Thus, if the Airline Pilots Association
feels that the regulations as promulgated
do not protect their interests, there is a
right for judicial review. Third, the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act would also
apply. And, fourth, the 14th amendment
to the Constitution requires due process,
and, thus, it would be unconstitutional to
deny a person a hearing if he were
charged with violation of a regulation.

Mr. PEARSON. The Senator's state-
ment is most helpful. It will allay some
of the fears that have been expressed.

As I understand the Senator from Cali-
fornia, the procedures for review are to
come out of FAA regulations existing now
or to be promulgated by them.

Mr. TUNNEY. The procedures for re-
view are included in section 415 of the
act. The APA and the 14th amendment
also apply.

Mr. PEARSON. Either.

Mr. TUNNEY The FAA would have
the right to veto regulations promulgated
under the act if they are inconsistent
witht the highest degree of safety. The
FAA should guarantee that regulations,
which become effective, assure that air-
line pilots can fly safely. If the Airline
Pilots Association is not satisfied with
specific final regulations, the bill pro-
vides for judicial review of the regula-
tion, so that they could make their claim
in a court of law. In addition, the pilot
will be entitled to a full hearing as pro-
vided by the Administrative Procedure
Act and to constitutional protection.

would insert the requirements that the
health levels set in the EPA standards be
"necessary" in addition to "adequate" to
meet the health needs. This determina-
tion is made by EPA and is consistent
with the intent of the committee.

In section 501(b) (1) a certain am-
biguity respecting a joint determination
by EPA and FAA on technology and cost
of compliance has been cleared up. The
amendment clarifies the fact that the
determination is made by EPA, after
consultation with FAA-a result which
is certain to expedite the promulgation
process. It will also assure that the issue
of reasonable cost has a thorough airing
as standards develop, but that such con-
FAA veto of the standards. Moreover, a
siderations cannot be the basis for an
second criterion-demonstrable public
benefit is now added to the list of fac-
tors to be considered in developing the
standards.

certificates. The hope is that EPA will
move quickly to quiet as much of the
fleet as possible.

Section 505 is deleted, because the re-
quirement of EPA review is inserted in
section 502(b) (2).

Section 506 is clarified to preclude
States and localities from enacting iden-
tical standards. This added pressure was
thought essential in the absence of a
tough and effective regulatory program.
However, requirements of section 501
and enforcement provisions in the legis-
lation give sufficient tools to accomplish
a tough and coordinated enforcement
program on the Federal level. There was
no intention in the committee bill to
alter the relative powers of the Federal
Government, State and local government,
and airport operator, over the control of
aircraft noise. This amendment would
also retain the same powers for all
parties.

An additional sentence is added to sec-
tion 507 to clarify the relationship of
part A to the rest of the bill. Noise emis-
sions standards are tied into certain
other parts of the bill, as specifically
cross-referenced. However, authority to
establish aircraft noise emissions stand-
ards is contained in part A of title V
only.

levels on aircraft emissions will not be stalemated. At the same time we continue to accept the advisability of and necessity for a two-fold FAA veto on grounds of technological availability and safety.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.

Mr. CANNON. Have the amendments been offered, and are they now pending?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are pending en bloc.

Mr. CANNON. Will the Senator yield
to me for a question on the amendments?
Mr. BROOKE. I believe I have the
floor, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair has recognized the Senator from
Massachusetts. Who yields time?

Mr. TUNNEY. I am prepared to yield
the Senator from Massachusetts some
time on the bill, but I believe that the
Senator from Nevada wants to speak of
these amendments that have already
been offered.

Mr. BROOKE. Very well.

Mr. CANNON. I thank the Senator for yielding.

My question, Mr. President, relates to section 501(c). It is my understanding that section 501(c) conveys no new authority on any Federal agency to regulate or control the air transportation system of the United States. I ask the Senator if that is correct?

Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct.

