NTID 73.2
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF
AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT NOISE AND
APPORTIONMENT OF AUTHORITY
BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE,
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
27 JULY I973
-------
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT
AND AIRPORT NOISE AND APPORTIONMENT OF
AUTHORITY BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE,
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
27 JULY 1973
ELIZABETH CUADRA, TASK GROUP CHAIRPERSON
This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this
report reflect the views of this task group, and do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policy of EPA. The chairperson is responsible for the
accuracy of facts and data presented herein, and for the accuracy with
which the consensus recommendations of the task group are reflected
in Section 6. This report does not constitute a standard, specification,
or regulation.
-------
PREFACE
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to study the adequacy of current and planned regulatory action
taken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the exercise of FAA authority to
abate and control aircraft/airport noise. The study is to be conducted in consultation
with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and interested persons. Further,
this study is to include consideration of additional Federal and State authorities and
measures available to airports and local governments in controlling aircraft noise. The
resulting report is to be submitted to Congress on or before July 27, 1973.
The governing provision of the 1972 Act states:
"Sec. 7(a). The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal, state,
and local agencies and interested persons, shall conduct a study of the (1) adequacy
of Federal Aviation Administration flight and operational noise controls; (2) adequacy
of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft, together with recommenda-
tions on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of identi-
fying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around airports; and (4)
additional measures available to airport operators and local governments to control
aircraft noise. He shall report on such study to the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce
and Public Works of the Senate within nine months after the date of the enactment of
this act."
Under Section 7(c) of the Act, not earlier than the date of submission of the report to
Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency is to:
"Submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed regulations to provide such
control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom (including control and abate-
ment through the exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over air commerce
or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is
necessary to protect the public health and welfare. "
The study to develop the Section 7(a) report was carried out through a participatory
and consultive process involving a task force. That task force was made up of six task
groups. The functions of these six task groups were to:
111
-------
1. Consider legal and institutional aspects of aircraft and airport noise and the
apportionment of authority between Federal, state, and local governments.
2. Consider aircraft and airport operations including monitoring, enforcement,
safety, and costs.
3. Consider the characterization of the impact of airport community noise and to
develop a cumulative noise exposure measure.
4. Identify noise source abatement technology, including retrofit, and to conduct
cost analyses.
5. Review and analyze present and planned FAA noise regulatory actions and their
consequences regarding aircraft and airport operations.
6. Consider military aircraft and airport noise and opportunities for reduction of
such noise without inhibition of military missions.
The membership of the task force was enlisted by sending letters of invitation to a
sampling of organizations intended to constitute a representation of the various sectors
of interest. These organizations included other Federal agencies; organizations repre-
senting State and local governments, environmental and consumer action groups,
professional societies, pilots, air traffic controllers, airport proprietors, airlines,
users of general aviation aircraft, and aircraft manufacturers. In addition to the invita-
tion letters, a press release was distributed concerning the study, and additional persons
or organizations expressing interest were included into the task force. Written inputs
from others, including all citizen noise complaint letters received over the period of the
study, were called to the attention of appropriate task group leaders and placed in the
public master file for reference.
During the task force efforts, from mid-February to mid-June, there were seven
full days of meetings of Task Group 1, supplemented by numerous working meetings of
writing groups and extensive additional work on the part of many of the task group
members.
Methods of participation by task group members included:
1. Presentation of data and position papers and associated discussion during task
group meetings.
2. Participation in structuring the scope and outline of the task group report.
3. Authorship of sections of the initial draft of the task group report.
4. Review and comment (both within writing groups and in the full task group) upon
initial chapter drafts by others.
IV
-------
After completion of a rough initial draft report (except for the recommendations
section), the EPA staff made a critical editorial review and revised the draft report.
performing a complete rewrite of Sections 4 and 5 and incorporating a new "recom-
mendations" section for the task group review. Prior to preparation of the "recom-
mendations" section, the chairperson requested all organizations represented to submit
their preliminary recommendations, and those received to date of that draft were
considered in drafting the preliminary section on "recommendations"and were
circulated with the draft report to all task group members.
At the final meeting of the task group, the draft report and the recommendations
were discussed, with emphasis on the recommendations. The chairperson had at first
believed that the difficult and controversial subjects of the task group assignment would
make it nearly impossible to obtain a set of consensus recommendations from the task
group. However, during the final task group meeting, by a process of discussion by
all members present, some preliminary recommendations were discarded, some
modified and new recommendations added. The recommendations presented herein,
in Chapter 6, represent the consensus of Task Group 1, as agreed upon in the meeting,
with the following two provisions (also agreed upon in the meeting):
1. That not every participant concurs with every recommendation, though
consensus existed on each.
2. That the positions of the individual organizations represented in the task
group are those submitted by them for printing herein in Appendix B.
The remaining participation process included a final meeting of the entire task
force (all six task groups together). In preparation for this meeting, the reports of
all six task groups were cross-mailed to all task force members for their review
prior to the final meeting. That meeting provided the final opportunity for task force
members orally to present their positions and to comment upon task group reports
before those reports were finalized. All participating organizations were provided
the opportunity either to reconfirm their previous written positions or to provide new
position papers for the record, for incorporation in Appendix B.
This task group process has not, of course, succeeded in resolving all the differ-
ing opinions held by the various group members. However, there has been a beneficial
learning and mutual communication experience in which the development of solution
concepts has prospered, and by which many of the members have at least come to
understand and respect the various points of view.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 THE EXISTING LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE 2-1
Constitutional Framework 2-1
Federal Agency Powers and Implementation 2-2
Federal Aviation Administration and Department
of Transportation 2-2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 2-24
Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) 2-27
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2-29
Department of Defense (DOD) 2-31
Department of Labor (DOL) 2-33
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2-36
The Distribution of Powers to Control Aircraft/
Airport Noise within the Federal Government 2-38
International Legal Framework 2-39
State and Local Governments 2-41
Control of Aircraft/Airport Noise 2-41
Control of Exposure to Aircraft/Airport Noise
through Land Use and Building Design Control 2-50
Noise Control Efforts by Airport Proprietors 2-56
Private (Judicial) Rights and Remedies for Control
or Compensation 2-59
3 CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS TO CONTROL AND ABATE AIRCRAFT/
AIRPORT NOISE 3-1
Criterion 1: Promote Adequate Consideration of All
Relevant Factors 3-2
Factors To Be Considered 3-2
Agency Expertise and Information 3-4
Interest Group Input 3-4
Criterion 2: Full, Adequate, and ExpeditiousDecision
Making 3-5
Criterion 3: Continuing Regulatory Process 3-7
Criterion 4: Clear Definition of Compensation Liability 3-8
Criterion 5: Ultimate Allocation of Noise Costs 3-8
Short-Term Financing 3-9
Cost Internalization 3-10
Criterion 6: Enforcement Resources 3-10
Power To Impose Viable Sanctions 3-10
Leverage 3-11
Sufficient Resources 3-11
Criterion 7: Administerability 3-11
Criterion 8: National Program/Local Conditions 3-11
vi
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Criterion 9: Planning Guidelines and Incentives 3-12
Criterion 10: International Constraints 3-12
Summary 3-13
4 PROBLEMS IN THE PRESENT LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL
SCHEME FOR AIR CRAFT/AIR PORT NOISE REGULATION 4-1
Comparison of the Present Legal/Institutional Scheme
with Identified Criteria 4-2
Adequate Consideration of All Relevant Factors 4-2
Full, Adequate, Expeditious Regulatory Decision-
Making 4-14
Continuing Regulatory Process 4-29
Definition of Compensation Liability 4-31
Present Allocation of Costs 4-32
Enforcement Resources 4-34
Administrability and Administrative Costs 4-37
Planning Guidelines and Incentives 4-38
National Program/Local Conditions 4-39
International Constraints 4-39
5 POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR MODIFYING THE EXISTING
LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM: ALTERNATIVES 5-1
How To Assure Exchange of Agency Expertise,
Information, and Viewpoints 5-1
How and When To Consider Each of the Relevant
Factors: Definition of Agency Roles 5-5
Interest Group Input 5-12
Design of a Continuing Regulatory Process 5-13
Financial Resources - Alternatives for Financing
Implementation of Noise Abatement Strategies 5-15
Areas of Expenditure and Finance Alternatives 5-15
Adoption, Design and Administration 5-19
Other Concerns 5-26
The Compensation Problem—Liability and Amelioration
of Noise Impact 5-29
Enforcement of Air craft/Airport Noise Regulations 5-34
International Constraints 5-35
6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1
FOOTNOTES F-l
APPENDICES A-l
A Membership of Task Group 1 A-l
B Formal Recommendations by Task Group Member
Organizations B-l
C List of Task Group 1 Master File Documents C-l
D Related Reports of the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study D-l
Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Section Page
4-1 FAA Estimated and Actual Rule Making Under
Federal Aviation Act Section 611 4-17
5-1 Expenditure Items 5-18
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Congress in enacting Section 7 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, was basically
asking the question, "Why hasn't the aircraft noise problem been solved?" Previous
estimates of the number of persons dwelling within severely noise-impacted commu-
nities around airports range from 7 to 15 million; and whatever the number, it con-
tinues to increase. Major difficulties face proponents of new airports, airport ex-
pansions or introduction of jet service because of the severe environmental disbene-
fits which the public has learned to expect along with the economic benefits. In
spite of the existence of much available knowledge for making aircraft and airports
quieter and for designing and controlling land use patterns, there are no comprehen-
sive plans and implementation programs which will enable all levels of government
and all concerned sectors to participate effectively in the solution of the aircraft/
airport noise problem. To the extent the present legal/institutional framework for
aircraft/airport noise regulation is intended to address and solve this problem, it has
not been notably successful to date.
Task Group 1, "Legal/Institutional Analysis," was therefore charged with the
following task:
1. Clearly setting forth the existing legal/institutional framework for aircraft/
airport noise control, including all levels of government.
2. Identifying constraints and shortcomings of the existing legal/institutional
system that maybe impeding the implementation of available solutions.
3. Making recommendations for structuring of legal/institutional changes that
would facilitate an accelerated and comprehensive solution of the aircraft/
airport noise problem, both by actions within existing authorities and through
legislative changes if required.
1-1
-------
In the following sections, the existing legal/institutional structure is described,
as it relates to the exposure of people to the noise of aircraft. Criteria for the evalu-
ation of legal/institutional arrangements, whether existing or proposed, are then
developed.
Using these criteria, an evaluation of the existing legal/institutional system is
provided in order to illuminate the major constraints and problem areas which exist.
Potential alternatives involving both (a) modifications of some aspects of the existing
system and (b) fuller utilization of the existing system are proposed and discussed as
to their relative merits. Finally, the consensus recommendations of Task Group 1
are presented for consideration.
Appended to this report are a list of the members of the task group (Appendix A),
the formal recommendations submitted by member organizations (Appendix B), a list
of the master file documents collected by the task group efforts (Appendix C), and re-
lated reports generated by the task force effort (Appendix D), including both the reports
of other task groups and reports resulting from contracted studies.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
THE EXISTING LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
The Noise Control Act of 1972 directs the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to study, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies
and interested persons, the adequacy of current and planned regulatory action by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the exercise of its authority to abate and
control aircraft/airport noise. This study is to include consideration of additional
Federal and State authorities and measures available to airports and local governments
in controlling aircraft noise. The resulting report is to be submitted to Congress on
2
or before July 27, 1973. The governing provision of the 1972 Act has been quoted
in the preface of this report.
The purpose of this section will be to analyze with objectivity the existing legal
and institutional authority covering the problem of airport/aircraft noise from the
point of view of what now exists and what has been done. On the basis of this analysis,
consideration will then be given as to how the legal-institutional framework can be
better used or changed so as to provide both short-run improvement and long-run
accomplishment of the Congressional charge to abate and control aircraft and airport
noise.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Under the Constitution Congress has the power to regulate interstate air com-
3
merce. In theory this power is complete; but in areas where Congress has not com-
pletely exercised the power and the States have acted the test becomes more practical;
i.e., does the State regulation substantially impede or burden interstate commerce?
Here a second Constitutional provision comes into play. This is the Supremacy
4
Clause which so far as is relevant here, has been interpreted to mean that where
2-1
-------
Congress has acted or where it has provided for Federal regulatory action that has
been specifically taken, the area covered is said to be "preempted" so as to preclude
any State or local government action that conflicts with or denigrates from the Federal
action. This matter of "preemption" sounds simple enough to be workable. However
in the area of aircraft/airport noise, the case law has added a complication that will
be discussed in detail later (ref. p. 2-44).
Suffice it here to point out that if a State or local government by use of its police
power attempts to protect its citizens by limiting the flight of noisy aircraft, the
5
attempt is invalid as a matter of Federal preemption. On the other hand, if the
airport owner makes the same attempt as its right as a property owner, the resulting
control of use of the airport either on the basis of time of day or night or by type of
aircraft may well be valid. As will also be discussed later (ref. p. 2-48), this result
is arguably reasonable because of the fact that the case law also consistently holds
that it is the airport owner which is liable for adjacent property destruction caused
by the aircraft/airport noise.
FEDERAL AGENCY POWERS AND IMPLEMENTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
7
The basic Federal aviation legislation is the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. For
purposes of this discussion and analysis, Titles III and VI of that Act are relevant.
"Expenditure of Federal Funds for Certain Airports, etc.
"Airports for Other Than Military Purposes
"Sec. 302. (a) No Federal funds, other than those expended under this
Act, shall be expended, other than for military purposes (whether or
not in cooperation with State or other local governmental agencies), for
the acquisition, establishment, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, or operation of any landing area, or for the acquisition,
establishment, construction maintenance, or operation of air naviga-
tion facilities thereon, except upon written recommendation and
certification by the Administrator that such landing area or facility
is reasonably necessary for use in air commerce or in the interests
of national defense. Any interested person may apply to the
2-2
-------
Administrator, under regulations prescribed by him, for such recom-
mendation and certification with respect to any landing area or air
navigation facility proposed to be established, constructed, altered,
repaired, maintained, or operated by or in the interest of such per-
son. There shall be no exclusive right for the use of any landing area
or air navigation facility upon which Federal funds have been
expended.
"Location of Airports, Landing Areas, and Missile and Rocket Sites
"(b) In order to assure conformity to plans and policies for alloca-
tions of airspace by the Administrator under section 307 of this Act,
no military airport or landing area, or missile or rocket site shall be
acquired, established, or constructed, or any runway layout sub-
stantially altered, unless reasonable prior notice thereof is given the
Administrator so that he may advise with the appropriate committees
of the Congress and other interested agencies as to the effects of such
acquisition, establishment, construction, or alteration on the use of
airspace by aircraft. In case of a disagreement between the Adminis-
trator and the Department of Defense or the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration the matter may be appealed to the President for
final determination... "
"Airspace Control and Facilities"
"Use of Airspace
"Sec 307. (a) The Administrator is authorized and directed to de-
velop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the
Navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use
of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations
as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft
and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or re-
voke such assignment when required in the public interest.
"Air Navigation Facilities
"(b) The Administrator is authorized within the limits of available
appropriations made by the Congress, (1) to acquire, establish, and
improve air navigation facilities wherever necessary; (2) to operate
and maintain such air navigation facilities; (3) to arrange for publica-
tion of aeronautical maps and charts necessary for the safe and
efficient movement of aircraft in air navigation utilizing the facilities
and assistance of existing agencies of the Government so far as prac-
ticable; and (4) to provide necessary facilities and personnel for the
regulation and protection of air traffic.
2-3
-------
"Air Traffic Rules
"(c) The Administrator is further authorized and directed to pre-
scribe air traffic rules and regulations governing the flight of air-
craft, for the navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft,
for the protection of persons and property on the ground, and for the
efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, including rules as to
safe altitudes of flight and rules for the prevention of collision be-
tween aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and be-
tween aircraft and airborne objects....
"Exemptions
"(e) The Administrator from time to time may grant exemptions
from the requirements of any rule or regulation prescribed under this
title if he finds that such action would be in the public interest.
"Exception for Military Emergencies
"(f) When it is essential to the defense of the United States because
of a military emergency or urgent military necessity, and when appro-
priate military authority so determines, and when prior notice thereof
is given to the Administrator, such military authority may authorize
deviation by military aircraft of the national defense forces of the
United States from air traffic rules issued pursuant to this title. Such
prior notice shall be given to the Administrator at the earliest time
practicable and, to the extent time and circumstances permit, every
reasonable effort shall be made to consult fully with the Administrator
and to arrange in advance for the required deviation from the rules
on a mutually acceptable basis....
"Other Airports
"Sec. 309. In order to assure conformity to plans and policies for,
and allocations of, airspace by the Administrator under section 307
of this Act, no airport or landing area not involving expenditure of
Federal funds shall be established, or constructed or any runway lay-
out substantially altered unless reasonably prior notice thereof is giv-
en the Administrator, pursuant to regulations prescribed by him, so
that he may advise as to the effects of such construction on the use of
airspace by aircraft....
2-4
-------
"Other Powers and Duties of Administrator
"General
"Sec. 313. (a) The Administrator is empowered to perform such
acts, to conduct such investigations, to issue and amend such orders,
and to make and amend such general or special rules, regulations,
and procedures pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this
Act, as he shall deem necessary to carry out the provisions of, and
to exercise and perform his powers and duties under, this Act."
The rules FAA establishes under the 1958 Act are called Federal Aviation Regu-
lations (FARs) and are printed in Parts 1 to 200 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Pursuant to the "direction" in Section 307 (c) "to prescribe air traffic
rules and regulations governing the flight of aircraft ... for the protection of persons
and property on the ground ...," the Federal Aviation Agency (now the Federal Avia-
tion Administration or FAA) issued regulations for noise abatement, requiring prefer-
ential runway systems and courses, approaches and altitudes for landings and takeoffs
first at specific airports with severe noise problems, including J. F. Kennedy and
Q
Washington National and subsequently at all airports with FAA operated control
9
towers.
To justify this action the FAA has stated that it "considers [its] statutory author-
ity [under Section 307 (c)l adequate to prescribe rules restricting the pollution of the
airspace by aircraft engines when that pollution has an adverse effect upon person or
property on the ground...."
While it is clear that the actions taken by the FAA, as well as the applicable case
law, which will be analyzed later in this report, confirm the view that Title III of the
1958 Act authorized and directed aircraft noise abatement under air traffic rule and
flight regulation authority, whether or not that authority was fully exercised, it is
equally clear that Title VI of the 1958 Act conveyed no such authority until Title VI
was amended by the addition of Section 611 in 1968.
Title VI sets forth the general FAA safety powers and duties. Section 601 sets
forth the general safety standards that were to be met in the issuance of certificates
that were to be issued by the FAA under the subsequent sections of Title VI. Section
2-5
-------
602 provides for "Airman Certificates," Section 603 for "Aircraft Certificates," and
Section 604 for "Air Carrier Operating Certificates." Section 606 deals with the cer-
12
tification of an "Air Navigation Facility," which includes airports.
The text of Section 606 is as follows:
"Sec. 606. The Administrator is empowered to inspect, classify,
and rate any air navigation facility available for the use of civil air-
craft as to its suitability for such use. The Administrator is em-
powered to issue a certificate for any such air navigation facility. "
14
The 1966 Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, which established the FAA
as an agency within DOT, directed the Secretary of Transportation to "promote and
undertake research and development relating to transportation, including noise
15
abatement, with particular attention to aircraft noise." Further, the Secretary of
DOT and Administrator of the FAA were given the same authority previously vested
in the Federal Aviation Agency, and the action of the Secretary and Administrator have
1 /"»
the same force and effect as when exercised by their predecessors.
Amendments to the 1958 Act
As noted previously, in 1968, Title VI of the 1958 Act was amended by the addi-
tion of Section 611 which requires aircraft/airport noise to be added to the criteria
that must be taken into account in issuing a Title VI certificate. More specifically,
the 1968 addition of the new Section 611 directs and empowers the FAA, after consul-
tation with the DOT, to prescribe
"Standards for the measurement of aircraft noise. . .and prescribe
and amend such rules and regulations as [the FAA] may find neces-
sary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise. . .
including the application of such standards, rules and regulations in
the issuance ... of any certificate authorized by [Title Vl]."
17
In 1970, the Airport and Airway Development Act (AADA) , also by way of an
18
amendment to the 1958 Act, required that every airport serving civil air carriers
operated under a CAB certificate of public convenience and necessity must obtain an
2-6
-------
airport operating certificate under Section 606 from the FAA. The text of the AADA
amendment to the 1958 Act, which adds a new Section 612, reads as follows:
"AIRPORT OPERATING CERTIFICATES
"POWER TO ISSUE
"Sec. 612. (a) The Administrator is empowered to issue airport
operating certificates to airports serving air carrier certified by the
Civil Aeronautics Board and to establish minimum safety standards
for the operation of such airports.
"ISSUANCE
"(b) Any person desiring to operate an airport serving air carriers
certificated by the Civil Aeronautics Board may file with the Admin-
istrator an application for an airport operating certificate. If the
Administrator finds, after investigation, that such person is properly
and adequately equipped and able to conduct a safe operation in accord-
ance with the requirements of this Act and the rules, regulations, and
standards prescribed thereunder, he shall issue an airport operating
certificate to such person. Each airport operating certificate shall
prescribe such terms, conditions, and limitations as are reasonably
necessary to assure safety in air transportation, including but not
limited to, terms, conditions, and limitations as are reasonably
necessary to assure safety in air transportation, including but not
limited to, terms, conditions, and limitations relating to —
"(1) the installation, operation, and maintenance of adequate
navigation facilities; and
"(2) the operation and maintenance of adequate safety equipment,
including firefighting and rescue equipment capable of rapid access
to any portion of the airport used for the landing, takeoff, or sur-
face maneuvering of aircraft."
The most recent amendment to the 1958 Act is the amendment of Section 611 by
19
the 1972 Act. As amended, Section 611 in pertinent part now reads as follows:
"Sec 611 (a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'FAA1 means the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Administration.
2-7
-------
"(2) The term 'EPA' means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
"(b) (1) In order to afford present and future relief and protection to
the public health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic boom, the
FAA, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and with
EPA, shall prescribe and amend standards for the measurement of
aircraft noise and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such
regulations as the FAA may find necessary to provide for the control
and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the appli-
cation of such standards and regulations in the issuance, amendment,
modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized
by this title. No exemption with respect to any standard or regula-
tion under this section may be granted under any provision of this
Act unless the FAA shall have consulted with EPA before such exemp-
tion is granted, except that if the FAA determines that safety in air
commerce of air transportation requires that such an exemption be
granted before EPA can be consulted, the FAA shall consult with EPA
as soon as practicable after the exemption is granted.
"(2) The FAA shall not issue an original type certificate under sec-
tion 603 (a) of this Act for any aircraft for which substantial noise
abatement can be achieved by prescribing standards and regulations
in accordance with this section, unless he shall have prescribed
standards and regulations in accordance with this section which apply
to such aircraft and which protect the public from aircraft noise and
sonic boom, consistent with the considerations listed in subsection
(d) . . .
"(d) In prescribing the amending standards and regulations under
this section, the FAA shall —
(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise
and sonic boom, including the results or research, development,
testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act
and the Department of Transportation Act;
"(2) consult with such Federal, State and interstate agencies as
he deems appropriate;
"(3) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is
consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or
air transportation in the public interest;
2-8
-------
"(4) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine,
appliance, or certificate to which it will apply;
"(5) consider the extent to which such standard or regulation
will contribute to carrying out the purpose of this section.
"(e) If any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certifi-
cate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards or
regulation is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same no-
tice and appeal rights as are contained in section 609, and in any
appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Board may
amend, modify or reverse the order of the FAA if it finds that con-
trol or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic boom and the public
health and welfare do not require the affirmation of such order, or
that such order is not consistent with safety in air commerce or air
transportation."
A rule issued pursuant to § 612 prohibiting domestic and flag carriers from op-
erating large fixed wing airplanes into a regular airport in the U.S. after May 20,
1973 unless the airport has been certificated "supports the safety objectives" of
20
FAR 139 , and has no reference to noise considerations.
It would seem clear, however, that by exercising authority under § 611 to apply
noise "standards and regulations in the issuance ... of any certificate. . . " the FAA
could include noise standards or regulations in an airport operator's certificate
pursuant to § 612. In brief, authority exists for the FAA to certify airports for cum-
ulative noise exposure levels, based upon standards recommended by the EPA for
protection of the public health and welfare.
21
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), imposes environmen-
tal requirements on the FAA, as well as on the other agencies. NEPA was enacted
to ensure that federal programs and activities, to the extent practicable, will not
have consequences inimical to the environment. To make certain that full considera-
tion is given to environmental factors in agency planning, Section 102(2) (c) of the
22
Act provides that:
2-9
-------
"To the fullest extent possible ... all agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment shall . . . include in every recommendation or report on propo-
sals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by
the responsible official ..."
The Council on Environment Quality (CEQ), a body established under Section 202
23
of NEPA to review the activities of the federal agencies and in general to aid the
President in formulating policy on environmental matters, has, pursuant to its man-
24
date in Executive Order No. 11514, issued guidelines for the preparation of impact
25
statements. The Department of Transportation has, for its own operating purposes,
26
issued an order entitled "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts."
Paragraph 8 of the order requires that a proposal for agency action be accompanied
either by a declaration that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on
the environment or by a Section 102(2) (C) Environmental Impact Statement.
27
Section 12 of the 1970 Airport and Airway Development Act, also requires
DOT to formulate a "National Airport System Plan," which is designed to aid the
development of public airports until at least May 21, 1982. Factors of mandatory
consideration in the development of the Plan include "the relationship of each airport
to the rest of the transportation system in the particular area, to the forecasted
technological developments in aeronautics, and to developments forcasted in other
28
modes of intercity transportation." The Act specifically directs the Secretary to
consult with the Council on Environmental Quality and the Secretaries of HEW,
Agriculture and Interior, and to incorporate their recommendations "with regard to
29
the preservation of environmental quality . . . to the extent . . . feasible. . ."
The AADA also established the Aviation Advisory Commission to "formulate
recommendations concerning the long range needs of aviation. . . surrounding land
uses, ground access, airways, air service and aircraft, compatible with [the National
lubn
31
OQ
Airport System Plan]. " This Commission has recently submitted to the President
and Congress a report on its studies and recommendations.
2-10
-------
Encompassing this entire process of application, hearing and approval at all
levels for new airport or runway development, or runway extension, is a declaration
of national policy that:
"airport development projects authorized pursuant to this subchapter
shall provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural re-
sources and the quality of environment of the Nation. "32
The Secretary may not approve an airport development project found to have an
adverse environmental impact unless he has issued a written statement that there is
33
"no feasible and prudent alternative" and that "all possible steps have been taken to
minimize" the environmental damage. Such rejection, however, is on an ad hoc
35
basis, there being no advance Federal guidance for the planning of airport projects.
Even if a project satisfies the needs of local environmental conditions, it must
36
also meet Federal substantive standards. Section 16(a) requires that all proposed
development be "in accordance with standards established by the Secretary, including
standards for site location [and] airport layout . . . ." This allows DOT/FAA to pre-
scribe standards for airport location, layout and improvements based on noise
considerations.
37
Commencing with the Federal Aid to Airports Act of 1946, there have been
Federal grants-in-aid programs for establishing and developing publicly owned air-
ports. In 1964 Congress amended the 1946 Act to require that any airport receiving
Federal funds must have taken "appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning
laws to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the
immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal
38
airport operations...." This language allows the issuance of noise guidelines,
39
for sponsors based in part on noise considerations. The current grant program is
funded from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which was created by the Airport
40
and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, the companion Act of AADA.
2-11
-------
Section ll'>(c) of AADA provides:
"(.'}) No airport development project may be approved by the Secretary
unless he is satisfied that fair consideration has been given to the
interest of communities in or near which the project may be located.
"(4) It is declared to be national policy that airport development pro-
jects authorized pursuant to this part shall provide for the protection
and enhancement of the natural resources and the quality of the en-
vironment of the nation.... "^1
While it may be assumed that the grant allocations made thus far are consistent with
the directives of the above provisions, it does not appear that aircraft/airport noise
abatement has been a prime objective of such grants. However, there is no apparent
reason why aircraft/airport noise should not be a prime factor for consideration
under each of the ADAP and PGP programs.
Further regulatory action by Federal Aviation Administration is seen in the
promulgation by the FAA of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Part 36 sets
standards, as provided for by the 1968 amendment which added Section 611 to the
1958 Act, for type certification of future subsonic transport category aircraft and of
turbojet aircraft regardless of category. Part 36 does not require the retrofit of
existing aircraft; however, the FAA has stated in the preamble to Part 36 that further
noise reduction will be required as technology progresses.
42
In the Noise Control Act of 1972 Congress declared that "Federal action is
essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce, the control of which requires
43
national uniformity of treatment." The purpose of the Act is the "effective coordi-
44
nation of Federal research and activity in noise control." To this end the Act
authorizes the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products dis-
tributed in commerce as well as providing information concerning those standards
to the public.
While the Noise Control Act requires each Federal agency to consult with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in prescribing standards
46
and regulations respecting noise, it specifically provides that the 1968 Amendment
2-12
-------
to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, previously cited, applies to the FAA noise re-
47
duction programs in lieu of the more general provisions of the Noise Control Act.
A principal provision of the 1972 Amendment requires the FAA, after consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation and EPA, to prescribe and amend standards
for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom in order to protect the public
48
health and welfare. The Noise Control Act further amends the 1968 Amendment
by requiring the EPA to submit to the FAA proposed regulations to provide for the
control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom as EPA determines is
49
necessary to protect the public health and welfare.
The FAA has final authority as between the two agencies on whether to implement
the EPA recommendations, after due opportunity for a public hearing has been
provided. If the FAA does not adopt the EPA recommendations and the EPA has
reason to believe that the FAA action does not protect the public health and welfare
from aircraft noise and sonic boom, EPA may request the FAA to reconsider the
original EPA proposal. This request is to be published in the Federal Register.
The FAA must thereafter give a detailed report to EPA on its review. This report
is to be published in the Federal Register, unless the FAA intends to implement the
specific action proposed by EPA.
As mentioned above NEPA was enacted to ensure that Federal programs and
activities, to the extent practicable, will not have consequences inimical to the
environment. Furthermore CEQ has issued its guidelines for the preparation of
impact statements; and DOT has issued its order entitled "Procedures for Consider-
ing Environmental Impacts." However, the only FAA order that has been released
to date in compliance with the DOT order sets forth the Administration's policy and
procedure concerning the abatement of environmental pollutants generated by FAA
52
facilities. The purpose of the program is to build on existing legislation and
efforts to abate air and water pollution at Federal facilities, including environmental
pollutants such as noise, radiation and solid waste. The term "facilities" was
defined to include aircraft owned by or constructed or manufactured for the purpose
of leasing to the Federal government.
2-13
-------
The order directed compliance by all FAA owned or leased facilities, and in-
cluded the requirement that all future owned or leased facilities must be designed,
operated, and maintained to conform with specific pollution standards.
In an earlier pronouncement, which set forth its plan for implementation of
NEPA with regard to airport construction projects, the FAA declared that an action
will be considered significant enough to warrant the preparation of an impact state-
53
ment if it has effects similar to those outlined in the DOT order. The Civil Aero-
nautics Board has issued a Statement of General Policy under NEPA, effective June
54
25, 1970.
Note should also be made of subchapter IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation
Act of 1968, which is concerned with development assistance programs. Under its
provisions the President is directed to establish rules and regulations governing the
formulation, evaluation and review of Federal programs and projects that have a
significant impact on area and community development. The objectives to be con-
sidered in formulating the rules and regulations include a balanced transportation
system (including air transport), development and conservation of natural resources,
and adequate outdoor recreation and open space. The viewpoints of national, re-
gional, state, and local concerns are to be fully considered.
Under Section 307(c) of the Federal Aviation Act, the FAA has been given the
power to protect "persons and property on the ground," as well as in the air.
Pursuant to this power, and its power to prescribe rules for the safe and efficient
use of the navigable airspace, the FAA, as noted on page 1-2-5, had prior to 1968,
issued regulations for the purpose of noise abatement, prescribing, among other
things, preferential runway systems and courses and altitudes for landings and take-
offs, first at several airports including Washington National and Kennedy and later,
under a general regulation, at all airports with control towers. The regulations
were designed to require the use of approach and departure procedures in order to
minimize noise levels to the surrounding community. Within the limitations of
existing operating conditions, such as wind velocity, traffic volume and runway length,
2-14
-------
the preferential runway system directs the use of the runway that will expose the
community to the least noise possible.
Under the later regulation, FAA controllers, by their Air Traffic Control clear-
ances, may bring individual operations within the scope of FAA regulatory power.
Violations of FAA regulations or such clearances are subject to penalties prescribed
57
by the Federal Aviation Act and FAA regulations. Thus through tower clearances
the FAA can play a substantial role in implementing the operational noise-abatement
system of a particular airport. Of course the FAA controller, on his own or at the
pilot's request or insistence, may determine that a preferred procedure should not
be followed in a particular operation in the interest of safety.
In 1969 the FAA acted to limit the number of operations by different categories
58
of aircraft, during certain hours, at 5 major airports. This application of the
FAA power over flow control in order to achieve the most efficient use of the navi-
gable airspace was stated to be aimed at relieving air traffic delays, but it could
have been exercised to reduce noise levels. These regulations of flow control have
not been challenged as an exercise of Title III controls over efficient use of the
navigable airspace. Those controls also authorize the protection of persons and
property on the ground.
As an example of how these powers could be used to effect a reduction in noise,
the FAA could ban flights at night at certain airports or on certain runways; it could
direct flights to other less impacted airports; or perhaps order the elimination of
flights, subject to the following paragraph.
There is a possibility of concurrent jurisdiction problems between the FAA and
CAB. The CAB is authorized to permit discussions and agreements among carriers
59
which affect air transportation. The carriers have agreed to route-capacity agree-
ments to limit the frequency of operations. The CAB has approved such agreements
60
in certain instances. At the same time, as explained, the FAA has the authority
to change the flow of air carrier operations in order to lessen overall noise levels.
2-15
-------
Since the considerations that guide each of the two agencies in allowing or ordering
such changes in operations arc premised on different bases, their powers could be
reconciled.
In the specific instance of Washington National Airport (DCA) and Dulles Interna-
tional Airport (IAD) both of which are considered regional airports for the Washington,
D.C. , area (Friendship Airport at Baltimore is considered the third regional airport
for the D.C. area), the FAA has published in the Federal Register a notice that it
proposes to refine its policy concerning the present and future roles of these two
/? •«
airports in meeting the needs of air transportation in the Washington area. It
might be noted that the FAA, besides being the governmental agency empowered to
regulate these two airports, is also the proprietor of them. However, the notice
indicates that the FAA promulgated the notice in both capacities. The measure is in
part directed to the reduction of noise levels at DCA. The FAA proposes that DCA
by January 1, 1974, be operated solely as a short-haul airport insofar as air car-
rier operations are concerned, with the longer-haul flights being shifted to IAD.
Air carriers would not be permitted to operate a new aircraft type into DCA unless
the new aircraft were quieter and resulted on an average day in less air emissions
on a per-passenger-seat basis than the aircraft it replaces and were to be used for
service within the range of the short-haul provisions of this policy. On the other
hand, there would not be any restriction at DCA on any type of aircraft that was
more acceptable in these terms, except as might be dictated by safety considerations
or the physical limitations of the airfield.
FAA Rule Making
As just noted, the only regulation promulgated to date by the FAA, pursuant to
its authority under the 1968 Amendment "to prescribe and amend such regulations
as [it] may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise
f*fy f» o
and sonic boom" is Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. This part sets
forth the noise emission limits for type certification of new subsonic jet or propeller
driven transport category aircraft and all subsonic jet aircraft regardless of
64
category.
2-16
-------
On the rationale that the modification of aircraft already in use or manufactured
under an existing type certificate involved different economic and technical consid-
erations from the design of new aircraft, the FAA wrote Part 36 to apply only to air-
planes for which new type certificates are sought, with the commitment to propose
noise standards for older aircraft at the earliest possible time.
When Part 36 became effective a number of applications for new aircraft within
its scope were pending. One application for certification of a major aircraft, the
Boeing 747, had been pending before the 1968 amendment to the Federal Aviation Act
was enacted and before the FAA proposed Part 36. Consequently, the designing of
that aircraft was well along before it became clear that the government would impose
mandatory noise limits.
Initially, Part 36 required all new aircraft having turbojet engines with bypass
ratios of 2 or more to meet the standards imposed for future airplanes. With
respect to aircraft on which applications had been filed, no matter how long ago,
manufacturers were merely required to furnish information to flight crews on how
fifi
to minimize noise in the operation of the planes. This approach was changed in
two ways when the rules were finally adopted.
The first change provided for an additional tradeoff provision permitting more
noise by airplanes powered by more than three turbojet engines with bypass ratios
fi "
of 2 or more and for which applications had been made before December 1, 1969.
Second, the FAA excused the 747 from the noise limits in Appendix C, requiring only
that its noise levels be reduced "to the lowest levels that are economically reasonable,
£ n
technologically practicable, and appropriate to the particular type design. " This
dispensation was limited, however, by the imposition of a time period at the end of
which the certificate for the 747 was to be suspended or modified unless the aircraft
69
had been redesigned to meet the applicable limits set forth in FAR 36 Appendix C.
This requirement was later met, with the FAA certifying that the type design had
been changed to meet those applicable limits.
2-17
-------
Part :!f) also regulates aircraft that were type-certified before its effective date
but that, after that date, undergo voluntary design changes increasing the noise lev-
70
els created by the aircraft. Such a change is treated as an "acoustical change,"
and the manufacturer must obtain FAA approval before making any such change.
The purpose of the rule is to prevent escalation of aircraft noise when and if the older
71
type certified aircraft are enlarged.
The noise evaluation technique contained in Part 36 involves measurement of the
noise produced by an aircraft at the approach, takeoff and sideline points. Before
Part 36 took effect it was amended to change the conditions for testing approach noise
to make explicit that the landing configuration for the noise test is to be the same as
72
that used in satisfying the safety requirements for type certification.
In 1971 the FAA published a notice of proposed rule making concerning a possible
amendment to Part 36 to require altitude and temperature accountability throughout
73
that Part in order to strengthen the test conditions for acoustical change approvals.
The FAA has never finally adopted this amendment. In October 1972 the FAA
announced that it intended to propose an amendment to Part 36 that would lower the
74
noise limits in Appendix C for aircraft types certified in the future.
Since the incorporation of noise-reducing features into an airplane at the time of
manufacture can normally produce greater results at lower costs than can post-
manufacture modification, the FAA in July 1972 published a proposal that would re-
quire new airplanes of types certified before Part 36 took effect to comply with
75
Appendix C noise standards. The proposed requirement would apply to all trans-
port category and turboject aircraft, including the 707, DC-8, 727, 737 and DC-9.
The airworthiness certificate issued to each copy of a type-certified aircraft would
be the vehicle for ensuring that new copies of these aircraft incorporate design
changes to satisfy Appendix C. If the rule were adopted as proposed, Appendix C
would apply to new copies of the older aircraft types produced after the effective
date.
2-18
-------
The power of the FAA to impose retrofit rules on existing type certificated air-
craft not covered by Part 36 in order to reduce noise levels is clear, as is the
prospect that noise levels will begin to go down once such rules have been applied to
a significant extent.
Part 36 does not require retrofitting of any existing aircraft. But the FAA stated
76
in the preamble to Part 36 that further noise reduction would be required as tech-
nology progresses, and on November 4, 1970, published an advance notice of proposed
rule making concerning the retrofitting of the existing type certified subsonic turbo-
77
fan engine powered airplanes as a condition to their further operation. The 1968
Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act was cited as the authority to undertake such
rulemaking. The notice stated that the legislative history of the Amendment contem-
plated that retrofit would be required when feasible. In the advance notice of pro-
posed rule making for retrofit the Administrator of the FAA noted that "there is an
obvious public need for relief. It was the noise of the current fleet of aircraft that,
in large part, led to the enactment of 49 U.S.C. § 1431 and with respect to which
78
the public need for protection is clearly the most urgent. " The notice itself, how-
ever, did not propose any specific rules. To achieve this retrofit noise reduction
two alternative approaches were discussed:
1. Prescribing the entire modification scheme and equipment so that the means
of compliance will be clear to the carriers.
2. Setting the conditions that must be met by the retrofitted plane without setting
the means to achieve the reduction in noise, thereby allowing flexibility in
technologies.
As detailed in the advance notice, NASA has conducted a 3-year research pro-
gram, which has demonstrated that application of special acoustical material to the
engine nacelles of 707's and DC-8's could reduce the noise from these aircraft on
79
takeoff and approach by approximately 3.5 EPNdB and 12-15 EPNdB respectively.
By mid-1971, however, the Administrator of the FAA announced that retrofit of
these two older model planes would, in his view, yield only small benefit to the
2-19
-------
public in view of the cost of the remodeling, the time it would take, and their ultimate
replacement by newer and quieter types, and that the focus of retrofit considerations
80
should be directed to the less noisy 727, 737 and DC-9 airplanes.
Procedurally, the advance notice is to be followed by a notice of proposed rule
making, and then by the final adoption of the retrofit rules. While no direct action
has been taken to date with respect to ordering retrofit, the FAA, based on the com-
ments to the advance notice, has issued an advance notice of proposed rule making
81
concerning airline Fleet Noise Level (FNL).
Civil Airplane Fleet Noise Level (FNL) would be the measure of the average
noise level created by all old and new planes in a carrier's fleet. The FNL would be
weighted by the number of flights made by each aircraft. The theory behind the
proposal is that by pushing down the carrier's FNL, the overall aircraft noise will
be reduced. The most efficient way to accomplish such reductions will be left to
the carrier. Among the options that a carrier may select are: retiring noisier air-
craft, reducing the frequency of their use, operating them at lower weights, and
retrofitting.
The proposed regulation would:
• Prevent escalation of fleet noise levels.
• Require a reduction in fleet noise levels on or before July I, 1976.
• Require airplanes to comply with Part 36 on or after July 1, 1978.
The proposal would apply to aircraft operated in interstate commerce, under
82
Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations , by air carriers, supplemental air
carriers and commercial and air taxi operators operating turbojet engine powered
airplanes with maximum weights of 75, 000 pounds or greater. The extent to which
the proposal would apply to airplanes engaged in domestic as well as foreign opera-
tions is ambiguous. Pending achievement of the proposal's objective, the FNL con-
cept would immediately establish an upper limit on the cumulative noise levels of
each fleet operator and then would require a phased reduction of those levels so that
2-20
-------
by July 1, 1976, at least 50 percent of the reduction required by July 1, 1978, would
83
be achieved. However, for reasons that are not entirely clear, the proposal would
eliminate the sideline measurement.
There have been two proposals for rulemaking in the SST/sonic boom area. The
first, the civil supersonic aircraft type certification rule is still in the advanced
84
notice stage, no rules having been proposed. Rather, the government has merely
invited public participation to discuss different courses of action.
The period for public comment expired in November 1970 and no proposed rules
have to date been published. The FAA, in the advance notice, took a definite stand
that noise ceilings would be placed on such aircraft. This rule would amend Part 36
and would represent the first step in implementing the objective of establishing
noise levels on supersonic airplanes and developing criteria concerning the airport
noise characteristics of the airplane that must be met prior to the issuance of a
type certificate.
The second proposal, in the sonic boom area, was published as a notice of pro-
Q C Q C
posed rule making on April 16, 1970, and was promulgated on March 28, 1973.
o n
It amends FAR 91, which prescribes rules for the operation and maintenance
of all aircraft in the country. Under the new rule, no person may operate a
civil aircraft at a true flight Mach number greater than 1, except in compliance with
conditions and limitations set forth in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 which is
issued by the FAA to the operator under the terms of Appendix B to the new rule.
Each application for an authorization to exceed Mach 1 must demonstrate that one
or more of the following conditions is satisfied:
• The flight is necessary to show compliance with airworthiness require-
ments.
• The flight is necessary to determine the sonic boom characteristics of the
of the airplane.
2-21
-------
• The flight is necessary to establish means of reducing or eliminating the
effects of sonic boom.
• The flight is necessary to demonstrate the conditions and limitations under
which speeds greater than a true flight Mach number of 1 will not cause a
88
measurable sonic boom overpressure to reach the surface.
Further, the application must demonstrate that the purpose of the test cannot
89
be safely or properly accomplished by overocean testing. An authorization to
exceed Mach 1 is effective until it expires or is surrendered or until it is suspended
or terminated by the Administrator. Such an authorization may be amended or sus-
pended at any time, if the Administrator finds that such action is necessary to
protect the environment. Any such suspension or amendment remains in effect during
90
the period that any hearing on such action takes place. The authority for the pro-
mulgation of this civil aircraft sonic boom rule is the 1968 Amendment to the Federal
91
Aviation Act.
The possible development of large STOL commercial aircraft during the next
decade will create new demands for noise abatement technology. In addition to op-
erating out of large commercial airports, these aircraft will operate out of short
field general aviation airports, most of which have not previously created an appre-
ciable adverse noise impact on the surrounding community. New STOL aircraft are
expected to be subject to new noise certification regulations developed specifically
92
for this type of aircraft. A design objective of 95 EPNdB at 500 feet for STOL
93
aircraft has been tentatively selected. Design of vehicles and propulsion systems
meeting this goal is being approached by intensive research and development of
suitable propulsion and lift concepts that may be examined with respect to potential
94
jet noise technology.
2-22
-------
The VTOL industry is primarily geared to military helicopter requirements,
which account for approximately 80 percent of the more than 20,000 such vehicles
95
produced prior to January 1970. The industry has been engaged in research and
development programs specifically aimed at reducing helicopter noise. There are no
regulations, however, limiting the noise of helicopters for civil use. Thus, there is
little motivation for transferring this helicopter noise abatement technology into the
civil sector. Since it has been demonstrated that substantial noise suppression can
be provided for current helicopter designs, it is practical to consider that the heli-
96
copter can eventually be compatible with community useage. In the long run, this
result can be achieved only by incorporating adequate noise reduction methodology
into vehicles produced for the urban user. Application of available noise control
technology, however, to currently marketed light piston-powered helicopters can be
97
fostered by regulatory action.
When the FA A promulgated Part 36, it explained the exclusion of STOLs and
VTOLs on the ground that such aircraft presented peculiar problems because of their
unconventional propulsive systems and their ability to operate in close quarters,
98
these problems required further study and separate treatment. The FAA promised
to propose further rules controlling airport noise from such aircraft "at the earliest
99
possible time, " but has not yet done so.
2-23
-------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.
The purpose of NASA under the Act is to carry out the declared policy of the United
States that aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States shall be
the responsiblity of and be directed by and under the control of a civilian agency,
with the exception of defense activities. NASA is authorized to:
• Conduct research into the problems of flight within and outside the
earth's atmosphere.
• Develop, construct, test and operate aeronautical and space vehicles
for research purposes.
• Perform such other activities as may be required for the exploration
. 102
of space.
Noise reduction technology has been accelerated by NASA through research and
development programs aimed at utilizing existing turbofan engines by modifying them
with a noise reduction retrofit package. An example of such an effort is the NASA
Acoustically Lined Nacelle Program, which has demonstrated the feasibility of
reducing engine noise on approach and of moderately reducing takeoff and sideline
103
noise. In September 1966 NASA in conjunction with Boeing and Douglas undertook
a study of potential noise reduction with respect to the JT3D engine, which is the
engine used with the DC-8 and 707. This study was finally concluded in October 1969
and indicated that noise attenuation results on approach were possible for Douglas
DC-8 and Boeing 707 modifications. Attenuation in approach noise on the order of
10.5 EPNdB and 15.5 EPNdB were attained in this study for the Douglas DC-8 and
the Boeing 707, respectively. The primary value of the program was the demonstra-
tion that the basic concepts of sound absorption developed in various laboratories
were valid for aircraft in flight.
Another NASA program, due to be completed in 1973, is the Quiet Engine Pro-
gram aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of designing a new turbofan engine with
2-24
-------
takeoff and approach levels significantly lower than any achieved to date. The objec-
tive of the program is the development, from the first stage of design, of an experi-
mental turbofan engine having low noise production as the primary configurational
constraint.
NASA, in conjunction with the FAA, the Environmental Science Services Admin-
istration, and the Department of Defense, has conducted research on sonic boom and
its effects on people, animals, terrain, structures, and ecology in general. Although
these efforts have had many significant technical and psychological results, they have
not established a ceiling below which sonic boom caused by civil aircraft in commer-
105
cial air transportation would be considered "tolerable" or "acceptable. "
In connection with this study for EPA, NASA submitted a preliminary report to
-i r\ f*
EPA dealing with aircraft noise reduction technology. Reference is made to this
report for a detailed presentation of the various types of research programs in the
area of aircraft noise and sonic boom conducted and sponsored by NASA. The present
report purports to do no more than briefly present the different kinds of research
programs for which NASA has been or is responsible.
NASA has supported studies to characterize and evaluate individual and community
107
response to aircraft noise. It has sponsored a number of community survey re-
search studies with the objective of establishing a correlation between the manner in
which people react to airport noise and their exposure time histories and existing
, , . . 108
measurement techniques.
Technology for sonic boom assessment has not been developed as systematically
as that for aircraft noise assessment. Considerable effort has been expended, how-
ever, to characterize the statistical nature of the exposure; that is, its variability
109
from a true N-wave along with associated community and individual responses.
Laboratory studies are planned, with the use of improved facilities, to study the
intrusiveness of aircraft noise, particularly the significance of background noise and
the effect of low frequency noise and noise induced vibrations on the psychological and
v, • i • i * ,110
physiological responses of people.
2-25
-------
Both short- and long-range plans have been developed for airport community
noise research. Data will be obtained by means of special tower facilities to better
define the propagation through an inhomogenious medium from flight altitudes to the
ground at various angles. The data will be correlated with actual ground contour
measurements from aircraft in flight in order to improve the capability for predicting
contour patterns, particularly at large distances. Long range plans call for repeating
community surveys in selected localities in order to evaluate and correlate expected
changes in the noise exposure and the associated responses.
NASA is initiating plans to conduct in-house combuster noise tests using the
existing facilities in order to determine means for predicting core noise levels and
to find viable means of reducing the core noise floor. Current research is being con-
ing c
113
112
ducted on the basic principles and problems underlying combustion noise. Also,
NASA has initiated studies of thrust reverser noise.
Theoretical work on noise suppressors is continuing in order to provide a better
understanding of suppressors and to provide better design techniques. Experimental
114
studies with sonic (or choked) inlets have been conducted. Present research
efforts are directed at making noise suppressors more efficient. Emphasis is being
115
placed both on theoretical and experimental programs.
The NASA report notes that:
"In order to progress beyond the FAR 36-10 noise levels economically,
a vigorous noise reduction technology program is required. Advances
in noise source reduction and improved suppression efficiency are
areas of major importance for future technology programs. The fan
and possibly the turbine are the primary candidates for source noise
reduction program. Improvements in suppression technology are needed
to increase acoustic treatment effectiveness so that less treatment will
be required for a given noise reduction and also to reduce the weight
per unit area of treatment by incorporating new materials or fabri-
cation concepts or both. The use of a sonic inlet also is a promising
technique for reducing the cost of noise suppression. This concept
will also be evaluated in future programs.
2-26
-------
NASA also has a refan program, which applies current source abatement tech-
nology to the engines that power the narrow-body aircraft in the United States civil
fleet. No advances in the state-of-the-art are anticipated. The program objectives
are to demonstrate, through development of retrofit kits, that the noise produced by
the narrow-body fleet can be reduced by 5 to 10 EPNdB below the Part 36 require-
ments, while retaining demonstrated engine reliability and maintainability and causing
no degradation of aircraft performance or safety, and all at an acceptable fleet retro-
fit cost. Close coordination of the program is being maintained with the Department
117
of Transportation through the Joint DOT/NASA Office of Noise Abatement.
Further NASA research programs include:
118
• Nonprepulsive (airframe) noise.
• Jet noise abatement technology, including suppression devices, inflight
119
effects on suppression devices and core noise.
120
• Sonic boom.
• Powered lift aircraft, including augmenter wing noise, externally blown
flap noise, quiet, clean short-haul experimental engine programs and
121
short-haul aircraft system studies.
• Rotorcraft.
• Operating procedures, including two-segment approach studies, micro-
123
wave landing systems, curved approaches and decelerating approaches.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB)
The CAB was created in 1938 by the Civil Aviation Act of 1938. The Board's
125
current authority is contained in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended.
Under the 1958 Act the Board is directed to regulate the economic aspects of the
airline industry. Board functions under the Act include the issuance of certificates
of public convenience and necessity authorizing an air carrier to engage in air trans-
126 127 128
portation, the approval of mergers, and the regulation of air fares.
2-27
-------
The Board is required by the Act to consider six factors in deciding whether a
129
course of action is in the public interest. There is no explicit requirement in that
Act thut the CAB consider the environmental impact of its decision. However, on
September 12, 1968, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in the case of
Palisades Citizens Association v. C.A.B., held that consideration of the environ-
mental impact was implicit in its statutory authority to regulate for the public con-
130
venience and necessity. On January 1, 1970, the mandate of environmental protec-
131
tion became explicit, as on that date the National Environmental Policy Act became
effective.
In June of 1970, the Board issued regulations implementing the requirements of
132
NEPA. Although the Board stated that it can interject environmental considerations
in other contexts, the Board's regulations implementing NEPA state that the need for
an environmental impact statement will arise most often in instances in which the
Board issues a certificate authorizing air transportation: (1) To an area not previously
served by air transportation; or (2) to be operated under conditions or with equipment
133
which might result in changes significantly affecting noise or air pollution levels.
Board regulations provide for consideration of environmental factors in the con-
text of formal Board proceedings. Under Board procedures, it is the responsi-
bility of the hearing examiner to file a final environmental impact statement after the
completion of the formal proceedings if he determines that Board action will result in
"a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
If the examiner determines that there is no need for the environmental impact state-
ment he must set forth the basis for this decision.
The basic thrust of Board environmental procedures is to develop all the environ-
135
mental information needed to make an intelligent decision at the hearing stage.
This assumes that "the primary burden of producing environmentally relevant evi-
dence will fall upon the applicants, parties, and agencies with environmental expertise
participating or commenting on any particular proceeding. " The Board has stated
on several occasions that this procedure meets NEPA requirements because other
2-28
-------
agencies have expertise and authority in areas directly concerned with the environ-
mental impact of aircraft operation and because the Board is primarily concerned
with the economic regulation of the airline industry.
Although the CAB has the authority to deny a certificate authorizing air transpor-
tation if it finds that the adverse impact of the operations on the environment outweighs
whatever factors point to the grant of the certificate, it cannot according to its regu-
lations, interfere if a carrier changes schedules, increases frequency, or introduces
new equipment over its authorized routes which result in new, different, or increased
137
impact on the environment. The CAB, as justification for this position, cites
section 401(e)(4) of the 1958 Act, which prohibits the CAB from attaching any condi-
tions to the grant of a certificate, and the control of aircraft and aircraft operations
granted to the FAA by the same Act.
The CAB has acted to reduce congestion and lower the frequency of flights by
138
approving capacity limitation agreements among airlines. These agreements
allow all carriers on a particular route to reduce the frequency of flights on that
route thereby raising airline load factors.
The CAB has also acted to reduce the noise impact around congested airports by
requiring that carriers on certain routes use less congested airports. Under § 401(d)
(1) and 401(e)(l) of the FAA Act, the Board can find that the public interest requires the
use of a particular airport and so specify the airport in the carrier's certificate. The
courts have held that Board specification of a particular airport is lawful, since it
140
was merely a description of the "points" that a carrier is authorized to serve.
The CAB is considering the desirability of discouraging excessive schedules in
order to reduce airport congestion, noise, air pollution and energy consumption in
141
setting load factors for use in computation of fares.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
The HUD legislative authority contains no explicit provision mandating that HUD
adopt regulations designed to protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise.
142
However, the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 , which
2-29
-------
143
created HUD, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 implicitly provide
authority for HUD to act. The Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
declares that the general welfare of the nation requires the "sound development of the
144
Nation's communities and metropolitan areas. " The Secretary was given the
authority to adopt such rules and regulations as were necessary to carry out the
luire
146
purposes of the Act. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 required all
Federal agencies to develop procedures to carry out the purposes of NEPA.
In July of 1971, HUD promulgated Circular 1390.2, which established noise
exposure policies and standards to be observed in the approval or disapproval of all
HUD projects. The Circular cited the Department of Housing and Urban Development
147
Act and NEPA as authority. The Circular covers assistance for planning, for
funding new construction, and for rehabilitation of existing structures. To be eligible
for planning assistance, projects are required to take sufficient consideration of
noise exposures and sources of noise so as to assure that new housing and other noise
sensitive accommodations will not be planned for areas whose current or projected
noise exposures exceed the standards of the circular. All forms of HUL1 assistance
are prohibited for new dwelling units on sites which have or are projected to have
unacceptable noise exposures. The circular also provides that HUD is to encourage
modernization of existing buildings for noise purposes so long as such modernization
does not extend the useful life of the buildings.
The Circular requires an environmental impact statement when a HUD official
requests approval of a project with a noise exposure which is "normally unacceptable."
HUD, as part of the Federal Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program,
sponsored, together with the Department of Transportation, studies of four air-
148
ports. These Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy Studies (MANAPS)
considered present alternative land use related strategies for achieving remedial and
149
preventive relief from aircraft noise for residents in the vicinity of airports. The
Chicago MANAP Study recommended that HUD could take additional steps which could
reduce the impact of aircraft noise on communities located near airports. The
recommendations included:
2-30
-------
• Funding soundproofing programs by providing HUD-supported loans and
loan insurance for rehabilitation and for home and property improve-
ments to property owners in sound impacted areas to enable them to
152
soundproof their own dwellings;
• Funding local and regional "701" planning programs to help stimulate
regional planning which gives adequate consideration to the noise
153
impact of airports in developing land use controls.
HUD combines the experience of 10 airport case studies, including the four MANAP
studies, to develop planning guidelines for local agencies, including both airport and
154
community options for reducing aircraft noise conflicts.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
There is no separate statute primarily concerned with DOD aircraft noise abate-
ment efforts. However, the annual military construction and appropriation acts
provide enabling authority and funds for acquisition of land, facilities, and equipment
for aircraft noise abatement. While some authorizations are clearly set forth,
for example, "AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONES—Various Locations,
1 ^fi
$12,000,000", to identify others resort must be made to the legislative history of
the enactment.
DOD has directed that "Insofar as practicable, and with appropriate consideration
of assigned missions and of economic and technical factors, programs and actions of
all DOD components shall be planned, initiated, and carried out in a manner to avoid
adverse effects on the quality of the human environment. When this is not feasible,
all reasonable measures shall be taken to neutralize or mitigate any adverse pnviron-
157
mental impact of the action. "
Within DOD, aircraft noise abatement efforts include installation of sound sup-
pressors and blast fences for power check pads and jet engine test stands; redesign
of jet aircraft engine air inlets and ducting; and modifications and constraints in air-
craft operational procedures.
2-31
-------
DOD is currently coordinating a proposed draft directive that provides policy
guidance on DOD interest in privately owned real property near military bases having
active aircraft runways. The plan seeks to assure that the use of such land is com-
patible with both mission accomplishment and protection of the public. This is to be
attained, where possible, through zoning by the local governing body, state legislation,
or through acquisition of the land or aviation interests by the Federal Government.
The proposed policy defines the methods by which an air installation compatible use
zone (AICUZ) may be determined and delineated. DOD believes that establishment
of the AICUZ should promote the development of non-noise sensitive activities in the
high noise areas near air installations. Such high noise areas would be determined
by use of the present tri-Service manual "Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft
•I />f\
Noise". From the resultant contours, the AICUZ is obtained for each base by its
Commander. Basically, it is the land subject to an intensity, frequency and duration
of noise as to place it in Composite Noise Rating Zone 3 (a Noise Exposure Forecast
above 40) or, in some cases, Composite Noise Rating 2 (a Noise Exposure Forecast
of 30 to 40). Controls over the use of this land are to be sought to maximize compati-
ble uses in the AICUZ. This may require prohibition of some uses of the land (such
as restricting residential construction) and may permit other uses subject to appro-
priate restrictions. Wherever possible, local commanders would seek alleviation of
the noise problem in their AICUZ through local governmental action. If local zoning
or other desired action is not forthcoming and the problem is not otherwise resolved,
then consideration is to be given to Federal acquisition of the necessary land interest.
Because of budgetary limitations and statutory restrictions on land purchase, the
acquisition of each land interest under the AICUZ concept would require Congressional
approval and appropriation. Such acquisitions, thus, would be on an incremental basis
extending over a period of years.
Each military department has issued regulations seeking aircraft noise abatement.
Air Force Regulation 55-34, directs that "Commanders must take every precaution
to protect communities near Air Force bases from annoyances and risks associated
2-32
-------
1 c 1
with flight operations." The actions suggested to achieve these ends are familiar,
involving:
• Preferential runways
• Traffic patterns
• Takeoff and landing techniques
• Location of engine test stands and run-up pads
• Use of blast fences and other protective devices
To minimize sonic boom disturbances, required supersonic flights are to be
conducted at altitudes above 30,000 feet over land areas. Lateral separation from
metropolitan and other specified areas of one mile for each 2,000 feet of altitude is
directed, unless a waiver is obtained from Hq. USAF for a "mission essential opera-
tional requirement. " Further, sonic booms may not be generated except incident to
active missions, approved training or test flights, authorized demonstrations, or
1 fi9
emergency. Consolidated Sonic Boom Logs have been established to record pilots'
reports of supersonic flight. Such recording assists in early settlement of just sonic
1 co
boom damage claims.
DOD and Service regulations establish policies, assign responsibilities, and
164
provide criteria and standards for an environmental pollution abatement program.
Regulatory coverage includes "noise" as a "pollutant." It directs the establishment
of an Environmental Protection Committee at Hq., USAF, major command, and at
Base level. It establishes, as policy, the requirement to assess the environmental
consequences of any proposed action at the earliest practicable stage in the planning
process. A previously issued regulation se
of environmental assessments and statements.
1 ft ^
process. A previously issued regulation sets forth guidance for the preparation
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
In the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Congress directed the Secretary
of Labor to promulgate rules concerning the occupational safety and health of the
2-33
-------
"I /? /?
employees in the country. The purpose of the Act was to ensure that every working
person in the country had sale and healthful working conditions. Employers and em-
ployees were encouraged to reduce the number of safety and health hazards at their
places of employment and to institute new and to perfect existing programs for pro-
1 fi7
vlding safe and healthful working conditions. "Employer" was defined to mean
any person engaged in a business affecting commerce but not including the United
States or any State or political subdivision thereof. The term "employee" was
169
defined as an employee of an employer in a business that affects commerce. The
geographical scope of the statute included the States as well as territories and posses-
170
sions of the United States. Each employer was directed to furnish employment
conditions that were free from recognized hazards and to comply with the occupational
171
safety and health standards promulgated under the Act.
The Secretary of Labor was empowered to promulgate, modify or revoke by rule
172
any occupational safety or health standard.
The terms of this statute appear to be sufficiently broad to authorize the Secre-
tary to promulgate rules concerning the level of noise in the working area of employ-
ees of an airport, including employees inside the plane. It is unlikely that a conflict
will exist between FAA regulation of noise at the source and DOL regulation of em-
ployee noise exposure.
The occupational safety and health rules promulgated by the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, are contained in parts 1901 to
1950 of 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 deals specifically with occupational safety and health
173
standards. Only one part, however, concerns occupational noise exposure, and
requires that protection against the effects of noise exposure be provided when the
sound levels exceed the following values:
Duration per Sound level
day, hours dBA slow response
8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
2 100
2-34
-------
Duration per Sound level
day, hours dBA slow response
1-1/2 102
1 105
1/2 110
1/4 or less 115
This section in subsection (b) (1) requires "feasible administrative or engineering
controls to be utilized" when employees are subjected to sounds exceeding those
listed in the above table. If such controls fail to reduce the sound levels within the
levels set forth in the table, then personal protective equipment is to be provided and
used to reduce sound levels within the levels set forth in the table.
There is no description concerning what methods are to be utilized to insure
acceptable noise levels or what equipment should be provided if those noise levels
cannot be maintained. The paragraph is general and presumably applies to any area
of occupational employment within the broad definition of the Act.
While this entire part in 29 C.F.R. deals with employment conditions in general,
it also deals with certain specific areas of employment, none of which, however, are
in any way related to aircraft operations. The specific areas of employment dealt
174
with include ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking and longshoring. This
part also contains a subpart on "special industries," including:
• Pulp, paper and paperboard mills
• Textiles
• Bakery equipment
• Laundry machinery and operations
• Sawmills
• Pulp wood logging
175
• Agricultural operations
2-35
-------
For each of the specific industries listed in the preceding two categories, specific
occupational safety and health standards are set forth. None of these standards is
directed to noise conditions, including the abatement of same or the supply of protec-
tive equipment. The general provisions set forth earlier would apply.
The part concerning occupational noise exposure is currently under review by
OSHA. A standards advisory committee on noise was appointed by the Secretary of
Labor early in 1973. Their deliberations are to be completed no later than the end
of November 1973. OSHA staff has developed a draft regulation from which the
Advisory Committee is presently working. Promulgation is due in late 1973 or early
1974. It appears that the new standard will be significantly more explicit and some-
what more protective than the present one. The current OSHA draft suggests lowering
the maximum permissible exposure levels for 8 hours to 85 dBA in 5 years. More
explicit hearing conservation measures are also outlined.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
The legal authority of EPA as to all aspects of aircraft noise is essentially de-
1 IJ(!
rived from the Noise Control Act of 1972. The 1972 Act provides EPA with the
authority to advise, to warn, to be consulted and to identify levels of environmental
noise necessary to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety.
Section 7(a) of the 1972 Act provides that EPA shall "study", inter alia, "impli-
cations of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around air-
177
ports," and "shall report" the results of such study to Congress. Section (7)(b)
amends Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (1968 amendment) to provide
that after the submission of the report to Congress, "EPA shall submit to the FAA
proposed regulations to provide ... control and abatement of aircraft noise ... as
1 YH
EPA determines is necessary to protect public health and welfare. " This limited
grant is to be contrasted with all other EPA regulatory authority, for in the area of
aircraft noise EPA has no authority itself to promulgate, much less to enforce, the
regulations it proposes to the FAA.
2-36
-------
Thereafter, should EPA have reason to believe that FAA action on the regulations
proposed does not protect the public health and welfare, EPA has the right to request
179
further review by and a report from the FAA. The FAA is required to issue such
a responding report, but no additional authority is granted to EPA except to "air" its
differences with the FAA in the pages of the Federal Register.
The legislative history of the 1972 Act shows that Congress considered and
rejected language that would have given EPA the authority to promulgate the standards
in question after consultation with the FAA. As enacted, however, EPA authority
at best is the right to try to propose the good and attempt to defeat by discussion the
bad.
It is to be noted that Section 5(a)(l) of the 1972 Act requires EPA to "develop and
i 80
publish criteria with respect to noise", including indication of "the kind and extent
of all identifiable effects on the public health or welfare which may be expected from
differing quantities and qualities of noise." Under Section 5(a)(2) of the Act, EPA is
to "publish information on the levels of environmental noise the attainment and main-
tenance of which in defined areas under various conditions are requisite to protect
181
the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. "
Section 4(c) of the 1972 Act gives EPA the authority to "coordinate" the noise
182
control and noise research programs of all Federal agencies. This is in addition
to the authority conveyed by the Clean Air Act of 1970 "to review and comment on"
FAA actions with respect to regulating and constructing airports.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires the responsible
Federal official who prepares an environmental impact statement to "consult with and
obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved," as cited on page 2-9.
2-37
-------
THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS TO CONTROL AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT
NOISE WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Within the Federal Government, the primary power to control and enforce air-
craft/airport noise abatement is presently vested in the FAA. However, as was
decided by the Supreme Court in the Burbank case, since the 1972 Act the FAA exer-
cises this control "in conjunction with EPA. " The FAA is charged with enforcement
and EPA is charged with formulating aircraft/airport noise levels in accord with
public health and welfare standards.
Six other Federal agencies or Departments also have authority to act in the area
of aircraft/airport noise. The first is NASA, which has the authority to undertake
research and development to abate aircraft noise at the source and to propose the
results thereof to the FAA for incorporated in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Such R&D includes not only hardware items, design changes and model development,
but also the software of noise abatement operating procedures.
The third Federal entity is the HUD, which has the authority and expertise to
plan for and contribute to compatible land use in noise affected areas adjacent to
airports and to advise on noise-resistant building constructions.
The fourth is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (and the National
Institutes of Health), which conducts research on the health effects of noise. Fifth is
the DOD, which has a continuing program for compatible land use at military airports
and which conducts R&D on technology for quieter aircraft and a certain amount of
research on health effects of noise. Sixth there is the CAB, which has the authority
(as yet unexercised) to take noise abatement retrofit of the carrier fleet and other
noise abatement needs into account in setting fares.
