noise problem in this area unless there is 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 levèls 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

(Ordered to 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. HART. 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

[p. S17781]

for his commitment to promote an environ-
ment which is free from noise that jeopard-
dizes the health and welfare of the citizens
of this Nation.

As I join with the distinguished Senators
from Oregon (Mr. Hatfield) and California
(Mr. Cranston), to introduce several amend-
ments to S. 1016, I 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 Environ-
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 is scheduled next week to begin con-
sideration of S. 1016 and the amendments
introduced today. Let us hope that the mo-
mentum of our present efforts will not be

the same harmul effects upon human hearing.

Loss of hearing, however, is not the only
concern when dealing with 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 realize 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 detail 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. I 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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1740 and ask that
it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will read the amendment.

The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. MUSKIE. 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. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I
say to my colleagues that we have a 1-
hour limitation. I think I can dispense

(By Senator MARK O. HATFIELD)
The national effort to restore our deterio-
rating 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
Americans are unaware of the toll which
excessive noise extracts from their lives.

same

For over a century it has been known
that noise exposure of sufficient intensity
and duration producers hearing loss. Yet, 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. This phenomena, labelled "ac-
coustical fatigue" is capable of producing

this point like to place in the Record copies with my case in 10 minutes, so I would

of remarks I made before the Noise Abate-
ment Council in 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 commitee. 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 offered to the Noise Control Act would, in my

expect that there is a reasonable chance
for a vote in 20 or 25 minutes. I do not
want to delay the Senate unduly.

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 eliminate, 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 estab-
lishing a Federal policy which will do at
least as good a job for them as they are
now 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 con-
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. S17782]

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 in the
State, and they do not burden them-
selves with the job of monitoring all
users; they require the seller to collect
sale.
the tax from the users at the point of

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-
victed, with all 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-
pollution emissions from new automo-
emption of the authority to regulate air
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. Rather, 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 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:

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

inal law system. Control of sale, involv-
ing many 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 stringent
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, I 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

vironmental noise 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 intent of the committee is that conflicting

[p. S17783]