SET
                            COMMITTEE PRINT
            REPORT ON AIRCRAFT-AIRPORT NOISE
                  REPOET OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
                                OP THE
              ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                TO THE
                   COMMITTEE  ON PUBLIC WORKS
                             U.S. SENATE
                              AUGUST 1973
                             SERIAL NO. 93-8
                  Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-739 O                         WASHINGTON • 1973
              For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                        Washington, B.C., 20402 - Price $1.25
                            Stock Number 5270-01936

-------
                    COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

                 JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine                    HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee
JOSEPH M. MONTOTA, New Mexico              JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska                        ROBERT f. STAFFORD, Vermont
LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas                       WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota           JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
DICK CLARK, Iowa                           PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware
                   M. BARRY METER, Chief Counsel and Chief Clerk
         BAILEY GDARD, Minority Clerk; RICHARD A. HELLMAN, Minority Counsel
                      LEON G. BILLINGS, Senior Staff Member
            PHILIP T. CUMMINGS and DON ALEXANDER, Assistant Counsels

Professional and research staff: HAROLD H. BRAYMAN, PAUL CHIMES, FRANCIS T. CLARK,
  KATHERINE  Y.  CUDLIPP,  KATHLEEN R.  E.  FORCUM, ANN  GARRABRANT,  RICHARD D.
  GRUNDY, WESLEY F. HAYDEN, RICHARD E. HEROD, RONALD L. KATZ, CLARK NORTON, JUDY
  PARENTE, JOHN  PURINTON, A. DAVID SANDOVAL, JACQUELINE E.  SCHAFER, E. STEVEN
  SWAIN, SALLY WALKER, and JOHN W. YAGO, Jr.
                SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIB AND WATER ^POLLUTION
                     EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia          JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico             HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee
LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas                      ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
DICK CLARK, Iowa                           JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware               PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

                                     (II)

-------
                        LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       WASHINGTON, D.C. JULY 27, 1973
Honorable Jennings Randolph
Chairman, Committee on Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Chairman:

     In accordance with the provisions of  Public  Law 92-574, the

Noise Control Act of 1972, I have the honor to  submit a "Report

to Congress on Aircraft and Airport Noise."

                                           Sincerely yours,
                                              Robert W. Fri
                                           Acting Administrator

-------
        REPORT TO CONGRESS




                ON




      AIRCRAFT/AIRPORT NOISE









REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE




  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY




        IN COMPLIANCE WITH




     NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972




         PUBLIC LAW 92-574
             JULY 1973

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
                                                         Page
     Adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration
     Flight and Operational Noise Controls                14
     Adequacy of Noise Emission Standards on New and
     Existing Aircraft; Recommendations on the
     Retrofitting and Phaseout of Existing Aircraft       30
     Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels
     of Cumulative Noise Exposure Around Airports         46

SECTION 4

     Additional Measures Available to Airport Operators
     and Local Governments to Control Aircraft Noise     100

SUMMARY                                                  108

-------
                          INTRODUCTION








     Noise, "unwanted sound," has been a problem throughout the




history of the human race.  The increasing use of noise producing




machinery concurrent with vastly greater magnitudes of sound gen-




erated therefrom (of which aviation systems are a classic case)




has resulted in the noise problem increasing to a point of major




environmental concern.  The relations between noise and man with




respect to nis health (well being) and welfare (in its broadest




sense) are extremely complex.  These are discussed in considerable




detail in the EPA document, "Public Health and Welfare Criteria




for Noise," issued by the EPA under Section 5 of the Noise Control




Act of 1972.  As discussed in that document the effects of noise




cover a wide range of human response5 including that (the most




severe) of permanent impairment of hearing; interference with the




ability to communicate or undertake desired hearing tasks; annoy-




ance of varying degree, and other vague and difficult to define




reactions.  A major consideration with regard to noise as an




environmental problem, and one having considerable importance in




regard to aviation noise, is that hearing is one of man's main




sensory contacts with his environment (being second only to vision




in that regard).  A part of the reaction to aircraft noise may be




(and by many authorities is so considered) attributed to a number




of connotations, such as fear, or social antagonism, in the "mess-




age" interpreted by its listener.








     Aircraft/airport noise is not a new problem for the United







                               -1-

-------
States.  Virtually  from the dawn of  aviation, there have been com-




plaints regarding aircraft  noise.   It was  recognized early  that




noise from aircraft engines could affect  the hearing of pilots and




ground crew personnel, as evidenced by  the fact  that one of the




earliest investigations conducted by  the  Aero  Medical  Laboratory




of the Army Air Corps, during World War I, related to  aviators'




hearing (1).  One of the earliest recorded official noise  complaints,




related to Aircraft operations, occurred  in 1928 at which  time a




farmer wrote to the Postmaster General stating that low flying air-




craft were disrupting egg production (2).








     Until World War  II, air transportation in the civil sector




developed at a very slow rate.  During World War  II,  the extensive




utilization of military  aircraft  for passenger and freight trans-




portation provided an impetus  to  the aviation industry which laid




the basis for the spectacular  postwar  growth  of  commercial trans-




portation which  has continued  until  the  present  time.









     In 1946, the National Advisory  Committee for Aeronautics (NACA  -




now enfolded into  the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration  -




NASA), the Air Transport Association and  the  Aerospace Industries




Associated were  invited by the Civil Aeronautics  Administration




(CAA) to participate  in a  joint approach  to the noise problem which



"threatens to undermine aviation progress" (2).









     Noise from reciprocating engine, propeller  driven aircraft
                               -2-

-------
of major concern to the military in the World War II time period.




Numerous studies were conducted by the U.S. Air Force on this




problem in the period 1948 to 1951.  Of considerable significance




were those relating to noise levels resulting from the operation




of B-36 aircraft.  These studies showed that levels between 70dB




to 120 dB (overall sound pressure levels) were experienced through-




out an area of 144 square miles, under the takeoff and approach




zones, when these large aircraft operated.








     In apparent anticipation of the seriousness of jet aircraft




noise, as compared with the already recognized propeller noise




problem, the Port of New York Authority issued a regulation in




1951 forbidding landing or takeoff of jets, without permission




from the Authority (3).  Early in 1952, the problem of noise re-




sulted in action within the air transport industry to develop a




"National Air Transport Coordinating Committee" to consider pro-




blems of aircraft noise in the New York area.








     The introduction of high performance, jet engine powered air-




craft into military use preceded their entry into civil aviation




by a considerable period of time (approximately 12 years).  By 1952,




the noise problem associated with military jet aircraft had grown



to such proportions in regard to the reactions of civilian




communities that the U.S. Air Force issued a special pamphlet "Air




Force Pamphlet 32-2-1, Noise Guide for Air Base Commanders."




Various elements of the Department of Defense had instituted com-
                                 -3-

-------
prehensive research programs aimed at trying to develop both


noise suppression techniques associated with the engines as well


as protective measures for military personnel and civilian


communities directly adjacent to military installations.





     There have been many additional studies over the past 25


years that have echoed the foregoing concern.  These included  the


 1965 studies of the Office of Science and Technology Jet Air-


 craft Noise Panel, the 1970 joint DOT/NASA Civil Aviation Research


 and Development Study - CARD, the 1971 Environmental Protection


 Agency  Report  to  the President and Congress on Noise under Title


 IV, P.L.  91-604 and the report of the Aviation Advisory Commission,


 established by Congress under P.L. 91-258.




     Against this background of  intensive inquiry and concern


 about noise, since 1946,  civil aviation has indeed grown in a


 most remarkable manner.   There are presently approximately 2000


 large jet propelled aircraft operating in the U.S. fleet, compared


 with none in 1957 (4).  In  1972, these aircraft served an average


 of almost 500  individual  major terminals and carried approximately
                                                            *

 190,000,000 passengers.   In 1946, by comparison, there were only


 65 airports at which jet  aircraft were operating, with a then


 "optimistic estimate" that by 1969 jet service would be available


 at a total of  134 locations.  Information available from the


 Federal Aviation  Administration  (FAA) indicates that in addition


 to the  current air carrier fleet, there are approximately  130,000
                                  -4-

-------
other aircraft of all types in use by air taxi services, corpora-




tions, personal business and private use, which provide trans-




portation annually for another 50 million or so persons.  Even




better appreciation of the order of magnitude of the growth of




air travel can perhaps be obtained by a comparison of the




commercial airlines revenue growth in revenue passenger miles.




In 1950, there were approximately 8 billion revenue passenger




miles provided by the domestic commercial air carriers, repre-




senting travel by some 17 million passengers.  In 1972, the




total had grown to 152 billion revenue passenger miles with the




growth in numbers of passengers to 190 million.








     The impact of this sharp increase in air traffic in terms




of takeoffs and landings is also highly significant.  In 1972, as




an example, according to preliminary data of the FAA, there were




approximately 660,000 takeoffs and landings at O'Hare Airport in




Chicago, the Nation's busiest terminal.  The faster, more comfort-




able mode of transportation represented by high performance




commercial jets has undoubtedly contributed to the growth in




utilization of the Air Transportation System both for passengers




and freight.  The economic competition of this mode of transporta-




tion with others has also resulted in a high utilization by ever




increasing segments of the public.  The concurrent increase in




the size of the noise impact, in terms of numbers of people ex-




posed and its severity, occurred at a greater rate than the




apparent ability of either governmental entities or the industry
                                —5—

-------
to anticipate and then cope with the problem In an effective sense.




This situation led to the enactment of Section 7 of the Noise Control




Act of 1972.








     It should also be noted that the growth of aviation in the




United States (and worldwide) has coincided with the major expan-




sion of metropolitan areas served by air transportation both in




size and population.  This expansion has resulted in an increase




in types Ptid severity of many other environmental problems (a




situation not restricted to noise alone) such as air and water




pollution.  Concurrent expansion of problems has resulted,




in many instances, from a lack of exercise, by the many govern-




mental jurisdictions, of their authorities such as zoning, or




other powers.  This has all too often resulted in sharp increases




in residential populations immediately adjacent to the major air




terminals.  It is fruitless at this late date to attempt to




find "culprits" but it is likewise significant to highlight the




fact that as early as 1964, there were warnings regarding the need




for local community or state actions with regard to this issue (5).








     In spite of the recurring forecasts of increasing aviation




noise impact, and a substantial investment in aviation noise con-




trol research and development in the Federal and private sector,




the aviation noise problem had, because of a combination of the




wide variety of influences, grown to major proportions by the




time of the 1971, Title IV, EPA Report on Noise.  Approximately  16
                                -6-

-------
million persons are presently impacted by aviation noise in the




United States, and in spite of the introduction of quieter new




aircraft, the number will continue to be of major proportion




until the mid 1980's unless aggressive action is taken.  The




adverse effects of this noise range from annoyance to the possi-




bility of hearing damage.  These effects have resulted in numerous




law suits and, in some cases, have prevented expansion of existing




airports or construction of new ones.








     It is evident that there is a need to mobilize available




resources and technology, including those of providing newer and




quieter aircraft for the future, to deal with this problem in




a coordinated time-phased fashion.  By enacting the Noise Control




Act of 1972, Congress provided the Administrator of EPA with




authority to coordinate Federal noise control activities, Federal




research and development related to noise, and to provide technical




assistance to States in the area of model codes and laws.  Congress




has thus established a means to integrate the activities of the




Administrator under the Noise Control Act, those of the FAA under




the Federal Aviation Act, and of other Federal Agencies, such as




NASA, to accelerate a coordinated program of correction.








     However, if noise levels protective of the public health and




welfare are to be achieved around the Nation's airports in the




near future, it will be necessary to establish a Federal regulatory




program which effectively combines Federal controls on aircraft




flight procedures, technology, and    noise control options available




to airport operators and local jurisdictions.
                                -7-

-------
     The present study is part of that action, and results from




the requirements of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-




574) in Section 7(a), which directs the Environmental Protection




Agency as follows:








     "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 recommendations on the retrofitting




     and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of




     identifying 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 Committee on Commerce and Public Works of the Senate




     within nine months after tae date of the enactment of this



     Act."









     Under Section 7(c) of the Act, not earlier than the date of




submission of the report to Congress, EPA is to submit to FAA




"proposed regulations to provide such control and abatement of air-




craft 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 descriptive material on health and welfare contained in


the Criteria Document and the Environmental Noise Effects Document


required by Section 5 of the Noise Control Act will be considered


by the Agency in developing such proposals.  This present report


on the studies undertaken by the Agency is the first step in the


regulation process established in the Noise Control Act.





