Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515751
label
Aircraft Noise (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515751
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Aircraft Noise (6)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Aeronautics, Commercial
Aircraft
Noise
Regulatory reform
Speeches, addresses, etc.
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515751
coverageEndDate
day
18
logicalDate
1976-11-18
month
11
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
9
logicalDate
1976-09-09
month
9
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
6b5cea18d5e8f24b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Aircraft Noise (6)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 2 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Hope
INDEX
Subject
Page
I.
Introduction
1
II.
Summary of the Policy
5
A. Federal Action Plan
5
B. Air Carrier Action Plan
10
C. Local Actions
14
III.
Statement of the Problems
16
A. The Noise Problem
17
1. Technical Framework
17
2. How Noise Affects People
22
B. The Financial Problem
30
1. Ability of Airlines to Finance
Aircraft Replacement
30
2. Aerospace Industry
36
IV.
Legal Framework
40
A. Legal Responsibilities of the
Federal Government
40
B. Legal Responsibilities of State
and Local Governments
45
C. Legal Responsibilities of
Airport Proprietors
46
V.
The Program
52
A. Quieting the Air Carrier Fleet
52
1. Federal Regulation of Existing Aircraft
52
Cost
57
Cost Benefit Analysis
60
Time Frame
62
International Carriers
64
B. Financing Mechanism
65
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2
Subject
Page
C. Protecting the Airport Environment
68
1. The Airport Proprietor's
Responsibility
69
2. State and Local Government
Responsibility
71
3. Federal Support for Airport
Proprietor and Local Government
Noise Abatement Activities
73
4. FAA Review of Proprietory
Use Restrictions
82
D. Additional Federal Action
85
1. Source Regulation for Future
Aircraft
85
2. Aircraft Operating Procedures
86
3. Federal Research and Development
Technology
90
E. Private Sector Responsibility:
Carriers, Travelers, Airport
Neighbors
93
A003
AVIATION NOISE AND AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT POLICY
September 9, 1976
I. INTRODUCTION
Aircraft noise is a significant annoyance for six to seven million
Americans. The problem is particularly serious at some of the major
airports, such as those in New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta and
Chicago. It represents, moreover, a significant or potential problem
for residents living near many other airports across the nation, and as
air travel increases noise will become a serious problem at some of
these other airports as well.
The aircraft noise issue became increasingly important in the early 1960s
as airlines introduced jet aircraft to their fleets, and was soon magnified
by the rapidly increasing number of commercial operations in the latter
part of the decade. Because of its adverse effect on people, noise was
soon recognized as a major constraint on the further development of the
commercial aviation network, and action was taken to address it.
The engine manufacturers and the federal government both engaged in
extensive research into quieting jet engines. In 1968, Congress gave the
FAA the responsibility to regulate aircraft design and equipment for
noise reduction purposes, and the FAA then embarked upon a long-term
program of controlling aircraft noise at its source. A regulation
promulgated in 1969 set standards for turbojet aircraft of new design; a
1973 amendment extended the same standard to all new aircraft of older
design. The third step in the source noise control program, a regu-
lation requiring modification of jet aircraft already in the fleet, the
so-called "retrofit" rule, has been the subject of two major FAA rule+
making proposals, the latest being a notice of proposed rulemaking
GERALD ? FORD
2
published in 1974 and a similar EPA proposal published in 1975. The FAA
proposal came to fruition after considerable study and analysis in
January of this year, when the Federal Aviation Administrator submitted
a proposal and supporting materials to the Secretary of Transportation
for the consultation required under the Noise Control Act of 1972.
Intensive review of those proposals in the Department of Transportation,
with the support of the FAA, led to a far-ranging analysis of the aircraft
noise problem, alternative methods of dealing with it, and the economic
consequences of imposing a retrofit rule. The scope of the noise problem,
the interrelationship and special responsibilities of the many parties
concerned with it, and the general confusion and uncertainty prevalent
in the area have led us to conclude that the federal government needs to
address the overall noise problem in a more comprehensive way than
through simple promulgation of a new regulation. The result has been
the development of this policy statement, which is intended to analyze
the aircraft noise abatement problem and the several means of addressing
it, explain the legal framework within which it must be considered, and
delineate the shared responsibilities of those who must act to alleviate
it.
We do not start with a clean slate; while much work has already been done
in the area of aircraft noise, much remains to be accomplished. We also must
deal with an existing system with diverse elements and responsibilities. The
courts have established legal responsibilities for noise, and the Congress has
3
assigned the task of dealing with it to several agencies. The historical
development of a national air carrier and airport system, and the often
complex division of authority between the federal, state and local govern-
ments also limit and complicate the actions available to us. They all must
be taken into account in devising a strategy to abate aircraft noise.
Debate over noise regulation has been under way for a number of years
now; in addition to the technical facts of the matter, many ingrained
misunderstandings must be addressed and dealt with forthrightly in order
to assure that the public can understand what is and what is not achiev-
able by the cooperative efforts of governments and industry. Finally,
our efforts to abate noise must be consistent with broader national
economic, environmental, and transportation policies. There can be no
doubt, however, that aircraft noise must be abated. This policy state-
ment attempts to take all these factors into account in proposing a
coordinated approach to the problem.
As the federal officials principally concerned with aviation noise, it
is our duty to provide leadership in a national effort to reduce aircraft
noise. The aviation noise policy that follows represents our views about
what action should be taken. Within the constraints of technology,
productivity, and financing, it clarifies the responsibility of the federal
government to reduce aircraft noise at its source, to promote safe opera-
tional procedures that abate the impact of noise on populated areas and to
promote positive efforts to attain compatible land use in areas adjacent
to airports. It deals realistically with the time that will be required
4
to bring the current fleet of aircraft into compliance with noise level
standards that are now technologically attainable and with the financing
that will be required to make this possible. Several essential elements
of this policy will be presented to the Congress for enactment and we
will all benefit from the public discussion that accompanies that process.
We have also set forth what we believe to be the proper responsibilities of
the airport proprietors, air carriers and other aircraft operators, aeronautical
manufacturers, state and local governments, and the private citizen. The
full benefit of a proposed federal plan of action is contingent upon
complementary action by these other participants. Their capability to
plan and take action will be enhanced by a clearer understanding of what
the federal government intends to do.
As the federal government takes action to reduce cumulative noise exposure
by controlling the source of noise, so must local governments and airport
proprietors undertake consistent actions to acquire land and assure
compatible land use in the areas surrounding the airport in order to limit
severe noise exposure to areas within the airport boundaries and to mini-
mize the impact of noise beyond those boundaries.
As the federal government takes steps to reduce the source of aircraft
noise to levels that are "technologically practicable" and "economically
5
reasonable," vast responsibilities still rest with the airport proprietors,
airport users and local government, with, in some instances, Federal
financial support and advice. Those who anticipate a complete federal
solution to the aircraft noise problem will be disappointed. The primary
obligation to address the airport noise problem always has been and must
remain a local responsibility. As the aircraft source levels decrease,
this responsibility will be more manageable, and amenable to better
planning and control at the local level.
II. SUMMARY OF THE POLICY
At the heart of the policy are two major action plans, one for the
federal government and one for the air carrier industry, that with the
cooperation of the other parties can lead to substantial noise reductions
over the next eight to ten years. In summary, they are as follows:
A.
Federal Action Plan
1.
Source Noise Regulation
Currently Operating Aircraft
The Federal Aviation Administration will promulgate a rule requiring
that subsonic jet airplanes with maximum gross takeoff weight in
excess of 75,000 lbs. that do not meet the present Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 36 noise levels must be retired from the fleet in
accordance with the following schedule or modified ("retrofitted")
to meet those levels. Compliance deadlines for each aircraft type
have been established on the basis of what is technologically
practicable and economically reasonable.
6
747s within six years;
pure jets (720s, early DC-8s and 707s) within six years;
727s, 737s, DC-9s, BAC 1-11s within six years; and
other 707s, DC-8s, CV-990s within eight years.
One-third of the two- and three-engine aircraft (727, 737, DC-9,
BAC 1-11) will be exempt from the rule. These time periods will
start to run on the date of enactment of legislation necessary
to ensure adequate financing, as discussed below. If such legis-
lation is not enacted, additional time may be necessary to enable
aircraft owners to meet this requirement, but in any event full
compliance will be required by 1987.
The United States will work through the International Civil Aviation
Organization to reach agreement with other nations on means to abate
aircraft noise. If agreement is not reached in four years, aircraft
flown by carriers of other countries will be required to meet Part 36
noise levels at the end of six additional years. During the initial
four years, aircraft operated by foreign carriers and the proportion
of the fleets of U.S. air carriers that are used in international
service will be exempt from the noise regulations issued pursuant
to this statement.
7
Future Design Aircraft
The FAA will complete, by December 1, 1976, its consideration of new,
more stringent noise standards for new aircraft designs that reflect
recent advances in noise suppression technology and are technologically
practicable, economically reasonable, and appropriate for the par-
ticular type of aircraft. These regulations will be applicable to
all subsonic aircraft type certificated after the effective date of
the regulation. We expect that aircraft certificated prior to that
date would not be required to meet those standards at some later
date.
Supersonic Aircraft
Using information that is now available on a continuing basis from
the Concorde demonstration, the FAA will, within thirty days after
the conclusion of the sixteen month demonstration periods, act to
promulgate a noise rule applicable to supersonic aircraft that is
necessary to protect the public health and welfare and that is
consistent with the statutory requirement that the Administrator
consider technological practicability, economic reasonableness, and
approprateness to aircraft type.
2.
Operating Procedures
The FAA has nearly concluded the process of evaluating a number of
proposals for aircraft operating noise abatement procedures. These
1920 LIABARY
8
include minimum altitude rules, approach procedures and departure
procedures. At the conclusion of this analysis, the FAA will take
appropriate regulatory action that will maximize, through practical
procedures, the noise reduction benefits of new aircraft and retrofitted
aircraft, consistent with the highest degree of safety. FAA will
complete rulemaking on approach operating procedures within 3
months and on takeoff procedures within 9 months.
3.
Airport Development Aid Program
Under the new authority granted in the 1976 Amendments to the
Airport and Airway Development Act, the FAA will establish a high
priority for the allocation of discretionary Trust Funds for airport
land acquisition for compatible usage, the purchase of noise
suppressing equipment, the construction of physical barriers and
other noise reduction activities.
The Administration, in appropriate cases, will encourage the develop-
ment of new airports to replace some of the older airports in areas
with large populations adversely affected by noise. In new
airport development, federal financing will be conditional on
9
effective noise abatement planning and that all reasonable steps
are taken to assure that the use of land areas exposed to serious
levels of noise around airports is restricted to uses compatible with
airport operations projected for the foreseeable future. Federal
funding for airport expansion and improvement will require docum-
entation of measures that the proprietor is taking to reduce noise
impacts.
The Administration will request the Congress to amend further the
Airport and Airway Development Act to include among airport proprietor
activities eligible for federal-aid funding the acquisition, installa-
tion and operation of airport noise monitoring equipment. Use of
such equipment is vital to assist airport proprietors in quantifying
noise exposure, identifying specific airplanes and operators that
are major contributors to community noise, and developing programs
to reduce aircraft noise exposure.
4.
Airport Noise Policy
To promote further relief from excessive aircraft noise, the FAA is
today promulgating an Airport Noise Policy, designed to encourage
airport proprietors to develop aggressive noise abatement programs
for their airports, to assist them through federal air traffic
10
control actions in attaining their noise abatement goals, and to
advise them [on how their proposed plans affect the overall air trans-
portation system. The FAA will accept preliminary proposals from airport
sponsors for comprehensive noise abatement plans and will fund a select
number of innovative noise abatement model plans and demonstrations. In
addition, the FAA may request noise abatement plans from airport operators
both as a condition for major airport development grants and as justi-
fication for the imposition of use restrictions, such as curfews or
scheduling and equipment restrictions. The FAA will advise airport
operators whether proposed use restrictions present an undue burden on
interstate or foreign commerce, and in certain instances, seek
adjudication of the constitutional issues involved].
B.
Air Carrier Action Plan
1.
Aircraft Replacement
Under the federal rule described above, unless the older, noisier
four-engine jets using the JT3D and similar engines (707s, DC-8s,
CV-990s) are modified to meet Part 36 noise levels, they must be
retired from operation within eight years. Many of the four-engine
jets are old and relatively inefficient to operate. After weighing
the advantages of retrofit and replacement of these aircraft, we have
concluded that it is in the best public interest that most of these
aircraft be replaced by new airplanes because of the benefits
11
of reduced noise and pollution emission levels, energy efficiency,
advanced technologies, increased employment opportunities, the improved
competitive position of the American aerospace industry, and other
national objectives that replacement would serve. To enable the
carriers to replace these older noisier aircraft with the more efficient,
quieter types of the next generation, the Department proposes the following
financing mechanism that places no new financial burden on the flying
public.