The foregoing Federal authority and power presently exists. Although it is widely
dispersed and not yet focused, it can be of tremendous assistance in planning and
achieving an abatement of the health and general welfare effects of airport/aircraft
noise. This is especially the case under the 1972 Act as it pertains to the area in
.question. Under the Act, EPA has the authority to publish environmental noise
2-38
-------
standards to protect public health and welfare. EPA is also charged with regulating,
through source emission standards on products and through noise limits on interstate
rail and motor carriers, toward eventual achievement of the established exposure
limitation goals.
The only significant noise source for which neither EPA nor any other agency has
been given exclusive regulatory authority, either in design or operation, is that pro-
duced by aircraft. This means that inputs from the other Federal agencies with
expertise and authority is especially necessary if a Federal aircraft/airport noise
abatement program is to succeed.
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The basic treaty is the Convention on International Civil Aviation ("the Chicago
183
Convention"), a multilateral treaty that became effective on April 4, 1947. The
Chicago Convention is treaty law in the United States with respect to various matters
including operations in the United States by aircraft of other contracting States, and
the applicability to such operations of the air regulations, rules of the air and airport
and similar charges of the United States. Articles 11 and 15 of the Chicago Convention
should particularly be considered in connection with the application of noise restric-
tions to foreign aircraft. Those articles require that regulations and charges by a
contracting state be imposed on a. nondiscriminatory basis with regard to aircraft of
all contracting states.
The Convention also established the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO). The ICAO Council adopts international standards and recommended practices
and procedures relating to matters concerned with the safety, regularity and efficiency
of air navigation. Under Article 38 of the Convention, any contracting state which
finds it impossible to comply in all respects with an ICAO Standard or incorporate it
in its own laws and regulations is required to notify ICAO of its differences. The
United States and 127 other nations are parties to the Convention.
In 1969, ICAO convened an international conference in Montreal, as a result of
which Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention was adopted containing international stand-
ards and recommended practices for aircraft noise certification. This ICAO Annex
2-39
-------
follows closely FAR 36. It provides minimum noise certification standards for certain
new types of subsonic jet aircraft and (Sections 1.4 and 1. 5) for the recognition of
noise certifications by other ICAO member States if they meet these Standards. The
ICAO Committee on Aircraft Noise is working on noise reduction modification for
existing jet aircraft and noise requirements for future SST's. Any additional United
States noise limitations applicable to U.S. certification of foreign manufactured air-
craft certified as meeting ICAO standards would have to be covered through bilateral
arrangements.
The United States is not a party to the so-called Rome Surface Damage Conven-
184
tion , which came into force among ratifying nations in 1958 (Canada, Egypt, Luxem-
bourg, Pakistan and Spain). At last report 22 additional nations had ratified. This
convention limits the financial liability for damages to persons or property on the
ground resulting from aircraft operations in the airspace of signatory nations.
In addition to the Chicago Convention, the United States has bilateral air transport
agreements with many countries, and most of these follow a similar pattern. Using
1 ft^
the one with France as an example, each country gives the other country the right
to conduct specified air transport services between them by carriers designated by
the respective countries. The carriers of each are required to offer services that
closely relate to the requirements of the public for such services and they must
comply with the operational and navigational rules and regulations of the other,
applied on a nondiscriminatory basis. Airport and other charges must be non-
discriminatory.
Although most such bilateral agreements of the United States follow a pattern,
there are variations among them, and each must be separately considered to ascertain
whether any given noise restriction is consistent with the particular agreement.
While a subsequent Act of Congress can supersede a treaty or executive agreement,
as domestic law, it would not eliminate the international obligation. Thus, whereas a
subsequent statute is permissible insofar as its consequences affect only United States
citizens or entities, any effect it would have upon citizens or entities of foreign signa-
tories in conflict with treaty provisions would violate principles of international law.
2-40
-------
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE
State and local efforts to achieve aircraft/airport noise abatement have taken
place at three different levels, First, there are, and have been, efforts at the state
level to regulate airport noise impacts, aircraft operations and engine noise at the
1 Q /?
source. For example, the Minnesota Noise Abatement statute authorized the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to adopt noise control regulations, including
airport/aircraft noise rules.
An advanced and systematic approach to State regulation of airport noise has
i Q n
been adopted by California. A variety of legal/institutional mechanisms and
procedures support the objective of airport noise reduction. Each California county
has an Airport Land Use Commission for purposes of assuring that there is some
control over the area immediately adjacent to the airport other than the usual local
zoning authority. New airport sites and additional runways require both State and
local approval.
Under another statute, a performance standard is established by regulation re-
garding the Cumulative Noise Exposure Level (CNEL) that should not be exceeded in
residential areas. A limit value of CNEL is set, applicable now to all airport actions
which would impact existing residential areas with exposures above this value, and a
timetable (ending at 1985) is set for airport proprietors to reduce existing exposures
to this limit value. "Noise problem airports" as defined in the regulation are re-
quired to perform noise monitoring to assess their progress, as compared to their
implementation plans, toward achieving the CNEL limits.
The regulation requires, under the state permit authority over airports, that a
"noise impact boundary" be established, which is the location of the cumulative noise
contour corresponding to the statewide timetable for "noise problem airports. " The
objective is to reduce the extent of this contour so that it no longer encloses incom-
patible land uses. The incompatible land use area within the noise impact boundary
2-41
-------
is called the noise impact area. Airport proprietors may not operate their airports
with a noise impact area other than zero without a variance, and specific criteria
for issuing variances are set forth in the regulation.
The regulation sets forth a variety of means available to affected parties to re-
duce the noise impact area to zero. None is specifically required. It is provided
that:
"5011. Methodology for Controlling and Reducing Noise Problems.
The methods whereby the impact of airport noise shall be controlled
and reduced include but are not limited to the following:
"(a) Encouraging use of the airport by aircraft classes with lower
noise level characteristics and discouraging use by higher noise
level aircraft classes;
"(b) Encouraging approach and departure flight paths and proce-
dures to minimize the noise in residential areas;
"(c) Planning runway utilization schedules to take into account
adjacent residential areas, noise characteristics of aircraft
and noise sensitive time periods;
"(d) Reduction of the flight frequency, particularly in the most
noise sensitive time periods and by the noisier aircraft;
"(e) Employing shielding for advantage, using natural terrain,
buildings, et cetera; and
"(f) Development of a compatible land use within the noise im-
pact boundary.
"Preference shall be given to actions which reduce the impact of air-
port noise on existing communities. Land use conversion involving
existing residential communities shall normally be considered the
least desirable action for achieving compliance with these
regulations. "188
The airport noise regulations also provide for "single-event noise exposure levels, "
for which statewide minimum standards are set based on the noisiest aircraft class
utilizing the specific airport on a recurrent basis. Levels set are a "compromise to
allow continuation of the basic level of existing service at an airport but prevent any
2-42
-------
trend toward noisier aircraft and prevent typical operations of currently operating
aircraft which lead to excessive noise. " Airport proprietors may recommend numeri-
cally lower single-event levels, as a part of their implementation plan, to limit the
use of their airport to acceptable aircraft types. Hence, the single-event limits are
a useful tool for the use of the airport proprietor to control and decrease the noise
environment associated with his airport.
The CNEL regulations do not directly control the individual aircraft or its noise
level. Instead, they provide a quantitative framework for solving or abating the
aircraft/airport noise problem at specific airports, to cause "the airport proprietor,
aircraft operator, local government, pilots and the department (of aeronautics) to
work cooperatively to diminish noise. "
As stated in the background document supporting the California airport noise
regulation:
"For existing airports which presently have a noise problem with re-
spect to their residential neighbors, the processes of planned change
must be set in motion so as to control and reduce the extent of the
noise environment wherever it encompasses residential areas. When
such land lies in extreme noise regions very near the airport bound-
aries, the earliest and most equitable means should be applied to pro-
vide relief for the residents. When all available methods have been
utilized by the airport to reduce the noise in residential communities,
processes should be set in motion to convert the remaining land to a
compatible use." 189
Both New York and Illinois are currently conducting public hearings on proposed
regulations to achieve aircraft noise abatement through cumulative noise standards
and airport implementation plan development similar to the California model. Sev-
1 QQ
eral States are considering bills to authorize similar regulations. The recently
191
published Council of State Governments suggested State Noise Control Act.
proposes adoption of such aircraft/airport noise regulation, including both the air-
port-directed portion and the supplementary land use control mechanisms.
2-43
-------
The second effort is the municipal ordinance approach to the noise abatement
problem. These municipal ordinances are basically attempts by noise-affected
municipalities to control the noise of aircraft at adjacent airports through exercise
of their police powers. The third type of non-Federal effort to achieve noise abate-
ment is that asserted and exercised by the airport owner as a proprietary right, e. g.
as landlord.
All three types of non-Federal attempts to achieve aircraft/airport noise abate-
ment were discussed and briefed before the Supreme Court in City of Burbank v.
Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., cited in footnote 6. The opinion of the Court in
Burbank reviewed a municipal ordinance that made it unlawful for a privately owned
airport located within the jurisdiction of the municipality to permit takeoffs or
landings of jet aircraft between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Court held that the Burbank
ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power because the "pervasive nature of
the scheme of Federal regulation of aircraft noise . . . leads us to conclude there is
preemption. "
To reach this conclusion, the Court started with a recitation of two sections of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Section 1508 of the Act provides that "The United
States of America is declared to possess and exercise complete and exclusive na-
tional sovereignty in the airspace of the United States ..." Section 1348 gave the
FAA authority to regulate the use of the navigable airspace, "in order to insure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace ..." and "for the
protection of persons and property on the ground ..."
The Court then analyses The Noise Control Act of 1972 and concludes "that FAA,
now in conjunction with EPA, has full control over aircraft noise, pre-empting state
and local control."
192
The Court cites Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. for the proposition that even
in areas such as aircraft noise which the states and localities "have traditionally occu-
pied. ... The scheme of Federal regulation may be so pervasive as to make reasonable
the inference that Congress left no room for the states to supplement it...." Then
2-44
-------
193
the Court cited Northwest Airlines, Inc. v Minnesota to establish that "Federal
control is [so] intensive and exclusive [that the] ... moment a ship taxis onto a run-
way it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls." Accordingly,
"the pervasive control vested in EPA and in FAA under the 1972 Act seems to leave
no room for local curfews or other local controls."
The Court then discussed a prior FAA action in 1960 where "the FAA rejected a
proposed restriction on jet operations at the Los Angeles airport between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m. because such restrictions could "create critically serious problems to all air
transportation problems! 25 Fed. Reg. 1764-5."
That ruling, "announced in 1960, remains peculiarly within the competence of
the FAA, supplemented now by the input of the EPA. We are not at liberty to dif-
fuse the powers given by Congress to FAA and EPA by letting the States or munici-
palities in on the planning. "
There can be no doubt that the ruling in Burbank means that a State, or any po-
litical subdivision thereof, cannot use its police power to protect its citizens from
aircraft noise. This raises the question of whether the airport owner may exercise
its own proprietary rights to achieve noise abatement.
The Court citation of the 1960 FAA actions at LAX would indicate that the FAA
could prevail over the airport owner in the exercise of its proprietary right to
curfew or curtail the use of its property. However, in a footnote the Court declined
to affirm that this would follow. The footnote in question deals with the legislative
history of the 1968 Act. The text of the footnote is as follows:
"The letter from the Secretary of Transportation.. . expressed the
view that "the proposed legislation will not affect the rights of a
State or local public agency, as the proprietor of an airport, from
issuing regulations or establishing requirements as to the permis-
sible level of noise which can be created by aircraft using the airport.
Airport owners acting as proprietors can presently deny the use of
their airports on the basis of noise considerations so long as such
exclusion is nondiscriminatory. " (Emphasis in opinion)
2-45
-------
"Appellants and the Solicitor General submit that this indicates that a
municipality with jurisdiction over an airport has the power to impose
:i curfow on the airport, notwithstanding Federal responsibility in the
area. But, we are concerned here not with an ordinance imposed by
the City of Burbank as 'proprietor' of the airport, but with the exer-
cise of police power. While the Hollywood-Burbank Airport may be
the only major airport which is privately owned, many airports are
owned by one municipality yet physically located in another. For
example, the principal airport serving Cincinnati is located in
Kentucky. Thus, authority that a municipality may have as a land-
lord is not necessarily congruent with its police power. We do not
consider here what limits if any apply to a municipality as a
proprietor."
The distinction between the "police power of the state" and the "rights of prop-
erty owners" is an interesting one. It must first be considered from the vantage
point of who or what is an owner and who or what is a policeman.
The Office of Airport Service of the FAA takes the position that the airport
owner (i. e. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc.) in the context of the Burbank ruling is a
private person type of owner, not a governmental entity. This would limit the appli-
cation of its case to those two or four privately owned airports used by the certifi-
cated jet carriers such as the appellee.
However, the Supreme Court does not note probable jurisdiction and affirm a
case such as Burbank unless a substantial Federal question is presented. If after
noting probable jurisdiction, the Court finds that the appellant constitute a class of
one or two and that no broad question is therefore presented, the case will be dis-
missed. When the Court affirms with a precedent setting opinion it "must" have
believed that state and local government owned airports could be included within the
the premption rationale. In other words, when state owned property is regulated,
its regulation may nevertheless be invalidly based on police power. Nothing in the
opinion explicitly suggests the foregoing, except that, with an exception or two, all
air carrier airports are owned by states or political subdivisions thereof. If all such
airports can be curfewed by their owners as owners, the Burbank opinion means
very little.
2-46
-------
It is submitted that the proprietary right in fact consists of the right to defend
from liability. In other words, given the prior Court position in the Griggs case, the
airport operator would have to have been left with its own right to protect itself from
constitutional takings, or the Federal Government would have preempted the very
ability of the airports to act and thus would have shifted liability to the Federal
Government. If this be the proprietary right the Court left undefined, it must be
viewed in the context of the Federal authority to certificate state and local govern-
ment owned airports for noise abatement. Would that certification preempt the air-
port owner's proprietary right to act to defend itself from liability?
Whatever this proprietary right of the airport owner and however that right may
be affected by certification, the result of the decision is clear: Airport operations,
i. e. operations concerning aircraft, may not be regulated for noise purposes under
the state and local police power. According to the Court, under the 1972 Act, this
is so even if both the FAA and EPA were to do nothing.
The cases prior to Burbank developed a number of applicable concepts that must
be kept in mind in any overall consideration of State and local authority in this area.
194
The first such case, Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. The Village of Cedar hurst,
arose out of the adoption in 1952 by Cedarhurst of an anti-flyover police power
ordinance prohibiting overflights that were less than 1, 000 feet above the ground.
The ordinance was said to be necessary because Cedarhurst was within some 4, 000 feet
off the eastern end of the JFK International Airport. Cedarhurst was then sued to
prevent enforcement of the altitude ordinance by the Port of New York Authority as
well as air carriers using JFK airport. The district court enjoined enforcement of
the ordinance and the case was taken to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In sustaining the injunction, the Court of Appeals noted that the predecessor to
the FAA had been directed by the existing Federal law to prescribe air traffic rules
regulating safe altitudes of flight and that in complying with these rules aircraft land-
ing or taking off at JFK were required to fly as low as 450 feet over Cedarhurst under
certain adverse weather conditions. As a. result, the Court found it was not possible
2-47
-------
for an aircraft at once to comply with the Federal rule and the Cedarhurst ordinance.
Given the existence of such a direct conflict, the Court sustained the Federal Air
Regulation under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Cedarhurst opinion
also went on to rule that, without regard to the existence of a conflict, the Federal
Air Regulations had completely preempted the field of air traffic regulations and had
left no room for any other kind of regulation. As is illustrated by the result in the
195
later case of American Airlines, Inc. v. The City of Audobon Park, Kentucky,
the Cedarhurst precedent put an end to State and local effort to achieve noise abate-
ment by way of a "minimum altitude" type of legislation.
A second type of legislation that has been attempted on a local basis is illustrated
by the "Unnecessary Noise Ordinance" enacted by the Town of Hempstead, New York,
in 1964. The ordinance set a maximum noise limit that could legally be made by each
aircraft which overflew the town. Hempstead, as was the case with Cedarhurst, was
adjacent to JFK Airport. Given the location of the airport, the practical effect of the
Hempstead ordinance was in many cases to prevent the use by jet aircraft of "the
FAA landing approach and take-off procedures" used at the JFK airport. The air
carriers using JFK sued to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance and at trial the
ordinance was enjoined on the ground of conflict, preemption, and a burdening of
196
interstate commerce, American Airlines, Inc. v. The Town of Hempstead.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals relied on conflict alone, stating that in view
"of the present state of development of noise supression techniques, . . . compliance
with the noise ordinance [of Hempstead] would require alterations in the flight pat-
'terns and procedures established by Federal regulations."
The case law defining private rights and remedies for aircraft noise has thus
influenced the allocation of authority between state, local government and airport
owners to deal with the aircraft noise problem. Given the relative lack of success
of enjoining the operations of a noisy airport, nearly all of the case law concerns
either damaging or constitutional taking. First, as to the taking, the taking cases
generally represent the so-called Federal rule, which originates with the decisions
2-48
-------
197
of the Supreme Court in United States v. Cauaby and in Griggs v. Allegheny
198
County.. The Causby case announced that Federal Government (apparently as a
partial lessor of the Winston Salem Airport rather than as the operator of the mili-
tary aircraft in question) had in the constitutional sense "taken" an interest or
"aviation easement" in the property the aircraft overflew. Because of this, the
United States was required to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution, the measure of damages being the diminution in the value of the
overflown property. Some 10 years later in the Griggs case the Supreme Court had
before it an airport owned by State authorities, and the airport was used by commer-
cial aircraft, the flight patterns of which were regulated by Federal authorities. It
was clear that there could be no taking in the constitutional sense by the commercial
carriers who used the airport and generated the noise. The court held that the local
governmental authority, J_. £. the airport owner, was liable for taking the aviation
easement on the directly overflown property.
Since both Causby and Griggs involved direct overflights, the theory of the cases
has been called the trespass theory of inverse condemnation which requires the ac-
tual physical invasion of the property, J_. es. the air above the ground. This direct
overflight approach has not been frequently followed in those State courts whose
constitutions bar not only governmental takings but also governmental damaging
unless there is just compensation. As will be discussed later, those jurisdictions
have allowed recovery against the governmental airport owner on a broader
rationale that does not require overflight.
The point to be made here is that the power still left with the states and local
government to achieve aircraft noise abatement at the source appears to be their
right as property owners to defend themselves from liablility and to keep their air
terminal systems viable. As will be discussed in the next section, the state and lo-
cal governments continue to have the power to control exposure to aircraft through
land use control and building design.
2-49
-------
CONTROL OF EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE
THROUGH LAND USE AND BUILDING DESIGN CONTROLS
As indicated in the previous section, State and local government efforts to control
aircraft noise at the source through an exercise of the police power are no longer valid
under the Burbank rationale. However, land use planning and control measures are
still available to the State and local governments.
Aside from the three land use measures that have been frequently proposed and that
will be discussed below, several States have adopted, or are in the process thereof, an
advanced and comprehensive approach to assure that there is some regional control
over the area adjacent to airports other than the traditional zoning authority.
Minnesota, for example, has adopted an Airport Zoning Act (Chapter 1111, 1969
Session Laws, Attachment A, Appendix B, discussed later) that establishes State and
regional airport neighborhood planning agencies. These agencies are responsible for
determining incompatible land use boundaries. They are also responsible for promul-
gating land use regulations to preclude development of incompatible uses and encourage
the conversion to compatible uses in airport affected areas. Such State and regional
regulations are in addition to, and where inconsistent supersede the traditional local
zoning authority.
As discussed at the outset of the preceding section, cited in footnote 187, the
approach adopted by California includes not only the source regulation put into question
by Burbank, but also a comprehensive procedure to obtain compatible land use. Every
California county has an Airport Land Use Commission to insure that there is govern-
ment control over all areas immediately adjacent to the airport. This, like the
Minnesota approach, is in addition to and supersedes the usual local zoning authority.
Additional airport sites require both state and local approval. The point to be made
on the basis of the approaches taken by these two states is that compatible land use
can normally be achieved only if a regional procedure is adopted so that there will be
the necessary and uniform jurisdiction over all noise affected land surrounding the
airport.
2-50
-------
Traditional land use planning measures available to minimize the impact of aircraft
noise fall into three basic categories. The first consists of the zoning ordinances, to
exclude incompatible uses in noise-impacted areas. The second consists of a govern-
mental unit acquisition of property by condemnation or purchase and the imposition of
(similar type) limitations in its capacity as owner. And the third consists of imposing
soundproofing requirements on residences located in noise sensitive areas.
The procedure to control land use most often suggested in the past is local govern-
ment zoning. Generally, two types of zoning have been utilized in connection with air-
port operations. One limits the height to which structures may be erected so that
airport approaches will be free from obstructions. The second, concerned more
directly with aircraft noise problems, restricts the uses that may be made of property
in the vicinity of an airport to those compatible with airport operations. This excludes
erection of noise-sensitive uses, such as schools, hospitals and residences, while
commercial and industrial development is permitted.
However, zoning, like every exercise of the police power, is limited by applicable
constitutional requirements. This means at least three things. First, the restric-
tions imposed on property may not be so severe as to deprive the owner of all, or sub-
199
stantially all, of its beneficial use. Applied more particularly, this rule prohibits
legislation that limits the use of property to purposes for which there is no reasonable
economic demand. Second, a zoning enactment cannot be arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable as applied to any particular land owner, or group of owners. And third,
zoning may not be employed as a substitute for use of the condemnation power when
an analysis of the governmental action involved discloses that the government is, for
its own purposes acquiring, using or, in the words of the courts, "taking" the zoned
property. The second and third limitations have thus far been the principal stumbling
blocks to effective airport land use planning based upon the zoning power.
There are 19 reported decisions dealing with the validity of airport zoning. Twelve
ruled that the particular ordinances in question went beyond the bounds of permissible
regulation, amounting to an invalid taking of property without compensation. Only
2-51
-------
7 of the 19 cases upheld, or at least refused to strike down, airport zoning enact-
201
ments. Analysis of the cases is difficult because eight involved zoning to assure
an obstruction-free airport, six involved use limitation zoning and five involved both
types of restrictions.
The earliest reported zoning case is the 1939 Maryland lower court decision involv-
ing an act that limited the height to which buildings could be erected on land located in
the vicinity of public airports, Mutual Chemical Co. v. Mayor and City Council of
202
Baltimore. After pointing out that " [n] either the state nor the city can, through
the guise of a zoning law or ordinance confiscate the property of an individual, "
the court ruled that the statute's restrictions amounted to "a practical confiscation"
203
of property rights.
The rule enunciated in this case received support by the inverse condemnation
decisions of the Supreme Court in Causby. and Griggs. Typical of the cases
in which airport zoning ordinances were invalidated on the basis of Causby and Griggs
is a 1964 ruling of the Idaho Supreme Court invalidating an ordinance whose restric-
tions confined the use of land to agricultural purposes in certain zones and to single
family residences in others. The court rules that "a landowner has a property right
in the reasonable use of the airspace above his land which cannot be 'taken1 for public
O A £J
use without just compensation. "^
The rationale for the seven cases which have refused to strike down airport zoning
enactment is ultimately derived from the leading American zoning decision, Euclid v
Ambler Realty — zoning is a valid exercise of the police power unless it is "clearly
208
.207
arbitrary. The most frequently cited case upholding airport zoning is the 1959
Florida decision in Harrell's Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority.
in which the court said that such regulations "are presumptively valid and the burden
is upon him who attacks such regulation to carry the extraordinary burden of both
alleging and proving that it is unreasonable and bears no substantial relation to the
209
public health, safety, morals or general welfare. "^ The ordinance upheld was a
height limitation restriction, which precluded the complaining property owner from
2-52
-------
constructing an ornamental roof on its premises designed primarily for advertising
purpoHcs.
In answer to the defendant's constitutional attack on the regulations, the court
held: "The restriction. . . as applied to this particular property cannot be said to
deprive the owner of the beneficial use of his land to such an extent that it violates
211
the constitutional prohibition in this respect or is otherwise unlawful. " The court
noted that while the use of the superstructure "was beneficial to the operation of the
211
main building, it could not be said that it was essential to it. " The court empha-
sized that it was concerned here only with "whether this particular regulation as it
212
affects these appellants' property is valid. " Significantly, the court added,
"[wjhether other. . .regulations enacted by this authority are valid depends upon the
facts in each particular case. . ."
214
In Willoughby Hills v. Corrigan, the Ohio court noted that an unconstitutional
taking might result, in given factual situations, from the enforcement of zoning regu-
lations. The court said that where "it is shown that the enforcement of any such air-
port zoning regulation as to specific property will result in an unconstitutional 'taking1
of such property, a court may enjoin the operation of the. . .regulation. . .or may
. . . direct the institution of eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of compen-
215
sating the property-owner for such 'taking.'"
The three most useful rulings from the point of view of upholding compatible land
use zoning in the vicinity of airports are two California cases and a Pennsylvania deci-
sion. The California cases hold that a limitation on residential development designed
to prevent inverse condemnation claims of the Causby and Griggs variety from arising,
O I C
constitutes a valid exercise of the police power. Smith v. County of Santa Barbara;
21?
Morse v. County of San Luis Qbispo. The first California decision upheld an ordi-
nance that rezoned plaintiff's property from residential use to "design industrial, "
and the second sanctioned a zoning change from a single residence per acre to a single
residence for every five acres. In the latter case plaintiff argued that any rezoning
of land near an airport that reduces allowable population density should automatically
2-53
-------
be presumed to represent an uncompensated taking of air easements for the purpose of
flight. The court, however, held that the presumption of the law is just the opposite:
zoning regulations are presumed to be valid exercises of the police power in further-
ance of the public safety and general welfare.
On much the same basis, a 1967 Pennsylvania decision upheld an ordinance which
prohibited any residential use of land located within an airport district, except for
allowing an airport guard to reside with his immediate family upon airport property.
218
Township of Hickory v. Chadderton. The ordinance was upheld as a reasonable
use of the police power "to prevent a congestion problem" and also because of "safety
219
considerations."
Under a comprehensive zoning plan a land owner would have no sound basis for
objection if the airport is able to benefit from the zoning. But zoning solely for the
benefit of an airport seems in the final analysis to be nothing more than a sophisticated
version of spot zoning, which courts almost universally strike down. The sine qua non
of valid zoning has been held to be the existence of a comprehensive zoning plan. Idell
220
v. Haas. Compatible land use zoning for airport purposes appears to present the
identical view that the New York Court of Appeals struck down in the leading case of
221
Vernon Park Realty, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon. There, an ordinance restricted
the use of plantiff's property to parking lot purposes—the use to which it had been
devoted for many years. Although the city attempted to justify the restriction on the
ground that congested traffic and parking conditions were such as to require the
restriction in the public interest, the court disagreed, stating "However compelling
and acute the community traffic problem may be, its solution does not lie in placing
an undue and uncompensated burden on the individual owner of a single parcel of land
222
in the guise of regulation, even for a public purpose. "
Even valid exercise of zoning power may be ineffective because of the commonly
accepted doctrine of non-conforming uses, which allow the continuation, for reason-
able periods of time, of non-conforming uses that exist when a zoning change is
adopted. The two California cases, previously discussed, which upheld compatible
2-54
-------
land use zoning as reasonable exercises of legislative power to prevent inverse con-
demnation claims from arising, were concerned solely with ordinances which were to
be applied prospectively. In fact, of the nineteen reported airport zoning cases only
one dealt with an attempted retroactive application of the ordinance and there the ordi-
223
nance was invalidated. Sneed v. Riverside County,,
The black letter rule on non-conforming uses is set forth as follows by the
present Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals:
"It is the law of this state that nonconforming uses or structures, in
existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule,
constitutionally protected and will be permitted to continue, notwith-
standing the contrary provisions of the ordinance. " People v. Miller.
Finally we come to the last suggested irseaBS of -redsicy^12; Se adverse impact of
aircraft noise by land use planning — the requirement, cf ^BOur.dproofing. This subject
was studied in detail in a report prepared for the Tri-State Transportation Commis-
225
sion in February, 1970. The report dealt mainly with, mandatory rather than
voluntary soundproofing regulations, and pointed out that it is questionable whether,
without proper enabling legislation, there presently exists local power to adopt
soundproofing requirements. Furthermore, adherence to the following guidelines
was considered essential:
1. The regulation should be applicable only in the highest noise areas.
2. It should be the least expensive and disruptive means of accomplishing the
sound reduction.
3. The effective reduction of noise within the structure should be substantial.
4. The regulation should contain as much flexibility as possible to allow for
individual differences, hardships and inconveniences.
The report indicated that accomplishment of mandatory soundproofing by means
of the police power stands its best chance of successfully withstanding constitutional
attack if its application is limited to the owners of multiple unit structures which are
2-55
-------
rented. It is far simpler, the report states, to demonstrate benefit to a class of the
public, and no restriction is placed on the freedom and privacy of the building owners
subject to the regulations.
Soundproofing regulations for a single-family residence would, the report noted,
face substantial obstacles. This is so not only because the smallest element of public
benefit is conveyed (only the individual and his family are involved), but also because
there would be the greatest interference with individual freedom to live as one chooses.
But the report emphasized that even in the cases of multiple unit structures there
were no cases directly in point.
In the California airport noise regulation, the list of land uses deemed "compati-
ble" within the noise impact boundary of the airport includes acoustically treated
homes, up to a limiting value of Cumulative Noise Exposure Level (CNEL). The use
of acoustical treatment as an acceptable solution is limited to cases in which both the
homes and the airport are pre-existing and quantitative performance requirements
are set for the acoustical treatment in its finished form.
Major considerations, must, of course, be directed to the question of cost. The
factors involved here are the determination of who must bear the expense of imple-
226
menting the program, and the magnitude of the cost involved. The experience in
the Los Angeles area indicates a cost of approximately $3,000 per individual dwelling
unit with a school experience of about $10,000 per class room.
NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS BY AIRPORT PROPRIETORS
Discussed here are instances in which airport owners as proprietors have imposed
noise control restrictions on the aircraft operators using their facilities.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in its capacity as an airport
operator, has imposed restrictions on the use of jet aircraft at its four air terminals,
Kennedy International, LaGuardia, Newark International, and Teterboro. Even prior
to the advent of commercial jet flights, the Authority adopted a regulation providing
2-56
-------
that no jet aircraft may use its airports without permission. Such permission has
been granted only on the condition that the noise produced by each jet flight in the
communities under the takeoff flight path, is no greater than that produced by 75 of
the large four-engine piston aircraft in use at the time jet aircraft were being intro-
duced commercially in 1958. That value, 112 PNdB, constitutes the limit for jet
takeoff noise.
Additionally, at Kennedy International Airport the Port Authority has required the
use of specific runways for takeoff during the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
in order to take advantage of the geographic location of the Airport to reduce noise
impact. The southern boundary of Kennedy International Airport is formed by Jamaica
Bay. At night the runways specified for takeoff have flight paths with initial climb
portions over Jamaica Bay, thus keeping the noisiest portion of the takeoff over unin-
habited areas.
At hearings held in 1959-62 before Subcommittees of the Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, 86th and 87th Congress, the then General Counsel of the
Authority advised that the legal basis for its restrictions was the
". . . power [that] inheres in the very nature of the property ownership
and control and unless surrendered by contract is possessed by all
owners or operators of real property. " Hearings, p. 657227
He further explained that the assertion of Port Authority power to restrict the use of
its airports for noise abatement purposes:
". . .was not an assertion. . .of any legislative power. It was a com-
mon-law right which inheres to the owner and operator of land. " ^28
The Authority right to impose restrictions on its airline tenants in the interest
of noise abatement has been challenged in one case, Port of New York Authority v.
229
Eastern Airlines. Inc. et al. The litigation arose out of the objection by an air-
line to following a temporary ban which the Authority had placed on jet aircraft using
a recently completed runway at LaGuardia Airport until the construction of a second
runway was also completed. The Authority wanted to avoid the concentration of jet
2-57
-------
noise that would have resulted from the use of the one runway alone. The airline con-
tended that the Authority restriction invaded a field preempted by Congress and
although the Authority conceded that Congress had preempted, to a great extent, the
field of air traffic regulation, it argued that Congress had not ousted an airport
operator of jurisdiction to control the use of its facilities. The Authority asserted
230
that a corollary to the Supreme Court holding in the Griggs case must be that an air-
port operator possesses the right to protect himself from possible liability by limiting
the use that aircraft can make of his runways. Acceptance of the airline position
would, the Port Authority argued, create an impossible situation for airport operators
since in certain instances only by restricting the use of jet aircraft at their airports
can such operators avoid monetary liability to property owners aggrieved by aircraft
noise. The court ruled in favor of the Authority holding, first, that its prohibition
was reasonable; second, that the prohibition neither conflicted nor interfered with
the FAA ability to control air traffic; and, finally, that the Authority was entitled to
injunctive relief without specifically showing irreparable damage or loss.
At the time that jet service was initiated at Washington National Airport (DCA),
agreement was reached between the operator of the airport (the FAA) and the airlines
that jet service would not be scheduled at the airport between the hours of 10:00 p. m,
and 7:00 a. m. This agreement continues in force to date. In addition, the FAA has
promulgated as a policy decision for Washington National Airport that "Air carriers
will not be permitted to operate a new aircraft type into DCA unless the new aircraft
is quieter and results on an average day in less emissions on a per-passenger-seat
basis than the aircraft it replaced and is to be used for service within the range of
231
the short-haul provisions of this policy. "
The Santa Monica, California, City Council adopted a 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
curfew on business jet operations at the city-owned Santa Monica Municipal Airport.
This was an extension of a curfew that was in force from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
232
The original curfew was upheld in Stagg v. Municipal Court of Santa Monica.
The court, finding no conflict between Federal and State statutes and the local
2-58
-------
ordinance, upheld the ordinance as within the municipality's home rule power to regu-
late municipally owned public utilities, and a municipally owned airport is classified
as a public utility.
At Orange County Airport (California), there has been considerable success with
lease restrictions requiring noise abatement. On the basis of the airport lease provi-
sions, a noise preferential system is in effect as well as a restriction on the number
of flights per day by each lessee airline, a noise monitoring system and a night curfew
233
on operations from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
At Los Angeles International Airport, a recently adopted rule (with which the
air carriers have agreed), requires that all aircraft using the airport shall be certi-
ficated in compliance with Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations on or before
December 31, 1979. "This fleet noise rule shall stand as a regulation at Los Angeles
International Airport unless and until a more stringent rule is adopted by the Federal
234
Government. " In the interim period, the Board of Commissioners of Los Angeles
International Airport requires all aircraft approaching the airport between the hours
of 11:00 p. m. and 6:00 a. m. to approach it from west to east. In the event that
weather or wind conditions require the use of approaches over the residential areas
east of the airport, only those aircraft that meet FAR Part 36 noise requirements
235
may utilize runways that would affect the residential areas.
PRIVATE (JUDICIAL) RIGHTS AND REMEDIES FOR CONTROL
OR COMPENSATION
Persons sufficiently affected by aircraft noise who seek relief in the Courts are
neighbors of airports. Thus, the case law relating to aircraft noise is concerned
almost exclusively with airport neighbors, who have generally sought two kinds of
judicial relief: an injunction to prevent or limit aircraft operations and damages for
injury to their property or person.
Injunctive relief is logically the favorite remedy of airport neighbors since that
remedy would stop or limit the noise. Damages on the other hand generates extra
2-59
-------
income for the successful litigant but the noise remains. Thus, it is that injunctions
are often sought as an alternative remedy in damage actions. However, they have
also sometimes constituted the primary relief sought, especially in cases brought
ipa
238
Q O £*
as class actions, by municipalities located near airports, or by an attorney-
general on behalf of the State.
Despite the understandable appeal of this type of litigation to airport neighbors
and the often substantial measure of local support for it, injunctive relief has, with
239
one exception, been denied in recent years. It has been suggested that the need
for a national air transport system has made the courts reluctant to take any action
that interferes with this scheme. On the other hand this suggestion may be at odds
with the concession by the Secretary of Transportation to Congress in 1968 that:
"Airport owners acting as proprietors can presently deny the use of
their airports to aircraft on the basis of noise considerations so long
as such exclusion is non-discriminatory. . ."240
Moreover, in its report recommending the 1968 noise control amendment the Senate
241
Committee stated that it concurred with this view of the Secretary of Transportation.
Plaintiffs have often asserted the theory that the airport operations constituted
a nuisance. Courts have until a recent exception, rejected this on the theory of
'legalized nuisance", which means there is no private remedy against the conduct of
242
legislatively authorized activity that might otherwise constitute a nuisance. Courts
have also refused injunctive relief on the grounds that the balance of the equities did
not warrant it and that it would conflict with applicable Federal statutory and admin-
istrative regulation.
The exception to the denial of injunctive relief is seen in the case of Township of
244
Hanover v. Town of Morristown. This suit was brought by several communities
adjoining an airport as well as by individuals. The court granted "experimental"
relief banning jet flights between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday
and any time on Sunday except between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. and ordered a pre-
scribed preferential runway system to go into effect upon completion of certain
2-60
-------
improvements. The plaintiffs in the Morristown case had sought an injunction against
an extension of a runway and the above injunctive provisions in the order were imposed
by the court as part of the order permitting the runway extension.
In assessing the precedential value of the Morristown case, it should be noted,
the Federal Government has instituted suit in Federal court to challenge the injunction
granted by the State court.
The number of damage suits filed by airport neighbors against airport operators
and the airlines has increased enormously since the introduction of jet aircraft in
civil aviation. Although the aggregate size of the claims outstanding in such current
lawsuits is spectacularly large, actual recovery to date has been very modest — a
total of not more than $3 million.
Most claimed damages and virtually all judgments have been for "inverse con-
demnation" under the Federal or State constitutions. The origin of this theory as dis-
cussed above was the Causby case, in which the government was held liable for
diminution in value of a property immediately adjacent to and in the flight path of one
of the runways of the airport. The theory endorsed by the Supreme Court was that
although the governmental authority had not completely expropriated the property-
owner, it had taken an interest or "avigation easement" in the property, for which it
was bound to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Again as discussed above in the Griggs case, the Supreme Court
applied the doctrine in the more complicated context of an airport owned and operated
by State government authorities, regulated by Federal authorities, and used by com-
mercial airlines. It held that the governmental authorities that owned the airport,
rather than the Federal government or the airlines, were liable for taking the aviga-
tion easement.
The doctrines of the Causby and Griggs cases have been followed by the lower
Federal courts and these State courts that have State constitutions providing only for
taking. The crucial question that faced the courts in these cases has been the type
245
and degree of overflight "trespass" interference which constitutes a taking.
2-61
-------
This trespass approach has been modified in the State courts, which have tended
to adopt a "nuisance" theory of damaging. The nuisance approach does not require
direct overflight trespass, and looks rather to the impact of the noise on the property
246
in determining whether there has in fact been a taking.
More recently in Aaron v. City of Los Angeles the court relied heavily on an NEF
("Noise Exposure Forecast") contour map of the airport and its environs, which deline-
ates the relative exposure of the areas surrounding an airport to aircraft noise, in
much the same way that an altitude contour map shows the relative altitudes of the
247
terrain on the map. The court held that any landowner located in the NEF area
having the highest exposure was entitled to recover to the extent that he could estab-
lish that jet aircraft noise had substantially diminished the market value of his property.
The court went on to hold that "damage is substantial if it is measurable as contrasted
248
with that which is merely nominal. "
Though generalizations are difficult in this area of case law, it would appear that
recently the courts are tending to conclude that it is the "noise" rather than the "air-
craft" that is the trespasser. This avoids the problem of the legal nuisance and can
arguably be said to recognize the reality of the fact that noise travels to a greater
249
extent than do aircraft. However, most recently in Nestle v. Santa Monica. the
court while finding no inverse condemnation, permitted a cause of action under the
250
California Civil Code on a pure nuisance theory.
2-62
-------
SECTION 3
CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
TO CONTROL AND ABATE AIR CRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE
Prior to evaluating the present legal/institutional structures governing the control
and abatement of aircraft noise or analyzing possible solutions to problems encountered
in such arrangements, it is necessary to define explicitly the considerations and cri-
teria on the basis of which such structures should be measured. This section of the
report will identify a number of considerations that bear upon the ability of the law
and institutions regulating aircraft/airport noise successfully to fulfill that mission.
Such considerations suggest criteria, or goals, for the proper design of a legal/
institutional system to regulate noise, and focus upon the constraints imposed upon
such institutions by legal, economic, political, and social factors.
It should be emphasized that the criteria discussed here relate to the analysis
of legal/institutional arrangements for the control of noise. These are not criteria
for the consideration of what regulations or enforcement priorities should be adopted
to control noise. Rather, the question here is how to design laws and institutions
which will promote the adoption and implementation of an ongoing aircraft/airport
noise control program that is adequate to protect public health and welfare. This
section will suggest and address which factors should be considered in adopting or
evaluating particular noise control regulations or strategies. Nevertheless, the pri-
mary focus of this chapter is to evaluate the effectiveness of legal and institutional
arrangements by which such regulations are adopted (and to recommend changes in
those arrangements in order to address more effectively the aircraft/airport noise
problem).
3-1
-------
CRITERION I; PROMOTE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT
FACTORS
The legal/institutional arrangement adopted for the control and abatement of air-
craft/airport noise should promote and assure full and adequate consideration of all
relevant factors in the development and implementation of noise control regulations,
standards or strategies.
Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by the Noise Control
Act of 1972, establishes four general factors which, inter alia, must be considered in
the adoption of standards and regulations for the control of aircraft noise:
1. Available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom including the results
of research, development, testing, and evaluation activities conducted by the
Federal Government.
2. Whether the proposed standard or regulation is consistent with the highest
degree of safety in air commerce.
3. Whether a proposed standard or regulation is economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate for particular types of aircraft,
engine, or appliance or certificate.
4. Whether the standard or regulation will afford present and future relief and
protection to the public health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic boom.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
Further delineating the Congressional mandate, the legal and institutional arrange-
ment (including Federal, State and local components) should assure adequate considera-
tion and balancing of the following factors:
1. Effects of noise on public health and welfare
a. Direct health and welfare effects of noise (such as effects on hearing,
sleep, annoyance, and other physiological and psychological impacts).
3-2
-------
b. Economic and social impacts of noise (such as effects on property value, use
and enjoyment of private property, cost of land acquisition, displacement
and relocation of impacted land uses, cost of litigation, disruption of human
activities, speech, and communications, and costs of operational
limitation).
2. Positive and negative effects of noise control and abatement equipment, pro-
cedures or strategies on air transportation safety (both with respect to per-
sons flying and persons on the ground).
3. Technological practicability of implementing particular noise standards, pro-
cedures or strategies.
4. Economic feasibility of implementing particular noise standards, procedures
or strategies (including short term financing, long term cost allocation, and
Interrelationships with other economic aspects of air transportation and
pollution control).
5. Effects on the overall transportation system of implementing or failing to
implement noise control regulations, standards or strategies.
6. Effects on the total environment (such as energy consumption and increases
or decrease of other pollutants).
7. Effects of noise control strategies on social disruption, relocation, housing
availability, employment, job disruption and other relevant welfare
considerations.
Not all of these factors are quantifiable, nor is it advisable always to cost out such
elements. Nevertheless, neither the law nor the institutions responsible for noise
control should disregard those factors that are not capable of expression in monetary
terms. Regulatory decision making regarding the control and abatement of aircraft
noise must not be delayed because one or more factors cannot be accurately quantified
or evaluated. Institutions responsible for aircraft and airport noise regulation can be
expected, in determining appropriate regulations, to consider and evaluate such
3-3
-------
factors to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. Certain of these factors will
differ markedly in different airport situations, so that the balancing required in adopt-
ing a specific noise control implementation plan for an airport and its neighbors may
best be done at the local or regional level.
AGENCY EXPERTISE AND INFORMATION
In order properly to evaluate and balance each of these factors, the agency or
agencies assigned the duty of developing, adopting, and implementing aircraft/airport
noise regulations must have the expertise and information necessary to assess each
factor.
Two questions must be answered:
1. What expertise and information is necessary to assess adequately each
factor ?
2. What agencies have or can develop such expertise and information?
In the field of aircraft/airport noise control, expertise and information may be
both overlapping and fragmented. The problem for the legal/institutional scheme is
to get this expertise and information to the decision makers, whether on the Federal,
State, or local level, who must select and adopt appropriate airport/aircraft noise
regulations and strategies. Furthermore, it is incumbent that where there is a void
in expertise and information in one or all agencies or levels of government, such
areas be identified and corrective steps taken to develop the necessary basis for
decision making.
INTEREST GROUP INPUT
If each factor is to be adequately assessed by the decision-making agency, all
affected interest groups should have full opportunity to make adequate input to the
decision-making process. Airport neighbors, general aviation operators, con-
sumers, airlines, pilots, airport operators, manufacturers, environmental groups,
3-4
-------
Federal, State, and local agencies should have access to an open decision-making
process by the noise regulatory agency.
Thus, several questions should be addressed:
1. What formal interest group inputs are provided by the legal/institutional
arrangement? Such formal inputs may include comments to proposed rules,
hearings, study panels, representation before courts and on decision-making
boards.
2. What informal interest group inputs are available? For example, what
opportunities for contact are there between agency personnel and various
interest groups working on other projects within the agency's purview?
3. Which interest groups are presently represented either formally or infor-
mally in those agencies responsible for airport/aircraft noise regulation?
To what extent are such groups represented in those agencies ?
4. What types of published invitations for interest group inputs are made?
Which groups receive such invitations ? How can a balanced invitation
process be designed ?
CRITERION 2; FULL. ADEQUATE. AND EXPEDITIOUS DECISION MAKING
The legal/institutional arrangement adopted for the regulation of airport/aircraft
noise should assure decision-making power will be fully, adequately, and expeditiously
exercised.
Full and adequate exercise of noise regulatory powers would require adoption of
a comprehensive set of aircraft/airport noise control and abatement strategies, cap-
able of attacking, after a period of time for implementation, the entire problem.
Such a regulatory scheme would address source abatement, including design and
retrofit requirements; operational procedures; airport siting, development and opera-
tions; and airport environ land use control.
3-5
-------
Furthermore, a comprehensive regulatory program should be developed and
adopted as soon as possible. Exercise of decision-making power should not be
delayed by reference to the chimera of waiting for the optimum solution. Solution of
the aircraft/airport problem will be incremental, and yet attack on each part of the
problem must be coordinated with other aspects of the total effort. When new tech-
nology makes noise abatement technically feasible, authority to require implementa-
tion should be expeditiously exercised. However, regulatory efforts need not merely
follow technology development, but may provide incentives to new research and
development efforts, by setting future standards in advance. Without expeditious
and progressive regulatory decisions, the state-of-the-art in aircraft/airport noise
abatement is likely to advance at slower rates and in a more uncoordinated fashion.
Where they are found, existing regulatory powers have not been fully, adequately,
or expeditiously exercised, and in order to avoid similar problems in the future,
three questions must be asked:
1. What hindrances to decision making does the legal/institutional scheme
create ?
2. What pressures to exercise decision making power does the legal/institu-
tional scheme provide ?
3. To what extent, if any, has inadequate funding hindered decision making?
To the extent that present regulatory authority has not been fully, adequately, and
expeditiously exercised, much of the problem must be laid to the hindrances and dis-
incentives to regulation posed by legal doctrines and institutional structures. A num-
ber of such institutional hindrances have been suggested by commentators, including
the following:
1. Conflicts between the primary mission of agency or agencies assigned the
noise regulatory function and implementation of aircraft/airport noise regu-
lations (e. g., the promotion of air commerce or the promotion of local land
use and development).
3-6
-------
2. Failure clearly to define and assign responsibility for various aspects of
aircraft/airport noise regulation, resulting in confusion regarding authority
and counterclaims of insufficient power and inadequate action by responsible
agencies.
3. Reluctance to implement aggressively noise control options available under
existing authority, lest the assertion of that authority result in increased
liability of, or a shift in liability toward, the institution which has moved to
implement its authority.
4. Inadequate funding and staff to make sound regulatory decisions, to adopt and
implement regulations, or to conduct research regarding potential abatement
strategies.
5. Failure of agencies responsible for aircraft/airport noise regulation and land
use decisions to be politically accountable to all affected and interested
parties, including air transport users and noise impacted neighbors.
6. Nonconcurrence of real, as well as legal, power to regulate airport/aircraft
noise and responsibility to provide compensation for personal, property-
taking or nuisance damages resulting from an excessive noise level.
In analyzing the present legal and institutional scheme, and suggested modifications
thereof, it is important to determine the actual existence and significance of each of
these alleged institutional problems.
CRITERION 3; CONTINUING REGULATORY PROCESS
The legal/institutional structure should provide the basis for a continuing process
of noise control and abatement, rather than a one-time regulatory effort. Such a con-
tinuing process should establish goals for noise abatement in advance of technological
development in order to provide targets and incentives for noise control and abatement
research and to encourage implementation. Regulatory actions must be reviewed per-
iodically and revised where appropriate to reflect the state-of-the-art when new and
more effective noise control technology is developed.
3-7
-------
CRITERION 4; CLEAR DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION LIABILITY
Liability for compensation for damages resulting from excess aircraft noise levels
should be clearly defined. The compensation scheme adopted should promote amelio-
ration of noise impact to the maximum extent possible. The methods of determining
liability should not be overly repetitive, wasteful or costly, nor should they result in
inequitable differences between various jurisdictions regarding theories or standards
of liability.
CRITERION 5; ULTIMATE ALLOCATION OF NOISE COSTS
The ultimate allocation of noise damage and noise abatement costs should promote
the economically rational use of transportation resources and promote rational deci-
sion making regarding the regulation of aircraft/airport noise.
The legal and institutional schemes adopted for the control and abatement of air-
craft noise will determine, either explicitly or implicitly, the ultimate allocation of
noise damages and noise abatement cost. It is, therefore, important to understand
how legal doctrines and institutional arrangements will affect such cost allocations,
and how such cost allocations will hinder or promote the rational use of transporta-
tion resources in adoption of noise regulations.
There are a number of alternative cost allocation schemes, which can largely
be determined by the legal/institutional arrangements adopted. The first is to 'let
the costs fall where they may." Under such a system, the airport neighbor will
continue to bear the cost of noise damages; the airline and the air transportation
passenger and shipper would absorb the cost of noise control devices; and the tax-
payer would bear the noise related losses to public buildings and the cost of
airport relocation and construction. * A second possible allocation scheme would
*Where the airport is operated by an independent authority, rather than a general
powers government, whose revenue derives from user charges rather than taxes,
costs of airport relocation and construction will be borne, in general, by airport
users, through landing fees, increased rentals, etc.
3-8
-------
shift the cost of both noise damages and noise abatement to the general taxpayer
through governmental, as opposed to airport proprietor or airline, liability for noise
compensation and through governmental subsidies to airlines for the implementation
of noise control technology. A third scheme would shift the cost of damages and noise
abatement to the air transport consumer, by means of increased landing fees, taxes
on air transport use, or direct liability of airlines. Due to market or institutional
imperfections, the cost allocation method selected may never exist in pure form.
For example, attempts to shift cost to general taxpayers or air transport consumers
may not be wholly successful, due to the inability to adjust landing fees, tax rates, or
governmental subsidies.
Furthermore, the distinction must be made between short term financing prob-
lems vs. the issue of long-term cost allocations. For example, if the requirement that
the airlines install noise abatement equipment, without government loans or guaran-
tees, creates serious short-term capital finance problems, expeditious implementa-
tion of noise regulatory decisions will be inhibited. However, solution of this problem
is a separate though related matter from the question of how such noise abatement
cost will ultimately be allocated. Both issues must be addressed and solved by the
legal/institutional structure for noise control.
Theoretically, air transport beneficiaries should pay the full cost of providing
air service, including secondary costs such as those of abating noise pollution.
Economists suggest that where such costs are fully internalized, consumers can
more rationally choose among different modes of transportation; and transportation,
energy, and other resources will be used in a more economically rational fashion.
These considerations suggest the following subcriteria:
SHORT-TERM FINANCING
The legal/institutional scheme should provide adequate financing mechanisms to
assure that noise abatement technology will be installed at the earliest feasible
time and that problems, if any, of the commercial financing of large capital invest-
ments necessary for such implementation will be avoided.
3-9
-------
COST INTERNALIZATION
The cost of noise abatement and noise damages should be ultimately internalized
by the air transportation industry and passed on to the maximum extent possible to the
air transport beneficiaries.
CRITERION 6; ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES
The institutions assigned the responsibility of developing and adopting noise regu-
lations must have both the legal and practical power, and adequate resources to enforce
such regulations.
One of the most difficult jobs in assigning responsibility for noise regulation and
abatement is to assure that the institutions responsible for regulation have the power
and resources to enforce rules once adopted. Some institutions presently assigned
this task may have regulatory responsibilities, with no enforcement power or re-
sources. For example, airport proprietors may have the duty to control noise
impacts resulting from aircraft using the airport, but may be unable to impose such
legal sanctions as fines or criminal penalties on noncomplying aircraft operators, or
to control land use around the airport. Where enforcement sanctions must depend on
economic pressures, the success of such regulations will depend on the market power
of the institution involved. A small airport cannot be expected to affect aircraft
design appreciably by imposing aircraft noise standards, particularly where traffic
to and from such air terminal may be diverted to other, less restrictive, airports.
For this reason, care should be taken to insure that responsible institutions have the
real power to control that portion of the problem which they are assigned to regulate.
POWER TO IMPOSE VIABLE SANCTIONS
Institutions responsible for developing and adopting noise regulations must have
the power to impose viable legal sanctions for noncompliance, including inter alia.
fines, charges, and to allow equitable remedies.
3-10
-------
LEVERAGE
The institution must have practical leverage over the aspect of the problem for
which it is assigned regulatory responsibility.
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
The institution must have sufficient resources to monitor compliance with the
regulations for which adoption and implementation are its responsibility.
CRITERION 7; AD MINISTER ABILITY
The legal/institutional scheme for compensating noise-caused damage and for
developing and enforcing aircraft/airport noise regulations must be administer able.
It should not be overly cumbersome, and should incur the least possible administra-
tive cost compared to the benefits involved.
CRITERION 8; NATIONAL PROGRAM/LOCAL CONDITIONS
The institutional scheme for airport/aircraft noise regulation should allow for a
coordinated national noise control program and provide sufficient flexibility to allow
for adoption of additional regulations or strategies to meet special or unique local
conditions or needs.
This criterion requires little explanation. It is a fundamental tenet of the Federal-
State-local partnership, in this and other areas, that the best system provides for a
coordinated national program while allowing sufficient flexibility to meet special or
unique local conditions. In a large and diverse nation, centralized decision making
may not provide for the most expeditious amelioration of the serious problem of
aircraft/airport noise, and local experimentation or adjustment will be necessary to
meet local problems as perceived on the local level. For example, if a Federal regu-
lation were promulgated limiting cumulative noise exposure, it should
1. Be formulated as a performance standard, specifying the result to be
achieved without limiting the specific means of achievement.
3-11
-------
2. Allow for more protective limits to be established by State or local institu-
tions in cases where they determine this is desirable. On the other hand,
such local decisions must be subject to coordination with the national noise
control program if the problem is to be effectively solved.
CRITERION 9; PLANNING GUIDELINES AND INCENTIVES
The legal/institutional arrangement adopted to control noise should provide guide-
lines for future planning, research and design by State and local governments, plan-
ning and other concerned agencies, aircraft operators, airports, and manufacturers.
Such guidelines should allow substantial flexibility in the development and implemen-
tation of noise control strategies and should provide incentives for airlines, airport
proprietors, and other concerned parties to maximize noise abatement in excess of
imposed standards in the most expeditious fashion.
The promulgation of regulations, such as performance standards for noise emis-
sions at the source, and cumulative noise exposure of the recipient, should precede
the development of technology, design of aircraft, and land use planning activities.
Such regulations should serve as goals or targets for researchers, designers and
planners, rather than merely reflect what has previously been done. If engineers,
planners, and government officials are adequately to solve the air port/air craft noise
problem, they must know — in advance — what the end results should be and what is
expected of them to reach that result. With goals thus announced, a coordinated pro-
gram involving source abatement, operational procedures, airport location, design
and operation, and land use control can be cooperatively developed by the private
parties and public agencies responsible for various aspects of the total solution.
CRITERION 10: INTERNATIONAL CONSTRAINTS
The legal/institutional scheme for noise control regulation should be consistent
with international arrangements, treaty commitments, and allow to the maximum
extent possible, for a coordinated international approach to the aircraft/airport
noise problem.
3-12
-------
At the same time, the mechanisms of formulating United States policy for noise
regulation and abatement at the international level should be constructed so as to
preserve the complete ability of the Federal, State and local governments of the
United States to protect the health and welfare of the people. Thus, a coordinated
national noise control program should form the basis for active U. S. leadership in
formulating; consistent international arrangements.
SUMMARY
To be effective, the legal/institutional scheme for dealing with airport/aircraft
noise must meet the following criteria: It must assure all relevant factors are con-
sidered in adopting and implementing noise abatement regulation. Regulatory deci-
sion making must be complete, adequate and expeditious. Assignments of regulatory
responsibility over various aspects of the problem should be clearly defined. The
regulatory process should be continuing and not static. The legal/institutional scheme
should develop a clear definition of compensability. The cost of noise abatement and
land use conversion must be ultimately allocated to the air transportation users and
beneficiaries. Institutions responsible for airport/aircraft noise regulation must
have adequate resources. To enforce such regulation the legal/institutional scheme
must also be administrable and must not incur excessive administrative cost com-
pared to the benefits derived therefrom. The scheme should provide for a coordi-
nated national program of noise control and abatement, and yet allow for the adoption
of additional strategies or more stringent standards to meet local and regional condi-
tions or needs. Regulations and guidelines should be adopted to provide guidance and
goals for land use planning, aircraft design and research and development of noise
abatement technology and procedures, and to establish incentives for airlines, air-
ports, and concerned agencies to maximize noise reduction in excess of imposed
standards in the most expeditious fashion. Finally, the legal/institutional scheme
should be consistent with United States treaty commitments, and allow, to the maxi-
mum extent possible, for a coordinated international approach to the airport/aircraft
noise problem, while guaranteeing the ability of the Federal, State and local govern-
ments to protect the health and welfare of their citizens.
3-13
-------
SECTION 4
PROBLEMS IN THE PRESENT LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL SCHEME
FOR AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE REGULATION
The general problem faced in this report is self evident. The problem of aircraft/
airport noise has not been solved, nor does such a solution appear likely in the near
future. Specifically, the problem is that noise-sensitive, incompatible land uses in
the vicinity of our nation's airports are subject to, and severely impacted by, intoler-
able noise levels from aircraft operations. A comprehensive national (i.e. Federal,
State, and local) program to attack this problem of airport/aircraft noise has not been
developed or implemented by regulatory actions of government agencies or voluntary
efforts of private industry. To the extent the present legal/institutional framework for
aircraft/airport noise regulation is intended to address and solve this problem, it
has failed to date.
This section of the report will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the
present legal/institutional framework for solving the aircraft/airport noise problem.
Using each of the criteria and questions set forth in Section 3, an attempt will be
made to determine the extent to which the legal/institutional scheme has either
hindered or encouraged development of viable solutions, and identify where further
regulatory or legislative actions on the part of Federal, State, or local governments
may be appropriate to assure full and adequate solution of the aircraft/airport noise
problem in the shortest possible time. Thus, the discussion below will analyze the
entire legal/institutional framework, taken as a whole, against the criteria and consider-
ations outlined previously. Later sections of this report will suggest possible alter-
native institutional arrangements, as well as actions which could be taken pursuant
to existing authorities, to address the shortcomings identified here.
4-1
-------
COMPARISON OF THE PRESENT LEGAL/INSTITUTIONAL SCHEME WITH
IDENTIFIED CRITERIA.
ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT FACTORS
On the Federal
252
Prior to adoption of the Noise Control Act of 1972 amendment, §611 of the
Federal Aviation Act did not require a consideration of all the factors listed above, in
the development, adoption and enforcement of Federal aircraft noise regulations. The
1968 Act, P.L. 90-411, required the FAA, in "prescribing and amending standards,
rules, and regulations" for aircraft noise control, to consult with appropriate Federal,
State, and interstate agencies, and to consider
1. Relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom.
2. The consistency of a proposed rule with aircraft safety.
3. Economic reasonability and technological practicality.
4. The extent to which a proposed standard, rule or regulation will contribute
to carrying out the purposes of § 611.
The major difference between the 1968 and 1972 acts lies not in the listing of
253
these considerations, but in the section's statement of purpose. The stated pur-
pose of § 611 as adopted in 1968 was to "afford present and future relief and protection
254
to the public from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom. " The purpose of
§ 611 as amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972 is to "afford present and future
relief and protection to public health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic
U M255
boom. "
Nowhere in the 1968 Act substantive provisions do the words "public health and
welfare" appear. The goal of the 1968 provisions was relief from "unnecessary air-
craft noise," not from noise detrimental to "public health and welfare. " The "unnec-
essary noise" standard suggests a focus on the issue of what level of noise can be
abated in an economically reasonable and technologically practicable manner.
4-2
-------
"The [Public Law 90-411] statutory language on aircraft noise abatement
was drafted in 1968 when fewer citizens were adversely affected by noise
pollution and prior to the Nation's awakening to the problems caused by
environmental degradation. In short, the 1968 statute contains 'aviation'
language not 'environmental1 language. "256
The 1968 Act did not explicitly require a consideration or balancing of the demands
of public health and welfare for a quieter environment on the one hand versus the
economic and technological feasibility of instituting abatement measures on the other.
Such a balancing was not, of course, precluded. Certainly, in assessing the economic
257
reasonability of implementing certain noise control standards, the FAA could have
and should have considered the economic, social, environmental costs of not imple-
menting the standard, or of adopting a less stringent standard. These factors were
certainly urged by numerous public comments—from local and State agencies, citizen
groups, and airport proprietors—submitted in response to various proposed rules
announced by the FAA since passage of the 1968 Act.
An examination of FAA Advanced Notices of Proposed Rule Making, Notices of
Proposed Rule Making, and final Rule Making, with particular attention to the agency
analysis of public comments, does not indicate the suggested approach was, in fact,
implemented. While the FAA consistently "noted" receipt of public comments calling
for stricter noise limitations, the vast majority of the agency analysis of proposed
rules and comments have addressed the questions of economic reasonableness and
technical feasibility as raised in aircraft manufacturer and air carrier comments to
* i 258
proposed rules.
Clearly, one of the major obstacles to FAA consideration of environmental,
social, and economic costs of noise pollution in assessing the reasonableness of
various proposed aircraft noise rules has been its inability to quantify such effects.
Public comments demanding increased protection from aircraft noise tend to address
the issue of environmental effect with generality; and fail to adduce hard data on
either direct noise effects or the indirect cost of additional noise pollution.
Nor has the FAA developed the expertise, information or criteria to evaluate
such environmental effects on an in-house basis, or identify the most efficient solu-
tions to the airport noise problem.
4-3
-------
In 1968, the Air Transport Association and Aerospace Industries Association
259
offered the FAA free use of the results of a jointly funded study, including computer
software, which attempted to define a methodology for identifying the most cost-
effective combination of actions for abating aircraft noise impact to a given level.
Although generally recognized as the most extensive such effort to that date, the
o C A
FAA has not yet made use of the methodology.
In 1967, pursuant to an FAA contract, an acoustical consulting firm developed the
Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) methodology for evaluating cumulative noise exposure
O f* 1
impacts on airport environmental land uses, taking into account the various noise
characteristics of different aircraft, the topography of the area, the number of air-
craft operations by type and flight path, the time of day of aircraft operations, weather
conditions, etc. The resulting contours were correlated to expected impacts on dif-
2fi?
ferent land uses subject to given noise exposures. The NEF methodology has been
generally considered the most sophisticated system of evaluating airport noise impact
oc o
developed to date. Although developed by and for the FAA, and initially promoted
by that agency for the purposes of airport area land use planning, the FAA has con-
sistently refused to use the NEF procedure to evaluate environmental impacts of noise
exposure vis-a-vis its own regulatory actions. In contrast, the Department of Trans-
portation Office of Noise Abatement has adopted the NEF System for evaluating the
relative effectiveness of alternative aircraft noise abatement techniques, while the
Department of Housing and Urban Development has incorporated NEF standards in its
guidelines for FHA mortgage and other Federally assisted housing programs.
The FAA recently proposed a new system for evaluating noise impact, called the
264
Aircraft Sound Description System (ASDS). This system does not account for the
cumulative exposures resulting from different aircraft types or for operations at
different times of day, e_.jj. the greater annoyance factor of night operations. Further,
it does not provide a plot of exposure for use in land use planning in evaluation of the
effectiveness of different combinations of abatement strategies, nor is it a quantity
by which cumulative noise exposure can be measured at a given point on the ground.
4-4
-------
ASDS has been severely criticized as being less accurate, less sophisticated, and
less useful in evaluating environmental impacts of aircraft noise, and planning to
fyc c
prevent such impacts, than any analytical system developed in the last 20 years.
The cost of abatement to airlines and manufacturers, on the other hand, is more
readily quantified, and heavily documented in industry comments on proposed rules.
The result has been a skewed analysis, focusing on abatement costs and financing
difficulties and all but ignoring environmental effects and economic costs of non-
abatement. This particular problem was underscored before the House Hearings on
the 1972 Noise Control Act. There, the argument was made for a "full cost benefit
analysis" under the "economically reasonable" standard of P.L. 90-411, including
consideration of the human cost (annoyance), the cost of land acquisition, litigation
costs, costs of limitations on operations, cost of ground transportation (where air-
ports must relocate farther from the area they serve), costs of aircraft operating
Pfi7
delays, and costs of noise abatement operating procedures.
Although the 1968 Act may have used "aviation" language, it can be assumed,
without lengthy citation, that Congress was concerned then, as now, with the detri-
mental effect of aircraft noise on communities neighboring airports. The 1968 Act
was enacted for the purpose of protecting health and welfare—at least in the sense
those words are used to describe statutory "police powers. "
The 1972 Amendments, however, make this consideration explicit. The FAA is
2fiH
charged therein to consider health and welfare effects of noise. It further requires
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially propose those regulations
and standards that, in EPA's opinion, are necessary to protect public health and
Ach
270
269
welfare, and establishes a formalized mechanism for EPA challenge of any FAA
regulations that EPA believes provide inadequate protection.
Whether the 1972 Amendments to Section 611 afford a total solution to the problem
of adequately assuring assessment on the Federal level of all the factors suggested in
Criterion 1, A, is an open question at this time. No substantial aircraft regulatory
action, other than final adoption of the sonic boom rule, has occurred since passage
4-5
-------
of P.L. 92-574. However, an evaluation of the past and present institutional struc-
ture in terms of the subcriteria listed above is useful in identifying remaining areas
lor adjustment and improvement.
Agency Expertise and Information
To adequately evaluate the efficacy of proposed aircraft noise rules and standards,
the responsible decision-making agency must have the expertise and information to
address a wide variety of issues. It must have expertise in aeronautical engineering,
particularly engine and airframe design, aircraft operating procedures and safety
requirements, economics, acoustics, psychological and physiological sciences, and
similar disciplines.
On the Federal level, expertise and information in the field of aircraft noise
abatement is both overlapping and fragmented. For example, expertise and informa-
tion regarding the technological and economic feasibility of implementing aircraft
noise emission control technology exists in several agencies, £.g_. NASA, FAA,
271 272
Department of Transportation, EPA, and Department of Defense. On the other
hand, expertise and/or information necessary to analyze the health effects of noise
are largely concentrated in agencies such as EPA, HEW and Department of Defense.
Expertise and information concerning social and economic impacts of aircraft noise
are shared, for the most part, by EPA, HUD, and State and local planning agencies.
The problem is to assure that such expertise and information are available to,
and considered by, the decision-maker responsible for adopting appropriate aircraft/
airport noise regulations. At the present time that decision-maker is the Adminis-
trator of the FAA. Prior to the 1972 Noise Control Act, the primary mechanism for
direct interagency exchange of data and opinion was the Interagency Aircraft Noise
273
Abatement Panel (IANAP). IANAP was dissolved in April 1973. Another formal
process, requiring EPA to review and comment upon the environmental effects of pro-
274
posed administrative actions of other agencies, was operationalized to a limited
275
extent. The directive of §402(c) of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments that
4-6
-------
Federal agencies consult with EPA whenever EPA determines noise resulting from a
Federally sponsored activity constitutes a public nuisance has never been invoked in
challenging inadequate aircraft noise regulatory actions. The latter two provisions
were largely superseded by the Noise Control Act of 1972. First the 1972 Act assigns
276
to EPA the task of coordinating all Federal noise control and noise research. In
addition, and more important, the 1972 Act's Amendments to §611 establish a unique
procedure by which EPA determines and recommends to the FAA those levels of
noise abatement which EPA believes are necessary to protect public health and welfare,
and further provides EPA with a procedure for challenging FAA regulations which
fail to adequately protect the public.
While the new institutional scheme established by the 1972 Act assures that noise-
related health and welfare factors will be analyzed and brought to the FAA attention,
what of the other considerations—technological feasibility, economic cost of abatement,
and aircraft safety ? Clearly, not all of the expertise and information regarding these
factors are concentrated in the FAA. The majority of research experience and person-
nel relating to technical feasibility effectiveness, cost, and safety of implementing new
noise abatement technology has been accumulated under the aegis of NASA, sometimes
with grant assistance from FAA. Indeed most of the research reports forming the data
base for aircraft noise regulatory decisions are a result of NASA sponsored, supervised,
or conducted studies.
