full committee unanimously.

The subject was brought to our committee by the administration, and we were told of the importance of the situation at the present time.

(Mr.

My colleague from Illinois
SPRINGER) and I introduced the first bill
that was introduced. It came to the sub-
committee. There
substantial
were
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
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 sources.

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, D.C. the jets
cannot come in after 11 o'clock at night
and cannot take off until after 6 o'clock
in the morning.

Mr. ADDABBO. We do not have that
privilege in and around Kennedy 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]

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-

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
FAA that they must move more expedi-
tiously in carrying out their responsibili-
ties.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. and political subdivisions over noise
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

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 out 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]

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

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.

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
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the people of this Nation will have signifi-
gentleman yield further?
cant hearing impairment.

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

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

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.

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. Chairman, 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

Mr. GROSS. That is not included, but
everything else is included?
Mr. CARTER. That is quite true. Yes, opinion of the subcommittee, certain pro-
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?

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) (1)—deserve
planation.

ex

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]