stringent provisions being written into the federal law. Eventually, the Washington state congressional delegation 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 which might be able to negotiate a local or regional noise abatement agreement which 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. Such 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 and airports 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 the role of the FAA, which is seen, as are so many regulatory agencies, as more of a functionary for the industry they are intended to regulate, than as an executor of public policy. The airlines, of course, oppose any restrictions on aircraft noise levels, and, thus, will not be happy with any noise abatement law (George, 1990, p. 56).
The federal noise abatement legislation applicable to airport operation is a type of environmental legislation. The law is partially related to the issue of environmental health, because some people have linked high levels of noise to some physical and metal health concerns, and the law ...