NTID 73.6
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF PRESENT
AND PLANNED FAA NOISE REGULATORY
ACTIONS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
REGARDING AIRCRAFT AND
AIRPORT OPERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
27 JULY 1973
-------
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND PLANNED FAA NOISE
REGULATORY ACTIONS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
REGARDING AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT OPERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE STUDY REPORT
27 JULY 1973
WILLIAM C. SPERRY, TASK GROUP CHAIRMAN
This document is the result of an extensive task force effort to gather all
available data pertinent to the suoject discussed herein, it represents the
interpretation of such data by the task group chairman responsible for
this specific report. It does not necessarily reflect the official views of EPA
and 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(b) 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 exercisje 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.
This report presents the results of the Task Group 5 effort devoted to the investi-
gation of existing and proposed regulatory actions. It also provides a basis for proposing
additional regulations as required by Section 7(b) of Public Law 92-574.
The membership of Task Group 5 was made up of representatives of the Federal
Government, airport operators, airlines, airframe manufacturers, general aviation,
and environmental groups. The task group met six times in Washington, D. C., during
the period February 15, 1973 to June 22, 1973. The members presented information
pertinent to the problem of airport noise, presented comments on information supplied
by other members, generally discussed the problem and possible solutions, and
reviewed and commented on draft reports. EPA requested that all data submitted be
IV
-------
in writing; all documents received are listed under References and Bibliography and
are available for inspection in the Airport/Aircraft Study files.
Reference to a specific item in the listing is made by providing the page number
and the group acquisition number of the item being referenced. For example, Reference
4.1-56 refers to the document numbered 56 on page 4.1 of the References. Position
papers of the task group participants are included in Appendix A and the list of partici-
pants is provided as Appendix B.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report are the responsibility of the
Chairman and staff and are based on the information supplied by task group participants
and other sources and on consideration of protection to the public health and welfare.
The difficult and controversial subjects of the task group assignment precluded complete
agreement among task group members. EPA sincerely appreciates the wholehearted
efforts that the task group members have put forth, without which this report could not
have been prepared.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1-1
Legislative Evolution and Development 1-2
Public Law 85-726 1-2
Voluntary Actions 1-3
Public Law 90-411 1-5
Public Law 91-190 1-6
Public Law 91-258 1-6
Public Law 91-604 1-6
Public Law 92-574 1-7
Regulatory Status of the FAA 1-8
Noise Control Actions of Others 1-11
2 TECHNOLOGY, HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND REGULATIONS 2-1
Noise Control Options 2-1
Source Controls 2-1
Path Controls 2-3
Receiver Controls 2-4
Land Use Controls 2-4
Public Health and Welfare 2-4
Methods of Exploiting Technology 2-11
Regulations 2-15
3 REVIEW OF FAA REGULATORY STATUS 3-1
Regulations 3-1
Noise Standards; Aircraft Type Certification - FAR Part 36 3-1
Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom - FAR Part 91. 55 3-3
Notices and Advance Notices 3-4
Civil Supersonic Aircraft Noise Type Certification
Standards - ANPRM 70-33 3-4
Civil Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit Requirements -
ANPRM 70-44 3-5
Noise Type Certification and Acoustical Change
Approvals - NPRM 71-26 3-6
Newly Produced Airplanes of Older Type Design, Proposed
Application of Noise Standards - NPRM 72-19 3-7
Civil Airplane Fleet Noise Level (FNL) Requirements -
ANPRM 73-3 3-8
Project Reports and Advisory Materials 3-10
• Amendment to Federal Aviation Regulation to Provide for
a Takeoff Noise Control Operating Rule (21 Nov 1972):
Project Report 3-11
Noise Certification Rule for Quiet Short Haul Category
Aircraft, 29 Dec 1972: Project Report 3-12
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Cont.)
Section Page
Propeller Driven Aircraft Noise Type Certification
Standards (Notice of Proposed Rule Making): 22 Jan
1973: Project Report 3-17
Aircraft Sound Description System (Draft Order 7040,
3Augl972): 3-19
ASDS Format 3-23
Basic Input to ASDS 3-23
Basic Premise. Threshold Level, and Event Times 3-24
Linear Summation of Events 3-26
Conclusions of ASDS Analysis 3-27
4 REVIEW OF NOISE CONTROL ACTIONS OF OTHERS 4-1
State and Local 4-1
State of California 4-1
Los Angeles International Airport 4-2
Industry Noise Control Actions 4-3
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5-1
Three Part Regulatory Plan 5-2
Regulations Prescribed and Enforced by FAA 5-2
Regulations Proposed by EPA 5-3
Airport Regulations (Permits) Prescribed and Enforced
by FAA or EPA 5-4
Summary of Three-Part Plan 5-5
6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1
Immediate FAA Regulatory Action 6-1
ANPRM 70-33: Supersonic Aircraft Noise 6-1
NPRM 72-19: Newly Produced Airplanes of Older
Type Design 6-3
ANPRM 70-44 and ANPRM 73-3: Civil Airplane Noise
Reduction Retrofit and Fleet Noise Requirements 6-3
Project Report: Takeoff Operating Rule 6-5
Project Report: Propeller Driven Aircraft 6-6
Additional FAA Regulatory Action 6-7
FAR Part 36 6-7
Project Report: Quiet Short Haul Aircraft 6-8
Miscellaneous Federal Action 6-8
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY R-i
APPENDIX A POSITION PAPERS A-l
APPENDIX B TASK GROUP PARTICIPANTS B-l
VII
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Regulatory Instructions Comparison 1-8
1-2 Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 as
Amended by PL 92-574 1-9
2-1 Typical Aircraft Noise Control Options 2-2
2-2 Considerations in Defining Protection to Public Health
and Welfare 2-7
2-3 Generalized Curve for Determining Limiting Cumulative
Noise Level For the Protection of Public Health and Welfare 2-9
2-4 Exploitation of Source Control Options 2-10
2-5 Noise Exposure Contours for Levels Representing Various
Options 2-13
2-6 Qualitative Cost Comparison Between Technology & Land
Use Noise Control 2-14
3-1 Proposed Noise Limits for Propeller Driven Aircraft 3-20
vm
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The results of the Task Group 2 ?.nd 4 studies clearly indicate that the current
technology is exceptionally comprehensive and capable of being translated into feasible
hardware and flight procedures that would significantly decrease aircraft noise expo-
sure. However, the available technology will not be thoroughly implemented by the
manufacturers and operators until they have the necessary incentives. Noise control
has been applied over the past 10 years, but essentially only to the extent of prevent-
ing the escalation of noise. Much more is needed and can be obtained by hardware
and flight operating procedures that are safe and technically practical, and may well
be economically reasonable if the costs are shared equitably by the responsible mem-
bers of the aviation community, the flying public, the noise exposed public, and the
general taxpayer. All of these elements will benefit in various ways from a less noisy
civil aviation system, and likewise, will suffer from a severely limited one.
Regulations are probably the most effective and reliable technique for exploiting
the state of the art of noise control at the source (engine and airframe design and
modification), at the path (flight operating procedures), and at the receiver (airport
operating procedures; curfews, restrictions, compatible land use, etc.). However,
to reach an optimum balance of noise control and civil aeronautics viability, the reg-
ulations must be wisely constructed and enforced.
The purpose of this report is to examine the existing and proposed Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and to consider their effectiveness in furn-
ishing protection to the public health and welfare and to consider whether they
adequately exploit the available technology. This report begins with a review of the
legislative history of noise control and briefly identifies the regulatory status of the
FAA and relevant noise control actions of several state and local authorities.
1-1
-------
The relationships between technology, health and welfare, and regulations are
discussed in Section 2. The results of Task Group 3 (10. 4-427) are introduced in a
qualitative manner and are shown to be necessary in the development of a practical
concept for optimizing costs in the protection of the public health and welfare from
aircraft noise and sonic boom.
The FAA regulatory and proposed actions are reviewed in considerable depth in
Section 3, and various noise control actions of state and local authorities and the industry
are reviewed in Section 4. The actions are examined in respect to their effectiveness;
whether the existing regulations should be modified and whether the proposed actions
should be implemented in some form.
A three part plan for the development and implementation of aircraft noise regu-
lations is presented in Section 5. The plan is designed to permit EPA, FAA, and
the airport authorities to work together in a manner that optimally utilizes their
special interests and expertise. The objective is to provide incentive to implement
all noise control options to the maximum extent feasible and to control the residual
noise by compatible land use measures.
General recommendations are presented in Section 6 for immediate and future
FAA and other Federal action. Detailed regulatory proposals will be prepared for the
FAA after completion of the report.
LEGISLATIVE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC LAW 85-726
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-726) created ". . .a Federal
Aviation Agency, to provide for the regulation and promotion of civil aviation in such
manner as to best foster its development and safety, and to provide for the safe and
efficient use of the airspace by both civil and military aircraft, and for other purposes."
The FAA, therefore, was created to ensure that civil aviation would be a viable and
safe national asset. The Act did not recognize that civil aviation could have any detri-
mental effects on the public except to be unsafe or uneconomical.
1-2
-------
VOLUNTARY ACTIONS
Serious consideration by the aviation community was not given to the control of
aircraft noise by regulation until the rapid growth of air commerce in the early 1960's
significantly increased community noise exposure near major airports. Tolerance of
the noise was strained to the point that large segments of the public objected to the
expansion of existing airports or the development of new airports. The aviation com-
munity was concerned that aircraft noise, unless it was reduced or effectively
controlled, would seriously inhibit the development of new airports necessary to pro-
vide badly needed capacity and that air commerce would not realize its full potential
of public and private service.
In October 1965, at the request of the President, the Office of Science and Tech-
nology sponsored a symposium on the aircraft noise problem, the results of which are
presented in Reference 12. 1-249. This reference source is commonly referred to as
the "Green Book. " In his transportation message of March 2, 1966, the President
directed that a concerted effort be undertaken by the Federal Government to combat
the growing problem of jet aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports. In response, the
Office of Science and Technology, in cooperation with the FAA, the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
initiated an Aircraft Noise Alleviation Program. The program was based on imple-
menting specific recommendations contained in the Green Book.
Three governmental committees were established to provide guidance, industry
advice, and the means of ensuring interagency cooperation and coordination:
1. The Policy Committee, composed of participating Federal agency and depart-
ment heads.
2. The Program Evaluation and Development Committee (PEDC), composed of
working level members of organizations represented on the Policy Committee,
representatives of various aircraft industry organizations, and individual
aircraft noise experts participating in an advisory capacity.
1-3
-------
3. The Management Committee, composed of working level representatives of
participating Federal agencies responsible for the day-to-day conduct and
coordination of the program.
One of the recommendations of the Green Book that was emphasized and expanded
by the PEDC in Reference 12.1-106 was that certification of aircraft for noise was
critical to the solution of the problem. This view was endorsed by the London Con-
ference (12.1-250), and appropriate legislation (which ultimately led to Public Law
90-411) was introduced by the Administration to grant FAA such authority. In
September 1966, the FAA Associate Administrator for Development forwarded to
industry for comment a concept of noise certification (8.4-251), commonly known as the
"Blatt letter. " As a result-'of industry comments on the Blatt letter, and efforts of ad
hoc working groups, the concept was refined through a series of drafts, the last of
which (sixth revision) was drafted in February 1968, (8.5-252).
In May 1967, a series of tripartite meetings was initiated between representatives
of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France in an attempt to define a mutually
acceptable noise certification concept for subsonic aircraft. The goal was to develop a
plan of international agreement which could result in the adoption of an essentially
identical aircraft noise certification rule in the three countries. The objective included
eventual International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adoption and international
acceptance. In December 1967, ICAO (12.1-253) indicated its interest in establishing
international standards for aircraft noise certification and directed aircraft manufacturing
nations to keep ICAO informed as to their progress in developing noise standards.
In October 1967, discussions by the Director of the FAA Office of Noise Abatement
(8.5-254) on the advantages and disadvantages of a number of noise certification concepts
were forwarded to industry for comment. Industry responded (13.1-255) with a number
of suggestions and, as a result, an informal government/industry task force was es-
tablished to further explore the problems and to recommend the most practical con-
cept of a noise certification rule.
1-4
-------
Tripartite discussions in May 1968, developed a concept that adopted "effective
perceived noise level (EPNL) in units of EPNdB as the measure of subjective re-
sponse. Also, three points of measurement (approach, takeoff and sideline) were
established at which specified noise limits should be met.
In a July 1968 briefing, industry proposed a variation of the same three-point
concept and made a strong recommendation for using maximum Perceived Noise Level
(PNL) in units of PNdB as the measure of subjective response. After considering and
modifying the industry proposals, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) 69-1 (14.2-256) to fulfill the requirements established by the then recently
passed Public Law 90-411. The plan of the NPRM was basically that of the tripartite
agreement, with modifications to incorporate certain parts of industry proposals or
to accommodate valid objections.
PUBLIC LAW 90-411
Public Law 90-411, issued in July 1968, was the first Federal Legislative action
directed to the control of aircraft noise and sonic boom. It was generated as the re-
sult of pressures on the Administration and Congress by the public who sought relief
from noise exposure, and by the industry, who were concerned that their growth
potential might be limited. Concurrent with Hie development of Public Law 90-411,
the aviation community (international government and industry without the participa-
tion of environmental groups) worked toward developing safe and economical noise
control technology and complementary regulatory procedures. Public Law 90-411
required the FAA to prescribe and amend such regulations as the FAA may find
necessary to "afford present and future relief and protection to the public from unne-
cessary aircraft noise and sonic boom. " The only constraints on the FAA were that
the regulations must be safe, be economical, and be based upon available technology
and FAA was the sole judge on whether aircraft noise and sonic boom was unnecessary.
Public Law 90-411 did not provide any real environmental incentives or criteria. The
only incentive was economical in the sense defined by PL 85-726, that is, "the promo-
tion, encouragement, and the development of civil aeronautics, " and if noise interfered
with this, then it must be controlled and regulated.
1-5
-------
PUBLIC LAW 91-190
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) established a
national policy to "... encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment; to promote effort which will prevent or eliminate damage to the en-
vironment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man;... ". While
noise was not specifically mentioned, PL 91-190 established the Council of Environ-
mental Quality (CEQ), which chose to consider noise an influence on the quality of the
environment.
PUBLIC LAW 91-258
The Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act of 1970 was signed into law
on 21 May 1970, implementing the first stage of a proposed 10-year program to expand,
modernize, and improve aviation facilities throughout the United States in order to meet
the forecasted growth of aviation in the next decade. To provide funds for the program,
the revenue part of the Act provides for user charges to be collected from aircraft
owners, operators, and passengers.
Airport sponsors must meet certain requirements not part of past programs. These
include consideration of the environmental impact of the airport on the community,
provisions for adequate housing for persons being displaced by the acquisition of land
for the airport, and an opportunity for a public hearing. Concerning the latter, requests
involving location of an airport, an airport runway, or runway extension will not be
approved until the sponsoring public agency certifies that economic, social, and environ-
mental considerations have been publically reviewed.
The Act also provides for airport certification. The FAA is authorized to issue
operating certificates to airports served by air carriers certificated by the Civil Aero-
nautics Board (CAB). Operators of such airports must obtain operating certificates.
PUBLIC LAW 91-604
The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 (Title IV of Public Law 91-604)
directed that "The Administrator shall establish within the Environmental Protection
Agency on Office of Noise Abatement and Control, and shall carry out through such
1-6
-------
Office a full and complete investigation and study of noise and its effect on the public
health and welfare in order to (1) identify and classify causes and sources of noise
and (2) determine — "... (D) effects of sporadic extreme noise (such as jet near air-
ports) as compared with constant noise;... (F) effect of sonic booms on property (in-
cluding values);...". Title IV specifically recognizes aircraft noise and sonic boom
as a possible public nuisance that may have a detrimental psychological and physio-
logical effect on the public health and welfare.
PUBLIC LAW 92-574
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) ".. .declares that it is the
policy of the United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise
that jeopardizes their health and welfare. " Section 7 of PL 92-574 is devoted entirely
to aircraft noise and sonic boom and supersedes PL 90-411 by amending Section 611
of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to include the concept of "health and welfare" and
to define the responsibilities of and interrelationships between the FAA and EPA.
Specifically, PL 92-574 requires that "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 EPA, ... 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,... ". The regulatory instructions of PL 90-411 are compared
with those of PL 92-574 in Figure 1-1, and it is significant that the latter contains the
phrase "health and welfare" and does not contain the word "unnecessary. " The full
text of Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 is given in Figure 1-2.
In prescribing and amending standards and regulations, PL 92-574 requires that
the FAA shall consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is:
• Consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce or air transpor-
tation in the public interest;
• Economically reasonable;
1-7
-------
Technologically practicable; and
• Appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or
certificate to which it will apply.
The above specifications that must be considered by the FAA in prescribing air-
craft noise and sonic boom regulations are identical to those contained in PL 90-411
and form constraints on the regulatory procedures. However, PL 92-574 has intro-
duced a fifth constraint-protection to the public health and welfare.
PUBLIC LAW 90-411
IN ORDER TO AFFORD PRESENT AND FUTURE RELIEF AND
PROTECTION TO THE PUBLIC FROM UNNECESSARY AIRCRAFT
NOISE AND SONIC BOOM, THE FAA SHALL PRESCRIBE AND AMEND
SUCH REGULATIONS AS THEY MAY FIND NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
FOR THE CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND
SONIC BOOM.
PUBLIC LAW 92-574 (SUPERSEDES PL 90-411)
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 CONSUL-
TATION WITH EPA, SHALL PRESCRIBE AND AMEND SUCH
REGULATIONS AS THEY MAY FIND NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
FOR THE CONTROL AND ABATEMENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
'AND SONIC BOOM.
Figure 1-1. Regulatory Instructions Comparison
REGULATORY STATUS OF THE FAA
Based upon the authority and requirements set forth in PL 90-411 and PL 92-574,
the FAA has developed and issued regulations, standards, orders, and advisory cir-
culars In its efforts to abate and control aircraft noise and sonic boom.
In the process of prescribing a regulation, the actual issuance of the regulation
is preceded by a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), or when more preliminary
in nature, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). In either case, the
public notice is usually preceded by developmental work documented in a project report.
1-8
-------
Section 611: Control And Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom
(a) For purpose of this section:
(1) The term "FAA" means the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(2) The terra "EPA" means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(b)(l) 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 wit-h EPA, shall prescribe
and amend standardefor the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such re-
gulations as the FAA may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic
boom, inc lading the appl icaf". ion of such standards and regnlat ions in t-.hft issuance. amendment, mod ification,
suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized by this title. No exemption with respect to any standard
or regulation under this sect-ion may he granted under any provision of this Act unless the FAA shall have con-
sulted with F.PA before such exemption is granted, except that if the FAA determines that safety in air commerce
or air transportation requires that such an exemption be granted before EPA can be consulted, the FAA shall con-
sult with EPA as soon as practicable after the exemption is granted.
(2) The FAA shall not issue an original type certificate under section 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 booro, consistent with the considera-
tions listed In subsection M).
(c)(l) Not earlier than the date of submission of the report required by section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972,
EPA shall submit to the FAA proposed regulations to provide such control and abatement of aircraft noise and
sonic boom (including control and abatement 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 FAA shall consider such proposed regulations submitted by EPA under this
paragraph and shall, within thirty days of the date of its submission to the FAA, publish the proposed regulations
in a notice of proposed rulemaking. Within sixty days after such publication, the FAA shall commence a bearing
at which interested persons shall be afforded an opportunity for oral 'as well as written) presentations of data,
views, and arguments. Within a reasonable time after the conclusion of such hearing and after consultation with
EPA, the FAA shall-
(A) in accordancp with subsection (b), prescribe regulations (i) substantially
as thpy were submitted by EPA, or (ii) which are a modification of the proposed
regulations submitted by EPA, or
(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice that it is not prescribing and regulation in
response to EPA's submission of proposed regulations, together with a detailed explanation
providing reasons for th« decision not to prescribe such regulations.
(2) If EPA has reason to believe that the FAA's action with respect: to a regulation proposed by EPA under paragraph
(l) standards and regulations under this section, the FAA shall-
(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the results of research,
development, testing, and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this Act and the Department of Transpor-
tation Act;
(2) consult with such Federa 1, State, and interstate agencies as he deems appropriate;
(3) consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is consistent with the highest decree of safety in air
commerce or air transportation in the public interest;
(M consider whether anv proposed standard or regulation is economically reasonable, technologically practicable,
and appropriate i'or the particular tvpe of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to which it will
apply; and
(5) consider the extent to which such standard or regulation will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this
sec t ion.
(e) In eny action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certificate in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic
boom standards or regulations is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same notice and appeal rights
as are contained in section 609, ancj in anv appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board, the hoard may
amend, modify, or reverse the order of the FAA if it finds that control 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.
Figure 1-2. Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 as Amended by PL 92-574.
1-9
-------
As of this writing, the FAA has issued two noise source control regulations:*
1. "Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36: Noise Standards: Aircraft type
Certification" became effective 1 December 1969.
2. "Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91. 55: General Operating and
Flight Rules: Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom" became effective 27 April 1973.
In addition to these two regulations, the FAA has issued two NPRMs and three
ANPRMs that have not yet resulted in regulations as proposed. The notices, the
general titles, and the dates of issue are:
1. ANPRM 70-33; Civil Supersonic Aircraft Noise Type Certification Standards,
4 August 1970.
2. ANPRM 70-44; Civil Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit Requirements,
30 October 1970.
3. NPRM 71-26; Noise Type Certification and Acoustical Change Approvals,
13 September 1971.
4. NPRM 72-19; Newly Produced Airplanes of Older Type Design; Proposed
Application of Noise Standards, 7 July 1972.
5. ANPRM 73-3; Civil Airplane Fleet Noise (FNL) Requirements,
24 January 1973.
The FAA has also developed at least three project reports preliminary to the
issuance of notice of proposed rulemaking. These project reports constitute part of
current FAA developments. Draft version titles and dates for these project reports
are:
1. "Amendment to Federal Aviation Regulations to Provide for a Takeoff Noise
Control Operating Rule, " 21 November 1972.
* An additional FAA regulation, FAR Part 91. 87, concerning minimum altitudes and
preferential runways, relates to aircraft noise control. Discussion of this regulation
is included in the report of Task Group 2 (10. 4-426).
1-10
-------
2. "Noise Certification Rule for Quiet Short Haul Category Aircraft, "
29 December 1972.
3. "Propeller Driven Aircraft Noise Type Certification Standards,"
22 January 1973.
In addition, the FAA has implemented what is commonly known as the "Keep-'em-
High" program. In this program, procedures for controlling the arrival and departure
of high performance aircraft are designed to reduce noise exposure levels in addition
to reducing the time that IFR aircraft are exposed to VFR aircraft at lower altitudes.
The FAA issued an Advisory Circular (AC 90-59) in February 1972 making reference
to an FAA Order (7110. 22A) relating to the air traffic controllers handling of the high
performance aircraft. Also, AC 91-36 encourages pilots operating fixed and rotary
wing aircraft under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), to fly at not less than 2000 feet above
the surface over noise sensitive areas. Both of these Advisory Circulars are discussed
in the report of Task Group 2 (10.4-426).
In an attempt to derive an airport sound descriptor, the FAA has developed a
Draft Order (3 August 1972) entitled " Aircraft Sound Description System. " This
draft order "states policy and establishes the procedures and guidance for the calcu-
lation and dissemination of aircraft sound data. "
All of the preceding regulations, notices, project reports, and the Draft Order are
described in detail and reviewed in depth in Section 3.
i>
NOISE CONTROL ACTIONS OF OTHERS
Effective aircraft noise control actions in the form of regulations, rules, reso-
lutions, specifications and standards by organizations other than the FAA are notably
few. Most of those that have been promulgated have been developed in conjunction
with the FAA. '
The first significant action, in the form of a rule, was established in 1957 by the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and specified a maximum noise level at
specific locations for takeoff operations at the three major airports in the New York
City area. A discussion of this action is presented in the Task Group 1 report (10.4-425).
1-11
-------
The most noteworthy airport noise regulation imposed by a state government is
that developed and brought into effect on December 1, 1972 by the State of California
(15.1-34). * This regulation accomplishes its ends by controlling and reducing noise
exposure levels, in addition to single event noise levels, in the communities in the
vicinity of the airport. This is accomplished principally through enforcement by the
county in which the airport resides and placement of a large portion of the implementa-
tion upon the airport proprietor. Recently announced resolutions by the Los Angeles
International Airport Board of Commissions (15. 2-265) to establish a five-point noise
abatement program with airport management enforced regulations and penalties stems
directly from the authority and responsibility established under the state aeronautical
laws.
Other California airports may be expected to follow the lead provided by Los
Angeles International (15.1-64) and the California law relating to aircraft noise is
being given consideration by other states.
Another noise control area in which there has been potentially effective rules
established is in the area of control of aircraft operating procedures; especially note-
worthy are those endorsed and promulgated by the National Business Aircraft Associ-
ation (NBAA) and the Air Transport Association (ATA) (13.1-150 and 188 and 13.1-266,
respectively). Both procedures were developed in conjunction and with the support of
the FAA. However, these rules are self-imposed, unenforced, bear no real and
direct penalties, and are not endorsed by all of the group membership.
Similar operating rules adopted by the California intrastate aircraft carriers
(4.1-267, 268) in response to requirements under the state noise laws are probably
more effective because of the airport monitoring and the potential penalties for violations.
Special aircraft operating rules that have been jointly developed by the airlines
and the airports for specific situations have also been promulgated and are in effect
on a self-imposed basis (4.1-269, 270).
This statute may be in danger of discontinuation because of the recent U. S. Supreme
Court ruling in the case of City of Burbank vs Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. This
issue is thoroughly discussed in Task Group 1 Report (Reference 10.4-425).
1-12
-------
The preceding specific citations are not to be construed as being either complete
or even possibly the best examples; however, they do serve to illustrate the general
types of noise control actions being taken by organizations other than the FAA and
provide a framework for some of the review, analysis and recommendations in the
other sections of this report.
1-13
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY, HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND REGULATIONS
NOISE CONTROL OPTIONS
The abatement of aircraft noise is accomplished by exercising one or more of the
control options identified in Figure 2-1. In general, for new designs of any product,
the most sensible and preferred approach for noise abatement is to attempt to control
the source to the extent that it will be acceptable in any environment. Path and
receiver control options should always remain the second and third choices, respec-
tively. For the existing aviation system, however, the older equipment has only
minor application of source control technology and the newer equipment, while having
substantially more, does not have enough to yield noise levels acceptable in all
environments in which they operate. Technology capability for complete control of
all aircraft noise at the source is not yet available and lies somewhere in the future,
perhaps the far distant future. The solution, therefore, is to implement the source,
path, and receiver control options concurrently, each to the extent feasible, and,
finally, to contain the remainder of the noise within noise compatible boundaries.
Figure 2-1 is intended to represent a flow diagram of the four options capable of indepen-
dent, but concurrent, implementation.
SOURCE CONTROLS
Source control options are the result of the scientific and engineering capability
of the airframe and engine manufacturers and those shown in Figure 2-1 are
intended to be significant examples of current technology and not necessarily a com-
plete list. The null or "do nothing case" is included as a baseline for economic eval-
uations, assuming that even if no source control option is utilized, costs would still
accrue as a result of public hostility being translated into higher airport fees, curfews,
restrictions, etc. The fleet replacement case is included as the upper boundary for
2-1
-------
AIRCRAFT NOISE
SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS
NULL (DO NOTHING)
NACELLE (SAM)
NACELLE (SAM + JNR)
REFAN (3D&8D)
RE-ENGINE
FLEET REPLACEMENT
PATH CONTROL OPTIONS
TAKEOFF PROCEDURES
• ATA VOLUNTARY
• ALPA PROPOSED
• NORTHWEST
• FAA PROJECT REPORT
• FAR PART 36
APPROACH PROCEDURES
• ONE SEGMENT (> 3°)
• TWO SEGMENT (3°-6°)
RECEIVER CONTROL OPTIONS
• LANDING FEES
• QUOTAS
• RESTRICTIONS
• PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY USE
• CURFEWS
• SHUTDOWN
NOISE COMPATIBLE LAND USE
CONTROL OPTIONS
ZONING
REDEVELOPMENT
PRE-EMPTION
EASEMENTS
ACOUSTIC TREATMENT
[ PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE
Figure 2-1. Typical Aircraft Noise Control Options.
2-2
-------
economic 'evaluations of current technology by assuming that replacing all turbojet
and low-bypass ratio turbofan propelled aircraft by the latest technology high-bypass
turbofan propelled aircraft would be more costly than any of the intermediate source
control options. Also-the fleet replacement option can be considered to represent
future technology applied to aircraft not yet designed and would include such design
features as higher thrust/weight ratios than those of present conventional aircraft.
The nacelle (SAM) and (SAM + JNR) options represent the nacelle retrofit tech-
nology with "sound absorption material" and "sound absorption material plus jet noise
reducer," respectively, developed for FAA by Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. The
refan options represent the modified fan engine and nacelle technology under develop-
ment for NASA by Pratt and Whitney, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas and are intended
to include both the JT3D and JT8D engines for consideration, both of which are
assumed to include SAM. The re-engine options represent the "quiet engine" technol-
ogy developed for NASA by General Electric both with and without the SAM developed
by Boeing. The NASA "quiet engine" is not considered seriously for retrofit but
should be considered available technology for future aircraft. Also the re-engine
options are intended to include the replacement of turbojet with turbofan engines,
especially for the business jet category.
PATH CONTROLS
Path control options are dependent to a great extent upon aircraft operator (air-
lines and general aviation) and pilot willingness to fully exploit all available operational
capability of their aircraft. The options shown in Figure 2-1 are examples of cur-
rent technology and not necessarily a complete list. However, the responsibility for
implementing these options must be shared by the Federal Government (FAA) because
of its authority over and control of approach and departure rates, patterns, and
guidance and surveillance equipment. Some of the more sophisticated path control
options would require the installation of new electronic guidance equipment at the
airports (Government responsibility) and compatible equipment in the aircraft (opera-
tor responsibility) because the highest degree of safety must be maintained.
2-3
-------
RECEIVER CONTROLS
The receiver control options are generally the responsibility of the airport opera-
tor with some exceptions that are shared with, or can be overruled by, the Federal
Government (e.g. , preferential runway use, bilateral agreements, interstate com-
merce requirements). It is apparent that the airport operator, if sufficiently motivated
and with adequate legal authority, has the tools to control the noise to any required level.