In terms of manpower and experience, NASA is in a good position to determine, on
at least an initial basis, the feasibility, effectiveness, cost and safety of implementing
various noise abatement strategies, whether they be retrofit, operational procedures,
or a combination thereof. As a research agency, NASA's in-house and contracted
studies provide an important data base for making such determinations.
One problem encountered in making such determinations, however, has been that
in some cases—for example the nacelle treatment program—research has been arti-
ficially dichotomized between NASA and the FAA. In such instances, NASA has been
assigned the task of initial development of abatement technology, after which the FAA
4-7
-------
has undertaken a similar research program to bring the technology to experimental
flight status. This has resulted, to a certain extent, in lost time, retraced steps,
and split expertise.
In contrast, the approach taken in the refan research program appears more
efficient, wherein NASA has accepted the assignment of developing the program—not
just in its initial phases - but until a safe, flyable, economically and technically
feasible technology is complete.
Only after such a thorough research and development program can rational deter-
minations be made as to the feasibility, safety, cost, and effectiveness of the tech-
nology under study. Unfortunately, because of past partitions of research efforts,
results have often been incomplete and unclear. As a result, interpretation of the
results has been made a matter of debate before the regulatory agencies, based on
comments presented for the docket by industry and public interest groups. Prefer-
ably, such issues would be settled by a complete research program whose results
and determinations would be thoroughly reported by the research organization.
More important, the legal/institutional scheme does not provide a formal mecha-
nism to assure government research results and determinations are conveyed directly
to the agency which must ultimately adopt and implement noise control regulations,
nor does it assure that such determinations will be reviewed and acted upon once
received. The same is true of information and views held by other agencies concerned
with aircraft/airport noise, in particular HUD, HEW and the CAB. It is most im-
portant that such information and viewpoints be relayed on a regular basis, not just
in reaction to regulatory proposals, but in designing a comprehensive regulatory
program and coordinating the activities of the government groups which have authority
over various portions of the problem.
Interest Group Inputs on the Federal Level
Because the current law assigns primary Federal regulatory power over aircraft
noise to the FAA, with EPA and DOT consultation, interest group inputs to those
agencies are the most important for the purpose of this analysis.
4-8
-------
The formal interest group inputs to FAA regulatory process are defined by the
277
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and to date have largely consisted of com-
ments to Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Proposed Rule Making notices
published in the Federal Register. As noted previously, comments to airport noise
regulations have been submitted by State and local governments, airport neighbor,
and environmental groups. However, the greater part of such input, in terms of
document volume and detail, has come from airline, aircraft manufacturing, pilot,
and airport operator associations.
Formal input to the FAA, requesting action be commenced, as opposed to com-
menting on proposed action, is provided by the APA petition process. In at least one
instance, the petition process was invoked by environmental groups to require FAA
publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the aircraft noise field.
On May 15, 1970, the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. filed a petition with the FAA
"requesting the immediate promulgation of the environmental standards that will
278
govern certification of the supersonic transport". Responding to the petition, the
FAA issued an ANPRM for "Civil Supersonic Aircraft Noise Type Certification Stand-
dards," stating its intent "to insure that supersonic aircraft, like subsonic aircraft,
are subject to type certification standards that require the full application of noise
reduction technology, and insure that these standards establish ceilings beyond which
279
noise will not be permitted". The Agency to date has not progressed to "Notice
of Proposed Rule Making" for SST noise type certification, although the British-French
Concorde is expected to enter service on the North Atlantic routes in mid-1975, and
the Russian TU-144 is expected to enter service even earlier.
Two other formal input mechanisms, public hearings and appeals of administra-
tive actions, exist in theory. It should be noted that no formal hearings on proposed
noise rules have ever been conducted, nor has any FAA noise regulatory action, or
inaction, been appealed to the courts. On the other hand, both of these mechanisms
have been used to require CAB consideration of noise effects in reviewing proposed
280
certification of new air service.
4-9
-------
Perhaps the most important inputs to the decision making process are "informal",
or at least less formal compared to the legally established notice and comment re-
quirements of the APA. The most significant of these "informal" processes are the
formation of advisory task forces to develop, review and comment upon proposed
regulatory actions. In this regard, the current study is a product of such a task
force approach, wherein the EPA invited representatives of concerned federal agen-
cies, industry associations, airport operators, State and local governments, environ-
mental and citizen groups to participate.
The FAA has also used such a study group mechanism, although it has been
criticized as being less inclusive in its invitation. For example, in November, 1970,
281
the FAA gave advance notice of proposed subsonic retrofit requirements, request-
ing public comments and suggestions on appropriate standards. In early October, 1971
the Agency announced its failure to develop a standard which could obtain the concur-
rence of airport operators, airlines, and environmental groups. As a result, the
FAA stated that it was turning over responsibility for drafting the new regulations to
a task force, including representatives of the Air Transport Association and the
Airport Operators Council International. Invitations to participate in the study group
were not extended to representatives of State or local governments, airport neighbors,
pilots, or environmental groups.
To this extent, at least, the legal/institutional framework has not been wholly
successful in assuring all concerned parties have an adequate opportunity to input to
an open regulatory process. Clearly, "equal" inputs from all interest groups should
not be expected or required. But the regulatory process should insure, through
either its formal or informal mechanisms, that a balanced view is obtained and that
all relevant facts and viewpoints are considered.
Perspective in Developing and Adopting Regulations
One of the greatest difficulties with the present arrangement for insuring adequate
consideration of all relevant factors in Federal aircraft noise regulation is the lack of
4-10
-------
an agency, or interagency body, with perspective to coordinate the various inputs
described above, and to formulate appropriate regulatory responses. Perspective,
in this sense, means the ability to analyze simultaneously the myriad of noise-related
health and welfare, safety, general welfare, technical and economic factors relating
to aircraft noise regulation, together with the capability to see such regulatory action
in the context of the larger issues of overall transportation and environmental policy.
The Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Panel served this function to a limited
extent prior to its dissolution in April 1973, although the primary IANAP function was
to coordinate Federal aircraft noise research efforts. The research coordinating mission of
IANAP was transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency by the Noise Control
Act of 1972, but no effort has as yet been undertaken to replace IANAP with another
continuing structure to coordinate inputs and formulate regulatory response on a
O Q O
continuing basis. It is clear that neither the FAA nor EPA, alone, provides a
viable structure for achieving such perspective. The FAA is not particularly capable
of dealing with environmental policy issues, nor is either agency responsible for
viewing aircraft noise in light of an overall transportation program. The consultative
O Q O
roles assigned EPA and DOT by § 611 may somewhat ameliorate this problem, but
will only be effective to the extent such consultation is progressive and continuous,
rather than ad hoc and reactive. The Section 611 structive, furthermore, still does
not establish a coordinated program of aircraft noise regulatory development to the
extent other concerned Federal agencies - such as NASA, HEW, HUD and the Depart-
ment of Defense - are not regularly included in such consultation.
On the State and Local Level
Four institutional structures are concerned with aircraft/airport noise regulation
on the State and local levels:
1. Airport proprietors
2. State legislatures
4-11
-------
3. State administrative agencies
4. Municipal and county governments.
Have these institutions considered all relevant factors in their aircraft noise
related decisions ? Do they have the expertise and information to consider and bal-
ance such factors ? What inputs are available to them?
It is hard adquately to assess, across the board, whether State and local govern-
ments, and airport proprietors, have adequately considered all relevant factors in
making decisions affecting the aircraft/airport noise problem. In some instances,
the result of such decisions suggests that some factors have not been considered—
for example, where zoning around airports not only allows, but mandates, residential
uses in noise impacted environs. In other cases, certain actions or inactions by
responsible State and local institutions may indicate problems other than imbalanced
consideration of environmental, social, economic and technological facts—such as lack
of economic leverage, power, or resources to implement effective noise abatement
strategies. Thus, the analysis of the problem on the State and local level must rely
on answering the questions regarding availability of expertise, information and
interest group input opportunities. Such an analysis will suggest whether, all other
factors being equal, the branches of State and local government can adequately con-
sider all relevant factors.
Most airport proprietors possess substantial experience and expertise in the
economic and technical aspects of aviation. The in-house noise control expertise
available to airport proprietors, on the other hand, is extremely limited. For the most
part, airport operators requiring information on noise effects and noise abatement
must rely on Federal agency assistance and private consulting firms. Airports of
smaller size and more limited fiscal resources are unable to field the more sophisti-
cated noise control studies conducted by their larger counterparts, yet their problem
may be proportionately less serious and solution less complicated. A major airport
noise control program, however, requires substantial funds and personnel resources
for monitoring, planning, and implementation. Because many city, State and local
4-12
-------
authority airports are already operating on a marginal, non-profit basis, such
resources are not readily available for the purchase of necessary equipment and
consultative services without some outside assistance.
Several State and municipal governments have in-house noise staffs, as well as
personnel versed in aviation. Often, this expertise is not concentrated in one agency,
but divided among many; for example, departments of environmental control, health,
aeronautics and commerce. In the actual drafting of noise legislation and regulations,
States and local governments, like airport proprietors, have turned to private con-
sultants for additional expertise and information. In the area (of the problem) where
State and local governments have the clearest responsibility, land use planning, they
are often hampered by an inability to assess airport noise exposures and determine
land use compatibilities. With the FAA's retraction of the NEF contours, which were
originally distributed to state and local planners to assist in planning, State and local
agencies have been severely hampered in undertaking land use control around airports.
Yet the cost of NEF or similar studies, and experience required properly to prepare
them, place them beyond the fiscal capabilities of many planning agencies.
The quality and extent of interest group inputs to airport operator, state and
local government decision-making process varies depending on location and institu-
tion. Generally, hearings before state legislatures include considerable comment
from all interested parties and organizations. Lobbying efforts are less easy to
gauge, and vary according to the resources of the groups involved.
On the municipal level, particularly in cities neighboring airports, most interest
group activity is concentrated in citizen-environmental group and business-chamber
of commerce efforts. Airline association, airframe manufacturers, and pilot com-
ment is usually minor or nonexistent—except where such organizations challenge, by
litigation, the legality of local noise control actions. Affected airport proprietors
have often presented their views before local government legislative bodies. Unfor-
tunately, efforts of airport operators thereby to stimulate local land use control
measures have been, with few exceptions, ineffective and unsuccessful.
4-13
-------
Input to airport proprietor decision making is much more complicated. Where
airports are operated by line agencies of municipalities or counties, input mecha-
nisms generally run through the local governmental legislative body. In addition,
hearing requirements contained in the Airport and Airway Development Act guarantee
direct opportunities to input to and sometimes confront an airport operator on pro-
posed controversial airport development projects.
A number of airports are operated by independent or semi-autonomous authorities
or commissions. Enabling legislation for these authorities may require appointment
of certain interest group representation. For example, the Massachusetts Port Auth-
284
ority Board, by law, must contain persons with backgrounds in business, labor, and
engineering professions. Pursuant to executive policy, a few representatives of noise
impacted communities have been appointed to the governing bodies of a few such
authorities.
Specifically with respect to the noise problem, at least one airport proprietor
has formed an advisory noise abatement committee, formed of representatives from
the FAA, State aeronautics commission, airlines, pilots, and neighboring communities.
The advisory committee has the duty of developing proposed noise abatement
guidelines for consideration by the airport proprietor, and in theory, at least, pro-
vides a basis for continuing, regular input by all interested parties.
FULL, ADEQUATE, EXPEDITIOUS REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING
With perhaps the sole exception of the State of California, no level of government
or agency acting either alone or in cooperation with other responsible agencies has
attempted to formulate a comprehensive regulatory program for aircraft/airport
noise abatement.
Existing regulatory measures address only a small portion of the problem. FAA
aircraft type certificate noise standards apply to only five percent of the present fleet;
95 percent of all commercial and business jet aircraft are unregulated with respect
to noise emissions. Yet the unregulated portion of the fleet contains those aircraft
which create the greatest noise, and dominate the noise problem at every major
4-14
-------
American airport. Preferential runaway procedures, as noted on page 25 have been
published as regulations since the early 1960's. Their enforcement is accomplished
by way of Air Traffic Control clearance procedures whereby the control tower clears
the pilot for the preferred runway and the pilot is bound by the clearance unless he
informs the tower of his objection for safety reasons. Few Federal regulations have
been adopted with respect to the other areas necessary to complete a comprehensive
noise control program; that is, approach and takeoff procedures, community expos-
ure standards, single-event aircraft operational noise standards, or land use control
and incompatible land use conversion guidelines. Only one State and a small number
of local governments and airport proprietors have attempted to address the latter
regulatory areas. In some instances, these efforts are beginning to show promising
results, particularly in the California system. Nevertheless, the amount of success
possible is severely delimited by the absence of a coordinated national plan and ade-
quate Federal action.
Federal aircraft/airport noise regulation to date reflects a history of inadequate,
nonexpeditious decision-making. Evidence of nonexpeditious FAA rule making appears
in several areas, for example:
1. Retrofit and fleet noise standards for existing first-generation, low-bypass
ratio subsonic jet aircraft.
2. Type certification standards for new supersonic transports.
3. Standards for new production units of previously type certified low-bypass
ratio subsonic aircraft.
As noted previously, in November 1970, the FAA issued an ANPRM covering
subsonic retrofit requirements, requesting public comments and suggestions on ap-
O Q C
propriate standards. The comment period expired on February 26, 1971. In
October 1971, the FAA announced it was unable to develop a standard acceptable to
O Q/?
both industry, airport and environmental groups. Two days later, John. H.
Shaffer, then FAA Administrator, stated that the FAA would soon issue proposed
retrofit rules for two and three engine aircraft, but not for the four engine low bypass
2S7
ratio jets (DC-8 and Boeing 707). These proposed rules were never issued, and
4-15
-------
on January 24, 1973, 15 months later, the FAA issued a new ANPRM on Civil Air-
OQ Q
plane Fleet Noise Level Requirements.
Following receipt of the Environmental Defense Fund petition requesting FAA
289
promulgation of noise standards for civil supersonic transport type certification,
290
the FAA issued an ANPRM for civil SST noise standards on October 6, 1970.
Although the initiation of procedures is encouraging, the Agency to date has not
progressed to the "notice of proposed rule making" stage. Application for certifica-
tion of the British-French Concorde SST has been submitted to the FAA, and said
aircraft is expected to be in trans-Atlantic service by mid-1975. At the date of this
report, the FAA is more than 32 months behind its originally announced schedule for
291
final promulgation of SST type certification noise regulations.
On July 7, 1972, the FAA issued proposed rules for newly produced aircraft of
older type design, which would have required all subsonic aircraft first flown after
July 1, 1973, to comply with FAR 36 noise standards. Currently, technology is
available to significantly quiet new units of previously type certified aircraft. The
Boeing Company, for example, presently is offering new 727-200 and 737-300 aircraft
with an optional acoustically treated nacelle. Some airlines have ordered new planes
with this noise abatement package, but Federal regulations do not make the package
mandatory, and other carriers are still buying aircraft that do not incorporate best
available abatement technology. Such new untreated aircraft will have to be retro-
fitted if and when the FAA adopts a retrofit rule or retroactively applies the new air-
craft regulations. As of this date, the FAA has not adopted the new aircraft rules
proposed in July 1972.
As stated in the Section 1-3, a number of reasons have been suggested for the
present inadequate, incomplete, unexpeditious process of noise regulation. Each of
these criticisms must be analyzed to determine if it validly identifies a constraint
imposed by the present legal/institutional structure, and the seriousness of that
constraint.
4-16
-------
O
H
O
W
O
i
w
b
OS
tu
T i
* 5
s 3
CQ Z
UJ
-J
Q
Z
<
a
u
tn
o
a
o
t-.
Cu
t*-i
o
l-l
a
D.
C
to
0)
E
3
Z
<2
"u
•a
0
T3
0
•3
0
O
cfl
d>
-G
ing Schedule for 1
\j
cd
E
3
•a
•s
E
to
tQ
kH
>.
*°.
O
c-t
•^
0
00
II
a>
T3
O
•*— '
-
C
«
S
5
c
UH
tu
to
—
13
CM
&o
O
"o
c
H
'G
E
-2i
M
JD
a)
to
'o
Z
b.
tu
3
T3
ID
J3
a
c/3
•o
a)
cd
E
•«_>
to
C4-H
0
tu
o
3
O
t/3
O
r-
ON
CN
fc
E
E
ao
0
CH
Noise Abatemen
4-17
-------
Primary Mission Conflicts
It has been frequently argued that assignment of the noise regulatory function to
agencies with a conflicting primary mission (e.g., to promote the expansion of the
civil aviation system, or to maintain the financial stability of an airport authority) has
resulted in the inability of agencies such as the FAA and airport operators from ade-
quately exercising their legal powers and duties in the noise field.
Putting aside the question of what are the real or perceived missions of various
agencies—whether the FAA sees its mission as air transport promotion or safety
292
regulation - do the hypothesized conflicts exist ? Does noise regulation conflict
with promotion of air commerce or operation of a fiscally sound airport ?
On reflection, the alleged conflicts are chimeric. Not only is aircraft noise
293
"the most explosive problem facing aviation today," it has also become the greatest
obstacle to air commerce expansion. Airport development and improvement has been
embroiled in controversy, delayed and often defeated, because of public dissatisfaction
with current noise levels. Until adequate noise control programs are instituted, such
public opposition is likely to continue and perhaps become even more intense. Further-
more, measures to reduce noise and measures to increase performance and economy
may often be congruent. Major examples are:
• The emergence of the fan engine and its high bypass ratio versions, which
provide not only important increases in performance and economy but also
significant reductions in noise.
• The improved financial situation of airlines operating under capacity limi-
tation agreements which also have beneficial environmental effects: slight
reduction of noise exposure, and significant reduction of total
exhaust emissions and energy consumption, through reduced
flight frequencies. In the long run noise control is in the best
interest of, and not in conflict with promotion of air transport.
4-18
-------
Whether all parts of the air transport industry perceive this compatibility, par-
ticularly in the short run, is debatable. Issues of cost, and who is to pay, for interim
phases of noise control appear of most concern to air carriers, who have questioned
the wisdom of proposed retrofit, type certificate, and other noise regulations. From
a regulatory agency viewpoint, however, noise control in both the short and long term
should appear wholly consistent with commitments to promote air commerce.
Failure Clearly to Define Responsibility
One of the most obvious problems created by the legal/institutional scheme is the
failure clearly to define what agencies have responsibility for particular aspects of the
air craft/airport problem. This constraint is amply evidenced by the present relation-
ships between the FAA, airport operators, and State and local governments.
The FAA claims jurisdiction over aircraft in flight in the navigable airspace (which
includes airspace necessary for takeoff and landing), type certification, and aircraft
noise emission standards. The FAA has taken the consistent position that it can only
adopt noise regulations insofar as they "involve economically reasonable burdens on
294
the aircraft industry and are technologically practicable." According to the FAA,
responsibility for setting permissible levels of noise at an airport belongs to the
295
airport operator, not the FAA.
On the other hand, airport operators have argued that they do not have sufficient
enforcement power or economic leverage to impose effective aircraft source noise
standards at the local level, that the FAA and not the airports, has primary authority
to control flight paths and operating procedures, and that local governments other than
the airport operator have land use control powers for the noise impacted airport
environs.
Local governments having jurisdiction over land around airports and States
allege they are unable to control the entire land use within excessively large noise
impacted zones so long as airport and Federal regulations on the source are inade-
quate, while at the same time airports, airlines and Federal authorities have thus far
successfully blocked State and local efforts to impose standards on aircraft noise
4-19
-------
levels. On the other hand, the FAA has disclaimed any authority to influence land
use control, despite clear provisions of the Airport and Airway Development Act
requiring adequate land use control as a condition to awarding airport development
grants, and authorizing airport certification regulations including airport noise
standards.
The underlying difficulty lies in the manner in which the legal system has judi-
cially assigned present noise control responsibility and accountability therefor. The
current allocation of regulatory powers is performed, not according to a legislative
or administrative determination of what agencies or levels of government should have
responsibility for part of a coordinated comprehensive national aircraft/airport noise
control, but pursuant to constitutional principles of preemption and taking liability.
The debate over whether States and/or local governments can use their police
power to set noise exposure limits to protect their citizens has been answered in the
negative by the Supreme Court in the Burbank case on the ground that the Congress
has preempted the entire area of aircraft noise regulation. Also Burbank continues
for the present airport proprietors' responsibility for aircraft noise apparently based
on interpretation of who should be liable under Griggs for property taking and
damaging resulting from excessive noise. Such constitutional questions imply all-
or-nothing answers, and not coordinated noise regulatory efforts, with each level of
government doing that it can do best to implement agreed-upon goals. Reliance upon
judicial allocation of such authority not only is awkward, but has resulted in unneces-
sary jurisdictional conflicts and acrimony between agencies and governments which
should be cooperating toward a coordinated solution to a common problem.
Interagency Conflict
A related alleged deficiency in the present scheme is interagency conflict; that is,
one agency effectively refusing to cooperate with another where such cooperation is
necessary to implement a proposed regulatory program.
4-20
-------
Upon investigation, the Task Group could only document one such instance of
serious import. In July 1970, a study prepared for the FAA indicated that retrofit
296
would be economically feasible with a modest fare increase. The FAA published
its ANPRM for retrofit standards October 30, 1970. While such standards were
under consideration, the CAB let it be known it would not authorize a fare increase
to finance retrofit if the FAA adopted the proposed rule. Further, in Senate hearings
held in July 1971, the CAB vigorously opposed legislation which would have compelled
297
a fare increase to the extent of retrofit costs. Because any retrofit rule imple-
mentation will require a substantial investment by air carriers, which logically must
be amortized and included in the charges to their users, the practical effect of the
CAB announcement—all other things being equal—is to scuttle retrofit plans until
either Congress establishes an alternative financing scheme, or CAB changes its
mind.
Fear of Liability for Noise Damages
The fear of liability for noise created damages or taking of property has been a
serious deterrent to adequate, rational noise regulatory decisions. Airport operators
have argued consistently for the past several years that the Federal government has so
preempted the aircraft field, that they should no longer be liable under the Griggs
doctrine, but that such liability has, or should be, shifted to the Federal treasury.
As a corollary, some have argued, most airport proprietors have refused to impose
noise regulations for fear that such action would appear inconsistent with their present
legal posture.
On the other hand, Congress, in the legislative history of the 1968 and 1972 Acts,
made clear its desire not to open the Federal purse to noise damage claims by total
preemption. As a result, a dichotomous doctrine was enunciated, imposing preemp-
tion as against the State and local governments acting pursuant to their police powers,
but allowing imposition of aircraft noise standards by airport authorities acting in
their proprietary capacity. Although some former and present FAA officials expressed
-------
the belief that fear of noise damage liability has never hindered FAA noise regulatory
298
action, nevertheless, the FAA has consistently argued that responsibility for
establishing acceptable noise exposure limits around airports is a proprietor, not
FAA, duty—a view which is the practical progeny of a legal doctrine conceived to
avoid financial liability for inadequate regulatory action. As noted above, the result
of such fear, or its resultant legal machination, is a wholly unsatisfactory definition
and allocation of regulatory responsibility.
Inadequate Funding and Staff
Some have asserted the present deficiencies and delay of regulatory action in the
noise field is a result of inadequate funding and staffing of responsible agencies. This
is certainly true at the State and local government level. With the exception of Cali-
fornia and possibly Illinois, no State or local planning or aviation agency has adequate
funds or trained staff to fully assess noise problems, develop a comprehensive noise
control program, draft regulations, and monitor and enforce such rules once adopted.
In terms of fiscal constraints, airport operators are somewhat better situated to
acquire needed staff, develop and enforce a noise control program, although only a
few large airport operators, including Los Angeles International and the Port of New
York and New Jersey Authority, have attempted on even a limited basis to do so.
At the Federal level, funding and staffing of regulatory agencies, such as the
FAA, does not appear to be a major hindrance. The FAA's current and proposed
regulatory actions do not require large financial commitments to prepare and enforce.
On the other hand, research and development programs, exploring possible noise
abatement techniques, could possibly be more effective and expeditious with additional
funding. The fact remains, however, that current regulatory actions are behind,
not ahead of, technological developments. Noise abatement equipment and procedures
have been developed which have not yet been acted upon by the responsible regulatory
agencies, in particular the FAA. Such delay cannot be attributed to funding and staff
inadequacies.
4-22
-------
Political Accountability
One of the most frequent criticisms of the present regulatory scheme is that
many of the institutions responsible for portions of the problem are not politically
accountable, either directly or indirectly, to all parties concerned with the problem.
Often, for example, airports are operated by a municipal government whose
boundaries do not include the land around the airport, and thus it is not responsible
to airport impacted neighborhoods. At the same time local governments having juris-
diction over land neighboring the airport and responsible for compatible land use
control are not accountable to the larger group of airport users. A similar situation
arises where airports are owned and operated by nongovernmental entities (such as
Lockheed Air Terminal), or by independent authorities, which are by definition and
design not politically responsible to anyone.
Where institutions responsible for airport noise regulations are not politically
accountable, the only pressures to consider all sides and take adequate action lie in
economic threats (for example, liability for noise damages), indirect "political"
action, (such as opposition to airport expansion plans and grant applications), or legal
duties imposed by statute, regulation or judicial decisions. Such pressures, however,
are often weak and remote, and in certain cases may be legally nonviable as a result
of constitutional preemption and similar doctrines.
On the Federal level the question is not one of fragmented constituencies, but of
remoteness from the political process. Most regulatory decisions have been dele-
gated to the FAA, which as an administrative agency is only indirectly accountable
to elected representatives. Thus, the primary mechanisms for assuring accountability
lie in Congressional and Executive oversight of agency action. The success of such
oversight will depend on the priority Congress and the President assign to this prob-
lem, the time available to devote to overseeing the actions of such administrative
actions, and the willingness of both the legislative and executive branches to impose
sanctions if responsible agencies continue to fail in fulfilling their statutory obliga-
tions to control aircraft noise.
4-23
-------
Concurrence of Liability and Authority; Sanctions for Inadequate Rule-Making
Presently, liability for inadequate aircraft noise control which results in the taking
of or damages to property of neighboring land uses is borne entirely by the airport
proprietors. This would not be necessarily inequitable if airport operators had suffi-
cient real as well as legal power to take the necessary actions to avoid such liability.
Congress, in Section 611, and other sections of the Federal Aviation Act,
assigned to the FAA the power to regulate noise at the source through, among other
things, type certification, design and retrofit standards, arrival and departure path
designation and operating procedures. The statute is clear. According to some
299
observers, the FAA reaction to it has been "downright schizophrenic."
In adopting and proposing Federal noise regulations pursuant to §611, the FAA
has often repeated the shibboleth that airport proprietors, in accordance with their
Griggs responsibilities, can legally adopt noise limits affecting which aircraft may
use the airport. For example, in proposing the original type certificate noise rule,
the FAA stated:
"(T)he proposals in this notice should be placed in broad perspective.
This notice does not promise the immediate achievement of socially
acceptable noise levels in airport neighborhoods where the responsi-
ble State or local governments have not, or cannot, act to achieve
land use compatibility for their existing or planned airports. Further,
this notice does not promise a Federal substitute for actions that air-
port operators, as proprietors, can take and have traditionally and
responsibly taken, to make their airports fit the particular needs of
their locales, such as establishing the conditions under which their
airports and airport facilities may be used, including the issuance
of specific noise ceilings.
".. .Just as an airport owner is responsible for deciding how long
the runways will be, so is the owner responsible for obtaining noise
easements necessary to permit the landing and takeoff of the aircraft.
The Federal Government is in no position to require an airport to
accept service by larger aircraft and, for that purpose, to obtain
longer runways. Likewise, the Federal Government is in no position
to require an airport to accept service by noisier aircraft, and for
that purpose to obtain the service. In dealing with this issue, the
Federal Government should not substitute its judgment for that of
4-24
-------
the States or elements of local government who, for the most part, own
and operate our Nation's airports. "300
The FAA's official statements in §611 rule notices regarding the airport proprietor's
duties are clear: "Airport owners acting as proprietors can presently deny the use
of their airports to aircraft on the basis of noise considerations so long as such
301
exclusion is nondiscriminatory. " To solve the noise problem, an airport operator
may, among other things, ban jets, limit their noise, or put curfews on aircraft
operations. According to the FAA, it has authority to do any of these.
Yet, the FAA position vis-a-vis individual airports appears to have been, in a
number of cases documented by the Task Group, entirely opposed to the above quoted
policy pronouncements. In awarding grant funds to airport operators under the Air-
port and Airway Development Act, and previous acts, the FAA enters into grant
agreements and sponsor assurances. Where such assurances are violated the Fed-
eral Government may among other things, sue for reversion of the airport property,
and turn over control of the airport to another agency. By these agreements, or FAA
interpretation thereof, and threats to take "drastic action," the FAA has routinely
taken away by contract (or interpretation thereof) the airport operator's power to deny
the use of the airport to noisy aircraft, or otherwise impose noise abatement strate-
gies—powers which form the basis of the Griggs decision that the airport operator,
and not the Federal government, is responsible for noise created property takings.
For example, the San Diego (California) Board of Airport Commissioners pro-
posed the imposition of a curfew at Lindbergh Field in order to cut down on the
nuisance inflicted on the neighboring property owners. Immediately upon publication
of the Commissioners' request, the FAA informed them that any such restrictions
would violate their commitments under their Federal Aid to Airports grant agreements,
which required them, under the FAA interpretation, to operate the airport without
restriction to hours. After many discussions with FAA officials, it was determined
that the proposed regulation should not be implemented.
4-25
-------
FAA district and regional officials have recently expressed "scepticism" as to
the legality under a grant agreement of imposition by City of Torrance, California,
as proprietor of Torrance Municipal Airport, of noise standards which are currently
under study. Torrance officials were orally told that the matter would be turned over
302
to the FAA regional counsel for review and appropriate action.
It may be noted that Torrance Municipal Airport is not an air carrier airport and
is only a few miles from Los Angeles International Airport on the north and Long
Beach Municipal Airport on the south. The objective of the airport proprietor in
setting noise limits is to exclude business jets, which are the only cause of the air-
port noise problem at Torrance.
The FAA has further taken the position that an airport which received Federal
grant assistance could not deny access to business jet aircraft on the basis of noise.
In 1967, the Fullerton (Calif.) Municipal Airport, which has always been a general
aviation airport without jet operations, issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) prohibiting
pure jet aircraft from using the airport. The FAA (Los Angeles Area Office) initially
objected to this exclusion, on the grounds that the NOTAM was an unlawful violation
of Fullerton's sponsor's assurance agreement regarding "unfair discrimination
against types or classes of aircraft." Fullerton Airport has also been advised by
FAA that terms of its lease agreements with Golden West Airlines (which now operates
DeHavilland Twin Otters into Fullerton) and other tenants, requiring the City Adminis-
trator approve aircraft used at the City's airport, were illegal. J. Bryan Douglass,
airport manager, has stated that the City may be forced to return the Federal funds
and close the airport if the now several year old controversy with FAA over Fullerton
303
Airport's power to control noise is not resolved.
However, the FAA has taken the position, in at least one case, that an airport
owner which receives federal funds cannot choose the close the airport, for noise or
other reasons. Santa Monica, proprietor of Santa Monica Municipal Airport, faced a
serious noise problem from general aviation, as there exists no buffer between the
airport and neighboring residences. Nearby homes are subjected to noise ranging
4-26
-------
higher than 120 EPNdB. As a result of the City's assessment of these problems, the
city fathers in 1971 considered shutting the airport down entirely. Before the city
council could pass a resolution, however, the FAA intervened, stating in a letter to
the City:
"We have been informed that the City of Santa Monica is considering
alternative uses of the property presently used for the Santa Monica
Airport. I respectfully suggest, at the outset, that retention of the
Santa Monica Airport in our transportation system requires considera-
tion of many factors other than direct economic returns, not the least
of which is the fact that air transportation in Southern California is
highly dependent upon the continued operation by multiple municipali-
ties of all the existing airports serving our complex community. This
is as true for Santa Monica as it is for the continued operation of Los
Angeles International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration
has no intention of consenting to the use of this property for other than
airport purposes and will insist on the City of Santa Monica complying
with its contractual obligations to the Government. To do otherwise
would seriously impair the national air transportation system and
particularly would be detrimental to the residents of all of Southern
California who are dependent in one way or another upon air trans-
portation. "304
It should be noted that Santa Monica Municipal Airport is a general aviation air-
port, without air carrier service, and is located only a few miles from Los Angeles
International Airport on the south and Van Nuys Airport on the north.
Although the FAA has taken the view before Congress that Federal preemption
of aircraft noise control under §611 does not extend to the airport proprietor, it
has recently argued, before the Federal District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, that the 1968 Amendments and §611 the 1970 Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act may extend that preemption even to the extent of prohibiting airport pro-
prietor action.
Prior to passage of the 1968 Aviation Act Amendments, the City of Santa Monica,
as owner of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport, imposed a night curfew on jet flights.
The California Court of Appeal upheld the curfew's legality in the case of Stagg v.
305
Municipal Court.
4-27
-------
o/\/»
In discussing the Stagg decision, in its amicus brief in the Burbank case, the
FAA stated:
"The important 1968 Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act appears
not to have been considered by the Court which upheld a jet curfew at
the Santa Monica Municipal Airport.. .. The Stagg case was commenced
in January 1968 before the amendment was enacted, and although the
appellate decision was rendered after the amendment became law, per-
haps the failure to consider the amendment was a consequence of the
fact that there was no appearance in the appellate court by the party
challenging the curfew. Moreover, the Court in Stagg had no oppor-
tunity to consider the further pre-emption resulting from the 1970 Air-
port and Airway Development Act. "
Respecting this statement, one attorney familiar with the Stagg case noted before EPA
hearings that "(T)here are several important points to be derived:
"First. While the Stagg opinion does not refer to the 1968 amendment,
that legislation was considered. In fact, it was brought to the court's
attention by the airport operator.
"Second. The FAA now feels that no one but the FAA may regulate in
the field of aircraft noise.
"Third. The FAA is playing unfortunate games with the public interest;
either it has all pervasive power—as it represented to the court in the
Burbank airport case—or it has limited power—as it represented to the
public when issuing noise standards for certification. It cannot have
things both ways. "307
If the FAA continues to insist, pursuant to the Airport Development grant sponsor
agreements (AADA) and/or § 611, that airport proprietors are void of real power to
limit use of their airport through noise limits, impose curfews, and avoid damage
liability, then the Federal Government will be forced under the Griggs doctrine to
assume full responsibility for the failure of FAA to adequately control noise, and the
noise damages and property takings which result therefrom.
Even if the FAA alters its sub silentio policy of barring exercise by airport
operators of their authority to control noise, in fact effectuation of that authority may
be realistically impossible. To an extent, individual airports may be able to exclude
4-28
-------
certain aircraft which produce excessive noise, but even a large airport operator
does not have power and economic leverage to impose upon the aircraft industry strict
noise standards applicable to design and retrofit. Design standards can be viably
imposed only on a national scale; drastically different aircraft noise standards from
airport to airport where airline service is involved would be a practical disaster.
Furthermore, without FAA concurrence, airports cannot revise approach and depar-
ture flight paths or impose flight procedures.
Real ability to solve the airport noise problem does not lie exclusively with the
FAA or airport operators, but is a joint responsibility of the Federal government,
airport operator, airlines, and State and local authorities responsible for land use
control around airports. Incomplete or ineffective regulation by any one responsible
party will result in further noise damage, and the possibility of further litigation and
monetary awards. Airports should not be liable if the FAA or any other responsible
agency fails to exercise adequately its powers, or prevents airport proprietors from
fully exercising theirs. A liability system, such as that currently in effect, which
assigns liability to parties which cannot realistically solve the problem alone, only
encourages irresponsibility among other concerned agencies and delays solution of
the larger aircraft/airport noise problem.
CONTINUING REGULATORY PROCESS
The present regulatory scheme for aircraft/airport noise control, with the notable
exception of California's CNEL standards, does not provide abatement goals or estab-
lish incentives for expeditious research, development, and implementation of new
noise control strategies. As a result a continuing regulatory process in the field of
aircraft noise control has never been established.
Current and proposed FAA regulations, for example, are tied to previously
developed technology (see the discussion on Planning Guidelines and Incentives later
in this section), not an assessement of what technology could be developed in the
future. In part this is a result of the § 611 mandate that the FAA determine that a
4-29
-------
particular rule is technologically practicable, a determination which can only be made
with certainty after technology has been developed. Unfortunately, this has created
a stalemate; for often it appears development and/or implementation of new noise
technology is awaiting the stimulus of regulatory action, which is awaiting the develop-
ment of new technology.
The Section 611 mandate, however, does not legally bar FAA announcement of
goals for future regulations, or promulgation of stepped noise regulations for certain
target years, subject to revision if predicted technological developments are not
entirely forthcoming. In January 1969, the FAA, in fact, announced a "noise floor,
or objective to be sought" of 80 EPNdB, and proposed that noise levels in new aircraft
be required to be as close to that goal as consistent with economic and technological
OQ O
feasibility. This announced goal would have provided a target for future technolo-
gical development and an incentive to further research, development and implementa-
tion of noise abatement equipment. However, after strenuous industry objections,
the FAA withdrew the "noise floor" in final publication of the FAR Part 36 type certi-
ficate regulations.
Thus, at this time there are no stated goals for the definition or solution of the
aircraft noise problem. Yet such targets are desperately needed, not only as a guide
to aircraft engineers and designers, but also to assist airport operators and State
and local governments to fulfill their proper role. Without common goals, the best
combination of possible strategies including retrofit, aircraft retirement, operational
procedure, airport curfews, and land use conversion, cannot be identified or imple-
mented in a coordinated fashion.
A corollary of this problem is that the present regulatory scheme has not tended
to progress as the state-of-the-art has advanced. As previously noted, regulations
still do not require installation on new aircraft of all available noise abatement equip-
ment, even though such equipment is in actual production. Regulations have tended
to be one-time efforts, and despite promises to the contrary, review and improve-
ment of out-dated FAA standards has not been realized. Without predetermined goals,
4-30
-------
there is no continuing incentive for the various responsible regulatory agencies con-
tinuously to scrutinize their current rules and adjust them where possible to move
closer to achiement of the goal. If a continuing regulatory process is ever to be
established in the aircraft noise field, such goals must be developed and agreed upon
now by all concerned parties, and each must become committed to taking appropriate
part in a coordinated effort to reach those goals.
DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION LIABILITY
Present case law holds that the airport operator is liable for constitutional takings
of property and/or damages resulting from excessive aircraft/airport noise. However,
the extent of such liability is less than clearly defined. In large part, the scope of
liability depends on the State in which the airport is located, and the liability theory
adopted in that jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, the test of compensable damages
is whether the land is overflown by an aircraft; other parcels, equally impacted by
noise from aircraft flybys may be excluded from compensation. Other areas have
developed noise exposure (e.g. NEF) based criteria as a compensability test, and
at least one State has sustained a damage suit on the basis of nuisance, e.g., un-
reasonable interference with use and enjoyment of property. Such drastic differences
in the tests of when noise impacts require constitutional compensation or damage
awards have only further complicated the fragmented problem of noise abatement.
An equally important problem is the present form of compensation awards.
Current airport noise litigation, if successful, ends in a one-time, lump sum pay-
ment for-purchase of a noise or aviation easement. Such an easement is essentially
a license to pollute, and provides no financial incentive for future abatement of noise.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the present compensation system—except
perhaps by way of a threat of yet unrealized financial liability—results in any amelio-
ration of the noise problem. Damage awards are not tied to, and are rarely used,
for either sound proofing impacted structures or relocation of incompatible land uses.
They are, put bluntly, "hush" money, which does not assist in achieving an eventual
solution to the airport noise problem.
4-31
-------
Finally, the present judicially oriented airport noise compensation system has
become a costly, repetitive, and wasteful process proving again and again what noise
constitutes a taking, as well as what damages have been actually suffered by the indi-
vidual litigants. Up to 50 percent of such compensation awards are absorbed in legal
fees and judicial costs, and such costs do not include the expense of judicial time
committed to the adjudication.
Constitutionally minimum requirements of just comprensation for taking and/or
damaging resulting from noise cannot be legislatively or administratively curtailed.
Yet it must be recognized by all three branches of government that the boundaries of
"taking" and the realities of "just compensation" require a thorough review to the
end that equally noise damaged individuals receive at least similar treatment before
the law, and that compensation be geared to amelioration and solution of the airport
noise problem.
PRESENT ALLOCATION OF COSTS
The vast majority of costs, or damages, resulting from excessive levels of air-
craft noise are presently being borne by the airport impacted neighbor. A substantial
portion of that cost is not reflected in devaluation of airport environ property on the
real estate market, which may be affected by other factors, such as increase in value
of such property for commercial and industrial purposes. Rather, a substantial por-
tion of such "cost" is reflected in the loss of pleasant use and enjoyment of property,
particularly homes, around airports. Although taking awards to date have been
relatively low—under $4 million dollars—the amount of noise annoyance borne by
airport neighbors, as estimated by various techniques including NEF analyses, is
considerable. Thus, much of this annoyance loss is being absorbed by the victim,
not by the beneficiary, of the air transport system.
To the extent that taking and damaging liability has been imposed on airport
operators, it is somewhat unclear to whom such costs are finally to be allocated.
Some airports have indemnification clauses in leases with airlines using the airport
4-32
-------
facilities, requiring airline reimbursement for any damages awarded in airport noise
litigations. Other leases provide such damages will be factored into landing fees and
amortized over the given period. To the extent airports can invoke such pass-throughs,
the cost will be allocated to air passengers and shippers via increased air fares, or
absorbed by airline stockholders via reduced profits. Where the airport cannot achieve
such reimbursement, airport bondholders, concession lessees and local taxpayers
must pay the price of airport noise.
The cost of developing noise abatement technology and procedures has in part
been underwritten by the Federal treasury supported by general tax revenues. Such
past and current research programs were and are funded through appropriations to
and grants from such agencies as NASA, DOD, DOT and the FAA.
On the other hand, allocation of the cost of implementing new noise abatement
technology has not been settled by the legal system. Installation of the original fan
engines, and purchase of the quieter wide body jets, was and is being financed through
regular air fares. However, the CAB has announced it will not favor an increase in
air fares to finance a retrofit program, implying the air transport user should not —
in CAB's opinion—absorb this cost. Because the implementation of any proposed
retrofit or fleet noise rule would involve substantial sums, this long range allocation
problem definitely must be solved.
While the foregoing subsection has dealt with the problem of long range allocation,
a related problem of short term financing also exists. A comprehensive solution to
the noise problem, involving retrofit, aircraft replacement, and some land use con-
version, will require large funds not generally available in the private market. Al-
though such sums can be financed in the long-term, a front-end load problem is created
because of the need for funds now to start implementation of these solutions. Some
government action, such as discussed later, will be necessary to assure the availa-
bility of such funds, and provide a financing scheme whereby these costs may ulti-
mately be borne by those who directly benefit from air transportation.
4-33
-------
ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES
The FAA
The Federal Aviation Act provides a number of enforcement mechanisms for
compelling compliance with FAA certificate standards and flight rules. First, all
Title VI certificates, including aircraft type certificates, individual aircraft airworth-
iness certificates, airman certificates, air carrier certificates and airport certificates,
are subject to amendment, modification, suspension or revocation for noncompliance
with FAA regulations and conditions applicable thereto. Section 611, of course,
empowers the FAA to adopt noise standards in regulations, and to apply such regula-
tions to any Title VI certificate. Thus, the FAA could, if it so desired, condition
any or all of the certificates mentioned upon compliance with FAR's relating to noise.
For example, if an airplane repeatedly violates operational noise standards, its air-
worthiness certificate could be suspended for a set period or until it complied. If a
pilot violates an FAR without showing safety or emergency so required, the airman
certificate could be suspended or revoked. An airport which fails to meet FAA
standards for airport design and equipment (or noise abatement, if such standards
were adopted) would be subject to partial or total decertification, thus barring
certificated carriers from using the airport. The same airport certification process
could, of course, be extended to cover all airports serving jet aircraft, not only those
serving certificated air carriers.
The FAA certificate powers are potentially valuable tools for the enforcement of
noise standards. The option of suspending a single aircraft's airworthiness certifi-
cate or a pilot certificate for a short time—even a day—because of failure to comply
is a realistic tool. Such suspension penalties are strong enough to be heeded, and
yet not so severe in their impact upon the whole transportation system (as opposed to
suspension of an airport or type certificate) as to effectively preclude their use and
make them meaningless. Unfortunately, the FAA has never used these enforcement
powers in furtherance of its noise control mandate, and only a limited number of
type certificates are even covered by noise standards.
4-34
-------
A second enforcement tool available to the FAA is the civil penalty provision of
Section 1016, which allows FAA imposition of up to a $1000 civil penalty for violation
of Federal aviation standards and rules. Here again, because there are no mandatory
Federal noise standards, either with respect to aircraft emissions in actual day-to-day
operation or with respect to flight path designations and approach/departure procedures,
these civil penalty provisions are presently inapplicable in the noise control area.
The Airport Operator
Except where airport operators are also general power municipalities or State
governments, the airport proprietor per se has no authority to invoke the police
powers of the State to prosecute violations, either criminally or civilly, of airport
noise rules. Few, if any, airport operators, acting alone, have been delegated the
power to impose fines, such as was given to the FAA, nor can most proprietors issue
administrative orders or sue for injunctions to stop violations.
Thus, most proprietors have been forced to rely on lease agreements. Under
airport leases, enforcement tools as against the tenants are fairly limited. Either
the airport can impose charges, if provided in the lease, or it can cancel the lease
for breach of contract. The latter option is so drastic that it is doubtful whether
airport operators would impose it. The former possibility exists only where the
airport has the leverage to obtain such a clause in contract negotiations.
State and Local Governments
The California airport noise regulation, and several proposed laws of other States,
provide that violation of an airport noise standard, adopted by the airport proprietor
pursuant to a State required noise abatement plan, is unlawful and subject to certain
civil fines and criminal penalties. In a sense, such provisions are attempts to add
the State's police powers vis-a-vis enforcement mechanisms to the airport's proprie-
tary power with regard to adoption of noise standards for aircraft using the airport.
Since the Burbank decision, it is doubtful whether a particular State government can
adopt penalties for noncompliance with proprietor-adopted rules.
4-35
-------
Resources to Monitor Compliance and Prosecute Violations
The question of who has adequate enforcement resources involves two issues:
what enforcement tools, in terms of penalties, are available (discussed above) and
who has resources to monitor compliance and prosecute violations.
Some types of regulatory monitoring can be adequately effected by portions of the
regulated industry. For example, type certification noise standard compliance can
be easily satisfied by manufacturer or airline conducted tests, the results of which
are submitted and certified to the FAA. Or the FAA can conduct its own tests using
Federal (e. g. NASA or DOT) test facilities. The former alternative is currently used by
FAA for monitoring compliance with existing safety and noise standards.
On the other hand, operational noise standards and flight procedure rules require
a much more extensive, airport-by-airport, monitoring system. It is relatively
clear that should either the Federal or State governments establish noise control pro-
grams which include such strategies as single event noise standards, curfews, and
approach procedures, monitoring must be done on the airport level. It is also axio-
matic that should the Federal and State, as well as airport authorities, establish noise
limits requiring monitoring of actual operations, duplicate monitoring systems would
be wasteful and unnecessary. Thus, the question arises, who should be assigned the
task of monitoring compliance with such standards and prosecuting violations.
Some monitoring functions may also be accomplished through radar vectoring if
the aircraft is certificated to meet the noise standard and approach and takeoff routes
and procedures have been adopted to qualify for the airport noise certification. Thus,
if a given aircraft is certificated to meet a specified noise standard using a particular
procedure, the observance of the procedure and use of the prescribed noise abatement
route may be observed, i.e. monitored, with radar, and thus the desired result
achieved without blackbox noise monitoring. Such radar facilities now exist at all
airports used by certificated air carriers.
4-36
-------
At the present time, the California airport noise program requires airport oper-
ators to monitor compliance with regulations adopted pursuant to the airport imple-
mentation plan. Similar airport monitoring is being conducted by the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey at its airports. However, airport operators do not have
prosecution power to take action once noncompliance is discovered. If an FAA noise
standard, for example, is violated, currently only the FAA can prosecute the case.
If a State law is violated, only a District Attorney, Attorney General, or other auth-
orized official can bring action. This dichotomy is not especially logical, and the
history of enforcement in this field would appear to indicate it is not particularly
effective.
ADMINISTRABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
The present system of administering noise regulatory authority on the Federal,
State, and local level would appear to be excessively expensive in view of the benefits
derived therefrom. This, however, is less related to the administrative structure
than to the failure of responsible agencies to use their current authority.
The present legal scheme, as implemented, has had ironic results: Federal
preemption where there is no Federal regulation and protection of public welfare;
and abrogation of airport operators' constitutional duties to control noise by Federal
grant agreements while the Federal government avoids legal liability by pointing to
such airport powers. The effect of such a scheme has been to shift the airport noise
issue from questions of regulation and solution, to compensation litigation—the most
administratively expensive system which could be devised.
While the present administrative structure for regulating and abating noise could
be operated at relatively low costs, the current compensation scheme incurs massive
administrative costs compared to the results achieved. Legal fees and court costs
are excessive compared to either compensation awards (which are relatively small)
or the solution thereby achieved (none). Courts are simply not equipped to design a
comprehensive noise control program, and even questions of what test should be used
4-37
-------
to determine compensability or whether funds are best spent on relocation of land
uses, soundproofing or other relief are expensive to litigate and difficult to decide
in terms of traditional legal doctrines. Yet in the absence of an adequate, compre-
hensive aircraft/airport noise control and abatement program, the compensation
system will continue to dominate the picture and waste monies better devoted to
solution of the problem.
PLANNING GUIDELINES AND INCENTIVES
The Federal regulatory scheme, so far as it has been implemented, has been but
a restatement of an historical state-of-the-art. With the exception of the 80 EPNdB
noise floor, nothing has been proposed, much less adopted, which would set forth
planning guidelines for noise abatement which can or should be achieved, for example
in five, ten, or fifteen years within the to-be-expected state-of-the-art.
Unfortunately, the present approach to regulatory action has led to a circular
process of inadequate action. The airline industry is waiting for regulatory mandates
before implementing existing abatement technology and demanding more expeditious
research activities to develop new technology. Regulatory agencies are awaiting the
development of new technology before adopting noise standards. The manufacturing
industry, aircraft engineers, and research teams, however, need regulatory goals
and incentives to guide the development of new technology.
And, as noted before, without goals and guidelines commonly agreed upon, other
responsible parties cannot plan their participation in solution of the problems. Air-
port operators cannot plan development and make operational decisions; State and
local planners are unable to plan and zone noise impacted land; Federal, State, and
local development officials are unable properly to plan and locate new housing, hos-
pitals and other facilities.
The present legal/institutional scheme is even weaker in terms of its application
of nonregulatory incentives to expeditious development and implementation of noise
abatement technology. The low amount of compensation awarded thus far and the
4-38
-------
lump-sum nature of such awards provides little incentive to spur rapid noise abate-
ment. The threat of future litigation, though large in potential impact if realized, is
lessened by the remoteness of full realization.
One of the very few and perhaps only incentive approaches tried to date is the
do liars-for-decibels landing fee scheme imposed by Los Angeles International Air-
port. However, to have any real impact, such a scheme must be imposed at all or
a substantial number of airports, and must provide significant landing fee differentials
between relatively noisy and relatively quiet aircraft. However, such a common
scheme does not presently exist.
NATIONAL PROGRAM/LOCAL CONDITIONS
Not only has the present legal/institutional scheme failed to identify national
goals for a coordinated Federal, State and local noise abatement program, but the
current scheme substantially hinders local flexibility in identifying special or unique
local conditions and adopting additional regulations to meet those conditions. The
current "Constitutional " method of allocating responsibility for noise protection and
regulation on the basis of preemption, discrimination, and similar doctrines is a
poor substitute for formulation of a method for cooperative action by Federal, State,
and local governments and airport proprietors to meet common goals of noise abate-
ment and solve the aircraft/airport noise problem.
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRAINTS
As noted previously, the international arenas for formulation of solutions to the
aircraft noise problem consist of ICAO and bilateral air transport agreements between
the United States and numerous foreign countries. To date ICAO has only accomplished
adoption in 1969 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention which substantially mirrors the
previously promulgated Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and sets forth
international Standards and Recommended Practices for aircraft noise certification.
Like Part 36, ICAO standards cover only new types of subsonic jet aircraft, and affect
less than five percent of the existing fleet.
4-39
-------
Although the ICAO Committee on Aircraft Noise is presently considering a noise
reduction retrofit standard for existing aircraft, progress on such a rule cannot be
viewed with optimism. Significant hostility was expressed in recent ICAO meetings
to international retrofit standards as proposed by the United States. Several foreign
governments representing flag carriers which use American airports expressed the
position that they are not responsible for solving our noise problem.
Nothing in the Chicago Convention or bilateral air transport agreements precludes
airport proprietors from acting to protect their proprietary rights on the basis of noise
standards. On the contrary, such agreements bind foreign carriers to comply with the
rules and standards applicable to the airports which they use. A caveat should be
noted, however, that unilateral imposition of noise standards, and, more importantly,
refusal to adopt international standards once they are agreed upon, could result in
foreign retaliation. If the previous pattern of ICAO standard adoption continues,
however, an international rule substantially similar to U.S. rules can be expected,
shortly after U.S . adoption. International conflicts could be avoided, in such case,
by United States acceptance of foreign aircraft which comply with the substantially
equivalent ICAO standards.
4-40
-------
SECTION 5
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR MODIFYING THE EXISTING LEGAL/
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM: ALTERNATIVES
Having discussed the problems encountered in the present legal/institutional
framework for solving the aircraft/airport noise problem, this section analyzes the
major alternatives both for actions pursuant to the current institutional arrangements
and authority, and for modification of the legal/institutional arrangements. Each of
the problems identified in Section 4 will be addressed and alternatives for its solu-
tion discussed. Some of these alternatives can be accomplished under existing legal
authority while others would require new legislation on either the Federal, State or
local level.
The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, to the extent they can be
identified, will be evaluated. Finally, in the next section, the Task Group Recommen-
dations, chosen from among these alternatives, will be presented.
HOW TO ASSURE EXCHANGE OF AGENCY EXPERTISE, INFORMATION. AND
VIEWPOINTS
It was noted above that a substantial number of Federal agencies—as well as State
and local governments—have expertise, information, and important viewpoints which
should be considered in solving the airport noise problem. There are a number of
ways such expertise can be exchanged, and adequate balancing of information and
opinion promoted.
1. Agencies can exchange reports through a clearinghouse, such as the EPA
noise research coordination process under the Noise Control Act.
2. Agencies can be required to review and comment upon proposed regulatory
actions, as under the Noise Control Act, NEPA, and the A-85 process.
5-1
-------
3. Agencies having special expertise or authority can be required formally to
present their findings and determinations to the regulatory body having juris-
diction over the final decision, as for example, KPA is required to propose
to the FAA those regulations EPA determines are necessary to protect health
and welfare.
4. An interagency body could be formed of concerned agencies to discuss all
aspects of the problem and recommend appropriate actions to the responsible
regulatory bodies.
5. An interagency body could be formed which would establish a coordinated
program and exercise actual rulemaking authority binding on all the concerned
agencies.
Both 1 and 2, report exchange and proposed action review, are passive measures
While these options promote interagency input of information, they do not address the
need to hammer out a coordinated attack on the noise problem by all of the responsible
authorities. Review and comment procedures, in particular, are reactive processes-
only engaged when action is proposed. Yet much of the problem is not ill-thought action
but inaction—an issue which is not amenable to solution by a review and comment
requirement.
Option 3, the formulation of formal input requirements, is an alternative first
suggested in Section 7 of the Noise Control Act. Under a formal input procedure, for
example, EPA would be required to determine and report to the FAA those levels of
noise found adverse to public health and welfare and recommend actions to avoid such
adverse effects. Similarly, NASA could be required to determine and inform the FAA
whenever it found a particular strategy was technically feasible, safe, and effective,
together with its estimate of the cost of implementing the technology. And HUD could
be required to report the land use problems incurred by both airport noise and alterna-
tive noise abatement strategies.
5-2
-------
Tho advantage of the formal determination and report process is that it is dynamic
and not reactive. Information and views which should stimulate new regulatory and
abatement programs would be exchanged prior to formulation of regulatory actions,
rather than in reaction to proposals. However, mere exchange of information and
determinations is ineffective unless the regulatory body to which they are addressed
has a duty to review and respond to the information. In this respect, for example, the
Noise Control Act contains provisions requiring FAA hearings and formal adoption or
refutation of EPA proposals, guaranteeing that the information and views exchanged
do not languish in files, but are actually acted upon.
Provisions extending formal input and response requirements to the determinations
of NASA, HUD and/or HEW would require amendment of §611 of the Federal Aviation
Act, although probably the same process could be established via an executive order
requiring the FAA to solicit the views of other agencies and action thereon within a
specified time.
Although a formal determination exchange procedure may have salutory effects
in promoting regulatory action in the noise area, there is some fear this scheme may
result in a process of interagency "ping-pong" and regulatory impass. There is a
distinct need, not just to make appropriate findings, but to reconcile the information
thus brought together and formulate a coordinated program for solving the problem.
This cannot be done by an exchange of memos, but requires some method of bringing
all the concerned agencies together in the policy-making and decision-making process.
A continuing interagency exchange and coordination process could be accom-
plished through formation of some type of Interagency A ire raft/Airport Noise Abate-
ment Committee (IAANAC). Two types of interagency group are possible. The first,
which could be established by executive order, would be formed of representatives
from concerned agencies—such as FAA, DOT, NASA, EPA, HUD and HEW—and
charged with developing coordinated approaches to the problem and recommending
appropriate actions to the member agencies. Under this option, actual regulatory
power and final decision authority would remain in the respective agencies. The
5-3
-------
second type of group would be composed of similar representatives, but would have
the power to make decisions binding upon the member agencies—that is, to exercise
real regulatory authority. The latter type of authority could be conferred only by
new legislation.
Both types of IAANAC would serve the function of providing a forum to work out
a coordinated control and abatement program. The extent to which the first will
succeed, however, is dependent on three conditions-.
1. That the representatives are appointed from policy making levels in each
agency, and are not merely technical advisors.
2. That each agency commit itself, to the maximum extent possible, to imple-
menting the recommendations arrived at by the interagency group.
3. That the interagency committee determinations and recommendations are
regularly made part of the public record through publication and promulga-
tion in the Federal Register.
An interagency committee with final policy and regulatory powers would be free
of the problem of obtaining voluntary compliance and cooperation by all concerned
agencies. On the other hand, shifting of responsibility for land use, aircraft design,
airport operations, research, and environmental effects decisions as to noise to one
interagency group might raise the problem of coordinating those decisions with similar
aircraft, airport, land use and environment programs remaining in the original agen-
cies. The solution must be a mechanism which allows both coordination of the noise
abatement program and coordination of the noise program elements with other regu-
latory, development and environmental programs. Further, the total noise environ-
ment is what must be reduced, and not just the contribution made to it by any single
type of noise source, and therefore any process which tends to decouple the abatement
planning for one source type from the overall exposure limitation goal is undesirable.
An available mechanism which might be considered is that of the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation. The OST presently presides over a confederated
3-4
-------
Department of Transportation, with most, if not all, of its modal agencies (i.e. , FAA,
FHWA, etc.) acting independently from direct DOT supervision. Yet many of these
modal agencies have an interest in transportation noise abatement general!y. Thus
the OST, which at least in theory has direct control over the FAA, could be used as
a home for an interagency committee with final policy and regulatory authority.
Alternatively, because of the need to coordinate noise abatement with respect
to all sources in order to achieve limitation of cumulative noise exposure according
to public health and welfare needs, the coordination of aircraft/airport noise abate-
ment could be carried out by a subcommittee, which would be part of an interagency
noise abatement committee chaired by EPA as a part of its coordination responsibili-
ties under Section 4(c) of the 1972 Act.
HOW AND WHEN TO CONSIDER EACH OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS:
DEFINITION OF AGENCY ROLES
It has already been stated that a comprehensive noise control program must take
into consideration a broad range of the factors listed in the Criteria Section. But how
and when should each of those factors be brought into the process of regulation ? Who
should collect the information and conduct the balancing process ?
Clearly, one option is to balance all of the factors on the Federal level, to collect
the information on health and social effects of noise, technological solutions, costs,
effects of abatement on housing and employment, and land use impacts, and adopt
regulations setting national, uniform standards on the basis of an overall assessment
of these factors. Under this option, the Federal government would balance the need
for housing versus the noise impacts and health effects, the environmental considera-
tions versus the economic costs of abatement, to arrive at one noise standard for the
country. Unfortunately, the noise problem around airports is not amenable to national
generalization. To be sure, the health effects of noise and assessment of technologi-
cal and economic feasibility of new aircraft equipment can be made at the Federal
level. But assessment of what combination of strategies, be they curfew or flight
paths, airport runway realignment or relocation of housing, requires an analysis of
5-5
-------
each local situation. In some cases, construction methods may make housing insula-
tion very expensive or impossible; in other areas it may be quite easy. For some
localities, the needs and desires for housing located in the noise impacted area may
require a different balancing of social factors versus air transport service level needs
than in regions where other housing is available. At some airports, a fast climbout
may help; at others, a two-stage departure may be better.
Thus, an airport-by-airport analysis must be made to develop the best combina-
tion of solutions, including operational changes at the airport. Can or should this
analysis be made on the Federal level? Certainly airport solutions must be coordinated
with the national program, but much can be said for allowing as much local input and
choice as possible in developing possible airport strategies. No Federal agency has
the personnel, information, or inclination to study the problem and develop the best
solutions for each area. The information and choices must be developed at the local
level, and then reviewed at the Federal level and coordinated with the national goals
and regulatory actions.
Several options exist to accomplish this process. Basically, they consist of a
series of Federal regulations on aircraft design, operations and airport noise exposure;
development of airport/community noise abatement implementation plans on the local
or regional level; and Federal review and approval of implementation plans plus
promulgation of Federal regulations to support the implementation of the approved
local choices.
The first set of regulatory actions would deal with the noise levels of new aircraft
designs, and modification of existing aircraft. Clearly the establishment of such
regulations requires a national design standard based on an assessment of available
technology, safety, costs, and effectiveness, and taking into account a national stand-
ard for limitation of noise exposure consistent with public health and welfare needs
with respect to noise. These standards are closely related to other aircraft design
requirements, such as are now contained in FAA airworthiness and aircraft type
certificates. There seems general agreement that these standards should remain
5-6
-------
part of the FAA regulatory system, with increased input by such other concerned
agencies, as NASA, EPA, and HUD.
The second area of regulatory actions involves operational standards and proced-
ures used at each airport to lower the noise impact of aircraft operations. Some of
these regulations, such as flight path, approach and departure procedures, are
ultimately within the purview of the FAA acting in its traffic control role. Others,
for example, partial or total curfews or exclusion of certain aircraft because of
excessive noise emissions, fall within the airport operator's proprietary powers,
although they may, in some cases, have broader impact on air transportation. The
combination of the aircraft design and airport regulatory actions, of course, will
determine the scope of the other facet of the problem—how much incompatible land
use will have to be converted or dwelling units insulated. The question is how to
bring these decisions together for each airport.
One method suggested is to establish a Federal airport noise certification stand-
ard pursuant to Federal Aviation Act § §606 and 611, and to require development by
each airport operation, in consultation with concerned industry and citizen groups,
Federal, State, and local governments, of an airport noise abatement implementation
plan. The Federal regulation might identify a series of local options—curfews, flight
paths, families of approach/departure procedures, land use conversion and dwelling
unit insulation, and single-event noise limits on particular runways—from which the
proprietor could select the best combination to solve its problem.
The Federal airport certification standard would require the operator to develop
a plan eventually to lower noise impacts on sensitive land uses to acceptable levels,
or protect such land uses, by relocation and/or insulation, from adverse noise ex-
posures. One of the advantages of the airport certification standard would be to allow
consideration, on an airport-by-airport basis, of a number of factors which cannot
be adequately assessed at the Federal level. For example, it may appear in some
cases that overriding local needs for housing exists, despite the fact that such housing
is in noise impacted areas; or that near-term relocation of incompatible land uses
5-7
-------
may cause .severe dislocation of viable economic and social eommunites. Where such
problems exist, variances as to methods of solutions, timetables of implementation,
or even application of standards could be considered. But identification and assess-
ment of such problems must come from the community, and an implementation plan
scheme would elicit such input and decision-making.
In turn, coordination of the implementation plans with national programs and
needs would be accomplished by Federal review and approval of each plan upon sub-
mission by the airport. Each plan would be reviewed:
1. To assure that it would meet the cumulative airport noise exposure limits.
2. To assure that each element of the plan was consistent with national programs
and needs.
Some elements of the plan, once approved, would require adoption as FAA rules,
for example, establishing locally developed and recommended flight paths, approach/
departure procedures, and flight frequency restrictions as part of the national air
traffic rules. Unless found inadequate or unacceptable, other elements would be
implemented directly by the airport, e.g. , curfews, runway reorientation, residen-
tial insulation and conversion programs.
One further problem of coordination remains: how to assure that land use control
decisions of municipalities neighboring airports are consistent with airport implemen-
tation plans and the national aircraft/airport noise program. It appears there are at
least six potential methods of achieving such coordination.
The first is to eliminate the present uncertainty as to noise effects and noise
exposures around airports. Planners in airport impacted jurisdictions need guidance
and information. In particular, they need noise exposure contours which display the
current and predicted problem in order to design appropriate land use control mecha-
nisms and geographic patterns. To accomplish this, airports and the Federal agen-
cies should cooperate as much as possible, by providing rather than withholding
contour and other noise effect information to local governments.
5-8
-------
The second possibility is to include representatives of neighboring municipalities
in consultations during the formulation of the airport implementation plan. While
this would promote a better exchange of information and understanding, actual coordi-
nation would rely on voluntary cooperation by all interested parties. Unfortunately,
often other stimuli, such as the need to encourage short term tax base development,
may mitigate against local government land use decisions which could assist in solving
the noise problem. On the other hand, inclusion of representatives from airport
neighboring jurisdictions can surely assist in promoting an understanding of the
mutual needs, desires and responsibilities of airports and airport neighbors in solv-
ing the problem, and achieving commitments of all parties to implement an openly
agreed upon course of action.
A third possibility would be to withhold Federal assistance, in terms of mortgage,
grant or loan program, from any land use development, or airport-related surface
transportation development which would stimulate nonconforming land uses, within con-
templated areas of adverse noise levels or where such development is not in conform-
ity with an implementation plan. One of the problems with the second method is that
it essentially makes the airport and Federal government the land use planning and
zoning agency in the airport environs.
Another alternative would require as part of the implementation plan certification
that adequate local land use controls exist to avoid incompatible use development in
impacted areas. Without such assurance, the plan would be inadequate and the air-
port could not be certified for certificated air carrier use. This may not be a viable
choice, however, unless neighboring communities perceive that they will be adversely
affected by airport decertification should they refuse to cooperate by adopting adequate
land use controls. If neighboring communities conclude—analyzing only their own
jurisdiction—that they would be better off without the airport, only an impasse would
result—unless, of course, higher authorities such as the State stepped in to solve the
dispute and override local land use decisions.
5-9
-------
A fourth possibility is to establish special regional airport area land use control
commissions, such as now exist in California, to approve development in the vicinity
of airports. Such commissions, formed of representatives from all concerned local
governments (both those owning the airport facilities and those having jurisdiction
over affected land) — would provide a link between local land planning and airport
planning processes.
The fifth option is to promote State and/or regional oversight, review, and ap-
proval of local planning decisions, particularly in airport areas. Under such a scheme,
coordination between airport implementation plans and local land use plans might be
achieved by requiring the State or regional planning authority to "sign off" the airport
implementation plan and certify adequate land use controls are in effect to bar incom-
patible use development in noise impacted areas.
Lastly, the airport proprietor, via private market mechanisms could assure
compatible land development, through, for example, the purchase of "non-residential-
use" easements from property owners. This would be a much more expensive option
than the imposition of adequate local, regional or State land use controls under police
power authority. Furthermore, there is no assurance the airport could actually or
amicably acquire or condemn sufficient restrictions on all the land it might need to
control.
Assuming that some type of airport implementation plan scheme should be estab-
lished, the question remains of which agency should be responsible for designating the
airport noise exposure standard and/or for adopting the implementation plan regulation.
At the present time these functions are shared. The FAA has the authority to adopt
a § 611 noise standard applicable to airport certificates under § 606 of the Federal
Aviation Act. At the same time, EPA has the duty to prescribe criteria regarding
what levels of noise are adverse to public health and welfare—from all types of noise
sources, including aircraft operations.
