps $2 million?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is my un-
•derstanding. We are talking about com-
merical jet aircraft.
Mr. CARTER. And actually it would
cost approximately $1.5 billion to retro-
fit all these planes which are now in use;
is that correct?
Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is the un-
derstanding 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 recol-
lection of the testimony we received.
Mr. CARTER. All of them will conform
at that time to the present requirements
National Airport because tliey 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. Chairman, I
want to conclude my remarks by saying
that I believe we are oversimplifying this
issue. One thing which concerns me is
that Congress might place in the hands
of an administrative agency the power
to require through standards that which
exceeds our technological capability to
provide. I think we should leave these
decisions in the hands of the FAA which
possesses the necessary expertise, 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 offered 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 committee 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
adversely affected by aircraft noise, and
then we found that-we were able to 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 living near the
Kennedy airport do not have the privi-
lege—they do not have the privilege—of
getting a curfew. They have 24 hours a
day of continuous noise. An airplane is
[p. H1530]
§
hH
O>
H
50
I
0
fcO
h^
^l
CO
-------
talcing off or landing every 30 seconds of
the day, and we are asked that the au-
thority 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 authority that we
have given them.
Just recently, very recently, one of the
officers of the FAA had the audacity—.
the audacity, mind you—to say that the
airline association would work on that
problem. The PAA has been all along and
for too long airline oriented. We need a
new agency which should be people ori-
ented 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 au-
thority, 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 sec-
ondary to the economics of the .airlines.
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 gentle-
man from Maryland.
Mr. GUDE. The question was raised
earlier about viplations of the curfew.
The violations have been so bad that
finally in September of 1971 citizens of
Virginia brought suit to ban all jet traf-
fic after 11 p.m. The post-11 p.m. traffic
volved. And all of these factors go into
the PAA regulations as to what type of
approach you have, as to what type of
approach you use on a particular field
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 particu-
lar field.
The new planes are being changed,
but to retrofit all of the old ones, as has
been mentioned, will run into several
billions of dollars which the airlines 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 stat-
ute which this Congress enacted and
which has been enforced by the PAA.
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, including
the jurisdiction of several Members who
have spoken on this amendment com-
plains by local people with regard to the
.noise patterns of that area. The commit-
tee very carefully drafted this bill to
say that that situation would be dealt
with, and the committee 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
plished by the adoption of my amend-
ment is the fact that we will have EPA
involved with PAA so that PAA will start
doing something about putting out regu-
lations to reduce jet noise.
It is all right to try to do it with pro-
cedures 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 PAA. 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 situa-
tion of presently flying airplanes which
involves about 50 percent or 60 percent
of your fleet and you determine, or EPA
determines that all of those airplanes do
not meet a specific engine standard, how
can they meet that engine standard if
they are landing 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 PAA does,
but not to come in and try and set those
standards with the number of aircraft of
varying design and the number of air-
ports we have throughout the Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. The ttme of the
gentleman from Washington has expired.
Mr. FBENZEL. Mr. Chairman. X move
to
rf^
00
o
Q
O
O
tr1
5
M
O
3
i
d
^d
-------
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
National 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, pas-
sengers while Friendship operations are
down 10 percent with a loss of 200,000
passengers and Dulles operations^ are
down 2 percent handling 20,000~less
passengers.
It is high time that we direct FAA
to divert this noisy, bothersome traffic
to Dulles and Friendship—in particular
the Nation's taxpayers are entitled to
have better utilization of Dulles in that
they footed the bill for its construction.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr..Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. ADAMS. asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
I think that the emphasis—and I want
to echo the remarks of my colleague, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SATTER-
PIELD)—on the intricacies of trying to
regulate airport noise involves the fact
that you are going to have to regulate
glide slope, you are going to have to reg-
ulate the approach, you are going to
have to regulate the area, the altitude
of the airport, the type of plane in-
a certain type of engine that can land
at Huntington, W. Va., and National Air-
port and the same kind of approach pat-
tern and have any type of safety factor
involved."
Mr. Chairman, the way to handle lo-
cal noise problems is to handle it in two
fashions. One is to let the local jurisdic-
tion determine what the pattern will be
and what they will allow in their areas
and the second—and this applies di-
rectly 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 arid is one of the
reasons 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 try-
ing 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 ofC 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 gentleman
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 aircraft and issue the
regulations. , -
The thing which would be accom-
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. FRENZEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FBENZEL. Mr. Chairman, in most
of our major cities land use of areas sur-
rounding airports is testimony to the fact
that the jet age caught us by surprise.
With few exceptions, 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 modern jets,
noise has become a significant environ-
mental problem. The problem is not like-
ly to be solved until Congress properly
delegates to the appropriate Federal
agencies the responsibility -for estab-
lishing and enforcing effective, yet real-
istic, noise controls.
The FAA has been charged with this-
responsibility, but its willingness to im-
pose meaningful noise control regulations
is less than enthusiastic. In my judg-
ment, this authority, or at least some of
it, properly belongs to the Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA now sets noise
emission standards 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 airport,
I view the FAA versus EPA question as
more than an intramural contest for jur-
j" [p. H1531]
H
i
CO
el
O
I
H
H
fcO
t^
00
-------
isdictional authority. FAA is charged
with establishing safety standards, and
while these standards are not necessarily
in conflict with noise control measures,
the FAA will, and should, always concen-
trate on its safety responsibility. Yet the
aircraft noise problem continues to be a
source of great irritation in addition to
being an environmental hazard. I be-
lieve we can stand up for less noise with-
out sacrificing vital safety considerations.
We can give the EPA its appropriate role
in noise reduction without vitiating the
FAA safety controls.
I ask the support of my fellow Mem-
bers for the Noise Control Act of 1972
and for the Wydler amendment.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FBENZEL. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WYDLEB. Mr. Chairman, in an-
swer to the question propounded by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr.
ADAMS), I would say this—that under
either proposal, the committee proposal
or my proposal, the final regulations that
would be established would be a coopera-
tive venture. In the committee bill be-
tween the Environmental Protection
Agency and the FAA, in my bill between
the Environmental Protection Agency,
the FAA and NASA, who actually is do-
ing most of the work in the noise reduc-
tion field, but either way it would be a
cooperative effort, and the regulations
would take into account all of the tech-
nical problems we are raising. And the
expertise would be available that we are
talking about. There would be no change
in that. But EPA would be able to start
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 men-
tioned, 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 gen-
tleman from Kentucky (Mr. CARTER)
pointed out a little earlier, a retrofitting
of the entire 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 industry
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 standards,
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 public."
Mr. WYDLEB. If the gentleman will
yield further, I am not saying that at
all. These proposals, and they are sub-
mitted as proposals, can be retrofitted
into the present aircraft. It does not
mean you have to put planes out of serv-
ice or out of fleet operation at all, ex-
cept for the period of time it takes them
to be retrofitted. But smoke reduction
.equipment is a requirement on the air-
lines today. Just as on the question of
erybody was upset-about that, and we
required that the airlines do that, to use
the smoke emission reduction equipment.
have to be reasonable. So what \ve have
done is to assure the input of the EPA,
but we assure the public safety by leav-
ing 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 gentleman 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 Congress,
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 gentle-
man from New York (Mr. WYDLER) .
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BT MK. MIKVA
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 nave the same
meaning given such term by .Sec. 1O1 (24)
to
00
to
tr1
M
a
o
o
f
$
I— t
O
W
-------
the rulemaking procedures that FAA
neglects. I also want to tell the gentle-
man, because he does not seem to be
aware of, that we can reduce the noise in
the current engines that are flying now.
I have in my hand a chart from the
National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration 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 engines, 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 reduction 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 ap-
parently after 3% years of waiting for
the FAA to start to do something, I be-
lieve 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 relief, the
relief that we in the Congress of the
United States promised them 3% years
ago, and that has not been done to date.
Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I yield to the gentle-
man from Washington,
They did that and the airlines survived.
I did not say that we want the airline in-
dustry to come to a complete halt. We
do not want to do that. „
It will not do that. But I think what
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, I thank the gentleman
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 satis-
fied with a standard, they can require
a review of that by the FAA just by ask-
ing them. They must respond under the
law.
Furthermore, if that is not satisfac-
tory, 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
of the Federal Aviadoix Act of 1958 (49 USC
1301 (24) ) ."
(Mr. MIKVA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, on behalf
of myself and my distinguished colleague
from New York (Mr. ROSENTHAL) I in-
tend to offer two important amendments
to the Noise Control Act. Both amend-
ments are intended to make life a little
less painful for people living near major
jetports. My new district includes most
of the homes surrounding the Nation's
busiest and loudest airport, O'Hare Field
in Chicago. Congressman ROSENTHAL'S
district includes the area abound the
Nation's fourth busiest airport, La Guar-
dia Airport in Queens.
Our first amendment proposes to pro-
hibit sonic booms over U.S. land by com-
mercial Jets. The second would set up a
commission to study the idea of impos-
ing 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 state-
ment during the debate, the Noise Con-
trol Act is basically a sound bill, and I
expect to vote for it. But it needs to be
strengthened in several important re-
spects.
This bill's treatment of the sonic boom
problem is most depressing. It constitutes
a license to operate the supersonic trans-
ports in this country. '
The FAA already has the authority to
set sonic boom standards; that authority
is not affected by this bill which merely
[p. H1532]
§
H
CD
f
fel
O
£
f
I
w
O
td
to
^
00
CO
-------
provides that the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministrator must "consult" first with the
Secretary of Transportation and the
EPA Administrator. This is hollow token-
ism.
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. air-
space.
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 loop-
holes for squeezing through an ear-shat-
tering supersonic flight.
The PAA, under a proposed rule writ-
ten 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 air-
craft over any part of the United States
if the sonic boom does not reach the
ground.* Exceptions are made for re-
search and development flights.
These exceptions give the FAA full
authority to go ahead and approve sonic
boom-producing flights for such vague
reasons as "assisting aircraft develop-
ment" or "studying sonic boom effects."
This is a significant erosion of the Gov-
ernment's original promise to prohibit
civilian supersonic flights over the United
States.
The PAA has said it opposes any leg-
islative action prohibiting sonic booms.
The FAA has said it feels sonic boom
prohibition should be done by FAA regu-
lation rather than by act of Cbngress.
Why? Because regulations are more
meet foreign competition on their inter-
national routes, want to put their super-
sonic planes to work on the lucrative do-
mestic routes, say New York to Los An-
geles?
Some conservationists say an SST on
such a flight would trail a thunderous
boom along a path 50 miles wide and dis-
turb the peace of 20 million Americans.
One noise expert contends it could cause
heart attacks and hearing 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. domestic
routes? Will the FAA, in the interest of
promoting aviation, grant them permis-
sion under its proposed regulation in the
guise of "assisting aircraft development"
or "studying sonic boom effects?" Or will
the regulation be changed? Will the Gov-
ernment 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 prosperity
and progress for the Nation?
Perhaps it will be explained in terms
of preserving and protecting the free en-
terprise 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 people want the nights.
This Congress has decided that the
SST poses a threat to the environment,
among other tnings. Approval of H.R.
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 impair-
ments and possibly worse damage 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 Congress should
leave no doubt about its abhorrence for
the sonic boom.
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 gentle-
man 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 gentleman 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 because 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 of Transportation.
Mr. MUCVA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
to
I
>
F
^
hH
o
I
HJ
-------
flexible than laws. They can be changed
more easily.
The United States may be out of the
SST business for the time being, but Jthe
aviation industry, the current adminis-
tration, and especially the FAA hope we
will be back in before too long. Mean-
while, 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 London and
Paris. Botii sponsor governments have
invested billions of dollars in the project
. along with their national pride and pos-
sible their political 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 Concorde.
Concorde, incidentally, is supernoisy
even at subsonic speeds. It is considerably
louder on the ground than any other air-
liner in current use—and we know how
noisy those are.
The sonic boom may not. be a serious
threat to inhabitants of the United
States for'flights between London and
New York where most of the distance is
over water.
But what happens when the U.S. air-
lines, which invested.heavily in SST's to
*FAA Notice of Proposed Rule Makirfg; No.
70-16, issued April 10, 1970, and still pend-
ing as of this date.
11201, with its gaping loophole for in-
tense noise pollution, would contradict
the already expressed will of the Con-
gress and of the American people.
We must amend this bill so that it de-
cisively prohibits all sonic booms pro-
duced by civilian aircraft. This is too im-
portant to leave to the discretion 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 comes with-
in acceptable limits. [Emphasis added.]
"Acceptable" was never denned.
Who would determine "acceptable lim-
its?" The PAA, 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 muzzling
it. Secretary Volpe is confident:
If we .cannot lick the sonie boom prob-
lem in 10 years, I do not know the United
States of America.
Many persons are wary of the PAA's
promise to protect them from the sonic
boom. They fear that some day there will
be boom-producing . supersonic flights
over populated areas even without Sec-
retary Volpe's hoped-for breakthrough.
They fear it will begin by allowing the
boom "only within acceptable limits" and
then subtly redefining what is "accept-
able."
The sonic boom is clearly unacceptable.
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
Mr. STAGGERS. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. MIKVA. If that is so, what is the
objection TO my .amendment, which
simply States that there will be no sonic
boom over the land areas of this coun-
try? I should like to share the1 hope that
our airlines will never try to fly such air-
craft, but suppose they do? In the past
the FAA has allowed them, or has issued
regulations suggestive of allowing them
to do so. My amendment would be a
statutory prohibition against sonic
booms over the land areas of this
country.
Mr. STAGGERS. There are some rea-
sons for leaving the matter where it is.
Some of them relate to testing they
might need, and there are other things.
But I would say to you that they are
adopting regulations. They already have
them prepared. They 'are in the Secre-
tary's office. I do not believe the' provi-
sion ought to be in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. MIKVA).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MIKVA
Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment. The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr- MIKVA. Page
47, insert immediately after line 12 the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(c) (1) There is established the Airport
Noise Curfew Commission (hereafter referred
to as the 'Commission'). The Commission
shall study and make recommendations to
the Congress regarding the establishment
of curfews on non-military aircraft opera-
[p. H1533]
§
t—t
CO
H
H
CO
O
g
I
w
h-l
CO
i-3
O
bO
rf^
00
Or
-------
tions over populated areas of the United
States during normal sleeping hours. The
Commission shall report its findings and rec-
ommendations 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 the 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 aviation industry; the remain-
ing such members so appointed shall be
private citizens not involved in the aviation
industry. One of the public members shall
be elected chairman. A vacancy in the Com-
mission shall be filled in the manner in which
the original appointment 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
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. 67O3(t>) of
title 5 ol tlie TJiiited States Code.
" (6) Subject to sudi rules as may be
adopted by tHe Commission, tftie Chairman
" (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 in-
vestigate by this subsection. Such attendance
of witnesses and the production of such evi-
dence may be required from any place within
the UnrEed States at any designated place
of hearing within the United States."
Mr. MIKVA (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD. I will explain
it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
(Mr. MIKVA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) "
Mr. MUCVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
offer an amendment to H.R. 11021 to
take the first step toward solving the
problem of aircraft noise pollution. What
I propose is a thorough study of the pos-
sibilities of establishing curfews on non-
military flight operations at the Nation's
airports.
Mr. amendment would set up a nine-
member Commission consisting of the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Administrator of
is morally, socially, and environmentally
necessary.
The community residents near O'Hare
Airport like those in other cities, suffer
the consequences of decades of neglect of
the noise pollution problem. Most of
them were there before the jets arrived.
They used to live in comfortable, con-
venient neighborhoods which, while
noiser perhaps than rural areas, none-
theless struck a reasonable balance be-
tween city hustle and bustle and subur-
ban quietness. But today, .that balance is
gone. Now those people come home from
their jobs and find themselves beneath
an intolerable roar as jetliner after jet-
liner screeches over their roofs. The
night does not bring peace to them be-
cause O'Hare and the airlines do not
understand or recognize the citizen's
right to quiet.
Alleviation of this situation is not ter-
ribly difficult. A reasonable solution
would be to begin curtailment of all
nonmilitary air traffic from, scheduling
departures and arrivals between 10 pjn.
and 7 a.m., tke hours normally reserved
for sleeping.
The number of passenger flights oc-
curring during those hours is only 11 per-
cent of the total at O'Hare. But this
number does not seem small if you hap-
pen to live nearby.. When added to the
cargo flights at those hours,-the din of
the aircraft becomes almost unbearable.
Aircraft-noise during the normal sleep-
ing hours has a compounding impact on
residents because the noise cannot be as-
similated as it is during the day with
othfer noises. One jetliner taking- off at
midnight has 10 times the' effective
to
t^
GO
01
o
>
F
O
O
o
I
-------
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 m 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
services 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 pur-
pose of carrying out this title hold such hear-
ings, sit and act at such times and places,
take such testimony, and receive such evi-
dence, as the Commission may deem advis-
able.
"(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 direct-
ly from any department or agency of the
United States information necessary to en-
able it to carry out this title. Upon request
of the Chairman of the Commission, the
head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the Commis-
sion.
the Federal Aviation Administration,
two representatives of the aviation in-
dustry, and five public members. They
would report the findings of their inves-
tigation and their recommendations to
the Congress within 6 months of this act.
This Commission would be a temporary
investigative body, not a new govern-
mental agency. It would exist solely for
the purpose of informing the Congress
and would go out of existence upon sub-
mitting 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 engines
and improved operational procedures.
Both approaches are needed; they are
complementary.
Mr. Chairman, the problem of exces-
sive noise abuse from jet traffic has
dominated citizens' concerns ever since
the first jets began swooping and-soaring
over their homes. The situation has de-
teriorated for residents as jet traffic has
increased to a point of a constant bom-
bardment of noise. Studies amply dem-
onstrating the psychological and physical
traumatic effects on people have been
made on the debilitating effects of jet
noise. The noise impact is 10 times more
disturbing during the normal sleeping
hours, when it is much more difficult to
assimilate sounds, than during the day.
One of the few successful attempts at
regulation has been the ban on late even-
ing and predawn jet traffic at Washing-
ton National Airport. I .strongly urge
other airports to follow this example. It
noise impact of the same plane taking off
at noon. Besides, some 491 cargo nights
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 prohib-
its scheduled jet commercial traffic be-
tween 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The FAA,
which runs National, and the airlines
operating out of the airport, have a vol-
untary 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 nights to con-
form. Similar agreements exist in Los
Angeles, and Fresno, Calif., and Boise,
Idaho, as well London, England, and
many major European cities.
The constitutional right of domestic
tranquility includes freedom from op-
pressive noise. Steps must be taken by
airport managements, airlines, and pub-
lic officials, including the Congress, to
protect and respect the right and to halt
the acoustic abuse heaped mercilessly
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 friend-
ship with the gentleman, and I know
his sincerity, but I do not believe this
is the place, and I do not believe this
[p. H1534]
o
i—i
CD
0
h— i
cn
H
o
3
to
^
00
-------
can be done on a nationwide basis. I
beliave it would be setting up a useless
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 airline industry in
our country. Recently we have had some-
ing called the CARD Report issued as a
national policy for our aviation industry.
That report indicated one of the main
problems 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 in-
dustry that they are going to come up
short again if they do not take cog-
nizance of this jet noise problem. For
years they thought they could ignore it
and economically benefit by ignoring the
problem. The result of that has been that
in the past decade they have made them-
selves 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 predict
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
Do I correctly understand that lan-
guage means outside the United States,
and deals with exports?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. This is a part of the pro-
hibited acts section of the bill. Am I to
understand we are perfectly willing to
export to foreign countries products
which make such noise that we do not
intend to tolerate them in this country?
Mr. STAGGERS. I might say to the
gentleman, I believe he understands we
had to do this in order to compete, be-
cause many countries bring in inferior
products and use them. They pay lecj for
them. If we are to compete in any way
we have to have ours. They do not have
standards. We cannot set standards for
any other country in the world. If they
are importing these from other countries,
we say our people can compete.
Mr. GROSS. The point is that we are
perfectly willing to export to foreign
countries that which we claim is in-
jurious to humans and which we will not
tolerate in this country.
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct, and
that is what we do with all other prod-
ucts I know of.
Mr. GROSS. Then I seriously question
how sincere we are here today about
abating noise allegedly as an aid to the
physical well-being of humans.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlema'n yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Mr. NELSEN. What we have done in
the bill is to require that whatever we
manufacture for export must meet the
standards of the country to •which we
identical language we had in the air pol-
lution bill.
Mr. GROSS. Yes, and I will say to the
gentleman I am getting more mail all the
time from people who are adversely af-
fected by the provisions of that bill.
Mr. STAGGERS. They will be, I am
sure, and as time goes on the gentleman
will get more, because this is one of our
great problems of the day, air pollution.
Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentle-
man that I am not Willing here again to-
day to compound the error that was
made in that bill, and the so-called
safety legislation. I think that is what
will happen under the provisions of sec-
tion 12, entitled "Citizen Suits." I believe
it is an open invitation to nuisance suits
that will be brought against a lot of
businessmen in this country.
Mr. Chairman, most people seek peace
and quiet. I know that I do, but I also
know that in this day and age it Is ut-
terly impossible to eliminate all noise
especially in the areas where there are
heavy movements of traffic of all kinds.
I also know that the States and munici-
palities, through the enactment and en-
forcement of laws and ordinances, can
make a far better contribution to the
elimination of noise than they have in
the past.
This bill calls for the. expenditure of
$26 million with which to spoon feed a
new layer of bureaucrats and I am as
convinced as I am that I am standing here
that these payrollers will duplicate and
overlap the functions of the environmen-
talists and others who are already spend-
ing millions upon millions of dollars.
All this is borrowed money and at a
bO
rf*.
00
00
Q
o
o
f
5
I— I
o
H
-------
to be a further economic loss to the air-
line 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 restriction on the use of the
current jet airports which service our
major population 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 pre-
dict 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 industry makes hard economic
decisions to give the people on the
ground who suffer from this problem the
relief to which they are entitled.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the necessary number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
inquire about a couple of items in this
bill. On page 50, line 10, it is stated:
Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of sub-
section (a) shall not apply with respect to
any product which is manufactured solely
for use outside any State.
make the export. For example, in our au-
tomobile situation we find that if they
do not have the proper fuel what we put
on an automobile would be wasted. There
can be many other instances like that.
Mr. GROSS. On page 51, line 3, it is
stated:
A person who does any act In violation of
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 10(a),
and who establishes that he did not have
reason to know In the exercise of due care
that such act was in violation of such para-
graph, shall not be subject to a civil penalty
under subparagraph (A).
What kind of a loophole is being pro-
vided here, and for what reason? This is
obviously some kind of a loophole.
Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman will
yield further, I would say that if a person
does not know his article violates the
regulations we do not think he ought to
be punished if he does not know.
Mr. GROSS. I want to turn once more
to page 53, and section 12, "Citizen
Suits." I am sorry that more of the
Members were not here earlier this af-
ternoon to hear the colloquy between the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. WAG-
GONNER) and the gentleman from Flor-
ida (Mr. ROGERS) on this section. I am
still far from convinced that this provi-
sion in the bill is not a wide-open invi-
tation to nuisance suits that will be
brought against those who may be the
least able financially to defend them-
selves.
Mr. STAGGERS. I might say to the
gentleman from Iowa that this is the
time when the Nation is confronted with
a financial crisis. I am willing to endure
some noise until I can be assured that
the Government and the people of this
country can be saved from moral and fi-
nancial bankruptcy. I will vote against
the bill.
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 en-
compasses the busiest airport in the
world, O'Hare International. It has op-
erations 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 pending amendment of my
good friend from Illinois.
This problem of establishing curfews
and going to the PAA seeking regula-
tions 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 Washington National Airport
because Washington National Airport
and Dulles are in a totally unique posi-
tion. They are not municipally operated
but instead under control of the Fed-
eral Government. O'Hare International
Airport is operated by the Chicago Mu-
nicipal 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]
o
CO
CO
>
d
B
CO
f
B
Q
HH
CO
H
W
CO
H3
O
»
K|
fcO
rf*
00
CO
-------
prove it. So it is well and good to sug-
gest bringing the complaints to Wash-
ington and have the FAA do the job
when in reality the responsibility pres-
ently exists with the local airport au-
thority.
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 pro-
viding this relief, you should go to the
Chicago Airport Authority, which is an
arm of the city administration of Chi-
cago, 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 gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. MTKVA) .
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BT MR. BYAN
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RYAN: Page 56,
line 23, Insert "(a)" immediately after "SEC.
14."; and Insert after line 3 on page 58 the
following:
"(b) The Administrator may make grants
to States and other public entities to develop,
establish and conduct programs of noise con-
trol, prevention, and abatement, and to es-
tablish and conduct demonstration projects
to develop and evaluate new techniques, ap-
proaches, and methods in the control, pre-
vention, and abatement of noise. The Ad-
ministrator shall t>y regulation prescribe the
form, content, and manner of submission of
applications for grants under this subsection.
Payment of grants under this sutosection may
enable local governments to conduct
meaningful noise control programs.
What must be added is a comprehensive
system of grants which will allow State
and public bodies to develop, establish •
and carry out noise control programs and
projects.
Noise control takes money, and there
is no getting around the fact that local
communities are particularly hard-
pressed for funds. Given the significant
role that they must play in combating
this most serious hazard, I believe that it
is imperative that the Federal Govern-
ment do whatever it can to alleviate the
financial burden of States and local gov-
ernments in dealing with noise pollution.
Perhaps the best illustration of the
role Federal financial assistance can play
in noise abatement is the example of the
crucial role Federal funding has played
in the development of New York City's
air pollution control program.
Federal funding for State and local air
pollution programs is provided under the
program grant section of the Clean Air
Act in four stages: (1) development
grants, usually made for a 2-year period,
but may be continued into a third; (2)
establishment grants, made for a 3-year
period, the first of which may overlap
the development grant; (3) improvement
grants, also made for 3 years, the first of
which is again an extension of the estab-
lishment grant; and (4) maintenance
grants, to be made annually once the
program is fully established.
Before the availability ol Federal fi-
nancial assistance in 1966, the New York
City department of air resources bad an
technical positions. In 1968, when the
New York City Department of Air Re-
sources initiated a 10-station automatic
air monitoring system to complement
preexisting manual stations and permit a
continuous definition of the air pollution
problem in New York City, it was Federal
funding which made possible much of the
required technical work in design and
installation. Since then, it has been in
large part the Federal contribution which
permits the maintenance and servicing
of New "York City's aerometric system,
including the compilation of data for the
daily air quality report.
Not only would such financial assist-
ance enable States and localities to un-
dertake programs which otherwise may
remain unimplemented, but a grant "pro-
gram would serve also as incentive for
greater local initiative in the area of
noise control.
There are those who, although they
favor the concept of grants, would sug-
gest that we wait a few years before en-
deavoring such an undertaking. Although
I can understand. their concern, noise
and its dangers are growing at such an
alarming rate that 've simply cannot
afford the luxury of a wait-and-see ap-
proach. Urban noise has doubled since
1956 and is expected to double again by
1980. And evidence presented at the June
1971 meeting of the International Stand-
ardization Organization in Geneva,
Switzerland, indicated that if this trend
continues, every urban dweller will be
deaf by the turn of the century.
Quite clearly, the time to act is now.
The idea of grants to aid States and
to
CD
o
D
8
o
S|
I
hd
F
M
-------
be made in advance or by way of reimburse-
ment, and in such intervals and on such con-
ditions, as the Administrator finds necessary.
There are authorized to be appropriated $6,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1974, for grants under this
subsection." -•
(Mr. RYAN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, this amend-
ment would establish a program of grants
to States and local governments in order
to develop and conduct programs of noise
control and abatement and to establish
and carry on demonstration projects to
develop and. evalulate new techniques
and approaches.
Throughout the course of the hearings
before the Subcommittee on Public
Health and Environment, one theme
continued to be stressed: that States and
local governments have a significant re-
sponsibility in the control, abatement,
and prevention of noise.
Recognizing this, the committee bill
provides for technical assistance to State
and local governments to facilitate their
development and enforcement of am-
bient noise standards, including, but not
limited to advice on training of noise
control personnel and on the selection
and operation of noise abatement equip-
ment, and in the preparation of model
State or local legislation for noise con-
trol.
Although advice and technical assist-
ance is necessary, it is- not sufficient to
annual budget of less than $900,000 and
a staff of 120. In fiscal year 1966, that
department received a 3-year establish-
ment grant of $500,000. This grant en-
abled the department to create an emis-
sion inventory unit to define the. names
and sources of every significant air pol-
lutant in New York City. This project
provided the basis for the advancement
of New York City's activities into a man-
agement program. Thus, in 1968, when
the Department of Air Resources em-
barked on its implementation of new air
pollution control legislation, it was a Fed-
eral maintenance grant of $860,000 per
year that provided the springboard for a
doubling of the total air pollution control
budget from $2 to $4 million and thereby
an escalation of the city's efforts to com-
bat air pollution.
During the past 3 years, the Depart-
ment of Air Resources has received $2.7
million in Federal maintenance assist-
ance. In fiscal 1969, this maintenance
support represented 25 percent of its $4.1
million budget, and in 1970 28 percent of
$4.4 million. In 1971, this figure increased
to about 35 percent of a total budget of
$5.1 million.
According to the administrator of New
York City's Environmental Protection
Agency, Jerome Kretchmer, Federal
funds paid the salaries of 36 percent of
New York's inspection and field staff,
greatly increasing its -ability to serve
summonses to violators of New York's air
pollution code.
Federal assistance has also permitted
the existence of additional high level
localities in combating noise pollution
is not new. In the 91st Congress, I intro-
duced legislation to establish such a pro-
gram. Much of the reason that affirma-
tive action was not taken on this legisla-
tion was that the Congress was in the
process of mandating an Office of Noise
Abatement and Control within the En-
vironmental Protection Agency with the
task of preparing a comprehensive study
on noise. It was felt that we should wait
until the report was completed before
embarking on a major grant program.
That report is now complete. It was
submitted to the Congress on December
31, 1971. And it underscores why such a
grant program is essential. In the sec-
tion entitled "Specifics of a Program for
the Future," the report stated that:
Local and State governments have the pri-
mary responsibilities . . . for the acti&ns
necessary to provide a quieter environment.
In the case of noise control, the future
is now. We cannot afford to allow this
problem to continue unabated. And if
we are to come to grips with this prob-
lem, it means that we must supply all
possible assistance to those with the
primary responsibility for making this a
more quiet and tranquil world.
My amendment would authorize the
Administrator to make grants to States
and other public entities to develop, es-
tablish, and conduct programs of noise
control, prevention, and abatement, and
to establish and conduct demonstration
projects to develop and evaluate new
techniques, approaches, and methods in
the control, prevention, and abatement
[p. H1536]
o
M
on
ffi
H
CD
w
HH
CO
H
O
bO
rf^
CO
-------
of noise. And it would authorize to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year
1973. and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1974,
for this purpose.
I urge the adoption of this amend-
ment.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. STAGGERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
shall not take the full 5 minutes. I shall
take but a moment because in my opin-
ion the amendment is premature.
We are proposing to start a program of
investigating and making research and
then setting standards for the Nation
and for the manufacturing of products.
Certainly, we do not want to put into
this bill anything to tell the States that
they can start saying that they are going
into noise abatement control and other
things.
What we are doing Is simply making a
start at the manufacturing end, that the
new products which they manufacture
iii transportation, and so forth, will meet
the standards established under the pro-
visions of this bill.
We hope we can keep it in that simple
fashion at the present time. Certainly,
after a year or two, if this needs to be
carried further, we can do it then.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope the amend-
ment will be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. RYAN).
The amendment was rejected.
hearings described In section 16(d)(l) of
such Act.'
"(2) The tcible 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 re-
marks. I have had to wrestle with the
problem of air jet noise as it affects 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 Eidjacent 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 commit-
tee 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-
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 impact of
the noise on the people in the area, they
should at least be entitled to advance
notice that this construction is going to
be taking place, through a public hear-
we take up the airport construction bill
again. This is an airport construction
matter. So far as I know, in my part of
the country, everybody is advised when
a new airport Is to start. I can recall one
instance 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 another
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, certainly
I would be very willing to put the gen-
tleman'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
PAA 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 gentle-
man.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, first let
me say that my amendment does not di-
rect itself to the construction of new
airports. This is for reasons I am sure
the gentleman and I could not only
understand but agree on. So the Instance
the gentleman mentions would not be
to
tr<
o
>•
f
o
o
H
o
V,
M
M
V,
-------
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. COLLIER
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. COLLIER: Page
47, Insert after line 12 the following:
"(o) (1) For the purpose of assuring that
the public has adequate notice of and.
opportunity to present its views respecting
the construction of a puhlio airport or the
construction or extension of a runway for
such an airport, which has the effect of in-
creasing 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 tine Secretary' and by inserting
before the period at the end of such para-
graph the following: '; and (B) that the
public agency sponsoring such project pub-
lished notice of each such public hearing
not more than thirty days and not less than
fifteen days before such hearing in a news-
paper of general circulation in each commu-
nity affected by such project, and further
that the public agency sponsoring such proj-
ect notify by registered mail the mayor or
president of the towns,.cities or villages con-
tiguous to such airport of any proposed con-
struction not less than sixty days before be-
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
ing 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 con-
struction was commenced with no
knowledge on the part of the local offi-
cials, no knowledge on the part of the
people living in the area. They subse-
quently engaged in litigation seeking to
get an injunction, but they failed.
So this merely says that where an air-
port installation does expand, where they
make changes, then have them give ad-
vance notice, 30 days before they com-
mence work, and to notify 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 hear-
ings. 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 airports. 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 believe the
proper place for this amendment is when
related to what this amendment is di-
rected to, and that is to the expansion of
an existing facility.
Secondly, if the distinguished chair-
man for whom I have great respect,
would notify me at the time the airport
act is up for amendment, I would cer-
tainly yield to his wisdom by withdraw-
ing this amendment and offering It at
that time, because I do think public hear-
ings under the circumstances 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 gen-
tleman that when the bill comes up that
he would be notified and I will certainly
be in favor of his amendment to that bill.
Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentleman
and will ask to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask.
unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Il-
linois?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MB. RYAN
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RYAN: Page 63,
insert after line 11, the following:
"OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
"SEC. 17. In carrying out his functions
under this Act, the Administrator shall util-
ize, to the fullest extent practicable, the
Office of Noise Abatement and Control es-
tablished under section 402 (a) of the Clean
Air Act."
[p. H153T]
O
HH
co
d
1-3
H
GO
2!
o
I
I
w
f— I
CD
to
^
CD
CO
-------
Page 31. In the table of contents, insert
after the Item relating to section 16 the
following new Item:
" Sec. 17. Office of Noise Abatement and Con-
trol."
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. RYAN) is recognized in
support of his amendment.
(Mr. RYAN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have long
believed that it is essential that there be
a focal point for the Federal Govern-
ment's noise pollution program. Prolif-
erating responsibilities throughout a
vast Government bureaucracy almost in-
herently results in diminished focus—
both in terms of the Government's abil-
ity to meet the problem and in terms of
the public's ability to perceive the focus
for its concerns, inquiries, and demands
for action.
It was on the basis of this concept that
Congress established the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control by passage of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970—
Public Law 91-604.
I believe that it is imperative that the
Congress make clear its continuing desire
that this Office be both maintained and
strengthened as the core of the Federal
assault on noise.
This should not be necessary, for one
would be inclined to think the ad-
ministration would undertake this action
as a matter of course. But the history of
this administration in regard to the Of-
fice of Noise Abatement and Control
demonstrates its inclination to do quite
ment and control program. And I fear
that, now that the Office has completed
those tasks mandated by title IV of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, it
will soon succumb to a silent death in the
absence of further legislative history to
the contrary.
I am sure that the committee docs not
intend to allow the Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control to fade away. There-
fore, in order to clarify the situation and
make clear the intent of Congress, I
have proposed this amendment which
provides that in carrying out his func-
tions and responsibilities under the act,
the Administrator shall utilize, to the
fullest extent practicable, the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control.
The continuation and involvement of
the Office of Noise Abatement and Con-
trol will not restrict the latitude of the
Administrator in drawing upon the full
resources of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in his efforts to combat.
the hazards of excessive and injurious
noise.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN. I am happy to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from West Vir-
ginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. The Clean Air
Amendments of 1970 established an Of-
fice of Noise Abatement and Control.
That office is still in operation. In fact,
it does not matter what Mr. Pri said.
The EPA cannot abolish the office since
its creation was by statute. Therefore.
the amendment is completely unneces-
sary.
They are designed solely to give the in-
dustry the time to retire all aircraft with
excessively noisy engines. In the mean-
time, the people who live in the vicinity
of airports and under flight path ap-
proaches to airports will continue to suf-
fer near unbearable levels of noise.
Congress passed the Noise Abatement
Control Act in 1968 authorizing the FAA
to set noise limits and require the in-
stallation of jet noise suppressors on
existing aircraft. In November of 1970—
almost 2 years after receiving the au-
thority—the PAA issued an announce-
ment 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 PAA continued on
its plan of action at that time, a rule
could have been formulated 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 industry and
in the spring of this year announced an
18-month delay in the rulemaking proce-
dure. I can only presume that this Agency
intends to wait until such a rule is no
longer needed.
The present bill would only grant au-
thority 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 suppres-
sors. This Is clearly necessary after al-
most 4 years of delay and procrasti-
nation by the PAA. My amendment
to
rf*.
CO
M
0
o
o
>
H
t-H
O
t/J
cj
••a
-------
the contrary.
Perhaps the most telling sign of this
attitude is that the legislation introduced
on behalf of the administration—H.R.
5275—would have specifically deleted the
language in the Clean Air Act which di-
rected the establishment of this office.
Admittedly, one is hard-pressed to find
this on a superficial reading of the bill,
for the section—section 15 of H.R. 5275—.
which would have completely overturned
the expressed will of Congress, was mis-
leadingly entitled "Report of Noise
Study." But this section, .nonetheless,
would have disregarded Congress man-
date and eliminated the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control.
I know that this matter was of great
concern to the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on Public Health
and Environment (Mr. ROGERS) and that
he requested a positive statement from
the'administration that the office would
be retained and utilized. Yef, Robert W.
Fri, Deputy Administrator of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, in testify-
ing at the subcommittee hearings on be-
half of the administration, refused to
state positively for the RECORD that un-
der the administration's plans the Office
of Noise Abatement and Control would
continue to be a functioning reality.
The possibility that this Office would
be abolished cannot be countenanced.
Commendably, the committee bill does
not include the administration provision
dismembering the Office. But nei-
ther does the bill direct the continued
utilization of this Office as the heart of
the Goverment's noise prevention, abate-
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, in view of
the statement of the distinguished chair-
man that the amendment is not neces-
sary and in view of his assurance that
the Administrator shall utilize, to the
fullest extent practicable, the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, the leg-
islative history is absolutely clear. The
amendment would now be superfluous.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MB. 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 provision? 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 viola-
tion, each day of such violation shall con-
stitute a separate offense.
(Mr. BIAGGI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
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.
would establish a 3-year deadline from
ftiedaite of enactment. •«*>
Earlier this year Congress authorized
$2.5 billion in loans to bail out corpora-
tions supposedly operating in the na-
tional interest. All it did was bail out the
directors of these corporations and pre-
serve annual dividends for the wealthy
stockholders. My amendment would
mean a little peace and quiet for Ameri-
cans 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 affection
for the gentleman from New York. He is
one.of the finest gentleman in this House.
The record which he has made is out-
standing.
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 abate-
ment device on a plane, we may affect
safety, and-we have to give consideration
first, certainly, to the safety of the
traveling public. For that reason, I be-
lieve the amendment should be defeated.
I hope the gentleman will bring this mat-
ter up at some time when we have an air-
port bill before 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 legis-
lation to the House. I want to thank all
members for the work they did on this
[p. H1538]
GO
o
t-1
o
M
H- 1
CO
n
o
CO
O*
-------
bill and I want to thank the staff as
well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. BIAGGI) .
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the
nature of. a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr. BENNETT, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that the Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 11021) to control the emission of
noise detrimental to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 828, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amend-
ment adopted 'by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
EUberg
Erlenbora
Escli
Eshleman
Evans, Colo.
Evins, Term.
Fascell
Flndley
Flood
Flowers
Ford, Gerald R.
Ford,
William D.
Forsythe
Fountain
Fraser
Freliiighuysen
Frenzel
Frey
Fulton
Fuqua
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gaydos
Gettys
Giaimo
Gibbous
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Haley
Halpern
Hamilton
Hanley
Hanna
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Harrington
Harsha
Harvey
Hathaway
Hawkins
Hays
Heonler, W. Va.
Heckler, Mass.
Heinz
•Lujan
McClory
McClure
McCollister
McCormack
McCuUoch
McDade
McDonald,
Mich.
McEweu
McFall
McKay
McKevitt
McKinney
McMillan
Madden
Mahon
MaiUiard
Mallary
Mann
Martin
Mathias, Calif.
Matsunaga
Mayne
Mazzoli
Meeds
Melcher
Metcalfe
Mikva
Miller, Calif.
Miller, Ohio
Mills, Ark.
Minish
Mink
Minshall
Mitchell
Mizell
Mollohan
Mona'gan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morgan
Morse
Mosher
Moss
Murphy, 111.
Murphy, N.Y.
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nix
Obey
O*Hara
Rooney, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Rosenthal
Roush
Roy
Runnels
Ruppe
Ruth
Ryan
St Germain
Sandman
Sarbanes
Saylor
Scherle
Scheuer
Schneebeli
Schwengel
Scott
Sebelius
Seiberling
Shipley
Shoup
Shriver
Sikes
Sisk
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Snyder
Spence
Springer
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
James V.
Steed
Steele
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wls.
Stokes
Stratton
Stuekey
Sullivan
Symington
Talcott
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Terry
Thompson, Ga.
Tnomp&on, N.J.
Thomson, Wls.
Ashbrook Fish Mills, Md.
Baring Foley Myers
Belcher Galiflanakis O'Neill
Blatnik Grasso Podell
Caffery Hastings Pryor, Ark.
Carey, N.Y. Hebert Rhodes
Clausen. Hillis Rostenkowski
Don H. Karth Roybal
Clay Kyi Smith, Ca-lif .
Denholm Landgrebe Stubblefleld.
Dennis Leggett Tiernan
Dorn McCloskey Vanik
Dwyer Macdonald, Wright
Edwards, La. Mass.
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
.
pairs i
Mr. Rostenkowskl with Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Anderson of California with Mr. Smith
of California.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. Andrews.
Mr. O'Neill with Mr. Arends.
Mr. Clay with Mr. Podell.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Myers.
Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Don H. Clausen.
Mr. Foley wtih Mr. Kyle.
Mrs. Grasso with Mrs. Dwyer.
Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts with Mr.
Hastings
Mr. Pryor of Arkansas with Mr. Belcher.
Mr. Tiernan with Mr. Pish.
Mr. Stubblefield with Mr. Ashbrook.
Mr. Vanik with Mr. Landgrebe.
Mr. Galiflanakis with Mr. McCloskey.
Mr. Caffery with, Mr. Dennis.
Mr. Baring with Mr. Mills of Maryland.
Mr. Karth with Mr. Hillis.
Mr. Anderson of Tennessee with Mr. Den-
holm.
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Wright.
Mr. Roybal with Mr. Leggett.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana changed his
vote from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
to
^
CO
Q
o
I
f
M
-------
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, I object 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. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members, and the Clerk will call
the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were — yeas 356, nays 32, not voting 43,
as follows:
[Boll No. 55]
YEAS — 356
Abemethy Brlnkley Coute
Abourezk Brooks Conyers
Abzug Broomneld Gorman
Adams Brotzman Cotter
Addabbo Brown, Mich. Coughlin
Alexander Brown, Ohio Culver
Anderson, 111. Broyhill, N.C. Curlin
Annunzio Broyhlll, Va. Daniels, N.J.
Archer Buchanan Danlelson
Ashley Burke, Pla. Davis, Ga.
Aspiu Burke, Mass. Davis, S.C.
Aspinall Burlison, Mo. Davis, Wis.
Badillo Burton de la Garza
Baker Byrne, Pa. Delaney
Barrett Byrnes, Wls. Dellenback
Begich Byron Dellums
Bell Camp Dent
Bennett Carney Derwlnskl
Bergland Carter Devine
Betts Casey, Tex. Dickinson
Bevitl Cederberg Dlggs
Biaggl Celler Dlngell
Blester Chamberlain Donohue
Bingham Chappell Dow
Blackburn Chisholm Downing
Blanton Clancy Drinan
Boggs Clark. Dulskl
Boland Clawson, Del Duncan
Boiling Cleveland du Pont
Bow Collier Eckhardt
Brademas Collins, m. Edmondson
Brasco Collins, Tex. Edwards, Ala.
Bray Conable Edwards, Calif.
Helstoski
Hicks, Mass.
Hicks, Wash.
Hogan
Hollfleld
Horton
Hosmer
Howard
Hungate
Hunt
Hutchinson
Jacobs
Jarman
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Pa.
Jones, Ala.
Jones, N.C.
Jones, Tenn.
Kastemneier
Kazen
Keating
Kee
Keith
Kemp
King
Kluczynskl
Koch
Kuykendall
Kyros
Latta
Lennon
Lent
Link
Lloyd
Long, Md.
Abbitt
Burleson, Tex.
Cabell
Colmer
Crane
Daniel, Va.
Dowdy
Fisher
Flynt
Griffin
Gross
O'Konskl
Patman '
Patten
Pelly
Pepper
Perkins
Pettls
Peyser
Pickle
Pike
Plrnle
Poage
Pofl
Powell
Preyer, N.C.
.Price, 111.
Price, Tex.
Pucinski
Purcell
Quie
Qulllen
Bailsback
Randall
Bangel
Rees
Reid
Reuss
Riegle
Roberts
Robinson, Va.
Robison, N.Y.
Rodino
Roe
Rogers
Roncalio
NAYS — 32
Hagan
Hall
Hammer-
schmidt
Henderson
Hull
Ichord
Jonas
Landrum
Long, La.
Mathis, Ga.
Thone
TJdall
Ullman
Van Deerlln
Vabder Jagt
Veysey
Vlgorlto
Waldie
Wampler
Ware
Whalen
Whalley
White
Whltehurst
Widnall
Wiggins
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson,
Charles H.
Winn
Wolff
Wya£t
Wydler
Wylie
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young, Pla.
Young, Tex.
Zablockl
Zlon
Zwach
Michel
Nichols
Passman
Rarick
Rousselot
Satterfield
Schmitz
Stephens
Teague, Tex.
. Waggonner
Whitten
NOT VOTING — 43
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson,
Tenn.
Andrews
Arends
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. [p. H1539]
fco
^
CO
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2499
1.4a(3)(b) Oct. 12: Considered in Senate, pp. S17743-S17764,
S17774-S17785
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AIR CON-
TROL ACT OF 1972
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STAF-
FORD). Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration
of S. 3342, which the clerk will report.
the legislative clerk read as follows:
Calendar No. 1105 (S. 3342) a bill to amend
title IV of the Clean Air Act, and for other
purposes.
The Senate proceeded to the considera-
tion of the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Public Works
with an amendment to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the
"Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972".
SEC. 2. Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 is amended to read as follows:
"SHOET TITLE; TABLE OP CONTENTS
"SEC. 401. This Act, including the follow-
ing table of contents, may be cited as the
'Environmental Noise Control Act'.
"TABLE OP CONTENTS
"Sec. 401. Short title; table of contents.
"Sec. 402. Findings and policy.
"Sec. 403. Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
"Sec. 404. Definitions.
"Sec. 405. Research, investigation, training,
and other activities.
"Sec. 406. Federal programs.
"Sec. 407. Noise criteria and control tech-
nology.
"Sec. 408. Noise emission standards for new
products.
"Sec. 409. Labeling.
"Sec. 410. Imports.
"Sec. 411. Prohibited acts.
"Sec. 412. Enforcement.
"Sec. 413. Citizen suits.
"Sec. 414. Emergency situations.
"Sec. 415. Judicial review.
"Sec. 416. Records, reports, and information.
"Sec. 417. Federal procurement.
"Sec. 418. Grants for support of environ-
mental noise planning and con-
trol programs.
"Sec. 419. Development of low-noise-emis-
si6n products.
"Sec. 420. Authorization of appropriations,
"FINDINGS AND POLICY
"SEC. 402. (a) The Congress finds—
"(1) that environmental noise presents a
growing danger to the health and welfare of
the Nation's population, particularly in ur-
ban areas;
"(2) that the major sources of noise emis-
sions include aircraft, vehicles, machinery,
appliances, and other products in commerce;
and
"(3) that, while primary responsibility for
control of environmental noise rests with
State and local governments, Federal regu-
latory action is essential to deal with major
noise emission sources, and Federal assist-
ance is necessary to encourage and support
programs lor the control of environmental
noise.
"(b) The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States to promote an
environment for all Americans free from
noise that Jeopardizes their public health or
welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of
this Act to establish a means for effective
coordination of Federal research and activi-
ties in environmental noise control, to au-
thorize the establishment of Federal noise
emission standards for new products, to pro-
vide information to the public of the noise
emission and noise reduction characteristics
of new products, to encourage and support
State and municipal programs for the con-
trol of environmental noise through plan-
ning and program grants to State and local
environmental noise control agencies, and
to provide information to the public on the
control of environmental noise through regu-
lation of use of products and- other methods
and procedures to reduce environmental
noise.
"(c) Public participation in the develop-
ment, revision, and enforcement of any reg-
ulation, noise emission standard, program or
plan established by the Administrator or any
State or municipality under this Act shall
be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
the Administrator and the States and mu-
nicipalities. The Administrator, in coopera-
tion with the States and municipalities,
within ninety days after enactment of this
section, shall develop and publish regulations
specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation in such processes.
"OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
"SEC. 403. (a) The Administrator shall es-
tablish within the Environmental Protection
Agency an Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, and shall carry out through such
Office a full and complete investigation and
study of noise and its effect on the public
health and welfare and administer the pro-
visions of this Act.
"(b) The Administrator is authorized
to prescribe such regulations as- are neces-
sary to carry out his function under this
Aot. The Administrator may delegate to any
officer or employee of the Environmental
Protection Agency such of his powers and
duties under this Act, except the making of
regulations, as he may deem necessary or
expedient.
"(c) Upon the request of an environmental
noise control agency, personnel of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency may be de-
tailed to such agency for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
"(d) Payments xmder grants made under
this Act may be made in installments, and
in adavnce or by way of reimbursement, as
may be determined by the Administrator.
[p. 81774:3]
-------
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 404. For purposes of this title and
title V of this Act:
"(a) The term 'Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
"(b) The term 'person' means an Indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, or associa-
tion, and (except as provided In section 413
(a) (1) of this Act) Includes any officer, em-
ployee, department, agency, or Instrumen-
tality of the Bnlted States, a State, or any
political subdivision of a State.
"(c) The term 'product' means any manu-
factured article or goods or component there-
of; except that such term does not Include—
"(1) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propel-
ler, or appliance, as such terms are defined
in section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act,
as amended (49 TJ.S.C. 1431): or
"(2) (A) any military aircraft, rockets,
weapons, or equipment which are designed
for combat use; or (B) any aircraft, rockets,
launch vehicles, spacecraft, or equipment
which are designed for research, experi-
mental, or developmental work to be per-
formed by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, as determined by the
President under section 406 of this Act.
"(d) The term 'ultimate purchaser' means
the first person who In good faith purchases
a product for purposes other than resale.'
"(e) The term 'new product' means a
product the equitable or legal title to which
has never been transferred to an ultimate
purchaser. Products remanufactured or re-
built by a manufacturer from used products
to restore original functions shall be con-
sidered to be new products for the purposes
of this title and title V of this Act.
"(f) The term 'manufacturer' means any
person engaged In the manufacturing, as-
sembling, or Importing of new products, or
who acts lor, and Is controlled by, any such.
person In connection with the distribution
of sucix products, but shall not include any
"(4) An agency of two or more municipal-
ities located in the same State or in different
States and having substantial powers or
duties pertaining to the prevention and con-
trol of environmental noise.
"(1) The term 'municipality' means a city,
town, borough, county, parish, district, or
other public body created by or pursviant to
State law.
"(m) The term 'noise emission standard'
means a statement of a noise level or other
acoustical characteristic which may not be
exceeded under specified conditions or meth-
od of operation. Such standard shall include
the test procedures to be followed and shall
be stated in terms of performance rather than
design criteria.
"(n) The term 'environmental noise' means
the Intensity, duration, and character of
sounds from all sources.
"(o) The term 'cumulative noise exposure"
means the exposure of individuals In defined
areas around airports to noise from aircraft
operations weighted by time of day."
"RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION, TRAINING, AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES
"SEC. 405. (a) The Administrator shall es-
tablish a national research and development
program for the prevention and control of
environmental noise and as part of such
program shall—
"(1) conduct, and promote the coordina-
tion and acceleration of, research, investiga-
tions, experiments, training, demonstrations,
surveys, and studies relating to the causes,
effects, extent, prevention, and control of en-
vironmental noise;
"(2) conduct and finance research by con-
tract with any person, on the effects, meas-
urement, and control of noise, including but
not limited to—
"(A) investigation of the direct or Indirect
effects of noise on humans (including
physiological and psychological effects), and
the direct or Indirect effects of noise on do-
mestic animals, fish, wildlife, and property.
with other public and private agencies, in-
sttiutlons, and organizations, and with any
industries involved, In the preparation and
conduct of such research and other activities,
Including technical assistance;
"(3) make grants to environmental noise
control agencies, to other public or nonprofit
private agencies, institutions and organiza-
tions, and to Individuals, for purposes stated
In subsection (a) of this section;
"(4) contract with public or private agen-
cies, institutions and organizations, and with
Individuals, without regard to sections 3648
and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5);
"(5) provide training (without fee) for,
and make training grants to personnel of
environmental noise control agencies and
other persons with suitable qualifications;
"(6) establish and maintain research fel-
lowships, in the Environmental Protection
Agency and at public or nonprofit private
educational institutions or research orga-
nizations;
"(7) collect and make available through
publications and other appropriate means,
in cooperation with other Federal depart-
ments and agencies, and with other public
or private agencies, institutions, and orga-
nizations having related responsibilities,
basic data on physical, and human and other
effects of varying levels of noise and other
Information pertaining to noise and the pre-
vention and control thereof; and
"(8) develop effective and practical
processes, methods, and prototype devices for
the prevention or control of environmental
noise.
" (c) In carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (a) of this section the Administra-
tor shall conduct research on, and survey
the results of other scientific studies on,
the harmful effects on the health or wel-
fare of persons by the various known noise
sources.
"(d) In carrying out research pursuant to
to
Cm
O
O
o
r?
o
O
w
-------
dealer with respect to any new product re-
ceived by him in commerce.
"(g) The term 'dealer' means any person
engaged in the sale or the distribution of new
products to the ultimate purchaser who may
prepare a product for sale or distribution to
the ultimate purchaser: Provided, That when
such dealer's preparatory or final assembly
work involves modifications which increase
the noise emission characteristics of such
product, such dealer shall then be considered
a manufacturer of such product for the pur-
poses of this title and title V of this Act.
"(h) The term 'commerce' means trade,
traffic, commerce, or transportation—
"(1) between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or
"(2) which affects trade, traffic, commerce,
or transportation described in paragraph (1)
of this subsection.
"(i) The term 'State' includes the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Ter-
ritory of the Pacific Islands.
"(]) The term 'Federal agency' means any
department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States including United States
Postal Service.
"(k) The term 'environmental noise con-
trol agency' means any of the following:
"(1) A single State agency designated by
the Governor of that State as the official State
environmental noise control agency for pur-
poses of this Act;
"(2) An agency established by two or more
States and having substantial powers or
duties pertaining to the prevention and con-
trol of environmental noise;
"(3) A city, county, or other local govern*
ment authority charged with responsibility
for enforcing ordinances or laws relating to
the prevention and control of environmental
noise; or,
.and determination of acceptable levels of
noise on the basis of such effects; and
"(B) development of improved methods
and standards for measurement and moni-
toring of noise, in cooperation with the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards, Department of
Commerce.
"(3) encourage, cooperate with, and ren-
der technical services (including the drafting
of model ordinances) and provide financial
assistance to environmental noise control
agencies and other appropriate public or
private agencies, institutions and organiza-
tions, and individuals In the conduct of such
activities;
"(4) conduct investigations and research
and make surveys concerning any specific
problem of environmental noise in coopera-
tion with any noise pollution control agency
with a view to recommending a solution of
such problem, If he is requested to do so
by such agency or if, in his judgment, such
problem may affect any community or com-
munities in a State other than that in which
the source of the matter causing or contrib-
uting to the noise is located; and
"(5) establish technical advisory commit-
tees composed of recognized experts in vari-
ous aspects of noise to assist in the examina-
tion and evaluation of research progress and
proposals and to avoid duplication of re-
search, and for other purposes.
" (b) In carrying out the provisions of the
preceding subsection the Administrator is
authorized to—
"(1) collect and make available, through
publications and other appropriate means,
the results of activities pursuant to sub-
section (a) and other information, including
appropriate recommendations by him in con-
nection therewith, pertaining to such re-
search and other activities;
"(2) cooperate with other Federal agencies,
with environmental noise control agencies,
tills Act, the Administrator shall give special
emphasis to research on the short- and long-
term effects of environmental noise on pub-
lic health and welfare.
"FEDERAL PROGRAMS
"SEC. 406. (a) The Congress authorizes and
directs that Federal agencies shall, to the
fullest extent consistent with their authority
under Federal laws administered by them,
carry out the programs within their control
In such a manner as to further the policy de-
clared in section 402 of this Act.
"(b) Each department, agency, or Instru-
mentality of the executive, legislative, and
Judicial branches of the Federal Government
(1) having Jurisdiction over any property or
facility, or (2) engaged in any activity re-
sulting, or which may result, in the emission
of noise shall comply with Federal, State, in-
terstate, and local requirements respecting
control and abatement of environmental
noise to the same extent that any person is
subject to such require'ments. The President
may exempt any single activity or facility,
including noise emission sources or classes-
thereof, of any department, agency, or instru-
mentality In the executive branch from com-
pliance with any such requirement if he de-
termines it to be in the paramount Interest
of the United States to do so; except that no
exemption, other than for those products
specified pursuant to section 404 (c) (2) of
this Act may be granted from the require-
ments of sections 408, 511, and 521 of this
Act. No such exemption shaU be granted due
to lack of appropriation unless the President
shall have specifically requested such appro-
priation as a part of the budgetary process
and the Congress shall have failed to make
available such requested appropriation. Any
exemption shall be for a period not in excess
of one year, but additional exemptions may
be granted for periods of not to exceed one
year upon the President's making a new de-
§
&
H
H
CO
H
O
h-t
I
H
W
t—i
CQ
^
O
fcO
Oi
O
[p. S17744]
-------
termination. The President shall report each
January to the Congress all exemptions from
the requirements of this section granted dur-
ing the preceding calendar year, together
with his reason for granting such exemption.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall coordinate
the programs of all Federal agencies relating
to environmental noise research and envi-
ronmental noise control. Each Federal agency
shall furnish to the Administrator such in-
formation as he may reasonably require, to
determine, as provided under section 309 ol
the Clean Air Act, if the nature, scope, and
results of the noise research and environ-
mental noise control programs of the agency
are consistent with the purposes of this Act.
"(2) Each Federal agency shall consult
with the Administrator in prescribing any
regulations respecting environmental noise.
If at any time the Administrator has reason
to believe that a standard or regulation, or
any proposed standard or regulation of any
Federal agency, respecting noise, does not
protect the public health and welfare to the
extent he believes to be required he shall
request such agency to review and report to
him on the advisability of revising such
standard or regulation to provide such pro-
tection. Any such request shall be published
in the Federal Register and shall be accom-
panied by a detJled statement of the informa-
tion on which such request Is based. Such
agency shall complete the requested review
and report to the Administrator within 180
days after the date of the publication in the
Federal Register of the request. The report
shall be published in the Federal Register
and shall be accompanied by a detailed state-
ment of the findings and conclusions of the
agency respecting the revision of its stand-
ard or regulation.
"(3) On the basis of regular consultation
wltn appropriate Federal agencies, the Ad-
ministrator shall compile and publish an-
nually a report to the Congress on the status
and progress of Federal activities relating to
municipal agencies, and other appropriate
persons, shall compile and provide informa-
tion on methods and techniques of control-
ling environmental noise through, among
other means, product use control, land use
regulation, and construction and building
standards. Such information shall be com-
piled and published to assist State and local
governments in establishing and enforcing
environmental noise control programs sup-
ported under section 418 of this Act.
"(d) The Administrator shall from time to
time review and, as appropriate, revise or
supplement any criteria or reports pub-
lished under this section.
"(e) Any report under subsection (b) (1)
of this section identifying major noise
sources shall be published in the Federal
Register. The publication or revision of any
criteria or information on control techniques
under this section shall be announced In the
Federal Register, and copies shall be made
available to the general public.
"NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOE NEW PRODUCTS
"SEC. 408. (a) (1) The Administrator shall
publish proposed regulations establishing
noise emission standards for new products or
classes of products—
"(A) identified in any report published un-
der section 407(b) (1) of this Act as a major
source of noise, and
"(B) which falls in one of the following
categories:
"(i) Construction equipment.
"(11) Transportation equipment (includ-
ing snowmobiles, motorcycles, and recrea-
tional vehicles and related equipment).
"(ill) Any motor or engine (including any
equipment of which an engine or motor Is
an integral part).
"(Iv) Turbines and compressors.
"(v) Electrical and electronic equipment,
except those products which are designed for
the production or reproduction of music or
sound (to the extent such reproduction Is
identical, except In amplitude, to the source
based on information published under sec-
tion 407 of tills Act, reflects the degree of
noise reduction achievable through the ap-
plication of the best available technology,
taking into account the cost of compliance.
In establishing such standards for any new
product the Administrator shall assure that
such standards are compatible with standards
under other laws respecting emission of air
or water pollutants and safety, including
(but not limited to) any standard under the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), or the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1151 et seq.). Any standard prescribed under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section may
contain provisions respecting instructions of
the manufacturer for the maintenance or use
of the product.
"(2) After publication of any proposed
regulations under this section, the Adminis-
trator shall allow the public an opportunity
to participate in rulemalcing In accordance
with section 553 of title 5, United States
Code.
"(3) The Administrator may revise any
noise emission standard prescribed by him in
accordance with this section.
"(4) Any regulation prescribed under this
section (and any revision thereof) shall
take effect after a period not to exceed
two years or such lesser time as the Ad-
ministrator finds necessary to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
Standards prescribed under this section shall
apply to products manufactured on or after
the effective date of such standards.
"(5) The Administrator may prescribe reg-
ulations defining 'effective date' for the pur-
pose of assuring that products manufactured
before the effective date of a regulation xiu-
der this section were not manufactured for
purposes of circumventing the effective date
(SD
Cn
O
to
Q
>
F
O
O
-------
environmental noise research and environ-
mental noise control. This report shall de-
scribe the environmental noise control pro-
grams of each .Federal agency and assess the
contributions of those programs to the Fed-
eral Government's overall efforts to control
environmental noise.
"NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
"SEC. 407. (a) The Administrator shall,
after consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and municipal agencies, and other ap-
propriate persons, within nine months after
the date of enactment of this section, issue,
noise criteria. Such criteria shall reflect the
scientific knowledge most useful in indicating
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects
on the public health or welfare which may
be expected from differing quantities and
qualities of noise, and such criteria shall set
forth levels of environmental noise the at-
tainment and maintenance of which in de-
fined areas under various conditions are req-
uisite to protect the public health and wel-
fare with an adequate margin of safety.
"(b) The Administrator, after consultation
with appropriate Federal, State, and munici-
pal agencies, and other appropriate persons,
shall within fifteen months after date of
enactment of this section compile and pub-
lish a report or series of reports (1) identify-
ing products (or classes of products) which
on the basis of information available to him
appear to be major sources of noise, and (2)
giving Information on the processes, proce-
dures, or operating methods which result in
the control of the emission of noise, to imple-
ment noise emission control standards under
sections 408, 501, 503, 511, and 521 of this Act,
which such information shall include tech-
nical and other data, including costs, as are
available on alternative methods of noise
control.
"(c) The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal, State, and
reproduced).
"(vl) Percussion and explosive equipment.
"(2) (A) Regulations proposed under para-
graph (1) shall be promulgated not later
than eighteen months after the date of en-
actment of this Act, and shall apply to any
appropriate new product described in para-
graph (1) which is identified (or in a class
identified) in any report published under
section 407(b)(l) of this Act on or before
the date of publication of such initial pro-
posed regulations.
"(B) In the case of any new product de-
scribed in paragraph (1) which is identified
(or is part of a class identified) as a major
source of noise in a report published under
section 407(b) (1) of this Act after publica-
tion of the initial proposed regulations under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, regula-
tions under paragraph (1) of this subsection
for such new product shall be promulgated
by the Administrator not later than nine
months after such report Is published.
"(b) The Administrator may publish pro-
posed regulations establishing noise emis-
sion standards respecting any new product
for which he is not required to establish
standards under subsection (a) of this sec-
tion but for which, in his judgment, noise
emission standards are requisite to protect
the public health and welfare. Not later than
six months after the date of publication of
such regulations respecting such new prod-
uct, he shall promulgate regulations estab-
lishing noise emission standards for such new
prdouct.
"(c)(l) Any noise emission standard pre-
scribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this
section respecting a new product shall set
limits on noise emissions from such new
product over the useful life of the product (as
determined by the Administrator taking into
account the range of possible uses for the
same type of product) and shall be a stand-
ard which in the Administrator's judgment,
ol such regulations.
"(d) (1) On and after the effective date of
any standards prescribed under this sec-
tion, the manufacturer of each new prodtict
shall warrant to the ultimate purchaser and
each subsequent purchaser that such prod-
uct is (A) designed, built, and equipped to
as to conform at the time of sale with appli-
cable regulations under this section, and (B)
free from defects In materials and workman-
ship which cause such product, under normal
use, operation, and maintenance to fail to
conform with applicable regulations for its
useful life, as determined by the Admin-
istrator, taking Into account the range of
uses for such product.
"(2) Any cost obligation of any dealer in-
curred as a result of any requirement im-
posed by paragraph (I) of this subsection
shall be borne by the manufacturer. The
transfer of any such cost obligation from -a.
manufacturer to any dealer through fran-
chise or other agreement is prohibited.
"(3) If a manufacturer includes in any
advertisement a statement respecting the
cost or value of noise emission control de-
vices or systems, such manufacturer shall
set forth in such statement the cost or value
attributed to such devices or systems by the
Secretary of Labor (through the Bureau of
Labor Statltics). The Secretary of Labor, and
his representatives, shall have the same ac-
cess for this pxirpose to the books, documents,
papers, and records of a manufacturer as
the Comptroller General has to those of a
recipient of assistance for purposes of sec-
tion 311 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
"(e)(l) No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce, with respect
to (A) any product manufactured after the
effective date of a regulation prescribed by
the Administrator under this section or (B.)
any component incorporated into such prod-
uct by the manufacturer of such product,
§
CO
I
d
CO
o
F
8
CO
I
I
Cn
O
O3
[p. S17745]
-------
any standard setting a limit on noise emis-
sions from such product enforceable against
the manufacturer which is not identical to
the standard prescribed by the Administrator.
"(2) Subject to paragraph (1) of triTs
subsection, nothing in this section shall pre-
clude or deny the right of any State or po-
litical subdivision thereof to establish and
enforce controls on environmental noise
through the licensing, regulation, or restric-
tion of the use, operation, or movement of
any product or combination of products:
Provided, That such control, licensing, regu-
lation, or restriction shall not, in the case of
any motor carrier engaged in Interstate com-
merce or any equipment or facility of a sur-
face carrier engaged in interstate commerce
by railroad, result in i limit on noise emis-
sions for any carriers, equipment, or facility
different than any limit contained in any
regulation applicable thereto prescribed by
the Administrator under this section of title
V of this Act, except that in the case of such
carriers the Administrator may by regula-
tion, upon the petition of a State or political
subdivision thereof and after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, permit
such more restrictive limits on such noise
emissions through the application of use,
operation, or movement controls or regula-
tions as In his judgment are necessitated by
special local conditions.
"(3) If, after promulgation of any stand-
ards and regulations under this section and
prior to their effective date, a product Is
manufactured in compliance, with such
standards and regulations such standards
and regulations shall, for the purposes of
paragraph (1) of this subsection, become
effective with respect to such product on the
date of such compliance.
"LABELING
"SBC. 409. (a) The Administrator shall by
regulation for any new product (or class
thereof) —
and decision in the matter on execution of
bond for the amount of the full invoice value
of such product, together with the duty
thereon, and on refusal to return such prod-
uct for any cause to the custody of the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, when demanded, for
the purpose of excluding it from the country,
or for any other purpose, said consignee shall
forfeit the full amount of said bond. All
charges for storage, cartage, and labor on
products which are refused admission or de-
livery under this section shall be paid by the
owner or consignee, and in default of such
payment shall constitute a lien against any
future importation made by such owner or
consignee.
"PROHIBITED ACTS
"SEC. 411. (a) Except as otherwise provided
in subsection (b) of this section, the follow-
ing acts or the causing thereof are pro-
hibited :
"(1) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale in, the offering for sale in, or the intro-
duction or delivery for introduction into,
commerce of any new product, aircraft, or
aircraft engine manufactured after the ef-
fective date of noise emission control stand-
ards prescribed under sections 408, 501, 503,
511, and 521 of this Act which are applicable
to such product, unless such product Is in
conformity with.-such standards.
"(2) (A) The removal or rendering inop-
erative by any person, other than for pur-
poses of maintenance, testing, repair, or re-
placement, of any device or element of de-
sign incorporated into any product, aircraft,
or aircraft engine to compliance with noise
emission standards promulgated under sec-
tions 408, 501, 503, 511, and 521 of this Act
prior to Its sale or delivery to the ultimate
purchaser or during Its term of use, or (B)
the use of a product after such device or
element of design has been removed or
rendered inoperative.
"(3) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale in, the offering for sale in, or the intro-
section upon such terms and conditions as
he may find necessary to protect the public
health or welfare, for the purpose of research,
investigations, studies, demonstrations, or
training, or for reasons of national security.
"(2) A new product Intended solely for
export, and so labeled or tagged on the out-
side of the container and on the product it-
self, shall be subject to noise emission stand-
ards of the country which imports such
product. In no event shall the Administra-
tor allow the export from the United States
of any product subject to section 414 of this
Act as a product, the noise emissions from
which are an imminent and substantial en-
dangerment to public health.
"ENFORCEMENT
"SEC. 412. (a) Any person who willfully or
negligently violates paragraph (1), (3), (5),
or (6) of subsection (a) of section 411 of
this Act shall be punished by a fine of not
more than $25,000 per day of violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than one year,
or by both. In the case of a violation of
paragraph (1) or (6) of subsection (a) of
section 411 of this Act the fine shall be not
less than $2,500 per day of violation. If the
conviction is for a violation committed after
a first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of
not more than $50,000 per day of violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than two
years, or by both.
"(b) For the purpose of this section, each
day of violation of section 411 (a) of this Act
shall constitute a separate violation of that
section.
"(c) The district courts of the United
States shall have jurisdiction of actions
brought by and In the name of the United
States to restrain any violations of section
411 (a) of this Act.
"(d)(l) Whenever any person. Is in viola-
tion of section 411 (a) of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator may issue an order specifying
to
Ol
o
Q
O
O
F
O
a
-------
"(1) Identified pursuant to section 407(b)
(1); or
"(2) which is sold wholly or in part on
the basis of its effectiveness in reducing
noise,
require either (1) that a notice of the level
of noise emission including the relationship
to any applicable noise emission standard
under section 408, or notice of the effective-
ness in reducing noise (as the case may be)
supplied by the manufacturer, be affixed to
the new product and to the outside of its
container at the time of its sale to the ulti-
mate purchaser, or (2) that such notice of
such level or effectiveness supplied by the
manufacturer otherwise be given to the pros-
pective user. He shall prescribe the form of
the notice and the methods and units of
measxirement to be used for this purpose.
Section 408(c) (2) shall apply to the pronuil-
gation of any regulation under this section.
"(b) This section does not prevent any
State or political subdivision thereof from
regulating product labeling In any way not
in conflict with regulations promulgated by
the Administrator under this section.
