oversight

The Implementation of the Noise Control Act of 1972

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-04-04.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                         DOCUMENT RESUME

00241 - [A1051911]

The Iplementation of the Noise Control Act of 1972.    .pril 4,
1977. 18 pp.

Testimony before the House Committee Onh Government Operations:
Environment, Energy, and Natural Recurces Subcommittee; by
Wilbur D. Campbell, Assciate Director, Community and Economic
DeveloFgent Div.
Issue Area: Environmental Protection Programs (2200).
Contact Consunity and Economic Development Dv.
Budget Function: Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy:
    Pollution Control and Abatement (304).
Organization Concerned: Environmertal Protection Agency; Federal
    Aviation Administration.
Congressional Rel .sne  : House Committee on Government
    Operations: Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources
    Subcommittee.
authority: Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (P.L. 90-4.1). Noise
    Control Act of 1972.
         The Federal Goverun.tes noise program has nt been
working smoothly. To date, only four noise emission standards
have been issued under the Noise Con'rol Act and these were many
months late. Inplementation of certain sections of the Act, such
as labeling, technical assistance, and research coordination,
has received low priority by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and therefore, not uch has been accomplished in these
areas. The administratcr of EPA should direct that an overall
strategy for the noise control program be prepared so that all
provisions of the Noise Contrcl Act are implemented in a
balanced, coordinated anner. The overall noise rogram draft
strategy that Las been drafted and submitted for comment is a
good first effort in the development of a unified, national
effort to reduce noise pollution. This strategy should be
finalized as soon as possible so the provisions in the 1972 Act
can be implemented effectively. A coordinated joint effort
between the EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
necessary if any progress is to be ade in abating aircraft
noise. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy between
the two agencies on how best to control aircraft noise and
whether the actions taken have been effective. (Author/QM)
             UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
                     VkSHINGTON, D.C. 20548


                                          FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
                                          EXPrCTED AT 10 A.M. EST
                                          MONiAY, APRIL 4, 1977


                         STATEMENT OF
            WILBUR D. CAMPBELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
         COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

                         BEFORE THE
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, NERGY, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
         HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

                                ON
                   THE IMPLEMELTATION OF THE
                   NOISE CONTP')L ACT OF 3972


MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF    HE SECCMMITTEE:

     WE ARE HERE TODAY AT YOUR REQUEST TO DISCUSS OUR MARCH

1977 REPCRT TO THE CONG. SS ON    HE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972 TITLED "NOISE POLLUTION---FEDERAL

PROGRAM TO CONTROL IT HAS BEEN SLOW AND INEFFECTIVE."     MY

STATEMENT HERE TODAY WILL HIGHLIGHT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THAT REPORT.     WITA ME TODAY

ARE MESSRS. OLIVER W. KRUEGER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND KEITH O.

FULTZ,   SUPERVISORY AUDITOR WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE REVIEW.

     IN RESPONSE TO THE BASIC QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT'S NOISE PROGRAM HAS BEEN WORKING SMOOTHLY, WE HAVE

TO REPORT TO YOU MR. CHAIRMAN THAT IT HAS NOT.     IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE NOISE ACT HAS BEEN SLOW AND, IN SOME CASES, INEFFECTIVE.
TO DATE, ONLY FOUR NOISE EMI?'3ION STANDARDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED

UNDER THE ACT AND THESE WERE MANY MONTHS LATE.   LITTLE PROGRESS

HAS BEEN MADE IN ISSUING FINAL AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE FEDUCTION

REGULATIONS.   IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACTI

SUCH AS LABELING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND R.ESEARCH COORDI-

NATION, HAS RECEIVED LOW PRIORITY BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION ACENCY AND THEREFORE, NOT MUCH HAS BEEN ACCULAPLISHED

IN THESE AREAS.

     OUR REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPROPRIATE CONCRESSIONAL

COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES HOLD OVERSIGHT HEARINGS TO EVALUATE

PAST PERFORMANCE AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES

AND WL ARE PLEASED THAT THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS EXPLORING SOME

OF THESE PROBLEMS.