The Congress will be asked to establish a new Aircraft Replacement
Fund under the control of the Secretary of Transportation. Financing
of this Fund would be accomplished by one or the other of following
options, whichever the Congress finds more desirable:
(1) For a ten year period, two percentage points of
both the present eight percent passenger ticket tax and the
present five percent cargo waybill tax will be deposited
in a new Aircraft Replacement Fund; or
(2) The CAB would be asked to authorize an across-
the-board, two percent surcharge on domestic and overseas
passenger tickets and freight waybills to be collected by
the carriers and subsequently deposited in the Aircraft Replace-
ment Fund. Concurrently, the present federal air passenger
ticket and freight waybill taxes would be reduced from eight
to six percent and from five to three percent, respectively.
Thus, regardless of which financing option is adopted, it is clear that
12
this program will not result in any increase in cost to the passenger
or shipper.
Each carrier would be accorded "entitlements" to the monies in the Fund
in proportion to its total system passenger and cargo revenue. The
entitlement formula (based on each U.S. carrier's total system revenue -
both domestic and international) would differ from the contribution formula
(based only on a ticket tax or surcharge on domestic flights
excluding international depending on the type financing chosen).
Because of the difference in the formula,
the American carriers with international routes will receive more than
they put into the fund. The reasons for the difference in formulas are
the impossibility of imposing the 2% surcharge on international flights
without an international agreement, the need for American carriers with
international routes to participate in the noise reduction program, and
the fact that the major U.S. flag carriers have a substantial number of
noisy aircraft and would be placed at a competitive disadvantage as
other U.S. carriers seek international routes. To base the entitlement
formula strictly on domestic and overseas revenue would deny the American
carriers with significant international route segments access with other
American carriers to the benefits of the proposed financing program.
Air carriers could apply to the Secretary ,certifying that their proposed
aircraft purchases were in direct furtherance of this Aviation Noise
and Aircraft Replacement Policy, and that conventional financing of at
least two thirds of the purchase price had been arranged. Upon receipt of this
certification, the Secretary would be authorized to make payment
13
from the Fund directly to the aircraft manufacturer of not more than
one-third the cost of replacement of aircraft that do not meet the Part 36
noise levels, provided that the purchase of new aircraft with these funds
does not result in any increase in capacity, that is, about
as many
seats will be retired as are added by the replacement aircraft purchased
with these funds. Moreover, purchasers of the replaced aircraft would
be put on notice that they may not be flown in the United States unless
they were modified to meet Part 36 standards.
Under either financing arrangement air fares would remain constant;
there will not be any increased cost to the consumer from the imposition
of the surcharge, and over the long term, the consumer will benefit from
the use of new technologies, with greater operating efficiencies and lower
fuel costs. In addition, payment of the costs of retrofitting two- and
three-engine aircraft, which have long useful lives remaining, will be
authorized from the Aircraft Replacement Fund, but carriers that do not
need to use their full entitlement for replacement of four-engine
aircraft will be encouraged to use it for replacement of two- and three-
engine aircraft in lieu of retrofitting them.
14
C.
Local Actions
While these two action plans will form the basis of our program,
substantial local action will be necessary to complement the noise
reduction actions of the federal government and air carriers. Since
a federal program would be significantly less effective without
commensurate local actions, we have delineated those actions local
authorities should take. For airport proprietors, there is a
separate Airport Noise Policy designed to encourage them to develop
agressive noise abatement programs for their airports.
The FAA will encourage airport proprietors to assess the noise
problem in surrounding communities and, where local authorities
determine that there is a significant problem, to develop an action
plan to reduce the impact of noise. That action plan should include
a program to provide maximum land use compatibility with airport
operations and consequent aircraft noise, both by the acquisition
of easements or other rights in the use of land or airspace and by
encouraging local governments to adopt and enforce zoning or other
land use controls.
In adidtion, state and local governments with jurisdiction over
property adjacent to airports must take action of their own, pre-
ferably in cooperation with local airport proprietor. State and
local governments are directly and uniquely responsible for
15
ensuring that land use planning and zoning, and land development
activities in areas surrounding airports attain the objective of
land use that is compatible with present and projected aircraft
noise exposure in the area. They should support airport land use
programs developed by airport proprietors, and regulate the
construction of buildings to ensure insultation from aircraft noise
and provide for insulation of public and residential buildings.
State and local governments also should require that appropriate
notice of airport noise exposure be provided to the purchasers of
real estate and to prospective residents in areas near airports
to ensure awareness of the nature of the airport environs.
16
III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS
Aircraft noise is a serious annoyance for many residents around airports
in the United States today. It is a local problem, varying substantially
among airport communities depending on the air service provided, the
type and frequency of operations, the airport design and geographical
arrangement, the mix of equipment and route patterns, the numbers of
people who live nearby and their reaction to aircraft noise, and the
general compatibility of land use in the surrounding areas. Aircraft
noise is also a national problem because a significant portion of the
American people are affected by it and because its source is regulated
by the federal government. That noise source is, of course, the indi-
vidual airplane which is certificated by the federal government for
use both nationally and internationally, and is flown throughout the
nation and to foreign countries over a complex interrelated network
of routes approved by the Civil Aeronautics Board and under safety
regulations promulgated by the FAA.
17
In determining what action can and should be taken at the federal and
local levels and in the private sector to reduce further the adverse
effect of excessive aircraft noise, it is essential to understand
fully the nature of this multidimensional problem. We will explain
first the technical framework for measuring the noise problem, how
it affects people and how they react to it, how many people are subjected
to excessive noise and where they live, and how actions to reduce
noise affect interstate commerce. Finally we will consider the
financial condition of the airlines and the impact of proposed actions
on the aerospace industry.
A.
The Noise Problem
1.
Technical Framework
Because people react differently, it is extremely difficult to
derive a simple mathematical formula that accurately represents
human reaction to noise annoyance. For example, it remains uncertain
how people in reacting to aircraft noise balance the number of
aircraft noise events against the noise levels of those individual
18
events. To help measure, quantify and understand the effect of
noise on people, there has been a proliferation of approaches,
the abbreviations of which threaten to challenge the supremacy of
the federal bureaucracy in this regard. Rational public discourse
is not greatly aided by the debate among psychoacoustic experts
expressed in terms of dB, dBA, dBD, PNL, EPNdB, EPNL, SEL, SENEL,
CNR, NEF, CNEL, ASDS, Ldn, and Leq. In explaining this decision,
we have relied primarily on the two most common measurements of
noise: noise generated by a single event (measured in EPNdB,
usually at the Part 36 measuring points) or cumulative noise
exposure (measured in Noise Exposure Forecast or NEF).
Human response to a single-event aircraft noise is best represented
for jet airplanes in terms of Effective Perceived Noise Level
in units of EPNdB. This unit of perceived noise takes into
account the actual sound energy received by a listener, the ear's
response to that sound energy, the added annoyance of any pure
tones or "screeches" in the noise, and the duration of the noise.
A key consideration in deciding how to abate aircraft noise is
the difference in noise level that is perceptible and meaningful
to the listener, both in terms of the single event and the
FORD LIBRARY
19
cumulative exposure. Most human beings cannot usually detect
differences between single events of aircraft noise of much less
than about 5 EPNdB. However, an increase of 10 EPNdB is perceived
as a doubling in the perceived loudness.
The Part 36 measuring points are locations from which the noise of
a particular aircraft is measured. They give the noise levels of
an aircraft at those points--one under the approach path, * one
under the takeoff path, ** and one to the side of the runway at the
point of maximum noise during takeoff. *** Although the Part 36
figures do not give an accurate picture of total noise impact at an
airport, they do provide a standardized method of measuring aircraft
noise for certification purposes and are very useful in indicating
the comparative noise levels of individual aircraft.
In general, if noise events, such as aircraft flyovers, are infrequent,
the peak noise level of the individual events will affect individual
*
One nautical mile from the runway threshold.
3.5 nautical miles from the start of the takeoff roll.
0.35 nautical miles to the side of the runway for four-engine
aircraft, 0.25 nautical miles for two- and three-engine
aircraft.
20
reactions to that noise. If the noise events are relatively
continuous or repetitive, the total noise "dose" or cumulative
noise exposure becomes a more important factor in people's reactions
to aircraft noise. NF provides a measure of the total aircraft-
generated noise energy received at locations near an airport during
a typical 24-hour period. The NEF value at a given point near an
airport is calculated by summing the noise energy received at that
point from all of the aircraft operating into and out of that
airport during a day, with an added penalty for nighttime noise.
Points of equal NEF value are then joined to form contours of equal
noise exposure. Calculation of these values requires knowledge of
the number and type of aircraft operating, the noise characteristics
of each aircraft, the flight paths they follow, the time of day
they fly, and the manner in which they are operated (for example,
power settings during takeoff and landing).
The NEF procedure has been developed over the last decade for land-
use planning around airports as the number of jet aircraft has
increased and their noise has become more of an annoyance. The NEF
descriptor is particularly meaningful in measuring the overall
impact that residents around busy airports might experience from
the mix of equipment, time of day, and frequency of flights serving
FORD is 078870 LIBRARY
21
a particular airport. Research into human reaction to aircraft
noise has indicated that a cumulative noise exposure is the most
useful measure of public reaction to aircraft noise.
Using the NEF concept of community reaction to aircraft noise
exposure, the following interpretations of NEF values are often used:*
Less than NEF 30
Essentially no complaints expected; noise
may interfere with community activities.
NEF 30 to NEF 40
Individuals may complain; group action
possible.
Greater than NEF 40
Repeated vigorous complaints expected;
group action probable.
Expressed in NEF, a decrease of one NEF unit is equivalent to a
reduction of 2 percent in the number of people highly annoyed and
equal to a reduction of about 14 percent in the area exposed. ** A
difference in noise level below 5 EPNdB may not be significant as
a single event, but if there are frequent occurrences the cumulative
effect of that difference may be substantial, and the change in NEF
value would reflect this.
*
The Environmental Protection Agency has recommended that
cumulative noise exposure be expressed by a measure called
Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn). The equivalent values are:
NEF 30 = Ldn 65; NEF 40 = Ldn 75
The relationship between NEF reduction and land area reduction
is logarithmic - i.e., a 50 percent reduction in land area is
approximately equivalent to a 4.5 NEF unit reduction, while a
25 percent reduction in land area is approximately equal to a
2.0 NEF unit reduction.
22
The NEF method has been adopted by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. It will not guarantee mortgages on properties
within NEF 40 and normally considers properties within NEF 30 unacceptable.
2.
How Noise Affects People
Aircraft noise disturbs the normal activities of airport neighbors -
their conversation, sleep, and relaxation - and lowers their quality
of life. Depending on the use of land contiguous to an airport,
noise may also affect education, health services, and other public
activities. Although there may be indirect and subtle social and
psychological harms, aircraft noise is predominantly an annoyance.
It does not present any direct physical health danger to the vast
majority of people.
Approximately six million U.S. citizens currently reside on 900,000
acres of land exposed to levels of aircraft noise that create a
significant annoyance for most residents.* Of this number, approxi-
mately 600,000 citizens reside within areas that are severely
impacted by aircraft noise, that is, areas in excess of NEF 40. **
*
Over NEF 30.
**
The 1973 Annual Housing Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, indicated
that of those surveyed:
20.2% experienced noise from airplane activity in the vicinity of
their home. Of those experiencing noise - 34.2% considered the
noise to be disturbing, harmful or dangerous; 6.3% felt airplane
noise to be so objectional that the household would like to move
from the neighborhood.
23
There is wide diversity in community response to aircraft noise,
and individuals' subjective reactions vary substantially. These
differences can be detected by reviewing the noise problem surrounding
specific airports, taking into consideration the number and kind of
local complaints about noise, the political pressures on the airport
operator to take unilateral action to restrict the use of the airport,
and the environmental and social context - climate, lifestyles,
community concern - in which noise is perceived.
In some communities, people's reaction to aircraft noise is increas-
ingly being expressed in the courtroom where homeowners are receiving
awards for nuisance and for diminution of property value (inverse
condemnation). Over the past five years, airport operators have
paid out over $25,000,000 in legal judgments or settlements in noise-
related suits and have spent over $3,000,000 in legal fees, expert
testimony and similar defense efforts.
The absence of lawsuits in some severely impacted areas and the
recent occurrence of the most significant court precedents cause
some observers to consider the pending suits to be merely the
tip of the iceberg, with substantial potential liabilities yet
untapped. Others consider the concentration of lawsuits in
certain areas to be an indication of the diversity in community
response to aircraft noise, concluding that noise is not perceived
to be a substantial problem around many airports.
24
Partly as a reaction to such lawsuits, some airport proprietors
have acquired substantial residential areas near their boundaries.
The largest such programs have been undertaken by Seattle-Tacoma
International and Los Angeles International Airports. Los Angeles
alone has already spent over $130 million to purchase private
residences and plans to spend $21 million on soundproofing schools
and other public buildings near the airport.