"IMPORTS
"SEC. 410. Any product offered for entry
into the United States for which a standard
or regulation has become effective pursuant
to this title, which is not accompanied by
certificate of compliance in the form pre-
scribed by the Administrator, shall be refused
entry into the United States. If a product is
refused entry, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall refuse delivery to the consignee and
shall cause disposal or storage of any prod-
uct refused delivery which has not been ex-
ported by the consignee within three months
from the date of notice of such refusal under
such regulations as the Secretary of the
Treasury may prescribe, except that the Sec-
retary of the Treasury may deliver to the con-
signee, such product pending examination
duction or delivery for introduction into,
commerce of any new product manufactured
after the effective date -of regulations pro-
mulgated xinder option (1) in section 409 (b)
of this Act (requiring information respect-
ing noise) which are applicable to such
product, unless it is in conformity with such
regulations.
"(3) (A) In the case of a manufacturer or
dealer, the assistance of any person in a
violation of paragraph (2) (A) of this subsec-
tion or the furnishing of information with
respect to a violation of paragraph (2) (A)
of this subsection.
"(B) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale in, the offering for sale in, or the intro-
duction or delivery for introduction into,
commerce of any new product manufactured
after the effective date of regulations pro-
mulgated under option (1) in section 409 (a)
of this Act (requiring Information respecting
noise) which are applicable to such product,
unless it is in conformity with such regula-
tions.
"(4) (A) The removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pur-
suant to regulations promulgated under sec-
tion 409 (a) of this Act prior to the 'sale of
the new product to the ultimate purchaser,
or (B) the sale of such product or container
from which such notice has been removed.
"(5) The importation into the United
States by any person of any new product in
violation of regulations promulgated under
•section 410 of this Act that are applicable
to such product.
"(6) The failure of any person to comply
with any order issued under section 412(d)
or 414 of this Act.
"(b) (1) The Administrator may after pub-
lic hearings exempt for a specified period of
time not to exceed one year, any new prod-
uct, or class thereof, from paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), and (5) of subsection (a) of this
such relief as he determines Is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare. Such
relief may include an order requiring such
person to cease such violation, to notify ulti-
mate purchasers of the risks associated with
such violation, to make public notice of such
risks, to recall any products responsible for
such violation, to repurchase any such prod-
ucts, or to replace any such products. Such
order may also require the seizure of any
such products by the Administrator.
"(2) Any order under this subsection shall
be Issued only after notice and opportunity
for a hearing in accordance with section 554
of title 5 of the United States Code.
"(e) When authorized by State law—
"(1) The Administrator may, by agreement
with any environmental noise control agency
with or without reimbursement, authorize
law enforcement officers or other officers or
employees of such environmental noise con-
trol agency to bring civil actions in the ap-
propriate State courts to restrain any per-
son from violating section 411 (a).
"(2) The courts of such State may enter-
tain any such civil action.
Nothing in this section shall affect the
authority of an environmental noise control
agency to commence a civil action under sec-
tion 413 of this Act.
"CITIZEN SUITS
"SEC. 413. (a) Except as provided in sub-
section (b) of this section, any person may
commence a civil action on his own behalf—
"(1) against any person (including (A)
the United States, and (B) any other gov-
ernmental instrumentality or agency to the
extent permitted by the eleventh amend-
ment to the Constitution) who is alleged to
be in violation of any noise control require-
ment (as denned in subsection (f) of this
section), or
"(2) against—
[p. S17746]
B
O
1
w
I— I
%
O
to
Oi
O
-Ol
-------
"(A) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency where there is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act which
is not discretionary with such Administrator.
"(B) the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration where there is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act or
section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 which is not discretionary with such
Administrator,
The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of
the parties, to enforce such noise control
requirement or to order such Administrator
to perform such act or duty, as the case
maybe.
"(t>) No action may be commenced—
"(1) under subsection (a) (1) of this sec-
tion—
"(A) prior to sixty days after the plain-
tiff has given notice of the violation (i) to
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (and to the Federal Avia-
tion Administrator in the case of a violation
of a noise emission control requirement with
respect to aircraft under this Act or section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act as amended)
and (ii) to any alleged violator of such re-
quirement, or
"(B) If an Administrator has commenced
and Is diligently prosecuting a civil action
to require compliance with the noise con-
trol requirement, but in any such action
in a court of the United States any person
may intervene as a matter of right; or
"(2) under subsection (a) (2) of this sec-
tion prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice to the defendant that he
will commence such action.
Notice vinder this subsection shall be given
in such manner as the Administrator of
tne Environmental Protection Agency shall
"(b) The district court in which such ac-
tion is filed shall have Jurisdiction to declare
such product a product the noise emissions
from which are an imminent and substan-
tial endangerment to public health, and to
grant (as ancillary to such declaration or
in lieu thereof) such temporary or perma-
nent equitable relief as may be necessary to
protect the public from such risk. Such re-
lief may include a mandatory order re-
quiring the notification of the original pur-
chasers of such product of such risk, public
notice, the recall, the repurchase, the repair,
the replacement, or the seizure of such prod-
uct.
"JUDICIAL REVIEW
"SEC. 415.. Any Judicial review of final re-
gulations promulgated under this Act shall
be in accordance with sections 701-706 of
title 5 of the United States Code, except
that:
"(a) a petition of review of action the
Administrator in promulgating any stand-
ard or regulation under section 408, 501, 511,
or 521 of this Act or any labeling regulation
under section 409 of this Act may be filed
only in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. Any such peti-
tion shall be filed within ninety days from
the date of such promulgation, or after such
date if such petition is based solely on
grounds arising after such ninetieth day.
Action of the Administrator with respect to
which review could have been obtained
under this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review in civil proceedings for
enforcement except as to whether the ad-
ministrative and Judicial procedures of this
Act have .been observed;
"(b) if a party seeking review under this
Act applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satis-
faction of the court that the information is
material ana was not available at the time
of the proceeding before the Administrator,
"(b) For the purpose of obtaining infor-
mation to carry out titles IV and V of this
Act, the Administrator may issue subpenas
for the attendance and testimony of wit-
nesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and he may admin-
ister oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be
paid the same fees and mileage that are paid
witnesses in the courts of the United States.
In cases of contumacy or refusal to obey a
subpena served upon any person under this
subsection, the district of the United States
for any district in. which such person is
found or resides or transacts business, upon
application by the United States and after
notice to such person, shall have jurisdic-
tion to issue an order requiring such person
to appear and give testimony before the Ad-
ministrator, to appear and produce paper.-,,
books, and documents before the Adminis-
trator, or both, and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by suc'.i
court as a contempt thereof.
"(c) Any records, reports, or information
obtained under this section shall be avail-
able to the public, except that upon a shov-
ing satisfactory to the Administrator by any
person that records, reports, or information
or particular part thereof (other than uoi"~~.
emisison data) to which the Administrator
has access under this section if made public,
would divulge methods or processes entitled
to protection as trade secrets of such per-
son, the Administrator shall consider such
record, report, or information or particular
portion thereof confidential in accordant
with the purposes of section 1905 of titlo
18 of the United States Code, except that
such record, report, or information may be
disclosed to other officers, employees, or au-
thorized representatives of the United States
concerned with carrying out this Act or wh en
relevant In any proceeding under this Act.
Nothing in this section shall authorize tr>e
withholding of information by the Admin-
istrator or any officer or employee under Ills
to
Cn
O
O5
O
O
F
O
I
3
F
-------
prescribe by regulation.
"(e) In an action under this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency or, if" appropriate, the Admin-
istrator of the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, If not a party, may intervene as a mat-
ter of- right.
"(d) The court, in issuing any final order
in any action brought pursuant to subsec-
tion (a) of this section, may award costs of
litigation (including reasonable attorney and
expert witness fees) to any party, whenever
the court determines such, an award is ap-
propriate.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of per-
sons) may have under any statute or com-
mon law to seek enforcement of any noise
control requirement or to seek any other
relief (including relief against an Adminis-
trator) .
" (f) For purposes of this section, the term
'noise control requirement' means any pro-
hibition, standard, or requirement under
section 408, 411, 501, 503, 508, 511, or 521 of
this Act or a prohibition, standard, rule, or
regulation issued under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended.
"EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
"SEC. 414. (a) The Administrator or the
Attorney General shall file, in a district
court of the United States having venue
thereof, an action against any product the
noise emissions from which are an Imminent
and substantial endangerment to public
health, or against any person who manu-
factures for sale, sells, or offers for sale, in
commerce, or imports into the United States,
such product. Such an action may be filed,
notwithstanding the existence or nonexist-
ence of a noise emission standard applicable
to a product, or the pendency of adminis-
trative proceedings initiated pursuant to
this Act.
the court may order such additional evidence
(and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be
taken before the Administrator, and to be
adduced upon the hearing, in such manner
and upon such terms and conditions as. the
court may deem proper. The Administrator
may modify his findings as to the facts, or
make new findings, by reason of the addi-
tional evidence so taken, and he shall file
with the court such modified or new find-
ings, and his recommendation, if any, for
the modification or setting aside of his ori-
ginal order, with the return of such addi-
tional evidence;
"(o) with respect to relief pending review
of an action by the Administrator, no stay
of an agency action may be granted unless the
reviewing court determines that the party
seeking such stay is (1) likely to prevail on
the merits in the review proceeding and (2)
will suffer irreparable harm pending such
proceeding.
"RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
"SEC. 416. (a) Such manufacturer of a
new product, aircraft, or aircraft engine to
which standards or regulations under sec-
tions 408, 501, 503, 511, or 521 of this Act or
regulations under section 409 apply shall (1)
establish and maintain such records, make
such reports, provide such information, and
make such tests, as the Administrator may
reasonably require to enable him to deter-
mine whether such manufacturer has acted
or is acting in compliance with this Act, (2)
upon request of an officer or employee duly
designated by the Administrator, permit such
officer or ^employee at reasonable times to
have access to such information and the re-
sults of such tests and to copy such records,
and (3) make new products coming off the
assembly line or otherwise in the hands of
the manufacturer available for testing by the
Administrator, to the extent required by re-
gulations of the Administrator.
control, from the duly authorized commit-
tees of the Congress.
"(d) Any communication from a person
to the Administrator or any other employee
of the Agency concerning a matter presently
under consideration in a rulemaking or ad-
Judieatory proceeding in the Agency shall
be made a 'part of the public file of that
proceeding unless It is a communication' en -
titled to protection under subsection (c*
of this section.
"(e) Any person who knowingly makes
any false statement, representation, or cer-
tification in any-application, record, report,
plan, or other document filed or required
to be maintained under this Act or who
falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly ren-
ders Inaccurate any monitoring device or
method required to be maintained under
this Act, shall upon conviction, be punisned
by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by im-
prisonment for not more than six months,
or by both.
"FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
"SEC. 417. (a) No Federal agency may enter
into any contract for the procurement of
goods, materials, or services -with any per-
son, who has been convicted of a criminal
offense under section 412 (a) of this Act and
who, upon consideration of the gravity of
the violation and the good faith of the per-
son charged in attempting to achieve rapid
compliance, the Administrator determines
should be subject to the prohibition of this
section. The prohibition in the preceding
sentence shall continue until the Admin-
istrator certifies that the condition giving
rise to a conviction has been corrected.
"(b) The Administrator shall establish
procedures to provide all Federal' agencies
with the notification necessary for the pur-
poses of subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) In order to implement the purposes
and policy, of this Act, the President shall,
CD
£
0
w.
n
I
bO
§
[p. 817747]
-------
not more than one hundred and eighty days
after its enactment, cause to bs Issued an
order (1) requiring each Federal agency
authorized to enter Into contracts and each
Federal agency which is empowered to ex-
tend Federal assistance by way of grant loan,
or contract to effectuate the purposes and
policy of this Act in such contracting or
assistance activities, and (2) setting forth
procedures, sanctions, penalties, and such
other provisions, as the President determines
necessary to carry out such requirement.
"(d) The President may exempt any con-
tract, loan, or grant from all or part of the
provisions of this section where he deter-
mines such exemption is necessary In the
paramount Interest of the United States, and
he shall notify the Congress of such exemp-
tion.
"GRANTS FOH SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
NOISE PLANNING AND CONTHOL PROGRAMS
"Sec. 418. (a)(l) The Administrator may
make grants to environmental noise control
agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of
the cost of planning, developing, establish-
ing, or improving, and up to one-half of the
cost of maintaining programs for the preven-
tion and control of environmental noise.
"(2) Before approving any grant under
this subsection to any environmental noise
control agency within the meaning of sec-
tions 404(k) (3) and 404(k) (4) of this Act,
the Administrator (when appropriate) shall
receive assurances that such agency provides
for adequate representation of State, Inter-
state, local, and International interests In
its area of Jurisdiction. Before approving any
grant tinder this subsection the Administra-
tor shall determine that the recipient is the
appropriate environmental noise control
agency for the Jurisdictions Involved in order
to minimize overlap and duplication of ef-
fort.
"(3) Before approving any planning grant
•under this subsection to any environmental
xiolse control agency -within the meaning of
slderation to (1) the population, (2) the
extent of the actual or potential environ-
mental noise problem, and (3) the financial
need of the respective agencies. No agency
shall receive any grant under this section
with respect to the maintenance of' a pro-
gram for the prevention and controlj of en-
vironmental noise unless the Administrator
is satisfied that such grant will be so used
as to supplement and, to the extent practi-
cable, Increase the level of State, local, or
other non-Federal funds that would be in
absence of such grant be made available for
the maintenance of such program, and will
in no event supplant such State, local, or
other non-Federal funds. No grant shall be
made under this section until the Adminis-
trator has consulted with the appropriate
official as designated by the Governor or
Governors of the State or States affected.
"(c) Not more than 10 per centum of the
total funds appropriated or allocated for the
purposes of subsection (a) of this section
shall be granted for environmental noise
control programs in any one State. In the
case of a grant for a program in an area
crossing State boundaries, the Administra-
tor shall determine the portion of such grant
that is chargeable to the percentage limita-
tion under this subsection for each State
into which such area extends.
"(d) The Administrator, with the con-
currence of any recipient of a grant under
this section, may reduce the payments to
such recipient by the amount of the pay,
allowances, traveling expenses, and any other
costs In connection with the detail of any
officer or employee to the recipient under
section 403 (c) of this Act, when such detail
is for the convenience of, and at the request
of, such recipient and for the purposes of
carrying out the provisions of this Act. The
amount Toy which such payments have been
reduced snail be available for payment of
such costs by the Administrator, but shall,
for the purpose of determining the amount
"(C) which he determines Is suitable for
use as a substitute for a type of product
at that time in use by agencies of the Fed-
eral Government.
"(3) The Administrator may establish a
Low-Noise-Emission Product Advisory Com-
mittee to assist him in determining which
products qualify as low-nolse-emlsslon prod-
ucts for purposes of this section. The Com-
mittee shall include the Administrator or
his designee, a representative of the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards, and representa-
tives of such other Federal agencies and pri-
vate Individuals as the Administrator may
deem necessary from time to time. Any mem-
ber of the Committee not employed on a
full-time basis by the United States may
receive the dally equivalent of the annual
rate of basic pay In effect for grade GS-18
of the General Schedule for each day such
member is engaged upon work of the Com-
mittee. Each member of the Committee shall
be reimbursed for travel expenses, including
per diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized
by section 6703 of title 5, United States Code,
for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
"(4) Certification under this section shall
be effective for a period of one year from the
date of Issuance. .
"(5) (A) Any person seeking to have a
class or model of product certified under
this section shall file a certification ap-
plication in accordance with regulations pre-
scribed by the Administrator.
"(B) The Administrator shall publish In
the Federal Beglster a notice of each ap-
plication received.
"(C) The Administrator shall make deter-
minations for the purpose of this section in
accordance with procedures prescribed by
him by regulation.
"(D) The Administrator shall conduct
•whatever investigation is necessary, Includ-
ing actual Inspection of tne product at a
place designated In regulations prescribed
o
oo
Q
—
1
f
H
-------
sections 404(k) (3) and 4O4(k) (4) of this Act,
the Administrator shall receive assurances
that such agency has the capability of de-
veloping and enforcing a comprehensive en-
vironmental noise control plan.
"(4) Before approving any grant for pur-
poses other than developing a program under
this section to any environmental noise con-
trol agency within the meaning of section 404
of this Act, the Administrator shall deter-
mine that such agency has the authority—
"(A) to regulate the location, modification,
and construction of any facilities within the
area of jurisdiction of such agency which
may result in the generation of environ-
mental noise; and
"(B) to assure that the use of any product
in the area of jurisdiction of such agency will
not exceed applicable noise control levels;
"(C) to (i) identify, if appropriate, sources
of environmental noise within the Jurisdic-
tion of such agency, and (11) set forth pro-
cedures, processes, and methods (including
land use requirements and design and con-
struction standards) to control such sources
to the extent feasible;
"(D) to acquire, maintain, and operate
noise monitoring facilities In the field and
otherwise, making public reports of noise
emissions and levels of environmental noise
disclosed by such monitoring, which reports
shall be related to any applicable standards
or limitations; and
"(E) to issue abatement orders.
" (b) From the sums available for the pur-
poses of subsection (a) of this section for
any fiscal year, the Administrator shall from
time-to time make grants to environmental
noise control agencies upon such terms and
conditions as the Administrator may find
necessary to carry out the purposes of this
section. In establishing regulations for the
granting of such funds the Administrator
shall, so far as practicable, give due con-
of any grant to a recipient under subsection
(a) of this section, be deemed to nave been
paid to such agency.
"(e) There Is authorized to be appropri-
ated for this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year
ending June 30, 1073, $7,600,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and $10,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, I97S.
"DEVELOPMENT or LOW-NOISE-EMISSION
PRODUCTS
"Sec. 419. (a) For the purpose of this sec-
tion:
"(1) The term 'Committee' means the
Low-Nolse-Emisslon Product Advisory Com-
mittee.
"(2) The term 'Federal Government' in-
cludes the legislative, executive, and judi-
cial branches of the Government of 'the
United States, and the government of the
District of Columbia.
"(3) The term 'low-noise-emission prod-
uct' means any product which emits noise
in amounts" significantly below the levels of
other products in the competitive market for
such product at the time of procurement.
"(4) The term 'retail price' means (A) the
maximum statutory price applicable to any
type of product; or (B) in any case where
there is no applicable maximum statutory
price, the most recent procurement price
paid for any type of product.
"(b)(l) The Administrator shall deter-
mine which products qualify as low-noise-
emission products in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
"(2) The Administrator shall certify any
product—
"(A) for which a certification application
has been filed In accordance with paragraph
(5) (A) of this subsection;
"(B) which is a low-noise-emission prod-
uct as determined by the Administrator;
and
under suttparagraph (A) .
"(E) The Administrator shall receive and
evaluate written comments and documents
from. Interested persons In support of, or in
opposition to, certification of the class or
model of product under consideration.
" (F) Within ninety days after the receipt
of a properly filed certification application
the Administrator shall determine whether
such product is a low-noise-emission prod-
uct for purposes of this section. If the Ad-
ministrator determines that such product is
a low-noise-emission product, then within
one hundred and eighty days of such deter-
mination the 'Administrator shall reach a
decision as to whether such product Is a
suitable substitute for any class or classes
of products presently being purchased by the
Federal Government for use by its agencies.
"(G) Immediately upon making any de-
termination or decision under subparagraph
(F), the Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Register notice of such determina-
tion or decision, including reasons therefor.
"(c) (1) Certified low-noise-emission prod-
ucts shall be acquired by purchase or lease by
the Federal Government for use by the Fed-
eral Government In lieu of other products
if the Administrator of General Services de-
termines that such certified products have
procurement costs which are no more than
125 per centum of the retail price' of the
least expensive type of product for which
they are certified substitutes.
"(2) Data relied upon by the Administra-
tor in determining that a product is a cer-
tified low-noise-emissiou product shall be
Incorporated in any contract for the procure-
ment of such product.
"(d) The procuring agency shall be re-
quired to purchase available certified low-
noise-emission products which are eligible
for purchase to the extent they are available
before purchasing any other products for
I
H
69
CO
O
g
I
B
W
(—(
Ul
[p. 817748]
to
Or
O
-CO
-------
which any low-noise-emission product is a
certified substitute. In making purchasing
selections between competing eligible certi-
fied low-noise-emission products, the pro-
curing agency shall give priority to any class
or model which does not require extensive
periodic maintenance to retain its low-noise-
emission qualities or which does not involve
operating costs significantly in excess of
those products for which it is a certified
substitute.
"(e) For the purpose of procuring certified
low-noise-emission products any statutory
price limitations shall be waived.
"(f) The Administrator shall, from time
to time as he deems appropriate, test the
emissions of noise from certified low-noise-
emission products purchased by the Federal
Government. If at the. time of purchase he
finds that the noise-emission levels exceed
the levels on which certification under this
section was based, the Administrator shall
give the supplier of such product written
notice of this finding, issue public notice of
it, and give the supplier an opportunity to
make necessary repairs, adjustments, or
replacements. If no such repairs, adjust-
ments, or replacements are made within a
period to be set by the Administrator, he may
order the supplier to show cause why the
product Involved should be eligible for
recertifi cation.
" (g) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated for paying additional amounts for prod-
ucts pursuant to, and for carrying out the
provisions of, this section, $1,000,000 for the
flscal.year ending June 30, 1973, and $2,000,-
000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal
years.
"(h) The Administrator shall promulgate
the procedures required to implement this
section within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this section.
"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
"SEC. 42O. MThere are authorized to be ap-
that any proposed standard, rule, or regu-
lation has been demonstrated to be tech-
nologically available for application to types
of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or cer-
tificate 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 subse-
quent standards, rules, or regulations pro-
mulgated and approved 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 individu-
als, shall conduct a study of .the (a) ade-
quacy of Federal Aviation Administration
flight and operational noise controls; (b)
adequacy of noise emission standards on
new and existing aircraft, together with rec-
ommendations on the retrofitting and phase-
out of existing aircraft; (c) implications of
identifying and achieving levels of cumula-
tive noise exposure around airports; and
(d) additional measures available to airport
operators and local governments to control
aircraft noise. He shall report on such study
to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce of the House of Bepresentatives
and the Committees on Commerce and Pub-
lic 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-
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. 606. 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
meaning as such terms have under section
101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended.
"CIVIL AIRCHAFT SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 508. (a) No person may operate a
civil aircraft over the territory of the United
States, the territorial sea of the United
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 m'acn 1 may be issued if the
applicant shows one or more of the follow-
to
Or
o
o
tef
-------
propriatecl to carry out tills Act (other than
sections 418 and! 419) $18,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 3O, 1973; $36,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 80; 1974; and
$50,000,000 for the nsoal year ending June SO,
1975."
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 AIR-
CRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
r "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 noise 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
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
Administration, and shall not be promul-
gated until the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration has determined that
such regulations are consistent with the
highest degree of safety in air commerce and
sultatlon 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 ap-
peal 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 Transportation only if it finds
no violation of such standards, rules, or reg-
ulations, and that such amendment, modi-
fication, or revocation by the Board Is
consistent with safety in air transportation.
"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, imless standards,
ing:
"(1) The flight Is necessary to show com-
pliance with an airworthiness regulation or
is necessary lor aircraft development.
"(2) The flight Is necessary to determine
the sonic boom characteristics of the air-
plane, 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 Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency. In addition, for an authorization
covered by subsection (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.
"
-------
subject lo the penalties prescribed under
subsection (a) of section 412 of this Act.
"PART B—RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STAND-
ARDS
"SEC. 611. (a) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this title, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for surface carriers en-
gaged In Interstate commerce by railroad.
Such proposed regulations shall Include noise
emission standards setting such limits on
noise emissions resulting from operation of
the equipment and facilities of surface car-
riers engaged In Interstate commerce by rail-
road which reflect the degree of noise reduc-
tion achievable through the application of
the best available technology, taking Into ac-
count the cost of compliance. These regula-
tions shall be In addition to any regulations
that may be proposed under section 408 of
this Act.
"(b) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under subsection (a) of this section, and sub-
ject to the provisions of section 416 of this
Act, the Administrator shall promulgate fi-
nal regulations. Such regulations may be re-
vised from time to time, In accordance with
this section.
"(c) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this section
shall be promulgated only after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation In order
to assure appropriate consideration for safe-
ty and technological availability.
"(d) Any regulation or revision, thereof
promulgated under this section shall take
effect after s,uch period as the Administrator
flnds necessary, after consultation with, the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
"SEC. 612. The Secretary of Transportation,
after consultation with. the Administrator,
snail promulgate regulations to Insure corn-
emission regulations for motor carriers en-
gaged In Interstate commerce. Such proposed
regulations shall include noise omission
standards setting such limits on noise emis-
sions resulting from operation of motor car-
riers engaged In Interstate commerce which
reflect the degree of noise reduction achiev-
able through the application of the best
available technology, taking Into account the
cost of compliance. These regulations shall
be In addition to any regulations that may
be proposed under section 408 of this Act.
"(b) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under subsection (a) of this section, and
subject to the provisions of section 415 of
this Act, the Administrator shall promul-
gate final regulations. Such regulations may
be revised from time to time, In accordance
with this section.
"(c) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this section
shall be promulgated only after consulta-
tion with the Secretary of Transportation In
order to assure appropriate consideration for
safety and technological availability,
"(d) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this section shall take ef-
fect alter such period as the Administrator
flnds necessary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the de-
velopment and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within soldi period.
"SEC. 522. The Secretary of Transportation,
after consultation with the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations to insure com-
pliance with all standards promulgated by
the Administrator under section 521 of this
part. The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out such regulations through the use
of his powers and duties of enforcement and
inspection authorized by the Interstate Com-
merce Act and the Department of Transpor-
tation Act. Regulations promulgated under
thin section and section 621 of this part shall
bo subject to the provisions of sections 411.
to
Q
TJ
M
-------
pllance wltb all standards promulgated by
the Administrator under section 511 of this
Act. The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out such .regulations through the use
of his powers and duties of enforcement and
inspection authorized by the Safety Appli-
ance Acts, the Interstate Commerce Act, and
the Department of Transportation Act.
Regulations promulgated under this section
and section 511 of this part shall be subject
to the provisions of sections 411, 412, 413,
415, and 416 of this Act.
"SEC. 513. Nothwlthstanding any other
provision of this Act, after the effective date
of regulations under this part, no State or
political subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce any standard respecting noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of equip-
ment or facilities of surface carriers engaged
in interstate commerce by railroad unless
such standard is identical to a standard
applicable to noise emissions resulting from
such operation prescribed by any regulation
under this section: Provided, however, That
nothing in this section shall diminish or en-
hance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environ-
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product as the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Transpor-
tation may determine to be not in conflict
with regulations promulgated under this
part.
"SEC. 514. The terms 'carrier' and 'rail-
road' as used In sections 511, 512, and 513
of this part shall have the same meaning as
such terms have under section 22 of title 45
of the United States Code.
"PART C—MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
"SEC. 521. (a) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this title, the
Administrator shall publish proposed noise
412, 413, 415, and 416 at this Act.
"SEC. 523. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, after the effective .date
of regulations under this part no State or
political subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce any standard respecting noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of motor
carriers engaged in Interstate commerce un-
less such standard Is Identical to a standard
applicable to noise emissions resulting from
such operation prescribed by any regulation
under this section: Provided, however, That
nothing in this section shall diminish or en-
hance the rights of any State or political sub-
division thereof to establish, and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environ-
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product as 'the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Transpor-
tation, may determine to be not in conflict
with regulations promulgated under this
part.
"SEC. 524. The term 'motor carrier' as used
in sections 521, 522, and 523 ot this part shall
have the same meaning as those terms as
denned in section 303(a) (14), (15), and
(17) of title 49 of the United States Code."
SEC. 4. There is. hereby authorized to be
transferred to the Administrator any func-
tion or personnel of the Department of
Transportation with respect to the control
and abatement of aircraft noise which the
President determines is necessary to carry out
section 3 of this Act.
I
O
t— i
CO
I
0
3
o
to
Cn
h—i
00
-------
2514
LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
JORGE ORTUZAR-VARAS AND
MARIA PABLA DE ORTUZAR
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I-ask
unanimous consent that the pending
business be laid aside temporarily and
that the Senate turn to the considera-
tion of Calendar No. 1230. This matter
has been cleared all the way around.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 14128) for the relief of Jorge
Ortuzar-Varas and Maria Pabla de Ortuzar.
The bill was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
ACT OF 1972
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 3342) to amend title IV
of the Clean Air Act, and for other
purposes.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the following
members of the staff of the Committee
on Public Works be permitted to be on
the floor during the consideration and
any votes on S. 3342: Barry Meyer,
Philip Cummings, John Yago, Leon G.
Billings, Bailey Guard, Richard Hell-
mann, Don Alexander, and Charlene
Sturbitts and Jane Frank of my staff,
and Mr. Hal Brayman of the staff
of the Committee on Public Works.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that during the con-
sideration of this bill Robert Ginther,
Bill Frank, and Mike Pertschuk be per-
mitted on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I can
think of no better way to introduce the
subject of environmental noise control
than to read a letter which I recently
received from a constituent.
She wrote:
DEAR SENATOB TXTNNET: 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 witli your own ears—I will take
you around—see the other sections that are
affected.
The noise Is so bad at my house—you could
cry—It hurts your ears so much. When a
plane comes directly over my house—it
shakes the house and that squeal Is so bad
for the ear drums.. ..
When children will start crying when a
plane flies overhead you know their ears will
soon be deafened (so they will not hear that
screech).
Do you know that seven schools are under
the south runway [and] are going to be taken
down. Look at all that money wasted. So
easy to have just a westerly landing and
that would be all removed.
Please, please—on bended knees, help us—
do something . make it a law. . .
Well, we have worked hard to "make
it a law" on this subject. S. 3342, the En-
vironmental Noise Control Act of 1972,
would go a long way toward solving the
aircraft noise problem, as well as the din
from other major noise sources ranging
from motorcycles to vacuum cleaners, to
jackhammers to electric blenders. For the
first time, in the version of the legislation
reported by the Senate Public Works
Commitee, we would establish a com-
prehensive Federal program—including
grants to States and cities to support
programs geared to local needs—to deal
with noise pollution in much the same
way and at the same level of priority as
the Congress has dealt with air and water
pollution.
Treating the subject of noise pollution
as a total system, the legislation would
require the Environmental Protection
Agency to set noise emission levels from
major noise sources adequate to protect
the public health and welfare. It would
provide technical and financial assist-
ance to the States and cities while leav-
ing them free to set the strongest pos-
sible noise control programs.
The legislation has broad-based sup-
port from such widely divergent groups
as labor unions, the Airport Operators
Council, environmental organizations,
the American Public Health Association,
the League of Cities, Council of Mayors,
the National Governors Conference, and
representatives of the industry. Support
is especially strong for title V) which in-
cludes provisions for establishing the En-
vironmental Protection Agency as lead
agency in setting noise emission stand-
ards for aircraft.
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2515
islation was thoroughly con-
legislative hearings and ex-
icutive sessions. The hearings
igislation pointed up some
;a'tistics about the subtle and
iffects of noise on hearing and
icts' of health. According to
llion Americans are adversely
noise. Of these, about 40 mil-
lion persons are literally listening to a
health hazard, risking hearing impair-
ment and other physiological and psy-
chological effects. This figure does not
include an additional 17 million workers
who have incurred job-related hearing
damage. Fifteen million people who live
near airports all around the country are
adversely affected by aircraft noise and
[p. 817751]
-------
suffer health Impairment which includes
loss of sleep, anxiety, and Interference
with classroom learning and with normal
conversation.
The hearings also explored the total
inadequacy of present law to deal with
the health need. Under the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1970, EPA is given
study and review authority over Federal
activities which result in a noise nuis-
ance. But neither EPA nor any other
Federal agency is given regulatory au-
thority to set noise emission standards
adequate to protect the public health.
The hearings showed, too, that States
and cities are becoming increasingly
frustrated at their inability to deal effec-
tively with local noise problems: caught
in a financial squeeze, they lack the tools
and training to do the job they need.
Indeed, a study by EPA of past?State and
local efforts shows that the most out-
standing States have spent a paltry
10 cents per capita on noise controls;
most States have spent as little as one
or 2 cents per capita—or nothing at all.
In the past year alone, EPA has received
requests from 28 States and 111 cities for
technical and financial assistance—de-
mands which it- has no authority to
meet under present law.
Most frustrated of all are the people—
who are bringing billions of dollars in
damage suits against airport author-
ities—and hundreds of millions of dol-
lars in compensation claims for hearing
loss. - *
At Los Angeles International Airport
alone, $14 billion in nuisance suits are
pending—a. situation which prompted
the city attorney of Los Angeles to
Includes the concept of a limitation on
noise which would be applicable to every
individual source in such a denned geo-
graphic area.
Under the regulatory provisions of the
act, within 15 months after enactment of
the legislation, the Administrator is re-
quired to prepare public reports identify-
ing products which appear to be major
sources of noise. Identification as a ma-
jor source of noise is the first step in
the development of noise emission stand-
ards for particular products.
Noise emission standards must be es-
tablished for any major source of noise
which falls into the categories of con-
struction equipment, transportation
equipment, motors or engines, turbines
and compressors, percussion and explo-
sive equipment, or electrical and elec-
tronic equipment—other than sound re-
production equipment. These standards
must take effect no later than 2 years af-
ter the date of promulgation or any
shorter period which permits the appli-
cation of the necessary technology. The
Administrator is given authority to de-
fine "effective date" in such a way as to
prevent the stockpiling of inventories
to circumvent the purpose of the stand-
ards.
Standards for new products are re-
quired to set limits on noise emissions
which in the Administrator's judgment
reflect the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of
the best available technology, taking into
account the cost of compliance. The dif-
ficulty of relating noise emissions from
a given source to effects on public health
and welfare in an enforceable way led
primary responsibility under the bill for
setting and enforcing limits on environ-
mental noise which in their View are
necessary to protect public health and
welfare. This essentially local responsi-
bility is not assumed or interfered with
by this bill, although Federal guidance,
technical and financial assistance are
provided.
Under the legislation, at a minimum.
States and local governments may reach
or maintain levels of environmental
noise which they desire through opera-
tional limits or regulations on products
in use—such as speed or load limits or
prohibitions of use in given areas or
during given hours—quantitative limits
on environmental noise in a given area
which may be enforced against any
source within the area, including zones
adjacent to streets and highways, reg-
ulations limiting the environmental noise
which may exist at the boundary of a
construction site, nuisance laws, or uses
which do not amount to a burden manu-
facturers must meet to continue in busi-
ness.
In a letter to the Editor of the New
York Times dated September 29, 1972,
which discusses pre-emption under the
legislation, EPA Administrator Buckel-
shaus draws an analogy, to the regula-
tion of alcoholic beverages, and states:
This relationship .between Federal, state
and local controls Is not unusual or un-
workable. There are many precedents. For
example, consider the case of alcoholic bev-
erages. Such beverages only can be manu-
factured and .Introduced Into Interstate
commerce In accordance with strict Federal
specifications and regulations. However,
states' and cities can forbid their use or they
bO
o
a
o
CO
cj
TJ
-------
threaten to close down the airport. He
seems to have recanted, but if the airport
does close, thousands of jobs will be lost.
This is in addition to the enormous im-
pairment 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.
- For the first time, in S. 3342 we would
define and meet the health needs, provide
an adequate regulatory mechanism at
the Federal level, and provide for tech-
nical and financial assistance to the
States and cities.
Specifically to deal with the health
need, section 407(a) of the bill requires
the Administrator, within 9 months
after enactment, to issue noise criteria
reflecting all the identifiable effects of
differing quantities and qualities of noise
on public health or welfare. He will be
expected to produce criteria documents
very much like those prepared under the
Clean Air Act for similar uses. These
criteria must set forth the levels of en-
vironmental noise which are requisite
to protect the public health and welfare
with an adequate margin of safety. •
The concept of environmental noise is
is used through the bill to describe the
overall level of noise in a given area to
which individuals are exposed, includ-
ing the Intensity, duration, and char-
acter of sounds from all sources. It also
the committee to conclude that imple-
mentation of a technologically based
standard was preferable,in terms of uni-
formity and enforceability to one call-
ing for protection of the public health
and welfare. While the intention of the
whole bill is to protect public health and
welfare from environmental noise, the
committee expects that the application
of the best available technology will just
begin to realize that goal in the fore-
seeable future.
After the effective date of standards
applicable to a product, the manufac-
turer must warranty to the purchaser
and subsequent owners of that product
that it conforms with the standards at
the time of sale and that it is free from
defects in materials and workmanship
which cause the product, under normal
use, operation, and maintenance, to fail
to conform during its useful life.
For any product manufactured after
the effective date of an applicable Fed-
eral standard, authority to establish
noise emission standards for the product
enforceable against the manufacturer is
preempted. States and cities, however,
retain complete authority to establish
and enforce limits on environment noise
through the licensing, regulation, or re-
striction of the use, operation, or move-
ment of a product, or concentration or
combination of products.
In the judgment of the committee,
noise emission standards for products
which must be met by manufacturers
. should be uniform. On the other hand,
States and local governments have the
can determine the method of sale, distribu-
tion or use, and control the hours, circum-
stances and locations of use. The states and
cities cannot Impose staridards regarding
content or specification for manufacture.
This Is the same situation as proposed for
the control of noise sources—the Federal
control does not inhibit-the state and local
use controls.
The bill .generally parallels the en-
forcement "authority of the Clean Air
Act. "This includes criminal penalties of
$25,000 or 1 year's imprisonment for
the first violation of the prohibited acts
section applicable to manufacturers. The
bill also provides authority to enjoin any
violation. In addition, the bill makes it
a criminal violation for a manufacturer
or dealer to assist any person in removing
or disconnecting a noise suppression de-
vice or the giving of information to any
person on how to remove or disconnect
such device for purposes not allowed by
the bill.
Standards apply to all new products
except those intended solely for export.
Exported products have only to comply
with applicable foreign standards.
The bill also provides authority for
citizens to sue in the Federal district
courts to abate violations of the require-
ments of the law. This section is nearly
identical to the citizen suit provisions in
the Clean Air Act—section 304—and the
committee intends that it be utilized and
interpreted in a similar fashion.
To aid the States and cities, the Ad-
ministrator is authorized to grant a total
of $22.5 million over a 3-year period to
State and local environmental noise con-
[p. S17752]
§
I
d
CO
f
H
O
B
CO
H
o
-------
trol agencies. Grants are limited to two-
thirds of planning and development costs
and one-half of maintenance costs, in
order to highlight the importance of get-
ting new programs off the ground. No
one State may receive more than 10 per-
cent of the total funds, and, where an-
environmental noise control agency pro-
gram encompasses more than one State,
funds are apportioned.
Through explicit qualifications in the
legislation, a noise pollution control
agency must have effective enforcement
capability in order to qualify for Fed-
eral funds.
Over 3 years $104,000 in funds are pro-
vided to implement general provisions
of the act.
A separate title, title V, in the legisla-
tion would deal with "Major Moving
Sources," a category which includes air-
craft, trucks, and trains. While, in each
instance, EPA would be lead agency in
setting emission levels from these sources
adequate to meet public health and wel-
fare needs, the process by which these
various levels become actual standards
would involve the special competence of
other Federal agencies which have cer-
tain technical expertise with respect to
these products.
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 manufacturers and
air carriers must attain, would be pro-
mulgated on the basis of the degree of_
noise reduction achievable through the
application, of best available demon-
strated technology, taking into account
mittee were strongly in favor of utilizing
such additional methods, the committee
felt that it had insufficient knowledge as
to the precise regulatory mechanism for
cumulative aircraft noise exposure.
Therefore, the committee included in the
bill, in place of any regulatory scheme
dealing with community noise around
airports, a 1-year study by the EPA of
the implications of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative noise ex-
posures 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 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 standards on new and existing
standards on new and existing aircraft—
together with the EPA's recommenda-
tions on the retrofitting and phaseout of
existing aircraft—and any additional
measures available to airport operators
and local governments to control air-
craft noise.
The EPA study and recommendation
called for by section 502 is not merely
an extension of the investigations on this
subject performed by EPA as required by
title TV of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970. Rather, it is an effort to
deal comprehensively with and develop
an orderly national program for an ur-
gent problem that has heretofore been
dealt with on a piecemeal basis.
There are already in progress a num-
ber of investigations and activities on the
siderations. Nowhere is there presently
established overview authority. The pur-
pose of section 502 is to insure that all
of this related, but presently disor-
ganized, activity is brought into per-
spective and evaluated by an independent
agency whose primary concern is that
of environmental quality and the pro-
tection of health and welfare.
Tools other than noise emission stand-
ards 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, includ-
ing, among other things, the considera-
tion of flight and operational changes
such as the two-segment landing ap-
proach and the adjustment of take-off,
approach and flight paths to impact few-
er people, and review of traffic flow with
regard to adequacy of load factor.
States and the local governments are
preempted from establishing or enforc-
ing noise emission standards for air-
craft unless such standards are identical
to standards prescribed under this bill.
This does not address responsibilities or
powers of airport operators, and no pro-
vision of the bill is intended to alter in
any way the relationship between the au-
thority 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.
Commercial flights of supersonic air-
craft at supersonic speeds over the
United States are forbidden, except for
denned research and development pur-
poses.
bO
Oi
t—1
00
f
H
Q
O
o
-------
the cost of compliance, as determined by
EPA and the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration. FAA would be given a twofold
veto over proposed standards, if tech-
nology were not available or standards
were not consistent with the highest de-
gree of safety. Under this scheme, each
agency would take responsibility for
those matters for which it has demon-
strated competence.
In addition, the bill provides that ex-
isting standards promulgated under sec-
tion 611 of the Federal Aviation Act will
continue in effect until modified in ac-
cordance 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 re-
quirements of this bill. Original type
certificates cannot be issued after
July 1, 1973, unless noise emission stand-
ards which apply to such aircraft have
been promulgated. Violations of the
standards would be subject to the penal-
ties and abatement procedures under
title IV, including citizen suits to abate
violations.
The committee considered approaches
to controlling aircraft noise based on a
concept of cumulative noise exposure, in-
volving- the level of noise from aircraft
to which individuals in the areas sur-
rounding airports are exposed and th'e
effects of such exposure on public health
and welfare. While methods other than
noise emission standards can be effec-
tively utilized to reduce aircraft noise,
and while many members of the com-
part of a variety of Federal agencies on
the subject of aircraft and airport noise.
These include among others: the report
of the Aviation Advisory Commission
called for by the Airways and Airport
Improvement Act of 1970, the research
on development of quiet engines being
accomplished by the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration and the
research on aircraft engine retrofit re-
quirements being undertaken by the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration.
In addition, it is known that the execu-
tive branch of the Government through
the Office of Management and Budget,
and the National Aeronautics and Space
Council is conducting studies and evalu-
ations on aircraft noise problems and
associated matters.
The Environir sntal Protection Agency
along with the Department of Trans-
portation and the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development have under-
taken initial research on community
noise, measurement, evaluation and de-
scription. It is also known that within
its limited resources the Environmental
Protection Agency has also initiated a
study on the'wide variety of schemes and
methods used for aircraft noise, evalua-
tion, and measurement. The Department
of Defense through the U.S. Air Force
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory
is undertaking a comprehensive investi-
gation of the noise exposure forecast sys-
tem and the background material upon
which that system is based. All of these
studies are viewing the problem from
different viewpoints and different con-
standard-setting for railroads and
trucks involve the Secretary of Trans-
portation safety inspection and regula-
tory authority of the Secretary of Trans-
portation. Local regulations are pre-
empted except where necessitated by
local conditions.
In conclusion, the legislation provides
the first comprehensive program to con*
trol noise from all major noise sources—
including aircraft. We have kept the peo-
ple waiting long enough. We have their
strong support for-this bill. It is time to
move forward.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator
from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator 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 reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and, without
objection, the amendment will be printed
in the RECORD.
The amendment, ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, is as follows:
S. 3342
On page 90, beginning at line 24, strike out
all through line 14 on page 91 and insert,
in lieu thereof, the following:
"SEC. 502. (a) (1) Within 180 days after the
I
d
F
H
O
H
bo
Cn
[p. S17753]
-------
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall
promulgate rules and regulations, based on
criteria published pursuant to section 407 (a)
of this Act, to establish levels of cumulative
noise exposure in the environment of air-
ports 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 Pro-
tection 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 Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency shall Identify and publish in the
Federal Register those airports In the vicinity
of which he has reason to believe such levels
are or may be exceeded, and at any time
thereafter the Administrator shall identify
andv publish in the Federal Register any
other airports for which he subsequently re-
ceives evidence that levels of cumulative
noise exposure are being exceeded.
"(o) (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 tne levels of cumulative noise
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Sen-
ate need look no further than the general
statement section of the committee re-
port on this bill for the facts which jus-
tify a major Government effort to con-
trol and reduce noise pollution. As chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, however, I am sorry to
have to say to this body that the legisla-
tion which it now considers will not pro-
vide the kind of action that those facts
demand.
The Environmental Noise Control Act
of 1972, S. 3342, was introduced on March
14, 1972 by Senator JOHN V. TUNNEY and
myself. That legislation was different
than either the House-passed bill, H.R.
11021, or the administration's bill, S.
1016, in purpose and latent. The bill
which we introduced was not primarily
designed to relieve product manufac-
turers from the effect of State noise pol-
lution regulatory programs. Nor was it
designed primarily to relieve transporta-
tion companies, particularly the airlines,
from effective noise regulations.
We wanted to establish a means to re-
duce as rapidly as possible, through the
application of available control measures,
the exposure of people to noise by reduc-
ing noise at its source, by changing the
way noisy products are used, by con-
trolling noisy activities, and by such
other means that are available.
Our bill was an environmental regu-
latory measure. We recognized that the
regulation of noise would have an im-
pact on commerce, but we also recognized
that the purpose of. regulation must be
the reduction in the volume, intensity,
and. character of noise to whicli people
source of the noise, so that products
and activity will not present a noise pol-
lution problem alone or in combination
with each other.
To a degree, the legislation reported
by the committee moves in this direction.
Through the establishment of a regula-
tory mechanism which permits the Ad-
ministrator to impose noise emission
restrictions attainable through the ap-
plication of the best available technology,
the Administrator will be able to press
the limits of our capability to reduce
noise from new products.
The bill does not, however, provide ade-
quate options in those cases in which
the best available technology is not ade-
quate to achieve environmentally accept-
able levels of noise. It does not protect
adequately the authority of States and
local government to safeguard the en-
vironment in which their citizens live.
It does not give States the opportunity to
ban the sale of federally regulated prod-
ucts which, in their jurisdictions, still
emit unacceptable levels of sound. "And
at the same time, it does not expedite
Federal regulation, thus holding out the
hope of a quieter environment with no
guarantee of early improvement.
By preempting State authority to re-
strict sale of noisy products, the bill
places the burden on the consumer to
take the risk of buying products which
cannot be used in the manner intended
at the time of purchase. The preemption
provision limits State authority to re-
stricting the manner of use of noisy
products regulated by the Federal Gov-
ernment.
The Committee on Public Works Is not
(S3
Cn
to
O
Q
O
o
—
o
12!
CO
d
F
W
£
H
-------
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 air-
ports, which Information shall indicate the
maximum degree of noise reduction control
which can be achieved with available tech-
nology which is consistent with safety. Al-
ternatives considered may include modifica-
tions and limitations on the number and
frequency of operations, modifications of
hours of airport operation, any other adjust-
ments in operation of such airport, and any
alternative controls or modifications of the
use of land (including use of buildings and
facilities, building code changes, etc.) sur-
rounding such airport.
"(2) Where an airport is identified pur-
suant to thee 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
Implementation of alternatives such as those
published 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, 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.
are exposed in their daily lives from
sources over whiph they have no control.
As the third annual report of the
President's Council on Environmental
Quality stated:
It Is increasingly difficult for any indi-
vidual—In urban or rural America—to es-
cape noise. For many city residents, noise
may be the single most pervasive environ-
mental pollutant.
The committee report itself notes that
noise has—
A significant impact on more than 80
million Americans ... 40 million Americans
risk hearing impairment and ohter physio-
logical and psychological effects ... 44 mil-
lion Americans have the uitility of their
dwellings adversely affected by noise from
aircraft or traffic ... 21 million Americans
are similarly affected by construction-related
noise.
In the face of these facts, we have no
right to adopt any more lenient a policy
against noise pollution than we have
adopted against air and water pollution.
It will not be an easy task, because we
will have to give States and localities
much more flexibility to impose strict
controls in controlling noise within their
own jurisdictions than in controlling air
and water pollution.
Noise is not subject to easy regulation.
Unlike the common air and water pol-
lutants, noise does not accumulate in
the environment. Noise is not subject to
collective treatment and reduction proc-
esses. As a practical matter, then, the
best method to reduce noise is to apply
stringent emission regulations at the
unfamiliar with the problem of preemp-
tion. The Air Quality Act of 1967, which
I sponsored, provided for Federal pre-
emption of the authority to regulate air
pollution emissions from new automo-
biles, except in California. That policy
may have had an effect opposite of that
which was intended. It appears that the
preemption provision of that act did not
cause the auto companies to focus their
research efforts and investments on one
set of national standards. Rather, the
auto companies' efforts have been focused
on undermining those national stand-
ards.
Again in 1970, preemption was dis-
cussed in relation to regulation of air
pollution emissions from aircraft. The
Congress decided on a preemption provi-
sion effective on enactment and set dead-
lines for standards to be developed.
Section 231 (a) of the Clean Air Act
requires that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency must begin an investigation
of air pollution from aircraft within 90
days of date of enactment. Within 180
days after commencing that investiga-
tion, the Environmental Protection
Agency is required to report on the in-
vestigation and propose emission stand-
ards for any class of aircraft or aircraft
engines which contributes to air pollu-
tion which endangers public health and
welfare. Ninety days thereafter—1 year
after enactment—EPA was to issue final
regulations. The proposed standards
were due over 1 year ago, September 27,
1971. Today, no report or proposed
standards have been published.
[p. 817754]
§
h-l
CO
H
H
GO
g
o
I
W
t— I
CO
to
en
to
-------
This is a classic example of Federal
preemption leading to Federal failure to
protect public health. The Federal Avia-
tion Administration has undoubtedly
discouraged active efforts by the Ad-
ministrator. And the efforts that the
Environmental Protection Agency has
made have run aground in the Office of
Management and Budget.
Therefore, when the committee con-
sidered the pending legislation, I ex-
pressed reservations regarding a broad
preemption provision for product and
aircraft emission standards. The States
have moved actively in this field. Fed-
eral noise pollution responsibility is new
and little significant authority or respon-
sibility exists, but a number of States
have regulatory programs which impose
emission controls on noisy products
which are enforceable both at the point
of sale and at the point of use.
I cannot support Federal preemption
which protects product manufacturers
and the air transportation industry
without effective regulatory programs
which will enhance the quality of the
environment. Substituting Federal law
for State law with even less assurance
that public health will be protected is
poor public policy.
My second major concern with the
legislation reported from the commit-
tee deals with the problem of aircraft
noise and regulatory mechanism recom-
mended to cope with that problem.
To date, the regulation of aircraft
noise pollution has been the sole respon-
sibility of the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration. The Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration has had this responsibility since
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 be-
ing currently achievable, could have no Im-
mediate legal effect.
The attitude of the Federal Aviation
Administration as regards regulation of
aircraft noise was more clearly spelled
out in the following excerpt from a draft
report on noise pollution prepared by the
Environment Protection Agency:
Both directly and by unmistakable In-
ference, a number of Important conclusions
arise from the Information gathered on Fed-
eral noise control programs.
Most plainly, the control of unwanted
sound is not a high priority Issue for vir-
tually any Federal agency or department.
Only when an Agency's primary mission ab-
solutely reqxiires a commitment of time,
manpower and funding to noise control to
assume the smooth functioning of that pri-
mary mission (as with for instance, FAA and
NASA) is even a modest venture into noise
suppression undertaken. For the FAA, air-
craft 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 transmitted to the Con-
gress, it is indicative of FAA's attitude to-
ward 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 reduc-
tion technology, but neither could EPA
make any judgment as to the availability
of technology or the cost of achieving
noise reductions without FAA approval.
Continuation of the Federal Aviation
Administration in a role of determining
engine emission control technology was
available. Without an action-forcing
mechanism such as enforceable "cumula-
tive noise exposure levels," neither FAA
nor the airlines would have any incentive
to press technology and achieve the goals
EPA would be authorized to establish.
A combination of cumulative noise levels
and emission standards would create that
pressure. Obviously if technology exists
to achieve the levels of noise emission re-
duction to protect public health, achieve-
ment of emission standards would reduce
any economic burdens on the airline in-
dustry caused by controls imposed to
achieve cumulative noise levels. And such
local environmental noise requirements
would require a reduction in the num-
ber and frequency of flights if technology
did not exist.
The committee considered and reject-
ed a provision which would have required
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to identify any air-
ports in the country with aircraft noise
problems of a magnitude to cause a vio-
lation of cumulative noise exposure
levels. The proposal denned "cumulative
noise exposure levels" as those levels of
noise in the environments of airports as-
sociated 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 re-
sponsibility 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
to
Ol
to
to
tr1
M
Q
>
tr1
o
o
tr1
H
-------
its inception. It has had a specific legis-
lative mandate for the past 4 years. And
its record is wholly inadequate.
I understand-why the Federal Aviation
Administration's response has been in-
adequate. The PAA's primary mission is
not to reduce the environmental impact
caused by aircraft noise. Its mission is to
promote air commerce and to protect
safety. Regulation of noise from aircraft
is not consistent with that primary
mission.
In the proposed rulemaking in Janu-
ary 1969, FAA set forth a "noise floor"
at 80 EPNdB as "an objective to aim for,
and to achieve where economically rea-
sonable, 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 communi-
cations 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 ap-
propriate to the particular type design, the
FAA does not intend to ignore this potential
reduction.
Yet after industry pressure, the FAA
dropped this 80 EPNdB "objective" from
the promulgated regulations stating:
the 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 Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection
Agency as the determinator of those
levels of aircraft noise required to pro-
tect public health and welfare, EPA will
have little authority to enforce standards
to meet those requirements.
Members of the committee, including
myself, recognized that aircraft were
unique because of the safety require-
ments and the interrelationship of safety
to the engine system. Therefore, I agreed
with the committee's judgment and sup-
ported the amendments of Senator
COOPER and Senator STAFFORD which
would retain the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration lead role in making any
final determination as to whether or not
any technology available to achieve noise
emission levels would also be consistent
with the highest standards of safety.
The assumption_that technology might
not be available to meet noise emission
goals combined with the assumption that
technology could be vetoed because of
FAA safety judgment, lead to the con-
clusion that there must be .a mechanism
to assure maximum pressure to develop
safe technology while at the same time
reduce the impact of noise in the en-
vironments of impacted airports.
The committee considered and rejected
a provision that would have required
achievement of health and welfare pro-
tection of noise levels in airport environ-
ments, whether or not specific aircraft
the airport operator's duty and respon-
sibility to carry out such responsibilities
would be established by statute.
This concept is not unique. In 1970, the
Congress enacted legislation which re-
quires 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 auto-
mobiles in areas in which automobile-
related air pollution was unacceptably
high to assure that public health would
be protected at an early date—in this
instance, 1975-76.
The combination of emission reduc-
tion technology and air quality imple-
mentation plans has been a useful mech-
anism both to improve air quality and
to apply pressure on local governments
to seek alternatives to reliance on motor
vehicles. Also, this mechanism, will apply
pressure to the auto industry to develop
clean cars if they wish to preserve exist-
ing 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 people who
live in airport environments and who are
adversely affected by aircraft noise. To do
anything less in this legislation is to fail
to meet responsibly the demands of the
[p. S17755]
I
o
g
I
13
w
I—I
02
to
Or
to
00
-------
American public for a safe, healthful and
peaceful environment.
Without a provision of this type, I be-
lieve the bill to be inadequate. Without
a provision of this type, the bill does
not address in a meaningful way the real
problem faced by people who are con-
fronted now with unacceptable levels of
aircraft noise. The reported bill would
force these people to wait for emission
control technology to be developed and
applied to new and existing aircraft, or
on the courts to impose sufficient penal-
ties or damage claims against the air-
lines and the airport operators for cre-
ating a public nuisance before relief will
be achieved. To turn over to the courts
the responsibility of making ad hoc de-
cisions to solve environmental noise
problems is equally unacceptable. I think
it is Inadequate to rely on claims for
damages, penalties against the airlines,
and injunctions as a substitute for posi-
tive regulatory programs.
Mr. President, I think it is inadequate
to enact a Federal law which ignores the
most basic and most significant problem
of noise as perceived by people.
These are the major flaws in this leg-
islation as I see it, Mr. President. Even
as our environment becomes noisier and
noisier, as the physiological, psychologi-
cal, and property costs of that noise rise
higher and higher, and as we develop
more and more techniques for reducing
that noise, we are not responding ade-
quately to our task.
We must protect the public health.
The amendments which I and other
Senators will propose will not create un-
reasonable restrictions on potential
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 re-
duced. But nowhere in the legislation be-
fore us is a mechanism established to de-
termine specific levels of airport noise
which will protect public health and wel-
fare, to monitor noise levels around air-
ports, to give advice to airport operators
on various approaches they can take to
deal with the other aspects of airport
noise problems, or to provide technical
assistance to airport operators which
they may need in implementing such
controls. Nor does the bill assure airport
operators that interim measures can be
taken locally to reduce airport noise and
thus the myriad of damage actions pend-
ing 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 air-
craft noise problem, not to study those
problems but to have a real commitment
of Federal action. If that is so, then we
must include a real Federal commitment
to act against airport noise.
The amendment I propose will require
that within 180 days after enactment of
this act, EPA publish regulations es-
tablishing levels of cumulative noise ex-
posure for airports and surrounding
areas which are adequate to protect
public health and welfare with an ade-
quate margin of safety.
Ninety days after publication of these
regulations, EPA will be required to pub-
to solve their airport noise problems.
Recently, the FAA has taken the position
that airports cannot restrict aircraft
operations in order to reduce noise. Thus,
under FAA interpretation, aircraft oper-
ators must bear the burden of noise dam-
age suits without authority to solve local
problems and defend themselves against
such suits.
I ask unanimous consent that there be
included in the RECORD at this point a
complaint filed by the FAA against the
town of Morristown, N.J., charging Mor-
ristown had violated Federal law and
grant agreements by restricting aircraft
operations because of noise.
There being no objection, the com-
plaint was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[In the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey]
UNITED STATES AGAINST MORRISTOWN, N.J.
(United States of America, plaintiff, v. the
town of Morristown, a municipal corpora-
tion of the State of New Jersey; the Mor-
ristown Airport Commission; the township
of Hanover, a municipal corporation of the
State of New Jersey; the township of Mor-
ris, a municipal corporation of the State
of New Jersey; the borough of Florham
Park, a municipal corporation of the State
of New Jersey; A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas
E. Kenney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Els-
man, John E. Flaherty, Norman S. Wein-
berger, all residents of Morris County,
State of New Jersey; defendants.)
COMPLAINT
The United States, by the undersigned
attorneys complaining of defendants, hereby
alleges as follows:
1. This court has Jurisdiction of the action
pursuant to 28 U.8.O. I 1345. S 1331 and
§ 1337. The action arises under the Federal
to
w
Q
a
o
i
>T)
"•a
-------
sources of noise, and they will give this
legislation the quality of effective en-
vironmental regulation. They will im-
prove our ability to protect the health
and welfare of the people of our land.
I urge that the Senate support these
vital improvements.
Mr. President, the two amendments I
offer today would get at these points I
have just raised. The amendment just
reported is designed to determine levels
of airport noise which affect public
health and welfare and to establish pro-
cedures to identify and monitor activi-
ties at airports where levels of excessive
environmental noise exist. In recent
years the primary impetus to develop
Federal noise controls has been citizen
concern with excessive noise levels in the
vicinity of airports. Excessive airport
noise may be reduced someday, in part,
by controls on aircraft and aircraft en-
gines which are dealt with in other sec-
tions of this bill.
But simply modifying aircraft and air-
craft 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 unac-
ceptable noise levels every day of their
lives.
To solve the airport noise problem,
other programs integrated with aircraft
controls are necessary. Effective pro-
grams will include curfews, controls over
operation or aircraft at and around air-
ports, limitations on the number of air-
port operations per hours, land use, zon-
ing, building construction and ground
lish standards for measurements of levels
of cumulative noise exposure.
Within 9 months after measurement
regulations are published—about 18
months after enactment of the law—
EPA would be required to identify those
airports in the vicinity of which unac-
ceptable levels of cumulative noise ex-
posure exist. EPA would be required to
install at those airports devices to mon-
itor, on a continuing basis, levels of noise
exposure and make available to the pub-
lic data which resulted from EPA moni-
toring activities. This process would es-
tablish a single uniform basis for ex-
amining cumulative noise levels and de-
termining just what airport noise levels
and what airport activities result in lev-
els of noise harmful to public health or
welfare.
To aid the airports in reducing levels
of cumulative noise exposure, the Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, whom we all agree has the
greatest experience in airport operations
and safety, is directed to develop and
publish guidelines with suggested alter-
natives for reducing airport noise and to
provide technical assistance to airports in
solving their noise problems.
Finally, my amendment would estab-
lish a clear, statutory recognition of the
duty and responsibility of airport oper-
ators to take necessary action to reduce
airport noise as determined necessary to
prevent damage actions and protect
health and welfare. I am particularly
concerned that this legislation clarify the
role of the FAA in working with airports
Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C.. § 1101 et seq. The
value of the matter In controversy exceeds
$10,000.
2. Plaintiff Is the United States of America.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Is an agency of the United States.
3. The defendants, Town of Morrlstown,
Township of Hanover, Township of Morris
and Borough of Florham Park are municipal
corporations In the State of New Jersey. The
Town of Morrlstown and the Morrlstown Air-
port Commission are the defendants In a
suit styled Township of Hanover, et al. v.
Town of Morrlstown, et al., Docket No.
C3172-68, Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Morris County (108 N.J.
Super. 461, Ch. Div.) In which judgment of
Judge Joseph H. Stamler was entered on
23 March 1970. The Township of Hanover,
Township of Morris, Borough of Florham
Park, A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Ken-
ney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John
E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger, are
the plaintiffs in said suit. The Individual de-
fendants are residents of the County of Mor-
ris, State of New Jersey within this judicial
district.
4. The Town of Morrlstown is the owner
of Morrlstown Municipal Airport, a public
airport located In Morrlstown, New Jersey.
Operational control of the airport is In the
Morristown Airport Commission which re-
ports directly to the Mayor and the Board of
Alderman of Morrlstown.
5. Aircraft operations to and from Morris-
town Municipal Airport include operations
which are in Inter-state commerce.
6. On 24 June 1969, the Town of Morris-
town entered into a written agreement with.
the Federal Aviation Administration on be-
half of the United States, for a federal-aid
airport project designated as Project No. 9-
28-007-0904, under which the United States
I
[p. S1T756]
2
03
I
3
H
H
so
1^
o
fcO
Crc
to
Crc
-------
agreed to participate to the extent of $1,-
259,818.00 in the cost of certain airport de-
velopment at Morrlstown Municipal Airport.
The airport development in the project con-
sists of:
Land acquisition, consisting of Parcels 23,
25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and
42; resurface and mark existing Runway
5-23 (4000' x 150') and two connecting taxi-
ways; extend, light (H.I.) 'and mark Run-
way 5-23 (2000' x 150') to 6000'; construct,
mark, and light taxlway parallel to Runway
5-23 (4300' x 60') from Runway 12-30 to
north end of Runway 5-23, with associated
drainage; install taxiway guidance signs.
7. The PAA approval of the project was
consistent with the current National Airport
Plan compiled pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1102
which recognized the need for the extension
of runway 5—23 and the other development
to accommodate the aeronautical needs of
the users of the airport.
8. Under the terms of the aforesaid grant
agreement, the Town of Morrlstown agreed
to operate Morrlstown Municipal Airport for
the use and benefit of the public and agreed
It would keep the airport open to all types,
kinds and classes of aeronautic use without
discrimination between such types, kinds
and classes. The Town of Morrlstown fur-
ther agreed that it would operate and main-
tain In a safe and serviceable condition the
airport and all facilities thereon, connected
therewith which are necessary to serve the
aeronautical users of the airport and that
it would not permit any activity thereon
which would interfere with Its use for air-
port purposes.
9. The extension of runway 5-23 Included
In Project No. 9-23-007-0904 has been satis-
torlly completed; the other development In
the' project Is substantially complete.
10. On or about July 24, 1969, the de-
fendants herein, the Township of Hanover,
Township of Morris, Borough of Florham
Park, A. Stewart Dunford, John E.. Flahety
14. The Federal Aviation Administration
has either disbursed or put under grant
agreement the sum of $1,938,272.00 for par-
ticipation in the development of Morris-
town Municipal Airport under authority of
the Federal Airport Act (49 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.) The FAA has also allocated an addi-
tional sum of $1,032,451.00 for further par-
ticipation in the development of Morris-
town Municipal Airport under authority of
the Airport and Airway Development Act of
1970 (49 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), successor to the
Federal Airport Act.
15. The defendants, Township of Hanover,
Township of Morris, Borough of Florham
Park, A. Stewart Dunford, Thomas E. Ken-
ney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John
E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger, by
commencing and continuing to maintain
Civil Action No. C 3173-68 in the Superior
Court, Chancery Division, Morris County,
New Jersey, have caused and continued to
cause the defendant, the Town of Morris-
town to breach and fail to fulfill its obliga-
tions and agreement to and with the United
States under the grant agreement.
16. The defendants, Township of Hanover,
Township of Morris, Borough of Florham
Park, A. Stewart Dunford, Thorn as E. Ken-
ney, Martin B. Monroe, Joseph Elsman, John
E. Flaherty and Norman S. Weinberger, by
commencing and continuing to maintain
Civil Action No. C 3172-68 in the Superior
Court, Chancery Division, Morris County,
New Jersey, have caused nad continue to
cause jet air traffic In Interstate commerce
to cease using navigable airspace during cer-
tain hours for landings and take-offs at
Morristown Municipal Airport; and would
purport to control the use of navigable air-
space further by restricting the use of the
runways under certain wind conditions and
criteria which are In conflict with those im-
plemented by the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration. The aforesaid defendants are with-
out power to regulate, control or disrupt
restrictions Imposed against the landings and
take-offs of Jet aircraft under paragraphs C
and I and further order all parties to waive
the 20 day notice provided in the Judgment
of Judge Stamler and demanding expedited
consideration of the Joint motion to vacate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I also
ask unanimous consent that the judg-
ment of the lower court in this matter be
included in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the judg-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, Morris County, Docket No. C 3172-
68]
(Township of Hanover &c., et al, Plaintiffs;
vs. town of Morristown &c., et 'al; Defend-
ants)
JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court
in the presence of counsel, Harry L. Sears,
Esquire and John M. Mills, Esquire appear-
ing on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Edward
F. Broderick, Jr., Esquire appearing on behalf
of the defendants, and the Court having
heard the representations of counsel and
various technical consultants retained by the
parties herein, and good cause being shown,
It Is on the 23rd day of March, 1970, ordered
that Judgment be entered in this case as
follows:
A. The Court having determined that the
extension and resurfacing of Runway 5-23
at the Morristown Airport will create an ad-
ditional measure of safety and will produce
. some attenuation of noise In take-offs and
landings, the extension of Runway 5-23 and
the increase of weight bearing capacity of
both runways will be permitted;
B. Having determined that the remaining
phases of the General Airport and Layout
Plans provide additional 'measures of safety
and noise attenuation, the other provisions
to
Cn
to
05
Q
0
o
o
I
f
I
-------
and Norman S. Weinberger nle
-------
ground, control, and which tapes are kept
for a period of fifteen (15) days and contain
Information regarding each take-off, landing,
aircraft, number, runway used, wind direc-
tion and force, altimeter setting, time of
takerOff or landing. The Airport Manager
will monitor these tapes upon a request from
a complainant and shall make available to
any complainant any information so recorded.
which is needed to assist the complainant in
the making of the complaint. Additionally,
the airport management will keep records
of the movements of itinerant aircraft at
the Airport in order to assist any person
seeking to make a complaint in obtaining
any necessary information.
F. Additionally, the airport management
will arrange to provide for a telephone serv-
ice to be installed at the Airport to record
the incoming calls of any complainants who
wish to call the Airport after hours or who
are otherwise desirous of calling the Airport
after hours or who are otherwise desirous of
calling the complaint number in response
to such a listing In the local telephone direc-
tories. The airport management will follow
up in response to said complaints and estab-
lish procedures for the mailing of data forms
to all persons seeking to make a complaint.
Upon receipt of these written complaints and
the data forms requested, records shall be
maintained at the Management or Opera-
tions Office of the Airport for public Inspec-
tion during business hours of an complaints
received, and such records shall note the
action taken thereon by the airport manage-
ment or the F.A.A. or both, as the case may
require.
Q. There shall be required at the Airport
noise suppression devices and noise attenu-
ation equipment or engine "test calls" which
are to be installed and used for jet engine
maintenance and testing and run-tip.
H. Portable shields or sound baffeling de-
vices similar to those described In the stipu-
lation of facts submitted by tiie parties shall
provisions of Paragraphs C through I, and the
Court in the exercise of Its discretion, shall
permit the taking of testimony or additional
evidence related to the Implementation of
this Judgment, as it may effect, now or to
the future, the legitimate Interests of the
parties.
Mr. MUSKTK. Mr. President, that
judgment requires the airport to under-
take certain procedures for handling
complaints and orders the adoption of
certain noise abatement procedures. .
If it is indeed a position of the PAA,
as indicated in its complaint, that air-
ports should not he allowed to control
aircraft operations to reduce noise, then
it is essential that the FAA assist those
airports to reduce their noise exposure
to levels which are not harmful to the
public health. Either Federal law must
provide a «lear method for airport opera-
tors to solve, their problems, or the Fed-
eral Government must be held liable for
damage action brought against those air-
ports.
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 stand-
ards 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 op-
ponents of this amendment I take it,
argue is the agency which ought to con-
trol aircraft operations, is charged under
this amendment with 'the responsibility
of Issuing guidelines to airport operators
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I was
saying that I shall have to oppose this
amendment. This matter was considered
at great length in the committee, and I
personally spent a great deal of time on
it. I wanted to see something done in this
area. It seemed to me that, if we were
going to have a noise bill, we really should
try to develop a scheme whereby we can
control cumulative noise levels around
airports.
The bill went through a number of
prints in which we tried to revise the
language so as to meet the health need
but also to various objections. As we got
deeper and deeper into it in the mark-
up session, we realized that we just did
not have adequate -data on which to base
a rational judgment as to the best
mechanism to do the job. It was the
considered opinion of the committee that,
instead of trying to push through a
scheme at a very late date, without suffi-
cient evidence as to its precise ramifica-
tions, 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 Con-
gress 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 dif-
ferent systems for monitoring' airport
noise; and when you are dealing with
airport noise, you are'dealing not only
with aircraft, but with railroads that go
past airports, and with highways. Na-
tional Airport is a good example of what
I mean. The question is how do you dif-
ferentiate between aircraft' noise, hlgh-
to
Cn
fcO
00
Q
>
F
1
hi
B
-------
toe used at «uch places and locations on the
airport premises as In the opinion of the
management they will- best reduce hazards to
safety and will be most effective, subject
however 'to the requirements of the F.A.A.; as
to proper clearance at the end of each run-
way.
I. Oral argument having been heard from
counsel and a proffer of proof having been
made by counsel for defendants on the sub-
ject of restricting jet aircraft at Morristown
Airport during certain, hours and good cause
being shown therefore, the Court directs that
jet aircraft will be prohibited from take-offs
or landings each day between the hours of
9:00 P.M, until 7:00 A.M. and on Sundays,
except during the hours-of 1:00 P.M. until
8:00 P.M., unless an emergency exists, or the
interests of flight safety require the utiliza-
tion of the airport under the guidance and
direction of the F.A.A. tower personnel.
J. The provisions of Paragraph C herein
shall be Implemented upon the completion
of the Runway (5-23) extension and im-
provements referred to in Paragraphs A and
B herein, as shall the procedures with refer-
ence to noise abatement outlined in Para-
graph D herein. Additionally, the Airport
management shall have installed portable
shields and sound baffling devices contem-
plated in Paragraph H herein by such time
as the improvements and the runway exten-
sion have been completed. All other require-
ments of this Judgment shall become effec-
tive immediately upon the filing thereof.
The Court expressly retains jurisdiction of
all issues herein. Although binding on all
parties, and except as to Paragraphs A and
B herein, this Judgment is experimental in
nature. Subsequent to the entry of Judg-
ment herein, either party or parties effected
by the entry of said Judgment may, upon
twenty days notice to the parties of record,
move before this Court for a change in, a
modification of, or relief from, any of the
and providing technical assistance so
that they may safely meet their environ-
mental responsibilities of controlling
noise levels. I think PAA has that re-
sponsibility. But it is the aircraft op-
erators themselves, who are subject to
damage suits. Many of them are now in
court" for this purpose, because they vio-
late public health and welfare levels of
noise emissions.
