skill and professional performance required of the people operating the aircraft, all require that the standards for regulations and operations be uniform throughout the air transport system to the maximum extent possible. The Federal Aviation Administration, with the assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for establishing these standards throughout the nation. Although there may be differences of view on some specifics from time to time, the airlines applaud and support the efforts of these Federal agencies to further progress toward a cleaner, quieter environment.

NOISE ABATEMENT

The airlines recognize that aircraft noise represents a major environmental challenge. The industry is thoroughly committed to progress in noise alleviation-through improved operational procedures, through fleet modernization, and even through the quieting of the existing fleet-when such measures are in the public interest. At the same time it must be recognized that compatible land use programs in the vicinity of airports are essential if improvements in aircraft technology and operation are not to be wasted.

It is vital to effective noise alleviation programs that all airplanes of any given type be operated under uniform takeoff and landing procedures. Additional techniques for procedural noise abatement to reduce further the public's total noise exposure are being actively explored. Due to the safety considerations involved in changeover to new flight procedures, it is essential that the adoption of such procedures be implemented on an orderly basis, as suitable flight guidance devices become available. Research and development is underway in FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop and flight test such devices.

The new generation of wide-bodied aircraft, powered by high-bypass-ratio fanjet engines, operate well within established aircraft noise guidelines and are a significant advance toward a quieter environment. The U.S. airlines have invested in or are committed to buy $6 billion worth of these new technology airplanes.

New aircraft types introduced into the airline inventory will incorporate the latest state of the art in noise alleviation. This commitment must be implemented on a phased basis that does not compromise safety in either operations or maintenance.

New models of existing type aircraft will comply with currently recognized and practically achievable Federal noise limits.

Existing fleet aircraft will be modified to comply with currently recognized and achievable noise limits as proven hardware that is noise effective and cost effective becomes available and as financial realities permit. Clearly, the cost of such modifications is substantially beyond the economic capability of the airline industry. Therefore major hardware changes of this scope can be accomplished only with some form of public funding.

FEDERAL NOISE STANDARDS

Because the air transport system inherently is interstate in character, Federal noise standards are essential to noise alleviation planning. In establishing these standards, however, the U.S. government must not handicap U.S. international carriers by discriminating requirements not applicable to foreign carriers.

Providing the highest degree of safety and assuring adequacy of air service is dependent upon a uniform application of noise standards and noise alleviation methods rather than varying and inconsistent local requirements. Federal preemption of noise alleviation requirements is essential.

AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS

The turbine engine, although not the quietest powerplant, is by far the cleanest used in large scale public transportation. The combined contribution of all airline operations constitutes about one percent of the total emissions in the United States. Schedule airline aircraft are virtually 100 percent turbine powered, and the industry will continue to welcome any sound prospect for making an outstandingly good product even better.

Engines powering the wide-bodied aircraft are virtually smoke-free and the airlines are now completing a modification to the JT8D engine to virtually

eliminate smoke from them as well. As further technical developments indicate that a reasonable reduction in emissions can be made with safety, practical modifications will be effected on an orderly basis.

Research is continuing in the effort to further reduce the already very low level of such invisible emissions as nitrous oxide. At this time, however, no solution is in sight for this very difficult technical problem.

Programs now underway to eliminate fuel venting will be completed by mid

1973.

Except when required by minimum safety standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration, the airlines do not dump fuel aloft.

EMISSIONS FROM GROUND VEHICLES

The automotive industry is energetically seeking an alternative to the internal combustion engine, one more compatible with the environment. The airlines themselves are experimenting with ground vehicles propelled by liquid petroleum gas (LPG) in an effort to reduce ground-vehicle emissions around ramps and hangars; they are also attempting to reduce the number of these ground vehicles through such actions as the use of fueling hydrants instead of gas trucks.

AIRPORTS

Airports are essential to community development, and to the air transport services which provide the public with mobility and foster this development. Greater emphasis must be given the environmental quality of airports. However, airport curfews involve unacceptable economic impacts upon the surrounding communities and the air commerce system.