Because the magnitude of the noise problem at any particular air-
port is a function of many factors, there is not any single criterion
that defines a "noisy" airport. Depending on which criteria are
used, the number of airports that are categorized as: "noisy",
"noise sensitive", "noise problem", or "impacted by excessive
noise" will vary. For example, the Air Transport Association (ATA)
has identified 26 airports as "noise sensitive." On the other
hand, the Airport Operators Council International has indicated
that all airports receiving jet air carrier service now are, or
soon will be "noise impacted." By any definition, however, it is
clear that an acute noise problem exists at some airports located
in metropolitan areas, including New York, Boston, Los Angeles,
Atlanta, Miami, San Diego, Chicago, San Francisco, Cleveland,
Seattle and Buffalo.
25
Based on an analysis of complaints, the imposition of use restrictions
and the number of people affected, the FAA has identified 100 airports
where noise is a problem. A 1974 DOT study of 23 major U.S. airports
identified eight airports that have neighboring populations of over
25,000 within the NEF 40 contour (extremely serious problem),
and 13 airports with at least 100,000 within the NEF 30 contours
(considerable annoyance). * For the 23 airports surveyed, five
million people live within NEF 30 and a half a million within NEF
40. Clearly the vast majority of people exposed to serious levels
of noise live near the major metropolitan airports. ** The chart
below tabulates the number of people exposed to serious aircraft
noise within the NEF 30 and 40 contours around the 23 airports
included in DOT's study. The asterisks indicate airports that are
also on the ATA's most sensitive list.
*
These airports, in the order of the number of people affected,
are: LaGuardia, O'Hare, Kennedy, Newark, Boston, Los Angeles,
Miami, Denver, Cleveland, San Francisco, Seattle, Buffalo, and
St. Louis.
"Airport Noise Reduction Forecast", Report DOT-TST-75-3,
October 1974.
Other airports on the current ATA list but not included in the
study are: Detroit, Honolulu, Memphis, Las Vegas, Tampa,
Baltimore, Ft. Lauderdale, San Juan, Salt Lake City, Oakland,
Louisville, San Jose, Albuquerque, Ontario, and Palm Springs.
26
1972
Number of People **
(1000)
Court-
Restric-
Airport
NEF 30
NEF 40
suits
tions
1.
*Atlanta
99.8
27.0
Yes
2.
*Boston
431.3
32
Yes
3.
*Buffalo
113.8
9.7
4.
Chicago-Midway
38.5
1.8
5.
*Chicago-O'Hare
771.7
66.6
6.
Cleveland
128.7
11.2
7.
*Denver
180.3
28.3
8.
Dulles
3.5
0
9.
*J.F. Kennedy
507.3
111.5
10.
*LaGuardia
1057.0
17.1
11.
*Los Angeles
292.4
51.1
Yes
12.
*Miami
260.0
29.7
Yes
13.
*Minneapolis-St. Paul
96.7
8.8
Yes
Yes
14.
*Newark
431.9
27.5
15.
New Orleans
32.5
8.9
Yes
16.
Philadelphia
76.9
0.3
17.
*Phoenix
20.5
6.2
18.
Portland
1.2
0.3
Yes
Yes
19.
*San Diego
77.3
24.0
Yes
20.
*San Francisco
124.1
11.4
21.
*Seattle
123.2
17.3
Yes
Yes
22.
St. Louis
100.0
8.5
Yes
23.
*Washington National
24.4
2.0
Yes
Yes
TOTAL
5.0M
0.5M
All other airports
1.1M
.1M
GRAND TOTAL
6.1M
0.6M
*
Identified by Air Transport Association as being "noise sensitive"
**
Estimated from 1970 Census data
27
In response to public opposition to noise, some airports have
imposed or are considering various use restrictions. * Such
measures as curfews, restrictions on the use of certain equipment,
and limitations on operations may have a substantial effect on
interstate commerce and on the air navigation system.
*
Major examples of completed or proposed actions by airport owners
to reduce noise levels by restricting the use of the airport are:
Night Time Operating Restrictions - Lindbergh Field in
San Diego, California, Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Washington
National
Total Jet Ban - Santa Monica Municipal Airport, California;
Watertown Municipal Airport, Wisconsin
Exclude non-Part 36 Jet Aircraft - Los Angeles International,
Logan International, Boston
Limit Number of Aircraft Operations - Stewart Airport, N.Y.
Exclude Particular Types of Aircraft - Los Angeles International
and Logan International have prohibited SSTs, JFK
International is considering a similar ban
Limit number of nighttime operations - Minneapolis-St. Paul
Operational Noise Limits - JFK International
Displaced Threshold - Logan International and many others
Noise Preferential Runways - Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, San Juan,
Boston-Logan, Hartford-Bradley, O'Hare, Midway, Cleveland
Hopkins, Detroit-Wayne County, Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Moisant-New Orleans, Denver, Pittsburgh, LaGuardia,
Newark, Los Angeles, San Francisco and others.
In some of the above cases, the restrictions have been developed
voluntarily through operator/users agreements, while in others
they have been imposed unilaterally by the airport proprietor.
28
Although complete curfews would eliminate the noise problem at night,
they would also increase the problem during daytime hours, to which
night traffic would be shifted. Moreover, curfews at the large,
medium and small hubs could have very serious effects. At New York
City, for example:
Air cargo shipments by weight remain at a relatively
constant level for 24 hours at Newark and Kennedy.
Accordingly, restrictions on night operations would
severely disrupt freight shipment and handling. During
May 1974, 37 percent of the total New York air cargo was
transported between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. local time. With
a nationwide curfew applying to the same time period, the
impact would extend to the hours during which 49 percent
of the New York cargo moves.
A curfew's impact on mail shipments would also be significant.
The movement of mail between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. at New York
amounted to 23 percent of the daily air transported mail for
the sample studied. A nationwide curfew would curtail flights
for the hours in which 35 percent of the New York mail moves.
Passenger movements that would be affected by a New York and
nationwide curfew cited above amounted to 5 percent and 13
percent, respectively, of the daily total. Much of the night
passenger travel makes use of the reduced night coach fare
structure.
29
To adjust to curfews, a substantial number of operations might
have to be shifted to earlier hours, which could result in
congestion and delays. In addition, airlines would require more
aircraft, more expensively operated, to overcome positioning
problems if even one or two major hubs were curfewed. Time zone
differences would cause additional scheduling problems. A curfew
at O'Hare, for example, would cause a major restructuring of most
of the domestic system.
Unless federal action is initiated, the problem of airport noise
will remain, and with increasing operations, will be exacerbated.
At the end of 1975, only 494 of the 2,148 jet airplanes in the
United States air carrier fleet, about 23 percent, complied with
the noise standards of Part 36. Of those 1,654 aircraft in the
fleet that do not meet Part 36 noise levels, 523 or 30 percent
are the noisiest, four-engine models (Boeing 707s and 720s,
Douglas DC-8s). Assuming normal attrition, the FAA projects
that in 1990 48 percent of the air carrier fleet still will not
meet Part 36.*
*
The aircraft currently operating that do not meet Part 36,
and an FAA projection of the non-Part 36 aircraft that
will remain in commercial service in 1984 are set forth
on page 58.
30
There has been definite progress to date in aviation noise control
technology and its application as a result of the efforts and actions
of the federal government. Since 1970, there has been a reduction
in cumulative aircraft noise exposure around airports due in part
to the introduction of new, quieter jet aircraft and in part to the
slowed rate of increase in passenger growth. But because of airport
capacity and forecasted aviation growth the airport noise problem
is expected to increase in the future despite the introduction of
quieter aircraft. Between 1975 and 1990 annual air carrier operations
are estimated to increase from 10 million to 16 million, creating
additional noise exposure that, without federal action, will more
than offset the reduction in noise levels resulting from the attrition
of the older airplanes.
B.
The Financial Problem
1.
Ability of Airlines to Finance Aircraft Replacement
In recent years some major airlines experienced difficulty in
obtaining the financing necessary for equipment and other plant
needs; occasionally, they were short of the working capital they
31
need to continue operations. From 1970 to 1975, the trunk carriers
spent $14.6 billion on capital needs, of which $8.7 billion was for
aircraft, equipment and property, and $1.7 billion for leases of
aircraft and engines. Most of the remainder went for debt payment.
The sources of this financing were mainly depreciation ($5.7 billion)
and long term debt ($4 billion), with earnings contributing only
about $400 million. Equity issues were insignificant, and low
earnings and the high proportion of debt led the carriers to finance
new aircraft acquisitions through leasing. Also as a consequence
of their poor earnings record, traditional sources of debt financing
have been shut off to some carriers. Insurance companies and banks
were unwilling or unable to make further commitments to some carriers
and have stated publicly that, until the airlines' financial situation
is sufficiently improved, new loans will not be forthcoming. In
difficult times, carriers have also drawn down funds under revolving
credit arrangements for use as working capital.
1974 and 1975 were particularly difficult periods for the industry.
The sudden and substantial increase in fuel prices that began in
1974, accompanied by inflation in other cost categories, made it
ARVABIT GERALD FORD
32
necessary for the carriers to raise fares. This coincided, un-
fortunately, with the economic recession of 1974-75 when traffic
was already declining, and drove traffic levels even lower. The
airlines' problems were exacerbated by the existing economic
regulatory system with its highly inflexible rules and artifical
restrictions. The airlines were denied the pricing and management
freedom to cope with their problems available to other industries.
To overcome these problems, the Administration recently submitted
the Aviation Act of 1975, which would remove many of the economic
regulatory restraints that presently frustrate the industry.
Extensive hearings have been held on this bill, and prospects for
enactment of significant reform are good. In addition, the financial
performance of the airline industry has been showing some improvement
since the end of the recession, and prospects for increased earnings
over the next few years are good. Traffic growth is expected to
resume, but at a long-term rate about equal to GNP growth, in
contrast to more rapid rates of growth in the past. The airlines
have few new aircraft on order, so traffic growth will have to be
accommodated generally through increases in aircraft productivity.
Thus, new capital needs until about 1980 will be low, load factors
will increase, and earnings should be fairly stable at a relatively
high level.
33
Beginning in the first half of the 1980s, however, traffic growth
will strain fleet capacity and airlines will need substantial
amounts of new capital to replace aging aircraft and meet capacity
requirements for traffic growth. From 1976 to the end of 1985, we
estimate that the trunk carriers will need between 700 and 800 new
aircraft, and will require, according to estimates by financial
and government analysts, from $22 to $30 billion for their purchase.
Total capital needs will include about $6 billion for debt repayment
and other uses. A median estimate of capital meeds would therefore
be $32 billion ($26 billion--the middle of the $22 to $30 billion
range for aircraft purchases--plus the $6 billion). Depreciation and
sales of used aircraft could be expected to gemerate about $15
billion in internal funds, leaving $17 billion to be financed through
earnings and external sources. If earings in the period were to
total as much as $6 billion (which would require a 9 percent return
on equity, instead of the 2.8 percent return of the last five
years), external financing needs would be $11 billion, and the
airlines would probably be able to obtain this financing from
conventional financial sources. The following table shows these
estimates:
34
Possible Sources and Uses of Funds
1976-1985
(Billions of dollars)
Uses of Funds
Property, Plant and Equipment
$26
Debt Repayment and Other
6
$32
Sources of Funds
Depreciation
$12
Sales of Used Aircraft
3
$15
Amount to be funded through
earnings and external sources
$17
Earnings Needed
6
External financing requirement
$11
Meeting these capital needs in this manner, however, will probably
not be possible, if the needed earnings are not achieved by the
industry. As indicated, such a level of earnings implies an average
annual return on equity three times as large as that earned over the
last five years. It also assumes no unexpected negative developments,
such as a prolonged recession, substantial increases in fuel or other
costs, or other events which would materially affect the ability of
the industry to earn a 9 percent return on equity. *
*
Individual carriers with greater than average financing needs and
lower than average ability to meet them will have even greater
difficulty in obtaining needed funds.
35
The amount of investment required to meet the proposed noise regulations,
which will be over and above the normal investment needs cited above,
cannot be precisely determined at this time, as they depend on
which aircraft the carriers will choose to replace and which they
will choose to retrofit. If all noisy aircraft were retrofitted, the
cost in today's dollars would range from approximately $870 million
to $1.6 billion. Allowing for fleet attrition, replacement of 200
to 275 707s and DC-8s, and retrofit of remaining noisy aircraft in
the fleet (including 75 DC-8s), the total cost may range from $4.4
to $6 billion. If all 707s and DC-8s remaining in the fleet are
replaced, the cost would range from $5.5 to $7 billion.