LAND USE CONTROLS
The noise compatible land use control options shown in Figure 2-1 are far
easier exercised in the development of new airports than as remedial measures for
existing noise impacted airport communities. For the latter case, the costs for land
use control alone are so high that maximum effort must be devoted to implementing the
source, path, and receiver control options. The responsibility for exercising land
use control options are shared by the airport operators and the Federal, state, and
local governments depending upon the size of the noise impacted areas and the politi-
cal jurisdictions that control its welfare.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
The flow diagram of Figure 2-1 represents four sets of control options pro-
tecting the public health and welfare from aircraft noise. The extent to which the
control options must be utilized is dependent upon the meaning and quantification of
public health and welfare. Until the advent of Public Law 92-574, the motivation for
exploiting the technology control options (source and path) was limited by the con-
straints on the FAA noise abatement regulatory procedures delineated in Public Law
90-411. That is, in prescribing and amending standards and regulations, the FAA
shall consider whether any proposed standard or regulation is consistent with the
highest degree of safety and whether any proposed standard or regulation is economi-
cally reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for the particular type
of aircraft to which they apply. The Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574), however,
2-4
-------
has added an additional constraint: protection to the public health and welfare. This
additional constraint has not yet been officially quantified and, consequently, is difficult
to apply to final judgments and evaluations of the adequacy of the FAA flight and operational
noise controls and adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft.
Although the former constraints were essentially safety, economics, and tech-
nology, some degree of public health and welfare has been considered. The basic
noise evaluation measure, Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) in units of EPNdB
was developed after extensive experimentation and analysis was devoted to psycho-
acoustic effects of noise on human beings (e.g., loudness, annoyance, intrusiveness).
The widely used noise exposure measure, Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF), is
another example of psychoacoustic consideration. Physiological effects of noise on
human beings and other ecological systems, such as temporary and permanent
threshold shift (hearing loss), cardiovascular damage, fetal impairment, must now be
considered. And the functional degradation effects of noise (speech interference, sig-
nal masking, etc.) must also be examined. Detailed investigations are being conduc-
ted under the sponsorship of EPA, and the concept of public health and welfare will
ultimately be quantified. Also, the Task Group 3 report (10. 4-427) contains recommen-
dations specifically for use in this report.
Several definitions and quotations useful for a qualitative understanding of public
health and welfare follow.
1. "In law, the suspect is innocent until his guilt has been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. In the protection of human health, such absolute proof
often comes late. To wait for it is to invite disaster, or at least to suffer
unnecessarily through long periods of time. " W. H. Stewart, Noise as a
Public Health Hazard, Proceedings of the Conference, ASHA Report No. 4,
February 1969.
2. "Health. A state of physical, mental, and social well being, and not merely
the absence of disease or infirmity. " The Noise Around Us, Findings and
2-5
-------
Recommendations, Report of the Panel on Noise Abatement, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce Publication, September 1970. (Note: this is the World
Health Organization definition.)
3. "All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to,
effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals,
wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of
property, and hazards to transportation as well as effects on economic values
and on personal comfort and well-being. " Clean Air Act of 1970, PL 91-604,
Title IV - Noise Pollution.
4. "Public health and welfare includes not only all direct effects upon human
health but also any effects upon personal comfort and well being, and upon
economic values, materials and property, animals, wildlife and any other
ecological components. " Noise Program Work Plans, EPA Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, 10 November 1972.
Two important points must be clearly understood. First, the FAA regulations
have two sets of constraints, the first one pertaining to safety, economics, and
technology and the second pertaining to protection of the public health and welfare.
The point is that the second set of constraints does not necessarily override the first.
The second point is that aviation is a national asset and that ill conceived regulations,
purportedly designed to protect the public health and welfare, might actually endanger
the public welfare if they would result in destroying, seriously crippling, or
severely limiting the viability of the national aviation system. On the other hand, well
conceived regulations, while protecting the public health and welfare directly, might
actually accelerate the development of aviation by minimizing public hostility.
Possible effects of noise on human beings and other ecological systems that must
be considered in developing a quantitative measure defining protection to the public
health and welfare from aircraft noise and sonic boom are listed in Figure 2-2.
This is not meant to be an all-inclusive list nor is it intended to imply that all of the
items are significantly affected by the levels of noise exposure found in typical noise
2-6
-------
• PSYCHOLOGICAL
• LOUDNESS
• ANNOYANCE
• INTRUSIVENESS
• FRUSTRATION
• PHYSIOLOGICAL
• HEARING LOSS
• NERVOUSNESS
• ETC.
• FUNCTIONAL INTERFERENCE
• SPEECH
• SIGNALING
• SLEEP
• ECOLOGICAL DEGRADATION
• SOIL
• WATER
• CROPS
• ANIMALS
• ETC.
• FINANCIAL LOSS
• PROPERTY
• INCOME
• ETC.
Figure 2-2. Considerations in Defining Protection to Public Health and Welfare
2-7
-------
impacted communities. Figure 2-2 is simply an itemized listing of some of the
characteristics affecting the quality of life that could conceivably be influenced by
aircraft noise and sonic boom exposure.
The results of the Task Group 3 study (10.4-427) include the development of a
cumulative noise exposure measure called day-night average sound level (Ldn). The
measure has been defined for that study as the average A-weighted sound level during
a 24-hour time period with a 10 dB penalty applied to nightime (2200-0700 hours) sound
levels. Included in the Task Group 3 study is an analysis of the effects of noise on
people which was performed in direct response to the requirements of the aircraft/
airport noise study. Concurrent with this analysis, the EPA prepared a general document
of criteria (10. 5-459) for the effects of noise on people as required by Section 5(a) (1) of
the Noise Control Act. In addition, as required by Section 5(a) (2) of the Noise Control
Act, the EPA is preparing a document "... on the levels on environmental noise, the
attainment and maintenance of which, in defined areas under various conditions, are
requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. "
Cumulative noise exposure levels such as the Ldn are believed ,to be the best
available means of identifying the impact of noise around airports. Cumulative noise
exposure levels can also serve as the basis for generally applicable environmental
standards designed to control the noise exposure of members of the general population,
as well as the most critically exposed individuals, to levels that will protect their health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. With regard to "welfare" effects,
however, there is a wide range of degree of human response to noise; and thus there
may be a range of such levels taking this into account.
The establishment of limiting values for cumulative noise exposure will be influenced
by the Task Group 3 study, the criteria document, and the environmental level document.
The values also must be contingent on an appropriate balance between acceptable noise
levels and varying economic capability and sociological effects among communities.
The values may be represented by a curve such as shown qualitatively in Figure 2-3.
The horizontal scale represents levels such as Ldn and the vertical scale represents
the percentage of people affected by one or more of the noise degradation effects such
as listed in Figure 2-2. Ultimately, recommendations will be provided for specific
values such as defined by point A in Figure 2-3. The noise control options listed in
Figure 2-1 cannot be properly exercised until a set of numbers such as represented
by point A are chosen.
20
-O
-------
100
PEOPLE
AFFECTED
(HEARING RISK
AND/OR
SPEECH
INTERFERENCE,
ANNOYANCE,
ETC.)
24-HOUR CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (Ldn)
Figure 2-3. Generalized Curve for Determining Limiting Cumulative Noise Level
For the Protection of Public Health and Welfare
2-9
-------
AIRCRAFT NOISE
PRACTICABLE & APPLICABLE
TECHNOLOGY - ALL NOISE
CONTROL OPTIONS
PUBLIC SERVICE
INCENTIVE
• GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
• MARKETPLACE
• TAX BENEFIT
• FARE INCREASE
• LOW INTEREST LOAN
REGULATION
• HIGHEST DEGREE OF SAFETY
• ECONOMICALLY REASONABLE
AIRCRAFT
MANUFACTURERS
• AIRFRAME
• ENGINES
AIRCRAFT OPERATORS
• AIRLINES
• BUSINESS
• OWNERS
AIRPORTS & COMMUNITIES
NOISE COMPATIBLE LAND USE CONTROL
PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE
Figure 2-4. Exploitation of Source Control Options.
-------
METHODS OF EXPLOITING TECHNOLOGY
The following discussion is based upon the assumption that a decision will be
made by an appropriate Federal Government body supported by the scientific commu-
nity on the choice of point A in Figure 2-3.
The flow diagram in Figure 2-4 represents public health and welfare protected
from aircraft noise and sonic boom by all four of the noise control options shown in
Figure 2-1. The methods for exploiting the noise control options are designated
as public service, incentives, and regulations, all of which are applicable to manu-
facturers of the airframe and engines, the operators of airlines and business and other
general aviation aircraft, and also to the airport operators and political jurisdictions
of the airport neighborhood communities.
Public service as a method for exploiting noise control is meant to imply that
the corporate management must accept the concept that the aviation community is not
exempt from providing environmental protection and must be willing to volunteer
effort to that end. Also public service is meant to imply that communities, citizens
groups, environmentalists, and individuals must accept that aviation is a national as-
set and that their welfare may be dependent upon, to a considerable extent, a viable
national aviation system.
Incentive as a method for exploiting noise control includes the usual ideas of
competition, tax relief, fare increases, low interest loans, etc., which may be
dependent upon some sort of government support, generally of an implicit nature.
The term "Government Support" as used in Figure 2-4, however, is meant to im-
ply more direct or explicit assistance, such as the design, development, and instal-
lation of guidance, surveillance and navigational equipment necessary to safely
implement noise abatement operating procedures. Also, the Government should
maintain a continuing high level support for noise abatement research and development.
Regulation as a technique for exploiting noise control possibilities is probably the
most effective of the three presented in Figure 2-4. They must, however, be care-
2-11
-------
fully developed to assure that the control options conform to the highest degree of
safety and are economically reasonable in both installation and application.
After all the practicable and applicable noise control options have been adequately
exploited, and if the noise exposure at any airport neighborhood community exceeds
the level designated as the limit for protection to the public health and welfare (point
A in Figure 2-3), then the only recourse is to exercise noise-compatible land use
control measures. For new airport developments, the costs of land use control only
may be reasonable, but for some existing noise impacted airport communities, the
costs may be astronomical unless the source, path, and receiver control options are
exploited to the optimum.
Figure 2-5 represents an airport surrounded by noise exposure contours in-
tended to represent the extremes of noise control, that is, do nothing and maximum
feasible. The interior area represents the residue of noise exposure that must be
controlled in order to protect the public health and welfare. Obviously, the ideal case
would be for the inner contour to lie within the airport boundary, thus representing
optimum noise compatible land use control.
Figure 2-6 presents a qualitative example of the need to fully exercise the
source, path, and receiver control options in order to minimize the cost (to the entire
aviation community, the airport neighborhood communities, and the general tax payer) that
would accrue in providing protection to the public health and welfare from aircraft
noise. The land use curve represents the costs for the null case, in which the source
and path (technology) noise control options were not exercised and the protection to the
public health and welfare was accomplished solely by land use control. -While it is
possible for 100 percent of the area to be protected, or controlled, by noise compatible
land use, the ultimate costs would be high. The technology curve represents the other
extreme, where no effort was made to implement land use control, and protection is
accomplished solely by the technology control options. Initially, technology is very
effective; considerable noise impact area reduction is accomplished at low cost compared
to land use control. Ultimately, however, the technology costs become excessive and
the technology options never do achieve the objective of 100 percent protection.
2-12
-------
AIRPORT BOUNDARY
to
i
CO
NULL CONTOUR-
NOISE CONTROL
OPTIONS NOT
EXERCISED
FEASIBLE OPTIONS EXERCISED-
RESIDUAL AREA MUST BE CONTROLLED
BY COMPATIBLE LAND USE
Figure 2-5. Noise Exposure Contours for Levels Representing Various Options
-------
COST
FOR
PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY
CONTROL
ONLY
COMPATIBLE
LAND USE
CONTROL
ONLY
100
% AREA PROTECTED
Figure 2-6. Qualitative Cost Comparison Between Technology & Land Use
Noise Control
2-14
-------
The solution to the problem is to determine, by cost-effectiveness studies, the
optimum balance of costs for protection among the various options. Section 4 of the
TASK GROUP 4 report (10. 4-428) includes an example of such studies.
REGULATIONS
The concept of protection to the public health and welfare is capable of broad in-
terpretation, depending upon the interests of the public and the specific threat against
their health and welfare. The necessity for public protection is clearly obvious for
such potential hazards as explosives, nuclear fuel, poisons, and high-speed trans-
portation, which, if uncontrolled, can have an immediate and cataclysmic effect upon
the public. For these potential hazards, there are Federal, state, and local regula-
tions designed for public protection, and there is general acceptance of their need.
There is, however, controversy, even for the most fearful hazards, as to the
extent of protection the regulations must require. Assuming these potential hazards
(explosions, radiation, etc.), in a controlled form, are necessary and beneficial to
the public, the controversy is not simply a conflict between good and evil. Instead,
the issue is usually between segments of the public without a vested interest in the
source of the hazard who want 100 percent protection and other segments of the public
with a vested interest in the source but who cannot afford the cost of absolute safety.
In general, 100 percent safety or protection is an unreachable goal, and the issues
must be resolved by regulations that provide protection to the public to a degree at
least commensurate with their other environmental influences.
In the case of degrading environmental influences that are not usually considered
fearful hazards, the controversies over the stringency of regulations, or even whether
regulations are necessary, are more complex and less easily reconciled. The fact
that a degrading environmental influence does not cause immediate noticeable and
irreversible damage, does not mean that it is not a health hazard after long exposure.
On the contrary, degrading environmental influences may be more of an ultimate
threat to the public health and welfare than the more obvious hazards because they
tend to be overlooked or neglected, and hence, not adequately controlled or regulated.
2-15
-------
Aircraft noise, at the least, is a degrading environmental influence and PL 92-574
requires that regulations be prescribed for its control. But the breadth and strictness
of these regulations will be governed by judgments of the extent to which aircraft
noise is capable of being a hazard to the public health and welfare. How should this
judgment be made? How much protection is necessary? Segments of the public with-
out a vested interest in aviation want maximum regulatory protection while other seg-
ments of the public with a vested interest want considerably less. The decision must
and will be made by the Government. But which Agency, EPA or FAA, should have
the major responsibility for the health and welfare aspects of aircraft noise regulations ?
The Environmental Protection Agency has sole responsibility for the control of all
noise sources except aircraft, and has begun extensive effort on the determination of
the effects of noise from all sources on man and other ecological systems. These EPA
studies will be comprehensive and will ultimately consider all possible health and
welfare effects (psychological, physiological, functional, etc.) such as indicated in
Figure 2-2. Although aircraft have noise signatures composed of unique spectral,
temporal, and frequency and amplitude modulation characteristics compared with
other noise sources, they are not a truly independent source in most airport neighbor-
hood communities. In many cases, aircraft are the major sources of noise, but their
environmental effects must be considered along with those of other kinds of sources
and the evaluation measures must be capable of application to all. No other Govern-
ment agency has the responsibility for, nor is attempting the development of, criteria
and evaluation measures applicable to all noise sources.
The Air Force, FAA, and NASA have been responsible for the development of
most of the existing information on human response to aircraft noise.. Other segments
of the aviation community, mostly the airframe and engine manufacturers, have made
substantial contributions as well. This work has been invaluable and more extensive
than that produced by all other sections of the national economy combined. However,
the effort by the aviation community has been devoted principally to psychological and
sociometric studies, and it appears that the aviation community is convinced that air-
2-16
-------
craft noise exposure is basically an annoyance phenomenon. This supposition may be
true, but it is necessary that, in order to protect the public health and welfare,
thorough investigations of other effects (such as shown in Figure 2-2) must be con-
ducted, criteria must be established, and evaluation measures must be developed
that are suitable for all noise sources, -either singly or combined. Noise must be in-
vestigated as to its capability of being an authentic health hazard, both for short and
long term exposures.
2-17
-------
SECTION 3
REVIEW OF FAA REGULATORY STATUS
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the FAA for the promotion, encourage-
ment, and development of civil aeronautics and to ensure that civil aeronautics would
be a safe and viable national asset. Although subsequent legislation dealt with environ-
mental quality and noise, it was not until PL 92-574 that the FAA had any really defi-
nite guidelines for noise control that would indicate that the original purpose of PL
85-726 would not be compromised by noise control actions. Despite the lack of criteria,
the FAA has devoted substantial effort to the necessary technological, economic, and
legal background support required to prescribe regulations that prevent the escalation
of aircraft noise and sonic boom. In addition, the FAA has other proposed regulatory
actions that, if properly implemented, will make a significant contribution to the re-
duction of aircraft noise exposure in the airport neighborhood communities.
REGULATIONS
NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE CERTIFICATION — FAR PART 36
FAR Part 36, effective on 1 December 1969 as a new part to the Federal Aviation
Regulations, was based upon NPRM 69-1, issued on 3 January 1969. FAR Part 36
prescribes noise standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those
certificates, for subsonic transport category airplanes, and for subsonic turbojet
powered airplanes regardless of category. This regulation initiated the noise abate-
ment regulatory program of the FAA under the statutory authority of PL 90-411.
FAR Part 36 makes a significant contribution in the form of three appendixes that
have come to be used as standards or recommended practices in the measurement and
3-1
-------
evaluation of aircraft noise. Appendix A of FAR Part 36 prescribes the conditions
under which noise type certification tests must be conducted and the measurement
procedures that must be used to measure the noise made by the aircraft for which the
test is conducted. Appendix B prescribes the procedures that must be used to deter-
mine the noise evaluation quantity designated as effective perceived noise level (EPNL).
Appendix C of FAR Part 36 provides the noise levels, noise measuring points, and
airplane test conditions for which compliance must be shown with noise levels measured
and evaluated as prescribed, respectively, by Appendixes A and B.
A qualification or limitation statement is included in FAR Part 36: ".. .the noise
levels in this part have been determined to be as low as is economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate to the type of aircraft to which they
apply. No determination is made, under this part, that these noise levels are or
should be acceptable or unacceptable for the operation at, into, or out of, any air-
port. " The statement, therefore, implies that the regulatory constraints of PL 90-411
were maintained in the development of FAR Part 36, to protect the aircraft industry
without consideration of the airport operator. In addition, the preamble states:
"Under the.. . statutory constraints, socially acceptable noise levels can only be
required insofar as they involve economically reasonable burdens on the aircraft
industry and are technologically practicable. " This statement clearly supports the
previous contention that the FAA interpretation of PL 90-411 is that "economically
reasonable" applies to the industrial segment of the aviation community and not the
airport operator who must, apparently, fend for himself. As final support for this
contention, the preamble states ".. .the actual noise generated at a given airport in
operation is not a question for type certification, but involves the right of airport
proprietors to limit the permissible levels of noise that can be created by aircraft
using the airport. If further noise reduction must be achieved at a given airport,
the judicial decisions and legislative history of Public Law 90-411 have made it clear
that this is a matter for the airport proprietor. "
3-2
-------
Regardless of whether the FAA feels more responsibility for protecting the air-
craft industry than satisfying the airport in promulgating noise regulations, the purpose
of FAR Part 36 as stated in the preamble ("... the purpose of this rule is to prevent,
at the" earliest possible date, any escalation of aircraft noise,. . .) is worthy and results
to date indicate success. Also, the preamble states: "Further noise reduction will
be required as the technology of noise abatement progresses." FAR Part 36 is a
major regulatory achievement that is flexible and capable of being adjusted to con-
form to any statutory requirements. It is an excellent first step.
CIVIL AIRCRAFT SONIC BOOM - FAR Part 91.55
Part 91.55, issued on 23 March 1973 as a new section to Part 91 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations, was based upon NPRM 70-16, issued on 10 April 1970. The
purpose of this rule is to afford the public protection from civil aircraft sonic boom
by prohibiting supersonic flights of civil aircraft, except under terms of an authoriza-
tion to exceed the speed of sound (Mach 1.0).
The rule is explicit and should be effective in protecting the public health and
welfare from routine sonic boom exposure. Civil aircraft, however, may obtain
authorization to operate at a true flight Mach number greater than unity over a desig-
nated test area, for limited special test purposes including:
• Compliance with^ai-rworthiness requirements.
• Determining sonic boom characteristics.
• Determining conditions under which speeds greater than a true flight
Mach number of unity will not cause a measurable sonic boom over-
pressure to reach the surface.
Authorization for a flight outside of a designated test area at supersonic speeds
may be made if the applicant can show conservatively that the flight will not cause a
measurable sonic boom overpressure to reach the surface.
3-3
-------
NOTICES AND ADVANCE NOTICES
CIVIL SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT NOISE TYPE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS - ANPRM
70-33
This advance notice, issued on 4 August 1970, announces that the FAA is consider-
ing rule making to establish noise standards for the type certification of civil super-
sonic aircrait. The stated reason for an advance notice is that it would be helpful
to invite early public participation in the identification and selection of tentative alter-
nate courses of action. The preamble to FAR Part 36 (which is currently limited
to the noise type certification of subsonic airplanes) stated that additional rule making
concerning the noise type certification of supersonic airplanes would be proposed.
This advance notice is the first step in implementing this objective.
The notice solicits public comment on a number of issues and problems and does
not include suggestions or recommendations although the claim is made that much
research has been done, that is: "It should be noted that much research has been done
within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration to identify the best possible regulatory approach to the type certification of
supersonic aircraft, and to insure that this new generation of aircraft is developed in
a manner that is compatible with the total environmental objectives of the Department."
The Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, as well as others, at the fourth meeting
of Task Group 5 indicated that:
1. The noise levels specified in the current FAR Part 36 (1 December 1969)
would be appropriate for application to any future SST designs.
2. The three-point measurement concept used in the current FAR Part 36
should be maintained.
3. The terminal operating characteristics of a supersonic type aircraft
are, and probably will be, significantly different from conventional,
subsonic aircraft characteristics. Due to this essentially different design
feature, the noise regulations would require greater flexibility than the
current rules allow in the takeoff and landing procedures.
3-4
-------
In view of (3), above, they also suggested that the noise standards for the super-
sonic transport type aircraft be a separate section of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Boeing also suggested, in Reference 3.5-178, that "An aircraft whose application
for certification predates the creation of certification standards should be certified
at its initial production noise level, but only after demonstrating that it incorporates
the full noise reduction technology that was economically reasonable and appropriate
at the time of its proposed certification. "
The Anglo-French Concorde is the only supersonic transport for which there is
an FAA application for certification at this time and it was submitted prior to the
establishment of noise certification standards for new aircraft.
CIVIL AIRPLANE NOISE REDUCTION RETROFIT REQUIREMENTS — ANPRM 70-44
This advance notice, issued on 30 October 1970, announces that the FAA is
considering rule making to establish noise reduction requirements that would involve
modification (retrofit) of currently type certificated subsonic turbofan engine powered
airplanes, regardless of category, as a condition to further operation of these air-
planes. Two reasons are given for the need for noise reduction retrofit:
1. "The first reason is the obvious public need for relief. It was the noise
of current fleet of aircraft that, in large part, led to the enactment
of Public Law 90-411 and with respect to which the public need for
protection is clearly the most urgent. The near-total noise saturation
of hundreds of airport neighborhoods has been well documented and needs
no further elaboration other than to restate the FAA's commitments to
using every legal regulatory technique at its disposal to reduce the noise
impact of aircraft through source noise reduction. "
2. "The second reason for an agressive noise reduction retrofit program is that
the noise of the current fleet of aircraft is a deterrent to the development of
new airports, the extension of existing runways, and the continued full use
of the airport system in the United States. The airport system is a vital
3-5
-------
national asset and its health directly affects the health of the entire air trans-
portation system. The FAA, therefore, regards an effective noise reduction
retrofit regulatory program as being necessary in the broad public and
national interest not only because of the relief it will bring to airport neigh-
bors under Public Law 90-411 and the National Environmental Policy Act-of
1969, but also because aircraft noise reduction retrofit is directly related to
the further promotion, encouragement, and development of civil aeronautics."
The above quoted reasons clearly indicate FAA awareness that the public needs
protection from noise and that the growth of aviation will be inhibited unless noise
reduction is accomplished. Furthermore, the FAA believes that current technology
is available for a feasible retrofit program: "In summary, research and development
done to date has demonstrated that the basic concepts of noise suppression of turbofan
engines are valid acoustically, and that materials and fabrication technologies may be
developed to translate these concepts into hardware that could provide economically
reasonable and technologically practicable means of significantly reducing the noise
generated by certain currently certificated turbofan powered airplanes. "
NOISE TYPE CERTIFICATION AND ACOUSTICAL CHANGE APPROVALS —
NPRM 71-26
This notice, issued on 13 September 1971, announces that the FAA proposes to
amend FAR Part 36 to require altitude and temperature accountability for the test
conditions, to strengthen the test conditions for acoustical change approvals, and to
make miscellaneous amendments to the appendixes. This proposed regulation would
correct the following deficiencies in FAR Part 36:
• FAR Part 36 now permits compliance to be shown for one specific sea level
condition only, without altitude and temperature accountability. This permits
the airplane to be approved on the basis that it meets the noise levels of
Appendix C of FAR Part 36 under a specific reference day sea level condition
even though compliance with those noise limits may not be achievable under
other conditions of altitude and temperature.
3-6
-------
• The absence of temperature and altitude accountability permits approval of an
acoustical change upon a showing that the aircraft after a change in type design
is no noisier than the aircraft prior to the change under a specific reference
day sea level condition, even though such a showing has not been made through-
out the altitude and temperature conditions approved for the aircraft.
• Miscellaneous features in the appendixes tend to be confusing and misleading
without specific interpretations by the certificating authorities.
NEWLY PRODUCED AIRPLANES OF OLDER TYPE DESIGN, PROPOSED
APPLICATION OF NOISE STANDARDS - NPRM 72-19.
This notice, issued on 7 July 1972, announced that the FAA proposed to issue
regulations requiring new production turbojet and transport category airplanes to
comply with the noise standards of Appendix C of FAR Part 36, irrespective of type
certification date.
FAR Part 36 currently applies specific noise standards only to airplanes type
certificated on or after the 1 December 1969 effective date. The only current regula-
tory impact of Part 36 on airplanes type certificated prior to that date (and do not
meet the specified noise limits) is the acoustical change provision, which prohibits
changing the type design of those airplanes so as to result in further escalation of
noise.
This proposed regulation would establish dates by which new production airplanes
of older type designs must comply with Appendix C of FAR Part 36. The stated purpose
is: "... to address the separate question whether the older generation of airplane
types would continue to be manufactured, and added to the fleet, with noise levels
higher than required for new type designs under Part 36."
Subsequently, the responses to the notice have been received and analyzed by the
FAA. A draft of the proposed regulation has been prepared and has been received by
the EPA for review and comment. The draft regulation (8. 4-424) amends FAR Part
21 and 36 and establishes dates by which subsonic transport category or subsonic
3-7
-------
turbojet powered airplanes (that have not had any flight time before these dates)
must comply with the requirements of FAR Part 36. The dates are stated to be:
" (1) December 1, 1973, for airplanes with maximum weights
greater than 75,000 Ibs., except for airplanes that are powered by
Pratt and Whitney Turbo Wasp JT3D series engines;
(2) December 31, 1974, for airplanes with maximum weights
greater than 75,000 Ibs and that are powered by Pratt and Whitney
Turbo Wasp JT3D series engines; and
(3) December 31, 1974, for airplanes with maximum weights
of 75,000 Ibs. and less."
CIVIL AIRPLANE FLEET NOISE LEVEL (FNL) REQUIREMENTS — ANPRM 73-3.
This advance notice, issued on 24 January 1973, announces that the FAA is con-
sidering proposing the adoption of regulations that would prevent escalation of fleet
noise levels (FNL), would require a reduction in FNL on or before 1 July 1976, and
would require airplanes to comply with FAR Part 36 on or after 1 July 1978. The
proposal would apply to aircraft operated in interstate commerce by air carriers,
supplemental air carriers, and commercial and air taxi operators operating turbojet
powered airplanes with maximum weights of 75,000 pounds or greater. The proposal
would not apply to airplanes engaged in foreign air commerce and airplanes operated
in overseas air commerce.
The major elements of the FNL concept are:
1. Determining the noise levels for each airplane in the fleet.
2. Determining the total number of operations (takeoffs and landings), for each
airplane type for a representative 90-day period.
3. Calculating a fleet noise level based on a mean logarithmic equation.
4. Establishing a precise limit on fleet noise levels.
Beginning on its effective date, the impact of the rule would be to immediately
"freeze", and prevent any further escalation of, the FNLs that are now being generated
3-8
-------
and to achieve a positive FNL reduction on and after 1 July 1976. This would be done
by:
1. Requiring each operator to submit the data information necessary to establish
the FNLs actually generated by the operator during a representative 90 con-
secutive days during the 12 months preceding the date of the rule.
2. The FAA determination of the initial FNLs.
3. Requiring that the initial FNLs not be exceeded.
Beginning on 1 July 1976, the rule would require that the FNLs originally estab-
lished for each operator be reduced to a level that is halfway between the original
level and the level that would exist if each airplane covered by this proposal was type
certificated under FAR Part 36.
Beginning on 1 July 1978, the FNL concept would expire. In its place, the regula-
tion would require each operator to restrict all of his operations covered by this
proposal to airplanes type certificated under Part 36, Appendix C.
This advance notice was published after consideration of comments received in
response to ANPRM 70-44, Civil Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit Requirements.
The responses to that advance notice were categorized in three basic groups:
1. City and State governmental authorities
2. Foreign states and manufacturers
3. Domestic industry groups and associations.
The members of the first group almost unanimously support the early implementa-
tion of retrofit requirements. However, the FAA states: ".. .the responses do not
address the technological practicability or economic reasonableness of early
implementation."
The members of the foreign group expressed the opinion that any retrofit require-
ments should be developed in the international forum. The advance notice 73-3 states:
"The FAA supports the concept that it is desirable to obtain uniformity of regulatory
action through the ICAO procedure, and, ... is working in support of that international
3-9
-------
effort. Accordingly, this FNL proposal would supplement the establishment of inter-
national standards, while providing early relief to the public from aircraft noise
generated by interstate operators. "
The members of domestic industry groups were divided on the question of retrofit.
The United Automobile Workers of America, the Air Line Pilots Association, the
American Association of Airport Executives, the Airport Operators' Council Inter-
national, the National Association of State Aviation Officials, and the National Academy
of Sciences all endorsed the early initiation of an aircraft acoustical retrofit require-
ment. Their position, essentially, is that existing studies are adequate to establish
technical and economic feasibility and that noise reduction would be meaningful to
airport neighbors.
However, the Aerospace Industries Association and the Air Transport Association
express the opposing opinion that adequate information is not available to proceed with
an acoustic retrofit program. Additionally, they argue that regulations should not be
promulgated until the term "meaningful relief" is defined, until complete acoustical
modifications are available for each airplane type, and until specific financing means
are resolved.