     The study to develop the Section 7(a) report has been carried


out through a participatory and consultive process involving a


Task Force made up of six task groups.  The membership of the six


task groups was formed by sending invitations to organizations


representing the various sectors of interest.  These included other


Federal agencies, organizations representing State and local govern-


ments, environmental and consumer action groups, professional


societies, air traffic controllers, pilots, airport proprietors,


airlines, users of general aviation aircraft, and aircraft and


engine manufacturers.  A press release was distributed concerning


the study, and additional individuals and organizations expressing


interest were asked to participate.  Written inputs from others,


including all citizen aircraft noise complaint letters received


during the period of the study, were called to the attention of


appropriate task group leaders and placed in the public master file


for reference.
                                -9-
 99-739 O - 73 - 2

-------
     A plenary session of the Task Force was held on February 15,

1973.  Each of the task groups then held 4 to 6 working meetings

for the duration of the study.  As a result of these meetings and

a final plenary session on June 21 and 22, 1973, reports were

developed which represent the consolidated, but not unanimous,

opinions, suggestions and specific data inputs from the participating

task group members.



     Each report includes the membership list for the task group

and  a list of the master file documents collected during the study

effort.  The file was maintained throughout the study for the

use  of task group members and other interested persons, and will

continue to be maintained for public reference at the Office of

Noise Control Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington

D.C. 20460.



     The reports of the six task groups are entitled:

          o  "Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft
             and Airport Noise and Apportionment of Authority
             between Federal, State and Local Governments"

          o  "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring,
             Enforcement, Safety, and Costs"

          o  "Impact Characterization of Noise Including
             Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels
             of Cumulative Noise Exposure"

          o  "Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost
             Analysis Including Retrofitting"

          o  "Review and Analysis of Present and Planned
             FAA Noise Regulatory Actions and their
             Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport
             Operations"
                               -10-

-------
          o  "Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and
             Opportunities for Reduction without In-
             hibition of Military Missions"
     The reports of the task groups' studies are the results of the

efforts of a unique gathering of interested persons, experts and

concerned citizens, representing a wide spectrum of interest in

the development of an expeditious and effective resolution of

the aircraft/airport noise problem.  The reports of the task

groups do not reflect official policy statements of the Environ-

mental Protection Agency, but should be viewed as an effort to

obtain as much information on all aspects and views on the

subject as was possible within the time period available.  They

have provided most of the basic information for the analysis of

the aircraft/airport noise problem.  They will be considered by

the Agency, together with other data such as that developed for

the EPA Title IV Report to the President and Congress on Noise

and in the public hearings held by the Agency associated with that

report, the Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission, and such

additional information as becomes available, in preparing the de-

tail support for the proposed regulations to be submitted to the

Federal Aviation Administration under Section 7(c) of the Act.

Copies of the individual Task Group Study Reports will be

available at the EPA Regional Offices and in the public master

file of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.  They will

become available for purchase later in 1973 from the Superin-

tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402.
                               -11-

-------
     In the following four sections, the essentials of the infor-




mation relevant to the four specific areas called for in Section




7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 are discussed.  In effect,




the Agency has conducted, for the Congress, a technological re-




assessment of the areas of concern stated in the Act.  The final




Section of this report provides a summary of the principal find-




ings of the study and of the plans for regulatory proposals to




satisfy the further continuing requirements of the Act, not only




with reference to Section 7 but as they relate to the larger




responsibilities of dealing with the problems of aviation and air-




port noise in accordance with other authorities of the Act.
                              -12-

-------
References


1.  "Doctors in the Sky," Benford, Robert L., Editor.

2.  FAA Historic Fact Book, 1966.

3.  Goldstein, S. and Odell, A., "Comments on the Problem of
    Jet Noise," Port Authority of New York.

4.  ATA Annual Report, "Air Transport 1973"

5.  "Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise," Joint
    Publication U.S. Air Force and United States Federal Aviation
    Agency, Washington, D.C., October, 1964.
                                 -13-

-------
                            SECTION 1

     ADEQUACY OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FLIGHT AND

                   OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTROLS



     Based on this Agency's studies, it appears that existing  FAA

 flight and operational controls* do not adequately protect the public

 health and welfare from aircraft noise.  Since the existing controls

 do  not consider the levels of noise to which people are exposed

 or  the number of people so exposed.  Although existing regulations

 have been useful, insofar as they accomplish some noise reduction

 without having to change the air traffic control system, the in-

 formation available to EPA indicates that there are additional

 flight and operational procedures which could contribute to the

 protection of the public health and welfare.
 *    The  FAA has  adopted two Federal Aviation Regulations  (FAR's)
 and two Advisory  Circulars  (AC's) related to flight and operational
 noise controls.   (Advisory  Circulars inform the aviation public  of
 nonregulatory material of interest.  They are not binding  as  are
 regulations.)

      These are:

 o    FAR  91.55 prohibits flight at speeds in excess of Mach  1  and
 thereby prevents  the occurrence of sonic booms unless a specific
 authorization is  given.

 o    FAR  91.87 regulates operation at airports with operating
 control towers.   FAR 91.87(d) and (f) specify that the minimum
 altitude  for turbine powered or large aircraft is 1500 feet
 above  the surface of the airport except when lower altitudes  are
 necessary for takeoff or landing.  FAR 97.87(d) further requires
 that such aircraft when approaching to land remain on or above
 the glide slope (if available).  In addition FAR 91.87(g)  re-
quires pilots of these aircraft to use, whenever possible, the
preferential noise abatement runways designated by FAA.  (Footnote
continued on page 15.)
                                -14-

-------
     Flight and operational noise controls alone, however, cannot

be expected to totally resolve the noise problem.  At best, they

must be considered as only one element of what must be a more

comprehensive plan which also includes controls on the source of

the noise, the number and time of day of flights, and the location

of people exposed to noise.



     Implicit in this discussion is the fact that flight safety is

of paramount importance in developing flight and operational noise

controls.  It is the FAA's legal responsibility to ensure that
o    AC 90-59 describes the FAA "Keep-em-High" program wherein
controllers issue clearances to keep high performance aircraft as
high as possible as long as possible (1).  This program was
initially introduced for the purpose of collision avoidance, but
it also provides some noise relief by preventing unnecessary low
altitude flight.  The program is not regulatory in nature, al-
though pilots must follow clearances once accepted.  The Keep-em-
High program does not require the use of any specific noise
abatement takeoff or approach procedure.

o    AC 91-36 encourages pilots flying in visual weather conditions
to maintain at least 2000 feet altitude above noise sensitive
areas (2).

     In addition to the above system-wide controls, there are specific
noise abatement procedures in effect at Washington National Air-
port, which is operated by the FAA.  There the airlines use a thrust
reduction during climbout from a point 3 nautical miles northbound
or 4 nautical.miles southbound until reaching an altitude of 6,000
feet or a distance of 10 nautical miles, whichever occurs first.
Aircraft on approach must follow the Potomac River.  A jet curfew
is in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.  Only certain types of aircraft
are permitted to use the airport (the largest being  Boeing 727's),
and trip lengths are limited to 650 miles with exceptions for non-
stop flights to 7 cities within 1,000 miles (3,4,5).
                               -15-

-------
flight and operational procedures are consistent with the highest




degree of safety,  and EPA, therefore, cannot conclude that specific




flight and operational noise controls are either safe or unsafe.




This Agency has, however,  studied a number of noise abatement flight




procedures which the Agency believes merit consideration for rule-




making or implementation by the FAA.








     The discussion which  follows is based primarily on the data




contained in the EPA aircraft/airport noise study report (6).
                               -16-

-------
 Takeoff



      There are at least two distinct types of takeoff  noise problems:

 noise alongside the runway and noise under the climbout flight path.

 They are distinct in that reducing one generally results in increas-

 ing the other.*  For most airports, the climbout noise is more

 critical, but there are some locations where sideline  noise is the

 dominant departure problem** (7).



      At present there are no FAA controls relating to  noise abate-

 ment takeoff procedures.  There are, however, several  different

 noise abatement takeoff procedures employed by various segments

 of the aviation industry.  Each of these procedures provides noise

 benefits for different areas in relation to the departure runway.

 Unfortunately, at the present time, (except at Washington National

 Airport), the actual location of noise sensitive areas is not

 considered in selecting the takeoff procedure.



      For residential areas very far from the airport (more than

 approximately 10 miles), the most beneficial procedure is generally

 to climb at the steepest angle possible with nearly full power.  Such

 a procedure is recommended by the Air Transport Association (ATA)
*    On takeoff, the factors of distance and power setting work
against one another:  lower power settings mean less noise output
but also lower altitudes, so the location of noise sensitive areas
must be carefully considered in determining whether any given
procedure will provide a noise benefit.

**   Los Angeles and Boston are examples of airports where the
critical departure noise problem is sideline.

                                -17-

-------
and is in use by American Airlines and United Airlines,  among

others (8).  Similar procedures are also recommended by  the National

Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) (9).



     For areas approximately 2 to 10 miles from the airport, the

most beneficial procedure is generally to climb steeply and then,

at an altitude of approximately 1500 feet, reduce power to not less

than that  required to maintain safe flight in the event of an

engine failure.  Power is not re-applied until the aircraft

reaches  an altitude of approximately 4000 feet.  This procedure

is recommended by the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA)  (10).  It

is similar to procedures currently in use by Northwest Air Lines

at all airports  it serves and by all airlines using Washington

National Airport* (11,5).  Compared to  the maximum angle  (full

power) climbout, this power cutback procedure reduces noise

approximately 2  to 7 EPNdB**  (depending on aircraft type  and weight)

in the distance  range of 2 to  10 miles  from  the airport.  It causes

a noise  increase, however, for approximately one mile prior to the
 *   Although one can calculate that the noise  impact at Washington
 National Airport could be much greater without  the noise abatement
 flight procedures, to EPA's knowledge there has been no on-going
 program of noise monitoring to document the noise benefit.   In
 spite of the noise abatement procedures, National Airport noise
 has been the subject of recent litigation although the court con-
 cluded that there was not actionable noise damage  (12).

 **   Throughout this section, noise reductions will be stated in
 terms of single event Effective Perceived Noise Level  (EPNdB).  A
 10 EPNdB noise reduction would be perceived as  a halving of the
noise.   See Section 3 for additional discussions of single  event
and cumulative noise measures.  In general, the cumulative  noise
level at a given location will be reduced by  the same amount as
the reduction in average single event noise level  (energy average).
                                -18-

-------
cutback  (while flaps are being retracted) and then again after power




is reapplied  (6,13).








     The procedure which is most beneficial for sideline noise




reduction is  to use reduced thrust from the start of the takeoff




roll when the takeoff weight, runway length, and other conditions




permit.  Many FAA-approved aircraft flight manuals allow this




for the purpose of reducing engine wear.  This procedure can de-




crease sideline noise by up to 2 EPNdB (6).  The procedure results




in lower altitudes and higher noise levels under the climbout




path, however, so it is not optimum when near-downrange noise is




the critical  problem.








     On a national basis, the maximum benefit would be achieved by




having the takeoff procedure tailored to each specific runway/




community configuration.  On the other hand, some pilot and industry




groups feel that a single, standard procedure rather than multiple




standards is  necessary to insure safety (14).  Countering arguments




suggest that  every takeoff is different anyway because of runway,




wind, weight, and other factors rendering the concept of a "single"




standard meaningless (15).








     Based on all of the above considerations there seems to be




compelling evidence that several noise abatement takeoff pro-




cedures could be standardized for selective use at specific airports.




This Agency believes that this merits further evaluation through




the FAA rule-making process and therefore intends to propose, to
                                -19-

-------
the FAA, appropriate regulations as provided in Section 7(b) of the

Noise Control Act of 1972.


Approach


     At present, other than the glide slope requirement of  FAR

 91.87(d),  there are no FAA regulations or other controls relating

 to noise abatement approach procedures.  There are, however, several

 different  noise abatement approach procedures currently employed by

 various segments of the aviation industry or undergoing flight  tests.



     Most  air carrier approaches (under instrument weather  conditions)

 are made on an electronic Instrument Landing System  (ILS) glide

 slope.* The standard approach  angle for new ILS  installations  is

 3 degrees.  A few  existing installations are at greater angles,**

 but most  (65%) were installed before the 3 degree standard  was  adopted

 and are between 2.5 and 2.9 degrees  (16).  The requirement  of  FAR

 91.87(d) to remain on or above  the glide slope is therefore less

 effective  than it  could be  (a one-half degree increase in  approach

 angle  reduces noise 2 to 3 EPNdB)  (6).  The reason that all glide

 slopes  have not been raised to  at  least 3 degrees appears  to be

 one of  economics:  one FAA estimate  indicates an  adjustment cost

 of $62,000 per installation (17).
 *    The ILS glide slope is often  followed  in visual weather also,
 although considerably more leeway  exists  for pilot or controller
 initiated deviations.