In order to enable the accelerated replacement of these noisy aircraft
in the time frame established by federal regulation, the trunk carriers'
capital requirement during the ten-year period would be increased by
$5.6 to $7.7 billion, assuming retrofit of 75 of the noisy DC-8s, an
increase of 17 to 28 percent over and above the normal investment needs
discussed above. Without the federal requirement, these capital costs
would be spread out over a longer period of time. An incremental
requirement of this magnitude is beyond the ability of the industry to
finance over the next eight to ten years, since substantial capital
requirements otherwise anticipated for the early 1980s will almost
certainly absorb the carriers' total financing capability. The passage
of the proposed Aviation Act of 1975 will create an atmosphere more
conducive to financing, but many of the reforms will not begin to take
effect until the 1980s. The bill was carefully phased to allow for a
needed transition.
36
2.
The Aerospace Industry
A major new aircraft has not been developed in the United States for
almost 10 years. In that time important design and technological
advances have been made - many specifically to meet the new economic,
operating and environmental constraints dictated by rising labor
costs, energy shortages, and changing market demands.
In past programs to produce a new aircraft, American manufacturers
have had enough pre-production sales to U.S. airlines to provide
a solid base for financing front-end costs and assure a near break-
even position without foreign sales. This is no longer the case
because of the financial condition of some of the U.S. airlines.
Although the domestic airlines now need to purchase aircraft and
will with increasing urgency need new aircraft for replacement of
older, inefficient jets and for expansion to meet market growth,
they are buying existing in-production aircraft in small numbers.
Aircraft that are available now to replace four-engine jets are
either improperly sized for the markets (e.g., 727s, 747s or DC-10s),
or foreign aircraft such as the A-300-B, whose servicing back-up
in the U.S. is uncertain. Replacement of the older four-engine
aircraft is taking place today, even though the U.S. airlines
would probably prefer to wait for a family of new, higher-technology
aircraft, if it were probable that these airplanes would be available
within a few years.
37
In view of the situation of the United States air carriers, the
foreign market for aircraft sales is more important to the U.S.
manufacturers today than it was one generation of aircraft ago,
and will become even more important in the future. The air travel
market in the United States is relatively mature with traffic growing
slowly today, only a percent or so faster than GNP. In contrast,
the air travel market in Europe and Japan is still in a stage of
rapid growth, and the market in non-industrial nations, while just
beginning to stir, has great potential. Therefore, between 1975 and
1985, we estimate that domestic requirements will account for about
half of the total market of $100 billion (current dollars). Inter-
national requirements will account for the other half.
In the past, commercial aviation has used technologies developed by
military and aerospace research. This flow of technology is changing.
In the last 10-15 years the technologies of military aerospace
programs, even those that include aircraft procurement, have diverged
quite sharply from those of commercial aircraft programs, although
generic technologies, such as electronic control systems and composite
structures, are first tested in military applications and then applied
in commercial aviation. Federal aerospace research and development
outlays as a percent of total national defense outlays and NASA
outlays have declined about 30 percent over the last fifteen
38
years. Since 1968 (a peak period of aerospace industry activity),
federal outlays in actual dollars for aerospace products and services
have declined by about one-quarter.
At the same time, foreign aircraft manufacturers, particularly in
France and England, but also in Germany and Japan, have been growing
in size and competitiveness. Foreign governments are subsidizing
the high-risk front-end development costs for their commercial air-
craft manufacturers, making European aircraft relatively less ex-
pensive for the manufacturers to develop than a new generation U.S.
aircraft. Moreover, the products of the European manufacturers,
which used to compare unfavorably with competing U.S. aircraft, are
now competitive in operating costs and performance to American
aircraft. The A-300-B Airbus, produced by a German-French consortium,
is a good medium-range airplane in the 250 seat category, and may
prove competitive with American-made aircraft. Further increasing
the problem, some major foreign airlines, such as British Airways,
Air France, Lufthansa, formerly steady customers of American
manufacturers, are being directed by their governments to buy
aircraft from the European manufacturing consortiums. If the
United States does not again produce clearly superior aircraft,
that trend will continue.
Timing is a critical element if American manufacturers are to compete
with other manufacturers for new aircraft markets. Unless the
39
American manufacturers can produce a new aircraft soon, it is un-
realistic to expect that U.S. aircraft manufacturers will hold either
their technological or world aircraft market share leads.
The consequences of such a blow to the United States manufacturers
would be serious. The aircraft manufacturing industry has been,
since the 1930s, an increasingly vital part of our national economy.
Our rapid technological growth is a key element that made commercial
aircraft sales our second largest export in dollar terms, about
$2.4 billion in 197Aerospace employment totals almost one
million and contains many of the nation's most expert and sophisticated
scientists, engineers and technicians. The industry is an important
resource of skilled people and ideas for the entire economy.
Thus, the economic situation of the air carriers has an impact on
other segments of the national economy that should be taken into
account as we undertake a noise abatement program. How the carriers
choose to comply with our noise rules can have long-range effects
on the competitiveness of our national aerospace manufacturing
industry.
40
IV.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A.
Legal Responsibilities of the Federal Government
The principal aviation responsibilities assigned to the Federal
Aviation Administration, and since 1966 to the Secretary of
Transportation, under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended,
concern safety and the promotion of air commerce. The basic national
policies intended to guide our actions under the Federal Aviation
Act are set forth in section 103, 49 U.S.C. 1303, which provides
public interest standards:
In the exercise of his power and duties under this Act the
Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following,
among other things, as being in the public interest:
(a) The regulation of air commerce in such manner as to best
promote its development and safety and fulfill the require-
ments of national defense;
(b) The promotion, encouragement, and development of civil
aeronautics;
(c) The control of the use of the navigable airspace of the
United States and the regulation of both civil and
military operations in such airspace in the interest
of the safety and efficiency of both;
(e) The development and operation of a common system of air
traffic control and navigation for both military and
civil aircraft.
To achieve these statutory purposes, sections 307(a) and (c) of the
Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 1348(a), (c), provides extensive and
plenary authority to the FAA concerning use and management of the navigable
airspace and air traffic control. The FAA has exercised this authority
by promulgating wide-ranging and comprehensive federal regulations on the
41
use of navigable airspace and air traffic control.* Similarly the FAA
has exercised its aviation safety authority, including the certification
of airmen, aircraft, air carriers, air agencies, and airports under
Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act, section 601 et seq., 49 U.S.C.
1402 et seq, by extensive federal regulatory action. ** In legal terms
the federal government, through this exercise of its constitution and
statutory powers, has preempted the areas of airspace use and management,
air traffic control and aviation safety. The legal doctrine of preemption,
which flows from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, is essentially
that state and local authorities do not have legal power to act in an
area which already is subject to comprehensive federal regulation.
With the introduction of turbojet powered aircraft into commercial service
in the 1960s, it became obvious that aircraft noise, already a major
source of annoyance and public concern, was also becoming a constraint
on the continuing development of civil aeronautics and the air transportation
system of the United States. Out of concern for both the public welfare
and the future of the system, the federal government in 1968,
*
See 14 C.F.R. Parts 71, 73, 75, 91, 93, 95 and 97.
**
See 14 C.F.R. Parts 21 through 43, 61 through 67, 91, 121 through
159.
CENTS FUND
42
sought -- and Congress granted -- broad authority to regulate
aircraft design, equipment, and operation of noise abatement. Section
611 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 1431, constitutes the basic
authority for federal regulation of aircraft noise. In 1972, displaying
some dissatisfaction with the FAA's methodical regulatory practice under
section 611, the Congress amended that statute in two important respects.
To the original statement of purpose -- "to afford present and future
relief from aircraft noise and sonic boom" - it added consideration
of "protection to the public health and welfare." It also added the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the rulemaking process. Section
611 now requires the FAA to publish EPA proposed regulations as a notice
of proposed rulemaking. Within a reasonable time of that publication,
if the FAA does not adopt an EPA proposal as a final rule after notice
and comment, it is obliged to publish an explanation for not doing so
in the Federal Register.
Whether considering a rule it proposes on its own initiative or in response
to the EPA, the FAA is required by section 611(d) to consider whether a
proposed aircraft noise rule is consistent with the highest degree of
safety in air commerce and air transportation, economically reasonable,
technologically practicable and appropriate for the particular type of
aircraft.
43
The FAA acted promptly in implementing section 611. On November 18,
1969, it promulgated the first aircraft noise regulations, Federal
Aviation Regulations, Part 36, 14 C.F.R. 36, which set a limit on noise
emissions of large aircraft of new design. It reflected the technological
development of the high-bypass ratio type engine, and was initially
applied to the Lockheed 1011, the Boeing 747, and the McDonnel1-Douglas
DC-10. The Part 36 preamble announced a basic policy on source noise reduction
and a logically phased strategy of bringing it about. The Part 36
standard would serve as the basic standard for aircraft engine noise
and was initially applicable to new types of aircraft. As soon as the
technology had been demonstrated, the standard was to be extended to all
newly manufactured aircraft of already certificated types. Ultimately,
the preamble indicated, when technology was available the standard would
be extended to aircraft already manufacturered and operating. The
last step would require modification or replacement of all aircraft in
the fleet which did not meet the Part 36 noise levels. The first two
steps have already been accomplished. The last step remains.
Part 36 is commonly misunderstood. Many believe that it established a
federal standard of acceptable noise emissions. It did not. Part 36 set
basically the quietest uniform standard possible, taking into account
safety, economic reasonability, and technological feasibility. Many
think it is a standard that all American aircraft must meet. It is not.
Part 36 has to date been applicable only to newly manufactured aircraft
44
and is not applicable to two- and three-engine aircraft manufactured
before 1973. Nearly eighty percent of the present fleet is not obliged
to and does not meet the Part 36 standard. Many think that it is an
operating rule -- that is, that planes that do not meet it in daily
operations may not fly. It is not. Part 36 applies to aircraft at the
time of their manufacture, and does not apply at all to foreign-manufactured
aircraft operated by foreign carriers.
In addition to its regulatory authority over aircraft safety and noise,
the FAA has long administered a program of federal-aid grants for airport
construction and development. Through its decisions whether to fund
particular projects, the FAA has been able to a degree to assure that new
airports or runways will be selected with noise impacts in mind. That
indirect authority was measurably strengthened when, in 1970, the Airport
and Airway Development Act expanded and revised the FAA's grant-in-aid
program for airport development and added environmental considerations
to project approval criteria. 1976 Amendments to the 1970 Act have increased
funding levels and provided new authority to share in the costs of certain
noise abatement activities,* but the ability of the FAA to provide
financial assistance remains limited both in terms of percentage of
project costs and the types of projects eligible for federal aid.
*
See P. 74 infra
45
B. Legal Responsibilities of State and Local Governments
While the federal government's exclusive statutory responsibility for
noise abatement through regulation of flight operations and aircraft design
are broad, the noise abatement responsibilities of state and local
governments through exercise of their basic police powers are circumscribed.
The scope of their authority has been most clearly described in negative
terms, arising from litigation over their rights to act.
The chief restrictions on state and local police powers arise from the
exclusive federal control over the management of airspace. Local
authorities have long been preempted by the federal assumption of
authority in the area from prohibiting or regulating overflight for
any purposes. That principle was extended in 1973 to include any
exercise of police power relating to aircraft operations in City of
Burbank V. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973). In the Burbank
case, the Supreme Court struck down a curfew imposed by the City in the
exercise of its police power. The Court's reliance on the legislative
history of section 611 and the 1972 amendments to it indicate that other
types of police power regulation, such as restrictions on the type of
aircraft using a particular airport, are equally proscribed. The Court,
however, specifically excluded consideration of the rights of an airport
operator from its decision.
There remains a critical role for local authorities in protecting their
citizens from unwanted aircraft noise, principally through their powers of
46
land use control. Control of land use around airports to assure that
only compatible development may occur in noise-impacted areas is a key
tool in limiting the number of citizens exposed to noise impacts, and it remains
exclusively in the control of state and local governments. Occasionally,
it is a power enjoyed by individual airport operators; some operators are
municipal governments that can impose appropriate land use controls
through zoning and other authority. But even where municipal governments
themselves are operators, the noise impacts of their airports often
occur in areas outside their jurisdiction. Other police power measures,
such as requirements that noise impacts be revealed in real estate
transactions, are also available to them. Finally, local governments
have legal authority to take noise impacts into account in their own
activities, such as their choice of location and design for new schools,
hospitals, or other public facilities, as well as sewers, highways and
other basic infrastructure services that influence land development.
C.
Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors
The responsibilities of state and local governments as airport proprie-
tors are far less restricted. Under the Supreme Court decision in
Griggs V. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962), proprietors are liable
for aircraft noise damages resulting from operations from their airport.
The proprietor, the court reasoned, planned the location of the airport,
the direction and length of the runways, and has the responsibility to
acquire more land around the airport. From this control flows the liability,
47
based on the constitutional requirement of just compensation for property
taken for a public purpose. The Court concluded; "Respondent in designing
[the Greater Pittsburgh Airport] had to acquire some private property.