     ABOUT 13 MILLION AMERICANS ARE LIVING IN PLACES WHERE

NOISE FROM CARS, BUSLJ, TRUCKS, AIRPLANES, CONSTRUCTION

EQUIPMENT, AND KITCHEN GADGETS MAY BE HARMING THEIR HEALTH.

AN ESTIMATED 16 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES SUFFER

FROM SO'iE DEGREE OF HEARING LOSS DIRECTLY CAUSED BY NOISE.

FURTHERMORE, AN ESTIMATED 1%0 MILION PEOPLE RESIDE IN AREAS

WHERE THE AVERAGE NOISE LEVEL EXCEEDS THE LEVEL WHICH THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SAYS IS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED

WITH MARKED ANNOYANCE.

     THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972--THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE

NOISE CONTROL LEGISLATION PASSED BY CONGRESS--WAS DESIGNED TO




                                2
ELIMINATE EXCESS NOISE IN THE DESIGN STAGE OF A WIDE

VARIETY OF NE'; CONSUMER PRODUCTS.   THE OBJECTIVES r   THE

ACT ARE TO "PROMOTE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL AMERICANS FREE

FROM NOISE THAT JEOPARDIZES THEIR HEALTH OR WELFARE"    AND

"TO ESTABLISH A MEANS FOR EFFECTIVE COORDINATION OF FEDERAL

RESEARCH AND ACTIVITIES IN NOISE CONTROL."

     THE NOISE ACT DIRECTS THE ENVIRONEMNTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY TO:

     --COO!RDINATE ALL FEDE AL PROGRAMS RELATING TO NOISE

       RESEARCH AND NOISE CONTROL AiND REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

       ON THE STATUS AND PROGRESS OF FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL

       ACTIVITIES.

     --PUBLISH   RITERIA IDENTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF NOISE

       AND PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE LEVELS OF NOISE

       NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE.

     -- IDENTIFY MAJOR SOURCES OF NOISE AND PRESCRIBE AND

       AMEND STANDARDS LIMITING THE NOISE-GENERATING

       CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY PRODUCT OR CLASS OF PRODUCTS

       IDENTIFIED AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF NOISE.

     -- PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE PROBLEM OF

       AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE AND SUBMIT REGULATORY

       PROPOSALS TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

       FOR CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE.

     -- REQUIRE MANUFACTURERS TO LABEL PRODUCTS WHICH

        (1) EMIT NOISE CAPABLE OF ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE



                                3
       PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE, OR (2) ARE SOLD WHOLLY OR

       IN PART ON THE BASIS OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN

       REDUCING NOISE.

     -- CONDUCT AND FINANCE RESEARCH ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

       EFFECTS OF NOISE AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISIANCE

       TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON THE VARIOUb

       METHODS OF NOISE CONTROL.

     --PROMULGATE REGULATIONS LIMITING THE NOISE GENERATED

       FROM INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS AND T':TERSTATE MOTCR

       CARRIERS.

     THIS MORNING WE T"OULD   LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE FOLLOWING

PROBLEMS PRESENTED IN OUR REPORT.

     -- THE SLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT,

     -- INEFFECTIVE EFFORTS BY EPA TO COORDINATE THE NOISE

       RESEARCH AND CONTROL PROGRAMS,

     -- THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE NOISE

       ABATEMENT STRATEGY, AND

     --CONFLICTS IN RESOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT

       NOISE POLLUTION.


SLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE ACT

     UNDER THIS ACT, EPA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR (1) ISSUING NOISE

EMISSION STANDARDS   OR NEW PRODUCTS,   (2) ISSUING NOISE EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR RAILROADS AND INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS,    (3)

REQUIRING THE LABELING OF PRODUCTS THAN CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT




                                 4
THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND (4)   PROVIDING TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

     OUR REVIEW SHOWED THAT LITTLE HAS BELN ACCOMPLISHED

IN CARRYING OUT SOME OF THESE RESPONSIBILITIES.     WHERE ACTION

HAS BEEN TAKEN, THE IMPLEMENTATION HAS BEEN VERY SLOW.

