86 STAT. 1249 Pub. Law 92-574 16 October 27, 1972 36 Stat. 913; 43 Stat. 659. Regulations. 24 Stat. 379. 80 Stat. 931. (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 carriers 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 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 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 Administrator under this section. 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 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 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 motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce, 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 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, regulation, 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, October 27, 1972 17 Pub. Law 92-574 86 STAT 1250 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.Ć. 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. 49 Stat. 545; 54 Stat. 920; 71 Stat. 411. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORT No. 92-842 (Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce). Feb. 29, considered and passed House. Oct. 12, 13, considered and passed Senate, amended, in lieu of S. 3342. Senate concurred in House amendment. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44: Oct. 28, Presidential statement. Senator CANNON. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Merle Mergell, mayor of the city of Inglewood. Mayor Mergell? A VOICE. Mr. Cannon, the mayor just called. He is on his way. He had an emergency and he will be here in a few moments. Senator CANNON. All right. The Honorable Pat Russell, councilwoman of the Los Angeles City Council. We are delighted to have you here. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF PAT RUSSELL, COUNCILWOMAN OF THE 16TH DISTRICT, CITY OF LOS ANGELES Ms. RUSSELL. Thank you very much Senator Cannon, Senator Tunney. My name is Pat Russell. I am a member of the Los Angeles City Council and the district I represent includes Los Angeles International Airport and the northern boundaries-the communities on its northern boundaries. I was a very new councilwoman at the time that Senator Tunney visited that community. We were at a very critical moment and the effect of the Senator's visit was a real shot in the arm to the people. It indicated he was interested and we were still remembered. My message to you is simple and straightforward. It is that we need your help. The Federal Government must own up to its responsibility for the regulation of aircraft noise and assume direction and leadership in getting the job done now. The communities around LAX have been suffering from the impact of aircraft noise since the advent of the jet in the late 1950's. În 1968, Congress, in a giant step forward, gave the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to regulate aircraft noise. Five years have passed and we are still waiting for action on such vital issues as retrofit and noise standards for airports. One very important exception to that statement I just made was the signing into law of the Noise Control Act of 1972, authored by Senator Tunney-the first and only piece of major legislation dealing with the problem since 1968. In the interim, it has been the local governments and agencies that have borne the brunt of the problem as well as the blame for not doing something about it. I didn't approach elective office with any grand illusions about eliminating the noise problem around LAX, but I really have been brought up short by the lack of power the city and its elected officials actually have in controlling a situation that drastically affects so many of its citizens. As a local elected official, I have seen and experienced the broader consequences of what I can only term the "rampant apathy" of the Federal Government in dealing with the problem of jet noise. I would like to give you some examples. The city of Los Angeles is facing over $4 billion in lawsuits because of jet noise. We should compare that figure to the cost of retrofit. Over 2,000 homes have been acquired at a massive cost, both in dollars to the airport and to a prime residential community. Legal complications and the difficulties inherent in planning for an uncertain future have delayed the adoption of a sorely needed community plan. The same Federal inaction has undercut the ability of local governments to effectively deal with the aircraft noise problem even with those limited means presently available to them. Preferential runway usage shifts the noise from one local jurisdiction to another. The lack of a rallying point for responsible action encourages local divisiveness among cities, agencies, and communities. Inglewood and Westchester and El Segundo have agreed to get together and where we have problems-where one action will be beneficial to one community, and detrimental to another we stand back and try to do what is best for them. But, we all agree, as elected officials, that the only basic answer is a solid approach for all of us and again this is Federal action. In short, we need strong leadership to foster concerted, constructive action, and instead we have found vacuum. In a very real sense, the thousands of people who own homes or businesses impacted by jet noise near major airports constitutes a new kind of minority community. They are vocal, but not yet sufficient in number to effect a real change. They have been the subject of innumerable studies-and more are yet to come. The upshot is unfulfilled expectations and a deep sense of frustration with the governmental processes. If we are to turn that attitude around, we must do more than give lip service to funding solutions. We must back up the words and studies with realistic proposals, and most important of all, implementation. In the city of Los Angeles, our local approach to the problem of airport-community compatibility is based on the recognition of the importance of a sound, well-planned air transportation system. LAX, as a major link in this system, is vital to a healthy economy at the national, State, and local level. I believe that even the most vociferous airport critic will agree with that statement and will support such a system if there is a real attempt to minimize the impact on the surrounding communities. This can only be achieved by a two-way approach to the problem: First, compatible zoning, which in most instances means changes in present land use; and second, noise control and noise abatement programs. In other words, any efforts on the part of local communities to move toward compatible land use adjacent to a large airport such as LAX must be matched by efforts on the part of the airport operator and the airlines to reduce the noise impact. As I mentioned earlier, we have a community plan nearing completion that does address itself to changes in land use and zoning around LAX. It makes a number of recommendations for action, including airport acquisition of homes to provide a buffer or quiet zone between the airport and the residential neighborhoods to the north, zoning changes from R-1 to commercial and multiple resi dential-soundproofed, of course, like the hotel at which you stayed -and the establishment of a private redevelopment project so that the people themselves may participate in the profits of land use con version. In addition, moving in the direction of noise control, the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners has adopted a five-point program of noise regulations which, with airline cooperation, will substantially shrink the present noise contours so that by 1970 only those aircraft meeting the FAR part 36 requirements will operate out of LAX. However, no matter how well we plan for the compatibility of our airports and the surrounding communities, there is still the spectre of the supersonic aircraft looming over us. Although technological advances could, possibly, develop the SST as quiet and unobjectionable as the DC-10 or the L-1011, our information now is that the noise level of the supersonic jets is equal to or greater than the noisiest aircraft flying today. The recent FAA order regarding SST overflights did little to allay this fear. The FAA's main concern seems to be with the sonic boom. That certainly is the dramatic thing. What we are concerned with is the noise impact they will have when they approach and take off at airports. For that reason, I have proposed the adoption of a statute or resolution prohibiting the operations of any supersonic aircraft in our out of California airports until there have been actual local demonstrations of the aircraft's ability to meet part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. It may well be that eventually supersonic_transports will be an important part of our airline system, and I would welcome that prospect if and when we can be assured that the noise level falls within an acceptable category. Before I close, I want to reinforce my earlier comments about the Noise Control Act of 1972: I will leave the testimony on its technical aspects to the many expert witnesses here today, but I think the author should know that it served as a tremendous shot in the arm for those of us involved in softening the noise impact on the community and we hope that it means that there is a congressional door that may now be open for further action and implementation. I want to thank you, Senator Tunney and Senator Cannon for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Senator CANNON. Well, thank you very much for a very fine statement. You referred to the plan that you have for the surrounding area. Have you actually passed the zoning ordinances to conform to this plan, or is that still in the planning stage? Ms. RUSSELL. That is still in the planning stage. Senator Cannon, we would have had that plan through by now except for some court decisions we have on liability if the city publishes a plan showing the acquisition of area without having acquired. So, we are now working with the airport on their getting enough money to acquire the property before we actually pass the plan. |