 **   These airports have glide slope  angles above 3 degrees for the
purpose of terrain clearance:  San Diego, California (3.22°);  Fort
Worth (Meacham Field), Texas  (3.33°); Annette Island, Alaska (3.27°);
Berlin (Tempelhof) Germany (3.5°)  (6).
                                -20-

-------
     The  two  segment approach seems to hold the most promise for




significant approach noise relief.  In this procedure, the initial




descent is accomplished at a fairly steep angle (nominally 6 degrees)




and at associated reduced power settings; then transition is made




to a normal glide slope at an altitude (500 to 1,000 feet) sufficient




to safely reduce the initial high descent rates.  Visual weather




versions  of this procedure are currently in use at certain airports




with 727  and  737 aircraft by National Airlines, Pacific Southwest




Airlines, and Air California, and by all airlines (with aircraft




types as  large as DC-8's) at the San Diego Airport (the latter




because of high terrain)  (18, 19, 20, 21).  The National Business




Aircraft  Association also recommends use of two-segment approaches




in visual conditions (9).  Flight tests of two-segment approaches




have been conducted during the last 10 years by FAA, NASA, and the




airline industry, many using prototype instrumentation for all




weather operations (22, 23, 24, 25).  Tests are currently being




conducted in  scheduled airline passenger service by United Airlines




under contract to NASA (25).  This further testing shoald result




in suitable instrumentation and pilot acceptance so that all weather




use of two-segment approaches can be instituted throughout the




civil air carrier fleet.








     The noise benefit from two-segment approaches has been measured




to be as high as 17 EPNdB under the steep portion of the flight




profile (6).   The noise reductions become smaller as the aircraft




gets closer to the airport, becoming zero when the transition to




the final glide slope is complete (approximately 2 to 3 miles from
                                -21-

-------
touchdown).   Information available to this Agency indicates that

the two-segment visual approach used by Pacific Southwest Air-

lines has received favorable community support in California

(26,27).



     The main objections to two-segment approaches come from ALPA

pilots  and some segments of the airline industry.  They desire

more testing to be certain that safety will not be degraded by

the higher descent rates in the steep segment (28).  They are also

concerned that introduction of a "visual conditions only" two-

segment approach would erode standardization and thereby safety

28, 29).  Countering arguments suggest that adequate testing

has already been accomplished, and that "standardization" does not

in fact exist at present, every landing being unique and different.

Specific charts are published for every runway, and air traffic

control procedures differ from visual to instrument weather

conditions (30).  A further concern, expressed by the Aircraft

Owners  and Pilots Association (AOPA) is that small aircraft with-

out two-segment instrumentation may experience wake turbulence if

following behind and below a large aircraft conducting a two-

sgement approach (31)-  The FAA is currently planning flight tests

to investigate this potential hazard.*
*    The wake turbulence hazard can be minimized or eliminated by
providing a sufficient separation distance between the  large  and
small aircraft, or by assigning them to widely separated  runways.
Such procedures are already in effect even for standard ILS
approaches.
                               -22-

-------
     It appears that two-segment approaches may require either




ground based or airborne instrumentation, or both.  Distance




Measuring Equipment (DME), co-located with the glide slope on the




airport, is likely to be a prerequisite.  Only 10 such DME's had




been commissioned by FAA as of December 31, 1972; 6 were approved




but not commissioned, and FAA planning documents indicate a slow-




down in the installation rate for new DME's (32,33).








     Cost estimates for DME range from $26,400 to $60,000 per instal*




lation (1973 dollars) (34,17).  Airborne equipment estimates range




from zero for visual procedures to $31,400 per aircraft for a




glide slope computer relying upon the airport DME (34,35).








     On any approach, noise reductions can be achieved by using




a flap management program where thrust is minimized (provided the




runway length is sufficient to accommodate the increased landing




speeds).  Noise levels may be 3 to 5 EPNdB lower than on a full




flap approach (6).  This flap management approach is recommended




by ATA and is in use by American Airlines, United Airlines, and




Northwest Airlines, among others (29).








     At some airports, thrust reverse noise on landing contributes




to noise annoyance (7,36).  In cases where the runway is long, it




is possible under certain weather conditions to avoid the use of




thrust reversers (36).  The pilots are concerned, however, that




limitations on the use of thrust reversers for noise abatement
                               -23-

-------
purposes may erode safety margins  (14).  Environmental groups




believe, on the other hand, that pilot indoctrination in the proper




use  of  thrust reversers and their  noise effects  could be beneficial




in minimizing their use where not  necessary  (15).   Consideration




must be given to possible increases in aircraft  ground taxi  time




with resultant  increase in air pollutant emissions.








      Based on all of the preceding, there  seems  to  be compelling




 evidence that several noise abatement approach procedures  could




 be standardized for use under certain conditions and that  existing




 ILS  glide slopes could be raised to at least  3 degrees.  This




 Agency believes these merit further evaluation,  and insofar  as




 this can take place through the FAA rulemaking process intends




 to propose to the FAA appropriate  regulations as provided  in




 Section 7(b) of the Noise Control  Act of 1972.








 Minimum Altitudes








      Turbine powered or large aircraft can make  significant




amounts of noise at the minimum altitude of  1,500 feet permitted




by FAR 91.87 (105 EPNdB for a Boeing 707)  (6).   Increasing this




altitude  to 3,000 feet would reduce the noise level by approximately




10 EPNdB  (6).   The FAA "Keep-em-High" program may help prevent  over-




flights at unnecessarily low altitudes but its primary application




is for altitudes between 5,000 and 10,000  feet (1).  The EPA does




not have documentation on the effectiveness of either FAR  91.87




or AC 91.36 related to visual flight rule  (VFR)  operations near
                                -24-

-------
noise sensitive areas, but its staff has received some citizen


complaints regarding low flying aircraft (37,38).




     One potential disadvantage of increasing the regulatory minimum


altitudes is that it may cause some aircraft to travel farther  (on


a circling approach) in order to intercept the glide slope at a


higher altitude.  This could spread noise over a larger area


(although at lower noise levels)-  The experience at San Jose Air-


port, however, indicates that pilots may simply elect to fly a


steeper approach, in effect shortening the distance and further


reducing noise (39).  Another potential disadvantage is that higher


minimum altitudes may reduce the available maneuvering airspace and


thus contribute to increased air congestion.  This problem may be over-


come by issuing specific clearances for reduced altitude operations,


where necessary, but doing so may increase controller workloads.




     Because of the potential noise relief, increased minimum


altitudes seem to merit further evaluation through the FAA rule-


making process and this agency therefore intends to propose appropri-


ate regulations to the FAA.




     From the foregoing, it can be seen that a number of noise abate-


ment flight procedures are available for implementation.  Although,


by themselves, they cannot totally resolve the noise problem, they


play an important part in any comprehensive plan for noise reduction.


EPA therefore intends to propose regulations to FAA in accordance


with Section 7(b) of the Noise Control Act of 1972.  In the process
                               -25-
     i O - 73 - 3

-------
of proposing such regulations,  the Agency will fully take into




account the safety or other implications of adopting these re-




gulations as determined by the  FAA, which has the final authority.
                               -26-

-------
References
 1.  FAA, Advisory Circular 90-59:  "Arrival and Departure Handling
     of High Performance Aircraft," February 28, 1973.

 2.  FAA, Advisory Circular 9—36:  "VFR Flight Near Noise
     Sensitive Areas", August 7, 1972.

 3.  FAA, "Notices to Airmen," Airman's Information Manual, page
     3A-2 (District of Columbia), April 12, 1973.

 4.  FAA, "Washington National Airport Noise Abatement Procedures,"
     Effective June 1, 1970.

 5.  Air Transport Association, "Takeoff Procedures for Washington
     National Airport," August 21, 1972.

 6.  EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 2 Report,
     Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety,
     and Costs. July 1973, NTID 73.3.

 7.  Hurlburt, R. L., "A Survey of Noise Problems as Perceived by
     the Airport Administration at 19 Large Hub Airports," EPA,
     June 30, 1973.

 8.  Flynn, Roger, paper presenting views on aircraft and airport
     operational procedures, received March 19, 1973.

 9.  National Business Aircraft Association, NBAA Noise Abatement
     Program, Report SR 67-12, June, 1967.

10.  Rockwell, R. N., and Stefanki, J. X. , Letter "To All Members,"
     ALPA, January 27, 1970.

11.  Soderlind, Paul A., Letter to Administrator of FAA regarding
     takeoff and approach noise, Northwest Airlines, November 24,
     1970.

12.  Virginians For Dulles vs. Volpe, 344 F Supp. 573 (E.D. Va.,
     1972)

13.  Erzberger, Heinz, et^ al., "Technique for Calculating Optimum
     Noise Abatement Take-Off Profiles," Progress of NASA Research
     Relating to Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft,
     NASA SP-189, October 8-10, 1968.

14.  Air Line Pilots Association, Comments on Position Questionnaire
     Task Group 2, March 19, 1973.
                               -27-

-------
15.   Tyler,  John and Hinton,  Lloyd,  Letter to Randall L.  Hurlburt
     Re:   "Comments and Recommendations for the Report to the
     Congress," National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled
     Environment, June 6, 1973.

16.   FAA, "Glide Slope Angles at Airports," December, 1971.

17-   Skully, R. P., Letter to Alvin Meyer regarding the draft EPA
     Report (Operational Procedures), FAA, May 21, 1973.

18.   Hurlburt, Randall L., Steep Approaches for Aircraft Noise
     Abatement - A Collection of Research Studies, City of Inglewood,
     California, July, 1972.

19.  Carmichael, Robert E. L., Letter to Randall Hurlburt regarding
     policies involving noise abatement during arrivals and departures,
     Pacific Southwest Airlines, March 28, 1973.

20.  Tucker, John R., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding initial
     draft of Task Group 2 report to Congress, Air California,
     May  11, 1973.

21.  Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Comparison of Aircraft Approach Angles
     at Los Angeles and San Diego International Airports, City of
     Inglewood,  California, June, 1972.

22.  Tanner, Carole S., Measurement and Analysis of Noise From Four
     Aircraft During Approach and Departure Operations (727, KC-135,
     707-320B, and DC-9), FAA Report FAA-RD-71-84, September, 1971.

23.  NASA, Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology, March 30, 1973.

24.  Denery, D.  G. e_t al. ,  Flight Evaluation of Three-Dimensional
     Area Navigation for Jet Transport Noise Abatement, NASA, AIAA
     Paper 72-814, Aug 7-9, 1972.

25.  Quigley, H. C. , elt al., Flight and Simulation Investigation of
     Methods for Implementing Noise Abatement Landing Approaches,
     NASA TN D-5781, May, 1970.

26.  Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Study of Steep Approaches for Noise
     Abatement Flown by Pacific Southwest Airlines, City of Inglewood,
     California, November, 1972.

27.  Duffelmeyer, H. James, Letter to R. L. Hurlburt concerning PSA
     two-segment approach, July 11, 1973.

28.   Marthinsen, Harold F., Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding EPA's
     Report - Draft No. 1 of Chapter 3, Air Line Pilots Association,
     May 18, 1973.
                               -28-

-------
29.  Flynn, Roger, paper containing recommended steps for noise
     abatement approach, received March 6, 1973.

30.  Jeppesen & Company, Airway Manual, Denver, Colorado.

31.  Hartranft, J. B., Jr., Letter to FAA Administrator John H.
     Shaffer, AOPA, November 27, 1972.

32.  FAA, The National Aviation System Plan, Ten Year Plan 1973-
     1982, March 1972.

33.  FAA, The National Aviation System Plan, Ten Year Plan 1973-
     1982, March 1973.

34.  NASA, "Implementation of VFR/IFR 2-Segment Approach Capability
     for Noise Abatement," received April 2, 1973.

35.  NASA, Chapter 3.  Operating Procedures for Aircraft Noise
     Reduction, received March 19, 1973.

36.  The communities of El Segundo, Inglewood, Lennox, Playa Del
     Rey, and Westchester, California, Joint Policy Statement on
     Airport Noise, Supporting Technical Data, December, 1972.

37.  Kelly, M. P., Letter to Alvin F. Meyer regarding Opa Locka
     Airport, February  12, 1973.

38.  Plumlee, Lawrence A., Letter to Elizabeth Cuadra:  "Police
     Helicopters," Environmental Protection Agency, February 22,
     1973.

39.  Nissen, J. M.,  "Program for Improving San Jose Municipal Air-
     port Environmental Quality as Affected by Aircraft," San Jose
     Municipal Airport, received March 6, 1973.
                               -29-

-------
                            SECTION 2




 ADEQUACY  OF NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS ON NEW AND EXISTING AIRCRAFT;




 RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RETROFITTING AND PHASEOUT OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT.









      Existing  FAA noise emission regulations did not utilize public




 health and welfare considerations as a basic constraint in  their




 development, since this was not required by the Federal Aviation Act




 of 1958,  until its amendment by the Noise Control Act of 1972.




 Based upon the EPA studies under the Noise Control Act, the present




 aircraft  noise emission standards do not provide adequately for such




 needs, as shown in the analyses of the extensive data considered




 and cited in this report.









 Technology









      The  Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission and the present




 EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study clearly indicate that currently




 available technology is capable of being translated inuo equipment




 that,  together with employment of noise abatement flight procedures,




 can significantly decrease the noise impact from aircraft (1,2.3).