PROJECT REPORTS AND ADVISORY MATERIALS
This section concerns FAA project reports and draft FAA orders informally
issued to the aviation community or issued formally to EPA as part of the consultative
process. These materials are preliminary documents developed preparatory to the
announcement of notices or advanced notices of proposed rule making and do not
necessarily constitute or represent FAA policy. Some of the material discussed here
may have been superseded by subsequent drafts, reports, or proposals and should not
be assumed to represent current FAA work. This section is presented only to provide
information on possible directions of future regulatory actions or ideas under pre-
liminary consideration.
3-10
-------
AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION TO PROVIDE FOR A TAKEOFF
NOISE CONTROL OPERATING RULE (21 NOV 1972): PROJECT REPORT.
The objective of this project report (14.1-320) was stated to be "to provide informa-
tion for the development of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to amend the Federal
Aviation Regulations to include takeoff noise control operating procedures for civil trans-
port category and civil turbojet powered airplanes. "
The background section of this project report provides a synopsis of the efforts
(since 1960) by both the air transport industry and Federal agencies (FAA and NASA)
to define a takeoff procedure that would simultaneously:
1. Provide a uniform procedure which would reduce the cockpit departure work-
load and enhance safety during this key phase of flight.
2. Produce uniformly "controlled and/or reduced noise levels" (underscoring
added).
The concluding section of the background material states, "The FAA's past
issuances of guidance/criteria documents, noise abatement rules, and the endorse-
ment of the airlines' recent recommended takeoff procedures have not to date effected
the goals desired. It is therefore deemed appropriate and warranted in further ful-
filling our response to P.L. 90-411 in the control of aircraft noise that a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making prescribing an operational noise control procedure be developed."
Thus it appears that the FAA objective in making a rule on takeoff procedure may be
directed principally toward control in order to ensure safe and constant results while
achieving some noise relief along the takeoff flight path.
A constant and simple takeoff operating procedure on a system-wide basis may
very well be justified for safety and economic considerations. However, maximum
relief of community noise problems requires a high degree of flexibility and variation
from one airport to another and is often different between runways at the same airport.
The proposed rule is therefore not optimum from a noise standpoint for all airports.
3-11
-------
NOISE CERTIFICATION RULE FOR QUIET SHORT HAUL CATEGORY AIRCRAFT,
29 DEC 1972: PROJECT REPORT.
This project report (14. 2-323) had been under internal review and revision within
the DOT/FAA since December 1970. From the front cover of the draft version it
appears that the report is subject to internal review and revision at least annually.
The latest revision (29 December 1972) changed the scope of uie category of
aircraft to be covered from the Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) (e.g. Ref 8.2-100)
to a much broader category designated Quiet Short Haul (QSH). The QSH category
includes hot only the STOL but the Reduced Takeoff and Landing (RTOL) and the Ver-
tical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) types of aircraft. This includes fixed and rotary
wing aircraft with stage lengths under 500 miles.
The background and historical sections of the project report takes cognizance of
the impact on noise rulemaking by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as well as the Noise Control Act of
1972 (PL 92-574). In spite of the recognition of these Acts, in a section devoted to a
discussion of alternative methods of providing QSH noise certification, the project
report states: "Noise exposure certification—This method would control QSH noise
by means of a noise measuring system concept tailored perhaps to specific land uses
and/or existing ground noise environment. This would essentially constitute a certi-
fication of the airport, heliport or STOLport with respect to maximum allowable noise
source and path options. The chief problem here is that the Federal Government does
not fully have the authority, and perhaps should not, to exercise absolute
control over local airport operations."
The stated objective of the project "is to establish the foundation for a rule
limiting the maximum noise emission for the types of aircraft commonly designated
as Quiet Short Haul. The rule should be effected as soon as practicable because of
the prospect of this class of aircraft developing into a fast-expanding segment of local
and regional commercial short haul air transportation. It is therefore urgent that
noise reduction concepts are instilled as quickly as possible in the design and develop-
ment of this ciass of aircraft. In this way, quiet short haul aircraft will be more
3-12
-------
compatible with the communities they are intended to serve and this mode of trans-
portation will be better able to fulfill the promise of its future role."
In addition to the wide variety of aircraft with the inherent wide variety of possible
"configurations, combination of propulsion systems, and operational capabilities," the
project appears to be faced with an equally wide variety of possible terminal facilities
and attendant variable noise sensitivities.
The project report (14.2-323) includes a list that illustrates the wide variation in
aircraft types considered to be included in the QSH category. For convenience, this
list has been extracted and is as follows:
"(a) Turboprop Aircraft
(1) Deflected slipstream
(2) Tilt-wing
(3) Nonpowered lift CTOL
(b) Rotary Wing Aircraft
(1) Conventional Helicopters
(2) Advanced helicopters, i.e., compound type with slowed, stopped,
trailing, stowed or other variable geometry rotors.
(c) Turbofan and Jet Flap Aircraft
(1) Fully internal flow
(2) Internally blown flap
(3) Externally blown flap
(4) Augmentor wing
(5) Overwing blown flap
(d) Lift Pod Aircraft
(1) High bypass ratio, high thrust/weight turbofans, either concentric
or turbotip drive, in wing or fuselage lift pods or swingout/stowed
within fuselage; separate cruise propulsion turbof ans.
3-13
-------
(e) Fan-In-Wing Aircraft
(1) Turbotip lift fans powered by turbojets or low bypass turbofans
which also afford cruise propulsion. ".
The project report review also states that the subject types of aircraft are not
covered under the current FAR Part 36 "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type Certifica-
tion;" inasmuch as the Part 36 rule was directed toward a wide variety of Conventional
Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, the operational characteristics, thrust modes,
environments, and economics of which are substantially dissimilar from the envisioned
QSH type of aircraft. Thus a regulation "tailored" to and clearly appropriate to the
type (as required by law) should be considered.
One of the project report conclusions is stated to be "since the QSH system
development is in such a state of flux during its present embryonic stage, it is con-
cluded that the issuance of an ANPRM on QSH noise would best suit the FAA's
purposes in establishing a firm structure upon which to base specific QSH noise
standards. Reliable specific data on various QSH aircraft noise characteristics and
economics are urgently needed to construct an effective and viable QSH noise rule. "
Other conclusions are stated to be:
"1. Second generation QSH aircraft should be no noisier than first generation
of STOL aircraft.
2. Noise regulations should be developed with a view to the impact of environ-
mental provisions of the Environmental Policy Act, the Airport and Airways
Act and the Noise Control Act of 1972.
3. Most noise certification concepts lack the capability of matching aircraft
noise to airport, heliport or STOLports. The potential for this matching
exists through the new environmental legislation.
4. Enroute noise for quiet short haul routes should be given regulatory
consideration.
3-14
-------
5. The aircraft industry repeatedly stresses caution both in the premature
issuance of a QSH noise rule and in regulatory noise limits which inhibit the
development of the many types and sizes of QSH aircraft now in view. On
the other hand, the Rule's entire objective would be negated if the FAA were
to structure the regulation so as to permit a wide spectrum of noise emissions
from all possible types of QSH aircraft. Further, it would seem that the
noise sensitive task of establishing new metropolitan heliports and STOLports
together with the demands of new environmental laws, would require QSH
aircraft to accede to even more of an economic sacrifice in the cause of
noise reduction than has been the case for CTOL aircraft."
The project report makes only one recommendation; that is, prepare an ANPRM.
According to the recommendation, the ANPRM should serve three functions:
1. Provide emphasis of the FAA intent to require standards of maximum noise
for QSH type aircraft.
2. Provide notice of intention to follow the general philosophy of the present
subsonic noise regulations.
3. Solicit specific information from all segments of interested aviation sources,
municipal, local, state, Federal and public entities and individuals on the
specifics of R/V/STOL designs, physical and operational characteristics,
environmental impacts, economic limitations, evolutionary development and
alternatives.
The project report further provides a list of 19 specific areas of inquiry and, for
convenience, all nineteen have been extracted and are listed below.
"(1) How best to envelop the class of aircraft known as QSH for noise certification
purposes.
3-15
-------
(2) The extent to which the class of QSH aircraft should be divided into sub-
classes, i.e., rotary wing, VTOL, STOL, RTOL, etc. for the purpose of
establishing noise limits and measurement procedures.
(3) The extent to which the class of QSH aircraft should be further categorized
for purposes of assessing the economic impact and technological feasibility
of noise regulations.
(4) The extent to which noise level characteristics of present day and future
types of QSH aircraft and their propulsion system can be predicted.
(5) The extent to which present conventional noise reduction techniques can be
incorporated in the various types of QSH aircraft now envisioned.
(6) Specification of noise measurement points for certification purposes to
ensure that noise information recorded in the flight manual will have maxi-
mum utility for long-range land use planning and future airport development.
(7) The variation in noise characteristics and operating economics associated
with the various types of STOL aircraft now envisioned.
(8) How best to regulate noise for QSH aircraft (amend Part 36, promulgate
new Part, etc.).
(9) The minimum time for compliance with a QSH noise rule.
(10) The expected market range for various classes of QSH aircraft if the
development of metropolitan heliports and STOLports is not impeded by non-
technological factors.
(11) An equitable method of establishing a relationship between maximum noise
certification levels for QSH aircraft and economic and technological feasibility.
(12) The quantitative benefits associated with QSH operation from metropolitan
airports, heliports and STOLports with relatively high background noise levels
and with nonresidential nighttime communities.
3-16
-------
(13) The extent and effect on total operating economics of larger classes of
QSH aircraft foreseeably designed for both QSH and CTOL route structures.
(14) The economic penalties associated with minimum and maximum levels of
noise reduction for various classes of QSH aircraft.
(15) The limitations on the utilization of the V/STOL aircraft's capability of
high maneuverability by reason of airline practice due to passenger comfort,
pilot acceptance, navigational equipment safety margins and operating
economics.
(16) The need for enroute QSH noise restrictions.
(17) The alternative methods of QSH noise regulation.
(18) The development and placement of economic incentives in the Rule for
reducing the noise of future QSH aircraft.
(19) The applicability of subjective noise rating concepts to rotary wing, RTOL,
STOL and VTOL aircraft (ASDS, CNR, etc.)."
PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT NOISE TYPE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
(NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING): 22 JAN 1973: PROJECT REPORT.
The stated objective of the subject project "is to support a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making to amend Part 36 to provide type certification standards for propeller
driven aircraft (other than transport category already covered under Part 36)."
The proposed standards are stated to have been "designed to halt the escalation
of noise from propeller aircraft and to ensure that new designs are substantially
quieter."
The project report (14.1-322) does take cognizance of and references the Noise
Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574).
The proposed standards are stated to be applicable "to propeller driven aircraft
normally certificated for airworthiness under FAR 23, including normal, utility and
3-17
-------
acrobatic aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight not exceeding 12,500
pounds (5,700 kg.). Within this range are included single and multi-engined aircraft
equipped with various types of powerplants and that derive the major portion of their
propulsive thrust by means of a propeller. Standards herein relating to noise certi-
fication for these propeller driven airplanes apply to all affected types of basically
new design or modification to existing designs for which a type certificate is required.
These standards will not be made retroactive to the extent of requiring modification of
individual airplanes already in service but will embrace continued production of earlier
types. It is proposed that all aircraft produced after 1 year following the issuance date
of this FAR will meet a basic noise limit; whereas, after 31 December 1975, all origi-
nal type certificates will meet a lower level. Original type certificates granted through
December 1975 will also conform to the basic limit.
"It is noted that the noise produced by a light airplane belonging to a given basic
model can, in some cases, be influenced to a significant degree by the installation
of approved alternative equipment or by the incorporation of subsequent modifications,
with particular reference to propeller and engine exhaust system. Therefore, the
provision of FAR 36, covering the incorporation of acoustically significant changes,
shall apply,"
A particular guideline applied to this project led to recommending deviations
from standards previously established under Part 36. The guideline was stated to
be, "Any noise certification scheme for such aircraft should be as simple as possible,
in consonance with the ability to produce consistent and reproducible results over
the range of ambient test conditions likely to be encountered in practice."
The significant deviations are noted to include:
• The basic unit of noise measurement is based upon an A-weighted network
(dBA) as opposed to the previously established Effective Perceived Noise
Level (EPNdB).
3-18
-------
• The noise is measured at a single point under the aircraft, which shall fly
at constant altitude and power setting as opposed to the previously estab-
lished three points of noise measurements (takeoff, approach and sideline),
with the aircraft operating in the appropriate (takeoff or landing) mode.
The project report states that, "The basic approach taken in setting noise limits
for general aviation propeller driven aircraft was to establish noise limits as a
function of aircraft gross weight, using as a guide the current noise levels, limits
previously established by Switzerland and Germany, and an estimate of reductions
that are technically feasible and economically reasonable. These basic limits would
apply for "standard" performance aircraft, having a "standard" power loading (W/HP).
Correction factors, based on power loading, would be allowed to credit higher per-
formance aircraft for their abilities to climb faster and to fly the pattern at a lower
percent power."
The proposed noise limits are shown in Figure 3-1. As shown, the proposed
standard noise levels, as in the original Part 36, are a function of aircraft weight.
The allowable corrections are based upon the aircraft power loading (W/HP) and the
correction to the measured value is proposed to be limited to minus 5 dB, initially,
and minus 3 dB at a future date.
This report appears to be well developed, consistent with other similar standards
for this type aircraft and capable of providing a noise limit with probable future reduc-
tion of noise generated by this type aircraft. Deviation from previously established
standards under FAR, Part 36 appears to be unwarranted, except on the basis of sim-
plicity and the economics resulting from the simpler measurements and procedures.
The adoption of these simple standards to this type aircraft should in no way effect a
change in those already established for turbojet powered transport category aircraft.
AIRCRAFT SOUND DESCRIPTION SYSTEM (DRAFT Order 7040, 3 AUG 1972):
This draft order "states policy and establishes procedures and guidance for the
calculation and dissemination of aircraft sound data. " In addition, it is intended to
cancel Order 7040.1, 27 October 1965, Technical Report: "Land Use Planning
Relating to Aircraft Noise."
3-19
-------
CO
to
o
CERTIFICATION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO
"STANDARD"PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT
W/HP= 15 SINGLE ENGINE
W/HP=11 MULTI-ENGINE
ALL PRODUCTION AFTER ONE YEAR FOLLOWING DATE
OF REGULATION AND ORIGINAL TYPE CERTIFICATES
ISSUED BEFORE 31 DECEMBER 1975
ORIGINAL TYPE CERTIFICATES ISSUED
AFTER 31 DECEMBER 1975
65
468
GROSS WEIGHT (Ibs. X 10'3)
10
12
Figure 3-1. Proposed Noise Limits for Propeller Driven Aircraft
-------
The background section of this draft order states, "the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration does not have authority to promulgate or enforce aircraft sound standards in
the vicinity of airports. However, by virtue of the authority described in Paragraph 1
of this order, it does seek to promote, encourage and support, to the extent practicable,
sound abatement plans and compatible land use planning and control by the responsible
local and state authorities where the legal authority and responsibility-rests. "
The authorities cited in the above paragraph include:
• Public Law 90-411, Section 611 (a), an amendment to title VT of the Federal
Aviation Act.
• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190) together with
Executive Order 11514.
• The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (PL 91-258).
The draft order further states that, "the techniques for measuring and describing
the physical characteristics of sound are highly developed and extensively used by
members of the scientific community. However, methods for quantifying and describing
sound exposure had not been developed that are readily understandable and generally
usable."
The Aircraft Sound Description System (ASDS) developed by the FAA Office of
Environmental Quality is intended to provide a "readily understandable and generally
usable" sound descriptor. The draft order was not officially distributed but has been
given wide unofficial distribution as witnessed, for example, by the resolution passed
by the Board of Airport Commissioners of the Los Angeles International Airport
(1.1-278). This resolution states:
"WHEREAS, by Draft Order No. 7040, dated August 3, 1972, the Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, distributed a proposed aircraft
sound description system (ASDS); and
"WHEREAS, said Draft Order contains proposed procedures and guidance for the
calculation and dissemination of aircraft sound data; and
"WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Los Angeles, the Department
of Airports, and of airport operators generally that a national system of sound
measurement be adopted for use by airport operators;
3-21
-------
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Airport Commissioners
of the City of Los Angeles approves the adoption of said aircraft sound description
system and respectfully memorializes the Department of Transportation, the
Federal Aviation Administration to expedite the proceedings necessary to adopt
said system and to order the same at the earliest possible date."
The Draft Order was a preliminary document requiring considerable rework, as
indicated in Reference (8.3-149), before official dissemination. However, it does
present a totally new concept, and preliminary documents are legitimate media for
their introduction. It is important that such preliminary documents are not represented
as the result of final deliberations, nor assumed as such (1.1-278), until they are
officially issued.
Subsequent to the draft order, the FAA has issued a report (8.4-286) which presents
the ASDS concept in a far more readable form and which obviously has received the
benefit of much more attention. However, it must be understood that the report is still
not official because a disclaimer states "This document is issued under the sponsorship
of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The
United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof." The
following analysis, therefore, is also presented in the interest of information exchange
with the intent to illuminate any weaknesses in the ASDS concept before it should be
issued as an official FAA order. It is very important that new concepts proposed to
replace existing ones be thoroughly examined as to their adequacy before precipitous
decisions are made for their official use.
It may be more feasible to modify an existing concept for noise exposure, in order
to improve its relevancy or correct its deficiencies, than to develop a totally new
concept which must be time-tested for adequacy. The delay involved and resultant
confusion would be detrimental to the development of a coordinated aircraft noise abate-
ment program unless the new concept has such outstanding advantages as to offset any
setback in affording "... present and future relief and protection to the public health
and welfare from aircraft noise... ".
3-22
-------
ASPS Format
The FAA report describing the background and application of the ASDS (8.4-286)
presents the concept in the following two forms:
1. Curves called sound contours defining the areas on the ground plane estimated
to receive a level of noise of 85dB(A) or greater corresponding to types of
aircraft and operating conditions. The results can be displayed as (a) a grid
map containing a tabular printout giving the time in seconds that each 500 foot
by 500 foot block on the ground plane is exposed to a level of noise of 85dB(A) or
greater or (b) curves of time zones with identified ranges of exposure times
(e.g., 0-5 minutes, 5-10 minutes, 10-15 minutes, etc.) to a level of noise
of 85dB(A) or greater.
2. A quantification of airport noise for all or part of an airport neighborhood
called situation index (SI) in units of acre minutes. The results can be
presented as (a) a single number representing the summation of the number
of minutes that each acre on the ground plane is exposed to a level of noise of
85dB(A) or greater or (b) a chart (histogram) that indicates the amount of
acreage exposed to a level of noise of 85dB(A) or greater from different air-
craft types.
Basic Input to ASDS
The primary element in the ASDS consists of single-event equal noise level contours
of 85dB(A) assigned to various classes and operational modes of aircraft. The FAA
report does not furnish any information or background detail on the construction of
these contours and simply states "the appropriate sound contour data is selected from
Section II of this instruction (to be provided in subsequent developments of an applica-
tions manual for the ASDS). "
The usual procedure for calculating noise level contours is dependent (as a minimum)
upon the following three relationships:
1. A set of takeoff profiles and takeoff roll distances identified for each class of
aircraft (e.g., four, three, and two jet engines) and takeoff weight or stage
length. Also, one or more approach profiles and distances to touchdown.
2. The variation in noise level at a reference distance (e. g., dBA or EPNL at
200 feet) with engine power setting (e. g., engine pressure ratio, fan speed,
or thrust).
3-23
-------
3. The variation in noise level with slant range at closest point of approach for
each power setting of interest (e.g., takeoff, cutback, and approach).
The preceding relationships represent extremely comprehensive sets of data that,
because of the flexibility in aircraft operational procedures, are impossible to predict
for each specific aircraft. The usual procedure, therefore, is to assume relationships
for each type or class of aircraft that are meant to be representative of average
performance, both for noise level and aircraft operations. These relationships (or
even more sophisticated ones) are fundamental to all cumulative noise exposure concepts
and the ASDS is no exception.
The ways in which the ASDS differ from other concepts begin after the inclusion of
the contour data in the methodology, and the adequacy or validity of the ASDS will be
analyzed accordingly in the following discussions. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized
that the ASDS concept, no matter how attractive, can be invalidated in application by
improper basic input. A set of contours (without published backup support) provided
for use in ASDS computations is simply not sufficient for all those concerned (aviation
community, environmentalists, land use planners, etc.) to make valid judgments on
the results of any particular application.
Finally, with respect to basic input data, since all cumulative noise exposure
concepts require essentially the same basic input including measurements, any flaws
or weaknesses in such are not remedied by the development of a totally new concept.
The sensible approach, of course, is to continue to improve the data acquisition,
reduction, and computational procedures, including all the influential variables, to the
extent commensurate with the accuracy of the measured data.
Basic Premise, Threshold Level, and Event Times
The basic premise of the ASDS concept "... is to state exposure to aircraft f Jid
in terms of the amount of time that sound levels exceed a preselected threshold value. "
The threshold value selected is 85dB(A) which corresponds roughly to the 100 EPNdB
level used in the original draft order (8. 3-149). In conjunction with the threshold value,
and necessary to the premise, is an assumption of the length of time (duration) the
noise of a single event aircraft flyover exceeds a level of 85dB(A). The ASDS concept
assumes 15 seconds for takeoff events and 10 seconds for landing events. There are
fallacies, however, in the choices of numerical values for level and time as well as
in the bas'C premise.
3-24
-------
The choice of 85dB(A) is poor on two counts. First, a single number is not suffi-
cient to provide information for such purposes as noise compatible land use planning.
A premise based upon time that sound levels exceed threshold values would have more
validity if several threshold values were used. Second, a level of 85dB(A) is too high
(except possibly as the highest level of several threshold values) to be of much use in
evaluating noise exposure. The explanation provided in the ASDS report for the choice
of 85dB(A) as the threshold is quite lengthy but apparently considerable weight was given
to the assumptions ".. .that, under reasonable operating conditions, an 85dB(A) noise
level corresponded approximately with both the altitude and lateral boundaries of airport
traffic areas. " The assumption may be correct, but threshold levels should be chosen
to correspond with airport community noise impact areas which may extend beyond
"airport traffic areas".
The term "threshold level" is used rather loosely in the ASDS which is a cumulative
noise exposure concept where the cumulation is in minutes of noise exposure above a
selected level (called threshold). Wherever land areas under consideration in the
ASDS are assigned minutes of exposure, they are exposed to noise levels greater than
85dB(A), perhaps substantially greater. Only where the minutes of exposure are equal
to zero would 85dB(A) exist, and for that case only can 85dB(A) be considered to have
significance as a true threshold. The point is, minutes of noise exposure must not be
assumed or implied to mean minutes of exposure to only 85dB(A).
To illustrate that 85dB(A) is too high a value to be of much use, an example will be
constructed which can be compared with equivalent values for noise exposure forecast
(NEF), the California measure (15.1-34) of community noise exposure level (CNEL),
and the slightly modified version of both of them developed by Task Group 3 of this
study (10.4-427) called day-night noise exposure level (Ldn). Consider a position on
the ground exposed to a number of aircraft flyover events each having a maximum
value of 85dB(A). In terms of ASDS, this ground position would be exposed to zero
minutes of 85dB(A) and all positions nearer the aircraft would be exposed to a finite
number of minutes of levels greater than 85dB(A). For the example, assume that
85dB(A) is equivalent to 100 EPNdB and that there are 240 flyover events per day
(0700 to 2200) and 24 events per night (2200 to 0700). The compared noise exposure
results are approximately as follows: 40 NEF, 75 CNEL, 75 Ldn, and zero minutes
above 85dB(A) for the ASDS. The position on the ground for this example is the outer-
most or least exposed position considered by the ASDS; the emphasis would be placed
3-25
-------
on positions exposed to finite numbers of minutes-of noise greater than 85dB(A). Therefore,
the areas examined by the ASDS for an 85dB(A) "threshold" would be interpreted by means
of the other measures as areas of extreme annoyance, perhaps hearing risk, and clearly
unacceptable for proposed housing sites (10.4-427, 10.4-428, 12.2-442). No such
interpretations would be available for the ASDS results in terms of minutes of exposure.
The choice of 15 seconds for takeoff events and 10 seconds for landing events
appears to be too low based upon duration time measurements (8.6-443) for effective
perceived noise level (EPNL). However, this point is not obvious and further study is
required to make a conclusive judgment because the duration times for noise levels in
units of EPNdB are not necessarily closely related to the event times for noise levels
in units of dB(A) as used in the ASDS. The explanation provided in the ASDS report
does not conclusively support the choices of event times for takeoff and landing of 15
and 10 seconds, respectively.
Linear Summation of Events
The ASDS is influenced equally by acres per event and the number of events per
day in the sense that if one is halved and the other doubled, the number of acre-minutes
remains the same. In all of the international procedures for predicting aircraft noise
exposure, developed by acoustical experts throughout the world, the effect of number
of operations is included as some form of logarithmic relation and not linear. There
are differences of opinion as to the particular logarithmic form that is most appropriate
(e. g., whether 10 log or 15 log) but there is no justification whatever for the assumption
of a linear relationship. The ASDS would penalize aircraft traffic growth far more than
is realistic: doubling the number of operations would double the number of acre-minutes.
On the other hand, for the concepts that incorporate numbers of operations logarithmically
(e.g., NEF, CNEL, and Ldn), doubling the number of operations would increase the
result by only three units, which is reasonable and much less severe.
The aviation community expects to grow in numbers of aircraft and operations
and also in the production of noise controlled aircraft. The ASDS could indicate,
erroneously, that the benefits gained from quieter aircraft (e.g., DC-10, L1011, 747,
and noise retrofit) are offset by an increase in numbers of operations. The lack of
subjective interpretations for the ASDS, such as annoyance, will not prevent the
making of such evaluations. It should be expected that the ASDS acre-minutes predicted
for an airport vicinity in 1980 that are less than, equal to, or greater than those
3-26
-------
predicted for the same airport in 1972 will be judged to mean less, equal, or greater
annoyance, respectively.
Conclusions of ASPS Analysis
The basic premise for the ASDS is unusual, to say the least, because no considera-
tion is given in the ASDS to any upper limit above the threshold. For example, exposure
to 300 minutes of noise varying between 85 and 110 dB(A) would certainly be expected
to have greater impact on public health and welfare than would the same time exposure
to noise varying between 85 and 90 dB(A). There is no mechanism in the ASDS by which
the true levels of noise are identified except in the special case of a single event
contour. Furthermore, the report (8.4-286) provides no information on guidelines,
meaning, or interpretations of the ASDS results with respect to the effects of the time
exposure of noise on people. Is 300 minutes of exposure to 85dB(A) or greater at one
location just as bad as 300 minutes at another? Is 150 minutes of exposure half as
bad as 300 minutes, or is 150 minutes of exposure even necessarily better than 300
minutes ? Is it even certain that 10000 acre minutes represents less noise impact
than 15000 acre minutes ? The ASDS concept does not provide answers to these types
of questions, consequently, without recommendations for the meaning or interpretation
of the values, it is difficult to understand how the ASDS can be used for such purposes
as environmental impact statements (1.2-422, 1.2-434), noise compatible land use
planning, the evaluation of noise control measures, and noise certification of airports.
3-27
-------
SECTION 4
REVIEW OF NOISE CONTROL ACTIONS OF OTHERS
STATE AND LOCAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
On November 10, 1970 the California State Aeronautics Board adopted airport
noise standards which became effective as State Department of Aeronautics Regulations
on December 1, 1972. The regulations are contained in Subchapter 6, Title 4 of the
State Administrative Code (15.1-34).
The regulations were "designed to cause the airport proprietor, aircraft operator,
local governments, pilots, and the department to work cooperatively to diminish noise.
The regulations accomplish these ends by controlling and reducing the noise in communi-
ties in the vicinity of airports. "
The regulations are applicable to all existing and future airports in California
required to operate under a valid permit issued by the State Aeronautics Department.
With the exception of the specification of a Single Event Noise Exposure Level
(SENEL), the regulation is concerned with noise exposure, which combines measures
of noise and time at specific locations. That is, the regulation is primarily concerned
with the totality of the aircraft noise at a particular location without specific regard for
or an assessment of a particular event, source, or operation.
The enforcement of the California state regulations is delegated to the county in
which the airport is located. Review of data and findings are maintained at the state
level. Implementation, beyond that of the enforcing county, is the responsibility of the
airport proprietors, except for complying with the SENEL, which is the responsibility
of the aircraft operator.
4-1
-------
The regulation specifies (but does not limit) the methods of controlling and reduc-
ing the noise impact 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 procedures to minimize
the noise in residential areas;
(c) Planning runway utilization schedules to take into account adjacent residen-
tial 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 impact boundary.
Preference shall be given to actions which reduce the impact of airport noise on
existing communities. Land use conversion involving existing residential communi-
ties shall normally be considered the least desirable action for achieving compliance
with these regulations."
LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The management of Los Angeles International Airport have taken actions in order
to alleviate their noise problem. The Board of Airport Commissioners has recently
adopted a five point noise abatement program. The program includes:
1. A preferential runway use program that allows preferential treatment of air-
craft certificated under FAR Part 36, Appendix C.
4-2
-------
2. Planning of landing fees giving preferential treatment to aircraft certificated
under FAR Part 36 and fees somewhat proportional to type noise levels.
3. A fleet noise rule making reference to FAR Part 36 noise levels. A stated
goal of 40 percent of all aircraft using the airport being in compliance by
July 1, 1977, and a rule of 100 percent compliance by December 31, 1979.
The rule will stand as a regulation at the airport "unless and until a more
stringent rule is adopted by the Federal Government, or by any one or more
of its agencies authorized to do so."
4. Establishment of an airport Noise Reduction Enforcement Division with the
staff and equipment required to measure aircraft noise to ensure compliance
with standards fixed by FAR Part 36.
5. Revocation of airline operating permits when carriers are shown to be
repeatedly in violation of the preferential use runway program.
The regulations in the cited resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the
Los Angeles International Airport (15.2-265) reflect the use of some of the noise
control options available to the airport operator when implemented in conformance with
FAA approved procedures. The use of these options is undoubtedly related to the
California airport noise regulation (15.1-34).
INDUSTRY NOISE CONTROL ACTIONS
Other options that appear to be available for use in rulemaking are those which
would tend to regulate, control, or standardize certain aircraft operational alternatives
such as two-segment approaches, reduced thrust takeoffs, and landings without the use
of thrust reversers. Controls placed upon flight operations invariably involve the
safety of the particular aircraft and often other aircraft in "the system"; therefore, the
successful development and application of aircraft operational noise rules often require
the combined efforts of the FAA, the aircraft manufacturer, the airlines, and the
flight crews.