     WITH REGARD TO NEW PRODUCTS, EPA HAS IDENTIFIED EIGHT

MAJOR SOURCES OF NOISE--PORTABLE AIR COMPRESSORS, M!EDIUM AND

HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, WHEEL AND TRACK LOArERS, WHEEL AND TRACK

DOZERS, TRUCK PEFRIGERATION UNITS, TRUCK-MOUNTED SOLID WASTE

COMPACTORS, MOTORCYCLES, AND BUSES.

     FT1'tAL REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ONLY TWO OF
THESE--PORTABLE AIR COMPRESSORS AND MEDIUM AND HEAVY DUTY

TRUCKS--AND THESE WERE ISSUED OVER ONE YEAR LATE AND WILL NOT

BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL 19t8.

     THE ACT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED EPA TO PUBLISH PROPOSED

NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR RAILROADS AND MOTOR CARRIERS

ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN NINE MONTHS AFTEIR THE

DATE OF ENACTMENT.   IN BOTH CASES, FINAL REGULATIONS WER      TO

EE ISSUED 90 DAYS AFTER PROPOSAL.     REGULATIONS FOR THESE 2

NOISE SOURCES WERE BOTH ISSUED LATE--12 MONTHS FOR MOTOR

CARRIERS AND OVER 2 YEARS FOR RAILROADS.     THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION IS NOT SEEKING PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS OF

TEE REGULATION CONTROLLING NOISE ON INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS

BECAUSE THE ACT PROVIDES FOR CRIMINAL PENALTIES RATHER THAN




                               5
CIVIL PENALTIES.      IN OUR REPORT WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE ACT

BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR CIVIL PENALTIES.

     THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN DOT AND

EPA REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NOISE REGULATION ON

INTERSTATE RAILROADS IN THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO RAILROAD

YARDS.   THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS FILED SUIT

ON ARIL 13, 1976, IN THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, REQUESTING A JUDICIAL REVIEW

VF THE RAILROAD REGULATION ON THE BASIS THAT IT DID NOT

ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR NATIONAL UNIFORM TREATMENT OF THE

P'AILROAD INDUSTRY.

     THE ACT PROVIDES THAT EPA REQUIRE ANY PRODUCT EMITTING

A NOISE CAPABLE OF HARMING THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE BE

"LAPBELt"   TO INDICATE ITS NOISE LEVEL.    EPA HAS ISSUED NO

FINAL REGULATIONS FOR LABELING ANY PRODUCTS AT THIS TIME.

THE LABELING PROGRAM HAS BEEN GIVEN A LOW PRIORITY AND HAS

RECEIVED MINIMUM RESOURCES.

     EPA IS ATHORIZED TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO FACILITATE THEIR DEVELOPMENT

AND ENFORCEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE NOISE STANDARDS.      SUCH

ASSISTANCE IS TO INCLUDE ADVICE ON TRAINING PERSONNEL,

SELECTING AND OPERATING NOISE ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT, AND

PREPARING MODEL NOISE LEGISLATION.      EPA HAS ALSO PLACED LOW

PRIORITY IN THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AREA.      HOWEVER, EPA

OFFICIALS HVE TOLD US THEY REALIZE THE BURDEN OF THE



                                  6
NATION'S NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS WILL EVENTUALLY FALL ON

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THAT ALTHOUGH THE OFFICE OF

NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL HAS NOT BEEN TOO EFFECTIVE IN

THIS   REA, GREATER EMPHASIS WILL BE PLACED ON TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.


EPA EFFORTS TO COORDINATE THE NOISE
RESEARCH AND CONTROL PROGRAMS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE

       DUE TO THE WIDE DIVERGENCE OF NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS

WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOViRNMENT--THERE ARE 11 AGENCIES WITH

SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE CONTROL--THE CONGRESS

RECOGNIZED THE URGENT NEED FOR A COORDINATED EFFORT TO

CONTROL A'D ABATE NOISE POLLUTION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE

PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE.    ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE 1972 ACT
                                                         THE
EPA WAS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR COORDINATING

NOISE RESEARCH AND CONTROL PROGRAMS OF ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES.