5-10
-------
An airport implementation plan requirement could be set up two ways. The first
is for the FAA under its existing powers to adopt such a provision as a part of the
Federal airport certification program. This has several advantages. Many of the
noise control options which may be selected by the airport require FAA approval,
promulgation, and enforcement. For example, path designations and flight procedures
for noise control are impossible to separate from other air traffic functions, which
are solely within FAA purview. Furthermore, such a rule, if adopted by the FAA,
would eliminate the issue of what limits, if any, exist vis-a-vis the airport proprie-
tor's rights to control noise from aircraft which use the airport; as an implementa-
tion plan approved by the FAA would become a Federal rule as well and, thus, merge
the airport operator's and Federal government authorities. Perhaps most important,
an FAA airport noise rule would engage existing enforcement techniques available
under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 for the implementation of airport options,
putting to rest the difficult problem of what tools are available to an airport operator,
in its proprietary rather than police power role, to enforce airport noise rules.
One problem with FAA designation of an airport noise exposure standard and
adoption of the airport implementation scheme is the possibility the FAA noise expos-
ure standards for airports may vary from the noise exposure standards set for other
noise sources established under EPA authority. It would be unfair, for example, for
the EPA to require highway and railroad noise be limited to 25 NEF in residential
communities and for the FAA only to set a 35 NEF standard for airport noise exposure
in residential communities. With respect to the method of measuring cumulative
noise, and to the limit set to protect public health and welfare, a common scheme
must be adopted, and it makes sense that the EPA derived standards be adopted not
just as to noise sources which it is charged with controlling directly, but as to air-
craft/airport noise exposures as well. Furthermore, the public health and welfare with
respect to noise exposure simply cannot be protected unless the same exposure stand-
ard is used to express the limitation goal without regard to noise source. If a dual
standard is used, then legally the result will be a kind of first- and second-class
citizenship and not equal protection under the law. In other words, the FAA and EPA
5-11
-------
should adopt the same noise exposure standard in all decision-making relating to
noise regulation.
The second alternative is for the Congress to adopt new legislation empowering
EPA to establish an airport noise permit program, including promulgation of appro-
priate community noise exposure limits and regulations requiring development and
submission of airport implementation plans of the type discussed above. This has
the advantage of assuring that the airport noise program is coordinated with other
noise abatement programs under EPA jurisdiction. To be successful, the EPA air-
port program would, however, still require FAA cooperation regarding such items
as traffic rules and approach/departure procedures adoption and enforcement —
which are areas outside of the airport operator's powers to implement. New mecha-
nisms, apart from the Federal Aviation Act, would also have to be established to
enforce the EPA rule and to coordinate its impact with the requirements of the FAA
airport certification regulations adopted under § 606 of the 1958 Aviation Act. Further-
more, the airport proprietor's powers to use "police-power" type of enforcement
mechanisms to secure compliance with airport rules would have to be confirmed or
clarified.
INTEREST GROUP INPUT
Throughout the decision-making process, at the Federal, State and local levels,
various interest groups have valuable information, experience, expertise and view-
points to contribute. These groups include not only industry, carriers, pilot and
airport operator associations, but also concerned environmental and community
groups, city planners and government officials. The process for eliciting the response
and input from all these groups in the past has not proven satisfactory from the view-
point of establishing mutual trust, understanding, and cooperative efforts at develop-
ing solutions to the noise problem.
Most of the previously utilized formal processes for interest group input have
been reactive, allowing comments on proposed rules to be submitted to the public
5-12
-------
docket or providing public presentation and hearings on proposed actions. While hear-
ing and comment procedures may be useful in some cases, and often legally mandated,
neither is very helpful in eliciting and refining suggestions for possible combinations
of strategies or regulatory actions — where an exchange of ideas and viewpoints is
necessary to develop a workable proposal. In this regard, the advisory task force
approach may prove much more successful. Through the task force, representatives
of various interests can bring expertise and ideas together, identify existing problems
and potential answers, analyze the viability of possible strategies, and provide the
decision-maker with a more dynamic and constructive method of developing solutions
and balancing varying values. This is not a substitute for expeditious dec is ion-making
by responsible agencies, but does provide a better basis for their decisions.
The problem is to assure that the task force provides an input for all the view-
points that should be considered. This is much more a matter of how invitations are
extended, than design of the task group mechanism. While it may be impossible to
include representatives of every interested group, representatives of every concerned
view, be it industry, airline, pilot, airport, State and local government, environ-
mental, or airport neighbor — should be invited to participate, and all deliberations
should be on the public record. Comments from persons or groups not directly repre-
sented should be elicited in writing and considered by the task force. Such an open
process of developing solutions, particularly with respect to the design of airport
implementation plans and review of broad Federal policy and program approaches,
can be a most valuable administrative tool if properly used.
DESIGN OF A CONTINUING REGULATORY PROCESS
Some of the alternatives discussed above bear directly on the problem of main-
taining a. continuing regulatory process in the field of aircraft/airport noise abatement.
Specifically, formal input mechanisms such as those established for EPA under
the Noise Control Act, and suggested for NASA and HUD, could assist in assuring
the review and implementation of new and more effective control strategies as they
5-13
-------
are developed. An interagency coordinating panel may further assure a continuing
review and update of regulatory actions by providing an active focus for developing
better noise abatement programs.
The other part of this problem is establishing meaningful but attainable goals to
guide future actions and provide incentives for the development of more effective
noise abatement technologies. This, it would seem, could be accomplished via
several regulatory and non-regulatory measures.
One method would be to announce approximate source noise goals for target
years, perhaps as a preamble to type certificate, retrofit or fleet noise rules — put-
ting airlines and manufacturers on notice as to the levels toward which they should
be working. While certainly this is better than no goal at all, the informal goal setting
scheme raises the unsettling specter of shifting goals over time — creating the prob-
lem of the moving target. Such goals should be reasonably fixed and clearly set forth
for all to see, use, and rely on in planning, research and development. In this sense,
a more formal regulatory alternative may be preferable.
A more formal alternative would entail the adoption of such goal levels in the
regulations, e.g. , for 1980, 1985, 1990 and beyond, subject to some revision later
if and when it appears the scheduled attainment is technologically or economically
unfeasible. This is analogous to the process adopted in the 1970 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments with respect to auto emission standards.
Another possibility is to use a stepped implementation in an airport certification
rule; that is, to require successive attainment of stricter cumulative noise exposure
standards over an appropriate period (e.g. , NEF 45 by 1978; NEF 40 by 1982; NEF
30 by 1990; etc.) until the program results in no incompatible land uses within the
area subject to adverse noise levels. Such a goal is better to guide the overall pro-
gram development than merely a source emission standard goal alone, as it provides
for a method of coordinating the effects of new source technology, operational pro-
cedure modification, and land use options. This alone may not be a total answer,
however. It does not really establish a target for aircraft engineers and airlines in
5-14
-------
developing new technology. To these purposes, some assessment fromthe noise
exposure goal should be made of that portion of the solution which must be accom-
plished by source reduction, and that analysis translated into targets or regulatory
goals for aircraft source abatement. In other words, two sets of goals and imple-
mentation dates should be established in an optimum scheme: one for cumulative
noise exposure around airports, and the second for aircraft design and source
abatement.
It is essential that the "long range goal" for limiting airport cumulative noise
exposure be stated at the outset and utilized thenceforth as the performance standard
by which all new projects are evaluated, both new airport and airport expansion
projects and new land use developments. Only in this way can new noise impact prob-
lems be prevented from arising in the future.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES - ALTERNATIVES FOR FINANCING IMPLEMENTATION
OF NOISE ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
Development and implementation of noise control and abatement strategies will
require application of substantial financial resources. While a few strategies, such
as new operating procedures, would not incur large capital investment or significantly
increased operating cost, a comprehensive noise abatement program—including
expedited retirement of first-generation aircraft, research and development of en-
gine noise control technology, retrofit, insulation of residential structures, and re-
location of incompatible land use—will necessitate a major commitment of financial
resources and the development of financing methods. Without adequate financing
mechanisms, expeditious implementation of a comprehensive program to alleviate
even the most severe airport noise impact problems (designated as adverse to public
health) will be impossible.
AREAS OF EXPENDITURE AND FINANCE ALTERNATIVES
Development and implementation of a comprehensive noise control program will
entail commitment of financial resources in a number of expenditure areas, in
particular:
• Research and development of noise abatement technology.
5-15
-------
© Production start-up for implementation of noise abatement technology.
e Retrofit of existing aircraft with nacelle treatments, refaned engines or
new "quiet" engines.
e Accelerated retirement of existing aircraft and replacement with new equipment.
* Increased operating costs (if any) resulting from implementation of noise
abatement strategies.
• Insulation of residences and other selected types of noise-impacted structures.
• Relocation of incompatible land uses.
For each of these expenditures, the questions arise as to who should ultimately
pay and how should it be financed.
The first question is answered generally in the Criteria Section: "The cost of
noise abatement and noise damages should be ultimately internalized by the air trans-
portation industry and passed on to the maximum extent possible to the air transpor-
tation user. " (Section 3.) Among the beneficiaries of air transportation who must
so internalize noise related costs are both aviation passengers and shippers, and
those who indirectly enjoy the benefits of aviation — consumers of goods shipped by
air, and airport attracted businesses. The scheme or schemes adopted to finance
noise abatement must be so designed as to attempt an equitable distribution of the
cost of noise abatement in accordance with the relative contributions of each of these
beneficiary groups to the noise problem and with the benefits each group receives
from aviation.
Of course to accomplish such an allocation, each beneficiary need not be charged
directly for noise abatement costs. Where, for example, part of the noise costs are
financed by a tax on air freight, consumers of goods shipped by air will pay indirectly
through higher prices. Other beneficiaries, such as airport area businesses, may
not be subject to such passthroughs, and allocation of noise costs may require some
other, more general, revenue collecting system.
Recognizing the issue of ultimate allocation, the primary question here is how
noise abatement expenditures should be financed. A variety of mechanisms have
5-16
-------
been suggested to fund the costs of noise control and abatement. Among them, the
most important are:
• A passenger head tax and freight tax, of a set amount (e.g. per person and
per pound) imposed on all commercial air transport, either "at the gate, "
or as a surcharge on tickets and freight invoices.
• Head & freight tax imposed only at noise-impacted airports.
• Expanded use of the Airport and Airway Development Act Trust Fund, for
use in grants to airports and airlines for noise abatement.
• A surcharge on the aircraft fuel tax.
• A "dollars for decibels" landing fee or landing fee impost.
• A general fare increase, either by a set amount (e.g. $1 a ticket) or on a
percentage basis (e.g. 1 percent a ticket).
• Grants to aircraft manufacturers, airlines and airports financed by general
tax revenues.
• Increased airport concession (e.g. parking & restaurant) rentals or fees.
• Government-guaranteed loans to airlines and airports.
Different financing methods may be chosen to fund various noise abatement costs,
and thus a matrix of possible expenditure/financing alternatives must be analyzed,
and appropriate choices made therefrom. Such an expenditure/financial resource
matrix is presented in Table 5-1.
To choose the best financing scheme, or combination of schemes, several ques-
tions should be addressed:
• Who has authority to adopt the scheme ?
• How could the scheme be designed and administered ?
• What would be the incidence of the scheme — that is, if the scheme were
adopted, who would ultimately pay for the cost of the noise abatement
expenditures so financed?
5-17
-------
I
LO
W
en
§
W
H
H
X
CD
X> d, S3
•-C M 2
Ctf t} '-3
Q ed
g T3 O
o j 'CD
S3 P5
H— t
S3
be O
.S3 £
O rn
K S
( — |
If
•45 co
cd co
CD °
0
"S ci
as
o*
CD H
!H
• i— i ;>
CD
0 Q,
1 |
0 £
O
DH
General Head &
Freight Tax
r-3
' 1
Impacted Airporl
Head & Freight
Tax
N
Airport Develop-
ment Trust Fund
n
Fuel Tax
Surcharge
«
TD
pq o
"? ^ «
S-1 pti O
«" be §"
^.S .§
«
Fare Increase
-Set $ amount
-% Increase
«5
General Tax
Revenues
tJ
'
Airport con-
cession ren-
tals & fees
oo
Govern! ent
Guaranteed
Loans
«
5-18
-------
• How efficient would the scheme be in expeditiously developing sufficient funds
to finance the noise abatement expenditures for which its use is intended?
• How appropriate is the scheme for financing the various expenditures listed
above ?
Unfortunately, this task group lacks the full knowledge and expertise necessary to
definitively answer all of these issues. We are able to address the first two questions.
As to the remaining issues, only a set of concerns and factors can be suggested here,
for further exploration and analysis by those better versed in the economic details of
the design and effect of such revenue measures.
ADOPTION, DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION
National Head and Freight Tax or Surcharge
This alternative would contemplate set charges per passenger and per pound of
freight to be levied on all air travel and shipping in the United States (e.g. a $1 head
tax and 1 percent freight tax). The revenue from such charges could be collected,
either "at the gate" - through airline or airport personnel - or more likely as a sur-
charge on the passenger ticket and cargo way bill.
Once collected, such revenue would be turned over to a national fund, from which
grants could be made to airlines, manufacturers, and/or airport operators for the
purposes of financing research, production and installation of abatement equipment for
retrofitting, early retirement of noisy aircraft, soundproofing of homes and certain
other buildings, or relocation of families in the most severe noise impact zones.
Implementation of this alternative would require Federal legislation—establishing
the fund, prescribing its uses, designating the agency responsible for approving grant
applications, setting the amount of the charge and its method of collection and pre-
scribing the time period the charges are to remain in effect. In addition, depending
on how soon what amount of money must be raised by this scheme to finance the
expenditures contemplated, Congress may be required to appropriate an initial sum
5-19
-------
to the Abatement Grant Fund, to be recovered and repayed to the general treasury
out of future receipts from the head and freight tax.
Noise-Impacted-Airport Head & Freight Tax
This alternative would entail imposition of a set head and freight tax only at noise
impacted airports, and really involves two possibilities:
1. Imposition by the Federal government at all airports found to have a noise
problem, in accordance with a standard test thereof.
2. Imposition by the airport proprietor directly to finance airport abatement
activities.
Federal imposition of such a tax would be more awkward than airport adoption
of this scheme. To do so, the Congress would have to authorize the tax, establish
a test of "noise problem," and delegate to an agency the task of comparing each
airport situation to the tax test. Such a plan would probably involve enormous ener-
gies to achieve rather arbitrary decisions of who should be taxed and who should be
exempt.
If an airport head & freight tax were imposed by the airport operator on all
departing passengers and cargo, the tax could be collected "at the gate," in the fashion
many foreign countries and several U.S. terminals collect airport charges. This
would require airline collection of cash at the departure point, and accounting and
payment of such funds to the airport, on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Such
funds could be used two ways, to directly finance noise abatement at the airport - e.g.
monitoring systems, purchase of new guidance equipment, construction of better
aligned runways, insulation of nearby residences, and/or relocation of incompatible
land uses. In the alternative, such funds could be applied to pay back Federal or
private market loans given to the airport to finance previous noise abatement actions.
This method of finance, however, would be difficult to use in financing retrofit,
R&D, and operating costs incurred by airlines and aircraft manufacturers - as such
5-20
-------
would require a transfer of monies from the airports to the airlines, as transfer
which would necessitate a pooling of such airport collected funds from all affected
airports, and a system for distribution to carriers and manufacturers out of the
central fund. This, of course, would work equitably only if all noise impacted air-
ports imposed the same head & freight tax - which raises the same problems as
discussed previously regarding Federal imposition of a head & freight tax only at
noise impacted terminals.
Use of Airport & Airway Development Trust Funds
This alternative would require Congressional authorization to expand use of the
AADA trust funds, derived from the aircraft fuel tax and Federal aviation freight and
passenger taxes, to include grants to airports for the relocation of incompatible land
uses, insulation of structures, and perhaps even grants to airlines and manufacturers
for retrofitting, R&D and related costs. The airport noise abatement grants could
be administered in precisely the same manner as other airport development grant
applications are handled under the AADA, using existing agencies and mechanisms
for the collection of the revenue (from fuel taxes and charges on freight and passenger
tickets) and the distribution of the funds. If airline and manufacturer related items
were added to the list of eligible items, revised but similar distribution mechanisms
could be used.
Aircraft Fuel Tax Surcharge
Another alternative is to form a separate fund derived from a surcharge on the
current 3£/gallon Federal aviation fuel tax. Such revenue would be collected with the
Federal fuel tax by the fuel distributors, segregated when it reaches the Federal
treasury, and distributed by a grant scheme similar to that hypothesized for the
national head and freight tax fund.
5-21
-------
Dollars-for-Decibels Landing Fee or Landing Fee Impost
A noise-related landing charge could be set up in two ways. Under the first, the
aircraft would be charged in accordance with the noise produced on each approach or
takeoff as monitored by a "black box" at the airport. This monitoring scheme would
provide the most sophisticated method of internalizing noise costs to noise production,
but may prove overly complicated and expensive in comparison to the refinement it
makes possible.
A second possibility would be to set up categories of landing fees based on the
type of aircraft flown and the type certificate noise levels established, for example,
under FAR 36 standard measurements. For example, one fee would be set for 727-
200 aircraft based on the 727-200's type certificate noise levels, and another charge
set for 707 aircraft. This could further be refined by having a scale of fees for each
aircraft type varying by the plane's takeoff or arrival weight, e.g. one fee for a fully
loaded 707, and another for a half loaded 707, related to the noise each makes at those
weights.
This second type of system requires some calculation to achieve an aircraft-by-
aircraft fee schedule, but once tnat schedule is set, the actual calculation of a fee for
a particular operation can be read off the chart with relative ease. Los Angeles
International Airport has recently instituted such a scheme, and indicated that this
system is administerable.
A major problem of this system is the problem of imposing a noise related fee
where landing fees are set by current long term leases between airports and airlines.
In some of these cases, renegotiation of landing fees is called for in the lease. How-
ever, a similar result could be achieved by Federal law — establishing an airport
loan program to finance airport abatement programs and authorizing any airport
borrowing such federal funds to impose a "dollars-for-decibels" landing tax to repay
all or part of the Federal loan.
5-22
-------
One disadvantage of the dollars-for-decibels landing fee or impost scheme, how-
ever, is its uncertainty over time. As noisy aircraft are retired and retrofitted, the
revenue from the fees will decrease unless they are adjusted upwards every year.
On the other hand, upward adjustment of the charge per decibel, in order to maintain
revenue levels would defeat one of the major advantages of the fee system, economi-
cally to encourage noise control by rewarding abatement with lower landing charges.
General Fare Increase
A general fare increase for noise abatement purposes, covering both passenger
and freight rates, could be granted by the CAB under current legislative authority.
Such an increase could take the form of a set amount (e.g. $1.00) added to present
ticket prices, or a percentage (e.g. I percent) rate increase. The latter type of
increase was recently granted by the CAB to fund airport security programs man-
dated by Federal law.
Using the fare increase alternative, revenues would flow directly to the airlines
to finance, for example, purchase of retrofit equipment or retirement of noisy aircraft.
Similarly, part of the fare increase could be distributed to airports to assist in land
use conversion and insulation projects through increased airport rental fees, landing
fees, or other airport charges imposed on the airlines. One possible difficulty with
this scheme is that some airlines, which have a quieter fleet already, may end up with
surplus revenue, while other carriers having a greater problem may not have enough
money expeditiously to implement abatement programs. On the one hand, this would
reward the airlines which had previously made wise decisions (consciously or other-
wise) from a noise viewpoint. Yet the fare increase may have to be higher than the
equivalent head tax charge to assure airlines having a major problem will have suffi-
cient sums in their respective treasuries to carry out the legally mandated abatement
programs. If, after further analysis, it is found this might be a major problem, one
alternative would be for such airlines to borrow funds for the deficits in the private
market or from Federally established loan accounts, to be repaid out of future receipts
from the fare increase.
5-23
-------
In order for this alternative to be implemented, however, the CAB must agree to
the fare increase. Unfortunately, prior to passage of the Noise Control Act of 1972,
the CAB expressed its firm opposition to any such increase to fund retrofitting expen-
ditures, based on the CAB evaluation of the wisdom of retrofitting. Perhaps, in view
of the data evaluated pursuant to Congress's mandate in this study, the CAB will revise
its position. In lieu thereof, the Congress would have to legislatively override the CAB
decision and mandate a fare increase for noise abatement purposes.
Grants to Manufacturers, Airlines and Airports out of General Funds
One alternative to the special revenue measures listed above would be for the
Federal Government to appropriate general tax funds for a grant program, to finance
R&D, retrofitting, aircraft retirement, increased operating costs (if any), and land
use protection projects. To a limited extent, such general funds are used now in the
noise abatement field, to underwrite basic and applied research in noise abatement
technology.
However, with the possible exception of advanced research programs, use of
general tax revenues for the purposes of financing noise pollution control - especially
to pay for the installation of noise control equipment and resulting operating cost
increases, if any - is contrary to one of the Administration's fundamental tenets in
the environmental area: that the user, and not the general taxpayer, should pay for
pollution control. Under this policy, reflected in Criterion 5, B in Section 3
adopted by the Task Group, costs of pollution control, like the costs of fuel, personnel,
and movies, should be borne by the air transportation consumer and beneficiary. Only
with such internalization of pollution costs, will rational decisions as to the commit-
ment of transport and other economic resources be made by the private enterprise
system.
5-24
-------
Airport Concession Rentals and User Fees
Another suggested revenue source would be increased rental charges for airline
terminal facilities, concession rentals and royalties, and airport charges for such
services as parking and ground transit. Such charges or rentals could be collected
by the airport and used in the manners discussed above with regard to other airport
operator collected charges, e.g. for land use changes and other airport operator
implemented abatement projects.
One problem with this approach may be the inability of airports in the near term
to modify lease and concession arrangements to raise rentals or impose charges
needed to finance noise abatement programs. Most terminal leases with airlines are
long-term, while concession royalty agreements may last for shorter, though still
substantial, terms. Only directly imposed user fees, such as automobile parking
rates (parking, however, is often run as a leased concession) are amenable to rapid
change; although there is some question as to how viable such fees are in generating
the necessary revenue for noise programs.
Government Insured Loans to Manufacturers, Airlines and Airports
Unlike the other financing alternatives, this option does not provide for a source
of additional revenue with which airlines, manufacturers and airports can fund noise
abatement activities. Rather, government guaranteed loans serve the sole purpose
of assuring funds will be available in the private market for noise reduction invest-
ments which must be made in the near future and amortized over the longer term.
The financing of repayments of such loans would be the responsibility of airlines
(through present or increased tariffs), manufacturers (through receipts from the
eventual sale of noise abatement equipment) and airport operators (through increased
landing fees, rentals, etc.).
Government insured loan provisions might be coupled with a fare increase or
landing fee revenue scheme to assure adequate funds are available for expeditious
implementation of available noise reduction technologies and strategies. However,
5-25
-------
such loan provisions, unlike the fare increase or landing fee decisions, must be
adopted by new Federal legislation and coordinated with the non-legislative decisions
of the CAB and airport operators.
Government insured loans may be a particularly useful solution in the area of
production start-up costs incurred by manufacturers developing retrofit equipment.
In this expense area, like other aviation manufacturing fields, recovery of initial
investment depends on the number of units sold, which cannot be guaranteed in advance.
As a result, and in view of the present state of the economy, private capital may not
be available in the quantities needed to assure fast tool-up for abatement equipment
production without some government underwriting.
Guaranteed loans may also be a useful tool in stimulating applied research and
development of noise abatement technology. At the present time, the government's
only fiscal stimulus in this area is grant-contract research through various agency
programs. Such grant-contract subsidies are beneficial in assisting basic research,
and certainly must continue. However, the progress of applied R&D may be better
served by encouraging private enterprise investment — by keeping the profit motive
alive. Although advanced R&D in the noise area is somewhat speculative, if usable
technology results are achieved, initial research investment can be recovered, and,
thus, total government grant subsidization of research would be inadvisable.
However, if private investment in noise research is to continue at substantial
levels as more sophisticated applied research is undertaken, some government
backing for loans to manufacturers may be required. This course may, in the end,
be found less expensive and more efficient than merely increasing grant-contract
programs, and should be more thoroughly considered in the design of Federal aviation
research.
OTHER CONCERNS
The financial scheme or schemes adopted must be capable of addressing two sets
of solutions. The first is the retrofit/operational limit/land use protection program
5-26
-------
necessary to solve the most urgent public health and welfare (noise) problem, as
determined by Task Group 3. A target date of 1978 or earlier for this solution will
require substantial investments in the near future — during the early years of whatever
revenue-producing system is adopted. The second, and less immediate problem, is
posed by the long term abatement goals - of gradually reducing noise impacts on noise
sensitive land uses to levels below those found adverse to public health and welfare, as
determined by Task Group 3. In the latter regard, the financial schemes adopted must
be capable of producing a continued flow of revenue to fund ongoing land use protection
programs at airports, and phased implementation of more advanced retrofit or fleet
retirement programs by airlines.
An indication of the approximate magnitudes of funding, for which financing may
be required, is of interest. Achieving progressively lower levels of cumulative noise
exposure near airports, of course, involves varying funding levels. In approximate
terms, achievement of the urgent protection limit (L_, 80) recommended by Task Group
3 could be obtained by 1978 for $0. 5 to $1. 0 billion, almost entirely by source noise
abatement in selected portions of the existing air carrier and business jet fleets. In
order to eventually (circa 1980) achieve the long range goal (L, 60) recommended by
Task Group 3, an additional $1 to $2 billion for source abatement and $7 to $8 billion
for land use programs (control, conversion and/or insulation) would be required.
Further information on the potential funding amounts involved are given in the report
of Task Group 4.
Another element to be considered in analyzing these alternatives is the propriety
of establishing grant programs to fund airline investment in noise equipment and early
retirement of noisy aircraft. If these abatement approaches are funded by fare in-
creases, flowing directly to the airlines, carriers will have an economic interest in
making the most economically efficient decisions on what combination of retrofit/
retirement to adopt in achieving the desired noise reduction. Under the fare increase
approach, if an airline can accomplish noise abatement at a lower cost, it could
pocket the difference in increased profits. Under a grant program, such as would be
required under a head and freight tax scheme, however, airlines would have to apply
to a Federal agency for funds, setting out the retrofit/retirement combination to be
funded. Because funds would be granted only for the cost of whatever strategy
5-27
-------
combination was proposed, airlines could not profit from making least-cost decisions,
and the government granting agency would be required to review each application on the
issue of economic efficiency and noise exposure reduction effectiveness as well as
eligibility. The price of limiting revenues for noise abatement to actual expenditures
is the necessity of bureaucratic oversight of economic decisions, a process that has
not proved successful in the past.
A similar question may arise under a grant program to airports to support land
use conversion programs. Here, the economic efficiency problem may arise where
grant funds are used to purchase residences and other impacted incompatible uses
near airports. Often such land, once cleared and consolidated into larger parcels,
is valuable for noise compatible commercial and industrial development. Such re-
development should be economically encouraged. In this regard, a loan program
or limited grant program to airports would provide greater stimulus for more
efficient economic land use conversion decisions by airport operators and concerned
local governments.
Lastly, in evaluating these funding techniques, a close analysis must be made of
the incidence of the schemes. Although there is general agreement that the costs of
noise abatement should be borne by the users and beneficiaries of air transportation,
the policy question remains as to how closely the charge to each user or beneficiary
can or should be related to the noise to which he or she contributes. Some financing
schemes, such as the dollars-for-decibels landing fee, have close relation to the
noise levels created. Other plans, such as the percentage increase in air fares and
fuel taxes, which would charge greater amounts for longer trips, would be related
to such factors as aircraft weight and type, which are partial determinants of noise
levels among the present fleets, whose cumulative noise is dominated by the older,
noisier aircraft. Head and freight taxes, on the other hand, correlate to the frequency
of landing and takeoff operations, which is another factor in determining cumulative
noise exposures. Some of the above options, for example, terminal rentals and con-
cession royalties, have no correlation, direct or indirect, to noise levels produced
by the revenue producer.
5-28
-------
Further, the total scheme adopted should not (inequitably) omit charges to any
major sector of noise producers. For example, a scheme based purely on passenger
and freight charges would omit the business jet aircraft. Several of these aircraft
have noise characteristics equivalent to the 2- and 3-engine airline transport aircraft.
Hence, in terms of transport environmental efficiency (e.g., passenger mile per unit
noise exposure impact or any other measure of efficiency related to environmental
impact or resource consumption) the business jets show very low scores. Further,
their numbers are increasing at a significantly greater rate than the number of aircraft
in the commercial fleet (see Figure 5-29 in EPA NTID 73. 5), and may exceed them
in the late 1970's and become twice as numerous in the mid-1980's. In that event,
the noise of business jet aircraft may dominate the noise exposure at many airports,
even some air-carrier airports, as the air carrier fleet is gradually quieted.
Comparing the options, it should be recognized that noise-correlated charges may
be more appropriate for some abatement expenditures — such as retrofitting and land
use protection — and inappropriate for other areas. But in deciding such appropriate-
ness, a central question must be answered which we are unable to adequately address
here: Does the cost of administering noise-correlated schemes of various sophistica-
tion and accuracy outweigh the advantages of such charges in encouraging wiser uses
of aviation resources ?
THE COMPENSATION PROBLEM-LIABILITY AND AMELIORATION OF
NOISE IMPACT
No aspect of the airport noise problem has received more attention, nor created
more consternation, than the problem of compensation. Who should be liable for
personal and property damages caused by noise; to what extent should those damages
be compensated; what measure of damages or relief should be adopted ? Cumulative
noise standards and goals have been proposed and withdrawn - not because they were
poor measures of the problem and inadequate guidelines for developing a solution -
but because of concern the standards and goals would be used in several airport
noise compensation cases. More debate has been expended over the question of
5-29
-------
whether the Federal government, airlines or airports should be liable for damages,
than how each would contribute to a solution of the basic problem. This is not to say
compensation questions have necessarily determined basic policy and approaches -
and the actions of responsible regulatory agencies. But liability issues have, it
would seem, often resulted in illogical definitions of that responsibility and induced
strains among institutions which must cooperate if the aircraft/airport noise problem
is to be adequately addressed.
One option is to leave the compensation question to the courts, that is, defer to
the judicial system until the Supreme Court eventually decides, in light of Burbank,
and the Noise Control Act, and 1970 Airport and Airways Development Act, whether
Griggs has been reversed and liability shifted from the airport proprietors to the
Federal government. This would mean, however, essentially putting the compensa-
tion question - and the airport noise problem - aside for several more years, to shift
the crises of decision as to how to solve the problem to a future day. For the courts,
through the Constitution, cannot solve the problem. They cannot assign roles among
institutions, or even guarantee the compensation awarded will be used to help ameli-
orate the problem. That can only be done by a comprehensive legislative and regu-
latory program. Furthermore, the present judicial system of awarding compensation
gives no one an incentive to abate the problem. Once an airport pays off an award,
it gets a noise avigation easement to continue the pollution in perpetuity. Because
of some lease arrangements, and the small amounts of actual awards, furthermore,
costs of noise damages may not be completely passed on to the airlines - so they, too,
have little incentive to abate the noise. The compensation problem should be addressed
now in a forthright manner, and solved in a manner consistent with the overall noise
abatement plan, so that we can get on with the work at hand.
An alternative often suggested by airport operators, State and local governments,
is Federal government assumption of noise damage liability. One of the arguments
put forward for this alternative is that, if the Federal government sets a health and
welfare standard for noise levels and requires airports or airlines to take steps to
5-30
-------
meet those standards, the United States should hold them harmless from any noise
damages awarded during the implementation period. The problem is that the regu-
latory standard may be adopted by courts as useful in defining a cause of action or
providing a measure of damages. This argument in essence suggests that the regula-
tory agency, by reason of defining the noise problem and assigning responsibility for
its solution, should become liable for the pollution thus regulated, and the polluters
should get off free.
A second argument for Federal liability is the actual allocation of power to solve
the problem. Authority over many of the potential solutions lies with the Federal
government, not the airport operators. Airport operators cannot directly regulate
flight paths, approach and departure procedures, aircraft design or retrofit. The
FAA even argues that airports cannot curfew or close entirely without Federal approval.
The airport owner's options to avoid liability are notably limited in comparison to the
broad powers of the United States. Thus, using the rationale that liability should
follow regulatory responsibility and power, the Federal government should bear the
Griggs duty of compensation.
The problem with Federal assumption of liability is how and to whom the noise
costs will ultimately be allocated. If damage awards are paid out of general revenues,
the costs of noise will be shifted to the general taxpayer. Airlines and airports will
be free from the fear, although yet unrealized, of massive compensation litigation,
and also free of any incentive to solve the problem. On the other hand, Federal
agencies would be under greater pressure to adopt adequate regulations to protect
the public fisc through expeditious solution of the problem. Yet, in the interim, the
compensation scheme still will not be assisting in amelioration of the problem—
particularly if persons awarded damages are merely paid off for the inverse condem-
nation of avigation or noise easements. Liability may be transferred, but the com-
pensation problem has not been addressed.
A third possibility is suggested by the recent United States Supreme Court decision
in Askew y_. American Waterways Operators, Inc., and might be seriously considered
5-31
-------
by the States in the absence of Federal solution of the compensation problem. In the
Askew case, Florida had adopted legislation imposing strict liability on owners and
operators terminal facilities and ships for damages incurred by the State or private
persons resulting from any oil spill. The Court distinguished, for preemption pur-
poses, between the State's power to regulate the activity and the power to impose
liability on polluters for the damages they cause. A close reading of the Askew
decision indicates that although Burbank may have precluded State police power regu-
lation of aircraft/airport noise, States retain their power to enact legislation impos-
ing absolute liability on airlines and/or airports for damages caused by aircraft
noise.
Indeed, a comparison of the noise pollution and oil pollution laws indicates that
the Askew result is easier to reach with respect to State laws on aircraft noise dam-
age, for in the noise area, there are no Federal laws governing compensation.
Adoption of an absolute liability scheme would surely provide a sharp stimulus to
solving the noise problem, and could well be the next legislative step by State and
local governments faced with inadequate progress toward abatement of aircraft/
airport noise.
None of the aforementioned alternatives, however, provide an adequate answer
to the compensation question, for mere assignment of responsibility to pay those
impacted by noise does not mean the money thus transferred will be invested toward
amelioration of the problem. For that, attention must turn from the issue of who
is liable, to how the money is awarded and how it is used.
Real amelioration of the airport noise problem through neighboring land owners
can only be accomplished if the money is used to insulate dwelling units (or other
noise sensitive structures) or relocate incompatible land uses. The present compen-
sation system—based on comparisons of property value and inverse condemnation of
permanent avigation easements - is unable to direct the use of monies awarded.
Courts are not in a position to condition relief on reasonable use of the funds paid
toward solution of the original complaint. The only alternative that can address this
5-32
-------
problem is a legislatively created and administratively directed compensation scheme
tied closely with the overall abatement program. Such a scheme might provide, for
example, that any person living within the area subject to an NEF of 45 or greater
could apply for and receive funds to cover the full value of his or her land and the
costs of relocating. In essence, such land would be purchased, could be cleared,
and resold for development of compatible land uses - such as industrial or commercial
activities. The compensation scheme might further provide persons in the next level
of impact (NEF 40 to 45) the option of applying for relocation funds or money to
insulate their dwelling units, proper use of the money being assumed through
appropriate conditions in the grant agreement. For less severely impacted areas
(NEF 25 to 30 to NEF 40), the scheme could allow payment for structural insulation
as needed to bring interior noise levels down to levels consistent with health and
welfare requirements.
Legislation establishing such an administrative scheme must contain an adequate
funding method - alternatives for which are discussed in the next section. However,
once the financing method and standards are set in the legislation, it matters little
whether the actual awards are made at the Federal or local level. Since the task
that is left is one of appraising land values (in the case of relocation) and validating
insulation costs, it probably would make most sense to handle applications for and
awards of actual funds at the airport level.
Because of the Constitutional nature of present taking law, no administrative
scheme for compensation could replace or preempt judicial remedies for noise
damages, in the sense that workman's compensation systems have supplanted other
legal remedies. But the same effect may be accomplished de facto by a properly
designed and operated administrative remedy. An examination of individual com-
pensation awards made by courts to date reveals that amounts substantially larger
than those associated with insulation or relocation costs are not available from the
courts. In other words, litigants have little to gain by pursuing a judicial remedy
if an administrative remedy is available. In addition, judicial remedies are slow
5-33
-------
and very expensive. A fast, relatively simple administrative procedure, whose results
are predictable, would be an attractive alternative to cumbersome, uncertain compen-
sative litigation. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that litigants in noise
suits are motivated otherwise than by a desire to solve the problem; a compensation
system which offers a viable solution is likely to elicit citizen cooperation rather
tnan resistance.
ENFORCEMENT OF AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE REGULATIONS
Numerous potential enforcement mechanisms exist on the Federal, State and local
levels to assure compliance with aircraft/airport noise regulations. Postulating the
adoption of the Federal retrofit and operational rule/airport implementation plan
scheme suggested previously, current Federal law provides the following enforce-
ment tools:
• Civil penalties of $1,000 for each violation of FAA rules (including approved
elements of the implementation plan).
• Suspension of Title VI certificates for noncompliance with appropriate plan-
ning, maintenance, or operational conditions.
• Initiation and filing of complaints before the FAA by airports, State and local
governments and citizens.
• Citizen suits to restrain violations of any §611 standard.
• Sanctions contained in airport-air carrier lease agreements.
Thus, even under existing law, a noise program which links airport operator
planning and Federal regulatory power can now bring substantial enforcement resources
to solution of the airport noise problem.
Several alternative or additional enforcement methods have also been suggested.
One would be the enactment of Federal legislation empowering States to adopt laws
incorporating noise rules and standards identical to those of the Federal aircraft
5-34
-------
regulations. This would permit States to monitor and enforce compliance with opera-
tional noise limits and other regulations affecting airport noise exposures. This in
turn, would enable States to lend their police power enforcement mechanisms to air-
port operators who wish to take actions to restrain or punish noncompliance with rules
adopted in the airport implementation plan. The advantages of this option are:
• It would not limit enforcement, other than injunctive actions, to the capabilities
of available FAA staff, but would allow the commitment of additional enforce-
ment resources funded by State and local governments.
• It would permit the development of less cumbersome and drastic enforcement
tools - such as an air traffic ticket - with moderate fines for non-serious
violations which do not merit high FAA priority.
A potential disadvantage of this option is that State and local enforcement mecha-
nisms might result in differing interpretations of what should be identical and evenly
enforced noise standards.
Another alternative would be to allow State and local governments and/or airport
operators to prosecute cases before the FAA for violation of the FAA noise rules
applicable in their jurisdiction. This would solve the potential problem stated above,
to wit, that separate enforcement mechanisms may result in differing interpretations.
On the other hand, non-FAA prosecution of violations could result in forcing the FAA
to adopt some else's enforcement priorities as to which cases it will hear over its own.
This issue can only be resolved if the FAA and only the FAA prosecutes cases, although
this in no way abrogates the present right of any airport, State or local government,
or citizen to file a formal complaint before the FAA and, thus, initiate enforcement
activities.
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Finally, the issue of international constraints in solving the aircraft/airport noise
problem must be addressed.
5-35
-------
No noise control program in the United States can be completely effective if noise
from international aircraft operations remains unregulated while domestic aircraft
noise is controlled. At some airports, international flights make sufficient contribu-
tion to the cumulative noise exposure to make regulation of domestic traffic alone a
futile exercise. The question is how such regulation of international air transportation
noise can be accomplished.
One option is to exempt international aviation from United States regulatory actions
and continue to press ICAO for meaningful international standards for new designs,
SST's, and retrofit. An assessment of the present status of ICAO's debates on this
subject, however, does not indicate this alternative will result in realistic progress.
A second possibility is to adopt Federal regulations, applicable equally to U.S.
aircraft and all foreign aircraft operating into or out of U.S. airports. Some have
argued that this raises the possibility of foreign retaliation against American aircraft
and/or other U.S. trade and that it would certainly cause such reaction if the United
States rejected aircraft complying with an international standard essentially similar
to the Federal regulation. This retaliation argument is suspect, however, because
many major foreign airports such as those serving London, Tokyo, and Paris and
Zurich already have noise abatement rules (including noise limits, night curfews,
etc.) to protect their citizens. Paris has recently adopted an airport tax based on
noise emission. Thus, were the U.S. to require noise abatement at its international
airports, it is difficult to comprehend how there could be more "retaliation" than
already exists.
A third alternative is to announce the United States intent to adopt noise standards
applicable to all aircraft, foreign and domestic, operating from American airports,
but provide for application of any subsequently agreed upon international standard
having substantially the same effect to any foreign owned aircraft in lieu of the Federal
standard. The policy should be made clear that this country wishes fully to cooperate
in the development of international standards but is unwilling to delay solution of a
serious problem affecting the health and welfare of U.S. citizens. Too, as stated at
the recent ICAO conference, the noise problem around U.S. airports is our problem.
The United States must assume leadership in solving it.
5-36
-------
SECTION 6
RECOMMENDATIONS*
The resolution of the aircraft/airport noise problem requires a comprehensive
program involving coordinated action on several fronts. The interrelation among the
various actions may best be seen by viewing the aircraft/airport noise problem as a
classical source - path - receiver system typical of all noise abatement problems.
From one point of view, the "source" is the individual aircraft, including its
design and the power settings it utilizes in operation, which affect its noise emission
characteristics. The "path" from this source to the "receivers" (persons on the
ground who receive the noise) affects the amount of noise received in communities and
is affected by the choice of flight paths and those aspects of flight procedures that
together, control the distance between the aircraft and any given point in the community.
From the vantage point of the public, whose health and welfare is to be protected
from noise effects, the source, as far as aircraft noise is concerned, is the total
noise environment emanating from operations at the airport. The exposure to noise
experienced by an individual is made up of the total cumulative effect of many noise
events, from many individual noise sources throughout the day and night. Protection
of the public health and welfare with respect to noise requires that the result of all
significant noise sources be included in the exposure limitation efforts. Where
human activities associated with a given land use are noise-sensitive (as is the
case for residential and school activities), and where these uses exist within
airport noise impact zones, the cumulative contribution of the aircraft noise
*The recommendations presented herein represent the consensus of the task group
members, arrived at in the May 18-19 meeting, and further detailed by the chairperson
following the guidance of the group. Two provisos were adopted by the group:
(1) that it be made clear that not every participant supports every recommendation
(i.e., unanimity was not required), and (2) the organizations represented in the task
group may present their formal recommendations separately, in Appendix B.
The chairperson would add (as noted in the Preface) that the task group did not, and
could not in the time available, discuss the final wording of this section or of other
sections of the report, and some new detail was added after the May 18-19 meeting.
6-1
-------
to the human exposure must be limited, in order to limit the total cumulative exposure
consistent with health and welfare needs.
Because it is the cumulative exposure that counts, rather than merely the noise
level from any single noise event, a logical way in which the exposure limitation
goal with respect to aircraft-generated noise can be expressed is in terms of the
cumulative noise received at various ground locations. Techniques for expressing,
predicting and measuring such cumulative noise exposures have been developed. One
such technique, which is meaningful for protection against noise in general, has been
recommended by Task Group 3. Available or required legal mechanisms for the adop-
tion and implementation of programs to achieve and maintain specific cumulative noise
limits around airports has been one of the questions addressed by Task Group 1,
acting in its consultative role to the other task groups.
It should be realized that achievement and maintenance of cumulative noise expos-
ure limits around airports will require actions:
1. To make aircraft inherently quieter and to have them flown as quietly as
possible.
2. To modify the total operating plan of the airport so as to minimize the extent
of the airport noise impact zone and tailor its shape to avoid existing noise-
sensitive land uses.
3. To prevent construction of new housing or other noise-sensitive land uses
in present and anticipated future noise impact zones and, where necessary,
resolve by land use measures (soundproofing or conversion) those few impacted
areas where the noise exposure cannot be adequately decreased by other
means.
With this preamble as background to indicate the general orientation of the task
group acting as an integral member of the total task force, the recommendations of
Task Group 1 are presented below.
6-2
-------
RECOMMENDATION #1:
That the Federal government promulgate, administer and enforce an airport noise
regulation, designed to limit the cumulative noise exposure received in residential
communities.
The timely adoption and implementation of such a regulation will provide (1) the
statement of a goal based on public health and welfare needs regarding noise and (2) a
quantitative framework within which all levels of government and all affected parties
can work together effectively to reduce existing and prevent further airport noise
problems.
A. The FAA airport certification process is a proper mechanism for adminis-
tering the airport noise regulation. No new legislation is required.
B. It is recommended that the airport noise certification regulation promulgated
by the FAA contain the following elements:
1. A statement of the purpose of the regulation:
"To provide present and future relief and protection to the public health
and welfare from aircraft noise. "
2. The cumulative noise exposure health and welfare (goal) limits, to be
determined by EPA for application to noise exposure from all sources.
3. The timetable for compliance, recommended by EPA, applicable nationwide
to all existing airports.
4. A definition of compatible and incompatible land uses within specified
values of cumulative noise exposure, to be developed by FAA based on
the formal recommendations of EPA and HUD.
5. The requirement that all new airports, airport expansions or other air-
port actions tending to increase cumulative noise exposure be conditioned
upon continual compliance with the published goal values for limiting noise
exposure based on public health and welfare needs.
6-3
-------
(i. The require*men! that each airport proprietor, in consultation with local
governments and other concerned persons, develop an implementation
plan for achieving compliance with the promulgated exposure limits in
accordance with the promulgated timetable; procedures for applying for
FAA approval of the implementation plan.
7. A list of airport operation options from which airport proprietors may select
in formulating their implementation plans, subject to final FAA approval of
the plan.
It is recommended that the list of airport operation options include at least the
following:
(a) Approach and departure paths applicable to specific runways and, if
desired, to specific parts of the 24-hour day.
(b) A list of FAA-approved takeoff, approach and landing noise abatement proce-
dures, available for use in airport implementation plans, subject to final
FAA approval of the submitted plan.
(c) Single-event noise limits applicable to specific runways and, if desired,
to specific parts of the 24-hour day; or, if desired, applicable to the
entire airport and/or to the entire 24-hour day.
(d) Reduction of flight frequency on specific runways, during specific hours,
or for the entire airport and/or the entire 24-hour day.
(e) Rules limiting the times and places, on the airport property, where
engine ground runups are allowed, particularly for maintenance pur-
poses; performance requirements for ground runup suppressors and/or,
resulting airport boundary noise levels.
(f) Complete closure of specified runways, temporarily or permanently,
either to all aircraft, or to aircraft with noise characteristics above a
specified value.
6-4
-------
(g) Construction of new runway(s) designed to place approach and departure
paths over areas of compatible land use and remove them from areas of
noise-sensitive land use.
The foregoing list of options are items that can be implemented by the
airport proprietor with FAA approval and cooperation once the imple-
mentation plan is approved. The list of available options should also
include those which can be implemented by the airport proprietor with
local government cooperation, e. g., development of a compatible land use
within the airport noise impact zone. The regulation should require
that preference be given to actions which prevent or reduce noise impact
upon existing communities, and that land use conversion involving exist-
ing communities be considered the least desirable action for achieving
compliance with the regulation.
Requirements for a showing by the airport proprietor, in submitting its imple-
mentation plan:
(a) That the proprietor's plan does not contain elements which cannot be
fulfilled; i. e., that all necessary legal and financial commitments
necessary to implement the plan have been obtained or assurance
that they are obtainable;
(b) That the implementation plan being proposed has been developed by a
consultive and participatory process involving local governments, repre-
sentatives of affected and potentially noise-affected persons and other
concerned persons; and
(c) That quantitative predictions of noise exposure values, population counts
within noise exposure zones (both for the present case and for the imple-
mented plan) and other relevant decisional data have been made a part of
the consultive local process of developing the proposed implementation
plan.
6-5
-------
9. Provision for airport proprietors, in consultation with local and State govern-
ment and other concerned persons, to adopt implementation plans which
achieve the welfare standard at an accelerated rate compared to the Federal
timetable, which is a minimum standard.
10. Provision for airport noise monitoring, according to the cumulative noise
exposure scale in the regulation and according to specified procedures and
measurement system performance standards,
(a) For airports generating cumulative noise exposures such that the published
goal values (public health and welfare standards) are exceeded for a number
of population greater than a specified number;
(b) For any airport operating with a variance.
11. A variance procedure, applicable only to cumulative noise exposures below
a specified level, by which a temporary variance (not exceeding one year)
can be granted to airport proprietors in achieving compliance with the
national timetable. To be included in the regulation are the conditions
to be met before a variance can be granted. A formal published
determination by FAA is required, that the public interest would be satisfied
by such a variance, based on at least the following considerations.
(a) The impact of the resulting noise exposure upon the public health and
welfare should the variance be granted;
(b) The value to the public of the air transport services which could not be
obtained unless the variance were granted;
(c) A showing that the airport proprietor is taking good faith measures to the
best of its ability to achieve the noise standards set by the regulation.
(d) The results of a public hearing on the variance, held in the vicinity of
the airport, administered by the FAA with EPA cooperation.
6-6
-------
(e) A commitment by the airport proprietor to place a moratorium on
increases in flight operations, or any other actions tending to increase
the cumulative noise exposure in any inhabited area exposed to levels above
the regulatory limit, for the duration of the variance; and to confirm these
results by monitoring cumulative noise exposure.
12. The airport noise regulation should set forth the enforcement powers of the
FAA to achieve compliance by others (e.g., air carriers, airmen, etc.)
with the airport proprietor's FAA-approved implementation plan. These
powers include suspension, partial suspension or revocation of any certif-
cate issued by it, as well as civil penalties. Compliance with the Federal
airport noise regulation should also be made a condition for award of Federal
grants to the airport, excepting grants for construction of new runways or
other projects which are part of an approved implementation plan.
To summarize, the process contemplated is as follows: After the promulgation
of the Federal airport noise regulation, the existing airports with jet operations would
be reviewed, and those not in compliance with the regulation identified. Priority at-
tention would be given to those air carrier airports with significant noise problems
(i.e., whose noise impact zones presently encompass large populated areas). The
certification process, though presently applied (regarding safety) to air carrier air-
ports only, could be extended to include all airports with jet aircraft operations.
Proprietors of airports so identified would be given a specified amount of time
to develop, and submit to the FAA, their implementation plans. Development of
implementation plans for each airport would be done by a consultive local process,
involving all local governments and concerned persons in the airport vicinity.
Testing of the effectiveness of various alternative operational modes for the air-
port should be carried out as part of the local development of the implementation plan,
using a computerized cumulative noise exposure prediction and population-counting
program. Federal government assistance is required in making such a standardized
computer program available, together with valid input data on noise characteristics
of various aircraft types.
6-7
-------
The agreed upon implementation plan for the airport would then be submitted to
the FAA for approval. Any final adjustments of the plan required during the approval
process would be incorporated, and the implementation plan adopted as a Federal
regulation for the airport. Specific elements of the plan would be promulgated as
FAA regulations (e.g. , air traffic rules) and thus become subject to FAA enforcement.
Airport proprietors which fail to propose an implementation plan by the specified
deadline would have implementation plans imposed upon them at the Federal level,
following FAA development of a plan, including participation by all concerned persons.
Progress in implementing approved plans would be reviewed on a periodic basis.
RECOMMENDATION #la:
That the California airport noise regulation, particularly the CNEL portion, be
adopted as a Federal (FAA) regulation, applicable in California only, until a nationwide
Federal airport noise regulation goes into effect.
Whereas the proposed cumulative noise exposure Federal airport regulation is the
cornerstone of a comprehensive program to resolve the airport noise problem in the
United States, and because there is presently only one such operating system in the
country (the California CNEL standard), and whereas the California statute may be in
danger of discontinuation because of the Burbank decision, Task Group 1 makes the
above recommendation.
The utility of having one State serve as a testing ground in environmental matters
has already been recognized by the Federal government, both in statutes and in regu-
lations in several instances. The United States has an interest in studying how a
cumulative noise standard for airports works in operation. The California statutes
now include three essential and complementary elements:
1. An airport noise standard.
2. Regional airport land use commissions.
3. Requirement of a noise element in all city and county general plans, with
which all zoning must then be consistent.
6-8
-------
The opportunity is also afforded, therefore, to test a complete legal system for
controlling both airport noise and land uses.
RECOMMENDATION #lb:
The FAA should, with EPA participation, establish a national resource to provide
assistance to airport proprietors and state and local agencies in developing skills
(within their own staffs) necessary to implement the Federal airport noise regulation.
Such assistance would include:
1. Developing and making available a standardized computer program for calcu-
lating cumulative noise exposure values and associated population counts,
as well as contours of cumulative noise exposure for use in geographic land
use decisions.
2. Guidance in development of noise monitoring or alternative equivalent moni-
toring programs, plans and systems.
3. Assistance in training of airport, planning agency and other staffs necessary
to implement the cooperative airport and land use controls required to achieve
and continue compliance with the cumulative exposure limit regulation.
RECOMMENDATION #lc:
Whereas the timely adoption and implementation of an airport noise regulation is
the keystone of a comprehensive program to diminish aircraft noise in communities
and whereas there is no statutory time limit applicable to the promulgation of this or
any other aircraft noise regulation, it is recommended that an adequate time for FAA
promulgation of the airport noise regulation is no later than one year from the date of
its proposal to the FAA by the EPA. The attention of the Congress should be focused
upon the timely performance of both EPA and FAA in promulgation and implementation
of the airport noise regulation.
6-9
-------
RECOMMENDATION #2:
Whereas, the control of land use is as necessary in solving and preventing airport
noise problems as control of airport operations, and whereas the traditional local
government zoning mechanisms, operating alone, have failed to prevent encroachment
of incompatible land uses around airports,
1. It is recommended that all States, by statute, require the formation of airport
land use commissions or alternative mechanisms, at the regional level or above,
to incorporate the interests of both local governments and airport proprietors
into effective land use controls around airports.
The geographic reach of the land use commission powers should to the maxi-
mum extent of the airport impact zone during its history, as determined by
the location of the cumulative noise exposure contour corresponding to the
public health and welfare standard in the Federal airport noise regulation.
The airport land use commission should participate heavily in the develop-
ment and implementation of the airport proprietor's implementation plan,
and in decisions involving the siting of new airports and airport expansions.
The airport land use commission should be operated with full public partici-
pation. However, its decisions, once reached, should override those of
local governments within the airport impact zone, which should be required
to implement the decisions of the commission by their own planning and
zoning actions.
2. It is recommended that the Congress encourage States to establish adequate
mechanisms for positive land use control within airport impact zones, by
enactment of appropriate Federal land use legislation.
Such statutory controls should be structured so as to achieve the following:
(a) Prevent the siting of new airports in populated areas where their
projected nois-e impact zones would bring them into conflict with
the levels of noise exposure!, to be published pursuant to
PL 92-574, Section 5(a)2.
6-10
-------
(b) Prohibit the granting of federal funds to localities for which no
adequate plans have been made to assure protection of the airport
environs against encroachment by incompatible land uses.
(c) Discourage the construction of structures that cannot be (or will
not be) sufficiently insulated against externally generated aircraft
noise.
(d) Provide land uses and physical buffers for the protection and
preservation of existing established residential neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDATION #3:
Whereas the attainment and maintenance of cumulative noise exposure levels con-
sistent with public health and welfare needs (as envisioned in Recommendation #1 above)
is heavily dependent upon rapid realization of quieter aircraft—both jet air carrier fleets
and business jets—the task group further recommends an accelerated program of Federal
regulation of aircraft noise, incorporating the following elements:
1. Noise certification standards and regulations for all aircraft categories for
which standards do not now exist. No further type certificates should be '
issued until noise standards applicable thereto have been promulgated.
2. To avoid prolonging the time before the airport noise problem can be resolved,
new aircraft types permitted to enter service should be consistently quieter than
(or at least as quiet as) similar aircraft types of the same generation. That is,
no regressive standards or special exemptions should be allowed for (noisier)
aircraft based on technology arguments. The members of Task Group 1 discussed
the current supersonic transports (Concorde and TU 144) and specifically recom-
mended that these aircraft not be permitted to enter service in the U. S. unless
standards equivalent to the present FAR 36 values are met, the existence of an
airport noise regulation notwithstanding.
3. A regulation to be promulgated establishing requirements for the purchase of
currently provided noise attenuation hardware for production installation in
new units of existing types, for any aircraft units which will be operated into
U.S. airports.
6-11
-------
4. A retrofit rule or equivalent incentive rule offering greater flexibility such
as (an improved version of) the Fleet Noise Level (FNL) concept.
5. Noise regulations applicable to aircraft in service, covering both air carrier
and private jet aircraft, and providing a selection of safe noise abatement
takeoff, approach and landing procedures, from which airport proprietors
may select (with FAA approval) according to local patterns of noise-sensitive
land uses.
6. Incorporation of quantitative goals and timetables in all noise regulations
affecting aircraft design and production indicating intended stepwise reduc-
tions, providing advance notice to designers, manufacturers and purchasers
of aircraft as to the government's intent. Such stepwise goals are expected
to motivate more rapid development of quieter technology and to aid purchas-
ing decisions by airlines.
RECOMMENDATION #4:
Whereas a program to resolve the aircraft/airport noise problem around U. S.
airports cannot be considered apart from financial resource considerations, and the
absence of decisions regarding financing mechanisms may become a greater imped-
iment to solution than technological or other considerations. Task Group 1 strongly
recommends that the Congress and the Executive Branch agencies give high priority
to evaluation of alternative financing schemes to allow feasible, desirable solutions
to be expeditiously adopted and applied.
Attention is invited to Section 5 of this report, in which alternatives for finan-
cing implementation of noise abatement strategies are presented and discussed. The
task group lacks the full knowledge and expertise to answer definitively all issues involved
and thus design and recommend the best complete financing scheme. However, the task
group recommends that the scheme adopted should have the following general characteristics:
1. Place ultimate allocation of the cost upon the users and beneficiaries of air
transportation.
6-12
-------
2. Provide for an initial i'und, subject to payback from revenues later collected,
so as not to delay implementation of adopted noise abatement strategies.
3. Incorporate revenue collection methods which are administerable without
excessive administration costs.
The potential role of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the need for its cooperation
in implementing portions of any financing plan, was emphasized by the task group.
RECOMMENDATION #5:
Whereas it is the responsibility of the U.S. Government (in cooperation with lower
levels of government under the Federal system) to protect the health and welfare of
U.S. residents and whereas the achievement and maintenance of levels of cumulative
noise exposure around airports requires control of aircraft noise regardless of nat-
ional origin, it is recommended that all U.S. regulations regarding aircraft noise be
applied equally to all aircraft operating into U.S. airports. This includes rules of
airport proprietors adopted pursuant to achievement of their implementation plans
under the proposed airport noise regulation.
Regarding the design of aircraft hardware, when adequate international standards
are established (e.g. , for retrofit, fleet noise level or type certification) which are sim-
ilar to or which have substantially equivalent effect to U.S. regulations, it is recomen-
mended that the United States waive compliance with its rule to the extent foreign-
owned aircraft comply with the international standard. This is provided foreign
governments similarly waive compliance with their noise standards for U.S. owned
aircraft that comply with an equivalent American regulation. The purpose is to
provide for the substitution of equivalent measurement procedures, in which the
result is substantially unchanged thereby.
6-13
-------
RECOMMENDATION #6;
Whereas the development and implementation of a national plan to resolve the
airport noise problem requires continuing, creative participation by several Federal
agencies, and cannot be adequately served by ad hoc, intermittent or merely reactive
arrangements, it is recommended that the affected Executive agencies form a continu-
ing, cooperative interagency group to assist FAA in implementation of the proposed
airport noise regulation. Further, this interagency group should participate in the
development of necessary financing schemes, in the evaluation of emerging noise abate-
ment technology and in other efforts related to the implementation of a comprehensive
national aircraft/airport noise abatement program.
This interagency group should not operate independently of the national program to
limit human exposure to noise from all sources. Because of this, and because of the
EPA mandate to protect the public health and welfare with respect to general noise
exposure and to coordinate the noise control programs of all Federal agencies, it is
logical that EPA should accept the responsibility for establishing and chairing such
a group.
6-14
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. 42U.S.C.A. §4901 et seq. (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234).
-,.. Noise Control Act of 1972 §7(a), 42 U.S.C. A. §4906.
3. U.S. Const., art. I, §8, cl. 3.
4. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.
5. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.. 33,1 U.S. 218 (1947), City of Burbank v.
Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. 93 Sup. Ct. 1854 (1973).
6. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. 93 Sup. Ct. 1854 (1973),
at footnote 14.
7. 49 U.S.C. §1301 et seq. (Used interchangeably in this text as the 1958 Act).
8. 25 Fed. Reg. 8538 (Sept. 3, 1960), 25 Fed. Reg. 10343 (Oct. 28, 1960).
9. 32 Fed. Reg. 15422 (Nov. 4, 1967).
10. 35 Fed. Reg. 5264 (March 28, 1970).
11. 49 U.S.C.A. §1431 (Pub. L. 90-411, 82 Stat. 395) (Used interchangeably in
this text as the 1968 Act).
12. "Air navigation facility" means any facility used in, available for use in, or
designed for use in, aid of air navigation, including landing areas, lights, any
apparatus or equipment for disseminating weather information, for signaling,
for radio - directional finding, or for radio or other electrical communication,
and any other structure or mechanism having a similar purpose for guiding or
controlling flight in air or the landing and take-off of aircraft. 49 U.S.C. §
1301(8). "Airport" means a landing area used regularly by aircraft for receiv-
ing or discharging passengers or cargo. 49 U.S.C. 1301(9). (emphasis
added).
13. 49 U.S.C. §1426.
14. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1651 et seq.
F-l
-------
15. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1653(a).
16. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1653(d).
17. 49 U.S.C.A, § 1701 ot seq. (Pub. L. 91-258, 84 Stat. 219).
18. Airport and Airway Development Act §51(b)(l) (84 Stat. 234), now 49 U.S.C.A.
§1432.
19. Noise Control Act of 1972 § 7(b) (86 Stat. 1239), now 49 U.S.C.A. § 1431.
20. 14 C.F.R. § 139.3.
21. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4321 et seq. (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852).
22. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(2) (c).
23. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4342.
24. 35 Fed. Reg. 4247 (March 7, 1970).
25. 36 Fed. Reg. 7724 (April 23, 1971).
26. DOT Order 5610. lA, 36 Fed. Reg. 23699 (Dec. 11, 1971).
27. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1712(a).
28. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1712(b).
29. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1712(f).
30. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1712(h).
31. Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission, "The Long Range Needs of
Aviation," Jan. 1, 1973.
32. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1716(c)(4).
33. Id_.
34. Id.
35. Lake, "Noise: Emerging Federal Controls," 415-16. This article, presently
in draft form, is part of a NSF study to be published by the Environmental Law
Institute in the fall of 1973.
F-2
-------
36. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1716(a).
37. 49 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (Act May 13, 1946, 60 Stat. 170).
38. Pub. L. 88-280 § 10 (78 Stat. 161), 49 U.S.C. A. § 1110(4), repealed by Airport
and Airway Development Act of 1970 § 52(a) (Pub. L. 91-258, 84 Stat. 235).
The provisions of 49 U.S.C. A. 1110(4) were carried forward, however, by
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970*§18S and are flow 49 U.S.C. A. §
1718(4).
39. FAA grant procedures are printed in 14 C.F.R. Part 151.
40. The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 was Title I of Pub. L. 91-258;
the Airport and Airway Revenue Act was Title n of the same public law. The
Airport and Airway Trust Fund was created by a provision of Title II, now 49
U.S.C.A. §1762.
41. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1716(c)(3).
42. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4901 et seq. (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234).
43. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4901(a)(3).
44. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4901(b).
45. Id.
46. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4903(c) (2).
47. Id,
48. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1431 (b)(l).
49. 49 U.S.C.A. §1431 (c)(l).
50. Id,
51. 49 U.S.C.A. §143l(c)(2).
52. FAA Order 6900.4 (June 30, 1970).
53. FAA Order 5050. 2, "Interim Instructions for Processing Airport Development
Actions Affecting the Environment" pec. 7, 1970), 36 Fed. Reg. 23686 (Dec.
11, 1970).
F-3
-------
54. 14 C.F.R. § 399.110, 35 Fed. Reg. 10582 (June 30, 1970), as amended 36 Fed.
Reg. 12514 (July 1, 1971).
55. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4231-3.
56. 49 U.S.C. § 1348(c).
57. 49 U.S.C. § 1470; 14 C.F.R. §§13.15, 13.17 and 13.19.
58. 14 C.F.R. § 93.121-31; See 33 Fed. Reg. 17896 (Dec. 3, 1968) and 34 Fed. Reg.
2603 (Feb. 26, 1969). The high density rules have been extended at La Guardia,
Kennedy, Newark, O'Hare, and Washington National airports, 37 Fed. Reg.
22793 (Oct. 25, 1972).
59. 49 U.S.C. § 1382; see also n. 60 infra.
60. See, for example, CAB Order 72-1-86.
61. 38 Fed. Reg. 2711 (Jan. 20, 1973).
62. 49 U.S.C. § 1431 (Pub. L. 90-411, 82 Stat. 395).
63. 14 C.F.R. Part 36.
64. A type certificate is required for a new aircraft type or an existing type on which
an "acoustical change" is to be made. An acoustical change is "any voluntary
change in type design ... that may increase the noise level created by an air-
plane," 14 C.F.R. §:21.93(b).
65. 34 Fed. Reg. 18357 (Nov. 18, 1969).
66. 34 Fed. Reg. 458 (Jan. 11, 1969).
67. 14 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix C, section 36.5(b), 34 Fed. Reg. 18379 (Nov. 18,
1969).
68. 14 C.F.R. § 36.201(b)(l), 34 Fed. Reg. 18364 (Nov. 18, 1969).
69. 14 C.F.R. § 36.201(d).
70. 14 C.F.R. § 21.93(b).
71. Lake, supra, n. 31, at 376.
72. 34 Fed Reg. 18815 (Nov. 25, 1969).
"F-4
-------
73. 36 Fed. Reg. 18584 (Sept. 17, 1971).
74. 18 Cong. Rec. S. 16455, S. 16457 (Oct. 2, 1972).
75. 37 Fed Reg. 14814 (July 25, 1972).
76. 34 Fed. Reg. 18357 (Nov. 18, 1969).
77. 35 Fed. Reg. 16980 (Nov. 4, 1970).
78. 35 Fed. Reg. 16981 (Nov. 4 , 1970).
79. N.A.S.A. Acoustically Treated Nacelle Program, NASA Sp. - 220 at 52 and 99
(Oct. 15, 1969).
80. Hearings on H.R. 5275 Before the Subcomm. on Public Health and the Environ-
ment of the House Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 92nd Cong. , 1st
Sess., at 381-382 (June 23, 1971).
81. 38 Fed. Reg. 2769 (Jan. 30, 1973).
82. 14 C.F.R. § 121.801 et seq.
83. 38 Fed. Reg. 2770 (Jan. 30, 1973).
84. 35 Fed. Reg. 12555 (Aug. 6, 1970).
85. 35 Fed. Reg. 6189 (April 16, 1970).
86. 38 Fed. Reg. 8051 (March 28, 1973), 14C.F.R. § 91.55.
87. 14 C.F.R. Part 91.
88. 14C.F.R.§ 91.55, Appendix B, § l(c)(2).
89. Id. at §l(c)(l)
90. Id_. at §3(a).
91. 38 Fed. Reg. 8051 (March 28, 1973).
92. EPA, Report to the President and Congress on Noise, S.Doc. No. 92-63, 92d
Cong., 2d. Sess., 3-7, (1972).
93. Id.
F-5
-------
94. Id_.
95. Id_.
96. Id.
97. Id.
98. 34 Fed. Reg. 457 (Jan. 11, 1969).
99. 34 Fed. Reg. 18363 (Nov. 18, 1969).
100. 42 U.S.C. § 2451 et seq.; see 14 C.F.R. Part 1201 et seq.
101. 42 U.S.C. § 2457(b); 14 C.F.R. § 1201.101.
102. 42 U.S.C. § 2551(c); 14 C.F.R. § 1201.102.
103. See n. 79, supra; FAA has undertaken a subsequent program of nacelle treat-
ment. The results of the research were demonstrated at Dulles International
Airport in Washington, D. C. on May 7, 1973.
104. Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology, a Preliminary NASA Report to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency for Aircraft/Airport Noise Study (February 28, 1973)
(hereinafter referred to as NASA Preliminary Report), p. 45-55.
105. 35 Fed. Reg. 6190 (April 16, 1972).
106. NASA preliminary report, n. 104, supra.
107. Id. at 7.
108. Id_. at 11.
109. Id. at 13.
110. Id. at 15.
111. Id_.
112. Id. at 45.
113. Id. at 46.
114. Id. at 61.
F-6
-------
115. Id_. at 64.
116. Id_. at 74.
117. Id_. at 81-97.
118. Id. at 98-104.
119. Id. at 105-127.
120. Id. at 128-137.
121. Id. at 138-164.
122. Id. at 165-173.
123. Id_. at 174-193.
124. Civil Aviation Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 973.
125. 49 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq.
126. 49 U.S.C. § 1371.
127. 49 U.S.C. § 1378(b).
128. 49 U.S.C. § 1373-1376.
