ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present my views to the subcommittee on this vital subject.

We are living today in an age of intense concern with the quality of life and the quality of the environment where we spend that life. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat-all are objects of increasing concern. Another element in the quality of life is the topic of these hearings, noise.

Acoustics experts have said that everyone living in a city could be stone deaf by the year 2000 if noise levels keep rising at the present rate. Noise pollution has become a serious health hazard, according to evidence presented at last week's meeting of the International Standardization Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Urban noise has been rising at the rate of one decibel a year, it was shown, and if it continues every urban dweller will be deaf by the end of this century, less than 30 years from now.

We are inundated with all kinds of noises, from all sources and all directions. Noise, like so many other forms of pollution, is a product of our technological advancement. But this need not be. For far too long we have blindly accepted belching smokestacks, sewage-filled rivers and screeching machinery as signs of progress. We are just beginning to realize they need not be inseparable. Pollution does not have to be the price of progress.

We have the know-how to clean the air, protect the water and quiet the noise. Too often, however, what has been lacking was the will to put that knowledge to work.

Noise is more than uncomfortable. It is debilitating. It can and does interfere with our sleep, our work and our leisure.

Studies have indicated that loss of efficiency due to noisy working conditions could be reducing our Gross National Product by several billion dollars a year. Billions more in potential workman's compensation claims are believed generated annually by noise-induced hearing losses in perhaps as many as 15 million American workers.

The World Health Organization says industrial noise alone costs the United States more than $54 billion a year in accidents, absenteeism, inefficiency and compensation claims.

There is evidence of a close relationship between noise exposure and body fatigue as well as psychological and social stresses.

Noise is one of the major problems in my Congressional District. My district is in what may be the world's noisiest city, New York City. It was there that the fire department had to install louder sirens in order to penetrate the noise on the streets.

My constituents are neighbors of LaGuardia airport, one of the nation's busiest. They suffer the consequences of decades of neglect of the noise pollution problem. Most of them have lived in New York City for many years. They live in established communities and not in hurriedly-assembled subdivision tracts. They were there before the jet arrived.

They used to live in comfortable, convenient neighborhoods which, while noisier perhaps than rural areas, nonetheless struck a reasonable balance between city hustle and bustle and suburban quietness. But today, that balance is gone. Now these people come home from their city jobs and find themselves beneath an intolerable roar as jetliner after jetliner screeches over their roofs. These city-dwellers have lost that balance of toleration which once existed in their neighborhoods. They find that their homes offer not less, but more, noise, more distraction and more simple human discomfort than their offices in the heart of the city.

For too many years, I believe, we have passed the noise problem from one pair of reluctant hands to another.

(967)

We cannot afford to delay any longer. Some significant first steps have been taken by the Congress, although Administration response in carrying out this mandate has been somewhat lacking. We in the Congress must continue to prod the Administration and to increase our involvement in improving the quality of our environment and fighting noise pollution.

Unless we act now, we will soon reach a critical stage.

Mr. Chairman, enactment of the legislation currently before this subcommittee, while not representing the ultimate solution to noise pollution, would be another important step toward improving the quality of life for the American people, but I regret it does not go far enough.

I am most disappointed with the aircraft noise provisions of S. 1016 the Administration proposal.

Not only does this legislation give inadequate attention to one of the major causes of noise pollution, but it places responsibility in the wrong hands.

This bill gives to the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to prescribe noise standards, rules and regulations applying to aviation. If the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency feels those measures do not adequately protect the public, he has no power to change them; he may only request the FAA administrator to review them.

This is exactly the opposite of the way it should be. The FAA has acted with deplorable slowness in implementing the mandate of the Aircraft Noise Certification Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-411) and has consistently shown itself to be a poor leader in noise abatement.

The FAA is not the one to set noise standards; after all, its prime responsibility, under law, is to promote aviation, not protect the environment-that is the job of the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA is, therefore, the proper agency to establish standards, rules and regulations for noise, whether the source of that noise is aircraft, motor vehicles, industrial machinery or whatever. Noise pollution is first and foremost an environmental problem.