Our conclusion is that by constitutional standards it did not acquire
enough.' The role of the proprietor described by the Court remains the
same today.
But the proprietor's responsibilities do not end there. A three-judge
district court observed in Air Transport Association V. Crotti, 389
F. Supp. 58 (N.D. Cal., 1975),
"It is now firmly established that the airport proprietor
is responsible for the consequences which attend his
operation of a public airport; his right to control the
use of the airport, whether it be directed by state police
power or by his own initiative That correlating right of
proprietorship control is recognized and exempted from
judicially declared federal preemption by footnote 14 [of the
Burbank opinion]. Manifestly, such proprietary control
necessarily includes the basic right to determine the type
of air service a given airport proprietor wants its
facilities to provide, as well as the type of aircraft to
utilize those facilities
"
48
The Crotti, case upheld in part a California airport noise statute
imposing noise abatement duties on airport proprietors and established
the principle that a state statute could reach proprietors that are
governmental agencies and hence arms of the state. The Burbank
preemption rule thus has not extended to proprietors, except with respect
to regulations that actually affect the flight of aircraft. The
portion of the California statute struck down by the court provided for
criminal sanctions against the operator of an aircraft that exceed a
single-event noise standard on takeoff or landing, a clear interference
with the FAA's control over flight operations.
The Crotti principle has recently been upheld in National Aviation V.
City of Hayward, No. C-75-2279 RFP (N.D. Cal., July 13, 1976), a case in
which an air freight company sought to enjoin a curfew on noisier aircraft
imposed at the municipally-owned Hayward Air Terminal in California.
The court addressed squarely the legal issue of the rights of a proprietor
and found that the curfew had not been preempted:
[T]his court cannot, in light of the clear Congressional
statement that the amendments to the Federal Aviation Act
were not designed to and would not prevent airport proprietors
from excluding any aircraft on the basis of noise considerations,
make the same findings [as the Burbank Court] with respect to
regulations adopted by municipal airport proprietors. " Slip
opinion, 14, citing S. Rep. No. 1353, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 6-7.
49
The court went on to recognize that the FAA had the authority to preempt
such proprietor regulation, although it had not yet exercised it. The
court also found that the ordinance, which required some of the plaintiff's
aircraft to use another airport between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., had an
effect on interstate commerce, but that the effect was
"
incidental at best and clearly not excessive when
weighed against the legitimate and concededly laudable goal
of controlling the noise levels at the Hayward Air Terminal
during late evening and morning hours." Slip opinion, 19.
The power thus left to the proprietor - to control what types of air-
craft use its airports, to impose curfews or other use restrictions,
and, subject to FAA approval, to regulate runway use and flight paths,
is not unlimited. Though not preempted, the proprietor is subject to two
important Constitutional restrictions. He first may not take any action
that imposes an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and
second may not unjustly discriminate between different categories of
airport users.
These limitations on the proprietor's control over the use of the airport
have not been addressed by the Supreme Court, and the extent to which
Constitutional limitations would prevent some of the restrictions that
have been imposed or proposed by proprietors in recent years remains
unclear.
50
Our concept of the legal framework underlying this policy statement is
that proprietors retain the flexibility to impose such restrictions
if they do not violate any Constitutional proscription. We have been
urged to undertake - and have considered carefully and rejected - full
and complete federal preemption of the field of aviation noise abatement.
The control and reduction of airport noise must remain a shared respon-
sibility among airport proprietors, users, and governments.
The legal framework with respect to noise may be summarized as follows:
1.
The federal government has preempted the areas of airspace
use and management, air traffic control, safety and the regulation
of aircraft noise at its source. The federal government also has
substantial power to influence airport development through its
administration of the Airport and Airway Development Program.
2.
Other powers and authorities to control airport noise rest
with the airport proprietor - including the power to select an
airport site, acquire land, assure compatible land use, and control
airport design, scheduling and operations - subject only to
Constitutional prohibitions against creation of an undue burden on
interstate and foreign commerce, unjust discrimination, and
inteference with exclusive federal regulatory responsibilities over
safety and airspace management.
FORD LIBRARY
51
3.
State and local governments may protect their citizens
through land use controls and other police power measures not
affecting aircraft operations. In addition, to the extent they are
airport proprietors, they have the same powers described in
paragraph 2.
52
V.
THE PROGRAM
Within the legal principles set forth above, this section explains in
greater detail the program we intend to implement and our reasons for
adopting it.
A.
Quieting the Air Carrier Fleet
1.
Federal Regulation of Existing Aircraft
It is clear that federal action is required to ensure compliance with
Part 36 noise levels within the next decade. The normal incentives of
the private marketplace do not operate to achieve optimal noise reduction.
Noise is an "external cost" of providing certain goods and services.
In the case of aircraft noise, the recipient of the noise -- such as
the resident under the flight path -- is most often not a party to the
market transactions (e.g., the purchase and sale of aircraft and of
aircraft passenger tickets) that result in the noise that affects him.
Thepurchasers of aircraft service -- the aviation passengers -- are
not necessarily the recipients of the aircraft noise, and therefore
the provider of that service (the airline) does not have a normal
market incentive to reduce noise.
Because there are important differences among the airplanes that
do not meet Part 36, it is useful to consider them separately.
FORD
53
A significant problem is posed by the older, four-engine models
(707s, 720s, DC-8s) in the current fleet. These aircraft are, for
the most part, powered by JT3D turbofan engines and impose the
most severe noise insult on airport neighbors because they consti-
tute the noisiest single events (10 to 12 EPNdB over Part 36). They
are perceived to be twice as loud as the new wide-body aircraft.
They are particularly significant contributors to the overall
noise level at the major airports with the most serious noise
problems (i.e., Kennedy, Los Angeles, Miami).
Replacement or modification of these older four-engine jets must
be given high priority. The retrofit solution to this problem lies
in the addition of quiet nacelles, using sound absorbing material
(SAM), which can reduce significantly the noise levels of these
four-engine aircraft to at least the Part 36 noise levels.
This approach, however, is subject to the availability of retrofit
54
kits and, has been shown to be somewhat fuel inefficient. Because
of the benefits of replacement, discussed below, retirement of most of
these older aircraft is clearly preferable.
The older two- and three-engine aircraft (727s, 737s, DC-9s,
BAC 1-11s, mainly powered by JT8D turbofan engines) are not as
noisy on single events. But because they are medium and short-
range models, they depart and land more than four times as often
per day as the long-range four-engine models. Since they are also
more pervasive in our domestic system, they account for most of the
air carrier operations (80 percent) nationwide. *
*
Scheduled Air Carrier Jet Operations
Average Daily, 1975
Percent Meeting
Number of
Part 36 Noise
Airplane Type
Operations
Percent
Standards
707/DC8
2225
10
0
747
411
2
46
DC10/L1011
1340
6
100
727
9208
41
26
737/DC9/BAC 1-11
9334
41
8
Total
22518
100
21
**
An operation is a takeoff or a landing.
55
Although the technology to retrofit these JT8D aircraft is avail-
able, the reduction in noise levels from retrofit is not as
significant for single events as it is for the JT3Ds. A complete
retrofit, including both engine and nacelle treatment (SAM) would
lower significantly the noise level on approach. * We estimate that
the cost of retrofitting all of these airplanes will be about $255
million in 1976 dollars. This is substantially less expensive than
replacing them. Moreover, most of these airplanes have a long
remaining useful life.
At busy airports, the constant repetition of these limited noise
differences adds up to significant annoyance for many people. We
have concluded that the pervasiveness of the two- and three-
engine aircraft at noise-sensitive airports makes it essential
that they be required to meet Part 36 noise levels in order to
reduce the cumulative noise exposure contours around these airports.
Because of their larger numbers, more frequent operation, and more
widespread use, the cumulative effect of reducing the noise of
these JT8D aircraft is greater than that for the four-
*
Noise data taken during typical line operations at airports in
the New York area showed that 727-200 aircraft with full retrofit
treatment operated at 6.5 EPNdB lower levels on approach than did
727-200 aircraft without retrofit.
56
engine aircraft alone. By requiring that both the two- and
three- and the four-engine aircraft meet Part 36 noise levels,
we will realize an average reduction of 2 NEF units at the 25 largest
air carrier airports at the time compliance is completed, compared
to a reduction of only .5 NEF units if only the four-engine jets were
phased out or required to comply. Additionally, many more airports
would benefit from quieting of the two- and three-engine airplanes.
Without including the two- and three-engine jets, which constitute
70 percent of that part of the operating fleet that does not meet
Part 36, 75 percent of the airports in the country would not receive
any noise benefit and 85 percent would not receive any significant
benefits.
Because these airplanes are not substantially noisier than the
Part 36 limits as a single event, and because there are many airports
where they could be used without creating significant noise problems,
we have concluded that up to one-third of each air carrier's fleet
need not meet Part 36 if they are used at air carrier airports that
do not have a substantial noise problem.
There are also about 50 early 747s that do not meet Part 36 noise
levels. Economics clearly make retrofit the most feasible alternative
for these aircraft, which have a long remaining useful life, and a
retrofit kit for these aircraft has been developed and produced.
57
The following table illustrates the comparative reductions expressed
in EPNdB of the retrofit of those airplanes that do not meet FAR 36.
FAR 36
Non-
Full
Aircraft
Condition
Limit
Retrofit
Retrofit
707-320B
Takeoff
103.7
113.0
102.2
Approach
106.3
116.8
104.0
Sideline
106.3
102.1
99.0
DC-8-61
Takeoff
103.5
114.0
103.5
Approach
106.2
115.0
106.0
Sideline
106.2
103.0
99.0
727-200
Takeoff
99.0
101.2
97.5
Approach
104.4
108.2
102.6
Sideline
104.4
100.4
99.9
737-200
Takeoff
95.8
92.0
92.0
Approach
103.1
109.0
102.0
Sideline
103.1
103.0
103.0
DC-9
Takeoff
96.
96.
95.0
Approach
103.2
107.0
99.1
Sideline
103.2
102.0
101.0
747-100
Takeoff
108.0
115.0
107.0
Approach
108.0
113.6
107.0
Sideline
108.0
101.9
99.0
Cost
One of our major considerations has been the cost of alternate
means by which the airlines could meet the Part 36 noise levels.
Our analysis of the airlines' capital costs of compliance follows.
58
The following table shows the FAA estimates of the number of noisy
aircraft by type in the current fleet and the number anticipated to
be in service at the end of 1984, with unit retrofit costs:
Current Noisy
Unit Retrofit
Type of
Fleet as of
Fleet at the
Cost (1976 Dollars)
Aircraft
End of 1975
End of 1984
($000)
727
590
540
$ 225
737
157
140
300
DC-9
297
271
255
BAC 1-11
30
-
-
Total, 2 & 3
Engine
1,074
951
-
747
53
50
$ 250
DC-8 & 707
523
275-350
1,200-2,600
Convair
4
-
-
Total
1,654
1,276-1,351
-
It should be noted
that the industry's cost estimates for retrofit of the four-engine
jets are substantially greater. Boeing representatives have stated
that the cost of retrofitting a 707 could start at $2.5 million and
rise to $4.5 million if there are few orders. Douglas representatives
have estimated the cost of retrofitting the DC-8 at $3.5 million.
59
We estimate the total cost of retrofit in 1976 dollars for each
aircraft type, assuming all aircraft are retrofitted, to be as
follows:
$255 million for approximately 1,100 two- and three-engine aircraft.
From $600 million to $1.3 billion for the approximately 500
four-engine aircraft other than 747s. A reasonable estimate
of retrofit cost, assuming a substantial number of four-engine
aircraft were retrofitted, would be from $1.2 million to
$2.5 million per aircraft. The higher unit cost, as compared
to the two- and three-engine retrofit, is a function of the
greater difficulty of retrofitting these planes, the larger
number of engines per aircraft, and the smaller total number
of planes involved.
The 50 747s would cost approximately $13 million to retrofit.
If four-engine aircraft are replaced, we estimated the cost of
noise abatement to be:
$400 to $450 million in 1976 dollars for retrofit of
approximately 950 two- and three-engine aircraft, 50 747s,
and approximately 75 four-engines that may be economical
to retrofit.
60
From $4.0 to $5.5 billion in 1976 dollars for accelerated
replacement of the other 200 to 275 noisy four-engines expected
to be in fleet after 1984.
If the airlines choose to retrofit none of the narrow-bodied
four-engine aircraft, then the cost of replacement increases
to a range of from $5.5 billion to $7 billion in 1976 dollars.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Despite the arguments that the variables and projections are
uncertain, cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool to compare means
of reducing aircraft noise. The analysis performed by the FAA
indicates that replacement of all JT3D aircraft and
retrofit of two-thirds of the JT8D aircraft will yield positive net
benefits of $179 million to the airlines (in terms of present value,
1976 dollars if a 10 percent discount is used), whereas altering
the scenarios by retrofitting the JT3D aircraft instead would cost
them $259 million. The primary reasons for these differences are
varying fuel consumption and maintenance costs.