 Current source noise abatement technology can be applied as a retro-




 fit  option for existing aircraft, as a modification to newly produced




 airplanes of older type designs, and also, be included in the design




 and  development of new aircraft systems.  The latter application




provides the most effective use of technology to achieve maximum




source noise control.  Continued source noise abatement research




and development is required, therefore, if civil aviation systems
                              -30-

-------
are to evolve with effective noise emission controls (4.5).








     The combined research, design, and development efforts of the




National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Trans-




portation, Department of Defense, and industrial members of the




aviation community have provided a demonstrated technology base




which, if fully exploited, can provide a family of new aircraft for




both the commercial and business jet fleets starting in the 1978-




1980 time frame (4).  The noise characteristics of these new air-




craft (depending upon aircraft type and measurement point) could




be 5-10 decibels below the present values in Appendix C of FAR 36




and thus, significantly quieter and more acceptable than the current




narrow-body jets (3, 6).








     These more favorable conditions are the result of approximately




$138 million of Federal research and development (R&D) funds invested




in noise control in the period 1969 to date which is in addition




to the large military and industry expenditure prior to and during




this time.  However, even if the decision to proceed with their




development were to be made today, the noise from the narrow-body




jets would dominate until the late 1980's (7) due to the relatively




long structural and probable economic life of the equipment which




would encourage their retention in the fleet.








     For instance, in 1972, the U.S. jet powered air carrier fleet




was comprised of approximately 2,000 aircraft of which more than 90%




did not meet the current noise standards for newly certified aircraft
                               -31-

-------
(FAR Part 36,  Appendix C)  (7,  8).   The fleet has been projected to




increase by 30% over the next  10 years.   This growth will be accom-




plished by new procurement of  current aircraft (747, DC-10,  L-1011,




707, advanced 727. 737 and DC-9),  the majority of which will comply




with the current FAR 36 noise  criteria.   However, during this




period, and possibly beyond,  there will  still remain 1100-1500




operational aircraft that  will rot meet  the above limits (7).








     Therefore it follows, that if there are to be significant




reductions in the impact of aircraft/airport noise prior to  the




1980's, quieting or replacing  current aircraft will be required.




      \



Noise Emission Regulations








     The FAA, in its fifteen years of existence, has devoted sub-




stantial effort to the technological, economic, and legal back-




ground necessary to propose seven  noise  emission regulations




capable of effecting significant noise reductions in a safe  and




economically reasonable manner (9).








     As of this writing, the FAA has issued two regulations:








     1.  "Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36:  Noise




         Standards:  Aircraft  type Certification", effective




         1 December 1969.









     2.   "Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91.55:  General
                               -32-

-------
          Operating  and  Flight Rules:   Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom",




          effective  27 April  1973.








In addition  to  these two  regulations,  the FAA has issued two Notices




of Proposed  Rule Making (NPRM) and  three Advanced Notices of Proposed




Rule Making  (ANPRM) 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} T_




         July 1972.




     5.  ANPRM 73-3; Civil Airplane Fleet Noise (FNL) Requirements,




         24 January 1973.








     FAR 36, issued as a new part  to the Federal Aviation Regulations,




prescribed noise standards for the issue of type certificates, and




changes to those certificates, for subsonic transport category air-




planes, and for subsonic turbojet  powered airplanes regardless of




category.  This regulation initiated the noise abatement regulatory




program of the FAA under the statutory authority of PL-90-411.
                               -33-

-------
     FAR 36 made a significant contribution in the form of  three




appendixes that have come to be used as standards or recommended




practices in the measurement and evaluation of aircraft noise.




Appendix A of the regulation prescribes the conditions under which




noise type certification tests for aircraft must be conducted and




the noise measurement procedures that must be used.  Appendix B




of the regulation prescribes the computational procedures that




must be used to determine the noise evaluation quantity designated




as effective perceived noise level  (EPNL).  Appendix C of the




regulation provides the noise criteria levels, noise measuring




points, and airplane flight test conditions for which compliance




must be shown with noise levels measured  and evaluated as pre-




scribed, respectively, by Appendixes A and B.









     The criteria levels of Appendix C provide  an  "umbrella" for




aircraft propelled by the new high-bypass ratio  engines in the




sense that the noise from such aircraft  can be  controlled to levels




below that criteria (3).  However,  these  criteria  levels are




technologically practical for aircraft that are propelled by the




existing turbojet and low-bypass ratio turbofan engines which can




comply with the criteria only with  the aid of some sort of retro-




fit modification.







     The Appendix C  levels  if  applied  to  the  existing turbojet  and





low-and high-bypass  ratio turbofan fleet  at this time would  result in





an improvement in the  airport  noise situation.   Future types of FAR 36





category aircraft and  possibly the current widebody, high bypass






                                   -34-

-------
 ratio jet  aircraft  should be regulated by the FAA to levels

 more protective  of  health and welfare as more specific data is

 developed.   Consideration must be given for the approach

 condition,  however,  to  ensure that  such levels are not lower

 than those  that  can  be  achieved by  available technology for control

 of the airframe  aerodynamic noise (4).*  It would be appropriate to

 include,  in any  revised FAR 36 regulation, the "Acoustical Change"

 adjustments proposed in NPRM 71-26  as determined necessary to make

 the rule  clearer and more effective.  Also, a revised FAR 36 should

 contain requirements to produce certified noise and flight perform-

 ance data sufficient to compute noise contours for a wide range of

 noise levels associated with both the take-off and the approach

 procedures  which represent normal modes of operations, and the

 requested health and welfare requirements  in  the  form of new limits
     The FAR Part 91.55, sonic boom  rule,  is adequate and will b*

 effective  in protecting  the public from  routine sonic boom

 exposure created  by  civil supersonic aircraft  (9).

     The  five proposed regulations  had evidently  satisfied  (at

least  under preliminary examination by the  FAA  or  they would not

nave been proposed) the four basic  requirements of PL  90-411 (10),

that is:

     o   consistent with the highest degree  of safety in  air

        transportation in the public  interest,

     o   economically reasonable,

     o   technologically practicable,  and
 *  There  is  available information which shows that such technology
is available  for  significant reductions in these levels, which must
be considered by  EPA  and  FAA in the proposed rule making to follow
this study.
                                   -35-

-------
     o  appropriate for the particular type of aircraft,




        aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to which it




        will apply.




As stated earlier in this section, the studies of the Aviation




Advisory Commission and the EPA clearly indicate that practical and




appropriate technology is available for applications to current and




future aircraft types (1, 3).









     Aircraft safety as a regulatory constraint is the responsibility




of the FAA solely and the EPA has no responsibility in that area.




However, if the major impediment to the issuance of any or all of




the  five proposed noise regulations is the inability to determine




the  economic reasonableness of noise control in the absence of health




and  welfare criteria, such an obstruction will be avoided with the




publication of  the health and welfare documentation called for by




Section 5 of the Noise Control Act.









      The Aircraft/Airport Noise Study included a cost-effectiveness




analysis that compared the costs of source noise control  (technology)




with the costs  of  compatible land use noise control for several




zones of noise  exposure (11).  The results clearly indicated  that




technology alone was capable of complete noise control  (no




residential exposure) only for the highest noise level  zone.




However, the combined costs of source and land use noise  control




for  all other zones were reduced by a significant amount with




applications of the available technology options.
                                -36-

-------
     A regulation being considered for civil supersonic aircraft




CANPRM 70-33) solicits public comment on a number of issues and




problems and does not include suggestions or recommendations (9).




Consequently, if SST noise is to be adequately controlled, a




regulatory plan must be developed and implemented (12).  In this




regard, the following discussion related the findings of the EPA



study.









     The noise of existing SST aircraft types (Concorde and TU-




144) is not capable of being controlled by available technology




to levels as low as the criteria of FAR 36 (4).  Therefore, the




Agency will take this into account in proposing regulations to the




FAA regarding SST noise control to protect public health and wel-




fare.  Future SST aircraft types should at least be regulated to noise




levels conforming to the original FAR 36 levels.  As more advanced




noise control technology becomes available, limits should be




reduced accordingly.








     The regulation being considered for newly produced airplanes




of older design (NPRM 72-19) would require that these aircraft meet




the noise criteria of FAR 36.  Such a regulation would require the




use of available technology to ensure that all new production air-




craft either by design, retrofit, or both can comply.









Retrofit and Phaseout of Existing Aircraft








     There are two retrofit options that can reduce the noise of
                              -37-

-------
the existing turbofan aircraft to levels equal to or below those




specified in FAR 36.   These retrofit options can be accomplished




at less cost and elapsed time than is predicted for fleet replace-




ment (phaseout) (1, 3, 7).








(1)  Application of sound absorption material (SAM) in the engine




     nacelle and bypass duct.  This concept has been in develop-




     ment since the early 1960s under the sponsorship of FAA and




     NASA.  The results of the NASA program established concep-




     tual validity for JT3D engines by a series of successful




     flight demonstrations of 707 and DC-8 aircraft with exper-




     imental ("boiler plate") hardware.   Subsequently, the results




     of the FAA program established conceptual and feasible validity




     for JT3D and JT8D engines by a series of successful flight




     demonstrations of 707 and 727 aircraft with practical (flight




     weight, flightworthy, and capable of being certified) hardware.








          Boeing is currently in production on SAM-treated 727




     and 737 aircraft which have been certified in conformance




     with the requirements of FAR 36, Appendix C (3).  McDonnell-




     Douglas has contracted to sell SAM-configured DC-9 aircraft




     as well.  The aircraft industry has demonstrated that these




     retrofit options are technologically feasible.  A program to




     retrofit the existing fleet of JT3D and JT8D engine powered




     aircraft can be  initiated immediately.









          In discussions with the Agency during the course of this
                               -38-

-------
     study,  some members of the aviation community asserted  that




     the application of SAM treatment will not  produce any dis-




     cernible relief, in terms of public awareness.  However,  the




     EPA Studies indicate that for the 707 and  DC-8 aircraft powered




     by the JT3D engine, (currently the worst noise offender),




     the reductions would be significant, both  for the takeoff and




     approach modes (3).  For the JT8D powered  aircraft (727, DO9




     and 737) , the assertion is correct for those airports that




     are takeoff-sensitive.  At approach-sensitive airports, however,




     the SAM treatment for the JT8D would result in significant




     reductions in community noise impact (3).








(2)   Modification of the existing JT3D and JT8D engines (Refan).




     By replacing the present low-bypass ratio  fan with a slightly




     higher bypass, larger diameter fan, in conjunction with some




     degree of SAM treatment, noise reductions  in excess of  those




     achievable with only SAM treatment are predicted (3).  The




     fan modifications and change in engine airflow bypass ratio




     are the primary design parameters that influence the source




     noise characteristics.  However, other components of the




     engine (e.g., turbine, fan duct, and nacelle) and possibly




     the airframe (e.g., pylon and landing gear) also require




     modifications.  The refan program is considered to be




     technologically practicable.  However, the modified engine




     designs for the JT3D and JT8D engines have yet to be ground




     and flight tested  to confirm  their predicted noise and




     aerodynamic performance  characteristics.
                               -39-

-------
          Source noise control for the smaller business jet air-




     craft fleet presents a somewhat different problem.  Eighty




     percent (80%) of the aircraft in this fleet are powered by




     turbojet or very low bypass turbofan engines (with noise




     characteristics similar to that of the turbojet) (7) .  The




     noise problem is primarily associated with the jet exhaust




     characteristics.  The options available to reduce this noise




     are installation of exhaust suppressor kits with weight




     increase and some performance loss, or by re-engining the




     aircraft with moderate bypass ratio turbofan engines which




     may improve performance.








          Both of these options are being tested and evaluated by




     the business jet aircraft manufactures at this time with




     substantial indication that satisfactory noise reduction




     programs are technologically feasible for this category of




     aircraft (3).








     Two of  the previously identified proposed regulations have essen-




 tially  the same objective, that is, retrofit of the currently type-




 certificated subsonic low bypass ratio turbofan powered aircraft.




 The earlier  "straight retrofit" notice (ANPRM 70-44) merely discusses




 the need for noise reduction and emphasizes that current technology




 is available for a feasible retrofit program.  The later notice




 (ANPBM  73-3) on fleet noise level (FNL) was published after consider-




 ation of comments received in response to the first notice and




presents a detailed methodology and implementation procedure that
                               -40-

-------
permits and encourages other alternatives as well as retrofit.




The FNL proposal is well developed and could be  converted to a




regulation in a short time, while the straight retrofit proposal




might require considerable additional development before it could




be structured as a regulation.








     The concept and structure  of the FNL proposal  is  adequate to




effectively exploit the current technology  (nacelle retrofit), to




encourage,  uhe use of near future technology (refan  retrofit) as it




becomes operable, to provide incentives  for the  phaseout of aircraft




not amenable to retrofit by the introduction of  new quieter wide-




body aircraft, and to require full implementation of future technology




as it becomes feasible  (12).  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 effective-




ness and should be removed, and there are several that would add




strength if included.   They are:








     o  Omit exemption  for airplanes engaged in  foreign air




        commerce.



     o  Omit exemption  for airplanes engaged in  overseas air




        commerce.



     o  Omit expiration date of 1 July  1978 and  continue the FNL




        concept indefinitely to permit  the  implementation of




        technological advancements  (e.g., refan) as they become




        available.