I think this is a minimal kind of
mechanism to deal with this problem.
The study provided in the bill is not
sufficient. It mandates nothing.
This amendment proposal gives FAA
the authority necessary to establish
health and welfare standards. It gives
FAA power to veto it, in-effect, as well as
the responsibility to issue guidelines to
meet those standards.
I reserve the remainder of my time on
the amendment.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I must
oppose this amendment, on behalf of my-
self and the committee. The committee
took this matter up at quite some
length
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a moment so I may
make a request to have certain staff
members on the floor?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Tom Gallagher
of Senator TUNNEY'S staff, and Len Bick-
wit, and Lee Tyner, of Senator HART'S
staff, may be permitted on the floor dur-
ing the debate on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
way 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 regu-
latory scheme that may or may not be"
appropriate.
I would like to read from the commit-
tee report on this point. It states:
The Committee considered approaches to
controlling aircraft noise based on a concept
of cumulative noise exposure, involving the
level of noise from aircraft to which indi-
viduals 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 mech-
anism for cumulative aircraft noise exposure.
Therefore, the Committee included in the
bill, in place of any regulatory scheme deal-
ing with community noise around airports, a
one year study by the EPA of the implications
of identifying and achieving levels^of cumu-
lative noise exposures around airports. The
results of this study, submitted to the Com-
mittees on Public Works and Commerce of
the Senate and the Committee on Interstate.
and Foreign Commerce of the House with
legislative recommendations, will form the
basis for any legislation on aircraft noise in
the next Congress.
Also included in this study are the ade-
quacy of FAA flight and operational noise
controls, the adequacy of noise emission
standards on new and existing standards on
new and existing aircraft (together with the
Environmental Protection Agency's recom-
mendations on the retrofitting and phaseout
of existing aircraft), and any additional
measures available to airport operators and
local governments to control aircraft noise.
[p. S17758]
cc
>
o
I
CO
I
H
0
CG
60
Crc
bO
-------
In the context of the development of this leg-
islation, inquiries were sent by one member
of the committee to manufacturers, airlines,
trade organizations, government agencies,
and Independent consultants concerning the
possibility of mandating retrofit and phase-
out requirements. (See appendix for text of
letter and replies.)
Tools other than noise emission standards
do exist for reducing aircraft noise. It-is the
Intention of the Committee in section 501 (c)
of the bill that all existing authority over
aircraft or aircraft noise be utilized to reduce
that noise, including, among other things,
the 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 peo-
ple, and.review of traffic flow with regard to
adequacy of load factor.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that
In this bill we have done just about all
we could at this point in time. I was
deeply concerned, in the committee, as
the debate progressed, that no one really
understood what the effect of the mech-
anism that was put into the bill would
be. That mechanism called for a confer-
ence to be held at a noise-impacted air-
port at which the airport operator, the
FAA, the CAB, EPA, local authorities,
and the interested public would discuss
ways of cutting down on airport noise.
At this airport conference various
measures to reduce noise, including the
adequacy of noise-emission standards for
aircraft, and operational and flight pro-
cedures, would be taken into considera-
tion. Also considered would be the possi-
bility of scheduling changes, curfews, use
of preferential runways, substitution of
quieter aircraft, and, finally, as a last
resort, controls on land use.
hearings on it and we do not really un-
derstand the full significance of it. I do
appreciate the objective and the goal of
the distinguished Senator from Maine,
the chairman of our subcommittee, and
I take this opportunity, as always, to
compliment him on the outstanding
work he has done as chairman of our
Subcommittee on Air, and Water Pol-
lution. His contributions are most valu-
able and immeasurable. However on this
issue I find myself in disagreement.
Another point that has not been men-
tioned, which I do think is important
at this time, because it is important to
move forward with this noise pollution
control legislation, is that I believe if the
amendment were adopted at this time,
at this late point in the session, it would
probably complicate forward movement
and complicate the chances of getting
this bill enacted at tljis session, because
it would undoubtedly involve committee
jurisdictional problems, which have not
been completely worked out.
Mr. President, I recommend that this
amendment be rejected at this time. I
think the Senator for yielding.
Mr. TTJNNEY. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. TUNNEY. I would like to yield to
the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how
much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OEFICER. 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.
prescribed pursuant to this section prior to
the date of enactment of the Noise Pollu-
tion Control Aot of 1972 shall remain in ef-
fect 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 en-
gine, propeller, or appliance that affects sig-
nificantly the noise or sonic boom character-
istics of any aircraft, unless the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall have prescribed standards, rules, and
regulations under this section which apply
to such aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or
appliance, and which protect the public
health and welfare from aircraft noise or
sonic boom consistent with the considera-
tions listed in subsection (d) of this subsec-
tion.
"(c) The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, within 6 months
of the date of enactment of the Noise Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972, shall review all
standards, rules, or regulations (or any pro-
posed standard, rule, or regulation) In effect
under this section prior to the date of en-
actment of the Noise Pollution Control Act of
1972. If he determines afte? public hearings,
that such standards, rules, or regulations do
not protect the public health and welfare
from aircraft noise or sonic boom consistent
with the considerations listed in subsection
(d) of this section, he shall within 12 months
of the date of enactment of this Act, revise
such standard, rule, or regulation.
"(d) (1) In prescribing and amending
standards, rules, and regulations under this
section, the Administrator of the 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.
to
Cn
OJ
O
F
fi
Q
8
F
>•
H
O
cj
hi
>t)
F
H
g
td
-------
But, as we got into the matter. It be-
came very clear that we just did not
have nearly enough information to be
able to have this mechanism written into
the law with a sufficient anticipation of
all the possible consequences. ' Rather
than be accused of legislating in the
blind, we decided to have a study by
EPA and to have the matter brought up
again in Congress when we could have
full hearings on this specific point.
In its present form, this amendment
has not been considered by the Commit-
tee on Public Works. For this reason, I
would have to say that, no matter how
good this amendment may be or may
not be, because of its complex nature
and because perhaps no one really under-
stands what it says except the Senator
from Maine, it is objectionable, and the
Senate ought to reject the amendment.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I would
like to take a minute or two to agree
with the statement that the manager of
the bill, the distinguished Senator from
California (Mr. TTTNNEY) , has just made
in regard to the pending amendment.
I am free to say, and I say at the re-
quest of our colleague on the committee,
the distinguished Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. COOPER) , who is unable to be
here at the moment because he is in a
conference on the highway bill, that he
also supports the committee position. He
has asked me to relay that point of view.
It seems to me, as the distinguished
Senator from California has said, that
this amendment has not been fully con-
sidered in committee. We have not had
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think
it would be interesting to include, and
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD at this point, the provi-
sion in the original bill whjch covered
this subject.
I think, second, there ought to be
included, and I ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the RECORD, the modi-
fication of that provision which was de-
veloped as the result of the committee
hearings and pressed by Senator TTTN-
NEY and myself in the committee.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS
SEC. 3. Section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958 .(49 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to
read as follows:
"CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 611. (a) In order to afford present
and future relief and provide protection to
public health and welfare from aircraft
noise and sojnic boom, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, after
consultation with the Secretary of Trans-
portation, shall prescribe and amend stand-
ards for the measurement of aircraft noise
and sonic boom and shall prescribe- and
amend such rules andN-regulations as he may
find necessary to provide for the control and
abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom,
including the application of such standards,
rules, and regulations in the issuance,
amendment, modification, suspension, or rev-
ocation of any certificate authorized by this
title. All standards, rules, and regulations
and evaluation activities conducted pursu-
aiid to this Act and the Department of
Transportation 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
practicable 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
Control Act of 1972 shall meet the standards
prescribed 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 stand-
ards, rules, or regulations applied to aircraft
or aircraft engines existing on the date of
enactment of the Noise Pollution Control Act
of 1972, is at issue, the certificate holder
shall have the same notice and appeal rights
as are contained in section 609, except that
In any appeal to the National Transporta-
tion Safety Board, the Board may amend,
modify, or revoke the order of the Secretary of
Transportation only if it finds no violation
such standards, rules, or regulations, and that
such amendment, modification, or revoca-
tion Is consistent with safety in air trans-
portation."
"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,
§
CO
I
CO
o
I
H
W
I— I
I
to
Oi
GO
[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
on the frequency and scheduling of flights,
modifications of hours of airport operation,
changes In operational and flight procedures,
and land use regulation. The operator of any
other airport, or any State or political subdi-
vision thereof affected by aircraft noise, may
develop and adopt such a plan with respect to
an airport not covered by a plan developed
under the first sentence of this subsection.
"(b)(l) Any plan required by subsection
(a) of this section, shall.be submitted to
the "Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of
Transportation, within one hundred and
eighty days after the promulgation of regula-
tions establishing ambient levels of noise for
airport environments and surrounding areas
pursuant to section 501 (a) (1) of this Act.
"(2) Within ninety days after such subr
mission, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to the Administrator his determina-
tion as to the consistency of such plan with
air safety and air commerce, together with
his recommendation for approval or modifica-
tion of such plan.
"The Administrator shall review such plan
to assure attainment of maintenance of such
ambient levels of noise established under sec-
tion 501 (a) (1) of this Act and, In accordance
with, the recommendation of the Secretary of
Transportation, shall approve or modify such
plan within sixty days after such transmittal.
"(c) Where the implementation of an ap-
proved plan tinder this section requires the
promulgation or modification of any regula-
tions 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-
ClTT OP INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA,
Inglewooa, Calif., March 24,1972.
Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and. Water
Pollution, U.S. Senate Public Works
Committee, Washington, D.C.
Subject: Noise Pollution Hearings, San Fran-
cisco, California, March 24, 1972
DEAH MR. MUSKIE: I hope to convince your
Committee that:
1. Aircraft noise pollution is excessive, is
detrimental to the public welfare, and needs'
to be reduced.
2. Aircraft noise pollution can be reduced
dramatically if the federal government uses
Its authority to set aircraft and airport noise
standards.
The residents of Inglewood send you their
quiet prayers. They hope that you understand
fully the gravity of the work you are 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 pollu-
tion. We have also strongly supported all
measures which promise meaningful relief
from aircraft noise.
Just to show the extent of our Involvement
In the aircraft noise problem, to our 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
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 noise
reduction, procedural changes for noise
abatement, flight schedule reductions, and
nighttime curfews designed to increase air-
line efficiency and decrease total noise pollu-
tion. NASA research programs have already
shown the feasibility of engine retrofit for
noise abatement. A few airlines such as PSA
and National have Implemented steep ap-
proach procedures which reduce landing
noise at least 10 PndB. The state of Cali-
fornia has adopted airport noise standards
which use the comprehensive noise exposure
methodology. '
The stumbling block' to progress haa been
the PAA. They have consistently denied re-
sponsibility for noise in airport environ-
bO
Oi
oo
to
o
o
o
*ti
I—I
b
-------
proval of such, plan under subsection (b) or
this section. '>
Mr. TUNNEY. Will the Senator .per-
mit a correction? It was in print 6; the
sixth edition.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Let me say, Mr. President, there was
much discussion in the committee of
this issue about.the desirability of hav-
ing this kind of control at the local level.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a letter that is in
the record of the hearings of the com-
mittee from Randall L. Hurlburt, of the
city of Inglewood, Calif., addressed to
me, dated March 24, 1972, in which he
said:
DEAR MB. MTJSKIE: I hope to convince your
Committee that:
1. Aircraft noise pollution Is excessive, Is
detrimental to the public welfare, and needs
to be reduced.
2. Aircraft noise pollution can be reduced
dramatically If the federal government uses
its authority to set aircraft and airport noise
standards.
The residents of Inglewood send you their
quiet prayers. They hope that you under-
stand fully the gravity of the work you are
presently doing. Your efforts in controlling
noise mean much more than just making life
a little more pleasant; they may mean life or
death to our city.
I ask unanimous consent that the full
text of the letter be printed in the REC-
ORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
city. We have Invested more than $50,000 in
noise measuring equipment. We are deter-
mined that noise will not escalate above pres-
ent levels, and we will make every effort to
assure that noise is reduced quickly to ac-
ceptable levels.
We feel we have a thorough understanding
of the need for aircraft noise reduction and
how it can be accomplished. I'd like to share
a few of these ideas with you.
As part of a recent federal program which
studied the future of Inglewood, a survey
was made to ascertain community opinions
on Important subjects. When asked, "How
important to you is finding a solution to the
following issue—Jet noise control?" 61%
responded that it was of the greatest im-
portance. Twenty percent responded that it
was very Important. Only the issue of crime
control was considered more Important with
73% responding that solution to crime con-.
trol was of greatest importance and 17%
responding that it was very important. All
other Issues had less than 33% responding
"of the greatest Importance." It Is therefore
apparent that the problem of Jet noise rivals
the problem of crime control as the most
important Issue facing the future develop-
ment 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 levelss 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
ments but will not allow local controls. The
authority for elimination of aircraft noise
pollution must therefore be given to the
Environmental Protection Agency where it
belongs.''
For the Information of the Senate Public
Works Committee I have included a copy of
the testimony which we presented to the
Environmental Protection Agency's hearings
on noise control. This report is a very 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 la 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. HUKLBTTHT,
Environmental Standards Supervisor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD a
10-point action program for the allevia-
tion of noise pollution in Inglewood,
Calif., dated January 1, 1970, which lists
an action program which the city of
[p. S17760]
H
I
K
CO
1
I
H
W
I—I
GO
Ol
GO
00
-------
Inglewood has found possible to do, even
without the assistance of the Federal
Government.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE IO-POINT ACTION PROGRAM FOB THE
ALLEVIATION OF NOISE POLLUTION IN INGLE-
WOOD, CALIF.
THE PROBLEM
The problem of Jet noise crosses political
boundaries and therefore cannot be solved
by any single local community acting alone.
A lasting solution, can only come from a
cooperative effort of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the air transport industry,
airline unions, aircraft, airframe and engine
manufacturers, airport operators, legislators,
and citizens. However, a solution must begin
with local communities. Local communities,
acting together can be the catalyst that
brings all other bodies together in a massive
attack on the problem of jet aircraft noise,
as well as all environmental noise pollutants.
AN ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITIES
Indeed, it now apepars that a forceful 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 fee taken to solve It. Also,
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 defining the specific equipment
needed for the enforcement of the ordi-
nance.)
Point 4—Legal actions
The City Attorney should be given author-
traffic controllers to man such equipment,
thereby permitting a revision in the air traf-
fic procedures on approach to LAX. Planes
could then fly over Inglewood using less pow-
er. Were no turns made by approaching air-
craft inside the outer marker at^ approxi-
mately the Harbor Freeway, power settings .
could be reduced by stabilizing approaches at
a higher altitude, permitting the use of less
power on flnal approach. Further, noise ef-
fects would be highly restricted—to two rela-
tively narrow corridors over Inglewood ap-
proaching 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 ma-
ture citizenship and to begin a serious effort
to meet these responsibilities by investing as
much money and effort into noise suppres-
sion as they have in things such as speed.
Point 8—Glide slope increase
An increase in the glide slope angle to at
least 4 degrees is to be sought. With this 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 Utili-
ties Commission proceedings affecting noise.
Examples of such proceedings are proposed
to
Cn
GO
o
a
o
M
-------
we are no longer acting alone. The commu-
nities most affected by Jet noise In this coun-
try are beginning to band together.
As this nationwide organizational process
continues a program for eliminating jet noise
as well as other environmental noise will be
planned. All of the efforts exerted by indi-
vidual communities and organizations to
combat jet noise will then be studied and
organized into this single national effort. In
anticipation of this massive national task the
City of Inglewood has condensed ten years of
experience and effort Into a Ten Point Action
Program, which Inglewood is pursuing on a
local level. Inglewood feels that many aspects
of this Ten Point Action Program will be
incorporated In the national effort against
jet noise.
The general philosphy of the Inglewood
City Council in adopting the Ten Point Ingle-
wood program accepts Jet aircraft as desir-
able, indeed essential, for today's highly
complex need for rapid travel. The Inglewood
program endorses the expansion of airports
to accommodate more and better jet aircraft.
The problem, as Inglewood sees it, is noise—
not airplanes.
The Inglewood program calls first upon the
people of Inglewood to adjust, within reason-
able human limitations, to the advent of jet
planes. The Inglewood program then calls
upon the flying industry and federal and
state regulatory agencies to consider the en-
tire society and not just the traveling public
when building, flying, and regulating Amer-
ica's growing fleet of jet planes.
WHAT INGLEWOOD CAN DO
Four of the ten points in the Onglewood
program are things the City of Inglewood
can and will do to better adjust to Jet planes.
Point 1—Building code revisions and sound-
proofing
The City Building Code should be revised
to require soundproofing of all affected new
construction and remodeling.
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
the landing corridors.
Next, the City Attorney should be au-
thorized to file and maintain a legal action
to establish the legal right of adversely af-
fected residents and property owners to re-
cover 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.
Pour 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 mint-
mum distance of the beach highway, and a
displacement of the lauding threshold an
equal distance to the west. A STpL (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 P.A.A. air
rules concerning high density terminal areas,
airline terminal traffic flow restrictions, en-
gine noise standards, alternate terminal de-
signations, 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
adults.
Point 10—Support national noise abatement
efforts
The City should not only support, but ini-
tiate, efforts to form a national organization
to combat jet noise and other environment
noise pollution. Efforts should be made to
contact communities a"nd other groups all
over the country who suffer from jet noise
pollution. Only by pooling our efforts behind
a united front can real and lasting progress
be made for society as a whole.
(In October, 1969, Inglewood, In conjunc-
tion with Hempstead, New. York, called a
meeting In Washington, D.C., of groups and
communities interested in noise abatement.
At that meeting was born an organization
named NOISE (National Organization to In-
sure a Sound-controlled Environment).
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me read some of
these points.
Point 5—runaway extensions; point 6—ap-
proach pattern revision; point 7—quieter en-
gines; point 8—glide slope increase; point 9—
FAA, CAB, and State PUC intervenor; point
10—support national noise abatement efforts.
The city of Inglewood, which has been
concerned with noise for some time, has
found it possible, within the limited
scope of its experience, to suggest practi-
cal steps, without further study, to deal
with the problem of airport noise.
[p. S17761]
I
GO
I
a
CO
H
O
te)
w
t—1
GO
H
O
to
Ot
03
-------
What I am suggesting in my amend-
ment is that we back up local efforts, ef-
forts that emerge out of experience with
noise that communities already find un-
acceptable from the point of view of
health and public welfare. Let us build
on that experience in terms of a national
policy. The amendment provides that we
shall deal initially only with those air-
ports that EPA identifies as areas where
there is unacceptable exposure to noise.
That is easy to do. Inglewood, I am sure,
would qualify by its own experience.
There are others that can do so as well.
Of course, there are breakthroughs to
be made in all the sciences related to en-
vironmental pollution. But as I have
learned in the development of air pol-
lution legislation and the development of
water pollution legislation, if all you ever
require of an agency at the Federal level
is that at some, point they issue criteria
or make a study, you will postpone almost
indefinitely any effective action to deal
with the problem. That is why we did not
move as fast as we should in dealing with
air and water pollution.
The standards are not mandated to be
implemented instantly. They are simply
to establish criteria and standards, to
then use such expertise as FAA has—and
I am sure FAA has the expertise to do
what the Inglewood plan suggests—in a
practical way to begin to reduce the noise
levels in the beleaguered communities.
That is all this amendment asks. It is
not anything more than that. It is not
a monster. It is not something beyond
our reach. It is not something that can-
not be done. It is something that would
implement pxiictical, already tried—as
issue has to be studied fully and that
we should have hearings on this specific
point. It was not adequately covered in
the hearings we had on S. 3342. Much
as I would like to see the Senator from
Maine's objectives achieved tomorrow, I
believe it is impossible and it would not
be wise legislation.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. CANNON. I thank the 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 addressed him-
self. However, I am completely opposed
to the amendment that the Senator frpm
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 ses-
sion, attempts are made to modify leg-
islation or get legislation through with-
out full and adequate consideration.
The Committee on Commerce has
jurisdiction over civil aeronautics and
matters relating to activities of the FAA.
We have held extended hearings in rela-
tion to the problem of aircraft noise to
find out'what can be done, what pro-
cedural changes can be made operations-
wise, and what actions can be taken to
. reduce the noise level around airports.
1 recognize that people who are living
'close to an airport, and who are most im-
mediately affected feel that this job
should have been done yesterday, not
ministrator 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 ajter the enactment of
this act, he has to take action pursuant
to that noise criteria.. So the noise cri-
teria promulgation still has 3 months
to go before it can have been promul"
gated; yet, action will be required by the
EPA Administrator 3 months earlier
than the criteria have been published.
That is one of the examples that I say
point out the bad features of trying to
enact legislation in the closing hours of
a session of Congress, on the floor of
the Senate, involving such an emotional
issue, an issue that has to .be given ra-
tional consideration.
Mr. President, in our hearings we
learned that the engine manufacturers
are attempting to do everything they can
to try to reduce the noise level of new
engines coming 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
lower in noise emission than the earlier
aircraft. But they are the new planes
coming on the line. It takes time to build
new engines and make them more quiet.
Also, it takes another decision, and that
is, from an economic standpoint, is it
economically feasible for new engines
to be built and retrofitted to old aircraft
reaching the latter part of their years of
useful life? Those are some of the con-
siderations that have to be given study
and why I support the Senator from
California in his position that the com-
mittee bUl provide for a study. That is
to
Cn
GO
Oi
d
&
o
o
-------
in Inglewood—attempts to reduce noise
levels.
So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption
of the amendment. ;i
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield myself 2 min-
utes, then I will yield to the ^Senator
from Nevada. J
Mr. President, I do not think anyone
could disagree with the stated objectives
of the Muskie amendment. I certainly
agree with them. I think they are very
good objectives, and I wish it were pos-
sible to achieve them overnight. Particu-
larly, the people of Inglewood wish they
could be achieved overnight. If we had
quieter aircraft engines and if it were
possible overnight to retrofit all the air-
line engines that fly into the Los Angeles
International Airport, we would be able
to solve the problem for the citizens of
Inglewood and the citizens of other cities
who live adjacent to airports.
But the problem is this: We have not
had the opportunity to. study the mecha-
nism to achieve a reduction in. airport
noise the way we must in order to legis-
late in this area. As I have indicated, in
many airports some of the major airport
noise is created as a result of trains run-
ning by the airport and highways running
by the airport.
Is the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy in concert with the PAA alone to
regulate the scheduling of trains by the
airport and to regulate the buses and
cars that go by the airport? Should riot
other agencies like DOT be involved?
The only reason why I point this out
is that it demonstrates to me that this
tomorrow, and they have' a very valid
poiilf
sBCowewer, I should like to point out,
also, that people are still building resi-
dential communities right around air-
ports, including Washington National
Airport, which is one of 'the biggest
causes of complaint of noise Jn the area.
We see high rises going up and people
moving right into an area of great noise,
as they did in California, as they built
around the Los Angeles Airport and many
others around the country. They are un-
willing to build away from the airport,
and they move in and build and then
complain about the noise which is .gen-
erated.,
There are a number of bad features
about this amendment, and I will read
one at this time:
SEC. 502 (a) (1) Within 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency 'shall
promulgate rules and regulations, based on
criteria published pursuant to section 407
(a) of this Act ...
Mr. President, this is one of the exam-
ples I had in mind when I said there is a
haste to get legislation through that is
very ill-conceived and ill-considered.
Why? Because section 407 (a), of the Act,
to which that section referred, says that
the Administrator shall, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal, State, and
municipal agencies and other appropri-
ate persons, within 9 months after the
date of the enactment of this section,
issue noise criteria.
So on the one hand you have the Ad-
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 stfrea was the extension of runways.
Mr. President, do you know how long
it takes to extend a runway? It cannot
be done tomorrow, or the next day.
Sometimes it takes a year and a half to
make an extension of a runway and put
it into operation. It depends on many
factors: if the land can be acquired for
the right-of-way, and to put houses out
of the line-for extension. Another point
would be, presumably, that we would
need less power to get off the ground.
I have traveled a lot by air and I, for
one, would be reluctant to take any
action to see that the pilot of that air-
plane 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 pos-
sible. This would be one of the problems.
Another problem, of the nine the Sen-
ator mentioned from Long Beach, would
be the increase in the glide slope. That
is already being done and the FAA is
experimenting with that. The plane
comes in at a higher altitude and we in-
crease the steepness of the glide slope
so that we do not have as much side
exposure or underneath exposure to the
noise. These are steps which are being
taken now.
Thus, I would respectfully submit that
the amendment of the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MTJSKIE) should be defeated.
It should be, in all good judgment. The
[p. S1T762]
o
hH
CD
I
I
W
HH
%
O
to
Or
CO
-------
committee provision for a study
should be agreed to, so that we can find
out what we can do and then get on with
the job.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Dr. Lawrence
Woodworth of the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation be allowed the
privilege of the floor for the next hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNTJSON. Mr. President, I join
my distinguished colleague from Nevada
in opposing the amendment. He knows
' what he is talking about so far as air-
planes are concerned. He probably has
more expertise in this matter than any
of us in the Senate, or any one Senator.
This is a problem where we are all
agreed on the objective but we have to be
practical about some of these things, too.
I know that every generation of jet air-
planes has been quieter than the previ-
ous one, and that the airplane manufac-
turers are doing everything they can to
make the next generation of jets quieter
than toefore. That is being done.
I frankly prefer the House bill on this
matter, because it is a little more prac-
tical. Moving ahead too swiftly, with the
amendment of the Senator from Maine
(Mr. MUSKIE), is very HI advised at this
time. There has not been any hearings
on it. A study should be made, Mr. Pres-
ident, 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
bard to find noise experts who agree on
much. We had two or three testify. I do
not taiow -whether they were self-serving
bill is that it would undertake to pre-
empt the authority of State and local
governments to deal with this problem
and would substitute for State and local
action a Federal study.
If we are not prepared to assume the
authority to do the job, then my views is,
leave it to the States and the commu-
nities to continue what they are now
struggling to do and not preempt the field
and throw a study at them as the Fed-
eral answer.
Mr. President, on July 19, 1972, the
distinguished Senator from California
(Mr. TUNNEY) wrote me a letter on'the
question of the FAA. Let the Senator
from California give us the facts:
I read in part:
For fourteen years the FAA. lias tad 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-lOH's, Cessna Citations,
and about ten percent of the Boeing 747's
are subjedt 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 in-
teriors.
It is for this reason, as stated in the
Tunney letter, to me, why we must have
the development of cumulative noise
standards in the airport environment.
Mr. President, that is why I offer this
amendment.
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 Butstand-
ing isaues.
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 com-
ments received. Additionally, I met earlier
this month with airport managers and oper-
ators, local groups and local officials at three
major airports in California, where the noise
problem is particularly acute. Their helpful
comments, which will also be circulated, were
supportive of the need for comprehensive
regulation of airport and aircraft noise.
NEED
The effects of excessive noise on health are
well documented. In addition to hearing
loss—which may include cell damage and
be irreversible—there are all sorts of insid-
ious effects to many bodily and psycho-
logical functions. The metabolic changes
brought about by noise continue to take
place during sleep—even when the noise is
not loud enough to cause arousal. Most dis-
turbing Is evidence that noise can , affect
the unborn ofciild, causing changes in heart
rate and skeletal muscular contraction's, and '
bO
Oi
oo
00
F
M
Q
o
o
g
M
£
H
O
I
-------
or not, but they said they did not think
there were over four or five noise ex-
perts in the United States.
This is a problem that is not only
highly technical but is a problem that
has to be placed in a practical perspec-
tive as to how we proceed toward 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 discussed in the Com-
mittee 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 reason-
able 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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say
to the distinguished Senator from Wash-
ington that I doubt he understands the
amendment. He talks about hard, drastic
rules. There are no hard, drastic rules in
this amendment. It provides, for the
establishment of criteria with respect to
noise levels; it provides for publishing the
criteria, and it also provides for giving
the PAA the authority to develop the
guidelines for implementing the criteria.
It provides for the FAA to give technical
assistance. There is nothing hard and
drastic about it.
But, Mr. President, my objection to this
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 en-
vironmental 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-
.vlronments which must be met in order to
protect the public health and welfare. For
airports which exceed the target levels, a
plan must be developed and submitted by
the airport operator which could Include
controls on the frequency of flights, the
hours of airport operation, changes In op-
erational and flight procedures, land ,use,
and other techniques which the Secretary of
Transportation determines to be appropriate
and safe to achieve the levels established by
EPA.
Mr. President, this amendment before
us does nothing more than the Senator
from California (Mr. TTJNNEY) urged on
me in his letter of July 19.
I ask unanimous consent that the full
text of this letter be printed in the REC-
ORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., July 19, 1972.
Hon. EDMUND S. MTTSKIE,
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
Inhibiting weight gain. There Is also a sta-
tistically sign-meant1 correlation, between
high noise levels and low land values—espe-
cially, 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 a Jit 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 600 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, Marln
County and San Diego.
THE PAA'S FAILURE TO ACT
The extraordinary levels of aircraft noise
and their severe Impact on the public health
have led to repeated and Increasing pressure
from many sectors for effective control. For
fourteen years the FAA has had authority
to control aircraft noise, and regulations have
existed for four years. The 1968 FAA 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
CD
H
I
o
h-l
CO
g
H
w
en
O
bo
CN
00
CO
[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 en-
gines.
THE MECHANISM OP 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
airport 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 am-
bient 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 de-
veloping and promoting an air transporta-
nity to build the hardware necessary to
deal with this problem and in the mean-
time permit the communities—and the
PAA has a veto in the field—to take
pragmatic approaches to the problem
which will enable them to make at least
a beginning toward reducing the noise
around airports.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from California has 8 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I yield
myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator 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 essence of
that letter is still my position. And the
whole letter would be my position if we
had committee print No. 6 of S. 3342
before us today.
I wrote my letter based on section 502
of print 6 of the bill which is a far dif-
ferent provision than section 502 of the
bill reported. I might say that the pend-
ing Muskie amendment is quite differ-
ent both from print six to which I ad-
dressed my letter and from the version
of the provision we how have before us.
We had established in print six a mech-
anism whereby a conference was held
at a local airport which included par-
ticipation by the airport operators, FAA,
EPH, and others. The Senator's amend-
. ment, as I understand It, does not contain
ator 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 pend-
ing amendment the language contained
in print 6 covering the same subject, I
would accept it without reservation. I
would be happy to accept that as a sub-
stitute for this. The language in print 6
is similar to this language. It says:
A plan must be developed and submitted
by the airport operator which could include
controls on the frequency of flights, the
hours of airport operation, changes In opera-
tional and flight procedures, land use, and
other techniques which the Secretary of
Transportation has laid out, and other
techniques.
I still insist that those techniques
would be implemented in print 6 and the
language before us. Second, I read the
footnote on that letter of July 19, 1972:
P.S.—Thanks so much for your personal
letter of support for my position. . . .
Now the Senator makes an argument
that is a little different. He says that the
only reason he will not go along with the
deletion of the provision is that he
wants a bill that starts now. The pend-
ing bill does not start now on the prob-
lem. It just provides for a study. It does
not start now. I am trying to help the bill
to enable it to start now. That is the
rationale of the amendment.
Mr. President, before I forget it, I ask
for the yeas and nays, or perhaps I
should suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maine does not nave enough
time under the present rule to suggest
fcO
Or
Q
f
IS
^
i
a
-------
tion system which meets commercial needs
while not degrading 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. TONNET,
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
terrific help and I look forward to seeing you
both on Thursday.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do this
not to embarrass the Senator from Cali-
fornia 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 re-
quire of the industry the development
of a technology which does not now exist.
Because we know as a committee, that
unless we put this kind of pressure on
the Industry, we will not get the hard-
ware. 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-
such language.
Mr. MU&KIE. 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.
.1 am not saying that the Senator's
amendment might not be a superb
amendment. However, in the committee
when we were asking tough questions as
to how a mechanism to establish cumu-
lative levels of noise should work and we
could not secure agreement.
We want, a bill that will start to curb
the noise around the airports' now. We
are not willing to wait 2 or 3 years in or-
der to preserve a purist position. We
fought to give EPA a lead role in estab-
lishing aircraft noise emission levels, and
we won in committee.
I am going to fight to protect the lan-
guage of section 501, which establishes
EFA as lead agency in setting noise
emission levels. It is good language
and should be maintained. But it is
quite different to say that I was support-
ive 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 Sen-
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, reserv-
ing 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 tajten out of our time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be
taken out of the time of neither side.
Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Maine? The Chair hears
none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, I first yield 2
minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Missouri" is recognized for/2
minutes.
[p. S17764]
CD
52
00
f
ts
o
bO
en
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2543
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
&CT OF 1972
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 3342) to amend title IV of
the Clean Air Act, and for other pur-
. poses.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I now
ask for the yeas and nays on my amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I wish to
express my strong support for S. 3342,
the Environmental Noise Control Act of
1972. This legislation, I believe, repre-
sents a major first step toward a better
environment through the elimination of
excessive and unnecessary noisei
In a 20th century urban society, all of
us are subjected to a continual onslaught
of noise. This occurs literally from the
.time we wake up in the morning until we
go to sleep at night—if we can get to
sleep with the racket going on outside
our window.
Consider a typical day. The average
American is subjected to a ivide range
of household noises, electric shavers,
dishwashers, garbage disposals, and
dozens of other sources, including our
neighbors' stereo set, or an overhead jet.
6n our way to work, our nerves are
jangled by the noise of car horns, trucks,
construction equipment, buses, or sub-
ways, depending on where we live.
At .our office or factory, we may be as-
saulted by noisy machinery and equip-
ment.
After work, the cycle begins again, in
reverse.
To an extent, we seem to be able to
adapt to such noise—to an extent. The
average citizen may well be totally un-
aware of the.range of noises to which he
is subjected during his day, and of the
total effect of continual exposure to
noise.
Yet, all of us are aware of the need
for quiet.
When planning a vacation, do not we
tend to choose a retreat, at least par-
tially, because it is quiet?
Apart from the health problems as-
sociated with noise, American society
seems to seek a quieter environment for
its own sake. If we can cut down on the
excessive and unnecessary noise, the
quality of our lives will be improved.
Mr. President, the bill before us today
is an important and valuable piece of
legislation. I support it fully, because we
need a coordinated, Federal program to
control noise pollution.
By directing the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection. Agency to set
standards on major noise sources based
on the best available noise control tech-
nology, we will achieve a quieter environ-
ment based on a reasonable standard.
I know some members believe EPA
should not have authority over aircraft
noise. I disagree. I believe the legislation
giving EPA the responsibility for setting
the standard, with a Federal Aviation
Administration veto based on safety, is
the best course, because the agency re-
sponsibile for protecting the environ-
ment can best make this decision.
But let us not assume that this is a
problem which can be solved by govern-
mental action alone. Private citizens can
-------
and must play a key role in qiueting ex-
cess noise in our Nation.
We need to become more noise-con-
scious, more aware of the need for quiet.
Private citizens, in the free marketplace,
can do as much as for quieter environ-
ment as the Congress can accomplish by
legislation. For example, it has been
recognized that a family will often buy a
noisy vacuum cleaner, in preference to a
quieter one, because the family mistaken-
ly equates noise with cleaning power.
The same is true with motorcycles, cars,
and other things we buy. If we under-
stood that the noisier machine was not
necessarily the best, and that the exces-
sive noise harmed the buyer, we might
choose the quieter machine.
Another contribution the private citi-
zen can make is simply to complain
more when irritated by noise. Noise is
usually a byproduct of a necessary ac-
tivity. And it is often a byproduct that
goes unnoticed by its producer.
Citizen complaints could be effective,
for example, as a way to encourage con-
struction contractors to use quieter
equipment, when available, and confine
their activities to reasonable, daytime
hours. Citizen activity can also prod
State and local governments into writing
the kind of effective antinoise use ordi-
nances that continue to be permitted by
this legislation.
Mr. President, peace and quiet is a uni-
versal, human need. A quieter world is
a better world, a world in which the qual-
ity of our lives will be enhanced. I urge
the passage of this legislation. While it
Is not a cure-all, it does represent a
Administration review with regard to
safety and technological feasibility;
fifth, EPA would be authorized to make
grants to State and local noise control
program agencies; sixth, several new en-
forcement powers would be granted, in-
cluding civil and criminal penalties, au-
thority to enjoin violations and author-
ity for citizens to compel the Adminis-
trator to perform nondiscretionary acts
and to bring any person into compliance
with the terms of the statute.
Some of the major problems with
which the committee grappled included
the appropriate standard to be set for
new products manufactured in the
United States, the respective roles of
Federal, State, and local governments in
control of noise, and the respective roles
of the EPA and the FAA in the control of
aircraft and airport noise.
Building upon the experience of the
Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, the committee deter-
mined that rather than the vague and
general test of protecting public health
and welfare, it would be preferable to set
standards for major sources of noise
based on best available technology tak-
ing into account the cost of compliance.
Witnesses before the committee indi-
cated that in most cases the noise of
major classes of products manufactured
In the United States could be drastically
reduced by the applicaton of existing
technology and that the cost of applying
such technology would be comparatively
reasonable.
Therefore, it was determined that pre-
cise, uniform, and enforceable standards
to
Cn
Q
>
f
O
O
O
I
-------
major step toward a better quality of life
for all Americans.
I would like to explain some of the
features of the bill.
In his last two environmental mes-
sages the President proposed compre-
hensive noise legislation. We have taken
the major objectives of that legisla-
tion, strengthened and broadened many
of its provisions, and incorporated a
number of the concepts from the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970 and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 now before the.
President for signature, and produced
what we think is a stronger, more en-
forceable, more workable bill. We have
received assurances from William D.
Ruckelshaus, the very able Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection
Agency that he approves of S. 3342 and
could accept the changes from the .ad-
ministration's proposed legislation.
Some of the major features of this leg-
islation include, first, the application of
the best available technology standard to
major classes of manufactured equip-
ment; second, the direction that all Fed-
eral agencies conduct their programs in
a manner fully consistent with this legis-
lation; third, that EPA develop basic
criteria documents on noise and its con-
trol, that EPA publish reports identify-
ing products or classes that are major
sources of noise and provide information
on techniques for controlling noise from
such sources; fourth, that EPA set noise
levels for interstate motor carriers, rail-
roads, and aircraft, with the aircraft
standards subject to Federal Aviation
could best be obtained by requiring that
EPA apply a technological standard
rather than apply the health and welfare
test directly. In this way, the public
health and welfare would be best pro-
tected. The committee also chose to
broaden the classes of equipment covered
by these standards to include not only
construction equipment, Internal-com-
bustion-powered equipment and trans-
portation equipment as proposed by the
administration, but also turbines and
compressors, electrical and electronic
equipment, and percussive and explosive
equipment.
Testimony before the committee in-
dicated that all of these classes are major
sources of noise and should be regulated
in a comprehensive manner. In a related
area, the committee decided that the
manufacturer should be required to war-
rant for the useful life of the equipment
that the equipment will be free from de-
fects in materials and workmanship that
would cause it under normal use, opera-
tion, and maintenance to fail to meet the
noise standard. Useful life as determined
by the Administrator will have to take
into account the range of uses to which
such a product might be put. This is not
a performance warranty but rather a de-
fects warranty which takes into account
the fact that the manufacturer might
not be able to foresee all of the uses to
which a product might conceivably be
put.
The committee was concerned that the
Federal, State and local roles in con-
trolling noise be clearly delineated.
Therefore It determined that Federal au-
[p. S17774]
I
w
H
I
s
CO
I
H
0
CO
to
CTI
^
01
-------
thority should be primarily for product
noise emission standards. State and local
authority to establish and enforce limits
of environmental noise through licens-
ing, regulation, or restriction of the use,
operation or movement of a product
would be preserved. On the other hand,
States and localities would be preempted
from setting noise emission standards
which would be enforceable directly or
indirectly against the manufacturer.
The committee intended to prohibit
burdens on interstate commerce from
State and local product emission stand-
ards while recognizing that States and
localities would have primary responsi-
bility for setting and enforcing limits on
environmental noise needed to protect
the public health and welfare. This was
thought appropriate in view of the very
high standard—best available technol-
ogy—upon which Federal product re-
quirements would be based.
The excessive noise from aircraft op-
erations, particularly in the major ur-
ban 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 concerned
that the legislation which we 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
EPA to conduct a comprehensive 1-year
study of the airport noise problem and
report back to the Congress with its
recommendations. S. 3342 will authorize
such a study.
This legislation will call for a quantum
increase in the noise control program
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I am confident that Mr. Buckelshaus will
be able to convert the embryonic noise
control program which was established
pursuant to title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970 into a full-fledged
Federal noise control and abatement
program working in close cooperation
with the States and localities through-
out the Nation.
EPA will for the first time be able to
coordinate the various Federal noise con-
trol programs, including the program of
the Department of Labor under the Oc-
cupational Safety and Health -Act of
1970, the program of the Department
of Transportation for control of noise
from transportation sources, and the pro-
gram of NASA for research on aircraft
noise. This will require a greatly in-
creased level of funding and staffing
and therefore we have provided $18 mil-
lion in fiscal year 1973, $36 million in
fisdal year 1974, and $50 million in fiscal
year 1975.
In addition, there is provided for State
grants $5 million in fiscal year 1973, $7.5
million in fiscal year 1974, $10 million in
fiscal year 1975; and for the low-emis-
sion product incentive purchases $1 mil-
lion in fiscal year 1973, $2 million in fiscal
year 1974 and $2 million in fiscal year
1975. In some cases EPA may have to call
upon other agencies to detail personnel
Senators from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),
and from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD) gave
considerable time and attention to this
bill and I wish to give credit to their
valuable efforts.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I am
prepared to yield back the remainder of
my time unless someone else wants to
talk, after I use up 1 more minute of
my time. Is the Senator from Maine
agreeable to that?
Mr. MTJSKIE. Mr. President, I will
agree to not more than a minute if I
might respond.
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-
thority over air commerce, aircraft, or air-
pbrt 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 areas.
That relates to such things as flight
and operational procedures, and any
other means within present regulatory
authority of relevant agencies. It relates
to all those matters. No one can say the
bill does not contain significant, strong
language now so that these agencies
must utilize their authority to produce
a quieter airport environment. I do not
want the RECORD to appear that the com-
mittee and the manager of the bill are
not in favor of reducing airport noise.
This language will insure that all existent
-to
Cn
rf^
05
o
>
f
CO
d
I
B
-------
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 available demonstrated technology
taking into account the cost of com-
pliance.
Of course, the committee determined
that the safety of aircraft operations
must be protected at all cost. Therefore,
it reserved to FAA the right to review
and, if need be, veto EPA proposed air-
craft standards if they do not insure the
highest degree of safety of, if the tech-
j nology is not available to implement the
, standards.
This division of authority will provide
that the environmental regulation is
vested in the agency most concerned
with environmental protection, as in the
Clean Air Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and in the pro-
visions of this bill for control of noise
emissions from other classes of products.
At the same time the special require-
ments of air safety and the need to
assur^ the application of technological
expertise by FAA is preserved.
The committee had hoped to deal with
the problem of cumulative noise expos-
ure in are.as surrounding airports. How-
ever, we felt that in view of the lack of
information r-js to how to solve this prob-
lem, it would be preferable to authorize
to help set up programs and specific leg-
islative authority is provided in the bill
for such transfers.
We recognize that in many cases the
control of noise is a local responsibility.
Therefore provisions are included in the
bill for grant support to State and local
agencies and for joint enforcement of
the bill's provisions. The committee en-
visions the closest cooperation of EPA
with State and local noise control agen-
cies.
I wish to call attention to the very
fine work of the distinguished Senator
from California (Mr. TUNNEY) who has
worked with great enthusiasm for this
bill and particularly for the provisions
to control aircraft noise. The distin-
guished Senator from Maine (Mr. Mus-
KIE) , the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Air and Water Pollution, provided the
same great leadership which he has dem-
onstrated in guiding legislation on air
and water pollution control, solid wastes
and other environmental problems. The
distinguished Senator from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) , and chairman of
our committee was most helpful in assur-
ing that our committee moved this im-
portant legislation, notwithstanding the
severe press of other pending business.
I take particular pride in calling at-
tention to the efforts of our distinguished
colleague from Kentucky, Senator COOP-
ER, who will soon retire and who has
been instrumental in producing a strong
and workable noise bill, just as he has
worked untiringly for other environ-
mental legislation. The distinguished
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, unless I have
been greatly mistaken during the course
of committee work over a period of
weeks, that authorizes noise standards or
the issuance of criteria, or which pro-
vides for the development of plans for
airport managers, or to require the FAA
• to provide technical assistance. I am not
aware that it is there, but if it is we
should have unanimous support for this
amendment.
I gather the language the Senator re-
fers to is on page 90 of the bill which
reads, on line 17:
"(o) 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 au-
thority the FAA has not used such au-
thority, and if this means what it says,
the Senator should be glad to incorpo-
rate in -the bill the procedures covered
by the pending amendment.
With that, unless others wish to speak,
I am prepared to yield back my time.
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield back the re-
mainder of our time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
is yielded back. The question is on agree-
[p. S17775]
H
I
1
I
H
w
bo
-------
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Maine. The yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Florida (Mr.
CHILES) , the Senator from Louisiana
(Mrs. EDWARDS) , the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Sen-
ator from South Dakota (Mr. McGov-
ERN) , the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. MclNiYRE), the Senator from Mon-
tana (Mr. METCALF), the Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. PELL), the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. SPONG) are neces-
sarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr.'MCGEE) is absent
on official business.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. PELL) would vote "yea."
Mr. SCOTT. I announce that the Sen-
ator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT), the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) ,
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD-
WATER), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
HATFIELD), the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
MILLER) , the Senator from South Caro-
lina (Mr. THURMOND) and the Senator
from Texas (Mr. TOWER) are necessarily
absent.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOK) Is absent on official business.
The Senator from South. Dakota (Mr.
MTTNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Arizona (Mr. Fast-
Saxbe
Scott
Sparkman
Stafford
Allott
Baker
Chiles
Cook
Curtis
Edwards
Fannin
Goldwater
Stennls Talmadge
Stevens Tunney
Symington Weicker
Taft Young
NOT VOTING—22
Griffin
Harris
Hatfleld
Kennedy
McGee
McGovern
Mclntyre
Metcalf
Miller
Mundt
Pell
Spong
Thurmond
Tower
So Mr. MUSKIE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, noise
is one of the most pervasive pollutants
in our society. In our mechanized indus-
tries, transportation systems, and house-
holds, the level of noise to which the aver-
age citizen is exposed has increased to
an astonishing level. Present trends indi-
cate that the amount of environmental
noise with which Americans must con-
tend will double within 10 years.
At the present time as many as 44 mil-
lion Americans have the comfort and
serenity of their homes adversely af-
fected by noise from aircraft or traffic,
and 21 million more Americans are af-
fected by construction-related noise.
There may be as many as 40 million
Americans whose-exposure to noise con-
stitutes a health hazard, with potential
hearing impairment or other physiolog-
ical and psychological effects. Not only
is noise a serious problem of the work-
place but it becomes increasingly difficult
for individuals to find the quiet in their
home or place of recreation necessary to
provide a recuperative period for mental
processes or the delicate mechanisms of
hearing.
standing, and I believe the understand-
ing of the committee, that the Federal
Aviation Administration is the agency
intended by the Congress to have pri-
mary responsibility for aircraft oper-
ations 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 re-
duce the levels of aircraft noise to which
the public 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 provides that
standards for noise emissions from air-
craft which manufacturers of aircraft
and air carriers must attain would be
established on the basis of a joint deter-
mination by the Administrators of the
Federal Aviation Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency as to
the availability of demonstrated control
technology and the reasonableness of
compliance costs. However; air safety is
the paramount concern, and the Admin-
istrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration must determine that any pro-
posed standards are consistent with the
highest degree of safety in air commerce
before such standards could be promul-
gated.
The question of regulating community
noise around airports was discussed by
the committee. However, it was the
judgment of the committee that too lit-
tle 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 op-
Cn
M^
00
-
I
(—1
O
a
-------
NIN), and the Senator'from Michigan
(Mr. GRIFFIN) are detained on official
business.
, If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) , the Senator from
Iowa (Mr. MILLER), and the. Senator
from Texas (Mr. TOWER) would each
vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Ore-
gon (Mr. HATFIELD) is paired with the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
THURMOND). If present and voting, the
Senator from Oregon would vote "yea"
and the Senator from South Carolina
would vote "nay."
The result was announced—yeas 31,
nays 47, as follows:
Aiken
Brock
Brooke
Buckley
Burdick
Case
Church
Cranston
Dole
Dominick
Eagleton
Allen
Anderson
Bayh
Beall
Bellmon
Bennett
Bentsen
Bible
Boggs
Byrd,
Harry P., Jr.
Byrd, Bofoert C.
[No. 547 Leg.]
YEAS—31
Fulbright
Hart
Hartke
Hughes
Humphrey
Javlts
Mansfield
Mondale
Montoya
Muskie
Nelson
NAYS—47
Cannon -
Cooper
Cotton
Eastland
Ervln
Pong
Gambrell
Gravel
Gurney
Hansen
Boilings
Hruska
Packwood
Pastore
Percy
Proxmire
Bltalcoff
Schwelker
Smith
Stevenson
Williams
Inouye
Jackson
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Long
Magnusou
Mathlas
McClellan
Moss
Pearson
Randolph
Roth
Legislation to control levels of envi-
ronmental noise is necessary now to
check the rising crescendo of unwanted
sound associated with our industrial so-
ciety and to conserve the hearing and the
mental peace of our citizens.
S. 3342, the Environmental Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972, as reported Jby the Com-
mittee on Public Works, provides a reg-
ulatory framework which will achieve
effective control of this form of environ-
mental degradation. Senator TUNNEY in
his remarks has described the provisions
of the bill in detail. I will emphasize to
Members of the Senate several provi-
sions which I think to be important.
First, the bill as reported by the com-
mittee addresses the problem of aircraft
noise, a problem which our investigations
indicated to be one of the most serious,
yet one of the most difficult with which
to deal. Under the present law, the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration is charged
with the responsibility for establishing
noise emission standards for all. types of
aircraft. At the same time, of course,
the Federal Aviation Administration is
required to fullflll its primary mission of
facilitating safe and efficient air com-
merce.
In 1970, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency was created to centralize
Federal regulation of environmental
problems. A major question which the
Committee faced in developing S. 3342
was the proper roles of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in controlling
aircraft noise. It is clearly .my under-
erations based on levels of noise ex-
posure in the vicinity of airports. In-
stead, S. 3342 provides'for a 1-year study
by the Environmental Protection Agency
of the implications, of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative' noise ex-
posures around airports. The study also
includes the retrofitting or phaseout of
existing aircraft and any additional air-
craft 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 information for any leg-
islation in this area in the future.
Another issue of importance in this
legislation is the question of the roles
State and local governments will play
in controlling noise emissions after Fed-
eral emission standards have been estab-
lished. The committee received extensive
testimony that present standards were
controlled by a variety of State and
local jurisdictions, producing a situation
of conflict and chaos for national manu-
facturers of such products as vehicles or
construction equipment. This situation is
placing an intolerable burden on inter-
state commerce as manufacturers strain
to meet conflicting standards or are
forced out of some local markets. S. 3342
responds to this problem by providing
that once effective noise control stand-
ards have been established for any prod-
uct by the Federal Government, State
and local governments are preempted
from setting noise emission standards
applicable to that product. The intention
of the committee is to relieve manufac-
[p. S17776]
CO
H
d
3
CO
F
H
CO
I
CO
i-3
O
bO
Ol
fP»
<£>
-------
turers from the burden of meeting con-
flicting standards, so long as there are
effective Federal regulations, while pre-
serving the power of State and local
governments to deal with all sources of
noise in the hands of their users. Thus,
limitations on uses may be imposed but
no State or local emission standards have
products covered by Federal standards.
I also bring to the attention of the
Senate the provisions In title V of
S. 3342, which establishes a regulatory
framework for noise from interstate
trucks and buses and the operations of
railroads. Here, as well as in the area of
product noise emission standards, the
transportation industry is faced with the
prospect of conflicting noise control reg-
ulations in every jurisdiction along their
routes. It is completely inappropriate
for interstate carriers or interstate
transportation to be burdened in this
way\ The ^committee met the need for
active legislation on moving noise sources
by requiring controls on noise from all
interstate trucks and buses
-------
During the consideration of this bill, I
Deceived1 ex-tensive correspondence on the
subject 'of the warranty requireid1 by sec-
tion 408 (d). This.,w'a'rranty, similar to
one now lii;effie<$ for other vehicles under
the Cleafl Me. Act, requires manufac-
turers to ^warrant,that, defects in main-
tenance and •workmanship will not
cause a new product subject- to noise
emission standards, under normal uses
and maintenance, to fail to conform to
those standards under its useful life. The
committee, recognizing that useful life
will vary substantially for any given
product depending upon the uses to
which it is put and many other factors,
modified the warranty provisions to re-
quire the Administrator to take into ac-
count the range of uses to which a prod-
uct might be put as he establishes its use-
ful life. It is the intention of the com-
mittee to make the manufacturers liable
only for those increases in noise emission
which were within his control in the
manufacturing process. The user must
bear, the burden of operating and main-
taining the product in a normal way if he
wishes to be protected by the warranty
on noise emissions.
Mr. President, there have been spo-
radic efforts by State and local govern-.
ments to control the noise problem, and
recent activity at those levels of govern-
ment have given a further spur to Fed-
eral legislation. In 1970, the Committee
on Public Works authored title IV of the
Clean Air Act, establishing an Office of
Noise Abatement and Control in the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and
launching the study which has culmi-
fore the Noise Abatement Council at
America, October 8, 1969)
There Is a bumper sticker now circulating
which says: "Eliminate Pollution Before
Pollution Eliminates You." Immediately we
will think of studies which threaten a lack
of water by 1980 and conjure up the words
of California scientists stating that within
50 years their state will be uninhabitable
for. any form of life, Or we hold our breath
for a moment remembering that 142 mil-
lion tons of smoke and noxious fumes are
dumped Into the atmosphere each year.
Momentarily we feel brief panic and then
for one reason or another, we forget the
threatening words of the bumper sticker
and go about our daily duties in a comfort-
able shield of self-deception and false se-
curity. Unfortunately such an attitude h'as
now brought us to a situation In which the
rapidly deteriorating quality of our environ-
ment is the most hazardous challenge to not
only our health and well-being but to our
very lives and those of our children and
grandchildren.
Environmental pollution may not pose the
Immediate destruction that nuclear war
does, but I might remind you that the effects
are the same and just as lasting. And I
might remind you that destruction at the
hands of our environment Is as immediate
as your and my lifetime. And finally, I
might remind you that lack of inhabitable
land, lack of food, lack of good water to
drink and good air to breath are the very
conditions under which men become des-
perate and resort to any and all means to
preserve their survival. It is with these
thoughts In mind that I state my firm
conviction that pollution—all forms of pol-
lution: air, water, and noise pollution, over-
population, land and soil pollution—Is the
'most challenging and the most crucial prob-
lem facing the man of the 20th century. And
it Is with these thoughts in mind that I
exposure or sufficient Intensity and dura-
tion has been recognized to produce sensorl-
neural hearing loss. But to Spite of this
knowledge, an over-exposure to excessive
noise la the major cause of hearing loss in
the United States today. In fact It is esti-
mated that 1(1-20 million people In the
United States have some degree of hearing
Impairment.
Everyone realizes that if he is exposed to
a very loud noise such as an explosion he
may very likely wind up deaf—at least tem-
porarily'. What Is not so apparent Is that the
effect of noise Is cumulative; It produces as
Dr. Leo Beranek, whose work in acoustics is
International In scope, an "acoustic fatigue".
Repeated moderate noise builds up to pro-
duce the same effect as would a single loud
noise. And even more Important, is the fact
that repeated noise is the only type, short of
a shattering explosion, that produces per-
manent hearing loss. The Importance of this
is readily seen when one is considering the
harmful effects of exposure to dally occupa-
tional noise.
Another matter of some concern is that
the noise level of the United States is In-
creasing at an astonishing rate. Over the past
25 years the average Increase In noise level
has been at one decibel per year. When one
considers that damage to the ears can occur
at sustained exposure to the ranges around
85 decibels and over, and given our present
noise levels, it will not be too many, years
before noise levels in the United States be-
came lethal. To quote Dr. Vern O. Knudsen,
physicist and 'former Chancellor of the Uni-
versity of California. "If the noise we make
keeps increasing at the present rate. It will
be as deadly in thirty years in some of our
downtown cities as were the ancient Chinese
tortures for executing condemned prisoners."
We, know of course that the most pro-
nounced physical effect of noise is damage
to the ear. Exposure to Intense noise over
I
§
I
H
O3
I
£
W
s
Ot
Cn
[p. S17777]
-------
varying durations causes partial and In some
cases permanent hearing loss due to actual
cell damage In the organ of the Cord located
within the cochlea of the Inner ear.
But noise has much farther reaching ef-
fects than Just hearing damage. As Paul E.
Sabine stated even back as far as the March
1944 issue of the American Journal of Public
Health: "There is a wealth of reliable data
from medical sources in support of the state-
ment that sustained exposure to noise is a
contributing factor In impaired hearing,
chronic fatigue that lowers bodily resistance,
neurasthenia, Increased blood pressure, and
decreased working and mental efficiency and
that noise should rightfully be classified as
an occupational hazard along with gases,
fumes, dust, toxic liquids, and bacteria." To
put this into, if nothing else, economic per-
spective, the total cost to Industry in com-
pensation payments, lost production, and de-
creased efficiency due to noise is estimated at
well over $4 million per year. In relation to
business a World Health Organization report
states that before 1939 office noise was cost-
Ing United States business $2 million per day
through Inefficient work. Today that.figure
Is $4 million. The psychological and physio-
logical* effects of noise are difficult to asses
but the correlation between noise and such
things as sleep disturbances, hypertension
due to the consistant response of hormonal
and neurological mechanisms to noise stress.
Interference with basic communication, the
loss in efflect performance and even dam-
age to property must be counted as a very
real and a very enormous threat to our well-
being not to mention the economic reper-
cussions.
The effects of noise cannot be fully ap-
preciated until we have more thorough stud-
ies in, the field. One effect which, needs to be
especially explored by sociologists and crlrni-
nologlsts Is referred to In a recent Fortune
magazine article. As related by Fortune: In
the Bronx Uorough of KTew fork City one
evening lost sprung, lour boys were at play.
fact that permanent hearing loss caused by
excessive exposure to noise is now a recog-
nized occupation hazard and is co'mpensable
In only 35 states. I am always reminded of
the basic lack ef awareness in this field by
an unfortunately true story which occurred
when one of my aids was touring a textile
factory in the South. When he commented on.
the high level of noise to which the workers
were subjected, the manager hastened to as-
sure him that, immediate efforts were being
made to correct the unpleasant conditions.
''Next week the factory is playing country-
western music over the loud-speaker at a
level which will block out the noise of the
factory."
The noise of our industries is put into fur-
ther perspective when one considers them
In light of "safe" noise levels. There are dif-
ferences of opinion about permissible occu-
pational noise levels. The American Academy
of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology states
that.our present knowledge of the relation of
noise exposure and hearing loss is much too
limited to propose safe amounts of exposure.
However, the Academy recommends noise-
exposure control and tests of hearing If there
Is habitual exposure to continuous noise at
85 decibels at a frequency of 300-1200 cycles
per second. Noise is measured In a dlmen-
sionless unit called the decibel which Is used
to describe the levels of acoustical pressure,
power and intensity.'
The decibel expresses a logarithmic ratio
between two sounds. In other words, the dif-
ference between a noise with a decibel rating
of 60 and that with a rating of 70 is a rela-
tive increase of 10 times the lower level. The
frequency of noise expressed in cycles per
second is useful for rating noise hazards since
some frequencies are more likely to cause
hearing damage than others, with high
pitched sounds "more annoying than low
pitched sounds. The British Medical Society
recommends hearing conservation measures
when noise exceeds 85 decibels In the 260-
4OOO cycles per second range..
forms of control the consequences are
logical—existing knowledge for noise con-
trol is not even applied.
Noise control costs money, and it Is not
reasonable to ask sympathetic construction
firms to invest in noise control only to let
unsympathetic firms underbid them on jobs
by avoiding the noise control costs. Air
compressors, pneumatic drills, power saws,
concrete mixers and other machines Involved
In the construction or demolition of build-
ings are permitted In some urban areas ber
tween 7 am and 6 pm, six days a week and
at night with special permit. Combined with
the poor soundproofing in modern apart-
ments, the sounds of congested traffic which
can reach upwards of 90 decibels, and the
multitudinous other sounds of "civilized
living", the city dweller is caught In the
midst of a "cacophenic catastrophe".
Europe and such countries as Russia and
Japan have for some time had strictly en-
forced noise abatement laws, including zon-
ing and construction measures and national
councils like the Swiss Anti-Noise Commis-
sion which deals with the basic medical,
acoustic and technical questions of road, rail
and water traffic: aircraft noise, noise in
Industry, building construction, homes, etc.:
and legal questions.
The United States by contrast has few
laws regarding noise abatement and even.
those that It has are barely enforced. For
example, New York City is one of the cities
that has strict noise laws against horn-
blowing and even has a legal noise limit
for the city of 88 decibels at 150 feet. If you
have ever been to New York, I am sure that
these laws will come as surprising news.
The final assault on the nation's well-be-
ing due to noise and the one which brings
you here today Is that of aircraft noise. Of
all the fields of noise abatement that of air
transportation has received .the most atten-
tion by Industry and government due to the
obvious severity of the problem. The pos-
sible adverse effects of aircraft noise nave
to
Cn
Or
bO
o
>
tr1
Q
o
hi
F
W
I
-------
shouting and racing In and out of ail apart-
ment building. Suddenly from a second-floor
window came the crack of a pistol. One of
boys spawled dead on the pavement. The vic-
tim happened to be Boy Innls, Jr., thirteen,
son of a prominent Negro leader, .but there
was no political implication in the tragedy.
The killer, also a Negro, confessed to police
that he was a .nightworker who had lost con-
trol of himself because the noise from the
boys prevented him from sleeping. This inci-
dent ts extreme but worthy of our careful at-
tention due to the implications it has rtn
the worsening human problems • which we
are now experiencing in pur cities.
Until recently the most authoritative voices
about noise have come from within the in-
dustrial occupations due to the mere fact
that noise has been a problem much longer
in" this area than in any other. Industrial
management has become increasingly con-
cerned with the adverse effects of noise on
those persons who work under constant ex-
posure to intense levels of noise—and I miglit
add with due reason.
According to Dr. Glorig, director of the
Callier Hearing and Speech Center in Dallas,
Texas: "Industrial noise is now the most im-
portant single cause of hearing loss." Despite
numerous research, training and regulatory
programs now underway in some industries
and in various Federal agencies, and despite
the great strides accomplished in respon-
sible noise abatement efforts in the occupa-
tional fields, there is still need for a vast
amount of education in the field of occupa-
tional noise. For instance, B. F. Goodrich
estimates that the total market for accous-
tical goods and products will reach $875 mil-
lion by 1970, which if one takes into account
all that this comprises is a very paltry sum.
Another example of the need for increased
emphasis placed on occupational noise is the
The United States Air Force recommends
ear defenders when personnel are exposed to
85 decibels In the 300-4800 frequency range.
The American Standards Association, has
suggested permissible daily quotas of ex-
posure to noise which they suggest should
protect the worker from hearing loss. Over an
eight hour working day they suggest a limit
of 85 decibels at any frequency range above
700 cycles per second. InMhe Walsh-Healey
Public Contracts Act the Federal government
has adopted 90 decibels at any frequency
rangg as a permissible safe occupational noise
level.
Only recently has there been concern
about the entire realm of urban and com-
munity noise although millions of Ameri-
cans are affected each day by the repercus-
sions of this type of noise. As Dougherty
and Welsh commented in "Community Noise
and Hearing Loss":
"The saving quality heretofore has been
that community noise has been a short-term
exposure as compared to an 8 hour day
period in industry. As the power use of both.
home and street increase, steps must be
taken to limit the noise output. Otherwise,
total timed exposure will exceed industrial
standards that actually rely on regular au-
dlograms to prevent severe hearing loss."
Indeed the din in the cities at times far
exceeds the noise levels considered "safe"
for an occupational situation. A noise level
of 100 decibels was once recorded on the
Avenue of the Americas in New York City
where the Transit Authority was building
the extension of the 6th Avenue subway.
Construction is perhaps the most Irritating
source of noise to the urbanite and the
problem is intensified when once we realize
that there are virtually no legal controls on
the amount of noise that can emanate from
a construction site. In the absence of any
been recognized for several years. In 1952 the
Dolittle Report pointed out that "positive
efforts should be continued by both govern-
ment and industry to reduce or control air-
craft noise nuisance to people on the ground
and that substantial reduction of such noise
ts practicable."
Such firms as Pratt and Whitney, General
Electric and Boeing have been Involved for
some years in the research, and develop-
ment of a "quiet" engine. According to
sources within the field we are five years
away from a prototype which when opera-
tional will only reduce the perceived noise
level at take-off and landing by 10 percent.
The problem in this area ts not so much a
matter of money as lack of available tech-
nology. The sound of a Jet taking off is ap-
proximately 130 decibels which is 'also the
estimated maximum noise bearable to human
ears. A reduction of 10% will bearly scratch
the surface of the noise problem in this area
unless there is a major technological break-
through.
Therefore in combating aircraft noise we
also' need to pursue abatement efforts in
the aspects- of aircraft operations and apply
methods of compatible landuse around the
airports^ In the realm of flight patterns, air-
port design and placement, guaranteed buf-
fer zones, adequate soundproofing of build-
ings in and around airports, extension of
runVays, legal controls, and so on, joint ac-
tion will have to be taken by the Federal
government, the airlines, and the com-
munity. With over 98% of our airports owned
by some level of state government, it will be
primarily up to the local government and the
airport operators of the same to effect noise
abatement controls. In addition airport op-
erators should share the responsibility of en-
forcing the new Federal Aviation Agency
noise standards to be announced this month
[p. S17778]
§
1
I
01
B
o
fel
0
3
§
fcO
Ox
Oi
GO
-------
and closely coordinating local efforts with
such programs as the Aircraft Noise Al-
leviation Program established under the
F.A.A. In 1961.
For examples of Innovative noise control
efforts I recommended such programs as that
taken in the Los Angeles area In which com-
munity efforts and pilot programs have been
established to abate noise at the Los An-
geles International Airport. The Port of New-
York Authority has also carried out exten-
sions costing several million, dollars to the
three runways at New York's Kennedy In-
ternational Airport solely out of noise abate-
ment considerations. Dulles International
Airport in Washington is a good example
of how zoning laws and design can be
effectively employed to control noise levels
emanating from aircraft.
But despite these examples, the fact re-
mains that there is much left to do before
you can successfully cope with aircraft noise.
Your recognition of this fact has brought
you here today. There are many questions
which must be answered before actual work
can even begin. The most important of these
Is funding of noise abatement efforts. Who
Is responsible? Should we ever obtain an op-
erational "quiet" engine, the estimated cost
of retrofitting our four engine commercial
Jets has been upwards of $300 million. This
is perhaps the most tolichy issue which will
face you in your efforts to combat jet noise
for the costs are formidable and the responsir
bility ill-defined.
Another problem of considerable concern
is that of the sonic boom. Until recently the
shock waves from the sonic boom was con-
fined to occasional military flights scheduled
to fly over unpopulated areas of the United
States. However, since President Nixon's re-
quest lor $96 million for the current fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970 In order to finance
the start of construction of two SST proto-
type aircraft It now apepars that within the
next 10 years we will be subjected to the
Just beginnings. What is needed are guaran-
teed standards for the man on the street,
on his job, or in his home. In this category I
would like to mention the Walsh-Healey Pub-
lic Contracts Act which was signed into
effect by Secretary of Labor Shultz on May 17,
1969. This Act provides for a limit of on-
the-job noise levels at 90 decibels at any
frequency. This regulation only applies to
firms that have a $10,000 or better contract
with the Federal government during the
course of one year. The Walsh-Healey Act is
a step in the right direction but again it is
only a beginning. It only affect? certain seg-
ments of workers and sets as a standard a
noise level which is of debatable safety for
an occupational level.
The real question at hand in the consid-
eration of the noise level of our society Is
whether we are going to preserve the basic
amenities of civilized life in the onslaught
of technological advance.
As one noted figure in the noise abate-
ment field, William H. Ferry, once said: "We
have been neither Interested nor successful
in controlling noise because we have been
neither interested nor successful in coping
with technology."
Some 60 years ago Robert Koch, a bacteri-
ologist and Nobel Laureate predicted: "The
day will come when man will have to fight
merciless noise as the worst enemy to his
health."
That day Is not so far away. The problem
must be faced now before it is beyond our
control. So I offer a' few suggestions from
my meager knowledge of the problem of
what may prevent a continuation of the
insult of noise on the future sensibilities
of our nation. The problem of our "ca-
cophonic republic" requires education, public
awareness, Increased research and greater
application of economical acoustical ma-
terials, and a great deal of cooperation and
coalition of effort between Industry, busi-
ness, government, health, officials and eom-
of pollution which has been shown to be very
harmful yet has received little public atten-
tion: noise.
Recently the Environmenta 1 Protection
Agency was formed in which the various
problems of our environment could be fo-
cused and possible solutions recommended.
However, there was no provision made to
deal with noise abatement with this agency.
Today, consequently, I am introducing legis-
lation which would create an Office of Noise
Abatement within the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This office would help co-
ordinate research on Federal, State, and local
levels, provide grants for such research, help
.provide information regarding noise abate-
ment to interested parties, and make recom-
mendations regarding the promulgation of
standards.
Mr. President, I am confident that the leg-
islation I am introducing today will receive
close scrutiny by the various Federal agen-
cies which are already directing their at-
tention to the problems of noise" as well as
the Environmental Protection Agency. And I
am assured that we will be able to make an
Office of Noise Abatement a reality through
our mutual effort.
There is a bumper sticker now circulating
which says:
"Eliminate Pollution Before Pollution
Eliminates You."
Immediately we will think of studies which
threaten a lack of water by 1980 and conjure
up the words of California scientists stating
that within 50 years their State will be un-
inhabitable for any form of life. Or we hold
our breath for a moment remembering that
142 million tons of smoke and noxious fumes
are dumped into the atmosphere each year.
Momentarily we feel brief panic and then
for one reason or another, we forget the
threatening words of the bumper sticker and
go about our daily duties In a comfortable
shield of self-deception and false security.
Unfortunately such, an attitude Has now
to
Cn
Cn
Q
>
f
O
O
i-9
h-(
O
-------
sound of commercial sonic booms. I am
opposed'-to the development of this aircraft.
Aside from the obvious criticism of low cost-
benefit considerations, I find it difficult to
Justify the yast noise disturbance of this
aircraft in light of the small domestic value
derived. The plane has no defense value, will
cost the government a total of $1,29 billion,
out of & total development cost of $1.51 bil-
lion, and its nights have been estimated to
disturb 20 million groundlings every time the
SST flies from coast to coast.
The repercussions of the noise problem
have just begun to be understood and mxich
has been done to alleviate the noise on-
slaught on our environment. For instance,
New York - City has a law requiring walls
soundproof enough to reduce any airborne
noise passing through by 45 decibels. Some
construction companies have proved that
buildings can be constructed quietly, by
mufflling blasting by special steel mesh blan-
kets, welding instead of using the hor-
rendous racket of riveting or bolting.
New machines have been offered on the
market which have a ' vast reduction in
decibel rating over their old predecessors
such as a new compressor which reduces the
decibel level from 110- to 85 decibels
and a new paving breaker that has-had its
sound reduced by 2/a.
New York, California, New Jersey, Minne-
sota, and other states have voted or have
pending various legislation on noise abate-
ment particularly in the realm of vehicular
noise. Numerous local ordinances deal with
specific noise problems of their area offer-
ing, such things as prevention of transistor
playing to public areas, zoning laws, etc.
Some states have legislation which prohibits
vehicles on its public highways that exceed
certain established noise levels for that par-
ticular vehicle.
All of these are good beginnings but they
cannot be assessed as anything more than
mxinity groups In order to find and carry out
solutions „ to local, regional and national
noise problems. ,„ ^ * '••••
We need a uniform noise control standards
for all Industrial and office workers ... a
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of more
encompassing and more rigorous standards!