A replacement program also produces many benefits that are difficult
to calculate, but would be significant.
The noise benefit from replacing these jets with new aircraft
or new technology will range from a 12 to 16 EPNdB improvement
over current 707/720 and DC-8 airplanes.
61
Replacement would offer substantial advantages in increased
fuel efficiency over the 707/720 and DC-8, 20 percent with
currently-available replacement models, as much as 30 percent
for the new-technology models, compared to a fuel penalty of
1 to 2 percent with retrofit, resulting in a cost savings of
over $1 billion during the program period or a reduction of
8 percent of the total jet fuel consumption of commercial
aircraft.
Replacement would also provide aircraft that will meet the
new rigorous air pollutant emissions standards effective in
1979.
Replacement would strengthen the aerospace industry, providing
the ability to begin manufacture of aircraft of new design,
which the airframe manufacturers cannot undertake now because
of the lack of firm orders from their customers.
Replacement would contribute to the development of aviation
technologies for export: Aerospace products have contributed
more the the U.S. balance of payments than any other commodity
except agricultural products. Foreign operators own over 500
JT3D airplanes for which there are not replacements sized for
the markets being served. Most of these airplanes are ready
to be replaced if a properly sized replacement were available.
61a
Replacement would provide many more jobs - each billion
dollars in aircraft sales results in 60,000 job years
generated.
Replacement would offer to the carriers the advantage of
more economic aircraft confugurations and range, as well
as advanced technologies, including super critical aero-
dynamic concepts in wing airport and body design, lighter
propulsion systems, improved safety from inflight control,
and new metric materials. With enactment of the Aviation
Act, many of these economies would be reflected in the fares.
BERALD
62
In light of these benefits, we believe that it would be economically
preferable for the Nation if the four-engine aircraft are replaced
with a new technology aircraft.
Time Frame
If some combination of replacement and retrofit is advantageous in
bringing current airplanes into compliance with the noise standards
of Part 36, what then is a reasonable time frame to require such
action?
In establishing a deadline, the FAA has been concerned with the
length of time needed to develop, certificate, produce, and install
retrofit kits for those airplanes for which the operators decide
that retrofit is best. The manufacturers have indicated that it
will take six years to complete retrofit of the 747s, 727s, 737s,
and DC-9s, six to seven years to complete the 707s, and possibly as
long as nine years to complete the DC-8s.
*
Number of Airplanes
From Production
Production Rate
to be Retrofit**
Decision to First Kit
Ship Sets Per
FAA
ATA
Airplane
Delivery
Month
Estimate
Estimate
707
28 mos
22
235
222
DC8
36 mos
8.5
156
160
727
18 mos
38
609
562
737
18 mos
10
82
126
DC9
22 mos
15
315
323
747
12 mos
5
48
45
**
Assuming none is retired and replaced, 1982 fleet estimate.
FAA estimate November 1975, ATA estimate May 1976.
63
Retrofit kits are currently certificated and ready for installation
for the two- and three-engine aircraft and the 747s, and are being
installed on those aircraft that are currently in production. It
may take 28 months and 34 months, respectively, to design and certify
kits for the 707s and DC-8s, with fabrication and installation time
to follow. Thus, time to fabricate the required number of kits,
and to install them during routine refurbishment periods for fleet
aircraft must govern the mandatory compliance periods. Given these
considerations, we have concluded that aircraft should be required
to meet Part 36 noise levels within certain time periods.
The Federal Aviation Administration will promulgate a rule requiring
the subsonic jet airplanes in domestic and overseas* service with
maximum gross takeoff weight in excess of 75,000 lbs., that do not
meet the present Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 noise levels,
except for one-third of the two- and three-engine aircraft.
Those aircraft that must comply must meet those noise levels or be
retired from the fleet in accordance with the following schedule:
747s within six years;
pure jets (early 720s, DC-8s and 707s) within six years;
727s, 737s, DC-9s, BAC 1-11s within six years; and
other 707s, DC-8s, CV-700s within eight years.
*
"Overseas" service is defined to include flights to U.S.
territories outside continental United States.
64
These time periods, which are established on the basis of the time
it would take to complete the development, production, and installa-
tion of retrofit kits for most of the existing fleet, will start
to run on the date of enactment of legislation necessary to ensure
adequate financing. If such legislation is not enacted, full
compliance will be required by 1987.
International Air Carriers
The United States will seek early agreement through the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on noise standards and an inter-
national schedule for compliance with Annex , the ICAO equivalent of
Part 36.
In the event that agreement is not reached within four
years, then all airplanes operated by foreign carriers will be
required to meet the noise level standards of Part 36 (Annex 16 for
foreign manufactured airplanes) during the six year period there-
after at a rate of one-sixth of their fleet operating into the
United States each year. The requirements applied to U.S. in-
ternational flag carriers will not be any more stringent than those
applied to foreign air carriers. Where U.S. air carriers serve
both domestic and foreign routes, the international requirement
will be applied only for that percentage of total operations that
are in international sevice. These requirements may be superseded
by agree-ment reached through ICAO, in which the United States
concurs and which does not discriminate against U.S. carriers.
65
B.
Financing Mechanism
If the carriers are to quiet their fleets in the optimal manner,
they must not be constrained by inadequate financing. As stated
above, the total cost of retrofitting the two- and three-engine jets
and replacing the four-engine jets is estimated to be $5 to $8
billion. The cost is unevenly distributed among the carriers, falling
most heavily on those that own most of the four-engine jets. For
the reasons set forth in this statement, it is unlikely that those
carriers with most of the four-engine jets could obtain funds to
replace them in the accelerated time frame the government will
rquire. Their financial problems are, moreover, worsened by the
pricing system of the CAB, which bases rates on industry-wide
historical costs and thereby does not provide for costs the will
arise in the future.
In lifht of these considerations, we have reviewed various means
by which the financing of the aircraft replacement program could be
facilitated and have weighed the alternatives against certain
goals. First, we would prefer that the costs of noise abatement be
borne by users of air transportation, passengers and shippers. Any
shift of that burden to the general public must be avoided. Second,
enough money must be made available to enable the carriers to replace
their existing four-engine jets with a new generation aricraft but
not so much money as to encourage the purcahse of excess capacity.
Third, federal involvement in any financing mechanism should be such that
we do not disturb the mechanism of the private capital markets unduly.
Fourth, the cost of transportation to the passenger and shipper should
not be increased, if at all. After examining many alternatives, we
have decided to support the following plan:
65a
An Aircraft Replacement Fund would be established under the control
of the SEcretary of Transportation. Financing of this Fund would
be accomplished by one or the other of following options, whichever
the Congress finds more desirable:
(1) For a ten year period, two percentage points of
both the present eight percent passenger ticket tax and the
present five percent cargo waybill tax will be deposited
in a new Aircraft Replacement Fund; or
(2) The CAB would be asked to authorize an across-the-board
two percent surcharge on domestic and overseas passenger
tickets and freight waybills to be collected by the
carriers and subsequently deposited in the Aircraft
Replacement Fund. Concurrently, the present federal
air passenger ticket and freight waybill taxes would be
reduced from eight to six percent and from five to
three percent, respectively.
66
Participating carriers would be entitled to a share of the Aircraft
Replacement Fund in the proportion that their respective total system
revenues bare to the total system revenues of all the carriers. Air
carriers could apply to the Secretary certifying that their proposed
aircraft purchases were in direct furtherance of this Aviation Noise
and Aircraft Replacement Policy, and that conventional financing of
at least two thirds of the purchase price had been arranged. Upon
receipt of this certification, the Secretary would be authorized to
make payment from the Fund directly to the aircraft manufacturer of
not more than one-third the cost of replacement of aircraft that do
not meet the Part 36 noise levels.
Revenues from the Fund could not be used to purchase more capacity
than was being replaced, and the replaced aircraft could not be
flown in the United States unless suitably modified. Any balances
remaining in the after program objectives have been achieved would be
deposited in the Airport and Airways Trust Fund and dedicated to
noise control purposes (including land acquisitions and easements).
Payment of the cost of retrofitting two- and three-engine airplanes
($350 million) would also be authorized from the Aircraft Replacement
Fund.
It is anticipated that about $3 billion in inflated dollars would
flow into the Aircraft Replacement Fund over the 10 years. This
amount would finance approximately one-half of the cost, roughly
$6.4 billion, of replacing some 200 to 275 of the 707s and DC-8s
that would otherwise be in airline service at the end of 1984, the
66a
earliest date by which the noise standards for four-engine aircraft
must be met. The $3 billion is about 10 to 15 percent of the
industry-wide capital requirements for this period.
Either financing mechanism, temporary adjustment to the Airport and
Airways Trust Fund, or a reduction of the taxes feeding that fund
accompanied by a special surcharge on passengers and shippers, places
the burden of complying with the noise regulation on passengers and
shippers, the users of air service. Neither financing mechanism,
however, increases the cost of air transportation.
Either financing mechanism will provide, in ten years, a steady
stream of cast totaling at least $3 billion. Additionally, the
small redistribution of revenues (about 15 percent) supplies more
funds to those carriers with the most four-engine jets. This
redistribution is necessary because of the difficulty of imposing
the surcharge on international aviation without an international
agreement. Even without such an agreement, U.S. flag carriers
should participate in the replacement program in order to achieve
the desired noise reduction benefit and to avoid being placed at a
competitive disadvantage with domestic carriers that are seeking new
international routes. Without this arrangement, the U.S. flag
carriers with the most four-engine aircraft would be proportionally
disadvantaged. Moreover, the redistribution of revenues away from
carriers that do not need the funds will help prevent the purchase
of excess capacity. These features should enable the carriers to
place orders for a new design aircraft. But, because the fund would
67
supply only a fraction of the money that the carriers will need to
replace aircraft in the 1980s, we do not believe that it unduly
interferes with private capital markets or encourages excess capacity.
With better prospects for long-term sales, the manufacturers will
commit sooner to new design aircraft that will save fuel and reduce
noise better than the other alternatives.
As of June 30, 1976, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund had a cash
on hand balance of $2,550 billion and an uncommitted balance of
$1,255 billion. Estimated airway user tax revenues flowing into
the Trust Fund over the period 1977-1980 are almost equivalent to the
authorized program levels financed from the Trust Fund over the
same period. Because of the significant interest earnings which the
Fund receives from the investment of its large cash balances, the
Trust Fund balances should continue to grow at a rate in excess of
$200 million per year through 1980. In fact, if airway user taxes
are unchanged through 1980 and all program funded from the Trust Fund
are continued at the full authorized levels, the cash on hand
balance would grow to approximately $3.5 billion and the uncommitted
balanced would reach about $2.1 billion by the end of fiscal year
1980. If all TRust Fund programs remain fully funded, but the
passenger ticket tax and freight waybill tax were to be reduced by
2% each effective June 1, 1977, these balances would be only about
$350 million less at the ned of fiscal year 1980 than they are
today.
68
C.
Protecting the Airport Environment
There are over 13,000 public airports are operated in the United
States today and they vary considerably in size, proximity to
populated areas, and function as well as in the type and volume of
operations. For example, only about 500 airports are fully
certificated* by the FAA, while another 500 have limited certificates.
Only 437 airports have an FAA air traffic control tower. American
airports are also the busiest in the world; 84 airports have a
total of over 200,000 annual operations, ** while 160 airports have
150,000 or more annual operations. Busy airports are not only found
in the larger metropolitan areas; while 244 airports have 100,000
or more annual operations, of these only 151 are located in large or
medium hubs. *** Most of these operations are general aviation; only
the top ranked 24 airports each have 100,000 or more annual air
carrier operations.
*
Under Section 612 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 1432,
the FAA issues operating certificates to airports served by
Civil Aeronautics Board certificated air carriers that the FAA
finds "properly and adequately equipped and able to conduct
a safe operation. "
An operation is a takeoff or a landing; a flight thus consists of
two operations, one takeoff and one landing.
A "hub" is defined by the FAA as a city in a standard metropolitan
statistical area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census,
requiring air service.
69
The variety of airports in the United States demonstrates that the
full extent of the noise problem associated with airport operations
cannot be generalized. The problem must be approached on an airport-
by-airport basis, and all levels of government and the private
sector should perform within that framework.
1.
The Airport Proprietor's Responsibility
Substantial benefits will be achieved through federal actions to abate
source noise and control operational flight procedure and airspace,
but much of the noise problem is airport-specific and must be
addressed by individual proprietors. Noise impact at any airport
is in part due to local decisions on airport location, continuation
of airport operations on a particular site, the layout and size of
and airport and the purchase of buffer areas for noise abatement
purposes. It is local decisionmaking that permits
residential development near an airport. For these reasons, the
Supreme Court concluded that proprietors are liable for aircraft
noise damages. In addition, airport proprietors, particularly
those that are public agencies, generally encourage more service
to their airports in Civil Aeronautics Board route proceedings.
