convinced that even safety has been second to public relations in the eyes of the FAA. In many cases, those leaving the FAA find lucrative jobs within the airline industry.

Now, while all of this is very understandable, it hardly sets the stage for effective enforcement of laws which may prove contrary to the best fiscal interests of the industry being regulated.

I could wallpaper a room with the letters we have got at home from the FAA just in the past 5 years. The one thing that I can say for those letters is that they are consistent. There is nothing they can do.

We have heard this at hearings on the Federal level, State level, and local level. In 1968 the FAA would testify that there was no noise problem problem. In 1969 they said it was a fad, it was fashionable to complain about noise. In 1970 they recognized that the noise existed. It has gone on this way. They have been consistently five to seven years behind what the public says.

What concern the FAA has shown about the problem of noise pollution is largely due to the persistent pleas of the public to their elected representatives. Those elected public officials who have been sensitive to the anguish of their constituents have taken the time and trouble to educate themselves on the subject.

Once educated, they too become persistent in their demands that the FAA act on behalf of the public. On the local, State, and Federal levels of Government "good intentions" have been legislated in an attempt to make the FAA more responsive to the needs of the public.

With the adoption of noise standards by the FAA, many people sighed with relief, feeling that the FAA had displayed a responsiveness that would mean that they would now become a willing enforcer on behalf of the public. But, to put it in very simple terms, did the noise standards constitute a genuine desire to protect the public and regulate industry? Sadly, no. Noise monitoring equipment, that is so simple to operate that a child could read it, I know Mr. Fadem will bear me out on that, has been available for years. You simply hold the sound meter in your hand and stand a certain number of feet away from the aircraft in question to get a reading of the decibles emitted while in runup, on takeoff, during landing or for sideline contours. Nothing could be more simple. Did they elect to use that procedure in establishing the noise standards, or for enforcement purposes? No. Instead, they elected to use EPNdB as the Federal standard of measurement.

This is the method so complicated and requiring such sophisticated and complex hardware that it is virtually impossible to monitor. They have not even finished getting it set up and it was supposed to be in effect at LAX last December.

Again, it is an action of an unwilling enforcer.

Nowhere is this more evident, the need to take regulatory and enforcement powers away from the FAA and place them within the jurisdiction of the EPA, than in a document entitled No. 20617. This document was published several years ago, and is still actively circulated by the FAA for the benefit of airport owners throughout the Nation. It is entitled "Aircraft Noise and Community Relations" and subtitled "A collection of material designed to enhance airport neighbor relations".

The 60-page booklet-I have copies which have been made available for members of the subcommittee-deals with the public relations deemed advisable to "handle" the problem of noise pollution. Now, on page 9, paragraph 3, for instance, it offers:

"Complaint centers and formal noise abatement committees are not normally required at locations where the problem has not reached the critical level. Informal committees can be extremely helpful in drawing all elements of the industry together to provide a unified approach."

On page 16, it is advised, "Experience in all areas dealing with noise problems has proven conclusively that publicity on the problem, no matter how constructive, breeds additional adverse publicity by those critical of the industry's program."

In general, it advises operators to always stress the importance of the facility, quote the numbers, amount of jobs, operations, passengers, and so forth. Never touch on the adverse effects of an airport.

The booklet closes with 22 pages of sample press releases and interviews which I am sure you gentlemen will easily recognize from the many times we have been subjected to them through the media. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this P.R. "helping hand" on the part of the FAA. Just that the FAA should be recognized for what it is, and not be expected to regulate its friends. It just simply will not work.

The attached article, which appeared in last Sunday's local section of the Los Angeles Times, speaks for itself regarding the role of the FAA as public defender against noise.

As has happened in the past, this article will probably be the first of a series of such articles outlining the attractiveness of opening the Torrance Airport to jet operations. Somewhere down the road, these articles will be piously referred to when the FAA and the Airport operator are bombarded with complaints. The public was well aware, they will say. Ample public notice was given. And what they will be referring to will be articles exactly like the one I have attached to my testimony. Ironically, this article has but one short breezy paragraph pertaining to noise. Nowhere does it say what the noise contours will be or where they will be. Nowhere does it say a word about the fact that most of the jets being "considered" for service are the noisiest in operation today. Nowhere does it say that the entire Palos Verdes area will be directly affected by noise from such jet operations.