We need to educate consumer demand
that will call for quieter jobs and products
in order to make it desirable for industry to
compete to produce both at less cost.
We need the City Code level to handle
such noise sources as garbage collection,
construction, loud speakers, and motor ve-
hicles. We need a regional approach to the
research and development or programs di-
rected toward the alleviation of the noises
that plagxie particular areas of the United
States. Lastly we need the full cooperation
of the Federal government in assisting, co-
ordinating and financing these efforts to pro-
vide a quieter environment.
As Dr. William H. Steward of the Public
Health Service once stated: "Those things
within man's power to control which impact
upon an individual in a negative way, which
infringe upon his integrity, and interrupt
his pursuit of fulfillment, are hazards to the
public health."'
Noise can and must be controlled as a
danger to the public health and economy,
but above all else we must commit our-
selves to the control of the noise in our
society on the basis of civilized standards.
[From the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
Nov. 24, 1970]
S. 4538—INTRODUCTION OP THE NOISE
ABATEMENT ACT OP 1970
Mr. HATPIELD. Mr. President, as the coun-
try has become increasingly aware of the
growing threat to our environment, atten-
tion has been primarily focused on air and
water pollution. But there is another form
brought us to a situation in which the rapidly
deteriorating quality of our environment is
the most hazardous challenge to not only
our health and well-being but to our very
lives and those of our children and grand-
children. • *
Environmental pollution may not pose the
immediate destruction that nuclear war does,
but I might remind you that the effects are
the same and Just as lasting. And I might
remind you that destruction at the hands of
our environment is as immediate as your
and my lifetime. And finally, I might remind
you that lack of inhabitable land, lack of
food, lack of good water to drink and good
air to breathe are the very conditions under
which men become desparate and resort to
any and all means to preserve their survival.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I state
my firm conviction that pollution—all forms
of pollution: air, water, and noise pollution,
overpopulation, land and soil pollution—is
the most challenging and the most crucial
problem facing the man of the 20th century.
And it is with these thoughts in mind that
I firmly believe that if we do not meet this
problem with all the creativity and ingenuity
of our age, then within a very short time
nothing else will matter, for there will be
nothing else to worry about.
Your concern with environmental pollu-
tion has brought you here today in order to
form an effective citizen's group to combat
this onslaught on our planet before it is in-
deed too late. Your special concern is with
the assault of noise pollution on our society
and in your recognition of noise as a pollut-
ant you have established yourselves as some-
what pioneers in combating the effects of
noise on our society. It was, therefore, an'
honor to be invited to speak at this organi-
zational meeting of the Noise Abatement
Council of America. Had such groups been
instrumental in educating the public to
[p. S17779]
o
I
I
S
1
I
H
M
to
Ox
Oi
-Oi
-------
appreciate the Inevitable results of uneon-
l^rolled air and water pollution and In affect-
ing remedial action to combat these prob-
lems even 10 years ago then we would not
be faced with the present national crisis in
these areas. Today let us pledge ourselves to
the task of preventing noise becoming
another uncontrolled threat to our existence.
The effects of noise, although long a prob-
lem, have only begun to receive the well-
founded concerns of government, health, In-
dustrial, and community organizations. We
are already far behind the rest of the world
In appreciating the scope of the problem. For
our backwardness in thejleld of noise abate-
ment the United States ls~-now the noisiest
country on this planet, and frankly, I hate to
think that we are now carrying this lack of
respect for civilized standards to other plane-
tary bodies. Basically, noise pollution Is
reaching crisis proportions rh the United
States and I think that it Is time that all of
us wake up to this fact.
We should be .concerned with noise . as a
problem because for over a century noise ex-
posure of sufficient intensity and duration
has been recognized to produce sensorineural
hearing loss. But In spite of this knowledge,
an overexposure to excessive noise is the ma-
jor cause of hearing loss in the United States
today. In fact it Is estimated that 10 to 20
million people in the United States have
some degree ol hearing impairment.
Everyone realizes that if he Is exposed to a
very loud noise such as an explosion he may
very likely wind up deaf—at least tempo-
rarily. What is not so apparent is that the
effect of noise is cumulative; it produces as
Dr. Leo BeraneR, whose wort is acoustics is
International in scope, an "acoustic fatigue."
Repeated moderate noise builds up to pro-
duce the same effect as would a single loud
noise. And even more important is the fact
that repeated noise Is the only type, short
of a shattering explosion, that produces per-
manent bearing loss. The Importance of tills
compensation payments, lost production and
decreased efficiency due to noise is estimated,
at well over $4 billion per year. In relation
to business a World Health Organization re-
port states that before 1939 office noise was
costing U.S. business $2 million per day
through inefficient work. Today that figure is
$4 million. The psychological and physiologi-
cal effects of noise are difficult to assess but
the correlation between noise and such
things as sleep disturbances, hypertension
due to the constant response of hormonal
and neurological mechanisms to noise stress,
interference with basic communication, the
loss in efficient performance and even dam-
age to property must be counted as a very real
and a very enormous threat to our wellbeing,
not to mention the economic repercussions.
The effects of noise cannot be fully ap-
preciated until we have more thorough stu-
dies In the field. One effect which needs to
be especially explored by sociologists and
crlmiuologists is referred to In a recent For-
tune magazine article. As related by Fortune:
"In the Bronx borough of New York City
one evening last spring, four boys were at
play, shouting and racing in and out of an
apartment building. Suddenly from a sec-
ond-floor window came the crack of a pistol.
One of the boys sprawled dead on the pave-
ment. The victim happened to be Boy Innls,
Jr., 13, son of a prominent Negro leader, but
there was no political Implication in the
tragedy. The killer, also a Negro, confessed
to police that he was a nightworker who
had lost control of himself because the noise
from the boys prevented him from sleeping."
This incident is extreme but worthy of
our careful attention due to the implications
it has on the worsening human problems
which we are now experiencing in our cities.
Until recently the most authoritative
voices about noise have come from within
the industrial occupations due to the mere
fact that noise has been a problem much
longer in this area than In any other. Indus-
tional noise levels. The American Academy of
Ophthalmology and Otolarynglology states
that our present knowledge of the relation of '
noise exposure and hearing loss Is much too
limited to propose safe amounts of exposure.
However, the academy recommends noise-
exposure control and tests of hearing if
there is habitual exposure to continuous
noise at 85 decibels at a frequency of 300-
1,200 cycles per second. Noise is measured in
a dimensionless unit called the decibel which
is used to describe the levels of acoustical
pressure, power, and intensity.
The decibel expresses a logarithmic ratio
between two sounds. In other words, the
difference between a noise with a decibel rat-
Ing of 60 and that with a rating of 70 is a
relative increase of 10 times the lower level.
The frequency of noise expressed in cycles
per second is useful for rating noise hazards
since some frequencies are more likely to
cause hearing damage than others', with high
pitched sounds more annoying than low
pitched sounds. The British Medical Society
recommends hearing conservation measures
when noise exceeds 85 decibels In the 250-
4,000-cycles-per-second range.
The U.S. Air Force recommends ear defend-
ers when personnel are exposed to 85 decibels
in the 300-4,800 frequency range. The Amer-
ican Standards Association has suggested per-
missible dally quotas of exposure to noise
which they suggest should protect the worker
from hearing loss. Over an 8-hour working
day they suggest a limit of 85 decibels at any.
frequency range above 700 cycles per second.
In the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act
the Federal Government has adopted 90 deci-
bels at any frequency range as a permissible
safe occupational noise level.
Only recently has there been concern about
the entire realm of urban and community
noise although millions of Americans are af-
fected each day by the repercussions of this
type of noise. As Dougherty and Welsh com-
mented in "Community Noise and Hearing
to
Ol
Or
05
Q
O
O
g
I
-------
Is readily seen when one is considering the
harmful effects of exposure to dally, occupa-
tlonal noise.
Another matter of some concern Is that
the noise level of the United States Is In-
creasing at an astonishing rate. Over the past
25 years the average increase In noise level
has been at one decibel per year. When one
considers that damage' to the ears can occur
at sustained exposure to the ranges around
85 decibels and over,' and given our present
noise levels, it will not be too many years be-
fore noise levels in the United States become
lethal. To quote Dr. Vern O. Knudsen, physi-
cist and former chancellor of the University
of California: •
"If the noise we make keeps Increasing at
the present rate, it will be as deadly In
thirty years in some of our downtown cities
as were the ancient Chinese tortures for
executing condemned prisoners."
We know, of course, that the most pro-
nounced physical effect of noise is damage
to the ear. Exposure to intense noise over
varying durations causes partial and in some
oases permanent hearing loss due to actual
cell damage in the organ of the Cortl located
within the cochlea of the inner ear.
But noise has much farther reaching ef-
fects than just hearing damage. As Paul E.
Sabine stated even back as far as the March
1944 issue of the American Jqurnal of Public
Health:
"There is a wealth of reliable data from
medical sourcs in support of the Statement
that sustained exposure to noise is a contrib-
uting factor in impaired hearing, chronic
fatigue that lowers bodily resistance, neu-
rasthemia, increased blood pressure, and de-
creased working and mental efficiency and
that noise should rightfully be classified as
an occupational hazard along with gases,
fumes, dust, toxic liquids, and bacteria."
To put this into, if nothing else, economic
perspective, the total cost to industry la
trial management baa become Increasingly
concerned with the adverse effects of noise
on those persons who work under constant
exposure to Intense levels of noise—and, I
might add, with due reason.
According to Dr. Glorlg, director of the
Calller Hearing- & Speech Center In Dallas,
Tex.:
"Industrial noise Is now the most Impor-
tant single cause of hearing loss."
Despite numerous research, training, and
regulatory programs now underway In some
industries and in various Federal agencies,
and despite the great strides accomplished
In responsible noise abatement efforts In
the occupational fields, there Is still need for
a vast amount of education In the field of
occupational noise. For Instance, B. F.
Goodrich estimated that the total market
for acoustical goods and products would
reach $875 million by 1970, which If one takes
into account all that this comprises Is a
very paltry sum.
Another example of the need for Increased
emphasis placed on occupational noise Is the
fact that permanent hearing loss caused by
excessive exposure to noise Is now a recog-
nized occupation (hazard and is compensable
In only 35 States. I am always reminded of
the basic lack of awareness in this field by an
unfortunately true story which occurred
when one of my aides was touring a textile
factory in the South. When he commented on
the high level of noise to which the workers
were subjected, the manager hastened to as-
sure him that immediate Efforts were being
made to correct the unpleasant conditions.
"Nest week the factory is playing country-
western music over the loudspeakers at a
level which will block out the noise of the
factory."
The noise of our Industries is put Into fur-
ther perspective when one considers them in
light of "safe' noise levels. There are dif-
ferences of opinion about permissible occupa-
Jjoss":
• "The savings quality heretofore has been
that community noise has been a short-term
exposure as compared to an 8-hour day pe-
riod In Industry. As the power use of" both
home and street Increase, steps must be taken
to ,'llmjt the noise output. Otherwise, total
timed exposure will exceed Industrial stand-
ards that actually rely on regular audlograms
to prevent severe hearing loss."
Indeed the din In the cities at times far
exceeds the noise levels considered safe for
an occupational situation. A noise level of
100 decibels was once recorded on the Ave-
nue of the Americas In New York City where
'the transit authority was building the exten-
sion of the Sixth Avenue subway. Construc-
tion Is perhaps the most Irritating source of
noise to the urbanite and the problem is in-
tensified when once we realize that there are
virtually no legal controls on the amount of
noise that can emanate' from a construction
site. In the absence of-any forms of control
the consequences are logical,—existing knowl-
edge for noise control is not even applied.
Noise control costs money, and It is not
reasonable to ask sympathetic construction
firms to invest in noise control only to let
unsympathetic firms underbid them of jobs
by avoiding the. noise control costs. Air com-
pressors, pneumatic drills, power saws, con-
crete mixers and other machines Involved In
the construction or demolition of buildings
are permitted In some urban areas between
7 a.m. and 6 p.m., 6 days a week and at night
with special permit. Combined with the poor
soundproofing in modern apartments, the
sounds of congested traffic which can reach
upwards of 90 decibels, and the multitudi-
nous other sounds of civilized living, the city
dweller Is caught in the midst of a caco-
phonlc catastrophe.
Europe and such countries as Russia and
Japan have for some time had strictly en-
§
03
B
!
H
W
fcO
Or
Cn
[p. S17780]
-------
forced noise abatement laws, including zon-
ing and construction measures and national
councils like the Swiss Anti-Noise Commls- .
slon which deals with the taste medical,
acoustic, and technical questions of road,
rail, and water traffic; aircraft noise, noise in
industry, building construction, homes, et
cetera; and legal questions.
The United States by contrast has few
laws regarding noise abatement and even
those that, it has are bareiy enforced. For
example, New York City is one of the cities
that has strict noise laws against horn blow-
Ing and even has a legal noise limit for the
city of 88 decibels at 150 feet. If you have
ever been to New York, I am sure that these
laws will come as surprising, news.
The final assault on the Nation's well-being
due to noise and the one which brings you
here today is that of aircraft noise. Of all
the fields of noise abatement that of air
transportation has received, the most atten-
tion by industry and Government due to the
obvious severity of the problem. The possible
adverse effects of aircraft noise have been
recognized for several years. In 1952 the
Doolittle report pointed out that:
"Positive efforts should be continued by
both government and industry to reduce or
control aircraft noise nuisance to people on
the ground and that substantial reduction of
such noise is practicable."
Such firms as Pratt & Whitney, General
Electric, and Boeing have been Involved for
some years in the research and development
of a quiet engine. According to sources with-
in the field, we are 6 .years away from a pro-
totype which when operational will only re-
duce the perceived noise level at takeoff and
landing by 10 percent. The problem in this
area is not so much a matter of money as
lack of available technology. The sound of a
Jet talking off ts approximately 130 decibels
which Is also the estimated, maximum noise
bearable to. human ears. A reduction of 1O
percent •will barely scratch the surface of the
even begin. The most important of these is
funding of noise abatement efforts. Who is
responsible? Should we ever obtain an oper-
ational "quiet" engine, the estimated cost
of retrofitting our four engine commercial
Jets has been upwards of $300 million. This
is perhaps the most-touchy issue which will'
face you in -your efforts to combat Jet noise
for the costs are formidable and the responsi-
bility ill defined.
Another problem of considerable concern
is that of the sonic boom. Until recently the
shock waves from the sonic boom was con-
fined to occasional military flights scheduled
to fly over unpopulated areas of the United
States. However, since President Nixon's re-
quest for $96 million'for the current fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, in order to finance
the start of construction of two SST proto-
type aircraft it now appears that within the
next 10 years we will-be subjected to the
sound of commercial sonic "booms. I am op-
posed to the development of this aircraft.
Aside from the obvious criticism of low cost-
benefit considerations, I find it difficult to
Justify the vast noise disturbance of this air-
craft In light of the small domestic value
derived. The plane has no defense value,
will cost the Government a total of 41.29
billion, out of a total development cost of>
$1.51 billion, and Its flights have been esti-
mated to -disturb 20 million groundlings
every time the SST flies from coast to coast.
The repercussions of the noise problem
have Just begun to be understood and much
has been done to alleviate the noise on-
slaught on our environment. For Instance,
New York City has a law requiring walls
soundproof enough to reduce any airborne
noise passing through by 45 decibels. Some
construction, companies have proved that
buildings can be constructed quietly, by
muffing blasting by special mesh blankets,
welding Instead of using the horrendous
racket of riveting or bolting. New machines
have been offered on the market which have
neither interested nor successful in coping
with technology."
Some 60 years ago Robert Koch, a bacteri-
ologist and Nobel—Laureate predicted:
"The day will come when man will have to
fight merciless noise as the worst enemy to
his health."
That day is not so far away. The problem
must be faced now before it is beyond our
control. So I offer a few suggestions from my
meager knowledge of the problem of what
may prevent a continuation of the Insult of
noise on the future sensibilities of our Na.-
tion. The problem of our "cacophonic ^re-
public" requires education, public awareness,
increased research and greater application of
economical acoustical materials, and a great
deal of cooperation and coalition of effort
between industry, business, government,
health officials and community groups in
order to find and carry out solutions to local,
regional, and national noise problems.
We need a uniform noise control stand-
ard foi> all Industrial and office workers—a'
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act of more
encompassing and more rigorous standards.
We need to educate consumer demand that
will call for quieter Jobs and products in
order to make it desirable for Industry to
complete to produce both at less cost.
We need the city code level to handle such
noise sources as garbage collection, construc-
tion, loud speakers, and motor vehicles. We
need a regional approach to the research
and development of programs directed to-
ward the alleviation of the noise that plague
particular areas of the United States. Last-
ly we need the full cooperation of the Fed-
eral Government In assisting, coordinatixig
and financing these efforts to urovide a
quieter environment.
As Dr. William H. Steward of the Public
Health Service once stated:
"Those things within man's power to con
troi which impact upon an ln
-------
noise problem In this area unless there 16 a
major technological breakthrough.
Therefore. In combating aircraft 'noise we.
also need to pursue abatement efforts In
the aspects of aircraft operations and apply
methods of compatible landuse around the
airports. In the realm of flight patterns, air-
port design and placement, guaranteed buffer
zones, adequate soundproofing of buildings
in and around airports, extension of runways,
legal controls, and so on, joint action will
have to be taken by the Federal Government,
the airlines, and the community. With over
98 percent of our airports owned by some
level of State government, it will be primarily
up to the local governments and the airport
operators of the same to effect noise abate-
ment controls. In addition airport operators
should share the responsibility of enforcing
the new Federal Aviation-Agency noise stand-
ards to be announced this month and closely
coordinating local efforts with such programs
as the aircraft noise alleviation program
established under the FAA in 1961.
For examples of innovative noise control
efforts I recommend such programs as that
taken in the Los Angeles area In which com-
munity efforts and pilot programs have been
established to abate noise at the Los Angeles
International Airport. The Port of New York
Authority has also carried out extensions
costing several million dollars to the three
runways at New York's Kennedy Internation-
al Airport solely out of noise abatement con-
siderations. Dulles International Airport In
Washington is a good example of how zoning
laws and design can be effectively employed
to control noise levels emanating from air-
craft.
But despite these examples, the fact re-
mains that there is much left to do before we.
can successfully cope with aircraft noise.
Your recognition of this fact has brought you
here today. There are many .questions which
must be answered before actual work can
a vast reduction in decibel rating over their
old predecessors such as a new compressor
which' reduces the decibel level from 110
to 85 decibels and a new paving breaker that
has had Its sound reduced by two-thirds.
New York, California, New Jersey, Minne-
sota, and other States have voted or have
pending various legislation on noise abate-
ment particularly in the realm of vehicular
noise. Numerous local ordinances deal with
specific noise problems of their* area offering
such things as prevention of transistor play-
ing in public areas, zoning laws, et cetera.
Some States have legislation which prohibits
vehicles on Its public highways that exceed
certain established, noise levels for that par-
ticular vehicle.
All of these are good beginnings, but they
cannot be assessed as anything more than
Just beginnings. What is needed are guar-
anteed standards for the man on the street,
on his job, or In his home. In this category
I would like to mention the Walsh-Healey
Public Contracts Act which was signed* Into
effect by Secretary of Labor Shultz on May
17, 1969. This act provides for a limit of on-
the-job noise levels at 90 decibels at any
frequency. This regulation only applies to
firms that have a $10,000 or better contract
with the Federal Government during the
course of 1 year. The Walsh-Healey Act is a
step in the right direction but again it is only
a beginning. It only affects certain segments
of workers and sets as a standard a noise level
which is of debatable safety for an occupa-
tional level.
The real question at hand in the considera-
tion of the noise level of our society Is
.whether we are going to preserve the basic
amenities of civilized life in the onslaught
of technological advance.
As one noted figure in the noise abatement
field, William H. Ferry, once said: "We have
been neither Interested nor successful In
controlling noise because we have been
ri'ty, and interrupt his pursuit of fulfiu.metf.t,
are the hazards to the public health'."
Noise can and must be controlled as a
danger to the public health and economy,
but above all else we must commit ourselves
to the control of the noise In our society on
the basis of civilized standards.
[From the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
June 31, 1971]
NOISE CONTROL ACT OP 1971
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 216
(Ordered io be printed and referred, joint-
ly, to the Committees on Commerce and
Public Works.)
Mr. HATFIELD, for himself, Mr. HART, and
Mr. CRANSTON, submitted an amendment in-
tended to be proposed to the bill (S. 1016),
to control the generation and transmission
of noise detrimental to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes.
Mr. HABT. Mr. President, the evidence is ac-
cumulating that yet another form of pol-
lution has reached serious levels. I refer to
noise. Noise is more than a nuisance; Exces-
sive noise, I am told, is a serious hazard to
us physically, mentally, and economically.
Too much noise can result In temporary,
or even permanent, damage to our hearing
Nighttime noise disturbs sleep, while noisy
places of work reduce the efficiency of work-
ers. Noise can also Influence property values
as anyone who lives on the perimeter of an
airport or foundry can tell you.
Congress took a major step last year when
It created the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control in the Environmental Protection
Agency. S. 1016, the Noise Control Act of
1971 proposed by the administration, is a fur-
ther Important step in controlling this prob-
lem. The President Is to be commended for
his efforts to bring the seriousness of this
problem to the attention of the public and
§
1
CO
o
F
O
I
fcO
01
Ol
[p. S17781]
-------
for his commitment to promote an environ-
ment which Is free from noise tbat Jeopard-
izes the health and welfare of the citizens
of this Nation.
As I join with the distinguished Senators
from Oregon (Mr. Hatfleld) and California
(Mr. Cranston), to Introduce several amend-
ments to S. 1016,1 think we should pay trib-
ute to our colleague In the House of Rep-
resentatives, the distinguished Congressman
from New York (Mr. Ryan), who has long
been a leader In this field. We thank him for
the considerable guidance he has given us in
developing our thoughts on noise pollution
and its control.
The amendments to S. 1016 which we offer
today are, we believe, in harmony with the
stated goal of that bill. The amendments
requiring the Administrator of the Knvlron-
mental" Protection Agency to set certain
noise emission standards within a specified
time are designed merely to help him imple-
ment the original intent of the law. The ad-
dition of a citizens suit provision similar to
that in the Clean Air Act amendments passed
last year is meant to provide an additional
vehicle for the enforcement of noise stand-
ards. The citizen will be further benefited.
It is hoped, by the requirement that prod-
ucts used in and around the home have labels
telling the actual level of noise generation.
Thus the consumer will be able to choose
products on the basis of their noise gen-
eration characteristics as well as price, color,
and so forth.
Mr. President, the time has arrived to take
positive action toward controlling undesir-
able noise. The administration has come for-
ward with a very useful proposal. The House
began hearings on that proposal and several
others last week. The Environment Sub-
committee of the Senate Committee on Com-
merce la scheduled next week to begin con-
sideration of 3. 1O16 and the amendments
Introduced today. Let us nope that the mo-
\ xnentum ok our present efforts will not be
* \ \ \
the same harmul effects upon human hear-
ing.
Loss of hearing, however, is not the only
concern when dealing wfth the problem of
Increasing noise levels. We are all "familiar
with, the annoyance properties of noise—
conversations punctuated with the whir of
a blender, television programs distrupted by
the passing motorcycle, and a Saturday af-
ternoon nap disturbed by the neighbor's
power lawn mower or power saw.
What we do not always realtee is that
these "irritations" should be regarded as
health hazards as well. Although it is more
difficult to measure, there Is growing evi-
dence that the levels of noise to which ur-
ban Americans have grown accustomed are
actually capable of inducing a variety of
physical, and psychological Ills.
Another matter of great concern is that
the noise level of the United States is In-
creasing at an astonishing rate. Over the
.past 25 years the average Increase in, noise
level has been at one decibel per year. When
one considers that damage to the ears can
occur at sustained exposure to the ranges
around 85 decibels and over, and given our
present noise levels, It will not be too many
years before noise levels In the United
States become lethal. To quote Dr. Vern O.
Knudsen, physicist and -former chancellor of .
the University of California: "If the noise we
make keeps increasing at the present rate,
it will Be as deadly In thirty years in some
of our downtown cities as were the ancient
Chinese tortures for executing condemned
prisoners."
It is my understanding that the witnesses
-will testify to' the extent and character of
this growing problem In some detaU so I
will not dwell further on this matter at this
time.
For a number of years I have been person-
ally involved In trying to bring the noise
problem to the attention of American people
and my colleagues In Congress. Z should at
Judgment, serve to strengthen the bill. By
setting reasonable time limits for the estab-
lishment and enforcement of standards and
requiring rather than authorizing the setting
of standards, the Amendment would Insure
that Americans' will to be subject to any un-
necessary delay in realizing the benefits of
this legislation. The Amendment would also
serve to guarantee the private citizen re-
course against the detrimental effects of noise
'by allowing EPA to initiate legal action and
providing for citizen suits.
I hope that these hearings will prove fruit-
ful in bringing to light the nature of the
noise problem and the need to enact this
legislation.
Mr. MUSKEE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1740 and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESnUNGTOFFICER. The clerk
will read the amendment.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. -MTJSKIE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1740 is as follows:
On page 63, line 2, following the word "the"
insert the following phrase: "sale for use,".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maine is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MTJSKIE. Mr. President, may I
say to my colleagues tbat we have a 1-
hour limitation. X tblnK I, can dispense
to
Q
O
O
r1
o
i
3
-------
lost, but wSM result ID SMe Biw-JSC passage of
legislatio.nssnBeessary to ipisaSHEt .tla'Saiifelaeiis
of this Natron fmom itnesh'azaiais of /excessive
noise. A
©PENlNfi STA!TBJ«ENT.,jStrBOQMMITTi3B ON
ENVIBOlSTMENT
(By Senator MARK O. HATFIELD)
The national effort to restore our deterlo-
Tating environment has unfortunately ne-
glected one of our most devastating and most
common pollutants—noise. Excessive noise
threatens-.not only our emotional well being,
but as these hearings will establish, noise
can be detrimental to our physical health as
well.
For too long, the ecological movement has
focused only upon the more obvious forms
of air and water pollution. While' most Amer-
icans are Incensed because they are deprived
of clean lakes and streams, and rightfully.
deplore the blight of smog, these same
Americans are unaware of the toll which
excessive noise extracts from their lives.
For over a century it has been known
that noise exposure of sufficient intensity
and duration producers hearing loss. Tet, we
have disregarded known facts about noise
and advanced to the point where we now
have the dubious distinction of being the
noisiest nation in the world. In fact, in the
United States it is estimated that 10 to 20
million people have some degree of hearing
impairment—the primary cause being over-
exposure to excessive noise.
It is common knowledge that exposure to
a very loud noise such as an explosion, may
create deafness—at least temporarily. What
is not as well known, but equally as devastat-
ing, is that repeated noise builds up to
produce the same effect as would a single,
loud noise, v This phenomena, labelled "ac-
coustical fatigue" is Capable of producing
t&la point IMce' toyplace In the Record copies
of remarks I made before the Noise Abate-
ment Cbuncil is 1969 and a compilation of
State and local noise enforcement laws across
the country which was prepared in conjunc-
tion' with the conference. I am told that this
compilation and analysis of .existing statutes
Is the, only one of its kind and my office has
had numerous requests for it from persons
dealing with the noise pollution! problem.
I commend the Administration and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency for the bill
now .before this commltee. Too often, legisla-
tion follows in the wake of aroused public
opinion when the proportions of a crisis have
already overwhelmed, us. In this case, how-
ever, we are presented with the opportunity
of being of the offensive—of acting before
further damage is done. The Administration
has presented us with a bill that would head
off what otherwise could be a crisis of the
most serious consequences.
The "Noise Control Act of 1971" (S. 1016) if
enacted would be a great step forward toward
insuring the protection of the human en-
vironment from the detrimental effects of
noise. This bill allows EPA to co-ordinate all
existing Federal noise research and control
programs, thus eliminating duplicity and
providing for efficient handling of this crucial
area.
The Noise Control Act also authorizes EPA
to establish criteria for human exposure to
noise and authorizes EPA to set standards
based upon these criteria to regulate noise
emissions on articles which move in com-
merce. In addition, the bill would authorize
EPA to label manufactured goods giving the
consumer the benefit of knowing just how
noisy a product will be. The bill also provides
assistance to states and local governments in
establishing noise abatement programs.
The Amendment (216) which has been of-
fered to the 'Noise Control Act would, in my
with my case in 10 minutes, so I would
expect that there is a reasonable chance
for a vote in 20 or. 25 minutes. I do not
want to delay the Senate, unduly. 3-
This amendment is aimed at one point.
It is a point I -made in connection" with
the debate on the previous amendment,
and that is that at the present time some
32 States and numerous localities have
adopted or are considering measures to
control noise levels for the protection of
public health in their communities.
The effect of this bill is to severely re-
strict, if not entirely eliminatej the right
to continue to do so; and when we take
that right away from them, then we
ought to be certain that we are estabf
lishing a Federal policy which will do at
least as good a job for them as they are
how doing for themselves.
Full implementation of the noise con-
trol standards we consider today may be
1 or 2 years away, and the levels of
control finally adopted will protect the
public health and welfare,as perceived
on a national basis. They will not meet
the needs of many State and local com-
munities which have particularly-critical
noise problems that require more strin-
gent controls.
The States and localities must have
the right to adopt more stringent co'n-
trols and the ability.to enforce them.
Use controls alone, without controls on
sales, will not be adequate.. They will
force State and local governments to
assume heavy enforcement burdens
simply because the Congress was not
[p. S1YT82]
§
H
I
t*
H
O
I
H
w
H-l
1
to
-------
willing to require manufacturers to carry
the responsibility of manufacturing
products which could be used in areas
with particular noise problems, and if
they could not fill those requirements, to
be prohibited from selling them in those
jurisdictions.
The point of sale is a sensible, and
manageable point to control and mon-
itor. When States or localities impose
use taxes on various products—as many
do to collect revenue—they do not put
the burden of paying those taxes on the
people using the taxed products hi the
State, and they do not burden them-
selves with the job of monitoring all
users; they require the seller to collect
the tax from the users at the point of
sale.
Similarly, States which ban use of
dangerous weapons or dangerous drugs
direct their heaviest efforts at stopping
the sale of such items, because permit-
ting the unfettered sale of dangerous
•drugs and weapons and then trying to
control their use would be futile.
In judging the merits of allowing
States to impose controls on the sale as
well as the use of products which pro-
duce dangerous noise, we should con-
sider the different kinds of enforcement
mechanisms which the States will have
to use. Our local police and court sys-
tems are already heavily overburdened
with work. Restricting States and local-
ities to use controls alone will put an
even greater burden on the police and
court systems—each user will have to be
apprehended, processed;.fined, and con-
Xicted, with ail the procedural "limita-
tions necessarily attached to the crim-
effective or immediate protection of the
public health.
The Air Quality Act of 1967, which I
sponsored, provided for Federal pre-
emption of the authority to regulate air
pollution emissions from new automo-
biles, except in California. That policy
may have had the effect opposite of that
which was intended. It appears that the
preemption provision of that Act did not
cause the auto companies to focus their
research efforts and investments on one
set of national, standards. Bather, the
auto companies' efforts have been focused
on undermining those national stand-
ards.
Again in 1970, preemption was dis-
cussed in relation to the regulation of air
pollution emissions from aircraft. The
Congress decided on a preemption pro-
vision effective on enactment and set
deadlines for standards to be developed.
Section 231 (a) of the Clean Air Act
requires that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency must begin an investigation
of air pollution from aircraft within 90
days of date of enactment. Within 180
days after commencing that investiga-
tion, the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy is required to report on the investiga-
tion and propose emission standards for
any class of aircraft or aircraft engines
which contribute to air pollution which
endangers public health and welfare.
Ninety days thereafter—1 year after en-
actment—EPA was to issue final regula-
tions. The proposed standards were due
nearly 1 year ago, September 27, 1971.
Today, no report or proposed standards
have been published.
This is a classic example of Federal
beyond whatever nationwide controls are
enacted.
We have had, Mr. President, a petition
from the Legislature of the State of Cali-
fornia making the same point to us:
Resolved, That this Legislature respectfully
memorializes the Congress of the United
States to reject any plan of noise regulation
which would prohibit States from adopting
standards more stringent than those adopted
by the Federal Government.
Normally, Mr. President, I would urge
national standards in this field, as I have
in air pollution and water pollution, and
have supported preemption provisions,
because accompanying such preemptions
we wrote adequate national policy and
adequate national law. In this case, we
do not have that situation, and it is for
that reason that I have offered these
amendments.
This amendment is a very simple one.
In section 408(e) (2) of the bill, on page
62, line 23, Senators will find this lan-
guage :
Subject to paragraph. (1) of this subsec-
tion, nothing in this section shall preclude
or deny the right of any State or p'olltlcal
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
controls on environmental noise through the
licensing, regulation, or restriction of the
use, operation, or movement of any product
or combination of products:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 more
minutes.
What I would add to that are the
words "sale for use," so that the lan-
guage would read:
To establish and enforce controls on en-
"tO
Cn
O5
bO
Kl
Q
o
o
il
d
^d
>T)
tr1
-------
•lisal law ;S5«s|eiji'. CSistroli-of s&le, involv-
ing ntarly feWer persons and products
for which levels of noise can be Identified
before the products reach the stream of
trade, Is a much simpler method of
enforcement.
The protection of manufacturers of
noisy products should not be the prime
public interest goal of Federal action to
control noise^ In this connection, let me
read a portion of the statement of Mr.
Nicholas C. Yost, the deputy attorney
general of the State of California in
charge of noise, when he testified before
my subcommittee on noise control:
The arguments for preemption are not
made by the advocates of more stringenc
abatement of noise pollution. They are made
by manufacturers who dislike the multiplic-
ity of labels that confront them in a diverse
nation. Their arguments concerning the bur-
den created for them in different standards
seems specious. Nobody is telling a manufac-
turer that he must sell in a particular .State.
If he wants to sell there, he can meet the
standards the people of that State choose to
adopt. As a practical matter no State or
locality will set a standard so low that a
necessary item cannot be sold. If that item
can be made quieter, why should not the
people of that State be enabled to insist upon
it.
While it may be argued that preemp-
tion provisions are necessary and that
they will protect public health because
the Federal standards will be sufficiently
strict to meet the concerns of most local
communities. I must point out that some
of our recent congressional experience
with preemption has not resulted in such
preemption leading to federal failure to
protect public health. The Federal Avia-
tion Administration has undoubtedly dis-
couraged active efforts' by the Adminis-
trator. And the efforts that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has made have
run aground in the Office of Management
and Budget. ' •
Therefore, in consideration of the
pending legislation, I expressed reserva-
tions regarding a broad preemption pro-
vision for product and aircraft emission
standards.
Federal noise pollution responsibility
will be new; little significant authority or
responsibility exists. Conversely, a num-
ber of States have regulatory programs
which impose enforceable emission con-
trols on noisy products, both at the point
of sale and the point of use.
In my judgment, this bill falls short
for that reason. That is why I offered the
amendment which has just been defeat-
ed, and I now offer this amendment as
•another way of strengthening the hand
of local authorities.
Let me read something that was said
by the speaker of the Assembly of the
State of California with respect to this
question before our committee. He said:
I urge you to recommend to the full Senate
committee that any language preempting
California's enforcement role in noise pollu-
tion be deleted from the legislation.
Make no mistake about it, 1 am here today
to endorse progress in sound suppression at
the Federal level.
But, should it be necessary, I am also here
to begin a campaign to make certain that
Washington does not limit our ability to go
mplse through the licensing, ,
regulation, or restriction of the sale for Use,
•use, operation, or movement of any product
or combination of products.
Not permitting localities to control the
sale for use is to impose an impossible
enforcement problem on local authori-
ties, because the only.form of enforce-
ment would be through control of Use.
I say to my colleagues it is almost im-
possible for local police departments, be-
leaguered as they are with their respon-
sibilities today, to run them down and
control noise pollution by controlling
their use after products have been sold
in'their jurisdictions.
So I urge, Mr. President, that this very
simple amendment be adopted. It is
consistent with the exercise of police
power. The standard that would be used
is the standard of health and welfare
which we have already adopted in the
Clean Air Act of 1970, and which we
adopt whenever it is possible in order to
apply enforcement mechanisms to that
standard. That is the standard- in this
case. I urge the adoption of the amend-
ment, and I reserve the remainder of
my time.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Stuart Statler
of the staff of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations be permitted to be
present in the Chamber during the con-
sideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, the in-
tent of the committee is that conflicting
[p. S17783]
§
r
cc
GO
I
to
o*
C5
. GO
-------
standards on noise emissions from prod-
ucts not be allowed to impose a burden
on interstate commerce. Therefore, the
bill preempts the setting of noise emis-
sion standards enforceable against the
manufacturer of a product subject to
Federal standards. The committee felt
that any imposition of conflicting
standards anywhere in the chain of
commerce which the manufacturer
must meet should not be allowed.
However, the committee intended to
make it clear that States and cities, in
pursuit of levels of environmental noise
thought desirable locally, can impose
any burden on the users of products
covered by Federal standards which it
finds necessary. The committee felt that
the language of the bill allowing con-
trols on environmental noise through
licensing the use, operation, or move-
ment of products would retain for States
and local governments the power to es-
tablish and enforce limitations on noise
emissions as a condition to use within
their jurisdiction. Noise emission limita-
tions imposed through licensing are just
as general and easily enforceable as
controls on sale. Therefore, the amend-
ment—adding the words "sale for
use"—really adds little in practical ef-
fect to the powers of State and local
governments preserved by the present
language of this bill.
Mr. President, I find myself in an in-
teresting position because, having stated
what the committee position is, I want
the Senate to know that I personally
support the language of the Senator from.
Maine. After having listened to the testi-
created by products manufactured after
the effective date of the Federal stand-
ard, authority to establish noise emis-
sion standards for the product enforce-'
able directly or Indirectly against the
manufacturer is preempted. States and
cities, however, retain complete author-
ity to establish and enforce limits on en-
vironmental noise through the licens-
ing, regulation, or restriction of the use,
operation, or movement of a product, or
concentration or combination of prod-
ucts.
That, briefly, is the language from the
committee report on preemption, on the
very question before us. It simply says
that, in the manufacture of the product,
once a standard has been announced,
the Federal Government will preempt,
and there will be one standard. There
would not be 50 standards for each of
the 50 States, or 50 plus however many
thousand cities there may be. That would
result in an almost impossible situation.
It would be a burden on commerce that
would be unbearable and unrealistic, and
could not be accepted.
That would be the effect if the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Maine
is accepted. On the other hand, once a
product is manufactured under the na-
tional standard and goes into commerce,
and is located in a city, the local author-
ities can regulate its use.
For example, a locality can say at
what times, if any, it may be used in the
vicinity of the hospital, or in any other.
place, or at what hours of the night or
day it can be used, and can set any
other regulation or restriction of use af-
myself 2 minutes for summation, and
then I will be prepared to yield back the
remainder of my time, if the Senator
from California is willing to do so.
As the Senator from Delaware knows,
I have always been for preemption pro-
visions in our environmental laws when-
ever I felt that we had done an effective
job of replacing local legislation with
Federal legislation. The Senator and I
have been together on that in air pol-
lution and water pollution legislation for
the last 8 to 10 years, and we will con-
tinue to be.
Where we disagree now is on this sim-
ple point: That in this legislation we pre-
empt without substituting effective Fed-
eral legislation.
At least 32 States and many localities
are moving actively in this field. Federal
noise pollution responsibility is new, and
little significant authority or respon-
sibility exists. Conversely, a number of
States have regulatory programs which
impose emission controls on noisy prod-
ucts which controls are enforceable, both
at the point of sale and the point of
use.
I cannot support Federal preemption
which protects product manufacturers
and the air transportation Industry with-
out effective regulatory programs which
will enhance the quality of the environ-
ment. Substitution of Federal law for
State law without assurance that public
health will be protected is, in my judg-
ment, poor public policy.
For that reason, I urge the adoption of
this amendment.
Mr. BOQGS. Mr. President, will the
Cn
o
CD
-
O
1?!
CO
d
f
M
-------
mony at our legislative hearing on S.
3342 in California from, the Speaker of
the House and from an assistant attor-
ney general, I feel that this is really a
States rig-hts Issue. If the States want
to Impose a tougher standard on noise
emissions through a limitation of the
sale of a product, then I feel that the
States ought to have that right..
I cannot speak for every State. I do
know that some ; States have excellent
ongoing programs to reduce the noise of
various products that are sold in intra-
state and interstate commerce. I would
hate to see the Federal Government move
in and- say that the good work that has
been done by the States and by cities
and other localities should be ended.
I yield now to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the distinguished
Senator from California, the floor man-
ager of the bill, for yielding.
First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent, on behalf of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN); that David
Clanton, of the staff of the Committee on
Commerce, be permitted to be present
in the Chamber during the considera-
tion of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered."
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, this bill
deals with the responsibilities of the
•Federal Government and the State and
local governments in controlling noise
fecting the noise that product produces.
Any other approach to it would seem to
me very unrealistic and would cause a
variety of difficulties.
For example, let us suppose that a
jackhammer was being used at a con-
struction site in a-~ city. Construction
would have to stop—presuming it could—
until a manufacturer could produce a
Jackhammer that met the city's or the
State's particular qualifications. I do not
know how unprofitable that would be
or how it would run up the cost of the
jackhammer for that particular con-
struction lob. That is just one example
of the extreme results application of this
amendment could produce.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me 2 additional min-
utes?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. BOGGS. I think I have expressed
the committee's position fairly. The com-
mittee tried to balance this situation,
tried to place all the authority and as
much of the regulatory authority in the
local authorities, in the' State and local
governments, as was possible consistent
with a reasonable burden on commerce,
while placing in the Federal Govern-
ment the authority which the Federal
Government, in behalf of the whole Na-
tion, could properly exercise.
I think that is the situation presented
by the amendment of the distinguished
Senator from Maine, and I urge that
the amendment be rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield
Senator yield me 2 minutes c
Mr. TUNNEY, I yield. ~
Mr. BOOGS. Mr. President, tbe bill
provides that manufacturers must use
the best available technology. What
higher standard could one get for the
national requirement on this?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BOGGS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. As the Senator knows,
that provision of the bill rests for its
efficacy upon the state of the technology.
Mr. BOGGS. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. What I have complained
about in my earlier amendment is that
that kind of regulation, depending upon
technology, is not supplemented in this
bill by adequate controls over cumulative
noise levels; and it is because of the in-
efflcacy of the technology that commu-
nities have to use supplementary controls
of one kind or another to supplement in^
adequate technology. It is that which I
refuse to see preempted, or at least which
I refuse to support the preemption of.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the names of the Senator from
California (Mr. CRANSTON) and the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY)
be added as cosponsors of the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield back the remain-
der of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remain-
der of my time.
[p. 817784]
CD
M
i
d
GO
I
bO
Cn
O5
-------
2566
LEGAL COMPILATION SUPPLEMENT I
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has been yielded back.
The question Is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Maine.
On this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT -C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. CAN-
NON), the Senator from Florida (Mr.
CHILES), the Senator from Louisiana
(Mrs. EDWARDS) , the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , the Sen-
ator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN) , the Senator from New Hamp-
shire (Mr. MclNTYRE), the Senator from
Montana (Mr. METCALF), the Senator
from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL) ,
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
SPONG) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. MC!NTYRE), and the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PELL)
would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT),
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BAKER) , the Senator from New York (Mr.
BUCKLEY), the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. CURTIS) , the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. GOLDWATER), the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD), the Senator
from Iowa (Mr. MILLER), the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. ROTH) , the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND),
and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOK) is absent on official business.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Arizona (Mr. FAN-
NIN) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
SAXBE) are detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) , the Sena-
tor from Iowa (Mr. MILLER), and the
Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) would
each vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. HATFIELD) is paired with the Sena-
tor from South Carolina (Mr. THUS*
MOND) . If present and voting, the Sena-
tor from Oregon would vote "yea" and
the Senator from South Carolina would
vote "nay."
The result was announced—yeas 30,
nays 45, as follows:
[No. 548 Leg.]
YEAS—30
Aiken
Bayh
Bentsen
Brock
Brooke
Case
Church
Cranston
Eagleton
Pulbright
Allen
Anderson
Beall
Bellmon
Cotton
Dole
Domlnick
Eastland
Ervin
Fong
Gambrell
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hart
Hruska
Allott
Baker
Buckley
Cannon
Chiles
Cook
Curtis
Edwards
Paiinin
So Mr.
1740) was
Gravel Packwood
Hartke Pastore
Hollings Froxmire
Hughes RIbicoff
Inouye Smith
Mansfield Stafford
McClellan Stevenson
. Moss Symington
Muskle Tunney
Nelson Williams
NAYS — 45
Bennett Byrd,
Bible Harry P., Jr.
Boggs Byrd, Robert 0,
Burdick _ Cooper
Humphrey Randolph
Jackson Schwelker
Javlts Scott
Jordan, N.O. Sparkman
Jordan, Idaho Stennis
Long Stevens
Magnuson Taft
Mathias Talmadge
McGee Welcker
Montoya Young
Pearson
Percy
NOT VOTING— 25
Goldwater Mundt
Harris Pell
Hatfleld Roth
Kennedy Saxbe
McGovern Spong
Mclntyre Thurmond
Metcalf Tower
Miller
Mondale
MUSKIE'S amendment (No.
rejected. r CHTTQKI
[p. S17785J
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2567
1.4a(3)(c) Oct. 13: Considered and passed Senate, amended, pp.
S17988-S18014
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
ACT OF 1972
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 3342) to amend title IV of
the Clean Air Act, and for other pur-
poses.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I send
to the desk amendments and ask that
they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendments.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered; and, without
objection, the amendments will be
printed in the RECORD.
The amendments, ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, are as follows:
At page 89, line 14, strike out, "emissions
from" and Insert in lieu thereof, "emission
standard for".
At page 89, line 15, strike out. "in his
Judgment are" and insert in lieu thereof, "he
determines are necessary and".
At page 89, beginning at line 18, amend
subsection (b)(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 01 the
Environmental Protection Agency after con-
sultation with the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration and shall not
be promulgated until the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration has de-
termined that such regulations are consist-
ent with the highest degree of safety in air
commerce and that any proposed standard,
rule, or regulation has been demonstrated
to be technologically available for applica-
tion to types of aircraft, aircraft engine, ap-
pliance, or certificate to which It will apply."
At page 90, line 16 after the period Insert
the following sentence, "Provided, however,
that the Administrator of the Environmental
Portection Agency, within nine months of
the date of enactment of this Act, shall re-
view all noise emission standards, rules, or
regulations in effect under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act, as amended, prior to
the date of enactment of the title."
At page 90, line 19 after the word "emis-
sions." strike out. "Including the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration, and the Environmental Protection
Agency".
At page 91, line 1, strike out "individuals"
and insert In lieu thereof "persons".
At page 91, line 13, after the word "title"
strike out the comma and Insert a period
and delete the remainder of the sentence.
At page 91. line 15, strike out "The Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration", and Insert In lieu thereof, "The
Secretary of Transportation."
At page 92, line 23, after the word "air-
craft" delete the remainder of the sentence
and Insert in lieu thereof, "unless such type
certificates apply all of the standards pro-
mulgated by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency prior to the
date of Issuance of such certificates."
At page 93, line 1, delete section 505.
At page 93, line 12, strike out "506" and
Insert in lieu thereof, "505".
At page 93, line 13, strike out the words
"attempt to", and at line 14, after the word
"thereof" insert a period and strike out the
remainder of the sentence.
At page 93, line 17, strike out "507" and
Insert In lieu thereof "506".
At page 93, line 20. after the period in-
sert the following, "Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, the sole author-
ity to establish aircraft noise emission stand-
ards Is contained In Part A of this title.".
At page 93, line 22, strike out "508" and
Insert In lieu thereof "507".
At page 94, line 23, strike out the words
"Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency." and Insert In lieu thereof
"Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, In consultation with the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.".
At page 95, line 12, strike out "may" and
substitute "will".
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for about 3 minutes
for the purpose of addressing a question
to the distinguished manager of the bill?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yiejd.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. TUNNEY. Does the Senator wish
me to yield on these amendments?
Mr. PEARSON. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator may proceed.
Mr. PEARSON. I intend to be very
brief.
Some expression of apprehension has
been voiced on the part of airline pilots
as to the mechanics of this particular
bill, given circumstances which in case
[p. S17988]
-------
of emergency or unforeseen events might
require an acceleration of power which,
in and of itself, would violate the stand-
ards of noise abatement.
Their understanding is that this is
something that might be a rather fre-
quent occasion. There is a concern that
the procedures under this particular bill
would not lend themselves to a review
and a determination of extenuating cir-
cumstances.
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 lifting of the cer-
tification of any pilot because of these
circumstances.
Mr. TUNNEY. I am pleased the Sen-
ator 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 committee to make sure
that airline pilots are not going to be
subject to administrative 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
Aviation 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 regula-
tions which are developed are safe. This
responsibility is given solely to the FAA.
Second, section 415 of the bill specifi-
cally provides for judicial review of the
final regulations promulgated under sec-
tion 501 and other sections of the act.
to FAA regulations or to the Administra-
tive Procedure Act. Is that correct?
Mr. TUNNEY. Section 415 of this bill
does provide for periodical review. How-
ever, 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 Administrative Proce-
dures Act would also apply.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. TUNNEY. I wish to thank the
Senator for bringing that point up, be-
cause 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 liability if they
used then: best judgment in trying1 to
protect the safety of their passengers by
increasing power.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Senator
for yielding.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to-offer, on behalf of the Public
Works Committee, perfecting amend-
ments to part A of title V of S. 3342, re-
specting control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom. Through cer-
tain small changes in language in some
provisions of part A, these amendments
would clarify and speed up the long over-
due relief from noxious aircraft noise. -
The amendments will leave unim-
paired the basic regulatory framework
for the section: EPA would be lead'
agency in the setting of aircraft emis-
sion standards to meet the health need,
with a twofold^ FAA veto on grounds'of
technological availability and safety.
In section 501 (a) (2), language changes
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 specific agencies
were meant to be excluded. The language
in the report on the bill explains the
types of measures contemplated by this
section.
In section 502, the word "individuals"
has been changed to "persons" in order
to make it clear that corporations can
also be consulted. The last phrase, "to-
gether with his recommendations for leg-
islation" has been deleted in order to
make it clear that EPA need not sub-
mit recommendations for legislation if
it determines that no additional legis-
lation is needed. However, it is antici-
pated that EPA's report will include leg-
islative recommendations, arrived at
after consultation with relevant agencies.
In section 503, "Administrator of
FAA" is changed to "Secretary of Trans-
portation" in order to comport with the
existent regulatory framework. Of
course, implementing standards and in-
spections would be carried out by the
FAA, which has the appropriate 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 con-
sidered and adequate standards and that,
when promulgated, such standards must
apply to the issuance of original type
to
tn
OJ
00
S
Q
-------
Thus, if the Airline Filets Association
feels that the regulations as promulgated
do not protect their interests, there- is 'a
right for judicial -review. Third, the1 Ad"
ministrative Procedure Act would also
apply. Amd, fourth, the 14th amendment
to the Constitution requires due1 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 state-
ment is -most helpful. It will allay some
of the fears that have been expressed. ,-
As I understand the Senator from Cali-
fornia, the procedures for review are to
.come out of FAA regulations existing now
or to be promulgated by them.
Mr. TUNNEY,.The procedures for re-
view 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 promulgated
under the act if they are inconsistent
witht the highest degree, of safety. The
FAA should guarantee that regulations,
which become effective, assure that air-
line pilots can fly safely. If the Airline
Pilots Association is not satisfied with
specific final regulations, the bill pro-
vides for judicial review of the regula-
tion, so that they could make their claim
in a court of law. In addition, the pilot
will be entitled to a full hearing as pro-
vided by the Administrative Procedure
Act arid to constitutional protection.
Mr. PEARSON. The hearing mecha-
nism is not in this bill covering that kind
of situation; is it? It would reflect back
would insert the requirements that the
health levels set in the EPA standards be
"necessary" in addition to' '.'adequate" to
meet: the -health needs. This determinate
tion is made by, EPA and is consistent
wlththe intent of the committee. :••,*'
, In section 501 (b) (1) a certain am-
biguity respecting a joint determination
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 expedite the promulgation
process. It will also assure that the issue
of reasonable 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—rdemonstrable public
benefit-^-is now added to the list of fac-
tors to be considered in developing the
standards.
It is most appropriate that we should
be considering reasonable cost and de-
monstrable 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 effect of this provision
is to streamline the process of promul-
gating regulations, 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 re-
quire EPA to review all standards under
section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act
within 9 months of enactment of the bill.
certificates. The Hope is mat EPA wUl
move quickly to quiet as much of the
fleet as possible. ,«
' Section 505 is deleted, becajjise the re-
quirement of EPA review is inserted in
section 502(b) (2).
Section 508 Is clarified to preclude
States and localities from enacting iden-
tical standards. This added pressure was
thought essential in the absence of a
tough and effective regulatory program.
However, requirements of section 501
and,.enforcement provisions in the legis-
lation give sufficient tools to accomplish
a tough and coordinated enforcement
program on the Federal level. There was
no intention in the committee bill to
alter the relative powers of the Federal
Government, 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 sec-
tion 507 to clarify the relationship of
part A to the rest of the. bill. Noise emis-
sions standards are tied into certain
other parts of the bill, as specifically
cross-referenced^ However, authority to
establish aircraft noise emissions stand-
ards 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
xby clarifying the process by which noise
emission standards will be established. In
addition, we have assured that EPA's
role as lead agency in setting health
[p. S17989]
g
1
H
M
Oi
CO
-------
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 Sen-
ator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. CANNON. Have the amendments
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?
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 regu-
late or control the air transportation
system of the united States. I ask the
Senator if that is correct?
Mr. TUNNETSr. limit is correct.
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 people 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 subcom-
mittee has reported.
I am fearful as to the ultimate result
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 substantially expand and
threaten the expertise of other agencies.
They, as I understand it, will not pro-
mulgate the regulations dealing with
safety or with financial aspects; those
will originate with the FAA?
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct. Now, of
course, EPA is going to be promulgating
regulations over aircraft 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 levels
of aircraft are going to have to be con-
sistent with what the FAA considers to
be the highest degree of safety.
Mr. STEVENS. T. shall not speak to
this at length, because I understand the
time situation of Congress and the hard
•work tihat our committee staff arid tlie
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 behalf of
Senator MTJSKIE and myself and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
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 l, 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 affect-
to
Cn
^1
o
f
$
t—(
O
CO
d
*TJ
hi
tr1
IS
-------
Mi-. CANNON. With further reference
to section SOKe), is this provision In
subsection (c) intended to encourage
citizens to file suits of harassment
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 the
committee or on the part of the propo-
nent of these amendments to disrupt air
commerce through harassment-type
suits.
As a matter of fact, section 501 (c) adds
no new authority to the mandate given
to any agency with regulatory author-
ity over air commerce, aircraft or air-
port operations, or aircraft emissions^
Mr. CANNON. I thank the Senator for
yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendments.
Do the Senators yield back the remainder
of their time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, who
controls the time in opposition to the
amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator 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 questions con-
cerning the impact of this proposal.
Mr. BOGGS. I yield the Senator what-
ever time he needs.
chairman of the Subcommittee on Avia-
tion in the Committee on Commerce
have done to try to work out the matter.
But I am still feaful that the result will
be that EPA will have a little FAA under
its wings, and will start writing the reg-
ulations and sending them over to FAA
to check them, and they will be permitted
to exercise their veto if the regulations
affect the financial and safety aspects of
aviation.
I do not believe that EPA should ex-
pand 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 financial aspects of avia-
tion.
Mr. TUNNEY. In effect, they are going
to have to take the FAA standards when
it comes to safety and technological
'availability, factoring in a reasonable
cost.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator
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
Ing the lives of millions of Americans.
From Inglewood, Calif., and Oak Lawn,
111., to East Boston, Mass., and Queens,
N.Y., and even to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave-
nue in Washington, D.C., our citizens are
subjected to a regular bombardment of
noise from overflying aircraft.
The increasing size and power of the
1960's generation of jet aircraft first
elevate,d aircraft noise to a primary na-
tional problem. Yet, despite countless
congressional hearings, agency and in-
dustry studies, and citizen protests, there
has been distressingly little aircraft noise
reduction.
The airlines argue that the traveling
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 great a cost burden for
them or their passengers to shoulder.
This argument,' together with the claim
that the technology was not yet available,
governed our policy during the-1960's.
Over and against these arguments,
however, are the benefits of quieter jet
engine. Most obviously, of course, airport
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 au-
thorities as a buffer between the air-
port and the neighboring community.
There would be less need to sound-
proof surrounding schools, businesses,
and homes. And, perhaps most impor-
[p. S17990]
o
I
I
c!
I
IS
0
O
S)
to
01
-------
tantly, residential property values in
these areas would be significantly en-
hanced.
Research on the development of quiet-
er engines has been in progress for sev-
eral years. Within the Government, the
most significant programs have been co-
ordinated by NASA and the Department
of Transportation. DOT, which includes
the Federal Aviation Administration
within its organization, has conducted
programs to modify aircraft flight and
landing patterns in order to expose the
planes as little as possible to inhabited
areas. Also, it has authorized experi-
ments with various forms of acoustical
treatment of the engines. But although
the Congress gave FAA the power to
regulate aircraft noise in 1968, it regret-
tably has not yet used that power to re-
quire a reduction in noise among the
existing fleet.
More recently, the NASA Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology has
initiated work on a program to replace
the front fan of jet aircraft; it is esti-
mated that the resulting decrease in
noise would be at least 75 percent. Ear-
lier this year, the Congress appropriated
$25 million for continued research and
development of this important project.
In addition, several of the major aero-
space companies as well as the airlines
themselves have sponsored studies on jet
noise reduction. Vet, In spite of all this
research, there has been painfully little
reduction of noise from the 1960's gen-
eration of jet aircraft. There are en-
couraging signs that the new generation
of aircraft, the 747's, the DC-10's, and
the I*—lOll's, -will nave significantly low-
except those owned or operated by a mili-
tary agency, shall operate by January 1,
1978, in compliance with maximum Fed-
eral noise regulations. The specific stand-
ards would be those set forth in appendix
C of part 36 of the Federal-Aviation Reg-
ulations ih 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 aircraft
noise reduction technology. Regrettably,
however, the setting of this regulation
has had little noticeable or real effect on
the current level of aircraft 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 num-
bers 727, 737, and DC-9 jet airplanes 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 ex-
ceeds by a considerable margin ih the ap-
plicable part 36 standard.
This situation can be changed. The
Joint DOT/NASA Noise Abatement Of-
fice has been conducting extensive re-
search and development on programs to
reduce the noise in these and the other
noisy jet aircraft now flying. Charts'and
projections have been made readily avail-
able to Members of the Congress which
show that these agencies are now close to
developing the technology needed to ret-
rofit these jets, either by means or ac-
coustical treatment or through the re-
placement of their front fans.
aircraft to meet the part 36 deadline 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 insure that the
goal is reached.
The amendment which I propose would
grant the administrator of the aircraft
noise abatement program, as well as the
airlines themselves, flexibility as to the
means of meeting the maximum noise
levels of part 36. In addition, the amend-
ment is consistent with the principles of
the best use of available financial re-
sources, technology, and safety factors as
indicated in both the original Senate and
House sections on the administration of
Federal aircraft noise regulations. Thus,
any of a number of alternatives including
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 re-
solved before aircraft noise abatement
can become a reality. There must be a
means of paying for the program. Al-
ready, several proposals have been put
forward, including bills Introduced by
Senator CRANSTON and myself requiring
limited Federal assistance to finance
retrofitting. Furthermore, the admini-
stration is in the midst of its own study
to determine the most appropriate means
of financing a retrofitting program.
Therefore, it is my intention to introduce
a second amendment, following the dis-
position of the pending amendment, to
require the Secretary of Transportation
to report to Congress by July 1, 1973, hla
recommendations for financing the pro-
fco
O*
^1
to
o
O
H
2!
-------
er noise levels. -But Hals jiew technology
has not been applied to the 1960's gen-
eration of aircraft, which will be with us
formany-years*P 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 reg-
ulations. The Federal Government can-;
not continue an essentially hands-off
policy with respect to demands for reg-
ulation of aircraft noise, and at the same
time deny other governmental author-
ities the right to adopt their own policies.
Clearly, it is long past time when Con-
gress should lead the way off of this
treadmill, and enacf the appropriate and
necessary legislation to relieve millions
of ^citizens across the Nation of this seri-
ous noise problem.
Many Senators have argued that the
solution of this problem is essentially a
bureaucratic one: who will administer the
program for- the Government. But I be-
lieve a more important question must still
be resolved: namely, what will the pro-
gram be? Simply to shift some or all re-
sponsibility f-rom one agency to another
will not necessarily do anything more
than create another layer of personnel
familiar with the problem. But, if Con-
gress establishes a goal that can be
achieved, then we can reasonably expect
that any agency designated to administer
and enforce that goal will meet the con-
gressional intent.
As a minimum goal, Congress should
require that all commercial jet aircraft.
They anticipate grojimd tests for some
types df aircraft toy tHfe end! 6t 1972, and
ground and flight tests for most of the
remaining aircraft fey the end of 1973.
The charts prepared by the Noise Abate-
ment Office also project a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking during the early part of
next year, and the issuance of rules in
1974 requiring the retroflttin%. First de-
liveries of the quieter airplanes should
be in 1975, and the targeted completion
date for all retrofitting is 1979.
Nowt Mr. President, these projections
are well known to many knowledgeable
Members of the Senate, as well as the air-
craft community itself. In fact, the presi-
dent of American Airlines, in a letter to
Senator TUNNEY reprinted in the Senate
Public Works Committee's report on the
pending legislation, stated that:
The earliest aohieveable date (to modify
aircraft now in service to meet PAR 36 specifi-
cations) in our opinion is January 1, 1978.
So, quite clearly, the Federal projec-
tions are attainable and", more likely, rep-
resent conservative estimates.
I believe that these projections should
become a national commitment. The air-
craft noise reduction program Has re-
ceived more than enough preliminary
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 Office.
Thus, to mandate a January 1, 1978
date for all nonmilltary commercial jet
gram.
Ilk summary, Mr. President, I believe
that the .pending legislation provides a
logical and appropriate opportunity 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 signal that the Senate
intends to act responsibly in meeting
America's noise problems. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, it would
be my hope that the Senator from Massa-
chusetts, whose amendment I think
points out one of the most important
areas of concern in the reduction of
noise, would withdraw 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, hear-
ings have been held by the Committee on
Commerce, and at the present time the
Department of Transportation is also
studying the matter. In our bill, in sec-
tion 501, we anticipate that there will
be retrofit. \
•Although we do not have a timetable,
the very fact that we have.set out a pro-
gram for the establishment of noise emis-
sion levels necessary and adequate to-
protect the public health and welfare in-
dicates that the only way these levels are
going to be achieved is if there is retrofit
or retirement of noisy aircraft. Even so,
we did not set out a definite time in the
[p. S17991]
CO
>
S3
I
55
<
a
H
HH
tn
H3
O
&
K|
bO
Cn
^1
DO
-------
bill, because it was felt that not enough
information had been developed so that
we could set a specific target date.
It seems to me that with the language
of the bill in section 501, which requires
that standards be set by EPA, with the
PAA veto over safety and technological
availability, and with the provisions in
section 502 whereby EPA must study the
adequacy of noise emission standards on
new and existing aircraft, together with
recommendations on the retrofit and
phase out 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 neighborhood, and
spent a good deal of time in that area in
my younger years. Particularly in South
Boston there are terrible problems.
Clearly we do need a retroschedule or
retirement schedule; 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 Transporta-
tion. 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 sub-
ject of financing retrofit is one which
all of us have to be concerned with, be-
cause it is not the Intention of any of
us to bankrupt the airline Industry. At
the same time, we do not want to de-
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 ma-
jority of aircraft flying today over the
United States.
I recall that the distinguished Senator
from California went to school in Cam-
bridge when he was in Massachusetts
and I can assure him that the people of
Cambridge do not suffer as much as do
those of South Boston, East Boston, Re-
vere, and Winthrop and other surround-
ing 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
residential properties has decreased. And
this phenomenon has taken place not
only in towns surrounding Logan Airport
but at other airports across the country.
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 rec-
ord as making a commitment to retro-
fitting by a time certain. I think that
that time certain is not next year or the
year after because as a practical matter
it just cannot be done. We know that
But I do believe, and I hope that my col-
leagues agree, that 1978 is a realis-
tic and attainable target.
formed a very valuable service by bring-
ing 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 retrofit 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 September 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 FAB 36 in our opinion is January 1, 1978.
This was an opinion not generally
shared by other members of the airline
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 en-
thusiastic to join the Senator as a co-
sponsor 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 retrofitting
schedule or a retirement schedule.
Mr. BROOKE. I thank my colleague
from California very much.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Massaehusets yield?
Mr. BROOKE. I yield.
IsD
f
H
Q
>
f
O
o
§
f
w
H
-------
stroy the health and welfare of the citi-
zens who live adjacent to airports. '.
I might add a final point which is that
1 am an enthusiastic supporter person-
ally 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 retire-
ment schedule, it would provide thou-
sands and thousands 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 Massachu-
setts could find his way to withdraw his
amendment today with the recognition
that he has demonstrated great leader-
ship in bringing this matter to the atten-
tion 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
have been much concerned, as has he,
about the aircraft noise abatement prob-
lem. Several years ago, I presented to the
Senate a program for retrofitting, be-
cause I believed we all understand that
we will not get rid of the existing fleet
overnight. It will take some time. Retro-
fitting represents an investment of hun-
dreds of millions of dollars. Although I
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 achieve-
able goal.
I am not going to belabor this matter.
I will not ask for a rollcall vote on this
amendment. I have great faith in the
Senator from California's personal com-
mitment to the program. I am very much
encouraged by the fact that he will hold
early hearings next year. The distin-
guished ranking member, the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) has made a
similar commitment 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 retrofitted. 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 saying 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 hear-
ings next year on this matter, and that
the Senator from California will con-
sider 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 Massa-
chusetts for doing that. He has per-
Mr. BOGGS. I want to take this op-
portunity to commend: the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts for his lead-
ership and for his actions in regard to
the retrofitting program. 1 join the dis-
tinguished Senator from California (Mr.
TUNNEY) in giving assurance that cer-
tainly the committee will give every con-
sideration to this, and will hold hearings.
I agree 100 percent with the Senator
from Massachusetts that this is of pri-
mary importance. I believe that progress
will be made on it and we-will accomplish
our objective, under the leadership and
the understanding and the drive which
the distinguished Senator from Massa-
chusetts has to put this through. He is to
be commended.
Mr. BROOKE. Well, Mr. President,
that is more assurance than I need from
my good friends from Delaware and Cali-
fornia.
Mr. President, in keeping with that
understanding, I withdraw the amend-
ment.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, before
the Senator withdraws his amendment, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD one letter on this sub-
ject that I sent and the answers I have
received from the various airline com-
panies, engine and airframe manufac-
turers, and Federal agencies. It appears
as an appendix to the committee report.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[p. S17992]
§
02
3
I
3
00
§
to
Cn
^1
Cn
-------
APPENDIX
(Responses to letter from Senator TUNNET
concerning establishment of a mandatory
schedule for achieving reductions In air-
craft noise emissions)
Letter from Senator Tunney to which the
following are responses
SEPTEMBER 8, 1972.
Mr. JOHN H. SHAFFER,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street NW., Washington, D.C.
DEAR ADMINISTRATOR SHAFFER: As you know,
the Senate Public Works Committee has been
marking up a noise pollution control act (S.
3342) which I Introduced with Senator Mus-
kle in March, 1972.
In the context of provisions respecting
control of aircraft noise, it has been sug-
gested that a retrofit schedule be established
in the legislation. In order to meet the dead-
lines, aircraft which could not be retrofitted
economically could be retired and replaced by
the new generation of quieter aircraft al-
ready under construction.
Suggested language to be added to S. 3342
would provide that no aircraft could land at
U.S. airports after January I, 1976, unless
such aircraft compiled with the maximum
noise level standards in Appendix C of Part
86 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e.,
108 EpndB). New aircraft types manufac-
tured after date of enactment would be re-
quired to meet best available technology, or,
at a minimum, a noise level 15 EpndB lower
than the Part 36 standard by January 1, 1975.
Additionally, the EPA Administrator would
be required to identify further noise reduc-
tions which would be contemplated there-
after.
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 legisla-
tion and subjected to considerable study in
ufactured after the date of enactment would
be required to meet the best available tech-
nology 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 con-
stitutes 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 technol-
ogy existed to retrofit existing aircraft, the
FAA began another comprehensive study re-
garding retrofit. These studies are nearlng
completion. A flight test ol the retrofitted
727 will take place this fall with a final re-
port due In the first quarter of 1973. A flight
test of a retrofitted 707 will take place during
the summer of 1973 with a final report due
in the fourth quarter of 1973. Contracts have
been awarded for studies of the DC-8 and
DC-9 with their 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.
Preliminary test results from the above stud-
ies, that is static ground tests and other
acoustical data, indicated that it Is tech-
nologically 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 re-
trofit or retire should be left to the individual
airlines. The language that is suggested
would permit the owner of the aircraft to
consider any option, that la. retrofit, retlre-
tlons only increase the grave threat that
noise pollution presently poses to our na-
tional air transportation system.
Sincerely,
J. DONALD REILLY,
Executive Vice President,
THE PORT AUTHORITY OF
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY,
New York, N.Y., September IS, 1372.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : Thank you for
your letter of September 12, concerning pro-
posed changes to the noise pollution control
bill (S. 3342).
We believe that language such as that sug-
gested in your third paragraph is essential
if the new bill is to result in timely and
effective reduction of aircraft noise. The best
information available to us Indicates that
January 1, 1976 is a reasonable target date
for a retrofit program If action is started
now. Of critical importance, however, is the
development of a financing program for the
oapital required to accomplish retrofit. With-
out Federal Government 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 reduc-
tion seemed feasible within 10 years. \Ve sug-
gest that, in the language of Part 36, new air-
craft for which application for a type certifi-
cate is submitted on or after January 1,
1975, be required to meet noise levels at
least 10 EPNdB lower than those of present
Part 36. Only by early action of this sort
can the public be assured that developing
technology will be applied to further noise
reduction rather than increased payload and
range.
Thank you for the opportunity to com-
fcO
Cn
H
O
8
tr1
>
>-3
M
O
f
H
H
-------
the industry and Administrative agencies.
Specifically, I hope you will address your-
self to the current state of technology re-
specting retrofit (and will consider new front
fan treatment In addition to nacelle treat-
ment) , costs of retrofit or retirement and re-
placement and suggestions as to which pro-
cedure might be more appropriate for cer-
tain types of aircraft, necessary lead tunes,
alternative specific language which could be
Inserted in the legislation.
If I could receive your comments by Mon-
day, 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 to respond, but I hope
that you will be able to cooperate with us.
Correspondence should be brought to the at-
tention 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,
V.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TONNEY : Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on your proposal
that the Noise Pollution Control Act (S. 3342)
Includes language which calls for either the
retrofitting or retirement of noisy aircraft
that do not meet PAR 36 maximum noise re-
quirements by January 1, 1976. Your propo-
sal also specifies that new aircraft types man-
ment 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 have a financially healthy na-
tional air transportation system. Several
different approaches exist for providing fi-
nancial assistance to an aircraft owner if
that assistance Is needed or requested. They
include: accelerated tax depreciation bene-
fits, Federal funding and loan guarantees,
or'a small increase in passenger ticket and
cargo waybill user charges for the short pe-
riod of time required to assist in financing
the above options. Another economic con-
sideration which must be considered is the
great boost that a decision to retrofit, or re-
place noisy aircraft, would give to the sag-
ging 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 minimum, a noise level 15 EPNdB lower
than Part 36 is a laudable goal.
In summary, we believe that the proposal
to require that all aircraft after January 1,
1976 meet FAB Part 36 in an excellent one.
We further support the proposal for setting
a goal of reducing the noise by 15 EPNdB
within three years. I would refer you to our
more, detailed presentation before the Sub-
committee on Air and Water Pollution on
April 13, 1972 at which time we discussed
at some length our support for these pro-
posals. There must be action now to reduce
aircraft noise pollution. We believe that the
best way to accomplish this without In-
curring further delays is to mandate the
agency which is conducting investigations
and studies in this field at this time to issue
such regulations. This would be the Federal
Aviation Administration. Further delays in
the Implementation of aircraft noise regula-
ment on these aspects of S. 3342.