70
The need for local action is apparent. Without effective land use
planning, the implementation of land use plans, and zoning, the
benefits achievable from federal investment in source noise reduction
could be greatly reduced. Where land use controls have not been
imposed, the need for substantial airport land acquisition has
increased, and as aircraft operations increase, the need for land
acquisition as well as its cost will rise unless source noise
levels are reduced.
The airport proprietor is closest to the noise problem having
the best understanding of both local conditions, needs and
desires, and the requirements of the air carriers and others that
use his airport. The proprietor must weigh the costs the airport
and the community must pay for failure to act, and consider those
costs against any economic penalties that may result from a decision
to limit the use of the airport through curfews or other restrictions
for noise abatement purposes.
FAA officials have and will continue to work with and
assist airport operators and representatives of communities affected
by airport noise to encourage the development of compatible land use
controls. What constitutes appropriate land use control action
depends on the proprietor's jurisdiction to control or influence
71
land use. This of course varies with airport location. Almost
all airport proprietors, however, are public agencies with a
voice in the affairs and decisions of their respective communities.
In some instances they have land use control jurisdiction and are
required to document how they will exercise it before receiving
federal airport development funds. In other instances, where they
lack such direct control, before receiving federal airport development
funds they are required to demonstrate that they have used their best
efforts to assure proper zoning or the implementation of other
appropriate land use controls near the airport and will continue to
do SO. Although the airport proprietor often does not have zoning
authority, the proprietor is the local party in the best position
to assess the need for it and to press the responsible officials
into action. Appropriate action does extend, in some instances, to
acquisition of land itself.
2.
State and Local Government Responsibility
State and local governments are directly and uniquely responsible
for ensuring that land use planning, zoning, and land development
activities in areas surrounding airports promote and secure land
use that is compatible with present and projected aircraft noise
exposure in the area. They should work closely with airport operators
in planning actions to be taken in confining serious aircraft noise
exposure to within the airport boundary and reducing the number of
people seriously affected by airport noise.
72
State and local governments should support airport land use acqui-
sition programs developed by airport proprietors. As federal noise
source regulations shrink the contours of cumulative noise exposure,
local governments concurrently should develop complementary land
use plans preventing residential development and other incompatible
land use in areas adjacent to the airport. Now that the federal
government has defined a program extending the application of Part 36
standards the local authorities will be able to plan effectively on
the basis a reasonable set of assumptions about the shrinkage in
NEF contours that will occur as a result of the federal action.
State and local governments also should require that notice of airport
noise exposure be given to the purchasers of real estate and to
prospective residents in areas near airports so that they will be
aware of the problem.
State and local governmental agencies can improve the insulation
of housing, schools, community facilities, institutions providing
health services and public buildings in areas exposed to serious
airport noise. To date, such action would have been prohibitively
costly. To achieve a 3 to 7 dBA reduction in the level of noise heard
inside buildings by insulation would currently cost $1.9 billion
nationwide, while a reduction of 8 to 12 dBA would cost $3.8 billion,
and a reduction of 13 to 16 dBA would cost $7.2 billion. Given a
federal program to require compliance with Part 36, a housing
73
insulation program becomes more manageable and far less
expensive. State and local governments should therefore develop
appropriate programs to insulate public buildings and to finance
insulation by private residents. In this regard, the Department
is under a mandate in the Airport and Airway Development Act of
1976 to study the feasibility, practicality, and cost of insulating
schools, hospitals, and public health facilities near airports and
report legislative recommendations by July 1977. Local regulations
should require proper insulation in the construction of new buildings
and in the insulation of public and residential buildings. State
and local governments should help finance the sound insulation
of schools, hospitals, libraries, and other noise-sensitive public
buildings.
Where appropriate, state and local governments should consider the
development of new airport sites so that dense population areas
will not be exposed to excessive noise and develop the necessary
ground transportation to make them accessible.
Finally, they should support improvements at existing airports which
would help reduce the noise impact on surrounding communities.
3.
Federal Support for Airport Proprietor and Local Government
Noise Abatement Activities
Federal Assistance for Airport Noise Abatement Planning
The FAA has long encouraged planning to assure not only that airports
will be adequate to provide the service required in the future but
74
that prospective noise impacts are evaluated and minimized or
otherwise provided for. In the past this FAA policy has been
implemented through three principal methods involving the Airport
Development Aid Program (ADAP).
First, under section 16 of the Airport and Airway Development Act,
the Secretary may approve a project only if he is satisfied that it
is "reasonably consistent" with the plans of planning agencies for
the development of the area in which the airport is located. A
project may not be approved unless "fair consideration has been given
to the interest of communities in or near where the project may be
located. " The Act further declares as national policy that the
projects involving airport location, runway location or a major
runway extension shall "provide for the protection and enhance-
ment of the natural resources and the quality of environment of
the Nation," and provides that when an airport or runway location
or major runway extension will have adverse environmental effect,
it may not be approved unless "no feasible and prudent alternative
exists and that all possible steps have been taken to minimize such
adverse effect." In addition, section 18(4) of that Act provides
that among the conditions precedent to project approval are:
appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning
laws, has been or will be taken, to the extent reason-
able, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the
immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and
purposes compatible with normal airport operations,
including landing and takeoff of aircraft.
75
While the FAA does not have the power to control land use around
airports throughout the United States, the grant of federal funds
for airport development has been and will continue to be implemented
by the FAA by applying the foregoing principles. Under the Airport
and Airway Development Act, assurances have been and will be required
of airport proprietors who request and receive federal funds, that
action is taken to implement compatible land use controls around
airports.
Second, the FAA has awarded (ADAP) funds for the development of
airport Master Plans. These plans contain an environmental analysis
and planning elements to assure that the airport's noise impact is
kept to a minimum.
Third, the recent Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments of
1976 P.L. 94-353 authorize for the first time the use of federal
airport development funds on projects designed to achieve noise
relief. Specifically, section 11 of the Act now authorizes federal
financing of land acquisition to insure compatibility with airport
noise levels and the acquisition of noise suppressing equipment.
For the most part, these provisions have led the FAA to concentrate
on noise abatement efforts in the context of capital investment.
Less attention and financial commitment has been
76
devoted by the federal government to the development by airport
proprietors of broader and more comprehensive noise abatement
plans.* The increase in public concern about the airport noise
problem now requires that affirmative federal action be taken
beyond the evaluation of airport construction projects. Therefore,
FAA is today initiating a pilot project to encourage the preparation
of comprehensive noise abatement plans by airport proprietors
through the planning grant program of the Airport and Airway
Development Act.
*
For example, in a January 23, 1968, interim report on the national
airport system, the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Committee
on Interstate Commerce wrote:
Jet aircraft noise at the Nation's airports has become
increasingly annoying to persons living around the
airports. The noise problem affects airport and runway
locations, the flight patterns in and out of airports,
and the total amount of airport development cost. The
federal government's role in the effort to alleviate
airport noise has thus far been limited to the expendi-
ture of substantial sums of money for research and
development of a quieter jet aircraft engine, noise
abatement procedures, and compatible land-use planning.
The subcommittee does not believe the problems relating
to airport noise should be interwined with the question
of airport financing.
77
In formulating this policy to provide a financial incentive for airport
noise abatement planning, FAA gave consideration to other alter-
natives including (1) requiring preparation of such plans by all
airports certificated under Section 612 of the Federal Aviation Act;
(2) requiring preparation of such plans by the busiest airports in
the United States (for example, the top 100 airports by the number
of operations); (3) requiring preparation of such plans as a pre-
requisite to imposition of an airport use restriction by FAA-certificated
airports; (4) requiring preparation of such plans as a condition of
awarding ADAP funds; and (5) encouraging preparation of such plans
and review by FAA without providing federal financial support for
this purpose. All proposals to make airport noise planning mandatory
or condition ADAP funding, or the imposition of use restrictions on
the preparation of a plan, were rejected because we have not had
sufficient experience with noise abatement planning to be confident
that such a requirement would not result in wasteful and unnecessary
planning by many airports that either do not have serious noise
problems or have already performed a comparable analysis. Moreover,
we strongly believe that airport proprietors have the incentives, the
capacity, and the responsibility to undertake comprehensive noise
abatement planning when it. is needed, without detailed and duplicative
federal oversight. We strongly urge them to do SO. We will support
them in this effort and provide technical and financial assistance
where possible.
The FAA incentive program will have the following elements. Each
year, to the extent that funds are available, FAA will award grants
for not more than 25 plans on the basis of criteria including
78
the quality of the proposal, the gravity of the noise problem
afflicting the applicant airport and the likelihood that the
development of such a plan will lead to the implementation of
practicable noise abatement techniques.
The objective of this policy is to promote a planning process
through which the airport operator can examine and analyze the
noise impact created by the operation of his airport as well as
the costs and benefits associated with various selected alternative
noise reduction techniques, individually and/or in combination.
Although FAA will not prescribe particular performance requirements
for noise abatement plans funded under this program, the goal of
the airport noise planning process should be to eliminate insofar
as possible severe aircraft noise exposure and to reduce as much
as possible significant aircraft noise exposure in communities
adjacent to airports. The objective of airport noise plans prepared
under this policy should be to develop noise reduction techniques
which confine severe aircraft noise exposure levels, levels of
40 NEF or more, to areas included within the airport's boundary.
For areas adjacent to an airport exposed to significant aircraft
noise, levels of 30 NEF or more, the objective of the airport noise
plan should be to develop noise reduction techniques that to the
extent possible would confine the area exposed to this level of
noise to the airport boundary or land actually being used or which
can reasonably be expected to be used in a way compatible with these
FORD
noise levels.
LIBRARY
79
In developing an airport noise control plan, the airport operator
may wish to consider the following categories of action:
a.
Actions that the airport proprietor can implement directly:
(1) location of engine run-up areas;
(2) time when engine run-up for maintenance can be done;
(3) establishment of landing fees based on aircraft noise
emission characteristics; and
(4) establishment of landing fees based on aircraft noise
emission characteristics related to time of day.
b.
Actions that the airport proprietor can implement directly
if he has authority, or propose to other appropriate local
authorities:
(1) plan and control of land use adjacent to the airport
by zoning or other appropriate land use controls, such
as utility expenditures and the issuance of building
permits;
(2) enact building codes which require housing and public
buildings in the vicinity of airports to be approp-
riately insulated; and
(3) require appropriate notice of airport noise to the purchasers
of real estate and prospective residents in areas near
airports.
80
C.
Actions that the airport proprietor can implement directly
in conjunction with other appropriate local authorities and with
financial assistance from the FAA, where appropriate:
(1) acquire land to insure its use for purposes compatible
with airport operations;
(2) acquire interests in land, such as easements or air
rights, to insure its use for purposes compatible
with airport operations;
(3) acquire noise suppressing equipment, construction of
physical barriers; and landscape for the purpose of
reducing the impact of aircraft noise; and
(4) undertake airport development, such as new runways or
extended runways, that would shift noise away from popu-
lated areas or reduce the noise impact over presently
impacted areas.
d.
Actions that the airport proprietor can propose for FAA
implementation at a specific airport as operational noise
control procedures:
(1) a preferential runway use system;
(2) preferential approach and departure flight tracks;
(3) a priority runway use system;
(4) a rotational runway use system;
(5) flight operational procedures such as thrust
reduction or maximum climb on takeoff;
81
(6) higher glide slope angles and glide slope
intercept altitudes on approach;
(7) displaced runway threshold; and
(8) pilot training for noise abatement.
e.
Actions an airport proprietor can implement, after providing
an opportunity to FAA to review and advise:
(1) restrictions on the use of or operations at the airport
in a particular time period or by aircraft type, such as:
(a) limiting the number of operations per day or year;
(b) prohibiting operations at certain hours - curfews;
(c) prohibiting operation by a particular type or class
of aircraft - e.g., banning all jets or all non-Part 36
jets; and
(d) any combination of the above.
The existence, operation and development of an airport provides a
service to and is interrelated with both the local community and
the airport users. These are also the parties who would be
most directly affected by the airport operator's noise control
-
plan. We therefore consider it vital that these parties have the
opportunity to take part in the planning process. As a condition
of the noise abatement planning grants, the airport proprietor will
be required to provide for reasonable public notice of the plan and
provide an opportunity for public participation in the development
FORD
of the proposed plan. Public notice should describe the plan,
the
LIBRARY
82
actions proposed, the reasons why these actions are proposed,
alternative courses of action considered and why these alternatives
were rejected. The FAA also encourages other means of involving
the public, both formal and informal, to ensure meaningful public
participation in the process.
The FAA will endeavor to maintain communications with all airports
involved in noise abatement planning --- whether or not FAA-funded --
and provide technical advice on the current state-of-the-art in
airport noise reduction planning methods that have been successfully
used throughout the country. This will include technical information
regarding noise reduction and land use planning and guidance on
procedures that airports may choose to consider in developing their
plans. The FAA and other federal agencies such as the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection
Agency, may suggest technical methodologies and criteria for land
use compatibility that airports and affected local units of
government may choose to utilize in their noise reduction planning.
