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

-------