THESE 11 AGENCIES EXPENDED ABOUT $170 MILLION FOR NOISE

RESEARCH FROM FISCAL YEAR 1973 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1975.

       OUR REVIEW OF EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COORDINATION

ASPECT OF THE ACT HAS SHOWN THAT EPA HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE

 IN PROMOTING COORDINATION.   IN FACT, OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH

 OFFICIALS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED IN NOISE

 CONTROL PROGRAMS INDICATE A FEELING OF HOSTILITY HAS EXISTED

 TOWARDS EPA.   THE MAJORITY OF AGENCIES CONTACTED TOLD US THAT

 COORDINATION OF THE FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM HAS NOT

 BEEN EFFECTIVE SINCE EPA ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY.

                                 7
     TO DISCHARGE ITS LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO COORDINATE

FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRAT'ON

ACTIVITIES, EPA ESTABLISHED FOUR INTERAGENCY NOISE RESEARCH

PANELS IN FEBRUARY 1974.     IN ADDITTON TO EXCHANGING INFORM'.TION,

THE ?ANELS WERE TO    (1) REVIEW AND ASSESS THE CURRENT STATE OF

TECHNOLOGY,   (2) REVIEW AND ASSESS THE STATUS OF RESEARCH AND

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT,     (3) PREPARE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING

ONGOING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES,     (4) RECOMMEND NOISE RESEARCH

PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS AND METHODS FOR THEIR ACCOMPLISHI1EN'T,

(5) PREPARE REPORTS ON THE STATUS AND/OR PROGRESS O      ONCOING

NOISE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, AND (6) CONSIDER SCIENTIFIC AND

PROGRAMATIC ADVICE FROM OTHER SOURCES.

     THE FOUR RESEARCH PANELS ESTABLISHED WERE AIRCRAFT,

MACHINERY, NOISE EFFECTS, AND SURFACE VEHICLES.      EPA DESIG-

NATED ITSELF A   CHAIRMAN OF EACH OF THE PANELS AND MEMBERSHIP

OF THE PANELS CONSISTED OF THE VARIOUS FEDERAL AGENCIES

INVOLVED.

     EPA HAS STATED THAT THESE FOUR PANELS ARE THE MECHANISM

IT USES TO COORDINATE THE NOISE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES OF THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.    HOWEVER, EPA OFFICIALS AND OFFICIALS

FROM THE OTHER AGENCIES ON THE PANELS TOLD US THE PNELS HAVE

NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE.    IN      , THE PANELS FIRST MET IN EARLY

1974 AND THEN WERE INACTIv     FOR OVER TWO YEARS.   THE PANELS

WERE REACTIVATED IN THE LATTER PART OF 1976.




                                 8
     IN JUNE 1975 EPA TSSUED ITS REPORT ON THE STATUS AND

PROGRESS OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES ON NOISE RESEARCH AND NOISE

CONTROL, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT.   THE REPORT, ACCORDING TO

EPA AND OTHER AGENCY OFFICIALS, DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ASSESS THE CONTRI-

BUTIONS OF THOSE PROGRAMS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERlMENT'S OVERALL

EFFCRTS TO CONTROL NOISE.   OFFICIALS IN THE OFICE OF NOISE

ABATEMENT   ND CONTROL TOLD US THE I.EPORT IS ESSENTIALLY AN

INVENTORY OR LIBRARY OF INFCRMATION, AND THEREFORE DO'S

NO   CONSTITUTE AN ASSESSMENT, AS CLLED FOR IN THE ACT.

EPA OFFICIALS TOLD US, HOWEVER, THAT THEY PLAN TO UPDATE

THE STATUS REPORT AND INCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT CALLED FOR

IN THE ACT.

