batement plan for Sea-Tac. This plan provides for much quicker attainment of noise reduction goals than that provided for in the federal legislation, as well as lower permissible noise levels.
FAA headquarters objected to the Sea-Tac plan because it was stricter than the proposed national guidelines. Congress, when it was considering noise abatement legislation in November 1990, at first attempted to scuttle the Sea-Tac agreement at the behest of the airlines and the FAA who preferred the less stringent provisions being written into the federal law. Eventually, the congressional delegation from the State of Washington was successful in getting the Sea-Tac agreement exempted from the federal law; however, Congress balked at providing such an exemption to any other community that might be able to negotiate a local or regional noise abatement agreement that would be tougher than the federal law. This omission was unfortunate because it virtually eliminated the citizen group and local community participation in the planning process for the development of noise abatement procedures throughout the rest of the United States. Local community participation is vital if such procedures are ever going to gain public support. Without public support, Congress, the FAA, and the airlines will likely find themselves continually on the defensive over the noise abatement issue.
The federal noise abatement law for aircraft operating within the United States and for airports located within the country was supposed to reduce the noise associated with airport operation by a significant level, and to create peace between the airlines and the anti-noise groups in the country. Instead, the new law appears to have been more successful in creating a new battlefield for the airlines and their anti-noise opponents (Page, 1991, pp. 33-34). Neither side is happy with the new law, and one of the principal problems appears to be public perceptions over t...