Airport Development.-In developing new airports every effort must be made to minimize congestion and other undesirable effects. The airlines' traditional insistence on compatible land use measures must be reaffirmed. Reasonable "clear zones" must be established so that residential areas not be exposed, presently or in the future, to undue noise intrusion. Industrial waste treatment facilities should be planned and provided, as well as appropriate types of storm sewers or ramps. Adequate ground-access systems must also be developed to minimize vehicular pollution as well as to serve the convenience of the traveling public.

Waste Control.-Airports are properly under the jurisdiction of various local authorities, and responsibility for waste control standards lies in their hands. The airlines pledge to cooperate fully in meeting pollution and waste control standards.

Citizen Participation.-The airlines believe that the public interest is served by participation of individual citizens and local citizen groups and helping to locate new airports and fostering their environmental compatibility.

Senator CANNON. Mr. John Hellegers, is he here now?

[No response.]

STATEMENT OF JERROLD FADEM, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. FADEM. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and I am going to, in view of your apparent time stringency not repeat all of the things I

said in my prepared statement, but I would ask that it be made a part of the record.

Senator CANNON. It will be made a part of the record.

Mr. FADEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point that I think I would like to stress first is the differentiation in the 1972 act as to aircraft noise compared to all other sources of noise.

I submit that this is the one serious shortcoming of the act and is an element most likely to defeat congressional intent as expressed in section 2(b) and I quote, "To provide an environment for all Americans free from noise which jeopardizes their health or welfare."

This exception under section 7 of your 1972 act gives FAA a veto power over EPA's regulations. Now, if FAA were to follow your congressional command to bend every effort to control noise and provide a healthy atmosphere for all Americans, this veto power would not cause me any concern. But, in our years of working with this problem, it has been our experience that unfortunately FAA's his history indicates rather clearly that it is unwilling to actively pursue even such clearly stated congressional goals as you have put into your 1968 and 1972 acts.

In particular, I would submit that the conduct of FAA in regard to the 1972 act reveals a weakness with which I am concerned.

In your 1968 act you said and I quote-you made a grant of power to the FAA and I quote, "To afford present and future relief and protection to the public from unnecessary aircraft noise."

It is now 5 years later, Mr. Chairman, and FAA has done nothing to provide present relief. It took them more than two years, until October 1970 to issue even an advance notice of the proposed rules and contrary to its designation, it was not a proposed rule at all, but asked for others to give it help in formulating a rule for suppressing the noise created by the hundreds of 707's and DC-8's in the then existing fleet. We are still awaiting such a rule.

I think this committee is well aware of the Rohr Corp. study showing that significant relief could be obtained by retrofitting the current fleet but FAA has yet to propose such a requirement.

It is now, as I have said, 5 years after you told FAA to provide present relief and they have run another advance notice of proposed rulemaking up the flagpole. This one is the fleet noise level you have been talking about and I submit that this is another underminning of your clear instructions to the FAA.

The fleet noise rules will do nothing to quiet down the noisy jets that are flying. Instead it seeks to bury under averages the unbearable noise of the 707's and DC-8's by averaging them with the relatively quiet 747's and DC-10's. But, creating average noise figures does not make a 707 one decible quieter. It may be that the FAA believes it is serving the airlines by dragging its feet on noise control and it may well be that the airlines believe that the FAA's inaction is beneficial to the carriers.

However, the truth is that it is counterproductive for airlines and for terminals. The sooner this problem is faced realistically the sooner it will be solved, and until it is solved, airlines and airports

will be embroiled in bitter conflicts, time consuming litigaton and having to live with the results of litigation.

Now, this problem has essentially been undealt with by the FAA despite your good law making. It is resulting in things such as higher bond costs. I have with me a prospectus, March 15, 1973 in which TWA had to pay six and an eighth percent interest rate on bonds which are municipal in character, having no taxation.

Why did they have to pay that rate? I submit a look at the prospectus and the two pages concerned with airport litigation explained why they are paying that kind of interest rate on municipal quality bonds with tax-free qualities.