129. 49 U.S.C. § 1302
130. 420 F. 2d 188 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
131. See n. 21, supra.
132. See n. 54, supra.
133. Id., § (c); see also p. 3-2 of "Environmental Considerations in Civil Aeronau-
tics Board Proceedings," R. Tenney Johnson, General Counsel, CAB.
134. Id_. ,§ a(3).
135. Dec. 20, 1971, letter from CAB Chairman to Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
F-7
-------
136. "Environmental Considerations in Civil Aeronautics Board Proceedings,"
R. Tenney Johnson, General Counsel, CAB.
137. Oct. 2, 1970 letter from Chairman, CAB to Russell Train, Chairman, Council
on Environmental Quality.
138. See, for example. CAB Order 72-1-86,
139. 49 U.S.C.§§1371(d)(l), 1371(e)(l).
140. City of Dallas v. CAB, 221 F. 2d 501 (C.A.D.C. 1954), cert, denied. 348 U.S.
914.
141. Domestic Passenger Fare Investigative Phase 6-B, Load Factors, Docket No.
21866-6B, Order 71-4-54 at 6, 13, 24; Lake, supra n. 35, at 407-408.
142. 42 U.S.C. § 3521 et seq.
143. National Environmental Policy Act § 101(b) (2), 42 U. S. C. § 4331 (b) (2).
144. Department of Housing and Urban Development Act § 2 (Pub. L. 89-174, 79 Stat.
667), 42 U.S.C. § 3531.
145. Department of Housing and Urban Development Act § 9(c).
146. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(b).
147. HUD Circular 1390.2 § 1.
148. O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois; John F. Kennedy International
Airport, New York, N. Y.; Bradley International Airport, Hartford, Conn.;
Cape Kennedy Regional Airport, Melbourne, Florida.
149. Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy Study, O'Hare International Air-
port, p. iv.
150. Id. at 107.
151. Housing Act of 1964 § 312 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1452(b).
152. 12 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.
153. 40 U.S.C. § 461.
154. "Aircraft Noise Impact: Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies," Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Nov. , 1972.
F-8
-------
155. See, for example; Military Construction Authorization Act (Pub. L. 92-545, 86
Stat. 1135); Military Construction Appropriation Act (Pub. L. 92-547, 86 Stat.
1156); Department of Defense Appropriation Act (Pub. L. 92-570, 86 Stat. 1184).
156. Pub. L. 92-545, 86 Stat. 1143.
157. DOD Directive 6050.1, Par. IVc (Aug. 9, 1971); see also Par. 4-3 "Land Use
Restrictions for Runway Clearances and Noise Abatement," DOD Construction
Manual, DOD 4270.1-M (Oct. 1, 1972).
158. See pp. 6, 16, 49, 59, 62-65, "DOD Environment Quality Program," Status
Report (Jan. 1, 1972).
159. DOD Directive 4165.XX, Subject: "Air Installations Compatible Use Zones."
160. AFM 86-5; TM 5-265; Nav Fac P-98 (Oct. 1, 1964).
161. Air Force Regulation 55-34, par. 3 (Feb. 14, 1972).
162. Id_. par. 3d.
163. Id. pars. 4, 7. For Naval regulations to similar end re aircraft noise, super-
sonic flight, and sonic boom reporting, see OPNAV INSTRUCTIONS 3710.33,
Feb. 24, 1971 and 3710.7F, May 27, 1971 (Pars. 434 and 820); For Army
regulations re aircraft noise abatement, see TM5-803-4 (Draft).
164. DOD Directive 5100.50, June 23, 1970, Subject: "Protection and Enhancement
of Environmental Quality;" AF Reg. 19-1, same subject, dated Feb. 18, 1972.
165. AF Reg. 19-2, Jan. 20, 1972.
166. 29U.S.C.§ 651 et seq. (Pub. L. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590).
167. 29 U.S.C. § 651.
168. 29 U.S.C. § 652(5).
169. 29 U.S.C. § 652(6).
170. 29 U.S.C. § 653(a).
171. 29 U.S.C. § 654(a).
172. 29 U.S.C. § 655(b).
F-9
-------
173. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95.
174. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.11 et seq. (Subpart B).
175. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.261 et_seq. (Subpart R)
176. 42 U.S.C.A.§4901 et seq. (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234).
177. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4906(a).
178. 49 U.S.C.A. § 4331(c)(l).
179. 49 U.S.C.A. § 4331(c)(2).
180. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4904(a)(l).
181. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4904(a)(2).
182. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4903(c)(l).
183. 61 Stat. 1180, Treaties and International Agreements Series, No. 1591.
184. Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to 3rd Parties on the Surface,
signed at Rome on Oct. 7, 1952, ICAO Doc. No. 7364.
185. U.S. - French Air Transport Services Agreement, signed at Paris on March
27, 1946, 61 Stat. 3345, Treaties and International Agreements Series, No. 1679.
186. Ch 1111, 1969 Minn. Sess. Laws.
187. Title 4, Cal. Bus. Reg. § 5000 et seq.
188. Title 4, Cal. Bus. Reg. § 5011.
189. Wyle Laboratories, Supporting Information for the Adopted Noise Regulations for
California Airports, Final Report to the California Department of Aeronautics,
Report No. WCR 70-3(R), January 29, 1971.
190. Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York.
191. Council of State Governments, Suggested State Noise Control Legislation, A Report
of the Workshop on Noise Control, 2nd Annual Symposium on Environmental Leg-
islation, April 9-12, 1973. (See also "Suggested State Noise Control Legislation,"
in "1974 Suggested State Legislation," Council of State Governments.)
192. 331 U. S. 218, 230.
F-10
-------
193. 322 U.S. 292, 303.
194. 2:$8 F. 2d 812 (2d Cir. 1956).
195. 407 F. 2d 1306 (6th Cir. 1969).
196. 272 F. Supp. 266 (E.D..N.Y. 1967), 398 F. 2d 369 (2d Cir. 1968), cert, denied,
393 U.S. 1017 (1969).
197. 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
198. 369 U.S. 84 (1962).
199. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 2.22.
200. Listed chronologically these twelve cases are: Mutual Chemical Co. v. Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore, 1 Avi. 804 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. 1939);
Yara Engineering Corp. v. Newark, 132 N.J.L. 370, 40 A. 2d 559 (1945); Button
v. Mendocino County & City of Ukiah, 1949 U.S. Aviation Reports 1 (Super. Ct.,
Mendocino Co., Cal. 1948); Banks v. Fayette County Board of Airport Zoning
Appeals, 313 S.W. 2d 416 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958); Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles.
161 Cal. App. 2d 454, 327 P. 2d 10 (1958); Sneed v. Riverside County, 218 Cal.
App. 2d 205, 32 Cal. Rptr. 318 (1963); Indiana Toll Road Commission v. Janko-
vich, 244 Ind. 574, 193 N.E. 2d 237 (1963), cert, denied 379 U.S. 487(1965};
Roark v. Caldwell, 87 Idaho 557, 394 P. 2d 641 (1964); Jackson Municipal Air-
port Authority v. Evans, 191 So. 2d 126 (Miss. Sup. Ct. 1966); Shipp v.
Louisville and Jefferson County Air Board, 431 S.W. 2d 867 (Ky. Ct. App.
1968). cert, den. 393 U.S. 1088 (1969); Hageman v. Wayne Township Board of
Trustees, 20 Ohio App. 2d 12, 251 N.E. 2d 507 (1969); Peacock v. County of
Sacramento, 271 Cal. App. 2d 845, 77 Cal. Rptr. 391 (1969).
201. Harrell's Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 111 So. 2d 439
(Fla. Sup. Ct. 1959); Waring v. Peterson, 137 So. 2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1962); Baggett v. Montgomery, 276 Ala. 166, 160 So. 2d 6 (1963); Smith v.
County of Santa Barbara, 243 Cal. App. 2d 126, 52 Cal. Rptr. 292 (1966);
Morse v. County of San Luis Obispo. 247 Cal. App. 2d 600, 55 Cal. Rptr. 710
(1967); Township of Hickory v. Chadderton, 43 Pa. D. & C. 2d 319 (Common
Pleas, Mercer Co. 1967); Willoughby Hills v. Corrigan, 29 Ohio St. 2d 39, 278
N.E. 2d 658 (1972), cert, denied, sub nom. Chongris v. Corrigan. U.S. ,
34 L. Ed. 2d 181 (1972).
202. I Avi. 804 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md. 1939).
203. Id. at 806.
F-ll
-------
204. U.8. v. Causby. 328 U.S. 2f>6 (1946).
205. Griggs v. Allegheny County. 369 U.S. 84 (1962).
206. Roark v. Caldwell. 87 Idaho 557, 394 P. 2d 641 (1964).
207. 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
208. Ill S. 2d. 439 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1959).
209. Id, at 443.
210. Id. at 445.
211. Id. at 444.
212. Id. at 445.
213. Id,
214. 29 Ohio St. 2d 39, 278 N.E. 2d 658 (1972), cert, denied, sub, nom. Chongris v.
Corrigan. U.S. , 34 L. Ed. 2d 181 (1972).
215. Id, at 45, 278 N.E. 2d at 662.
216. 243 Cal. App. 2d 126, 52 Cal Rptr. 292 (1966).
217. 247 Cal. App. 2d 600, 55 Cal. Rptr. 710 (1967)
218. 43 Pa. D. & C. 2d 319 (Common Pleas, Mercer Co. 1967).
219. Id. at 321.
220. 21 N.Y. 2d 463 (1968).
221. 307 N.Y. 493 (1954).
222. Id. at 498. The same point was made by the New Jersey Supreme Court when it
invalidated a zoning ordinance requiring the maintenance of certain distances
between the conduct of quarrying operations and residences. The court said
"we have a situation in which some property owners are required for the special
benefit of another proprietor to absorb part of the burden of an industrial use of
acknowledged capacity to harm. " Kozenik v. Montgomery Township, 24 N. J.
154, 176 (1957).
F-12
-------
223. 218 Cal. App. 2d 205, 32 Cal. Rptr. 318 (1963).
224. 304 N.Y. 105, 107 (1952).
225. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton, "Legal Aspects of Required Soundproofing
in High Noise Areas Near John F. Kennedy International Airport," Feb. 1970.
226. See also, Department of Transportation, Measures of Benefits, Aviation Cost
Allocation Study Working Paper 9.
227. Hearings on Aircraft Noise before Subcommittees of the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th and 87th Cong. (1959-62), at 657.
228. Id.
229. 259 F. Supp. 745 (E.D.N.Y. 1966).
230. Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962).
231. 38 Fed. Reg. 2712.
232. 2 Cal. App. 3d 318, 82 Cal. Rptr. 578 (1969).
233. Bresnahan, R. J. , Letter to Orange County Board of Supervisors, Subject:
Report on Implementation of the Adopted Noise Regulations for California
(District 5), County of Orange, Jan 26, 1973.
234. Resolution 7467, Board of Commissioners, Los Angeles International Airport
(Dec. 20, 1972).
235. Id_.
236. See, e.g., Greater Westchester Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles. 13 C.A.Sd 523, 91 Cal. Rptr. 720, 11 Av. Cas. 17,923 (2d Dist. 1970);
Inglewood Residents' Protective Association v. City of Los Angeles, 11 Av. Cas.
17,696 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1970).
237. See, e.g., City of Inglewood v. City of Los Angeles. 451 F.2d 948, 11 Av. Cas.
18,413 (9th Cir. 1971).
238. State of New York v. Port of New York Authority, et al. (pending N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Nassau County).
F-13
-------
239. Township of Hanover v. Town of Morristown, Av. Cas. 17,436 (N.J. Super Ct. ,
Morris County, 1969). /
240. S. Rep. No. 1353, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. (1968), U.S. Code Cong, and Admin.
News, 90th Cong. , ad. Sess. (1968) at 2693-4.
241. Id.
242. See, e.g., Swetland v. Curtiss Airport Corp., 55 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1932);
Atkinson v. City of Dallas, 353 S.W. 2d 275 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961), cert, denied
370 U.S. 939 (1962).
243. See, e.g., United States v. City of New Haven, 447 F.2d 972, 11 Av. Cas.
18,324 (2d Cir. 1971).
244. Supra n. 239.
245. See, e.g., Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580 (10th Cir. 1962), cert, denied.
371 U.S. 955 (1963); Leavell v. United States. 234 F. Supp. 734(E.D.S.C. 1964).
In Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 331 F. Supp. 16 (D. Conn. 1971),
aff'd 479 F.2d 148 (2d Cir. 1972), petition for cert, filed, 41 U.S.L.W. 3464
(Feb. 16, 1973), the Court permitted recovery for flights which, though they may
not have been directly over plaintiff's properties, were very nearly so.
246. See e.g. , Thornburg v. Port of Portland, 233 Ore. 178, 376 P. 2d 100, 8 Av.
Cas. 17, 281 (1962); City of Jacksonville v. Schumann, 167 So. 2d 95 (Dist. Ct.
App. Fla. 1964).
247. 11 Av. Cas. 17, 642 (Gal. Super. Ct. , Los Angeles County, 1970).
248. Id. at 652.
249. 6 Cal. 3d 920 (1972).
250. The Nestle case is presently pending.
251. A 1973 report of the President's Aviation Advisory Commission, after a two-
year study of the problems of civil aviation in the United States, concluded that
aircraft noise is "the most explosive problem facing aviation today" and stated
that attempts by government agencies and the aviation industry to reduce air-
craft noise "are insufficient to win public acceptance. " Noise Control Reports,
Vol. 2, No. 1, page 4 (January 8, 1973).
252. Pub. L. 92-574, § 7(b), 86 U.S. Stat. 1241, amending 49 U.S.C.A. § 4331.
F-14
-------
ij'r>:i- Compare Pub. L. 90-411, § l[§61i(b)] wjth_Pub. L. 92-f)74, § 7(b) (§61l(d)).
254. Pub. L. 90-4ll[§611(a)] (emphasis added).
255. Pub. L. 92-574, § 7(b) 611(b) (emphasis added). In addition to the substitution
of "public health and welfare" for "unnecessary noise" in the new 611 (b) (1), the
old 611(c) language regarding National Transportation Safety Board modification
and reversal of FAA noise enforcement actions was amended. Under the 1968
Act, the Board was required to find that control and abatement of aircraft noise
and the "public interest" did not require affirmation before it could alter the
FAA order [old 611 (c)] . In the 1972 Act, "public interest" was changed to
"public health and welfare" [new 611 (e)J underscoring the amendments made in
the new 611 (b) (1).
256. Hearings on S. 1016, S. 3342 and H.R. 11021 before the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, 92d. Cong., 2d
Sess. , at 419 (April 12, 1972) [hereinafter cited as Senate Hearings].
257. Pub. L. 90-411, § l[611(b) (4)].
258. See, e_.g_., 34 Fed. Reg. 18355-68 (Adoption of Noise Type Certification &
Procedures).
259. Operations Research Analysis of Aircraft Noise Abatement; Phase I; Develop-
ment of Methodology, "Final Report, IITRI Project No. J 8083 (June 1968) (jointly
funded by ATA and AIA). The report included computer software for analyzing
the cost-effectiveness of various solution combinations, verified by application
of the methodology to situations at several existing airports.
260. Three task group members, involved in developing the study, verified the FAA's
rejection of the ATA-AIA offer.
261. Bolt Beranek & Newman, Procedures for Developing Noise Exposure Forecast
Areas for Aircraft Flight Operations, Rep. No. AD 660 705 (1967).
262. See. Galloway & Bishop, Noise Exposure Forecasts: Evolution Evaluation,
Extensions, and Land Use Interpretations, Rep. No. 70-9 (1970).
263. The NEF procedure is not definitively accurate for all purposes, but does pro-
vide the best description of noise exposure and impact yet known.
264. A description of the ASDS method can be found in the report of Task Group 5.
265. Memorandum from Henning Von Gierke, Director, Biodynamics and Bionics
Division, U.S.A.F., 6570th Aerospace Medical Research Lab.
F-15
-------
266. See, £.£. , FAA Docket No. 10664, Civil Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit
Requirements, R. M. Marrazzo, EPA, Aug. 30, 1972; R. W. Simpson and
A. P. Hays, A Proposed System for Aviation Noise Measurement and Control,
FTL Report No. R73-2 (Jan. 1973); Letter from Alvin F. Meyer, Director, EPA
ONAC to Richard P. Skully, Director, FAA Office of Environmental Quality, Sept.
13, 1972.
267. Hearings on H. R. 5275, H. R. 923, H. R. 3364, H. R. 6002, H. R. 9686, and
H. R. 6988 before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment of the
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 92d Cong. , 1st Sess.,
at 485 (June 24, 1971).
268. Pub. L. 92-574, § 7 (b) (§611).
269. Pub. L. 92-574, § 7 (b) (§611) (c)(l)), 86 Stat. 1240.
270. Pub. L. 92-574, § 7 (b) (§611)(c) (2)), 86 Stat. 1240.
271. The Federal Department of Transportation operates an office of Noise Abate-
ment separate from and in addition to the FAA's noise control staff.
272. The following is a detailed breakdown for Fiscal Year 1972 of the budget
resources and personnel of the various agencies committed to noise control
research and regulatory efforts:
Agency Program Budget Personnel
National Aeronautics & Research in aircraft Contract Research: (261)
Space Administration noise source reduction, $1^.6 million
noise propagation, In House Research
effects on receiptors, Kquipmenl: $5.4
sonic boom & approach million
procedures Research Personnel
& Management: $7
million
($36, '.60,000)
Department of Defense* Research in biomedical
effects of noise &
noise exposure fore-
casting
Research in aircraft
rmise abatement
technology
Department of Transportation Measurement & Simulation
of Community Noise
Levels (Aircraft &
Highway)
Federal Aviation Aircraft Noise Suppres- S3,1fu). 000 (rt) in Aircraft No
Administration sion & Sonic Boom {$9,747,000) Abatement
Control Research (^ in Office ut Ki
Health, Education, & Occupational Health & $400,000 Quality
Welfare Safety Research
National institutes of $1,000.000
Health (physiological
and speech interfer-
ence effects of noise)
Housing & Urban Urban noise surveys, §500,000
Development site exposure measure-
ment techniques
*Other than hearing conservation programs of U.S. Army and Airforce, and Army Weapons
Systems Research, Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement
and Control, Summary of Noise Programs in the Federal Government, NTTD 300-10 (Dec. 31, 1971).
Numbers tn parentheses indicate funding and personnel for fiscal year 73-74;
Source: EPA Interagency Survey, Winter 1972-73,
F-16
-------
273. IANAP was formed by Executive Order, and included representatives of DOD,
DOT, FAA, HUD, HEW, EPA and private industry.
274. 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-6 (§309 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970).
275. 42 U.S.C. § 1858 (§402(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970).
276. Pub. L. 92-574, § 4, 86 U.S. Stat.
277. U.S.C.§§551 et seg.
278. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Petition Under the Federal Aviation Act
Requesting the Immediate Promulgation of the Environmental Standards that
will Govern the Certification of the Supersonic Transport, FAA Docket No.
10357 (May 25, 1970). The petition argued that the FAA was obliged to issue
such standards in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
42 U.S.C.A.§§4331 et seg. (1970 Supp.) and the Federal Aviation Act, 49
U.S.C. § 1431 (Supp. IV, 1969) [l968 version of §61l].
279. 35 Fed. Reg. 12555 (Aug. 6, 1970).
280. See, Washington/Baltimore Helicopter Service Investigation, CAB Order
68-11-71 (Nov. 18, 1968) aff'd sub nom. Palisades Citizens Association v.
CAB, 420 F.2d 188 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
281. 35 Fed. Reg. 16980 (1970).
282. N. Y. Times, Oct. 12, 1971, §1, at 1, Col. 6, and 85, Col. 5.
283. Pub. L. 92-574, § 4, 86 Stat. 1235.
284. The Massachusetts Port Authority, Proprietor of Logan Int'l Airport, Boston,
Massachusetts.
285. 35. Fed. Reg. 16980 (1970)
286. N. Y. Times, Oct. 12, 1971, § 1, at 1, col. 6, and 85, col. 5.
287. N. Y. Times, Oct. 14, 1971, § 1, at 89, col. 5.
288. 38 Fed. Reg. 2769 (Jan. 30, 1973).
289. See Text at n. 278, supra.
290. 35 Fed. Reg. 12555 (Aug. 6, 1970).
F-17
-------
291. Estimated Schedule of Rulemaking" in FAA, Noise Abatement-Technology,
Public Law & Rules, FAA Noise Abatement Program (1970).
292. How the FAA perceives its mission and role is a subjective question we are
unable to answer. The Federal Aviation Act, Pub. L. 85-726, assigns the
FAA both primary responsibility for air transport safety regulation and a
more general charge for "the promotion, encouragement and development
of civil aeronautics," one of the more revealing statements on this subject was
made by the FAA's Assistant General Counsel: "The Federal Role, furthermore,
is oriented toward growth, even at some environmental cost." R. Danforth,
Murcury's Children in the Urban Trap: Community Planning and Federal Regu-
lations of the Jet Noise Source, 3 Urban Lawyer 206, 237 (1971).
293. Aviation Advisory Commission, The long Range Needs of Aviation (advance
copy), at 37-38. Accord, FAA, National Aviation System Plan, 1971-1980, at
28 (March 1970).
294. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type Certification,
34 Fed. Reg. 453, (January 11, 1969).
295. This position has been taken despite the duty imposed by the 1968 Act, Pub. L.
90-411, that the FAA establish noise standards for all Title VI certificates,
which includes the airport certificate added by the 1970 Airport Airways
Development Act.
296. Rohr Corp. , Economic Impact of Implementing Acoustically Treated Nacelle
and Duct Configurations Applicable to Law Bypass Turbofan Engines, prepared
for the FAA Office of Noise Abatement (July 1970).
297. Statement of Honorable Secor D. Brown, Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board,
Hearings on Noise Control Act of 1971 and Amendment before the Subcommittee
on Aviation of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 92nd Cong. , 1st Sess. 800
(July 13, 1971), at pp. 800-802.
298. Letter from George V. Carneal, former FAA General Counsel to Elizabeth
Cuadra, EPA Office of Noise Abatement & Control, May 3, 1973.
299. Public Hearing on Noise Abatement and Control, Vol IV - Standards & Measure-
ment Methods legislation and Enforcement Problems, before the Environmental
Protection Agency, 104 (Sept. 27-29, 1971) (Statement of Michael Berger, Attorney)
(hereinafter cited as "EPA Hearing")
300. 34 Fed. Reg. 453,457 (Jan. 11, 1969).
F-18
-------
•j()l. Richard Danforth, Murcury's Children In the Urban Trap: Community Planning and
Federal Regulation of the Jet Noise Source, 3 Urban Lawyer 206,215 (1971)
302. Telephone Interview with William Critchfield, Acting Airport Manager, Torrance,
Calif., Municipal Airport by E. Cuadra, R. Randall, and R. T. Weston, May
13, 1973.
303. Telephone Interview with J. Brian Douglass, Airport Manager, Fullerton, Calif.,
Municipal Airport, by E. Cuadra, R. Randall and R. T. Weston, May 13, 1973.
304. Letter from Arvin O. Basnight, Director of FAA Western Regional Office, to
Anthony Stiori, Mayor of Santa Monica, June 16, 1971.
305. 2 Cal. App. 3d 318 (1969).
306. Brief for FAA as Amicus Curiae at 2,8, Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal,
318 F. Supp. 914 (1971), quoted in E.P.A. Hearings. 107.
307. EPA Hearings, at 107.
308. 34 Fed. Reg. 456, 458.
309. For a detailed discussion of the "noise floor" and FAA's reasons for abandoning
this goal, see Lake, supra note 35 at 377-382.
F-19
-------
Appendix A
MEMBERSHIP OF TASK GROUP 1
-------
APPENDIX A
MEMBERSHIP OF TASK GROUP 1
I. Members
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra (Chairperson)
Mr. George Alderson
Mr. David Bach
Ms. Judy Campbell Bird
Mr. Wallace E. Brown
Mr. John E. Bryson
Mr. Dick Danforth
Mr. Clifford A. Deeds
Mr. Dick Denney
Mr. Charles H. Dudley
Mr. Dick Dyer
Dr. Marjorie W. Evans
Ms. Ellen S. D. Flynn
Ms. Joan S. Gravatt
Mr. Stanley J. Green
Mr. George Grumbach
Ms. Janet Gray Hayes
Mr. John Hellegers
Mr. Lloyd Hinton
Mr. Steven Heineman
Mr. Steven Horowitz
Mr. Dan Katz
Mr. Craig W. Johnson
Representing
Environmental Protection Agency
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Protection Agency
National Association of Counties
Department of Commerce
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
Federal Aviation Administration
Town-Village Aircraft Safety and
Noise Abatement Committee
(TVASNAC)
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of State
National Association of State
Aviation Officials
Sierra Club
Council of State Governments
Department of State
General Aviation Manufacturers
Association
Air Transport Association of
America
City of San Jose, California
Environmental Defense Fund
National Organization to Insure
a Sound-Controlled Environment
(NOISE)
The Boeing Company
Department of Housing & Urban
Development
Air Line Pilots Association
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.
A-l
-------
I. Members
Mr. Daniel Joseph
Mr. Georgo Lnpham
Ms. Catherine Lerza
Mr. Joseph Lesser
Mr. Neil G. McBride
Mr. Ivars V. Mellups
Brig. Gen. Martin Menter
Mr. Charles Miller
Ms. Isobel Muirhead
Mr. John Nammack
Ms. Elizabeth Parker
Mr. Robert H. Rollins H
Mr. Seth Rosen
Mr. William Sanjour
Ms. Gail Schultz
Mr. George P. Smith
Mr. Larry Snowhite
Mr. Robert J. Stowell
Mr. Lyman Tondel
Mr. Robert L. Tully
Mr. John M. Tyler
Mr. John E. Varnum
Mr. Geoffrey Vitt
Mr. R. Timothy Weston
Representing
Department of Transportation
Air Transport Association of America
Environmental Action, Inc.
Airport Operators Council
International
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Civil Aeronautics Board
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
Airport Operators Council
International
National Association of State
Aviation Officials
National League of Cities and U. S.
Conference of Mayors
National Aeronautics and Space
Admini str ation
Air Line Pilots Association
Environmental Protection Agency
American Institute of Planners
Environmental Protection Agency
National League of Cities and U. S.
Conference of Mayors
The Boeing Company
Air Transport Association of America
Air Line Pilots Association
National Organization to Insure a
Sound-Controlled Environment
(N. O.I.S. E.)
Department of Justice
Environmental Defense Fund
Council of State Governments
A-2
-------
II. Other Participants (EPA Consultants and Contractors)
Ms. Betsy Amin-Arsala
Mr. Peter P. Back
Mr. James M. Brown
Ms. Joan Gelber
Mr. Dorn McGrath
Mr. Louis B. Mayo
Mr. Robert E. O'Brien
Mr. Robert L. Randall
Mr. Edward Studholme
Mr. Ernest Weiss
George Washington University
Consultant in Economics
George Washington University
George Washington University
George Washington University
George Washington University
Environmental Protection Agency
Legal Consultant
George Washington University
George Washington University
Note: The membership list includes all persons who attended one or more
meetings as a member of the task group but does not include
individuals serving as occasional alternate of their organization's
usual representative.
A-3
-------
Appendix B
FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY
TASK GROUP MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
-------
APPENDIX B
FORMAL POSITIONS OF TASK GROUP
MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
The following documents are the collected recommendations* of the Task Group 1
member organizations which responded to EPA's invitation to submit final position
papers, for the record, following their review of the June I draft reports of all six
task groups.
The following member organizations submitted final position papers or indicated
that their previous position papers were to be inserted in this final report:
• Aviation Consumers Action Project
• American Institute of Planners
• Air Line Pilots Association
• Airport Operators Council International
• Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
• Air Transport Association
• City of San Jose (California)
• Council of State Governments
• Environmental Action
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Friends of the Earth
• General Aviation Manufacturers Association
• National Association of State Aviation Officials
• National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
(N. O. I. S. E.)
• National League of Cities/U. S. Conference of Mayors
• Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
* Preliminary recommendations of member organizations were invited prior to the
development of the June 1 draft report, and are available for review in the EPA
master file for this study.
B-l
-------
• Sierra Club
• Town-Village Aircraft Safety and Noise Abatement Committee (TVASNAC)
• U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• U. S. Department of State
In addition to the position papers submitted by task group members, a number of
other entities which reviewed the draft reports of the task group offered their
recommendations for the record; they are included at the end of this appendix:
• City of Auduban Park, Kentucky
• City of Newport Beach, California
• City of South San Francisco
• Los Angeles Department of Airports
• Save Our Valley Action Committee (San Jose, California)
• City of Minneapolis
• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
• City of College Park, Georgia
• City of Inglewood, California
• City of Alameda, California
All member organizations were instructed to make their position papers self-
explanatory and to avoid reference to specific page numbers in the draft report,
which would be superseded by this final report. In the few instances where this
request was not complied with, the reader must refer to the June 1 draft, which is
maintained in the EPA master file on the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study.
B-2
-------
AMERICAN 1776 Massachusetts Aye., NW
INSTITUTE Washington, DC 20036
OF PLANNERS 202/872-0611
27 June 1973
Mrs. Elizabeth Cuadra
11436 Waterview Cluster
Reston, Virginia 22090
Dear Liz:
In accordance with our telephone conversation of this morning,
I am pleased to confirm that the following was the language I suggested
in my presentation to the panel on last Thursday afternoon in the interest
of sharpening Recommendation #2.2:
Community development legislation must be adjusted to:
(1) Prohibit the granting of federal funds to localities
for which no adequate plans have been made to assure
protection of the airport environs against encroach-
ment by incompatible land uses.
(2) Discourage the construction of structures that cannot
be sufficiently insulated against externally generated
aircraft noise.
(3) Provide land uses and physical buffers for the protection
and preservation of existing established residential
neighborhoods.
It is recognized that a combination of federal and state legisla-
tion will be necessary to accomplish the objectives of controlling the
proliferation of incompatible land uses in noise exposure zones near
airports. At the same time, it will be necessary to provide complementary
constraints on aircraft operations, fleet mix, etc., to prevent expansion
of noise exposure zones beyond airport boundaries into areas where noise-
sensitive land usage obtains. Thus, the following additional language is
recommended as a specific amendment to the Airport and Airway Development
Act of 1970:
(1) Federal approval of development plans and projects
undertaken to increase air traffic capacity at ex-
isting airports, including runway extension, reinforcement
and improvement projects, should be made contigent upon:
Executive Director:
John R Joyner
President:
Dorn C. McGrath, Jr.
1st Vice President:
Robert C. Einsweiler
2nd Vice President:
Robert D. Brown
Governors:
James A Barnes
William S. Bonner
Paul Davidoft
Diana C. Donald
Leon S. Eplan
Victor Fischer
Maxine Kurtz
Constance Lieder
R. Joyce Whitley
-------
- 2 -
a. findings by local or area-wide planning
agencies that the effect of each plan or
project will not result in the enlarge-
ment of current noise exposure forecast
zones of 30 NEF or greater that may ex-
tend beyond the airport boundaries.
b. establishment by state and local govern-
ment of appropriate controls to prevent,
for a specified period of time related
to quiet-engine program efforts, the use
of land within the zone of NEF 30 asso-
ciated with each airport for housing and
related noise sensitive purposes.
(2) Provision of assistance to neighboring jurisdictions
which may not fall within the definition of an airport
development sponsor (see: Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act of 1970, sec. lb(c)(l)) so that coordination
may be achieved with programs, such as open-space ac-
quisition, which may permit a more rapid achievement
of the land conversion objective.
Also enclosed is a copy of the "bare bones" outline of my presentation
before your task force meeting. I will be glad to straighten out any
questions that may arise as the contents of the tapes taken at the meeting
are transcribed. As 1 am sure you are aware, I elaborated considerably on
the basic outline which was prepared for my presentation.
As I indicated to you, I am sure that AIP will be following through
in support of appropriate legislation to secure effective noise abatement
controls through the medium of land use planning and related development
controls. I am looking forward to the final report of your task force.
Cordially,
Dorn C. McGrath, Jr.
DCM/ts
Enclosure
CC: John Joyner
-------
June 21, 1973
ap
• AMERICAN
• INSTITUTE
• OF PLANNER!
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
202/872-0611
Recommendations
on
Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport
Noise and Apportionment of Authority Between Federal, State
and Local Governments
for
Environmental Protection Agency
Aircarft/Airport Noise Report Study
by the
Artierican Institute of Planners
1 , C o nip x ah ens i ve Planning and Noise Abatement
The abatement of noise must be an integral part of the
comprehensive planning/decision making process at all
levels of government. Physical/environmental, social and
economic factors, which affect the quality of life, must
be placed in a comprehensive planning context to insure
equal consideration in making trade-offs and achieving
balance/unified development.
/IBS
Cover intent ' s Rs sans ib i 1 i t v for
ens i ve Planning
Comprehensive planning must be a function of units of
general purpose governments in contrast to single purpose
or functional agencies or commissions.
Comprehensive planning related to airport environs should
be- the- responsibility of the highest level of general
. purpose government which has governmental authority over
the geographic impact area of the airport. This may be
at the city, county, state or federal level.
Federal Pospons ibility
A. The Federal Government Must Accept Full Responsibility
for Major Airport Development including identifying
a network of airports essential to the national system
• and assuming responsibility for their functions,,
including responsibility for developing and preserving
adequate' buffer zones aoainst aircraft noise in exist-
-------
ing communities.
JB. Federal approval or development plans and projects
undertaken to increase air traific capacity at exist-
ing airports, including runway extension, reinforce-
ment, and improvement projects, snouid be maae con-
tingent upon:
ll) rinaings by local or areawide planning agencies
tnat the effect of each plan or project will
not result in the enlargement of current noise
exposure forecast zones ot 30 wEF or greater
that may extend beyona the airport boundaries.
(2) establisnment by state and local government
of appropriate controls to prevent, for a
specified period ot time related to quiet-
engine program efforts, tne use or land
witnin the zone of wEF jO associated witn
each airport for housing ana related noise sensi-
tive purposes.
C. Provision of assistance to neighboring jurisdictions
which may not fall witnin the Definition of an airport
development sponsor \see: Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act of Iy70, Sec. ID(c;(1; so that coordination
may be achieved with programs, sucn as open-space
acquisition, which may permit a more rapid'achievement
of tne land conversion objective.
D. Community development legislation must t>e adjusted to:
(I) Prohibit the granting oj_ federal funds to localities
tor which no adequate plans have oeen made to assure
protection of tne airport environs against encroach-
ment by incompatiole land uses.
Discourage the construction of structures that
cannot be sufficiently insulated against externally
generated aircraft noise.
(j) Provide land uses and pnysicai buffers for tne
protection and preservation of existing estabiisned
residential neignborhoods.
4. Local Responsibility
A. In addition to estabiisning a system or planning coordin-
ation and development control for government agency
reviewing of airport environs planning, it is considered
necessary to raise the level of public understanding
of risks innerent in developing residenticil properties
in noise-exposed areas.
-------
vl) idealities must be required througn application of
tne A-95 review process, tne Comprehensive Planning
Assistance Jfrogram (Sec. /Ol Housing Act of i954)
and tne Environemtnal Policy Act of Iy69 to publisn
noise exposure information. ;
(2) Noise-exposure information snouid be maae a matter
of public record each time a building permit is
granted for an activity with noise-sensitive charac-
teristics and upon approval of each change in
zoning or subdivision request tnat would permit
tne development of nousing or other noise-sensitive
use in airport environs. Such information snouid
be made available both oy mapping periodically
noise-exposure contours for each airport in question
and by issuing to purchasers of property in zones
affected a statement of tne noise-exposure of the
property purcnased or leased.
B. New community development, especially for housing and
schools, in areas or projected noise exposure snouid
be dererred until current research On engines gives
real promise of quieter planes. It is always easier
to rezone to increase population density, and to
build shcools, hospitals and houses atter the noise
climate has been tested, then to remove people who
object to noise, to pay them damages, or to insulate
their nomes to remedy the problem.
Noise Abatement - Technology vs. comprenensive Planning
Technological change providing for elimination of noise at
the source has been an elusive hope tor airport operators
frustrated by years of aggravating local land use decisions
and adverse publicity aoout noise. In ract, it seems
douotful tnat tecnnoiogicai innovation can be relied upon
to eliminate the noise impact of aircraft. It is certain
that advancing technology is producing quieter aircrart,
out considering a national system or airports and growing
freignt and passenger trafric volumes, elimination of noise
impact on residential or noise sensitive areas is almost
certainly far in the future. Regulations which place
deadlines for tne retirement of noisy aircrart will challenge
the survival of businesses wnicn depend on the use of
second-nand aircraft. Military use of very noisy aircrart
has yet to be serxously questioned. Quiet engine research
r>y N«.SA is unliKely to lead soon to the production of new
engines and tne crescendo or complaints atoout noise is
rising geometrically year after year.
To wait for technological advances to resolve tne problem
of airport noise impact is to accept an illusory solution.
The proponents or the SST continue to press for a criance to
produce and use trie aircraft which is entirely unacceptable
-------
on the r>asis or suo-sonic noise/ ana if these pressures
prevail, it will be nara to imagine elimination of noise
impact in the near future. Airport operators will have to
press tor other means of obtaining relief, ana, fortunately
thny exiat.
Tnerefore, AlP recommends that comprehensive planning wnicn
includes lanct use considerations oe a principal tooi for
environmental noise abatement and control. The insulating
efrect of sheer distance from sources of high noise output
is the moat reliable protection for tne majority of people
in urban areas against the intrusion of noise from powerful
sources sucn as ^et aircrart and vehicles moving at nign
speeds on expressways .
-------
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE,N.W. D WASHINGTON.D.C.2OO3B D C2O2D 7S7
July 2, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra, Chairwoman
Task Group I, Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Environmental Protection Agency
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
This letter constitutes the Association's formal comments upon the final draft of the report of
Task Group I. We trust that it will be appended to the report of the Task Group as a statement
of ALPA's position.
Since this will be our last chance to comment on the record, we would like, first, publicly
to commend our Chairwoman for her hard work, conscientiousness, and professionalism. We
would also like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to participate in this study. The
ideal of full participation in governmental decision-making by all interested persons is an
eminently worthy one. And, the closer we come to realizing this ideal, the better grovernment
will work for everyone. In the area of aircraft noise abatement, especially, it is quite easy
for those without special technical expertise to offer easy solutions to complex and difficult
problems. We congratulate the Task Group for largely avoiding this pitfall, and for substantially
avoiding the technical dilemmas which lay beyond the legal and institutional focus of the
problems we have been studying.
An example of the Task Group's realization of its appropriate functions is the action taken as
a result of meetings held on May 18 and 19, 1973 regarding methods of enforcing noise
abatement procedures. The draft proposal under discussion at that time gave the impression
to some that airport proprietors would be free to formulate and enforce noise abatement
regulations largely on their own. The resulting confusion, particularly for pilots, in attempting
to comply with the variety of regulations and enforcement techniques which would have
proliferated under such a decentralized plan would have been drastic. When the real dangers
of a fragmented enforcement policy came to light at the May 18 and 19 discussion sessions,
uniform federal-level enforcement was recommended by the overwhelming majority of those
present for inclusion in the final report of Task Group I.
To a limited extent, however, the final report remains burdened with the same difficulty. The
report suggests, for example, at pages 1-5-34 to 1-5-35, a potential alternative of turning
SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY ggijjfelcsie AFFILIATED WITH AFL-CIO
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra, Chairwoman 2 July 2, 1973
the federal government's enforcement authority over to state and local officials for concurrent
implementation. This approach was vigorously rejected by all, or nearly all, of those in
attendance at the May 18 and 19th sessions.
Sn the same way, the proposal in the final printed draft that airport operators be empowered
to select from among many takeoff, approach and landing procedures, even with FAA
approval, may produce such confusion as to constitute a threat both to the effectiveness of
this nation's noise abatement program and to the continuing safety of flight operations.
These recommendations, set out at page 1-6-4 and page 1-6-11, must be reconsidered. The
flight crew members represented by ALPA are already on record in support of an effective
noise abatement program. Much of the present reduction in the level of noise pollution has
been achieved by our efforts. But, at this point, turning an important part of the national
noise abatement program over to airport owners is hardly the answer. If noise abatement
procedures are to be effective, they must be established at a national level and enforced at
a national level. Criteria 1 and 2 of the report recognize the importance of these considera-
tions. It is patently inconsistent with these goals to provide the local airport proprietors
with any final say in determining appropriate noise abatement procedures and then to arm
the local operator with enforcement powers.
Most importantly, a fragmented, decentralized approach, such as that recommended in the
Task Group I Report, would have a grave effect upon safety. As Captain Rockwell observed
at the final public Task Group meeting on June 21, "Safety requires a high degree of
standardization and this cannot be accomplished by an endless number of different procedures. "
if a takeoff or landing procedure is both safe and effective, ALPA urges its uniform application
throughout the country. We do not wish to sacrifice the effectiveness of a noise abatement
program merely to the whim of some local airport owner.
Sincerely,
J'Donnell, President
l/U
J JO'Ores
-------
July 2, 1973
Mr. John C. Schettino, Director
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1107
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Crystal Mall Building, No. 2
Arlington, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schettino:
In accordance with your instructions, by letter dated
June 25, 1973, the Airport Operators Council Inter-
national (AOCI) hereby submits its position paper on
the Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study conducted by
the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Study
and wish to advise you that AOCI's General Board of
Director's concur in the views set forth in the posi-
tion paper.
It is requested that the contents of the AOCI position
be included in Appendix B, Report of Task Group I, in
place of mateji^al submitted on May 3, 1973.
ncerely
J. Donald Heilly
Executive Vice President
6JUL1973
International Headquarters: 1700 K Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 296-3270 Cable: AOCIHQ
-------
INTRODUCTION
The thrust of Task Group 1's recommendations for
resolution of the aircraft noise problem centers on the
certification of airports for noise. Recommendation 1 urges:
That the Federal government promulgate, administer and
enforce an airport noise regulation, designed to limit
the cumulative noise exposure received in residential
communities.
This recommendation of Task Group 1 is virtually
identical with proposed legislation rejected by the Senate
Committee on Public Works in the course of considering the 1972
Noise Control legislation. (See Committee print No. 6, of S.
3342, Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972, Title V, copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and Sen. Rep. No. 92-1160 92nd
Cong. 2d Sess. pp. 10 1972).
The recommendation presumes that §611 of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 as amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972
empowers the Administrator of the FAA to determine the level of
noise permissible in residential areas based upon standards
recommended by the EPA to protect the public health and welfare,
and to mandate compliance with that level on the part of the
aviation community (airlines and airports) even though compliance
therewith is not achievable through technology. Thus, Task Group
1 acknowledges that achievement and maintenance of cumulative
-------
noise exposure levels around airports will not only require
action "to make aircraft inherently quieter and to have them fly
as quietly as possible" but also action
"to modify the total operating plan of the airport so as
to minimize the extent of the airport noise impacted
zone and tailor it to the shape of existing noise
sensitive land uses" and
"to prevent construction of new housing or noise
sensitive land uses in present and future noise impacted
zones and, where necessary, resolve by land use
conversion those few impacted areas where the noise
exposure cannot be adequately decreased by other means."
Modification of the airport operating plan includes restricting
air commerce. The proposed airport noise regulation is to be
administered through the FAA's certification power under §611 of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The Report further recommends
that compliance with the airport noise regulation be made a
condition for award of Federal grants to the airport.
We respectfully submit that the proposed airport noise
regulation is (1) unauthorized, (2) contrary to existing Federal
policy concerning the achievement of compatible land use around
airports to aid in the solution of the noise problem, (3)
unresponsive to the Congressional requirements contained in § 7
(a) (3) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 which mandates EPA
"to conduct a study of the implications of identifying
and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around
-2-
-------
airports"
and (4) a blatant attempt to accomplish by administrative fiat a
scheme specifically rejected by the Senate when it considered
that very same Noise Control Act.
1. The Noise Control Act of 1972
The 1972 amendment to §611 cannot be construed as
authorization for the FAA to solve the noise problem through
regulatory action which would include a mandate to airport
operators to achieve compatible land use around airports as a
price for maintaining the degree of air commerce necessary to
meet the needs of the area served by that facility. The language
of §611 demonstrates that the FAA regulations promulgated
pursuant to the authority of that section are limited to (1)
noise emission standards achievable within the limits of
technology and (2) if §307 of the Federal Aviation Act is to be
read into §611, additional measures available to the FAA in
managing the nation's navigable airspace.
The standards set forth in §611(d)(4) relating to the
issuance and amendment of certificates fortify this conclusion.
Thus, in prescribing and amending standards under §611, the FAA
is required to:
-3-
-------
"consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable and
appropriate for the particular type of aircraft,
aircraft engine, appliance or certificate to which it
would apply." (§611(d)(4)).
The limited scope of the standards set forth above -
technology and the economics of technology - indicates that
Congress never intended to give the FAA the power to set noise
emission standards, the achievement of which would involve
decisions on important policy matters. Obviously, decisions to
compel land use conversion under penalty of loss of air traffic
are major policy determinations which Congress has not delegated
to the FAA but has reserved to itself. Indeed the difficulty in
drafting legislation which would contain satisfactory standards
for the FAA to follow , in the event Congress decided to delegate
these important matters to the FAA, is illustrated by the fact
that the Senate Committee on Public Works was unable to determine
"the precise regulatory mechanism to accomplish the cumulative
noise exposure concept" and therefore included in the Senate
Bill, in the place of any regulatory scheme dealing with
community noise around airports, a one year study by the EPA of
the implications of identifying and achieving levels of
cumulative noise exposure around airports. See Section 7(a)(3)
-4-
-------
of the Noise Control Act.
This interpretation of §611 is completely in accord with
the plain language of the companion sections (§17(a)(1) and
§18(a)(1)) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 which authorize the
EPA to promulgate standards for noise emissions for the operation
of rail and motor carriers. Those sections specifically limit
EPA action in this field to the promulgation of standards:
"which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
through the application of the best available technology
taking into account the cost of compliance." §17(a)(1),
§18(a) (1)).
This limited Federal involvement in noise control is
based in part upon the reluctance of the Federal Government to
regulate land use, an area traditionally reserved for State and
local concern. The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce so indicated in explaining why it rejected a proposal to
include an ambient noise standard in the 1972 Noise Control Act:
"Establishment of a Federal ambient noise standard would
in effect, put the Federal government in the position of
establishing land use zoning requirements on the basis
of noise — i.e., noise levels to be permitted in
residential areas, in business areas for different times
of the day or night. It is the Committee's view that
this function is one more properly that of the States
and their political subdivisions, and that the Federal
Government should provide guidance and leadership to the
States in undertaking this effort. (H. Rep.No. 92-342,
92nd Cong. 2d Sess. p. 9 (1972))."
-5-
-------
The adoption of an aircraft cumulative noise exposure
limit in residential communities would likewise put the FAA in
the "position of establishing land use zoning requirements on the
basis of noise" and, we submit, the 1972 amendment to §611 should
not be interpreted as authorizing the FAA to take regulatory
action which has the effect of superseding State and local police
power over land use zoning in the vicinity of airports. The 1972
amendment certainly cannot be interpreted as authorizing the FAA
to take regulatory action for the purpose of accomplishing an
objective which a Congressional Committee has deemed
inappropriate.I/
2. The Federal Policy on Compatible Land Use Around
Airports.
The proposed airport noise regulation designed to limit
the cumulative noise exposure received in residential areas is to
be administered through the FAA's certification power. The Task
Group's so-called "laundry list" of options to achieve the noise
exposure limits are in the last analysis to be selected by the
FAA with the airport operator being given only an advisory role.
This is clear from the fact that if an airport proprietor fails
to propose an implementation plan, an implementation plan will be
-6-
-------
imposed at the federal level. We submit that any federally
imposed implementation plan cannot contain a requirement that the
noise level be achieved through the development of compatible
land use within the airport noise impact zone either through
zoning or land use conversion. Such a requirement would be
completely contrary to existing federal policy concerning the
achievement of compatible land use around existing airports.
The Federal policy limitating the role of the FAA in
achieving compatible land use around airports for noise purposes
is set forth in the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970.
That Act requires an airport as a condition for receipt of
Federal aid to do nothing more than give assurances that
"appropriate activities, including the adoption of
zoning laws, has been or will be taken, to the extent
reasonable, 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..." (49
U.S.C. § 1718(4).
The above section of the 1970 act was taken from a 1964 amendment
to the Federal Airport Act of 1946. The Report of the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of
Representatives on that 1964 legislation explained that this
amendment should not be construed to require airport operators to
-7-
-------
purchase land. It stated:
"The committee realizes that all sponsors of airport
projects do not have zoning authority and this provision
is not intended to require that airport sponsors
undertake action which is neither possible nor
practical, such as requiring a sponsor to purchase land
adjacent to an airport where the sponsor cannot control
its use by zoning." H.R. Rep, No. 1002, 88 Cong. 1st
Sess. 6 (1963). ~"~"
The Report further points out that:
"The committee does recognize, however, that airport
sponsors are public agencies with a voice in the affairs
of the community in which the airport development is
undertaken and should be required to use such influence
as they might have in a reasonable manner to assure
proper zoning of land near the airport, to assure that
schools are not built in the flight path of aircraft
taking off or landing at the airport, and to discourage
the development of residential housing (including
apartments) in areas where noise levels would make such
development unwise. The committee feels that such use
of the influence of a sponsor would constitute
"appropriate action" within the meaning of this
amendment and that the Federal Government should insist
upon an acknowledgment that the compatible use of land
near airports is a responsibility which must be assumed
by local agencies." Id.
The Report of the Senate Committee on Commerce on this
legislation also addressed itself to the zoning provision. It
stated that a major reason for the adoption of the amendment was
"the growing seriousness of the aircraft noise problem." The
Senate Committee went to the trouble of spelling out in its
-8-
-------
Report the factors that the Agency was to consider in
administering this provision. It stated:
"***the Committee wishes to impress upon the Agency that
the policy underlying this provision is to encourage
and, equally important, assist the local communities in
their efforts to achieve effective zoning and land use."
S. Rep. No. 446, 88 Cong. 1st Sess. 23 (1963).
The Report went on to point out that
"***The Federal Government has a legitimate interest in
encouraging appropriate land use in order to protect its
investment in airports through the Federal airport
program."
The Committee cautioned however, that
"...primary initiative should rest with the local
governments, and the Federal Government's approach
should be one of_ cooperation and as sis t anc'e and not one
of preemption or dictation.^ (Emphasis added Id.)
The section of the Senate Report on the zoning amendment
concluded by advising that
"In interpreting the language 'appropriate action***to
the extent reasonable,' the Agency should take into
consideration all relevant factors including those
involving economic, social, safety, and multiple
jurisdiction considerations." Id.
The legislative history of the 1964 zoning amendment
clarifies beyond doubt that any airport noise regulation cannot
contain a requirement that the requisite noise levels be achieved
through either zoning or land use conversion.
-------
The 1964 amendment to the Federal Airport Act of 1946
became a part of the Airport and Airways Act of 1970. That Act
contains other provisions dealing with environmental quality,
especially where major airport expansion is concerned. The
legislative history of that Act also makes it clear that there
must be an accommodation between the need for essential aviation
facilities and the preservation of the environment. Thus, the
Report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
states:
"In the expansion and improvement of the Nation's
airport and airway system, a special effort must be made
to achieve compatibility with the quality of the
environment. The development of essential aviation
facilities is vitally important, but so, too, is the
preservation of the Nation's natural resources. Some
conflicts are inevitable, but with suitable care a sound
balance can be achieved."
Finally, the Noise Control Act of 1972 cannot be
construed as empowering the FAA to adopt an airport noise
regulation totally at odds with the policy of the United States
to provide
"a system of public airports adequate to anticipate and
meet the needs of civil aeronautics, to meet the
requirements in support of the national defense as
determined by the Secretary of Defense, and to meet the
special needs of the postal service." (49 U.S.C.
§1712(a)).
-10-
-------
It follows, therefore, that any airport noise regulation which
would permit the FAA to achieve cumulative noise exposure levels
around airports through the
"reduction of flight frequency on specific runways,
during specific hours, or for an entire airport and/or
the entire 24-hour day"
would be invalid.
The .suggested regulation is not only invalid but is a
typical mission-oriented measure which utterly fails to consider
the havoc which would result from its enforcement at major noise-
impacted airports. As the Senate Report on the Land Use Policy
and Planning Assistance Act points out:£/
"—The land use planning, management, and regulation
encouraged by S.268 should not be viewed as mission-
oriented either in the narrow sense of fostering a
specific set of activities or in the larger sense of
pursuing exclusively the goal of economic development,
the goal of environmental protection, or the goal of
improving social services. Rather, land use
decisionmaking should be considered as a means of
weighing and balancing competing environmental,
economic, and social requirements and values." (Senate
Report 93-197, p. 44).
3. The Request for an EPA Study on the Implications
of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative
Noise Exposure Around Airports
AOCI's objection to the proposed airport noise
regulation is based not only on the opinion that it is
-11-
-------
unauthorized but also upon the belief that the recommendation is
not responsive to Congress1 request for information on the
subject of cumulative noise levels around airports. A directive
to conduct a one year study on the "implications of identifying
and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around
airports" appears in §7 of the Noise Control Act. The Senate
Committee on Public Works advised that it needed such a study
because it "had insufficient knowledge as to the precise
regulatory mechanism for cumulative aircraft noise exposure."
The purpose of the study was to provide the basis for possible
legislation on this subject. The Committee Report stated:
"***The Committee considered approaches to controlling
aircraft noise based on a concept of cumulative noise
exposure, involving the level of noise from aircraft to
which individuals in the areas surrounding airports are
exposed and the effects of such exposure on public
health and welfare. While methods other than noise
emission standards can be effectively utilized to reduce
aircraft noise, the Committee felt that it had
insufficient knowledge as to the precise regulatory
mechanism for cumulative aircraft noise exposure.
Therefore, the Committee included in the bill, in place
of any regulatory scheme dealing with community noise
around airports, a one year study by the EPA of the
implications of identifying and achieving levels of
cumulative noise exposures around airports. The results
of this study, submitted to the Committees on Public
Works and Commerce of the Senate and the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House with
legislative recommendations, will form the basis for any
legislation on aircraft noise in the next Congress."
-12-
-------
e R-sporfe PT»» 92-11SQ PO 10)
Hov^-^" ? last^ei of at'';6*np'clng to comply with Congress* request
for ijiforanatian ar»d legislative recommendations, the Report of
Task Gjrottp 1 r®cQTFW<9r»d3 that the F&A adopt a regulation which
i<3©PtJ£,!«£ eaid r^g^i'?.^ ^orr-pllaiAcei •sd.th lavels of cumulative
noise, o/£po3ur© around airports. Indeed, the recommended
is virtually identical with proposed legislation (See
attaeh^rl hare to) rajectsd by the Senate Committee on
Public Works in th§ course of considering the 1972 noise control
legislation0 AOCI cannot support such a blatant attempt to
acco;.'tt>3'ish by admiaistrativa fiat, a scheme specifically rejected
by Congress,
AOCI's failure to endorse the recommendation for an
airport noise ragiJilaticft should not ^.nd cannot be construed as an
attempt to obstruct a meaningful solution to the aircraft noise
problem. We view the suggested regulation as nothing more than a
slich answer to a most pressing problem, an answer which amounts
to nothing more than an ultimatum to our cities - move people
away from airports or suffer the consequent loss of air service.
As Joseph Lesser said in oral remarks before the EPA
meeting on June 22r 1973 (copy attached as Exhibit B), AOCI is
-13-
-------
convinced that the ultimate solution, indeed the only solution is
noise reduction at the source.
-14-
-------
I/Indeed, any attempt by the Federal government to zone for noise
o"r for any other purpose may well b© deemed unconstitutional. As
was pointed out in th© Report of the Senate Committees on
Interior and Insular Affairs to acsompany S. 268, the Land Use
Policy and Planning J^sistgaoe Aefey recently passed by the
Senate :
" (1) The police powsr of the respective States is an
inherent powix' of govsrnraent to take such actions as are
necessary aad Cowstltiatioaally permissible to protect
public health P safaty and welfare.
(2) The power to plan for and to regulate land use
derives from the police powers of the individual States.
(3) The Federal govarmaant has no police power to
regulate la&ds within a state which are privately owned
or owned by the State. Only the State has
constitutional authority to control and regulate these
lands." (Report No^ 93-197, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. p. 60,
(1973)).
2/Sc 268 was recently passed by the Senate but has not yet been
passed by the House.
-------
A
[COMMITTEE PRINT NO. G]
June 14, 1972
NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
OF 1972
(S. 3342)
Printed for the Use of the Senate Committee on Public Works
•6-G77
-------
47
1 out the provisions of, this section, $1,000,000 for the fiscal
2 year ending June 30, 1972, and $2,000,000 for each of the
3 two succeeding fiscal y«ars.
4 " (h) The Administrator shall promulgate the procedures
5 required to implement this section within one hundred and
£ eighty days after the date of enactment of this section.
'l a AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
8 "SEC. 420. There are authorized to he appropriated to
9 carry out this Act (other than sections 418 and 419) and
-° to carry out section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, as
11 amended (49 U.S.C. 1431), $6,000,000 for the fiscal year
,12 ending June 30, 1873; $12,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
13 ing June 30, 1974; and $16,000,000 for the fiscal year eud-
34 ing June 30, 1975,"-
15 SEC. 3. The Clean Air Act is amended to add a new
16 title V as follows:
17 ' "TITLE V—INTERSTATE CARRIERS
18 "PART A—CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT
19 NOISE AND SONIC BOOM
20 "SEC. 501. (a) In order to afTord present and future re-
21 lief and provide protection to puhlic health and welfare from
22 aircraft noise and sonic hoom—
23 (((1) the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
24 tection Agency shall prescribe such rules and rpgula-
25 tions as he may find necessary, based on criteria pub-
-------
48
1 . lished pursuant to section 407 of this Act, to establish
2 ambient levels of noise in the environment of airports
3 and surrounding areas affected by noise from aircraft
4 which are adequate to protect the public health a.nd
~> welfare with an adequate margin of safety;
G "(2) the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
7 tcction Agency, after consultation with the Secretary
S of Transportation, shall prescribe .and amend standards
^ for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom;
10 and
11 "(3) the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
12 tection Agency, after consultation with the Secretary
1^ of Transportation, shall prescribe and amend regulations
14 with respect to noise emissions from aircraft and air-
15 craft engines in accordance with su'bsection (1)) of this
16 section.
17 " (b) (1) Any regulations under this section, or amend-
18 ments thereto, with respect to noise emissions from types of
19 aircraft, shall reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
20 through the application of the best available demonstrated
,21 technology, taking into account the cost of compliance, and
22 shall be prescribed only after the determination of the Sec-
23 retary of Transportation as to whether, consistent with the
24 highest degree of safety in air commerce, any proposed stand-
25 ard, rule, or regulation has been demonstrated to be tech-
-------
49
1 uologirally available for application to types of aircraft,
2 aircraft cngiup, appliance, or certificate to which it will
4 " (2) Any regulation prescribed under this section (and
5 any revision thereof) shall take effect no later than one year
6 after the enactment of this title, or, in the case. of standards
7 respecting the noise emissions from airy type of existing'
8 aircraft after such period as the Administrator finds neces-
9 sary (after consultation with the Secretary of Transporta-
10 tion) to permit the application of the requisite technology.
11 "(3) All standards, mles, and regulations prescribed
12 pursuant to section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, as
13 amended, prior to the date of enactment of the Noise Pollution
J4 Control Act of 1072 shall remain in effect until amended or
15 revoked by subsequent standards, rules, or regulations pre-
16 scribed and approved pursuant to this part.
17 " (c) Each Federal agency with regulatory authority
18 over air commerce, aircraft or airport operations, or aircraft
19 noise emissions, including the Civil Aeronautics Board, the
20 Secretary of Transportation, and the Environmental Pro tec-
21 tion Agenc}', shall exercise such regulatoiy authority so as
22 to attain the levels of. noise for airport environments and sur-
23 rounding areas established under subsection (a) (1) of this
24 section.
»>5 "&EC. 502. (a) In order to attain and maintain the
-------
50
1 ambient levels of noise for airport environments and sur-
2 rounding areas established under section 501 (a) (i) of this
3 Act, the operator of any airport where such ambient levels
*"~\
4 are not presently attained shall develop and adopt a plan for
5 the achievement and maintenance of such ambient: levels,
.G after public hearings and consultation with the Secretary
7 of Transportation and any affected State or political subdi-
8 vision thereof. Such plan mi\y consider reductions in noise
9 emissions due to standards applicable to particular types of
10 aircraft, controls on the granting' or acceptance of air serv-
11 ice, controls on the'frequency and scheduling of (lights, mod-
12 locations of hours of airport operation, changes in operational
13 and flight procedures, and land use regulation. The operator
1-1 of any other airport, or any State or political subdivision
15 thereof affected by aircraft noise, may develop and adopt
16 such a plan with respect to an airport "not covered by a
17 plan developed under the first sentence of this subsection.
18 " (b) (1) Any plan required by subsection (a) of this
19 section, shall be submitted to the Administrator of the
20 Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of
21 Transportation, within one hundred and eighty days after
22 the promulgation of regulations establishing ambient levels
23 of noise for airport environments and surrounding areas pur-
24 suant to section 501 (a) (1) of this Act.
^ "(2) Within ninety days after such submission, the
26 Secretary of Transportation shall transmit to the Adminis-
-------
51
1 trator Iris determination as to the consistency of such plan
2 with air safety and air commerce, together with his recom-
3 meudatlon for approval or modification of such plan.
4. The Administrator shall review such plan to assure
5 attainment of maintenance of such ambient levels of noise
6 established under section 501 (a) (1) of this Act and, in
7 accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of
8 Transportation, shall approve or modify such plan within
9 sixty days after such tmnsmittal.
10 " (c) Where the implementation of an approved plan
11 under this section requires the promulgation or modification
12 of any regulations under the authority of the Secretary of
13 Transportation or the Civil AeroiTautics Board, such regula-
14 tions shall be promulgated or modified within ninety clays
15 after the approval of such plan under subsection (b) of this
16 section.
17 "SEC. 503. (a) The Secretary of Transportation, after
IS consultation with the Administrator, shall prescribe regula-
19 tions to insure compliance with all standards prescribed by
20 the Administrator under section 501 of this Act. The rcgu-
21 Jations •o'f the Secretary of Transportation shall include provi-
^ sions making such standards respecting noise emissions from
O*3
any type of aircraft applicable in the issuance, amendment,
modification, suspension, or revocation of a.iry certificate au-
thori/ed by the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, or the
Department of Transportation Act, as amended. Such Secre-
-------
1 tary shall insure that all necessar}' inspections arc aceoiu-
2 plished, und may execute any power or duty vested in him by
3 any other provision of law in the execution of all powers and
4 duties vested in him under this section.
5 "(l>) In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or re-
Q voke a certificate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic
7 boom standards, rules, or regulations applied to aircraft or
g aircraft engines existing on the date of enactment of the
9 Noise Pollution Control Act of 1972, is at issue, the cer-
10 tificate holder shall have the same notice and appeal rights
11 as are contained in section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act,
32 as amended, except that in any appeal to the National
13 Transportation Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify,
14 or revoke the order of the Secretary of Transportation only
15 if it finds no violation of such standards, rules, or regulations,
lg and that such amendment, modification, or revocation by
17 the Board is consistent with safety in air transportation.
18 "SEC. 504. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
19 Administration shall not issue a type certificate under section
\^
20 603 (a) of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, for any
2i aircraft; or for any aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance
22 that affects significantly the noise or sonic boom character-
23 istics of any aircraft, after July 1, 1973, unless standards,
24 rules, and regulations under this part which apply to such
25 aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance have been
26 prescribed.
-------
53
-, "SKU. 505. TJio Administrator of the Environmental
2 Protection Agency, within nine months of the date of enact-
3 ment of this Act, shall review all standards, rules, or regula-
4 tions (or any proposed standard, rule, or regulation in effect
5 under section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended,
Q prior to the date of enactment of this title. If he determines
7 after puhlic heanngs, that such standards, rules, or regula-
g tions do not'comply with section 501 (b) (1 of this Act,
9 within twelve months of the date of enactment of this title
10 he shall revise such standard, rule, or regulation in accord-
11 ance with his authority under this part.
12 "SBC. 506. No State or political subdivision thereof may
13 adopt or attempt to enforce any "Standard respecting noise
-. . emissions from any aircraft or engine thereof unless such
-.,- standard is identical to a standard applicable to such aircraft
.. 6 under this part.
17 "SEC. 507. Terms used in this part (other than Ad-
ministrator) shall have the same meaning as such terms have
lo
under section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as
J.*-/
20 amended.
"DIVIL AIRCRAFT SONIC BOOM
^JL
"SEC. 508. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft
a
over the territory of the United States, the territorial sea of
<^O
94 the United States, or the waters of the contiguous zone (as
_ defined under Article 24 of the Conservation of the Terri-
-------
EXHIBIT B
I. The ultimate solution - in fact the only acceptable
solution - is noise reduction at the source and rapid
implementation of technological advances in the existing fleets
of the commercial airlines. This was certainly Congress1
, objective in enacting the 1968 Noise Certification Amendment to
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. That objective still remains
un-fulfilled.
But reduction at the source has not come because no
realistic method of funding has been suggested. Task Group I
merely states that Congress and the Executive Branch should give
"high priority" to financing schemes. This is insufficient.
Financing must be the sine qua non of a realistic approach to
noise reduction at the source and such reduction is the only
avenue by which the problem will be solved.
In fact a. complete consensus was reached in Task Group I
that the financing problem should be settled first before any
solution can be implemented.
This should be said clearly at the outset.
II. Once noise is reduced at the source as far as it v/ill
go, we then come to the question of land use planning and on that
Task Group I's report should be clear and explicit on the legal
and institutional constraints that apply to land use planning.
Zoning: Nowhere does Task Group I state that zoning as
a toll to achieve compatible land use in existing noise impacted
-------
areas cannot realistically be implemented if for no other reason
than the well-established non-conforming use doctrine. The
present Chief Judge of the highest court of New York stated the
almost universal rule as follows:
"Honconforming uses of structures, in existance when a
zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule,
constitutionally protected and will be permitted to
continue, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of the
ordinance." People v. Miller, 304 N.Y. 105, 107 (1952)
The non-conforming use doctrine is in addition to the
other reasons why AOCI advised Task Force Group I, in writing,
that compatible land use zoning is no answer to the existing
problem.
An additional basic difficulty with zoning is emphasized
by a leading New Jersey Supreme Court decision invalidating a
zoning ordinance which required the maintenance of specified
distances between residences, on the one hand, and the conduct of
quarrying operations on the other. The court said "we have a
situation in which some property owners are required for the
special benefit of another proprietor to absorb part of the
burden of an industrial use of acknowledged capacity to harm."
Xozenik v. Mont gome ry Tov/ns hip, 24 N.J. 154, 176 (1957). Of
particular relevance'is the court's further statement that:
"when a zoning ordinance is being prepared, and as here
the potential nuisance is recognized unless the
operation be isolated, the ordinance should require the
quarry operator (substitute the words "airport
operator") to provide the necessary buffer and not cast
the burden on the neighboring owner." Ibid.
-2-
-------
At best zoning might prove useful in the case of new
airports if the airport zoning provisions fit into the
comprehensive zoning plan for the particular political
subdivision concerned. But for the existing noise problem, AOCI
has felt that the chimera of zoning has long stood in the way of
a realistic analysis of the aircraft noise problem. Task Group I
should end the illusion here and now. As a recent Senate Report
noted:
"* * *it is largely myth that State courts are all
becoming more permissive concerning the imposition of
even stricter zoning ordinances and other police power
techniques to control land use. In fact, in recent
years, many State courts have begun to construe more
narrowly the threshold beyond which control over land
under the rubric of the police power cannot go. Zoning
and other land use controls are being subjected to close
scrutiny and, recently being declared unconstitutional,
over not only the question-of whether they effectuate a
'taking1 requiring compensation but also the question of
whether they are exclusionary in violation of equal
protection and due process rights." (p. 58, Sen. Rep.
No. 93-197) LAI-ID USE POLICY AMD PLANNING ASSISTANCE ACT
- REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR
AFFAIRS - UNITED STATES SENATE.
With zoning no answer to the existing problem,
compatible land use in the vicinity of airports can mean nothing
less than the acquisition of property, by purchase or
condemnation, in noise impacted areas and the possible removal of
people and/or soundproofing.
»
With this v/e-came to the ultimate options:
1. restrict air commerce under Burbank neither the
States, nor local government nor the airport proprietor
— 3—
-------
can restrict air commerce under the police power, that
is, in the interests of the public health and welfare -
thus the "laundry" list of options, set forth for the
airport operator is in fact illusory under Burbank.
If EPA decides that airport proprietors should possess
this "laundry" list of options, then EPA will have to
recommend and the Congress v/ill have to adopt new
legislation to overcome the restrictions laid down in
Burbank. The airport proprietor's powers to abate noise
are purely defensive - to avoid liability under Griggs.
Thus, under existing lav; if air commerce is to be
restricted the Federal Government has to mandate it - or
if the Federal Government chooses not to restrict air
commerce, then
2. remove people and face up to the housing shortage.