      IN COMMENTING ON OUR REPORT DOT STATED THAT THE NOISE

RESEARCH BUDGET FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS

DECREASED SINCE ENACTMENT OF THE NOISE ACT BECAUSE OTHER

AGENCIES HAVE LOOKED TO EPA FOR LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE.


NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE
NOISE ABATEMENT STRATEGY

      TWO MONTHS AFTER THE NOISE ACT WAS PASSED EPA PREPARED

A STRATEGY STUDY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT.    THIS   OCU-

MENT PLACED PRIMARY EMPHASIS ON DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR DTE

CONTROL OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES IN THE SURFACE TRANSPORTA7O9N

AND CONSTRUCTION AREAS, PRODUCING THOSE DOCUMENTS WITH

5MANDATORY DEADLINES, PRODUCING AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT PROPOSALS



                               9
FOR SUBMISSION TO FAA, AND PUBLISHING THE INTERSTATE

CARRIER REGULATION.   AREAS SUCH AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE,

FEDERAL PROGRAM COORDINATION, AND LABELING WERE GIVEN

LOvJER PRIORITY IN THE NEAR TERM.

     EAhLY IN 1974 EPA OFFICIALS RECOGNIZED THAT THE

ORIGINAL STRATEGY STUDY NELDED TO BE UPDATED AND A REVISED

STRATEGY WAS PEPARED IN JULY 1974.     HOWEVER, EPA OFFICIALS

HAVE TOLD US IT WAS NOT AS COMPREHENSIVE AS IT SHOULD HAVE

BEEN, AND THEREFORE WS NEVER APPROVED BY THE EPA ADMINI-

STR.TOR.   ALTHOUGH EPA RECOGNIZED TE NEED FOR A MORE

COMPREHENSIVE NOISE ABATEMENT STRATEGY, NONE HAS DEEN

FINALIZED AT THIS TIME.

     IN OUR REPORT WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR,

EPA, DIRECT THAT AN OVERALL STRATEGY FOR THE NOISE CONTROL

PROGRAM BE PREPARED SO THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE

CONTROL ACT ARE IMPLEMENTED IN A BALANCED COORDINATED

MANNER.

     IN COMMENTING ON OUR REPORT, EPA INFORMED US THAT A

DRAFT STRATEGY HAD BEEN CIRCULATED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN

NOVEMBER 1976 AND THAT TIIE STRATEGY WILL BE REDRAFTED IN

THE SPRING OF 1977.

     WE BELIEVE THE OVERALL NOISE PROGRAM DRAFT STRATEGY

THAT HAS BEEN DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED FOR COMMENT IS A GOOD

FIRST EFFORT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED, NATIONAL

EFFORT TO REDUCE NOISE POLLUTION.    THiS STRATEGY SHOULD BE



                             10
FINALIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THE PROVISIONS IN THE

1972 ACT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED EFFECTIVELY.


CONFLICTS I RESOLVING THE
PROBLEMS OfT AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE

       FEDERALLY SPONiSuRED RESEARCH AIMED AT REDUCING THE

LEVELS OF AIRCRAFT NO'SE BEGAN ABOUT 1946 WHEN THE NATIONAL

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS INITIATED A RESEARCH

PROJECT INVESTIGATING NOISE EMITTED FROM LIGHT AIRPLANES.

SINCE THAT TIME MANY FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE CONDUCTED

INVESTIGATIONS ON THE CONTINUING AND GROWING PROBLEMS OF

AIRC:AFT NOISE.

       IN 1968 THE CONGRESS PASSED PUBLIC LAW 90-411 THAT

ADDED TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958 A NEW SECTION

ENTITLED "CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND

SONIC BOOM."     THIS LAW GAVE   AA THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR

 " . . PR2SENT AND FUTURE RELIEF AND PROTECTION TO THE

PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE FOM AIRCRAFT NOISE AND SONIC

BOOM   . . ." CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY, ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS,

AND TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICABILITY.     THE NOISE CONTROL ACT

EXTENDED THE POVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 90-411 AND FURTHER

DEFINED THE POLICY OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT REGARDING AIRCRAFT

NOISE CONTROL.