They make reference, and I would like your indulgence to read two sentences out of that prospectus. This is bonds to finance TWA facilities at LA International Airport.

While injunctions have been denied in all suits against Los Angeles, in which there has been a ruling on such relief to date, any entry of such relief in the future could have a material adverse impact on the continued usefulness of the facility.

Likewise, should the total liability incurred by Los Angeles as a result of the various damage suits render further operation of the airport economically prohibitive, any substantial restriction which Los Angeles might find it necessary to impose on the use of the airport could have a material adverse impact on the usefulness of the facility.

So, these are the kinds of penalties that the airlines are encountering and they may not be as visible as the numbers you have been talking about while I have been here this afternoon, but they cost the airlines just as much if they are paid out in interest, higher interest rates on bonds.

And, if some of the risks that are described in what I just read to you come to pass, the loss is going to dwarf those amounts you have been talking about.

Now, I have here a newspaper which is not a month old, or it is just a month old, February 28, 1973, the Santa Monica Evening Outlook. I will hold up the paper for the committee to read the headlines, "The Santa Monica Council Slaps Ban on Jets at Airport."

And, as of now, and since February 28, jet aircraft is banned from the Santa Monica Airport. This kind-this is what results when the executive branch does not respond to your instructions and leaves the problem untended. The people, unable to obtain relief from your bill because of their being short circuited in the executive branch, then turns to the other branch of relief, the courts.

The courts necessarily have a very limited group of tools with which to work. They can only do two things-award damages and give injunction.

I submit, as the attorney who has represented more of these people than I think anyone else, that this is not the rational way to go about the treating of this problem. But, it is the only avenue left, when you let the FAA continue to play its game, which it has so successfully played in the past half dozen years.

Senator CANNON. Will you suggest to us what you think the FAA ought to have done?

Mr. FADEM. They certainly could have insisted that the airports to

whom they are giving grants live up to those grants. They have given out hundreds of millions of grants to the airport, $20 million to this one alone and I think that I am understating it by about $6 million. I think it is $26 million. Within those grant agreements they could require that the airport take such land use actions as to make the airport compatible with its surrounding neighborhood.

They have not done that and the FAA let them blink at it.

Senator CANNON. Well, when was that $20 million granted to the airport?

Mr. FADEM. It has been done over a number of years. I am giving a grand total, Senator.

Senator CANNON. Well, I assumed that, but in other words, that is not quite consistent, then, with your statement that this airport has had $20 million. It has probably been over a 10- or 15-year period of time.

Mr. FADEM. I Would anticipate that you are right.

Senator CANNON. And before the noise problem ever started, or a good deal of it.

Mr. FADEM. Some.

Senator CANNON. And I would expect that there was a good deal of it before the state of the art was here to permit a reduction in noise level in jet aircraft. I am trying to find out specifically what you would have the FAA do since there has been a capability in the state of the art.

Mr. FADEM. I know that at least $10 million of that has been in the period that this problem has existed, since 1959. I would suspect that there is at least $5 million more to be added to that.

They blink and close their eyes and turn their head away at the way LAX breaches it grant agreements. They could enforce those. We have had to go to court and have these ordered enforced.

Senator CANNON. Well, what are the parts of the agreement, now, that are not being enforced?

If I understand the act correctly, and your political situation, your legal situation, LAX has no authority to zone around an airport. This is the city of Inglewood that I think does the zoning and the city of Los Angeles that does the zoning; isn't that correct?

Mr. FADEM. You are correct in what you say that there is more to be said. The city of Los Angeles owns Los Angeles International Airport.

Senator CANNON. Yes.

Mr. FADEM. And before you let the city of Los Angeles get the millions of dollars in grants, insist upon the rezoning to make the land use compatible. Don't make them promise to do it and then let them breach that contract and never do anything about it.

We have now litigations sustained by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court that when it goes back to trial, will require LAX to begin obeying its contract.

But, we had to bring that contract on behalf of ordinary citizens. It was the FAA's job and they didn't do it. There are other things that they could have done, not, operational prcedures as testified to by the last witness, and there are many more that he did not mention that could have been instituted by the F.A.A.