It is with that in mind that I support the following amendment to H.R. 5275 (and H.R. 5388): (I have offered this amendment to H.R. 5275, the House version of this bill.)

On page 4, after line 13 add:

(h) "Noise Exposure" (also written "NE") is proportional to the weighted total aircraft noise energy reaching a given point on the ground near an airport produced by all of the aircraft operations from that airport in a twenty-four hour period. The NE for group (a) of identical flights, some in the daytime and some during the night, is : NE, EPNL2+10 log Na+10 log 16.67N-88

where:

EPNL is the Effective Perceived Noise Level produced by the aircraft at the point on the ground where the NE is being determined. A complete definition of EPNL and the manner in which it is derived is given in Part 36 appendices A and B, of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Na is a number of day flights, i.e., during the hours 0700 to 2200, N is a number of night flights, i.e., during the hours 2200 to 0700, 16.67 is a constant which weights the flights per hour at night 10 dB higher than the day flights. (For the 9 hours of night vs 15 hours of day the total night flights are multiplied by 10×15/9 or 16.67) and 88 is an arbitrary constant used to differentiate between NE and EPNL.

The general equation for NE is:

NE 10 log Σ log-1

NE 10

where:

i-indicates the class of aircraft and

j-indicates the flight path and operating procedure

On page 9, strike lines 3 through 13 and insert in lieu thereof:

"(c) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, after consultation with appropriate Federal departments and agencies, establish boundaries around airports beyond which the 30 and 40 aircraft Noise Exposure (NE) forecast contour shall not be permitted."

The impact of aircraft noise on people living and working near airports can be specified in terms of noise exposure (NE) units where the NE of any point in the area near an airport is proportional to the total noise energy reaching that

point from all aircraft operations in the vicinity of the airport in a 24-hour period.

The net effect of my amendment, to put it simply, will be to set noise quotas around airports and leave it to the airlines, airport operators and other responsible authorities to decide just how they will use their quotas. Under this formula, for example, a flight at midnight would use up as much of the noise quota as ten flights at noon by the identical aircraft because the sleeping period is a more noise-sensitive time of day.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. WILSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CALIFORNIA

I would like to begin by thanking the Subcommittee and Senator Cannon for holding these hearings on the Aircraft Noise Reduction Bill and for allowing me to present this statement.

It's noxious manifestations are not as apparent as a smog-blanketed skyline or a filth-ridden river, which may explain why noise pollution has lingered so low on the list of urban priorities. Yet, most environment health specialists agree that the daily decibel diet already constitutes a physical as well as a psychic hazard. The International Agency in Geneva is quoted as saying that if noise levels continue to increase at their present acceleration rates we will all be deaf by the year 2000. A Tennessee Doctor recently said in a newsletter that "60% of the children in the United States have a definite hearing loss." It appears that technological man is so aware of his strength but not of his weakness-the fact that his pressure on nature has conceivably provoked revenge.

Pollution of any type know no political boundaries. By adding just one alien component to a delicate balance in nature, man sometimes triggers a series of dangerous changes. This is especially true of noise pollution, more specifically of the type of noise pollution we speak of today, that produced by aircraft. The increasing amount of jet traffic effects up to 10 million people now living in jet flight paths around the nation.

The most significant costs of aircraft noise are felt by those people who reside near airports. The residents living in these areas lose sleep and the use of their outdoor recreational facilities. Noise invades and severally effects the use of their schools, hospitals and factories. Companies lose money when it is necessary to soundproof office buildings near airports. To illustrate the magnitude of the problem it should suffice to say that 285,000 people in New York, 183,000 in Boston, 340,000 in Chicago and 400,000 in Los Angeles are living in "unacceptable" noise conditions according to standards set by the Federal Aviation Association. These statistics only incorporate the number of people effected by four of the eight busiest airports in the country. No to mention the millions of people effected by the over 200 jet airports across the nation.

There are three ways of treating the aircraft noise problem : (1) Move the noise away from the people.

(2) Move the people away from the noise.

(3) Reduce the noise at the source-the airplane.