Sincerely, •
NEAL B. MONTANUS.
CITY OF SAN JOSE,
Sara Jose, Calif., September 14, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TDNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOE TUNNEY: Tour letter of
September 8,1972 to Donald Rellley of Airport
' Operators Council International relative to
B. 3342 has come to my attention. I enjoyed
our meeting at Oakland Airport when you
met with BASSC 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 rec-
ommendations, my credentials, and discus-
sion giving reasons for the recommendations.
In summary, it is technologically and eco-
nomically feasible to accomplish these rec-
ommendations. It is specifically recommend-
ed that:
1. FAA be required to establish a retrofit
trust fund with the monies to come from a
national enplanement t»x levied against the
air passenger;
2. That the FAA establish a formula for
paying for the retrofit, said formula to con-
sider cost of retrofit and tax credits:
3. The retrofit program be as follows:
(a) That existing aircraft not now meet-
Ing FAB 36, be required to have nacelle retro-
fits and meet FAB 36 by January 1, 1976,
with funds from the trust fund;
(b) The same aircraft be required to re-
engine or incorporate the new NACA front
fan treatment by January 1, 1979, with funds
from the trust fund;
(c) That both (a) and (b) may be accom-
plished by January 1, 1976 if desired by the
air carrier, with total payment to come from
the trust fund formula;
CD
H
I
H
03
I
H
2
O3
I
CO
H
O
to
Cn
[p. S17993]
-------
(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 equiva-
lent 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 air-
craft be explicit to Include new aircralt, re-
gardless of country of manufacture.
As to my credentials, I graduated from the
University of California at Berkeley, with a
BS degree In Mechanical Engineering, with
an aeronautics option. I am a registered Pro-
fessional Engineer In the State of California.
I served four years as a naval avalator, flew
airline with Pan American, spent five years
as an experimental test pilot with the Na-
tional Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(now NASA) and North American Aviation,
and twenty-five years as Airport Manager. I
served as an airport representative on the
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board ad
hoc study advisory committee which resulted
in the Joint DOT/NASA civil aviation R&D
policy recommendation. 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 tech-
nologically and economically feasible. The
airlines say they cannot afford to retrofit and
they cannot. We would take the position and
state that aircraft must be retrofitted (in-
cluding 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 en-
gine research program has yielded noise re-
ductions greater than anticipated when the
contract was let. We know that noise can be
reduced to about one-fourth of what it Is
now and, In the case of the 707 and DC-8
aircraft, the noise footprint under the 90
PNDB contour can be reduced from, the pres-
ent 47,500 acres to about 3,000 acres. If all
air carrier aircraft today were equipped wltli
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 addi-
tion 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 of 15 EPNdB by 1976. I would suggest
that 10 EPNdB by 1975 would be more re-
alistic criteria. If the criteria Is too severe
and applies only to new types of aircraft,
it might tend to discourage design and de-
velopment of new aircraft unless some pre-
mium or assistance were offered. It would be
more economical to continue to manufac-
ture the same aircraft. I suggest that the
language state that new aircraft manufac-
tured after January 1, 1976 be clarified to
include aircraft, regardless of country of
manufacture, or the foreign manufacturers
would have an unfair advantage over United
States manufacturers.
I further suggest that the 707 and DC-8
aircraft can be reasonably retrofitted with
acoustically treated nacelles, and retirement
may be more attractive than subsequent en-
gine retrofit; however, that would be the air-
line's decision. The B-727, 737 and DC-9
are expected to be with us well into the
1980's. I suggest that the nacelle retrofit as
you propose be required by January 1, 1976
and that the new NACA front fan be required
by January 1, 1979, with the airline having
the option of doing both by January 1, 1976
if they desire, with payment being made from
the new trust fund. This would result in a
mix of aircraft that by 1980 would consist
principally of a re-engine 727, 737 and DC—9,
wide body Jets and some new aircraft with
the new generation of quiet. engines. Tbe
approaches to the noise problem may bo ap-
propriate for the different classes of aircraft.
I believe that the 707/DC8 fleet represents
the greatest problem and is the main source
of complaints (for such major airports as
JPK and Los Angeles). The first attached
noise footprint chart illustrates this prob-
lem. 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 belie™ that it might be
technically possible for such substantially
modified engines and nacelles to meet PAR36,
we believe this approach will prove to be a
very poor Investment for the Industry and
the Government. These airplanes are already
obsolete.
A much better and proven solution to the
707/DC8 noise problems already exists in the
DC10/L1011/ and 747 series of wide-body Jets.
These modern aircraft, Incorporating the
latest in noise reduction and smoke reduc-
tion technology have already been certified
at noise levels below FAB36. The aircraft
types using the General Electric CF6 engine
In the 1971-1976 time period Including the
DC10-10, DC10-30, 747-300, and A300B have
noise levels ranging from 3 to 7 EPnL below
PAR36 on a traded basis. This is a huge im-
provement over the 707/DC8, as shown in the
second chart attached, and is much quieter
than Is possible with 707/DC8 engines retro-
fitted with new fans, nacelles, and reversers.
I believe that it would be much more sensible
for the Government to find ways to accelerate
the retirement of these old aircraft In the
1973-1978 period and replace them with the
modern quieter aircraft available.
The smaller aircraft such as the 727/DC9/
737 can be approached In a different way. We
believe It Is possible for this class at aircraft
to
Oi
^J
00
f
F)
o
o
o
f
5
hM
O
-------
this new generation of quiet engines, I be-
lieve that every air carrier airport in the
United States would be environmentally ac-
ceptable from a noise standpoint. This then
states that by some year, say 1985, we will
have an environmentally acceptable indus-
try, fhe problem Is, then, how do we live un-
til 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
Saa Jose Municipal Airport ana have deter-
mined 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 solu-
tions. With continuing research, even greater
strides can be made for the future.
If your bill would provide the means of
financing retroflt, then it might offer a
clearer method of solving the problem. If so-
ciety 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 Million Dollars annually.
The money could be borrowed against this
revenue which yields 1.75 Billion Dollars. I
agree with James Carr that the airline pas-
senger 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 equiva-
lent 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-
DC-8 and 707 will probably be retired In
favor of the new aircraft with quieter en-
gines. 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 pro-
grammed reduction lor 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 interna-
tional 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 SENATOB TUNNEY: I am pleased to
respond to your letter of September 8 ad-
dressed 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 appropriateness of
the FAR36 noise standard for all aircraft
landing at U.S. airports after January 1, 1976
and FAR36 minus 15 EPnL for new aircraft
types by January 1975. I have not attempted
to address myself to the specific language of
your BUI but rather to the basic issues raised
in your letter.
As you indicate in your letter, different
to have their nacelles modified in such a way
that FAB36 can be met and that their noise
footprints could be reduced with proper con-
sideration of takeoff and approach aircraft
operating procedures (such as power cutback
and 2 segment approaches). Whether en-
gine retrofit of the existing aircraft fleet is
sensible is another matter—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 oper-
ating procedures alone.
With regard to the retrofitting of the 727/
DC9/737 fleet with their existing engines re-
built with new larger fans (development of
which is now funded by NASA) plus new
nacelles and reversers, we believe that this
approach will also prove to be a very poor
Investment for Its incremental noise im-
provement. Here again, it appears to ine that
the wiser and more effective solution lies in
the new aircraft types using high bypass tur-
bofans such as the CF6 or the new 20-25
000# thrust turbofans now under considera-
tion 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 pe-
riod may be able to meet FAB 36 minus 10
EPnL. Although this has not yet been
achieved in an economically attractive way,
it is our goal and we are • making progress
toward it. We consider FAB36 minus 15
EPnL out of reach for the 1970's, and fur-
thermore, doubt that there is a need to
achieve this level when operating from cur-
rent airports.
In summary, I would like to emphasize
that I believe that the real problem of re-
solving the current noise situation with re-
spect to meeting FAB36 on any accelerated
time schedule such as you propose is pri-
§
CO
I
w
[p. S17994]
bO
Cn
~^
CO
-------
marlly one of economics—not technological.
This real problem la not being addressed,
In my opinion. The DC 10/L1011 and 747's
con solve most of the public problem—the
question Is how to get many more of them
In service sooner. Revised aircraft operating
procedures can help 727/DC9/737 noise now,
newly manufactured 727/DC9/737 could have
nacelle treatment added and new types of
short and medium haul twlnjet/trijet trans-
ports with high bypass turbofans will com-
pletely solve the noise problem posed by
this class of aircraft In the post 1976 period.
The U.S. Government should concentrate
more on helping to modernize the TJ.S. fleet
with new wide-body high bypass turbofan
powered transports than on the modification
and retrofit of obsolete engines and aircraft.
If such a solution can be found, it would
be the best solution for noise, pollution,
passenger comfort, U.S. sales/jobs/balance of
trade, and the general health of the aircraft
and airline Industry.
Sincerely,
GERHARD NEUMANN.
GILBERT, SEGALL & YOUNG,
New York, N.Y. September 14, 1972.
Senator JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNET: I have your letter
of September 8, 1972 concerning S. 3342. Un-
fortunately, this did not reach me until yes-
terday, after being forwarded through Wash-
ington and New Jersey. You will recall that
your letter was addressed to me as President
of Rolls-Royce, Inc., 45 Rockefeller Plaza,
New York 10020. Rolls-Boyce, Inc. ha? since
1969 had no connection 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 Tor
some years, and I no longer have any asso-
ciation wltb it or Its parent company in
mind, lead to very unfortunate complica-
tions, 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 im-
position 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 PAA,
which is the expert public agency capable of
taking into account all of the necessary con-
siderations. Further, the dates and stand-
ards the bill would set appears to me to be
very optimistic on the basis of present knowl-
edge, though I recognize that predictions in
this area are very 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 ret-
rofitting, lend times and procedures respect-
ing specific types of aircraft. One can only
be sure that retrofit of older aircraft, includ-
ing, as you suggest, new front fan treatment,
would be enormously costly and disruptive,
but it would be premature to make any de-
pendable estimate along these lines. Rolls-
Royce, of course, like other engine manufac-
turers, is expending great efforts with respect
to those of its engines which power com-
mercial aircraft. These Include the Spey
engine on the BAC 111 and Gulf stream II (ef-
forts concerning the Spey being the subject
of an article in Aviation Week lor Septem-
ber 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 In-
stalled on the VC-10 and certain models of
the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, is not In
service witn any TJJ3. airline. All of the alr-
of the national economy, and our aircraft the
major element in sustaining our interna-
tional balance of trade. I believe that the
low certificated noise levels and our world-
wide 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 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 prob-
lem of reduced aircraft noise, we, with the
rest of the Industry, pointed out that it
was impossible to create products with de-
sign lead-times of three to five years, fol-
lowed by production durations of ten to
fifteen years, against a "floating target" lor
required noise performance.
Although our L-1011 has bettered current
noise standards by several EPNdB, we see no
reasonable way to achieve a 15-EPNdB im-
provement over Part 36 as your letter sug-
gests. We have no promising clues to pursue
and must await the results of research pro-
grams that have as yet not been formulated.
The CARD Study done by the Department of
Transportation suggested the possibility of
10 EPNdB below Part 36 might be possible
in 1980. We believe that this is a reasonable
target for certification of a new airplane,
even though we still do not know how to
achieve this goal with a practical design.
In our efforts to set targets for Incor-
porating Improvements as the state at the
art changes, the legislation should Identify
potential certification dates rather than new
airplane delivery dates. It Is not clear in your
to
Ol
00
o
F
M
O
8
F
HH
O
§
F
-------
England.
I am, however, tT.S.A. counsel for Rolls-
Royce (1971). .'Limited, of London, Derby
and Bristol, England, which is the successor
to the gas turbine business of Rolls-Royce
Limited,, and for its subsidiary, Rolls-Royce
Aero Engineers, 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 ad-
dress 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. Del-
ler 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
xiseful reply to your inquiry, but unfortu-
nately the time Is really too short to do -this. •
Perhaps, however, I can respond in a gen-
eral way to certain aspects of your inquiry.
1. It would appear to me that noise limita-
tions upon the operation of aircraft should
remain with the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration rather than the EPA. I say this be-
cause the nature of the problem requires
careful consideration of problems far be-
yond the normal concerns of the EPA. From
the nature of the matters to which your let-
ter addresses itself I infer that, to some de-
gree, you may agree. I suggest, therefore,
that the bill should not vest sole authority
In the EPA, but should leave it primarily in
the FAA which is currently engaged in very
comprehensive studies of all aspects of the
problem.
2. I would not think that It would be wise
to provide by statute that no aircraft can
land at U.S. airports after a fixed date unless
certain specific noise level standards are met.
Rather, I think that the authority to fix and
enforce noise level standards should be left
primarily to the FAA. To impose a rigid
statutory rule with rigid dates would, to my
craft powered by Rolls-Royce engines do,
however, utilize U.S. airports In. Interna-
tional travel. The BB 211, which is Installed
on the Lockheed L-1011, Is, of course, a new
technology high thrust engine with outstand-
ing noise characteristics, and It does not, I
believe, fall within the ambit of your Inquiry.
In a nutshell then, aside from my being
able to make the remarks above, I do not
think that there has been time enough to
collect reliable data and to put it in a usable
form for you. I am not at all sure that even
If more time were available I would be able
to give you comparative costs of retrofit and
retirement and replacement, nor do I believe
that I could make Informed comments con-
cerning aircraft which are powered by en-
gines other than Rolls-Royce. I regret that
I cannot do more at this time. If develop-
ments 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 SENATOB TTJNNET: We at Lockheed
have been doing everything 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 pro-
pulsion manufacturers and NASA seeking out
any new ideas which will Improve urban ac-
ceptability of future airplanes. I think we
have demonstrated that a new "good neigh-
bor" transport can be developed without de-
stroying the inherent efficiency which has
made our air transport system a mainstay
letter whether "new aircraft types manu-
factured after date of enactment . . ." refers
to any new airplane or only to new airplane
types certified after enactment. If It means
"all new aircraft manufactured" this will
result in the shutting down of programs
which fulfilled all regulations at their In-
ception, and for which contracts have been
entered into.
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AIBCKAFT
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 cur-
rent wide-bodied aircraft now sold, all of
which have utilized everything practically
available In the state of the art to improve
noise performance. In Lockheed's case, this
would affect 100 to 200 airplanes which now
are under firm contracts, or second buys, or
additional follow-on Airplanes from present
customers.
c. If your reference to "new aircraft types
manufactured. . . . actually means "cer-
tified" after enactment, there is still a ma-
jor problem with new versions of present
designs, such as twin conversions, long-
bodied modifications, extended range con-
versions, and similar models. These would
all have to incorporate entirely new power-
plants, and since we do not know how to
meet a 15 EPNdB reduction, any such ex-
tension of our current models would be ef-
fectively stopped.
[p. S17995]
§
I
g
I
a
Cn
00
-------
Although Lockheed does not have current
large transport aircraft which exceed the
maximum noise level standards of Appendix
C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regula-
tions, we recognize that most of the existing
operational transports and some current pro-
duction transports and business aircraft pro-
duce noise levels well above the regulations.
We also recognize that the airlines are In
no financial position to modify these air-
planes, 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 be-
tween $100 million and $200 million. To
this must be added retrofit costs that ap-
proach $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 develop-
ment 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 compensating increases In
revenue.
This estimate. does not Include retrofit of
the smaller twin and trljet transports which
would certainly average $300,000 to $500,000
per aircraft. We estimate that approximately
1300 of these would still have an economic
future In January 1976, and retrofit of this
number would therefore be nearly another
$700 million.
By introducing these costs, we do not wish
to leave the Impression that we oppose ret-
rofit; we only want to emphasize the finan-
cial Impact of the legislation which you
propose, and to suggest that normal chan-
nels for financing such an endeavor do not
elxst to our knowledge.
It Is our opinion that the best approach
to retrofit Is by the use of a new fan on
THE BOEING Co.,
Seattle, Wash., September 18,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNET,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Tour letter of
September 8, 1972, poses many complex ques-
tions that are of vital Interest to all par-
ties concerned with aircraft noise. The timing
of your request and the complexity of the
questions make complete answers difficult If
not Impossible. My first Impression IS that
passage of a law with the language as sug-
gested in your letter would inevitably bring
air transportation, as we know it today, to
a standstill.
My second Impression is that legislating
technology and schedule of accomplishment
Is unsound. There exists today Industry and
government sponsored research work aimed
at producing a valid declsionmaking base.
It is not clear how new legislative acts can
establish both levels and schedules for noise
reduction before government 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 land-
Ing 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 por-
tion of domestic and international ah" serv-
ice. There is no apparent way the current
JT8D and JT3D fleet of commercial aircraft
could be retrofit or replaced by-January 1,
1976, as you suggest, regardless of research
and development funding or monetary sup-
port to the airlines.
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 air-
craft 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
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 hi their deliberations on
this very significant legislation. My recom-
mendation 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.]
BOEING NOISE REDUCTION RESEARCH
(In millions ol dollars]
Boeing Government
R. & D. contract
Year:
1958
1959... .
1960...
1961
1962.-. .
1963_
1964
1965...
1966 .
1967
1968 .
1969
1970 ..
1971 '
1972 ..
0.601 .. .
.106
.282
.472 ..
.550
.310
.140
1.384
2.528
3.197
10.957
8.508
4.447
3.594
6.031
0.022
.330
.210
.925
2.484
6.878
2.873
1.082
9.788
10.918
Total
0.601
.106
.282
.472
.550
.332
.440
1,594
3.453
6.661
17.835
11.381
5.529
9.382
16.948
Total....
43.107
32.460
75. 567
Note: Above expenditures do not include production develop-
ment costs fof airplane noise reduction activities totaling over
$23,000,000.
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.,
St. Louis, Mo., September IS, 1972.
Hon. JOHW V. TTJNNEY,
U.S. Senate,
bO
oo
to
M
O
O
o
Cfl
c|
tr1
M
g
H
-------
existing four-engine aircraft to increase the
bypass ratio of the powerplants. We 'believ.e
that the alternate concept of massive moil-
fling of present powerplants which are in-
herently noisy leads ot major cost burdens
and inefficiency as well as excessive opera-
tional difficulties. This same comment' holds
true when the use of similar massive sup-
pression is proposed to achieve the very
last dB of more modern engines which are
quiet to begin with. Modern high bypass en-
gines could, indeed, be further suppressed,
but the noise alleviation is so small that it
probably would be unrecognizable by the
community. Furthermore, it is obtained at a
cost in operational economy which will make
new aircraft unattractive to domestic inves-
tors and foreign purchasers alike.
In summary, we recognize and applaud the
national emphasis on aircraft noise reduc-
tion. 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 at-
tractive to domestic and foreign airlines.
The problem now is to bring the existing
airline fleet into complance 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 sup-
port 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 re-
main with the FAA (DOT), ably supported
by the technical talent within NASA.
Very sincerely yours,
D. J. HAXJGHTON,
Chairman of the Board.
that required noise reduction technology
could be developed. Although certainly later
than 1976, the timing for this accomplish-
ment is unknown and Is completely de-
pendent upon an adequately funded research
program. In either case, 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 B&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 reduction as well as airplane per-
formance Improvement. However, we are ex-
tremely concerned that a partially funded
program will not produce timely results.
As you may know, the Aerospace Indus-
tries 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 rela-
tive to the noise problem. Currently we have
over 400 scientists, engineers and technicians
at Boeing directly involved in noise reduc-
tion research and development. The attach-
ment 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 signifi-
cant progress through the use of these re-
sources, the greatest lesson we have learned
Is that the problem is complex; and that
Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR TTJNNET : I am writing in. re-
sponse to your letter of September 8 ad-
dressed to J.S. McDonnell,-concerning provi-
sions of the noise pollution control act (S.
3342) introduced by you and Senator Muskie.
Clearly there Is too much noise around air-
ports and we are determined to do our part
to help.
The attached letter from Jack McGowen,
President of our Douglas Aircraft Company,
to Jack Shaffer, Administrator of FAA, In re-
sponse to his request for informal comments
on tentative FAA 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.B., Part 36,
without cost and other penalties in excess
of what the taxpaying public will accept.
Research and development can undoubtedly
improve our ability to produce airplanes
which generate less noise, but 'there is no
way to reliably evaluate the cost of reaching
specific quantitative goals until after ade-
quate research, development, testing and
evaluation has been accomplished. I there-
fore urge that the government place great
emphasis on expediting the necessary RDT &
E so as to establish what Is feasible, and only
then stipulate dates when mandatory accom-
plishment 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 administration.
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
VI
fej
1
CO
fej
O
M
CO
w
hH
CO
[p. S1T996]
fcO
Cn
00
CO
-------
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 Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C.
DEAR JACK: Your letter of August 11, 1972,
in which you discussed a notice of proposed
rule making that would require noise levels
10 EPNdB below FAB Part 36, for future
production aircraft, has convinced me that
you take the airport noise problem as seri-
ously as I do. I really believe we must think
In such terms If we are to achieve an air
transportation system, that meets the re-
quirements for compatibility with commu-
nities around our airports.
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 reduc-
tions by July 1, 1976. However, I believe
that the industry and' the FAA should get
together to determine the noise reductions
that can be accomplished and the time re-
quired to accomplish them. A quick look at
our DC-^IO would say we might be able to
achieve noise levels between 5 and 10 EPNdB
below FAB 36 depending on the reference
location. Some of our research programs with
your organization and with the NASA may
also lead to similar possibilities for the low
bypass ratio turbofan powered aircraft. Per-
haps additional research may lead the way
to the full 10 EPNdB below FAB Part 36.
One -word of caution. All our studies show
that regardless of how quiet we make the fu-
ture production aircraft, the overall com-
munity noise situation will not benefit sig-
nificantly until something la done to also re-
duce the noise of the JT3D and JT83D pow-
placed by a new generation of quieter air-
craft. It is also proposed that new aircraft
types manufactured after January 1, 1975
meet a noise level at least 16 EPNdB lower
than FAB 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'loglstlcally, to retrofit or re-
place current aircraft with quieter versions
meeting FAB 36 noise requirements by Janu-
ary 1, 1976. The existing fleet of aircraft in
question currently provides approximately
80% of the present TJ.S. domestic seat capac-
ity, and we estimate tliat In 1976 these air-
craft will still represent approximately 60%
of the domestic seat capacity.
Both the FAA and NASA are funding ex-
tensive programs to establish noise reductions
possible on 727, 737, DC-9, 707 and DC-8
aircraft through a retrofit program. The FAA
retrofit feasibility program includes nacelle
acoustical treatment and Jet suppressors
while the NASA program Includes nacelle-
treatment and new front fan engine modifi-
cations. Most of the JT8D powered aircraft
.(727, 737 and DC-9) could probably be retro-
fitted with nacelle treatment alone to meet
the noise limits of FAB 36. Because these
aircraft are at present so close to meeting the
FAB 36 requirement, however, the Improve-
ment resulting from such action would hard-
ly be perceptible to the human ear, and
thus would not provide any appreciable noise
relief to the airport communities. The cur-
rent FAA and NASA programs are planned
to accomplish reductions in Jet noise as well
as fan noise for both JT8D and JT3D pow-
ered aircraft in order to obtain meaningful
community noise reduction. Provided these
programs continue at adequate funding lev-
els, a decision on the appropriate action for
a retrofit program IB expected by late 1873 or
Please be assured of our vital interest In the
noise reduction question. We appreciate the
opportunity you have afforded us to comment
on your proposal, and we would be pleased
to participate In further discussions or In
any task force established to further define
future requirements for noise certification.
Sincerely,
B. H. TORELL,
Division President,
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division.
NORTH AMERICAN BOCKWELL,
El Segundo, Calif., September 15, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTJNNEY,
Committee on Public Works,
V.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Attention: Mrs. Jane Frank
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY : In Bob Anderson's
absence, I am replying to, your letter of Sep-
tember 8 asking for our comments on the ad-
ditions which are being proposed to the noise
pollution control act (3. 3342).
We are, of course, In general agreement
that control of airport noise Is an Important
objective and believe that industry would
welcome assistance from the Government in
the further development of noise abatement
technology. However, in view of the present
state of the art, we do not believe It Is de-
sirable to Incorporate firm requirements in
federal legislation at this time.
The specific questions which you have
asked concerning the technical and economic
aspects of retrofit can better be responded to
by those companies who manufacture com-
mercial aircraft. Our endeavors have been
limited to general aviation aircraft. Airplanes
of this type are a. smaller part of the overall
aircraft noise problem which Is dominated
by the large commercial aircraft. For one
thing, it Is not clear what portion of tne
airport noise problem results from the op-
eration or general aviation aircraft. In this
connection, we would particularly welcome
the opportunity to work with Government
to
Cn
8S
S
o
O
o
c-1
M
-------
erect aircraft ROW in the fleet. Those aircraft
must be considered along with future pro-
duction aircraft We recognize that the air-
lines do not have the resources to pay for
a noise retrofit program and. Investigations
to develop means of financing such a pro-
gram should be conducted along with the
research to develop the technology.
Frankly, I believe that other modifications
to Part 36 that are currently being consid-
ered, such as temperature/altitude accounta-
bility and requiring future production air-
craft 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 problem and requires
that all practical steps be taken to solve it.
I would pledge my support to a program to
develop such a modification.
We, at Douglas, will be most happy to
work with you and your people both directly
and through the Aerospace Industries Asso-
ciation to find solutions to this most serious
problem.
With best regards.
Sincerely^
JACKSON B. McGowEN.
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP.,
Hartford, Conn., September 16, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
Committee on Public Works. U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAB 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 con-
trol 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 FAB Part 36 after January 1,
1976, and that all aircraft which could not
be retrofitted economically to comply be re-
early 1974. On this basis, aircraft retroflt
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 retro-
fitted be replaced with new generation quiet-
er aircraft already tinder construction, there
are no new quiet aircraft under development
to directly replace the smaller 727/737/DC-9
class of aircraft or the 707/DC-8 aircraft serv-
ing low density routes. .Such new aircraft
are not likely to be available in quantities
earlier than the 1980's.
In the case of new aircraft/engine designs,
Industry does not have in hand either the
technology of adequate funds to accomplish
a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than FAB 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
KPNdB lower than FAB Part 36 for aircraft
manufactured in the late 1970's or early
1980'S.
We strongly recommend that prior to es-
•tabllshment of aircraft noise standards for
future application, a Joint task force, con-
sisting of FAA, NASA and industry person-
nel, be established to recommend the noise
levels which can be practically achieved with-
in the 1970 and 1980 time periods. We fur-
ther 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 ana sure you know, the United States
airlines have been suffering severe economic
problems for several years. The financial bur-
den of any prescribed retrofit program which
provides no economic return to the airlines
presents a major obstacle to its accomplish-
ment, and may require that the government
plan a significant role in making such a pro-
gram financially possible.
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 4,000-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 reduction. This has
contributed to the Impracticallty of working
up economies of retrofit or retirement and
replacement. ^
In general, taking into account the wide
spectrum between very small general avia^
tlon aircraft and the large commercial air-
liners as well as the limited technology re-
garding noise abatement, we believe that it is
premature to establish absolute standards
by legislation and that the flexibility per-
mitted by regulatory rather than legislative
control is desirable. A further point we would
make is that separation of authority over
noise control from responsibility for opera-
tional safety could lead to safety problems.
I am sorry that the timing of action by
your committee on this bill does not permit
us to give you a more extensive reply.
Sincerely,
WALLACE W. BOOTH.
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, INC.,
Washington, D.C., September 14, 1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTTNNET,
V.S. Senate,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAH SENATOR TUNNEY: We are In receipt
of your letter of September 8, 1972, Inform-
ing us of proposed amendments to 8.3342
calling for new aircraft noise reductions.
First, it Is the firm finding of our member
g
I
H
CO
O
M
CO
I
W
t—i
CO
bO
Cn
00
Ox
[p. S17997]
-------
companies, which make up the bulk of the
transport aircraft manufacturing industry
and as sucli 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 Develop-
ment Policy Study (CARD) published by the
Department of Transportation. Industry con-
siders this an attainable goal, providing the
costly technological development involved
continues to receive appropriate funding,
public and private.
Second, to prohibit any aircraft which
does not comply with the maximum stand-
ards 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 in-
tention of the Committee on Public Works.
It would certainly seem that further study
of these proposed measures would be in order.
For instance, in response to your inquiry
about the current state of technology with
respect to front fan treatment in addition
to nacelle treatment we can refer you to a
NASA contract awarded this year on this
very subject. The engine in question Is an
experimental rather than a production model,
however, and the results of that contract will
not be available for three years. Further-
more, 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 re-
ductions in aircraft engine noise during the
past several years and are acutely aware of
the need for further reductions. Unfortu-
nately the availability of the technology to
accomplish these additional decreases can-
not be effectively legislated.
We -urge you to delve into the existing
airline industry to support, and would re-
quire public funding.
(3) The January 1, 1976 date Is not feasi-
ble. The earliest achievable date in our opin-
ion 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 ap-
proach procedures. These revised procedures
offer a reasonable hope for more prompt re-
lief than could be accomplished through air-
craft retrofit.
(5) The proposed January 1, 1975 require-
ment 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 compliance with these lev-
els can be obtained. This cannot be done,
however, without adequate time to design
and test the specific hardware to be used.
The retrofit design must not only produce
the required noise levels, but must also be
thoroughly tested to assure continued opera-
tional safety and reliability required to
maintain airline service in the public
interest.
To avoid unnecessary waste of resources, it
is necessary to determine which retrofit ap-
proach is most effective and desirable. As you
note in your letter, there are two basic ap-
proaches to noise reduction now being
funded by the government: the nacelle and
Jet suppression treatment and the new front
fan design. The latter approach is most de-
sirable from, an operational point of view,
but it is already clear to us that the conver-
sion cost Is much higher. Given the magni-
tude of the retrofit problem, it would be un-
conscionable to make a forced choice between
these two approaches until thorough testing
of both solutions have been completed. This
process can be expected to take at least two
years at the rate at which the government
quired to comply with FAR 36 by January 1,
1976, it would be Impossible for us and other
airlines to meet the public need for trans-
portation and the requirements of our cer-
tificates of public convenience and necessity.
Under such restrictions we could not provide
service on a majority of the routes we are
certificated to serve. While It Is more difficult
and time-consuming to modify some types of
aircraft than others, the January 1, 1976 pro-
posal Is, in my opinion, impossible to achieve.
Regarding conclusion (4), we believe that
strict compliance with FAR 36 by engine or
nacelle retrofit may not be the most effective
way to reduce noise. There are several prom-
ising options to reduction of noise level by
altering take-off and approach procedures.
We have already Implemented new take-off
and approach procedures which have reduced
noise exposure, but considerably greater
progress can be achieved, we believe, through
our program of active testing, with support
from NASA, of two-segment approach pro-
cedures. We believe it can already be estab-
lished that noise relief of the magnitude
you seek is possible by the use of this tech-
nique. This approach offers the best hope,
in my opinion, of reasonably prompt relief
in the Los Angeles area.
Noise abatement achieved by revised ap-
proach procedures could resolve a significant
concern over another aspect of the retrofit
proposal. Specifically, the difference between
the current noise levels of certain aircraft
(in our case the 727's) and the requirements
of FAB 36 will be so minimal as to be almost
imperceptible to the public. It would be a
tragic waste of resources to effect this retro-
fit only to find that the public wholly un-
satisfied. Relief through modification of ap-
proach procedures may consequently offer a
better solution than retrofit, both in terms of
cost Impact and more prompt conformity
with FAR 36. This IB certainly true with re-
spect to the quieter of the older aircraft,
Buch as the 727's, and might provide an ac-
to
cn
00
Q
c-1
5
1—I
o
cn
d
hd
M
-------
knowledge on this subject and for your con-
venience Include a copy of an article on the
subject which appeared In the Association's
Aerospace Magazine.
In addition, we would again recommend
that the FAA, for reasons of safety, exercise
the primary responsibility, in consultation
with the EPA, for setting aircraft noise
.standards. In the present context, we would
urge also that the standards-setting agency
not be limited by legislated noise reduction
goals.
Yours very truly,
KARL G. HARK, Jr.
AMERICAN AIRLINES,
New York, N.Y., September 15,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY,
V.S. Senate,
Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you for the
opportunity to. comment on the proposed
modifications to the Noise Pollution Control
Act (S. 3342.) We are mindful of the need
to help develop solutions to the noise prob-
lem. Our commitment to this goal Is il-
lustrated by the fact that American Air-
lines developed the noise abatement speci-
fications that were built Into both the DC-
10 and L-1011.
Because of the admitted urgency of find-
ing a solution to noise developed by our old-
er aircraft, we have been studying this matr
ter 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
FAB 36 specifications, if sufficient time is
made available to do so.
(2) The cost of retrofit, even within t^ie
minimum time limits that we consider
achievable, is beyond the capability of the
has been funding these studies.
When the preferred approach is deter-
mined, our engineers estimate that It will
take at least three years from the time of de-
livery 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 ofrrattempts to
speed up this time span Increases at an enor-
mous rate and I would estimate that our
costs would double if, for example, a two-year
time period were required. For the same rea-
son, 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 the 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, which
is to replace these airplanes by that date, is
also unworkable. We would be required to
retire ninety-seven 707-type aircraft. Even
assuming that our route structure and traf-
fic 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 en-
tirely realistic estimates, I cannot in any good
conscience support a retrofit program of this
nature, unless it is accompanied by an out-
right financial grant to make this modifica-
tion 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 re-
ceptable 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 com-
ply with FAB 36 minus 15dB is in the opinion.
of our engineers totally unrealistic. Such a
requirement would necessitate the use of a
new engine vastly quieter than any now ex-
isting. 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 pro-
hibiting operation to the United States of
aircraft of foreign registry that do not com-
ply 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. SFATER.
TRANS WpRLD AIRLINES,
New York, N.Y., September 14,1972.
Hon. JOHN V. TTTNNEY,
U.S, Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Washington, D.C.
DEAB SENATOR TTTNNEY: TWA is pleased to
have this opportunity to respond to your
letter query of September 8 on the control
of aircraft noise.
As you know perhaps, TWA has been in-
strumental and successful through the years
in forcing the development of quieter and
more pollution free aircraft. TWA, along
with several other leading airlines, has al-
ways contractually required the incorpora-
tion of the latest noise attenuation technol-
ogy that is practical and effective when
procuring aircraft. This continues to be oui
CO
ftl
d
3
CO
a
CO
F
I
w
to
Ol
-2S
[p. S17998]
-------
policy and our objective. Current examples
of good progress are the Boeing 747 and
Lockheed 1011.
TWA has also studied the various pro-
grams and designs targeted toward the de-
velopment of retrofit technology which have
existed throughout the Jet age. It Is also
familiar with current programs including
the front fan and nacelle treatment pro-
grams mentioned In your letter. In. fact, TWA
Just completed a comprehensive review of
all known possibilities and programs last
week.
Through the years, TWA has encouraged
the development of those technologies which
stand to reduce external aircraft noise. It
was hoped that by now practical designs for
effectively reducing noise from the older air-
craft in our airport communities would be
in hand. This is not the case and, unfortu-
nately, 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 pre-
dicted noise improvements are so low as to
be completely cost ineffective or they are
impossibly expensive and would occur in a
time frame that would not permit comple-
tion 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 esti-
mated 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 & very appreciable amount. The
additions to S. 3342 would seem unnecessary
and duplicative.
TWA respectfully suggests that prior to
the inclusion of any language In S. 8342 on
aircraft noise alleviation requirements or
retrofit schedules .that an informal meeting
be held between you and/or your staff and
selected airline representatives. Such a meet-
Ing could serve to discuss and clarify sig-
nificant facets of retrofit to a greater extent
than isT>ractical in this letter. If you con-
sider such a meeting appropriate, TWA
would, of course, be happy to participate.
Very truly yours,
P. C. WISER.
INSTITUTE OF NOISE CONTROL ENGI-
NEERING,
Cambridge, Mass., September 18, 1972.
Senator JOHN V. TXJNNEY,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
(Attention: Mrs. Jane Frank).
DEAB 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 En-
gineering Board of the National Academy of
Engineering and upon Jet engine and airport
noise research in studies performed by me
and my colleagues as Bolt Beranek and New-
man Inc.
The current state of technology supports
the addition of language to S. 3343 that,
"No aircraft could land at U.S. airports after
1 January 1976, unless such aircraft com-
plied with the maximum noise level stand-
ards in Appendix C of Part 36 of the Federal
Aviation Regulation." However, the require-
ment that new aircraft meet a noise level 16
EPNdB lower than the FAR Part 36 stand-
ard by 1 January 1975 Is Incompatible with
development, manufacturing, and certlfloa-
status of acoustical technology pertinent to
the subject of aircraft retrofit and new air-
craft development.
Sincerely,
LEO L. BERANEK,
President, INCE.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I with-
draw the amendment.
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 reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 90, line 21, following "SEC. 602.",
Insert "(a)".
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 thte 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-
to
Oi
00
oo
o
>
f
o
o
1-3
t— t
o
y,
w
-------
capital costs alone would result In a mini-
mum 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 beer, 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 ac-
ceptability by human ears on a controlled
empirical basis. History shows that meters
and forecasted results simply are not re-
liable in this regard. In no event should
retrofit programs or implantation 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 totally
unrealistic and cannot be achieved. At this
- time it is impossible to rationally set a date
for the mandatory achievement of this ob-
jective. Applicable technologies must be ad-
vanced, noise reduction effectivity deter-
mined by flight tests and economic feasi-
bility established first. Any language addi-
tions to S. 3342 along the lines suggested in
your letter of Septemb.er 8 are premature
and ill advised.
As to the proposed requirement that new-
types of -aircraft manufactured after Janu-
ary 1, 1975 comply with noise standards 15
EpnDB less than FAB 36 App. C., TWA un-
derstands this subject is currently being con-
sidered by the PAA. 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
tion schedules and possibly bqypnd the state
of art of noise-control technology for large
transport aircraft. A careful look at avail-
able noise control technology and at the
length of time it takes 'for manufacturing
and certification schedules to be accom-
plished, convinces me that new aircraft could
realistically be required to meet noise regu-
lations that are 10 EPNdB lower than FAB
Fart 36 by 1 January 1978. In making this
statement I have not balanced the techno-
logical and time schedule against economic
considerations because I feel that this bal-
ance must be made by government and not
by engineering people. A 15 EPNdB reduction
below FAB Part 36 might be feasible by 1982,
but further study is necessary to confirm this
statement.
I strongly recommend that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency be given the re-
sponsibility for specifying and enforcing
noise exposure criteria for communities near
airports. Although, the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration and the Department of Trans-
portation along with NASA have supported
technology development in this area, the
FAA has shunned the responsibility for set-
ting aircraft community noise exposure cri-
teria. The EPA chould 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 aeronau-
tics research, and with the FAA, which has
the ultimate responsibility for the refine-
ment and application of aviation technology
to the civil air transportation system.
If the Noise Pollution Control Act is still
an issue during the next session of Congress,
my colleagues in this country, in particular
the NAE Board, INCE, and Bolt Beranek and
Newman Inc. and other research companies
would be pleased to provide you with de-
tailed comments in regard to the present
resentatives, and the Committees on Com-
merce, Finance, and Public Works of the
Senate by July 1, 1973, .together with his
recommendations for whatever legislation
may be required.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I believe
this amendment is noncontroversial, and
I hope that the distinguished Senator
from California and the distinguised
Senator from Delaware will agree to
accept it.
This amendment requires the Secretary
of Transportation to submit to the Con-
gress by next July J, a report on the var-
ious means of financing the retrofitting
of jet aircraft, and to recommend appro-
priate legislation to achieve that goal.
While the Federal Government al-
ready has ample authority to promulgate
noise standards for existing aircraft, no
action has yet been taken officially to
finance the means of' meeting these
standards. Depending on the extent of
retrofitting, the estimated cost will be be-
tween one billion dollars and two and
one-half billion dollars. And, no matter
what the ultimate financing • plan, the
Federal Government will have a role to
play, if only .because airlines are a
regulated industry.
The retrofitting/financing issue already
has received considerable attention in
Congress, the executive branch, and the
industry itself.
On August 2,1971,1 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 Airway Development
[p. S17999]
g
t—i
en
fel
H3
S
CO
f
6=1
I
W
I— I
GO
fcO
Oi
00
CO
-------
Act of 1970 as well as an increase from.
8 to 10 percent in the air user tax.
My colleague Senator CRANSTON intro-
duced 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 financing through fare in-
creases, stepped-up tax depreciation,
and assumption of the costs by the air-
lines themselves, among others. There
are advantages and disadvantges 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 pro-
posal. Ultimately, I believe that the fi-
nancing package will include a mix of
several of the proposals that have been
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 under-
standing that such a study is already
under review within the executive
branch, ineluding the Department of
Treasury and the Office of Management
and Budget. Thus, adoption of this
amendment will not require the execu-
tive branch to undertake a new study.
It will simply set a date of July 1, 1973,
for its completion, and require that leg-
islative recommendations be made to the
Congress if the Secretary of Transpor-
tation finds legislation to be necessary.
The amendment designates that Sec-
retary of Transportation conduct the
study because his Department has been
in the forefront of administration efforts
to reduce aircraft noise. Specifically, the
So I am going to be able to accept this
amendment on behalf of the committee.
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 consider
Government subsidies.
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator is correct.
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 amendment. I want
to say again that I am very much en-
couraged that the Senator from Cali-
fornia (Mr. TUNNEY) and the Senator
from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS) are in the
leadership role on this particularly im-
portant issue because it is so important
to so many people across this country
to have their understanding and sym-
pathetic leadership on this important
legislation. It is a matter of great con-
solation 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 Sen-
ate 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 leader-
ship 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
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 these same aircraft from land-
ing in U.S. airports unless they meet the
same noise emission standards which now
are required for subsonic aircraft under
PAA regulations.
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. PAA regulations now per-
mit a maximum noise level of 108
EPNDB for subsonic aircraft. Measure-
ment of the emission level of the Con-
corde places it in a range between 114
and 120 EPNDB.
When measured on a logarithmic scale,
as noise calculations are made, the Con-
corde will produce between six and 12
times more noise than is permitted 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 mak-
ing our environment more livable will
suffer a serious setback. Though a single
Concorde produces the same noise when
it lands as 10 747's, it carries only 150
passengers 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-
fcO
Cn
CO
o
Q
>
tr1
i
I—I
o
-------
Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Plan
has been developed by the Office of Noise
Abatement within the Office of the Sec-
retary of Transportation.
The amendment also authorizes the
Secretary to consult with other appro-
priate Government and private agencies
and individuals. Since the Federal Avia-
tion Administration is within the De-
partment of Transportation, it goes
without saying that the FAA would be
asked to contribute its extensive exper-
tise in the formulation of the financing
proposals.
Again, Senators should understand
that this amendment complements plans
already established by the executive
branch to develop both the technology
and financing of aircraft retrofitting. Its
effect is simply to emphasize Congress
continuing interest in this vital issue,
and to make sure that Federal programs
will proceed quickly, so that citizens
across the Nation 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 distinguished Sen-
ator from Massachusetts. I think it is a
good amendment. It demonstrates once
again the leadership role that the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts has played in
this area. It is quite true that studies are
going on in the executive branch. How-
ever, 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.
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Massachusetts.
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 follows:
On page 95, between lines 21 and 22, insert
the following:
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 pro-
posals restricting supersonic transports
such as the English-French Concorde and
the Russian TU-144 in flights over and
landings in U.S. territory.
The first of my proposals, prohibiting
flight at supersonic speeds over the
United States and its territorial waters or
the contiguous zone, has been incorpo-
rated into the bill we are now consider-
ing and I think that is one of the fine
features of this measure.
I will not take up the time of this body
in outlining the need for such a restric-
tion, other than to point out that if the
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 European supersonic
transports? The aircraft noise problem
was realized, yet work continued on the
Concorde. Britain and France had no
reason to believe 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 ques-
tions about jurisdiction of FAA that have
been involved in some of the controversy
relating to this bill. I believe it is vitally
necessary to protect both the American
aircraft industry and the people who live
around airports from this particular
problem and the threat it poses to them.
If these planes start coming into
American airports no one will know ex-
actly what they are and there will be a
new uprising at and around airports that
will threaten our ability to continue air-
port operations; there will be new law-
suits 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. S1SOOO]
o
h-f
w
M
H
e<
O
f1
H
a
H
W
to
Cn
-------
amendment with my distinguished sen-
ior colleague. I have not had an oppor-
tunity to consult with the distinguished
Senator from, Delaware. As far as the
majority side of the committee is con-
cerned, 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 ony fair and
there is no reason why the citizens of
our country who live adjacent to inter-
national airports should be subjected to
the deafening roar of supersonic air-
craft 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, before
the Senator accepts the amendment I
would like to sound a note of caution.
This type amendment can be very im-
portant with respect to International ne-
gotiations and the international aspects
of air transportation. I would simply
caution my friends that I hope they have
considered this iii consultation with the
State Department to try to take into full
account what the implications are that
might be involved.
I can see that if a foreign air carrier is
denied the right to fly any place in the
United States with- a particular aircraft,
they might then impose the same type
of refusal to fly all of our aircraft in for-
eign countries. This could be much more
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. CANNON. .This is certainly a sub-
ject that comes under the jurisdiction of
my Aviation Subcommittee. If the Sena-
tor is not of a mind to pres this amend-
ment at this time I would assure him
that we would hold hearings 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 important area of concern to our
State Department and it is an important
area of concern to U.S. carriers, and per-
haps there should be some area defining
what could be done at someplace In the
country that would not be affected. If
the Senator would care not to press the
amendment my committee can hold
hearings next year and consider these
aspects and then if it is of a mind to do
something, we would have the time be-
cause they are not going to ,be able to
fly in here until next year.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator
for his concern. It would seem to me that
if we were producing planes that would
be as noisy as foreign supersonic planes
when landing and taking off at subsonic
levels of speed, we would recognize the
right of other countries if they have
standards to exclude them.
I do not believe other nations will re-
taliate against us in a totally arbitrary
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. Certainly, I
grant that it is a possibility. 'What I
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
PAA to give what I regard as adequate
assurance to the neighborhoods and com-
munities near airports of its considera-
tion 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 geographical
boundaries, but outside the community
where it is located and others adjacent
to it, and is properly concerned about ex-
pansion without due consideration of
the needs and interests of the residents.
I have been unable to get .the kind of
assurance that I think these communi-
ties 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 questions he
raised, no supersonic planes will be
to
cn
bO
Q
o
o
VI
d
H
-------
devastating to us than to them because
we have the largest air carrier system
in the world today, and it would be our
carriers that would be affected if retali-
atory action were taken.
Again, I am sounding a note of caution.
I am not going to call for a rollcall vote
if the Senate wants to accept it, but this
is something that may have very grave
implications in the field of international
air transportation and may result in a
very detrimental 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
country.
Mr.,TUNNEY. I appreciate the Sen-
ator from Nevada raising those points. I
think they^are points that have been con-
sidered 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 emission 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 for-
eign aircraft landing at our airports be
subject to the same standards of health
and welfare that our domestic lines are
required to adhere to.
would prefer to do is to proceed with the
amendment, but also to proceed in con-
junction with the Senator to see if there
might be problems that could indicate a
modiflcatio.n 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 affecting
people who live around airports and in
the long run we may find the American
aircraft industry suffers as a result of
the noise, with the accompanying law-
suits that would.tie up the airports.
My friend and colleague from Califor-
nia 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 committee. He said as
far as he is concerned, the minority on
the committee is perfectly willing to ac-
cept the amendment.
Mr. CASE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. TtJNNEY. 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 to-
day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Bill Hancock of
my staff be allowed on the floor today
and tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. I support the Senator's
ready to land in this country until 1.975
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 modi-
fications.
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 question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON) .
The yeas and nays have been, ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
BIBLE), the Senator from Louisiana
(Mrs. EDWARDS), the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS) , the Senator, from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , the Sen-
ator from South Dakota (Mr. McGov-
ERN) , the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. MCINTYRE) , the Senator from Mon-
tana (Mr. METCALP), the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MtrsKis), and the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE) is absent
on official business.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from West Vir-
[p. S18001]
o
h—t
en
00
CO
£
H
B
to
Oi
CO
00
-------
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOIT),
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BAKER), the Senators from Nebraska
(Mr. CURTIS and Mr. HRUSKA) , the Sena-
tor from Oregon (Mr. HATPIELD), the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) ,
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. STAF-
FORD), and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOK) is absent on official business.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of Illness.
The Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD-
WATER) is detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) would vote
"yea."
On this vote, the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) is paired with the
Senator from Arizona -(Mr, GOLDWATER) .
If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska would vote "yea" and the Sen-
ator from Arizona would vote "nay."
The result was announced—yeas 62,
nays 17, as follows:
Allen
Anderson
Bayh
BeaU
Bentsen
Boggs
Brock
Brooke
Buckley
Burdlck
Byrd,
Harry F.. Jr.
Byrd, Robert O.
[No. 553 Leg.
TEAS— 62
Eagleton
Ervln
Fulbright
Gambrell
Gravel
Grlffln
Gurney
Hansen
Hart
Hartfce
Hughes
Humphrey
. Ixiouye
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
PeU
Percy
Proxmlre
Rlblcofl
Roth
Schweiker
Smith
Sparkman
Spong
stexmls
railroads and motor carriers which oper-
ate from coast to coast and through all
the States, and in hundreds of commu-
nities and localities.
Without some degree of uniformity,
provided by Federal regulations of coun-
trywide applicability which will by stat-
ute preempt and supersede any different
State and local regulations or standards,
there would be great confusion and
chaos. Carriers, if there were not Federal
preemption, would be subject to a great
variety of differing and perhaps incon-
sistent standards and requirements from
place to place. This would be excessively
burdensome and would not be in the
public interest.
At the same time, States and localities
ought to have and retain the power to
develop and enforce noise standards and
regulations that are needed and designed
to meet special local situations even
though such standards and regulations
may differ from the Federal rules.
The problem, of course, is to strike a
proper balance that will take account of
and protect all of these interests.
My amendment will do this. In essence
it merely clarifies the intention of the
bill as already stated in the committee
report at page 19. The Federal regula-
tions will, as a general proposition, super-
sede and preempt State and local stand-
ards that are different, but States and
localities would be left with the right to
establish and enforce such differing
standards and controls, and even license
or restrict the use and operation of
equipment, to the extent necessitated by
special local conditions and not in con-
flict with the Federal regulations. These
Do I correctly understand that the
amendment as modified .reads "neces-
sitated by special and local condi-
tions or"?
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. HARTKE. I yield.
Mr. CANNON. May we have some kind
of explanation?
Mr. HARTKE. This amendment ap-
plies to an interstate carrier that moves
across the Nation. It provides that they
shall not be subjected to and harassed
by unreasonable standards in separate
localities. It provides that local commu-
nities can still have standards which are
more strict than those at the Federal
level, but that there shall be a standard
in the regulations that shall be governed
by such items which are necessities to
deal with the local noise conditions.
Otherwise, the trains and the carriers
coming through could have 75 different
regulations which would apply to them.
Mr. CANNON. Do I correctly under-
stand, then, that the Senator is modify-
ing the preemption provision that is now
in the bill? It says that a local commu-
nity could establish a different and more
stringent standard than the national
standards?
Mr. HARTKE. It would be a limitation
on the local communities to the extent
that It was necessitated by local condi-
tions. In other words, we need some type
of national standard for these carriers
which are moving from State to State.
Mr. CANNON. I still do not under-
stand.
Let me ask the Senator this: Does the
amendment say that the local coznmu-
to
p
f
o
o
in
3
IT)
s
w
-------
Chiles
Church
Copper
Cottoil,
Cranston
Dole
Dominlck
Aiken
Bellnion
Bennett
Cannon
Eastland
Fannin
Allott
Baker
Bible
Cook
Curtis
Edwards
Goldwater
Jisrdan, N.Q Stevens
Jordan, Idaftvo Ste&ensp:;^
Mansfield SyrnlilgtQii
Mathias Talniadge
Miller "Plua^mond1
Mondale 'Eunney
Montoya Wetcker
Nelson Williams
NAYS—17
Foiig McClellan
Hollings Moss
Jackson Saxbe
Javits Taft
Long Young
Maguuspn
NOT VOTING—21
Harris
Hatfield
Hruska
Kennedy
McGee
McGovern
Mclntyre
Metcalf
Mundt
Muskie
Randolph
Scott
Stafford
Tower
So Mr. CRANSTON'S amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows :
Line 1 on page 98, insert after the words
"to be" the words "necessitated by special
local conditions and . . ."
Line 12 on page" 100, insert after the words
"to be" the words "necessitated by special
local conditions and . . ."
Mr. HARTKE. -Mr. President/ one of
the basic purposes of title V of this bill,
as explained in the committee report, is
to assure the maximum practical uni-
formity in regulating the noise charac-
teristics of interstate carriers such as the
determinations, agaiijin order to achieve
desirable and reasonable uniformity in
carrier equipment and carrier opera-
tions, would be subject to review by the
Environmental Protection Administrator
in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation.
Mr. President, I have discussed this
matter with the manager of the bill, and
I think the wording of the bill is in con-
formity with what the manager thinks
is the intent of the bill.
Mr. TUNNEY. It is my understanding
that this amendment would substantially
strengthen the Federal preemption.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to modify the
amendment to delete the word "and" at
the end of the sentence and include the
word "or".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is so modified.
Mr. TUNNEY. Could the Senator in-
dicate what the effect of that modifica-
tion of his amendment would be?
Could the clerk restate the amend-
ment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
Line 1 on page 98—insert after the words
"to be" the words "necessitated by special
local conditions and . . ."
Line 12 on page 100—insert after the words
"to be" the words "necessitated by special
local conditions and . . ."
Mr. TUNNEY. That was my under-
standing of the original amendment.
nity can modify by reducing or increas-
ing tme amount of the national standard
that is prescribed by either EPA or by
EPA and the FAA?
Mr. HARTKE. No. It says, in effect,
that, the Federal Government shall pre-
empt, generally speaking, all the local
situations to the extent that they pre-
scribe the standard. If a local commu-
nity, urider the bill presently, wants to
prescribe standards which are at a high-
er level than Federal standards, it is per-
mitted to do so.
This amendment- says that shall be
permitted only to the extent necessitated
by local conditions—in other words, that
they cannot put an unreasonable burden
on a train, a bus, or a motor carrier
coming through a community. Otherwise,
there will be chaos in this industry. All
of this is subject to the ultimate control
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
But they cannot lower the standards.
Mr. TUNNEY. I should like to make
sure that I understand what the differ-
ence is between the amendment as orig-
inally offered and as modified.
Mr. President, could the clerk restate
the amendment as modified?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the amendment as modified.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
Line 1 on page 98—insert after the words
"to be" the words "necessitated by special
local conditions or . .."
Line 12 on page 100—insert after the words
"to be" the words "necessitated by special
local conditions or..."
[p. S18002]
i
CO
H
O
n
cc
I
i
K
hH
O
10
Cn
CO
-Oi
-------
Mr. TUNNEY. The Senator has dis-
cussed this matter with the committee
stuff, and it is my understanding that the
amendment would not strengthen the
preemption as it Is in the bill. Is that
correct?
Mr. HARTKE. The amendment still
would provide that the Federal regula-
tions would generally rule. The bill pro-
vides at the present time that local stand-
ards can be provided which are at a
higher level than Federal levels.
This amendment says, basically, that
to the extent that they are necessitated
by special locaj conditions, they can do
so. In other words, when you have a
motor carrier going through, and if they
are following the Federal standards and
then are going to go ahead and have some
local community put in an unreasonable
standard, you might stop the whole op-
eration of the interstate carrier.
This amendment also provides and still
preserves that any regulation of this
kind, before the preemption by the Fed-
eral Government would be effective,
would still be subject to review by the
Department of Transportation and by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
In other words, the intent of it is in
general accord with the bill, but at the
same time to provide some type of uni-
formity for these interstate carriers.
Mr. TUNNEY. The committee, on page
19 of its report, indicated that the Fed-
eral regulatory program for railroads
under this part completely preempts the
authority of the State and local govern-
ments to regulate such noise after the
effective date of adequate Federal stand-
the amendment, unless we have It cleared
up, could establish something that would
be absolutely impossible for buses or
tracks to go through that territory. That
is the trouble with this. We are get-
ting into it so deeply that all the cities
and towns now have regulations. I think
we had better know what we are doing
here. Sometimes, I think, some people
around here would like to tie up all trans-
portation because somebody makes a
noise. But if one starts an engine run-
ning, it has to make some noise. I do not
like noise. No one else likes noise either,
but if we are going to start out making
all these regulations about noise, that
might tie up the whole thing. I do not
know whether this amendment does that.
We have preempted local people many
times. That is traditional, particularly
with many standards, and if they want
to be tougher they can, but there should
be a minimum. Is that what the Senator
is trying to do?
Mr. HARTKE. That is right. We have
done the same thing. This is what the
framers of the bill intended. That is what
is sought in the report. What we are say-
ing is that we are not creating an un-
reasonable burden but at the same time
we want to protect the rights of the Fed-
eral Government to proceed to establish
the standards.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We have gone
through this for years. It used to be that
every State had different regulations on
trucks as to the weight, size, how they
would go, the number of axles, and so
forth. At one time there were 36 differ-
ent regulations. A truck going between
have we driven aiound and there will be
a big sign "Quiet, hospital zone"?
Mr. TUNNEY. This would give the
Administrator
Mr. MAGNUSON. A truck slows down
for a little bit and does not make as
much noise. But we are getting deeper
into things here. Who will handle all
this?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that Mr. Michael Heifer of
my staff be permitted the privilege of
the floor during debate on this bill and
the spending bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BEALL) . Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I should
like to say in conclusion that I have
studied this amendment and it in no
way violates the principle of preemption
which the Senator was pushing for as
part of the bill. As a matter of fact, the
language suggested by the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) is almost the
exact language in the committee report
and has now been put into the bill.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That might be a
step forward but on some of these things
we should watch what we are doing here
in the last few hours of this session.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, would this permit the EPA
Director to tell the man on the freight
train not to blow his whistle going
through a town or what the noise level
should be?
Mr. TUNNEY. He has to do it in con-
junction with the Secretary of Trans-
portation.
to
Or
CD
Oi
O
f
CO
d
ha
Hi
-------
ards, except'where the administrator de-
termines it to be necessitated by special
local conditions or not in conflict with
the regulations under this part.
Do I correctly understand that what
the Senator is doing Is merely clarifying
in the bill the intention of the commit-
tee as expressed in the report? As I read
the language, it would seem to be doing
just that.
Mr. HARTKE. That is exactly right.
In other words, it follows the Intent of
the report. It follows the Intent of the
bill, generally speaking. The wording
musu be changed to be in accord with the
intent of the report as well.
Mr. TUNNEY. The committee clearly
wanted to allow it, but to make excep-
tions if it is determined it was necessi-
tated by special local conditions.
Mr. HARTKE. That is exactly right.
Mr. TUNNEY. As I understand the
language, it is necessitated by local con-
ditions that they are not in conflict with
regulations promulgated under the bill
and is consistent with what they in-
tended.
Mr. HARTKE. That is right.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, that
Is the trouble with the bill. It has not
been thought out properly in many re-
spects. Now we are getting down to sur-
face transportation, and if we do not
watch out, it will completely deny—there
are 50 different regulations on interstate
trucks, or railroads, or buses traveling
across the country. We can have some
minimum standards. The cities and
towns now have their own standards.
Some one city or some one town under
States, going across the country, might
have 15 different things to do, such as
throwing off part of the' cargo, or doing
this or that. We worked for years through
State organizations, and finally we have
pretty much uniform laws now.
If this is going to be a uniform law
on noise relating to surface transporta-
tion, that is fine-
Mr. HARTKE. That is what It does.
Mr. MAGNUSON. A number of towns
today have certain ordinances that a
railroad train cannot blow its whistle
going through at night because it will
wake the people up and that will be
disastrous to them, because they could
not get back to sleep. Many things hap-
pen on account of that. Many, many
things happen. We finally had to
straighten that out. 1 hope that this will
be a step toward uniformity in this whole
field. But I do not know whether it will
be. Does the Senator from California
think it will be?
Mr. TUNNEY. I have' reviewed the
amendment and it is in comf ormity with
what the committee intended. The report
states there is a complete preemption
and also orders the administrator in con-
junction with the Secretary of Trans-
portation to grant exemptions where
there are special local conditions. So it
is clear it is a total preemption. We
should also recognize that there may be
local conditions which would necessitate
that the national standard should not
apply.
Mr. HARTKE. That is a local ordi-
nance.
Mr. MAGNUSON. How many times
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Yes.
In other words, we will tell the man on
the freight train how many times he can
blow his whistle, two short, or three long,
or whatever it is, or not three long. This
is going to get us into hot water wher-
ever we go on this. I think it is totally
beyond what we started out with on this
airport bill.
Mr. TUNNEY. The reason we put this
language into the bill was that we wanted
to make it clear that it was Federal pre-
emption for interstate trades and the
railroads. It was not initially in the bill,
so we put in the preemption so that, we
would give the railroads and the carriers
some awareness and some security that
they would not have to abide by 50 dif-
ferent State jurisdictions and Lord knows
how many tens of thousands of local
jurisdictions. It is in the bill now. It is
a complete preemption.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Then
this applies to trucks, automobiles, to
everyone. They are all in there.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I yield
back my time.
Mr. HARTKE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BEALL) . The question is on agreeing to
the amendment of the Senator from
Indiana.
The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BEALL). The bill is open to further
amendment. If there be no further
amendment to be proposed, the question
is on agreeing to the committee amend-
ment as amended.
I
^
H
CO
o
M
cn
|
H
w
(—(
CO
O
to
Oi
CO
-------
The amendment as amended was
agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, it is with
great reluctance that I support the'pro-
visions 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 Committee and because of
the lateness of the date the Commerce
Committee and the Aviation Subcom-
mittee, which I chair, has had no oppor-
tunity whatsoever to formally consider
it, nor have we had a chance to hold
hearings on some of the issues which the
bill presents.
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 transportation
as affected by.the bill. The Committee on
Commerce has sole and total jurisdiction
over civil aeronautics, we have the re-
sponsibility to protect the safety of the
public from transportation disaster—
airline crashes—as well as from unwar-
ranted noise, but Mr. President, we are
in a position of having a bill forced on
us at a late hour in this session because
of the fact that the American public and
this Congress wants relief from noise.
Mr. President, the 'goals of this legis-
lation are laudable and every Member of
the Senate, of course, can support them.
in the bill. While I appreciate very much
the support and the kindness shown me
and the committee on this matter by the
Senator from California, I still have
grave concern about the bill itself. The
Committee on Commerce in executive
session decided that while it would waive
jurisdiction of the bill, it would offer a
floor amendment substituting the 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, work-
able and a step forward 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 environ-
ment were mobilized in strong opposition
to our position and were unwilling to
support passage of the House language.
Therefore, very reluctantly, Senator
MAGNUSON and I and others- in the com-
mittee determined 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 amend-
ment1 seeking to insert the House lan-
guage, on this matter and has reluctant-
ly agreed to support the language which
the Tunney amendment to the bill pres-
ently contains. Nonetheless, it is impor-
tant to note 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
governmental agencies both having vast-
ly different responsibility. Under the
Tunney proposal, as it is amended, the
kind of program could be very expen-
sive, 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 de-
termined the feasibility and the practi-
cability 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 air-
craft noise control despite what some of
the critics might have you believe. The
PAA has recently adopted new regula-
tions relating to the way aircraft are
flown, the flight paths that must be fol-
lowed and the flight regimens which must
be maintained by the crews. These new
regulations will result in aircraft being-
kept higher over our urban areas which
will greatly reduce the- amount of noise
reaching the ground. The airlines them-
selves are beginning on their own ini-
tiative to impose certain flying charac-
teristics on their airplanes and crews
which result in reductions in power, con-
sistent with safety, and of course pro-
tect the public from excessive noise.
These things are being done today and
they will /xxntinue to be done whether
this bill is passed or not. But I also rec-
ognize that there is great sentiment
within the Government and from with-
out, 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 convinced of its wisdom
in the area of regulating aircraft noise,
therefore, my reservations with the Tun-
ney. bill. But in the spirit of cooperation
and in the spirit of wanting to see noise
bO
Ol
CO
00
Q
o
o
tr1
>
H
O
CB
d
f
fci
M
-------
The public wants and needs protection
from noise from all sources, not only
aircraft, but from other transportation
vehicles and from other sources in every-
one's daily lives. The bill before the Sen-
ate today, however, as it relates to
regulation of aircraft is far reaching in
its scope and is inconsistent with a deci-
sion of Congress in 1958 in which we
decided that aviation safety was of such
paramount concern, that all Govern-
ment regulation and control of aviation
had to be vested in one single agency.
The bill before us today negates that
ba'sic principle which I believe is still
sound. But more importantantly the
process, as it has worked, has com-
pletely circumvented 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 juris-
diction on the matter and to simply
acquiese in the action of the Public
Works Committee which is before the
Senate today. In the spirit of coopera-
tion, although feeling deeply about it,
we did acquiese. We waived the juris-
dictional rights of our committee.
The Senator from California has been
most gracious in meeting with me and
discussing my concerns with the legis-
lation 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
regulation of aircraft noise will be split
between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration. It is my view that any legisla-
tion which provides for fractionated au-
thority to regulate inJjhe public welfare
is weak. It leads to oiffusion, delay, in-
action, bickering back and forth and
often ineffective regulations. A far pref-
erable situation would be to leave this
authority within the Federal Aviation
Administration, the supreme authority
in the field of air commerce, and charge
the administration with increasing its
activities to regulate noise from aircraft.
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 trans-
portation industry in trying to quiet its
products. s
There is no doubt that the industry
and the FAA have made significant prog-
ress, as we all know. The new genera-
tion of jet aircraft equipment is quieter
than older aircraft by half; promising
breakthroughs on other phases are being
made at this time. Technology appar-
ently has been developed which might
make it possible to reequip older jet air-
craft with quieter engines, without com-
promising safety and reliability, and fly-
ing characteristics. But the costs of this
legislation enacted during this session of
Congress, Lwill vote for it despite my
doubts of its wisdom.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I be-
lieve that certain important distinctions
must be kept in mind in considering the
merits of the Environmental Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972 as reported out by the
Committee on Public Works.
The general responsibility of the Fed-
eral Government in the area of environ-
mental protection is now generally rec-
ognized; but having said that, it then
becomes necessary to distinguish be-
tween the various kinds of pollution
which, taken together, adversely affect
the human and natural environment, so
that we can properly assess the extent
of the role which the Federal Govern-
ment ought to be asked to play in order
to bring the various components of en-
vironmental pollution under appropriate
control.
If one State or community is negli-
gent in its approach to air and water
pollution, the environment of other
States will be adversely affected because
the movement of water and air is un-
affected by State lines. In most in-
stances, however, the sources of noise
pollution do not have an interstate im-
pact. You can generate quite a bit of
noise in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., before the
neighbors in New Jersey and Connecti-
cut will have cause for complaint.
The following provisions of the bill,_
in my view, go beyond what is the ap-'
propriate or useful role of the Federal
Government in reducing the level of
[p. S18004]
§
I
>
i-3
d
CO
tr1
H
W
t-H
m
1-3
O
to
at
-co
-------
noise in the environment. The benefits
of certain of these provisions in achiev-
ing the objectives of the legislatiorr at
reasonable costs to the taxpayer; that
is, administrattve~expenses, and to the
consumer; that is, increased product
costs, are probably of marginal signifi-
cance. Other provisions represent ex-
pensive Federal intrusion even which are
fully within the competence in State or
local governments to compel, or into the
private production and marketing of
consumer goods.
To cite some examples:
Section 408, that provision which di-
rects the Administrator to promulgate
noise emission standards for categories
of new products which he has found to
be major sources of environmental noise,
gives the Administrator authority to con-
trol over a broad variety of products
which can be or already are effectively
controlled at a lower level of govern-
ment. Section 408 allows him to promul-
gate standards for construction equip-
ment, transportation equipment, motors
or engines, electrical and electronic
equipment, among others. This permits
yet another agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment to Influence the design features
of a wide variety of occupational equip-
ment and consumer products. Mr. Presi-
dent, in my view it is not the proper con-
cern of the Federal Government to at-
tempt to control those forms of environ-
menal pollution which can be controlled
effectively by city ordinance or State-
regulations. It is clear that in the case
of air pollution and water pollution the
Federal Government does have a neces-
I also object strongly to the so-called
"preemption" provision in section 408
which prohibits any State or local gov-
ernment from adopting or enforcing any
noise emission standard which is not
identical to the standard prescribed by
the EPA Administrator. It is true that
this section does not preclude or deny
the right of any State or city to estab-
lish controls on environmental noise
through the licensing, regulation or re-
striction of the use, operation, or move-
ment of any product for which EPA has
set emission controls. This limits the
ability of State or local authorities to ap-
ply one of the most efficient devices for
controlling noise.
A number of other prosvisions in this
bill strike me as unnecessary and only
marginally useful in controlling the level
of noise in our environment. Some of
these represent unnecessary Federal
meddling into the production of con-
sumer goods. They are the imposition of
product warranties on a manufacturer,
extensive labeling requirements, costly
recordkeeping, and recording."
I also question whether it is wise for
Congress to launch into yet another
grant-in-aid program for noise control as
provided in section 418. Would it not be
better for the Federal Government to
use the limited amount of money which
would be available to enhance the tech-
nical assistance and the information
base which would be of great value to
State and local authorities?
Finally, section 419 authorizes $5
million for incentive- purchases of low
noise emission -products. The provision
the United States. By all indications, they
have done an excellent job. A recent ex-
perience 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 implementing 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
effect all of the Federal Government's
environmental policies. It is, therefore,
appropriate that the EPA should set the
emission standards for the control 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, including tak-
ing into consideration a judgment on the
cost of compliance should be made solely
by the EPA. Of course, the FAA because
of its responsibilities for air safety,
should have a veto over any standard
promulgated by EPA if the Administra-
tor 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 appropriate au-
thority, subject to the appropriate FAA
veto where questions of safety are con-
cerned. To this extent, the bill is con-
structive. But unfortunately, its funda-
mental effects far exceed the good;
defects are too extensive to be subject to
corrections through amendments offered
on the floor.
to
OJ
o
o
o
o
o
-------
sary and legitimate role. These pollu-
tants are not constrained by artificial po-
litical boundaries. Air blows freely from
State to State. Almost all streams or
their tributaries cross State lines. Noise,
on he other hand, is a very peculiar kind
of polluant. Noise does not accumulate
in the environment; it dissipates almost
immediately. It would be the execption
rather than the rule if noise crossed
Sate or city lines.
I believe the Federal role ought to be
restricted to the control of noise levels
in automobiles, aircraft, trucks, and
other products which in their normal use
can be expected to cross political bound-
aries. It is on this basis that I can sup-
port those sections of this bill which au-
thorize the establishment of Federal en-
vironmental regulations to control noise
emissions from aircraft, railroads,
motor carriers, and other transportation
vehicles. However, I do not see why the
Environmental Protection Agency ought
to be in the business of setting emission
standards for consumer goods which are
used in the home, and equipment used in
industry where workers are already pro-
tected through the Occupational Health
and Safety Act. A number of communi-
ties, the city of Chicago is outstanding
among them and New York City is about
to follow suit, have established effective
noise control codes which protect the
public from the damaging effects of ex-
cessive noise. There is every reason to
believe that this trend will spread to
other communities and thereby obviate
the need for a larger Federal program.
Is simply not necessary in order to
achieve desired reduction of noise levels
and it represents a large proportion of
the total authorization for the program.
These resources could be used more ef-
fectively elsewhere.
AIRCRAFT NOISE
If reports from my constituents who
live in New York's great metropolitan
areas are any indication, it is the noise
emitted from aircraft flyovers which rep-
resents the most objectionable form of
noise pollution. It has historically been
the role of the Federal Government, act-
ing through the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, to control all aspects of air
commerce. This helps to establish the
validity of a Federal program to con-
trol 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 controlling
aircraft noise, it is my personal prefer-
ence to have no bill at all.
The major controversial issue in con-
structing an effective and responsible
Federal program for aircraft noise emis-
sion control is which agency shall have
the authority to set those admission
standards: Environmental Protection
Agency or Federal Aviation Administra-
tion. It is clear that a major portion of
the expertise in the performance of com-
mercial aircraft resides in the FAA. This
agency has a mission; that is, to promote
the development of an efficient, respon-
sible, and safe system of civil aviation in
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, we now
have -an opportunity to respond to the
unquestioned need for a comprehensive
Federal noise control program in this
country. The need for noise control legis-
lation has been recognized by the admin-
istration, by all cognizant professional
societies concerned about noise pollution,
by the major labor unions, by countless
citizens' organizations, and by millions
of Americans exposed to excessive or un-
necessary noise.