4-3
-------
The takeoff operational procedures developed and promulgated by the Air Trans-
port Association of America (ATA) and the National Business Aircraft Association,
Incorporated (NBAA) are contained in References 13.1-150, 188 and 266. These
procedures were developed with the assistance of the FAA. The ATA procedure has
been in effect since 1 August 1972; however, the FAA Project Report relating to the
Noise Control Operating Rule for Takeoff (Reference 14.1-320) dated 21 November
1972 indicates that "the endorsement of the airlines' recent recommended takeoff
procedure have not to date effected the goals desired. " The project report does not
explain which goals or how the failure manifests itself. In any case, the ATA Flight
Operations Committee efforts, as well as those made by the staff of NBAA, are
representative of the noise control actions which have been, and are continuing to be, taken
by the air transport industry. These are voluntary actions resulting in self-imposed
rules.
Inasmuch as there appears to be no comprehensive effort devoted to monitoring
and assessing the results, the degree to which the effort is effective, in terms of actual
reduced noise levels or exposure, is not known at this time.
Noise control operating procedures taken by another segment of the air transport
industry, the intrastate carriers operating in the State of California, are reported in
References 4.1-267 and 4.1-268. These actions appear to be developed on a case-by-
case basis in cooperation with the California airport operators in response to the
previously cited state airport regulations. These actions, as well as those proposed
or taken by ALPA, ATA and NBAA have been thoroughly reviewed in the report of
Task Group 2 (10.4-426).
4-4
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) amends the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958 to include the concept of "health and welfare" and to define the responsi-
bilities of and interrelationships between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom. Specifically, PL 92-574 requires that, 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 EPA, 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.
In prescribing and amending regulations, PL 92-574 requires that FAA shall con-
sider whether any regulation is:
1. Consistent with the highest degree of safety.
2. Economically reasonable.
3. Technologically practicable.
4. Appropriate to the type.
The above considerations form a set of constraints oriented to safety, economics,
and technology. However, PL 92-574 has introduced a fifth constraint: protection to
the public health and welfare.
The abatement of aircraft noise is accomplished by exercising, to the extent
feasible, the noise control options available to the aircraft manufacturers and opera-
tors, the airport operators, and the public authorities in the airport neighborhood
communities. Finally, the remainder of the noise must be contained within noise
compatible boundaries.
5-1
-------
Regulations are the most effective technique for exploiting available noise control
technology and, if properly constructed and implemented, can provide the incentive to
ensure continuing effort directed to technological advancements.
THREE PART REGULATORY PLAN
Public Law 92-574 (superseding PL 90-411) amends the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 to include the concept of health and welfare. The full text of the amendment
is given in Figure 1-2. In effect, a fifth regulatory constraint has been added as
discussed in Section I and shown in Figure 1-1. The FAA has the authority to pre-
scribe aircraft noise regulations and is well qualified to develop them effectively
within the original four constraints. The fifth constraint (health and welfare) is the
responsibility of both FAA and EPA; but EPA has the capability, by virtue of broader
noise control responsibility and greater objectivity, for coping more effectively with
that constraint. In fact, no member of the aviation community, by virtue of its vested
interests, should be put in the position of having major responsibility for the possible
limitation of the growth of aviation. A perplexing question, therefore arises. That
is, how can EPA and FAA most effectively work together and reconcile any differ-
ences in interpretation of what constitutes protection to the public health and welfare?
A solution to this problem is presented in the following three part plan.
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED AND ENFORCED BY FAA
The FAA shall continue to prescribe and enforce aircraft noise regulations for
the aircraft manufacturers and operators, considering the principal regulatory con-
straints to be safety, economics, and technology. The purpose or objective for the
FAA in prescribing regulations shall be as stated in PL 92-574; that is, "In order to
afford present and future relief and protection to the public health and welfare from
aircraft noise and sonic boom... ". The FAA shall be considered to have the best
expertise in prescribing regulations within the constraints and, although EPA shall
be consulted for advice and recommendations, the FAA shall have the responsibility
and authority for their content and enforcement.
5-2
-------
The noise control regulations prescribed by the FAA for the aircraft manufacturers
and operators shall be expected to reflect the latest state of the art of safe and econom-
ical technology and shall be expected to effect a decrease in noise exposure, but not
necessarily to the extent of full protection to the public health and welfare. Noise
regulations that pertain to source emissions or flight procedures of specific types of
aircraft cannot be expected to take into consideration such unknowns as the quantity of
these aircraft that eventually will be produced or where they will be operated. Conse-
quently, unless single event noise criteria is available for defining protection to the
public health and welfare, source emissions or flight procedures regulations can be
developed only on the basis of safety, economics, and technology. The regulations
shall be of the "umbrella" type in the sense that those regulated can all comply by use
of available technology but some may be capable of achieving lower noise levels than
others by virture of their greater technological capability. An airworthiness or
operation certificate shall be contingent upon compliance with the noise control
regulations.
REGULATIONS PROPOSED BY EPA
EPA shall, when necessary, present to the FAA recommendations for noise
control regulations that EPA determines to be needed to increase the protection to the
public health and welfare. The recommendations shall be in the form of proposed
regulations containing the substance of noise control actions but that may not have
been thoroughly analyzed regarding safety, economics, and technology. The FAA
shall have the authority to reject the EPA proposals on the basis that the constraints
of safety, economics, and technology have been violated.
If, however, EPA has reason to believe that FAA rejection of the proposed regu-
lations is unwarranted, EPA shall consult with the FAA and may request the FAA to
review their decision. Any such request shall be published in the Federal Register
in accordance with the detailed illumination procedure required by PL 92-574 (see
Figure 1-2).
5-3
-------
AIRPORT REGULATIONS (PERMITS) PRESCRIBED AND ENFORCED BY FAA OR EPA
EPA shall have the authority and responsibility to develop criteria and noise
evaluation methodology sufficient to establish noise exposure criteria such as repre-
sented by point A in Figure 2-3. That numerical level shall establish the meaning of
protection to the public health and welfare based upon the current state of the art of
determining the effects of noise on man and other ecological systems and shall consider
that 100 percent protection is unreasonable. As studies continue over the years, this
number may be lowered, particularly if evidence should indicate that noise is a hazard
to health in ways not apparent initially.
The criteria establishing protection to the public health and welfare shall repre-
sent a level (or dose) of cumulative noise exposure over a 24-hour period that, if
exceeded for a specified period of years, would constitute lack of protection or eventually
may be classed as a hazard, depending upon length of exposure. A point to be
emphasized, however, is that mere exceedance of this number only indicates that the
noise exposure is a degrading environmental influence and not a cause of immediate
noticeable irreversible damage.
All airport operators shall be required to predict their aircraft operations for a
typical 24-hour day and to construct noise exposure contours for prescribed numerical
levels in conformance with a methodology specified by EPA. The land area within
the contours for each airport neighborhood shall be examined for noise-compatible
usage based upon a definition determined by EPA with advice and recommendations
from other interested Federal, State, and local agencies. Wherever land areas are con-
sidered to be incompatible with the noise exposure, the airport operator shall be
required to begin to restrict the aircraft operations by all regulatory means at his
disposal (curfews, quotas, weight and type limitations, preferential runway use,
landing fees, etc.). The restrictions shall be in effect until all land areas within
specified contours are noise-compatible. Full compliance with land use compatibility
shall be specified in a reasonable time period, permitting the aircraft operators and
manufactuers to implement the current and near future source and path noise control
technology and permitting land areas within these contours to be converted by the
5-4
-------
appropriate authorities (airport operators, and/or Federal, State, and local govern-
ments) to noise compatible use (insulated buildings, manufacturing, recreation, etc.).
SUMMARY OF THREE-PART PLAN
The three part regulatory procedure discussed presents a logical plan for con-
trolling aircraft noise exposure to levels that afford protection to the public health
and welfare. The procedures would permit the FAA to exercise their considerable
expertise in safety, economics, and technology without conflicting influences resulting
from their need to interpret the meaning of protection to health and welfare. EPA
would have extensive consultations with FAA and would, on occasion, propose new or
modified regulations. In general, however, EPA would recognize and defer to the FAA
expert judgment but would have available, in the case of serious disagreements, the
public dissemination procedure specified in PL 92-574. The controls on noise exposure,
to the extent of protection of the public health and welfare, would be implemented at
the airport by the airport authorities, because the airport neighborhood is where the
environmental degradation exists and where the ultimate controls should be. The
airport authorities would impose restrictions on the aircraft operators as needed to
ensure that the airport neighborhood communities are noise-compatible. The restric-
tions would provide incentive for the aircraft operators to conduct thorough investigations
and consider maximum utilization of the available source and path noise control options.
The fact that an aircraft manufacturer or operator has barely complied with an FAA
"umbrella type" regulation would not ensure the acceptance of a particular airplane
at all airports. The airport restrictions would, therefore, encourage the aircraft
operators and manufacturers to satisfy the FAA regulations by full utilization of
available technology and not merely comply with specified limits.
The airport permit plan is similar in concept to the plan incorporated in the air-
port noise standards of the State of California, which became effective as State Depart-
ment of Aeronautics Regulations on 1 December 1972. Many of the technical and
functional details that have been worked out for the State of California would be appli-
cable here.
5-5
-------
SECTION 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
The FAA, since the advent of FAR Part 36, has been concerned with the develop-
ment of a considerable number of noise control regulatory actions. As discussed in
Section V-3, there are two regulations, two NPRMs, three ANPRMs, and three pro-
ject reports. The two regulations, FAR Part 36 for subsonic transports and turbojets
and FAR Part 91. 55 for sonic boom, effectively prevent the escalation of source noise
and sonic boom from civil aircraft. Considering the recent rapid growth of civil air-
craft (size and thrust, as well as quantity), holding the line on source noise is a note-
worthy achievement. Furthermore, the remaining eight proposed regulatory actions,
if implemented with only relatively slight modifications, would continue to limit and
taken together effect significant reduction in noise exposure by 1980. The land areas
within the noise exposure contours representing protection to the public health and
welfare, such as shown in Figure 2-5, would experience substantial shrinkage, thus
minimizing the residual land areas requiring noise-compatible usage.
In addition, there are other potential noise control actions not necessarily ex-
plored in depth by the FAA, such as discussed in detail in the report of Task Group 2,
that would further reduce substantially the noise exposure areas.
IMMEDIATE FAA REGULATORY ACTION
ANPRM 70-33: SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT NOISE
The noise problems relating to supersonic transports can be identified with current
and future types of these aircraft. For the current types (Concorde and TU-144), some
models exist, others are in production, and additional models including growth versions
may be produced. The future types are defined as those that have no applications for
type certificates and may not have been designed nor even thought of.
6-1
-------
Many manufacturing members of the aviation community believe that the basic
differences in the design characteristics of subsonic and supersonic aircraft preclude
the use of noise standards applicable to both types of aircraft. Even though supersonic
transports will share the same airports with subsonic transports that will have com-
plied with the FAR Part 36 noise standards current at that time, they believe that
separate noise regulations should be developed for supersonic transports permitting
them to exceed the required levels for the subsonic aircraft. Unless this is done,
they maintain, the development of supersonic transport aircraft will be severely in-
hibited. In support of this position, the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) recommended (CAN 3, Agenda Item 3) Ref. 8.4-185 that future supersonic
transport airplanes be designed to minimize the noise levels below the approach path,
below the takeoff path, and to the side of the airplane during takeoff climb. Annex 16
noise certification standards for subsonic turbojet airplanes (which are practically
the same as FAR 36), current at the time the application for certificate of airworthi-
ness for the prototype was accepted, should serve only as a general guideline.
The ICAO recommendations, however, do not appear to be compatible with the
requirements of PL 92-574. On the one hand, it is not unreasonable to allow limited
numbers of existing supersonic aircraft (or whose construction is committed) to
share airports with subsonic aircraft providing they comply with the airport "permit"
requirements. On the other hand, it is not reasonable to issue a noise "carte blanche"
to the manufacturers allowing them freedom to design future aircraft with the degree
of noise source control they think best.
In consideration of the above discussion and the requirements of PL 92-574, it is
recommended that existing SST aircraft types (Concorde and TU-144) be regulated to
noise levels as low as they are capable of achieving through available technology or
operational controls. Future SST aircraft types should be regulated to noise levels no
higher than the original FAR 36 levels. As more advanced noise control technology
becomes available, limits should be reduced accordingly.
Existing SST aircraft cannot comply with Part 36, but if the airport permit plan
discussed in Section 5 is implemented, the noise exposure will be maintained within
6-2
-------
compatible land use boundaries. Some airports might be able to accept numerous SST
aircraft operations per day without jeopardizing public health and welfare, while other
airports might be forced to limit them to a very few per day or none at all.
NPRM 72-19: NEWLY PRODUCED AIRPLANES OF OLDER TYPE DESIGNS
The FAA has received and analyzed responses to this notice and has drafted a
regulation providing changes to FAR Parts 21 and 36. A regulation, prescribed in
accordance with the draft, should control the noise of new production subsonic trans-
port category or subsonic turbojet powered airplanes to FAR 36 levels (which levels
are commensurate with current technology capability). It is recommended, therefore,
that a regulation be expedited in accordance with the FAA draft.
ANPRM 70 - 44 and ANPRM 73 - 3: CIVIL AIRPLANE NOISE REDUCTION RETROFIT
AND FLEET NOISE REQUIREMENTS
Two advance notices of proposed regulations have been issued having essentially
the same objective — retrofit of currently type-certificated subsonic turbofan powered
aircraft. The earlier "straight retrofit" notice merely discusses the need for noise
reduction and emphasizes that current technology is available for a feasible retrofit
program. The later notice on fleet noise level (FNL) was published after consideration
of comments received in response to the earlier notice and presents a detailed methodology
and implementation procedure that permits and encourages other alternatives as well
as retrofit. The FNL proposal is well developed and could be converted to a regula-
tion in a short time, while the straight retrofit proposal might require considerable
additional development before it could be structured as a regulation.
Most of the members of Task Group 5 indicated that the FNL concept was pre-
ferable to a straight retrofit rule but that the FNL proposal as written should be mod-
ified with respect to some of the details. The most common objection was that the
proposed formula for calculating FNL, using a logarithmic summation, does not give
sufficient incentive to airlines to acquire aircraft having noise levels significantly
below the FAR Part 36 Appendix C levels. For example, sufficient credit would not
6-3
-------
be given to airlines that purchase new widebody aircraft. This objection does not
appear to be compatible with PL 92-574 requiring protection to the public health and
welfare. Noise exposure reduction cannot be accomplished by adding numbers of
lesser noise sources. The major noise sources must be reduced first, then the minor
sources become important. Merely purchasing and using widebody aircraft will have
no significant effect on the overall community noise exposure unless the noisy narrow-
body aircraft are retrofitted or replaced. The logarithmic summation procedure is
much more representative of the physical and subjective characteristics of noise than
is a linear summation procedure.
The point raised on incentives to acquire aircraft having noise levels lower than
the criteria of FAR Part 36 is, however, a good one. The way to accomplish this is
to have the FNL regulation continue, and not terminate in 1978, with a number of
goals (or "gates" as one manufacturer suggests) that decrease in time, reflecting or
exploiting technology advancements. The first gate would be the original value of the
fleet noise level for each air carrier, which would establish his upper limit and which
he would not be permitted to exceed. The second gate would occur on 1 July 1976
where the FNL originally established for each operator would be required to be re-
duced to a level that is halfway to the FAR Part 36 level applicable to his fleet.
The third gate would occur on 1 July 1978, when all of the aircraft for each op-
erator would be required to comply with the FAR Part 36 Appendix C levels. At the
third gate, the FNL for each operator would be somewhat below the FAR 36 levels
applicable to his fleet, because many of his aircraft individually would have levels
below the criteria, and none would be above. Also, the third gate would represent
the situation to be expected if a straight retrofit rule were prescribed. The fourth,
and all future gates, would be dependent upon future technological developments.
For example, a fourth gate specified for 1980 might require FNL values to be five
EPNdB below the values for the third gate to exploit the refan technology if available.
The concept and structure of the FNL proposal appears adequate to effectively
exploit the current technology (nacelle retrofit) and to allow and encourage the near
6-4
-------
future technology (refan retrofit) to contribute as it becomes operable, and to encourage
the phaseout of existing aircraft by the introduction of new wide-body and other quiet
aircraft. In addition, the FNL concept would periodically provide a great deal of
useful information to the Government on air carrier fleet size, mix, and utilization.
However, there are several features in the proposal that weaken its effectiveness and
should be removed. There are several features that would add strength if included.
In consideration of the preceding discussion and of the requirements of PL 92-574,
the Task Group 5 report recommendation is that the FNL proposal (ANPRM 73-3) be
prescribed as a regulation with the following exceptions:
1. Omit exemption for airplanes engaged in foreign air commerce
except supersonic transports,
2. Omit exemption for airplanes engaged in overseas air commerce,
3. Omit expiration date of \ July 1978 and continue the FNL concept
indefinitely to permit the implementation of technological advance-
ments (e.g., refan) as they become available,
4. Include airplanes engaged in intrastate air commerce,
5. Include FNL requirements for sideline noise as well as takeoff and approach.
A fleet noise level rule would be superior to and obviate the need for a straight
retrofit rule such as considered in ANPRM 70-44.
PROJECT REPORT: TAKEOFF OPERATING RULE
Noise abatement takeoff operating procedures have two important requirements.
First, they must be safe, standardized, and capable of being included in routine op-
eration at any airport. Second, they must be capable of effecting significant noise
reduction for critical noise impact areas. Unfortunately, no single takeoff procedure
is capable of providing the necessary noise relief for all airport neighborhood com-
munities. Consequently, more than one departure procedure should be considered
for standardization, so that each airport can decide which procedure and runway com-
bination best protects the public health and welfare of their neighborhood communities.
6-5
-------
Individual airports, or runways of the airports, can be placed into three main
categories regarding community noise exposure:
1. Sideline noise sensitive,
2. Near downrange noise sensitive,
3. Far downrange noise sensitive.
Consequently, three standardized noise abatement takeoff operating procedures
should be developed so that all airport neighborhood communities can be assured of
the minimum noise exposure that available safe flight operational procedures can
bring. Various flight operational procedures are discussed in detail in the Task
Group 2 report, and specific regulations in the form of project reports will be pro-
posed, subsequent to this report, to the FAA, for noise abatement takeoff procedures.
However, in brief, a sideline noise sensitive departure procedure would require a
reduced-thrust takeoff. A near downrange noise sensitive departure procedure would
require a steep initial climb and sharp thrust cutback (a cutback such as detailed in
FAR Part 36 Appendix C). A far downrange noise sensitive departure procedure would
be as presented in the FAA Project Report discussed in Section 3 of this report.
It is recommended that the FAA proceed with all actions necessary to bring into
effect the proposed turbojet powered takeoff operating rule as provided in the project
report. The proposed rule is not optimum from a noise standpoint for all airports,
but it does assure minimal noise in areas at relatively long distances from the airport,
and, in general, some relief resulting from non-standard!zed departure procedures.
Therefore, it is also recommended that the FAA continue to develop additional departure
flight control rules that will provide minimum noise exposure for all airport communities
while maintaining safe individual aircraft and system operations.
PROJECT REPORT: PROPELLER DRIVEN AIRCRAFT
The project report represents the basis for a rule that will halt the escalation of
noise generated by propeller driven aircraft. However, for noise type-certification
purposes, the public health and welfare would be better protected if the FAR 36 noise
6-6
-------
evaluation measure, Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) in units of EPNdB, were
specified instead of the A-weighted network in units of dBA and if three noise certifica-
tion points were required instead of one.
In consideration of the preceding discussion and the requirements of PL 92-574,
it is recommended that the project report be developed as soon as possible into a
regulation including the EPNL evaluation measure and a three-point measurement
system similar to FAR 36, but with levels and distances chosen to fully exploit the
availability of current source and flight path noise control technology for propeller
driven aircraft.
ADDITIONAL FAA REGULATORY ACTION
FAR PART 36
This rule, applying to subsonic transport category airplanes and for subsonic
turbojet powered airplanes regardless of category, has been in effect for over 3 years.
The levels of Appendix C provide an "umbrella" for aircraft propelled by the new
high-bypass ratio engine in the sense that the noise from such aircraft can be controlled
to levels considerably below that criteria. Consideration should be given to lowering
the criteria levels for all new aircraft. However, the existing criteria levels are
reasonable (in the technologically practicable sense) for aircraft that are propelled
by the existing low-bypass ratio engines and that cannot comply, except with the aid
of some sort of retrofit modification.
It is recommended that the criteria levels for Appendix C remain in effect as an
"umbrella" for the existing low-and high-bypass ratio fleet. However, future FAR 36
category aircraft should be regulated by the FAA to levels of Appendix C minus five to
ten. Consideration must be given for the approach condition to ensure that such levels
are not lower than can be achieved by available technology for control of the airframe
aerodynamic noise.
It would be appropriate to include in the revised regulations the "Acoustical
Change" adjustments proposed in NPRM 71-26 as determined necessary to make the
rule clearer and more effective.
6-7
-------
PROJECT REPORT: QUIET SHORT HAUL AIRCRAFT
The current effort to gather all possible types and varieties of R/S/VTOL aircraft
(with their attendant variability in propulsion and lift systems, types of terminal fa-
cilities, probable route structures and economies) into one noise envelope appears to
be impractical. This is especially true if the rule is to be established in time to prop-
erly influence design, development, and introduction of a truly quiet short haul air-
craft system.
It is recommended that the regulatory process be initiated to provide a noise rule
for short haul aircraft that would require only a simple modification to FAR Part 36.
The three-point measurement concept and Appendixes A and B are recommended for
short haul aircraft. Only criteria levels and locations of measuring points need be
modified to reflect the lower noise levels required for city and suburban center opera-
tions and for comparatively low altitude cruise paths.
MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL ACTION
The three-part regulatory plan presented in Section 5 introduces the airport
permit concept in which the controls on noise exposure, to the extent of protection of
the public health and welfare, would be implemented at the airport. Such a permit
can be incorporated in an airport certificate issued by the FAA under Title VI of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958. An alternative method of implementing airport noise
standards would be to transfer this authority to EPA.
6-8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Categories Page
1.0 Airport Operators/Owners 1.1
2.0 Aircraft Engine Manufacturers 2.1
3.0 Aircraft Manufacturers 3«1
k.O Airlines 4.1
5.0 Individuals 5.1
6.0 Environmental Groups 6.1
7.0 Federal Government: Aviation Advisory
Commission 7.1
8.0 Federal Government: DOT/FAA 8.1
9.0 Federal Government: DOD 9.1
10.0 Federal Government: EPA 10.1
11.0 Federal Government: NASA 11.1
12.0 Federal Government: U.S. Misc. & Foreign 12.1
13.0 Professional And Trade Groups 13.1
1^.0 Regulatory and Legislative Considerations 1^.1
15.0 State And Local Governments 15.1
R-i
-------
1.0 AIRPORT OPERATORS/OWNERS
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBUOGRAPHIC CITATION
58 J. D. Reilly, Ltr: "Noise Rules for Supersonic
Transport," AOCI, 6 March 1973.
60 C. A. Moore, "Presentation to the Board
of Airport Commissioners of Management's Re-
commendation for Airport Regulations and Policies
Designed to Reduce the Noise Contours at Los
Angeles International Airport," Los Angeles
Department of Airports, 20 December 1972.
6l N. Ewers et al, "Results of an Area Wide
Noise Monitoring System," Presented to the
Acoustical Society of America, Date unknown.
87 J. D. Reilly, Ltr: "Response to ANPRM 73-3
Docket No. 12534," Airport Operators Council
International, 7 March 1973.
187 R. J. Bresnahan, "Effectiveness of the ECOLOG I
Noise Monitoring System Installed at Orange
County Airport as a Noise Abatement Tool,"
Orange County Airport, 16 March 1973.
191 G. J. Bender, Jr., Ltr: "Two Segment Approach Procedure
and Wake Turbulence," Boston-Logan International
Airport, 16 March 1973-
278 Resolution No. 7^83, Los Angeles International Airport
Board of Airport Commissioners. Subject: "Aircraft
Sound Description System (ASDS)," 20 Dec. 1972.
352 Pamphlet: "What is Massport Doing about Airport Noise,"
Mass. Port Authority, Date Unknown.
287 Press Release: Five-Point Program to Alleviate Airport
Noise; Los Angeles Department of Airports, 20 Dec 1972.
288 Resolution No.7^6?: Resolution Adopted Five-Point
Program to Alleviate Airport Noise; Board of Airport
Commissioners, Los Angeles International Airport,
20 Dec 1972.
R-l.l
-------
1.0 AIRPORT OPERATORS/OWNERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
289 Resolution No.748^: Resolution Affirming Support of
Parts of Joint Policy Statement Issued by Airport
Communities; Board of Airport Commissioners, Los Angeles
International Airport, 20 Dec 1972.
290 Resolution No^^SA—A: Resolution Recommending the
Adoption of Appropriate Legislation to Effect Stronger
Methods of Compatible Land Use in the Surrounding
Communities; Board of Airport Commissioners, Los Angeles
International Airport, 20 Dec 1972.
30,2 "Los Angeles International Airport-Environmental Impact
Study" Phase I Report. Northrop Corporation for the
Los Angeles Department of Airports, Jan 17, 1973-
if 17 Clifton A. Moore, Ltr. with Enclosure, "Comments on
Draft Reports by Task Groups on Airport Noise",
Department of Airports, City of Los Angeles,
29 June 1973-
Louis Achitoff, Ltr. with Enclosure, "Comments with
Respect to Task Group k and 5 Reports", The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, 29 June 1973-
"Ontario International Airport Environmental Impact
Study" Volume 1-Executive Summary; Volume 2-Air
Pollution and Related Studies; Volume 3- Aircraft
Noise Studies; Volume A-Biological and Related
Studies; Volume 5-Economic Studies. Northrop Corporation
for the Los Angeles Department of Airports, June 1973.
^22 "Ontario International Airport: Draft Environmental
Impact Statement; Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c),
Public Law 91-190" Northrop Corporation for the
Los Angeles Department of Airports, June 1973.
"Draft Environmental Impact Statement Pursuant to
Section 102(2)(c) Public Law 91-190" Submitted by
Board of County Road Commissioners Wayne County,
Michigan to Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, April 1973.
R-1.2
-------
2.0
AIRCRAFT ENGINE MANUFACTURERS
MASTER
FILE
NO.
15
67
8l
82
93
12U
125
126
387
BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
"Noise Reduction Programs at Pratt and Whitney
Aircraft, " Presented to the Environmental
Protection Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Task Group k, 28 February 1973, (Rev) Ik Mar '73-
W. G. Cornell, "Selective Bibliography of General
Electric Reports on Aircraft Noise Research and
Development, " Submitted to EPA Aircraft/Airport
Noise Study Task Group k, 27 February 1973-
U. S. and International Commercial Jet Transport
Fleets, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, February 15, 1973
W. E. Helfrich, "Noise Reduction Program at Pratt
& Whitney Aircnft, " Presented to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft,
February 28, 1973.
W. G. Cornell, "Supplementary Bibliography of General
Electric Reports and Papers," General Electric, 15 Mar '73-
W. G. Cornell, Ltr: "ANPRM 73-3," General Electric,
15 March 1973.
"Supersonic Transport Noise Reduction Technology
Program— Phase II," Report No. DOT-FA72WA-289&,
Aircraft Engine Group, General Electric Quarterly
Progress Report, 1 December thru 28 February 1973-
"Preliminary Engine Definition and Characteristics
of the JT3D Quiet Engine, " Pratt and Whitney,
September 1^, 1972.
"Preliminary Engine Definition and Characteristics
of the JT8D Quiet Engine, " Pratt and Whitney,
October 1^, 1972.
"Final Phase I Engine Definition and Characteristics
of the JT3D--9 Engine," Pratt and Whitney, Ik Dec '72.
W. E. Helfrich, Ltr. "Core Engine Noise Levels for
JT8D Refan Engine," Pratt and Whitney Aircraft,
6 June 1973.
L.G. Dawsun and T. D. Sills, "The Changing Environment
and Propulsion", Presented to the 13th Anglo-American
Aeronautical Conference, London (4-8 June 1973),
Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.
R-2.1
-------
2.0 AIRCRAFT ENGINE MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
127 "Supplement 1 to Preliminary Engine Definition and
Characteristics of the JT8D Quiet Engine/' Pratt
and Whitney, December 22, 1972.
13^ "Preliminary Engine Definition and Characteristics
of the JT8D-100 Quiet Engine," PWA 1*671, Pratt
and Whitney, February 12, 1973.
306 M. C. Steele, "Viewgrpphs and Reference Material
Used in Presentation to EPA/ONAC Aircraft Noise
Task Group kta Garrett-Alresearch ^ April 1973.
170 fJTSD-100 Series: Current Performance Data,"
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, 8 February 1973.
174 W. 0. Cornell, Ltr: "Comments on Various FAA Re-
gulatory Notices on Aircraft Noise," General
Electric, 2 April 1973.
197 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Small Quiet
Engine-Ntcelle-Airplane Program," Airesearch Division
of Garrett Corporation, 18 April 1973.
198 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Airssearch
Propulsion Engines," Airesearch Division of Garrett
Corp, 18 April 1973-
199 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Effect of
Boise Regulations Program Schedule," Airesearch
Division of Garrett Corp., 18 April 1973.
200 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Combustion
Noise and Emissions," Airesearch Division of Garrett
Corp., 18 April 1973*
201 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Turbine
Noise Control," Airesearch Division of Garrett
Corp., Id April 1973-
202 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Mechanical
Noise," Airesearch Division of Garrett Corp., 18
April 1973-
J. N. Krebs, Ltr. "Views on Aircraft Noise Regulations",
General Electric Co., 22 May 1973.
R-2.2
-------
2.0 AIRCRAFT ENGINE MANUFACTURERS (COMT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
203 "Visuals in Support of Presentation on V/STOL
Rotary Propulsion Study, "Airesearch Division of
Garrett Corp., 18 April 1973.
2Qk "Visuals in Support of Presentation on Dual Bvoass
Turbofan Engine Concept," Airesearch Division of
Garrett Corp., 18 April 1973.
220 "Aircraft Engine Noise Reduction at Airesearch,"
Airesearch Division of the Garrett Corp., April 1973-
26l Comments On FAA Project Report, "Noise Certification
Rule for Quiet Short Haul Category Aircraft," Hamilton
Standard, 27 April 1973.
264 Comments On FAA Project Report, "Propeller Driven Aircraft
Noise Type Certification Standards," Hamilton Standard,
27 April 1973.
258 F. B. Metzger et al, "Noise Characteristics Of Quiet
Propellers For STOL Aircraft, Purdue Noise Conference,
15 July 1971.
259 F. B. Metzger et al, "New Low-Pressure-Ratio Fans for
Quiet Business Aircraft Propulsion, SAE Business Aircraft
Meeting, Wichita, 3-6 April 1973.