Federally funded model noise abatement plans will be monitored and
evaluated. Information about successful noise abatement techniques
will be disseminated by the FAA to all interested airport proprietors.
The FAA will evaluate the model noise abatement planning program at
the conslusion of 18 months in order to determine whether broader
noise abatement planning requirements should be encouraged or required.
4.
FAA Review of Proprietary Use Restrictions
While the airport proprietor is best situated to judge the local
noise problem and to determine how to respond to it, he is not
always in the best position to judge the impact of his noise
reduction plan on the national and international air transportation
83
systems. Because of the intricacy of those systems, use restrictions
at a single airport could, under certain circumstances, cause wide-
spread disruption throughout them. With the general federal
interest in the free flow of interstate and foreign commerce, the
constitutional duty to regulate it, the constitutional principle
that states and local entities may not impose undue burdens even
where Congress has not acted, and the specific FAA responsibility
for regulating the entire air navigation system, the federal govern-
ment has the obligation to assure that airport proprietor actions
to meet local needs do not conflict with national and international
purposes. The proprietor's obligations to refrain from imposing
an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce or discriminating
unjustly, and to avoid potential conflicts with the FAA's control
of airspace and air traffic, are not difficult to articulate as matters
of principle but very difficult to apply to a given factual situation.
As noted above in the discussion of FAA's program to fund airport
noise abatement plans, airport proprietors may be inclined to
propose so-called "use restrictions" or "operating procedures"
as the solution to an aircraft noise problem. Operating procedures,
by their very nature, require implementation by the FAA.
Indeed, the FAA, on its own initiative, has investigated and applied
a number of operating procedures aimed at noise abatement, and has
84
several others under consideration. In the future, where an airport
proprietor proposes operating procedures to the FAA as a means of
achieving noise relief, it will review them to determine if they
may be implemented without creating a safety hazard or significantly
affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace.
If they are acceptable, the FAA will adopt and take appropriate steps to
implement them.
The decision to impose a use restriction, by contrast, rests with
the airport proprietor. We encourage airport proprietors to consult
and review such proposals with all the air carriers and other airport
users. Here it is the role of the FAA to review those use restriction
proposals and provide advice to the airport proprietor on his proposed
actions. By this advice, the FAA will attempt to ensure that
uncoordinated and unilateral restrictions at various individual airports
do not work separately or in combination to create an undue burden
on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate or conflict
with FAA's statutory regulatory authority.
For these reasons, all airport proprietors should apprise the Federal
Aviation Administrator of their decision to impose an airport use
restriction. If possible, such notification should be made a
reasonable time in advance of the date the restriction is to be
imposed. In all cases, notification of a proprietary use restriction
should occur after and be accompanied by a detailed description of
85
the alternative noise reduction techniques the proprietor has
considered and the reasons supporting his decision to adopt the
restriction in question instead of any other alternatives. The
FAA will review all such use limitations submitted, advise the
airport proprietor if it believes the limitation in question is or
is not unjustly discriminatory or detrimental to the national air
transportation system.
Cooperation with this review program is vital to the maintenance of
harmonious relations between airport operators, air carriers and the
FAA. By giving the FAA timely notification of use restrictions, supported
by a thorough analysis of the alternative courses that have been
considered, airport operators can assure FAA support, which may be
necessary to administer the restriction in question successfully
and which will prove valuable in any litigation which may ensue.
If litigation over use restrictions does occur, the FAA will in
appropriate cases ask the Justice Department to intervene or file
amicus curae in support of use restrictions it considers valid. On
the other hand, an airport proprietor that imposes a use restriction
without analyzing alternatives and consulting with FAA cannot
expect FAA to provide expert advice or to support its policies. In
such cases, the United States may institute or support litigation
challenging an unacceptable use restriction.
D.
Additional Federal Action
1.
Source Regulation for Future Aircraft
The development of jet engine noise source technology since the
high-bypass ratio engine was first produced will allow further
86
reduction of noise emissions from aircraft designed in the future.
Therefore, FAA proposes to reduce the Part 36 noise levels for
future design aircraft (NPRM 75-37 issued October 29, 1975).
Recognizing that the full benefit of such a rule will not be felt
until the next generation of aircraft enter regular service in
substantial numbers, the FAA will soon complete its consideration
of new, lower noise standards for future design aircraft. These
standards will require that recent advances in noise suppression
technology be employed if they are practicable, economically
reasonable, and appropriate for the particular type of aircraft.
These regulations would be applicable to all newly designed subsonic
aircraft type certificated after the effective date of the regulation.
Using information available on a continuing basis from the Concorde
demonstration, the FAA will act consistent with the statutory
requirements to promulgate a noise rule applicable to supersonic
aircraft not later than thirty days after the conclusion of the 16-
month demonstration periods.
2.
Aircraft Operating Procedures
Operational procedures for the control of aircraft departures and
arrivals at airports with effectively complement the reduction of
aircraft noise emissions. For example, operational controls
87
that apply reduced thrust settings near the ground will augment
the noise reduction achieved through retrofitting because with
the sound absorbing material or "quiet nacelle" retrofitting of
JT3D and JT8D aircraft the noise reduction achieved becomes more
effective at lower thrust levels.
Many air traffic and airspace management operational procedures are
now used at particular airports to meet their particular needs. For
some airports, normal approach paths cover substnatial residential
populations (Los Angeles); others are particularly sensitive to
takeoffs (Miami). Where possible, approach paths are designed to
avoid residential neighborhoods. At some airports, steep climbs
are used on takeoff over water areas so that aircraft will be
higher than they would be otherwise when they reach inhabited
areas. Where aircraft must climb over residential areas, they
often do so with reduced power in order to minimize excessive noise
from greater engine thrust.
In addition to these measures, which are used at many airports,
there are two standardized operational procedures under consideration
by the FAA that particularly complement retrofitted aircraft. One
procedure is for takeoff and another for approach. The EPA has
previously proposed and the FAA has under analysis the use of a
two-segment landing approach path for aircraft. Briefly, that
procedure entails the use of a steeper glide slope (e.g., 5 to 6°)
during the early stages of approach, followed by stabilization of
the aircraft on the normal 3° glide slope for final approach and
touchdown. During the steeper portion of the approach, the aircraft
88
is higher from the ground and requires less engine power, thus
achieving noise reductions at more distant points on the approach
pattern. This procedure has been criticized considerably
by the airlines and pilots as inherently unsafe. An alternative
approach procedure entails the use of the minimum certificated
flap-setting, which reduces aerodynamic drag and consequently requires
less engine thrust, thereby reducing engine noise. It is a promising
alternative to the two-segment concept. The FAA will promulgate
final regulations on approach procedures within three months.
Several opinions exist regarding the best noise abatement departure
procedure following liftoff of civil aircraft. The FAA currently
recommends in Advisory Circular 91-39 (January 18, 1974) a procedure,
generally used by members of the ATA, that incorporates a reduction
in an engine power at an altitude of 1500 feet above ground level
after takeoff with subsequent acceleration and climb at "normal
climb power" after passing through 3000 feet. Northwest Airlines
regularly uses a different departure procedure, in which the airplane
is accelerated at normal climb power at an early stage in the climb-
out followed by a larger power reduction than with the Advisory
Circular procedure. Both procedures have merit, depending on the
location of noise sensitive areas beneath the departure path.
Regulatory action will be completed within nine months.
is
FORD
89
Different departure procedures may have noise reduction advantages
under different conditions and at different locations. Selection of
the optimum departure procedure is best determined for individual
airports, considering the orientation of runways, local geographic
configurations, and the locations of noise sensitive areas. Such
selection, whether initiated or recommended by airplane operators,
airport proprietors, or anyone else, must of course be approved by
the FAA, after consideration of factors of flight safety, air
traffic control and airspace management.
Similarly, restrictions on minimum altitudes are also an FAA actions
that must be determined by considerations of flight safety and air
traffic control, rather than exclusively by noise abatement
considerations. Over noise sensitive land areas, however, noise
benefits are and will continue to be weighed in tailoring local
operating procedures. The FAA is presently in the process of
evaluating various proposals for aircraft
operating noise abatement
procedures to determine whether they are consistent with the highest
degree of safety in air commerce and air transportation, economically
reasonable, technologically practicable and appropriate for the
particular type of aircraft.
It must be clearly understood that, although much can be gained by
operational procedures, they are not alternatives to reducing noise
at the source by replacing or retrofitting the noisier airplanes
90
and by imposing stricter noise requirements on new-design aircraft.
Noise abatement operational procedures can complement source noise
reductions to achieve maximum noise reduction benefits.
3.
Federal Research and Development Technology
As is the case with most fields of technology, continuing research
and development on aircraft is necessary to insure that advances in
the state-of-the-art are available for each successive generation
of aircraft.
Historically, there has been a ten-year lag in the aircraft industry
between demonstration of new technology in the laboratory and the
appearance of that technology in commercial airplanes. For example,
the present generation of quieter wide-body airplanes, such as the
747, DC-10 and L-1011, which began to enter commercial service in
1970, applied quieter technology of the high-bypass ratio engine developed
about 1960. Similarly, more advanced engine quieting technology, which
is being developed today, cannot realistically be expected to enter
commercial service for at least five to six years.
91
Aircraft noise is generated primarily in the aircraft's engines by
two major sources; first the external turbulent jet exhaust and
second, the internal compressors and combustion process. High-
bypass ratio engines, such as the Pratt and Whitney JT9D, the
General Electric CF-6, and the Rolls Royce RB-211 models now used
on the 747, L-1011 and DC-10 aircraft, reduce the primary jet
exhaust velocity and thus reduce its noise. At the same time,
improved sound absorbtive materials in the nacelle surrounding the
engine absorb much of the internal noise produced by the compressors
and the combustion process. Current technology in new engines,
such as the Pratt and Whitney JT10D, and the General Electric
CFM56, shows potential for further reductions in engine noise
levels through better designs of the internal compressors and more
efficient mixing of exhaust streams. Additionally, decreased
aircraft weight through the use of composite materials, more
efficient wing designs, and more effective control surfaces (flaps,
spoilers, etc.) require less engine thrust for safe flight, thereby
providing further noise reductions. In summary, the technology for
use in the next generation of commercial airplanes should provide a
four to eight decibel reduction below current noise standards.
SENAL %. FORD
92
A recent NASA analysis* has shown quite clearly that substantial
long-term (through the year 2000) reductions in noise, fuel con-
sumption, and aircraft emissions are achievable through the
development and introduction of more advanced technology than that
currently available. Realization of potential advantages through
the extensive use of composite materials to reduce airframe weight,
stability augmentation to reduce drag, and improved performance of
advanced-technology engines such as the prop-fan will depend on the
research and development necessary to demonstrate these factors.
Such features can become available for service in the late 1980s,
assuring continuing progress in aircraft quieting along with fuel
economy, cleaner operation, and greater productivity.
The federal government will continue to sponsor and support aviation
research and development, in cooperation with the aviation industry.
As engine noise levels are reduced, the aerodynamic noise from air-
flow over and around the airframe itself and its necessary appendages,
especially at low altitudes, when flaps and landing gear are extended,
may become the major approach noise source. Research on this noise
source to determine how it may best be reduced is now underway and
will continue.
*
"Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs for Reducing the Energy Consumption of
Commercial Air Transportation," NASA CR-137877, June 1976.
93
E.
Private Sector Responsibility: Carriers, Travelers, Airport Neighbors
Air carriers are responsible for assuring that the required portion of
their operating fleets meet Part 36 noise levels within the time period
required by federal regulations. Within that period it is also the
carriers' responsibility to assure that an efficient and effective noise
reduction plan is established that covers the retirement or retrofit of
aircraft not meeting Part 36 as well as the operation of those aircraft in
a manner designed to minimize their impact on noise sensitive communities.
To this end, air carriers should attempt to schedule the operations of
noncomplying airplanes into airports that do not have noise problems.
Air carriers should enter into agreements with airport operators to
minimize the impact of aircraft noise through limitations on aircraft
use. These agreements, in certain cases, will be subject to FAA review
and advice. The carriers should also fly their airplanes on schedules
and flight paths designed to minimize noise impacts.
Air travelers generally should bear the cost of noise reduction, consistent
with sound economic principle and federal policy of internalizing the
adverse environmental consequences in the price of a service or product.
94
Residents and prospective residents in areas surrounding airports
should seek to understand the noise problem and what steps can be
taken to minimize its effect on people. Recognizing that individual
and community responses to aircraft noise differ substantially and
that for some individuals, reduced level of noise may not eliminate
the annoyance or irritation, prospective residents considering moving
into airport and noise impacted areas should be aware of the effect
of noise on their quality of life.