       ALTHOUGH AVIATION REGULATORY AUTHORITY RESTS WITH THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, UNDER THE ACT THE ENVIRON-

MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IS MANDATED TO PLAY A SIGNIFICANT



                                 11
ROLE IN THE AVIATION REGULATORY PROCESS.    THE ACT REQUIRED

EPA TO STUDY THE ADEQUACY OF FAA FLIGHT AND OPERATIONAL

NOISE CONTROLS; THE ADEQUACY OF PRESENT AIRCRAFT NOISE

EMISSION STANDARDS;   THE IMPLICATIONS OF ACHIEVING LEVELS

OF CUMU NATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE AROUND AIRPORTS; ADDITIONAL

MEASURES AVAILABLE TO AIRPORT OPERATORS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

TO CONTROL NOISE; AND SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATIONS

TO FAA WHICH EPA DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

HEALTH AND WELFARE.

       FAA IS REQUIRED TO PUBLISH THE EPA PROPOSED REGULATIONS

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER WITFIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT FROM

EPA.   WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER, FAA IS REQUIRED TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE

PROPOSAL.    AFTER THE HEARINGS THE ACT STATES THAT FAA MUST

ADOPT, REJECT, OR MODIFY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WITHIN A

REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

       IT IS CLEAR THAT A COORDINATED JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN THE

TWO AGENCIES IS NECESSARY IF ANY PROGRESS IS TO BE MADE IN

ABATING AIRCRAFT NOISE.    HOWEVER, NEITHER THE FAA NOR THE

EPA FEEL THE OTHER IS EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING THE AIRCRAFT

NOISE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.    FAA FEELS THE EPA PROPOSED

RECOMMENDATIONS CENTER TOO MUCH O    SAFETY-RELATED PROBLEMS,

AND DO NOT ADEQUATELY COVER THE HEALTH AND WELFARE ASPECTS

OF NOISE.    EPA OFFICIALS ON THE OTHER HAND, TOLD US THEY

HAVE BEEN DISSATISFIED WITH THE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS OF FAA.



                               12
IN ADDITION, EPA BELIEVES THAT THE AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM

IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WHEN THE ACT WAS PA.SED AND

THEY SEE LITTLE PROGRESS BEINC MADE DURING THE NEXT FEW

YEARS.

     IN AUGUST 1973, EPA ISSUED A REPORT TO THE SENATE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ENTITLED "REPORT ON AIRCRAFT-

AIRPORT NOISE."     SOME OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS NOTED EY

EPA WERE:

     --A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR AIRCRAFT/

         AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT IS NEEDED TO INSURE THAT

         THE NOISE CONTROL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THF

         AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS AND OPERATORS, THE AIRPORT

         OPERATORS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER PUBLIC

         AUHORITIES ARE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

         HEALTH AND WELFARE.

     -- ONLY ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF APPROXIMATELY 2000

         EXISTING U.S. AIRCRAFT MEET THE NOISE LEVELS

         ESTABLISHED FOR CERTIFICATION OF NEW AIRCRAFT

         DESIGNS.

     -- A NUMBER OF NOISE ABATEMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES ARE

         CURRENTLY IN USE IN SCATTERED PARTS OF THE AIR

         TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.    IF IMPLEMENTED AT ADDITIONAL

         AIRPORTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE, USE OF THESE PROCEDURES

         WOULD PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOISE RELIEF.




                                  13
     -- THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO ACHIEVE

       MAXIMUM NOISE CONTROL IS IN THE DESIGN AND

       DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.    CONSEQUENTLY,

       NOISE ABATEMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MUST

       CONTINUE TO BE ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO INSURE THAT

       THESE NEW AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS EVOLVE WITH THE CAPABILITY

       FOR SUBSTANTIALLY LESS NOISE IMPACT THAN EXISTS FOR

       CURRENT AIRCRAFT.


     EPA ALSO CONCLUDED IN THIS REPORT THAT:

     -- THERE IS A NEED TO MOBILIZE AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND

       TECHNOLOGY TO DEAL WITH THE AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM

       IN A COORDINATED TIME-PHASED FASHION.