260 F. B. Metzger et al, "Low-Pressure-Ratio Fan noise
Equipment and Theory," Journal for Engineering and
Power, January 1973.
356 W. E. Helfrich, Ltr. with Position Paper Related to Task
Group k Efforts, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, 15 May 1973.
357 W. E. Helfrich, Ltr. with Position Paper Related to Task
Group 5 Efforts, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, 11 May 1973.
365 "Q-FAN"; Report No.SP06A72, Hamilton Standard Division
of United Aircraft Corp, Sept 1972.
375 E. G. Ratering and C. L. Walker, "General Motors
Statement Before the Environmental Protection Agency
Task Force on the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study," Detroit
Diesel Allison Division of General Motors, 21 June 1973.
R-2.3
-------
2.0 AIRCRAFT ENGINE MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
"Visual Aids in Support of Oral Report on JT8D Refan
Program" Pratt and Vifhitney Aircraft, 25 July 1973.
R-2.4
-------
3 .0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS
MASTER
FILE
MO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
1 V. L. Blumenthal, W. S. Huntington, J. M.
Streckenbach, "Noise-Reduction Research and
Development - 1972 Progress," Boeing Document
D6-60199, Ibrch 1973-
13 V. L. Blumenthal, R.E. Russell, J. M.
Streckeribach, "Summary Noise Reduction Research
and Development," Boeing Document D6-60146, November
1971-
14 V. L. Blumenthal, J. M. Streckenbach, R. B. Tate,
"Aircraft Environmental Problems," AIAA Paper No.
73-5 AIAA 9th Annual Meeting and Technical Dis-
play, Washington, D.C., 8-10 January 1973-
14- R. E. Pendley, "Noise Retrofit of DC-8 and DC-9
Airplanes," Presented to Subcommittee on Advanced
Research and Technology, House of Representatives
Committee on Science and Astronautics, Douglas
Aircraft Co., 19 January 1972.
7 "DC-9 Engine Noise Reduction Programs," Douglas
Aircraft Co. Report MDC-J4358, 5 January 1973.
8 A. L. McPike, "The Generation and Suppression of
Aircraft Noise," Douglas Aircraft Co. Report
710304, No Date.
9 R. E. Pendley, "Review of Programs Dealing with
Reduction of Subsonic Transport Noise at the
Source," Douglas Aircraft Co. Paper 5799, Presented
to Air Transport Association of America, Chicago,
Illinois, 26 May 1970.
10 A. L. McPike, "Evaluation of Advances in Engine
Noise Technology," Douglas Paper 5631, Presented
to Eleventh Anglo-American Aeronautical Conference,
Royal Aeronautical Society, London, England,
8-12 September 1969.
R-3.1
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONI'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
11 P. E. Pendley, "Technical and Economic Feasibility
of Developing Uacelle Mollifications to Reduce Fly-
over Noise of DC-8 and DC- 9 Airplanes," Douglas
Aircraft Co. Paper 5831*-, August 1970.
32 A. L. McPike, "Community Noise Levels of the DC-10
Aircraft," J. Aircraft Vol.9, No. 8, August 1972.
5 J. S. Gibson, "Non-Engine Aerodynamic Noise Tech-
nology and Impact," Lockheed-Georgia Co. Information
Brief, 21 February 1972.
6 J. S. Gibson, "V/STOL Noise Technology and Design
Considerations," Lockheed-Georgia Co. Information
Brief, 22 February 1972.
17 N. Shapiro, J. F. Schulert, "Improved Airport/
Community Noise Environment with the New L-1011
Trijets," AIAA Paper No. 69-801, AIAA Aircraft
Design and Operations Meetings, Los Angeles,
California, lk-l6 July 1969.
18 N. Shapiro, "Community Noise Levels of the L-1011
Trlstar Jet Transport," Acoustical Society of
America, Buffalo, N. Y., 18-21 April 1972.
19 H. Drell, "Impact of Noise on Subsonic Transport
Design," Society of Automotive Engineers Paper
700806, Los Angeles, California, 5 -9 October 1970.
20 J. R. Thompson, M. J. T. Smith, "Minimum Noise
Pod Design," Society of Automotive Engineers
Paper 700805, Los Angeles, California, 5-9 October
1970.
21 N. Shapiro, G. J. Healy, "A Realistic Assessment
of the Vertiport/Community Noise Problem," J.
Aircraft, Vol. 5, No. k, July-August 1968.
22 N. Shapiro, J. W. Vogel, "Noise Certification of
a Transport Airplane," Inter-Noise 72 Proceedings,
Washington, D.C., h-6 October 1972
R-3.2
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURES w(COMT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
23 J. R. Thompson, N. Shapiro, "The Effect of
Temperature Inversions of Flyover Noise
Measurements," Symposium on Atmospheric Acoustic
and Noise Propagation, National Bureau of Standards,
Gaithersburg, Md., 27-29 September 1972.
28 "Concorde: Airport Noise and Silencing Programme,
Annex 1, Test Facilities," SNIA , SNECMA, BAC
and Rolls Royce Limited, October 1972.
78 J. S. Gibson, "The Ultimate Noise Barrier—Far
Field Radiated Aerodynamic Noise," Lockheed-Georgia,
k October 1972.
88 H. W. Withington, "Response to ANPRM 73-3,
Docket No. 12534," Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company, 28 February 1973.
89 A. L. McPike, "Response to ANPRM 73-3, Docket
No. 1253^," McDonnell-Douglas, 1 March 1973-
90 A. L. McPike, "Copies of View Graphs Used in
Presenting A New Aircraft Noise Rating Concept,"
McDonnell-Douglas, 22 March 1973.
91 A. L. McPike, "The Relative Importance of Take-
Off, Sideline and Approach Noise," McDonnell-
Douglas, 22 March 1973.
96 A. L. McPike, " A Suggested Alternative Approach to
Controlling the Noise of the Fleet," McDonnell-
Douglas, 22 March 1973.
122 "707/JT3D -9 Refan Nacelle and Airplane Inte -
gration Definition," P3-9039-1, Boeing, November
10, 1972.
123 "707/JT3D-9 Refan Nacelle and Airplane Integration
Definition, D3-9039-1, Boeing, Second Submittal
January 15, 1973-
128 "DC-8 Series 6l Engine and Nacelle/Airframe Inte -
gration Definition," Report MDC J5731, McDonnell-
Douglas , November 10, 1972.
R-3.3
-------
3.0 . AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
129 "DC-8 Series 6l Engine and Nacelle/Airframe Inte -
gtation," Report MDC J5731A, McDonnell-Douglas,
January 8, 1973-
130 "DC-8 Series 63 Engine and Nacelle/Airframe Inte -
gration Definition," Report MDC J5732, McDonnell-
Douglas, November 10, 1972.
131 "DC-8 Series 63 Engine and Nacelle/Airframe Inte -
gration Definition," Report MDC J5732A, McDonnell-
Douglas, January 8, 1973.
132 "Preliminary Retrofit and Economic Analysis, "
Volume I Economic Analysis, Report MDC J5734-1
McDonnell-Douglas, January 8, 1973.
133 "Preliminary Retrofit and Economic Analysis,"
Volume II Retrofit (Trade Study) Analysis,
Report MDC J573^-2, McDonnell-Douglas, January 8, 1973-
135 "JT3D Final Engine and Nacelle/Airframe Integration
Definition," Report MDC J5735, McDonnell-Douglas,
March 15, 1973.
136 "DC-9-32 Engine and Nacelle/Airframe Integration
Definition," Report MDC J5733, -McD.ojmell-Douglas,
March 15, 1973-
140 R. A. Fuhrman, Ltr: "Response on Docket No. 1253*1,
Notice No. 73-3," Lockheed-California Co., 27
February 1973.
lk2 H. Drell, Ltr: "Comments on Information Brief
on Aircraft Noise Control Options and Methods
of Exploiting Technology," Lockheed -California
Co., 30 March 1973.
151 W. R. Dunbar, "DC-8 Noise Reduction Studies" Me
Donnell-Douglas , 2 April 1973.
152 "DC-9 Engine Noise Reduction Programs" McDonnell
Douglas, 5 January 1973-
153 "The Integration of Quiet Engines with Subsonic
Transport Aircraft," McDonnell-Douglas, 1 August
1969.
R-3.4
-------
3-0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
159 V. L. Blumenthal, Ltr: Some General Comments
and Recommendations Pertaining to Task Group
k Activities, Boeing, 2 April 1973.
l6l D. R. Haves, C. R. Cox, "Noise Reduction Possi-
bilities for a light Helicopter," Bell Helicopter
Co., Date Unknown.
162 C. R. Cox, "Subcommitte Chairman's Report to
Membership on Aerodynamic Sources of Rotor
Noise," Presented to the 28th Annual National
Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Wash.,
May 1972.
163 C. R. Cox, "Flying Neighborlyv- Hov to Operate
the Light Helicopter More Quietly," Bell Helicopter,
Date Unknown.
164 C. R. Cox, "VTOL Noise," Presented at EPA.ONAC Aircraft/
Airport Noise Task Group k Meeting, 3 April 1973.
178 V. L. Blumenthal, Ltr: (v/Attachments) "Thoughts
on the Existing Aircraft Noise Regulation and
Planned Regulatory Actions," Boeing, 2 April 1973*
184 G. I. Martin, Ltr: (with enclosures) "AIAA Response
to FAA Noise Rule Making Dockets," AIAA, 9 April 1973-
190 J. S. Gibson,"Technical Brief: Status of the Aircraft
Non-Engine Aerodynamic Noise Problem," Lockheed-
Georgia Co., 5 February 1973-
193 H. Sternfeld, Jr.; E. Hinterkeuser, "Effects of
Noise on Commercial V/STOL Aircraft Design and
Operation," Presented at AIAA 5th Annual Meeting
and Display, Vertol Division of the Boeing Co.,
October 1968.
395 Ronald G. Schlegel, Ltr: "Position Paper Related
to VTOL Aircraft Noise Rules", Sikorsky Aircraft,
Division of United Aircraft Corp., 2 July 1973.
R-3.5
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (COMT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
F. H. Duke, W.E. Hooper, "The Boeing Model
Advanced Technology Helicopter Program," Presented
at the 27th Annual National V/STOL Forum of the
Helicopter Society, Vertol Division of the Boeing
Company, May 1971.
195 W. E. Stepnievski, F. H. Schmitz, "Possibilities
and Problems of Achieving Community Noise Acceptance
of VTOL, " Presented to 8th Congress of the International
Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vertol Division
Of the Boeing Company and the Army Air Mobility Lab.,
August 1972.
196 N. B. Hirsh, H. W. Ferris, "Design Requirements for
a Quiet Helicopter," Presented at the 28th Annual
National Forum of the American Helicopter Society,
Aircraft Division of the Hughes Tool Co., May 1972.
212 "Summary: 707-727-737-7^7 Noise-Reduction Activities, "
Report D6« 1*0613-B, The Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company, March 1973*
211 N. B. Hirsh, H. W.Ferris, "The Hughes OH-6A Quiet
Helicopter Program," Hughes Helicopter, A Division
of Summa Corp., Undated.
208 W. H. Barlow et.al., "OH-6A Phase II Quiet Helicopter
Program, " USAAMRDL Report 72-29, Prepared for Bust is
Directorate of U. S. Army Air Mobility Research and
Development Laboratory, Hughes Tool Company, Sept. 1972.
206 E. G. Hlnterkeuser, H. Sternfeld Jr., "Subjective
Response to Synthesized Flight Noise Signatures of
Several Types of V/STOL Aircraft, " Vertol Division
of the Boeing Co. NASA CR Report CR-1118, Undated.
205 "Visuals in . Support of Presentation on 737/T-43A Noise
Reduction Program," The Boeing Company, 30 March 1973.
E. J. Whitehead, "program on Ground Test of Modified
Quiet Clean JT3D and JT8D Engines in Their Respective
Nacelles; DC-9 Series 32, Engine and Nacelle/Airframe
Integration Definition", Report MDC J5733A, Douglas
Aircraft Company, 23 May 1973 (Second Submittal).
A. L. McPike, Ltr: "Additional Comments on Task
Group k Report of an Editorial Nature", Douglas
Aircraft Company, 29 June 1973.
R-3.6
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (COKT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
221 "Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedure Recommended
for Commodore Jet 1123, Israel CM Approved
Flight Manual, 26 Nov. 1971.
226 C. R. Cox, Ltr: (including enclosures), Corrected
Visual of Air Speed vs Sideline Noise and "Fly
Neighborly-How to Operate the Medium Helicopter
More Quietly," Bell Helicopter, 12 April 1973.
227 J. S. Gibson, "Information Brief - V/STOL Noise
Technology and Design Considerations," IB 7302,
Lockheed-Georgia Company, 9 March 1973 (Rev.).
228 J. S. Gibson, "Information Brief-Non-Engine Aero-
dynamic Noise Technology and Impact," IB7301,
Lockheed-Georgia Company, 6 April 1973 (Rev.).
219 H. Sternfeld, Jr., E. G. Hinterkeuser, "Acceptability
of VTOL Aircraft Noise Determined by Absolute Sub-
jective Testing," NASA CR-20^3, Vertol Division of the
Boeing Company, 10 Jan. 1972.
217 "An Investigation of Noise Generation on a Hovering
Rotor: Partll," Vertol Division of the Boeing Company,
Nov. 1972.
216 F. H. Schmitz et.al., "A Comparison of Optimal and
Noise Abatement Trajectories of a Tilt-Rotor Aircraft,"
Vertol Division of the Boeing Company, Jan. 1972.
230 "FAA 727 Quiet Nacelle Retrofit Feasibility Study -
Contract DOT-FA71WA-2637," Wichita Division of the
Boeing Company, Date unknown.
231 "Feasibility and Initial Model Studies of a Coanda/
Refraction Type Noise Suppressor System," Report
03-9068, Wichita Division of the Boeing Company,
January 1973.
*f 12 A. L. McPike, Ltr: "Comments on Draft Report and
Operations of EPA Task Group V1, Douglas Aircraft
Company, 29 June 1973
if13 A. L. McPike, Ltr: "Comments on Draft Report and
Operations of EPA Task Group 5", Douglas Aircraft
Company, 29 June 1973.
R-3.7
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
286 H. Drell, Ltr: (with enclosure), "Lockheed-California
Company/Rolls-Royce Position Related to the Potential
for further Engine Noise Reduction, Lockheed-Calif.
Company, 25 April 1973.
304 J. Vogel, Ltr:(with enclosures), "Sideline Noise
Measurements," Lockheed-California Company, 1 Nay 1973.
-yj\\ V.L.Blumenthal, Ltr. "Additional Comments on Draft
Reports" Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, 20 June 1973
330 "Contract DOT-FA71WA-2628, FAA JT3D-707 Quiet Nacelle
Program Summary," Boeing-Wichita, 7 May 1973.
246 R. E. Russell, Ltr. v/attachments, "Data on Operational
Procedures as Requested in EPA Letter of 12 April 1973,"
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, 20 April 1973*
338 "Concorde: Airport Noise and Silencing Programme,"
SlttA, SNECMA, BAG and Rolls Royce Limited, Oct. 1972.
339 "Concorde: Airport Noise and Silencing Programme;
Annex 3, The Economic Aspects of Silencing Concorde,"
SNIA, SNECMA, BAG and Rolls Royce Limited, Oct. 1972.
3*40 "Concorde; Airport Noise and Silencing Programme;,
Annex 2, Manufacturers Further Studies of Noise Re-
duction, " SNIA, SNECMA, BAC and Rolls Royce Limited,
Oct. 1972.
367 '"BAC-JJJ. Noise Reduction Programs," British Aircraft
Corp. (USA), c^ May
354 M. G. Wilde, Ltr. with "Recommendations of the Con-
corde Manufacturers to the EPA Relating to,the Regulation
of Concorde Noise," BAC, 17 May 1973.
243 "727 JT8D-109 Refan Nacelle and Airplane Integra-
tion Definition", Preliminary Submittal 0-6^0882,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, k April 1973-
R-3. 8
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
*f01 K. P. Rice, "Program on Ground Test of Modified,
Quiet, Clean JT3D and JT8D Engines in Their.
Respective Nacelles; JT3D/JT8D REFAN Preliminary
Economic Study" Report No. 06-^0982, Boeing
Commericial Airplane Company, April 1973-
^02 K. P. Rice, "Program on Ground Test of Modified,
Quiet, Clean JT3D and JT8D Engines in Their
Respective Nacelles; 707/JT3D-9 REFAN Nacelle,
Engineering Summary Report" Report No. D3-9107,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Companyt April 10, 1973.
^03 K. P. Rice, "Program on Ground Test of Modified,
Quiet,, Clean JT3D and JT8D Engines in Their
Respective Nacelles; Phase I, 737, JT.8D-109 REFAN
Nacelle and Airplane Integration Definition"
Report No. D6-32569, Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company, June 22, 1973.
K. P. Rice, "Program on Ground Test of Modified,
Quiet, Clean JT3D and JT8D Engines in Their
Respective Nacelles; Phase I, 727, JT8D-109 REFAN
Nacelle and Airplane Integration Definition"
Report No. D6-41170, Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company 1 June 1973*
Bernard D. Brown, Ltr. "Confirming Currency of
Documentation Supplied to the Task Group",
British Aircraft Corporation (U.S.A.) Inc., 2 July '73.
Bernard D. Brown, Ltr. "Position Paper Related to
EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Report", British
Aircraft Corporation (U.S.A.) Inc. for Concorde
Project Director, BAC-CAD on behalf of the four
Concorde Manufacturers, 2 July 1973.
*f08 V. L. Blumenthal, Ltr. w/Attachments: "Boeing
Commercial Airplane Company Position on Task
Group 4, Noise Source Technology and Cost Analysis
Including Retrofitting", Boeing Commercial
Airplane Company Letter 6-7270-1-Wf, 29, June 1973.
V. L. Blumenthal, Ltr.: "Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company Position on Task Group 5» Review and
Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft
and Airport Operations" Boeing Company Letter
No. 6-7270-1-*f 551 29 June 1973.
R-3. 9
-------
3.0 AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
M*5 Ronald G. Schlegel, "Position on VTOL Noise
Certification", Sikorsly Aircraft, 20 July 1973.
Mf9 D. L. Hiatt, M. B. McKaig, et.al., "72? Noise Retrofit
Feasibility; Vol. Ill: Upper Goal Flight Testing and
Program Summary" FAA-RD-72-ifO, III, Boeing Commercial
Airplane Co., June 1973-
^50 "Visual Aids in Support of an Oral Report on Contract
DOT-FA71WA-2628, FAA JT3B-707 Quiet Nacelle Program",
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, 25 July 1973.
"Visual Aids in Support of an Oral Report on Contract
DOT-FA71WA-2637, FAA 727 Quiet Nacelle Retrofit
Feasibility Study", Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company, 25 July 1973.
"Program on Ground Test of Modified Quiet Clean JT3D
and JT8D Engines in Their Respective Nacelles: Visual
Aids in Support of an Oral Report on Phase I Results",
Douglas Aircraft Company, 25 July 1973-
"Visual Aids in Support of Oral Report on a Retrofit
Feasibility Program", Federal Aviation Administration,
25 July 1973.
"Visual Aids in Support of Oral Report on Long Range
Noise Measurements" Boeing Commercial Airplane Company,
25 July 1973.
"Visual Aids in Support of Oral Report on Relan Ketrofit
Program Status" Boeing Commercial Airplane Company,
25 July 1973.
R-3.10
-------
AIRLINES
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
56 J. T. Davis, Ltr: "Comments on FAA Rules and
Proposals," Delta Airlines, 9 March 1973-
73 P. A. Soderlind, Ltr: "Northwest Airlines Noise
Abatement Procedures," Northwest Airlines, 2k
November 1970.
270 "Flight Standard Bulletin No. 3-70: Revised
Standard NWA Takeoff," Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
5 October 1970.
267 R. E. L. Carmichael, Ltr: (with enclosures)
"Regarding PSA Policies Involving Noise Abatement
During Arrivals and Departures," Pacific Southwest
Airlines, 28 March 1973.
268 J. R. Tucker, "Takeoff Flight Path Studies," Air
California, 1 March 1973.
269 "Special DCA Noise Abatement Procedure," Flight
Operations Manual, United Air Lines 25 Feb. 1972.
333 J. T. Davis, Ltr: "Comments on Draft. Report
Task Group 5, 5 May 1973," Delta ~j.r Lines,
16 May 1973-
33^ J. T. Davis, "Visuals in Support of Comments on
Draft Report Task Group 5, 5 May 1973," Delta Air
Lines, 16 May 1973.
38^ R. W. Rumrael, Ltr. with Enclosure titled "Airlines and
the Energy Crisis", Trans World Airlines, 23 May 1973.
R-4.1
-------
5.0 INDIVIDUALS
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
Ul M. P. Kelly; Ltr: "Hosie Problems at Ofa-
Locka Airport," 12 February 1973-
kj R. Gegauff; Ltr: "Boise Problems at Logan
Airport," 2 March 1973-
372 J. C. Bohonis; Ltr: "Suggestions for Aircraft
Airport Noise Study Report," 17 April 1973-
373 E. E. Farman; Ltr:" "Aircraft Noise" 12 May 1973-
381 W. H. Rodgers, Jr. Ltr with Copy of Chapter from
Author's Book Titled "Corporate Country",
8 June 1973.
R-5.1
-------
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
12 Lloyd Hinton, "Aircraft Noise as a Continuing
National Problem," Proceedings of International
Conference on Transportation and the Environment,
Ho Date.
16 J. Tyler, "Source Abatement Technology," Submitted
to EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Group k,
28 February 1973.
27 J. Hellegers, L. Hinton, N. McBride, C. Lerza,
J. Conroy, Environmental Defense Fund Letter to
John Schettino, 23 February 1973.
30 J. Hellegers, Raelynn Janssen, L. Hinton, J. Tyler,
N. McBride, M. Moore, P. Borrelll, M. Evans, Ltr:
"Docket No. 1253^; ANPRM on Civilian Airplane
Fleet Noise (FNL) Requirements," EOF, NOISE, ACAP,
CAN, Sierra Club, 2 torch 1973.
k6 J. Hellegers; Ltr: "Advice on Requesting Info
from the FAA," 26 February 1973-
57 L. Hinton et al; Ltr: "Aircraft and Airport In-
strumentation, " 13 March 1973.
77 T. Berland, "Response to ANPRM on FNL, Docket
No. 1253^, Notice 73-3," Citizens Against Noise,
llj. March 1973-
85 L. Hinton, J. Tyler, "Response to ANPRM 73-3,
Docket No. 1253V N.O.I.S.E.," 2 March 1973-
94 "Comments Related to FAR Part 36: Aircraft Noise
Certification Procedures," N.O.I.S.E., 22 March 1973-
95 "Comments Related to Airport Certification,"
N.O.I.S.E., 22 March 1973.
168 "Control of Aircraft Noise in the Basic Engine
Aircraft Design," HDISE, J. Tyler, 3 April 1973.
169 "Airport Design" NOISE, J. Tyler, 3 April 1973.
173 L. V. Hinton, J. M. Tyler, Ltr: "Recommended Re-
gulations," N.O.I.S.E., 5 April 1973.
R-6.1
-------
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS (COHT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRPAHIC CITATION
294 L. Hlnton; Ltr: "Questions Related to FAA's
Understanding of Authority to Regulate Airport
Noise," N.O.I.S.E., k May 1973.
293 L. Hinton; Ltr: "To Mr. Phillip T. Cummings, Asst.
Counsel, Committee on Public Works, United States
Senate, N.O.I.S.E., k May 1973.
295 J. Tyler, L. Hinton; Press Release Related to
Aircraft Noise Reduction Demonstration at Dulles
Airport on 7 May 1973, N.O.I.S.E., 7 May 1973.
325 J. Scaffetta; Ltr: "Concern over SST Noise Pollution,
Member of Friends of the Earth, 15 March 1973.
3^5 J. M. Tyler. L. Hinton, "Comments on Dxtaft Reports of
Task Group k and 5," NOISE, 15 May 1973.
3146 L. Hinton, Ltr: "Findings and Recommendations Re-
lated to "Adequacy of FAA Flight and Operational
Noise Controls," NOISE, 27 April 1973.
358 L* Hinton, J. Tyler, Ltr: "Comments and Recommenda-
tions for Draft No. 1, Chapter 3 of the Report to
the Congress," NOISE, IB May 1973.
389 J. F. Hellegers, Ltr. "Capacity Limitation
Agreements," Environmental Defense Fund, 31 May 1973.
393 Lloyd Hinton and John Tyler, Ltr: "Position Paper
Related to Task Group 5 Report", N.O.I.S.E,
30 June 1973.
Lloyd Hinton and John Tyler, Ltr: "Position Paper
Related to Task Group *f Report", N.O.I.S.E,
30 June 1973.
-------
7.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; AVIATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
25 "The Long Range Needs of Aviation, "Report of
the Aviation Advisory Commission, 1 January 1973-
52 The Long Range Needs of Aviation: "Technical
Annex to the Report of the Aviation Advisory
Commission," Vol I, January 1973.
53 The Long Range Needs of Aviation: "Technical
Annex to the Report of the Aviation Advisory
Commission," Vol II, January 1973'
99 "Aircraft Noise Analysis for the Existing Air
Carrier System," Report No. 2218, Contract No.
CON-AAC-72-12, Bolt, Beranek and Newman for
the Aviation Advisory Commission, 1 September 1972.
5^ "Impact of Business Jets on Community Noise
Exposure," Proj. Report No. 2222, Bolt, Beranek
and Newman for the Aviation Advisory Commission
21 August 1972.
117 "Classification of Airport Environs by Airport/
Community Land Use Compatibility," Back & Sterling,
Inc. for Aviation Advisory Commission, 28 Jan '72.
118 "Cost Estimates for Removal of Residental and
Related Land Use Near Selected Airports," Back &
Sterling, Inc. for Aviation Advisory Commission,
25 August 1971.
175 "A Model and Methodology for Estimating National
Land Use Removal Costs," The Decision Information
Group, Inc., For the Aviation Advisory Commission,
k August 1972.
R-7.1
-------
8.0 FEDERAL GOV'T: DQT/FM
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
29 L. Simpson, R. C. Khowles, J. B. Feir,
"Airline Industry Financial Analysis with
Respect to Aircraft Boise Retrofit Programs ,"
R. Dixen Speas Associates, N. Y., January 1973•
2lf D. C. Gray, "Results of Noise Surveys of Seventeen
General Aviation Type Aircraft," Federal Aviation
Administration Report No. FAA-EQ-73-1, Dec '72.
37 "Draft: Environmental Impact Statement for Policy
Changes on the Role of Washington National Airport
and Dulles International Airport," Prepared by
the Federal Aviation Administration, 31 January
1973-
70 Working .Paper No. 10: "Aviation Cost. Allocation
Study; Allocation of Airport and Airway System
Costs," Office of Policy Review, Department of
Transportation, December 1972.
1*6 "Noise Abatement Procedures," Federal Aviation
Agency, November 1960.
1*9 R. L. Paullin, :The Status of International
Noise Certification Standards for Business
Aircraft," Department of Transportation,
6 April 1973, NBAA Meeting.
50 "Noise Abatement Rules: Amendment 91-46 to
FAR," Federal Aviation Administration, 4 Dec'67.
68 J. D. Veils et al, "An Analysis of the Financial
and institutional Framework for Urban Transporta-
tion Planning and Investment," Study S-355,
Contract No. DAHC15-67-C-0011, Department of
Transportation, June 1970.
69 Working Paper No. 8: "Aviation Cost Allocation
Study, Design Rationale for a General Aviation
National Airspace System," Office of Policy
Review, Department of Transportation, July 1972.
R-8.1
-------
8.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; DCT/FAA (COMT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
71 Working Paper No. 1&: "Aviation Cost Allocation
Study, The Price Elasticity of Demand for General
Aviation," Office of Policy Review, Department
of Transportation, December, 1972.
72 D. L. Hiatt et. al., "727 Noise Retrofit Feasi-
bility; Vol. Ill: Upper Goal Flight Testing and
Summary," Report No. FAA-RD-72J*0, III., Federal
Aviation Administration, January, 1973-
(PRELIMINARY).
100 "Project Report: Noise Certification Rule for STOL
Category Aircraft," FAA, 18 January 1971.
101 "Aviation Cost Allocation Study: Overview of Cost
Allocation Methodologies; Working Paper No. 1,"
Office of Policy Review; Dept. of Transportation,
January 1972.
102 "Aviation Cost Allocation Study: Working Paper
No. 15; Socio - Economic Approach to Benefits
of the Airport and Airway System," Office of
Policy Review, Dept. of Transportation, Dec'72.
104 W. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on Bibliography
on Aircraft Certificated Noise Levels," Preliminary
Data Compiled by FAA/AEQ-20, 21 December 1972.
105 W. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on Bibliography
of FAA Aircraft Noise Reports," 18 August 1972.
107 W. C. Sperry "Information Brief on Current and
Estimated Noise Levels for Major U. S. Aircraft
Series," FAA, 2 December 1972.
108 W. C. Sperry. L. A. Ronk "Information Brief
on Boeing 707-320B Aircraft Noise," FAA, 25
January 1972.
109 L. A. Ronk, T. N. Cokenais, W. C. Sperry,
"Information Brief of EPNL Contour (Footprint)
Comparison of Noise Abatement Retrofit Option*
for 707-320B Aircraft," FAA, 11 January 1973.
110 L. A. Ronk, T. N. Cokenais, W.C. Sperry,
"Information Brief of EPNL Contour (Footprint)
Comparison of Noise Abatement Retrofit Options
for 727-200 Aircraft," FAA 22 December 1972.
R-8.2
-------
8.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; DOI/FAA (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
BO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
111 T. N. Cokenais, "Information Brief on Computer
Programs for the Evaluation of EPNL Contours
for Approach Operations," FAA, 19 September 1972.
112 L. A. Ronk, "Information Brief on Computer Programs
for the Evaluation of EPNL Contours for Takeoff
Operations," FAA, 11 September 1972.
113 L. A. Ronk, T. N. Cokenais, W. C. Sperry," Infor-
mation Brief on EPNL Contours and Enclosed Areas
for 727, DC-9, and 707 Aircraft," FAA, 1 May 1972.
n't L. A. Ronk, W.C. Sperry, T. N. Cokenais, "Infor-
mation Brief on Takeoff and Approach Noise for
Boeing 727 Aircraft," FAA, 8 January 1973.