                                -41-




  99-738 0-73-4

-------
     o  Include airplanes engaged In intrastate air commerce.



     o  Include FNL requirements for sideline noise as well as




        takeoff and approach.








     The FNL proposal (ANPPM 73-3) with the above exceptions could




be prescribed as a regulation that would be an effective retrofit



rule for the immediate noise problem and also be an effective rule



for insuring that future technology is adequately exploited.  A



fleet noise level rule would be superior to and obviate the need



foir a straight retrofit rule such as considered in ANPRM 70-44.








     Differences in opinion exist on most of the above subjects,



as reflected in the EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study master file



documents and task group reports.








     A primary question, not addressed by the Agency in any of its



Task Group's studies because of its policy rather than technical



fiature, is that of the degree of implementation of the Administrator':



responsibilities for coordination of aviation noise research under



the responsibilities and authorities established for the Adminis-



trator in Section 4(c) of the Act.  Following the recommendations



of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) "Jet Aircraft Noise



Panel" discussed in the Introduction of this present report, an



"Inter-Agency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program" has been conducted




under the combined overview and coordination within the Executive




Branch of the Office of Science and Technology, the Office of




Management and Budget, and the National Aeronautics and Space
                               -42-

-------
Council.  This latter entity has perhaps had the most direct in-




fluence in the coordination of R&D efforts of NASA and of the Depart-




ment of Transportation and FAA.  It also has undertaken in its




latter existence, recommendations relating to the application of




military technology to civilian aviation use.









     The Administrator recognizes that with the abolition of the




Office of Science and Technology, and the National Aeronautics and




Space Counril, his coordinating role established in the Noise




Control Act will have vastly important implications regarding major




decisions yet to be made as to the degree and allocation of in-




vestments of Federal funds in apparently competing, but in fact




perhaps compatible (if dealt with in a comprehensive time sequence),




programs for retrofit and development of new and quieter air trans-




port systems.  Because of the magnitude of the questions involved,




and the evolving situation with regard to the assumption by the




National Science Foundation of some of the advisory functions




formerly conducted by OST, additional time is needed by the Agency




to develop a complete protocol as to how these important respon-




sibilities will be undertaken.  In the interim, communications




have been established among the responsible level officials of




DOT, FAA, NASA and EPA, to provide for continuing neeessary ex-




changes of information and, as appropriate, action by EPA.  These




informal arrangements will be translated into an effective formal-




ized procedure before the end of FY 1974.  They will be reported




to the Congress in a periodic report on Federal activities as




called for by Section 4(c)(3) of the Act.
                               -43-

-------
References
 1.  Aviation Advisory Commission Report, Advance Copy, January
     1973.

 2.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study; Task Group 2 Report, "Operations
     Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety and Costs."
     July 1973.  Section 2, Flight and Operational Noise Controls.
     (NTID 73.3).

 3.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise Source
     Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retrofitting"
     July 1973.  Section 2, Current Technology Options. (NTID 73.5).

 4.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retro-
     fitting" July 1973.  Section 3, Future Technology Options and
     Restraints. (NTID 73.5).

 5.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retro-
     fitting" July 1973.  Section 6, Research and Development
     Recommendations. (NTID 73.5).

 6.  Noise Standards:  Aircraft Type Certification - Federal
     Aviation Regulation Part 36.

 7.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
     Retrofitting" July 1973.  Section 1, Aircraft Fleet Size
     Forecasts.  (NTID 73.5).

 8.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retro-
     fitting" July 1973.  Section 1, Technology Evolution and
     Development. (NTID 73.5).

 9.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 5 Report, "Review
     and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
     Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport
     Operations."  July 1973.  Section 3, Review of FAA Regulatory
     Status. (NTID 73.6).

 10.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 5 Report, "Review
     and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
     Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and
     Airport Operations."  July 1973.  Section  1, Legislative
     Evolution and Development. (NTID 73.6).
                               -44-

-------
11.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
     Retrofitting" July 1973.  Section 4, Cost and Economic
     Analysis. (NTID 73.5).

12.  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 5 Report, "Review
     and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
     Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport
     Operations."  July 1973.  Section 6, Recommendations. (NTID
     73.6).
                                -45-

-------
                            SECTION 3




            IMPLICATIONS OF IDENTIFYING AND ACHIEVING




      LEVELS OF CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE AROUND AIRPORTS
Measure of Environmental Noise Exposure








     Section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 directs the



Environmental Protection Agency to study the "—implications of



identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around



 airports."  This  section discussed selection of a method of



 measurement of cumulative noise exposure appropriate to public



 health and welfare  effects, and considers the principal legal



 and  economic  implications resulting from its use.








     These implications are discussed in terms of the day-night



average sound level adopted for this report as the measure of



cumulative noise exposure.   However, the implications are in-



sensitive to minor variations in the definition of the measure



selected, and would be essentially unchanged if discussed in terms



of other possible measures of cumulative noise exposure.








Measure of Cumulative Noise Exposure








     A physical measure of cumulative noise exposure applicable



to evaluation of  airport noise should be based on consideration



of the following  requirements:
                              -46-

-------
          1.  The measure should correlate with the human responses

              regarding hearing loss, speech interference, and

              annoyance due to noise exposure.

          2.  The measure should be capable of assessing the accumu-

              lated effect of all noises over a specified time

              period.

          3.  The measure should be simple enough that it can be

              obtained by direct measurement without extensive

              instrumentation or elaborate analysis equipment.

          4.  The required measurement equipment, with standard-

              ized characteristics, should be commercially available.

          5.  The measure for airport noise should be closely re-

              lated to measures currently used for noise from other

              sources.

          6.  The single measure of noise at a given location should

              be predictable, within an acceptable tolerance, from

              knowledge of the physical events producing the noise.



     Every scientific investigation of airport/community noise, re-

gardless of the country of origin, shows that the impact of aircraft/

airport noise is a function not only of the noise intensity of a

single event (i.e., each takeoff or landing), but also a function of

its duration and the number of events occurring throughout the

day and night* (1).  This fact is recognized in the documents of the
*    Other factors have been considered in some studies to be relevant
to particular effects, for example:  attitude and prior experience
with the intruding noise, residual or background noise, season (windows
open or closed).
                              -47-

-------
International Standards Organization, the International Civil

Aviation Organization, and the Organization for Economic Coopera-

tion and Development relating aircraft noise to community response

(2, 3, 4).



     A number of methodologies for combining the noise from individual

events into measures of cumulative noise exposure have been developed

in this country and in other developed nations, e.g., Noise Exposure

Forecast, Composite Noise Rating, Community Noise Equivalent Level,

Noise and Number Index, Noise Pollution Level.  These methodologies,

while differing in technical detail (primarily in the unit of measure

for individual noise events), are conceptually very similar and are

highly correlated with each other.  Further, using any one of these

methodologies, the relationships between cumulative noise and

community annoyance (5, 6) are also highly correlated.



     The day-night average sound level (Lj) adopted for use in the

present EPA studies is consistent with existing methodologies and

meets the previously stated requirements for a measure of cumulative

noise exposure.  It has been defined for this study as the

average A weighted* sound level during a 24-hour time period with

a  lOdB penalty applied to nighttime (2200-0700 hours) sound levels.



     The day-night average sound level especially excels, as a
*    The use of an A weighted sound level precludes the assessment
of penalties for the existence of tones in the noise in the interest
of simplifying the measure procedure.  When appropriate, penalties
for tones and other subjective attributes should be made in source
regulations such as in FAR 36.


                              -48-

-------
measure of cumulative noise among the several available measures,

in that it can be easily measured with simple, relatively inexpen-

sive equipment, and because it is appropriate to the wide variety of

sources which create community noise environments.  As has been

shown in Reference 1, it can be used for interpreting cumulative

noise exposure in terms of  known  health and welfare effects.




Health and Welfare Effects  of Cumulative Noise Exposure


     The currently established specific effects of noise on the

health and environmental welfare  of humans were considered for the

purposes of  this report* to provide the best ways of identifying

and evaluating  the impact of noise around airports.  The primary

effects of noise, identified at this time, on public health and

welfare are  the potential for producing a permanent loss of hearing,

interference with speech and the  generation of annoyance.  Although

the possibility of indirect effects of noise on health and well-being

exists, there is insufficient evidence at this time to include any

such indirect effects  in noise impact analyses.


     The documented  scientific data available** were  considered
 *    The analyses on the effects of noise performed were  in  direct
 response to the requirements of the aircraft/airport noise study.
 Concurrent with this analysis, the Environmental Protection  Agency
 is preparing a genal document of criteria for the effects of noise
 on people, as required by Section 5(1)(1) of the Noise Control
 Act.   While it is believed that the conclusions on the effect
 of noise reached in this study will be consistent with the criteria
 report,  the position of the Environmental Protection Agency  on
 noise criteria, and any regulatory action proposed for noise, will
 be based on the criteria report and not on the Task Group report
 generated in this study.

 **   Citations for the scientific data utilized in the Task
 Group analyses are contained in Reference 1.

                                 -49-

-------
sufficient to establish the potential for hearing damage in various



proportions of the population exposed to different values of the



day-night average sound level.  The hearing threshold for an



individual at a specific frequency is determined by measuring the



level of the quietest sound that can be heard by the individual.



The amount of hearing loss at any frequency is measured by the



amount by which the hearing threshold has shifted upward from a



previous value, or from the population norm.








     Noise can interfere with one of the chief distinctions of



the human species—speech communication--thereby disturbing normal



domestic activities, creating a less desirable living environment,



and therefore acting as a source of extreme annoyance.  Of chief



concern in this study is the effect of noise on speech communication



in the home, for face-to-face conversation indoors or outdoors,



telephone use, and radio or television enjoyment.  Research over




a number of years since the late 1920's has made great progress



in quantifying the effects of noise on speech communication, data



from which has been used in this study to relate the quality of



listening conditions for speech in the presence of noise to



various values of the day-night average sound level.  Finally, the



proportion of a population expected to be highly annoyed when exposed



to various noise environments was related to the day-night average




sound level.  The word annoyance is used in this report as a general




term for reported adverse responses of people to environmental




noise.  Studies of annoyance are largely based on the results of




sociological surveys.  Such surveys have been conducted among



residents in the vicinity of airports of a number of countries




including the United States (7, 8, 9, 10).

-------
     The results of these surveys are generally related to the

percentage of respondents expressing differing degress of distur-


bance or dissatisfaction due to the noisiness of their environments.

Some of the surveys involve a complex procedure to construct a


scale of annoyance, some report responses to the direct question


of "how annoying is the noise." Each social survey is related to

some kind of measurement of the noise levels (mostly from aircraft


operations) to which the survey respondents are exposed. Correlation

between annoyance and noise level can then be obtained.




     The results of the social surveys show that individual responses

vary widely for the same noise level. Borsky (11) has shown that these


variances are reduced substantially when groups of individuals having
                              *
similar attitudes about "fear" of aircraft crashes and "misfeasance"

of authorities are considered. Moreover, by averaging responses over


entire surveys, almost identical functional relationships between

human response and noise levels are obtained for the entire surveyed


population as for the groups of individuals having neutral attitudinal


responses. In deriving a generalized relationship between reported


annoyance and day-night average sound level, the average overall


group responses were used, recognizing that individuals may vary


considerably, both positively and negatively compared to the


average depending upon their particular attitudinal biases. The


table on the following page summarizes the effects expected for


different noise environments.
                                 -51-

-------
                                                          EFFECTS OF NOISE FOR DIFFERENT VALUES
                                             OF OUTDOOR DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL, L  > IN DECIBELS
                                                                                                 dn
                                   HEARING
  Outdoor Day-Night      Hearing Risk
  Average Sound Level    for Speech
  in Decibels             in % of
  re-20 micronewtons     Exposed People
  per square  meter
50
60
70
80
90
0
0
0
0
8
Percent of Exposed People With
Permanent Threshold Shift
(S Decibels at 4000 Hertz)
                                                       0

                                                       0

                                                       0

                                                       4

                                                       66
        SPEECH

     Maximum Speech
     Interference*
     in Percent
OU TDOORS **I NDOORS ***
                                                                                                                          ANNOYANCE
                                      0.8

                                      2.5

                                      53

                                      100

                                      100
                0. 1

                0. 1

                0. 1

                1.5

                3.2
Highly Annoyed
in % of Exposed
People
13
23
44
62
Complainants
in % of
Exposed People
1
2
10
20
                                                                                                                          UNKNOWN
  *Percentage of key words misunderstood in spoken sentences.
 **Normal voice effort and 2 meter separation between talker and listener.  When speech interference il excessive the average communication can be improved by
   reducing separation distance and/or raising voice level.
+**15 decibels noise reduction through partially opened windows, and relaxed conversational effort.

