Mr. MOORE. Well, the Commission, in adopting the program, said use these as our regulations pending Federal action and at the time of Federal action we would review it and more likely we would substitute the Federal standards for our own standards.

I guess the only dilemma we would have is if the Federal standards. were markedly weaker, then the Board would have a dilemma. Senator TUNNEY. What would happen then?

Mr. MOORE. I cannot predict what the commission would do. I do not want to speak for them. My own impression would be that these are reasonable standards and these are realistic standards and that is what is going to happen in this country and we would stand by them.

But, whether the commission would adopt that and endorse my recommendations, I am not sure.

Senator TUNNEY. Of course, if there was preemption

Mr. MOORE. If there was complete and total preemption and that was clear, we, of course

Senator TUNNEY, That is right.

Mr. MOORE. One of the issues, Senator, if I may interrupt, that I have been clarifing here is what is the role of a proprietor. In taking this stand this was clearly in my mind and I publicly stated so that if the proprietor does not have this power, then he ought to know that he does not have this power and one of the things that we are attempting to get out of this is the clarification of the role of a provider.

Perhaps, we will get that out of the review of the Burbank case by the Supreme Court. We are not sure. We are hopeful we will have some clarification.

Senator TUNNEY. One of the things that concerns me very deeply, and I know it concerns you also, is the possibility that LAX could be closed down if there were a major judgment against it on a nui

sance suit.

One of the reasons that I fought as hard last year for the noise bill as I did was because I felt that we had to have a stimulus to protect the health and welfare around the airport. Otherwise we were going to get these nuisance suits which in all probability, if they were substantial, would close down the airport and would be detrimental to the community's commerce and health and welfare in general.

I would just like to know what your thoughts are with regard to the point that I am making. If you have a substantial damage suit and a recovery on that damage suit, what would happen to the international airport?

Mr. MOORE. Believe me, I have been discussing this problem at great length with the various executives of the airlines for quite a few months because the entire continued existence of the airport hinges upon the very fragile relationship of the user of the airline. and the supplier.

Up until now we have been very successful in maintaining an adequate financial posture. There is no question under the terms of the agreement that we have at the present the sole source of these increased funds with minor exceptions would be the airline landing fee structure.

There is a great deal of question in my mind of how much an impact that structure can evolve, or handle. I get concerned over legislation in Congress that would affect possible sources revenue.

I don't think that we are ready to talk about that here today, but the point is that it is a very fragile thing. There are not unlimited

sources. 9

If, for example, we had a catastrophic ruling of a court and it went clearly beyond our ability to raise the funds, it would then depend on the city of Los Angeles, because we are not sueable as a separate entity. The suit is against the entire city even though we are a proprietary department.

I am sure that the budget of the city has no funds for this purpose, so they would have to be levied against the taxpayers. Then, the city government, the council and the airport commission would have to face the very difficult decision: Are they going to allow this to happen or would they have to liquidate the assets and use the assets as a device for paying it off.

To do that, naturally, you would have to either partially restrict, or completely restrict the airport in order to remove some of the property from the tax role-I mean to get it back on the tax role, sell it as private property.

These things are catastrophic and I do not really want to deal with them on that basis. My opinion is that if we are reasonable with out programs and if we have reasonable, not only Federal level programs. but local level programs, most judges and most juries are reasonable people and if they know as a matter of general public knowledge that these programs are going forward, we will probably be successful and it is on that basis that we propose this thing.

If, on the other hand, it is apparent that there is nothing going to happen, then I think that the judges and jury are going to take entirely different points of view.

Senator TUNNEY. I want to compliment you on your testimony. I think that people in this area ought to know the work that you did behind the scenes in order to get this noise legislation through the Congress. Many times poeple think of an airport operator as being responsible for the noise around the airport but that is clearly not true. In your case, you did everything in your power to develop a Federal mechanism to solve the problem and I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much for a very fine statement, Mr. Moore.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF CLIFTON A. MOORE, GENERAL MANAGER, LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS

The dominant theme of the seventies will probably be the emphasis on reevaluation of goals and lifestyles. From intense pride in technological accomplishments, our citizens have turned to a sober appraisal of what this progress means, not only in terms of scientific and economic growth, but also in potential impact on the environment it seeks to serve.

This is especially true in airport operation. In the quarter century since World War II, the precipitate growth of the commercial air travel industry has necessitated a comparable growth in airport service to accommodate this phenomenal flow of passengers and cargo.

For example, here at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), we celebrated our 25th anniversary of commercial airline service in December 1971. When we started operations in December 1946, just five carriers were based here, with an annual volume of a little over a million passengers and 37 million pounds of cargo. Currently 36 scheduled airlines, nine supplemental carriers and three commuter lines are based here, our annual passenger volume is over 22 million, and more than one-and-a-quarter billion pounds of cargo passes through our terminals each year.