"If we add the needs of the new households that will
form in the Region over the coming decades, the needs
for replacing hopelessly bad housing that cannot be
rehabilitated, the need to replace housing lost by fire
or demolition, and the need the have a less right
vacancy rate, we find that we should be building over
200,000 housing units in the Region each year.
Independent studies by the Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission, the official planning agency in the Region,
and by Regional Plan Association, an unofficial group,
agree on this figure. Compared to this need for the
construction of 200,000 houses and apartments annually,
our actual production has averaged slightly over 80,000
units a year over a recent six-year period, less than
half of what is needed." (Emphasis in*original).
William A. CaldwellTEcl.) , liow to Save Urban /jnerica,
(Signet Books (March, 1973), p. 1671
-4-
-------
As for removal — even aside from the housing shortage,
it is common knov/ledge that in recent years people have objected
i
strenuously to being relocated for almost every conceivable
public project, including even housing projects. There is no
reason to assume that they would object less vehemently to being
relocated for noise abatement purposes. Indeed, there is every
reason to assume that they would object just as vehemently. For
example, Congressman Roman C. Pucinski from the Chicago area,
stated at hearing conducted by the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that:
"The second approach - moving the people away from the
noise - is totally unacceptable." Publie Hearings on
Noise Abatement and Control, Vol. 2, p. 201(July 28-29,
1971).
Similarly, the Director of the Minnesota Environmental Control
Citizens Assocation stated the following at the same hearings:
"One solution that has been proposed at Los Jjigeles and
which seems totally unacceptable as a means of
alleviating noise is that of 'buying the homes and
clearing out neighborhoods adjacent to the airport.
What a total and utter waste of resources to spend
millions of dollars on a plan that compounds rather than
ameliorates the situation.
"In this case the homeowner in essence is being punished
— it is like asking the victime to pay for the crime.
"And even after spending vast sums to remove the most
severely affected neighborhoods the problem will still
be present in other [sic] surrounding the airport." Id.
at 244. '
Finally, the practically insurmountable political
problems of moving people out of noise impacted ares can best be
-5-
-------
illustrated, by remarks made at the above hearings by Dr. Alvin F.
I-'eyer, Jr. , Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Ileyer had received the
following telegram from the alderman in Dos Plaines, Illinois:
"Deeply shocked at your public suggestion to
destroy hones in the O'Hare areas; dismayed that you
v/ould urge action prior to conclusion of present
hearings seeking solutions to aircraft noise. You
should be protecting environment for people, not
aircraft. Relocate aircraft rather than people.
"Please clarify your position prior to conclusion
of Chicago hearings today." Id. at 202.
Dr. Meyer responded by stating:
"Reference your telegram as to O'llare Airport, I am
deeply shocked as you regarding any misrepresentation of
my position on aircraft noise control.
"lly view is that there are many possible solutions
to the complex questions of control of the environmental
problem. Among the possibilities are control of noise
at the source, relocation of the source, placing more
distance between sources and receivers, control of time
of operation, reduction of number of operations and
occurrences.
"In each case, what is ultimately done must be
based on a judgment of economics, social need, and
technological capability and progress for control
expected."
Thus judgment, I submit, should be made, as a matter of
policy by Congress and/or The State Legislatures. It should not
be done on a matter of administrative fiat - even if it could be
so accomplished which AOCI denies.
EPA is statutorily obligated to study and thereafter
inform Congress concerning the "implication of identifying and
-6-
-------
achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around airports."
Certainly, acquisition of property in, and the removal of people
from, airport environs in order to avoid airport decertification
and the consequent catastrophe that would follow the loss of air
service for the region served by the decertified airport is a
most important "implication" which the legislative branch of
government should consider.
In addition under current federa law - the so-called
Mushkie bill - in all federally aided projects people cannot be
removed from their residences until adequate substitute dwellings
are provided.
Has anyone considered whether adequate substitute
housing is available or can be made available and if so, how will
it be funded?
To recommend compatible land use - removing people -
without determining whether substitute housing is available or
how it v/ill be financed borders on the irresponsible.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, Congress and
EPA should be advised clearly of the other legal constraints and
other legal implications whichwill flow from any recommendations
which might be made. These include:
1. Adoption of cumulative noise exposure levels under
an airport certification regulation might well result in the
reversal of the Griggs decision which placed financial
responsibility for aircraft noise upon the airport proprietor
-7-
-------
rather than the United States.
The Congress should be informed and informed frankly
that this might well be a consequence of the adoption of a
cumulative noise exposure level and airport certification.
From conversations with EPA attorneys this is their
belief. Candor requires that Congress should be told that this
consequence might well flow because it clearly did not want to
overrule Griggs in adopting the Noise Certification Amendment in
1968.
That is why Congress affirmed the airport proprietor's
rule-making power to abate aircraft noise in adopting the Noise
Certification Amendment in 1968.
Furthermore, a cumulative noise exposure level could
well result in innumerable property owners suits under the Griggs
theory. If this occurs, airport proprietors might be forced to
resort to their proprietory powers to curtail air commerce and
this would certainly disrupt air commerce.
If airport proprietors do not take this action and the
Griggs doctrine is not overruled, then airport proprietors and
ultimately the aviation community v/ill fact the prospect of
multi-million dollar damage suits to acquire inherently worthless
avigation easements.
This would, in effect, defeat the purpose of the
proposed noise certification program even before it gets started.
-8-
-------
4. The report of Task Group I should contain an in-
depth discussion of Durbank and its relevancy to the
recommendations contained in the reports of the Task Group. For
example/ Task Group V recommends an airport certification scheme
in which "the airport operator shall be required to begin to
restrict the aircraft operations by all regulatory means at its
disposal (curfews, quotas, weight and type limitations, etc.")
and goes on to say that "The restriction shall be in effect until
all land areas within specified contours have noise compatible
use" (V, 54).
While the introduction to the report of Task Group I
indicates that the scheme suggested by Task Group V may well be
valid (1-2-2), Task Group I's recommendations give the airport
operator and the surrounding communities in essence nothing but
an advisory role in implementing the noise certification limits.
This change we believe followed the decision in the Burbank case.
This ambiguity must be cleared up.
Task Group I was charged with
"identifying constraints and shortcoming of the existing
legal/institutional system that may be impeding the
implementation of available solutions;."
V?e submit that certainly one of the legal constraints in
the implementation of an airport noise certification scheme,
assuming arguendo that it is valid, is the requirement that the
FAA, in prescribing and amending standards under Sect. 611 shall
"consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable and
-9-
-------
appropriate for the particular type of aircraft,
aircraft engine, appliance or certificate to which it
would apply."
After a full review of the legislative history of the
1972 Act amending Sect. 611, the Supreme Court in Surbar.k made it
crystal clear that by amending that Act to require the FAA to act
to protect the public health and welfare, Congress did not write
out of the act the specific constraints listed above. Indeed the
Supreme Court took the trouble, quoting these constraints in
full.
-10-
-------
AIH<;MAM OWNI'KS AND I'ILQTS ASSOCIATION/WASHINGTON, o.c. 20ou/T«i: (3oi)654-osoo/cabie address: AOPA, Washington, o.c.
July 2, 1973
Mr. John C. Schettino
Task Force Director
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20480
Dear Mr. Schettino:
Enclosed are two papers we are submitting for the final record.
One is a revision, AOPA Views On Aircraft/Airport Noise Abatement,
appearing on page l-A-11 in Task Group 1's Appendix B.
The other paper, AOPA Comments on Airport Noise Certification Pro-
posal, is new.
It has been a pleasure working with your Task Force.
Cordially,
Charles P. Miller
Consultant
/
* M*mb*r: International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations
-------
ashington- D;C
A ND PILOTS A S S O CI A11 O N
Cable address?AOPA, Washington, D;C; '
July 2, 1973
AOPA COMMENTS ON AIRPORT NOISE CERTIFICATION PROPOSAL
AOPA is concerned over the implications of the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed recommendation for a Federal airport noise regulation (EPA
Task Group 1 Recommendation No. 1). it is our belief that promulgation and
enforcement of a regulation, such as is proposed, would adversely affect the
nation's air transportation system, particularly that portion which is dependent
mainly on medium-sized and small airports.
Recommendation No. 1, which would provide for noise certification of all
airports, obviously was written with air carrier traffic in mind. Unless a
distinction is made, the term "all airports" used in the text would embrace
all 12,000 U.S. airports, ranging in size from those in busy metropolitan areas
to rural sod landing strips. Unless the scope of the recommendation is reduced
to realistic terms, a chaotic situation will result. A spokesman for the
National Business Aircraft Association, at EPA's June 21 and 22 session on the
Task Force study, expressed concern over the fact that 5,000 airports used by
Association members would be affected if the proposed Federal airport noise
recommendations were promulgated and enforced. AOPA not only is interested
in the 5,000 airports mentioned, but also in the other 7,000.
-------
We concur with the objective of the recommendation, "to limit the
cumulative noise exposure received in residential communities", but we dis-
agree with the proposed means of reaching that objective. We do not agree
that "the airport certification process is the proper mechanism for adminis-
tering the airport noise regulation". In fact, we do not believe that FAA
noise certification of all airports in the United States either is necessary
or workable.
Part 3 of Section B of the Recommendation makes it clear all 12,000 U.S.
airports are included: "The timetable for compliance, determined by EPA,
applicable nationwide to all existing airports." This is one of the elements
that EPA recommended to FAA for inclusion in the airport noise regulation.
While most airports would have little difficulty in meeting the EPA
standard, the noise certification of 12,000 airports by FAA would present
a problem of mammoth proportions. An army of Federal employees—inspectors,
specialists and clerks—would be required to administer and enforce a regu-
lation such as proposed if noise certification of all airports is undertaken.
It would appear that if airport noise regulations were regarded as being
necessary, it should be included in the Federal Aviation Act and appropriate
Federal Air Rules. It would contain the maximum noise exposure limit, as
established by EPA, and would be enforced uniformly in accordance with enforce-
ment procedures for other FARs.
The burden 'placed upon all airport proprietors by the proposed recom-
mendation would be enormous. They would be required individually to set up
implementation plans for meeting noise standards established by EPA and FAA
in a minimum amount of time. If unable to make the necessary arrangements
within the allotted time, an airport might obtain a variance for a period of
-2-
-------
one year by meeting certain requirements specified by FAA and EPA after a public
hearing held In the vicinity of the airport.
Provisions of Part 11 of Section B of the proposal would present a field
day to the opponents of an established airport, whether or not their health
and welfare were affected by the airport's noise. Hearings could be prolonged
by a series of objections, many of which could be without merit. Firmly estab-
lished airports could be phased out of existence by such a maneuver, to the
detriment of the national air transport system. This situation could better
be met by making compliance a matter between the airport and FAA, except in
situations where a change in land use necessarily require the participation of
local governments and communities.
Noise monitoring could be a full time, 24-hour job for a large number of
airports, many of which could not afford the expensive equipment needed for
cumulative noise exposure recordings, and the cost of its operation. Unless
this data is accumulated, enforcement of noise exposure limits could not be
attained' .
It must be remembered that thousands of the nation's airports must opei
ate with small staffs, often one man, in order to break even, or show a small
profit. The average small airport, although valuable and necessary to a
complete national air transportation system, is not an elaborate installation.
AOPA has, for many years, urged small cities and towns to provide airport
facilities, in order that communities may serve their own interest. They
were urged, at the same time, not to build facilities they could not afford.
Most of the medium-size and small airports have followed this course. Few of
v
them present a noise problem to their communities.
Meeting the requirements of Recommendation No. 1—which provides no ex-
-3-
-------
ceptions for small airports—could result in the demise of many currently
operating airports. It also would inhibit the development of additional
airports sorely needed to assist in the dispersion of heavy concentrations
of people and industry around the over-crowded metropolitan areas.
Population growth and an airport noise regulation would seem to have
little in common, but they have. Added cost accompanying an airport noise
regulation, could prevent an airport from being built where it might serve a
useful purpose.
J. B. Hartranft, Jr., AOPA President, in a presentation at the recent
Federal Aviation Administration Planning Review Conference, explained how
general aviation would play an important role in taking people and industry
out of cities and restoring a better balance to urban and nonurban population.
He said in part:
"Today, 93% of the people in the United States live on just 7% of the
land area.
"Such an imbalance breeds many social and economical problems. Large
concentrations of populations generate traffic congestions, pollution prob-
lems, and require a high per capita public expenditure. They are also more
vulnerable to social disorders.
"Speaking to a meeting of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
Senator Howard Cannon said: 'For some years, it has been obvious that
farmers leave their farms, young people leave rural communities, because
they can no longer make a living there. To too many of these Americans
opportunuty seems to have fled to major centers of population and from all
over rural America, the young, the unemployed, the disadvantaged have poured
into the cities to create only worse problems than those from which they
fled1."
-4.
-------
"In most cases of those who moved, it was not a desire to migrate to
a big city but a necessity to look for employment.
"If the small towns can be helped to develop jobs locally, the young
people and the non-urban unemployed can find rewarding work and stay in
their home areas and enjoy the benefits of productive lives. If we can
achieve this, major metropolitan areas will then no longer be the tarnished
mecca for these displaced persons, and the big cities can begin to correct
their problems and assimilate population growth in manageable degrees.
"If as a nation we are to correct the imbalance of population, a
necessary first step is to bring the non-urban areas into the mainstream of
commerce through the National Aviation System. And this is the role of the
general aviation plane.
"As great as the scheduled airlines are, their service tends to
perpetuate the growth of big cities. Because of the size of aircraft oper-
ated and the economics of service, scheduled flights of the airlines must
be concentrated between big centers of population. The certificated airlines
serve 479 points of the contiguous 48 states. Twenty percent of all scheduled
airline departures occur at only five service points. These flights carry
one-third of-all passengers who ride the airlines. Nearly two-thirds of all
scheduled flights of the certificated airlines depart from just sixty of the
points served. Big planes connect big cities with other big cities.
"The privately operated airplane, the air taxi, the commuter airline
serve 12,000 airports carrying at least half as many people inter city as all
the scheduled airlines combined.
"With the convenience and flexibility of the general aviation airplane,
business is already proving it can help to provide jobs in smaller towns."
-5-
-------
One of the major problems we have with proposed Recommendation No. 1 is
Part 7 of Section B which allows airport proprietors certain options in
developing their implementation plans.
While "curfews" on flight of aircraft into and out of airports are
not mentioned, Part 7 would pave the way for local "curfews" throughout the
country. In a previous position paper submitted to EPA Task Group 1, AOPA
expressed its opposition to curfews, particularly local curfews.
Part 7 of the recommendation would allow airport proprietors certain
options in development of the implementation plans for "achieving compliance
with promulgated exposure limits in accordance with the promulgated timetable".
The options would allow closure of certain approach and departure paths
during "specific parts of the 24-hour day", "reduction of flight frequency
on specific runways during specific hours", and "complete closure of specified
runways, temporarily or permanently, either to all aircraft, or to aircraft
with noise characteristics above a specified value".
Any one of the above options would give ample leeway to the proprietor to
set up any curfews he might desire, if FAA approved. Since the FAA operates
an airport where there is a "voluntary" curfew in effect—Washington National
Airport--other local curfews would be proposed. If there has to be a curfew
in this country, it should be on a national scale. Local curfews, and the
closing and opening of approach and departure paths and runways, can only
result in confusion which could result in safety hazards as well.
Section 7 would result in different airports having different takeoff
and landing procedures, according to land-use patterns near their airports.
For many years, it has been recognized that standardization of procedures is
an effective means of enhancing safety. This portion of the recommendation
would have the opposite effect.
-6-
-------
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association May 10, 1973
Revised July 2, 1973
AOPA VIEWS ON AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
Elimination of unnecessary aircraft noise and reduction of necessary
sound emission in the vicinity of airports to the lowest practicable mini-
mums are objectives the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association share with
the Environmental Protection Agency. Working out means for achieving these
goals must be done with care in order to avoid doing great harm to this country's
vital air transportation system.
There is general agreement that aircraft/airport noise is civi! aviation's
Number One problem today—a problem that must be solved if air transportation
is to reach its full potential. This is primarily a problem of air carriers
at airports in congested population areas. But it also is of concern to gen-
eral aviation, particularly to most of its business-type jet aircraft. Pro-
peller-driven airplanes, which make up most of the general aviation fleet,
of about 1^0,000 aircraft, are not considered as presenting a noise problem
at most airports. The occasional noise complaint comes from a community where
a small airport is located which does have jet operations.
The more than 171,000 members of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA) own or lease over 8^,000 airplanes, about 60% of the general aviation
fleet. "General aviation" in this country is commonly defined as all civil
aviation except airline operations. It's aircraft fly about 37% (92 million)
of the passengers in intercity air travel; provide practically all of the
industrial-aid flying and all aerial application for agriculture and forestry;
provides air transportation on demand to k3% of the 1,000 largest business
enterprises in the nation. General aviation planes operate at practically
all of the 12,000 airports and landing places, including the approximately
531 airports served by the certificated airlines.
-------
AOPA surveys show that the average member uses his airplane for both busi-
ness and recreational flying, very much as he uses his automobile. The role
of the lighter general aviation airplane will become even greater in the
nations' economy if the trend toward decentralization and dispersion of eco-
nomic enterprises from congested urban areas to suburban and poverty-stricken
rural areas accelerates.
Military and airline noise, air pollution and congestion have antagonized
the public with consequent impact on general aviation, although the light air-
planes' contributions to the cause of the antagonism are small. Alleviating
aircraft/airport noise, the greatest irritant, must come about quickly if the
people on the ground are to be appeased.
Priority attention, in our opinion, must be given to the primary cause of
the noise, problem--the jet engine. Once attenuation has been achieved, other
proposed moves such as institutional changes and complicated operations at
the airport will recede in importance. Unified research rrust be stepped up
to develop engines with noise levels 15"20 EPNdB below FAR 36 in time for
the next generation of air-carrier jet aircraft. At the same time, research
should continue on retrofitting present-day jets so that meaningful reduction
in noise levels may be achieved before the next generation arrives, without
degradation of performance of the engine or at excessive cost.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has made strides in
quieting the jet engine and should continue on this course with ample funds
to accomplish its goals. The Federal Aviation Administration's research in
this field should be absorbed by NASA.
Who will bear the cost? The Federal Government should provide funds for
the development of technology for quieting the jet, but private industry should
pay the costs for retrofitting. It is realized that the air carriers are
-2-
-------
burdened with near and longterm debts accumulated mainly for the purpose of
acquiring jet airliners now in use, but retrofitting costs should be handled
as a business expense. Other industries are required to bear the expense of
meeting costs related to environmental requirements. It might be necessary
for the Federal Government to make available long-term loans to the air car-
riers at low interest rates in order to bring quicker relief to people on the
ground.
While the major problem in aircraft noise abatement is related to air
carrier and business jet operations, AOPA recognizes the need for quieter pro-
peller-driven aircraft. In a statement prepared for hearings by the Congres-
sional Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences regarding the NASA au-
thorization for Fiscal Year 197^, AOPA said in part:
"We need small aircraft that are quieter both internally and externally.
External noise must be reduced to satisfy the public on the ground and amelio-
rate its resistance to airport development and aircraft operations. Noise
attracts attention which is undesirable. Internal noise must be reduced to
eliminate loss of hearing by those in the aircraft. Few pilots have flown very
much without sustaining a loss in hearing capacity. Noise reduction will make
flight more pleasant and enable pilots to hear radio communications more clearly.
Conversation should be possible at normal voice levels.
"We think primary efforts should be directed at eliminating noise at the
source rather than creating land buffers around airports which is an unsatis-
factory solution for only a part of the problem. Thus we urge attention to
aircraft construction techniques that give a smooth flow of air and reduce
metal 'canning', quiet piston engine development and engine muffling and
silencing, propeller design for noise reduction, and soundproofing techniques
to minimize whatever noise remains."
-3-
-------
General aviation propeller-driven aircraft being built today are much
quieter, on the whole, both internally and externally, than those produced
10 or 15 years ago. Powerplants have been improved and airframe manufacturers
are more conscious of the need of reducing fuselage noise where possible.
It is hoped that current NASA research will permit the production of even
quieter propeller-driven aircraft planes in the future.
Technology exists for dampening the noise of single-engine propeller-
driven aircraft. An experimental "quiet" light airplane was successfully
flown in May 19^7 at Langley, Virginia, by the National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics (predecessor of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration), but manufacturers were unable to convert the experimental design
into a commercially feasible airplane. NASA resumed research on the propel-
lei—type aircraft noise problem in 1972. AOPA's statement on NASA funding
was made in an effort to get Congressional support for the continuance of this
research. Using techniques developed by NACA in the 1940s and other noise
suppression means, a manufacturer made a quiet plane for use by the U.S. Army
in night time reconnaissance in Vietnam with startling results. Flying 100
to 200 feet above the ground, the Q-Star-type planes could not be heard above
the ambient noise level. Further research in this area by NASA should be pro-
ductive.
While quieting the jet engine is by far the major goal in aircraft/air-
port noise abatement, in AOPA's opinion, there are other problems which also
must receive attention:
1. Compatible land use in the vicinity of airports. Unless the land is
properly zoned, the building of a new airport is a signal for the acquisition
of land nearby for the building of residences, small business and other non-
aviation uses, mainly because the cost of land is cheaper there than in other
-k-
-------
parts of the community. It is not long until residents surrounding the air-
port and its approaches are faced with an acute noise situation for which there
is no easy solution. Zoning after the fact presents a difficult task and is
expensive if the necessary property is to be obtained for clear areas. Unfor-
tunately, planning for the future appears to be the immediate solution to this
problem. This should be done by the states and local areas. The Federal Gov-
ernment can help by stipulating, in Sponsors Agreements, that adequate zoning
for clear areas be made before a Federal airport-aid grant is approved.
2. Noise level standards. The airplane itself should carry the major
portion of the burden of bringing down noise levels on approaches and at air-
ports. FAR 36 sets standards for airline and business-type jets and high per-
formance propeller-driven transports. Reasonable standards on a national basis
also should be set for general aviation propeller planes. This would enable
each pilot to know the limits that his aircraft could reach. Compliance with
standards now being set up for 1CAO member-countries would facilitate transit
abroad. It also would aqford a guideline for manufacturers producing aircraft
for export.
3. Curfews. AOPA is basically opposed to curfews on aircraft operations,
believing that widespread stoppage of night flights would have a staggering
effect on the nations' economy and the convenience of air transportation. In
the event curfews are determined necessary, they should be invoked on a national,
rather than local, scale. Having each community establish its own curfew could
spell chaos for the general aviation pilot on an interstate flight.
*t. Preemption. Ample precedent for Federal preemption of the navigable
airspace has been established in the courts. The Supreme Court of the United
States now has before it a case (Lockheed v. Burbank) which also involves
-5-
-------
preemption. It is our hope that preemption by the Federal Government be sus-
tained. Operating a national transportation system under state and local laws
would be extremely difficult, to say the least.
These are but a few of the facets of the aircraft noise problem. The kind
of noise environment we all desire can be achieved. But to do it we must all
cooperate. It is a time for sound and rational decisions.
-6-
-------
Air Transport Association
OF AMERICA
1709 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Phone (202) 872-4000
June 6, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra, Chairman,
Task Group I,
(Legal/Institutional Framework)
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Environmental Protection Agency
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Crystal Mall Building No. 2
Room 1101
Arlington, Virginia
Re:
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
Proposed "Recommendations"
Section of the Draft of the Report
Task Group I
This is written in response to your memorandum dated May 31,
1973. Since your May 4 Schedule, which has been so well kept, calls
for the EPA Staff by June 8 to "complete EPA's 'Executive Summary
Report ' (intended for submittal to Congress. . . "), the designees of ATA
are herewith, in advance of the mid-June meeting, presenting the at-
tached recommendations for inclusion in Appendix B. We understand
we could still submit revisions or additions up to the date of the meeting.
For your convenience we point out that paragraphs 1-10 under "A"
in the attached "Revised Recommendations" are in substance almost
identical to paragraphs 1-4 and 6-11 of those transmitted by Messrs.
Tondel and Grumbach on May 8, 1973, except that paragraphs "1" and
"2" of the May 8 memorandum have been changed to reflect the May 14
decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Burbank case, and
the order of paragraphs 5 and 6 has been reversed. The substance of
paragraph 5 in the May 8 submission is now in Recommendation B(3).
We also wish noted, with specific respect to the May 31 "Final
Draft" of Section 5, that it is not correct to say that Task Group I has
"adopted" Recommendation #la "unanimously". We also note that the
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra -2- June 6, 1973
use of the word "consensus" (see Introductory Note to Recommendation
on p. 224) gives an impression of general support by those present at
the Task Group I meeting on May 18-19. Since no votes were taken on
squarely put issues, "consensus" can only mean the author's impression
as to the attitude shown by those present, who expressed themselves, in
the course of oral discussion. Written recommendations such as those
attached, should be given at least as much weight.
We request, and assume, that the attached Recommendations, to-
gether with this covering letter, will not only be published in Appendix B
but also be considered by the EPA Staff in connection with the completion
of the "Executive Summary Report".
Respectfully submitted,
George S. Lapham, Jr.
Lyman M. Tondel, Jr.
George J. Grumbach, Jr.
George S. Lapham, Jr.
Attachments
-------
,r3*i•-.••-•!' ,-.*•. -; . . -
Air Transport Association cata; OF AMERICA
1709 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Phono (202) 872-4000
June 6, 1973
Task Group I
(Legal/Institutional Framework)
EPA AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT NOISE STUDY UNDER SECTION 7(a)
Revised Recommendations For Consideration
by the EPA Staff in the drafting of Section V
of the Task Group I Report and for inclusion
in Appendix B Thereto.
A. The Legal/Institutional Framework and Comments
Thereon. The primary purpose of Task Group I was to draft the portion
of the EPA report on the legal /institutional framework, so that the Congress
might be advised as to its structure, and as to any legal constraints, and so
that any recommendations from Task Group 1 or other Task Groups might
be viewed in the light thereof. While much of the Report of Task Group 1
is devoted to a detailed description of that framework these recommendations
should focus attention on the following principal conclusions that result from
the detailed review:
1. Unified Federal Regulation of Air Commerce is
Necessary. The Federal Constitution requires that the Federal Govern-
ment control all aspects of the national system of air transportation and
the use of the navigable airspace, because they are "phases of the national
-------
commerce which, because of the need of national uniformity, demand
that their regulation, if any, be prescribed by a single authority"
(Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761(1945}). As
quoted from Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How. ) 299, at
319 (1851), in the Burbank case, decided by the United States Supreme
Court on May 14, 1973, they may "justly be said to be of such a nature
as to require exclusive legislation by Congress. " (Emphasis added)
Any new Federal legislation for the regulation of aircraft noise should
expressly so assert and reaffirm.
2. Scope of Federal preemption of State and Local Police
Power. As ruled by the Supreme Court in the Burbank case, neither
a state nor any political subdivision thereof, can use its "police power"
to protect its citizens from aircraft noise.
3. Rights of Airport Proprietors. The extent of airport
proprietors' rights to regulate in an effort to reduce airport noise de-
pends on the terms of the leases and the law of the particular state where
the airport is located and therefore may vary from airport to airport.
The extent to which any such rights have been federally preempted, lim-
ited by the Commerce Clause or are in conflict with federal law, has not
been authoritatively adjudicated.
4. The Need for Federal Agency Authority to Protect
Air Commerce From Fragmented State and Local Regulations. In
view of the foregoing, to the extent, if any, that Congress, or law apart
from Acts of Congress, may permit state and local governments or airport
-------
-3-
proprictors to exercise their powers or rights in ways that would affect
the notional sy.stom of air transportation or the use of the navigable air-
space, there should be expressly placed by Congress in the appropriate
agency of the Federal Government the power to assure that the national
system of air transportation, including the national system of interrelated
airports, is not fragmented by restrictions imposed at the state, local or
airport level.
5. The Need for Exclusive Federal Standards of Aircraft
Noise Measurement and Permissible Noise Levels. Likewise, the
setting of standards of noise measurement, aircraft noise standards, and
aircraft noise levels should continue to be within the exclusive province
of the Federal Government, and aircraft noise levels should continue to
be fixed, amended, and enforced by the FAA so as to prevent any increase
in such levels and to reduce them, from time to time, in the light of con-
siderations of safety, technological feasibility and economic reasonableness.
6. The Need for Federally Funded Noise Restriction Efforts.
Sufficient funds should be appropriated by Congress to finance the Govern-
ment's share of an intensified and unified research and development effort
by the Federal Government to reduce the noise at the source.
7. The Need for International Coordination in Reducing Aircraft
Noise. United States airlines and aircraft and engine manufacturers should
not be put at a disadvantage vis-a-vis competitors from other countries be-
cause of the imposition, either by the United States or foreign countries, of
-------
-4-
noise level, operational or other restrictions or charges. Any specific
proposal regarding foreign aircraft should be cleared with the State
Department and submitted to United States international carriers for their
comments as to both legality and practicality.
8. The Need for Increased FAA Responsiveness to Noise
Abatement Suggestions of Others, and for Increased Public Participation.
The FAA should exercise, and be adequately financed and staffed to exer-
cise, its existing authority over aircraft operations and the use of the navi-
gable airspace more fully in the interest of noise reduction: for example,
by encouraging the initiation, with public review by it, of noise reducing
proposals, and by prescribing procedures to be followed by any applicant
who desires to have operational restrictions imposed by the FAA at a par-
ticular airport which affect service at other airports as well (i.e., re-
strictions on night operations, or traffic flow, or types of aircraft that
may be utilized) by providing adequate notice and opportunity for all in-
terested persons, including EPA and other agencies of government, to
be heard on the merits of such an application; and by ruling on such pro-
posals promptly.
9. The Need for Better Airport Planning Guidance. DOT and
FAA should utilize their existing authority to facilitate and expedite the
development of airports consistent with both transportation and environ-
mental requirements. To this end these agencies should be required to
prepare and issue detailed guidelines and timetables for applicants on
behalf of airport development projects so that the applications may be
-------
more quickly processed in line with the aforesaid requirements. 'I hose
guidelines should also include requirements for the submission of data
required for the Secretary of Transportation to write his mandatory state-
ment with respect to the effect of the airport development project on "the
natural resources and the quality of environment of the Nation", and data
showing compliance with standards for site location and airport design.
These guidelines should be prepared in cooperation with EPA in order to
expedite the preparation of satisfactory environmental impact statements
under Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA when required with respect to airport de-
velopment projects.
10. The Need for Effective Zoning and Other Compatible
Land Use Measures. The States should be encouraged to adopt laws of
statewide applicability along the lines of Attachment A and Attachment B
so as to facilitate appropriate zoning against incompatible uses around
airports -- particularly, but not exclusively, with respect to new airports,
and existing airports which still have not been totally impacted. The report
should further recommend that immediate, pragmatic efforts be taken by
airport proprietors and state and 'ocal governments to preserve and increase
compatible land use in the most noise-affected areas -- the flight paths
near airport boundaries.
Although a comprehensive and complete effort to solve the
airport noise problem by compatible land use would be far too costly in
the case of existing airports impacted by incompatible land use, it should
be recognized that even after all measures involving reduction of noise at
-------
-6-
1b(; source have been taken, there will remain a need for compatible land
VIMC planning. This need will bo tho greatest under the near reaches of
the flight paths commencing at the airport boundaries. Even at existing,
impacted airports, there are from time to time substantial opportunities
to achieve compatible land use in such areas at a reasonable cost; but
delay diminishes these opportunities. Therefore, state and local govern-
ments and airport proprietors should act as promptly as possible, in a
pragmatic manner, to preserve and encourage compatible land use in the
limited areas where the need is greatest and where opportunities exist.
-------
-7-
B. Tim Cumulative \oisc Kxposure Aid hod of Regulation._
Whatever the theoretical merits of this approach to the airport noise
problem, and of the utilization of the FAA airport certification process
to implement it, as to which we take no position, there are some funda-
mental considerations, including the following, which, if ignored, might
well make the method unworkable:
(1) Every airport and every airport location, as well
as its neighborhood, is unique. Each airport's operations,
each airport's surroundings, and each airport's role in its
community is different; and the differences should be taken
into account by different timetables for compliance if cumu-
lative noise exposure limits were prescribed and any time-
tables for compliance with cumulative noise limits should be
fixed on an airport-by-airport basis, not nationally. However
attractive in theory to compel compliance by every airport with
a maximum cumulative noise exposure level, based on a na-
tional timetable, the human, social and economic costs in-
volved in decertifying such major airports as JFK, Los
Angeles, Washington National, O'Hare, Logan, etc., etc.,
should give rise to pause.
(2) Cumulative Noise Exposure Limits for Airports
Are Not Based Only on Health and Welfare Factors and Must
be Reviewed by the FAA. Under Section 611(c) (2) of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by Section 7(b) of
-------
the Noise Control Act of 1972, Congress expressly said that
FAA actions with respect to regulations proposed by the EPA
for the protection of public health and welfare are to be con-
sistent with the other considerations listed in Section 611(d\
which include, inter alia, technological practicability in aviation,
consultation with other agencies and levels of government, the
highest degree of safety, and economic reasonableness. Accord-
ingly criteria and noise levels reported by the EPA with respect
to noise sources in general under Section 5 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972, cannot automatically be converted into airport
cumulative noise exposure limits; other factors are required
by Congress to come into play and the FAA clearly has the
final word. In addition, there should be a clear distinction
between scientifically proven physiological effects of various
levels and durations of noise exposure, under varying circum-
stances, on health or hearing, on the one hand, and unproven
effects of annoyance, on the other; and, in any regulation of
airport noise "public welfare" should take into account not
only the effect of noise annoyance on public welfare but also
such factors as the effect on the air transport system and the
social benefits derived therefrom on the public welfare, in-
cluding the preservation of such indirect social benefits as
availability of housing, employment opportunities and the well-
being of the economy, both in the vicinity of the airport and on a
national level.
-------
-9-
(3) To the Extent that Effects of Noise on "Health"
are Reflected in Cumulative Noise Exposure Limits for
Airports, they Should be Scientifically Supportable, Arrived
at Only after Public Hearings and Formal Findings, and Un-
mistakably Defined and Identified. Any authoritative pro-
nouncement as to what level of noise may be expected to
damage health will have significant legal and economic con-
sequences; to the extent that the protection of health is nec-
essary, these consequences must be accepted and borne,
whatever the noise source involved. The main effort however,
should be to prevent physiological effects of aircraft noise on
health and hearing, and any noise exposure limits should be
fixed with this in mind. However, the significance of the con-
sequences makes it important to proceed with great care and
fairness to all concerned.
The May draft of the Task Group 3 "Recommendations"
suggests the establishment of "health" contour lines as the basis
for composite noise levels around airports, using a line more or
less equivalent to a 45 NEF line. It also estimates that about
200, 000 persons live within such lines. Once it is publicized
that persons so located are exposed to a "health" hazard, it can
be expected that a vast number of suits, both for personal
injury and for taking of property, would be brought against
sources of such noise -- the Federal Government as well as
-------
-10-
airport proprietors and airlines -- using the "health"
standard as a basis of their claims. These would result
in great litigation expense and perhaps enormous liability
judgments. The threat of such suits may cause drastic
action by prospective defendants not contemplated or de-
sired by the Federal Government. For example, airport
operators might well terminate or drastically curtail oper-
ations to protect themselves from such liability claims.
The same cause and effect may occur in the
cases of owners of railroads, highways, and subways (i.e.,
cities and states) and trucks, buses, and other noise sources;
and the Task Group 3 draft "conservatively" estimated that
another 400, 000 persons live within such "health" contour
lines near noise sources other than aircraft.
Accordingly, before either the publication of infor-
mation under Section 5(a) regarding noise sources generally,
or the submission of proposed regulations to the FAA under
Section 7(b), care must be taken to assure that any noise limit
that is set based on considerations of "health" is based only on
validated scientific facts relevant to the effect of noise on health.
(Although the Task Group 3 draft, for example, says that only
effects on hearing are demonstrable, the standard suggested
irrelevantly includes a weighting factor for noise depending on
time of day. )
-------
-11-
In order to exercise such care it would be de-
airable for any proposed "health" noise factor, at least
- .1 •
if to be applied to airports, to be the subject of formal
public hearings or at least formal Rule-Making procedure.
It may be expected that defendants in such suits as those
mentioned above would raise a constitutional issue of
lack of due process if the standard were not fixed by
proper procedures and on the basis of solid evidence.
In order to afford health protection where clearly
needed without the risk of premature announcement of an
unvalidated "health" noise limit, it may even be that at
first a sufficiently high standard should be proposed that
it would have a clear chance of validation; tightening of
the standard, if supportable, could come later.
With the risk of literally tens of thousands of
lawsuits in mind, it is important when a "health" noise
limit is publicized to make it clear, if true, that the limit
is based on statistical probabilities, rather than on individual
health effects, and that the existence of the limit, particularly
if it includes a margin of safety, is no evidence of whether any
particular individual's health is affected by the noise.
In California there is a law forbidding the use of the
composite noise limit in private suits [ Calif. Public Util. Code
§21669. 5(a) & Calif. Dept. of Aeronautics Reg. §5004].
-------
-12-
In dealing with this subject, continuing thought
should be given to whether the general welfare is served
- ..) •
best by any action which enlarges the possibility that persons
living near airports may have increased rights or compensation
from airport noise in situations where its levels do not affect
their health or hearing or at least do not realistically make
it impossible or intolerable for persons to continue to live
or work in those areas. It should also be considered whether,
in carrying forward the costly task of noise reduction, available
national resources are better used by direct application to that
effort than by compensating large numbers of airport neighbors;
both near and far, on an ad hoc basis, in situations not required
by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Contrary to the suggestion that has been made, the
California Regulation scheme should not be used by the FAA
as a test of the cumulative noise standard method because its
complex methods and procedures have not been implemented
or enforced; they have not been analyzed or approved by any
branch of the Federal Government or even reviewed in the light
of the factors required to be considered by the above-mentioned
Section 611(d) of the Federal Aviation Act; and their noise
standards differ from those already adopted by the FAA, and
indeed from those in the last draft report of Task Group 3.
Time spent by the FAA in reviewing the California scheme with
-------
-13-
an eye to whether it meets Congressional requirements and
Intent would be better spent on the national problem.
. .11
(4) Welfare cannot be quantified, and welfare vis-a-vis
noise cannot be isolated from other factors affecting the public
welfare as indicated above. Contour lines based on mathematical
calculations of annoyance as determined by questionnaires, com-
plaints and the like have only a misleading semblance of exacti-
tude and should not be used as a basis for airport certification
procedures.
-------
CITY OF SAN JOSE
CALI PORN IA
JANET GRAY HAYES
COUNCILWOMAN
CITY HALL
TELEPHONE 277-400O
EXT. 4241
June 15, 1973
Elizabeth Cuadra, Chairman &
TO: Members of Task Group I - Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
FROM: Janet Gray Hayes, Member of Task Group &
San Jose, California Council Member
SUBJ.: "Recommendations" dated May 31, 1973 from the Final Draft of
Task Group I Report
This is to advise I will be unable to attend personally the final followup
meetings of our Task Group on June 21st and 22d due to City Council Budget
Hearings. I have read carefully and concur generally with the recommenda-
tions as mailed to me dated May 31st. As a locally elected legislator who
is acutely aware of the increasing intolerance of many of my constituents
to the devastating effects of aircraft noise, I am very happy to have
participated in the Study in which some definitive control mechanisms have
been outlined and consideration has been given to health and welfare.
In earlier communications from me I recommended that airport certification
be on the basis of noise as well as on the basis of safety factors for those
in aircraft as well as for those on the ground exposed to flight patterns.
Recognizing that California legislation has been in the forefront of the more
advanced dealing with the problem, I am especially concerned that Recommenda-
tion No. 1A on Page 234 be implemented. I feel that this recommendation that
the California Airport Noise Regulation be adopted as a federal regulation—
applicable in California only—until a nationwide federal airport noise regula-
tion goes into effect, is an extremely valid one. We need to have such interim
regulations until national standards can be set that would supersede them.
I feel we can view this as a "test case" or "demonstration project" and that
the California statutes as they now exist are extremely good.
Further, I believe a recommendation should be made to Congress that new
legislation will be necessary to assure implementation of all the recommenda-
tions in this report except No. 1. Documentation as brought out in the
Task Group Study and our experience has shown that the FAA has not exhibited
the proper incentive to follow through on the necessary implementation of
the recommendations.
I would ask that these comments be made a part of Appendix B in the written
report. Again, I am very sorry not to be with you at this final decision-making
Committee meeting, but hope that my written comments will suffice.
JGH:ak
-------
THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
- WASHINGTON OFFICE
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 785-5610
July 5, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Chairman, Task Group I
EPA Airport/Aircraft Noise Study
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
Enclosed for your consideration are the final recommendations
of the Council of State Governments on the Aircraft/Airport Noise
Study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.
In preparing this statement, comments from several States have
been incorporated into the final recommendations. We trust, there-
fore, that they will be given appropriate attention.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
most significant effort. If you have any questions, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
RDC/moz
Enclosures
R. Deane Conrad
Special Assistant
HEADQUARTERS: IRON WORKS PIKE, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY -40505
-------
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT NOISE STUDY
The following preliminary findings and recommendations are
respectfully submitted for the consideration of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Task Force. Preceding each recommendation or set of recommenda-
tions is a general finding which suggests the reasons for the
proposed recommendations and the purpose of the proposed actions.
Several recommendations are stated in the alternative, and pro-
pose what the Council believes are equally valid solutions to
the problems posed in the findings.
A preliminary draft of the attached findings and recommenda-
tions was circulated among concerned states for review and comment.
These final recommendations include and reflect the comments re-
ceived by the Council from its member states.
Finding A.
The most cost-effective approach to aircraft noise abatement
consists of (1) implementing noise reduction technology at the
source as fast as possible coupled with (2) operational limitations
or procedures to reduce noise and (3) land use control and in-
compatible use conversion or protection. A national program of
-------
cooperative regulatory and planning efforts by federal, state
and local governments and airport proprietors must be developed
and implemented. The goal of such a program should be to eventually
eliminate incompatible land uses from areas of severe noise im-
pact--that is, from areas subject to noise levels considered ad-
verse to public health and welfare.
Adequate control of noise around airports, and future reduction
of noise to reasonable levels, requires expeditious implementation
of aircraft and engine design modifications (retrofit) and con-
tinued incentives to technology development and design improve-
ments. Regulations regarding retrofit and future aircraft design,
which are intended to be implemented by the manufacturer or
operator via physical modification of the aircraft, must be im-
posed on a national, uniform basis.
In the past, responsibility for adopting and implementing
such regulations under §611 of the Federal Aviation Act has been
assigned to the FAA. FAA's promulgation of such regulations has
neither been expeditious nor effective. If adequate regulations
are to be adopted pursuant to the 1972 Noise Control Act Amendments
to §611, provision must be made for adequate input to FAA regarding
both the noise level restraints necessary to protect public health
and welfare and the technical practicality and economic reason-
ableness of various proposals. In these regards, EPA and NASA
have important expertise and information which must be included
-------
in the regulatory decision-making. Such inputs should be for-
malized and guaranteed by §611.
Further, the present federal regulatory structure lacks
sufficient continuing mechanisms for interagency coordination of
regulatory actions affecting aircraft noise. All concerned
agencies-the FAA, DOT, HUD, EPA, HEW, DOD, and the Department of
Interior should be involved in developing a coordinated national
aircraft noise abatement program, in order to assure necessary
perspectives, ideas, expertise and information are brought to
bear on the problem.
Recommendations : Adoption of Fleet Noise and Design Regulations
1. The Federal Aviation Administration should continue to
be responsible as the lead agency for development and implementa-
tion of design and retrofit regulations.
2. An interagency Aircraft Noise Task Force (IANTF) should
be established, composed of representatives of DOT, FAA, DOD, EPA,
HUD, HEW, and Interior, and assigned the specific functions of (1)
developing an on going national program for aircraft/airport noise
abatement and (2) advising the FAA and DOT on what regulatory
actions are most appropriate to carry out that program. lANTF's
charge should be to continue, on a regularized basis, the develop-
1. The Department of Interior would have a major role in
coordinating land-use aspects of noise control and abatement
pursuant to the National Land Use Policy Act proposals now
pending before the Congress.
-------
ment and review process initiated in the current EPA study
pursuant to §7(a) of the 1972 Noise Control Act. IANTF should
be a subcommittee of a more general inter-agency noise control
panel, formed under §4 of the Noise Control Act, to coordinate
the research and regulatory actions of concerned federal agencies
in all fields of noise control and abatement.
3. Actual regulatory authority—formal adoption powers for
such rules — should be transferred to the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Transportation, in order to be consistent with the pur-
poses of the Department of Transportation Act and assure air-
craft/airport rules are consistent with overall transportation
and environmental policies. The Secretary of DOT should adopt
such rules upon the recommendation of the FAA and IANTF, taking
into consideration the comments of other concerned federal
agencies, the states and local governments, citizens, airport
operators, manufacturers, carriers, et cetera.
4. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
should continue to coordinate and conduct research efforts in-
to developing new aircraft noise control and abatement technology.
NASA should be responsible for developing new aircraft noise
control technologies to flight capability. Basic and applied
research in this field should not be arbitrarily fragmented among
various federal agencies-in particular, NASA and the FAA.
5. Section 611 should be amended to place upon NASA the
responsibility—analogous to that now conferred upon EPA with
-------
respect to health and welfare determlnations--formally to de-
termine and report to FAA whenever NASA finds a particular
noise control strategy or abatement technology is safe, effective
and technologically practicable. NASA should similarly be re-
quired to report its findings of the cost of implementing such
strategies. Following receipt of such reports and certifications
from NASA and EPA, the FAA, in consultation with IANTF, should
be responsible for (i) determining whether the strategy is
economically reasonable, consistent with safety considerations,
and capable of furthering the purposes of §611, that is, to
effectively reduce aircraft/airport noise; (ii) drafting and
recommending appropriate regulations to the Secretary of DOT;
and (iii) implementing such regulations once adopted.
6. Regulations for retrofitting older aircraft or
noise limits affecting new aircraft design should contain
step reductions, announced in advance, for various target dates
in the future, in order to allow manufacturers and carriers to
plan, design, and develop necessary technologies for a phased
reduction of aircraft noise at the source.
7. In order to allow maximum choice by air carriers as
to the abatement techniques used to meet source standards, in-
cluding various engine retrofit options, aircraft retirement
and engine replacement, a Fleet Noise Limit, rather than a
specific Retrofit rule, should be adopted. Such a rule should
-------
apply to the entire fleet of each American air carrier, and
that portion of foreign-owned fleets which operates into or
out of United States' airports.
8. The FAA should immediately adopt airworthiness certi-
ficate noise regulations for all previously type certified air-
craft still in production, to require that new editions of
such aircraft types include all available noise abatement tech-
nology. For example, further sales of 727-200 and 737-300
aircraft without noise abatement packages should be immediately
proh ib ited.
Finding B.
The noise footprint of the airport can be substantially
reduced through such strategies as retrofitting, refanning,
and better aircraft design. See Finding A, supra. At a cer-
tain point, however, aircraft design modification to reduce
noise becomes cost-ineffective. On the other hand, the core
area of severely noise-impacted land left after implementation
of source abatement technology may be amendable to further re-
duction via operational regulations at the airport level--e.g.,
designation of approach and takeoff paths and procedures, noise
limits on aircraft using the airport, restriction on the number
or time of flights (including total curfews and selective partial
curfews). Furthermore, where the noise footprint has been re-
duced via retrofit and other source abatement strategies, land
use control and conversion strategics are much less expensive
-------
and may become feasible where they otherwise might have entailed
prohibitive acquisition and dislocation costs. The selection
of what strategy or strategies to implement at the airport, in
order to eliminate incompatable land uses from noise impacted
areas, is best made at the local level, and could be most easily
coordinated by the airport operator.
In order to assure such decisions are made and implemented
pursuant to a national aircraft/airport noise program, federal
regulations must be adopted to (1) set standards for airport
noise exposure and (2) require development of an airport imple-
mentation plan to eventually separate incompatable uses from
noise exposure levels found to adversely affect public health
and welfare. For these purposes, EPA's determinations of what
levels of noise are necessary to protect public health and welfare
should be used in designating the airport noise exposure standards
to be finally achieved through a phased airport noise abatement
program.
Recommendations: Airport Certification Standards
9. The FAA should adopt an airport certification noise
regulation, requiring the airport proprietor in consultation
with concerned state and federal agencies, aircraft operators,
pilots, local communities and other interested parties, to
develop and implement a noise impact abatement plan to reduce
-------
noise in sensitive land use areas to levels deemed acceptable
for health and welfare purposes.
a. Thre regulation should mandate a phased reduction of
noise in incompatable land use areas and evential complete
separation of incompatable land uses within areas subject to
noise based on the levels found adverse to public health and
welfare. For the purposes of this rule, the FAA should adopt
as a performance standard the noise levels requisite to protect
public health and welfare as determined by the Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the 1972 Noise Control Act. Such
performance standards should not be modified pursuant to the
FAA's balance of economic and technical feasibility factors;
rather such factors should be used solely in determining
the timetable for achieving noise levels which adequately pro-
tect public health and welfare.
b. In developing the implementation plan, the airport
operator should consider the following methods for the control
or reduction of airport noise:
(1) Encouraging use of the airport by aircraft classes
or types with lower noise level characteristics, and discouraging
such use by aircraft classes or types with higher noise level
characteristics (e.g., by imposing a noise-related landing fee
surcharge, or a single event noise limit).
(2) Developing and recommending to FAA approach and
departure flight paths and procedures to minimize the noise
in residential and other sensitive areas. (see Recommendation
11, infra).
-------
(3) Planning runway alignment and utilization schedules
to take into account adjacent noise-sensitive land uses,
noise characteristics of aircraft and noise sensitive time
periods.
(4) Reducing flight frequency through, inter alia,
hourly operation limits, encouragement of flight consolida-
tion, imposition of total or categorical curfews.
(5) Relocation or regulation of maintenance activities.
(6) Procedures for ground operations, including turning,
taxiing and warmups.
(7) Use of shielding, including natural terrain, buildings,
sound baffles, et cetera.
(8) Restrictions on future development of incompatible
land uses within actual or predicted noise impact zones,
through local, regional or state land use regulation (See
Recommendations 13-15, infra), or through the purchase or
condemnation of development rights or no-residential-use
restrictive easements.
(9) Conversion of existing incompatable land uses within
the hard-core severe noise impact zone (as reduced via retrofitting*
fleet noise, and type certification regulations) to compatible
uses. Such conversion might include (i) modifying residential
structures with additional insulation, double-panned windows, and
ventilation equipment, (ii) airport purchase or condemnation
-------
of incompatible uses for later airport development or private
redevelopment, or (iii) encouraging zoning decisions which
encourage private market purchase of impacted residential
properties and redevelopment to commercial warehouse, or
industrial uses.
10. A national consulting staff and service should be
established by appropriate federal agencies, under the lead
of the FAA, to assist airport proprietors in developing
implementation plans. Such service might aid the airport
operator and those working with it in the testing of various
strategies or combinations and analyzing their probable effect
on overall noise reduction. Such a service would provide
airports with much needed technical resources while allowing
greater freedom for local decision-making based on knowledgeable
choices .
11. The FAA in cooperation with NASA and other concerned
parties, should establish a set of alternative approach and
departure procedures which are technically feasible and safe
(e.g. two-step approach and climbout, full-thrust takeoff).
Pursuant to its airport implementation plans, the airport
operator should select those procedures for each of its runways
which are most effective in reducing noise, and such selection
should be made a federal air regulation by FAA. Such regulation
should be manditory and enforced against all aircraft using
the airport. The regulation, however, should allow as a valid
-------
defense to an action for noncompliance proof by the aircraft
operator that the operation in question was a direct result
of the pilot's exercise of his responsibility for the safety
of his passengers, crew, cargo and aircraft or his emergency
authority .
Finding C.
Control of major air transport aircraft in flight — including
designation of standard routes, approach paths, runway assign-
ments, and flight procedures—must be exercised and coordinated
by one agency acting as Traffic Controller. Only one person
can or should direct the pilot at a time. On the other hand,
development and adoption of standard routes and approach/takeoff
procedures may be a joint venture, allowing local and airport
proprietor input and choice in order to best alleviate noise
problems.
Regarding approach/takeoff procedures in particular, a
single procedure may not be beneficial as a noise control
strategy at all airports. For example, a full thrust takeoff
may be helpful when few people live immediately adjacent to
the airport, while a lower power initial departure will be
best when aircraft can implement a sharper climbout over
water or areas of nonsensitive land uses a relatively short
distance from the airport. An entirely different type of
approach and takeoff procedure at each airport, however,
would be unnecessarily confusing and burdensome. Thus, some
limitation of procedures must be imposed, while allowing local
-------
option as to what procedures are most effective in reducing noise.
Recommendations: Adoption of Route/Path and Approach/Takeoff
Regulations
12. As part of its noise control implementation plan,
(see Recommendation 8, supra) the airport proprietor should
study, in conjunction with air carriers, pilots, and airport
neighbors, the design and use of various flight paths, including
corridor and dispursed approach and departure systems. Following
such study, the proprietor should recommend such path or paths
be adopted by the FAA as a standard path designation, air
traffic rule. Compliance with the paths thus established
should be mandatory, unless the aircraft operator can estab-
lish as a defense that the operation in question was a direct
result of the pilot's exercise of his responsibility for safety
or of his emergency authority.
Finding D.
In some areas, complete separation of existing incompatible
land uses from adverse noise impacts, as required by the airport
noise certification rule, may be impossible because of counter-
vailing social or economic needs; for example, where the elimi-
nation of housing near airports would result in desiccation resi-
dents in an area with an existing serious housing shortage.
Where relocation is not a viable option, conversion may
not be advisable or may have to be delayed.
-------
Recommendations: Variance Procedure
13. Where severe countervailing social or economic
problems make total compliance with the airport certification
rule impossible, the airport should be required to adopt a
plan which, as much as possible, complies with the purposes
of the regulation. A variance procedure should be contained
in the airport certification rule to allow longer periods
for phasing-out incompatible land uses or reducing noise
impacts on such uses, or to waive certain requirements of
the rule, provided the plan guarantees implementation of all
feasible strategics available to ameliorate the problem.
Finding E.
At the present time, state and local land use planning
and control practices are inadequate to prevent the development
of noise sensitive land uses within areas subject to incompatable
noise levels. Land use decisions are rarely, if ever, coordinated
with airport siting design and operational decisions . Much
of the problem rests with fragmentation of land use control
and airport operational authority. Often the local government
or authority which owns and operates the airport does not
have jurisdiction over the land around the airport, which may
lie within the boundaries of one or more other municipalities.
Similarly the municipalities who have the power to plan land
use do not have the power or responsibility to regulate air-
port operations — and thus, control airport noise impacts. Some-
-------
times this fragmentation is aggravatedand reenforced by state
constitutional provisions barring state imposition of land
use regulations. But even where such legal obs tides do
not exist, coordination of land use and airport decision is
rarely provided by present institutional structures.
Recommendation; Coordination of Land Use Controls
14. Land use planning and control in the vicinity of
airports must be coordinated with the adoption of other
airport noise control strategics at the airport level (e.g.,
curfews, runway utilization regulations, and single event
noise standards), as well as with airport siting and develop-
ment decisions. Where local general government jurisdictions
have zoning powers over land around the airport, land use
planning and zoning decisions should be coordinated with
airport operational decisions by a higher level of government
on a state or regional basis.
15. All states should be strongly urged to seriously
evaluate the adequacy of their present land use palnning and
control structures. Where such institutions are found in-
adequate, states should be strongly encouraged to enact
legislation to provide coordination and supervision of land
use planning and zoning around airports, or to adopt such other
legislation as will provide sufficient means of assuring (1)
that incompatable land uses will not be further developed in
noise impacted airport environs and (2) that existing incom-
patable uses, to the maximum extent possible, will be phased-
out or protected. Alternative types of such legislation might:
-------
(a) Establish a state or regional airport environs
planning agency, responsible for determining incompatible
land use areas and adopting land use regulations to bar
development of incompatible uses and encourage growth of and
conversion to campatible uses in such areas. Such state
regulations would be in addition to local zoning ordinances.
To the extent local zoning is found inconsistent with the
state impact zone regulations, the state rules would supersede
local zoning controls. N.B. This is the approach adopted in
the Minnesota airport zoning statute. Analogous legislative
structures are found in a few state flood plain management
laws .
(b) Require localities around airports to develop and
adopt airport noise impact zone management plans subject to
submission to and approval by a state or regional planning or
environmental agency. Such legislation should further require
that the locality adopt adequate zoning or other controls to
implement the plan. Where local governments fail to develop
or implement such plans within a designated period, the law
should allow the state or regional agency to develop, adopt,
and implement a plan in lieu of local action. N.B. This
approach is used in several state flood plain management
laws, and may be preferable from a policy standpoint to
alternative (a). It allows local government a first crack
at the problem, and does not impose state intervention unless
local planning and zoning fails to adequately address the
problem.
-------
(c) Authorization of state or regional agencies to acquire
by purchase or condemnation residential development rights or
no-residential-use easements for land located in airport noise
impacted areas.
Because airport environs land use control is part of the
much larger land use planning problem, comprehensive state land
use legislaton may be the best overall solution, and should
be supported in lieu of special single purpose land use controls,
such as airport environs as flood plain legislation.
16. Congress should adopt federal legislation to encourage
state and/or regional government coordination and oversight of
land use decisions involving airport siting and airport environ
development. Such legislation might be contained in the pro-
visions of a broader law, such as various proposals for a
national land use policy act, covering all land use planning
mat ters.
17. The federal government, through the FAA and EPA,
should provide technical assistant to state and local planners
regarding airport environs compatable use control. In parti-
cular, the FAA should reinstitute the practice of providing
state and local planning agencies with Noise Exposure Forecast
studies or equivalent noise exposure contour analyses.
Finding F.
States and local governments are in a special position to
assess particular needs and sensitivities to aircraft noise
levels which may vary from the national norm regarding levels
-------
which adversely affect public health and welfare. On the other
hand, decisions regarding acceptable noise levels and requisite
noise abatement may be ill-conceived and uncoordinated if under-
taken by a number of relatively small, local government units
each having responsibility for only a part of the airport environs.
No governmental unit should be allowed to set exposure
limits unless it is able to adequately balance air transportation
needs and health and welfare effects. For such purposes, the
unit should be large enough to include within its constituency
both the noise affected residents and the air transportation
users of the region.
The Supreme Court decision in Burbank v^. Lockheed Air
Terminal fails to recognize the proper role of state and regional
governments in balancing the need for air transport with the
concern to adequately protect public health and welfare. While
air transportation operated on a national level, its pollutional
impact is largely a localized matter. The solution to this
problem is a matter of grave state and regional, as well as
federal, concern. Indeed much of the solution must rely on
uniquely state and local powers to control land use as well as
state and local governmental responsibility to make wise siting
and operational decisions as airport proprietors.
Allowing state and regional governments to set noise ex-
posure standards more stringent than adopted by the federal
government would not mean, as some have argued, that the
-------
national air transport system would collapse. It might require
more residences be insulated or that a larger number of in-
compatible land uses be relocated or converted. As a result
the cost of air transportation to and from a particular area
may increase. Yet this implies no more, and perhaps far less,
than the power which the states clearly retain to modify the
standards of compensation and tort liability for noise damages
-even to the extent of making aircraft operators absolutely
liable for damages caused by noise. See Askew v^. American
Waterways Operators, Inc., 41 U.S.L.W. 4507 (S. Ct. April 18,
1973).
Solution to the airport noise exposure problem must rely
on a partnership of federal, state and local government. The
federal agencies have no exclusive claim to wisdom in determining,
ameliorating and eliminating intolerable noise impacts around
airports, and the law should recognize the necessity of parti-
cipation by all affected governmental units.
Recommendation: State and Regional Noise Impact Standards
18. Congress should amend §611 of the Federal Aviation
Act to give state and regional councils of governments (including
governments which have jurisdiction over the area containing
the airport and airport affected environs) the power to identify
unacceptable airport noise exposure levels more stringent than
those identified by EPA and set in the airport certification
-------
regulation, (see Recommendation 8, supra), and to require
implementation by the airport operator and local governments
of noise abatement and land use strategies to comply with those
limits.
Finding G.
Two of the most substantial obstacles to expeditious con-
trol and abatement of aircraft noise at the source, and protection
or relocation of incompatible land uses, are the question of
who should bear the cost and the problem of how the necessary
large outlays of capital funds can be financed.
In order to retrofit the existing fleet of first-generation,
narrow-body jet aircraft and business jets aircraft and business
jets, air carriers and private aircraft owners will be forced to
invest substantial sums. Acquisition of needed funds the private
market, over the relatively short period contemplated for implementing
retrofit, will be difficult and possibly infeasible, particularly
in view of the airlines recent large capital outlays debt commit-
ments, and equivocal profit-loss history.
A similar problem exists in financing land use conversion,
or improvements to homes and other buildings. Local governments
and airport proprietors, with few exceptions, do not have the
substantial initial resources to begin such a program.
Solution of the aircraft noise problem should not be delayed
for the long period required for airlines and airport operators
to accumulate the resources necessary to implement various noise
-------
control strategies. It is, thus, extremely important that
Congress consider and adopt some federally assisted or funded
financing scheme for noise abatement.
The cost of retrofitting, and the increased cost of new
aircraft incorporating noise control devices, should be ulti-
mately borne by the air transport consumer: the air passenger
and air freight shipper. Such costs should be passed through
to the consumer either through increased fares (if the cost is
financed privately by the airlines) or through a head-tax, sur-
charge or impost (if the cost if financed by a government fund).
The cost of land use conversion, including the purchase
of land or restrictive easements and improvement of certain
structures through increased insultion and mechanical ventila-
tion, should be ultimately borne by all air transportation
beneficiaries, including air passengers, shippers, and ground
businesses which benefit from air travel. Such cost could
be passed through to such beneficiaries through noise-related
landing fees or landing fee imposts, a passenger head tax
and freight tax, increased lease rentals to airport concessions,
increased airport parking fees, or airport assessment district
property taxes.
Recommendation; Funding of Retrofit, Residential Insulation,
and Land Use Conversion
19. Congress should adopt legislation establishing a
financing scheme to allow implementation of presently available
-------
source noise abatement technology as soon as possible and
assist in conversion of incompatible land uses located within
areas which are predicted to remain severely impacted after all
feasible operational and aircraft source abatement techniques
have been implemented. Such legislation could take the following
forms:
a. To finance retrofit:
(1) The Federal Government could establish a noise abatement
trust fund, repaid by a head tax or surcharge on the present air
transport excise taxes, from which airlines would receive grants
to install noise abatement equipment.
(2) The Federal Government could set up a loan fund to assist
airlines in che installation of noise abatement equipment, to
be repaid by the airlines through higher fares or a noise
abatement surcharge on air travel tickets and freight shipments.
(3) The Federal Government could guarantee loans made to
airlines by private lenders for the purpose of purchasing and
installing noise abatement equipment.
For ease of administration, the most feasible funding
source would be a passenger head charge and freight surcharge,
collected on every ticket and shipment. In order to most
expeditiously implement available retrofitting technology,
Congress should appropriate initial "seed money" to a trust
or loan fund. Without such approriation, it is possible an
adequate retrofitting program could not be financed until
the aircraft affected are too old to make such an additional
investment reasonable.
-------
b. To finance land-use conversion, structural insulation
improvements, and the purchase or condemnation of facilities
and/or restrictive easements to control future incompatible
land use development, pursuant to an airport noise abatement
implementation plan (see Recommendation 8, supra) , either
Congress should establish and initially fund an airport noise
abatement fund, against which an airport proprietor could borrow
the sums needed to convert or insulate existing incompatible
land uses and acquire such interests or Congress should adopt
legislation allowed such use of existing Airport and Airway
Development Trust Funds. Such sum should be repaid by the
airport operator overtime through funds received from increased
landing fees, a landing fee impost, a passenger head tax,
increased concession rentals, or general or special tax revenues
Because landing fees are often established in long-term
leases, and may be otherwise unavailable for prepaying such
land use conversion loans , Congress should consider authorizing
airports so desiring to impose a landing fee impost (a dollars-
for-decibels landing fee surcharge) to finance repayment of
monies borrowed from the fund. Furthermore, Congress should
clearly authorize airport operators to impose an air travel
head and freight tax, if they so choose, for the purpose of
financing land use conversion.
-------
Finding H.
The present system for the compensation of property
taking, personal and nuisance damages resulting from aircraft
noise is irrational, inequitable, and too costly 1:o administer
compared to the benefits resulting therefrom.
The "overflight" test of compensability developed by the
federal and some state courts is an unjust legal fiction.
Damage or substantial taking of property use by noise should
be compensable regardless of whether the flight path falls
across the property in question. Drastic variance of com-
pensability tests applied from state to state makes little
sense, and some uniformity should be encouraged both as to
the test of compensable damage or taking and the measure of
such damage.
The present compensation system does not assist in
solving the airport noise problem. Lump sum payments for
"permanent" property devaluation do not provide incentives
to the air transport industry to implement noise abatement
technology, and, thus, terminate their liability. Such
lump sum payments become a permanent license to pollute, and
are inimical to a national program of noise abatement.
Furthermore, payment for property value diminution does
not guarantee either use of such funds to soundproof the
impacted structures or to convert incompatible land uses.
Although the latter solutions to the airport noise problem
are not always viable, they should be encouraged to the maximum
-------
extent possible by the compensation system. State and Federal
Constitutional requirements for Just compensation cannot be
changed legislatively. However, a legislative or regulatory
scheme of compensation can be devised to supplement such con-
stitutional mandates, in order to provide alternaf.ive measures
of compensation--including payment for soundproofing and relo-
cation. Such a scheme could also be made more attractive than
constitutional damage claim litigation by (1) establishing a
clear line of compensability and (2) providing a relatively
simple, inexpensive administrative procedure to assert claims
and receive payment for soundproofing costs, relocation, or
other appropriate relief.
Rec. o ismendat ion : Compensation System
20. Congress and/or the states should adopt legislation
to establish an airport compensation system. Such legislation
should establish a clear line of compensable damage, based on
those levels of noise exposure detrimental to public health
and welfare. The law should provide for an administrative
procedure whereby noise impacted claimants could apply for and
receive funds for either (1) structural modifications—such as
insulation and ventilation--to soundproof their residences or
other buildings or (2) relocation expenses, including the value
of the property which must be abandoned and moving expenses.
The compensation scheme should be coordinated with and
made part of the airport noise abatement implementation plan,
-------
(see Recommendation 8, supra), and financed through airport
proprietor loan fund (See Recommendation 18, supra).
Finding I .
Adequate enforcement mechanisms must be established to
assure that the national program for aircraft/airport noise
abatement and its federal, state and local regulatory components
are fully implemented. Some current enforcement mechanisms
should be adopted and used for this purpose--for example,
enforcement tools under the Federal Aviation Act and Airport
and Airway Development Act.
Some regulations, adopted by the federal and state
government, may best be monitored and enforced on the local,
or airport operator, level. Thus, federal legislation may
be required to authorize airport proprietor, state and local
government enforcement of federal standards and sanctions.
State legislation may similarly be needed to authorize airport
operator and local enforcement of state standards or sanctions.
Recommendations: Enforcement Mechanisms
21. In adopting the Airport Certification Rul.2, the
FAA should provide that any violation of a regulation adopted
pursuant to an airport implementation plan approved under the
certification rule, is a violation of Federal Air Regulations
(FAR's), and all applicable sanctions available under the
Federal Aviation Act should be used to enforce such noise rules.
-------
22. Where an airport fails to develop an adequate airport
implementation plan, the FAA rule should provide for either
(1) federal imposition of such a plan, or (2) partial or
total decertification of the airport until such a plan is
submitted.
23. Congress should adopt appropriate amendments to
the Federal Aviation Act to allow state and local governments
and airport operators (1) to institute and prosecute complaints
before the FAA for civil penalties as provided under the Act
or for suspension or revocation of appropriate Title VI certi-
ficates, and (2) to adopt local enforcement procedures and
penalties for violation of airport implementation plan rules,
standards, and procedures.
Finding J.
To the maximum extent possible, aircraft source noise
abatement should be accomplished with international cooperation
to the extent such regulations affect international fleets.
The International Civil Organization (ICAO), however, has
appeared reluctant to act in this field, and continued United
States leadership is vital. Deference to international coopera-
tion should not be allowed to deprive the federal, state and
local governments of their powers to protect their citizens from
noise levels which are adverse to public health and welfare.
-------
Recommendation: International Relations
24. Until adequate international standards are established
all United States aircraft noise regulations should apply
equally to any aircraft using American airports. No aircraft,
regardless of ownership or route, should be exempt from retrofit,
fleet noise rules, or type certificate rules.
25. When adequate international standards are established
for retrofit, fleet noise, or type certification, which are
similar to or which have substantially equivalent effect of
United States regulations, the United States should waive
compliance with its rule to the extent foreign-owned aircraft
comply with the international standard, provided foreign govern-
ments similarly waive compliance with their noise standards for
United States owned aircraft which comply with an equivalent
American regulation.
Finding K.