  Example:  When the day-night average sound level is 90 decibels outdoors:

            HEARING RISK:
            The percentage of people suffering a hearing handicap in a group exposed to this level of noise is expected to be 8 percentage points higher than the
            percentage of people with hearing handicaps, in a group, otherwise similar, who are not exposed to noise levels of this magnitude.  (This column refers
            only to hearing impairment in the frequency range  most important to understanding speech  frequencies of the  500, 1000 and 2000 Hertz (cycles per second) bands. )

            66K of the entire population is expected to have  a noise  induced permanent threshold  shift greater than 5 decibels at a frequency of 4000 Hertz
            (cycles per second).  The average human «ar is most sensitive at this frequency and hence more easily damaged.

            SPEECH INTERFERENCE:
            For conversation outdoors, the percentage of key words misunderstood in spoken sentences will be 100%, and for conversation indoors,  3. 2%.

            ANNOYANCE;

            The number of noise exposed  people who are highly annoyed and the number who are expected to complain about the noise are unknown for this level
            of exposure, but they are greater than 6296 and 20%, respectively, which are the values appropriate to an outdoor L   of 80 decibels.
                                                                                                                      dn

-------
     An important consideration in assessing the relative impact

of airport noise is its contribution to the national noise environ-

ment, considering the contributions of other sources of noise. The

following Table, developed in Reference 1, provides an estimate of

the population presently exposed to different levels of cumulative

exposure from different major sources of urban noise:
             Number of People  (In Millions) Exposed to
      Day-Night Average Sound  Levels Above the Stated Value
Day-Night Average
Sound Level
Decibels
60 dB and above
65 dB and above
70 dB and above
75 dB and above
80 dB and above

Freeway
Traffic
3.1
2.5
1.9
0.9
0.3

Aircraft
Operations
16.0
7.5
3.4
1.5
0.2

Urban*
Traffic
18.0
7.5
3.2
0.6
0.1


Total**
37.1
17.5
8.5
3.0
0.6
     These estimates  indicate  that,  of  those 92 million people

 included in  this  calculation living  within moderate  to high levels of

 environmental noise,  aircraft  are a  major  cause of the noise ex-

 posure received by  approximately 30  to  40  percent of these people.

 The estimates further indicate, however, that  complete elimination

 of aircraft  noise in  the urban community will  still  leave a large

 proportion of the population exposed to high levels  of environ-

 mental noise unless control of these non-aircraft noise sources is

 also obtained.
 *    Cities with  population in excess  of  25,000  used  in  this estimate
 total population  at  92  million.

 **   Some  duplication may  exist in this total.
                                -53-

-------
Public Health and Welfare



     Cumulative noise exposure levels as defined by such methodo-

logies as day-night average sound level, NEF etc. are believed to

be the best available means of identifying and evaluating the

impact of noise around airports. Cumulative noise exposure levels

can also serve as the basis for generally applicable environ-

mental 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 wel-

fare with an adequate margin of safety.*



     Finally, establishing values for cumulative noise exposure

must be contingent on an appropriate balance between desirable noise

levels and varying economic capability,  and sociological effects among

communities.  The study reported in a following subsection (economic

implications) estimated the approximate economic costs to achieve various

values of the day-night average sound, and considered aircraft activity

as the only source of noise. However, as inferred from the preceding

table this may not be the case for selected levels at specific air-

ports. Identifying the broader sociological implications of achieving,

various levels of cumulative noise exposure was not possible during

the time period available for this study. These implications in-

clude such questions as:
*    With regard to "welfare" effects, 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.
                                -54-

-------
          What is the effect of possible residential re-

     location to achieve compatible land use on neighbor-

     hood social structures?



          What are the contributions of the other potential

     noise sources in the community?



          What, if any, are the long-term effects on the

     social structure of residential neighborhoods if they

     remain in a high noise environment?



          Can conversion of noise impacted, lower density

     residential housing into renewal, high density resi-

     dential areas be acceptable if adequate noise control

     is incorporated in the new structures, as contrasted with

     conversion to possibly higher value commercial and

     residential uses?



     Consideration cf these and other social costs and benefits

will be made by the EPA in its preparation of proposed regulations

for airport noise.



     There are several main "implications"* of adopting mechanisms

for identifying and then achieving cumulative noise measures as a

means of controlling aircraft noise. The most important, beyond
*    As used here, "implications" applies to the relationship of
the proposal to possible consequence of its adoption.
                                -55-

-------
those of public health and welfare, are discussed in the following




subsections, and include those relating to legal, economic and




fundamental policy considerations. In examining these, others




have been noted which require further study and which will be




addressed by the agency in greater depth in developing details




of proposals on this measure.








Legal Implications








     This discussion deals with the legal implications of identifying




and achieving levels of cumulative noise around airports adequate




to protect the public health and welfare. Although the nuances




of the governing case law are extremely complex, the following




legal implications must be kept in mind:








     o  Identification of cumulative noise levels  at  airports




        to protect public health and welfare could be used to




        support additional liability against airport owners.




        This could follow from the mere act of "identification."




     o  Under the Burbank decision,  achievement  can be  accomplished




        to great extent only by overall  Federal  regulation.




     o  Identification of Federal  regulations  and  establishment  of




        cumulative noise levels may shift liability  from airport owners




        to the Federal Government; but  achievement should reduce airport




        noise liability.




     o  Any shift in liability to  the Federal  Government will  create




        a problem during the period between Federal  identification




        and the achievement of noise levels requisite to protect the




        public health and welfare.

-------
     o  If the Court were to hold that liability had shifted by
        reason of preemption, a legislative solution for the
        interim period is unlikely, because liability is .largely
        based on the constitutional requirement that just com-
        pensation must be paid for the taking of property.


     Three decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are
in point. These cases are: United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256
(1946); Griggs v. Allegheny County. 369 U.S. 84, (1962); and
City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. 	
U.S. 	(1973). The rule in the Causby case was that
the Federal Government (either as the partial lessor of the Winston
Salem, North Carolina, Airport or as the operator of the military
aircraft in question) had "taken" in the constitutional sense of
the Fifth Amendment, a property interest or "aviation easement" in
the land the military aircraft overflew. The United States was
required to pay just compensation for the diminution of the value
of the overflown property. In practical effect the result was that
compensation was paid for the right to continue the damaging noise.


     In the Griggs case the Supreme Court had before it another
overflight damage/taking case. The airport was owned by a political
subdivision of Pennsylvania. The aircraft generating the over-
flight noise were those of commercial scheduled air carriers, the
flight patterns and paths of which were regulated by the FAA.
It was clear that there could be no Fourteenth Amendment taking by
the commercial carriers (analogous to the Fifth Amendment taking of

                                -57-
  99-738 0-73-5

-------
Causby) since the carriers who used the airport and generated the

noise were not state bodies. The majority of the Court, per Mr.

Justice Douglas, held that the local government, as owner of the

airport, has responsibility and authority to acquire adequate approach

land to the airport (using the analogy of a governmental bridge

builder who must acquire by condemnation sufficient land to build

approaches to the bridge) and was therefore in the position of

having taken property consisting of an aviation easement from Mr.

Griggs whose property had been directly overflown by the air carriers'
aircraft.  The Court thus held that the local governmental owner of the

airport must compensate the property owner for the taking.  In the dissent,

Mr. Justice Black noted that the airport construction including landing

layouts and approach ways had been supervised and approved and in large
part paid for by the FAA under its Federal Aid to Airports Program; and

that since the airport approaches were both placed and limited by the

Federal Government rather than the airport owner, the former should be

liable for the resulting just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

     In Burbank, the Court had before it a municipal ordinance

that made it unlawful for a privately owned airport located within

the jurisdiction of the municipality to permit the operation of
jet aircraft between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Court held that curfew

was an unconstitutional exercise of the municipalities' police power

because the "pervasive nature of the scheme of Federal regulation of

aircraft noise. . . leads us to conclude there is Federal pre-

emption." This was based on the Court's analysis of the Noise

Control Act of 1972 which determined "that FAA, now in conjunction

with EPA,  has full control over aircraft noise, preempting

state and local control."
                               -58-

-------
     The holding in Burbank means that a state, or any political



subdivision thereof, cannot use it police power to protect its



citizens from aircraft noise because the Federal government has



preempted the power to do so. However, more than 99% of the noise



impacted airports used by scheduled air carrier aircraft are in




fact owned by the states, or political subdivisions thereof. Can



these governmental owners exercise their own property rights to



achieve noise abatement? This questions is a very real one. Would,



or could, the FAA permit one of the large international or hub




airports to curfew operations at night as a matter of proprietary



right? The Court in Burbank cited action by the FAA in 1960 which



"rejected a proposed restriction on jet operations at the Los



Angeles airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. because such restrict-



ions could create critically serious problems to all air transporta-



tion." However, in a footnote, the Burbank opinion declines to



determine whether "proprietary" rights such as curfews and non-




discriminatory quotas would either stand or fall under the pre-




emption doctrine.








     The footnote in question deals with the legislative history of



the 1968 Act (PL 90-411). The text of the footnote is as follows:








          "The letter from the Secretary of Transportation. . .



          expressed the view that 'the proposed legislation will




          not affect the rights of a State or local public agency,




          as the proprietor of an airport, from issuing regula-



          tions or establishing requirements as to the permissable




          level of noise which can be created by aircraft using



                                -59-

-------
the airport. Airport owners acting as proprietors can




presently deny the use of their airports on the basis of




noise considerations so long as such exclusion is non-




discriminatory. "' (Emphasis in opinion.) "Appellants and




The Solicitor General submit that this indicates that a




municipality with jurisdiction over an airport has the




power to impose a curfew on the aiport, notwithstanding




Federal responsibility in the area. But, we are concerned




here not with an ordinance imposed by the City of Burbank




as  'proprietor' of the airport, but with the exercise of




police power. While the Hollywood-Burbank Airport may




be  the only major airport which is privately owned,




many airports are owned by one municipality yet




physically located in another. For example, the




principal airport serving Cincinnati is located in




Kentucky. Thus, authority that a municipality may have




as  a landlord is not necessarily congruent with its




police power. We do not considere here what limits




if  any apply to a municipality as a proprietor."
                         -60-

-------
     As discussed earlier, the "identification" of a noise level




standard requisite to protect the public health and welfare may




generate Griggs type litigation against airports. For example,




assume EPA were to identify "X units" of some cumulative measure




of noise as completely unacceptable to public health and welfare.




Without further Federal action, such identification could be used




by lawyers to attempt to define a cause of action based on the health




damage to their clients which would, of course, then be subject to




proof on an individual basis. Without more,  the sole act of




identifying a Federal noise level would not  necessarily shift




Griggs type liability to the Federal government. However, if in




addition to identification, the airport owner is denied the right




unilaterally to limit the  use of its airport to defend itself from




litigation based  on  the Federally identified noise level, the




possibly of a shift  in liability cannot be ruled out.
                                    -61-

-------
       In short, achievement would appear to EPA to be most feasible




  through noise certification of airports which would enable the FAA to




  work out a national system of noise abatement options for each




  airport to achieve the identified levels locally and prevent local




  action inconsistent with the national air transportation system.  To




  the extent the airport owner would be required to, and did, comply




  with the Federal noise certification system, the owner might be




  immune from noise nuisance litigation because of the defense of




  legalized nuisance.  It will also mean that in taking litigation, the




  defendant might be the Federal Government, since the airport operator




  would be acting in compliance with and under the mandate of a Federal




  regulation.
     The above legal implications have been summarized and then




discussed in the context of the governing case law.  The acts of




identification,  airport certification for noise,  and the statutory




goal of achievement are all presently mandated by  Congress (12).




Thus, Section 5 of the Noise Control Action of 1972  directed EPA




to (1) develop and publish by July 27, 1973, "criteria with respect




                               -62-

-------
to noise,   such  criteria shall reflect  the scientific  knowledge



most useful in indicating the kind and  extent  of  all identifiable



effects on  the public health or welfare which  may be expected from



differing quantities and qualities of noise;"  and (2)  by October



27, 1973, to "publish information on the  levels of  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."








     Next,  EPA was directed  by Section  7  of the Noise  Control Act




of 1972 to  "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."








     In summary, the EPA has the  duties to define noise criteria,



to publish  and thus identify levels  of  environmental noise requisite



to protect  the public health and  welfare  with  an  adequate margin



of safety,  and,  after reporting to Congress, to propse regulations



to the FAA  for the abatement and  control  of aircraft noise as EPA



deems necessary  to protect the public health and  welfare.








     With respect to the  authority to achieve  FAA's explicit




regulatory  authority over airport  operations,  Section  611 added



noise to the criteria that must be taken  into  account  in issuing




any certificate under Title  VI. More specifically,  the new




                                -63-

-------
Section 611 directed the FAA, after consultation with DOT, to




prescribe:








          "Standards for the measurement of aircraft noise.  .  .




          and prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as




          the FAA. may find necessary to provide for the control




          and abatement of aircraft noise. . .including the




          application of such standards, rules and regulations in




          the issuance of any certificate authorized by ...(Title




          VI)."