The economic impact of Los Angeles International Airport, as well as Ontario International and Van Nuys Airports, is as astounding as the growth of air commerce over the past quarter century. Studies by Waldo & Edwards, Inc., released to the public in the spring of 1972, revealed that LAX industry was the second largest employer in Los Angeles County in 1970 and the largest at a single plant location.

It is estimated that LAX industry pumped more than $3.3 billion annually, or approximately $9 million daily, into the economy of its market area. When this figure is combined with the $161 million generated annually at Ontario and $87 million at Van Nuys, this totals approximately $3.6 billion, or almost $10 million daily. Projected to 1980, the overall totals add up to $6.2 billion annually in the three airports' market areas, or well over $17 million daily.

This growth has been a mixed blessing. It has naturally brought an increase in noise, traffic congestion, and air pollution. Homeowners in the area are understandably upset at the disruption of their peace and quiet.

Faced with projected growth in air passenger traffic as well as mounting neighborhood reaction to noise at Los Angeles International Airport, we embarked upon a program some nine years ago to acquire additional airport capacity by developing a system of satellite airports.

You must realize future projections for passenger demand in Southern California ranged from 160 million passengers by the year 1990 to 300 million passengers by the year 2000. We knew that Los Angeles International, which handled 75 percent of this regional passenger activity, would reach its capacity by the late 1970's.

Accordingly, negotiations to acquire Ontario International Airport were completed by the Department of Airports on November 1, 1967. This airport is designed to serve the eastern portion. It consisted of some 1,150 acres. We have added 322 more through condemnation proceedings which gives us a total of approximately 1,500 acres. Major improvements contemplated at Ontario are a second parallel runway and the construction of a new terminal building, along with other miscellaneous improvements which will cost approximately $100 million. Here we can develop an airport with the capability of some 15 million annual passengers.

You may not be aware that Los Angeles and Ontario are on the same federal airway. As a matter of fact, the entire Los Angeles Basin is primarily fed through this major airway system. Because of space limitations, it was necessary then to find another site for a major facility to serve Los Angeles. One of the criteria used was that a new airport location be established at a point which would have a separate airway input.

Many site studies were made. Not only by our own professional staff and the Federal Government through the FAA, but also qualified consultants in the field of airspace and air traffic control. If was finally decided by this group and recommended to our Board of Airport Commissioners that a new major site be located in the Antelope Valley area. It not only has the advantages of available airspace and good weather, but it is the closest available site to the city of Los Angeles.

Final approval of the Antelope Valley site was given by the State of California Department of Aeronautics and the Department of Transportation of the Federal Government in 1970. The site is northeast of the city of Palmdale and immediately east of the 6.000-acre U.S. Air Force Plant 42; 35 miles north of the Los Angeles civic center via air; and 60 miles via the Golden State and Antelope Valley Freeways. It comprises 17,700 acres of largely undeveloped land resulting in an aviation area of 23,700 acres, eight times the size of Los Angeles International Airport and larger than the island of Manhattan.

The huge new airport will help meet future demands of air travel growth in Southern California and will be developed to handle an ultimate capacity of 100 million passengers.

We began purchasing land in September 1970. In July 1971 the Department of Airports deferred land acquisition until litigation between environmentalists and the Department of Transportation could be resolved. At this time, we had acquired over 4,000 acres. Then after a year's moratorium on land acquisition, we again resumed purchase of land in the firm belief that an airport in the the Act of 1969, the 1970 Airport and Airway Development Act, and the Calinia.

If a new airport cannot be built in an area such as the Antelope Valley, there will never be another major airport developed in the United States.

Our original planning for Palmdale took in all environmental considerations. The vast acreage was laid out to contain all objectionable noise within the airport itself. Environmental studies were carried out by the various agencies of the Federal Government during that period in which the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was being developed. Yet the attack and challenge has been made and we are again in the midst of an environmental study based on the act of 1969, the 1970 Airport and Airways Development Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act.

Such studies are being carried out not only for Palmdale, but for Ontario and Los Angeles International Airports. These studies add at least 27 months to the lead time of any major development and will cost more than $2 million. The time and money spent will be worth it if, and I stress if, this will satisfy the environmentalists. I can only hope that reason will prevail and that a give and take situation will be the net result.

Even now, the need for expanded airport facilities at Los Angeles is beginning to be felt. We had a slight breather from mid 1969 through September of 1971 due to the recession. But over the last 12 months, the economy has revived and one of the prime indicators is air travel. It is soaring to new highs, and the facilities which were on the drawing boards at Los Angeles International and are now at a standstill are sorely needed. The public is already feeling the first crunch as our international facilities are already hopelessly overcrowded and will become increasingly so as the new reduced fares attract more and more people to fly overseas.

In addition to stepped up passenger discomfort, we will be faced with a curtailment in employment opportunities over the next few years.