This article is standard operational procedure and again demonstrates the urgent need for regulations and enforcement, not just recommendations, from an independent agency, such as EPA.

Thank you very much.

[The article follows:]

[From the Los Angeles Times, Centinela South Bay, Mar. 25, 1973]

TORRANCE FIELD SHOULD SERVE JETS, FAA SAYS

(By Mary Ann Lee)

TORRANCE-A $700,000 study financed by the Federal Aviation Administration has made a preliminary recommendation that this city's municipal airport be used as a commuter port, open to small jets with at least a 500-mile range.

Miss Ruthanne Bingham, public information officer for the Southern Califor

nia Assn. of Governments (SCAG), said the study is being done in cooperation with SCAG and will conclude with an Oct. 12 hearing at the Los Angeles Convention Center at which time data from 10 regional hearings during the past year will be considered.

"The small jets would be those such as PSA uses," said Miss Bingham, adding that PSA would be an example of the type of commuter line being considered.

The smallest jet that line presently uses is a Boeing 737 which carries 112 passengers. PSA reportedly has been interested since last November in the Torrance facility but no route applications have been made.

INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM

Speculation that jets would be accepted arose after the FAA paid the full cost of installing an instrument landing system localizer at the airport. It is one-half of a fully automated system.

A spokesman for the FAA said the installation was part of an updating of airports around the country and was done on a priority basis. He added that "it would be desirable to have such a system if jets were planned for the airport."

When the FAA report is finished, it will become part of the National Airport Plan which will tie Southern California facilities into a nationwide network of commuter ports.

Miss Bingham said the final authority for jets going into Torrance would be the operator which, in this case, is the City Council.

RESIDENTS COULD VETO

"The council could be overruled, however," she said. "If citizens disagree with how the council votes, they might overrule by petitions to SCAG."

She added that if the council should prohibit jets but the residents affected by lack of service were to protest, the protest to SCAG probably would outweigh the council's decision.

So far, the council has reacted strongly to the word "jet," giving the indication it equates "jet” only with the big 747, 707- and the DC-10.

Some small planes carrying only a few dozens passengers fall into the "jet" category even though they use propellers. Examples of these are the Viscounts, Convair 580, Fairchild 27 such as flown by the commuter line Air West, and the Electra used by area charter lines. In fact, a majority of the craft flown by area commuter services falls into this prop-jet classification.

AIRPORT IMPORTANT

A check with some of the industries currently planning developments in the Meadow Park area verifies that proximity to the airport was a selling point in their decisions to move to Torrance. The airport is even providing taxiways to those industries building near the runway aprons.

More than a few of those industries own Lear Jets and it's doubtful that after being lured to Torrance with promise of airport services the company executives would be prohibited from landing such a plane.

The SCAG report on area airports shows that of all the airport sites within the Los Angeles basin, Long Beach is second only to International Airport in terms of being well situated to serve future air passenger demands. And a SCAG representative added that Torrance is the logical mid-point between the two.

POPULATION PROJECTED

Commuters to either airport could be well served by the Torrance facility. The Consultants study is working on a Los Angeles County population projected at 7,868,000 by 1985 and 15,242,000 in the 10-county region covered by the study.

The consultants do not recommend the creation of additional major airports but, to meet the enormously increased demand for air travel within the next 10 to 15 years, the report urges modification of existing airports to maximize their efficency.

The report also encourages the joint use by scheduled air carriers of existing military airports.

97-555 - 73 10

The consultants project that International Airport's air passenger service will increase from 20.8 million in 1970 to 50.7 million in 1985 and they see Long Beach as handling 9.5 million by 1985.

QUIETER ENGINES

The report emphasizes continued development of quiet aircraft engines and new operating procedures designed to reduce noise problems.

Along with Torrance, the consultants recommended that El Monte be designated as a commuter port to provide feeder service by public carriers to other airports higher in the aviation system.

At the study's recent hearing in Long Beach, William Critchfield, acting airport manager for Torrance, asked that SCAG take no action on its Torrance proposal until the city finishes preparing a general plan.