      In  1970, the Airport and Airway Development Act (AADA) , also




by way of amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, required that every




airport  serving civil air carriers operating under a CAB certificate




of public convenice and necessity must obtain an airport operating




certificate under Section 612. Then, as noted earlier in this




report,  the Noise Control Act of 1972, amended Section 611  to




require  the FAA after consulation with DOT and EPA, "in order




to afford present and future relief and protection to the public




health and welfare from aircraft noise. .  .(to) prescribe and  amend




standards  for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom and




shall prescribe and amend such regulations as the FAA may find




necessary  to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft




noise. .  .including the application of such standards and regulations




in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation




of any certificate authorized by this title."
                                -64-

-------
     The Agency has  concluded  that  the  timely  adoption  and  implementa-



tion of an airport noise  certification  regulation  is  the keystone of




a comprehensive program to dimish aircraft  noise in communities  to




level adequate to protect public health and welfare.




      The FAA's airport certification process  appears to EPA to be




 the proper mechanism for administering the airport noise regulation,




 and no new legislation is needed.  The process envisioned  is as




 follows:








     After the promulgation of  the  Federal  airport noise regulation,




the existing airports with jet  aircraft operations would be reviewed,




and those not in compliance with the regulation identified. A number




of large air carrier airports could be  so identified immediately after




promulgation of the  regulation. Proprietors of identified airports would




be given a specified amount of  time to  develop, and submit  to the




FAA, their implementation plans. Development of implementation plans




for each airport should be done by  a consultive local process,




involving governments and concerned persons in the airport vicinity.




Testing the effectiveness of various alternative operational




modes for the airport should be carried out as part of  the  local




development of the implementation plan.








     The agreed-upon implementation plan for the airport would then




be submitted to the  FAA for approval. Any final adjustments of the




plan required during the approval process would be incorporated,




and the implementation plan adopted as  a Federal regulation for




the airport.  Elements of the plan  dealing  with aircraft opera-




tions would be promulgated as FAA regulations  and thus become





                              -65-

-------
subject to FAA enforcement. Airport proprietors that fail to pro-



pose an implementation plan by the specified deadline would have



implementation plans imposed upon them at the Federal level. This



would follow FAA development of a plan, including participation



by all concerned persons. Progress in implementing approved plans




would be reviewed on a periodic basis.








     Two additional legal implications deserve comment. They arise



under different authority and therefore are discussed separately. The



first concerns the application to airport and airline employees



(as well as other employed persons whose work place noise environment



may be dominated by aircraft noise) of the occupational noise exposure



standards as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the



Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 CFR Section 1910.95).



The OSHA occupational noise exposure standards require protection



against the effects of noise when sound levels exceed a limit value,



e.g. 90 dBA for an 8 hour work day. This is a hearing impairment



standard not geared to "public health and welfare." Rather, the OSHA



standard is derived from the replacement of the old common law



concepts of master-servant and assumption of risk, which denied all



work-incurred liability with the concept of workman's compensation,



which while limiting recovery, made  recovery easy.








     The only area of conflict that could arise would be where the




airport employee, for example, were to work at the maximum OSHA




standard for an 8 hour day and reside in a maximum noise impacted



area under  an  EPA identified level. It is possible that this could




lead to additional liability, particularly if hearing impairment were




                               -66-

-------
proven.
     The second implication concerns the identification by EPA of levels



of noise requisite to protect the public health  and welfare and the



application of such levels to noise impacted areas adjacent to military



airports. As noted earlier in discussion of the  Causby case, the




Federal government is liable under the Fifth Amendment for takings of




property by military aircraft overflight noise.  Such liability might



be extended by identification of a public health and welfare level  in a  particular



 case since it could be used to assert that the overflown property was




damaged to the extent it could not be safely used as a residence.



However, the cause of action would have to remain one for a constitu-



tional taking, because  the Federal government  is subject to suit



in tort only by reason  of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The act bars



suits arising out of actions taken under the "discretionary function"



of the Federal government. Thus a litigant would have to prove that



the flights of the military aircraft were pursuant to a negligent



decision of the Federal government and not pursuant to a responsible



decision. Such proof would be difficult, it not  impossible, under




the prevailing case law.








     The extension of Federal noise liability  at military airports




is also countered by the present DOD compatible  use programs,



"Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). AICUZ seeks to




assure that the use of  privately owned real property near




military airports is used in a manner compatible with both mission




accomplishment and protection of the public. As  is set forth in



Reference 13, AICUZ uses a cumulative noise criterion to determine





                               -67-

-------
noise impacted property, and if local zoning or other desired action




is not forthcoming appropriate Federal action would be required.









Economic Implications








     The objective of this discussion is to delineate the economic




costs and problems of identifying and achieving several specified




levels of cumulative noise exposure, by various methods of noise control




and abatement. In analyzing the implications of identifying and




achieving such levels of noise exposure, the following issues are




examined:








     o  economic implications of identifying cumulative average




        day-night noise exposure levels I L,    used in this  study),




     o  the costs of achieving such levels for each of the entities




        contributing to the airport environmental noise problem,




     o  cost  allocation and financing options.






      (a)  Economic Implications of Identifying Cumulative Noise




          Exposure Levels






     Identification of cumulative noise exposure levels embodies




several implications with the potential for economic  costs apart




from the costs required to achieve such levels through noise abate-




ment and control strategies.  The implications arise  in two areas




of interest:  (1) the cost of monitoring airport noise and measur-




ing noise exposure levels around airports and  (2)  the cost or




liability which might be incurred by responsible institutions if
                               -68-

-------
 cumulative noise exposure levels are used to define causes  of

 action for personal or property damages resulting from aircraft/

 airport noise.



                       Costs  of Monitoring



     With  the identification of cumulative noise levels and their

 statistically expected population effects, responsible local

 government  organizations  can be expected to attempt to determine

 the extent  of their respective airport  noise environment problems.

 Necessarily, such actions will require  resources.   Based on

 current  information (15), the cost of establishing and maintaining

 a monitoring program for  approximately  500 commercial  airports,

 representing 99  percent of all commercial aviation operations, are

 estimated   at 5  million dollars per year*.   This  estimate does

 not cover  the cost of monitoring,  if desired,  at  smaller general

 aviation airports which do not serve commercial  carriers.



                  Possible Compensation  Liability



     As  indicated in the  discussion of  legal implications of

 identifying airport noise exposure levels,  it  is possible that

 any cumulative noise exposure measure,  and the statistically

 expected population health and welfare  effects identified by
*    This figure  (in 1973 dollars) includes the cost of purchase
or lease of monitoring equipment and labor, calculated on the
basis of four man days and one 24-hour monitoring period per
1000 annual operations.
                                -69-

-------
the Federal Government, will be used by private litigants to




define causes of action for the recovery of personal or property




damages resulting from aircraft noise.








     Any discussion of potential liability or litigation recovery




resulting from identification of noise exposure levels is highly




speculative.  Past experience regarding compensation suits against




airports indicates that the threat of litigation is much greater




than the actual judgments resulting therefrom.  To date, several




billion dollars of airport litigation has been filed against




just one air terminal  (LAX).  Recoveries, nationally,




for noise related damages have amounted to approximately one




tenth of one percent of the claims.








     Identification of cumulative noise exposure levels is not a




new concept.  The Noise Exposure Forecast methodology, developed




by the FAA, was introduced in the late 1960's, and although




later withdrawn by FAA, has continued to be used by HUD and other




state and federal agencies.  Only in one state, California, were




such NEF forecasts used as evidence of the extent of airport




noise impact.  Thus, it is uncertain, at best, whether mere




identification of cumulative noise exposure levels will in




fact result in substantial airport noise compensation recoveries



(12).









     Assuming, however, that such noise exposure levels were




adopted by the Courts as means for defining a cause of action for




noise related damages, the most likely use would come in personal





                                -70-

-------
damage suits.  If It were determined that a given level of



cumulative noise exposure resulted in a potential risk of hearing



loss to those exposed for long durations to such levels, a new



type of airport litigation might evolve.  Such suits would



be brought by airport neighbors asserting damages resulting from



anticipated impaired hearing and/or substantial diminution of




property value in areas made "unhealthy" by aircraft noise.








      Approximately four percent of the persons living for  long periods  in areas




 subject to cumulative noise levels equivalent to the L
-------
sensitive land uses subject to the L^n levels used as examples in this study.

Table I below sets forth such estimates, indicating that, for example, if 60 L,

were held to define a right to compensation for property value

diminution, recoveries might total as much as 33 billion dollars.*



                             Table I

        Estimates of the National Extent of the Current
              Airport Environmental Noise Problem
Day-Night Avg.1972 Population Exposed (1)Compatible Land Use
Noise Level       (Millions of people)          Costs  (17)**
 (Ldn)                                          (Billions of  1973 dollars)


Greater Than
    80                      0.2                         2.0

    70                      3.4                        19.0

    60                      16.0                        33.0


     These figures assume  (1) that every court adopts such levels

as  defining proper causes  of action for compensation; (2) that every

person living in  such noise impacted areas sues for damages;  (3)

that every litigant could  show substantial diminution of property

value to the maximum amount—e.g., that their land was not more

valuable for other purposes; and that no obstacles to litigation,

such as statutes  of limitation, exist to bar recovery.
*    It should be noted that with noise conditions such as that
described by the Ldn 6Q value - other sources of noise may be
of equal or more importance.

**   In the re-development of incompatible land uses, public
investment recoveries from high density commercial and industrial
land uses can result in off-setting, if not exceeding, the total
costs of such land use conversion, given the demand for such uses;
but note, the Federal Government has no police power or other
direct authorities in this regard.
                               -72-

-------
     Furthermore, it is rare that compensation litigation is the

first step taken by aggrieved airport neighbors.  Rather, law

suits often appear as a reaction to frustrated efforts to lessen

noise impacts via other methods.  The compensation implications

discussed here therefore should not be expected to be realized

immediately upon identification of cumulative noise exposure levels

requisite to protect public health and welfare.  When identification

of such levels is not followed by a viable program to achieve

necessary ncise control and abatement, however, airport neighbors

and courts may be inclined to take more precipitous action as

discussed herein.  When and if such actions can be taken, local

governments should be expected to try to minimize the extent of

their respective noise environment problems with the methods

available to them.  Among the set available, if they are the

owners of the airport, are curfews on operations and aircraft type

restrictions, which, if instituted, can affect the levels of air

and mail service to a community and increase the cost of operations

to the civil aviation industry.*  Note that such local actions

could severely distort the operations and costs of the national

transportation system.  Thus, if cumulative noise exposure

levels are identified, expeditious development and implementation

of a coordinated program to achieve such levels must be pursued.

Such a program should include a complementary effort relative to

populations adjacent to large military airports.
*    As ±s discussed earlier, there is a question as to whether
such proprietary acts would not adversely affect interstate
air commerce.
                                -73-
  99-739 O -IS - n

-------
     (b)   Costs of Achieving Cumulative Noise Exposure Limits








     The Noise Control Act of 1972 establishes the ultimate goal




of reducing noise exposure—from aircraft as well as other sources—




to levels which adequately protect the public health and welfare.




In terms of aircraft/airport noise, achievement of this goal will




require action to:








          (1)  Reduce source noise impact - through application




               of aircraft and engine noise abatement takeoff and




               approach procedures.  In addition, possible airport




               operational controls may be applied, such as the




               selection of approach and departure routes; realign-




               ment of airport runways; limitation in the use of




               certain aircraft types at some airports; imposition




               of partial or total curfews; restrictions on




               flight frequency, etc., and/or




          (2)  Protect noise-sensitive receivers - through the




               soundproofing of residential and other sensitive




               structures or thruugh the relocation of existing



               incompatible land uses.








     Achievement of a desired cumulative day-night noise exposure




level, for the purposes of this discussion, infers separation of




incompatible, noise-sensitive land uses from specified levels of




noise impact.  This may be done by reducing the noise impact at the




noise-sensitive receiver and/or by insulating or relocating the
                               -74-

-------
 receiver.   Often achievement of a given L,   level will  require  a
                                          an

 combination of these  actions, which will result  in  a  change  in


 the  shape  of,  or diminish,  the area around  an airport which  is


 subject  to the given  cumulative noise exposure.   Similarly,


 modifications  of flight routes around airports may  be used to


 shift noise impact  zones to areas containing fewer  or no  noise-



 sensitive  receivers.  Yet,  actions to reduce sound  levels through


 such aircraft  source  abatement and operational options  may not


 totally  solve  the problem at a given  L,  level.   These  options



 alone may  not  be capable of separating all  noise sensitive land


 uses from  incompatible  noise impacts  as defined  by  the  given


 cumulative noise exposure level.   In  such cases,  additional


 actions  must be  taken to soundproof the structures  in the noise-



 sensitive  areas, or relocate incompatible land uses which remain,


 after other options have been implemented.