     -- IF PROTECTIVE NOISE LEVELS ARE TO bE ACHIEVED, IT WILL

       BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A FEDERAL REGULATORY PROGRAM

       WHICH EFFECTIVELY COMBINES FEDERAL CONTROLS ON

       AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PROCEDURES, TECHNOLOGY, AND NOISE

       CONTROL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO AIRPORT OPERATORS.


     DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 6, 1974, TO OCTOBER 22,

1976, EPA SUBMITTED 11 PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO FAA.     THESE

DEALT WITH PROPELLER-DRIVEN SMALL AIRPLANES, MINIMUM ALTITUDES,

RETROFIT, FLEET NOISE LEVELS, FUTURE SUPERSONIC CIVIL AIRCRAFT,

MINIMUM FLAPS LANDING APPROACH, 2-SEGMENT VISUAL APPROACH

FLIGHT RULES, 2-SEGMENT INSTRUMENT APPROACH FLIGHT RULES,

PRESENT SUPERSONIC CIVIL AIRCRAFT, NOISE LEVELS FOR TURBOJET



                             14
AND LARGE PROPELLER-DRIVEN AIRPLANES, AND THE AIRPORT

REGULATORY PROCESS.

     AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT, FAA PUBLISHED ALL OF THE

PROPOSED REGULATIONS IN THE FEDERAL RFGISTER AND HELD

HEARINGS ON EACH WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME.

     AT THE TIME WE SUBMITTED OUR REPORT TO DOT FOR COMMENT

FAA HAD NOT TAKEN FINAL ACTION ON ANY OF THE EPA PROPOSALS.

SINCE THEN, HOWEVER, ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON 7 OF     HE 11

PROPOSALS.    IT ADOPTED THE PROPOSED MINIMUM FLAPS APPROACH,

AND PORTIONS OF THE PROPELLER-DRIVEN SMALL AIRPLANES AND

THE RETROFIT PROPOSALS.   FAA HAS DECIDED NO" TO ISSUE FOUR

OF THE PROPOSALS AND NO FURTHER ACTION HAS YET BEEN TAKEN

ON THE REMAINING FOUR.

     ALTHOUGH FAA IS REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO ADOPT, MODIFY,

OR REJECT EPA'S PROPOSED REGULATIONS WITHIN A REASONABLE

TIMF, IT HAS TAKEN FAA TWO TO THREE YEARS TO TAKE SUCH

ACTION.   THEREFORE, WE RECOMMENDED IN OUR REPORT THAT THE

ACT BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT FAA ACCEPT, MODIFY, OR

REJECT EPA PROPOSED REGULATIONS WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME

AND IF MODIFIED OR REJECTED THE REASONS FOR SUCH ACTIONS BE

MADE KNOWN.

     IN DISCUSSING THE JOINT EFFORTS TO CONTROL AIRCRAFT

NOISE, FAA OFFICIALS INDICATED THAT EPA IS NOT COMPLYING

WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE    CT.   FAA OFFICIALS TOLD

US THE EPA PROPOSALS DWELL TOO MUCH ON SAFETY-RELATED



                               15
PROBLEMS, WHEREAS FAA FEEL, IT IS THE ONLY AGENCY QUALIFIED

TO DETERMINE THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE REGULATIONS.

IN ADDITION, FAA DOES NOT BELIEVE THF EPA-PROPOSED REGULA-

TIONS ADEQUATELY COVER HEALTH AND WELFARE ASPECTS.   IN

COMMENTING ON OUR REPORT, EPA SAID IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE

TO PROPOSE REGULATIONS TO FAA WITHOUT CONSIDERTNG SAFETY,

AND ADDED THAT EXTENSIVE HEALTH AND WELFARE JUSTIFICATIONS

HAD BEEN INCLUDED.


LACK OF COORDINATION

     OUR ANALYSIS OF COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES

SHOWED THAT SERIOUS PROBLEMS HAVE HINDERED THE DEVELOPMENT

OF AVIATION NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS.   AN EXAMPLE OF THE

LACK OF COORDINATION CONCERNS THE EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AN

AIRPORT NOISE REGULATION.