Mr. STEVENS. As I understand the
compromise worked out here, EPA will
build up a force of experts to deal with
the safety aspects of aviation. Does it
decrease the authority of the FAA in any
way, in terms of the people who now
have the expertise and are dealing with
the safety aspects of aviation in this
country?

Mr. TUNNEY. No.

Mr. STEVENS. I am glad to hear that.
We had great concern about that in the
Commerce Committee, as I think the
distinguished chairman of our subcom-
mittee has reported.

I am fearful as to the ultimate result
of what we are doing with regard to EPA
generally. It seems that in almost every
major bill this year, we have given EPA
a license to substantially expand and
threaten the expertise of other agencies.
They, as I understand it, will not pro-
mulgate the regulations dealing with
safety or with financial aspects; those
will originate with the FAA?

Mr. TUNNEY. That is correct. Now, of
course, EPA is going to be promulgating
regulations over aircraft noise emission
levels, which will have an impact on
safety, and what we have done in this
bill is given to the FAA a veto power
over any such regulations.

In other words, the regulations that
come out governing noise emission levels
of aircraft are going to have to be con-
sistent with what the FAA considers to
be the highest degree of safety.

Mr. STEVENS. I shall not speak to
this at length, because I understand the
time situation of Congress and the hard
work that our committee staff and the

Mr. CANNON. With further reference
to section 501(c) is this provision in
subsection (c) intended to encourage
to file suits of harassment
citizens
against Federal agencies charged with
the responsibility for maintaining air
commerce, in which the citizens seek to
disrupt the air transportation system
of the United States?

Mr. TUNNEY. Absolutely not. There
is no desire at all on the part of the
committee or on the part of the propo-
nent of these amendments to disrupt air
commerce through harassment-type
suits.

As a matter of fact, section 501 (c) adds
no new authority to the mandate given
to any agency with regulatory author-
ity over air commerce, aircraft or air-
port operations, or aircraft emissions.

Mr. CANNON. I thank the Senator for
yielding.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendments.
Do the Senators yield back the remainder
of their time?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, who
controls the time in opposition to the
amendments?

ator from Delaware.

Mr. BOGGS. How much time does the
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

Senator want?

Mr. STEVENS. I would like to ask the
manager of the bill a few questions con-
cerning the impact of this proposal.

Mr. BOGGS. I yield the Senator whatever time he needs.

of safet hall

chairman of the Subcommittee on Avia-
tion in the Committee on Commerce

have done to try to work out the matter.
But I am still feaful that the result will
be that EPA will have a little FAA under
its wings, and will start writing the reg-
ulations and sending them over to FAA
to check them, and they will be permitted
to exercise their veto if the regulations
affect the financial and safety aspects of
aviation.

I do not believe that EPA should ex-
pand itself to the position where it is an
action agency. As I understood, they are
a standards agency, and it seems to me
they should have taken the regulations
from the FAA in any area where they
affect safety or financial aspects of avia-

tion.

Mr. TUNNEY. In effect, they are going

to have to take the FAA standards when
it comes to safety and technological
availability, factoring in a reasonable
cost.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator
very much.

ing the lives of millions of Americans.

From Inglewood, Calif., and Oak Lawn,

Ill., to East Boston, Mass., and Queens,
N.Y., and even to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave-
nue in Washington, D.C., our citizens are
subjected to a regular bombardment of
noise from over-flying aircraft.

The increasing size and power of the
1960's generation of jet aircraft first
elevated aircraft noise to a primary na-
tional problem. Yet, despite countless
congressional hearings, agency and in-
dustry studies, and citizen protests, there
has been distressingly little aircraft noise
reduction.

The airlines argue that the traveling
public demands swift aircraft. The first
generation of jet aircraft was built with
this need in view. The airlines contend

that decreasing the noise from this fleet
would be too great a cost burden for
them or their passengers to shoulder.
This argument, together with the claim
that the technology was not yet available,
governed our policy during the 1960's.

tantly, residential property values in these areas would be significantly enhanced.