At the present time, only the State of California has
developed and adopted a comprehensive program to solve the
airport noise problem through a regulatory scheme which coor-
dinates land use and airport operational regulations. California's
program, which is based on a community noise exposure standard
(CNEL), is similar to that now being discussed by the EPA and
FAA for adoption of the federal level. California's scheme is
now becoming operational, and could provide valuable information
-------
and experience in the coming months as to the efficacy and
problems of such a noise control program. This data would be
most helpful in deciding whether such a program shculd be
enacted on a nationwide basis and, if so, how it might be.
refined. However,as a result of the Burbank decision, there
is a serious threat that such invaluable experience could be
lost at precisely the time when it is most needed l;o guide
decisions of national importance.
The California experiment should be continued, and in
2
accord with California's request the community noise exposure
level regulations previously adopted by the California Depart-
ment of Aeronautics [Titel 4, California, Admin. Code §§5000
e_t seq. ] should be adopted by the FAA under §611 of the Federal
Aviation Act for application in the State of California on
an interim basis until more general noise exposure standards
of national applicability can be developed and promulgated.
Recommeiidat ion : Interim Noise Standards
26. The Federal Aviation Administrator should immediately
adopt interim airport certification standards for application
in the State of California based on the current California
CNEL standards. Such a rule should be used as an experimental
2. Petition of the State of California before the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviatio^i Administration
In re Airport and Aircraft Noise standards to be applicable in
California (filed June 1973).
-------
interim regulation to study the effectiveness and viability
of such regulations for adoption on a national basis. This
rule should remain in effect until national airport noise
exposure standards can be developed and adopted.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE (-V-N 1712
FUND \*~X+~S JQtK N STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202833-1485
June 18, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Office of Noise Abatement
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1107, Crystal Mall Bldg. #2
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Re: Recommendations from Final
Draft of Task Group I Report
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
The undersigned environmental and consumer organizations
would like to express their strong support for the Recommenda-
tions from the Final Draft of the Task Group I Report, cir-
culated on May 31, 1973.
Our only major reservation with respect to these
Recommendations is that we feel that they overestimate the
willingness — and perhaps the capacity — of the Federal
Aviation Administration to implement even reforms as obvious
and clearly needed as the ones in the Task Group I Recommenda-
tions.
For this reason we think the Recommendations should
include a "fall back" section on steps the Congress might
wish to consider in the all too likely event that suggesting
reforms to the FAA turns out to be ineffective.
Some of these legislative steps might include divesting
the FAA entirely of certain functions and giving them to other
agencies. A prime example is that applied research into the
technology of aircraft noise suppression at the source, and
the authority to promulgate federal regulations on this
subject, would much better be concentrated in the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration than in the FAA. NASA
not only has superior technical expertise in this area; it
also lacks the crippling conflicts of interest that have pre-
vented the FAA from taking effective action. As long as the
FAA perceives its principal mandate to be the promotion of
air transportation, it is unlikely to take steps to ensure
OFFICES IN: EAST SETAUKET, NY (MAIN OFFICE); NEW YORK CITY (PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE); WASHINGTON. DC; BERKELEY, CALIF.
Tft/s paper /s recycled to protect the environment.
-------
-2-
that the air transportation system pays its full social costs,
no matter how persuasively or authoritatively a Task Force
such as this one recommends that this be done.
We also believe that more attention should have been paid
to problems created by military aircraft, especially where these
share the use of civilian airports.
Turning now to the specific Recommendations of Task
Group I;
#1 ; That the Federal Government
promulgate," administer and enforce an airport noise
regulation, designed to limit the cumulative noise
exposure received in residential communities.
We concur, and agree that the airport certification
process is the obvious vehicle for administering this regu-
lation, and that the FAA has all the authority it needs to
do this. We would add tlie observation, however, that the FAA
itself has virtually no expertise with respect to land use
around airports, or the noise levels that can be tolerated
for such land uses, so that the substantive content of regula-
tions on this subject will clearly have to come from EPA,
pursuant to Sec. 5 of the Noise Control Act, in consultation
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other
interested agencies.
1 1 a ; That the California airport
noise regulation, particularly the CNFL portion, be
adopted as a Federal (FAA) regulation, applicable in
California only, until a nationwide Federal airport
noise regulation goes into effect.
Again, we concur, for the reasons stated in your
discussion of the Recommendation.
Recommendation #lb; The FAA should, fith EPA par-
ticipation, establish a national resource to provide
assistance to airport proprietors and state and local
agencies in developing skills (within their own staffs)
necessary to implement the Federal airporti noise regu-
lation.
We concur, and suggest NASA and HUD participation in
this resource as well. Again, it should be remembered that
FAA interest and expertise in land use problems are thin, at
best, so that the main substantive contributions will have
to come from other agencies. With respect to developing
techniques for noise monitoring, NASA participation would be
in order.
-------
Recommendation fIc; It is recommended that an
adequate time for FAA promulgation of the proposed
airport noise regulation is no later than one year
from the date of this report, or July 1974.
We concur, especially in the comment that "the attention
of Congress is invited to focus upon the timely performance of
both EPA and FAA in promulgation and implementation of the
airport noise regulation."
Recommendation J2; (a) It is recommended that all
States, by' statute, require the formation of airport
land use commissions, at the regional level or above,
to incorporate the interests of both local governments
and airport proprietors into effective land use
controls around airports; (fa) it is recommended that
Congress encourage States to establish adequate mech-
anisms for positive land use control within airport
impact zones, by enactment of appropriate Federal
land use legislation having wider but inclusive pur-
poses.
We concur, and suggest that Congress make State legisla-
tion of this type a condition of eligibility for Federal air-
port funds. We suggest that Congress ask EPA, HUD, HEW, DOI
and other interested agencies to submit specific recommenda-
tions for legislation to this effect, setting forth proposed
specifications for such State legislation.
Recommendation #3; The task group recommends an
accelerated program of Federal regulation of aircraft
noise, incorporating [various specified] elements.
We concur, subject only to the caveat that Congressional
action may be needed, along the lines suggested above, if the
FAA continues to procrastinate. To pick just one example of
many, the FAA has been dragging its feet for nearly three
years on the matter of promulgating certification standards
for SST noise emissions, despite periodic unfulfilled assur-
ances to Members of Congress and others that issuance of such
standards is "imminent." It seems unlikely that FAA perform-
ance in this regard will improve unless very substantial
pressure is applied from outside the FAA, either by Congress
or through the courts.
-------
Recommendation #4; It is recommended that the
Congress and the Executive Branch agencies give high
priority to evaluation of alternative financing schemes
to allow feasible, desirable solutions to be expedi-
tiously adopted and applied.
We concur. We agree that the most important thing is
providing for immediate availability of funds to defray major
capital costs, subject to later payback from funds collected
from the users and beneficiaries of air transportation.
Recommendation #5: It is recommended that all U.S.
regulations regarding aircraft noise be applied equally
to all aircraft operating into U.S. airports ....
It is recommended that the United States waive compli-
ance with its rule to the extent foreign-owned air-
craft comply with [an international standard substan-
tially equivalent to the U.S. standard.]
We concur.
Recommendation #6; It is recommended that the
affected Executive agencies form a continuing, co-
operative task force to assist FAA [in the formulation
and execution of programs to control aircraft and
airport noise.]
We concur. We believe that the situation would be
materially improved if aircraft and airport noise were con-
sidered the regular province of the whole range of affected
agencies, having at least some diversity of interests and
constituencies, rather than being left solely to the FAA.
Very truly yours,
John Hellegers
Environmental Defenale Fund
Lloyd Hinton
National Organization to Insure
a Sound-controlled Environment
-------
Neil McBride
Aviation Consumer Action Project
m
/)
bJ
Catherine Lerza
Environmental Action
( mi )
George Anderson
Friends of the Earth
-------
General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Suite 1215
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
(202) 296-8846
GENERAL AVIATION MANIFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT REPORT
ON
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT
AND AIRPORT NOISE AND APPORTIONMENT OF
AUTHORITY BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE,
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE REPORT STUDY
TASK GROUP 1
June 20, 1973
-------
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association has been pleased to contribute
to the work of Task Group 1. Specific comments on the report are as follows:
1. The reconrnendation that noise certification standards be developed for all
aircraft categories for which standards do not now exist and that no
further .type certificate be issued until applicable standards have been
promulgated is already incorporated into the Federal Aviation Act by the
Noise Control Act of 1972. This requirement is not expected to create
an economic hardship for the manufacturers who wish to certify new (and
quieter) aircraft- types by causing delays in certification if the FAA can
expeditiously adopt the ICAO noise standard and test techniques. Etowever,
an interim standard will have to be adopted to acconraodate aircraft that
are in development and that are expected to receive their type certificates
before the operative date (January 1, 1975) of the ICAO standard. The
issues of acceptance and adoption of the ICAO standard and the adoption of
an interim standard are not adequately covered in this report. While it
is recognized that turbojet aircraft are the main source of aircraft noise,
the manufacturers of general aviation propeller driven aircraft are making
dilegent efforts to reduce the relatively low noise levels of propeller
driven aircraft to meet the ICAO standard. Appropriate recognition of
this fact and recognition of the international status of the U.S. as the
supplier of aircraft to the world would dictate a much stronger emphasis
in this report on the need to incorporate the ICAO standard, without
modification, into the U.S. regulations.
2. In accordance with the request of the Task Force Chairman to point out
minor errors in the report, it should be noted that under the title "National
Head Aid Freight Tax or Surcharge", the current aircraft fuel tax is 7 cents
per gallon, not 3 cents.
-------
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AVIATION OFFICIALS
SERVING THE AVIATION Ar.cNC !CS OF" THt. STATE'-,
SUITE 8O2 • 1OOO VERMONT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20OO5 • 2O2-783-O588
President
CHARLES MURPHY, Director
Aeronautics Commission
State of Texas
1st Vice President
GROVER JONES
State of Florida
2nd Vice President
ALLAN F. LANDOLT
State of Illinois
Treasurer
K. A. ROWE
State of Virginia
Regional Vice Presidents
WILLIAM E. HUNT
Montana
JOHN A. OWENS
Missouri
FRITZ E. WOLF
Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. RICHARDS
West Virginia
ALBERT R. TAVANI
Rhode Island
JAMES VERCELLINO
Arizona
KEITH W. LUTZ
Oklahoma
JOHN H. BENNETT
Georgia
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 2, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Caudra
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Richard Dwyer
California Division of Aeronautics
Department of Transportation
EPA Task Force I Comments
Executive Vice President
JOHN A. NAMMACK
The National Association of State Aviation Officials desires
that efforts to regulate aircraft noise by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration
provide a reasonable mechanism by which the nation's airports
and their communities can be made compatible with each other.
NASAO members recognize that regulation and control of aircraft
noise are necessary to insure that available noise reduction
measures are in fact employed.
Any regulation in this field must be carefully designed so as
to achieve the desired noise reductions without causing an
unacceptable reduction in the capabilities of the national air
transportation system. While recognizing the need to eliminate
unnecessary aircraft noise, we also recognize that the demand
for air transportation is growing, and is forecast to continue
its rapid growth.
Your difficult task of balancing both factors in charting the
proper course for future noise regulations is appreciated.
We believe that the desired reductions in noise can be achieved
through the enactment of reasonable airport and aircraft noise
regulations, proper land use planning around airports and by
the availability of funding or loan programs needed to implement
noise reduction programs. We also believe that your proposed
regulations will be reasonable, achievable, and considerate of
national air transportation needs. Proposals which would prevent
the air transportation system from meeting the demands placed
upon it would be unacceptable to NASAO.
The following positions are offered by NASAO for your use in
conjunction with Task Group I, the report to Congress, and in
the drafting of proposed regulations to be forwarded to FAA for
-------
Task Force I Comments - NASAO
Page #2
its action.
1. Noise methodology and limitation should be standardized by Federal
regulation throughout the U.S., with one temporary exception. The
California noise standards should be adopted as Federal regulations
for immediate and continued implementation within California until
such time as a Federal regulation becomes effective nationwide.
This has been requested by the California Attorney General's Office
and the California Department of Aeronautics.
2. New aircraft certification should continue to be done by FAA. The
maximum allowable noise levels for certification should be reduced
to the lowest reasonable level shown by research to be technologically
feasible commensurate with the applicable time period.
3. An appropriate source of funding for conversion of existing aircraft
to incorporate available state of the art noise reduction technology
must be developed. The economic feasibility problem must be solved
prior to requiring that existing aircraft be modified.
4. An appropriate source of funding should be developed for converting
incompatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport to compatible
uses where no other means of correcting the noise problem is practical.
5. After economic feasibility is established, existing aircraft should
be modified to operate within the noise levels of aircraft of the same
type which incorporate the most practical state of the art noise
reduction technology. These modifications should be accomplished as
rapidly as is reasonable once financing is assured.
6. The noise regulation to be adopted by FAA should:
a) provide identification of the noise environment which affects
human health and welfare.
b) require development of contour maps showing the specified health
and welfare contours, the airport layout, and the community land
use within the contours for airports with noise problems.
c) require noise reduction measures and land use conversions where
necessary so that people do not reside inside the noise contour
designated to be injurious to human health. Necessary funding
or loans should be made available immediately for this purpose.
d) require compatible land use within the contour defining the limit
of effect upon human welfare. Satisfying this requirement will
require a funding program and a long term scheduling of compliance
in order to be reasonable.
e) require that noise abatement flight procedures compatible with
safety requirements be used as standard procedure.
f) provide a means of preventing the use in civil courts of the
Federal noise regulations or the contours identifying health
-------
Task Force I Comments - NASAO
or welfare effects to show proof of damage or a taking of
property. The sola use of the contour definitions and
locations must be for the solution and prevention of noise
problems and not for legal actions.
7. Strengthening of land use control around airports is necessary.
Legislation by Federal, State and local governments should be
coordinated to discourage the movement of residential land uses
into areas which are or may become adversely affected by aircraft
noise. This "encroachment" problem continues to occur and is
difficult to prevent unless strong measures are enacted.
Immediate solutions to noise problems cannot be attained without committing
substantial sources of money to the task, or without reducing or curtailing
flight operations at many airports. We recommend a gradual solution to the
problem accommodating the economic and technological capabilities of the
owners of the nation's airports and aircraft to comply.
The full implications and costs of imposing compatible land use requirements
within certain specific contour lines are difficult to assess. Since there
is no way of knowing whether or not such a requirement will ever be achievable,
there must be a "reasonability valve." Our suggestion is that there be
provision for variances to the regulation where compliance is impossible.
-------
25 KNOB HILL ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT 06033
203 - 633-2835
^National Organization to Insure a^Sound-controUed Environment
June 30, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Chairman, Task Group 1
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force
U. 3. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 2, Crystal Mall
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
We have participated in each of the Task Groups of
this Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Ta&k Force and have
reviexved each of the Task Group Draft Final Reports.
We find that the recommendations of all Task Groups,
particularly with regard to action to be taken as a
result of this/ must'be coordinated and delineated in
the report of Task Group 1.
We find from an analysis of the state of the art in the
fields dealt with in Task Groups:
#2-aircraft operating procedures to abate noise,
#3~setting standards for noise,
#4-the technology of aircraft noise abatement, and
#5-the development of a pattern of regulations to
limit aircraft noise _• '
that important progress has been available in each of these
areas for several years which has not been utilized.
We find the reason for this situation to be the
legal/institutional structure which was established to
-------
Ms. ^lizabeth Cuadra Jane 30, 1973
Pace 2
control aircraft noise but which is incapable of per-
forming its intended function. We are therefore presenting;
a. A description of the present legal/institutional
structure for controlling aircraft noise with
an explanation of the reasons why it does not
function to control aircraft noise, and
b. a description of a revised legal/institutional
structure which would overcome the difficulties
in the present structure.
PART I
Present Legal/Institutional Structure
In the early days of tjhe air transport system in the U. S.
the Congress provided considerable assistance to this
infant industry. The aircraft used by the airlines
benefited to a major extent from the development of
military versions of both engines and airframes and the
airlines benefited from direct government subsidy.
The federal arency assigned to regulate the air transport
system, the FAA, as with its predecessor agencies,
was assigned the role of supporting and assisting in the
development of a strong and growing transport industry.
Any factor which seemed to have the potential for inter-
fering with airline growth, such as a reduction of
airline profits by imposition of extra costs, was perceived
oy botn the airlines and the FAA as highly undesirable.
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 3
When Holse suppressors were developed for the first
turbo-jet powered airline transports, severe penalties
v/ere incurred including a high loss of aircraft performance
per dB reduction in noise, as heard by people on the
ground under takeoff and landing operations. Also, the
aircraft were in need of extra takeoff thrust which
could be obtained by operating the engines at higiier
exhaust velocity and therefore, at higher noise levels.
Thus, the airlines and the PAA conceptualized high aircraft
noise levels as a factor associated with good aircraft
performance. Good aircraft performance was also associated.
with safety.
Other solutions were available, such as using larger
engines at lower exhaust velocity and lower noise, 'out these
solutions would have been less efficient and would have
produced less profit at the same airline ticket cost
and therefore, were not seriously considered.
The FAA thus found itself in the position of having as
^ts primary role the support of programs which would
result in a healthy vigorous air transport system and
with a secondary role of protecting airport neighbors from
aircraft noise. The PAA quickly concluded that to perform
well in its primary role it must protect the airlines
from any organization which would try to perform its
secondary role. Therefore it clung to its secondary role
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30. 1973
Page 4
and claimed federal preemption whenever the airlines were
threatened by airport neighbors. Thus the normal channels
such as the courts, poli'ce powers and federal legislation
have been blocked by the coordinated efforts of a powerful
government agency and a powerful industry which the
agency was supposed to regulate.
The position of the aircraft manufacturers was one of
going along with the airlines. As vendors they were
in competition for the favor of the airlines—their
customers. At Congressional hearings they tried to
please the airlines by contriving an implication
that everything was being done to reduce aircraft
noise that could be done and that anything more would
reduce safety. The Boeing Company stepped out of
line in presenting a paper in June of 1971, showing
how significant noise reductions could be achieved in
the operations of Boeing Aircraft. This paper has
produced angry reactions and threats of boycotting
Boeing products from the airlines and no support
from the FAA.
It should oe noted that the airlines are not all alike in
their resistance to taking steps which would reduce air-
craft noise near takeoff and approach flight paths. For
example, Northwest Airlines flight operations instituted
effective noise abatement procedures for takeoff and
proposed others requesting FAA approval which was never
-------
i'is. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 5
received for approach. Other airlines, especially Pacific
Soutnwest Airlines and Air California, have instituted
and are still using effective if not optimized noise
abatement flight procedures.
In 1968, the Congress passed, with the approval of
the airlines and the FAA, an act requiring the FAA to
establish noise limits for aircraft and to certify
aircraft for noise using tnese limits. The act called
for noise limits which would be "economically reasonable,
technologically practical, appropriate to the aircraft
type1 and safe. The more efficient high bypass ratio
engine cycle was being introduced at that time. The
dominent noise sources in hl<;h bypass engines are
internal instead of external and they can be abated by
inlet and discharge duct treatment.
^ASA arranged for the demonstration of accoustically
treated engine inlet and discharge ducts. The FAA
noise certification limits then called for noise levels
which resulted from the use of these two features, the
high bypass engine and treated ducts. However, the FAA
established a certification procedure to be used by the
aircraft manufacturers which could not and was not
intended to be used by the airlines in routine operation
and no noise abatement procedures of any kind were imposed
on airline use of the aircraft. In view of the fact
that noise on the ground is a function of both powerplant
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 6
design and aircraft operating procedures, this action by
the FAA insulated the airlines from any requirement for
noise abatement actions. The significant fallout benefit
to the airport neighbors was that the more efficient
engine cycle was basically quieter and could benefit from
duct treatment.
Aircraft Noise Exposure and Land Use
During the 1950fs the relationship between aircraft
operations (including aircraft noise, number of operations
and time of day of the operations) and the impact of these
operations on people living under aircraft takeoff and
approach flight paths was fairly well understood. A
cumulative noise exposure unit called composite noise
rating, or CNR, was developed for use in planning land use
in areas of high aircraft noise exposure near airports.
An FAA contractors report "Land Use Planning delating to
Aircraft Noise1', published October, 1964, describing the
use of CNR to indicate areas which should not be used
for residential purposes created a strong protest from
the aircraft industry. The PIIA started to withhold
approval of FHA mortgages in areas where the CNR
rating indicated that the aircraft noise impact would be
too high for residential use. Because of the airlines
demand that this information not be made available
regarding areas not suitable for residential use, the
PAA withdrew its CNR information. The FAA thus indicated
-------
.
-------
.'••,G . ~llzabeth Quadra June 30, 1973
Page 8
the aircraft noise 'Program .-valuation and Development
Jomrrdttee ' activity directed by the Presidents ' Office
of Science and Technology , wnen the FAA was being- pressured
to set limits on aircraft noise, it took the position that
it aid not nave authority to control aircraft noise (even
though the Attorney General's Office said it did have
such authority). The intention was to protect the a:lr-
lines from being suojected to noise limits vrnich the FAA
might ue forced to set. At the same tine an FAA lavr'er
vras tellin,- the judge in a law suit, where the FAA joined
the airlines and the airport (John F. ^ennedy) to prevent
the t//on of hemps tead from enforcing an aircraft noise
ordinance, that the FAA was in fact controlling the noise
of the aircraft on takeoff and approach at John F. Kennedy
Airport (even though the FAA does not yet have an operatinr
rule for either takeoff or approach). :Jhis v:as to establish
preemption by the federal government in order to protect
the airlines fror, noise lii:.its set oy sorr.e other authority.
Vhe above description of the manner in which the present
le;:al/Institutional structure functions to prevent any
action which would benefit the airport neighbors even with
capable FAA Administrators and FAA staff identifies the
problem as beimj in the le^al/institutional structure it-
self. For further substantiation note the record of lack
of FAA action on aircraft noise in Section V-6, first
-------
/is. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 9
paragraph. There it is stated that "since the advent of
FAR-36 there are two regulations, two NPRMs, three ANPRMs
and three project reports". This was a follow through of
two out of ten where the two regulations were PAR-36 which
was specifically required by Congress and the Sonic Boom
regulation, which still does not limit supersonic aircraft
noises on takeoff and approach.
It is also emphasized that the FAA cooperates with the
airlines not only in refusing to limit aircraft noise
itself but also in preventing any other agency to do so.
All of this takes place in a situation where aircraft
noise could be reduced by several orders of magnitude
without substantially affecting the economics of
airline operation.
PART II
Recommended Legal/Institutional Structure
The Noise Control Act of 1972, P. L. 92-574, gave EPA
the responsibility for establishing criteria for
all kinds of noise and for setting limits on all kinds
of noise except aircraft noise. The. reason for aircraft
noise being exempted from the EPA authority was that
aircraft noise had been the most serious community noise
problem in the past and it had already been assigned to
the PAA. The PAA requested that control of aircraft noise
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 10
remain with FAA. The airlines vigorously supported the
retention of control by the FAA. (The airlines wished to
continue the non control which the PAA had been able tiso
provide.)
Looking one layer below the surface we find that because
aircraft noise was a mojor problem the aircraft industry
had a strong lobby in Congress and presented a mass of
material at Congressional hearings to insure that aircraft
noise would remain with FnA. A correct reading of this
operation shows that the FAA is the only government
agency shielding an industry from the necessity for noise
reduction. It shows that of all kinds of noise, it is
most important that aircraft noise be handled by an
agency whicn can be objective with respect to both tne
operator of the noise source and the receiver of the noise.
The -
-------
I'ls. rllizabetn Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 11
do so by law, it is recommended that a legislative package
be passed by Congress spelling cut all of the government
agency responsibilities.
Aircraft l^oise Regulations—FAA
We recommend that the FAA, which is responsible for the
operation of the government facilities of the air transport
system and for certifying and licensing all aircraft equip-
ment and personnel used or working in the system.be
responsible for developing, implementing and enforcing
all aircraft noise regulations. It is deemed highly
Important that there be no divided responsibility regarding
regulations which involve both noise and safety. The claim
that noise abatement procedures would reduce safety has
been used for years to avoid the use of procedures which
would improve safety. However, even though the problem might
be only psychological, the FAA which is responsible
for safety should be in charge.
The FAA has all of the legal authority needed to carry
out the program outlined here. However, since the FAA
has refused to act in this area in the past, it is
recommended that a legislative package spell out the
FAA responsibilities and a schedule for action.
.;toise Criteria/.-loise Standards vs Land Use--.^PA
The i;oise Control Act of 1972,. P. L. 92-57^, section
5.(a)(2) states that the EPA shall within 12 months
..."'publish information on the levels of environmental noise
the attainment and maintenance of which in defined areas
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1973
Page 12
under various conditions are requisite to protect the
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety" .
These noise standards are a basic building block in the
structure required to establish control of aircraft noise.
The standards will apply to noise from all sources and
will identify noise levels considered acceptable from a
public health and welfare standpoint. Acceptable levels
will be established for residential areas outside and
inside of houses, in commercial areas and in industrial
and other areas.
It should be noted that these standards specify noise levels
that are requisite to protect the public health and
welfare. They say nothing about how these levels are
attained or the schedule on which they are to be attained.
l.o nev; legislation is required to give £PA this authority.
nowever, the legislative package should identify ^PA's role
particularly in establishing a schedule for achieving noise
levels which meet the public health and welfare criteria.
^eterffiination of What Is ah'TP£-— i-J
^HTPS is the criteria used in setting certification noise
limits for aircraft. It means that in setting the limits
due consideration should be given to whether the regulation
is ''economically reasonable, technologically practical,
and appropriate for the particular type of aircraft...
-------
i.s. ^llzabeth buadra June 30, 1973
Page 13
and "consistent with the highest degree of safety'1'.
.jAoA nas the highest degree of expertise, experience and
facilities of all government agencies for conducting research
and development in the field of aircraft noise abatement,
noise abatement operating procedures, safety of operations and
cost of aircraft or aircraft retrofits. As in the current
situation involving high bypass engines with low noise
fans and duct treatment and in the development of two
segment approach procedures, .«ASA is expected to provide
leadership and guidance for future aircraft designs with
otill lower noise levels.
,-,ASA has also determined cost benefit information for
various approaches to the aircraft noise problem. It
would therefore ue both more effective and more efficient
to have -TAoA specify noise certification levels which are
_h'T?L for new or retrofit aircraft,
xn addition to having the ^HTPS expertise, ,
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30} 1973
government control of Interstate and foreign commerce
and the states control of land use within the states.
This means that the federal government can limit aircraft
noise to certain areas in the environs of airports. It
is necessary that these areas be identified and that
land use planning within the states be coordinated with
airport operations so that the requirements for public
health and welfare of citizens within the states can be met
oince airports operating within a state are suoject to the
laws of the state, as well as being subject to federal laws
relating to the operation of tne air transport system, the
airport operator is in the position of dealing with
both the state and federal governments. From this
position he can therefore deal with tne state regarding
land use and with the federal government regarding aircraft
operation at his airport. The plan developed in this
study involves the use of airport certification for
noise by the FAA to Soordinate land use planning in areas
of high aircraft noise exposure levels near the airport
with aircraft operations.
..oise certification of airports by the FAA is now re-
quired by lav;. However, the PAA has taken no action
in this area and it is recommended that the legislative
package spell out the airport noise certification require-
ments and the schedule for certification. This airport
-------
.'is. Elizabeth Cuadra June 30, 1>73
Page 15
certification will require that a land use plan for the
high aircraft noise exposure areas oe developed by the
state, or some agent of the state, which will result
in land use which is compatible with the aircraft noise
according to the EPA standards established for public health
and welfare. It will be the responsibility of the airport
operator negotiating with the state land use planning
agency to achieve compatibility by means of limitations
on the types and numbers of aircraft operating at his
airport, time of day of operations, operating procedures
used, preferential runway limits on crosswind, tailwind,
etc., and/or limitations on land use and implementing
strategies for land use change.
Funding ofAircraft Noise Abatement/Land Use Chance--FAA
and States
In order to achieve effective noise abatement within tne
next generation; i.e., 20 years, or so, it will be
necessary to make relatively large investments in aircraft
and airport changes. (Aircraft models normally continue
in production for 10 years or more, and then some of these
aircraft normally are used in the air transport fleet for
another 10 years or more.) Therefore, funds will be
required beyond those contemplated by the airlines and
airports for normal operations. These Funds would be
used for:
a. retrofit of aircraft to improve aircraft control
during noise abatement approach and takeoff
orocedures.
-------
,ti Cuadra June 30, 1973
1'age 1C
b. Retrofits to aircraft to reduce noise emanating
from the engines and/or to install quieter engines.
c. Changes in the design of aircraft now in production
to achieve noise levels lower than the original design,
d. Changes in airport equipment to provide for
noise abatement approaches and takeoffs.
e. Changes in airport design to change locations of
noise impacted areas.
f. Changes in aircraft and airport runways to permit
greater use of preferential runways.
The funds for this work should be provided by charges to the
air transport system users. The federal government
gurantee of loans may be needed. These funds could be
assembled from a variety of sources.
One logical source is the AADA trust fund. Before additional
aircraft operations and noise are imposed on airport environs,
sorae of the daiaage already done should be rectified.
4
The head tax and an equivalent tax on freight and express,
on the basis of a fixed fee for each flight, is logical
since the noise impact is a function of the number to take-
offs and landings rather than distance travelled.
A noise surcharge landing fee is also a logical source of
funds since charges can be assessed in proportion to trie
cost to the Airport Operator for land use change required
as a result of the excessive aircraft noise. It
-------
.•us. _lizaoeth Cuadra
Page 18 June 30, 1973
Fart III
~ontlnuance of otate Programs
A considerable amount of effort has already gone into
aircraft noise abatement programs within the states in the
absence of a federal program. The federal government is
now taking its first steps in this area and finds that due
to the constitutional separation of powers there must be
state control of land use coordinated with federal control
of air transport operations to achieve noise levels in
residential areas meeting public health and welfare standards
It is therefore highly desirable that the necessary local
governmental structures not be destroyed1as the federal
government moves in but that they be encouraged to continue
.and expand so that they may be integrated into the system of
control needed to implement the federal plan.
The law requires that airports be certified for noise. The
PAA can require that the airport operator limit aircraft
operations so as to limit aircraft noise exposures to spec-
ified areas. To achieve noise exposure levels meeting
public health and welfare standards there must then be a
local (state or agent of the state) planning agency capable
of coordinating local planning with airport operators noise
exposure pattern. This agent must be authorized to enter
into contracts which will be legally binding on the airport
-------
Ks. Elizabeth Cuacira June 30, 1973
Page 17
also places pressure on the aircraft operator to either
phase out or retrofit noisy aircraft.
The channels for funds to airlines and airports can be
established by the PAA. However, the channels for funds
for land use change will necessarily be at the local level,
i.e., between the Airport Operator and the office of land
use control established by the state.
i_.n for cement of Airport Noise Certification Requirement S--FAA
The enforcement for aircraft and airport procedures can be
handled by the ?AA in its usual manner. Certificates can
be revoked where continued violations occur. The requirements
for land use control and land use change can be handled by
the FAA through its certification of the airport for noise.
n series of enforcement procedures could be applied
:;tartiny with loss of funds for airport improvements and
operations and ending with the loss of all federal services
for the operation.
The enforcement of noise abatement procedures must be applied
to all aircraft including foreign aircraft. Otherwise
the v/hole plan is ineffective. Since it will take tine to
implement the plan, foreign aMines will have time to promote
an international agreement through ICAG, similar to the
U.S. plan, or to arrange to use aircraft in their *J. J.
operations which meet U. S. requirements.
-------
i'ls. Elizabeth Cuadra
Page 19 June 30, 1973
operator as the agent in control of aircraft noise and the
regional planning authority as the agent in control of land
use in the airport environs.
There are at least two states, California and Minnesota, which
are in the process of implementing state laws for the control
of noise. The California lav/ covers aircraft noise specifi-
cally and the Minnesota lav/ covers all nan made noise.
It is recommended that federal legislation authorize the
continuance of state activities where:
1. State noise standards have been adopted.
2. Regional land use planning agencies have been
established.
3. An authority exists which can negotiate with the
airport operator and contract to zone for specific
land uses in the airport environs.
The experience of these pioneer programs will be of immense
value in implementing a nationwide noise abatement program.
Establishment of NASA as an Air Transport System R&D
Organization for Noise Abaterne n_t_.
As mentioned ealier in this position paper it is recommended
that i^ASA be designated as the federal agency to determine
what is ERI'PS, i.e., economically reasonable, technologically
practical and safe in noise abatement designs and operating
procedures. We are recommending at this point that NASA be
given the broader assignment of developing means for reducing
aircraft noise to lower levels in a continuing research
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Quadra June 30, 1973
Page 20
program. It is known for example, that a large fraction of
the major hub airports are situated such that with realigned
runways and aircraft operable at higher crosswind and tailwind
components the high noise exposure areas could be shifted
from locations where land use change would be expensive to
locations where land use change would be inexpensive. This
and other studies which require a systems approach have a
high potential for benefit to the aircraft noise abatement
problem.
Sincerely,
*
/~\
<,p6jhn M. Tyler/^nd Lloyd vT Hint on, Executive Directors
-------
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
May 4, 1973 RECEIVED
MAY 41973
MEMORANDUM ' / ' 2 2-
TO: Elizabeth Cuadra, Office of Noise Abatement, EPA
FROM: Larry Snowhite
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Chapter 1, Aircraft/Airport Noise Report
The following are recommendations based upon the National Municipal Policy of the
National League of Cities and the Resolutions adopted by the United States Conference
of Mayors. These two organizations jointly represent over 15,000 municipalities
throughout the United States .
A. Intergovernmental Responsibilities
1. The Environmental Protection Agency should be responsible for aircraft
noise standards, and should be the lead Federal agency for aircraft noise abatement
efforts .
2. The Federal government and aircraft operators should accept full responsibility
for the payment of damage claims resulting from aircraft pollution. The Federal govern-
ment should provide assistance for relocation, redevelopment, and soundproofing near
airports.
3. The Department of Transportation must develop safe, uniform aircraft
operating procedures at airports which minimize noise annoyance to nearby communities.
Airport certification should be on the basis of noise as well as on safety factors.
4. The Federal government should support advance acquisition of land or
quisition of land or other property interests in and around airports.
ac
5. The siting and development of airports must be controlled by general purpose
local governments and the state. Local decision-making for airport siting and development
should be based on federal and state standards and criteria. La.nd use controls could be
delegated to airport operators, special districts, or regional entities, subject to ultimate
responsibility and accountability to general purpose local governments.
6. Local governments and airport operators must have authority to impose more
stringent or additional requirements on aircraft or airport operations.
1620 Eye Street, N.W., Washington D C. 20006 / 202-293-7300
-------
B. Source Noise Reduction
1. Emission controls on aircraft must be established by January 1, 1977, including
retrofit or retirement of existing aircraft.
2. Engines on existing aircraft should be retrofitted if necessary, to make them at
least as quiet as the levels specified in Part 36, Federal Aviation Regulations.
3. The maximum allowable noise levels specified in Part 36, Federal Aviation
Regulations must be lowered approximately to 10 EPndB for aircraft certified after
January 1, 1980.
4. Any supersonic transport operating to or from U.S. airports must meet
maximum noise limits no greater than the levels specified in Part 36 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations for subsonic aircraft. Overflights creating sonic booms over
populated land areas should be prohibited,
C. Reduction of Noise Through Operation Controls
1. FA A should establish airport/community noise exposure standards accounting
not only for the noise level of individual flights, but the cumulative noise from successive
flights during the day, and particularly nighttime flights.
2. Flight procedure requirements to reduce noise must be adopted by EPA and
FAA, including steep landing approaches, reduced thrust takeoffs, increased load factor
on commercial airlines and regulations on flight patterns, number, routing and scheduling.
3. The Federal, state, and local governments must be able to impose curfews
on noisy airports.
4. Local governments and airport operators should have the authority to levy
differential fees based on aircraft noise, and/or fines for violation of state and local
noise standards.
-------
BOARD Of TRUSTEES
Stephen P Duggan, Esq.
chalrman
l)r Dean t Abrahamson
Mrs LOUIS Auchmcioss
Boris I Bitlker, Esq.
John T Booth. F.sq.
r-red-vick Ablins. Jr . Esq.
Dr Kene J. Dubos
James B Frankel, Esq.
Robert W Gilmore
Dr Joshua Lederherg
James Marshall. Esq.
Kuhy G Martin. Esq.
Anthony Mazzocchi
Michael Mclntosh
John B. Oakes
>r Gifford B. Pinchot
; >hn R Robinson, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
664 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Calif. 94301
^15 327-1080
May 4, 1973
Washington Office
1710 N. Street. N W
Washington, D C 20036
202 783 5710
^ y k Qff
'
1 5 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
212 869 0150
i>r George M woodweii
Kdwm M Zimmerman. Esq.
JohL"cuA,taemD,reScL
Ms- Elizabeth Cuadra
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
Attached are our final recommendations, with
a brief discussion of the considerations which led
us to make them. You will see that they are
substantially an enlargement on our preliminary
ones.
We have received useful comments from several
members of the Task Group on our -ection draft. We
plan to send you our final versior special delivery
this week-end.
~\
Sincerely yours .
L -
John E. Bryson
Craig W. Johnson
JEB:gen
Enclosure
RECEIVED
MAY 81973
1/133
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The FAA Should Promulgate Final Noise Emission
Standards for All Aircraft Presently in Commercial
and Private Use As Soon As Possible ,
2. The FAA Should Require Elimination of Incompatible Land
Use Around Airports As A Condition of Airport Operating
Certificates, and Should Issue Guidelines for Definition
of Incompatible Land Use 2
3. To Eliminate Uncertainty Over the Scope of Federal Pre-
emption and Much Costly Litigation, We Suggest An Amend-
ment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 Clarifying
Congressional Intent on the Preemption Question, i.e.,
What Powers Are Given Exclusively to the FAA Under the
Act and What Powers Are Left for State and Local Govern-
ments to Control Aircraft and Airport Noise "
4. To Ensure Development of Guidelines for Elimination of
Incompatible Land Use Around Airports Which Adequately
Protect Public Health and Welfare, The Noise Control
Act of 1972 Should Be Amended to Require the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to Develop and Adopt a System for
Measuring and Reducing Cumulative Noise Impact Around
Airports and to Use the System to Obtain Quantitative
Data for All Major Airports in the United States 10
5. To Help Finance the Cost of Eliminating Incompatible
Land Uses Around Airports While Placing the Costs of
Noise Reduction Primarily on the Air User, the Congress
Should Pass Legislation Establishing an Airport Noise
Trust Fund to Be Funded by a Head Tax on Air Passengers
and Freight Shippers and Used to Provide Low or No
Interest Loans to Airport Operators for Purchase of
Full Fee Interests in Residential and Other Property
Determined by the EPA to be Incompatible with Existing
Airport Noise Levels, and to Compensate People Living
Within and Without the EPA-Determined Areas for Any
Noise Damage They May Have Suffered. 12
-------
FINAL PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TASK GROUP REPORT
We have divided our recommendations for reducing
airport and aircraft noise into two parts: those which
can be accomplished now under existing laws and those
which require additional legislation by the Congress.
While we consider both sets of recommendations to be
necessary to solve the problems which are presently
preventing effective action against the aircraft noise
problem, we feel that delay in passing new legislation
should not be used as an excuse for failure to take
all steps available now to reduce aircraft and airport
noise. People living near airport runways continue to
be exposed to noise levels which jeopardize their health
and interfere with the use and enjoyment of their property.
Relief for these people should be delayed no longer than
absolutely necessary.
With each recommendation we have included a brief
discussion of the considerations which led us to make it.
We hope this elaboration will place our suggestions for
specific action in a broader context, and make clear what
we have in mind and why.
-------
WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN NOW TO REDUCE NOISE
1) The FAA Should Promulgate Final Noise Emission
Standards for all Aricraft Presently in Commercial and
Private Use as Soon as Possible.
At present, more than four years after passage of
5 611 directing the FAA to set noise emission standards
for new and existing types of aircraft, almost 95% of
aircraft currently in commercial use—'• and most private
!
business jets are not covered by such standards. Air-
i
craft types certified before the effective date of the
present type-certification regulations (such as Boeing
707, 727, 737, DC 8 and 9) are not covered. This is the
great majority of planes, including the noisiest aircraft,
and new aircraft of some of these types are still being
produced today. In addition, general aviation aircraft
remain unregulated. These business jets and helicopters
represent a serious and rapidly growing noise problem at
many urban airports. While we recognize the expense and
technical difficulties involved in retro-fitting older
aircraft or reducing total fleet noise levels, we feel
final adoption of such standards would provide guidance
—- Preliminary figures supplied by Task Group V. In
October 1972, only 111 of 21.35 aircraft in commercial
operation in the U.S. were covered by FAR 36 type
certification noise standards.
-------
of compatible land use around airports over a 15-year
period.
A problem with this approach is the money in-
evitably required to buy up property around airports
to achieve the desired compatible use "buffer" zone.
This figure is not as large as some sources have
estimated, since the cost of full fee acquisition can
be largely recovered through conversion of the property
to profitable compatible uses. Los Angeles International
Airport, for example, is purchasing full fee interests
in property around its runways and expects substantial
revenue from the compatible uses it intends to install
(remote air terminals, air freight depots, parking
facilities and a golf course are presently planned).—'
But the initial cost of such an approach may still create
difficulties for many airport operators.
One equitable and economically sound solution might
be for Congress to establish a trust fund for such initial
land acquisition funded by an air user "head" tax on all
air passengers and freight shippers.—< Money collected
from the "head" tax would be used d) to pay the interest and
other carrying costs on long term low- or no-interest loans
made by the government to airport operators to buy up and
—f Telephone conversation with Mr. Bert Lockwood, Assistant
Manager Los Angelas International Airport, April 30, 1973.
s/
—- This proposal is discussed more fully in recommendation
5.
-------
convert surrounding residential and other land determined
by the FAA to be incompatible with existing noise levels,
and (2) to compensate people living within or without the
incompatible areas for any noiae damage they may have
suffered. This trust fund would place the ultimate costs
of elimination of incompatible land use on the persons who
most benefit from air commerce, the air user. Federal
money from general tax revenues might be added to this
trust fund to the degree Congress feels the general public,
as distinguished from actual air users, benefit from air
commerce. This benefit, although substantial, is relatively
small when compared with the immediate and tangible
benefits derived from air passengers and shippers.
With the exception of the establishment of the
airport noise trust fund,, all our recommendations for
elimination of incompatible land use around airports
(developing a system for measuring cumulative cummunity
noise impact and setting stepwise noise reduction standards
for all major airports) can be accomplished now by the FAA.
Unfortunately, we have little confidence that the FAA
will take these actions In the near future. The FAA did
develop an index for community noise impact (the Noise
Exposure Forecast technique) and at one time intended to
promulgate land use guidelines for all major airports, but
abandoned these plans when it became clear that the courts
might use such standards as evidence of noise damage in
-------
inverse condemnation and nuisance suits.
As will be discussed later, we feel that the EPA
would be better qualified to develop and set such standards
around airports for cumulative noise exposure.—
WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN WHICH REQUIRE
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
3) To Eliminate Uncertainty Over__t_he Scope of
Federal Preemption and Much Costly Litigation, We Suggest
An Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 Clarifying
Congressional Intent on the Preemption Question, i.e.,
What Powers are Given Exclusively to the FAA Under the
Act and What Powers are Left' for State and Local Govern-
ments to Control Aircraft and Airport Noise?
At present there is much uncertainty about the
scope of regulatory powers of local and state governments.
These governments are in most cases reluctant to do any-
thing about airport noise problems in their jurisdictions.
because any regulations will be challenged by the airlines
which contend that state and local regulation in this area
—The EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control has been
given primary responsibility for development of -noise standards
for other forms of transportation and products in interstate
commerce under the Noise Control Act of 1972 and thus already
has or is developing expertise for what levels are necessary
to protect public health and welfare. The FAA's expertise,,
in contrast, is concentrated primarily in the area of aviation
safety.
-------
has been preempted by federal legislation. Lawsuits
now in the courts challenging a local curfew ordinance
and the California airport noise reduction system are
examples. Such lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming
for all parties involved. Every time a new ordinance
is enacted and challenged, many of the same issues are
likely to be relitigated.—'
The uncertainty over the scope of federal pre-
emption has also contributed to the FAA's failure to
take effective action. The FAA has sought to avoid
upsetting the present Supreme Court rule that airport
operators, and not the federal government, are financially
responsible for noise damage around airports. The Court's
rationale was that airport operators have some power to
control aircraft operations, and must thus bear responsibility
for resulting noise. The FAA has refrained from more
comprehensive noise regulation lest the courts conclude
that local noise control efforts are preempted and shift
financial liability for noise damage to the federal government.
Much of the present confusion could be eliminated
by an amendment to the Federal Aviation Act clarifying
Congressional intent on the preemption question. The
—~ The BurbanJc case now pending before the Supreme Court.
may settle ""some of these questions. But we feel a legislative
clarification of intent on this question would still be
desirable,
-------
courts have been placed in the position of having to
infer Congresssional intent from a mass of often contra-
dictory evidence, which results in expensive and re-
petitive litigation. To eliminate this problem, Congress
should expressly state which powers it intended to give
exclusively to the FAA, and which powers could be exercised
concurrently by the FAA and state and local governments.
The question of which powers should be given to
the FAA exclusively and which may be shared by state and
local governments is a difficult one. It is probably
preferable to leave regulation where uniformity is not
required to local governments. Although for safety reasons
many operating rules (such as flight path location) will
have to continue to be determined exclusively by the FAA
(since such rules require coordination among many airports
and uniformity), local communities might, for example,
retain power to set restrictions on the number of flights
per day using certain flight-paths over noise-impacted
neighborhoods, and states should have the authority to
set land use compatibility requirements more stringent than
those established by the federal government. Such a policy
would leave much power to control noise in the hands of
the people most affected by the problem, while ensuring
that those aircraft operations requiring uniform rules
and coordination will not be in conflict.
-------
4) To Ensure Development of Guidelines for Elimina-
tion of Incompatible Land Use Around Airports Which Adequately
Protect Public Health and Welfare, The Noise Control Act of
1972 Should Be Amended to Require the Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control of the Environmental Protection Agency to
Develop and Adopt a System for Measuring and Reducing
Cumulative Noise Impact Around Airports and to Use the System
to Obtain Quantitative Data for All Major Airports in the
United States.
As stated in Recommendation 2, the FAA already has the
power to develop such guidelines for elimination of incompatible
land use but has failed to do so. We feel that the EPA is
better qualified to develop such standards and regulations
because of its mandate under the Noise Control Act to set
such quantitative standards adequate to protect public health
and welfare in many other fields, including ground transporta-
tion. In addition, the EPA is not faced with the institutional
conflict between promotion of cheap, efficient air transpor-
tation and expensive noise control measures which confronts
the FAA.—/
We have in mind a system similar to that now in use
in California, where a cumulative noise index (CNEL) was
adopted and a timetable established for a stepwise reduction
8/
—This is not to suggest that the EPA or any other public agency
should set noise standards without consideration of cost. Rather
it stems from the recognition (more fully discussed in our draft
of Part 3) that the FAA has, in pursuing its authorization to
promote cheap air transportation so fully identified itself with
the airlines that it has been incapable as an institution of
acting on behalf of other interests, such as the noise-impacted
public, where such action is strongly opposed by the airlines.
-------
in airport noise levels or incompatible land area. We
feel the EPA should promulgate and enforce such a system
for all major airports across the country. Such airport
noise reduction and elimination of incompatible land use
conflicts in no way with the FAA mandate to preserve air
transportation safety. The EPA would not, for example,
be given the power to set design noise criteria for new
and fisting aircraft, such as are now contained in the
type certification regulations. The cumulative noise
limit regulations adopted by EPA would be directed at
land use, and would be set to protect public health and
welfare. Such regulations would be a significant step
toward internalizing noise costs and eliminating the
inequitable situation of leaving the costs of noise on
the people who happen to live near airports. The in-
ternalization of costs, as more fully explained in
numerous economic analyses, would encourage a more optimal
allocation of transportation resources.
We feel full fee land acquisition and conversion
of incompatible to compatible uses is the best solution
to the problem of noise-impacted areas around airports.
To accomplish this goal of compatible land "buffer" zones
around airports without putting an impossible financial
burden on airport operators, airlines or local taxpayers,
we suggest an air user "head" tax partially subsidized out
of general taxpayer revenues, discussed more fully in
Recommendation 5.
-------
5) To Help Finance the Cost of Eliminating
Incompatible Land Uses Around Airports While Placing the
Costs of Noise Reduction Primarily on the Air User, the
Congress Should Pass Legislation Establishing an Airport
Noise Trust Fund to Be Funded by a Head Tax on Air Passengers
and Freight Shippers and Used to Provide Low-or No-Interest
Loans to Airport Operators for Purchase of Full Fee Interests
in Residential and Other Property Determined by the EPA to Be
Incompatible with Existing Airport Noise Levels and to
Compensate People Living Within and Without the EPA-Determined
9 /
Areas for Any Noise Damage They May Have Suffered.—'
This proposal is somewhat similar to the head tax
recently imposed on air passengers at airports near Paris,
France/ but it differs in that the money collected would
be used to pay interest on long term government loans to
airport operators for acquisition of property within EPA-
determined zones of incompatible land use around airports
rather than exclusively for remedial measures such as
soundproofing homes.
9/
—We have not attempted to work out the details of the
trust fund mechanism, and recognize that more work and
refinements are required. For example, it would be
useful to know how much the average head tax per passenger
would be, given different assumptions. We do not have the
expertise or information to make such calculations to test
the practicability of the proposal, so it must necessarily
be regarded as tentative.
-------
The trust fund would also be used to compensate
those who have suffered demonstrable noise damage. To
ignore such past damage would be unfair to the people
who have been injured. The costs should be borne by
those who benefit rather than allowing them to lie on
those who chance to live or work in noise-impacted areas.
Since the aircraft operator is less able to pass the
costs of damage compensation on to aircraft users, we
would impose that liability on the federal government
which could set the proposed head tax accordingly and
better administer and distribute the funds collected.
It is our feeling that acquisition of full fee
property interests is preferable to acquisition of noise
or airspace easements and to payment of noise damages.
With easements and damages the airport operator is unable
to take advantage of the economic benefits the location
of the airport has created for nearby property owners,
and may end up paying much of the market price of the
property over a period of time without acquiring
permanent title to the property. By full fee acquisition
the airport operator in a real sense has taken a construc-
tive step towards reducing the noise problem by placing
a buffer strip between the airport and residential
neighborhoods. He may also derive substantial revenue
from converting the acquired property to more compatible
uses, such as terminals and parking areas.
-------
The costs of land acquisition initially will be
substantial, although much of the cost may eventually be
recovered through revenue from the more compatible uses
just discussed. For this reason we feel it would be
inequitable and economically unsound to expect that
airport operators, airlines or even local taxpayers
should be required to bear this initial expense. Accepted
economic theory states that beneficiaries of an activity
such as air commerce should bear its true costs, in order
that the market may accurately decide the desirability of
that activity as compared to other competing ones. Thus
the air users (the air passengers, general aviation users
and air freight shippers), who are the primary beneficiaries
of air commerce, should be the ones to pay the majority of
the costs of eliminating incompatible land uses around
airports.
The mechanisms we propose for this placement of costs
on the air user is a passenger and shipper "head"tax, which
would fund a trust for land acquisition and conversion around
airports. We recognize that there are other beneficiaries
of air commerce besides air passengers and shippers. Every-
one who uses the mails to some degree benefits from air
commerce. But we feel on balance that these secondary benefits
are small when compared to the more direct and substantial
benefits passengers and shippers derive. To compensate for
these secondary benefits, we feel the trust fund could in
part be supplemented by funds taken from general tax revenues.
-------
But we stress that the percentage of such a contribution
should be relatively small, so that the more important
beneficiaries pay most of the costs.
Money from the head tax would be used in part to
pay interest and other carrying costs on long-term, low-
or no-interest loans by the federal government to airport
operators to finance full fee purchase of land determined
to be incompatible with existing noise levels. The air-
port operators would repay the loans over specified periods
of time from revenues from compatible uses such as parking
areas, air terminals, and hotels which they establish in
the areas purchased. Interest payments on the loans would
be paid for by a small increase in passenger fares and
freight rates while incompatible areas were converted to
compatible uses. At the end of the period the trust fund
would be discontinued.
A second use for trust fund money would be to com-
pensate those who have suffered and can prove noise damage.
The law establishing the trust fund could set a period of
limitations for such claims to be filed. No claims after
the cutoff date would be allowed. It might be best to
establish a special compensation board which would have
expertise in the types of damage suffered and would contribute
equitable uniformity to compensation awards.
Because of the large amount of money initially re-
quired to convert incompatible uses to compatible ones, it
would probably be desirable to plan a stepwise elimination
of incompatible uses over a ten- to twenty-year period,
-------
following the example of California's airport noise law.
EPA areas of incompatible use might be divided into
several belts around airports. Airport operators would
receive federal loans to purchase and convert land in
tiue innermost belt first, and then purchase and convert
cuter belts at required time intervals. Property prices
for condemnation purposes could be determined as of establish-
ment of the trust fund. An alternative plan might be to
condemn all land considered incompatible by the EPA at
one time, but allow present uses to continue and in effect
pay rent until they were finally displaced, thus reducing
the final cash price paid for the property. These schemes
are intended to spread acquisition costs out over a period
of years and reduce the size of the loan initially needed
to airport operators for such a conversion.
-------
SIERRA CLUB
Mills Tower, San l-rancisco 94104
June 15, 1973
RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY THE SIERRA CLUB TO
TASK GROUP I OF THE EPA AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
The Sierra Club is in general agreement with the draft Recom-
mendations prepared by Task Group I and dated May 31, 1973. The Club
wishes, however, to reinforce and specifically endorse two of the recom-
mendations and to add three further ones.
1. The Sierra Club supports draft Recommendation No. 1 that
the federal government promulgate, administer and enforce an airport
noise regulation designed to limit the cumulative noise exposure received
in residential communities.
While maximum allowable levels for single noise events should
be set, such single event noise limitations are insufficient as quantifi-
cations of the adverse effect of an airport's noise upon a neighboring
residential community. The impact upon the health and welfare of citi-
zens exposed to airport noise is significantly related not only to a
peak amplitude, but also to the number of noisy events per unit time,
the total duration of noise, and the time of day during which the noisy
events occur. It is imperative that all these factors be recognized in
regulating noise emission from airports.
It is equally imperative that airports have relatively simple
guidelines which determine whether they are complying with applicable
federal and state laws and regulations. The CNEL and LDN systems would
provide such protection both to the citizens assaulted by the noise, since
they take into account the variables listed above, and to the airports
which must decide whether they are operating within acceptable standards,
since the systems are relatively simple in measurement and compaucitiicri
scheme.
2. The Sierra Club supports Recommendation No. l(a) that the
California Airport Noise Regulation, which provides for the CNEL method
of determining cumulative noise, be adopted as a federal FAA regulation
for implementation in California.
The CNEL method ip a simple one which permits computation of
the noise exposure limit from measurements which are readily raada with
-1-
-------
standard instruments, without the necessity of going through excessively
complicated equations and analysis to determine the index of cumulative
noise. It is also compatible, with minor changes, with the LDN method
proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The permitted use in California of the CNEL method will there-
fore provide a test, within one state, of the proposed federal LDN method.
One of the values of our federal constitutional system is that it permits
experimentation by the individual states to the ultimate benefit of all
states. To deny California the right to continue to enforce its regula-
tions, already being implemented, will penalize the citizens of the State
of California who have taken the lead in devising methods of controlling
airpor-- nois .: in a way which is fair both to the residential citizens
who are impacted, by uhe noise, and to the airport operators who must
live within the communities. It will also penalize the citizens of the
other forty-nine states, who would otherwise have the benefit of an ad-
vance testing of the proposed cumulative noise measurement method.
3. The Sierra Club recommends that Congress direct the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make a public announcement
in the Federd^. Reg^s-cer each time that agenc\ , through its ongoing research
into aircraft technology and operations, determines that a particular
noise abatement strategy, if embodied in a statute or regulation, would
be (a) safe; (b) effective; and (c) practical, in providing relief from
aircraft noise, and that NASA, in such announcements, shall give its esti-
mate of the cost of implementing such a strategy.
4, The Sierra Club recommends that Recommendation No. 3 of the
. eft be modified so as to include general aviation aircraft within the
• pa of federal noise regulation. This may be accomplished by altering
. ,. -first paragraph to read "whereas the attainment and maintenance of
r.. v.ulative noise exposure levels consistent with public health and wel-
fare needs is heavily dependent upon rapid realization of quieter air-
craft - including jet air carrier fleets, business jets, and general
aviation aircraft - the Task Group recommends an accelerated program of
federal regulation of aircraft noise, ..."
5. The Sierra Club recommends that draft Recommendation No. 1
bring military airports within the scope of airport noise regulation.
Thus Recommendation l.B.3. .should be modified to read; "'The timetable
for compliance, determined by EPA, applicable., nationwide to all existing
airports, including military airports.
Recommendations prepared by
MARJORIE W. EVANS
Danaher, Gunn & Klynn
2600 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California
-------
TVASNAC
TOWN-VILLAGE AIRCRAFT SAFETY & NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE
196 CENTRAL AVENUE • LAWRENCE, NEW YORK 11550
(516) 371-233O
TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD
Pillages of
ATL/,m'ic BEACH
CEDA&HURST
EAST ROCKAWAY
FLORAL PARK
GARDEN CITY
HEMPSTEAD
HEWLETT BAY PARK
HEWLETT HARBOK
HEWLETT NECK
ISLAND PARK
LAWRENCE
LYNBROOK
NEW HYDE PARK
RUSSELL GARDENS
STEWART MANOR
VALLEY STREAM
WQOBSBUKGH
City of
LONG BEACH
CLIFFORD A. DEEDS
Director
May 24th, 1973
TVASNAC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ABATEMENT
OF JET AIRCRAFT NOISE POLLUTION
TVASNAC substantially agrees with the recommendations,
developed by the Task Force studying airport/aircraft noise,
insofar as they go. We regret that greater consideration
was not given to the subject of airport curfews and that
little or no consideration was given to the matter of
capacity agreements as a means of noise attenuation.
Many of the matters considered should result over a
period of time in an abatement of jet noise pollution.
However, at the best we foresee a period of five to eight
years before such limited relief can be effective. In the
meantime millions of people who have been harassed for
years by this form of pollution must continue to be
harassed in an unbearable manner unless other action is
taken.
The medical profession, through many studies, has
proven the absolute necessity of a proper night's sleep
for man to retain his equanamity and to live the life of
well being to which he is entitled. It is not necessary
-------
2 -
to waken a person from his sleep, it is only necessary to interrupt
his dreams, to inflict serious physiological and psychological damage.
We have made a study of the many claims by the airline industry of
economic chaos if airport curfews are instituted. We have found,
almost without exception, that such claims are either fallacious or
are not viable. The results of our studies are available for anyone
desiring to check them.
TVASNAC strongly recommends the institution of an airport curfew
from midnight to 6 a.m. the following morning.
Capacity agreement trials have proven that the participant airlines
can reduce operating costs by multi-millions of dollars, can increase
percentage of occupancy to the point where the lines are operating at a
profit, and can result in a savings of fuel by the billion gallons
annually without loss of service to airline passengers.
In our estimation, what is equally important is the fact that
controlled industry-wide capacity agreements would also result in 25%
or more fewer jet aircraft overhead.
TVASNAC strongly recommends the institution of industry-wide airline
capacity agreements.
In addition to the foregoing TVASNAC recommends the following actions
as necessary, along with other actions, to achieve a degree of abatement
of jet aircraft noise pollution that would help bring such noise down to
a humanly tolerable level.
Control of aircraft noise over residential areas contiguous to air-
ports. The establishment of maximum noise operating levels for aircraft
would be very helpful towards attaining such control. Retrofitting of
both engines and nacelles would make such control possible and feasible.
-------
Airport ground noise regulations to contain the extraordinary noise
emanations from airports should be required. Such regulations should
take into consideration the muffling of engines at warm-ups, the perform-
ance of such warm-up with aircraft in best location and facing direction
most likely to avoid annoying residents in contiguous area to airport,
and similar attention to any high level noise emanating from ground
operations of an airport.
A joint industry-government retrofit program. For many years the
airline industry turned a deaf ear to our pleas for abatement of the
noise pollution for which they were responsible. They were aided and
abetted in this attitude by th.fi government in the form of the FAA by
consistent refusal to take any action until recent years. TVASNAC
considers that the present pollution results largely from this attitude
and that therefore the government should immediately join with the air-
line industry in a nacelle and engine retrofit program.
A retrofit program should &e paid for out of special taxes or charges
to th,e airline industry and its users, and not out of general taxes.
A joint industry-government R&D program for new aircraft. All of the
foregoing will assist greatly in reducing jet aircraft noise pollution but
the ultimate answer to the problem is a fleet of low noise emission aircraft,
We feel that the immensity of this noise pollution problem requires urgent
and intensive action, probably best headed by a federal office dedicated
t
to the solution of the problem. This is such a long range program at the
best that action on such a joint program cannot begin soon enough.
Millions of Americans live,under intolerable conditions resulting from
jet aircraft noise pollution. TVASNAC urges the adoption of an integrated
program that will bring relief to these people, starting immediately.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20410
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOH
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
20 1973
Mr. John C. Schattino
Director, Aircraft/Airport Noi§« Study
Office of Boise Abatement and CoatroX
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20U5Q
Dear Mr. Schettinos
We would like to take this opportunity to sxpreas our general
faction with the work of EPA Task Force which was organised to -provide
recommendation* for dealing with the aircraft/airport noise problems,
Unfortunately, we were able to provide only limited assistance! to
three of the Task Groups due to staff shortages and other pressing
assignnents; however, I am enclosing our general observations and
position on nany of the preliminary recommendations of the Task Fores.
We will continue to support the activities of the Envlrornaental
Protection Agency in the aircraft /airport noise program, and will be
happy to provide whatever assistance we can to the EPA in this effort,
Since
Enclosure
-------
Department at .Bousing and IMmn Development
Comments on
EECCMMESMTIOIS 01 THE EPA TASK FORCE 01 JUBCRAFT/AERPOHT BOISE PROBLEMS
A. gup *
It has long been ItUD's policy to encourage the . creation and maintenance
of a quiet environment,, To further this goal, HUD issued, on August k,
1971, a policy Circular on-.:"Noise Abatement and Controls Departmental
Policy, Implementation Responsibilities and Standards." This policy
was promulgated, after several years of development, in sn effort to ful-
fill the Department's mandate to "provide a -decent home and a suitable
living environment for every American family". With the issuance of this
policy, HUD stated its conviction that "noise is a major source of envi-
ronmental pollution which represents a threat to the serenity and quality
of life in population centers." The policy formalized and expanded
existing FHA noise regulations which had been in effect for many years,
and drew upon the work of several other" agencies and groups and on a
long standing and developing body of knowledge in the area.
The policy establishes noise exposure policies and standards to be ob-
served in the approval or disapproval of all HUD projects; it supersedes
thos^ portions of existing program regulations and guidance documents
which have less demanding noise exposure requirements. Further, it is
HUD's general policy to foster the creation of controls and standards
for community noise abatement and control by general purpose agencies of
State and local governments. HUD also requires that noise exposures and
sources of noise be given adequate consideration as an integral part of
urban environments in connection with all HUD programs which provide
financial support to planning. The policy emphasizes the importance of
compatible land use planning in relation to airports , other general modes
of transportation, and other sources of high' noise, and. supports the use
of planning funds to explore ways of reducing environmental noise to
acceptable exposures by use of appropriate methods. Reconnaissance
studies 5 and, where justifiable, studies in depth for noise control and
abatement will be considered allowable costs.
Because HUD's noise standards are technically specific in nature, the
Department has published "?Toise Assessment Guidelines"., a manual to pro-
vide HUD's personnel and the general public with a practical methodology
for preliminary evaluation of noise levels at given project sites. An
important facet of the Department's noise control activities is a con-
tinuing program of sponsored research into various aspects of the cause
and effects of environmental noise. Typical of these is a series of
Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement -Policy Studies, funded jointly by
HUD and the Department of Transportation. This work was summarized and
-------
-2-
extended in the form of a guideline manual, to help localities plan com-
munity growth in the vicinity of airports. The manual discusses the costs,
benefits and limitations of alternative methods of noise alleviation such
as compatible land use development, zoning, and noise attenu ation measures
in building construction. Applicable to all type of airports, it will be
used to develop procedures for dealing with a variety of local airport
noise situations. It also contains relevant information on Federal and
State programs to assist in achieving compatible airport-community de-
velopment. The manual entitled "Aircraft Noise Impact: Planning Guide-
lines for Local Agencies," is now in printing by the Government Printing
Office and will be given wide distribution.
B. HUD's POSITION OH ISSUES RELATED TO THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE
1. Cumulative Noise Exposure
We believe that there is an urgent need to standardize a measure of noise
exposure as a prerequisite to promulgating a national set of noise exposure
standards and implementing procedures. We, therefore, strongly support
the activities of Task Group 3. The lack of what might be called a
"perfect" index of measure is no excuse for inaction on the growing prob-
lems of noise abatement and control. Our ma.lor concern is that any pro-
nosed aircraft. no-"r~ ^rspssTnent method be coinp-ti'bl; rri+h those no™ in
by this Department in implementing the HUD noise policy, i.e., Composite
Noise Rating (CNR) or Noise Exposure Forecast (HEF).
We are in agreement with the long term goal of Ldn of 60 (NEF 25) recom-
mended in the Task Group report; though we feel that further clarification
is needed. Current HUD policy is to discourage residential development
beyond 30 NEF (though some discretion is applied in certain cases where
noise exposures lie between NEF 30 and ^0). The NEF 30 value corresponds
roughly to an Ldn of 65. Thus, the current allowable noise exposure for
HUD assisted new residential construction is marginally higher than the
long term goal recommended by the Task Group. However, we fully hope
and anticipate that the EPA, with the cooperation of other Federal agen-
cies and industry groups, will be successful in reducing noise through
source and operational controls, so that noise reduction from these activ-
ities will bring current residential construction satisfying existing HUD
criteria well within the long term objective (Ldn of 60). It is important
to emphasize that since new construction represents the long term estab-
lishment of a given land use to a particular area, implementation of long
term goals requires immediate action of the type HUD has been actively
pursuing in the last two years.
-------
We assume that the immediate goal of Ldn (45 NEF) of 80 is to be imple-
mented through source and operations controls, building modifications,
and where necessary, condemnation and relocation, and is to be applied
to existing residential units. We fully support such a recommendation
providing adequate relocation resources are available at a price the dis-
placees can afford (pursuant to provisions of the Uniform Relocation Act).
We are concerned, however, that noise levels less than Ldn 80 may also
constitute risks to health resulting from sleep interference, unless
airports have stringent restrictions on night-time operations. The pro-
blem is exacerbated with windows open, as they must be in the summer
months in many areas when adequate alternative ventilation is not avail-
able.
We support recommendation concerning a standardised computer program for
calculating cumulative noise exposure. Further, there should be a stand-
ardized definition of data input requirements and a central data center
which can generate contours of cumulative noise exposure for use by Federal,
State and local agencies in making land use decisions.
2. Airport Noise Regulation
We would endorse the recommendations that airport operators exercise their
authority to regulate aircraft operations to reduce noise in residential
areas. The requirement that airport operators predict operations and noise
exposure i-u vic!_cj.mli.<_ v,c.mpatibility of ai-rporf operations with the adjacent
land uses and then take actions to achieve a larger measure of -cr^patib:1 •* fy
through reduction in the noise effective size of the airport is an important
element in the total program to reduce airport-community conflicts. Deci-
sions on runway alignment, airport expansion and volume and type of aircraft
use are as essential to ameliorating and preventing noise conflicts as are
the control of noise at the source and the control and guidance of land use
development in the airport environs.
It is understood that the FAA has the authority for requiring airport cer-
tification under existing legislation. That agency should therefore be
encouraged to take the necessary action to meet the EPA compliance schedule.
3. Continuing^Program for Noise Abatement
We would concur in the need for a continuing Federal Program to assist in
implementing a comprehensive national aircraft/airport noise abatement pro-
gram. We would be happy to participate in those aspects of the program which
are of interest and concern to the Department,
C. OTHER RELATED ISSUES
There are other problems that need to addressed to further goals of the air-
craft/airport noise abatement program; some of these are:
-------
-4-
1. National Airport System Planning
A National Airport System Plan appears to offer a key to the problem of
location and expansion of airports in the Nation, and a meaningful docu-
ment can lessen the potentially adverse impacts of such development.
The long range plan could identify the projected kinds and volume of oper-
ations at specific classes of airports so that there would not continue to
be the many surprises which appear to develop fairly regularly following
the creation of an airport or changes in operations at existing airports.
Communities in the airport environs would then have an explicit idea of
the kinds of airport development expected and could plan accordingly.
The National Airports System Plan should have a rational national focus
and not be only a compilation of airport projects conceived solely by
state and local authorities.
2. Modification of Airport and Airway Development Act (AADA)
We believe that the AADA can be strengthened to insure a greater measure
of compatibility between airports and their surrounding areas, as follows:
a) Aircraft noise is not specifically addressed in the law.