I feel very deeply about this issue due
to the fact that constant exposure to the
noise of aircraft engines and machine-
gun fire, as a gunnery officer in the Na-
val Air Corps in World War n, destroyed
my ability to hear certain higher fre-
quency sound levels, a disability that has
handicapped and bothered me ever since.
Thank heavens the widespread use of
ear mufflers at airports now and on firing
ranges helps to minimize this hazard for
those constantly exposed.
In 1972, the President's Council on En-
vironmental Quality—CEQ—included a
noise control proposal in the administra-
tion's package of environmental protec-
tion legislation. In complying with title
IV of the Environmental Protection Act
of 1970, the newly created Environ-
mental Protection Agency reported to
the President and Congress in Decem-
ber 1971, on the organizational deffeien-
cies for noise control among several Fed-
eral agencies and the inadequacy of
existing laws to remedy the situation.
S. 3342, the Environmental Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972, was reported favorably
[p. S18005]
I
e)
£
I
W
M
CO
H
O
S)
bO
O5
O
-------
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 considerable achieve-
ment in reflecting a fine balance between
the concerns of affected Industry and
those of environmental purists. This bill
consolidates responsibility for the estab-
lishment of national noise control stand-
ards and guidelines from a variety of
sources within the EPA, the agency cre-
ated to deal with environmental prob-
lems. Most importantly, in my judgment,
title V of the measure requires control
of noise and its exposure upon people
caused by transportation sources arising
in interstate commerce—a requirement
the States and localities cannot accom-
plish for themselves.
Approximately 80 million Americans
are adversely affected by noise. In addi-
tion to hearing damage, other health
effects from noise include loss of sleep,
anxiety, and interference with classroom
learning and with normal conversation.
Under this bill the EPA would be given
unchallenged authority 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 excepting
aii-craft from this authority. For the first
time, through EPA-required actions, air-
craft noise emission levels would be based
on public health and welfare needs—
with FAA review on grounds of techno-
logical availability and safety. Current
FAA regulations require that new planes,
such, as the Boeing 747 and the MeDon-
of aircraft noise abatement measures
with particular emphasis on the regula-
tion of operating procedures. During the
intervening 20 years, the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, in-
dividual airlines, the National Aircraft
Noise Abatement Council and, more re-
cently, the Boeing Co. have strongly ad-
vocated the use of operating procedures
for reduced community noise. That such
procedures exist, have long been avail-
able, and can be effective cannot be de-
nied. Let me quote the two conclusions
of the Boeing Co.'s testimony before a
public hearing held by the EPA in Wash-
ington, B.C., November 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 consider-
ed to have any effect on safety.
(2) Further noise reduction benefits are
available through certain additional operat-
ing procedures requiring development of
techniques and equipment modifications to
avoid increasing pilot workload.
What has been the PAA's response to
Boeing and to the NASA and American
Airlines successful demonstration over
a year ago of an effective and safe two-
segment approach procedure? I refer my
colleague to a letter from PAA Admin-
istrator John Shaffer, dated July 17,
1972, responding to my inquiries regard-
ing the abominable noise conditions
around Chicago's O'Hara Airport. Mr.
Shaffer says:
The Federal Aviation Administration has
taken several recent steps at the national
straighten themselves out." My con-
stituents near airports will not consider
that kind of response satisfactory, partic-
ularly when FAA has had, over the years,
comprehensive rulemaking authority to
reduce aircraft noise pollution which it
steadfastly refuses to exercise. £
In his communications to the Congress
and public pronouncements. Adminis-
trator Shaffer calls attention to the
"exemplary cooperation" for noise abate-
ment purposes between the FAA and the
airlines. He refers to the "voluntary"
adoption of i noise abatement takeoff
procedure in August of this year by all
the airlines. I am reliably informed that
all airlines do not follow the "voluntary"
procedure and that it does not in fact
provide meaningful relief for close-in
airport community residents, such as
those around O'Hara Airport, whose
problem is most severe.
The FAA has abdicated the regulatory
responsibilities Congress has entrusted
to it. Provisions of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1908 and the Aircraft Noise Certi-
fication Act of 1968, Public Law 90-411,
require the Administrator to adopt meas-
ures for "the present and future relief
from aircraft noise—for the benefit of
persons on the ground."
The FAA claims that the reduced noise
generating qualities of second genera-
tion 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 in-
troducing new quieter aircraft with re-
duced exhaust emissions?
While claiming on the one hand that it
to
Oi
O
bO
tr1
W
Q
O
O
f
en
cj
i-d
-------
nell Douglass DC^-IO meet stringent noise
abatement standards. They do not, how-
ever, set such standards for other exist-
ing jet aircraft.
I think that the policy is totally inade-
quate, and I believe it is imperative that
existing jets be retrofitted or otherwise
be made to conform to strict noise abate-
ment standards, so that our citizens liv-
ing in the vicinity of great airports such
as O.'Hare can live more normal lives,
free from earsplitting intrusions
throughout each day.
What then is the difficulty in passing
S. 3342? It appears to be primarily the
airline industry that opposes this needed
legislation, although I note that the air-
port operators, through the Airport Op-1
erators Council International, have
strongly indicated their support of S.
3342 with strengthening 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 Administration—
CAA—regulation of aircraft noise. In
summary, such regulation has been vir-
tually nonexistent. Perhaps the best il-
lustration of FAA inertia in the area of
aircraft noise control is the agency's fail-
ure to implement an operating rule for
noise abatement.
The "Report of the President's Airport
Commission—The Airport and Its Neigh-
bors," submitted to President Truman in
May 1952, urged adoption of a variety
level to redxioe 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 BC-10 arid
the Lockheed-1011 are significantly quieter
than their predecessors. As more of these air-
craft are produced they will be replacing
older, noisier turbo-jet aircraft. PAA is now
evaluating 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 feasi-
ble. 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 asstire 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 some-
thing about it and hope that things will
alone te®& authority for the regulation of
aircraft operation for aircraft noise
abatement, the FAA simultaneously
maintains aircraft noise control is a lo-
cal problem. Yet when States and local-
ities attempt measures to protect citi-
zens from excessive aircraft noise levels,
FAA asserts Federal preemption rights.
This is a situation which the Congress
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 pollu-
tion control whatever the source. I
strongly urge adoption of this vital legis-
lation.
I would like to take this opportunity to
express my gratitude to George J.
Franks, chairman/president of the
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council, to
Theodore Berland, president of Citi-
zens Against Noise, to John D. Varble,
village president of Bensenville, HI., and
director/secretary of NOISE, and to Her-
bert H. Behrel, mayor of the city of Des
Plaines—each of whom has taken a lead-
ership role in the worthy struggle for
aircraft noise abatement and, together
with many others, has endeavored to
keep me informed of the personal trau-
mas suffered by over more than 4% mil-
lion Illinois citizens in some 21 commu-
nities subject to noise depredations
around O'Hare Airport.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I yield
back my time.
[p. S18006]
3
O3
g
M
I—I
1
to
O5
o
CC
-------
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I yield
back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the bill has now been yielded back.
The bill having been read the third
time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
BIBLE), the Senator from Louisiana
(Mrs. EDWARDS) , the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , the Sen-
ator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN) , the Senator from New Hamp-
shire (Mr. MclNTYRE), the Senator from
Montana (Mr. METCALF), the Senator
from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , and the Sen-
ator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE) is absent
on official business.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. MCINTYRE), and the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RAN-
DOLPH) would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT),
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) , •
the Senators from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS
and Mr. HRXJSKA) , the Senator from Ore-
gon (Mr. HATFIELD), the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) , the Senator
from Vermont (Mr. STAFFORD), and the
Allen
Anderson
Allott
Baker
Bible
Cook
Curtis
Edwards
Harris
NAYS—5
Bellmon
Buckley
Jordan, N.C.
NOT VOTING—20
Hatfleld
Hruska
Kennedy
McGee
McQovern
Mclntyre
Metcalf
Mundt
Muskle
Randolph
Scott
Stafford
Tower
So the bill (S. 3342) was passed.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce and the Committee on
Public Works be discharged from fur-
ther consideration of H.R. 11021.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate pro-
ceed to the consideration of H.R. 11021.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The bill was read by title as follows:
A bill (H.R. 11021) to control the emission
of noise detrimental to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from California?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that all after the en-
acting clause be stricken and that the
language of S. 3342, just passed by the
Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, and
that the Senate bill be indefinitely post-
poned.
"Sec. 404. Definitions.
"Sec. 405. Research, Investigation, training,
and other activities.
"Sec. 406. Federal programs.
"Sec. 407. Noise criteria and control technol-
ogy.
"Sec. 408. Noise emission standards for new
products.
"Sec. 409. Labeling.
"Sec. 410. Imports.
"Sec. 411. Prohibited acts.
"Sec. 412. Enforcement.
"Sec. 413. Citizen suits.
"Sec. 414. Emergency situations.
"Sec. 415. Judicial review.
"Sec. 416. Records, reports, and information.
"Sec. 417. Federal procurement.
"Sec. 418. Grants for support of environ-
mental noise planning and con-
trol programs.
"Sec. 419. Development of low-noise-emission
products.
"Sec. 420. Authorization of appropriations.
"FINDINGS AND POLICY
"SEC. 402. (a) The Congress finds—
"(1) that environmental noise presents a
growing danger to the health and welfare
of the Nation's population, particularly In
urban areas;
"(2) that the major sources of noise emis-
sions Include aircraft, vehicles, machinery,
appliances, and other products in commerce;
and
"(3) that, while primary responsiblity for
control of environmental noise rests with
State and local governments, Federal regula-
tory action is essential to deal with major
noise emission sources, and Federal assistance
is necessary to encourage and support pro-
grams for the control of environmental noise.
"(b) The Congress declares that It is trie
policy of the United States to promote an
environment for all Americans free from notee
that jeopardizes their public health or wel-
to
Oi
O
f
M
O
O
O
t-1
tr1
H
w
-------
Senator frown! 3KeX-a§ OM*. TowEri) are
necessarily-iaiBBent
- The Senator irem Kentucky (Mr.
COOK) is absent 6n> ;6fficip business.
, The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MHNPT) is absent because of illness.
•If present and voting, the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOK) , the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) , the Sen-
ator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD), the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mt. SCOTT) ,
the Senator from .Vermont .(Mr. STAF-
FORD) , and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER) would each vote "yea."
The result was announced—yeas 75,
nays 5, as follows:
Aiken
Bayh
Beall
Bennett
Beutsen
Boggs
Brock
Brooke
Burdiek
Byrd,
Harry P., Jr.
Byrd, Robert C.
Cannon
Case
Chiles
Church
Cooper
Cotton
Cranston
Dole
Dominick
Eagleton
Eastland -
Ervin-
Fannin
Foug
[No. 554 Leg.
YEAS— 75
Fulbright
Gambrell
Goldwater
Gravel
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hart
Hartke
Hbllings
Hughes
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Jordan, Idaho
Long
Magnuson
Mansfield
Mathias
McClellan
Miller
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Nelson
•1
PackWood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Proxmire
Bibicoft
Both
Saxbe
Schweiker
Smith
Sparkman
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tunriey
Weicker
Williams
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. '*
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
s The amendment was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
amendment and. third rea&ing of the
bill.
The amendment was ordered to be en-
grossed and the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill (H.R. 11021) was read the
third time and was passed.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that H.R. 11021 be
printed, and printed in the RECORD as
passed by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 11021) as passed is as
follows:
H.R. 11021
Be it enacted l>y the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the
"Environmental Noise Control Act Of 1972".
SEC. 2. Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 is amended to read as follows:
"SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
"SEC. 401. This Act, Including the follow-
ing table of contents, may be cited as the
'Environmental Noise Control Act'.
"TABLE OF CONTENTS
"Sec. 401. Short tile; table of contents.
"Sec. 402. Findings and policy.
"Sec. 403. Office of Noice Abatement and
Control.
fare. To t&at end. It is the purpose of this
Act to establish a means lor effective co-
ordination of. Federal research, and, activities
In environmental noise control, to authorize
the establishment of Federal noise emission
.standards for new products, to provide infor-
mation to the public of the noise emission
and noise reduction characteristics of new
products, to encourage and support State and
municipal programs for the control of envi-
ronmental noise through planning and pro-
gram grants to State and local environmental
noise control agencies, and to provide Infor-
mation to the public on the control of envi-
ronmental noise through regulation of use of
products and other methods and procedures
to reduce environmental noise.
"(c) Public participation in the develop-
ment, revision, and enforcement of any regu-
lation, noise emission standard, program or
plan established by the Administrator or any
State or municipality under this Act shall be
provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the
Administrator and the States and municipali-
ties. The Administrator, in cooperation with
the States and municipalities, within ninety
days after enactment'of this section,-shall
develop and publish regulations specifying
minimum guidelines for public participation
in such processes.
"OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
"SEC. 403. (a) The Administrator shall es-
tablish within the Environmental Protection
Agency an Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, and shall carry out through such
Office a full and complete investigation and
study of noise and its effect on the "public
health and welfare and administer the pro-
visions of this Act.
"(b) The Administrator is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary
to carry out his function under this Act. The
Administrator may delegate to any officer or
employee of the Environmental Protection
fd
I
CO
o
M
CO
[p. S18007]
O
SJ
bO
O5
O
01
-------
Agency such of his powers and duties under
this Act. except the making of regulations,
as he may deem necessary or expedient.
"(c) Upon the request of an environmental
noise control agency, personnel of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency may be de-
tailed to such agency for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
"(d) Payments under grants made under
this Act may be made in Installments, and
In advance or by way of reimbursement, as
may be determined by the Administrator.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 404. For purposes of this title and
title V of this Act:
"(a) The term 'Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
"(b) The term 'person' means an Individ^
ual, corporation, partnership, or association,
and (except as provided in section 413(a) (1)
of this Act) Includes any officer, employee,
department, agency, or Instrumentality of
the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision of a State.
"(c) The term 'product' means any manu-
factured article or goods or component there-
of; except that Such term does not Include—
"(1) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance, as such terms are defined in
section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act, as
amended (49 U.S.C. 1431); or
"(2) (A) any military aircraft, rockets,
weapons, or equipment which are designed
for combat use; or (B) any aircraft, rockets,
launch, vehicles, spacecraft, or equipment
which are designed for research, experimen-
tal, or developmental work to be performed
by the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration, as determined by the President
under section 406 of this Act.
"(d) The term 'ultimate purchaser' means
the first person who in good faith purchases
a product for purposes other than resale.
" (e) The term 'new product' means a prod-
uct the equitable or legal title to which has
"(1) A single State agency designated by
the Governor of that State as the official
State environmental noise control agency for
purposes of this Act;
"(2) An agency established by two or more
States and having substantial powers or du-
ties pertaining to the prevention and control
of environmental noise;
"(3) A city, county, or other local govern-
ment authority charged with responsibility
for enforcing ordinances or laws relating to
the prevention and control of environmental
noise; or,
"(4) An agency of two or more municipali-
ties located in the same State or In different
States and having substantial powers or du-
ties pertaining to the prevention and control
of environmental noise.
"(1) The term 'municipality' means a city,
town, borough, county, parish, district, or
other public body created by or pursuant to
State law.
"(m) The term 'noise emission standard'
means a statement of a noise level or other
acoustical characteristic which may not be
exceeded under specified conditions or meth-
od of operation. Such standard shall include
the test procedures to be followed and shall
be stated in terms of performance rather
than design criteria.
"(n) The term 'environmental noise'
means the intensity, duration, and charac-
ter of sounds from all sources.
"(o) The term 'cumulative noise expos-
ure' means the exposure of individuals in
defined areas around airports to noise from
aircraft operations weighted by time of day."
"RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION, TRAINING, AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES
"Sec. 405. (a) The Administrator shall es-
tablish a national research and development
program for the .prevention and control of
environmental noise and as part of such pn>-
gram shall—
"(1) conduct, and promote the coordina-
tion and acceleration of, research, investl-
"(b) In carrying out the provisions of the
preceding subsection the Administrator is
authorized to—
"(1) collect and make available, through
publications and other appropriate means,
the results of activities pursuant to subsec-
tion (a) and other Information, including
appropriate recommendations by him in con-
nection therewith, pertaining to such re-
search and other activities;
"(2) cooperate with other Federal agen-
cies, with environmental noise control agen-
cies, with other public and private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and with
any industries involved, hi the preparation
and conduct of such research and other ac-
tivities, including technical assistance;
"(3) make grants to environmental noise
control agencies, to other public or nonprofit
private agencies, institutions and organiza-
tions, and to individuals, for purposes stated
in subsection (a) of this section;
"(4) contract with public or private agen-
cies, institutions and organizations, and with
individuals, without regard to sections 3648
and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5);
"(5) provide training (without fee) for,
and make training grants to personnel of
environmental noise control agencies and
other persons with suitable qualifications; ,
"(6) establish and maintain research fel-
lowships, in the Environmental Protection
Agency and at public or nonprofit private
educational institutions or research organi-
zations;
"(7) collect and make available through
publications and other appropriate means,
in cooperation with other Federal depart-
ments and agencies, and wi^h other public
or private agencies, institutions, and organi-
zations having related responsibilities, basic
data on physical, and human and other ef-
fects of varying levels of noise and other
Information pertaining to noise and the pre-
vention and control thereof; and
bO
Ol
O
r?
o
o
Hi
1
"ti
F
-------
never been, transferred to an ultimate pur-
chaser. Products remanufactured or rebuilt
by a manufacturer from used products to
restore original functions shall be considered
to be new products for the purposes of this
title and title V of this Act.
"(f) The term 'manufacturer' means any
person engaged In the manufacturing, as-
sembling, or importing of new products, or
who acts for, and Is controlled by, any such
person In connection with the distribution
of such products, but shall not include any
dealer with respect to any new product re-
ceived by him in commerce.
"(g) The term 'dealer' means any person
engaged in the sale or the distribution of
new products to the ultimate purchaser who
may prepare a product for sale or distribu-
tion to the ultimate purchaser: Provided,
That when such dealer's preparatory or final
assembly work involves modifications which
increase the noise emission characteristics of
such product, such dealer shall then be con-
sidered a manufacturer of such product for
the purposes of this title and title V of this
Act.
"(h) The term 'commerce' means trade,
traffic, commerce, or transportation—
"(1) between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or
"(2) which affects trade, traffic, commerce,
or transportation described in paragraph (1)
of this subsection.
" (i) The term 'State' includes the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Terri-
tory of the Pacific Islands.
"(]) The term 'Federal agency' means any
department agency, or instrumentality of
the United States including United States
Postal Service.
**(k) The term "environmental noise con-
trol agency' means any of the following:
gations, experiments, training, demonstra-
tions, surveys, and studies relating to the
causes, effects, extent, prevention, and con-
trol of environmental noise;
"(2) conduct and finance research by con-
tract with any person, on the effects, meas-
urement, and control of noise, including but
not limited to—
"(A) /investigation of the direct or indirect
effects of noise on humans (including phy-
siological and psychological effects), and the
direct or indirect effects of noise on domes-
tic animals, fish, wildlife, and property, and
determination of acceptable levels of noise on
the basis of such effects; and
"(B) development of improved methods
and standards for measurement and monitor-
ing of noise in cooperation with the Nation-
al Bureau of Standards, Department of Com-
merce.
"(3) encourage, cooperate with, and ren-
der technical services (including the draft-
ing of model ordinances) and provide finan-
cial assistance to environmental noise con-
trol agencies and other appropriate public or
private agencies, Institutions and organiza-
tions, and individuals in the conduct of such
activities;
"(4) conduct investigations and research
and make surveys concerning any specific
problem of environmental noise in cooper-
ation with any noise pollution control agency
with a view to recommending a solution of
such problem, if he is requested to do so by
such agency or if, in his Judgment, such prob-
lem may affect any community or communi-
ties in a State other than that In which the
source of the matter causing or contributing
to the noise is located; and
"(5) establish technical advisory commit-
tees composed of recognized experts in vari-
ous aspects of noise to assist in the exami-
nation and evaluation of research progress
and proposals and to avoid duplication of re-
search, and for other purposes.
" (8) develop effective and practical proc-
esses, methods, and prototype devices lor the
prevention or control of environmental noise.
"(c) In carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (a) of this section the Administrator
shall conduct research on, and survey the re-
sults of other scientific studies on, the harm-
ful effects on the health or welfare of persons
by the various-known noise sources.
"(d) In carrying out research pursuant to
this Act, the Administrator shall give spe-
cial emphasis to research on the short- and
long-term effects of environmental noise
on public health and welfare.
"FEDERAL FBOGB/SMS
"SEC. 406. (a) The Congress authorizes
and directs that Federal agencies shall, to
the fullest extent consistent with their au-
thority under Federal laws administered by
them, carry out the programs within then-
control in such a manner as to further the
policy declared in section 402 of this Act.
"(b) Each department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the executive, legislative, and
Judicial branches of the Federal Government
(1) having Jurisdiction over any property
or facility, or (2) engaged in any activity
resulting, or which may result, in the emis-
sion of noise shall comply with Federal,
State, interstate, and local requirements re-
specting control and abatement of environ-
mental noise to the same extent that any
person is subject to such requirements. The
President may exempt any single activity or
facility, including noise emission sources or
classes thereof, of any department, agency,
or instrumentality in the executive branch'
from compliance with any such requirement
if lie determines it to be in the paramount
interest of the United States to do so; ex-
cept that no exemption, other than for
those products specified pursuant to section
404(c) (2) of this Act may be granted from
the requirements of sections 408, 511, and
o
M
CO
1
I
W
§
O
to
§
[p. S18008]
-------
621 of this Act. No such exemption shall be
granted due to lack of appropriation unless
the President shall have specifically re-
quested such appropriation as a part of the
budgetary process and the Congress shall
have failed to make available such requested
appropriation. Any exemption shall be for
a period not In excess of one year, but addi-
tional exemptions may be granted 'for pe-
riods of not to exceed one year from the
President's making a new determination.
The President shall report each January to
the Congress all exemptions from the re-
quirements of this section granted during
the preceding calendar year, together with
ids reason for granting such exemption.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall coordinate
the programs of all Federal agencies relating
to environmental noise research and en-
vironmental noise control. Each Federal
agency shall furnish to the Administrator
such information as he may reasonably re-
quire, to determine, as provided under sec-
tion 309 of the Clean Air Act, if the nature,
scope, and results of the noise research and
environmental noise control programs of the
agency are consistent with the purposes of
this Act.
"(2) Each Federal agency shall consult
with the Administrator in prescribing any
regulations respecting environmental noise.
If at any time the Administrator has reason
to believe that a standard or regulation, or
any proposed standard or regulation of any
Federal agency, respecting noise, does not
protect the public health and welfare to the
extent he believes to be required he shall
request such, agency to review and report to
him on the advisability of revising such
standard or regulation to provide such pro-
tection. Any such request shall be published
in the Federal Beglster and shall be accom-
panied, by a detailed .statement of the In-
formation on wnlch sucn request Is based.
Such agency shall complete the requested
review and report to the Administrator wlth-
and (2) giving information on the porcesses,
procedures, or operating methods which re-
suit In the control of the emission of noise,
to Implement noise emission control stand-
ards under section 408, 601, 603, 611, and
621 of this Act, which such information
shall Include technical and other data, in-
cluding costs, as are available on alternative
methods of noise control.
"(c) The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal, State, and
municipal agencies, and other appropriate
persons, shall compile and provide informa-
tion on methods and techniques of control-
ling environmental noise through, among
other means, product use control, land use
regulation, and construction and building
standards. Such information shall be com-
piled and published to assist State and local
governments in establishing and enforc-
ing environmental noise control programs
supported under section 418 of this Act.
"(d) The Administrator shall from time
to time review and, as appropriate, revise or
supplement any criteria or reports published
under this section.
"(e) Any report under subsection (b) (1)
of -this section identifying major noise
sources shall be published in the Federal
Register. The publication or revision of any
criteria or information on control tech-
niques under this section shall be announced
in the Federal Register, and copies shall be
made available to the general public.
"NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOE NEW
PRODUCTS
"Sec. 408. (a) (1) The Administrator shall
publish proposed regulations establishing
noise emission standards for new products
or classes of products—
"(A) identified in any report published un-
der section 407(b) (1) of this Act as a major
source of noise, and
"(B) which falls in one of the following
categories:
f'(i) Construction equipment.
promulgate regulations establishing noise
emission standards for such new product.
"(c) (1) Any noise emission standard pre-
scribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this
section respecting a new product shall set
limits on noise emissions from such new
product over the useful life of the product
(as determined by the Administrator taking
into account the range of possible uses for
the same type of product) and shall be a
standard which in the Administrator's judg-
ment, based on Information published under
section 407 of this Act, reflects the degree of
noise reduction achievable through the ap-
plication of the best available technology,
taking into account the cost of compliance.
In establishing such standards for any new
product the Administrator shall assure that
such standards are compatible with stand-
ards under other laws respecting emission of
air or water pollutants and safety, including
(but not limited to) any standard under the
National Tra2io and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (15 TT.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), or the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1151 et seq.). Any standard prescribed under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section may
contain provisions respecting instructions of
the manufacturer for the maintenance or use
of the product.
" (2) After publication of any proposed reg-
ulations under this section, the Administra-
tor shall allow the public an opportunity to
participate in rulemaking in accordance with
section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
"(3) The Administrator may revise any
noise emission standard prescribed by him in
accordance with this section.
"(4) Any regulation prescribed under this
section (and any revision thereof) shall take
effect after a period not to exceed two years
or such lesser time as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and ap-
plication of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of com-
IsD
Oi
O
00
O
O
F
§
O
F
a
£
H
-------
In ISO days after the date of the publication
in the Federal Register of the request. The
report shall be published in the Federal
Register and shall be accompanied by a de-
tailed statement of the findings and con-
clusions of the agency respecting the revi-
sion of Its standards or regulation.
"(3) On the basis of regular consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, the Ad-
ministrator shall compile and publish an-
nually a report to the Congress on the
status and progress of Federal activities re-
lating to environmental noise research and
environmental noise control. This report
shall describe the environmental noise con-
trol programs of each Federal agency and
assess the contributions of those programs
to the Federal Government's overall efforts
to control environmental noise.
"NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
"SEC. 407. (a) The Administrator shall,
after consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and municipal agencies, and other
appropriate persons, within nine months af-
ter the date of enactment of this section, issue
noise criteria. Such criteria shall reflect the
scientific knowledge most useful in indicating
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects
on the public health or welfare which may
be expected from differing quantities and
qualities of noise, .and such criteria shall set
forth levels of environmental noise the at-
tainment and maintenance of which in de-
nned areas under various conditions are re-
quisite to protect the public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
"(b) The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate • Federal, State, and
municipal agencies, and other appropriate
persons, shall within fifteen months after
date of enactment of this section compile
and publish a report or series of reports (1)
identifying products (or classes of products)
which on the basis of information available
to him appear to be major sources of noise,
"(11) Transportation equipment (includ-
ing snowmobiles, motorcycles,- and recrear
tlonal vehicles and1 related equipment).
"(ill) Any motor or engine (including any
equipment
-------
pient of assistance for purposes of section
311 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
"(e)(l) No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce, with respect
to (A) any product manufactured after the
effective date of a regulation prescribed by
the Administrator under this section or (B)
any component Incorporated Into such prod-
uct by the manufacturer of such product,
any standard setting a limit on.noise emis-
sions from such product enforceable against
the manufacturer which is not Identical to
the standard prescribed by the Administra-
tor.
"(2) Subject to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, nothing in this section shall pre-
clude or deny the right of any State or po-
litical subdivision thereof to establish and
enforce controls on environmental noise
through the licensing, regulation, or restric-
tion of the use, operation, or movement of
any product or combination of products: Pro-
vided, That such control, licensing, regula-
tion, or restriction shall not, in the case of
any motor carrier engaged in interstate com-
merce or any equipment or facility of a
surface carrier engaged in Interstae com-
merce by railroad, result in a limit on noise
emissions for any carriers, equipment, or
facility different than any limit contained In
any regulation applicable thereto prescribed
by the Administrator under this section or
title V of this Act, except that in the case
of such carriers the Administrator may by
regulation, upon the petition of a State or
political subdivision thereol and after con-
sultation with the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, permit such more restrictive limits on
such noise emissions through the applica-
tion of use, operation, or movement controls
or regulations as in his judgment are neces-
sitated by special local conditions,
• "(3) If, after promulgation of any stand-
ards and regulations under this section and
prior to their effective date, a product is
m&ixula.ctured. in compliance with such
the Treasury shall refuse delivery to the con-
signee and shall cause disposal or storage of
any product refused delivery which has not
been exported by the consignee within three
months from the date of notice of such re-
fusal under such regulations as the Secretary
of the Treasury may prescribe, except that
the Secretary of the Treasury may deliver to
the consignee such product pending exami-
nation and decision in the matter on execu-
tion of bond for the amount of the full in-
voice value of such product, together with
the duty thereon, and on refusal to return
such product for any cause to the custody
of the Secretary of the Treasury, when de-
manded, for the purpose of excluding it from
the country, or for any other purpose, said
consignee shall forfeit the full amount of
said bond. All charges for storage, cartage,
and labor on products which are refused
admission or delivery under this section shall
be paid by the owner or consignee, and in
default of such payment shall constitute a
lien against any future Importation made by
such owner or consignee.
"PROHIBITED ACTS
"SEC. 411. (a) Except as otherwise pro-
vided ha subsection (b) of this section, the
following acts or the causing thereof are
prohibited:
" (1) In the case of a manufacturer, the sale
In, the offering for sale in, or the Introduc-
tion or delivery for introduction into, com-
merce of any new product, aircraft,v"or air-
craft engine manufactured after" the effec-
tive date of noise emission control stand-
ards prescribed under sections 408, 601, 503,
511, and 521 of this Act which are applicable
to such product, unless such product is In
conformity with such standards.
"(2) (A) The removal or rendering inopera-
tive by any person, other than for purposes of
maintenance, testing, repair, or replacement,
of any device or element of design incorpo-
rated into any product, aircraft, or aircraft
"(6) The failure of any person to comply
with any order Issued under section 412(d)
or 414 of this Act.
"(b) (1) The Administrator may after pub-
lice hearings exempt for a specified period of
time not to exceed one year, any new prod-
uct, or class thereof, from paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), and (5) of subsection (a) of this
section upon such terms and conditions as
he may find necessary to protect the public
health or welfare, for the purpose of research,
Investigations, studies, demonstrations, or
training, or for reasons of natlor.al security.
"(2) A new product intended solely for ex-
port, and so labeled or tagged on the outside
of the container and on the product itself,
shall be subject to noise emission standards
of the country which Imports such product.
In no event shall the Administrator allow the
export from the United States of any product
subject to section 414 of this Act as- a product,
the noise emissions from which are ai_ im-
minent and substantial endangerment to
public health.
"ENFORCEMENT
"SEC. 412. (a) Any person who willfully or
negligently violates paragraph (1), (3), (5)
or (6) of subsection (a) of section 411 of this
Act shall be punished by a fine of not more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or by im-
prisonment for not more than one year, or by
both. In the case of a violation of paragraph
(1) or (6) of subsection (a) of section 411 of
this Act the fine shall be not less than $2,500
per day of violation. If the conviction is for a
violation committed after a first conviction
of such person under this paragraph, punish-
ment snail be by a fine of not more than $50,-
000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment
for not more than two years, or by both.
"(b) For the purpose of this section, each
day of violation of section 411 (a) of this Act
shall constitute a separate violation of that
section.
"(c) The district courts of the United
bO
O3
I—1
o
5
a
o
o
f
s
f
-------
standards and regulations such standards and
regulations shall, for the purposes of para-
graph (1) of this subsection, become effective
with respect "to such product on the date of
such compliance.
"LABELING
"SEC. 409. (a) The Administrator shall by
regulation for any new product (or class
thereof)—
"(1) Identified pursuant to section 407
(b)(l);or
"(2) which Is sold wholly or in part on the
basis of Its effectiveness in reducing noise,
require either (1) that a notice of the level
of noise emission including the relationship
to any applicable noise emission standard
under section 408, or notice of the effective-
ness in reducing noise (as the case may be)
supplied by the manufacturer, be affixed to
the new product and to the outside of its
container at the time of its sale to the ulti-
mate purchaser, or (2) that such notice of
such level or effectiveness supplied by the
manufacturer otherwise be given to the pro-
spective user. He shall prescribe the form
.of the notice and the methods and units of
measurement to be used for this purpose.
Section 408 (c) (2) shall apply to the pro-
mulgation of any regulation under this
section.
"(b) Tills section does not prevent any
State or political subdivision thereof from
regulating product labeling in any way not
In conflict with regulations promulgated by
the Administrator under this section.
"IMPOSTS
"SEC. 410. Any product offered for entry
Into the United States for which a standard
or regulation has become effective pursuant
to this title, which is not accompanied by
certificate of compliance in the form pre-
scribed by the Administrator, shall be re-
fused entry into the United States. If a
product is refused entry, the Secretary of.
engine In compliance with noise emission
standards promulgated under sections 408,
601, 603, 611. and 621 of this Act prior to its
sale or delivery to the ultimate purchaser or
during its term of use, or (B) the use of a
product after such device or element of de-
sign has been removed or rendered Inopera-
tive.
"(3) -In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale in, the offering for sale in, or the Intro-
duction or delivery for Introduction ..into,
commerce of any new product manufactured"
after the effective date of regulations pro-
mulgated under option (1) In section 409(b)
of this Act (requiring information respecting
noise) which are applicable to such product,
unless it Is In conformity with such regula-
tions.
"(3) (A) In the case of a manufacturer or
dealer, the assistance of any person in a viola-
tion of paragraph (2) (A) of this subsection
pr the furnishing of Information with respect
to a violation of paragraph (2) (A) of this
subsection.
"(B) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale In, the offering for sale in, or the Intro-
duction or delivery for introduction into,
commerce of any new product manufac-
tured after the effective date of regulations
promulgated under option (1) in section
409 (a) of this Act (requiring Information re-
specting noise) which are applicable to such
product, unless It Is In conformity with such
regulations.
"(4) (A) The removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pur-
suant to regulations promulgated under sec-
tion 409 (a) of this Act prior to the sale of
the new product to 'the ultimate purchaser,
or (B) the sale of such product or container
from which such notice has been removed.
"(5) The importation into the United
States by any person of any new product In
violation of regulations promulgated under
section 410 of this Act that are applicable to
such product.
States shall have Jurisdiction of actions
brought by and In the name of the United
States to restrain any violations of section
411 (a) of this Act.
"(d)(l) Whenever any person is in viola-
tion of section 411 (a) of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator may issue an order specifying
such relief as he determines Is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare. Such
relief may Include an order requiring such
person to cease such violation, to notify ulti-
mate purchasers of the risks associated with
such violation, to make public notice of such
risks, to recall any products responsible for
such violation, to repurchase any such prod-
ucts, or to replace any such products. Such
order may" also require Hie seizure of any
such products by the Administrator.
"(2) Any order under this subsection shall
be issued only after notice and opportunity
for a hearing in accordance with section 554
of title 5 of the United States Code.
"(e) When authorized by State law—
"(1) The Administrator may, by agree-
ment with any environmental noise control
agency with or without reimbursement, au-
thorize law enforcement officers or other
officers or employees of such environmental
noise control agency to bring civil actions
in the appropriate State courts to restrain
any person from violating section 411 (a).
"(2) The courts of such State may enter-
tain any such civil action.
Nothing in this section shall affect the au-
thority of an environmental noise control
agency to commence a civil action under
section 413 of this Act.
"CITIZEN SUITS
"SEC. 413. (a) Except as provided in sub-
section (b) of this section, any person may
commence a civil action on his own behalf—
"(1) against any person (including (A)
the United States, and (B) any other gov-
ernmental instrumentality or agency to the
extent permitted by the eleventh amendment
[p. S18010J
§
01
t-3
H
CO
t)
f
W
1—1
m
H
o
to
-------
to the Constitution) who Is alleged to be In
violation of any noise control requirement
(as denned in subsection (f) of this section),
or
"(2) against—
"(A) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency where there is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act which
is not discretionary with such Administrator.
"(B) the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration where there is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act or sec-
tion 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
which is not discretionary with such Admin-
istrator.
The district courts of the United States shall
have Jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount In controversy or the citizenship of
the parties, to enforce such noise control
requirement or to order such Administrator
to perform such act or duty, as the case
may be.
"(b) No action may be commenced—
"(1) under subsection (a) (1) of this sec-
tion—
"(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice of the violation (i) to the
Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (and to the Federal Aviation
Administrator of trie Environmental Pro-
a noise emission control requirement with re-
spect to aircraft under this Act or section 611
of the Federal Aviation Act as amended) and
(li) to any alleged violator of such require-
ment, or
"(B) If an Administrator has commenced
and Is diligently prosecuting a civil action
to require compliance with the noise control
requirement, but la any such action in a
court of the United States any person may
Intervene as a matter of right; or
"(2) -under subsection (a) (2) of this sec-
tion prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
nas given notice to the defendant that he
standing the existence or nonexlstence of a
noise emission standard applicable to a prod-
uct, or the pendency of administrative pro-
ceedings initiated pursuant to this Act.
"(b) The district court in which such ac-
tion Is filed shall have jurisdiction to declare
such product a product the noise emissions
from which are an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, and to grant
(as ancillary to such declaration or In lieu
thereof) such temporary or permanent equi-
table relief as may be necessary to protect
the public from such risk. Such relief may
Include a mandatory order requiring the
notification of the original purchasers of
such product of such risk, public notice,
the recall, the repurchase, the repair, the
replacement, or the seizure of such product.
"JUDICIAL REVIEW
"SEC. 415. Any Judicial review of final reg-
ulations promulgated under this Act shall
be in accordance with sections 701-706 of
title 5 of the United States Code, except
that:
"(a) a petition for review of action of the
Administrator in promulgating any standard
or regulation under section 408, 601, 511,
or 521 of this Act or any labeling regulation
under section 409 of this Act may be filed
only In the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. Any such peti-
tion shall be filed within ninety days from
the date of such promulgation, or after
such date if such petition is based solely
on grounds arising after such ninetieth day.
Action of the Administrator with respect to
which review could have been obtained un-
der this subsection shall not be subject to
judicial review In civil proceedings for en-
forcement except as to whether the adminis-
trative and Judicial procedures of this Act
have been observed;
"(b) if a party seeking review under this
Act applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satls-
the manufacturer available for testing by
the Administrator, to the extent required
by regulations of the Administrator.
"(b) For the purpose of obtaining in-
formation to carry out titles IV and V of this
Act, the Administrator may issue subpenas
for the attendance and testimony of wit-
nesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and he may admin-
ister oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be
paid the same fees and mileage that are paid
witnesses in the courts of the United States.
In cases of contumacy or refusal to obey a
subpena served upon any person under this
subsection, the district court of the United
States for any district in which such person
is found or resides or transacts business,
upon application by the United States and
after notice to such person, shall have Juris-
diction to issue an order requiring such
person to appear and give testimony before
the Administrator, to appear and produce
papers, books, and documents before the Ad-
ministrator, or both, and any failure to obey
such order of the court may be punished by
such court as a contempt thereof.
"(c) Any records, reports, or information
obtained under this section shall be avail-
able to the public, except that upon a show-
ing satisfactory to the Administrator by any
person that records, reports, or information
or particular part thereof (other than noise
emission data) to which the Administrator
has access und.er this section if made public,
would divulge methods or processes entitled
to protection as trade secrets of such person,
the Administrator shall consider such rec-
ord, report, or Information or particular por-
tion thereof confidential in accordance with
the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the
United States Code, except that such record,
report, or Information may be disclosed to
other officers, employees, or authorized rep-
resentatives of the United States concerned
with carrying out this Act or when relevant
-------
will commence such action.
Notice under this subsection shall be given
In such manner as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall pre-
scribe by regulation.
"(c) In an action under this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or, if appropriate, the. Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Admin-,
istration, if not a party, may intervene as a
matter of right.
"(d) The court, in issuing any final order
in any action brought pursuant to subsec-
tion (a) of this section, may award costs of
litigation (including reasonable attorney and
expert witness fees) to any party, whenever
the court determines such an award is ap-
propriate.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall resrtict
any right which any person (or class of per-
sons) may have under any statute or com-
mon law to seek enforcement of any noise
control requirement or to seek any other
relief (including relief against an Adminis-
trator) .
"(f) For purposes of this section, the term
•noise control requirement' means any pro-
hibition, standard, or requirement under sec-
tion 408, 411, 501, 503, 508, 511, or 521 of this
Act or a prohibition, standard, rule, or regu-
lation issued under section 611 of the Fed-
eral Aviation Act of 1958, as amended.
"EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
"SEC. 414. (a) The Administrator or the At-
torney General shall file, in a district court
of the United States having venue thereof,
an action against any product the noise emis-
sions from which are an imminent and sub-
stantial endangerment to public health, or
against any person who manufactures for
sale, sells, or offers for sale, in commerce, or
imports Into the United States, such prod-
uct. Such an action may be filed, notwith-
faotlon of the court that the information Is
material and was not available at the time
of the proceeding before the Administrator,
the court may order such additional evidence
(and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be
taken before the Administrator, and to be ad-
duced upon the hearing, in such manner
and upon such terms and conditions as the
court may deem proper. The Administrator
may modify his findings as to, the facts, or
make new findings, by reason*of the addi-
tional evidence so taken, and he shall file
with the court such modified or new find-
ings, and his recommendation, if any, for
the modification or setting aside of his orig-~
inal order, with the return of such addi-
tional evidence;
"(c) with respect to relief pending review
of an action by the Administrator, no stay
of an agency action may be granted unless
the reviewing court determines that the party
seeking such stay is (1) likely to prevail
on the merits in the review proceeding and
(2) will suffer irreparable harm pending such
proceeding.
"RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
"SEC. 416. (a) Such manufacturer of a new
product, aircraft, or aircraft engine to which
standards or regulations under sections 408,
501, 503, 511, or 521 "of this Act or regula-
tions under section 409 apply shall (1) estab-
lish and maintain such records, make such
reports, provide such information, and make
such tests, as the Administrator may reason-
ably require to enable him to determine
whether such manufacturer has acted or is
acting in compliance with this Act, (2) upon
request of an officer or employee duly desig-
nated by the Administrator, permit such
officer or employee at reasonable times to
have access to such information and the re-
sults of such tests and to copy svich records,
and (3) make new products coming off the
assembly line or otherwise in the hands of
in any proceeding under this Act. Nothing
1m this section shall authorize the with-
holding of information by the Administra-
tor or any officer or employee under his con-
trol, from the duly authorized committees
of the Congress.
"(d) Any communication from a person
to the Administrator or any other employee
of the Agency concerning a matter presently
under consideration to a. rulemaklng or ad-
judicatory proceeding in the' Agency shall
be made a part of the public file of that
proceeding unless it Is a communication en-
titled to protection under subsection (c) of.
this section.
"(e) Any person who knowingly makes
any false statement, representation, or cer-
tification in any application, record, report,
plan, or other document filed or required to
be maintained under this Act or who fal-
sifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders
Inaccurate any monitoring device or meth-
od required to be maintained under this Act,
shall upon conviction, be punished by a flue
of not more than $10,000, or by imprison-
ment for not more than six months, or by
both.
"FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
"SEC. 417. (a) No Federal agency may enter
into any contract for the procurement of
goods, materials, or services with any per-
son, who has been convicted of a criminal
offense under section 412 (a) of this Act and
who, upon consideration of the gravity of
the violation and the good faith of the per-
son charged In attempting to achieve rapid
compliance, the Administrator determines
should be subject to the prohibition of his
section. The prohibition in the preceding
sentence shall continue until the Adminis-
trator certifies that the condition giving rise
to a conviction has been corrected.
"(b) The Administrator shall establish
procedures to provide all Federal agencies
I
I
is
H
O
H
0
CD
to
05
I—'
CO
[p. S18011]
-------
with the notification necessary for the pur-
poses of subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) In order to Implement the purposes
and policy of this Act, the President shall,
not more than one hundred and eighty days
alter Its enactment, cause to be Issued an
order (1) requiring each Federal agency
authorized to enter Into contracts and each
Federal agency which Is empowered to ex-
tend Federal assistance by way of grant, loan,
or contract to effectuate the purposes and
policy of this Act In such contracting or
assistance activities, and (2) setting forth
procedures, sanctions, penalties, and such
other provisions, as the President determines
necessary to carry out such requirement.
"(d) The President may exempt any con-
tract, loan, or grant from all or part of the
provisions of this section where he deter-
mines such exemption is necessary in the
paramount interest of the United States,
and" he shall notify the Congress of such
exemption.
"GRANTS FOR SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
NOISE PLANNING AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
"SEC. 418. (a) (1). The Administrator may
make grants to environmental noise con-
trol agencies in an amount up to two-thirds
of the cost of planning, developing, estab-
lishing, or improving, and up to one-half of
the cost of maintaining programs for the
prevention and control of environmental
noise.
"(2) Before approving any grant under
this subsection to any environmental noise
control agency within the meaning of sec-
tions 404(k) (3) and 404(k) (4) of this Act,
the Administrator (when appropriate) shall
receive assurances that such agency pro-
vides for adequate representation of State,
Interstate, local, and international interests
in its area of jurisdiction. Before approv-
ing any grant under tills subsection the Ad-
ministrator snail determine that the re-
cipient is the appropriate environmental
time to time make grants to environmental
noise control agencies upon such terms and
conditions as the Administrator may find
necessary to carry out the purposes of this
section. In establishing regulations for the
granting of such funds the Administrator
shall, so far as practicable, give due con-
sideration to (1) the population, (2) the
extent of the actual or potential environ-
mental noise problem, and (3) the finan-
cial need of the respective agencies. No
agency shall receive any grant under this
section with respect to the maintenance of
a program for the prevention and control
of environmental noise unless the Adminis-
trator is satisfied that such grant will be-
so used as to supplement and, to the extent
practicable, increase the level of State, local,
or other non-Federal funds that would in the
absence of such grant be made available for
the maintenance of such program, and will
in no event supplant such State, local, or
other non-Federal funds. No grant shall be
made under this section until the Admin-
istrator has consulted with the appropriate
official as designated by the Governor or
Governors of the State or States affected.
"(c) Not more than 10 per centum of the
total funds appropriated or allocated for the
purposes of subsection (a) of this section
shall be granted for environmental noise
control programs in any one State. In the
case of a grant for a program in an area
crossing State boundaries, the Administrator
shall determine the portion of such grant
that is chargeable to the percentage-limita-
tion under this subsection for each State
into which such area extends.
"(d) The Administrator, with the concur-
rence of any recipient of a grant under this
section, may reduce the payments to such
recipient by the amount of the pay, allow-
ances, traveling expenses, and any other
costs in connection with the detail of any
officer or employee to the recipient under
section 403 (c) of this Act, when such detail
has been filed in accordance with paragraph
(6) (A) of this subsection;
"(B) which Is a low-noise-emission prod-
uct as determined by the Administrator; and
"(C) which he determines is suitable for
use as a substitute for a type of product at
that time in use by agencies of the Federal
Government.
"(3) The Administrator may establish a
Low-Noise-Emisslon Product Advisory Com-
mittee to assist him in determining which
products qualify as low-noise-emlsslon prod-
ucts for purposes of this section. The Com-
mittee shall include the Administrator or his
designee, a representative of the National
Bureau of Standards, and representatives of
such other Federal agencies and private in-
dividuals as the Administrator may deem
necessary from time to time. Any member
of the Committee not employed on a full-
time basis by the United States may receive
the daily equivalent of the annual rate of
basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the
General Schedule for each day such member
is engaged upon work of the Committee. Each
member of the Committee shall be reim-
bursed for travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by
section 5703 of title 5, United States Code,
for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
"(4) Certification under this section shall
be effective for a period of one year from the
date of issuance.
"(6) (A) Any person seeking to have a class
or model of product certified under this sec-
tion shall file a certification application in
accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator.
"(B) The Administrator shall publish In
the Federal Register a notice of each ap-
plication received.
"(C) The Administrator shall make deter-
minations for the purpose of this section
in accordance with procedures prescribed
by him by regulation.
Oi
O
F
O
O
g
M
F
CO
cl
^
TJ
F
-------
noise control agency for the Jurisdictions in-
volved to order to minimize overlap and
duplication of effort.
"(3) Before approving any planning grant
under this subsection to any environmental
noise control agency within the meaning or
sections 404(k) (3) and 404(k) (4) of this
Act, the Administrator, shall receive assur-
ances that such agency has the capability of
developing and enforcing a comprehensive
environmental noise control plan.
"(4) Before approving any grant for pur-
poses other than developing a program under
this section to any environmental noise con-
trol agency within the meaning of section
40.4 of this Act, the Administrator shall de-
termine that such agency has the author-
ity—
"(A) to regulate the location, modifica-
tion, and construction of any facilities with-
in the area of Jurisdiction of such agency.
which may result in the generation of en-
vironmental noise; and
"(B) to assure that the use of any product
in the area of • Jurisdiction of such agency
will not exceed applicable noise control
levels;
"(C) to (i) identify, if appropriate, sources
of environmental noise within the jurisdic-
tion of such agencies, and (ii) set forth pro-
cedures, processes, and methods (including
land use requirements and design and con-
struction standards) to control such sources
to the extent feasible;
"(D) to acquire, maintain, and operate
noise monitoring facilities in the field and
otherwise, making public reports of noise
emissions and levels of environmental noise
disclosed by such monitoring, which reports
shall be related'to any applicable standards
or limitations; and
"(E) to issue abatement orders.
"(It) From the sums available for the pur-
poses of subsection (a) of this section for
any fiscal year, the Administrator shall from
is for the convenience of, and at the request
of, such recipient and for the purposes of
carrying out the provisions of this Act. The
amount by which such payments have been
reduced shall be available for payment of
such costs by the Administrator, but shall,
for the purpose of determining the amount
of any grant to a recipient under subsec-
tion (a) of this section, be deemed to have
been paid to stich agency.
"(e) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated for this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year
eliding June 30, 1973, $7,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974,~and $10,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.
"DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-NOISE-EMISSION
PRODUCTS
"SEC. 419. (a) For the purpose of this sec-
tion:
"(1) The term 'Committee' means the
Low-Noise-Emission Product Advisory Com-
mittee.
"(2) The term 'Federal Government' in-
cludes the legislative, executive, and Judi-
cial branches of the Government of the
United States, and the government of the
District of Columbia.
"(3) The term 'low-noise-emission product'
means any product which emits noise in
amounts significantly below the levels of oth-
er products in the competitive market for
such product at the time of procurement.
"(4) The term 'retail price' means (A) the
maximum statutory price applicable to any
type of product; or (B) in any case where
there is no applicable maximum statutory
price, the most recent procurement price paid
for any type of product.
"(b) (1) The Administrator shall deter-
mine which products qualify as low-nolse-
emlssion products in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
"(2) The Administrator shall certify any
product—
"(A) for which a certification application
"(D) The Administrator shall conduct
whatever investigation is necessary, Includ-
ing actual inspection of the product at a
place designated In regulations prescribed
under subparagraph (A).
"(E) The Administrator shall receive and
evaluate written comments and documents
from interested persons in support of, ,or in
opposition to, certification of the class or
model of product under consideration.
"(F) Within ninety days after the receipt
of a properly filed certification application
the Administrator shall determine whether
such product Is a low-noise-emission product
for purposes of this section. If the Adminis-
trator determines that such product is a low-
nolse-emisslon product, then within one hun-
dred and eighty days of such determination
the Administrator shall reach a decision as
to whether such product is a, suitable sub-
stitute for any class or classes of products
presently being purchased by the Federal
Government for use by its agencies.
"(G) Immediately upon making any de-
termination or decision under subparagraph
(F), the Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Begister notice of such determina-
tion or decision, including reasons therefor.
"(c)(l) Certified low-noise-emission pro-
ducts shall be acquired by purchase or lease
by the Federal Government for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other products
if the Administrator of General Services de-
termines that such certified products have
procurement costs which are no more than
125 per centum of the retail price of the least
expensive .type of product for" which they are
certified substitutes.
" (2) Data relied upon by the Administrator
in determining that a product is a certlfled
low-noise-emission product shall be incorpo-
rated in any contract for the procurement of
such product.
"(d) The procuring agency shall be re-
quired to purchase available certified low-
Ui
T
I
8
an
tr1
B
O
H*
1
0
bO
Oi
[p. S18012]
-------
noise-emission products which are eligible
for purchase to the extent they are available
before purchasing any other products for
which any low-nolse-emisslon product is a
certified substitute. In making purchasing
selections between competing eligible certi-
fied low-noise-emission products, the pro-
curing agency shall give priority to any class
or model which does not require extensive
periodic maintenance to retain Its low-noise-
emlsslon qualities or which does not involve
operating costs significantly in excess of those
products for which it is a certified substitute.
"(e) For the purpose of procuring certified
low-noise-emlsslon products any statutory
price limitations shall be waived.
"(f) The Administrator shall, from time to
time as he deems appropriate, test the emis-
sions of noise from certified low-noise-emis-
sion products purchased by the Federal Gov-
ernment. If at the time of purchase he finds
that the noise-emission levels exceed the
levels on which certification under this sec-
tion was based, the Administrator shall give
the supplier of such product written notice of
this finding, issue public notice of it, and
give the supplier an opportunity to make
necessary repairs, adjustments, or replace-
ments. If no such repairs, adjustments, or
replacements are made within a period to be
set by the Administrator, he may order the
supplier to show cause why the product
involved should be eligible for recertlficatlon.
"(g) There are authorized to be appro-
priated for paying additional amounts for
products pursuant to, and for carrying out
the provisions of, this section, $1,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $2,-
000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal
years.
"(h) The Administrator shall promulgate
the procedures required to Implement this
section within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this section.
"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
"SEC. 420. There are authorized to be ap-
Federal Aviation Administration has deter-
mined that such regulations are consistent
with the highest degree of safety In air com-
merce and that any proposed 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 subse-
quent standards, rules, or regulations pro-
mulgated and approved pursuant to this
part: Provided, however, That the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, within nine months of the date of
enactment of this Act, shall review all noise
emission standards, rules, or regulations In
effect under section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act, as amended, prior to the date of
enactment of the title.
"(c) Each Federal agency with regulatory
authority over air commerce, aircraft or
airport operations, or aircraft noise emissions,
shall exercise such regulatory authority so
as to reduce noise In airport environments
and surrounding areas.
"SEC. 502. (a) The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies and interested persons, shall
conduct a study of the (a) adequacy of Fed-
eral Aviation Administration flight and op-
erational noise controls; (b) adequacy of
noise emission standards on new and exist-
ing aircraft, together with recommendations
on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing
aircraft; (c) implications of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure
around airports; and (d) additional meas-
ures available to airport operators and local
governments to control aircraft noise. He
shall report on such study to the Committee
powers and duties vested In him under this
section.
"(b) In any action to amend, modify,
suspend, or revoke a certificate in which vio-
lation 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 Trans-
portation Safety Board, the Board may
amend, modify, or revoke the order of the
Secretary of Transportation only If it finds
no violation of such standards, rules, or regu-
lations, and that such amendment, modifica-
tion, or revocation by the Board is consist-
ent with safety in air transportation.
"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, unless such type certificates apply
all of the standards promulgated by the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency prior to the date of issuance of such
certificates.
"SEC. 506. No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce any standard
respecting noise emissions from any air-
craft or engine thereof.
"SEC. 506. Terms used in this part (other
than Administrator) shall have the same
meaning as such terms have under section
101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, the sole authority to estab-
lish aircraft noise emission standards Is con-
tained in part A of this title.
"CTVH, AIRCRAFT SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 507. (a) No person may operate a civil
to
O5
F
H
O
a
O
tr1
B
-------
propriated to carry out this Act (other than
sections 418 and 419) $18,000,000 lor the .fis-
cal year ending June 30, 1973; $36,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30,1074; and $50,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975."
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
AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 601. (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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency, after consulta-
tion with the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, shall promulgate
and amend standards for the measurement of
aircraft and aircraft engine noise and sonic
boom; and
"(2) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall promulgate
and amend regulations with respect to noise
emission standard for aircraft aid aircraft
engines which he determines are necessary
and adequate to protect the public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety.
"(b) (1) 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 Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency after consulta-
tion with the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration and shall not be
promulgated until the Administrator of the
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the
House of Representatives and the Commit-
tees on Commerce and Public Works of the
Senate within one year after enactment of
this title.
"(b) The Secretary of Transportation,
after consultation with the appropriate Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies and Interested
individuals, shall conduct a study of the
means of financing the retrofitting of exist-
ing jet aircraft (excluding aircraft owned or
operated by any military agency) in order
to carry out the purposes of this part, and
shall make recommendations, taking' Into
consideration what Is economically reason-
able, technologically practicable, and appro-
priate for the types of aircraft and aircraft
engines to which the recommendations will
apply. He shall report on such study to the
Committees on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, and Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives, and the Committees on
Commerce, Finance, and Public Works of the
Senate by July 1, 1973, together with his
recommendations for whatever legislation
may be required.
"SEC. 503. (a) The Secretary of Transpor-
tation, after consultation with the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, shall promulgate regulations to In-
sure compliance with all standards promul-
gated by the Administrator under section 501
of this Act. The regulations of the Secretary
of Transportation shall Include provisions
making such standards respecting noise
emissions from any type of aircraft appli-
cable in the issuance, amendment, modifica-
tion, suspension, or revocation ol any cer-
tificate authorized by the Federal Aviation
Act, as amended, or the Department of
Transportation Act, as amended. Such Secre-
tary shall insure that all necessary inspec-
tions are accomplished, and may execute any
power or duty vested In him by any other
provision of law In the execution of all
aircraft over the territory of the United
States, the territorial sea of the United
States, or the waters of the contiguous zone
(as defined under Article. 24 of the Conser-
vation of the Territorial Sea and the Con-
tiguous Zone) at a true flight mach number
greater than 1 except In compliance with
the conditions and limitations in an au-
thorization 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 authori-
zation to exceed mach 1 may be Issued If the
applicant shows one or more of the fol-
lowing:
"(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 air-
plane, 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 Federal
Aviation Administrator in consultation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. In addition, for an authori-
zation covered by subsection (b) of this sec-
tion, 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 in-
sure that no sonic boom will reach, the land
I
O
w
CO
1
H
CO
H
to
O5
[p. S18013]
-------
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 Pro-
tection Agency finds that such research and
development flight or flights will adversely af-
fect 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
Administrator whenever he finds that such
action is necessary to protect public health
or welfare or the quality of the environment.
"(f) Any violation of this section shall be
subject to the penalties prescribed under
subsection (a) of section 412 of this Act.
"SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
"SEC. 508. No civil aircraft capable of fly-
ing 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
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration and in effect on September 1,
1972.
"PART B—RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
"SEC. 611. (a) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this title, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for surface carriers en-
gaged in interstate commerce- by railroad.
Such proposed regulations shall include noise
emission standards setting such limits on
noise emissions resulting from operation of
the equipment and facilities of surface car-
riers engaged In interstate commerce by rail-
road which reflect the degree of noise reduc-
tion achievable through the application of
the best available technology, taking Into a*b-
count the coat of compliance. These regula-
tions shall be In addition to any regulations
that may be proposed under section 408 of
in interstate commerce by railroad unless
such standard is identical to a standard ap-
plicable to noise emissions resulting from
such operation prescribed by any regulation
under this section: Provided, however. That
nothing in this section shall diminish or en-
hance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environ-
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product as the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Trans-
portation may determine to be necessitated
by special local conditions or not in conflict
with regulations promulgated under • this
part.
"SEC. 514. The terms 'carrier' and 'railroad'
as used in sections 511, 512, and 513 of this
part shall have the same meaning as such
terms have under section 22 of title 45 of
the United States Code.
"PART C—MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
"SEC. 521. (a) Within nine months after
the date of enactment o^ this title, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for motor carriers en-
gaged in interstate commerce. Such proposed
regulations shall Include noise emission
standards setting such limits on noise emis-
sions resulting from operation of motor car-
riers engaged In interstate commerce which
reflect the degree of noise reduction achiev-
able through the application of the best
available technology, taking into account
the cost of compliance. These regulations
shall be In addition to any regulations that
may be proposed under section 408 of this
Act.
"(b) Within ninety days after the pub-
lication of such regulations as may be pro-
posed under subsection (a) of this section,
and subject to the provisions of section 415
of this Act, the Administrator shall promul-
ical subdivision thereof to establish and en-
force standards or controls on levels of en-
vironmental noise, or to control, license,
regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or
movement of any product as the Adminis-
trator, after consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation, may determine to be ne-
cessitated by special local conditions or not
in conflict with regulations promulgated
under this part.
"SEC. 524. The term 'motor carrier' as used
in sections 521, 522, and 623 of this part
shall have the same meaning as those terms
as denned in section 303(a) (14), (16), and
(17) of title 49 of the United States Code."
SEC. 4. There is hereby authorized to be
transferred to the Administrator any func-
ction or personnel of the Department of
Transportation with respect to the control
and abatement of aircraft noise which the
President determines is necessary to carry
out section 3 of this Act.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to. [p_ S180M]
bo
05
I—1
00
O
C-"
>
H
I-H
O
hb
F
a
&
H
2
1-3
-------
this Act.
"(t>) Within ninety days after the pub-
lication of such regulations as may be pro-
posed under subsection (a) of tills section,
and subject to the provisions of section 415
of this Act, the Administrator shall promul-
gate final regulations. Such regulations may
be revised from time to time, in accordance
with this section.
"(c) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this section
shall be promulgated only after consultation
•with the Secretary of Transportation in order
to assure appropriate consideration for safety
and technological availability.
"(d) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this section shall take ef-
fect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with, the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
"SEC. 512. The Secretary of Transportation,
after consultation with the Administrator,
shall promulgate regulations to insure com-
pliance with all standards promulgated by
the Administrator under section 611 of this
Act. The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out such regulations through the use
of his powers and duties of enforcement and
inspection authorized by the Safety Appli-
ance Acts, the Interstate Commerce Act, and
the Department of Transportation Act. Reg-
ulations promulgated under this section and
section 511 of this part shall be subject to
the provisions of sections 411, 412, 413, 415,
and 416 of this Act.
"SEC. 513. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, after the effective date of
regulations under this part, no State or po-
litical subdivision thereof may adopt or en-
force any standard respecting noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of equip-
"ment or facilities of surface carriers engaged
gate final regulations. Such regulations may
be revised from time to time; In accordance
with this section.
"(c) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this section
shall be promulgated only after consultation
(with the Secretary of Transportation in or-
der to assure appropriate consideration for
safety and technological availability.
"(d) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this section shall take
effect after such period as the Administra-
tor finds necessary, after consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation, to permit
the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate con-
sideration to the cost of compliance within
such period.
"Sec. 522. The Secretary of Transportation,
after consultation with the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations to Insure com-
pliance with all standards promulgated by
the Administrator under section 521 of this
part. The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out such regulations through the use
of his powers and duties of enforcement and
inspection authorized by the Interstate Com-
merce Act and the Department of Transpor-
tation Act, Regulations promulgated under
this section and section 521 of this part shall
be subject to the provisions of sections 411,
412,413,415, and 416 of this Act.
"SEC. 523. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, after the effective date of
regulations under this part no State or po-
litical subdivision thereof may adopt or en-
force any standard respecting noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of motor
carriers engaged in interstate commerce un-
less such standard is identical to a stand-
ard applicable to noise emissions resulting
from such operation prescribed by any regu-
lation under this section: Provided, however,
That nothing in this section shall diminish
or enhance the rights of any State orpolit-
O
h-i
CO
H
50
F
H
Q
h-H
GO
F
I
H
M
to
CT>
I—t
<£>
-------
NOISE STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2621
1.4a(3) (d) Oct. 18: House concurred in Senate amendment, with an
amendment, pp. H10261-H10262, H10287-H10300
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
ACT OF 1972
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 11021) to
control the emission of noise detrimen-
tal to the human environment, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amend-
ment thereto, and consider the Senate
amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from West
Virginia?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, this bill, as the Members
well recognize, is the Environmental
Noise Control Act of. 1972, to which I
objected yesterday, principally on the
basis of protest against the procedural
press of year-end legislation. Since then
and immediately thereafter I have been
importuned by the distinguished gentle-
man, the chairman of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and
many people across the length and
breadth of the Nation, to withdraw my
objection. I well know their fears of
more stringent regulation in 1973, but
rather than acceptance, now, I believe
they will gain amelioration in the com-
mittee's mature deliberation. In prin-
ciple I am against Federal preemp-
tion of State rights.
Mr. Speaker, I have gone into prayer-
ful consideration of this bill, which does
require unanimous consent, because of
the legislative bind in which we find our-
selves. I have resurrected the legislative
flle, with all my notes pertaining there-
unto, as it 'passed the House by a vote
of 356 to 32 on February 29 of this year,
with its amendments.
. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who
voted against it at the time, on the basis
that it was not coordinated between the
new Environmental Protection Agency
and responsibilities of the Federal Avia-
tion Agency, which I understand from
my friend from West Virginia (Mr. STAG-
GERS), is presumably corrected in the
House amendment to the Senate amend-
ments in the House-passed version of the
bill. There has been no conference in
this procedure, and these is no printed
report on which to base a mature judg-
ment.
At the time of the original House con-
sideration, my objection was predicated
further on too severe penalties, the new
granted right for citizens to bring civil
suits leading to these too severe penalties,
the fact it was applicable to much noise
abatement, besides those of the trans-
portation industry, and so forth.
I felt, Mr. Speaker, it would come back
to haunt us as the occupational health
and safety bill has done. I also made an
annotation at that time that I thought
it was too costly for experimental legisla-
tion. I have reviewed all of that and had
a conference with the distinguished
chairman this morning, but I regret to
say in my heart and in my most con-
sidered judgment I find,, with the in-
crease costs—doubled—offered in these
amendments, and as related by the chair-
man yesterday on page H10238 of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, that my convic-
tion is more deeply founded and more
profound than ever, and therefore I must
object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
[p. H10262]
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
ACT OF 1972
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 11021) to
control the emission of noise detrimen-
tal to the human environment, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amend-
525-314 O - 73 - 30
-------
ment thereto, and consider the Senate
amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from West
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ment, as. follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and Insert:
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the
"Environmental Noise Control Act of 1972".
SEC. 2. Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 Is amended to read as follows:
"SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
"SEC. 401. This Act, Including the following
table of contents, may be cited as the 'En-
vironmental Noise Control Act'.
"TABLE OP CONTENTS
"Sec. 401. Short title; table of contents.
"Sec. 402. Findings and policy.
"Sec. 403. Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
"Sec. 404. Definitions.
"Sec. 405. Research, investigation, training,
and other activities.
"Sec. 406. Federal programs.
"Sec. 407. Noise criteria and control technol-
ogy.
"Sec. 408. Noise emission standards for new
products.
"Sec. 409. Labeling.
"Sec. 410. Imparts.
"Sec. 411. Prohibited acts.
"Sec. 412. Enforcement.
"Sec. 413. Citizen suits.
"Sec. 414. Emergency situations.
"Sec. 415. Judicial review.
"Sec. 416. Records, reports, and Information.
"Sec. 417. Federal procurement.
"Sec. 418. Grants for support of environ-
mental noise planning and con-
plan established by the Administrator or any
State or municipality under this Act shall
be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
the Administrator and the States and mu-
nicipalities. The Administrator, In coopera-
tion with the States and municipalities, with-
in ninety days after enactment of this sec-
tion, shall develop and publish regulations
specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation In such processes.
"OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
"SEC. 403. (a) The Administrator shall es-
tablish within the Environmental Protection
Agency an Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, and shall carry out through such
Office a full and complete Investigation and
study of noise and its effect on the public
health and welfare and administer the pro-
visions of this Act.
"(b) The Administrator is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary
to carry out his function under this Act.
The Administrator may delegate to any officer
or employee of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency such of his powers and duties
under this Act, except the making of regula-
tions, as he may deem necessary or expedi-
ent.
"(c) Upon the request of an environmen-
tal noise control agency, personnel of the
Environmental Protection Agency may be
detailed to such agency for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
"(d) Payments under grants made under
this Act may be made In Installments, and
in advance or by way of reimbursement, as
may be determined by the Administrator.
"DEFINITIONS
"SEC. 404. For purposes of this title and
title V of this Act:
"(a) The .term 'Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
"(b) The term 'person' means an Individ-
to
Oi
to
to
Q
O
O
a
hjj
i?
f>
CO
c!
H
-------
trol programs.
"See. 419. Development of low-noise-emis-
sion, products'.
"Sec. 420. Authorization of appropriations.
"FINDINGS AND POLICY
"SEC. 402. (a) The Congress finds—
I'(l) that environmental noise presents a
growing danger to the health and welfare of
the Nation's population, particularly in urban
areas;
"(2) that the major sources of noise emis-
sions include aircraft, vehicles, machinery,
appliances, and other products in commerce;.
and
"(3) that, while primary responsibility for
control of environmental noise rests, with
State and local governments, Federal regula-
tory action is essential to deal with major
noise emission sources, and Federal assistance
is necessary to encourage and support pro-
grams for the control of environmental noise.
"(b) The Congress declares that It Is the
policy of the United States to promote an
environment for all Americans free from
noise that (Jeopardizes their public health or
welfare. To that end, It Is the purpose of this
Act to establish a means for effective coordi-
nation of Federal research and activities in
environmental noise control, to authorize
the establishment of Federal noise emission
standards of new products, to provide in-
formation to the public of the noise emis-
sion and noise reduction characteristics of
new products, to encourage and support State
and municipal programs for the control of
environmental noise through planning and
program grants to State and local environ-
mental noise control agencies, and to provide
Information to the public on the control of
environmental noise through regulation of
use of products and other methods and pro-
cedures, to reduce environmental noise.
"(c) Public participation In the develop-
ment, revision, and enforcement of any regu-
lation, noise emission standard, program or
UBl, corporation, partnership, or association,
and (except as provided in section 413 (a) (1)
of this Act) Includes any officer, employee,
department, agency, or Instrumentality of
the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision of a State.
" (c) The term 'product' means any manu-
factured article or goods or component there-
of; except that such term does not Include—
" (1) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance, as such terms are denned In sec-
tion 101 of the Federal Aviation Act, as
amended (48 U.S.C. 1431); or
"(2) (A) any military aircraft, rockets,
weapons, or equipment which are designed
for combat use; or (B) any aircraft, rockets,
launch vehicles, spacecraft, or equipment
which are designed for research, experimen-
tal, or developmental work to be performed
by the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration, as determined by the President
under section 406 of this Act.
" (d) The term 'ultimate purchaser' means
the first person who In good faith purchases
a product for purposes other than resale.
"(e) The term 'new product' means a
product the equitable or legal title to which
has never been "transferred to an -ultimate
purchaser. Products remanufactured or re-
built by a. manufacturer from used products
to restore original functions shall be consid-
ered to be new products for the purposes of
this title and title V of this Aek
"(f) The term 'manufacturer' means any
person engaged in the manufacturing, assem-
bling, or importing of new products, or who
acts for, and is controlled by, any such per-
son in connection with the distribution of
such products, but shall not Include any
dealer with respect to any new product re-
ceived by him In commerce.
" (g) The term 'dealer' means 'any person
engaged In the sale or the distribution of
new products to the ultimate purchaser who
may prepare a product for sale or distribu-
tion to the ultimate purchaser: Provided,
I
a
0
%
o
to
O5
IS3
CO
[p. H10287]
-------
That when such dealer's preparatory or anal
assembly wort Involves modifications which
Increase the noise emission characteristics of
such product, such dealer shall then be con-
sidered a manufacturer of such product for
the purposes of this title and title V of this
Act.
"(h) The term 'commerce' means trade,
traffic, commerce, or transportation—
"(1) between a place In a State and any
place outside thereof, or
"(2) which affects trade, traffic, commerce,
or transportation described In paragraph (1)
of this subsection.
"(i) The term 'State' Includes the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Trust Ter-
ritory of the Pacific Islands.
"(j) The term 'Federal agency' means any
department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States Including- the United
States Postal Service.
"(k) The term 'environmental noise con-
trol agency means any of the following:
"(1) A single State agency designated by
the Governor of that State as the official
State environmental noise control agency
for purposes of this Act:
" (2) An agency established by itwo or more
States and having substantial powers or du-
ties pertaining to the prevention and control
of environmental noise;
"(3) A city, county, or other local govern-
ment authority charged with responsibility
for enforcing ordinances or laws relating to
the prevention and control of environmental
noise; or
"(4) An agency of two or more munici-
palities located in the same State or in dif-
ferent States and having substantial powers
or duties pertaining to the prevention and
control of environmental noise.