Research on the development of quiet-
er engines has been in progress for sev-
eral years. Within the Government, the
most significant programs have been co-
ordinated by NASA and the Department
of Transportation. DOT, which includes
the Federal Aviation Administration
within its organization, has conducted
programs to modify aircraft flight and
landing patterns in order to expose the
planes as little as possible to inhabited
areas. Also, it has authorized experi-
ments with various forms of acoustical
treatment of the engines. But although
the Congress gave FAA the power to
regulate aircraft noise in 1968, it regret-
tably has not yet used that power to re-
quire a reduction in noise among the
existing fleet.

More recently, the NASA Office of
Aeronautics and Space Technology has
initiated work on a program to replace
the front fan of jet aircraft; it is esti-
mated that the resulting decrease in
noise would be at least 75 percent. Ear-
lier this year, the Congress appropriated
$25 million for continued research and
development of this important project.

In addition, several of the major aero-
space companies as well as the airlines
themselves have sponsored studies on jet
noise reduction. Yet, in spite of all this
research, there has been painfully little
reduction of noise from the 1960's gen-
eration of jet aircraft. There are en-
couraging signs that the new generation
of aircraft, the 747's, the DC-10's, and
the L-1011's, will have significantly low-

except those owned or operated by a mili-
tary agency, shall operate by January 1,
1978, in compliance with maximum Fed-
eral noise regulations. The specific stand-
ards would be those set forth in appendix
C of part 36 of the Federal Aviation Reg-
ulations in effect on September 1, 1972.
This so-called part 36 noise level was
established by the FAA in 1969 as the
"technologically practicable" and "eco-
nomically reasonable" limits of aircraft
noise reduction technology. Regrettably,
however, the setting of this regulation
has had little noticeable or real effect on
the current level of aircraft noise.

It is true that the so-called part 36
regulations have been met by the new
wide-bodied passenger jets. However,
available projections show that the num-
bers 727, 737, and DC-9 jet airplanes will
increase during the next decade, until
there will be more than 1,200 of these
planes operating on U.S. certificated
scheduled airlines in 1980, as compared to
fewer than 1,100 from these groups at the
current time. Each of these planes ex-
ceeds by a considerable margin in the ap-
plicable part 36 standard.

Joint DOT/NASA Noise Abatement Of-
This situation can be changed. The
fice has been conducting extensive re-
search and development on programs to
reduce the noise in these and the other
noisy jet aircraft now flying. Charts and
projections have been made readily avail-
able to Members of the Congress which
show that these agencies are now close to
developing the technology needed to ret-
rofit these jets, either by means or ac-
coustical treatment or through the re-
placement of their front fans.

aircraft to meet the part 36 deadline is not radical or unrealistic. In fact, it is well within our grasp, and Congress would be delinquent if we did not do everything possible to insure that the goal is reached.

The amendment which I propose would
grant the administrator of the aircraft
noise abatement program, as well as the

airlines themselves, flexibility as to the
means of meeting the maximum noise
levels of part 36. In addition, the amend-
ment is consistent with the principles of
the best use of available financial re-
sources, technology, and safety factors as
indicated in both the original Senate and
House sections on the administration of
Federal aircraft noise regulations. Thus,
any of a number of alternatives including
retirement of certain aircraft can be
chosen to meet the criteria in this
amendment by 1978.

Finally, there is one remaining but
vitally important issue that must be re-
solved before aircraft noise abatement
can become a reality. There must be a
means of paying for the program. Al-
ready, several proposals have been put
forward, including bills introduced by
Senator CRANSTON and myself requiring
limited Federal assistance to finance
retrofitting. Furthermore, the admini-
stration is in the midst of its own study
to determine the most appropriate means
of financing a retrofitting program.
Therefore, it is my intention to introduce
a second amendment, following the dis-
position of the pending amendment, to
require the Secretary of Transportation
to report to Congress by July 1, 1973, his
recommendations for financing the pro-