COMMUTER SERVICE

That plan will incorporate a study currently being done by Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, a planning and engineering consultant firm. A spokesman for that company admitted that it is indeed, considering a commuter service in its study as one of the possible uses of the 500-acre airport.

That $34,000 study is being prepared with funds from the Federal Aviation Administration under the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970. Torrance is paying one-third of the cost.

Senator CANNON. Thank you for your statement.

What do you think could and should be done, not from the regulations standpoint, but to reduce the noise levels? Have you given some thought and consideration to that?

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Over the years, a great deal.

Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, if I may; I would like to say that the entire approach is in reverse of what it should be. We have jet aircraft operating out of large urban areas because it can be done, not because it is proper or right, and not because it is compatible with the land uses that are in existence around the airport.

If we had strong leadership from the Federal level of government that spelled these things out to airport operators, whether they be local, municipal government or independent agencies and said you cannot go in there and start jet operations unless you can show us why this won't have the detrimental affect.

Now, we are just getting to that point in this day and time. But, we are living with the result of not doing it this way for many, many years. That leadership was not present.

Senator CANNON. Well, let's relate it now to the conditions we find ourselves in. The conditions we find ourselves in always apply to pressures that require us to do something.

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Yes.

Senator CANNON. And that is what I am trying to get at here

now.

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Yes, I live between the runways to the west of the airport.

Senator CANNON. What do you think can be done to help solve your problem there?

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Well, my problem really

Senator CANNON. I do not mean your problem, I mean the problem, the general problem.

Ms. MITCHELTREE. There is nothing going to solve my problem except I might say I resent the usage of the condemnation as a solution to this kind of problem. I think it is horse-and-buggy thinking.

I think the first thing that must be done is to take the authority of the regulation away from the FAA.

Senator CANNON. Yes.

I said let's get away from the authority aspect. Let's get down to the practicality. What can we do to make this airport quieter? Now, if you get the political support and allow the FAA to regulate so that planes cannot land, the problem would obviously be solved.

But, I am trying to find practical solutions and we have been told that we have some alternatives. We can either retire some of these airplanes or we can force them to buy all new airplanes, which they could buy over a period of time.

But, as the mayor indicated this morning, if the 1011 or the DC-10 is not going to solve the problem so that people can live with it, you know, we have not really solved anything.

This is what I am trying to get at.

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Well, Senator, if I had the answer to your question, I would not be sitting where I am at this moment.

Senator CANNON. Well, I thought that maybe you had some suggestions for us because, you see, just criticizing the FAA as the gentleman here did and saying they should have put regulations into effect or they should do it now does not solve the problems. Regulations themselves are not going to solve the problem that the expert witnesses say is going to take until '78 to solve it by retrofit, by refanning engines, and all of this sort of thing.

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Mr. Chairman, you run into the same sort of thing as you do when you attend hearings on air pollution and you have various elements of the industry that is involved in a particular form of pollution pointing the finger in other directions.

I am merely a consumer, in this case of noise pollution. What a horrible thought.

Senator CANNON: An unwilling consumer.

Ms. MITCHELTREE. Very unwilling.

I cannot presume to say that this element of the industry is lying, or wrong, and that element is right, or-you know-best, or anything. But, what I am trying to get across to you gentlemen is that irregardless of what is suggested by whom as the solution, it is not going to mean a tinker's dam unless you put the enforcement in the hands of the independent agencies.

You can forget it if you keep it with the FAA. I think that if you talk to anyone who is trying to deal with the various levels of government, as I have for the past 5 years, you will get the same story. It is just impossible to do because they have no interest in what we are trying to get accomplished. They are not looking for solutions, Senator.

Mr. FADEM. If I may, Senator

Senator CANNON. Yes.

Mr. FADEM. In my statement, and I left it out in the interest of time, I set forth a program for action that could have been all taken by the FAA in the past and could be taken today, if the FAA had the mind and the will.

Essentially, it says that no residence shall be subjected to no more than 85 EPNdB is my suggestion. Maybe that is a matter of judgement. Maybe it will be 80 and maybe it will be 90.