"(1) The term 'municipality' means a city,
town, borough county, parish, district, or
Bureau of Standards, Department of Com-
merce.
"(3) encourage, cooperate with, and render
technical services (Including the drafting of
model ordinances) and provide financial as-
sistance to environmental noise control agen-
cies and other appropriate public or private
agencies, Institutions and organizations, and
Individuals In the conduct of such activities;
"(4) conduct Investigations and research
and make surveys concerning any specific
problem of environmental noise In coopera-
tion with any noise pollution control agency
with a view to recommending a solution ol
such problem, If he Is requested to do so by
such agency or If, In his Judgment, such
problem may affect any community or com-
munities In a State other than that In which
the source of the matter causing or contrib-
uting to the noise is located; and
"(5) establish technical advisory commit-
tees composed of recognized experts In vari-
ous aspects of noise to assist in the examina-
tion and evaluation of research progress and
proposals and to avoid duplication of re-
search, and for other purposes.
"(b) In carrying out the provisions of the
preceding subsection the Administrator Is
authorized to—
"(1) collect and make available, through
publications and other appropriate means,
the results of activities pursuant to subsec-
tion (a) and other Information, including ap-
propriate recommendations by him In con-
nection therewith, pertaining to such re-
search and other activities;
"(2) cooperate with other Federal agen-
cies, with environmental noise control agen-
cies, with other public and private agencies,
institutions, and organizations, and with, any
industries Involved, in the preparation and
conduct of such research and other activities,
including technical assistance;
"(3) make grants to environmental noise
control agencies, to other public or nonprofit
fullest extent consistent with their authority
under Federal laws administered by them,
carry out the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy
declared In section 402 of this Act.
"(b) Each department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the Federal Government
(1) having jurisdiction over any property
or facility, or (2) engaged in any activity
resulting, or which may result, in the emis-
sion of noise shall comply with Federal,
State, Interstate, and local requirements re-
specting control and abatement of environ-
mental noise to the same extent that any
person is subject to such requirements. The
President may exempt any single activity or
facility, including noise emission sources or
classes thereof, of any department, agency,
or Instrumentality In the executive branch
Irom compliance with any such requirement
If he determines It to be in the paramount
interest of the United States to do so; ex-
cept that no exemption, other than for those
products specified pursuant to section 404
(c) (2) of this Act may be granted from the
requirements of sections 408, 611, and 521
of this Act. No such exemption shall be
granted due to lack of appropriation unless
the President shall have specifically request-
ed such appropriation as a part of the bud-
getary process and the Congress shall have
failed to make available such requested ap-
propriation. Any exemption shall be for a
period not in excess of one year, but addi-
tional exemptions may be granted for pe-
riods of not to exceed one year upon the
President's making a new determination.
The - President shall report each January to
the Congress all exemptions from the re-
quirements of this section granted during
the preceding calendar year, together with
his reason for granting such exemption.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall coordinate
the programs of all Federal agencies relating
bG
Q
>
tr1
O
o
hi
>Tf
F
w
g
-------
other public body created by or pursuant to
State law. «, .« -
"(m) The term 'noise emission standard'
means a statement of a noise level or oilier
acoustical characteristic whloh may not be
exceeded under specified conditions or
method of operation. Sud'h standard snail in-
clude the test procedures to be followed and
shall be stated In terms of .performance
rather thaii design criteria.
"(n) The term 'environmental noise'
means the intensity, duration, and character
of sounds from all sources.
"(o) The term 'cumulative noise exposure'
means the exposure of Individuals in defined
areas around airports to. noise from aircraft
operations weighted by time of day."
"RESEARCH, INVESTIGATION, TRAINING, AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES
"SEC. 405. (a) The Administrator shall es-
tablish a national research and development
program for the prevention and control of
environmental noise and'as part of such pro-
gram shall—
"(1) conduct, and promote the coordina-
tion and acceleration of, research, Investiga-
tions, experiments, training, demonstrations,
surveys, and studies relating to the causes,
effects, extent, prevention and control of
environmental noise;
"(2) conduct and finance research by con-
tract with any person, on the effects, meas-
urement, and control of noise, including but
not limited to—
"(A) Investigation of the direct or indirect
effects of noise on humans (including
physiological and psychological effects), and
the direct or indirect effects of noise on do-
mestic animals, fish, wildlife, and property,
and determination of acceptable levels of
noise on the basis of such effects; and
"(B) development of Improved methods
and standards for measurement and monitor-
ing of noise, in cooperation with the National
private agencies, Institutions and organiza-
tions, and to Individuals, for purposes stated
in subsection (a) of this section;1. ^
"(It) contract with public or private agen-
cies, institutions and organizations, and with
individuals,, without regard to 'sections 3648
and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
629; 41 U.8.C. 5) ;
"<5) provide training (without fee) for,
and make training grants to personnel of
environmental noise control agencies and
other persons with suitable qualifications;
"(6) establish and maintain, research fel-
lowships, in the' Environmental Protection
Agency and at public or nonprofit private
educational Institutions or research orga-
nizations;
"(7) collect and make available through
publications and other appropriate means,
In cooperation with other Federal depart-
ments and agencies, and with other public
or private agencies, Institutions, and orga-
nizations having related responsibilities, basic
data on physical, and human and other
effects of varying levels of noise and other
Information pertaining to noise and the pre-
vention and control thereof; and
"(8) develop effective and practical proc-
esses, methods, and prototype devices for the
prevention or control of environmental noise.
"(c) In carrying out the provisions of sub-
section (a) of this section the Administrator
shall conduct research on. and survey the
results of other scientific studies on, the
harmful effects on the health or welfare of
persons by the various known noise sources.
"(d) In carrying out research pursuant to
this Act, the Administrator shall give special
emphasis to research on the short- and long-
term effects of environmental noise on public
health and welfare.
"FEDERAL PROGRAMS
"SEC. 406. (a) The Congress authorizes and
directs that Federal agencies shall, to the
to environmental noise research and envir-
onmental noise control. Each Federal agency
shall furnish to the Administrator such in-
formation as he may reasonably require, to
determine, as provided under section 309 of
the Clean Air Act, If the nature, scope, and
results of the noise research and environ-
mental noise control programs of the agency
are consistent with the purposes of this
Act.
"(2) Each Federal agency shall consult
with the Administrator in prescribing any
regulations respecting environmental noise.
If at any time the Administrator has reason
to believe that a standard or regulation, or
any proposed standard or regulation of any
Federal agency, respecting noise, does not
protect the public health and'welfare to the
extent he believes to be required he shall
request such agency to review and report to
him on the advisability of revising such
standard or regulation to provide such pro-
tection. Any such request shall be published
in the Federal Register and shall be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the in-
formation on which such request Is based.
Such agency shall complete the requested
review and report to the Administrator with-
in 180 days after the date of the publication
In the Federal Register of the request. The
report shall be published In the Federal
Register and shall be accompanied by a de-
tailed statement of the findings and con-
clusions of the agency respecting the re-
vision of its standard or regulation.
"(3) On the basis of regular consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, the Ad-
ministrator shall compile and publish an-
nually a report to the Congress on the status
and progress of Federal activities relating to
environmental noise research and environ-
mental noise control. This report shall de-
scribe the environmental noise control pro-
grams of each Federal agency and assess the
contributions of those programs to the Fed-
i
H
03
g
CD
OS
to
Cn
[p. H10288]
-------
eral Government's overall efforts to control
environmental noise.
"NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
"SEC. 407. (a) The Administrator shall,
after consultation with approplrate Federal,
State, and municipal agencies, and other ap-
propriate persons, within nine months after
the date of enactment of this section, issue
noise criteria. Such criteria shall reflect the
scientific knowledge most useful in indicating
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects
on the public health or welfare which may be
expected from differing quantities and qual-
ities of noise, and such criteria shall set forth
levels of environmental noise the attainment
and maintenance of which In defined areas
under various conditions are requisite to
protect the public health and welfare with
an adequate margin of safety.
"(b) The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal, State, and
municipal agencies, and other appropriate
persons, shall within fifteen months after
date of enactment of this section compile and
publish a report or series of reports (1) iden-
tifying products (or classes of products)
which on the basis of information available
to him appear to be major sources of noise,
and (2) giving information on the processes,
procedures, or operating methods which re-
sult In the control of the emission of noise, to
Implement noise emission control standards
under sections 408, 501, 503, 511, and 521 of
this Act,' which such information shall In-
clude . technical and other data, including
costs, as are available on alternative methods
of noise control.
"(c) The Administrator, after consultation
with appropriate Federal, State, and munici-
pal agencies, and other appropriate persons,
shall compile and provide information on
methods and techniques of controlling en-
vironmental noise through, among other
means, product use control, laud use regula-
tion, and construction and -building stand-
than eighteen months after the date of en-
actment of this Act, and shall apply to any
appropriate new product described in para-
graph (1) which is identified (or In a class
identified) in any report published under
section 407(b)(l) of this Act on or before
the date of publication of such initial pro-
posed regulations.
"(B) In the case of any new product de-
scribed in paragraph (1) which is identified
(or is part of a class identified) as a major
source of noise in a report published under
section 407(b) (1) of this Act after publica-
tion of the initial proposed regulations un-
der subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, reg-
ulations under paragraph (1) of this subsec--
tion for such new product shall be promul-
gated by the Administrator not later than
nine months after such report is pub-
lished.
"(b) The Administrator may publish pro-
posed regulations establishing noise emis-
sion standards respecting any new product
for which he is not required to establish
standards under subsection (a) of this sec-
tion but for which, in his judgment, noise
emission standards are requisite to protect
the public health and welfare. Not later than
six months after the date of publication of
such regulations respecting such new prod-
uct, he shall promulgate regulations estab-
lishing noise emission standards for such
new product.
"(c) (1) Any noise emission standard pre-
scribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this
section respecting a new product shall set
limits on noise emissions from such new
product over the useful life of the product
(as determined by the Administrator taking
into account the range of possible uses for
the same type of product) and shall be a
standard which in the Administrator's Judg-
ment, based on information published under
section 407 of this Act, reflects the degree of
noise reduction achievable through the appli-
ed any standards prescribed under this sec-
tion, the manufacturer of each new product
shall warrant to the ultimate purchaser and
each subsequent purchaser that such product
Is (A) designed, built, and equipped so as to
conform at the time of sale with applicable
regulations under this section, and (B) free
from defects in materials and workmanship
which cause such product, under normal use,
operation, and maintenance to fall to con-
form wtlh applicable regulations for Its use-
ful life, as determined by the Administrator,
talcing into account the range of uses for
such product.
"(2) Any cost obligation of any dealer in-
curred as a result of any requirement Im-
posed by paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall be b6rne by the manufacturer. The
transfer of any such cost obligation from a
manufacturer to any dealer through fran-
chise or other agreement is prohibited.
"(3) If a manufacturer includes in any ad-
vertisement a statement respecting the cost
or value of noise emission control devices
or systems, such manufacturer shall set forth
in such statement the cost or value attrib-
uted to such devices or systems by the Secre-
tary of Labor (through the Bureau of Labor
Statistics). The Secretary of Labor, and his
representatives, shall have the same access
for his purpose to the books, documents,
papers, and records of a manufacturer "as the
Comptroller General has to those of a recip-
ient of assistance for purposes of section 311
of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
"(e)(l) No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce, with respect to
(A) any product manufactured after the
effective date of a regulation prescribed by
the Administrator under this section or (B)
any component incorporated Into such prod-
uct by the manufacturer of such product,
any standard setting a limit on noise emis-
sions from such product enforceable against
the manufacturer which is not identical to
to
Oi
to
O5
f
H
O
O
O
g
-------
ards. Such information shall be compiled and
published to assist State and local govern-
ments In establishing and enforcing en-
vironmental noise control programs sup-
ported under section 418 of this Act.
"(d) The Administrator shall from time to
time review and, as appropriate, revise or
supplement any criteria or reports published
under this section.
"(e) Any report under subsection (b)(l)
of this section Identifying major noise sources
shall be published in the Federal Register.
The publication or revision of any criteria, or
information on control techniques under this
section shall be announced In the Federal
Register, and copies shall be made available
to the general public.
"NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOB NEW PRODUCTS
"SEC. 408. (a) (1) The Administrator shall
publish proposed regulations establishing
noise emission standards for new products
or classes of products-^-
"(A) identified in any report published
under section 407(b) (1) of this Act as a ma-
jor source of noise, and
"(B) which falls In one of the following
categories:
"(1) Construction equipment.
"(11) Transportation equipment (includ-
ing snowmobiles, motorcycles, and recrea-
tional vehicles and related equipment).
"(ill) Any motor or engine (including any
equipment of which an engine or motor is
an integral part).
"(iv) Turbines and compressors.
"(v) Electrical and electronic equipment,
except those products which are designed for
the production or reproduction of music or
sound (to the extent such reproduction is
Identical, except In amplitude, to the source
reproduced).
"(vi) Percussion and explosive equipment.
"(2) (A) Regulations proposed under para-
graph (1) shall be promulgated not later
cation of the best available technology, tak-
ing into account the* cost ol compliance. In
establishing such standards for any new
product the Administrator shall assure that
such standards are compatible with stand-
ards, under other laws respecting emission
of air or water pollutants and safety, includ-
ing (but not limited to) any standard under
the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), or the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1151 et seq.). Any standard prescribed under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section may
contain provisions respecting Instructions of
the manufacturer for the maintenance or use
of the product.
"(2) After publication of any proposed reg-
ulations under this section, the Administra-
tor shall allow the public an opportunity
to -participate in rulemaking in accordance
with section 553 of title 5, United States
Code.
"(3) The Administrator may revise any
noise emission standard prescribed by him
In accordance with this section.
"(4) Any regulation prescribed under this
section (and any revision thereof) shall take
effect after a period not to exceed two years
or such lesser time as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and ap-
plication of the requisite technology, glvirig
appropriate consideration to the cost of com-
pliance within such period. Standards pre-
scribed under this section shall apply to prod-
•ucts manufactured on or after the effective
date of such standards.
"(5) The Administrator may prescribe reg-
ulations denning 'effective date' for the pur-
pose of assuring that products manufac-
tured before the effective date of a regula-
tion under this section were not manufac-
tured for purposes of circumventing the
effective date of such regulations.
"(d)(l) On and after the effective date
the standard prescribed by the Administra-
tor.
" (2) Subject to paragraph (1) of this sub-
section, nothing in this section shall preclude
or deny the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
controls on environmental noise through the
licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use,
operation, or movement of any product or
combination of products: Provided, That
such control, licensing, regulation, or re-
striction shall not, in the case of any motor
carrier engaged In Interstate commerce or.
any equipment or facility of a surface carrier
engaged In interstate commerce by railroad,
result in a limit on noise emissions for any
carriers, equipment, or facility different than
any limit contained in any regulation appli-
cable thereto prescribed by the Administra-
tor under this section or title V of this Act,
except that In the case of such carriers the
Administrator may by regulation, upon the
petition of a State or political subdivision
thereof and after consultation with the Sec-
retary of Transportation, permit such more
restrictive limits on such noise emissions
through the application of use, operation, or
movement controls or regulations as in his
Judgment are necessitated by special local
conditions.
"(3) If, after promulgation of any stand-
ards and regulations under this section and
prior to their effective date, a product is man-
ufactured in compliance with such standards
and regulations such standards and regula-
tions shall, for the purposes of'paragraph (1)
of this subsection, become effective with re-
spect to such product on the date of such
compliance.
"LABELING
"SEC. 409. (a) The Administrator shall by
regulation for any new product (or class
thereof)—
"(1) identified pursuant to section 407(b)
(1); or
[p. H10289]
O
T
H
CD
g
I
O5
-------
"(2) which Is sold wholly or In part on the
basis of Its effectiveness In reducing noise,
require either (l) that a notice of the level
of noise emission Including the relationship
to any applicable noise emission standard
under secton 408, or notice of the effective-
ness In reducing noise (as the case may be)
supplied by the manufacturer, be affixed to
the new product and to the outside of Its
container at the time of Its sale to the ulti-
mate purchaser, or (2) that such notice of
such level or effectiveness supplied by the
manufacturer otherwise be given to the pro-
spective user. He shall prescribe the form of
the notice and the methods and units of
measurement to be used for this purpose. Sec-
tion 408 (c) (2) shall apply to the promulga-
tion of any regulation under this section.
"(b) This section does not prevent any
State or political subdivision thereof from
regulating product labeling in any way not
in conflict with regulations promulgated by
the Administrator under this section.
"IMPORTS
"SEC. 410. Any product offered for entry In-
to the United States for which a standard
or regulation has become effective pursuant
to this title, which Is not accompanied by
certificate of compliance in the form pre-
scribed by the Administrator, shall be refused
entry Into the United States. If a product is
refused entry, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall refuse delivery to the consignee and
shall cause disposal or storage of any product
refused delivery which has not been exported
by the consignee within three months from
the date of notice of such refusal under such
regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury
may prescribe, except that the Secretary of
the Treasury may deliver to the consignee
such product pending examination and de-
cision In the matter on execution of bond for
the amount of the full invoice value of such
product, together with the duty thereon, and
of this Act (requiring information respecting
noise) which are applicable to such product,
unless it Is in conformity with such regula-
tions.
"(3) (A) In the case of a manufacturer or
dealer, the assistance of any person in a
violation of paragraph (2) (A) of this sub-
section or the furnishing of information with
respect to a violation of paragraph (2) (A)
of this subsection.
"(B) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale in, the offering for sale in, or the Intro-
duction or delivery for introduction into,
commerce of any new product manufactured
after the effective date of regulations pro-
mulgated under option (1) in section 409 (a)
of this Act (requiring Information respect-
ing noise) which are applicable to such prod-
uct, unless Jt is In conformity with such
regulations.
"(4) (A) The removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pur-
suant to regulations promulgated under sec-
tion 409(a) of this Act prior to the sale of
the new product to the ultimate purchaser,
or (B) the sale of such product or container
from which such notice has been removed.
"(5) The importation into.the -United
States by any person of any new product in
violation of regulations promulgated under
section 410 of this Act that are applicable to
such product.
"(6) The failure of any person to comply
with any order Issued under section 412 (d)
or 414 of this Act.
"(b) (1) The Administrator may after pub-
lic hearings exempt for a specified period of
time not to exceed one year, any new prod-
uct, or class thereof, from paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), and (5) of subsection (a) of this
section upon such terms and conditions as
he may find necessary to protect the public
health or welfare, for the purpose of .research,
investigations, studies, demdnstratlons, or
with such violation, to make public notice
of such risks, to recall any products re-
sponsible for such violation, to repurchase
any such products, or to replace' any such
products. Such order may also require the
seizure of any such products by the Admin-
istrator.
"(2) Any order under this subsection shall
be Issued only after notice and opportunity
for a hearing in accordance with section 664
of title 5 of the United States Code.
"(e) When authorized by State law—
"(1) The Administrator may, by agree-
ment with any environmental noise control
agency with or without reimbursement, au-
thorize law enforcement officers or other of-
.fleers or employees of such environmental
noise control agency to bring civil actions
in the appropriate State courts to restrain
any person from violating section 411 (a).
"(2) The courts of such State may enter-
tain any such civil action.
Nothing In this section shall affect the au-
thority of an environmental noise control
agency to commence a civil action under
section 413 of this Act.
"CITIZEN StJTTS
SEC. 413. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tion (b) of this section, any person may com-
mence a civil action on his own behalf—
"(1) against any person (including (A) the
United States, and (B) any other govern-
mental instrumentality or agency to the ex-
tent permitted by the eleventh amendment
to the Constitution) who Is alleged to be in
violation of any noise control requirement
(as defined in subsection (f) of this section),
or
"(2) against—
"(A) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental. Protection Agency where there Is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act which
tG
to
00
o
>
F
o
o
F
M
-------
on refusal to return such product for any
cause to the custody of the Secretary of the
Treasury, when demanded, for the purpose of
excluding It from the country, or for any
other purpose, said consignee shall forfeit
the full amount of said bond. All charges for
storage, cartage, and labor on products which
are refused admission or delivery under this
section shall be paid by the owner or con-
signee, and In default of such payment shall
constitute a lien against any future Importa-
tion made by such owner or consignee.
"PROHIBITED ACTS
••SEC. 411. (a) Except as otherwise pro-
vided In subsection (b) of this section, the
following acts or the causing thereof are pro-
hibited:
"(1) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale In, the offering for sale In. or the Intro-
duction or delivery for introduction Into,
commerce of any new product, aircraft, or
aircraft engine manufactured after the ef-
fective date of noise emission control stand-
ards prescribed under sections 408, 601, 503,
511. and 521 of this Act which are applicable
to such product, unless such product Is In
conformity with such standards.
"(2) (A) The removal or rendering inop-
erative by any person, other than for pur-
poses of maintenance, testing, repair, or re-
placement, of any device or element of design
incorporated into any product, aircraft, or
aircraft engine in compliance with noise
emission standards promulgated under sec-
tions 408. 501. 503. 511. and 521 of this Act
prior to its sale or delivery to the ultimate
purchaser or during its term of use, or (B)
the use of a product after such device or
element of design has been removed or
rendered inoperative.
"(3) In the case of a manufacturer, the
sale in. the offering for sale In, or the intro-
duction or delivery for introduction into,
commerce of any new product manufactured
after the effective date of regulations pro-
mulgated under option (1) in section 409(b)
training, or for reasons of national security.
"(2) A new product Intended solely for
export, and so labeled or tagged on the out-
side of the container and on the product It-
self, shall be subject to noise emission stand-
ards of the country which imports such prod-
uct. In no event shall the Administrator al-
low the export from the United States of any
product subject to section 414 of this Act as
a product, the noise emissions from which
are an imminent, and substantial endanger-
ment to public health.
"ENFORCEMENT
"SEC. 412. (a) Any person who willfully
or negligently violates paragraph (1), (3),
(5). or (6) of subsection (a) of section 411
of this Act shall be punished by a fine of
not more than $25.000 per day of violation.
or by imprisonment for not more than one
year, or by both. In the case of a violation
of paragraph (1) or (6) of subsection (a)
of section 411 of this Act the fine shall be not
less than $2.500 per day of violation. If the
conviction Is for a violation committed after
a first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of
not more than $50.000 per day of violation,
or by Imprisonment for not more than two
years, or by both.
"(b) For the purpose of this section, each
day of violation of section 411(a) of this
Act shall constitute a separate violation of
that section.
"(c) The district courts of the United
States shall have jurisdiction of actions
brought by and in the name of the United
States to restrain any violations of section
411 (a) of this Act.
"(d)(l) Whenever any person is In viola-
tion of section 411 (a) of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator may issue an order specifying
such relief as he determines is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare. Such
relief may include an order requiring such
person to cease such violation, to notify ul-
timate purchasers of the risks associated
Is not discretionary with such Administrator.
"(B) the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration where there Is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act or sec-
tion 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
which Is not discretionary with such Admin-
istrator.
The district courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy or the citizenship of
the parties, to enforce such noise control
requirement or to order such Administrator
to perform such act or duty, as the case may
be.
"(b) No action may be comi enced—
"(1) under subsection (a)(l) of this sec-
tion—•
"(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice of the violation (1) to the
Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (and to the Federal Aviation
Administrator In the case of a violation of a
noise emission control requirement with re-
spect to aircraft under this Act or section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act as amended)
and (il) to any alleged violator of such re-
quirement, or
"(B) if an Administrator has commenced
and is diligently prosecuting a civil action
to require compliance with the noise control
requirement, but in any such action In a
court of the United States any person may
Intervene as a matter of right; or
"(2) under subsection (a) (2) of this sec-
tion prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice to the defendant that he
will commence such action.
Notice under this subsection shall be given
In such manner as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall pre-
scribe by regulation.
"(c) In an action under this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or, If appropriate, the Admin-
istrator of the Federal Aviation Admlnlstra-
Vi
PI
H
"3
1-3
P3
2
O
f
PI
O
33
to
05
to
CO
[p. H10200]
-------
tion, If not a party, may intervene as a
matter of right.
"(d) The court, In issuing any final order
In any action brougmt pursuant to subsec-
tion (a) of this section, may award costs of
litigation (Including reasonable attorney and
expert witness fees) to any party, when-
ever the court determines such an award
Is appropriate.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of
persons) may have under any statute or
common law to seek enforcement of any
noise control requirement or to seek any
other relief (Including relief against an
Administrator).
"(f) For purposes of this section, the term
'noise control requirement' means any pro-
hibition, standard, or requirement under sec-
tion 408, 411, 501, 503, 508, 511, or 521 of
this Act or a prohibition, standard, rule, or
regulation Issued under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended.
"EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
"SEC. 414. (a) The Administrator or the
Attorney General shall file, in a district court
of the United States having venue thereof,
an action against any product the noise
emissions from which are an imminent and
substantial endangennent to public health,
or against any person who manufactures for
sale, sells, or offers for sale, in commerce,
or Imports into the United States, such
product. Such an action may be filed, not-
withstanding the existence or nonexistence
of a noise emission standard applicable to a
product, or the pendency of administrative
proceedings Initiated pursuant to this Act.
"(b) The district court in which such
action Is filed shall have Jurisdiction to.
declare such product a product the noise
.emissions from which are an Imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health,
and to grant (as ancillary to such declara-
tion or in lieu thereof) such temporary or
Istrator may modify his findings as to the
facts, or make new findings, by reason of the
additional evidence so taken, and he shall file
with the court such modified or new findings,
and his recommendation, If any, for the mod-
ification or setting aside of his original
order, with the return of such additional evi-
dence;
"(c) with respect to relief pending review
of an action by the Administrator, no stay of
an agency action may be granted unless the
reviewing court determines that the party
seeking such stay is (1) likely to prevail on
the merits In the review proceeding and
(2) will suffer irreparable harm pending suph
proceeding.
"RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
"Sec. 416. (a) Such manufacturer of a new
product, aircraft, or aircraft engine to
which standards or regulations under sections
408, 501, 503, 511. or 521 of this Act or regu-
lations under section 409 apply shall (1) es-
tablish and maintain such records, make
such reports, provide such information, and
make such tests, as the Administrator may
reasonably require to enable him to deter-
mine whether such manufacturer has acted
or is acting in compliance with this Act,
(2) upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, permit
such officer or employee at reasonable times
to have access to such information and the
results of such tests and to copy such rec-
ords, and (3) make new products coming
off the assembly line or otherwise in the
hands of the manufacturer available for
testing by the Administrator, to the extent
required by regulations of the Administra-
tor.
"(b) For the purpose of obtaining Infor-
mation to carry out titles IV and V of this
Act, the Administrator may issue subpeuas
for the attendance and testimony of wit-
nesses and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and he may admlnls-
under consideration in a rulemaklng or ad-
Judlcatory proceeding In the Agency shall
be made a part of the public file of that
proceeding unless it Is a communication en-
titled to protection under subsection (c) of
this section.
"(e) Any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certifica-
tion in any application, record, report, plan,
or other document filed or required to be
maintained under this Act or who falsifies,
tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccu-
rate any monitoring device or method re-
quired to be maintained under this Act, shall
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of
not more than $10,000, or by Imprisonment
for not more than six mouths, or by both.
"FEDERAL, PROCUREMENT
"SEC. 417. (a),No Federal agency may enter
into any contract for the procurement of
goods, materials, or services with any person,
who has been convicted of a criminal offense
under section 412 (a) of this Act and who,
upon consideration of the gravity of the vio-
lation and the good faith of the person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid com-
pliance, the Administrator determines should
be subject to the prohibition of this section.
The prohibition in the preceding sentence
shall continue until the Administrator cer-
tifies that the condition giving rise to a con-
viction has been corrected.
"(b) The Administrator shall establish
procedures to provide all Federal agencies
with the notification necessary for the pur-
poses of subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) In order to implement the purposes
and'policy of this Act, the President shall,
not more than one hundred and eighty days
after its enactment, cause to be Issued an
order (1) requiring each Federal agency au-
thorized to enter into contracts and each
Federal agency which is empowered to ex-
tend Federal assistance by way of grant,
loan, or contract to effectuate the purposes
to
05
CO
o
5
Q
O
O
g
*0
i— t
tr1
CO
ej
-------
permanent equitable relief as may be neces-
sary to protect tne public from such risk.
Such relief may include a mandatory order
requiring the notification of the original
purchasers of such product of such risk:,
public notice, the recall, the repurchase, the
repair, the replacement, or the seizure of
such product;
"JUDICIAL REVIEW
"SEC. 415. Any Judicial review of final
regulations promulgated under this Act shall
be in accordance with sections 701-706 of
title 5 of the United States Code, except
that:
"(a) a petition for review of action of the
Administrator in promulgating any stand-
ard or regulation under section 408, '501, 511,
or 521 of this Act or any labeling regula-
tion under section 409 of this Act may be
filed Only in the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia. Any such
petition shall be filed within ninety days
from the "date of such promulgation, or after
such date If such petition Is based solely on
grounds arising after such ninetieth day.
Action of the Administrator with respect to
which review could have been obtained under
this subsection shall not be subject to Judi-
cial review In civil proceedings for enforce-
ment except as to whether the administra-
tive and judicial procedures of this Act have
been observed;
"(b) If a party seeking review under this
Act applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satis-
faction of the court that the Information Is
material and was not available at the time
of the proceeding before the Administrator,
the court may order such additional evi-
dence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof)
to be taken before the Administrator, and
to be adduced upon the hearing, In sucn
manner and upon such terms and conditions
as the court may deem proper. The Admln-
ter oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be paid
the same fees and mileage that are paid wit-
nesses In the courts of the United States. In
cases of contumacy or refusal to obey a sub-
pena served upon any person under this sub-
section, the district court of the United
States for any district in which such person
Is found or resides or transacts business,
upon application by the United, .States and
after notice to such person, shall have juris-
diction to Issue an order requiring such per-
son to appear and give testimony before the
Administrator, to appear and produce papers,
books, and documents before the Adminis-
trator, or both, and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by such
court as a contempt thereof.
"(c) Any records, reports, or information
obtained under this section shall be avail-
able to the public, except that upon a show-
Ing satisfactory to the Administrator by any
person that records, reports, or information
or particular part thereof (other than noise
emission data) to which the Administrator
has access under this section If made public,
would divulge methods or processes entitled
to protection as trade secrets of such per-
son, the Administrator shall consider such
record, report, or Information or particular
portion thereof confidential In accordance
with the purposes of section 1905 of title 18
of the United States Code, except that such
record, report, or Information may be dis-
closed to other officers, employees, or auth-
orized representatives of the United States
concerned with carrying out this Act or
when relevant in any proceeding under this
Act. Nothing In this section shall authorize
the withholding of Information by the Ad-
ministrator or any officer or employee under.
his control, from the duly authorized com-
mittees of the Congress.
. "(d) Any communication from a person to
the Administrator or any other employee of
the Agency concerning' a matter presently
and policy of this Act In s-Ueh contracting or
assistance activities, and (2) setting forth
procedures, sanctions, penalties, and such
other provisions, as the President determines
necessary to carry out such requirement.
"(d) The President may exempt any con-
tract, loain, or grant from all or part of the
provisions of this section where he deter-
mines such exemption Is necessary In the
paramount Interest of the United States, and
he shall notify the Congress of such exemp-
tion.
"CHANTS FOR SUPPORT OP ENVIRON MENTAL NOISE
PLANNING AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
"SEC. 418. (a)(l). The Administrator may
make grants to environmental noise control
agencies in an amount up to two-thirds of
the cost of planning, developing, establish-
ing, or Improving, and up to one-half of the
cost of maintaining programs for the pre-
vention and control of environmental noise,
"(2) Before approving any grant under
this su§ion to any environmental noise
control agency within" the meaning of sec-
tions 404(k) (3) and 404(k)(4) of this Act,
the Administrator (when appropriate) shall
receive assurances that such agency provides
for adequate representation of State, inter-
state, local, and international interests in its
area of jurisdiction. Before approving any
grant under this subsection the Administra-
tor shall determine that the recipient In the
appropriate environmental noise control
agency for the Jurisdictions involved in order
to minimize overlap and duplication of effort.
"(3) Before approving any planning grant
under this subsection to any environmental
noise control agency within the meaning of
sections 404(k) (3) and 404(k) (4) of this
Act, the Administrator shall receive assur-
ances that such agency has the capability of
developing and enforcing a comprehensive
environmental noise control plan.
"(4) Before approving any grant for pur-
12!
o
I
I
CO
o
f
o
t-1
en
g
1
bO
O5
CO
[p. H10291]
-------
poses other than developing a program under
this section to any environmental noise con-
trol agency within the meaning of section
404 of this Act, the Administrator shall deter-
mine that such agency has the authority—
"(A) to regulate the location, modification,
and construction of any facilities within the
area of Jurisdiction of such agency which
may result In the generation of environmen-
tal noise; and
"(B) to assure that the use of any product
In the area of Jurisdiction of such agency
will not exceed applicable noise control
levels;
"(C) .to (1) Identify, If appropriate, sources
of environmental noise within the Jurisdic-
tion of such agency, and (11) set forth pro-
cedures, processes, and methods (Including
land use requirements and design and con-
struction standards) to control such sources
to the extent feasible;
"(D) to acquire, maintain, and operate
noise monitoring facilities In the field and
otherwise, making public reports of noise
emissions and levels of environmental noise
disclosed by such monitoring, which reports
shall be related to any applicable standards
or limitations; and
"(E) to Issue abatement orders.
"(b) From the sums available for the pur-
poses of subsection (a) of this section for any
fiscal year, the Administrator shall from time
to time make grants to environmental noise
control agencies upon such terms and condi-
tions as the Administrator may find neces-
sary to carry out the purposes of this section.
In establishing regulations for the granting
of such funds the Administrator shall, so
far as practicable, give due consideration to
(1) the population, (2) the extent of the
actual or potential environmental noise prob-
lem, and (3) the financial need of .the re-
spective agencies. No agency shall receive any
grant under this section with respect to the
maintenance of a program for the prevention
year ending June 30, 1973, $7,600,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and
910,000,000 for the fiscal yea* ending
June 30, 1975.
"EVELOPMENT OP I.OW-NOISE-EMISSION
PRODUCTS
"SEC. 419. (a") For the purpose of thia
section:
"(1) The term 'Committee' means the
Low-Nolse-Emlsalon Product Advisory Com-
mittee.
"(2) The term 'Federal Government' In-
cludes the legislative, executive, and Judicial
branches of the Government of tho United
States, and the government of the District
of Columbia.
"(3) The term 'low-noise-emlsslon prod-
uct' means any product which emits noise
In amounts significantly below the level of
other products in the competitive market
for such product at the time of procurement.
"(4) The term 'retail" price' means (A)
the maximum statutory price applicable to
any type of product; or (B) in any case
where there is no applicable maximum
statutory price, the most recent procure-
ment price paid for any type of product.
"(b) (1) The Administrator shall deter-
mine which products qualify as low-nolse-
emlsslon products in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
"(2) The Administrator shall certify any
product—.
"(A) for which a certification application
has been filed in accordance with para-
graph (5) (A) of this subsection;
"(B) which is a low-noise-emission prod-
uct "as determined by the Administrator; and
"(C) which he determines Is suitable for
use as a substitute for a type of product
at'that time In use by agencies of the Federal
Government.
"(3) The Administrator may establish a
Low-NolEe-Emisslon Product Advisory Com-
mittee to assist him In determining which
" (F) Within ninety days after the receipt
of a properly filed certification application
the Administrator shall determine whether
such product is a low-nolse-emlsslon prod-
uct for purposes of this section. If the Ad-
ministrator determines that such product is
a low-noise-emission product, then within
one hundred and eighty days of such deter-
mination the Administrator shall reach a de-
cision as to whether such product is a suit-
able substitute for any class or classes of
products presently being purchased by the
Federal Government for use by its agencies.
"(G) Immediately upon making any deter-
mination or decision under subparagraph
(F), the Administrator shall publish In the
Federal Register notice of such determina-
tion or decision, Including reasons therefor.
"(c)(l) Certified low-nolse-emlsslon prod-
ucts shall be acquired by purchase or lease
by the Federal Government for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other prod-
ucts If the Administrator of General Serv-
ices determines that such certified products
have procurement costs which are no more
than 125 per centum of the retail price of
the least expensive type of product for which
they are certified substitutes.
" (2) Data relied upon by the Administrator
In determining that a product is a certified
low-nolse-emlsslon' product shall be Incor-
porated In any contract for the procurement
of such product.
"(d) The procuring agency shall be re-
quired to purchase available certified low-
nolse-emlsslon products which are eligible for
purchase to the extent they are available be-
fore purchasing any other products for which
any low-nolse-emlssion product is a certified
substitute. In making purchasing selections
between competing eligible certified low-
noise-emlsslon products, the procuring agen-
cy shall give priority to any class or model
which does not require extensive periodic
maintenance to retain its low-nofse-emis-
slon qualities or which doea not Involve op-
to
05
OJ
to
o
>•
tr1
o
O
-------
and control of environmental noise unless
the Administrator Is satisfied that such
grant will be so used as to supplement and.
to the extent practicable, increase the level
of State, local, or other non-Federal funds
that would in the absence of such grant be
made available for the maintenance of such
program, and will In no event supplant such
State, local, or other non-Federal funds. No
grant shall be made under this section until
the Administrator has consulted with the ap-
propriate official as designated by the Gov-
ernor or Governors of the State or States
affected.
."(c) Not more than to per centum of the
total funds appropriated or allocated for the
purposes .of subsection (a) of this section
shall be granted for environmental noise
control programs In any one State. In the
case of a grant for a program in an area
crossing State boundaries, the Administra-
tor shall determine the portion of such
grant that is chargeable to the percentage
limitation under this subsection for each
State into which such area extends.
"(d) The Administrator, with the concur-
rence of any recipient of a grant under this
section, may reduce the payments to such
recipient .by the amount of the pay, allow-
ances, traveling expenses^ and any other
costs in connection with the detail of any
officer or employee to the recipient under
-section 403(c) of this Act, when such' detail
is for the convenience of, and at the request
of, such recipient and for the purposes of
carrying out the provisions of this Act. The
ftmnnint by which such payments have been
reduced shall be available for payment of
such costs by the Administrator, but shall,
for the purpose of determining the amount
of any grant to a recipient under subsection
(a) of this section, be deemed to have been
paid to such agency.
"(e) There la authorized to be appropri-
ated for this section $6,000,000 for fiscal
products qualify as low-nolse-emlssion prod-
ucts for purposes of this section. The Com-
mittee shall Include the Administrator or his
deslgnee, a representative of the National
Bureau of Standards, and representatives of
such other Federal agencies and private Indi-
viduals as the Administrator may deem nec-
essary from time to time. Any member of
the Committee not employed on a full-time
basis by the United States may: receive the
daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay In effect for grade GS-18 of the General
Schedule for each day such member Is en-
gaged upon work of the Committee. Each
member of the Committee shall be reim-
bursed for travel expenses, Including per
diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by
section 5703 of title 5, United States Code,
for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently.
"(4) •Certification under this section shall
be effective for a period of one year from the
date of issuance.
" (5) (A) Any person seeking to have a class
or model of product certified under this sec-
tion shall file a certification application In
accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator.
"(B) The-Administrator shall publish in
the Federal Register a notice of each appli-
cation received.
" (C) The Administrator shall make deter-
minations for the purpose of this section In
accordance with procedures prescribed by
him by regulation.
"(D) The Administrator shall conduct
whatever Investigation Is necessary, includ-
ing actual inspection of the product at a
place designated in regulations prescribed
under subparagraph (A).
"(E) The Administrator shall receive and
evaluate written comments and documents
from Interested persons In support of, or In
opposition to, certification of the class or
model of product under consideration.
erating costs significantly In excess of those
products for which it is a certified substi-
tute.
"(e) For the purpose of procuring certi-
fied low-nolse-emlsslon products any statu-
tory price limitations shall be waived.
"(f) The Administrator shall, from time to
time as he deems appropriate, test the emis-
sions of noise from certified low-noise-emis-
sion products purchased by the Federal Gov-
ernment. If at the time of purchase he finds
that the noise-emission levels exceed the
levels on which certification under this sec-
tion was based, the Administrator shall .give
the supplier of such product written notice
of this finding, issue public notice of It, and
give the supplier an opportunity to make
necessary repairs, adjustments, or replace-
ments. If. no such repairs, adjustments, or
replacements are made within a period to be
set by the Administrator, he may order-the
supplier to show cause why the product In-
volved should be eligible for recertiflcatlon.
"(g) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated for paying additional amounts for prod-
ucts pursuant to, and for carrying out the
provisions of, this section, $1,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $2,000,-
000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal
years.
"(h) The Administrator shall promulgate
the procedures required to Implement this
section within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this section.
"AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
"SEC. 420. There are authorized to be ap-
propriated to carry out this Act (other than
sections 418 and 419) $18,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973; $36,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974; and
$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975."
SEC. 3. The Clean Air Act is amended to
add a new title V as follows:
[p. H10292]
1
IS
tu
i—(
CB
B
o
to
an
CO
oo
-------
"TITLE V—MAJOR MOVING SOURCES
"PART A—CONTROL AND ABATEMENT or AIR-
CRAFT NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 801. (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 Environ-
mental Protection Agency, after consulta-
tion with the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, shall promulgate
and amend standards for the measurement
of aircraft and aircraft engine noise and
sonic boom; and
"(2) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall promulgate
and amend regulations with respect to noise
emission standard for aircraft and aircraft
isngines which he determines are neces-
sary and adequate to protect the public
health and welfare with an adequate margin
of safety.
"(b) (l) Any regulations under this sec-
tion or amendments thereof, with respect to
noise emissions from types of aircraft or
aircraft engines, shall reflect the degree of
noise reduction achievable through the ap-
plication of the best available demonstrated
technology, taking Into account the reason-
ableness of the cost of compliance and the
demonstrable public benefit that will result,
determined by the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency after con-
sultation with the Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration and shall not
be promulgated until the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration has de-
termined that such regulations are consistent
with the highest degree of safety in air com-
merce and that any proposed standard, rule,
or regulation has been demonstrated to be
technologically available for application to
types of aircraft, alror,aft engine, appliance,
or certificate to which it will apply.
"(2) All standards, rules, and regulations
Individuals, shall conduct a study of the
means of financing the retrofitting of exist-
ing Jet aircraft (excluding aircraft owned or
-operated 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 Commit-
tees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
and Ways and Means of the House ofr Repre-
sentatives, and the Committees on Com-
merce, Finance, and Public Works of the
Senate by July 1, 1973, together with his
recommendations for whatever legislation
may be required.
"SEC. 503. (a) The Secretary of Transporta-
tion, after consultation with the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection Agency,
shall promulgate regulations to insure com-
pliance with all standards promulgated by
the Administrator under section 501 of this
Act. The regulations of the Secretary of
Transportation shall include provisions mak-
ing such standards respecting noise emis-
sions from any type of aircraft applicable in
the issuance, amendment, modification, sus-
pension, or revocation of any certificate au-
thorized by the Federal Aviation Act, as
amended, or the Department of Transporta-
tion Act, as amended. Such Secretary shall
insure that all necessary inspections are ac-
complished, 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 ap-
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 following:
"(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 air-
plane, 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- hot 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 Federal
Aviation Administrator in consultation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. In addition, for an author-
ization covered by subsection (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 in-
sure 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 Pro-
tection Agency finds that such research and
development flight or flights will adversely
affect public health or welfare or the quality
of the environment.
"(e) An authorization to exceed mach 1 ia
effective until It expires, or until It la aur-
to
O5
00
f
Q
t
a
o
tr1
d
hi
hj
f
-------
prescribed pursuant to section 611 of the
Federal 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 subse-
quent standards, rules, or regulations pro-
mulgated and approved pursuant to this
part: Provided, however, That the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, within nine months of the date of
enactment of this Act, shall review all noise
emission: standards, rules, or regulations in
effect under section 611 of the Federal Avi-
ation Act, as amended, prior to the date of
enactment of the title.
"(c) Each Federal agency with regulatory
authority over air commerce, aircraft or
airport operations, or aircraft noise emis-
sions shall exercise such regulatory authority
so as to reduce noise in airport environ-
ments and surrounding areas.
"SEC. 502. (a) The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, after
consultation with appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies and Interested persons,
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 exist-
ing aircraft, together with recommendations
on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing
aircraft; (c) implications of identifying and
achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure
around airports; and (d) additional meas-
ures available to airport operators and local
governments 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 one year after enactment of
this title.
"(b) The Secretary of Transportation, af-
ter consultation with the appropriate Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies and Interested
peal rights as are contained in section 609
of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, ex-
cept that in any appeal to the Natonal Trans-
portation .Safety Board, the Board may
amend, modify, or revoke the order of the
Secretary of Transportation only If it finds
no violation of such standards, rules, or
regulations, and that such amendment, modi-
fication, or revocation by the Board Is con-
sistent with safety in air transportation.
"SEC. 604. The Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration shall not is-
sue a type certificate under section 603 (a)
of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, for
any aircraft, or for any aircraft engine, pro-
peller, or appliance that affects significantly
the noise or sonic boom characteristics of
of any aircraft, unless such type certificates
apply all of the standards promulgated by
the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency prior to the date of issuance
of such certificates.
"SEC. 505. No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce any standard
respecting noise emissions from any aircraft
or engine thereof.
"SEC. 506. Terms used in this part (other
than Administrator) shall have the same
meaning as such terms have under section
101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
amended. Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act, the sole authority to estab-
lish aircraft noise emission standards is con-
tained In part A of this title.
"CIVIC AIRCRAFT SONIC BOOM
"SEC. 507. (a) No person may operate a civil
aircraft over the territory of the United
States, the territorial sea of the United States,
or the waters of the contiguous zone (as de-
fined under Article 24 of the Conservation
of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone) at a true flight mach number greater
than 1 except in compliance with the condi-
tions and limitations in an authorization to
rendered, and shall be terminated by the Ad-
ministrator whenever he finds that such
action Is necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the quality of the environment.
"(f) Any violation of this section shall be
subject to the penalties prescribed under sub-
section (a) of section 412 of this Act.
"SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
"SEC. 608. No civil aircraft capable of fly-
ing at supersonic speed shall land at any
place under the jurisdiction of the United
States unless in compliance wtlh the noise
levels prescribed for subsonic aircraft by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration and In effect on September 1,
1972.
"PART B—RAILBOAD NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
"SEC. 511. (a) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this title, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for surface carriers en-
gaged in interstate commerce by railroad.
Such proposed regulations shall include
noise emission standards setting such lim-
its on noise emissions resulting from op-
eration of the equipment and facilities of
surface carriers engaged In Interstate, com-
merce by railroad which reflect the degree
of noise reduction achievable through the
application of the best available technology,
taking Into account the cost of compliance.
These regulations shall be in addition to any
regulations that may be proposed under
section 408 of this Act.
"(b) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under subsection (a) of this section, and sub-
ject to the provisions of section 415 of this
Act, the Administrator .shall promulgate
final regulations. Such regulations may be
revised from time to time, in accordance
with this section.
CO
M
[p. H10293]
F
M
J— 1
CO
H
O
O5
CO
Or
-------
"(c) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this section
shall be promulgated only after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation In order
to assure appropriate consideration for
safety and technological availability.
"(d) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this section shall take
effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
"SEC. 512. The Secretary of Transporta-
tion, after consultation with the Administra-
tor, shall promulgate regulations to Insure
compliance with all standards promulgated
by the Administrator under section 511 of
this Act. The Secretary of Transportation
shall carry out such regulations through the
use of his powers and duties of enforcement
and Inspection authorized by the Safety Ap-
pliance Acts, the Interstate Commerce Act,
and the Department of Transportation Act.
Regulations promulgated under this section
and section 611 of this part shall be subject
to the provisions of sections 411, 412, 413,
415, and 416 of this Act.
"SEC. 513. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vlsloa of this Act, after the effective date of
regulations under this part, no State or
political subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce any standard respecting noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of equip-
ment or facilities of surface carriers engaged
in Interstate commerce by railroad unless
such standard Is Identical to a standard
applicable to noise emissions resulting from
such operation prescribed by any regulation
under this section: Provided, however, That
nothing In this section shall diminish or en-
hance the rights of any State or political
subdivision, thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of envlion-
effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with the
Sepretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
"Sec. 522. The Secretary of Transportation.
after consultation with the Administrator
shall promulgate regulations to Insure com-
pliance with all standards promulgated by
the Administrator under section 521 of this
part. The Secretary of Transportation shall
carry out such regulations through the use
of his powers and duties of enforcement and
Inspection authorized by the Interstate Com-
merce Act and the' Department of Trans-
portation Act. Regulations promulgated un-
der this section and section 521 of this part
shall be subject to the provisions of sections
411, 412, 413, 415, and 416 of this Act.
"Sec. 523. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, after the effective date of
regulations u nder this part no State or polit-
ical subdivision thereof may adopt or en-
force any standard respecting noise emissions
resulting from the operation of motor car-
riers engaged in Interstate commerce unless
such standard is Identical to a standard
applicable to noise emissions resulting from
such operation prescribed by any regulation
under this section: Provided, however, That
nothing in this section shall diminish or
enhance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environ-
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product as the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Trans-
portation, may determine .to be necessitated
by special local conditions or not In conflict
with regulations promulgated under this
part.
"SEC. 524. The term, 'motor carrier' as used
In sections 621, 622, and 623 of this part shall
Mr. HALL. Further reserving the right
to object, is It the gentleman's intention
to move that sliding scale, which I think
is much too much, as voted in the House
version up to the years 1973, 1974, and
1975, with the $3 million, $12 million,
and $6 million respectively, inasmuch as
1972 has now expired?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is correct.
Mr. HALL. May I ask the distinguished
gentleman if this will be included in his
amendment to the Senate amendment
to the House-passed bill, as passed on
February 29, 1972?
Mr. STAGGERS. I did not get the gen-
tleman's question.
Mr. HALL. Is it the gentleman's inten-
tion to include the corrected dates and
the amounts, the amounts the gentleman
now proposes to offer to the Senate
amendments to the House-passed bill?
Mr. STAGGERS. That is right. Yes, sir.
Mr. HALL. Before I grant unanimous
consent I want to be convinced and I was
certain the gentleman said he was
"pretty sure."
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I want to
be certain that the power of the FAA to
regulate safety and noise-producing 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 gen-
tleman will yield. I can assure the gen-
tleman beyond any shadow of a doubt
that the safety of our airlines still re-
mains and will remain with PAA. This
to
o>
CO
05
o
F
O
O
-------
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product as the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Transpor-
tation may determine to be necessitated by
special local conditions or not In conflict with
regulations promulgated under this part.
"Sec. 514. The terms 'carrier' and 'rail-
road' as used In sections 611, 512, and 513 of
this part shall have the same meaning as
such terms have under section 22 of title 45
of the United States Code.
"PART C—MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
"SEC. 521. (a) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this title, the
Administrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for motor carriers en-
gaged In interstate commerce. Such proposed
regulations shall Include noise emission
standards setting such limits on noise emis-
sions resulting from operation of motor car-
riers engaged In Interstate commerce which
reflect the degree of noise reduction achiev-
able through the application of the best
available technology, taking Into account the
cost of compliance. These regulations shall
be In addition to any regulations that may
be proposed under section 408 of this Act.
"(b) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under subsection (a) of this section, and
subject to the provisions of section 415 of
this Act. the Administrator shall promulgate
final regulations. Such regulations may be
revised from time to time, In accordance with
this section.
"(c) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this section
shall be promulgated only after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation In or-
der to assure appropriate consideration for
safety and technological availability.
"(d) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this section shall take
have the same meaning as those terms as
defined In section 3O3(a) (14), (15>,and (17)
of title 49 of -the United States Code."
SEC. 4. There is hereby authorized to be
transferred to the Administrator any func-
tion or personnel of the Department of
Transportation with respect to the control
and abatement of aircraft noise which the
President determines is necessary to carry
out section 3 of this Act.
Mr. STAGGERS (during the reading).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from West
Virginia?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, may I ask the gentleman
what the intent is in this oft called so-
called noise pollution abatement bill,
which has been objected to on two oc-
casions before: First, because of the pro-
cedure under which it is brought in the
waning hours; and second, because of the
substance of the bill. What is different
about the proposed new amendment be-
fore we give unanimous consent to con-
sider the Senate amendment read? I
yield for that purpose.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield, the only difference
would be the amount of money. We would
go back to the original House amount of
$3 million, $6 million, and $12 million.
The Senate had $18 million, $36 million,
and $50 million. We had agreed on a
compromise of $5 million, $10 million and
$15 million, but we would go back to the
original amounts which we had when we
passed the bill originally.
is the intention of the House. The rea-
son why I objected to the Senate amend-
ments is that they would give the noise-
regulation authority to the EPA. I can
assure the gentleman beyond any
shadow of a doubt the safety will remain
with FAA.
Mr. HALL. Are the three amendments
the same as the gentleman has pro-
vided me with the authorized appropria-
tions at the bottom?
Mr. STAGGERS. They are.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, may I fur-
ther query the gentleman as to whether
or not this is not a device to which sud-
denly industry has agreed, for a fear
of a much more harsh anti-noise pollu-
tion bill in the 93d Congress and be-
cause this does include preemption of
the States' rights to each and severally
develop anti-noise emission devices of
their own?
Mr. STAGGERS. I cannot say what
industry's intention may be, but I can
say to the gentleman what my inten-
tion is in trying to get this bill passed.
We have evidence that across America
some cities and States are trying to do
pass noise regulations. Certainly we do
not want that to happen. It would harass
industry and progress in America. That
is the reason why I want to get this bill
passed during this session.
Mr. HALL. And of course since it is
interstate commerce, it comes from the
gentleman's committee and it involves
more than interstate commerce in many
instances, since it involves aviation com-
pacts and large jet airports, and so forth.
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes.
[p. H10J04]
OD
PI
00
H
H
d
H
H
00
2
O
f
M
O
hH
73
t-1
'Si
O
CO
-------
Mr. HALL. One other thing that wor-
ries me, and then I shall certainly with-
draw my objection to the gentleman
having the Senate amendments consid-
ered as read, and that is the question
of whether or not there is due process
and judicial recourse for the citizen civil
suits that this bill makes in order, or
does the gentleman's amendment take
those out?
Mr. STAGGERS. It does not. There
is certainly all the recourse in the world
for anyone interested.
Mr. HALL. In other words, if some
person were arrested and hailed into
court as a result of a civil suit, he would
have appellate rights and judicial review
right up the line as in any other case?
Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, all the way, I
can assure the gentleman.
Mr. HALL. I still think the penalties
are too severe, but, Mr. Speaker, for the
time being I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
NATCHER). Is there objection to the re-
quest of the gentleman from West Vir-
ginia that the reading of the Senate
amendment be dispensed with?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. STAGGERS
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. STACOKBS 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:
(3) The term "product" means any manu-
factured., article or goods or component there-
of; except that such term does not Include—
(A) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance, as such terras are defined In
section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958; or
(B) (1) any military weapons or equipment
which are designed for combat use; (Ji) any
rockets or equipment which are designed for
research, experimental, or developmental
work to be performed by the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration; or (111)
to the extent provided by regulations of the
Administrator, any other machinery or equip-
ment designed for use In experimental work
done by or for the Federal Government.
(4) The term "ultimate purchaser" means
the first person who In good faith purchases
a product for purposes other than resale.
(5) The term "new product" means (A) e
product the equitable or legal title of which
has never been transferred to an ultimate
purchaser, or (B) a product which Is Im-
ported or offered for Importation Into the
United States and which Is manufactured
after the effective date of a regulation under
section 6 or section 8 which would have been
applicable to such product had It been manu-
factured In the United States.
(6) The term "manufacturer" means any
person engaged In the manufacturing or as-
sembling of new products, or the importing
of new products for resale, or who acts for,
and is controlled by, any such person In
connection with the distribution of such
products.
(7) the term "commerce" means trade,
traffic, commerce, or transportation—
(A) between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or
(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce,
or •transportation described In subparegraph
(A).
may be granted from the requirements of
sections 6, 17, and 18 of this Act. No such
exemption shall be granted due to lack of
appropriation unless the President shall
have specifically requested such appropri-
ation as a part of the budgetary process and
the Congress shall have failed to make avail-
able such requested appropriation. Any ex-
emption shall be for a period not hi excess
of one year, but additional exemptions may
be granted for periods of not to exceed one
year upon the President's making a new
determination. The President shall report
each January to the Congress all exemptions
from the requirements of this section granted
during the preceding calendar year, together
with his reason for granting such exemption.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall coordinate
the programs of all Federal agencies relating
to noise research and noise control. Each
Federal agency shall, upon request, furnish
to the Administrator such information as he
may reasonably require to determine the
nature, scope, and results of the noise-re-
search and noise-control programs of the
-agency.
(2) Each Federal agency shall consult with
the Administrator in prescribing standards
or regulations respecting noise. If at any
time the Administrator has reason to believe
that a standard or regulation, or any pro-
posed standard or regulation, of any Federal
agency respecting noise does not protect the
public health and welfare to the extent he
believes to be required and feasible, he may
request such agency to review and report to
him on the advisability of revising such
standard or regulation to provide such pro-
tection. Any such request may be published
in the Federal Register and shall be accom-
panied by a detailed statement of the infor-
mation on which it is based. Such agency
shall complete the requested review and re-
port to the Administrator within such time
to
as
oo
oo
r?
a
o
g
)—)
o
I
-------
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the
"Noise Control Act" of 1972".
FINDINGS AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that inadequately controlled noise pre-
sents a growing danger tp the health and
welfare of the Nation's population, particu-
larly in urban areas;
(2) that the major sources of noise in-
clude transportation vehicles and equipment,
machinery, appliances, and other products
in commerce; and
(3) that, while primary responsibility for
control of noise rests with State and local
governments, Federal action is essential to
deal with major noise sources in commerce
control of which require national uniformity
of treatment.
(b) The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States to promote an
environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or wel-
fare. To that end, it is the purpose of this
Act to establish a means for effective co-
ordination of Federal research and activities
in noise control, to authorize the establish-
ment of Federal noise emission standards for
products distributed to commerce, and to
provide information to the public respecting
the noise emission and noise reduction char-
acteristics of such products.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
(2) The term "person" means an individ-
ual, corporation, partnership, or association,
and (except as provided In sections ll(e)
and 12(a)) includes any officer, employee,
department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States, a State, or any political
subdivision of a State.
(8) The term "distribute In. commerce"
means sell in, offer for aaile In, or introduce
or deliver for Introduction into, commerce.
(9) The term "State" Includes the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands. >
(10) The term "Federal agency" means an
executive agency (as defined la section 105
of title 5, United States Code) and Includes
the United States Postal Service.
(11) The term ''environmental noise"
means the intensity, duration, and the char-
acter of sounds from-all sources.
-ESDERAL PROGRAMS
SEC. 4. (a) The Congress authorizes and
directs that Federal agencies shall, to the
fullest extent consistent with their authority
under Federal laws administered by them,
carry out the programs within their control
In such a manner as to further the policy
declared in section 2 (b).
(b) Bach department, agency, or Instru-
mentality of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the Federal Govern-
ment—
(1) having jurisdiction over any property
or facility, or
(2) engaged in any activity resulting, or
which may result, in the emission of noise,
shall comply with Federal, State, interstate,
and local requirements respecting control and
abatement of environmental noise to the
same extent that any person is subject to
such requirements. The President may ex-
empt any single activity or facility, Includ-
ing noise emission sources or classes thereof,
of any department, agency, or Instrumen-
tality In the executive branch from compli-
ance with any such requirement If he deter-
mines it to be In the paramount Interest
of the United States to do so; except that
no exemption, other than for those products
referred to in section 3(3)(B) of this Act,
as the Administrator specifies in the request,
but such time specified may not be less than
ninety days from the date the request was
made. The report shall be published in the
Federal Register and shall-be accompanied by
a detailed statement of the findings and con-
clusions of the agency respecting the revi-
sion of its standard or regulation. With re-
spect to the Federal Aviation Administration,
section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1968 (as amended by section 7 of this Act)
shall apply In lieu of this paragraph.
(3) On the basis of regular consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, the Ad-
ministrator shall compile and publish, from
time to time, a report on the status and
progress of Federal activities relating to noise
reseach and noise control. This report shall
describe the noise-control programs of each
Federal agency and assess the contributions
of those programs to the Federal Govern-
ment's overall efforts to control noise.
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES;
NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 6. (a)(l) The Administrator shall,
after consultation with appropriate Federal
agencies and within nine months of the date
of the enactment of this Act, develop and
publish criteria with respect to noise. Such
criteria shall reflect the scientific knowledge
most useful In Indicating the kind and extent
of all identifiable effects on the public health
or welfare which may be expected from differ-
ing quantities and qualities of noise.
(2) The Administrator shall, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal agencies
and within twelve months of the date of the
enactment of this Act, publish information
on the levels of environmenal noise the at-
tainment and malntenace of which in de-
fined areas under various conditions are re-
quisite to protect the public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
(b) The Administrator shall, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal agencies.
§
8
M
I
H
CO
a
!
3
H
H
CO
to
OS
GO
CO
[p. H10295]
-------
compile and publish a report or series of
reports (1) Identifying products (or classes
of products) which in his judgment are
major sources of noise, and (2) giving In-
formation on techniques for control of noise
from such products, Including available data
on the technology, costs, and alternative
methods of noise control. The first such
report shall be -published not later than
eighteen months after the date of enact-
ment of this Act.
(c) The Administrator shall from time to
time review and, as appropriate, revise or
supplement any criteria or reports published
under this section.
(d) Any report (or revision thereof) under
subsection (b) (1) Identifying major noise
sources shall be published In the Federal
Register. The publication or revision under
this section of any criteria or Information
on control techniques shall be anounced in
the Federal Register, and copies shall be
made available to the general public.
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTED PN COMMERCE
SEC. 6. (a)(l) The Administrator shall
publish, proposed regulations, meeting the
requirements of subsection (c), for each
product—
(A) which Is Identified (or Is part of a.
class identified) in any report published
under section 5(b) (1) as a major source of
noise,
(B) for which, In his Judgment, noise
emission standards are feasible, and
(C) which falls in one of the following
categories:
(1) Construction equipment.
(11) Transportation equipment (Includ-
ing recreational vehicles and related equip-
ment) .
(ill) Any motor or engine (Including any
equipment of which an engine or motor is
an integral part).
(iv) Electrical, or electronic equipment.
(2) (A) Initial proposed regulations under
ment, noise emission standards are feasible
and are requisite to protect the public health
and welfare. Not- earlier than six months
after the date of publication of such pro-
posed regulations respecting such product,
he -may prescribe regulations, meeting the
requirements of subsection (c), for such
product.
(c)(l) Any regulation prescribed under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section (and
any revision thereof) respecting a product
shall Include a noise emission standard which
shall set limits on noise emissions from such
product and shall be a standard which In the
Administrator's Judgment, based on criteria
published under section 5. is requisite to pro-
tect the public health and welfare, taking
Into account the magnitude and conditions
of use of such product (alone or in com-
bination with other noise sources) the degree
of noise reduction achievable through the
application of the best available technology,
and the cost of compliance. In establishing
such a standard for any product, the Admin-
istrator shall give appropriate consideration
to standards under other laws designed to
safeguard the health and welfare of persons,
including any standards under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. Any such noise
emission standards shall be a performance
standard. In addition, any regulation under
subsection (a) or (b) (and any revision
thereof) may contain testing procedures
necessary to assure compliance with the
emission standard in such regulation, and
may contain 'provisions respecting instruc-
tions of the manufacturer for the mainte-
nance, use, or repair of the product.
(2) After publication of any proposed reg-
ulations under this section, the Adminis-
trator shall allow Interested persons an op-
portunity to participate in rulemaklng in
accordance with the first sentence of section
553(c) of title 5, United States Code.
(3) The Administrator may revise any reg-
(A) with respect to any new product for
which a regulation has been prescribed by
the Administrator under this section, any
law or regulation which sets a limit on noise
emissions from such new product and which
Is not Identical to such regulation of the
Administrator; or
(B) with respect to any component incor-
porated into such new product by the manu-
facturer of such product, any law or regula-
tion setting a limit on noise emissions from
such component when so Incorporated.
(2) Subject to sections 17 and 18, nothing
In this section precludes or denies the right
of any State or political subdivision thereof
to establish and enforce controls on environ-
mental noise (or one or more sources thereof)
through the licensing, regulation, or restric-
tion of the use, operation, or movement of
any product or combination of products.
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 retrofitting 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 of AIRCRAFT NOISE
AMD SONIC BOOM
bO
O>
fe
Q
O
O
en
d
-------
paragraph (1) shall be published not later
than eighteen months after the date of en-
actment of this Act, and shall apply to any
product described In paragraph (1) which
Is Identified (or Is a part of a class Identified)
as a major source of noise la any report
published under section 6(b)(1) on or be-
fore the date of publication of such Initial
proposed regulations.
(B) In the case of any product described
in paragraph (1) which is identified (or Is
part of a class identified) as a major source
of noise In a report published under section
5(b) (1) after publication of the initial pro-
posed regulations under subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph, regulations under para-
graph (1) for such product shall be .pro-
posed and published by the Administrator
not later than eighteen months after such
report Is published.
(3) After proposed regulations respecting
a product have been published under para-
graph (2), the Administrator shall, unless In
his Judgment noise emission standards are
not feasible for such product,-prescribe reg-
ulations, meeting the requirements of sub-
section (c), for such product—
(A) not earlier than six months after
publication of such proposed regulations, and
(B) not later than—
(i) twenty-four months after the date of
enactment of this Act, In the case of a
product subject to proposed regulations
published under paragraph (2) (A), or
(ii) In the case of any other product,
twenty-four months after the publication of
the report under section 5(t>) (1) identifying
it (or a class of products of which it is a
part) as a major source of noise.
(b) The Administrator may publish pro-
posed regulations, meeting the requirements
of subsection (c), for any product for which
he is not required by subsection (a) to pre-
scribe regulations but for which, in his Judg-
ulation prescribed by him under thle section
by (A) publication of proposed revised regu-
lations, and (B) the promulgation, not ear-
lier than six months after the date of such
publication, of regulations making the re-
, vision; except that a revision which makes
' only technical or clerical corrections in a
regulation under this section may be pro-
mulgated earlier than six months after such
date if the Administrator finds that such
earlier promulgation Is in the public In-
terest.
(d) (1) On and after the effective date of
any regulation prescribed under subsection
(a) or (b) of this section, the manufacturer
of each new product to which such regula-
tion applies shall warrant to the ultimate
purchaser and each subsequent purchaser
that such product is .designed, built, and
equipped so as to conform at the time of
sale with such regulation.
(2) Any cost obligation of any dealer In-
curred as a result of any requirement im-
posed by paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall be borne by the manufacturer. The
transfer of any such cost obligation from a
manufacturer to any dealer through fran-
chise or other agreement is prohibited.
(3) If a manufacturer Includes In any ad-
vertisement a statement respecting the cost
or value of noise emission control devices or
systems, such manufacturer shall set forth
in such statement the cost or value at-
tributed to such devices or systems by the
Secretary of Labor (through the Bureau of
Labor Statistics). The Secretary of Labor,
and his representatives, shall have the same
access for this purpose to the books, docu-
ments, papers, and records of a manufac-
turer as the Comptroller General has'to those
of a recipient of assistance for purposes of
section 311 of the Clean Air Act.
(e) (1) No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce—
"SEC. 611. (a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) /The term 'PAA' 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 considerations listed in subsection
(d).
{p. H10296]
1
I
I
m
o
i
B
I
fcO
-------
"(c) (1) 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
air commerce or transportation or over air-
craft or airport operations) as EPA deter-
mines Is necessary to protect 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 (1) 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) \
(11) 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,
"(d) In prescribing 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 appro-
priate;
"(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 certificate 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 certificate In which viola-
tion of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards
or regulations is at Issue, the certificate
holder shall have the same notice and ap-
peal rights as are contained in section 609,
and In any appeal to the National Transpor-
tation Safety Board, the Board may amend,
modify, or reverse the order of the FAA If it
finds that control of 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."
(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 *he Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
regulations to carry out the provisions of this
Act with respect to new products Imported
or offered for Importation.
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 10. (a) Except as otherwise provided
in subsection (b), the following acts or the
causing thereof are prohibited:
(1) In the case of a manufacturer, to dis-
tribute In commerce any new product manu-
factured after the effective date of a regula-
tion prescribed under section 6 which Is ap-
plicable to such product, except in conform-
ity with such regulation.
(2) (A) The removal or rendering inopera-
tive by any person, other than for purpose of
maintenance, repair, or replacement, of any
device or element of design Incorporated Into
any product In compliance with regulations
under section 6, prior to its sale or delivery
to the ultimate purchaser or while It is in
use, or (B) the use of- a product after such
device or element of design has been removed
or rendered Inoperative by any person,
(3) In the case of a manufacturer, to dis-
tribute In commerce any .new product manu-
factured after the effective date of a regula-
tion prescribed under section 8(b) (requir-
ing Information respecting noise) which is
applicable to such product, except in con-
formity with such regulation.
(4) The removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pur-
suant to regulations prescribed under section
8(b), prior to sale of the product to the ulti-
mate purchaser.
(5) The importation Into the tTnlted States
by any person of any new product In viola-
tion of a regulation prescribed under sec-
tion 9 which Is applicable to such product.
(6) The failure or refusal by any person
to comply with any requirement of section
.11 (d-) or 13 (a) or regulations prescribed un-
der section 13(a), 17, or 18.
(t>) (1) For the purpose of research. In-
vestigations, studies, demonstrations, or
bO
O5
fe
f
H
O
£
8
"d
en
d
-------
and report to EPA on, the advisability of
prescribing- the^ regulation originally pro-
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 PAA 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
section 102(2) (C) of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to
such action of the FA A under paragraph (1)
of this subsection; and shall specify whether
(and where) such statements are available
for public Ipspection. 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 is required to
be filed under such section 102(2)(C), the
report of the FAA indicates that the pro-
posed regulation originally submitted by
EPA should not be made, then EPA may
request the FAA to file a supplemental re-
port, 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 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.
with respect to such standards, rules, and
regulations,
which are in effect on the date of the en-
actment of this Act, shall continue in effect
according to their terms until modified, ter-
minated, 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.
LABELING
SEC. 8. (a) The Administrator shall by reg-
ulation designate any product (or class there-
of)—
(1) which emits noise capable of adversely
affecting the public health or welfare; or
(2) which Is sold wholly or in part on the
basis of its effective-ess in reduci g noise.
(b) For each product (or class thereof)
designated under subsection (a) the Admin-
istrator shall by regulation require that no-
tice be given to the prospective user of the
level of the noise the product emits, or of its
effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case
may be. Such regulations shall specify (1)
whether su.ch notice shall be affixed to the
product or to the outside of its container, or
to both, at the time of its sale to the ultimate
purchaser or whether such notice shall be
given to the prospective user in some other
manner, (2) the form of the notice, and (3)
the methods and units of measurement to be
used. Sections 6(c) (2) shall apply to the
prescribing of any regulation under this sec-
tion.
(c) This section does not prevent any State
or political subdivision thereof from regulat-
ing product labeling or information respect-
ing products in any way not in conflict with
regulations prescribed by the Administrator
under this section.
IMPORTS
SEC. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury shall,
in consultation with the. Administrator, issue
training, or for reasons of national security,
the Administrator may exempt for a specified
period of time'any product, or class there-
of, from paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of
subsection (a), upon such terms and condi-
tions as he may find necessary to protect the
public health or welfare.
(2) Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of
subsection (a), shall not apply with respect
to any product which is manufactured solely
for use outside any State and which (and the
container of which) is labeled or otherwise
marked to show that it is manufactured
solely for use outside any State; except that
such paragraphs shall apply to such product
if it Is in fact distributed In commerce for
use In any State.
ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 11. (a)" Any person who willfully or
knowingly violates paragraph (1), (3), (5), or
(6) of subsection (a) of section 10 of this
Act shall be punished by a fine of not more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or by im-
prisonment for not more than one year, or
by both. If the conviction Is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such
person under this subsection, punishment
shall be by a fine of not more than $50,000
per day of violation, or by imprisonment for
not more than two years, or by both.
(b) For the purpose of this section, each
day of violation of any paragraph of section
10 (a) shall constitute a separate violation
of that section.