     IN JULY 1975, FAA PUBLISHED A SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC

COMMENT ON POTENTIAL DIRECTIONS FOR AN FAA AIRPORT NOISE

POLICY IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.    EPA OFFICIALS TOLD US THEY

WERE NOT AWARE THAT FAA WAS GOING TO PUBLISH THIS NOTICE

AND PROVIDED US A JULY 11, 1975, LETTER TO THE EPA ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT FROM EPA'S DEPUTY

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS, CONCERNING

THE LACK OF COORDINATION WITH FAA REGARDING THIS NOTICE.      A

SECTION OF ONE PARAGRAPH SUMMARIZED THE FEELING OF THE

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR.    IT STATED:




                              16
    "I CAN ONLY VIEW THIS NOTICE (FAA'S AIRPORT PROPOSAL)

    WITH NO PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH EPA, AS BEING ONE

    MORE INDICATION THAT THE FAA HAS NO INTENTION OF

    COOPERATING AND COORDINATING WITH EPA ON ACTIONS

    RELATIVE TO AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT.    IN FACT,

    THE FAA ACTION, UNILATERAL AND NOT IN CONCERT WITH

    EPA, COULD BE VIEWED AS BEING AN EFFORT ON THE FAA'S

    PART TO BUILD A POSITION TO COUNTER EPA'S PROPOSAL."


    ALTHOUGH RECENT CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES SOME IMPROVEMENT

IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES IN DEALING WITH

THE AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM, EPA'S RESPONSE TO OUR REPORT

INDICATES THAT THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS.    THERE IS AN OBVIOUS

FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE OF PHILOSOPHY ON HOW BEST TO CONTROL

AIRCRAFT NOISE AND WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN HAVE BEEN

EFFECTIVE.   WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT UNTIL THESE FUNDAMENTAL

POLICY DIFFERENCES ARE SETTLED, PROGRESS IN THE AVIATION

NOISE AREA IS NOT LIKELY TO OCCUR.



     MR. CHAIRMAN, IN SPITE OF ALL THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE

DISCUSSED CONCERNING THE SLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE

CONTROL ACT AND THE LACK OF COORDINATION, lWE BELIEVE IT IS

IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT

IN ADDRESSING THE NOISE POLLUTION PROBLEM.    FOR EXAMPLE:




                              17
    -- THE NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS ON INTERSTATE MOTOR

      CARRIERS AND RAIL CARRIERS WILL IMPOSE LIMITS ON

      THE PRLVIOUSLY UNCONTROLLED GROWTH OF THESE NOISE

      SOURCES UNTIL NEW PRODUCT NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS

      CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE.

    -- RESEARCH EFFORTS HAVE RESULTED IN IDENTIFYING THE

      KIND AND EXTENT OF EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE PUBLIC

      HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND PROVIDED THE FRAMEWORK FOR

      ASSESSING, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE NATIONAL IMPACT

      OF NOISE FROM VARIOUS TYPES OF PRODUCTS.

    ---EPA'S 1973 "REPORT ON AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE,"

      MENTIONED EARLIER, IDENTIFIED MAJOR ACTIONS WHICH

      EPA FELT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE TO

      HELP SOLVE THE AVIATION NOISE PROBLEM.     SUBSEQUENTLY

      THE EPA DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED 11 AIRCRAFT NOISE

      ABATEMENT PROPOSALS TO THE FAA.

    -- A MODEL STATE ORDINANCE AND A MODEL COMMUNITY

       ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PREPARED WHICH WILL BE USEFUL IN

       THE DEVELOPMENT OF NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCES OR

       LEGISLATION SUITED TO STATE OR LOCAL NEEDS AND

       CONDITIONS.


     MR. CHAIRMAN,   THIS CONCLUDES MY PREPARED STATEMENT.

WE SHALL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU OR MEMBERS

OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MAY HAVE.




                                18