noise reduction technology, but also EPA could make no judgment as to the availability of technology or cost of achieving noise reductions without FAA approval. Continuation of the Federal Aviation Administration in a role of determining the degree to which noise emissions from aircraft will be reduced is not justified in the record. While the Committee_bill takes steps to establish the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 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 aircraft were unique because of the safety requirements and the interrelationship of safety to the engine system. Therefore, I agreed with the Committee's judgment and supported the amendments of Senator Cooper and Senator Stafford which would retain the Federal Aviation Administration lead role in making any final determination as to whether or not any technology available to achieve noise emission levels would also be consistent with the highest standards of safety. The assumption that technology might not be available to meet noise emission goals combined with the assumption that technology could be 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 "cumulative 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 reduction to protect public health, achievement of emission standards would reduce any economic burdens on the airline industry caused by controls imposed to achieve cumulative noise levels. And such local environmental noise requirements would require a reduction in the number and frequency of flights if technology did not exist. The Committee bill considered and rejected a provision which would have required the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to identify any airports in the country with aircraft noise problems of a magnitude to cause a violation of cumulative noise exposure levels. The proposal defined "cumulative noise exposure levels" as those levels of noise in the environments of airports associated 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 exposure levels and protect health and property. Each conference would result in a report by the Administrator setting forth potential alternatives including flight and operational patterns, on-ground noise control methods, modification in the frequency and number of flights, [p. 24] modification in the hours of airport use, and land use methods. Each Federal agency including the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board would apply existing authority to achieve maximum noise reductions possible through additional regulatory procedures. But, most importantly, this provision would have imposed a positive burden upon the operator of the airport to exercise responsibility to regulate the number, the frequency and the hours of flight or to impose land use controls so as to eliminate noise as an environmental problem in the area of that airport. And the airport operator's duty and responsibility 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 recognized that reliance on technology alone would not result in elimination of auto-related pollution as a health hazard until existing vehicles were off the road—perhaps mid-1985 or later. Therefore, the bill established a procedure to regulate the use of automobiles in areas in which automobile-related air pollution was unacceptably high to assure that public health would be protected at an early date (in this instance, 1975-1976). The combination of emission reduction technology and air 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 environments and who are adversely affected by aircraft noise. I suggest to do anything less in this legislation is to fail to meet responsibly the demands of the American public for a safe, healthy and peaceful environment. Without a provision of this type, I believe the bill to be inadequate. Without a provision of this type, the bill does not address in meaningful way the real problem faced by people who are confronted now with unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. The reported bill would force these people to wait for emission control technology to be developed and applied to new and existing aircraft, or on the courts to impose sufficient penalties or damaged claims against the airlines and the airport operators for creating a public nuisance before relief will be achieved. To turn over to the courts the responsibility of making ad hoc decisions to solve 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 positive 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. On September 5, Senator Tunney, in remarks on the Senate floor, pointed out that aircraft noise was adversely affecting the hearing [p. 25] capacity of school children in the vicinity of Los Angeles Airport. Senator Tunney said: According to the report, continuous exposure to a 90decibel level is a health hazard and peak jet noises in the seven schoolyards surveyed ranged from 95 to 115 decibels. In the classrooms of those schools, jet noises resulted in levels of from 80 to 96 decibels, which, in one example, prevented childern from distinguishing among the words "where", "we're", and "wear, because they could not hear the difference in sounds. To the physical and emotional effects from excessive noise must be added these problems in vocal response. Already, two schools around the Los Angeles Airport have been forced to close. But the Administration wants a bill. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, told the Committee on Public Works in executive session in September of this year, that he was not interested in the merits or the demerits of noise pollution legislation which might be forthcoming. He said the Administration wants a bill and he did not care what provisions that bill included. This fact, combined with the decision of the Senate, that no controversial measures reported after September 15 would be considered on the floor, has resulted in an inadequate bill. These inadequacies must be corrected before the Senate concurs. EDMUND S. MUSKIE. [p. 26] CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW Subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that changes in existing law proposed to be made by any reported legislation be plainly indicated in the accompanying report. Title IV of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), added to the Act in 1970 by P.L. 91-604, provides for the creation of an Office of Noise Abatement and Control within the Environmental Protection Agency, to carry out a comprehensive study of noise and its effect on the public health and welfare. A report on the results of such study was required within one year after enactment, and such a report was submitted to the Congress in January of 1972. Title IV also provides that any Federal agency shall consult with the Administrator to determine 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 Protection Agency and the responsibility to carry out a continuing investigation of noise and its effect on the public health and welfare would remain, in subsection (a) of section 403. [p. 27] APPENDIX Responses to Letter From Senator Tunney Concerning Establishment of a Mandatory Schedule for Achieving Reductions in Aircraft Noise Emissions [Letter from Senator Tunney to which the following are responses] SEPTEMBER 8, 1972. Mr. JOHN H. SHAFFER, In the context of provisions respecting control of aircraft noise, it has been suggested that a retrofit schedule be established in the legislation. In order to meet the deadlines, aircraft which could not be retrofitted economically could be retired and replaced by the new 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 Appendix C of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (i.e., 108 EpndB). New aircraft types manufactured after date of enactment would be required to meet best available technology, or, at a minimum, a noise level 15 EpndB lower than the Part 36 standard by January 1, 1975. Additionally, the EPA Administrator would be required to identify further noise reductions which would be contemplated thereafter. Because of the press of Committee business and the short time left in this session of Congress, I am writing to solicit your views on this subject which, I am aware, has been discussed in the context of previous legislation and subjected to considerable study in the industry and Administrative agencies. Specifically, I hope you will address yourself to the current state of technology respecting retrofit (and will consider new front fan treatment in addition to nacelle treatment), costs of retrofit or retirement and replacement and suggestions as to which procedure might be more appropriate for certain types of aircraft, necessary lead times, alternative specific language which could be inserted in the legislation. If I could receive your comments by Monday, September 18, I would be in a position to advise my colleagues on the Committee of your views. I recognize that you are not given much time in which to respond, but I hope that you will be able to cooperate with us. Cor [p. 29] |