116 W. C. Sperry, L. A. Ronk, T. I. Cokenais, "Infor-
mation Brief on Prediction of Aircraft Noise Levels
for Planning Purposes," FAA, 7 September 1971.
119 "Part 91: General Operating Flight Rules; Civil
Aircraft Sonic Boom," Federal Register Vol. 3<3,
No. 59, 28 March 1973-
120 V. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on Current and
Estimated Noise Levels for Major U.S. Aircraft
Series,' FAA, 2 December 1972.
147 W. C. Sperry, "Infcarnation Brief on Federal Aviation
Administration Noise Abatement Research and Development,"
FAA, 22 December 1972.
148 W. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on FAA Aircraft
Noise Research," FAA, 6 December 1972.
Ik? W. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on Analysis of
Aircraft Sound Description System (ASDS)," EPA,
2 April 1973.
307 "A Study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise
Generation and Potential Abatement: Vol. I - Summary,"
OST-ONAC-71-1, Department of Transportation, Nov'70.
36)1 "A Study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise
Generation and Potential Abatement: Vol. VII -
Abatement Responsibility," OST-ONA-71—1, Dept. of
Transportation, November 1979.
R-8.3
-------
8.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; DOT/FAA (COMT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
213 "Airline Economic Impact Computer Model: Vol. I -
Detailed Discussion,_" FAA-EQ-72-if, I_, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, June
1972.
182 "Airline Economic Impact Computer Model. Vol II -
Appendix, Detailed Data Tables," FAA-EQ-72-4,II,
Rohr Industries, Inc. and Mitchell Research
Associates for the Department of Transportation,
June 1972.
286 J. E. Cruz, "Aircraft Sound Description System -
Background and Application" Final Report FAA-EQ-73-3»
Office of Environmental Quality, FAA, March 1973.
DRAFT "Noise Standards for Newly Produced Airplanes of
'' Ider Type Designs" Federal Aviation Administration,
Jraft Regulation, July 197^.
C. R. Foster, Memo and Enclosure; "Report of the
U. S. Delegation to the ICAO Committee on Aircraft
Noise, Third Meeting," 5 March 1973.
207 "Arrival and Departure Handling of High Performance
Aircraft," DOT/FAA Advisory Circular No. AC 90-59,
28 February 1972.
222 Neva Article: "FAA Uncertain of Authority in Regulating
SST Noise," Aviation Daily, 18 April 1973.
165 H. Safeer, "Visuals on Airport Noise Reduction Forecast,"
Presented to EPA/ONAC Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Task Group k, Meeting No. k, 3 April 1973.
251 "Proposed FAA Maximum Allowable Noise Levels to be Required
for Certification of Future Aircraft," Enclosed with Ltr.
by Joseph D. Blatt, i September 1966.
263 H. B. Safeer Ltr: (with enclosures) "Summary of Effects of
Retrofit on Population for Six Airports and Program Costs,"
30 April 1973.
R-8.4
-------
8.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; DOT/FAA (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
233 "Economic Impact of Implementing Acoustically
Treated Nacelle and Duct Configurations Applicable
to Low-By-Pass Turbofan Engines," Report FAA-NO-
70-11, Prepared for Dept. of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration by Rohr Corporation, July 1970.
234 Claude S. Brinegar, Ltr: "Regarding the Assignment of
DOT Personnel to Work with EPA in Meeting EPA Responsi-
bilities under Sections 7, 17, and 18 of the Noise
Control Act of 1972," Department of Transportation,
5 April 1973-
252 J. F. Woodall and Advisors, "Aircraft Development Service
Proposal for FAA Noise Certification Criteria," 1 February
1968.
I. H. Hoover, "Aircraft Noise Certification Alternatives,"
Ltr: Aircraft Industry Manufacturers, Operators,
and Consultants, 3 October 1967.
103 "Aviation Cost Allocation Study: Working Paper No.9;
Benefits," Office of Policy Review, Department of
Transportation, October. 1972.
"Aviation Forecasts Fiscal Years 1973-198^ " Dept* of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Sept. 1972.
355 H. B. Safeer, Tech. Memo. "Aircraft Retrofit - A Cost
Effectiveness Analysis," Dept. of Transportation, 18
May 1973.
391 "Land Use Control Strategies for Airport Impacted Areas",
Report No. DOT-FA71WA-2579, Urban Systems Research
and Engineering, Inc for the Federal Aviation
Administration, Oct. 1972.
"The New Aviation Taxes", E. C. Bulletin No. 70-2,
Office of Aviation Economics, Federal Aviation
Administration, July 1970.
R-8.5
-------
8.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; DOT/FAA (CONT'P)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
^39 Project Report: "Newly Produced Airplanes of
Older Type Designs - Proposed Application of
FAR 36 Noise Standards (NPRM 72-19, Docket No.1206*0,
Before July 1972.
VfO Project Report: "Aircraft Noise Certification
Rule for Transport Category Aircraft" 2k Sept. 1968.
"A Study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise
Generation and Potential Abatement: Vol.Ill-
Airport/Aircraft System Noise," OST-ONA-71-1,
Dept. of Transportation, Nov '70.
Carole S. Tanner, Ray E. Glass, "Analysis of
Operational Noise Measurements in Terms of Selected
Human Response Noise Evaluation Measures", FAA-RD-
71-112, December 1971.
"Visual Aids in Support of Oral Report on Retrofit
Study" R. Dixon Speas, 25 July 1973-
^58 "Visual Aids in Support of Oral Report on the
Airport Noise Reduction Forecast Program", Wyle
Laboratories, 25 July 1973.
R-8.6
-------
9.0 FEDERAL GQV'T; POD
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
75 P. A. Shahady, "Department of Defense Noise
Research Programs Source Noise Abatement
Technology," Department of Defense, Air
Force Aero Propulsion Labs, 21 March 1973.
192 N. J. Asher et.al., "The Demand for Intercity
Passenger Transportation by VTOL Aircraft, "
Institute for Defense Analysis, Aug. 1968.
335 P. A. Shahady, "U. 8. Air Force Noise Research,"
Presented to EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Task Group U, 16 May 1973.
336 W. 8. BlazovskL et al, "The Aircraft Engine and the
Environmentyn. Air Force Aero Propulsion Laboratory,
16 May 1973.
337 R. P. Burns, "Noise Pollution Control in the U.S.
Navy," Naval Air Propulsion Test Center, l£ May 1973.
363' F. H. Schmitz, "Rotary Wing Acoustic Research,"
jAmes Directorate, U. S. Anny Air Mobility R & D
laboratory, 16 May 1973.
350 R. W. Young, "Material for Report on Aircraft/Airport
Noise," Submitted to EPA Task Group 3, Department
of the Navy, 3 May 1973.
R-9.1
-------
10.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; EPA
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
26 W. C. Sperry, "Three Point Measurement Concept for
STOL Noise Certification," Information Brief,
2 October 1972.
31 W. C. Sperry, "Aircraft/Airport Noise Report
Study: Meeting No. 1 of Task Groups k and 5 -
Summary," EPA/ONAC, 27 February 1973.
1*0 L. A. Plumlee, (EPA) M.D.j Ltr: "Police Helicopters,"
Noise and Utilization, 22 February 1973-
45 J. C. Schettino, Ltr: "DOT Participation in Aircraft/
Airport Noise Report Study," EPA/ONAC, 7 Mar'73-
59 W. C. Sperry, "Minutes of Meeting No. 2, Aircraft/
Airport Noise Report Study - Task Groups k and 5,"
EPA/ONAC, Ik March 1973.
Ok A. F. Meyer, Jr., Memo: "Comments on ANFRM on
FNL," 19 Mar'73.
86 W. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on Fleet Noise
Level MethDdfclogy," EPA, 19 March 1973.
97 W. C. Sperry, "Summary Minutes of Aircraft /Airport
Noise Report Study; Meeting No. 3 for Task Groups
k and 5 with Enclosure," EPA/ONAC, 26 March 1973-
98 W. C. Sperry, "Information Brief on Aircraft Noise
Control Options and Methods of Exploiting Technology,"
EPA/ONAC, 24 March 1973. (Rev. 23 April 1973)
115 W. C. Sperry, "Aircraft Noise Exposure: Background,
Methodology and Comparisons, " FAA, 2k September '72t'
121 "Information Brief on Aircraft Equipment Growth and
Future Trends," Aviation Week and Space Technology,
19 March 1973.
139 "Information Brief on Aircraft and Engine Specifi-
cations, " Aviation Week and Space Technology,
19 March 1973-
R-10.1
-------
10.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; EPA
MASTER
FILE
HO. BIBHOGHAPHIC CITATION
Betsy Amin-Arsala, Memo: "Concept of Airport
Certification, G.W.U./EPA, 30 March 1973.
"REFAN: Promising Technology, Uncertain Future,"
Article from Aerospace Daily, 23 March 1973.
179 W. C. Sperry, "Summary Minutes of Aircraft/Airport
Noise Report Study; Meeting No. k for Task Groups
U and 5 with Enclosures," EPA/ONAC, 10 April 1973.
180 R. S. Bennin, "Information Brief on Framework for
Airport/Aircraft Regulations," EPA/ONAC Task
Groups?, 5 April 1973-
22k W. D. Ruckelshaus; Ltr: (with enclosures),
"Indicating Response to Concern Expressed
by Ms. K. W. Hemer, Constituent of Hon. W. G.
Magnuson," EPA, 2 April 1973-
308 J. C. Schettino; Ltr: "In Reply to Mr. William
M. Cooper, Jr., Citizens for Conservation,"
EPA, 19 April 1973.
377 H. J. Nozick, Information Brief on Noise Exposure
Forecast (NEF) Areas and Land Clearance Costs at
Twelve Air Carrier Airports for Six Fleet Configurations
(1985'Operations.), EPA,. 9 April 1973*.
24l W. C. Sperry, Memo: "ICAO Activity, can/3," EPA,
20 Mar 1973-
28? Draft #1: Chapter 3: Operations Analysis, Environmental
Protection Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Report of
Task Group 2, 5 May 1973.
39 A» teyer. Jr., Memo: "Information Regarding Depart-
ment of Transportation Consultations and Participation
in the Aircraft and Airport Noise Study - Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972," EPA/ONAC, 6 March 1973.
376 H. J. Nozick, Information Brief on Business Jet
Identification and Estimated Noise Levels, EPA,
6 April 1973.
H-10.2
-------
lfl.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; EPA (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
271 "An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives for Airport
Noise Abatement," Joseph Vittek Jr., March 14, 1973,
A supporting document for George Washington University
Legal and Institutional Analysis of the Noise Control
Act of 1972.
299 DRAFT: "Impact Characterization" Report of Task
Group 3 of the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, 10 May 1973.
300 DRAFT: "Report on Aircraft Noise Source Technology
for Environmental Protection Agency Aircraft/Airport
Noise Report Study," EPA Task Group k, 5 May 1973*
301 DRAFT: "Report on Noise Regulatory Actions by the
Federal Aviation Administration for Environmental
Protection Agency Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study, "
EPA Task Group 5, 5 May 1973-
302 DRAFT: "Section VII. Bibliography and References
for Task Group k Draft Report and Task Group 5 Draft
Report," EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study, 5
May 1973.
257 "The Economic Impact of Noise," NTID 300. lU, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 31 December 1971
327 J. C. Schettino, Ltr: Reply to Mr. Jerry Scaffetta's
letter of 15 March 1973, EPA, Undated
3^7 A. Meyer, Jr., Ltr: to FAA "EPA Comments ANPRM 73-3,
Civil Airplane Fleet Noise (FNL) Requirements," EPA,
2 February 1973.
3l*9 B. Amin-Arsala, "Relevant Data on Starrett City Develop-
ment Project, Brooklyn, Nev York," Submitted tooTask
Group 5 on 16 May 1973, G.W.U., 18 April 1973.
366 P.P. Back, "Information Brief on Relationships and Data
Requirements for Analysis of Aircraft Source Noise
Abatement Options," EPA, 11 April 1973-
379 R. L. Randall, "Information Brief on the U. S. Supreme
Court's Decision in the Burba^.. o
-------
10.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; EPA (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
"Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and
Airport Noise and Apportionment of Authority Between
Federal, State and Local Governments", NTID 73-2,
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973-
k26 "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement,
Safety, and Cost" NTID 73.3, Environmental Protection
Agency, July 1973*
"Impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications
of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative
Noise Exposure" NTID 73.^, Environmental Protection
Agency, July 1973.
"Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis
Including Retrofitting" NTID 73. 5 » Environmental
Protection Agency, July 1973*
429 "Review and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise
Regulatory Actions and Their Consequences Regarding
Aircraft and Airport Operations" NTID 73«6,
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973-
"Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities
for Reduction Without Inhibition of Military Missions"
NTID 73.7, Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973.
"Report to Congress on Aircraft/Airport Noise" Report
of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency in Compliance with the Noise Control Act of 1972,
Public Law 92-57^" ,NRC 73.1, Environmental Protection
Agency, July 1973-
Larry A Ronk, "Information Brief on Land Use Costs to
Provide Noise Impact Protection at Various Noise
Exposure Levels for Various Retrofit Options"
Environmental Protection Agency, 15 June 1973-
Randall L. Hurlburt, "Information Brief on Noise
Problems at 19 Large Hub Airports", Environmental
Protection Agency, 30 June 1973-
W. C. Sperry & D. C. Gray; "Information Brief on
Project Reports" EPA, 19 July 1973.
Randall L. Hurlburt: "Information Brief on Night
Operations at Airports", EPA, 19 -July 1973.
.R-10.4
-------
10.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; EPA (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
"Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise"
NCD 73«1» Environmental Protection Agency,
27 July 1973-
R-10.5
-------
11.0 FEDERAL GQV'T; NASA
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
3 "Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology," A Pre-
liminary NASA Report to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency for the Aircraft/Airport Noise
Study," W. H. Roudebush, 28 February 1973-
44 J. J. Kramer, Ltr: "Footprint Calculation Procedures
in REFAN Program," NASA, 5 March 1973.
51 "NASA REFAN Program" Presented to Task Group 4 of
A/A Noise Report Study by J.J. Kramer, 28 Feb'73.
79 C. Ciepluch, "Visuals Presented by Carl Ciepluch,
NASA's Quiet Engine Program," 21 Mar'73.
167 "Viewgraphs for Review of NASA Quiet Engine
Program" Presented to EPA/ONAC Aircraft/Airport
Noise Report Study Task Group 4, Meeting No.3,
21 March 1973-
186 "Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology," Presented
to the EPA for the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study,
NASA, 30 March 1973-
209 G. C. Smith,"Publications and Presentations of the
Acoustics Branch, Loads Division, NASA-Langley
Research Center," NASA, 31 Dec. 1972.
210 "Human Response to Noise-Publications and Presen-
tation, " Acoustics Branch, Langley Research Center,
NASA, 15 Dec. 1972.
229 "Statement of R. P. Jackson, Associate Administrator
for Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA before
the Subcommittee on Aeronautics and Space Technology,
Committee on Sciences and Astronautics, House of
Representatives," April 1973.
262 F. B. Metzger, et al, "Analytical Parametric Investi-
gation 6f Low Pressure Ratio Fan Noise," NASA CR-2188,
March 1973.
R-ll.l
-------
11.0 FEDERAL GOV'T; NASA (COMT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
237 "Statement of Boy P. Jackson, Associate Adm. for
Aeronautics and Space Technology, NASA before the
Committee on Aeronautics and Space Science," United
States Senate, April 1973.
277 M. H. Waters et al. "Shrouded Fan Propulsors for
Light Aircraft, SAE Business Aircraft Meeting, Wichita,
3-6 April 1973.
378 B. J. Clark, Ltr. with Enclosure; "FAR J,6 and CTOL
Engine Noise Levels Extrapolated to 500 - Foot
Sideline for 150,000-Pound G. W. Aircraft", NASA
Lewis Research Center, 23 May 1973.
380 J. J. Kramer; Ltr. with Enclosures, "Data Related to
Refan Program and Fleet Sizes", NASA Hqs., 2k May 1973.
W. H. Roudebush, Ltr. "Task Group k Draft Report,
Aircraft Noise Source Technology," NASA, 15 May 1973.
W. H. Roudebush, Ltr. "Task Group 5 Draft Report,
Envrionmental Noise Regulatory Actions by the FAA,"
NASA, 15 May 1973.
398 William H. Roudebush, Ltr with Enclosures: "Comments
On and Corrections to the Task Group k Draft Report",
NASA, 28 June 1973.
R-11.2
-------
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-. U-s« Misc. & Foreign
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
106 "Status of the Federal Aircraft Noise Alleviation
Program as of July 1, 1967 and Recommendation for
Updating and Improving the Program," Report of the
Program Evaluation and Development Committee (PEDC),
1 July 1967.
183 M. R. Segal, "Aircraft Noise: The Retrofitting
Approach," 72-73 SP, Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress, 28 March 1972.
189 J. H. Ogonji, S. Loo, "Noise Effects and Problems
of Control; Selected, Annotated References 1966-
1972," Congressional Research Service, Library
of Congress, 15 Jan. 1973-
223 s- N« Goldstein, "Environmental Noise Quality-
A Proposed Standard and Index," The Mitre Corp.
for the Council on Environmental Quality, Mar '71.
225 J. V. Tunney, Ltr: "Concern Over EPA Effort under
Noise Control Act of 1972 and Interest in Public
Hearings," U.S. Senate, Ik February 1973-
"Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports,
a Report of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel," Office
of Science and Technology, March 1966.
International Conference on the Reduction of Noise
and Disturbance Caused by Civil Aircraft, London,
November 1966.
253 Fifth Air Navigation Conference, International Civil
Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada, November-
December 1967.
R-12.1
-------
12.0 FEDERAL GOVERNMEafT-MISCELLAMEIOUS U. S. AND FOREIGN (COHT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRPAHIC CITATION
329 "Action Against Aircraft Noise: Progress Report 1973,"
A Department of Trade and Industry Publication, 1973.
291 "Aircraft Noise Impact - Planning Guidelines for Local
Agencies" Prepared for Department of Housing and Urban
Development by Bolt, Beranek and Newman and Wilsey and
Ham. Nov. 1972.
2^7 Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-726) 23
August 1958.
21*8 "Title IV - Noise Pollution of the Clean Air Act
(Public Law 91-604).
J>k~$ "Social and Economic Impact of Aircraft Noise,"
OECE, 13 April 197.3.
385 C. W. Graves, Ltr; Review and Position on Task Group 5
Report, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Management, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1 June 1973.
k2J> Clifford W. Graves, Ltr. with Enclosure "HUD Comments
on Recommendations on the EPA Task Force on Aircraft/
Airport Noise Problems", Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development, 29 June 1973.
kk2. "Noise Assessment Guidelines; Technical Background",
Report No. TE/NA 172, Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development, 1972.
"Views of the Department of Commerce Concerning EPA's
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study", General Counsel
of the Department of Commerce, 19 July 1973.
R-12.2
-------
23-0 PROFESSIONAL AMD TRADE GROUPS
MASTER
FILE
HO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
1*2 K. D. Kryter, Ltr: "Participation in Aircraft/
Airport Noise Report Study," Acoustical Society
of America, 12 February 1973.
1*3 W. W. Lang, Ltr: "Participation in Aircraft/
Airport Noise Report Study," Institute of Noise
Control Engineering, No Date.
62 J. A. Nanmack, Ltr: "State Lavs as Belated to
Land Use Control," National Association of State
Aviation Officials, 16 March 1973-
150 L. P. Bedore, Ltr: "NBAA Noise Abatement Programs,"
National Business Aircraft Association, Inc.,
26 March 1973.
171 C. P. Miller; Ltr: "Statement on Proposed Noise
Standards for Propeller-Driven Aircraft," AOPA,
29 March 1973.
188 L. P. Bedore, Ltr.: "Recommended Changes to NBAA
Noise Abatement Program," National Business Aircraft
Assoc., Inc., 10 Nov. 1972.
255 K. G.Harr,, Ltr: !To FAA(fcsKee ), with "Aerospace
Industries Report on Aircraft Noise Certification,"
5 December 1967.
266 W. A. Jenson, "ATA Flight Operations Committee Re-
commended Takeoff Procedures-Effective Date: 1 Aug.
1972," Operations Memorandum No. 72-6^, Air Transport
Association of America, 12 June 1972.
332 W. B. Becker: Ltr. with Attachments "Comments Upon
Review of Task Group 3 Draft Report," ATA, 10 May 1973.
3^4 R. G. Flynn: Ltr. with Attachments "Comments on Draft
Report of Task Group 2," 11 May 1973-
253 Report of the Third Meeting of the Committee on .Aircraft
Noise (CAN), Montreal, 5 to 23 March 1973, International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 23 March 1973.
359 L. Bedore, Memo: "Definition of General Aviation,"
NBAA, 17 May 1973.
R-13.1
-------
13.0 . PROFESIOHAL AND TRADE GROUPS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
160 "Retrofit Costs," Compiled by Allen Dallas, ATA
31 March 1973-
166 V. B. Becker, "In the Matter of Noise Standards,
Aircraft Type Certification; Docket No. 9337,
Notice 69-1," ATA, k June 1969.
172 A. W. Dallas, Ltr: "Fleet Mix," ATA£ 28 March 1973.
176 "Compilation of ATA's Original Responses to
Various Noise Regulation Proposals," Com-
piled by A. Dallas, Presented to Aircraft/Airport
Noise Report Study, Task Group 5, 5 April 1973.
177 C. F. VonKann, "Statement before the Senate
Aviation Subcommittee on Aircraft Noise, Los
Angeles," ATA, 30 March 1973.
236 "Standard Method of Estimating Comparative Direct
Operating Costs of Turbine Powered Transport
Airplanes," Air Transport Association of America,
Dec. 1967.
235 R« R« Shaw, Ltr: "Declining Invitation to Partici-
pate in Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force,"
International Air Transport Association, 10 April '73.
238 G. Fromm, 'Value of Aviation Activity," Prepared for
the Air Transport Association by Data Resources,
Inc., January 1973.
239 "Comments on Aviation Cost Allocation Study
Working Paper No.4-An Airport and Airway System
Cost Base: FAA,DOD,NASA and DOT-OST," ATA Staff,
Undated.
24O "ATA Comments on Public Benefits Portion of
Aviation Cost Allocation Study, Working Paper
|9, Benefits," ATA Staff, Undated.
371 Working Papers from the Third Meeting of the
Committee on Aircraft Noise (CAN), Montreal,
5 to 23 March 1973i International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), 23 March 1973.
396 Roger G. Flynn, Ltr. with J> enclosures: "Principal
Positions Related to Task Group 5 Report dated
1 June 1973", Air Transport Association, 2 July '73.
R-13.2
-------
13.0 PROFESSIONAL AMD TRADE GROUPS(CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
33 "Noise Retrofit - Existing Airplanes Powered
by JT3D and JT0D Engines, " ATA Staff Study,
March 1972.
55 C. F. VonKann, Ltr: "Response to Docket No.
12534: Notice No. 73-3," Air Transport
Association, 2 March 1973*
359 L. Bedore, Memo: "Definition of General Aviation,"
NBAA, 17 Mav 1973.
326 "Aircraft Noise^Research Needs", AIR No. 1079$
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., May 1972.
92 "Estimated Number of Jet (Non-Propeller) Air-
craft in the Scheduled U. S. Airplane Fleet
(ATA Members) as of 30 June 1972, ATA, 1 Sept '72.
360 "The Magnitude and Economic Impact or General
Aviation, 1968-1980," A Report Prepared for the
General Aviation Manufacturers' Association (GAMA)
by R. Dixon Speas Associates, February 1970.
155 "NPBM 69-1, Economic Impact Study," Airplane
Performace and Operating Economics, Vol. I,"
ALA/ATA, May 1969.
156 "NPRM 69-1, Economic Impact Study, Airline
System Economic Impact, Vol. II, " AIA/AIA,
May 1969.
157 "HHW 69-1, Economic Impact Study, Exhibit II,
Legal Considerations," AIA/AIA, May 1969.
158 "NPRM 69-1, Economic Impact Study, Exhibit III,
Detail Comments on Proposed Noise Standards;
Aircraft Type Certification," AIA/AIA, May 1969.
390 G. I. Martin, Ltr. "Concern Over Conduct of
EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study" Aerospace
Industries Association of America, Inc., 25 May 1973-
R-13.3
-------
13.0 PROFESSIONAL AND TRADE GROUPS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
399 J. Donald Reilly, Ltr with Enclosure: "Comments
on Task Group IV and V Draft Reports", Airport
Operators Council International, Inc, 2 July 1973«
if07 A. W. Dallas, Ltr. "Principal Positions Related
to Task Group k Report dated 1 June 1973",
Air Transport Association, 2 July 1973.
"General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Comments on the Draft Report on Noise Source
Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
Retrofitting for Environmental Protection Agency
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study-Task Group k"
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), 20, June 1973.
"General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Comments on the Draft Report on Review and Analysis
of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory Actions
and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and
Airport Operations for EPA-Task Group 5"
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), 20 June 1973-
Gene I. Martin, Ltr. with Enclosure, "Comments on
the Conduct of the Aircraft/Airport Noise Study",
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.,
2 July 1973.
Clifton F. von Kann, Ltr. "Expression of ATA's
Interest in EPA's Aircraft/Airport Noise Studies",
Air Transport Association, 3 July 1973.
"Statement of William B. Becker, Assistant Vice
President for Operations, Air Transport Association
at the Environmental Protection Agency Conference,
June 21, 1973" ATA, 21 June 1973.
*
Mf8 "Positions on the Issues Contained in the Report on
Review and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise
Regulatory Actions and Their Consequences Regarding
Aircraft and Airport Operations" Submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency by the General
Aviation Manufacturers Association, 20 June 1973-
R-13.4
-------
13.0 PROFESSIONAL AND TRADE GROUPS
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
"Positions on the Issues Contained in the Report
on Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost
Analysis including Retrofitting" Submitted to
the Environmental Protection Agency by the General
Aviation Manufacturers Association, 20 June 1973.
R-13. 5
-------
1*1.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
MASTER
FILE
NO.
310
TITUS IDEWP1J-'.
Control & Abatement of PL 90-411
DATE
21Jul 68
Aircraft Noise & Sonic
Boom
311 Noise Standards: Aircraft FAR PART 36 21 Nbv 69
Type Certification
312 givii Aircraft Sonic Boom NPRM 70-16 10 Apr 70
313 Civil Supersonic Aircraft ANPRM 70-33 V Aug 70
Noise Type Certification
Standards
31^ Civil Airplane Noise Re- ANPRM 70-44 30 Oct 70
duction Retrofit Require-
ments
315 Noise Type Certification & NPRM 71-26 13 Sep 71
Acoustical Change Approvals
316 ATA Flight Operations Com- ATA ops. 02 Jun 72
mlttee Recommended. Takeoff Memo. 72-64
Procedures
317 Nevly Produced Airplanes of NPRM 72-19 7 Jul 72
Older Type Designs
318 Three Point Measurement Con- Information 2 Oct 72
cept For STOL Noise Certi- Brief
fication
319 Civil Aircraft Fleet Noise Draft NPRM 8 Nov 72
Level (FNL) & Retrofit Re-
quirements
320 Amendment To Federal Aviation Project 21 Nov 72
Regulations To Provide For A Report
Takeoff Noise Control Operat-
ing Rule
321 Bivll Airplane Fleet Noise ANPRM 73-3 2^ Jan 73
(FNL) Requirements
322 Propeller Driven Aircraft Project 22 Jan 73
Noise Type Certification Report
Standards
R-U. 1
-------
14.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
BO. TITLE IBENTIF. DATE
323 Noise Certification Rule Project 29 Dec 72
for Quiet Short Haul Report
324 Part 91: General Operat- Part 91 28 Mar 73
ing and Flight Rules; Civil
Aircraft Sonic Boom
242 Criteria for Implementation Final Draft 20 Mar 66
of Jet Noise Abatement Take- Advisory
off Profile Circular
256 Noise Standards: NPRM 69-! 3 Jan 69
Aircraft Type Certification
281 Federal Aviation Act PL 85-726 23 Aug 58
of 1958
282 National Environmental PL 91-190 1 Jan 70«
Policy Act of 1969
283 Noise Pollution and Abate- Title IV
ment Act of 1970 PL 91-6o4
284 Noise Control Act of 1972 PL 92-574 27 Oct 72
279 Code of Federal Regulations,
Aeronautics and Space, Parts
1 to 59, 60 to 199, 200- ,
Revised 1 Jan 72
280 Aeronautical Status and Related
Material? Civil Aeronautics Board,
Revised 1 Jun 70
353 "Airport and Airway Development Act of
1970 and Airport and Airway Revenue Act
Of 1970," 21 May 70
R-14. 2
-------
15.0 STATE AMD LOCAL GOV'TS
MASTER
FILE
HO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
3*t "Title *t: Subchapter 6: Noise Standards/'
Department of Aeronautics, State of Cali-
fornia.
35 "Section 21669.5: Construction; Application;
Duration/1 Public Utilities Code, State of
California.
36 "Preamble: The City of Hew York Noise Control
Cod* (Local Lav 57)," 12 October 1972.
63 Resolution No. 6598: A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Inglevood, California,
Regarding Civil Airplane Fleet Noise Requirement,
27 February 1973.
61* Press Release: Related to Restrictions of Use
at Oakland International Airport, 9 March 1973.
66 California Lavs Relating to Aeronautics, Calif.
Department of Aeronautics, Rev. 2 (6-72).
65 N. C. Yost, Deputy Attorney General, Ltr: "Air-
port/Aircraft Noise Report Task Force Effort,
State of California.
3d R. T. Weston, "Congressional Intent: Re. Section
7(b) of the Noise Control Act of 1972; Compari-
son of Criteria Established in the 1968 and 1972
Acts for the Promulgation of Federal Aircraft
Noise Regulations," March 1973*
76 C. Gaulding, R. T. Weston, "Comments on the
ANPRM on FNL, Docket No. 12531*, Notice No. 73-3,"
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 27 February 1973•
80 "Resolution Related .to ANPRM on FNL, Docket No.
1253^, Notice 73-3," City of Los Angeles, 27
February 1973.
388 "A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee Studying the
Impact of Aircraft Noise from Dulles International
Airport on Fairfax County," Dept. of County
Development, Fairfax County, Va., Feb 1972.
R-15.1
-------
15.0 STATE AND LOCAL GOV'TS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
83 R. H. Quinn, "Comments Re: Proposed Fleet Noise
Requirements for Civil Airplanes d*f CFR 121),"
Department of the Attorney General, Mass.,
2 March 1973.
R. Hurlburt, "A Complete Analysis of the .Costs and
Benefits of a Quiet Engine Retrofit Program,"
City of Inglewood, 15 January 1971.