Moving the noise away from the people has been used with only a small degree of success. The process involves the buying of land around the airport area, use of preferential runways to use open or uncongested areas, establishment of flight patterns to minimize flight over residential areas, and steeper climb and descent paths.

Moving the people away from the noise is not only economically infeasible but totally inequitable. We can not recommend that thousands of people leave their homes and communities to solve a problem not of their own making. Yet, in Los Angeles, at this moment, airport officials are doing just this. Over 6,000 residents have been forced from their homes at a cost of $300 million to the airports or $50,000 per home. I submit for the appendix an article from Newsweek, August 2, 1971, page 55. While a few of the houses are being resold and moved to different sites, most are being turned over to bulldozers. The costs already incurred to Los Angeles would pay for retrofitting approximately 600 planes or nearly 1% of the entire domestic commercial jet fleet. Yet, the L.A. airport plans to demolish 65,000 more homes at a cost of $1.6 billion. Thus-one city plans to spend almost 50% more than the total cost necessary to control the entire jet fleet nationwide. That this should occur is intolerable.

73-474 072 - pt. 2 - 23

The third solution, reducing the noise at its source is not only economically and technologically feasable, but is also the most far-reaching plan. The way to implement this plan would be a quiet engine retrofit program.

We know enough today to make responsible progress in this field, but, the fact remains, that virtually no work has been done on the project. We can conclude without reservation that the FAA's attempt to abate and regulate the noise of today's jet fleet has reached a hopeless stalemate. It is conceded that the airlines are beginning to recognize the noise problem as the new 747's and other wide body aircraft have been installed with quieter engines. Yet, that is only 200 planes of a fleet of 1900. It is conservatively estimated that the other 1700 planes will not be completely phased out for eight to ten years. New and strong legislation is needed to break this intolerable impasse. S. 1566 would solve this problem.

The bill has five salient features which together demonstrate that extensive study and foresight were involved in its drafting. A succinct discussion of each point will show without question that S. 1566 will solve the problem of aircraft noise and the necessity of the bill being passed immediately!

(1) The noise levels of current aircraft must be reduced by 10 EPNdB (equaling a cut of 2 of the present noise levels) or meet FAR part 36 noise levels of 108 EPNdB, whichever noise reduction is greater.

Studies of NASA Douglas/Boeing and the FAA Rohr report indicate that a complete fleet retrofit can be accomplished within five years. Rohr alone has spent several million dollars and four years of research to come to the conclusion that it is entirely practical to reduce sound pressure levels on almost all flights by a factor of 50%. I submit for the appendix an excellent study completed by the city of Inglewood with particular reference to the findings of the Rohr study.

If action were started now current aircraft types could be completely equipped with retrofit treatment by Spring of 1977. The speed with which acoustically treated nacelles are being produced for 747's and other wide bodied jets produced now demonstrates that the 1977 deadline proposed in section (d) is not unreasonable, but, the proposal must receive expeditious Congressional action and be properly financed.

(2) The U.S. Government would provide $35 million for research and development of retrofitting techniques so aircraft noise can be brought down to the levels set in this bill.

Several industry leaders and Research Institutes have advised that with that amount of money, retrofitting can be perfected within two years. The provision of special funds for an accelerated research and development are a requirement for maximum results in the shortest amount of time.

The airlines have suggested a lack of sufficient technical data as a partial defense against retrofitting the 707 and DC 8 aircraft and as complete defense against retrofitting the three engine jet fleet powered by the JT8D engine. The type of data required by the airlines can only be gotten through research and actually retrofitting and test flying prototypes of these aircrafts at today's airports.

NASA has already completed the first step for the airlines by demonstrating the technological feasability of retrofitting the four engine aircraft such as the DC 8 and the Boeing 707 powered by the JT3D engine. The FAA has unsuccessfully requested a sum of $3.5 million for 1971 research on retrofitting programs designed to continue the NASA originated project or retrofitting the aircraft powered by the JT8D and the JT3D engines. This sum is totally inadequate. S. 1566's proposed sum of $35 million for research on representative aircraft models is a more realistic estimate of the costs of such a program. Especially when you consider that the NASA study required $17 million for retrofitting the DC 8 and Boeing 707.