With all airport development slowed for the next five to ten years, I personally feel there is a better solution in the national and local interest, certainly in the interest of the majority of people. This solution is Federal preemption, and the Noise Control Act passed on the closing day of Congress is a step in the right direction. Congressional policy must include a meaningful set of Federal noise standards-a goal for airport operators, airlines and aircraft manufacturers to achieve.

I call for the environmentalists to work with us in achieving realistic goals. I must point out that it has been the airport of this country, the available and immobile targets of our irate neighbors, who have been in the fight for quieter aircraft long before the environmental movement swept the country in the late 1960's.

It was the efforts of the Airport Operators Council which played a large role in implementing the Federal Air Regulations of 1968, which set noise standards for new aircraft that resulted in today's quieter widebodied jetliners -the Boeing 747, the Lockheed L-1011 and the Douglas DC-10.

It is the airport operators who are ever vigilant in pressing for increased funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's quiet engine program as well as calling for a retrofit program of the existing fleet.

From extreme positions, may we work to the middle ground of combining a proper balance between environment and economy so that a better living is a reality for all of us.

Here in Los Angeles we have proceeded on our own with the development of a regulatory program in the absence of strong federal action. The basic premise for our program evolves from aircraft which are certified under Federal Air Regulation (FAR) Part 36. You will recall that with the adoption of FAR 36 by the Federal Aviation Administration in December 1969, it marked the

first time the Federal Government prescribed noise standards for certification of transport aircraft-a truly major breakthrough on the national level for the eventual control of noise. As a result of FAR 36, we now have the DC-10, the L-1011, the 747-200, and certain models of the 727-200.

Our five-phase program is designed to result in only quiet aircraft using our airport as quickly as possible, and the program is as follows:

(1) A runway preferential use program with a starting date of April 29, 1973, the date for airline schedule changes. This will regulate all aircraft traffic between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. to over-ocean approaches and departures. The over-ocean system has been under evaluation since September 1972 and can now be implemented with the installation of an instrument landing system on Runway 6R. I have been assured by the FAA that this installation will be completed by the effective date of the program.

Over-water operations can be used approximately 90 percent of the time. For the remaining 10 percent, when weather and wind conditions do not permit, only FAR 36 aircraft will be allowed to land from or takeoff to the east between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Under these conditions, all non-FAR airplanes will be denied the use of Los Angeles International. Instructions will be issued to the FAA designating the north and south inboard runways as preferential for takeoffs under this nighttime system.

We propose that a penalty for repeated violation of the preferential runway usage will result in the cancellation of an airline's operating permit and the right to use Los Angeles International.

(2) A program of economic incentives to accelerate the use of quiet aircraft. Labeled "dollars for decibels", the program is to be implemented on July 1, 1973. We propose to set landing fees ranging from the lowest fees for operators of FAR 36 aircraft to the highest fees for operators of the noisiest aircraft. The incentive landing fee program will tie in with phase three.

(3) A fleet noise rule to establish a 100 percent FAR 36 aircraft fleet by December 31, 1979. This is a long-range program by which the noisier aircraft are phased out of the airline fleet. It will be evaluated on the basis of actual operations at Los Angeles International and designed to be 40 percent complete by July 1, 1977, and 100 percent in compliance with FAR 36 by the end of 1979. The fleet noise rule will stand at Los Angeles International unless a more stringent rule is adopted by the Federal Government.

(4) Creation of a noise enforcement division within the Department of Airports. As a tool to insure compliance, the noise monitoring computer will be programmed to accurately measure FAR 36 noise parameters.

(5) Even though this program is designed to insure quieter aircraft, management further urges the adoption of appropriate legislation to achieve a stronger method for developing compatible land use in the various communities around our airport.

Our five-phase program we feel, is a step in the right direction. It will serve a good cause until Congress adopts a positive program. We urge you to adopt into law the following:

(1) Upon completion of the EPA and FAA report as required by the Noise Control Act, Congress should adopt appropriate criteria and standards for the measurement of noise and its impact.

(2) Congress should provide a federal incentive program in conjunction with state and local government so that compatible land use can be developed around existing airports. This incentive program could perhaps be worked out by modifying current ADAP grant programs.

(3) Congressional legislation which should permit and encourage continuing discussions with the airlines to provide capacity adjustments on heavily traveled route segments. This would achieve higher load factors and at the same time reduce the volume of unnecessary air traffic operations.

(4) Encourage efforts to produce quieter engines, encompassing retrofit as well as new engines for new aircraft. Funds should be provided to assist the air carriers in retrofitting the existing fleet.

We urge congressional action so that the national air transportation system can continue to grow and airport neighbors can be assured of maximum relief.

Senator CANNON. The next witness is Mr. Nicholas C. Yost, Deputy Attorney General in Charge of Environment for the State of California.