A. H. Colman, "Aircraft Noise Abatement Alternatives,"
City of Inglewood, September 1971.
232 "Testimony of Mayor Me. > Megell, Inglewood,
California," Presented xo the Aviation Subcommittee
of the United States Senate Commerce Committee,
30 March 1973.
265 "Resolution No. 7*f67- A Five Point Plan for Airport
Noise Abatement," Board of Airport Commissions,
Los Angeles International Airport, 20 Dec. 1972.
J>kk "Supporting Information for the Adopted Noise
Regulations for California Airports," Final
Report to the California Department of Aeronautics,
Report No. WCR 70-3(R), Wyle Laboratories, 29 Jan '71.
397 John S. Moore, Ltr: "Comments on Aircraft/Airport
Noise Study Task Force", Illinois Environmental
•(Protection Agency, 20 June 1973.
351 B. J. Lockheed, Ltr: "Comments on Chapter 3:
Operations Analysis Task Group 2," City of
Los Angeles, Dept. of Airports, 8 May 1973«
2^5 M. Mergell; Ltr: "City of Inglewood 's Support
of EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force,"
City of Inglewood, 26 March 1973.
382 M. S. Spelman, Ltr. "Comments on Possible Aircraft Jet
Engine Noise Research," Malcolm S. Spelman Associates,
Aviation Consultants to Nassau County, N.Y., k May '73-
383 TT- -• uiamoiid, Lur. -'Participation in EPA Task Force",
Department of Environmental Conservation, State of
New York, 25 April 1973.
R-15.2
-------
15.0 STATE AND LOCAL GOV'TS (CONT'D)
MASTER
FILE
NO. BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION
kkk John S. Moore; "Position Statement for Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency", State of Illinois,
July 1973.
R-15.3
-------
APPENDIX A
POSITION PAPERS
OF
TASK GROUP MEMBERS
Note: Throughout the development of this report, and especially during
tne review of the two published drafts, the chairman and staff continually
solicited two types of information from the task group memberships. First,
written comments and critiques, as well as additional data, were requested
of all and submitted by most active participants. This information has been
helpful in the refinement of this final report. All of the submissions, com-
ments and critiques are contained in the list of references and bibliography,
and a copy of each is preserved and maintained, available to the public, in
the task group master file. Second, position papers in which the members,
representing their various interests, would state their position relative to
the issues, independent of the conclusions and recommendations stated in
this report, were solicited. Those position papers are included in this
appendix.
-------
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. INC.
1725 DE SALFS STREET, N.W.. WASHINGTON. D. C.. 2OO36 TEL. 347-2315
July 2. 1973
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Noise Control Program
Environmental Protection Agency
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Room 1115
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Dear Dr. Meyer:
At the invitation of the Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, several AIA member companies participated in your Aircraft/
Airport Noise Study. A study task force, divided into six study
groups, has assisted in developing respective parts of the report
required by the Noise Control Act of 1972. Because of the pace
of task group activities and broad scope of information and data
being assembled, it was not possible for AIA to develop and submit
positions as the study progressed.
We are deeply concerned over the conduct of the study and
desire to provide the following comments on this matter:
a. The total subject of aircraft noise control, including
standards, retrofit or phaseout of existing aircraft,
cumulative noise exposure, operating procedures and
definition of health and welfare is exceedingly complex
and involved. We are concerned that the five month
period available did not allow sufficient time for EPA
to assemble a team, let contracts, and accomplish the
work necessary to complete the study in a entirely
satisfactory manner. Furthermore, this short time nade
it impossible for the task group members'to adequately
analyze the findings of the contractors or comment
on the work to date in any detail.
b. Because of the diverse backgrounds, expertise and
interests of the task group members, little attempt
was made to determine consensus or majority opinions on
the multitude of questions discussed in the meetings.
Many of the conclusions and recommendations developed
by Task Group Chairmen were in fact not even covered in
the meetings. Consequently, the final reports should
not be represented as the conclusions and recommendations
of the task groups. They are, more realistically, the
opinions and individual views.of the Task Group Chairmen
A-l
-------
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer -2- Jul> 2, i973
which In some imoortant instances do noc reflect the
arguments and facts presented by tne meuiuers.
c. The AIA supports efforts to review the existing noise
standards for new aircraft designs and to strengthen
them. The successful introduction of resulting quieter
aircraft into the fleet is critically dependent on
Federal action to insure that these aircraft once
certificated as complying v/ith the applicable standards
shall have the right to operate at all airports, where
they meet airworthiness requirements. It is essential
that" airport operators be preempted from prescribing
restrictions which would prevent such certificated
aircraft fro»n operating at their airports. The
necessity for federal preemptions does not conflict
with the use of noise abatement operating procedures.
However, it is essential that the operational
procedures and required aircraft equipment be FAA
prescribed for reasons of safety of operation, pilot
training and equipment interchangeability. Any
other course which permits individual airport
authorities to specify unique requirements will
lead to chaos and will be counterproductive to
the intent of Public Law 92-574.
d. In general, we find that the cost analysis approach
taken by EPA was inadequate. For example, the cost
analysis.on curfews would suggest that night time
curfews offer a very efficient means of reducing
noise exposure areas on per dollar cost basis.
In fact, the adverse economic impact resulting from
disruption to overseas travel and from aircraft being
other than where needed for the following day's
flights would be severe and was not properly considered.
Another example is in the case of land use studies
where more factual data is needed in place of
oversimplified extrapolations. We are convinced
that the economic analyses must be completely re-
examined before any meaningful conclusions can be
drawn.
e. While AIA is not in a position to disagree with the
general approach taken to rate noise exposure using
the dBA unit, we strongly question the selection of
the specific values of 80 for hearing damage and 60
as the ultimate goal for annoyance or disturbance
criteria in the Ldn scale. The data presented does
not adequately substantiate the selection of these
levels. The implication and impact of these limits
is far reaching. Such limits require substantiation
prior to their selection.
A-2
-------
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer -3- July 2, 1973
f. The FAA noise re^xauo^ actions recommended by the
Task Group Chairmen- contai, a number of elements with
which AIA is not in agreem at. These disagreements
will be discussed at the time issue of subsequent
regulatory notices.
The AIA recognizes the extent of the noise problem and the
need for progress in alleviating it; impact on the environment.
We agree that regulations and procedures relating to operations
and compatible land use are necessary to assist in reducing noise
exposure. We also agree with .the need for continued research to
reduce noise at the source and provide operating procedures to
reduce noise exposure for airport neighbors. We concur with the
need to provide financing for research, equipment development,
implementation of noise control measures, and land acquisition.
In closing, we do want to commend the EPA Task Group Chairmen
for their diligent efforts under difficult circumstances. We
urge your consideration of our concerns discussed above.
This letter revises AIA letter of May 25, 1973 to you.
It is submitted in request to your appeal at the EPA hearings
on June 20, 1973 at the Department of Commerce Auditorium,
Washington, D. C. for all previous submittals made to EPA on
the study subject be reviewed and revised not later than
July 2, 1973. As reflected in our statement at the hearing on
June 20, 1973, it is requested that this statement be included
in the record of all study groups.
Very truly yours,
AEROSPACE TECHNICAL COUNCIL
-Martin
Associate Director
Civil Aircraft Technical Requirements
GIM:ssf
cc: John Schettino - EPA
EPA Task Group Chairmen (6)
A-3
-------
AOCI POSITION ON THE REPORT OF EPA TASK GROUP NO. 5
Task Group No. 5 was directed to examine existing FAR's
which affect aircraft noise and to make recommendations con-
cerning their adequacy as well as proposing new regulations.
In the process of performing this function, it became appar-
ent that the direction which the final report would take had
for all practical purposes been established before the very
first meeting. It can only be suggested that EPA had a par-
ticular "game plan" which it intended to take, and the function
of the Task Group would be to provide such data as would sub-
stantiate it. Opposing views were heard courteously, but it
was made clear that the EPA staff and its paid consultant
were the only ones with the responsibility to write the report.
Consensus was not only not required but no votes were ever taken.
The basic recommendation of the report of Task Group No. 5
consists of acknowledging that noise reduction should be accom-
plished by three elements of the aviation system: the FAA, the
airplane operator and the airport operator.
The FAA, it was recommended, should issue regulations which
require the retrofitting of existing noisy aircraft. Airplane
operators would, by operational procedures, further reduce noise
levels employing such means as thrust cutback, two-segment ap-
proaches, turns, flap management and so on. The airport operator
would then be faced with the problem of ensuring that those individ
uals who had not received sufficient relief as a result of tech-
nological and operational changes would either be compensated
A-4
-------
-2-
for their property by purchase or condemnation or, in the
event this was impractical or financially infeasible, equiva-
lent noise reductions would be instituted by the airport
operator at the airport level. He would, for example, limit
numbers of operations, establish curfews and discriminate in
his landing fee structure.
The Task Group 5 report went on to assert that adminisr
tratively EPA would determine the maximum permissible level
to which individuals in the community should be exposed so that
contours around the airport might be drawn within which resi-
dential life would eventually be prohibited.
All attempts to convince the EPA staff that the power of
the airport operator was limited and it was politically and
socially impractical to condemn residential property on which
people resided, were to no avail. It was also pointed out that
recommendations for rezoning of property from residential to
commercial were equally either outside the authority of the air-
port operator or were probably unconstitutional.
At least, however, the report does indicate that aircraft
technology for noise reductions is available and operational
procedures, which reduce noise, should be implemented.
What is, however, unclear is whether in the event the FAA
should find it "economically unreasonable" to require retrofit,
the airport operator would, then be faced with the requirement
to "sterixize" the huge, noise-affected area that would result.
Evidently, "economic unreasonableness", in the eyes of EPA only
applies to the airlines and not to the airport operator.
A-5
-------
-3-
The report criticizes FAA's Draft Order of August 1972
on the "Aircraft. Sound Description System", concluding that
the concept is based on two false premises -- the use of a
linear rather than logarithmic relationship for number of
operations and the assumption of an arbitrary constant dura-
tion time.
As a matter of record, some members of AOCI have endorsed
the ASDS concept. One airport board has adopted a resolution
urging its early adoption, and another has used it in an Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement.
Airport Noise Certification
The authority of FAA to certificate an airport for noise
does not imply that there are no limitations upon this author-
ity. Although, for example, pilots are licensed, it would
exceed the intent of FAA's licensing authority if the pilot
were required to fly noise abatement procedures as a condition
for licensing or renewal. An airport might, if it were cer-
tificated, be required to specify the location of maintenance
run-up areas to prevent intrusion upon the adjacent community,
or construct devices, if such were feasible, to shield the
community from ground noise. However, to require the imposition
of curfews or to limit the number and type of runway operations
goes beyond the intent of rule and is probably unconstitutional
under Burbank.
Until retrofit is accomplished, noise certification serves
no purpose in that the extent of any noise contour can only be
determiner! hv actual measurement and an accurate determination
A-6
-------
-4-
of the number and types of airplanes by rumvay. Consequently,
the airport would play a passive role for six or seven years
until aircraft are retrofitted. If would be more appropriate
to wait until the airlines have done their part.
Additionally, the restrictions which EPA envisions the
airport operator would impose upon the airlines, after certi-
fication, are probably illegal under Burbank.
Finally, the airport would merely transmit FAA directives
to the airlines and act as an intermediary. Certification with-
out authority is a burden and is unnecessary.
A-7
-------
Telegrams: Britair Weybridge Telex Cablegrams: Britair Weybridge
British Aircraft Corporation Limited
COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT DIVISION
Tel. Bun. BROOKLANDS ROAD WEYBRIDGE SURREY
Our Ref. Telephone Weybridge 45522
Your Ref. TelCX: 27111
Mr. William C. Sperry,
Chairman (Task Group 4 and 5) ,
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Group, 17th May 1973
Environmental Protection Agency Ref: MGW/css/127
Regulation of Concorde Noise
Dear Sir:
You informed the Concorde Manufacturers on May 16th
1973 that the Environmental Protection Agency would
welcome the receipt of a statement relating to Concorde
Noise for consideration by the Task Groups of which you
are Chairman, and you further stated that such a statement
would be referred to in the onward reporting by these
Task Groups if received in due time.
In consequence, we enclose herewith a document entitled
"Recommendation of the Manufacturers to the Environmental
Protection Agency related to the Regulation of Concorde Noise"
reference MGW/css/126, dated 17th May 1973, which is submitted
on behalf of the four Concorde Manufacturers.
Yours faithfully,
M. G. Wilde
Concorde Project Director
British Aircraft Corporation (CAD)
'A-8
-------
Telegrams: Britair Weybridge Telex Cablegrams: Britair Weybridge
British Aircraft Corporation Limited
COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT DIVISION
Tel. Extn. BROOKLANDS ROAD WRYBRIDGE SURREY
Our Ref. MGW/CSS/126 Telephone Weybridge 45522
YourRcf. TeleX: 27111
May 17, 1973
Recommendation of the Concorde Manufacturers
to the Environmental Protection Agency
Related to the Regulation of Concorde Noise
The four companies who are jointly involved in the
design and manufacturer of the Concorde supersonic aircraft
(the British Aircraft Corporation, Rolls-Royce, Societe
Nationale d1Etudes et de Construction de Moteurs d1Aviation
and Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale), supported
by the British and French Governments, believe that this
advanced form of transportation will be of great benefit to
the whole community by enhancing worldwide communications,
fostering international commerce and encouraging economic
growth. In addition they believe it will give vital and
new impetus to the future development of the air transport
industry.
Whilst the challenge of providing such a revolution in
air transportation was recognized as requiring extreme
endeavours in the areas of airframe aerodynamics, powerplant
design, structural efficiency and many others, the manu-
facturers and the Governments have been conscious of the
acute need not to worsen the airport environment. In con-
sequence, from the inception of the programme, noise control
has been a key objective.
A series of detailed reports entitled "Concorde Airport
Noise and Silencing Programme" have been submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency (Refs. 1, 2, 3 and 4) which
cover the large amount of research and development which has
been undertaken with the objective of achieving noise levels
at entry into service directly comparable with the many long-
range subsonic jets, which are expected to remain in service
for many years to come.
Despite the inherent difficulties in this area, arising
fundamentally from the need to employ high thrust engines
using the straight jet engine cycle in combination with a
small span, slender wing configuration, these objectives will
A-9
-------
- 2 -
be achieved by the use of completely novel silencing means
in the nozzle technology and in the engine aerodynamics and
control systems. The development of these silencing means
has required the deployment of a very significant proportion
of the total project manpower and funds.
Whilst the manufacturers will have reduced the noise
levels of Concorde at entry into service so as to achieve
noise parity with the contemporary straight jet and low by-
pass fan jet long-range subsonic aircraft, they cannot, using
currently available technology, match the noise performance
of the latest high by-pass engined subsonic aircraft. The
requirements for supersonic flight are such that it is not
technologically practical to utilise the large diameter high
by-pass ratio fan engines which enable new subsonic aircraft
to achieve the noise levels set by FAR Part 36 Annex C.
Since Concorde will be used predominantly on international
routes and will represent only a very small proportion of such
total operations, we recommend that Concorde be regulated
to noise levels as low as are capable of being achieved by
best effort available through technology or operational
controls, in accordance with the recent I.C.A.O. Committee on
Aircraft Noise (CAN 3) recommendation.
Mr. M. G. Wilde Dr. P. H. Calder
for and on behalf of for and on behalf of
BRITISH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION LTD. ROLLS-ROYCE (1971) LIMITED
and and
SOCIETE NATIONALS SOCIETE NATIONALE D'ETUDEL
INDUSTRIELLE AEROSPATIALE ET DE CONSTRUCTION DE
MOTEURS D1 AVIATION
Ref. 1 - Concorde Airport Noise and Silencing Programme,
(DO/JAH/LG/8904), October 1972.
Ref. 2 - Annex 1, Test Facilities, (DO/JAH/DW/8964),
October, 1972.
Ref. 3 - Annex 2, Manufacturers Further Studies of Noise
Reduction, (DO/JAH/LG/9198), 20th February 1973.
Ref. 4 - Annex 3, The Economic Aspects of Silencing Concorde,
(DO/JAH/LG/9239), January 1973.
A-10
-------
COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE COMPANY
P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, Washington 98124
June 29, 1973
6-7270-1-445
Mr. William C. Sperry
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Subject: Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Position on Task Group 5,
"Review and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise
Regulatory Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft
and Airport Operations"
References: 1) Bcteing Letter 6-7270-1-442, V. L. Blumenthal ^to
R. L. Hurlburt.
2) Boeing Letter 6-7270-1-443, V. L. Blumenthal to
H. E. von Gierke.
3) Boeing Letter 6-7270-1-444, V. L. Blumenthal to
W. C. Sperry.
Dear Mr. Sperry:
In response to the request made by Mr. John Schettino in his letter of June 25, 1973,
the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company wishes to include only this letter in the
final report of Task Group 5. References 1, 2, and 3 contain our position letters
for Task Groups 2, 3, and 4.
In some of the Task Group draft reports it clearly states that the conclusions and
recommendations are the responsibility of the chairman. We endorse this position
and agree with it completely as being the only reasonable and fair manner in which
such reports could be written. Because of the variety of opinions espoused in the
Group discussions, and because generally no formal attempt was made to obtain a
consensus, we would suggest that any inference of unanimity of opinion be
expurgated.
The Boeing Company recognizes the need for effective control and reduction of
aircraft noise emissions, as evidenced by our own 15 year-long research and develop-
ment programs aimed at producing quieter aircraft. We support these actions
A DIVISION OF THE BOEING COMPANY
A-ll
-------
COMPANY
-2 -
Mr. William C. Sperry 6-7270-1-445
which would result in meaningful subjective noise reductions for affected
communities. However, we also recognize that the vitality of our national air
transportation system provides substantial benefits, both tangible and intangible,
to the entire country, local communities, and indeed even to those nearby residents
most exposed to aircraft noise. Consequently, any noise regulatory scheme must
be carefully structured to avoid impairing the national framework of air commerce.
Further, particular noise control regulations will be viable only if they equitably
balance the interests of all affected parties and allocate the burdens, both finan-
cial and functional, among all groups. A combination of available noise control
methods seems most likely to accomplish this goal. The degree to which any
particular option is utilized must be founded on a comprehensive cost/benefit
analysis designed to ascertain the most efficient combinations.
Boeing now has configurations that comply with FAR Part 36 Appendix C noise levels
for all production models. Costs and schedule availability for these options are in
reference 3. Retrofit with these options is not recommended, however, unless it
can be shown that significant benefit to the community will result. Currently
there is no dear justification for retrofitting those aircraft that are already close
to FAR-3 6 noise levels.
The following comments reflect our thoughts on the major items discussed in the
report:
1) The Boeing Company believes that the control of aircraft noise is best
accomplished on a nation-wide basis. We believe that local authorities
should be able to control aircraft noise emissions only by techniques
which clearly do not disrupt or impede the free flow of air commerce.
We therefore recommend that Federal guidelines for local noise control
be established in order to preserve the viability of our national air
transportation system.
2) We recommend accelerated government funding of noise source
reduction research and development programs. Such programs are
essential if source control technology is to progress beyond its
current infancy and is to contribute to future noise abatement
reduction.
A-12
-------
THE r COMPANY
-3 -
Mr. William C. Sperry 6-7270-1-445
3) Boeing believes it is appropriate to assess the feasibility of a 5 to 10
EPNdB reduction in the FAR 36 Appendix C aircraf t noise certification
standards, provided that such a reduction is clearly applied only to
aircraft of new type design, not all new aircraft.
We have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Task Group's efforts and
we hope these comments will be helpful to you in completing the report to Congress.
Very truly yours,
BOEING COMMERCIAL
AIRPLANE COMPANY
V. L. Blumenthal
Director, Noise and Emission
Abatement Programs
A-13
-------
General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Suite 1215
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
(202) 296-8848
GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES
CONTAINED IN THE REPORT
ON
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND PLANNED FAA NOISE
REGULATORY ACTIONS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES
REGARDING AIRCRAFT AND AIRPORT OPERATIONS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIRCRAPT/AIRPORT NOISE REPORT STUDY
TASK GROUP 5
June 20, 1973
(Revised 7/24/73)
A-14
-------
The General Aviaitcn Manufacturers _ation has been pleased to contribute
to the work of Task Group 5. Specixxc coiments on the reoamendations are
as follows:
1. The proposal to expedite enactment of EAA NPRM 72-19 concerning Newly
Produced Airplanes of Older Type Design is not acceptable unless the
final rule is substantially changed with respect to the effective date
for the small turbine powered airplanes. As proposed, the rule is
economically unreasonable. The expenditure of large sums of development
monies would not necessarily guarantee the achievement of FAR 36 noise
levels by the proposed effectivity date of July 1, 1974.
Generalized design criteria, applicable to any class of engine, which can,
with precision, be used to reduce noise levels to specified differences
of equivalent perceived noise do not exist today. Evidence of this is ample.
The government is currently funding a number of programs to investigate
the technological feasibility of several types of noise suppression. These
programs are funded simply because the detail design parameters are not
known at this time. As the precise technology to design specific sound
suppressors to regulation specified levels of equivalent perceived noise is
not available, we feel that the proposed requirement is not technologically
achievable by July 1, 1974.
A considerable amount of monies and work has been expended by GAMA matters,
other industry associations, manufacturers, and the government in an
attempt to understand the causes of aircraft engine noise and its control.
Most of this effort has been directed toward the T2, T3, and T4 class of
engines. Little has been directed toward the Tl class. It is now well
known that certain classes of noise attenuation devices are wave length
dependent. Hence, it is not possible to scale down attenuation
devices and technology derived from the large engines and apply them to
the small engines. More effort needs to be directed to the solution of
noise suppression for the Tl class of engines.
In light of the above rationale and in line with historically demonstrated
technological progress that tlie normal cycle for development of new engine-
airframe combinations is approximately six years, we believe the imple-
mentation of FAR 36 standards to newly produced aircraft of older type
design should be delayed till July 1, 1975 at the earliest.
2. 'Project Report - Propeller Driven Aircraft
The soon to bs proposed amendment to EAR 36 to cover propeller driven
aircraft, as proposed by the FAA using the A-weighted network in units
A-15
-------
- 2 -
of dBA and the single measuring point, should be retained. The changes
proposed/ to measure the noise level in EPNdB and to use the measuring
points/ are unsupported. The adoption of these changes will effectively
throw out the work of the noise experts from the certifying agencies in
twelve countries, who, while recognizing the shortcomings of dBA, determined
that there is no better unit of measurement for propeller driven aircraft.
Further, these experts determined that the 1,000 feet flyover, with single
point measuring, will ensure that community noise levels are lowered.
The fact that test costs are lowered for all concerned (governnent, man-
ufacturers and operators) is an added bonus.
The subject of standardization with the measurement units and measurement
points for turbojet aircraft was thoroughly discussed in ICflO and dis-
carded on the grounds that this technique is better suited to piston
engine powered aircraft, is understood by more people concerned with
noise, and is directly measurable with instruments economically available
to the broad range of airports and communities most likely affected by
this class of aircraft. Further, dBA is the standard measurement unit
for almost all other noise sources and is the unit of measurement to
determine Ldn measurements reconrended by Task Group 3.
It should be noted that the FAA project report, in effect, adopts the
ICAO recommendations which will be universally applied by all countries
who have large populations of propeller driven general aviation aircraft.
Approximately 25 percent of the aircraft manufactured by U.S. manufacturers
are exported. Currently, about 85 percent of the world's general aviation
fleeet is of U.S. manufacture. It is, therefore, vital that the U.S.
noise requirements and measurement procedures remain compatible with the
requirements and procedures used by, or soon to be used by, our world
markets.
A-16
-------
GENERAL® ELECTRIC
CO MPANY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45215
AIRCRAFT ENOINE GROUP
22 May 1973
Dr.Alvin Meyer
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Dear Dr. Meyer:
In reference to discussions at the meetings of the EPA Aircraft/Airport
Noise Study Task Force, the views of the Aircraft Engine Group of General
Electric on aircraft noise regulations can be briefly summarized as
follows:
1. FAR 36 (as issued on 23 November 1969) has been effective in
stimulating noise reductions. For example, new wide-bodied
aircraft have been certified at or below Appendix C levels.
2. We suggest the promulgation of the subsonic CTOL, Fleet Noise
Rule we proposed in our comments on ANPRM 73-3, sent to the
FAA Rules Docket on 12 March 1973, rather than a series of
separate, incomplete and possibly conflicting regulations. For
example, -we favor regulations which would require all newly-
produced aircraft to comply with FAR 36 at reasonable dates,
depending on the aircraft type. The suggested Fleet Noise Rule
would accomplish this. We do not favor regulations which would
require all of-the current fleet of older types of aircraft now in
service to be retrofitted with nacelle acoustic treatment or
refanned engines. The suggested Fleet Noise Rule would promote
some retrofit of some aircraft types, depending on the particular
airline operator's constraints.
A proper Fleet Noise Rule would allow an airline a decreasing
"noise quota" with time, out into the 1980 period. We believe
that such a method would offer the airline operators maximum
flexibility to control noise through a combination of off-loading,
operating procedures, retrofit and fleet replacement in the most
economic and practical way for each airline and aircraft type.
It is important to note in this connection that most airline fleets
use a mixture of two, three, and four engine aircraft across a
wide range of different stage lengths and numbers of operations.
A-17
-------
Dr. Alvin Meyer
22 May 1973
Page Two
We suggest promulgation of an FAA regulation of the generic
type of the Fleet Noise Level (FNL) proposed by FAA in ANPRM
73-3, but with important modifications proposed by General
Electric, as follows:
a. The noise measure in such a rule should be weighted to
give considerable incentive to airlines to acquire aircraft
having noise levels significantly below Appendix C levels.
This was not the case with the noise measure proposed in
ANPRM 73-3.
b. Rather than the interim nature of the FNL rule of ANPRM
73-3, which would terminate in 1978, we suggest a rule
with a number of "gates" at specified times, requiring
aircraft "on-the-average" to get half-way-down to FAR 36
by some date, down to FAR 36 by a later date, and down to
levels below FAR 36 by some still later date. The noise
levels shown on the attached figure are suggested as typical
certification levels for new aircraft in the late 1970's,
based on our views of possible noise reduction, available
technology and economic reasonableness, over the wide
range of aircraft types covered. The suggested approach
noise levels are for the flap settings used in normal
operating practice, rather than the maximum flap settings
as required currently in FAR 36. The use of normal flap
settings is a worthwhile noise abatement operating procedure
in itself.
It should be noted that separate certification rules •will be
required for supersonic transport aircraft and for quiet short-
haul aircraft, due to the different characteristics of these
aircraft types.
It is also suggested that FAR 36 be modified to encourage
the use of two-segment approach procedures, by specification
of an additional special reference point, such as a 3 l/2nm
approach point, and maximum allowable noise levels at this
point. If this method were used, the FAR 36 tradeoff pro-
visions should be maintained at the normal three reference
points only.
3. EPA has proposed airport regulations as such. The cognizant
authority for such regulations should be a Federal agency, in order
to assure that this vital and integral part of the national transportation
system is not adversely compromised by local piece-meal actions.
Therefore, such definitive Federal pre-emption of airport noise
A-18
-------
Dr. Alvin Meyer
22 May 1973
Page Three
regulations should be a part of the proposed action in order to
afford equitable treatment for all airport users, including airlines.
Appropriate FAA noise source control and aircraft path control
regulations should separately provide final "design requirements"
for manufacturers, as FAR 36 has done in the past.
4. An increased level of aircraft noise reduction research and
development is needed in the following areas:
a. Development of noise technology for advanced CTOL.
engine/aircraft systems which emphasize reduction
of the economic penalties of lower noise, i. e. , lower
cost, weight and performance losses.
b. Identification of improved measures of airport community
noise annoyance for aircraft operations making noise
equal to or less than required by FAR 36.
c. Determination of aircraft-alone noise levels and
identification of means to control this noise source.
General Electric has been active in aircraft noise reduction since the
middle 1950's, in both the civil and military aircraft areas. Substantial
progress has been made, as evinced by the civil fleet introduction of the
new wide-bodied aircraft, which are much quieter than their predecessors.
We believe that Federal aircraft noise regulations and additional research
and development of the types suggested above will achieve further reductions
in airport community noise exposure.
Very truly yours,
J. N. Krebs
attach.
A-19
-------
CERTIFICATION LEVELS FOR NEW AIRCRAFT IN THE LATE 1970's TIME PERIOD
TAKEOFF
3.5 N. Ml. from
Brake Release
J.U
00
IL
Qn
80
1
-
-
—
—
—
_
—
3
3
0
6C
y
/
:
/
/
/
LOO
^
/
/
3
/
/
00
/
/
/
/
6
-
/
00
-
/
• FAR 36
- PROPOSED
TAKEOFF
LIMIT
LOOO
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight
(1000 Ib.)
SIDELINE
0.35 N. Ml.
(4 Engine A/C)
0.25 N. Mi
(Less than 4 Engines)
APPROACH
1.0 N. Mi. from
Threshold
COMMUNITY APPROACH
3.5 N. Mi. from
Threshold
100
EPNL
on
80
1
-
—
-
—
^
—
—
—
9
3
0
6
0
.^-*
^
100
^""
-*•
30
^
**
0
--
--
^
*•
60
f •
0
•
»
-
i«
1
FAR 36
PROPOSED
SIDELINE
LIMIT
000
110
100
EPNL
90
80
10
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight
(1000 Ib.)
30
60 100
- FAR 36
PROPOSED
APPROACH
LIMIT
PROPOSED
COMMUNITY
APPROACH
LIMIT*
300 600 1000
Maximum Takeoff Gross Weight
(1000 Ib.)
*Based on 6°/3° Two-Segment Approach with 600 ft. Intercept
A-20
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT JUN 1 "973
Mr. William C. Sperry
Chairman, Task Group 5
Aircraft/Airport Noise Report Study
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20^60
Dear Mr. Sperry:
My staff has reviewed the draft Task Group report on "Noise Regulatory
Actions by the Federal Aviation Administration", and believe it to
contain a good statement on the status and potential benefits of such
regulatory actions.
In terms of the substantive recommendations in Section V of the draft,
we would endorse the recommendation 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 to determine compatibility of the adjacent land uses and
then take actions to achieve a larger measure of compatibility is an
important element in the total program to reduce airport-community
conflicts. Decisions 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 the airport environs.
We would also support the role of the Environmental Protection Agency as
the lead agency implementing the airport permit plan concept under the
authority of PL 92-571*. We will be happy to provide whatever assistance
we can to the EPA in this, effort.