Companies receiving grants for research and development would be required to repay them if they succeed in marketing a retrofitting process to the airline companies. The firms would pay a percentage of their profits back to the government until the grant is paid back. This would eventually take much of the financial burden off the U.S. government-a factor seldom considered for most U.S. grants.

(3) The U.S. government would be authorized to guarantee, up to $1 billion, the repayment of loans to carriers for the purpose of modifying their aircraft prior to January 1, 1976.

Retrofitting is very expensive and the benefits of the program will be shared by large numbers of people around the country. For this reason the airlines should not be required to carry the full financial burden of retrofitting.

(4) The Civil Aeronautics Board would be required under the bill to grant the airlines rate increases to make up for the cost of retrofitting, plus earlier retirement of some planes.

In the final analysis it is the passengers and shippers who benefit from air transportation. The airlines will and should pass all costs along to them. The logical alternative is to pay for the retrofit program by a fare increase. The Rohr report indicated that the fare increase required to offset all retrofit costs is less than 1% in 1975 configuration. The report further concludes that a 1% fare increase would have no effect on passenger demand. This conclusion was recently reinforced by an American Airlines' vice president who believes even a 5% fare increase would not effect demand. This fare increase also takes into consideration that the airlines might decide to retire 707's and perhaps other planes earlier than planned rather than go through the expense of retrofitting them. A study done for the FAA indicates that a 1.5 percent fare increase would cover both the costs of retrofitting and early retirement of these planes. If this fare increase were implemented immediately, some revenue would already exist when the first requirement for loan funds came in.

(5) The FAA Administrator would be authorized to make grants to State and local agencies to assist in paying the cost of "administering airport noise monitoring programs." Up to $50 million is authorized to carry out this provision. Sound monitoring equipment is necessary to assure that the regulations of the bill are being followed. The provision puts realism into the bill by allowing State and Local governments to enforce the act.

A study of the bill has shown that the bill is economically and technically feasible. Those who oppose the standards argue the following points: (1) The cost of a technologically practical retrofit (estimated by the Rohr Corporation at about $856 million for the current jet fleet) is too high in comparison to the benefits to be achieved by retrofit; and therefore, (2) The retrofitting program is not ecnomically feasible for the current jet fleet. The problem with this reasoning is that it fails to take into consideration all the costs. On a full cost analysis, retrofitting is economically possible and reasonable. The following factors must also be taken into consideration when computing the full economics of aircraft noise abatement.

(1) The human cost: The human cost of noise annoyance is so subjective that it cannot be accurately estimated on an economic scale. Yet, the human cost is potentially very large, and can not be ignored.

(2) The cost of land acquisition: This would involve billions of dollars and the relocation of millions of people from the noise sensitive areas. Compatible land use planning is, at this point, unrealistic as communities already border on jetports. The current airport land owner has little or no control over the land zoning of nonairport land. However, land-use planning can be a valuable tool for the planning of future airports.

(3) The cost of limitations on operations: Though the public has little legal recourse in the past, the possibility of public support toward operational curfew is a very probable danger to U.S. airports. Community reaction has brought about some limitations on night operations at some airports. This is especially damaging to the cargo carriers which do most of their flying at night.

(4) The cost of litigation: On the basis of a recent survey of noise litigation now pending, the estimated amount claimed against operators of local public airports in noise suits is in excess of $3.8 billion.

(5) The cost of ground transportation: Aircraft noise has required the airports to move at least 10 miles outside of the population served. This is estimated to be an additional cost to travelers and employees of $30 million annually for each major airport.

(6) The cost of soundproofing: This cost alone can be extremely expensive and comprehensive. It includes residential soundproofing, Commercial soundproofing, Hospital soundproofing and school soundproofing. All of this would add up to approximately $165 million per year.

(7) The decline in property values: Any resident or real estate man will tell you that property values are reduced by aircraft noise and, in some cases, by a substantial amount. It is harder for a family to sell their home which can become quite a hardship if it is necessary that they pay for an apartment while waiting