(c) The district courts of the United States
shall have Jurisdiction of actions brought by
and in the name of the United States to re-
strain any violation of section 10 (a) of this
Act.
(d) (1) Whenever any person is in viola-
tion of section 10 (a) of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator may Issue an order specifying
such relief as he determines Is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare.
(2) Any order under this subsection shall
[p. H10297]
i
0
3
o
CO
-------
be Issued only after notice and opportunity
for a hearing in accordance with section 554
of title 5 of the United States Code.
(e) The term, "person," as used in this
section, does not include a department,
agency, or Instrumentality of the United
States.
CITIZEN SUITS
SEC. 12. (a) Except as provided in sub-
section (b), any person (other than the
United States) may commence a civil action
on his own behalf—
(1) against any person (including (A) the
United States, and (B) any other govern-
mental instrumentality or agency to the ex-
tent permitted by the eleventh amendment to
the Constitution) who is alleged to be in
violation of any noise control requirement
(as defined in subsection (e)), or
(2) against—
(A) the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency where there is al-
leged a failure of such Administrator to per-
form any act or duty under this Act which
Is not discretionary with such Administrator,
or
(B) the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration where there is alleged
a failure of such Administrator to perforrn
any act or duty under section 611 of the Fed-
eral Aviation Act of 1958 which is not dis-
cretionary with such Administrator.
The district courts of the United States snail
have Jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controversy, to restrain such per-
son from violating such noise control re-
quirement or to' order such Administrator to
perform such act or duty, as the case may
be. '
(b) No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a)(l) —
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
"has given notice of the violation (i) to the
Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (and to the Federal Aviation
issued under section 17 or 18 of this Act or
under section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958.
RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 13. (a) Each manufacturer of a prod-
uct to which regulations under section 6 or
section 8 apply shall—
(1) establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, provide such information,
and make such tests, as the Administrator
may reasonably require to enable him to
determine whether such manufacturer has
acted or is acting in compliance with this
Act.
(2) upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, per-
mit such officer or employee at reasonable
times to have access to such information and
the results of such tests and to copy such
records, and
(3) to the extent required by regulations
of the Administrator, make products coming
off the assembly line or otherwise in the
hands of the manufacturer available for
testing by the Administrator.
(b)(l) All Information obtained by the
Administrator or his representatives pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section, which in-
formation contains or relates to a trade secret
or other matter referred to In section 1905
of title 18 of the United States Code, shall
be considered confidential for the purpose of
that section, except that such information
may be disclosed to other Federal officers or
employees, In whose possession it' shall re-
main confidential, or when relevant to the
matter in controversy in any proceeding un-
der this Act.
(2) Nothing In this subsection shall au-
thorize the withholding of information by
the Administrator, or by any officers or em-
ployees under his control, from the duly au-
thorized committees of the Congress.
(c) Any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certifica-
te) preparation of model State or local
legislation for noise control.
(3) Disseminate to the public information
on the effects of noise, acceptable noise
levels, and techniques for noise measurement
and control.
DEVELOPMENT OP LOW-NOISE-EMISSION
PRODUCTS
SEC. 15. (a) For the purpose of this sec-
tion:
(1) The term "Committee" means the Low-
Noise-Emission Product Advisory Committee.
(2) The term "Federal Government" in-
cludes the legislative, executive, and Judicial
branches of the Government of the United
States, and the government of the District
of Columbia.
(3) The term "low-noise-emission product"
means any product which emits noise in
amounts significantly below the levels speci-
fied in noise emission standards under regu-
lations applicable under section 6 at the time
of procurement to that type of product.
(4) The term "retail price" means (A) the
maximum statutory price applicable to any
type of product; or (B) in any case where
there Is no applicable maximum statutory
price, the most recent procurement price
paid for any type of product.
(b) (1) The Administrator shall determine
which products qualify as low-noise-emis-
sion products in accordance with the provi-
sions of this section.
(2) The Administrator shall certify any
product—
(A) for which a certification application
has been filed In accordance with paragraph
(5) (A) of this subsection;
(B) which is a low-noise-emission product
as determined by the Administrator; and
(C) which he determines la suitable for use
as a substitute for a type of product at that
time in use by agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment.
(3) The Administrator may establish a
to
OS
Q
r?
o
o
en
d
hi
-------
Administrator in the case of & violation of a
noise control requirement under such section
611) and (11) to any alleged violator of such
requirement, or
(B) If an Administrator has commenced
and is diligently prosecuting a civil action to
require compliance with the noise control
requirement, but In any such action in a
court of the United States any person may
Intervene as a matter of right, or
(2) under subsection (a) (2) prior to
sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice
to the defendant that he will commence such
action.
Notice under this subsection shall be given
In such manner as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall pre-
scribe by regulation.
(c) In an action under this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, if not a party, may interview as
a matter of right. In an action under this
section respecting a noise control require-
ment under section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act of 1958, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, If not'a
party, may also Intervene as a matter of right.
(d) The court, in Issuing any final order
In any action brought pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section, may award costs of litiga-
tion (including reasonable attorney and- ex-
pert witness fees) to any party, whenever
the court determines such an award is ap-
propriate.
(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of per-
sons) may have under any statute or com-
mon law to seek enforcement of any noise
control requirement or to seek any other
relief (Including relief against an Adminis-
trator) .
(f) For purposes of this section, the term
"noise control requirement" means para-
graph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section
10(a), or a standard, rule, or regulation
tlon in any application, record, report, plan,
or other document filed or required to be
maintained under this Act or who falsifies,
tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccu-
rate any monitoring device or method re-
quired to be maintained under this Act,
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine
of not more than $10,000, or by Imprison-
ment for not more than six months, or by
both.
RESEARCH, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION
SEC. 14. In furtherance of his responsi-
bilities under this Act and to complement,
as necessary, the noise-research programs of
other Federal agencies, the Administrator
is authorized to:
(1) Conduct research, and finance research
by contract with any person, on the effects,
measurement, and control of noise, includ-
ing but not limited to—
(A) investigation of the psychological and
physiological effec,ts of noise on humans and
the effects .of noise on domestic animals,
wildlife, and property, and determination of
acceptable levels of noise on the basis of such
effects;
(B) development of improved methods and
standards for measurement and monitoring
of noise, in cooperation with the National
Bureau of Standards, Department of Com-
merce; and
(C) determination of the most effective
and practicable means of controlling noise
emission.
(2) Provide technical assistance to State
and local governments to facilitate their
development and enforcement of ambient
noise standards, including but not limited
(A) advice on tralpmg of noise-control
personnel and on selection and operation of
noise-abatement equipment; and
Low-Nolse-Emtsslon Product Advisory Com-
mittee to assist him in determining which
products qualify as low-noise-emission
products for purposes of this section. The
Committee shall Include the Administrator
or his designee, a representative of the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards, and represent-
atives of such other Federal agencies and
private Individuals as the Administrator may
deem necessary from time to time. Any mem-
ber of the Committee not employed on a full-
time basis by the United States may receive
the dally equivalent of the annual rate of
basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the
General Schedule for each day such member
Is engaged upon work of the Committee. Each
member of the Committee shall be relm--
bursed for travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence as authorized by
section 6703 of title 5, United States Code, for
persons In the Government service employed
Intermittently.
(4) Certification under this section shall
be effective for a period of one year from the
date of Issuance.
(5) (A) Any person seeking to have a. class
or model of product certified under this sec-
.tlon shall file a certification application In
accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator.
(B) The Administrator shall publish In the
Federal Register a notice of each application
received.
(C) The Administrator shall make deter-
minations for the purpose of this section in
accordance with procedures prescribed by
him by regulation.
(D) The Administrator shall conduct what-
ever Investigation Is necessary, including ac-
tual Inspection of the product at a place des-
ignated in regulations prescribed under sub-
paragraph (A).
(E) The Administrator shall receive and
evaluate written comments and documents
CO
g
o
fed
w
§
I
bO
O5
t£-
VI
[p. H10298]
-------
from interested persons In support of, or In
opposition to, certification of the class or
model of product under consideration.
(F) Within ninety days after the receipt of
a properly filed certification application the
Administrator shall determine whether such
product is a low-noise-emission product for
purposes of this section. If the Administrator
determines that such product is a low-noise -
emission product, then within one hundred
and eighty days of such determination the
Administrator shall reach a decision as to
whether such product Is a suitable substi-
tute for any class or classes of products pres-
ently being purchased by the Federal Govern-
ment for use by its agencies.
(Q) Immediately upon making any deter-
mination or decision under subparagraph
(F), the Administrator shall publish In the
Federal Register notice of such determina-
tion or decision, including reason therefor.
(c)(l) Certified low-noise-emission prod-
ucts shall be acquired by purchase or lease
by the Federal Government for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other products
if the Administrator of General Services de-
termines that such certified products .have
procurement costs which are no more than
125 "per centum of the retail price of the
least expensive type of product for which
they are certified substitutes.
(2) Data relied upon by the Administrator
In determining that a product is a certified
low-noise-emission product shall be incorpo-
rated in any contract for the procurement of
such product.
(d) The procuring agency shall be required
to purchase available certified low-noise.-
emission products which are eligible for pur-
chase to the extent they are available before
purchasing any other products for which any
low-noise-emission product is a certified sub-
stitute. In making purchasing selections be-
tween competing eligible certified low-nolse-
emlsslon products, the procuring agency shall
the District of Columbia Circuit, and a peti-
tion for review of action of the Administra-
tor of the Federal Aviation Administration In
promulgating any standard or regulation un-
der section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 may be filed only in such court. Any
such petition shall be filed within ninety
days from the date of such promulgation,
or after such date If'such petition Is based
solely on grounds arising after such ninetieth
day. Action of either Administrator with re-
spect to which review could have been ob-
tained under this subsection shall not be
subject to Judicial review In civil or criminal
proceedings for enforcement.
(b) If a party seeking review under this
Act applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satis-
faction of the court that the information is
material and was not available at the time of
the proceeding before the Administrator of
such Agency or Administration (as the case
may be), .the court may order such additional
evidence (and evidence In rebuttal thereof)
to be taken before such Administrator, and
to be adduced upon the hearing. In such
manner and upon such terms and conditions
as the court may deem proper. Such Admin-
istrator may modify his findings as to the
facts, or make new findings, by reason of the
additional evidence so taken, and he shall file
with the court such modified or new findings,
and his recommendation, if any, for the
modification or setting aside of his original
order, with the return of such additional
evidence.
(c) With respect to relief pending review
of an action by either Administrator, no stay
of an Agency action may be granted unless
the reviewing court determines that the
party seeking such stay Is (1) likely to pre-
vail on the merits In the review proceeding
and (2) will suffer Irreparable harm pending
such proceeding.
(d) For the purpose of obtaining Informa-
Act, the Administrator shall promulgate final
regulations. Such regulations may be revised,
from time to time, in accordance with this
subsection.
(3) Any standard or regulation, or revision
thereof, proposed under this subsection shall
be promulgated only after consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation In order to
assure appropriate consideration for safety
and technological availability.
(4) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this subsection shall take
effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the Administrator, shall
promulgate regulations to Insure compliance
with all standards promulgated by the Ad-
ministrator under this section. The Secre-
tary of Transportation shall carry out such
regulations through the use of his powers
and duties of enforcement and inspection
authorized by the Safety Appliance Acts, the
Interstate Commerce Act, and the Depart-
ment of Transportation Act. Regulations
promulgated under this section shall be sub-
ject to the provisions of sections 10, 11, 12,
and 16 of this Act.
(c)(l) Subject to paragraph (2) but not-
withstanding any other provisions of this
Act, after the effective date of a regulation
under this section applicable to noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of any
equipment or facility of a surface carrier en-
gaged in Interstate commerce by railroad, no
State or political subdivision thereof may
adopt or enforce any standard applicable to
noise emissions resulting from the operation
of the same equipment or facility of such
carrier unless such standard Is identical to a
standard applicable to noise emissions re-
to
Q
f
>
H
h-\
o
-------
give priority to any class or model which does
not require extensive periodic maintenance
to retain Its low-nolse-emlsslon qualities or
which; does not Involve operating costs sig-
nificantly In excess of those, products "for
which it is a certified substitute.
(e) For the purpose of procuring certified
low-noise-emission products any statutory
price limitations shall be waived.
(f) The Administrator shall, from time to
time as he deems appropriate, test the emis-
sions of noise from certified low-noise-emis-
sion products purchased by the Federal Gov-
ernment, If at any time he finds .that the
noise-emission levels exceed the levels on.
which certification under this section was
based, the Administrator shall give the sup-
plier of such product written notice of this
finding, issue public notice of it, and give
the supplier an opportunity to make neces-
sary repairs, adjustments, or replacements. If
no such repairs, adjustments, or replace-
ments are made within a period to be set by
the Administrator, he may order the supplier
to show cause why the product- Involved
should be eligible for recertlflcation.
(g) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated for paying additional amounts for prod-
ucts pursuant to, and for carrying out the
provisions of, this" section, $1,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $2,000,-
000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal
years.
(h) The Administrator shall promulgate
the procedures required to Implement this
section within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
JTTDICIAL REVIEW; WITNESSES
SEC.- 16. (a) A petition for review of action
of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in promulgating any
standard or regulation under section 6, 17,
or 18 .of this Act or any labeling regulation
under section 8 of this Act may be filed only
in the United States Court of Appeals for
tlon to carry out this Act, the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection Agency
may issue subpenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production
of relevant papers, books, and documents,
and he may administer oaths. Witnesses sum-
moned shall be paid the same fees and
mileage that are paid1 witnesses In the courts
of the United States. In cases of contumacy
or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any
person under this subsection, the district
court of the United States for any district In
which such person is found or resides or
transacts business, upon application, by the
United States and after notice to such per-
son, shall have jurisdiction to Issue an order
requiring such person to appear and give
testimony before the Administrator, to ap-
pear and produce papers, books, and docu-
ments before the Administrator, or both, and
any failure to obey such order of the court
may be punished by such court as a con-
tempt thereof.
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 17. (a) (1) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for surface carriers en-
gaged in interstate commerce by railroad.
Such proposed regulations shall Include noise
emission standards Setting such limits on
noise emissions resulting from operation of
the equipment and facilities of surface car-
riers engaged in interstate commerce by rail-
road which reflect the degree of noise reduc-
tion achievable through the application of
the best available technology, taking into
account the cost of compliance. These regu-
lations shall be In addition to any regulations
that may be proposed under section 6 of this
Ac*.
(2) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, and
subject to the provisions of section 16 of this
suiting from such operation prescribed by
any regulation under this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall diminish
or enhance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environ-
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product if the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Trans-
portation, determines that such standard,
control, license, regulation, or restrict is ne-
cessitated by special local conditions and is
not in conflict with regulations promulgated
under this section.
(d) The terms "carrier" and "railroad" as
used in this section shall have the same
meaning as such terms have under the first
section of the Act of February 17, 1911 (45
U.S.C. 22).
MOTOR CARRIES NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 18. (a) (1) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for motor carriers en-.
gaged In Interstate commerce. Such proposed
regulations shall include noise emission
standards setting such limits on noise emis-
sions resulting from operation of motor car-
riers engaged In interstate commerce which
reflect the degree of noise reduction achiev-
able through the application of the
best available technology, taking Into ac-
count the cost of compliance. These regula-
tions shall be in addition to any regulations
that may be proposed under section 6 of this
Act.
(2) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, and
subject to the provisionssof section 16 of
this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
final regulations. Such regulations may be
revised from time to time, In accordance with
this subsection.
[p. H10299]
CO
F
H
O
S
H
w
-------
(3) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this subsection
shall be promulgated only alter consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation In order
to assure appropriate consideration for safety
and technological availability.
"(4) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated, under this subsection shall take
effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations to insure compliance
with all standards promulgated by the Ad-
ministrator under this section. The Secretary
of Transportation shall carry out such regu-
lations through the use of his powers and
duties of enforcement and inspection au-
thorized by the Interstate Commerce Act
and the Department of Transportation Act.
Regulations promulgated under this section
shall be subject to the provisions or sections
10,11.12, and 16 of this Act.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this
subsection but notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, after the effective date
of a regulation under this section applicable
to noise emissions resulting from the opera-
tion of any motor carrier engaged in Inter-
state commerce, no State or political subdivi-
sion thereof may adopt or enforce any stand-
ard applicable to the same operation of such
motor carrier, unless such standard Is Iden-
tical to a standard applicable to noise emis-
sions resulting from such operation pre-
scribed by any regulation under this section.
(2) Nothing In his section shall diminish or
enhance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and en-
force standards or controls on levels of en-
vironmental noise, or to control, license,
regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or
June 30, 1975, for $12 million in the
amended bill?
Mr. STAGGERS. May I assure the
gentleman from Missouri that if they do
not, they should, because that is our
intent.
Mr. HALL. The gentleman's state-
ment that they should is not good
enough.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Clerk will read the section which the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HALL)
has called attention to.
The Clerk read as follows:
Section 19. There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this Act (other
than section 15) $3 million for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973; 96 million for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974; and
$12 million for the fiscal year ending June 3,
1975.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-
tion is on the motion offered by the gen-
tleman from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
CONTROL OF NOISE EMISSIONS
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
full support of the House amendment to
the Senate amendment to- H.R. 11021,
which has as its purpose the control of
comprehensive range of regulations de-
signed to abate aircraft noise. The PAA,
in turn, must respond to the EPA pro-
posals quickly and substantively.
Mr. Speaker, many people feel that
noise pollution is the last remaining gap
in environmental law. The Congress has,
in recent years, responded to our many-
faceted environmental problems with leg-
islation to all known forms of environ-
mental pollution except noises. This
amendment insures that unlike air and
water pollution, the excesses of noise pol-
lution do not become so prevalent as to
literally threaten the destruction of the
environment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous adop-
tion of the amendment.
[p. H10300]
to
CT>
rf»-
00
o
13
i—t
|
o
a
EC
C|
V
i
-------
movement of any product If the Administra-
tor, after .consultation with the Secretary of
Transpprtatlon, determines that such stand-
ard, control, license, regulation, or restriction
Is necessitated by special local conditions
and is not in conflict with regulations pro-
mulgated under this section.
(4) For purposes of this section, tbe term
"motor carrier" includes.a common carrier
by motor vehicle, a contract carrier by mo-
tor vehicle, and a private carrier of property
by motor vehicle as those terms are defined by
paragraphs (14), (15), and (17) of section
203 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49
U.S.C. 303(a)).
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 19. There are authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out this Act (other than
section 15) $3.000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1973; $6,OOO.OOQ for the fiscal
year ending June 30,1974; and $12,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
Mr. STAGGERS (during the read-
ing) . Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the motion be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request, of the gentle-
man from West Virginia?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, may I be assured that
the amendment at the desk is the same
which I hold in my hand?
Mr. STAGGERS. Absolutely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from West Virginia?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, does the Clerk's copy
show the dates as June 30, 1973, for $3
million; June 30, 1974, for $6 million;
noise emissions detrimental to the' hu-
man environment. I and other mem-
bers of the Subcommittee on Public
Health and Environment, have thor-
oughly reviewed this amendment. The
amendment retains all principles 'con-
tained in the House bill and adds cer-
tain provisions found in the Senate
amendment which we feel clarify and en-
hance the position of the House. In my
opinion, this amendment insures that all
interested parties—regulatory agencies,
industry, and the public—will bring to-
gether their special qualities to free the
American people from the noise pollu-
tion which jeopardizes their health and
welfare.
Mr. Speaker, the principal differ-
ence between the House bill and the Sen-
ate amendment was with respect to air-
craft noise. The^Hpuse bill left control
of aircraft noise in the hands of the
PAA 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 provi-
sion which provides the PAA with ul-
timate authority to prescribe standards
to regulate aircraft noise. This is neces-
sary to insure that noise control stand-
ards will, through the benefit of PAA's
expertise, be consistent with the highest
degree of aircraft safety.
However, recognizing that it is the
overall responsibility of EPA to insure a
sound environment, the amendment pro-
vides that EPA play a significant role in
the development of aircraft noise stand-
ards. This role includes the requirement
that EPA propose to PAA a broad and
fcO
O5
rf^
CO
-------
NOISE—STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
2651
1.4a(3)(e) Oct. 18: Senate concurred in House amendment, pp.
S18638-S18646
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask
that the pending business be tempo-
rarily laid aside so that I may ask the
Chair to lay before the Senate the mes-
sage from the House of Representatives
on H.R. 11021.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FAN-
HE*) laid before the Senate the amend-
ment of the House of Representatives to
the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(HJR. 11021) to control the emission of
noise detrimental to the human environ-
ment, and for other purposes, which was
in lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by the Senate amendment, insert:
SHORT TITLE
SECTION I. This Act may be cited as the
"Noise Control Act of 1972".
FINDINGS AND POUCT
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that Inadequately controlled noise pre-
sents a growing danger to the health and
welfare of the Nation's population, particu-
larly In urban areas;
(2) that the major sources of noise Include
transportation vehicles and equipment, ma-
chinery, appliances, and other products In
commerce; and
(8) that, while primary responsibility for
control, of noise rests with State and local
governments, Federal action la essential to
deal with major noise sources In commerce
control of which require national uniformity
of treatment.
(b) The Congress declares that It Is the pol-
icy of the United States to promote an en-
vironment for all Americans free from noise
that Jeopardizes their health or welfare. To
that end, It Is the purpose of this Act to es-
tablish a means for effective coordination of
Federal research and activities In noise con-
trol, to authorize the establishment of Fed-
eral noise emission standards for products
distributed In commerce, and to provide In-
formation to the public respecting the noise
emission and noise reduction characteristics
of such products.
DEFINITIONS
'SEC. 3. For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
(2) The term, "person" means an Individ-
ual, corporation, partnership, or association,
and (except as provided In sections 11 (e)
and 12(a)) Includes any officer, employee, de-
partment, agency, or Instrumentality of the
[p. S18638]
-------
United States, a State, or any political sub-
division of a State.
(3) The term "product" means any manu-
factured article or goods or component there-
of; except that such term does not include—
(A) any aircraft, aircraft engine, propel-
ler, or appliance, as such terms are defined
In section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958; or
(B) (1) any military weapons or equip-
ment which are designed for combat use;
(ii) any rockets or equipment which are
designed for research, experimental, or de-
velopmental work to be performed by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion; or (ill) to the extent provided by regu-
lations of the Administrator, any other
machinery or equipment designed for use
in experimental work done by or for the
Federal Government.
(4) The term "ultimate purchaser" means
the first person who in good faith purchases
a product for purposes other than resale.
(5) The term "new product" means (A)
a product the equitable or legal title of
which has never been transferred to an ulti-
mate purchaser, or (B) a product which is
imported or offered for importation Into the
United States and which is manufactured
after the effective date of a regulation under
section 6 or section 8 which would have been
applicable to such product had It been manu-
factured In the United States.
(6) The term "manufacturer" means any
person engaged In the manufacturing or as-
sembling of new products, or the importing
of new products for resale, or who acts for,
and is controlled by, any such, person In con-
nection with, the distribution of such .pro-
ducts.
(7) the term "commerce" means trade,
traffic, commerce, or transportation—
(A) between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or
(B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce,
or transportation described in subparagraph
(A).
products referred to in section 3(3)(B) of
this Act, may be granted from the require-
ments of sections 6, 17, and 18 of this Act.
No such exemption shall be granted due
to lack of appropriation unless the President
shall have specifically requested such ap-
propriation as a part of the budgetary proc-
ess and the Congress shall have failed to make
available such requested appropriation. Any
exemption shall be for a period not in ex-
cess of one year, but additional exemptions
may be granted for periods of not to exceed
one year upon the President's making a new
determination. The President shall report
each January to the Congress all exemptions
from the requirements of this section granted
during the preceding calendar year, together
with his reason for granting such exemp-
tion.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall coordinate
the programs of all Federal agencies relating
to noise research and noise control. Each
Federal agency shall, upon request, furnish
to the Administrator such information as
he may reasonably require to determine the
nature, scope, and results of the noise-re-
search and noise-control programs of the
agency.
(2) Each Federal agency shall consult with
the Administrator in prescribing standards
or regulations respecting noise. If at any time
the Administrator has reason to believe that
a standard or regulation, or any proposed
standard or regulation, of any Federal agency
respecting noise does not protect the public
health and welfare to the extent he believes
to be required and feasible, he may request
such agency to review and report to him on
the advisability of revising such standard or
regulation to provide such protection. Any
such request may be published in the Federal
Register and shall be accompanied by a de-
tailed statement of the information on which
it is based. Such agency shall complete
the requested review and report to the Ad-
ministrator within such time as the Admin-
istrator specifies In the request, but such
sultatlon with appropriate Federal agencies,
compile and publish a report or series of re-
ports (1) identifying products (or classes of
products) which in his Judgment are major
sources of noise, and (2) giving informa-
tion on techniques for control of noise from
such products, including available data on
the technology, costs, and alternative meth-
ods of noise control. The first such report
shall be published not later than eighteen
months after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(c) The Administrator shall from time to
time review and, as appropriate, revise or
supplement any criteria or reports, published
under this section.
(d) Any report ,'or revision thereof) un-
der subsection (b) (1) identifying majcn
noise sources shall be published in the Fed-
eral Register. The pxiblication or revision
under this section of any criteria or Infor-
mation on control techniques shall be an-
nounced in the Federal Register, and copies
shall be made available to the general public.
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS
DISTRIBUTED IN COMMERCE
SEC. 6. (a) (1) The Administrator shall
publish proposed regulations, meeting the
requirements of subsection (c), for each
product—
(A) which la Identified (or Is part of a
class Identified) In any report published un-
der section-5(b) (1) as a major source of
noise,
(B) for which, In his judgment, noise
emission standards are feasible, and
(C) which falls in one of the following
categories:
(i) Construction equipment.
(ii) Transportation equipment Includ-
ing recreational vehicles and related equip-
ment) .
(ill) Any motor or engine (Including any
equipment of which an engine or motor la
an Integral part).
(iv) Electrical or electronic equipment.
(2) (A) Initial proposed regulations un-
td
O
m
to
O
t
O
O
IT1
>
i-3
M
O
tr1
W
-------
(8) The term "distribute In commerce"
means sell 'im, offer for sale in, or Introduce
g, or deliver for introduction into, commerce.
i (9) The term "State" includes the District
E of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
o Kico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
j Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Fa-
^ ciflc Islands.'
g (10) The term "Federal agency" means an
executive agency (as defined in section 105
of title 5, United States Code) and Includes
the United States Service.
(11) The term "environmental noise"
means the intensity, duration, and the char-
acter of sounds from all sources.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
SEC. 4. (a) The Congress authorizes and
directs that Federal agencies shall, to the
fullest extent consistent with their authority
under Federal laws administered by them,
carry out the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy
declared in section 2 (b).
(b) Each department agency, or Instru-
mentality of the executive, legislative, and
Judicial branches of the Federal Govern-
ment—-
(1) having jurisdiction over any property
or facility, or
(2) engaged in any activity resulting, or
which may result, in the emission, of noise,
shall comply with Federal, State, Interstate,
and local requirements respecting control
and abatement of environmental noise to
the same extent that any person is subject
to such requirements. The President may
exempt any single activity or facility, in-
cluding noise emission sources or classes
thereof, of any department, agency, or in-
strumentality In the executive branch from
compliance with any such requirement if
he determines it to be in the paramount
interest of the United States to do so; except
that no exemption, other than for those
time specified may not be less than ninety
days from the date the request was made.
The report shall be published in the Federal
Register and shall be accompanied by a de-
tailed statement of the findings and conclu-
sions of the agency respecting the revision of
its standard or regulation. With respect to
the Federal Aviation Administration, section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (as
amended by section 7 of this Act) shall apply
in lieu of this paragraph.
(3) On the basis of regular consultation
with appropriate Federal agencies, the Ad-
ministrator shall compile and publish, from
time to time, a report on the status and
progress of Federal activities relating to
noise research and noise control. This report
shall describe the noise-control programs of
each Federal agency and assess the contribu-
tions of those programs to the Federal Gov-
ernment's overall efforts to control noise.
IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES;
NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
SEC. 5. (a) (1) The Administrator shall,
after consultation with appropriate Federal
agencies and within nine months of the date
of the enactment of this Act, develop and
publish criteria with respect to noise. Such
criteria shall reflect the scientific knowledge
most useful in Indicating the kind and ex-
tent of all identifiable effects on the public
health or welfare which may be expected
from differing quantities and qualities of
noise.
(2) The Administrator shall, after consul-
tation with appropriate Federal agencies and
within twelve months of the date of the
enactment of this Act, publish information
on the levels of environmental noise the at-
tainment and maintenance of which in
defined areas under various conditions are
requisite to protect the public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
(b) The Administrator shall, after con-
der paragraph (1) shall be published not
later than eighteen months after the date
of enactment of this Act, and shall apply
to any product described in paragraph (1)
which is identified (or Is a part of a class
identified) aa a major source of noise in
any report published under section 6(b) (1)
on or before the date of publication of such
Initial proposed regulations.
(B) In the case of any product described
in paragraph (1) which Is identified (or is
part of a class identified) as a major source
of noise In a report published under section
6(b) (1) after publication of the initial pro-
posed regulations under subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph, regulations under para-
graph (1) for such product shall be pro-
posed and published by the Administrator
not later than eighteen months after such
report is published.
(3) After proposed regulations respecting
a product have been published under para-
graph (2), the Administrator shall, unless
in his judgment noise emission standards
are not feasible for such product, prescribe
regulations, meeting the requirements of
subsection (c), for such product—
(A) not earlier than six months after pub-
lication of such proposed regulations, and
(B) not later than—
(1) twenty-four months after the date of
enactment of this Act, in the case of a prod-
uct subject to proposed regulations pub-
lished under paragraph (2) (A), or
(11) In the case of any other product,
twenty-four months after the publication of
the report under section 5(b) (1) identifying
it (or a class of products of which it is a
part) as a major source of noise.
(b) The Administrator may publish pro-
posed regulations, meeting the requirements
of subsection (c), for any product for which
he Is not required by subsection (a) to pre-
scribe regulations but for which, in his Judg-
ment, noise emission standards are feasible
[p. S18639]
I
M
CO
H
I
CO
F
H
O
I
w
oo
-------
and are requisite to protect the public health
and welfare. Not earlier than six months
after the date of publication of such pro-
posed regulations respecting such product,
he may prescribe regulations, meeting the
requirements of subsection (c), for such
product.
(c) (1) Any regulation prescribed under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section (and
any revision thereof) respecting a product
shall Include a noise emission standard which
shall set limits on noise emissions from such
product and shall be a standard which in the
Administrator's Judgment, based on criteria
published under section 5, Is requisite to
protect the public health and welfare, taking
Into account the magnitude and conditions
of use of such product (alone or In combina-
tion with other noise sources), the degree
of noise reduction achievable through the
application of the best available technology,
and the cost of compliance. In establishing
such a standard for any product, the Admin-
istrator shall give appropriate consideration
to standards under other laws designed to
safeguard the health and welfare of persons,
Including any standards under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966,
the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Any such noise emis-
sion standards shall be a performance stand-
ard. In addition, any regulation under sub-
section (a) or (b) (and any revision thereof)'
may contain testing procedures necessary to
assure compliance with the emission stand-
ard In such regulation, and may contain
provisions respecting instructions of the
manufacturer for the maintenance, use, or
repair of the product.
(2) After publication of any proposed reg-
ulations tinder this section, the Adminis-
trator shall allow interested persons an op-
portunity to participate in rulemaklng in
accordance with the first sentence of sec-
tion B53(c) of title 5, -United States Code.
(3) The Administrator may revise any reg-
which a regulation has been prescribed by
'the Administrator under this section, any
law or regulation which sets a limit on noise
emissions from such new product and which
is not Identical to such regulation of the
Administrator; or
(B) with respect to any component In-
corporated into such new product by the
manufacturer of such product, any law or
regulation setting a limit on noise emissions
from such component when so Incorporated.
(2) Subject to sections 17 and 18, nothing
In this section precludes or denies the right
of any State or political subdivision thereof
to establish and enforce controls on environ-
mental noise (or one or more sources there-
of) through the licensing regulation, or re-
striction of the use, operation, or movement
of any product or combination of products.
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 Federal Aviation Administration flight and
operational noise controls; (2) adequacy of
noise emission standards on new and existing
aircraft, together with recommendations on
the retrofitting 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 OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
AND SONIC BOOM
(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA
shall submit to the FAA proposed regula-
tions to provide such control and abate-
ment of aircraft noise and sonic boom (In-
cluding control and abatement through the
exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory au-
thority 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 paragraph and shall, with-
in thirty days of the date of its submission
to the FAA, which publish the proposed
regulations in a notice of proposed rulemak-
ing. Within sixty days after such publication,
the FAA shall commence a hearing at which
interested persons shall be afforded an op-
portunity for oral (as well as written) pres-
entations of data, views, and arguments.
Within a reasonable time after the conclu-
sion of such hearing and after consultation.
with EPA, the FAA shall—
"(A) in accordance with subsection (b),
prescribe regulations (1) 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 regula-
tion proposed by EPA under paragraph
(1) (A) (11) 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 pro-
posed by EPA. Any such request shall be
bO
OS
o
o
hi
HH
IT1
CO
d
^
hi
f
H
-------
ulation prescribed by him under this sec-
tion by (A) publication of proposed revised
regulations, and (B) the promulgation, not
earlier than six months alter the date of
such publication, of regulations making the
revision; except that a revision which makes
only technical or clerical corrections In a
regulation under this section may be promul-
gated earlier than six months after such
date 11 the Administrator finds that such
earlier promulgation Is in. the public In-
(d) (1) On and after the effective date of
any regulation prescribed under subsection
(a) or (b) of this section, the manufac-
turer of each new product to which such
regulation applies shall warrant to the ulti-
mate purchaser and each subsequent pur-
chaser thart such product Is designed, built,
and equipped so as to conform at the time
of sale with such regulation.
(3) Any cost obligation of any dealer in-
curred as a result of any requirement Im-
posed by paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall be borne by the manufacturer. The
transfer of any sueh cost obligation from a
manufacturer to any dealer through fran-
chise or other agreement is prohibited.
(3) If a manufacturer Includes in any
advertisement a statement respecting the
cost or value of noise emission control de-
vices or systems, such manufacturer shall
set forth In such statement the cost or
value attributed to such devices or systems
by the Secretary of Labor (through the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics). The Secretary of
Labor, and his representatives, shall have
the same access for this purpose to the books,
documents, papers, and records of a manu-
facturer1 as the Comptroller General has to
those of a recipient of assistance for pur-
poses of section 311 of the Clean Air Act.
(e) (1) No State or political subdivision
thereof may adopt or enforce—
(A) with respect to any new product for
"SEC. 611. (a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'PAA' 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 PAA, 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 neces-
sary to provide for the control and abatement
of aircraft noise and sonic boom, Including
the application of such standards and regu-
lations in the issuance, amendment modifi-
cation, suspension, or revocation of any cer*
tiflcate 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 exemp-
tion is granted, except that If the PAA deter-
mines that safety In air commerce- or air
transportation requires that such an exemp-
tion 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 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 considerations listed in subsection
(d).
"(c) (1) Not earlier than the date of sub-
mission of the report regained by section 7
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 -re-
port 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 state-
ment 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 (I) of this subsection; and
shall specify whether (and where) such
statements are available for public Inspec-
tion. The FAA's report shall be published
in the Federal Beglster, 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 pro-
posed 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 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 com-
parison of (A) the environmental effects (in-
cluding 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.
"(d) In prescribing and amending stand-
ards and regulations under this section, the
FAA shall—
"(1) consider relevant available data relat-
ing to aircraft noise and sonic boom, in-
H
B
Q
I
3
I
to
05
01
Ol
[p. S18640]
-------
eluding 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 high-
est 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 certificate to which It
will apply; and
"(5) consider the extent to which such
standard or regulation will contribute to
carrying out the purposes of 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
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 PAA if it finds that
control or abatement of aircraft noise or
sonic boom and the public health and wel-
fare do not require the affirmation of such
order, or that such order is not consistent
with safety in air commerce or air trans-
portation."
(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 provi-
sion of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, with
respect to such standards, rules, and regula-
tions,
Which are in effect on the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, shall continue in effect
PROHIBITED ACTS
SEC. 10. (a) Except as otherwise provided
in subsection (b), the following acts or the
causing thereof are prohibited:
(1) In the case of a manufacturer, to dis-
tribute in commerce any new product manu-
factured after the effective date of a regula-
tion prescribed under section 6 which is ap-
plicable to such product, except in conform-
ity with such regulation.
(2) (A) The removal or rendering Inopera-
tive by any person, other than for purposes
of maintenance, repair, or replacement, of
any device or element of design Incorporated
into any product In compliance with regula-
tions under section 6, prior to its sale or de-
livery to the -ultimate purchaser or while it
is in use, or (B) the use of a product after
such device or element of design has been
removed or rendered inoperative by any per-
son.
(3) In the case of a manufacturer, to dis-
tribute in commerce any new product manu-
factured after the effective date of a regu-
lation prescribed under section 8(b) (re-
quiring information respecting noise) which
is applicable to such product, except in con-
formity with such regulation.
(4) The removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pur-
suant to regulations prescribed under section
8(b), prior to sale of the product to the ulti-
mate purchaser.
(5) The importation into the United
States by any person of any new product in
violation of a regulation prescribed under
section 9 which is applicable to such prod-
uct.
(6) The failure or refusal by any person
to comply with any requirement of section
11 (d) or 13 (a) or regulations prescribed un-
der section 13 (a), 17, or 18.
(b) (1) For the purpose of research, in-
vestigations, studies, demonstrations, or
training, or for reasons of national security.
for a hearing In accordance with section 654
of title 5 of the United States Code.
(e) The term "person", as used in thla
section, does not Include a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United
States.
CITIZENS SUITS
SEC. 12. (a) Except as provided in sub-
section (b), any person (other than the
United States) may commence a civil action
on his own behalf—•
(1) against a ny person (including (A) the
United States, and (B) any other governmen-
tal instrumentality or agency to the extent
permitted by the eleventh amendment to
the Constitution) who is alleged to be In
violation of any noise control requirement
(as defined in subsection (e)), or
(2) against—
(A) the Administrator of the Environment
tal Protection Agency where there is alleged
a failure of such Administrator to perform
any act or duty under this Act which Is not
discretionary with such Administrator, or
(B) the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration where there is alleged
a failure of such Administrator to perform
any act or duty under section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which is not
discretionary with such Administrator. The
district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction, without regard to the amount
in controversy, to restrain such person from
violating such noise control requirement or
to order such Administrator to perform such
act or duty, as the case may be.
(b) No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a) (1) —
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice of the -violation (d) to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (and to the Federal Aviation
Administrator in the case of a violation of a
noise control requirement under such sec-
tion 611) and (ii) to any alleged violator of
such requirement, or
to
O5
Oi
W
0
o
o
t/3
c)
f
M
-------
according to their terms until modified,
terminated, superseded, set aside, or repealed
by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration In the exercise of any au-
thority vested In him, by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
LABELING
SEC. 8. (a) The Administrator shall by
regulation designate any product (or class
thereof) —
(1) which emits noise capable of adversely
affecting the public health or welfare; or
(2) which Is sold wholly or In part on the
basis of Its effectiveness In reducing nolsa
(b) For each product (or class thereof)
designated under subsection (a) the Admin-
istrator shall by regulation require that no-
tice be given to the prospective user of the
level of the noise the product emits, or of its
effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case
may be. Such regulations shall specify (1)
Whether such notice shall be affixed to the
product or to the outside of its container,
or to both, at the time of its sale to the
ultimate purchaser or whether such notice
shall be given to the prospective user in some
other manner, (2) the form of the notice,
and (3) the methods and units of measure-
ment to be used. Sections 6T(c) (2) shall ap-
ply to the prescribing of any regulation under
this section.
(c) This section does not prevent any State
or political subdivision thereof from regulat-
ing product labeling or information respect-
ing products in any way not in conflict with
regulations prescribed by the Administrator
under this section.
IMPORTS
SEC. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury shall,
in consultation with the Administrator, Issue
.regulations to carry out the provisions of this
Act with respect to new products Imported
or offered for importation.
the Adminlstratois,may exempt for a, specified
period of time any product, or class thereof,
from paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (6) of
subsection (a), upon such terms and condi-
tions as he may find necessary to protect the
public health or welfare.
(2) Paragraphs (1), (2), (3,),, and (4) of
subsection (a) shall not apply with respect
to any product which is manufactured solely
for use outside any State and which (and
the container of which) Is labeled or other-
wise marked to show that it Is manufactured
solely for use outside any State; except that
such paragraphs shall apply to such product
if it is in fact distributed in commerce for
use in 'any State.
SEC. 11. (a) Any person who willfully or
knowingly violates paragraph (1), (3), (5),
or (6) of subsection (a) of section 10 of this
Act shall be ptinished by a fine of not more
than $25,000 per day of violation, or by Im-
prisonment for not more than one year, or
by both. If the conviction Is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such
person under this subsection, punishment
shall be by a fine of not more than $50,000
per day of violation, or by imprisonment for
not more than two years, or by both.
(b) For the purpose of this section, each,
day of violation of any paragraph of section
10 (a) shall constitute a separate violation
of that section.
(c) The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction of actions brought by
and In the name of the United States to re-
strain any violations of section 10 (a) of
this Act.
(d) (1) Whenever any person is in viola-
tion of section 10 (a) of this Act, the Admin-
istrator may issue an order specifying such
relief as he determines Is necessary to protect
the public health and welfare.
(2) Any order under this subsection shall
be Issued only after notice and opportunity
(B) if an Administrator has commenced
and Is diligently prosecuting a civil action to
require compliance with the noise control
requirement, but In any such action In a
court of the United States any person may
Intervene as a matter of right, or (2) under
subsection (a) (2) prior to sixty days after
the plaintiff has given notice to the defend-
ant that he will commence' such action.
Notice under this subsection shall be given
in such manner as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall pre-
scribe by regulation.
(c) In an action under this section, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, if not a party, may intervene as
a matter of right. In an action under this
section respecting a ndse control require-
ment under section 611 of the Federal Avia-
tion Act of 1958, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, if not a
party, may also intervene as a, matter of
right.
(d) The court, in Issuing any final order in
any action brought pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section, may award costs of litiga-
tion (including reasonable attorney and ex-
pert witness fees) to any party, whenever the
court determines such an award is appropri-
ate.
(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of per-
sons) may have under any statute or com-
mon law to seek enforcement of any noise
control requirement or to seek any other
relief (including relief against an Adminis-
trator) .
(f) For purposes of this section, the term
"noise control requirement" means para-
graph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section
10(a), or a standard, rule, or regulation Is-
sued under section 17 or 18 of this Act or
under section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958.
§
CD
>
H
H
H
CO
H
o
SJ
to
OS
[p. S18641]
-------
RECORDS, HEPOHTS, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 13. (a) Each manufacturer of a prod-
uct to which regulations under section 6 or
section 8 apply shall—•
(1) establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, provide such Informa-
tion, and make such tests, as the Adminis-
trator may reasonably require to enable him
to determine whether such manufacturer
has acted or Is acting In compliance with
this Act,
(2) upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, per-
mit such officer or employee at reasonable
times to have access to such information
and the results of such tests and to copy
such records, and
(3) to the extent required by regulations
of the Administrator, make products com-
ing off the assembly line or otherwise in the
hands of the manufacturer available for
testing by the Administrator.
(b) (1) All information obtained by the
Administrator or his representatives pur-
suant to subsection (a) of this section, which
information contains or relates to a trade
secret or other matter referred to in section
1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the pur-
pose of that section, except that such Infor-
mation may be disclosed to other Federal
officers or employees, In whose possession it
shall remain confidential, or when relevant
to the. matter in controversy in any proceed-
ing under this Act.
(2) Nothing In this subsection shall
authorize the withholding of information by
the Administrator, or by any officers or em-
ployees under his control, from the duly
authorized committees at the Congress.
(c) Any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certifica-
tion In any application, record, report, plan,
or other document filed or required to be
maintained -under this Act or who falsifies,
tampers with, or knowingly renders Inae-
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-NOISE-EMISSION
PRODUCTS
SEC. 15. (a) For the purpose of this sec-
tion:
(1) The term "Committee" means the
Low-Nolse-Emlssion Product Advisory Com-
mittee.
(2) The term "Federal Government" in-
cludes the legislative, executive, and judi-
cial branches of the Government of the
United States, and the government of the
District of Columbia.
(3) The term "low-nolse-emlssion product"
means any product which emits noise in
amounts significantly below the levels spec-
ified in noise emission standards under reg-
ulations applicable under section 6 at the
time of procurement to that type of product.
(4) The term "retail price" means (A) the
maximum statutory price applicable to any
type of product; or (B) in any case where
there is no applicable maximum statutory
price, the most recent procurement price
paid for any type of product.
(b) (1) The Administrator shall determine
which products qualify as low-noise-emis-
sion products In accordance with the pro-
visions of this section.
(2) The Administrator shall certify any
product—
(A) for which a certification application
has been filed In accordance with paragraph
(5) (A) of this subsection;
(B) which is a low-noise-emission product
as determined by the Administrator; and
(C) which he determines is suitable for use
as a substitute for a type of product at that
time in use by agencies of the Federal Gov-
ernment.
(3) The Administrator may establish a
Low-Noise-Kmission Product Advisory Com-
mittee to assist him in determining which
products qualify as low-noise-emission prod-
ucts for purposes ol this section. The Com-
mittee shall include the Administrator or his
designee, a representative of the National
for purposes of this section. If the Admin-
istrator determines that such product Is a
low-noise-emission product, then within one
hundred and eighty days of such determina-
tion the Administrator shall reach a dec!-'
sion as to whether such product Is a suitable
substitute for any class or classes of products
presently being purchased by the Federal
Government for use by its agencies.
(G) Immediately upon making any deter-
mination or decision under subparagraph
(F), the Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Register notice of such determina-
tion or decision, including reasons therefor.
(c) (1) Certified low-noise-emission prod-
ucts shall be acquired by purchase or lease
by the Federal Government for use by the
Federal Government in lieu of other products
if the Administrator of General Services de-
termines that such certified products have
procurement c'osts which are no more than
125 per centum of the retail price of the least
expensive type of product for which they are
certified substitutes.
(2) Data relied upon by the Administrator
in determining that a product is a certified
low-noise-emission product shall be incor-
porated in any contract for the procurement
of such product.
(d) The procuring agency shall be required
to purchase available certified low-noise-
emission product shall be Incorporated in any
contract for the procurement of such prod-
uct.
(d) The procuring agency shall be required
to purchase available certified low-noise-
emission products which are eligible for
purchase to the extent they are available
before purchasing any other products for
which any low-noise-emission product Is a
certified substitute. In making purchasing
selections between competing eligible cer-
tified low-noise-emission products, the pro-
curing agency shall give priority to any class
or model which does not require extensive
periodic maintenance to retain Its low-noise-
Cn
00
H
Q
o
o
t-1
-------
curate any monitoring device or method re-
quired to be maintained under this Act, shall
upon conviction be punished by a fine of
not more than $10,000, or by Imprisonment
for not more than six months, or by both.
RESEARCH, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND
PUBLIC INFORMATION
SEC. 14. In furtherance of bis responsi-
bilities under this Act and to complement, as
necessary, the noise-research programs of
other Federal agencies, the Administrator is
authorized to:
(1.) Conduct research, and finance research
by contract with any person, on the effects,
measurement, and control of noise, including
but not limited to—
(A) investigation of the psychological and
physiological effects of noise on humans and
the effects of noise on domestic animals,
wildlife, and property, and determination of
acceptable levels of noise on the basis of
such effects;
(B) development of improved methods and
standards for measurement and monitoring
of noise, In cooperation with the National
Bureau of Standards, Department of Com-
merce; and
(C) determination of the most effective
and practicable means of controlling noise
emission.
(2) Provide technical assistance to State
and local governments to facilitate their
development and enforcement of ambient
noise standards, including but not limited
(A) advice on training of noise-control
personnel and on selection and operation of
noise-abatement equipment; and
(B) preparation of model State or local
legislation for noise control.
(3) Disseminate to the public information
on the effects of noise, acceptable noise levels,
and techniques for noise measurement and
control.
Bureau of standards, .and representatives of
such other Federal agencies and private In-
dividuals as the Administrator may deem
necessary from time to time. Any member of
the Committee not employed on a full-time
basis by the United States may receive the
dally equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay In. effect for grade GS-lff'of the General
Schedule for each day such member is en-
gaged upon work of the Committee. Each.
member ;0f the Committee shall be reim-
bursed for travel expenses. Including per diem
in lieu of subsistence as authorized by sec-
'tion 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for
persons in the Government service employed
Intermittently.
(4) 'Certification under this section shall
be effective for a period of one year from the
date of Issuance.
(6) (A) Any person seeking to have a class
or model of product certified under this sec-
tion shall file a certification application in
accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Administrator.
(B) The Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Register a notice of each application
received.
(C) The Administrator shall make deter-
minations for the purpose of this section in
accordance with procedures prescribed by
him by regulation.
(D) The Administrator shall conduct what-
eyer Investigation is necessary, including
actual Inspection of the product at a place
designated in regulations prescribed under
subparagraph (A).
(E) The Administrator shall receive and
evaluate written comments and documents
from interested persons in support of, or in
opposition to, certification of the class or
model of product under consideration.
(F) Within ninety days after the receipt
of a properly filed certification application
the Administrator shall determine whether
such product is a low-noise-emission product
emission qualities or which does not Involve
operating costs significantly in excess of
those products for which It Is a certified sub-
stitute.
(e) For the purpose of procuring certified
low-noise-emission products any statutory
price limitations shall be waived.
(f) The Administrator shall, from time to
time as he deems appropriate, test the emis-
sions of noise from certified low-nolse-ernis-
slon products purchased by the Federal Gov-
ernment. If at any time he finds that the
noise-emission levels exceed the levels on
which certification under this section was
based, the Administrator shall give the sup-
plier of such product written notice of this
finding, issue public notice of it, and give
the supplier an opportunity to make neces-
sary repairs, adjustments, or replacements.
If no such repairs, adjustments, or replace-
ments are made within a period to be set by
the Administrator, he may order the supplier
to show cause why the product involved
should be eligible for recertification.
(g) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated for paying additional amounts for prod-
ucts pursuant to, and for carrying out the
provisions of, this section, $1,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and $2,-
000,000 for each of the two succeeding fiscal
years.
(h) The Administrator shall promulgate
the procedures required to implement this
section within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
JUDICIAL KEVIEW; WITNESSES
SEC. 16. (a) A petition for review of action
of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in promulgating any
standard or regulation under section 6, 17,
or 18 of this Act or any labeling regulation
under section 8 of this Act may be filed only
In the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, and a peti-
tion for review of action of the Administrator
[p. S18642]
§
I
CJ
W
to
05
Cn
CO
-------
ol the Federal Aviation Administration In
promulgating any standard or regulation
under section 611 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1968 may be filed only In such court.
Any such, petition shall be filed within ninety
days from the date of such promulgation, or
after such date If such petition Is based
solely .on grounds arising after such ninetieth
day. Action of either Administrator with
respect to which review could have been
obtained under this subsection shall not be
subject to Judicial review In civil or criminal
proceedings for enforcement.
(b) If a party seeking review under this
Act applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satis-
faction of the court that the Information is
material and was not available at the time
of the proceeding before the Administrator
of such Agency or Administration (as the
case may be), the court may order such
additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal
thereof) to be taken before such Adminis-
trator, and to be adduced upon the hearing,
In such manner and upon such terms and
conditions as the court may deem proper.
Such Administrator may modify his findings
as to the facts, or make new findings, by
reason of the additional evidence so taken,
and he shall file with the court such modi-
fled or new findings, and his recommenda-
tion, if any, for the modification or setting
aside of his original order, with the return
of such additional evidence.
(c) With respect to relief pending review
of an action by either Administrator, no stay
of an agency action may be granted unless
the reviewing court determines that the
party seeking such stay Is (1) likely to pre-
vail on the merits In the review proceeding
and (3) will suffer irreparable harm pending
such proceeding.
(d) For the purpose of obtaining informa-
tion to carry out this Act, the Administra-
tor of the Environmental Protection Agency
may issue subpenas for the attendance and
from time to time, in accordance with this
subsection.
(3) Any standard or regulation, or revi-
sion thereof, proposed under this subsection
shall be promulgated only after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation In or-
der to assure appropriate consideration for
safety and technological availability.
(4) Any regulation or revision thereof
promulgated under this subsection shall take
effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such pe-
riod
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the Administrator, shall
promulgate regulations to Insure compliance
with all standards promulgated by the Ad-
ministrator under this section. The Secretary
of Transportation shall carry out such regu-
lations through the use of his powers and
duties of enforcement and inspection au-
thorized by the Safety Appliance Acts, the
Interstate Commerce Act, and the Depart-
ment of Transportation Act. Regulations
promulgated under this section shall be
subject to the provisions of sections 10, 11,
12, and 16 of this Act.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) but not-
withstanding any other provision of this Act,
after the effective date of a regulation un-
der this section applicable to noise emis-
sions resulting from the operation of any
equipment or faculty of a surface carrier
engaged in Interstate commerce by railroad,
no State or political subdivision thereof may
adopt or enforce any standard applicable
to noise emissions resulting from the oper-
ation of the same equipment or facility of
such carrier unless such standard is Identi-
cal to a standard applicable to noise emis-
sions resulting from such operation pre-
scribed by any regulation under this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall dlmin-
be promulgated only after consultation witn
the Secretary of Transportation in order to
assure appropriate consideration for safety
and technological availability.
(4) Any regulation or revision thereof pro-
mulgated under this subsection shall take
effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, to permit the
development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration
to the cost of compliance within such period.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, after
consultation with the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations to Insure compliance
with all standards promulgated by the Ad-
ministrator under this section. The Secretary
of Transportation shall carry out such regu-
lations through the use of his powers and
duties of enforcement and inspection au-
thorized by the Interstate Commerce Act and
the Department of Transportation Act. Regu-
lations promulgated under this section shall
be subject to the provisions of sections 10,
11, 12, and 16 of this Act.
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this
subsection but notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, after the effective date
of a regulation under this section applicable
to noise emissions resulting from the opera-
tion of any motor carrier engaged in Inter-
state commerce, no State or political sub-
division thereof may adopt or enforce any
standard applicable to the same operation of
such motor carrier, unless such standard la
Identical to a standard applicable to noise
emissions resulting from such operation pre-
scribed by any regulation under this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall diminish
or enhance the rights of any State or political
subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
standards or controls on levels of environ-
mental noise, or to control, license, regulate,
or restrict the use, operation, or movement
of any product if the Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of Transpor-
s
O
O
O
IT1
P*
i
-------
testimony of witnesses and the production
of relevant papers, books, and ducuments,
and be may administer oaths. Witnesses sum-
moned shall be paid the same fees and mile-
age that are paid witnesses In the courts of
the trnlted States. In oases of contumacy or
refusal to obey a subpena served upon any
person under this subsection, the district
court of the United States for any district In
which such person Is found or resides or
transacts business, upon application by the
United States and after notice to such person,
shall have Jurisdiction to Issue an order re-
quiring such person to appear and give testi-
mony before the Administrator, to appear
and produce papers, books, and documents
before the Administrator, or both, and any
failure to obey sxieh order of the court may
be punished by such court as a contempt
thereof.
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 17. (a)(l) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for surface carriers en-
gaged In Interstate commerce by railroad.
Such proposed regulations shall Include
noise emission standards setting such limits
on noise emissions resulting from operation
of the equipment and facilities of surface
carriers engaged in interstate commerce by
railroad which reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application
of the best available technology, taking Into.
accoxint the cost of compliance. These regu-
lations shall be In addition to any regulations
that may be proposed under section 6 of this
Act.
(2) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, and
subject to the provisions of section 16 of this
Act, the Administrator shall promulgate final
regulations. Such regulations may be revised,
ish or enhance the rights of any State or
political subdivision thereof to establish and
enforce standards or controls on levels of en-
vironmental noise, or to control, license,
regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or
movement of any product if the Adminis-
trator, after consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation, determines that such
standard, control, license, regulation, or re-
striction, is necessitated by special local con-
ditlons and Is not in conflict with regula-
tions promulgated under this section.
(d) The terms "carrier" and "railroad" as
used in this section shall have the same
meaning as such terms have under the first
section of the Act of February 17, 1911 (45
U.S.0.22).
MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
SEC. 18. (a) (1) Within nine months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator shall publish proposed noise
emission regulations for motor carriers en-
gaged In. Interstate commerce. Such pro-
posed regulations shall include noise emis-
sion standards setting such limits on noise
emissions resulting from operation of motor
carriers engaged in interstate commerce
which reflect the degree of noise reduction
achievable through the application of the
best available technology, taking into ac-
count the cost of compliance. These regula-
tions shall be in addition to any regulations
that may be proposed under section 6 of
this Act.
(2) Within ninety days after the publica-
tion of such regulations as may be proposed
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, and
subject to the provisions of section 16 of
this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
final regxilations. Such regulations may be
revised from time to time, in accordance with
this subsection.
(3) Any standard or regulation, or revision
thereof, proposed under this subsection shall
tatkm, determines that such standard, con-
trol, license, regulation, or restriction is
necessitated by special local oondditdons and
Is not In conflict with regulations promul-
gated under this section.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term
"motor carrier" Includes a, common carrier
by motor vehicle, a contract carrier by motor
vehicle, and a private carrier of property by
motor vehicle as those terms ore denned by
paragraphs (14), (16), and (17) of section
203(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49
U.S.C. 303(a)).
AUTHORIZATION OP APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 19. There Is authorized to be appro-
priated to carry out this Act (other than
section 15) $3,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973; $6,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30,1974; and $12,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. TUNNEY. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I do
not want to delay this matter. This is a,
bill that was nearly as difficult as the
one the Senator from Louisiana has,
though not quite. But I want to suggest
that, between the Commerce Commitee
and the Public Works Committee, we
finally worked out a very decent bill.
Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It took a lot of
work, and I rise only to. compliment
the staff members on both the Commerce
Committee and the Public Works Com-
mittee on helping us, in these busy days,
to work out what I think is a reasonable
compromise.
Mr. TUNNEY. I thank the Senator
from Washington for what he has said.
GO
H
I
O
B
tr1
I
en
to
05
OS
[p. S18643]
-------
I think that the staffs of both committees
and personal staff have done an out-
standing job.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Of course, we super-
vised them a little.
Mr. TUNNEY. I want to say that if it
had not been for the Senator from
Washington, we could never have got-
t^n this bill through the Senate. I deeply
appreciate the fact that he was \villing
to meet with me on many occasions to
discuss the various provisions of the bill,
and that we were able to work out this
agreement, which I think will be satis-
factory to the standing committees and
also most beneficial to millions of Ameri-
cans who desperately need this legisla-
tion in order to control the noise that
comes from so many different products
throughout the United States.
I also would like to say that I am
appreciative to the chairman of the
House Commerce Committee for the
work he did in these final days when it
appeared that .an objection on the other
side would ground this bill this year.
Through the diligence and the work of
the House minority leader (Mr. FORD),
and through the efforts of our majority
leader, the Senator from Montana (Mr.
MANSFIELD), this bill is before us at this
time with about as much agreement as
is possible in any legislation.
Mr. President, on February 29 of this
year, the House passed and sent to the
Senate the Noise Control Act of 1972.
After months of hearings, negotiations
and extensive investigations, the Senate
on Friday of last week returned its tough-
er version of this legislation to the House.
Time did not permit a conference be-
Agency would retain the authority to
initiate a regulatory process to protect
public health and welfare from aircraft
noise. The EPA would be required to con-
clude within 9 months a study on air-
craft noise problems, including the im-
plications and means of achieving levels
of cumulative noise around airports and
the adequacy 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 Administrator would be
required to take the lead on the control
of aircraft noise, submitting regulations
to protect public health and welfare from
aircraft noise and sonic boom. Such reg-
ulations would be required to include pro-
posed means of reducing noise in airport
environments through the application of
emission controls on aircraft, the regu-
lation of flight patterns and aircraft and
airport operations, and modifications in
the number, frequency, or scheduling of
fiights.
Within 30 days, the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration
would be required to publish the EPA-
proposed regulations as its notice of pro-
posed rulemaking and, within 60 days, to
hold a public hearing on the EPA pro-
posal. On the basis of that hearing and
after consultation with the EPA, the FAA
must publicly accept, modify, or reject
the regulations contained in the EPA
proposal. The FAA Administrator would
be required, as the result of the hearing
process and after consultation with EPA
to prescribe regulations to implement the
proposed or modified recommendations.
Again, I stress that those regulations
against that goal, not for their effect on
air commerce or particular air carriers.
The key element in this proposal is
protection of the public health and wel-
fare. The key element is not, as some
may believe, protection of commerce. The
Federal Aviation Administration's regu-
latory responsibility is retained in order
to assure technological availability and
protect safety. However the FAA, follow-
ing the lead of EPA, will be required to
promulgate regulations which shall as-
sure protection of public health and wel-
fare in airport environments even whore
it is not possible to achieve necessary
noise reductions through the application
of specific emission controls on engines
and aircraft.
The amendment offered by Senator
BROOKE, requiring a study by the Secre-
tary of Transportation of means of fi-
nancing the retrofitting of existing air-
craft, is deleted by the House amendment.
However, the question of cost and means
of financing will be a part of the study
and recommendations on a retrofit pro-
gram which the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is required to conduct under
section 7(a). The Congress expects that
the Department of Transportation, which
is conducting a study now on retrofitting
of existing aircraft and means of financ-
ing such a program, will complete its
study in time for the EPA to utilize the
data, along with other sources, as it pre-
pares its recommendations on retrofit-
ting and the financing thereof.
I wish to point out that the decisions
of the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration in accepting, modi-
fying, or rejecting the proposals of the
10
Oi
to
M
Q
>
f
8
p
a
-------
tween the two bodies on the disagree-
ments in the legislation. The House has
exercised its prerogative and amended
the Senate version of the bill. That leg-
islation is before the Senate.
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 protect public health and
welfare in the vicinity of airports from
the impact of noise from aircraft and air-
craft operations. The House bill pro-
vided the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion with sole responsibility for regula-
tion of aircraft-related noise problems.
The Environmental Protection Agency,
an agency established with the approval
of the Congress to protect the environ-
ment, was relegated to a secondary, con-
sultative role to the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration.
Under the Senate bill, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency had the re-
sponsibility to propose noise emission
standards for aircraft. Those standards
were to reflect the degree of noise reduc-
tion from aircraft required to protect the
public health and welfare. However, un-
der the Senate bill, those standards could
only be applied after determination by
the Federal Aviation Administration that
technology 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 ap-
prove, the Environmental Protection
would include, but would not be limited
to, the imposition of curfews on noisy air-
ports, the imposition of flight path alter-
ations In areas where noise was a prob-
lem, the imposition of noj.se emission
standards on new and existing aircraft—
with the expectation of a retrofit sched-
ule to abate noise emissions from exist-
ing aircraft—the imposition of controls
to increase the load factor on commercial
flights, or other reductions in the joint
use of airports, and such other procedures
as may be determined useful and neces-
sary to protect public health and welfare.
Mr. President, the rest of this amend-
ment is similar to portions of the aircraft
provision passed by the House. But the
essence of the Senate proposal has been
retained, in establishing EPA as the lead
agency with respect to aircraft noise and
in not relying solely on controls oh noise
emissions from aircraft. Under the com-
promise both a technological response in
the form of emission standards afcd a
regulatory procedure in the form of op-
erational and other ail-port noise controls
must be established.
It is not the intention of the Congress
that the phrase "economic reasonable-
ness" continue to be interpreted as it has
in the past under section 611 of the Fed-
eral Aviation Act. By recasting the con-
trol of aircraft noise in a new regulatory
framework, Congress intends that the
reasonableness of the cost of any regu-
lation or standard be judged in relation
to the purposes of this act, which is to
protect public health and welfare from
aircraft noise. Costs are to be judged
Environmental Protection Agency, or in
promulgating regulations or standard/
for the control of aircraft noise, are sub-
ject to judicial review under section 16
of the bill before us. In addition, under
the citizen suit provision of this bill—•
section 12—any individual can bring suit
against the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration for failure to
perform an act or duty which is not dis-
cretionary with him. This includes the
mandate to him to establish standards
for the control of aircraft noise in ac-
cordance with specific standards and
policies under this act. In such a case,
the test of the Administrator's action is
not whether the action 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 amendment
does not contain the provision offered by
Senator Cranston which would require
supersonic transports landing at U.S. air-
ports to meet the noise emission stand-
ards which have been established for sub-
sonic 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 mat-
ter or on the provisions of the Senate-
passed bill forbidding flights of civil air-
craft over the U.S. at supersonic speeds.
In addition, it was stated emphatically
that acceptance of these provisions would
[p. S18644]
I
3
CD
>
o
1
hH
OT
5
H
to
o>
O3
CO
-------
disturb jurisdictional arrangements in
the House of Representatives. Therefore,
although the Senate strongly urged the
inclusion of these provisions because of
their importance to the total program of
controlling aircraft noise, these provi-
sions could not be offered in or accepted
by the House, and the passage of noise
control legislation would have been
blocked.
We expect, however, that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, in studying
and proposing' noise emission standards
for new aircraft and new aircraft types,
and the Federal Aviation Administration
in promulgating and implementing such
regulations, will impose limits on noise
emissions on supersonic aircraft using
U.S. airports at least as stringent as are
required of subsonic aircraft. It is my ex-
pectation and the Senate's clear inten-
tion that such standards be proposed and
implemented for supersonic transports
under the provisions of this bill before
such aircraft are in commercial service.
Such standards, including proposed re-
strictions on use of U.S. airports, should
be recommended in the study under sec-
tion 7 (a).
The House amendment does not in-
clude three specific provisions of the
Senate bill. The House has deleted the
provision for grants to States and local
governments for the support of environ-
mental noise control programs. While the
Senate felt it was important to assist
communities and States in the develop-
ment of effective regulatory programs,
and it is unfortunate that the House
chose to drop this provision, I believe
that the Senate will have an ample op-
developing entirely new provisions re-
flecting an accommodation between the
House and Senate bills, the House
amendment provides for a number of
amendments drawn from the Senate bill
and based on the Clean Air Amendments
of 1970. The use of these precedents
from the Clean Air Act should be valu-
able not only for consistency in environ-
mental law and ease of interpretation
and implementation but to expedite ap-
proval of this legislation in both the
Senate and the House.
The following provisions have been
included in the House amendment in
modified form in order to reflect similar
provisions of the Senate bill:
A Federal facilities compliance pro-
vision identical to the Clean Air Act;
A warranty requirement similar to the
Clean Air Act;
An enforcement provision similar to
the Clean Air Act;
A citizen suit provision identical to
the Clean Air Act;
A records and reports provision simi-
lar to the Clean Air Act;
A judicial review provision identical
to the Clean Air Act.
Finally, Mr. President, the House
amendment includes three provisions of
the Senate bill which were not a part
of the House bill and which expand the
scope of the legislation in the direction
approved by the Senate. The Senate bill
required the Administrator to publish
criteria on the levels of environmental
noise at which adverse effects of public
health and welfare can be avoided, with
an adequate margin of safety. The House
has adopted an amendment which re-
situation but he must also design his
regulations so that the public health and
welfare is protected regardless of the lo-
cation in which the interstate carrier is
operating.
The Administrator is permitted to take
into account special local considerations
and waive the application of the preemp-
tion provision to assure that public
health and welfare is protected. In addi-
tion, he may waiv« the application of
preemption where local regulations are
not in conflict with Federal regulations,
as where local law requires lower speeds
or different operating procedures, or
modifications of routing.
Mr. President, both the House and the
Senate bill provided authority for the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish noise
emission standards for products. In gen-
eral it is assumed the Administrator will
deal with products which contribute to
noise in the environment, as distin-
guished from household products. This is
not to say that the Administrator cannot
regulate air conditioners. However, it is
the intent of the Congress that priorities
established by the Administrator would
be directed toward such items as trucks,
snowmobiles, motorcycles, compressors,
and construction equipment, rather than
blenders, electric can openers, and vac-
uum cleaners although standards could
cover these items. The Administrator's
assignment is particularly difficult. Not
only must the Administrator determine
the level of noise emissions from a prod-
uct which will assure that such a product
in use alone, under varying conditions,
will not contribute to unacceptable en-
05
O5
f
w
ft
8
t-1
>
H
hH
o
g
-------
portunity following the completion of
the various studies, research and re-
ports of this legislation to add such a
program. I do not, however, want to
understate the importance of a Federal
program to assist in the development of
State and local environmental noise
control agencies. Both the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air
Act have achieved a high degree of suc-
cess because of the efforts of State and
local governments to regulate environ-
mental problems. The need for and the
value of this type of approach in the
area of environmental noise should be-
come more apparent after the comple-
tion of studies to develop noise criteria
and control technology information, and
especially, information on levels of en-
vironmental noise. Such information
will -establish a local basis for action on
what is essentially a local problem, and
identify the regulatory mechanisms
which may be most appropriate to as-
sure early achievement of acceptable
levels of environmental noise.
Two additional provisions related to
Federal procurement and emergency
situations were deleted in the House
amendment. The Senate Committee on
Public Works will review the need for
and the value of those provisions at the
same time it considers grants to State
and local governments, and if found
useful and appropriate, the committee
will recommend necessary amendments
to the Senate.
Mr. President, in order to facilitate
agreement and to avoid the difficulty of
quires the Administrator to develop and
publish information identifying such lev-
els. Information on levels of environ-
mental noise at which adverse effects
occur will be of valuable assistance to
the public and to Federal, State, and
local regulatory agencies in determining
the degree to which noise in the environ-
ment needs to be reduced. It will be es-
sential to the Environmental Protection
Agency and to the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration and to citizens who live in
the vicinity of the airports who are con-
cerned about the levels of environmental
noise. And it will be essential to those who
enforce regulatory programs as a means
to determine the success of their regula-
tory programs.
Second, the House has accepted the
Senate proposal which authorizes the
Environmental Protection Agency to es-
tablish regulations for control of noise
from interstate carriers, including rail-
roads, trucks and buses. The purpose of
the amendment is to reduce the impact
of conflicting State and local noise con-
trols on interstate carriers.
I would stress, Mr. President, that the
preemption provided in these sections
only occurs in areas of regulation where
adequate Federal regulations are in ef-
fect. And, equally important, Mr. Presi-
dent, is that Federal regulations must be
stringent enough to meet the varying lo-
cal conditions affected by interstate car-
riers. Not only must the Administrator
establish regulations which protect pub-
lic health and welfare from noise from
these interstate carriers in the average
vironmental noise levels, but he must
also be assured that noise emission
standards for a product will be adequate
to protect public health and welfare
when that product is used in combina-
tion with other products or sources of
noise.
Thus, the noise emission standards for
snowmobiles or motorcycles will not be
related solely to one snowmobile or
motorcycle in an area where there are
no other snowmobiles or motorcycles but
should anticipate the circumstances in
which many sources might be present.
This will necessitate standards for an
individual source of noise which are con-
siderably more stringent than might be
required if that product were always
to be used alone.
Additionally, the Administrator will
be required to take into consideration
the technology that is available to re-
duce noise. The Senate established its
regulatory mechanism based on what
could be achieved through the applica-
tion of the best available technology.
The Senate bill assumed'that the best
technology available would probably not
be adequate to assure protection of pub-
lic health and welfare and thus that the
levels of noise reduction which could be
achieved with technology would be the
minimum level of control. Under the
House amendment, the application of the
best available technology remains the
minimum standard, by providing for the
establishment of standards basedjm both
public health and welfare and the tech-
nology available for noise reduction. The
[p. S18645]
§
I—I
g
g
2
01
t*
3
-------
2666 LEGAL COMPILATION—SUPPLEMENT I
Administrator will have an opportunity
to assure that the best which can be
done is done, while at the same time
pushing the limits of technology to
achieve greater noise emission control
results protective of public health and
welfare.
Mr. President, the funds authorized
by the House amendment for the ad-
ministration of this legislation are less
than those contained in the Senate bill.
Agreement to this reduction was neces-
sary. However, authorizations in later
years can be increased if conditions so
require.
In conclusion, Mr. President, the
House amendment now before us retains
the essential features of the Senate bill,
and retains the strong features of the
legislation overwhelmingly passed by
the Senate on October 13, 1972.
Mr. President, I move that the Sen-
ate concur in the amendment of the
House of Representatives.
The motion was agreed to.
[p. S18646]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 O - 525-314
------- |