Sincerely yours,
Clifford W. Graves
Acting Assistant Secretary
A-21
-------
XSi
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 'JON
Mr. John C. Schettino
Director, Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 2C460
Dear Mr. Schettino:
We would like to take this opportunity to express our general satis-
faction with the work of EPA Task Force which was organized to provide
recommendations 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
assignments; however, I am enclosing our general observations and
position on many of the preliminary recommendations of the Task Force.
We will continue to support the activities of the Environmental
Protection Agency in the aircraft/airport noise program, and will be
happy to provide whatever assistance we can to the EPA in this effort.
Sincere
Clifford W. Gra\
Acting Assistant Secretary
Enclosure
A-22
-------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Comments on
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE EPA TASK FORCE ON AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE PROBLEMS
A. HUD's ROLE IN NOISE ABATEMENT
It has long been HUD'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 Control: Departmental
Policy, Implementation Responsibilities and Standards." This policy
was promulgated after several years of development, in an 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
those 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, 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 "Noise 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
A-23
-------
-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 ON 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 major concern is that any pro-
posed aircraft noise assessment method be compatible with those now in use
by this Department in implementing the HUD noise policy, i.e., Composite
Noise Rating (CNR) or Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF).
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.
A-24
-------
-3-
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 standardized computer program foi
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 to determine compatibility of airport operations with the adjacent
land uses and then take actions to achieve a larger measure of compatibility
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:
A-25
-------
-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
noisejconsideration should therefore be given to modifying
the statute to allow the acquisition of such land, by ease-
ment or fee simple, as part of the airport development pro-
ject costs. Inclusion of such a provision to cover AJC^as
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.
A-26
-------
POSITION STATEMENT
linois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Noise Pollution Control
Springfield, Illinois
Subject: Environmental Protection Agency Airport/Aircraft Noise Study
In reviewing the preliminary proposed findings and recommendations for the airport/
aircraft noise study which this office received from The Counsel of State Governments
on May 24, 1973 the following comments are submitted and reflect the position of
this office.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency believes aircraft/airport noise may
be reduced by applying the following control strategies:
I. The implementation 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 incomputable land 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 Counsel of State Governments,
which were submitted to the Task Force. If the findings and recommendations are
followed, adverse aircraft and airport noise should be effectively reduced.
In addition to the recommendations and findings of the Counsel of State Governments,
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 noise certification and to
reduce the amount of incompatable 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 on the Federal Government and to more
effectively achieve relief from airport noise.
A-27
John S. Moore
Manager
Division of Noise Pollution Control
-------
LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA COMPANY
A DIVISION OF LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
BURBANK. CALIFORNIA 915O3
RECEIVED
April 25, 1973
Mr. W. C. Sperry
Chairman, Task Groups k & 5
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Task Force
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, B.C. 20U60
Dear Bill:
As part of the Lockheed effort in support of the EPA Aircraft/Airport
Noise Task Force, we some time ago asked Rolls-Royce to provide their
evaluation of the potential for further engine noise reduction. I feel
that consideration of the Rolls-Royce input by EPA is appropriate both
because of the pre-eminence of Rolls-Royce in aircraft engine noise
technology and because Rolls-Royce engines power a growing proportion
of the U.S. air transport fleet.
The attached statement was prepared by Mike Smith, Manager of the
Rolls-Royce Noise Department, and approved for submission to EPA by
Mr. E. M. Eltis, Director of Engineering, RB.211 Programme. I hope
you will find it useful.
Sincerely,
H. Drell
Flight Sciences Division
Commercial Engineering
HD:JRT:Jg
Attach.
A-28
LOOK TO LOCKHCeD FOK LEADERSHIP
-------
16 April 1973
CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO QUIETENING OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE
The noise environment around airports is governed almost entirely by aircraft
powered by engines designed about a decade ago. With less than 5$ of world
fleets currently comprising the newer more quiet Trijets, the L-1011 and
DC.10, this situation is likely to prevail until at least 1978, when the
FAA propose that all types comply with FAR Part 36 Standards. Even then
the improved standard of the high bypass engines over modified earlier counter-
parts will ensure that newer types cannot be cited as the main offenders.
There would therefore appear to be little justification for demanding unduly
improved standard from new equipment, for the effect would not be reflected
in the overall environmental picture.
However, some improvement in noise standard for new types entering service
in the second half of this decade is desirable, to ensure that the problem
is largely solved during the 1980*s. Having said this, two important problems
to be addressed are how much the improvement should be and when new regulations
should be enacted. The following paragraphs express our view and are offered
to the EPA for their consideration.
The KB.211 is a prime example of the new breed of quiet engines. Its main
features were designed in 1966, development commenced in 196?, and the first
production engines entered service in early 1972. Any radically new engine
can be expected to follow approximately the same cycle of events, and there-
fore it would be unrealistic to apply stringent new regulations before the
end of this decade, since the technology to meet such standards is not
developed today.
What is available today is the technology to make limited, but nevertheless,
worthwhile improvements. The improvements possible are limited by the new
problems that have been revealed in the developments of the newer engines,
a prime example being the noise floor created by the core engine. This fact
has already been recognised by U.S. Government Agencies in the Research and
Development Contracts offered to Industry in the recent past, and clearly
the answers will not appear without considerable research, involving in some
cases new test facilities.
We therefore see two clearly defined stages in improving the noise environ-
ment, viz:
a) limited improvements possible with todays technology, for
implementation on engines entering service in the second half
of this decade.
b) further improvements made possible by ongoing research, over
the next three to five years, for implementation on engines
entering service during the early to mid 1980*s.
Let us consider each category in turn.
A-29
-------
a) Improvements possible using todays technology
On an engine of the RB.211 type there are two important flight conditions
to be considered in defining the improvement afforded by engineering action.
These are the high power case for lateral and Take-off noise, and part power
for Approach.
The RB.211 noise source distribution has been defined as shown in Figure 1.
Without resorting to major changes to the rotating machinery improvements
are possible by virtue of better aerodynamic standards and improved liner
performance. The latter may result from improved design of the liner struc-
ture, or the introduction of extra surfaces in the main air-flow passages.
Already we are proposing modest improvements for developed versions of the
KB.211, and estimate that such action will improve the standard by about
2 EPNL. Even these improvements are not, however, without penalty. The
weight change alone would cost the Tristar the equivalent of five passengers
(unless the aircraft weight can be increased by an equivalent amount).
On an aircraft already bettering Part 36 standards by 10 EPNL at full power
and k EPNL at approach it is difficult to see the extra cost being readily
borne by the operator.
Further improvements are possible, at an increased operating penalty.
The Company entered a partnership with the U.K. Government nine months
ago to produce a quiet engine demonstrator based on the RB.211. This pro-
gramme is directed at improving the noise standard by 5 PNdB, but the modi-
fications are not in any.way designed for the production powerplant. Some
of the modifications could eventually be incorporated in a saleable power-
plant, but others like the full length bypass duct splitters, would involve
major redesign, performance penalties and mechanical complication. For
example the whole thrust reverser system would need replacing. To integrate
all the improvements in a powerplant would cost around 350 Ibs weight per
engine, and the cruise sfc penalty would probably be of the order of 1/2%.
Furthermore if significant modification were required to the inlet system,
for example by the introduction of a splitter ring, the full effect would
be a further increase of sfc of at least 1/2% and 200 Ib in weight per engine.
Moreover such devices would require careful consideration of the vibration
problems of the fan assembly and may necessitate changes to the fan design.
We would estimate that a 5 PNdB package would take not less than four years
to develop and apply to a production standard engine. Assuming a go-ahead
early in 197^, quieted production engines could be available in the late 1970's.
The overall result, taking installed performance into account, would probably
be a Trijet some 3 - k EPNL better than the standard of the Tristar today.
b) Further improvements in newly designed engines
Our research programmes are indicating that basic improvements, other than
the extensive use of sound absorbing materials, will only come from more
extensive redesign.
A-30
-------
Even so the potential for such further basic Ijnprovement does not, at the
present time, appear to be more than about 3 PNdB, and it is our belief
that the contribution of the powerplant alone cannot be regarded as the
ultimate solution to the noise problem. It will be necessary for the
airframe design to be even more closely integrated with the powerplant
to ensure full benefit from shielding by wing and fuselage structures,
and such constraints may well dictate the design of future airplanes.
Another factor clearly affecting potential noise reduction is the noise
generated by the airframe itself, and unless this can be reduced it is
unprofitable to demand an improved standard from the engines alone.
CONCLUSIONS
We see two distinct stages relating to future noise legislation;
1. A reduction in Part 36 standards during the latter part of this
decade, probably of the order of k- - 8 EPNL with the provision
that the measuring points are modified to remove the current
inequality between the landing and take-off measuring distance.
Such reduced levels could be demanded from all new aircraft,
including developed versions of existing, types. The relationship
between the two, three and four engined aircraft would however
need careful consideration.
2. A further reduction of the order of 5 EPNL during the early part
of the 1980's, to be applicable to completely new types only. The
practicality of"this reduction, of course, depends upon the level
to which airframe noise can be reduced.
Beyond that point it is necessary to define both the technically feasible
noise floor and the noise level beyond which community exposure is not
longer a problem. Assuming that these two criteria are not coincident,
it will be necessary to carefully balance technical feasibility and
economic impact against any long term legislation proposals.
A-31
-------
RB.211-22C IN FLIGHT NOISE SOURCE DISTRIBUTION
APPROACH
iTAKE-OFF
U!
>
co
-41
PNdB
-81
-l?l
«—- -lUIMLr- — U
-4
PNdB
^a
«C
<
u_
LU
^^•B
00
'ZD
or
(/*.
SI
-8
-19
— — — ! IUIAL — — — —
-
<
U_
LU
*•••
CO
ID
CO
CO
LU
o
X
LU
08
^—
LU
-------
25 KNOB HILL ROAD, GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT 06033
203 - 633-2835
(^National Organization to Insure aG§ound-controlled Environment
Mr. William C. Sperry, Chairman June 30,1973
Task Group 5, Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 2, Crystal Hall
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Dear Mr. Sperry,
We have participated in the meetings of your Task Group 5 and
have reviewed the Draft Final Report,"Review and Analysis of
Present and Planned FAA iioise Regulatory Actions and Their
Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport Operations" dated
1 June 1973.
We are submitting this position paper based on the material
which has been presented at the Task Group meetings and on first
hand experience in working on the aircraft noise problems for
many years.
We find your listing of the FAA regulatory actions, ''Since the
advent of FAR Part 3£ ' very interesting. .You list" two reg-
ulations, two .CPFXs , three AliPKlls, and three project reports''.
Two of the ten made it'to the regulation stage. The others were
either killed or postponed indefinitely. The ones which r.ade it
were aircraft certification for noise which .was specifically
required by Congress and which, for the most part, approved the
current noise levels of new aircraft designs, and the sonic boom
regulation which still left S£T takeoff and approach noise un-
restricted.
This record of non regulation of aircraft noise by the FAA both
before and after FAR Part 36 emphasizes a point made in our
A-33
-------
June 30, 1973
Mr. William C. Sperry
Page 2
position paper to Task Group 1 that a more objective agency
than FAA should decide what regulations should be promulgated
and what noise limits should be established in the regulations.
NASA to certify as to ERTPS
It is recommended that whereas PAA has the expertise and
responsibility for drafting and promulgating regulations
relating to the operation of the air transport system NASA ha?
the expertise, experience, organization and facilities for
developing aircraft and operating procedures which will be
economically reasonable, technologically practical, appropriate
to the aircraft type and safe (ERTPS). NASA has demonstrated
this ability in the development of quiet engines and quiet
nacelle installations and in determining the cost of various
noise abatement powerplants. NASA is also involved in devel-
oping noise abatement approach procedures with specific
concern regarding the safety of the procedures.
It is recommended that after NASA has demonstrated the noise
levels which can be achieved by given aircraft configurations
and/or operating procedures the FAA be required to draft and
promulgate noise regulations which will require new aircraft to
achieve this performance or equivalent in terms of area exposed
to noise above specified levels.
It is also recommended that NASA be given the broad responsibil-
ity of doing R&D work on the air transport system to develop
aircraft-airports-air traffic control systems which will
minimize noise in the airport environs.
A-34
-------
Mr. William C. Sperry June 30, 1973
Page 3
Airport Certification
It is recommended that the regulatory system for abating air-
craft noise be reoriented and instead of looking at airline
fleet problems we look at the problem from the standpoint of
the noise in local airport environs where the problem really
is. Our position paper submitted to Task Group 1 outlines an
airport certification procedure from the legal/institutional
standpoint. Here we will outline the airport certification
from the standpoint of regulation promulgation.
The first step in the process is the certification by NASA of
a series of aircraft noise levels which can be met by specified
aircraft configurations and/or operating procedures. The
second step is the promulgations by FAA of noise regulations
for new and retrofitted aircraft and for operating procedures
designed to achieve specific goals regarding noise distribution
during takeoff and approach. For example, there might be three
takeoff procedures, one to be used where the most noise sen-
sitive area is alongside the runway, as at LAX, another where
the most noise sensitive area is under the takeoff flight path
near the airport and a third where the most noise sensitive area
is under the takeoff flight path some distance from the airport.
The FAA could certify takeoff procedures A,B and C for these
three situations.
The third step would then be for the airport operator to call
for takeoff A on one runway, takeoff B on a second and takeoff C
on a third . Istribute the airci.ift r.o5.s.e so as to avoid noise
sensitive areas.
A-35
-------
Mr. VJilliam C. Sperry June 30, 1973
Page 4
to achieve airport noise certification as explained in our
position paper submitted to Task Group 1, the airport operator
would be required to adjust his airport operations to contain
the aircraft noise exposure at specified levels with specified
contours. These contours would enclose areas which the state
appointed regional planners are willing to zone for or convert
to land uses which are compatible with the specified noise
exposure levels. Thus it would be up to the states or the
regions served by the airports to decide how much air transport
service it wants on the basis of how much it would be willing
to pay in terms of zoning and/or land use change.
Airport Certification Different
It will become obvious as airport certification precedes
that each airport is different. For example, an, airport such
as LAX, especially if the runways diverged so that take-
offs toward the west and approaches from the west were not
parallel but farther apart out over the water, could operate
with a minimum disturbance to the land areas around the airport,
Assuming that sideline noise is satisfactory, LAX could then
accept relatively noisy aircraft.
There are. many large hub airports adjacent to water or swamp
areas where the airport configuration could be arranged to make
use of these areas to absorb the takeoff and approach noise
leaving other areas relative ly.rree n-om excessive noise
exposure. The cost of airport and aircraft changes including
the cost of modifying aircraft to operate in higher crosswind
A-36
-------
Mr. William C. Sperry June 30, 1973
Page 5
and tailwind conditions would be the price of eliminating
the necessity for land use change.
Airport Certification Takes the Place of Other Regulations.
When an airport operator develops a position with the regional
planners where he has a specified area above a given noise ex-
posure level he will be required to allot portions of noise
exposure to each airline. Each airline will then find it
necessary to consider the noise contribution of each aircraft
on takeoff and approach, the operating procedures used,, time
of day, number of operations and percent of operations which
can be wade on the preferential runway. The airline may then
find that some noisy aircraft, some times of day and some aircraft
which cannot takeoff in a crosswind are not usable at some air-
ports, or if they are used a surcharge may be assessed for the
extra noise.
This airport certification which may limit the airlines flight
operations brings the competition for quiet aircraft to the
marketplace in a realistic manner. An airline will not invest
in a retrofit which will be usable for only a short time as
noise exposure levels are lowered on a prescribed schedule.
It may be obvious that a more effective retrofit or an early
retirement schedule will be called for. On the other hand
some airports with preferential runways pointing out over
water may permit the use of some noisy aircraft for a long time.
In any case these decisions should be made looking at noise
A-37
-------
Mr. William C. Sperry
Page 6
June 30, 1973
exposure contours in the airport environs and the schedule for
shrinking these contours rather than just on the basis of
fleet noise levels or arbitrary retrofit schedules for duct
treatment and refaning engines.
Sincerely,
Jojfih M. Tyler and Llp^d V. Hinton, Executive ^Dlre'ctors
A-38
-------
HirCr3lt DIVISION OF UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
P
May 11, 1973
Mr. William C. Sperry
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Aircraft/Airport Task Force
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
Dear Bill:
During the meetings of your Environmental Protection Agency Task Group 53
you requested position papers from the members commenting on various FAA
regulatory actions on aircraft noise.
The attached enclosure provides brief comments from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
on several regulatory actions proposed by the FAA. The comments include
suggested revisions and recommended action for each regulatory notice. Thesi
regulatory actions will contribute toward the protection of public health
and welfare provided the final noise rules are truly economically reasonable
so they do not disrupt the national aviation system.
Sincerely,
PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT
to.
W. E. Helf^ich
Project Engineer - Noise Reduction
WEH:m
Enclosure
A-39
EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06108
-------
PRATT A WHITNEY AIRCRAFT
COMMENTS ON FAA NOISE REGULATORY ACTIONS
ANPRM 70-33; SST NOISE TYPE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS
No action is recommended on this ANPRM at the present time since it is
too early to consider firm requirements for SST noise certification.
After additional research is completed and second generation SST design
studies have progressed to the point where the noise/economics/perfor-
mance trades are better known, then an NPRM could be considered. Any
SST rule should be a separate part of the FAA standards, not a revision
to Part 36, because SST operating characteristics will be completely
different from those of subsonic aircraft.
ANFRM 70-M+; AIRPLANE NOISE REDUCTION RETROFIT REQUIREMENTS
Comments from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft on the various possible options
for retrofit of the JT3D and JTbD powered commercial transport fleet
are given in Reference 1. It is our opinion that this ANPRM should be
dropped and retrofit options be incorporated in a modified version of
the fleet noise level concept in ANPRM 73-3-
NPRM 71-26; NOISE TYPE CERTIFICATION & ACOUSTICAL CHANGE APPROVALS
The temperature and altitude accountability section would present serious
limitations. The present FAR 36 certification method of taking noise
data over a limited range of conditions and then correctingthe data
to a reference day is a satisfactory method for comparing aircraft noise
levels to a certification standard. Requiring Appendix C noise level
compliance at all airline operational temperatures and altitudes would
impose unreasonable operational restrictions on payload and range for
an airplane which would meet Appendix C at reference conditions. The
effect of this section would be to severely restrict airplane perfor-
mance by highly suspect extrapolation techniques with little community
noise benefit.
The\proposed elimination of cutback thrust during takeoff and sideline
noise tests to certificate acoustical changes for older aircraft which
do not meet FAR 36 noise levels is not economically reasonable. This
proposal would seriously curtail development of aircraft growth versions.
It is suggested that thrust cutback be allowed if the noise tests be-
fore and after an acoustic change are made on a comparable basis.
We agree that the 90 PNdB "floor" should be eliminated for calculation
of aircraft noise levels by FAR 36, but the duration correction factor
should be limited to a range of +5 to -10 dB.
The effective date of an amendment resulting from thi~ NPRM should be
at least 60 days after the amendment is adopted. The FAA proposal for
a retroactive effective date the same as the NPRM issue date is unreason-
able and without justification.
A-40
-------
PRATT * WHITNEY AIRCRAFT
NPRM 72-19: NEWLY PRODUCED AIRPLANES OF OLDER TYPE DESIGNS
The proposed compliance dates of July 1, 1973 for aircraft over 75,000
Ibs. TOGW, and July, 197^ for aircraft under 75,000 Ibs. are both too
early. The compliance dates should be established to provide the air-
craft manufacturers reasonable time to complete development, certification
and production lead time for the aircraft/engine modifications required.
Parts intermix should be allowed in airline operations to eliminate
the requirement for two separate spare parts systems.
ANPRM 73-3; CIVIL AIRPLANE 7LEET NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The basic Fleet Noise Level (FNL) concept provides a choice of several
alter natives for meeting lower noise requirements. The ANPRM as written,
however, presents a number of serious problems which without some major
revisions could create an unreasonable economic burden for most airlines.
The proposed formula for calculating FNL with a logarithmic summation
does not give sufficient credit.to the airlines whicn purchase new
widebody aircraft which are below FAR 36 noise levels. We recommend
that the formula for calculating FNL be revised to a summation of noise
levels which would allow aircraft having noise levels below FAR 36 limits
to offset aircraft above FAR 36. This would give airlines the incentive
to purchase new quiet aircraft and to retrofit with the quietest con-
figurations to reduce their FNL.
The concept of not allowing the initial FNL number to increase is
unreasonable since it would prevent replacement of smaller aircraft
with large widebody aircraft if the noise level increases. An allowable
adjustment should be made as the operator's fleet mix changes in take-
off gross weight.
It is inconsistent for the FNL rule to specify no trade-offs between
takeoff and approach noise levels when FAR Part 36 does permit trade-
offs.
The FNL concept will not be feasible until it is determined that there
is an economic method for the 707 and DC-8 to meet FAR 36 noise levels.
Forced premature retirement of JT3D powered aircraft would be too severe
an economic penalty. Therefore, this technology question must be settled
before any FNL rule can be proposed.
A-41
-------
PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT
Another deficiency in the proposed FNL is that it incorporates no
incentives to utilize noise abatement operational procedures. It is
recommended that some provision be made in the FNL to account for the
noise reductions available from both approach and takeoff operational
procedures.
FAA PROJECT REPORT; NOISE CERTIFICATION RULE FOR QUIET SHORT HAUL
CATEGORY AIRCRAFT
We agree with the statement in this Project Report that the Quiet Short
Haul system development is in such a state of flux that is too early to
establish QSH noise standard's.
As noted in the report, QSH aircraft t., s include rotary wing, turbo-
prop, turbofan with blown flap or augmentor wing, lift pod, and fan-in-
wing aircraft. These can probably be divided into VTOL, STOL and RTOL
types which would operate from different length runways. These aircraft
will also vary by the number of passengers, range and cruise speed,
It would appear that QSH aircraft will have to be divided into numerous
classes for certification with different noise .limits and different
measurement locations. The noise limits for each class should probably
vary with the number of passengers.
It is obvious from the recommended items to be included in the ANPRM
that a vast amount of specific data is needed from the aircraft manu-
facturers on QSH aircraft noise characteristics and QSH economics before
a viable noise rule can be constructed. The list of required information
in the Recommendations appears to be quite complete, but would require
considerable time to collect and digest. It is our suggestion that
this information be collected by the FAA prior to any rulemaking activity
on QSH.
Reference 1: Letter from W.E. Helfrich to W.C. Sperry dated 5-Ui-73
providing comments from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft for EPA
Task Group k.
A-42
-------
DIVISION OF UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT O6602
PHONE (203) 378-6361
AIRCR
H
July 20, 1973
Mr. William Sperry
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall, Building #2
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20^60
Dear Mr. Sperry:
During the last meetings of the Environmental Protection Agency Task Groups
on June 21 and 22, 1973, it was indicated that written positions from concerned
groups would be considered and incorporated into the task group reports. The fol-
lowing remarks summarize the position of Sikorsky Aircraft on VTOL noise certifi-
cation. It is requested that these remarks be incorporated into the Task Group k
and 5 Reports .
In establishing the categories into which to place the various classes of
aircraft for noise certification purposes, it is strongly recommended that VTOL be
considered separately from STOL and RTOL. Placement of VTOL in a separate category
would free it from the operational limitations necessary to accommodate the flight
profiles of the other two classes if grouped in a combined category. Significant
reductions in noise footprint by flight trajectory control are available and should
be allowed to be developed in keeping with the intent of the Noise Control Act of
1972, to make aircraft inherently quieter and to have them flown as quietly as
possible.
The issuance of a noise rule for the VTOL category of aircraft is prema-
ture at this time because of the following reasons:
a) There is insufficient data available on VTOLs in the unit most likely
to be used in the rule to properly assess the state of the art.
Measurement programs must be carried out to rectify this lack of in-
formation .
b) Relevant research is due to be completed by NASA within a year on
VTOL noise to establish the state of the art on the applicability
of noise reduction technology to current helicopter designs -
FIFTY YEARS of
FIRSTS in FLIGHT
A-43
-------
Page 2 of
c) Operational procedures have not yet been adequately explored to assure
that the noise certification concept will take full advantage of the
low noise capabilities of the helicopter.
d) Current rating schemes do not appear to rate the annoyance of "blade
slap" noise accurately. "Blade slap" is the impulsive type of noise
that can be produced by some helicopter rotor systems under certain
operating conditions.
No penalty should be levied against helicopters as a class for the occur-
rence of blade slap, as it occurs only on certain types of helicopters under a
limited number of operating conditions.
An initial noise rule should allow all current generation helicopters to
become certificated. De-escalation should not be considered until sufficient in-
formation has been generated to allow an accurate assessment of its economic im-
pact and requirements for technological advances which may result.
Caution should be observed in attempting to relate the existing hover PNL
data for helicopters to EPNL. The large variation in noise levels between the
hover and the takeoff, landing, and cruise conditions coupled with the wide avail-
able operational range for these vehicles makes the conversion highly variable.
Economic considerations dictate flight paths below 3000 feet altitude for
VTOLs in typical operations. Enroute noise controls which may force the cruise
altitude to be significantly higher can have a significant impact on the operating
economics of this type of aircraft, and therefore should not be considered until
the consequences have been evaluated. A more viable solution to the regulation of
enroute noise by certification appears to be the use of a measure of cumulative
noise exposure impact, such as the Noise Exposure Forecast footprints, to dictate
flight paths and operational procedures. This approach allows control of the en-
vironmental impact on areas of the community located between ports of operation in
a manner which fully accounts for the environmental protection requirements of the
community while not imposing unnecessary economic penalties on the helicopter
operator .
Ambient noise should be considered when evaluating the impact of noise on
the community. In V-port areas where higher than average background noise levels
are likely to exist, the masking effect of these ambients should be factored into
the allowable noise from aircraft.
We hope the preceeding comments have identified in a constructive manner,
some of the potential pitfalls associated with VTOL noise regulation. It is our
feeling that a workable VTOL noise certification rule can be developed in a rea-
sonable period of time and that the rule can fully satisfy the environmental re-
quirements intended by the Congress while stimulating the growth of this important
facet of air transport. We hope to work further with you in this endeavor.
Yours truly ,
SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT
G. Schlegel
Supervisor - Acoustics
A-44
-------
Appendix B
TASK GROUP PARTICIPANTS
-------
Chairman and Staff
William C. Sperry
Peter P. Back
Damon C. Gray
Harvey J. Nozick
Environmental Protection Agency
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Members
Lou Achitoff
Don Ahrens
Betsy Amin-Arsala
Larry P. Bedore
Robert S. Bennin
Vaughan L. Blumenthal
Bernard D. Brown
Edward A. Carroll
Jim Conroy
William G. Cornell
Charles R. Cox
Allen W. Dallas
Joseph T. Davis
Harry Drell
Richard Dyer
Earl B. Fish
John D. Fredrickson
Roger Flynn
William J. Galloway
John S. Gibson
Alan G. Gray
William E. Helfrich
Lloyd Hint'on
James C. Johnson
Robert J. King
H. Ray Lahr
A. L. McPike
Charles P. Miller
Robert H. Morse
Noel Peart
William H. Roudebv:^
Robert w. schroeder
Paul A. Shahady
R. S. Stahr
M. C.. Steele
Jack Suddreth
Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey
Cessna Aircraft Company
George Washington University
National Business Aviation Association
The City of New York
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company
British Aircraft Corporation
Trans World Airlines
Environmental Action, Inc.
General Electric Company
Bell Helicopter Company
Air Transport Association
Delta Air Lines
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
National Association of State Aviation
Officials
Douglas Aircraft Company
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company
Air Transport Association
Bolt, Beranek and Newman
Lockheed-Georgia Company
Rolls Royce Limited
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft
National Organization to Insure a
Sound Environment
Environmental Protection Agency
Sikorsky Aircraft Company
Air Line Pilots Association
Douglas Aircraft Company
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Lewis Research Center, NASA
U. S.^Air Force
Eastern Airlines
Airesearch
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
B-l
-------
Members (con't)
Gary Thompson
James R. Thompson
John M. Tyler
George Westphal
Observers
Leslie Carothers
James Conroy
Russell Dawson
Diane L. Donley
Charles R. Foster
John Hellegers
Harvey H. Hubbard
Hugh Kaufman
Arthur Kohler
James J. Kramer
John B. Large
Robert B. Meyersburg
Carl Modig
Cole Morrow
Harold R. Mull
James Mullins
Shellie Os.troff
Harvey Safeer
Alice Suter
R. N. Tedrick
Brian S. Tennant
Margaret Tifft
Ernest Weiss
Frank Wilson
Simone Yaniv
Correspondents
Jake Applewhite
George Bender
Robert J.. Bresnahan
K. M. Eldred
Gordon Getline
Robert E. Ginther
James Hammond
A. E. P. Jennings
Raelyn Janssen
Robert J. Kingston
Stephan E. Lawton
Ken Linnerooth
Bert J. Lockwood
Geoffry C. Lowe
Beech Aircraft Corporation
Lockheed-California Company
National Organization to Insure a
Sound Environment
Grumman Corporation
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Action, Inc.
Noise Control Report
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Transportation
Environmental Defense Fund
Langley Research Center, NASA
Environmental Protection Agency
Professional Air Traffic Controllers
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Institute of Sound and Vibration (England)
Consultant to Task Group 2
Informatics, Inc.
Federal Aviation Administration
Bell and Associates, Inc.
Federated Department Stores
Informatics, Inc.
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Airesearch
Boeing Company
Environmental Protection Agency
George Washington University
Informatics, Inc.
Environmental Protection Agency
Congressional Staff, California 1?th
District
Boston Logan International Airport
Orange County Airport
Bolt, Beranek and Newman
Convair Aerospace
Senate Committee on Commerce
The Boston Globe
Aeronautical Research Council (-England)
Environmental Defense Fund
Department of Environment (Canada)
House Committee on Interstate Commerce
Fairfax County, Va.
Los Angeles International Airport
British Embassy Counseller (Civil
Aviation)
B-2
-------
Correspondents (con't)
John 0. Powers Federal Aviation Administration
Henry L. Martin Society of Automotive Engineers
James F. Miller Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Barrett J. Riordan Council on Environmental Quality
Richard Ross Gates Learjet Corporation
R. W. Rummel Trans World Airlines, Inc.
Louis F. Skooi Rockwell International Corporation
Richard P. Skully Federal Aviation Administration
Norman J. Snow Rohr Corporation
Mills M. Spangberg Garrett Corporation
Willis E. Sullivan Garrett Corporation
Cedric Sun Aircraft Porous Media, Inc.
Curtis L. Walker General Motors
James F. Woodall Federal Aviation Administration
Robert W. Young U. S. Navy
Jack K. Zimmerman Hydrospace-Challenger, Inc.
B-3
------- |