In view of the growing concern with environmental quality
and the impact of the airport development program^- noise
merits specific recognition. The law does not now support
the acquisition of land to be exposed to severe levels of
noise;consideration should therefore be given to modifying
the statute to allow the acquisition of such land, by ease-
ment or ree simple, as part of the airport development pro-
ject costs. Inclusion of such a provision to cover areas
of very severe noise exposure is both desirable and necessary
to any meaningful solution to the noise problem.
b) The rules promulgated by the FAA for implementing the Planning
Grant Program under the AADA are not consistent with Section II
of the Act. Airport systems planning should be an integral
part of multi-modal transportation planning for the metropolitan
area, and should be handled by the appropriate public comprehensive
planning agency. Environmental considerations and airport loca-
tion should be a significant part of the systems planning process
rather than a token after-the-fact issue in airport master planning.
MCE
6/21/73
-------
rvrri-:n
TO : Mrs. Elizabeth Cuadra DATE: May 4, 1973
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
FROM : Joan S. Gravatt /-./Kt-,
Aviation Programi^and Policy Division
Department of St&j:e
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Inclusion in Section V of Task Group Is s
Report
Recommendation
The United Stares should continue to cooperate in the work
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is
doing on aircraft noise.
Discussion
As the major producer of transport aircraft and source of
international air passengers, the United States has a large
stake in ensuring that there are internationally recognized
noise standards. Thus, U.S. ability to sell aircraft and
U.S. air passengers to travel without hampering noise
restrictions in all parts of the world can be assured. We
have no reason to believe that ICAO Standards on. aircraft
noise would not be satisfactory. Other countries just like
the United States are concerned with the problem of aircraft
noise. The work done by ICAO so far in its Annex 16 on
aircraft noise demonstrates that it can produce adequate
international standards in this area. If there are vari-
ations between U.S. noise standards and the international
standards, the U.S. has the right to file "differences"
with ICAO.
> i r~ p. r~ i \ / f~ n
KtbtiVtU
MAY 41S73
Buy U.S. Savings 'Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
-------
3119 Oriole Drive
Louisville, Kentucky 40213
June 30, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Chairman, Task Group 1
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1971 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Subj: Comments on task Group 1 Report
Submittal of Section V, "Recommendations"
Dear Ms. Cuadra,
This letter is to provide our group's opinions on the final
draft of the Task Group 1 report which I understand will be made to
Congress in compliance with Public Law 92-574 (Noise Control Act of
1972). I respectfully request that you include this letter in Appen-
dix B when the final version of the Task Group 1 report is printed.
Louisville's Neighborhood Organizations in Support of the
Environment (N.O.I.S.E.) began in December 1971. About 19,300
Louisvillians who either reside in neighborhoods where the associations
belong; to N.O.I.S.E , live in one of the member cities, or
belong to the Irquois Civic Club all constitute our membership
base. The political and association groups which belong are the
5th class City of Lynnview and the 6th Glass City of Audubon Park,
Kentucky; Tyler Park-Castlewood Neighborhood Association; Cherokee
Triangle Association; Bonnycastle Homestead Association; Highland
Douglas Association; Edgewood Neighborhood. The residents of these
cities and neighborhoods live in the more heavily populated north,
east and west corridors extending from Louisville Standiford Field's
main runways.
The Task Group is to be commended on the thoroughness shown
in the final draft. While our organization strongly concurs with
most of the Task Force's recommendations we will suggest differences
in effectively accomplishing our common goals.
In the spirit of emulating what we can of those who have achieved
success in aircraft noise control I read with interest of Japan's feats.
Your Task Group may well have considered the 'Japanese success story.
It appears to offer us a fine example of what can be achieved when a
country establishes a national environmental priority and then mar-
shalls the resources necessary to meet the goal. The effect of jet
aircraft noise has been reduced significantly in many residential
areas through a combination of measures employed to prevent jet noise
nuisance. An agressive partnership of the Japan Shipping Promotion
Organization, Japan Broadcasting Corporation and the air carriers
working in cooperation with an effective regulatory arm of the Japan-
ese government was formed August 1, 1968. This body is known as the
Foundational Juridical Person "Aircraft Nuisance Prevention Association",
It is meeting annual environmental protection goals in the following
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
June 30, 1973
areas of responsibility and activity:
1) To investigate actual conditions of aircraft nuisance.
2) To carry out preventative measures to reduce the effect
of aircraft noise.
3) To maintain and operate aircraft nuisance investigation
facilities.
4) To propagate aircraft nuisance prevention ideas.
A more complete description of Japan's efforts to curb
aircraft noise nuisance cab be obtained from Mr. Takatomo
Maruyama, Chief Director, Aircraft Nuisance Prevention Association
(Foundational Juridical Person), Fifth Floor, Japan Gas Association
Building, 38 Shiba-Kotohira-cho, Minato-ku, TOKYO 105 JAPAN.
The thrust of my general comment is that based on our local
experience, the Federal Aviation Administration is not enforcing
existing legislation now on the books to protect environments
surrounding airports. There is no reason to believe that the FAA's
primary emphasis -- promotion of air commerce and the protection of
safety — will change. A prime example of how the FAA modified
the law to suit its first objectives has just occurred in this
community. A $4.7 million strengthening and rebuilding of the
North/South runway at Louisville's Standiford Field began April 2, 1973.
The FAA bent the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to its
own version, DOT Order 5100.17 Paragraph 89 Section b(2). This
FAA adaptation of NEPA of 1969 allowed the project sponsor, the
Louisville and Jefferson County Air Board, to be granted FAA approval
of a "negative environmental impact statement" on the project
which was totally lacking in'any assessment of long range effects
on the environment. A copy of this "negative impact statement"'is
enclosed and is dated June 12^ 1972. The statement concerns itself
primarily with the six month construction period and shows no
empirical evidence of the project's ^impact on the environment or
proof of the absence of that impact. The $4.7 million cost involves
substantial runway strengthening for a sum far in excess of the
$500,000 estimated by the Executive Director of the Air Board, Mr.
James Gagnon, as the price to resurface onl/ this same runway.
It is considerably more than the $163,000 spent to resurface the
550 foot shorter East/West runway in August 1971.
Enclosed is a typical FAA reply to our inquiries which have
been both direct and through members of Congress. In his letter to
Senator Marlow Cook, Mr. William Vitale writes that our group
thinks the preparation of an impact statement will somehow solve
our community noise problems. Our request for a proper impact
statement is based on compliance with NEPA of 1969. The accepted
procedure in solving any problem is to first define it. NEPA of 1969
provides the structure for this analysis when the construction
is a major Federal project as the FAA has admitted in this case.
We urge that the authority and responsibility for controlling
aircraft noise be reassigned as follows:
1) EPA establish standards with public health and welfare
as the guiding criteria.
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
June 30, 1973
2) NASA should develop noise control technology at
the source.
3) HUD and sister agencies like HEW should establish
mandatory requirements for noise compatible land use
categories which determine financing availability
for housing and other construction development programs,
4) FAA should act solely as an enforcing agency.
COMMENT ON RECOMMENDATION #1 - That the Federal government
promulgate, administer and enforce an airport noise regulation,
designed to limit the cumulative noise exposure received in
residential communities.
Our feeling is that continued Federal funding of airport
development should be tied to the FAA certificating the airport
for noise as well as for safety. It should be EPA's role to
consult with HUD and determine noise standards for land uses and
other purposes. We agree with all other aspects of the Task Force
recommendation.
COMMENT. ON RECOMMENDATION #1b - The FAA should, with EPA
participation, establish a national resource to provide assistance
to airport proprietors and state and local agencies in developing
skills necessary to implement the Federal airport noise regulation,
Because the FAA track record has shown little stomach for
human protection "guidelines", we strongly recommend that EPA
in conjunction with HUD have the responsibility for the develop-
ment of programs to control airport noise impact.
Louisville N.O.I.S.E. enthusiastically endorses all other
recommendations contained in the subject report.
Yours truly,
Robert P. Adelberg
Chairman
Louisville N.O.I.S.E
425 S. Fifth Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Enclosures 2
Copies to Senator Marlow W. Cook
Senator John Tunney
Congressman Sam H. Young
The Honorable Russell E. Train
Mr. John Schettino
Mr. Lloyd Hinton - N.O.I.S.E.
Mr. John Hellegers - Environmental Defense Fund
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 102 (2) (c) , P. L. 91-190
JUNE 12, 1972
The r.ouir.ville and Joffcrson County Air Board has submitted a revised rrquor, t
f.,r Fodcrnl financial assistance under the Airport Development Aid Program,
•ir. authorized by the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970/ for a project
to strengthen Runway 1-19 and Taxiway "A", at Standiford Field, Louisville,
Kentucky.
1. Description and Purpose of the Project;
A> Description: The proposed project contemplates strengthening
Runway 1-19; strengthening Taxiway "A"; enlarging fillets at
Runway 19 and Runway 11 to Taxivay "A"; installing centerline,
touchdown and runway edge lights; grooving Runway 1-19; and
installation of a Field lighting stand-by generator.
B. ' Purpose; There are four main objectives to this project which
are:
(1) The strengthening of Runway 1-19 and Taxiway "A" to pro-
• vide for new generation of aircraft and increased schedules.
(2) The improved drainage and lighting will improve safety.
(3) The grooving of Runway 1-19 will improve safety.
(4) Stand-by generator will supply emergency power during
periods of black out.
^ • Probable. Impact of the Project on Both Human and Natural Env j_r on mo rit:
A. There are presently approximately 200 large plane landing:; and
takcoffs at Standiford Field. Approximately 30% of these une
Runway 11-29, and 70% of these use Runway 1-19. This means that
during the time of construction the people in the approach to
Runway 11—29 will be subjected to increased noise frequency.
This is not new to them since certain wind directions require
this to happen. The difference is, it will last for a longer
period. On the other hand, the people in the approaches to
Runway 1-19 will be relatively noise free and their situation
will be much enhanced. ' .. - s
\^-
B. There will be sone dust created during construction, but sinco
the work will be well within the confines of the Airport, it
is felt that this will not be a significant factor to surround-
ing residents.
C. The seme is true for erosion of soil.
-------
D. There has been no objection to this project. No public
hearing lias been held since the proposed work does not
concern itself with a new airport, realignment of a runway,
new runway/ or acquisition of land for airport purposes.
~£. The proposed project will not require the displacement of
an}' person or persons since all work is within present airporu
confines.
P. • .The project will not affect the natural environment which
include those considerations set forth in Section 4 (f ) of
the DOT Act are:
(1) The proposed project will not alter, destroy, or
derrogate from any recreational areas or public parks.
(2) The proposed project will not alter the pattern or behavior
of any wildlife species. • • ' .
(3) The proposed project will not clerrogate any aesthetic
•: or visual effect. .. '
(4). The. proposed project v/ill not increase ambient ciir- or
v;ater pollution, since there will be no increase in
• volume or 'runoff. There v/ill be no change in aiuility
of runoff substance nor change in location of existing
outfall drainage system as a result of this project.
The excavation required for this project will be xused to
£ill low areas within the airport.
• '
\,'5) The proposed project will have no effect on the w.itor
table of the area which varies from 5 to 15 feet belov
ground level. . . .
j'rpb£-vblc Adverse Environmental Effects which CannotBc
The only identifiable adverse environmental effect of the proposed
project will be the slightly increased no j se levels imposed on
•uhose residences under the approach ends to Runway 11-29. ICvcn
though increased noise levels are imminent, they are only
temporary until Runway 1-19 can _ be resurfciced.
A1 t o r ;i a ti v o s : All alternatives considered are unacceptable:.
Those considered are; ' "'-'.
A. ^°_nJ^hJl-'-I.12 : This is unacceptable since, our pavement eon.'.vli;
hat; determined theit the existing pavements will fail rapjdly
xuider existing loads and v/ill not carry increased v/e.ights o<:
xrccjuencies.
}i. ' Development of a new airport: The Air P.oard is, planning a
-------
new airport. However, it will be at least ten years before
it becomes operational. This project must be undertaken
to provide an adequate and safe facility during this period.
*••• Clos o airport during construetion: Although this might satisfy
a few people directly affected, it in unacceptable since the
results would have a disastrous impact on the economic and
financial conditions of Louisville and Jefferson County as
well as the adjacent counties.
5. Irreversable or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources; There will be
no irreversable or irretrievable commitments of resources to result
from this project should it be undertaken.
After careful and thorough consideration and review of the facts contained
in the negative environmental declaration of the Louisville and Jefferson
County Air Board (Sponsor) ,' it is the finding of the undersigned that pur- '
suit of the requested Federal action is consistent with existing national
environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), and that the action
will, not have a significant effect or impact on the human or natural environ-
ment. Accordingly, this evaluation of said negative declaration endorses
the finding of the Sponsor.
Phillip M. Swatek, Director (date)
Southern Region
Federal Aviation Administration
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591
w
Honorable Marlow W. Cook
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Cook:
This is in response to your May 1, 1973, inquiry concerning the need for
an environmental statement as a condition for approving Federal assistance
for a runway reconstruction project at Standiford Field, Louisville,
Kentucky. You include correspondence from Mr. Robert Adelberg, Chairman
of a committee called N.O.I.S.E. and a letter from me to Mayor Dutschke
concerning Standiford Field.
We are not aware of any court decisions that indicate a need for prepara-
tion of an environmental statement for runway reconstruction projects.
We have considered this matter carefully and find no public law requirement
for an environmental statement. Environmental statements are required when
approval of a project is a major Federal action producing a significant
impact upon the human environment. Reconstruction of the north-south
runway is a major Federal action, but the action will not produce a
significant effect on the human environment.
The controversy at Standiford Field results because the most noisy aircraft
used by air carriers already operate from this airport. Military aircraft
that produce a great amount of noise also use the airport. An environmental
statement as a condition for approving Federal assistance for reconstruction
of the north-south runway at Standiford Field would not solve the existing
noise problem at this airport.
Long-range solutions to airport noise problems are being undertaken through
development and use of a new generation of aircraft that do not make so much
noise. The L-1011 and the DC-10 aircraft that will be permitted to use the
reconstructed runway represent this newest generation of aircraft. Use of
these new aircraft types will alleviate unsatisfactory noise problems at
Standiford Field to the extent that aircraft operators replace existing
noisy aircraft with these new designs. Residents in the areas north of
Standiford Field should support the runway reconstruction action as part
of a program to develop more compatible noise environments in their
community.
Difficulties associated with solution of air transportation problems in the
Louisville area have been recognized and are the subject of studies that
are underway with assistance from the Federal Government under the Federal
Aviation Administration's (FAA) Planning Grant Program. These studies must
-------
consider all feasible and prudent alternatives, including development of
an entirely new airport. The environmental statement required in connec-
tion with these studies is the appropriate basis for definition, review,
and approval of airport development actions needed to solve noise problems
in the communities near Standiford Field.
Mr. Adelberg met with me and other members of my staff on May 2, 1973.
The existing noise problems at Standiford Field were discussed, and informa-
tion was presented which supports FAA's determination that the noise problem
results because of existing circumstances and that an environmental statement
for the reconstruction project is not required. Although Mr. Adelberg was
not satisfied with FAA's determinations, the meeting may have been of assis-
tance in developing a better appreciation of the problems associated with
developing a more acceptable noise environment in the areas he represents.
In the meeting in my office, Mr. Adelberg and Mr. Lloyd Hinton, a consul-
tant to the group called N.O.I.S.E., reaffirmed the opinions expressed in
their letter to you. Apparently, they incorrectly believe that the prepara-
tion and processing of an environmental impact statement in connection with
the runway reconstruction project would improve the rate at which the noise
problems in their community would be solved. They also expressed dissatis-
faction with noise abatement procedures. Operational procedures for noise
abatement are a matter of continued concern to the .FAA, and changes are
being made when such changes are found to be feasible and prudent. The
peculiar problems existing at Standiford Field will be reexamined by the
FAA to determine if noise environments can be improved by any practical
change in procedure at Standiford Field.
Sincerely,
CLYDE w, PACE, JR.
?, Airp-ontia Sea-vi'C'ei, AAS-1
Enclosure:
Constituent's correspondence
-------
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA nuo
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2110
July 3, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
1835 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C.. 20460
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
The City of Newport Beach is currently reviewing the Draft
Reports of the various Task Groups of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study in detail.
The City intends to participate in the public hearings which,
it is understood, will be held by Committees of the United
States Congress and by the Federal Aviation Administration
later this year. ,-
In the meanwhile, however, the City of Newport Beach wishes
to express its concurrence with the proposal of the EPA Task
Group 1, contained in Recommendation No. 1, Page 1-6-2 et seq.,
of its Draft Report, according to which the FAA is to include
certain noise-related elements in its airport-certification
regulations.
More especially, the City of Newport Beach wishes to emphasize
the need for establishing a uniform and scientifically competent
validation procedure for assessing the noise-impact areas and
areas needing land-use controls, both for current airport
operations and for the quantitatively predicted future air-
port operations.
The City of Newport Beach is perhaps the City most directly
affected by overflight noise from the Orange County Airport.
In addition to past and current efforts by the Airport Admin-
istration and the airlines, this City believes that a FAA
noise-certification procedure, comprising consultative and
hearing proceedings based on nationally adopted objective
-------
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Page Two
July 3, 1973
criteria would do much to remedy possible deficiencies and
point the way for adopting measures for implementation by local
and regional government bodies and by the Federal Aviation
Administration that could bring about a substantial allevia-
tion of the existing noise problem.
Very^truly yours ,
DENNIS O'NEIL
City Attorney
DON:ep
-------
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
r <_v /
July 2, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
1835 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
The City of South San Francisco is currently reviewing the Draft
Reports of the various Task Groups of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study in detail.
The City intends to
is understood, will
Congress and by the
year.
participate in the public hearings which, it
be held by Committees of the United States
Federal Aviation Administration later this
Meanwhile, however, the City of South San Francisco wishes to
express its concurrence with the proposal of the EPA Task Group
1, contained in Recommendation No. 1, Page 1-6-2 et seq., of its
Draft Report, according to which the FAA is to include certain
noise-related elements in its airport certification regulations.
More especially, the City of South San Francisco wishes to empha-
size the need for establishing a uniform and scientifically compe-
tent validation procedure for assessing the noise-impact areas and
areas needing land-use controls, both for current airport operations
and for the quantitatively predicted future airport operations.
The City of South San Francisci is perhaps the City most directly
affected by overflight noise from the San Francisco International
Airport. While the Airport, the airlines, and the air-traffic-
control systems have cooperated to reduce the noise impact on the
City over the past sixteen years, there are numerous decisions re-
garding land use, zoning, and other planning in which noise-impact
determinations, noise-impact predictions, and additional noise-
abatement measures must be based on nationally adopted, objective
criteria rather than on subjective opinion statements.
The City believes that the above-cited Recommendation No. 1 of
4OO GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 711 94O8O PHONE (415) 380.«2OO
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra -2- July 2,1973
Task Force 1 would do much to improve the process of minimiza-
tion of the noise impact on the City, without imposing any hard-
ship or loss in operational efficiency on the Airport or the
aircraft operators.
Very truly yours,
«yohn Noona
jCi ty Attorney
JN:dh
-------
CITY OF LOS AMGELES
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
(-- . *1 WORLD WAY • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OOO9
„, TELEPHONKZ13) 646-5282 • TELCX 09-3«13
June 26, 1973
L A IMTCftNATIONAL
CLIFTON A. MOORE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
FROM: Clifton A. Moore
General Manager
SUBJECT: Comments -- Draft Reports, Task Groups -- Airport Noise
y/e have carefully reviewed the draft chapters or i.L^ task group reports on
airport noise. These reports are to be used as inputs into EPA to aid in
the preparation of the report to Congress required by Public Law 92-574.
In general, I do not have major problems with the recommendations as a
whole; however, great care must be taken in the wording for feasibility,
safety, timing and financing to be sure that the requirements of the Public
Law for maximum safety and economic and technical feasibility are met.
When consideration is given to L-QJSJ limits for health and the L-Q-JSJ limits
as long range goals for health and welfare, great care must be taken in
the language of the report that interprets the standard so as not to draw
definite conclusions on health and welfare effects until many more studies
are completed and more definitive data is compiled. The Environmental
Acoustics--HEW study at LAX, as well as other studies around the country,
cast considerable doubt as to the recommendations in the Draft No. 3 report
of an L-Qjyj- 80 limit for health and the LQ-^ 60 limit for health and welfare.
The Dubrovnik meeting papers for 1973 further support the need for more
data.
^w,1in&
i iii'i^i^^^
Sam Yorty, Mayor
BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS
Slrpheu C Bithtimer. fRl'Slf)E\T • Riiheri M Brumim. I'H'F PRf.StDf AT • ( l.nnouie KlaiulurJ • Mrh-ia J F.rirkfmi • Mlliam F. Quinn. M.f).
-------
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr. -2- June 26, 1973
Recommendation No. la of Task Group No. 1 (Legal) that the FAA would
make the California State Standards of CNEL effective in California only
is patently unfair to this state, is unacceptable, and in our opinion probably
illegal. As with the LjyM-' numbers mentioned in the previous paragraph,
more supporting data is needed for the impact numbers used in the Cali-
fornia Standards. As you know, these standards are under attack in the
courts with the ATA lawsuit and from all indications will probably be
overturned. In lieu of this recommendation, I would like to suggest the
following alternative: The LAX sound monitoring system is capable of
being programmed to compute CNEL or L-QN measurements. As an
experiment and in order to establish the effects of proposed national regu-
lations on a major airport and the country, we would supply the data to
EPA from the monitors in either impact system that is desired. This
would give a comparison of the measured versus the calculated impacts
and would permit an evaluation to be made of the overall land areas within
the various impact contours. This would give valuable data that could be
used along with other data in the selection of final numbers for health and
welfare.
9-
*
We strongly support a retrofit program for all non-Part 36 types of aircraft
operating into pur airport both foreign and domestic. The program must be
programmed to be completed by the year 1980 or before. The Fleet Noise
"Rule (FNL) staging of the program is acceptable for managing the program
auu be cling Liie liming uf compliance. In this manner, all aircraft \vill
meet or better the Part 36 noise limits by 1980.
Financing of the retrofit program must become a part of the rule-making
procedure. We have long advocated a one to two dollar charge per airline
ticket and a small percentage to be added to each airfreight waybill as a
means of financing the program. The charge is the least expensive way
(insofar as the user is concerned) of paying the cost and should be""dropped
when retrofit is complete. This grant to the airlines should not be taken
into the airline accounting system and should not be capitalized.
In line with financing noise costs, the ADAP funding to airports should be
changed to permit the acquisition of land and/or easements for noise ,
purposes under the program. Land acquired for noise is just as important
to the airport as land acquired, for approach lights or other facilities.
We strongly support changes in flight procedures that reduce flight sound
levels provided there is no reduction in safety or operational minimums
for the airport. The two segment approach, the flap managed approach,
and the development of two departure profiles seems to be approaching
acceptability under this criteria as a result of flight tests. When proven
they should be mandated. However, such regulations must be issued by
the FAA. '
-------
Dr.'AlvinF. Meyer, Jr. -3- June 26,
In the matter of flight procedures, it should be made very clear that this is
an area where the airport owner cannot dictate policy. There are safety,
liability and expertise reasons why the airport cannot become involved in
the flight techniques of aircraft. While we obviously will coordinate com-
pletely with the FAA and the airlines in developing flight procedures and
pointing out problem areas around our airports, the procedures must be
flight tested and specified by the FAA.
The Task No. 3 effort to develop a single event measurement system and
a cumulative noise exposure impact methodology is generally acceptable.
Obviously, more detailed study is needed. We would suggest that there be
only one health and welfare number and that this number be selected only
on a preliminary basis subject to evaluation and confirmation pending defi-
nitive field studies around noise sources to determine areas involved and
additional scientific studies of the effects of various cumulative levels.
Airport certification for noise would be a problem with present procedures.
Noise certification can only be contingent upon the full completion of the
retrofit program to Part 36 or better standards. A staged approach to
certification could be acceptable if full compliance is not required until
after the tools are available to meet certification requirements such as
retrofit, flight procedures, funding of programs, and also rights and obli-
-^ A A rtc« iTrriH r* c* V\V»/^\T^V»T
I trust that these comments will be helpful to you. If I can be of further
assistance, please call me.
Cliftc
Gene:
''rl7-
•-T ™
n A. Moore
al Manager
CAM:BJL:sm
-------
SOVAC
Save Our Ko//ey Action Committee
P.O. Box 477S Station C
San Jose, CA. 9S199
1J June 1975
Mrs. Elizabeth Quadra, Chairman
Task Oroup 1
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mrs* Quadra*
We have reviewed the Task Group 1 Report, "Recommendations,1 dated
Jl May 197?* We fully concur that the recommendations are sound,
realizable, and well over due for implementation. We whole heartedly
endorse and support Recommendation lai "That the California airport
noise regulation, particularly the CNEL portion, be adopted as a
Federal (FAA) regulation, applicable in California only, until a
nationwide Federal airport noise regulation goes into effect.* The
people of California have expended a great deal of time and energy
to conceive of and implement the State airport noise regulation - it
must be used as a test case. Resulting empirical data will be most valuable
for both local, state, and federal agencies.
The Save Our Valley Action Committee (SOVAc) represents and is supported
by several thousand residents of the Santa Clara Valley. We have been
vitally concerned for several years with the air transportation
situation serving our valley. We recently spearheaded an intensive
effort to inform our city and county administrations regarding
pros and cons of a proposed San Jose Municipal Airport expansion.
As a result, a moritoriuo} on any increase in air carrier operations
has been mandated by the City Council pending measurement of air and
noise pollution levels and the resulting evaluation.
a) To summarize; we fully support Task Group 1 recommendations, particularly
0#la - we also volunteer our services to the Task Group.
S
Robert D. dray, Direc
-------
City of Minneapolis
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
MRS. GLADYS S. BROOKS
ALDERMAN ELEVENTH WARD
307 CITY HALL • 348-2211
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415
June 27, 1973
Mrs. Elizabeth Cuadra
Chairman, Task Group 1
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 2, - Crystal Mall
Arlingtonf Virginia 20460
Dear Mrs. Cuadra:
I have been advised of EPA progress in preparation of the report to
Congress required under Section 7 of P.L. 92-574, the Noise Control Act of
1972. The insertion of the EPA in the aircraft noise situation was most
welcome and we are further encouraged by your draft final recommendations
dated May 31, 1973.
In addition to being a member of the City Council representing the sec-
tion of our community most heavily impacted by noise from operations at Wold-
Chamberlain Field, I serve as the Council's representative on the Metropolitan
Airports Commission. Thus, I have a dual statutory role which to some may
appear to be in mutual conflict. However, I have become convinced that a
national strategy precisely as outlined in your Recommendation #1 is the only
answer for the long term solution as well as short term alleviation.
Through our local Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council on which
I also serve, we enjoyed some success in achieving local noise improvements,
but there is still need for more improvements.
In our independent studies for measures needed to resolve the aircraft/
airport noise problem, airport certification for noise, the central recommenda-
tion of EPA, became unerruivically, the logical mechanism.
On behalf of airport community residents in the Twin Cities as well as
around all other major commercial airports in the country, I urge that you
• retain your recommendations with one addition. EPA must advise Congress that
• new legislation will be needed to properly implement essential aspects of the
Print** Oft 100% (UcycUd Popct
-------
Mrs. Elizabeth Quadra
June 27, 1973
Page 2
strategy outlined so well in Recommendation #1. We do not believe the FAA will
adequately accomplish the measures so thoughtfully identified.
Sincerely,
Gladys S. TBrooks
Alderman, Eleventh Ward
GSB:jjj
cc: Messrs.
Frank Be f era
Richard Erdall
Robert Fri
John Schettino
Charles Stenvig
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^¥%^
2200 Churchill Road /§j^^-r^^ Springfield, Illinois 62706
Telephone: (217)786-6758
June 20, 1973
Mr. John Schettino
Aircraft/Airport Task Force Director
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Schettino:
The following comments are respectfully submitted by the liiinois Environmental
Protection Agency for the consideration of the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task
Force.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency believes aircraft/airport noise
may be reduced by applying the following control strategies:
(1) The impiementation of noise reduction technology at the source as soon
as possible in conjunction with
(2) operational limitations or procedures and
(3) land use control and incompatible Sand use conversion or protection.
We believe that these control strategies can be best implemented by the combined
efforts of the various levels of government.
Thus, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is in general agreement
with the preliminary findings and recommendations of the Council of State Govern-
ments, which were submitted to the Task Force. If these findings and recommen-
ciunoni are followed, adverse aircraft and airport noise should be effectively re-
duced.
-------
Mr, John Schettino
June 20, 1973
Page 2
in addition to the recommendations and findings of the Council of State Govern-
ments, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency would like to recommend the
following: To effectively reduce airport noise, a tremendous amount of time and
effort will be required by the Federal government to implement the airport noise
certifications and to reduce the amount of incompatible land uses near airports.
Since States can more accurately assess their particular needs, States should be
given primary responsibility both for the development of airport noise certifications,
subject to Federal approval, and for the development of-adequate land use controls.
The effect of this recommendation would be to reduce the administrative burden
Upon the Federal government and to more effectively achieve relief from airport
noise.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations to the Airport/
Aircraft Noise Study Task Force.
Sincerely yours,
John S. Moore, Manager
Division of Noise Pollution Control
_cc: Jack Marco
-------
CITY OF COLLEGE PARK
THOMAS H. MUEHLENBECK. CITY MANAGER
WINSTON E. PARKER. CITY CLERK
RALPH L. PRESLEY. MAYOR
June 29, 1973
COUNCILMEN
DON MCLEAN
CALVIN WILSON. JR.
HARRY F. SWANN
TED C. HAYS
R. L. SMELLEY
HERMAN A. BARNARD
WARD •
WARD 2
WARD 3
WARD 4
WARD 5
WARD 6
Afs. Elizabeth Cuadra
Chairman, Task Croup 1
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
1971 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
With regard to the "Final Draft of Task Croup 1 Report" dated May 31,
1973, the City of College Park, Georgia would like to take this opportunity
to comment on the referenced report.
The City of College Park is located immediately to the west end of three
parallel east-west runways at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport.
The Airport boasts as the busiest airport from a traffic point of view between
the hours of 11: 00 P.M. and 7: 00 A.M.as may be found in the world.
College Park has lived with the noise problem since the advent of jet
aircraft and have been able to obtain little if any relief from the FAA or other
regulatory agency. We support the involvement of EPA in establishing
noise standards.
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the CNR noise ratings
over College Park. ^ • -..,
If we can supply additional I'nformat/on, please advise.
Sincerely yours.
Thomas H. Muehlenbe
City Manager
-------
FIGURE 9
COMPOSITE NOISE RATING CONTOURS
- r -swS3--~r-'Z^?r
-^ * 1
"N;l
-•-V5 i-or;—^ rt" ' 2?2, ^ '?• ^ 95
: ^-r,^ ' •: *
-^'iiiST . '
^ ? n
r4 « r > -
—: m-.i-qr:
90 COMPOSITE NOISE RATING
(CNR) CONTOURS
MILES
COLLEGE PARK, GEORGIA
-------
'»y
CITY OF inGLewoco caLFornia
CIVIC CENTER
105 EAST QUEEN STREET / INGLEWOOD. CALIFORNIA 90301
June 12, 1973
Elizabeth Cuadra
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
1111 20th Street, N. W., Room 531
Washington, D, C.
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
The City of Inglewood supports and concurs with the noise control recommenda-
tions as drafted by the EPA. We contend that meaningful changes in operational
procedures would bring immediate noise relief without additional cost to the
airline industry. The strongest argument of the parties opposing the EPA
recommendations is that of "derogation of flight safety." This argument is
unfounded and does not even find unanimous support within the airline industry.
More consideration and support has to be given to the advancement and expansion
of "quiet engine" development programs. Only advanced engine technology beyond
proposed interim measures as applied to the present aviation system will satisfy
the demand for peace and quiet. It is shown that the greatest deterrent to an
orderly expansion of aviation is noise.
Therefore, it is critical that the proposed noise control proposals will be
implemented without delay and compromises using the EPA as driving force and
responsible agency.
Very truly yours,
Wolfgang A. Boettger
Acting Environmental Standards Supervisor
Environmental Standards Division
WAB:lm
ALLAN H. COL.MAN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TELEPHONES: 213 / 674-7111. EXT. 230
LOS ANGELES: 213 / 678-7221 S
-------
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
June 29, 1973
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
1835 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Cuadra:
The City of Alameda, California, is currently reviewing
the Draft Reports of the various Task Groups of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study
with penetrating care.
We plan to participate in the public hearings which,
according to our understanding, will be held by committees of
the Congress and by the Federal Aviation Administration later
this year.
However, we wish to express our concurrence with the
proposal of the EPA Task Group 1, contained in Recommendation
No. 1, Page 1-6-2 et seq., of its Draft Report, according to
which the FAA is to include certain noise-related elements in
its airport-certification regulations. More especially, we
wish to emphasize the need for establishing a uniform and
scientifically competent validation procedure for assessing the
noise-impact areas and areas needing land-use controls, both
for current airport operations and for the quantitatively pre-
dicted future airport operations.
This City is concerned over representations by the Port
of Oakland, proprietor and operator of the Oakland International
Airport, which threaten large portions of the City of Alameda
to land-use controls based on noise projections for 1980 and
1985. in our opinion, and in the opinion of the managements
of other major airports in California and elsewhere, the repre-
sentations by the Port of Oakland contain the following flaws:
1. They are physically impossible to support. For example,
they assume the continued operation of all noisy aircraft
existing in 1970, many of which have already gone out of
service.
-------
Ms. Elizabeth Cuadra
Environmental Protection Agency
June 29, 1973
Page 2
3.
They are contrary to national policy. For example, they
assume that none of the currently published FAA Notices
of Proposed Rule-Making will result in the promulgation
of laws and that the California Noise Standards can be
disregarded.
They are not corroborated by any existing published
plans, whether legal, financial, or physical, whereby
facilities will be provided at the Oakland International
Airport to support the huge volume of aircraft opera-
tions on which the 1980/1985 noise projections by the
Port of Oakland are based.
Situations such as this would not arise if the Airport
Noise Certification procedure described in Recommendation No. 1
of Task Group 1 were adopted and implemented. In addition,
there is an absolute need that a validation procedure be set up
to determine - by a consultative and public-hearing process -
scientifically competent and factually plausible projections of
airport noise-impact contours to a foreseeable future.
Respectfully,
^
'4&£u> ,
Frederick M. Cunning^c
City Attorney
FMC/ms
CC: Hon. Mayor and Council
City Manager
Planning Director
-------
Appendix C
LIST OF TASK GROUP 1 MASTER FILE DOCUMENTS
-------
The documents, letters, draft report sections and position
papers listed below are maintained for public reference in the
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study master file, at the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Noise Control Programs,
Washington, D. C.
This master file (or docket) was established as a refer-
ence materials resource for the use of task group members,
EPA staff and consultants and interested public. A further
information resource was made available to task group members
.by u u document collection and abstracting efforts of Infor-
matics, Inc., under contract to EPA.
The master file is also intended to serve as a record of
the task force process; in addition to the listed documents,
it contains summary minutes and tape recordings of Task Group 1
meetings.
The master file was developed from inputs from Task Group
1 members (including EPA representatives), and from inter-
ested experts and other citizens who requested that their
positions be placed on the study docket. In addition, all
citizen letters regarding existing aircraft noise problems
received at EPA headquarters during the time period of the
study were inserted into the docket.
C-l
-------
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NQ1SK STUDY
TASK GROUP 1
MASTER FILE DOCUMENTS
Task Group #1
Serial Number . Item —
. SUBMITTED BY CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (3/2/73)
A. Statutes and Regulations:
1 1. Synopsis of Purposes and Provisions of the Federal Aviation
Act in Relation to the Civil Aeronautics Board (revised
March 31, 1971);
2 2. 14 C.F.R. 399.110, Implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended by PS-47;
3. Regulation PS-47, adopted June 10, 1971, amending 14 C.F.R.
J 399.110.
B. Interpretive material on NEPA:
4 1« Environmental Considerations in Civil Aeronautics Board
Proceedings, by R. Tenney Johnson, General Counsel,
Civil Aeronautics Board;
5 2. Memorandum, Iraplcrr.cn tat ion of the Board's Policy Statement
re the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (1^ C.F.R.
399*110) in docisions of hearing examiners (November 3, 1971);
6 3. Letter, C.A.B. Chairman to Russell E. Train, C.E.Q. Chairman
(October 2, :970), reporting on Board's NEPA procedures and
Board's statutory authority;
4. Letter, C.A.B. Acting Chairman to Timothy Atkeson, C.E.Q.
General Counsel (April 2, 1971), comments on CEQ Guidelines
for preparation of NEPA § 102(2)(C) statements;
Q 5. Letter, C.A.B. Chairman to Russell E. Train, C.E.Q. Chairman
(December 20, 1971), reporting on Board's experience in
implementing NEPA;
9 6. Letter, C.A.B. General Counsel to Kent Frizcll, Assistant
Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division,
Department of Justice (March 29, 1972), explaining
Board's powers and procedures in regard to conditioning
air carrier certificates to specify the use of certain
airports.
C-2
-------
SUBMITTED BY CIVIL, AERONAUTICS BOARD (3/2/73)
»
C. Court of Appeals' decisions:
10 1. Air Line Pilots Association, .Int'l v. C.A.R., C.A.D.C. No.
71-1751 (decided January 4, 1973);
11 2. The Palisades ClLi^ons Association, Inc. v. C.A.B. , 136 U.S.
App. D.C. 346, 420 F.2d 188 (1969);
12 3. United Air Lines v. C.A.B. , 108 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 278 F.2d
446 (1960), vacated sub nom. All American Airways, et al.,
364 U.S. 297 (1960);
D. C.A.B. Orders relating to air carrier capacity ^ductions in
certain trans-continental markets:
•
13 1. Order 70-11-35 (November 6, 1970);
14 2. Order 71-3-71 (March 11, 1971);
15 3. Order 71-5-68 (May 14, 1971);
16 4. Order 71-8-91 (August .19, 1971);
17 5. Order 72-4-63 (April 13, 1972);
18 6. Order 72-11-6 (November 2, 1972);
19 7. Order 73-2-60 (February 14, 1973).
E. Memoranda summarizing load factor results in capacity-reduced
transcontinental markets:
20 1. Dated March 17, 1972--Last Quarter, 1971 data;
21 2. Dated May 22, 1972--First Quarter, 1972 data;
22 3. Dated June 19, 1972--April, 1972 data;
23 A. Dated June 27, 1972--May, 1972 data;
24 5. Dated July 27, 1972--Junc, 1972 data;
25 6. Dated August 25, 1972--July, 1972 data;
C-3
-------
SUBMITTED BY CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (3/2/73)
26 7. Dated September 21, 1972--August, 1972 data;
27 8. Dated October 30, 1972--September, 1972 data;
28 9. Dated November 28, 1972--OctobeV, 1972 data;
29 10. Dated January 10, 1973--November, 1972 data;
30 11. Dated February 1, 1973--December, 1972 data.
F« C.A.B. Orders relating to air carrier capacity reductions in
the New York/Newark-San Juan (Puerto Rico) market:
31 1. Order 72-1-86 (January 25, 1972);
32 2. Order 72-6-70 (June 16, 1972);
33 3. Order. 72-9-13 (September 5, 1972);
34 4. Order 72-11-7 (November 2, 1972).
G. Memoranda summarizing load factor results in capacity-reduced
New York/Newark-San Juan market:
1. Dated September 18, 1972--August 1972 data;
2. Dated September 21, 1972--August 1972 data;
36
3. Dated October 16, 1972--September 1972 data;
00 4. Dated October 24, 1972--September 1972 data;
Jo
39 5. Dated November 3, 1972--0ctober 1972 data;
40 6. Dated November 21, 1972--0ctober 1972 data;
4! 7. Dated January 10, 1973--November 1972 data;
4 8. Dated February 7, 1973--December 1972 data.
C-4
-------
. SUBMITTED BY CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (3/2/73)
H. Other C.A.B. Orders:
4- 1. Order 71-4-54 (April 9, 1971), Domestic Passenger-Fare
Investigation, Phase 6R-Load Facuor;
44 2. Order 71-7-140 (July 26, 1971), Complaint: of the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. ;
*
45 3. Order 72-2-41 (February 11, 1972), Petition o£ the City of
Inglcwood for Decertification.
I. Other:
1. Letter, C.A.B. Chairman to Senator John V. Tunney
46 (July 26, 1972), commenting on Committee Print
No. 6 of S. 3342, The Noise Pollution Control Act
of 1972.
L'x DEPART Miii-jl OF
47 Convention on T*-^rnat*cnnl Civil Aviatjrr;, 19l;U
48 Inix;rr,-nt?.cral ?t'ir.d"r:l'7 .ind P.qccrrne^.cgd Practices, Aircraft V^ir.0, ICAC Arr>ox 1/>
49 Report or thf? S~r>r;j"l y^ctin," en ATrcr-rf't XTrvit:6 in th*? ^'^c'rllv or *prc"'':'r'~?",
Montreal, I'? ^c-/nrr.b"er~^l7 December 156?,' ICAC Ooc. f;'*TTT^
50 Cp.T.mit t?t» on Aircraft Voi-s, Soco^.d '•^otir.g, Moitreal, 1^ - ?6 Move^er 1?71,
ICJ.O Doc. "?V?3
51 Sonic Room COT.'- jt too, First "eotinc, Montreal, ? - 19 May 197?, ICAC Dec. ?Q11
52 ICAO Air Mavi Cation Co^'ission - Development of SARFS and/or guidance r-.it-? via
relating to tho quality of the bm-an onvircnrr.cnt, A\'-WP/l;ll5, 20/?/,'3
53 ICAO As^cr.bly Resolutions Alf-3, Al6-^;, A15-11 =>-nd A13-12.
T4 Standard U.S. Draft of Air Transport A^ra^r.ent, Septonbcr ?0, 1970
C-5
-------
. SUBMITTED BY NASA (3/2/73)
»
55 »A Preliminary NASA Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency for the Aircraft/Airport Noise
Study," February 28, 1973. (Chapters include
Impact Characterization Analysis, Source Abatement
Technology, Operating Procedures, Military Aspects)
56 . SUBMITTED BY N.O.I.S.E. (3/2/73)
"Airport Zoning: The Minnesota Example,"
Urban Land, Jan., 1973.
. SUBMITTED BY NATIONAL LEAGUE OEL.CJTIES AND
U.S. .CONFERENCE OF MAYORS (3/2/73)
57 Background information describing the activities
of the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference
of Mayors.
58 U.S. Conference of Mayors Resolutions on
Noise Pollution
Aircraft Noise
Aircraft Noise Abatement
Land Use Planning
59 National League of Cities 1973 National Municipal Policy
on
Environmental Quality
Transportation
60 . Maurice A. Garbell. Aircraft Noise Abatement at the
San Francisco InternaFional Airport, March 10, 197"!.
61 Information regarding the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional
Airport.
C-6
-------
SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS,
R. TIMOTHY WESTON (3/2/73)
62 M. Alushin, D.E. Benor, M.A. Grainer &
R.T. Weston, "Port Noise Complaint,"
Harvard Civil Rights, Civil Liberties
Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp 68-71,
December, 1970.
63 1971 Massachusetts Airport Noise Legilation,
file of information, including testimony by
the Airport Study Group of the Harvard Law
School Environmental Law Society.
64 1970 Massachusetts Airport Noise Legislation,
file of information.
65 P.A.'Franken and D. Standley, "Aircraft
Noise and Airport Neighbors: A Study of
Logan International Airport," Report DOT/HUD
IANAP-70-1, March, 1970.
66 P.B. Larsen, "Improving the Airport Environ-
ment: Effect of the 1969 FAA Regulations on
Noise," 55 Iowa Law Review 808 (1970).
67 Pennsylvania Statutes:
Authorizing Political Subdivisions to establish
and operate airports.
Establishing the Aeronautics Commission and de-
signating the powers and duties thereof (including
the power to license airports).
Airport Zoning Act.
Aeronautics Act (specifying navigable airspace
and duties of aircraft operators regarding damages
to land or use and enjoyment).
68 J. E. Stephen, "Regulation by Law of
Aircraft Noise Levels, From the Viewpoint
of the United States Airlines."
69 M. Katz, "The Function of Tort Liability in
Technology Assessment," University of
Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 4,
Fall, 1969.
C-7
-------
. SUBMITTED BY TVASNAC (3/2/73)
70 "The TVASNAC Proposal for Jet Aircraft Noise
Pollution Attenuation," March 1, 1973, with
supplements including:
(a) "Worldwide Airport Nighttime Restrictions,"
TVASNAC, June 1, 1972
(b) "Airport Curfews and Airmail."
(c) TVASNAC letter to Commissioner Henry
Diamond, New York State Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, concerning proposed
state noise regulations, September 11, 1972.
(d) "Capacity Agreement Results in Big Load
Factor Improvement."
(e) "The Need for a Retrofit Program."
SUBMITTED BY EPA (E. CUADRA)
71 Letter from David Standley (Executive
Director, City of Boston Air Pollution
Control Commission) to Prof. Louis Mayo,
February 28, 1973, including comprehensive
bibliography of reports, proposed legisla-
tion, etc., concerning noise from Logan
Airport.
72 R.L. Paullin, "The Status of International
Noise Certification Standards for Business
Aircraft," paper for the Business Aircraft
Meeting and Engineering Display, Wichita,
Kansas, April 4-6, 1973.
73 Materials concerning Los Angeles International
Airport Noise Abatement Program:
(a)"Presentation to the Board of Airport
Commissioners of Management's Recommenda-
tions for Airport Regulations and Policies
Designed to Reduce the Noise Contours at
Los Angeles International Airport," by
Clifton A. Moore, General Manager,
Los Angeles Department of Airports
(b) Recap of Lawsuits, Court Decisions and
California State Legislation-Impact Upon
Department of Airports and its Role as
Set1 Forth by City Charter to Accommodate
Air Commerce and Navigation.
(c) Excerpts from Legal and Official Documents
Regarding Local Proprietor's Responsibility
in Control of Noise.
CQ
-o
-------
(d) Resolutions 7467, 7483, 7484 and 7484A of
the Los Angeles City Council.
74* Record of Conference (February 6) among
EPA ami i->OT Personnel Regarding Noise
Control Act of 1972 (memo to the record
by C.M. Foster, iJCT Office of Noise Abate-
ment, dtd Feb. 7, 1973)
75 EDF letter of Feb. 26, 1973, Hcllegers
and Janssen to Cuadra (EPA), recommend-
ing additional task force members, EPA
memo to the record by E. Cuadra, dtd. March 10.
76 Letter from Ruth E. Beale to Senator
Mathias, dated Jan. 16, 1973, concerning
aircraft noise from operations at
Yt'ashington National .Airport. EPA reply
to Sen. Mathias dated
77 Letter from Robin Gegauff, dated March
2, 1973, concerning noise from operations
at Boston - Logan. EPA reply dated March 12.
78 Letter from Nicholas C. Yost (Deputy Atty
General in Charge, Environmental Unit,
State of California) dtci. March b, 1973,
requesting that Task Force actions not
negate California Airport Noise regulations
(attaching copy of regulations). EPA reply.
79 EDF letter to FA A',-on Docket Xo. 12534
(Civil Airplane Fleet Noise Level Re-
quirements, FNL), dated March 2, 1973.
(l':i elude.1; matters regarding international
air commerce and nature of U.S. partici-
pation, in 1CAO.)
&0 Memo from Dr. Lawrence A. Plumlcc, M.D.,
of EPA Office of Research
-------
82 NASAO letter dated March 16, 1973, stating
their position regarding need for develop-
ment of a uniform state lav; covering land
m;e control around airports, and need for
Federal {'.ui.dcl i nes.
83 Letter from Marjor.ie W. Evans concerning
liPA/FAA uadcrsUuidinp; on the need for HIS
under NEPA if standard arrival or departure
routes arc to be altered.
84 Subcommittee report (by R.T. Wcston) of
the ad hoe subcommittee to study Con-
gressional intent, "Congressional Cntcnt
Re.Section 7(b) of the Noise Control Act
of 1972; Comparison of Criteria Established
in the 1960 and 1972 Acts for the Promul-
gation of Federal Aircraft Noise Regulations,"
received March 16, 1(;73.
£«; 'Selected , Annotated Bibliography on
Airport Noise," National League of Cities/
U.S. Conference of Mayors, March 1973.
S6 V/.illiam T. Lake,, draft chapter on Federal
Noise Law, from the Knvironmentnl Law
Institute's study on federal environmental
law, received March 20, from the author
(INCLUDES COPYRIGHT RESTRICTICNS)
87
90
EPA memo by W. C. Sperry, dtd. March 20 1973
concerning ICAO. '
JeP°rt' "Airplane Noise Questionnaire Results "
based on a study conducted by Attorney General
5Ser1tnH* Quinn' Commonwealth of Massachusetts
dtd. 1971; submitted to the docket by
Ellyn R Weiss, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
letter dtd March 13, 1973. eidj.
89 "Operations Research Analysis of Aircraft
Noise Abatement; Phase I: Development of
Methodology," Final Report, IITRI Project
No. J 8083, June 1968 (funded by ATA and AIA)
Copy contributed by ATA.
Letter from Janet Gray Hayes, member of the
San Jose City Council, San Jose, California
dtd. March 21, 1973, submitting nine items '
(listed therein) to the docket.
C-10
-------
91 Letter from Marjorie Evans, concerning
environmental and safety aspects of P-3
Orion Flight Training Program at U. S. Naval
Air Station, Moffett Field, California (with
documentation).
\
92 DRAFT text, "The Meaning of the 'Public Health
and Welfare1 pursuant to the Noise Control
Act of 1972," by George Washington University
(under contract to EPA), dated March 23, 1973.
93 Letter, Fred Lee (Sunnyvale, Calif.) to
E. Cuadra, April 2, 1973, on noise from
touch - and - go practice by U.S. Navy
Orions from Moffett Field.
94 Letter, M. Evans to E. Cuadra, April 4,
transmitting letter from the Environmental
Planning Office, City of Palo Alto,
concerning noise from training flights at
Moffett Field.
95 Letter, City of Novato (California) to
EPA, April 4, 1973, concerning noise from
Hamilton Air Force Base, recommending that
the point of conversion of a military air
base to joint use or civil use be considered
a "new airport" decision point.
96 ' Letter from Edward H. Neuwirth (Coraopolis,
Penn.), March 15, 1973, concerning noise
from ground testing of aircraft engines
at Greater Pittsburgh Airport.
97 Letter from John M. Regan, Foster City,
California, March 22, 1973, concerning
the role of economics in airline flight
operation decisions.
98 Letter from Jerry Scaffetta, Long Island,
N.Y., March 15, 1973, opposing admission
of Concorde (and other SST's) into the U.S.
99 Letter from Portola Valley Noise Abatement
CoiTunitt.ee, Portola Valley, Calif., March 26,
regarding need for larger, visible aircraft
identification numbers, for ground-based
aircraft identification in communities.
C-ll
-------
100 Testimony by Nicholas C. Yost (Deputy
Attorney General in Charge, Environmental
Unit, Office of the Attorney General of
California) before hearing by the Aviation
Subcommittee, Commerce Committee, U.S.
Senate, March 30, 1973.
101 Letter from M. Evans to E. Cuadra, April 2,
summarizing her remarks at March 30 meeting
of Task Group 1 (focusing upon (a) military
aircraft noise problems and (b) light
aircraft and business jets.
102 Statement on "Control of Aircraft Noise in
the Basic Engine/Aircraft Design,"
submitted by N.O.I.S.E.
103 Statement on "Airport Design," submitted
by N.O.I.S.E.
104 News release dated March 15, 1973, from
N.O.I.S.E., concerning the Aircraft/Airport
study (submitted by N.O.I.S.E.).
105 Letter, William M. Cooper, Jr. (Citizens for
Conservation, Bernards Township', to Ci. C.
Schettino, March 20, 1973, concerning aircraft
noise problems associated with Metroplex II
introduction (New York City area flight control
plan) June 1970.
106 "Report of the Workshop on Noise Control,"
including draft model bill for state noise
legislation, Second Annual Symposium on State
Environmental Legislation, Council of State
Governments, April 1973.
107 Statement by N.O.I.S.E., dated April 23, 1973,
concerning positions on legal/institutional
aspects of (a) control of aircraft noise and
(b) control of land use.
108 Memo from John Bryson and Craig Johnson (NRDC),
giving preliminary thoughts on task group
recommendations (includes comments on Part I
draft)
109 "Social and Economic Impact of Aircraft Noise,"
working paper of the Sector Group on Urban
Environment, Organisation for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD), Paris, 3 April
1973. Prepared for the Fourth Meeting of the
Urban Environment Sector Group, May 2-4, 1973.
C-12
-------
110 Official information on the "Paris noise
tax" (Paris Airport Authority), from the
Journal Official de la Republique Francaise,
February 27, 1973, pp 2173 - 2180. (In
French, accompanied by English translation)
111 Letter, Charles J. Peters (Acting Assoc. Gen.
Counsel, Litigation Div., FAA) to Dr. N. E.
Golovin (Deputy Chairman, Program Evaluation
and Direction Committee, President's Office
of Science and Technology), August 15, 1967,
on then existing FAA noise regulatory author-
ity.
112 Suggested redraft of TG 1 report section on
"Alternatives," received from N.O.I.S.E.,
dated April 27, 1973.
113 Memo to chairman of TG 2 from N.O.I.S.E.,
"Findings and Recommendations re "Adequacy
of FAA Flight and Operational Noise Controls,"
dated April 27, 1973.
114 Letter from Northeast Clearwater Civic Assoc-
iation, Florida (undated) to EPA, signed by
Mrs. Isabelle Meind, concerning noise from
student flying practice at Clearwater Execu-
tive Airpark.
115 Letter from George Carneal, dtd. May 3, 1973,
commenting on Parts II, III and IV of TG 1
initial draft.
116 Memo, Joan Gravatt to E. Cuadra, dated May 4,
1973, with Department of State preliminary
recommendations.
117 Preliminary "recommendations" from N.O.I.S.E.,
dated May 4, 1973.
118 Letter, L. Tondel to E. Cuadra, May 3, 1973,
transmitting redraft of the work of Writing
Group I.
119 Letter, L. Tondel to E. Cuadra, May 2, 1973,
transmitting his comments on subsections on
local government, airport proprietors, land
use planning and soundproofing; plus attached
reference materials.
120 Preliminary "recommendations" from AOCI, dtd.
May 3, 1973 (Joseph Lesser)
C-13
-------
121 Letter, Tondel to Cuadra, transmitting sup-
plemental brief and main brief of the
appellees in the Burbank case.
122 Preliminary "recommendations" of the National
League of Cities / U.S. Conference of Mayors,
May 4, 1973.
123 "Action Against Aircraft Noise: Progress
Report 1973," Department of Trade and Industry,
Great Britain.
124 Letter, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Buhler to E. Cuadra,
dated April 26, 1973, on noise and safety
problems associated with training flights at
Moffett Field, California.
125 Letter, Francis Friesenhahn (Randolph Sub-
region Community Council, Randolph AFB, Texas)
to EPA, dated 16 April 1973, stating position
on acceptable uses of land in CNR Zone 2, and
transmitting report of Randolph Airport
Environs Study.
126 "Legal Aspects of Airport Noise and Sonic
Boom," by L. R. Altree and W. F. Baxter
(AD 682 900), February 1968.
127 Initial draft of subsection on land use plan-
ning and soundproofing, from Joseph Lesser,
received April 30, 1973.
128 Initial draft of subsections on (a) airport
proprietors and (b) local governments,
from Joseph Lesser, received April 27, 1973.
129 Redraft of Section III "Problems," from
C. Johnson and J. Bryson, received May 6, 1973.
130 Redraft of subsection on DOD, from Martin
Menter, received May 3, 1973.
131 Initial draft of subsection on CAB, from
G. Vitt, received May 1, 1973.
132 Initial draft of subsection on HUD, from
G. Vitt, received April 26, 1973.
C-14
-------
133 "Recommendations" of NRDC, transmitted
by letter dtd May 4, 1973, Bryson and
Johnson to Cuadra.
134 Comments on Part I of TG 1 Draft #1,
National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of
Mayors, (L. Snowhite), dtd May 1, 1973.
135 Letter, D. Longmire to E. Cuadra, concerning
noise problem from helicopter overflights in
Brentwood/Crestwood Hills area of City of
Los Angeles, dtd April 30, 1973.
136 Letter, Grumbach to Bryson and Johnson dtd
May 2, 1973, responding to their April 20
comments on Part I draft.
137 ATA's "recommendations," transmitted by
L. Tondel letter dtd May 8, 1973.
138 Letter, State of New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, to J.C. Schettino,
dtd April 25, 1973, stating position on
federal and state roles for airport noise
control.
139 Letter, R. P. Skully to J. C. Schettino, dated
May 1, 1973, responding to EPA request for
information on application of EIS procedures
to changes in STAR«s and SID's. Encloses
latest draft of FAA's "Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts of Proposed
FAA Actions," FAA Order 1050. , dated
Dec. 4, 1972.
140 Letter, R. C. Blomberg (O'Hare Area Noise
Abatement Council) to J. C. Schettino, dated
April 30, 1973, concerning noise impacting
Schiller Park residents from operations at
Chicago-O'Hare (with multiple documintation).
141 Preliminary draft, "Legal Institutional
Resources for Aircraft/Airport Noise Abatement,"
George Washington University report to EPA
under Contract 68-01-1834, dated May 15, 1973.
C-15
-------
142 Letter, Lutz Kohnagel to EPA, on noise problems
from DeKalb Peachtree Airport, dtd May 5, 1973.
143 Letter and data from Dr. Erich Buchmann, on
aircraft overflight noise at Cabin John, Md.,
from operations at Washington National Airport,
dated May 7, 1973.
144 "Recommendations," Janet Gray Hayes, San Jose
(California) City councilwoman, dtd April 27, 1973.
145 "Recommendations," from TVASNAC, dated May 1, 1973.
146 "Recommendations" from AOPA, dated May 10, 1973.
147 U. S. Supreme Court decision in the Burbank case,
Decision No. 71-1637, dated May 14, 1973.
148 Preliminary "recommendations" form Environmental
Defense Fund and Sierra Club, dated May 21, 1973.
149 Letter, Alice Claeys to EPA, regarding aircraft
noise problems in Minneapolis.
150 Letter, R.Deane Conrad to E. Cuadra, dtd May 24,
transmitting preliminary "recommendations" _of the
Council of State Governments.
151 Letter (multiple signatures) from residents of
Ontario, California, opposing expanding use of
Ontario Airport (part of Los Angeles Airports
System).
152 "Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology: A Report
by the NASA to the EPA for the Aircraft/Airport
Noise Study, "March 30, 1973.
153 Letter, Mrs. Beatrice Miles to Congressman
Frelinghuysen, concerning aircraft noise in
Bernards Township (New Jersey). EPA reply.
154 Letter dtd May 12, Elbert E. Farman to Mrs. Dade
(EPA) concerning aircraft noise in Garrison-on-
Hudson, New York, from operations at Stewart
Airport.
155 Letter received May 22 (no date), William Sollin
(Burbank, California) to EPA/ONAC, concerning
aircraft noise from Hollywood-Burbank Airport.
C-16
-------
156 Letter dtd May 15, Maurice A. Garbell to
R. Hurlburt (EPA) , transmitting April 6 draft,
"Airport Land Use Commission: Proposed Standards,"
and list by Assemblyman Z'Berg entitled,
"Possible Legislation Affecting Land Use near
Airports," both from California.
157 Letter dtd May 24, C. A. Deeds to E. Cuadra,
transmitting revised TVASNAC "recommendations."
97A Letter dtd May 19, with clippings on San Francisco
Airport, from John M. Regan.
158 Letter dtd May 4, Malcolm S. Spellman to A.F.Meyer,
Jr., on available technology for aircraft noise
abatement.
159 Letter dtd April 3, Dr. & Mrs Barry Bass to
EPA Administrator, on noise from Air National
Guard operations at Hulman Field, Terre Haute,
Indiana. EPA correspondence to DOD and
Dr. & Mrs. Bass.
160 Letter dtd May 4, League of Women Voters of
West San Bernardino County (California) to EPA,
transmitting resolution on impending expansion
of Ontario International Airport.
161 Letter dtd May 14, Brian Douglass (Manager of
Fullerton Municipal Airport) to E. Cuadra,
enclosing airport lease section and FAA letter
(annotated by Mr. Douglass).
162 Letter dtd May 9, Beatrice Miles to J.C. Schettino,
concerning aircraft noise problems in Bernards
Township (New Jersey).
163 CAB Order 73-4-98, dated April 24, 1973,
authorizing discussions among United, American
and Trans-World Airlines regarding extension
of transcontinental capacity agreement.
164 Letter dtd May 9, Isabelle A. Joyce to EPA,
concerning noise from aircraft operations at
Brainard Airport, Hartford, Conn.
165 Letter dated May 25, Russell A. Steiner to EPA,
concerning effects of noise from military aircraft
operating from Lockbourne Air Force Base, Ohio.
C-17
-------
166 Letter, Aerospace Industries Assoc. to A. F. Meyer, Jr.,
dtd. May 27, 1973. EPA memoranda thereon.
16/ Letter, John C. Bohonis to W. D. Ruckelshaus, dtd. April 7,
1973, concerning noise from National Airport. EPA acknowledg-
ment .
168 Letter, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Stillman to Congressman
Harrison A. Williams, concerning noise from Newark
Airport, dtd. March 18, 1973. EPA reply.
169 Letter, Mr. Thomas A. McCarey to Congressman John H.
Ware III, concerning aircraft noise from Philadelphia
International Airport, dtd. April 23, 1973. EPA reply.
170 Letter from Charles P. Miller (AOPA) to E. Cuadra, dtd.
March 14, 1973, transmitting a paper, "The Airport Noise
Environment, "by Mr. George J. Bean (Director, Hillsborough
County (Florida) Aviation Authority)), dtd. May 2, 1972.
171 Article by Clifford R. Bragdon, "Urban Planning and Noise
Control," Sound and Vibration Magazine, May 1973.
172 Presentation by Gordon A. Miller, Deputy Director of the
California Department of Aeronautics, to the May 18 meet-
ing of Task Group 1, concerning the status of and
experience with the California Airport Noise Standard.
173 "Information Brief on Select Bibliography of Acquired
Documents for Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study,"
Informatics, Inc., transmitted by J. Schettino memo
dtd. June 26, 1973.
174 Letter, Charles R. Foster (DOT) to Dr. Henning Von Gierke,
dissolving the Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Panel
(IANAP), dtd. April 23, 1973.
175 Draft report of Task Group 1, "Legal and Instititional
Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise and Apportion-
ment of Authority between Federal, State and Local Govern-
ments," dated 1 June 1973 (in two volumes).
176 Letter, G. Lapham, L. Tondel and G. Grumbach to E. Cuadra,
transmitting ATA "recommendations," dtd. June 6, 1973.
177 EPA memo, "EPA Airport Noise Study -- AOCI Meeting,"
from Richard J. Denney, Jr. (EPA ALSL. General Counsel)
to David D. Dominick (Asst. Admin, for Categorical
Programs) dtd. June 26, 1973.
178 NRDC letter, J. Bryson, to A.F. Meyer, Jr., concerning NRDC
"recommendations" in TG 1 report, dtd. June 25, 1973.
C-18
-------
179 Letter dtd. June 8, 1973, Prof. William H. Rodgers, Jr.,
to E. Cuadra, transmitting chapter entitled, "Silent
Night," from book, "Corporate Country," published June 11,
1973 by Rodale Press.
180 ATA letter, Clifton F. von Kann to Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,
dtd. July 3, 1973.
181 ALPA letter, J.J. O'Donnell to E. Cuadra, dtd. July 2, 1973,
transmitting ALPA's comments on the June 1 draft of TG 1
report.
182 HUD letter, Clifford W. Graves to John C. Schettino,
dtd. June 29, 1973, transmitting HUD's position on the
work of the task force.
183 A1P letter, Dorn C. McGrath to E. Cuadra, dtd. June 27,
1973, transmitting The American Institute of Planners
position.
184 AOCI letter, J. Donald Reilly to John C. Schettino, dtd.
July 2, 1973, transmitting the Airport Operators Council
International's position.
185 Sierra Club letter, Majorie W. Evans, dtd. June 15, 1973,
transmitting The Sierra Club's position.
186 City of San Jose (Calif.) letter, Janet Gray Hayes to E.
Cuadra, dtd. June 15, 1973, transmitting position.
187 AOPA letter, Charles P. Miller to John C. Schettino, dtd.
July 2, 1973, transmitting AOPA position.
188 Letter to E. Cuadra, dtd. June 18, 1973, transmitting the
position of the Environmental Defense Funds, N.O.I.S.E.,
Aviation Consumer Action Projects, Environmental Action
and Friends of the Earth.
189 N.O.I.S.E. letter, dtd. June 30, 1973, transmitting the
position of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-
Controlled Environment.
190 Letter, Richard Dyer to E. Cuadra, dtd. July 2, 1973,
transmitting the position of the National Association of
State Aviation Officials.
191 General Aviation Manufacturers Association position,
dtd. June 20, 1973.
192 CSG letter, R. Deane Conrad to E. Cuadre, dtd.July 5, 1973;
transmitting the position of the Council of State Govern-
ments.
193 Letter, City of Audubon Park (Kentucky) to E. Cuadra,
dtd. June 30, 1973, transmitting comments on Task Group 1
recommendations.
C-19
-------
194 Letter, City of Newport Beach (Calif.) to E. Cuadra, dtd.
July 3, 1973, transmitting comments on recommendations of
Task Group 1.
195 Letter, City of South San Francisco to E. Cuadra, dtd.
July 2, 1973, transmitting comments on recommendations of
Task Group 1.
196 Letter, Clifton A. Moore (Los Angeles Department of Air-
ports) to Alvin Meyer, Jr., dtd. June 26, 1973, trans-
mitting comments on recommendations of the task force.
197 Letter, the Save Our Valley Action Committee (San Jose,
Calif.) to E. Cuadra, dtd. June 13, 1973, transmitting
comments on recommendations of Task Group 1.
198 Letter, City of Minneapolis to E. Cuadra, dtd. June 27,
1973, transmitting comments on the recommendations of
Task Group 1.
199 Letter, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to
John Schettino, dtd. June 20, 1973, supporting and
supplementing the recommendations of the Council of
State Governments to Task Group 1.
200 Letter, City of Inglewood to E. Cuadra, dtd. June 12, 1973,
transmitting recommendations.
201 Letter, City of College Park (Georgia) to E. Cuadra, dtd.
June 29, 1973, transmitting comments on the report of
Task Group 1.
202 Letter, City of Alameda (Calif.) to E. Cuadra, dtd. June 29,
1973, transmitting comments on the report of Task Group 1.
203 Chairman's Working File: Development of Report Outline.
204 Chairman's Working File: Initial Report Draft (partial),
April 1973.
205 Task Group report draft #2, dtd. May 12, 1973.
206 Comment letters on draft #2 (dtd. May 12). Note: Most
Participants provided their comments orally, at the meeting;
refer to tapes of May 18/19 meeting.
207 Chairman's working file: General business of Task Group 1,
original notes and attendance lists of meetings, etc. (Two
folders; May 18/19 meeting included in second folder).
208 Final report of the George Washington University, under
EPA contract, concerning the legal and institutional
aspects of the aircraft/airport noise problem.
C-20
-------
209 Department of Commerce letter to John C. Schettino, dtd.
July 19, 1973, transmitting formal comments on the task
force reports.
210 Final report of Task Group 1 "Legal and Institutional
Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise and Apportionment
of Authority between Federal, State and Local Governments,"
July 1973.
C-21
-------
Appendix D
RELATED REPORTS OF THE AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY
-------
The task force effort which participated in development of EPA's report to
Congress was composed of six task groups, each of which produced a report:
Task Group 1: "Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport
Noise and Apportionment of Authority between Federal,
State and Local Governments," EPA NTID 73. 2.
Task Group 2: "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement,
Safety, and Costs," EPA NTID 73.3.
Task Group 3: "Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications
of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise
Exposure," EPA NTID 73.4.
Task Group 4: "Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis
Including Retrofitting," EPA NTID 73.5.
Task Group 5: "Review and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise
Regulatory Actions and their Consequences Regarding
Aircraft and Airport Operations," EPA NTID 73.6.
Task Group 6: "Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities for
Reduction without Inhibition of Military Missions, "
EPA NTID 73.7.
Two supporting contracted studies* were performed under EPA funding in
conjunction with the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study:
1) Legal/Institutional Resources for Aircraft/Airport Noise Abatement;
contractor: George Washington University.
2) Aircraft/Airport Operations Study; contractor: Bolt Beranek and
Newman.
The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency, as a result of this study,
are given in "Report to Congress on Aircraft/Airport Noise: Report of the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in Compliance with Noise
Control Act of 1972, Public Law 92-574," July 1973.
* Exact titles and publication dates of reports will become available from the EPA
Office of Noise Control Programs when the reports are finalized.
D-l
------- |