     However,  there is  a limit to the effectiveness of  structural


 treatment  or (soundproofing)  technology.  For those noise-sensitive


 receivers  exposed to  noise  which  cannot be  effectively  reduced  to



 compatible levels by  soundproofing the only remaining alternative



 is relocation  (17).   Furthermore,  the application of  soundproofing



 does not address the  problem of outdoor noise levels.   For pur-



 poses of this  discussion, it  has  been assumed that all  noise-



 sensitive  receivers which involve  outdoor as  well as  indoor



 activities,  e.g., all residential  uses,  must  be relocated from


the area subject  to cumulative noise  levels which would result in



eventual hearing loss.   The cost  of achieving any given Ldn  level,
                                -75-

-------
therefore, will be the cost of implementing noise source abatement




technology and airport/aircraft operational options plus the




expense of soundproofing or relocating those noise-sensitive receivers




which remain impacted by such noise exposure levels after technological




and operational options have been employed.  Clearly, the more




extensive the implementation of source and path noise reduction, and




airport operational options, the lower the requirements for receiver




or land use controls to "achieve" a given L.  goal.  The economic




question raised by the discussion here is what combination of




these options form the most efficient, or cost-effective and timely




resolution of the civil airport noise exposure problem.  There do




not exist sufficient data at this time to estimate the extent and




costs of achievement for impacted areas around military airports.








     Source noise reductions, requiring retrofit into the existing




fleet, necessitate time to fabricate, demonstrate, certify and




install such kits on the aircraft.  This time element plays an




important role in the dynamics of noise level achievement in that




the fleet mix, levels of operations, and cost of achievement will




vary with time.  For example, future production versions of




the current narrow body commercial aircraft will most likely be




in compliance with current FAR 36 standards; new wide body air-




craft will be even quieter.  Consequently, by 1980 the expected




trend is towards a gradual reduction in airport environmental




noise as these relatively quieter aircraft constitute an in-




creasing portion of the operating fleet.  Note also that the retro-




fit candidate set of noisy aircraft will decrease with time which




means that lower source abatement cost may obtain.  The timing




                                -76-

-------
of the retrofit implementation then has a significant impact on when

a level of achievement can be realized and the costs of achieving

a particular day-night average noise level.



     For the situation where no source abatement options are im-

plemented, there will be reductions with time in the constant

dollar costs of achieving average day-night noise environments using as examples

the values 60,  70,  and «U decibels  for  the  1978-1980 time period as

compared to those for achieving the same results in 1972 (Option

A, Table 2 and Table 1).  Essentially,  the gradual retirement

of noisy narrow body jet aircraft and their replacement with

new quieter aircraft results in a reduction of the 1972 impacted

areas to the extent that the impacted 1972 populations  for  the 60,

70, and 80  example levels  of day-night  average noise .are reduced by  19,

17 and 50 percent respectively.*



     Various flight path and source noise reduction options have

been investigated  (15, 17).  Table  2 reflects  the preliminary

results of a complementary DOT study (18) which included represent-

ative technological options  as indicated in column 1 of this Table.

Table 2 also contains derived data  from the EPA Task Force  study

(17).  Some of the data in this Table may be revised in the final

DOT study report but the relative relationships shown are expected

to obtain.
*    This assumes no  change  in population distributions with time
in the impacted areas.
                               -77-

-------
                                                                                                   TAJLE2
                                                              NATIONAL ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGE REDUCTION OF AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSED POPULATION AND
                                                                COST IMPLICATIONS (HLUONS OF 1973 DOLLARS) OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THREE DAY-NIGHT
                                                                     AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS USING VARIOUS OUTDOOR NOISE REMOVAL OPTIONS*"
 I
^J
oo



I


TECHNOLOGY OPTION
•.


t>.


1.


2.


t.


4.


S.


s.


7.


Null (Do Nothinj)


Two-Scgmept
Approach

SAMJT8D


SAM JTJD


SAM JTSD K
SAM JTJD

REFAN m c SAM
All Otken

REFAN JTSD Only


REFAN JTiD 6
SAM JTJD

REFAN JT8D I
JTJD

2 34

TOTAL
STATUS DATE TECHNOLOGY COST1
N. A. 1978, 19SO 0.0


IB Serviu Fllcht 1978 0. 1
Ten of Prototype

727 r, 737 ID Pro- 197S 0. J
ducrjon. DC. 9 In
Prototype
707 t, DC- 8 Proto. 197S 0.4
typci Dcmoonrated

S«« Abov< 1971 0.«


REFAN: Diiif" 1979 1. S
Studio
SAM: See Above
D»i|i> Studjei 1979 1.7


REFAN: Deiign 1979 2.0
Snidlei
SAM: See 1 Above
Derign Stofiei 198O 2.3




DAY-NIGHT AVC.
NOISE LEVa DEaBELS
80
70
CO
SO
70
60
80
70
60
SO
70
60
BO
70
60
SO
70
60
80
70
60
80
70
60
SO
70
6O
S
PERCENT 1972
POPULATION EXPOSED
- IN EXCESS OF LEVEL
••SO
83
81
••SO
77
78
f
71
7S
•
71
79
•
65
75
,
29
19
•
29
14
*
24
11
•
18
9
«

COMPATIBLE
LAND USE COST1' '
to
15.5
24.8
1.0
13.2
Z3S.J

12.2
10.9

11. S
20.8

10.2
19. S

5.5
7.6

6.9
8.2

4.J
5.5

1.1
<-'
7
COST OF
ACHIEVING NttSE LEAT1 .
AT COMPLETION DAT! '
1.0
15.5
24.5
I. 1
13.3
22.4
0.3
12. S
21.2
0.4
119
21.2
a«
10. S
20.1
1.5
7.0
9. 1
1.7
8.6
9.9
2.0
6.3
7. S
2.3
5.4
6.6

-------
NOTES:
      Modeling and computational methods allowed estimates of
      population to the nearest 100 thousand people.  Particular
      airport problems will result in a residual population,
      estimated to be less than 50,000 people, within the 80 day-
      night average noise level zone.

 **   These population impact and resulting cost estimates have
      been adjusted to reflect expected results rather than depending
      upon modeling and computational method results which predict
      identical results for all options.

***   Costs, availability dates and population impact estimates
      are based upon Department of Transportation preliminary
      data of the 23 airport study.

  1.  All costs are stated in billions of 1973 dollars.  Technology
      costs include following elements:  investment, operating
      costs, down time and lost productivity.

  2.  Operational effects and implementation costs of the two-
      segment approach are included in each subsequent option.
      The estimated costs of this Technology Transfer is 67
      millions of dollars.  The 100 million shown here results
      from rounding to the nearest significant digit in billions.

  3.  The costs for compatible land use include soundproofing
      and/or relocation and land development depending on the
      noise reduction requirement.

  4.  0.3 billion to cover only the cost of noise retrofitting
      the general aviation jet fleet may have to be added to
      each option in order to insure population reductions
      indicated in the Table.

  5.  Airport administrative and operational options may be
      optimized for the airport's specific problems and thus
      reduce impacted residential land areas by as much as 50%.
      Consequently, values shown in column 6 could be reduced
      approximately 50 percent.
                              -79-

-------
     One noise reduction option not investigated in detail was




the complete replacement of the commercial aviation fleet with




quieter current technology aircraft.  Implementation of this option




was found to be impractical since there does not currently exist




a replacement alternative for the JT8D powered portion of the fleet




(17).  If a replacement alternative were available, the cost of




total fleet replacement has been estimated to be in excess of 8




billions of 1973 dollars (19).








     Before discussing the effectiveness and environmental noise




level achievement cost estimates, two basic shortcomings in the




data must be outlined.  Briefly, the set of airport noise re-




duction options, which minimize the population exposed, is unique




at each airport due to the local topography, demography, runway




orientation, flight frequencies, etc.  This uniqueness precludes




a quantitative extrapolation to a national estimate at this time




because sufficient data on the effectiveness of each option for




an adequate number of airports are not available.  The "best




estimate" of the combined national effectiveness of these airport




options is that as much as a 50 percent reduction in the remaining




impacted land area can be expected (15); the remaining impacted




land area is that residual remaining after adjustments for source




and path alternatives have been made.  Implementing these options




will incur additional costs which are not estimated here, such as




increased operating costs resulting from possible curfews or




flight frequency limitations.
                             -80-

-------
     The second shortcoming in the data was the inability to




locate or develop data on the extent to which general aviation




aircraft activity Contributes to the national and/or individual




airport noise environment problem.  There are several types of




business jet aircraft whose noise output exceeds the current FAR




36 levels and for which there exists source noise reduction




technology.  To insure consistency in the alternative effectiveness




estimation and in computing the costs of achievement, the




assumption was made that these aircraft would have the appropriate




technologies retrofitted into the respective airframes by 1978.




The total investment costs under this assumption are estimated




to be on the order of 300 millions of 1973 dollars (17).  Down-




time and lost productivity cost estimates for retrofitting this




portion of the civil aviation fleet are not available at this




time.








     One final point, land use cost, as used in the subsequent




discussion, includes the costs associated with local government




action, in the remaining impacted area, of zoning, relocations,




redevelopment and/or some degree of structure treatment.








     To implement "a national, all weather, two-segment approach




(option B of Table 2) the aircraft must be retrofitted with the




requisite instrumentation and the airports must also adjust and/or




install attendant instrumentation.  These requirements are




estimated to cost some 67 millions of 1973 dollars to implement




(shown as 100 million in Table 2 due to rounding) (15).  Implement-
                             -81-

-------
ing this option will reduce the number of people exposed to the



L,  levels of 60, 70, and 80 decibels by 22, 23 and 50 percent
 an


respectively in 1978 as compared with 1972 estimates.  The cost



to achieve outdoor environments of L^Q 60, TO and 80 decibels  for



those people still impacted are estimated.to be 22-3, 13.2, and 1



billion dollars respectively.  Note the achievement costs for a



70 L,  environment have dropped from 15.5 billions to 13.3 billions
    dn


of 1973 dollars.  Thus, if 70 L,  was the level to be achieved,
                               an


implementing a two segment approach would be desirable since the



savings in achievement costs more than offsets the implementation



costs of the two segment approach.
     Retrofitting the entire commercial fleet with SAM kits and



implementing the two segment approach, all of which can be



accomplished by 1978, will reduce even further the levels of 1972



impacted population and the achievement costs.  The combined costs



of implementing the requisite hardware and instrumentation, plus



the resulting increase in operating expenses and lost productivity



to the airlines, are estimated to be some 600 millions of 1973



dollars.  To realize the impacted population estimates, some



portions of the business jet fleet will also have been retrofit



with available technology as was discussed earlier.  For these



technology transfer costs, the 1978 impacted populations at 60,



70 and 80 L   reflect a reduction of 25, 35, and 100 percent*,
*    Due to the estimating procedure it is acknowledged that

particular airport problems will result in residual population

remaining.  For  80 Ldn  it  is  estimated  that less  than  50,000

people will be exposed to such levels where the percent reduction

is stated as 100.



                             -82-

-------
when compared to 1972 estimates respectively.  Costs of achieving




the Ldn levels for the remaining population are estimated to be



20.1, 10.8 and 0.6 billions of 1973 dollars.  Again it should be




noted that these achievement costs can be significantly reduced




by the effective implementation of airport operator options.








     Retrofitting Refan kits into aircraft will require a longer




period to implement.  In addition, the investment and operating




costs of this technology option are significantly higher than




those of the previous options discussed.  Offsetting these costs




is their increased effectiveness in reducing the 1978 impacted




population estimates.  Consequently,  the total implementation




costs (including residual  land use costs) of achieving various




outdoor noise levels decreases.  In every case, the savings in




achievement cost exceeds the costs of aircraft modifications.




These data may also be found in Table 2.








     These decision data on the effectiveness and cost effects




of the various noise reduction options can be used as a base to




design an effective airport environment noise reduction program.




Different design strategies can be developed taking into account




technology transfer and total achievement costs plus various




degrees of risk.  Table 2  indicates that there are potentially




greater reductions in impacted population with Refan retrofits




than with SAM retrofit options.  However, the SAM technology can




be implemented earlier at  lower cost  and the resulting noise




reductions are more reliably known.   A decision to rely entirely






                               -83-

-------
upon Refan retrofit will result in a minimum two-year delay of

relief for some of the population.  In addition, if the Refan's

performance is less than predicted then the final population results

and costs of achievement will be less favorable than expected.

The benefits of a decision to SAM retrofit are earlier relief via

demonstrable technology but higher land use costs to achieve a

compatible noise level.  However, reliance only on the SAM retro-

fit may preclude the possibility of a more effective and financially

equitable solution by not allowing for the technological potential

of the Refan program.  There is an intermediate strategy which

would accommodate a continuous program of further noise relief via

technology.  This is to initiate prompt actions to retrofit the

fleet with SAM.  If the current phase of the Refan research program

is successful, then that portion of the fleet which has not already

been retrofitted with SAM could be retrofitted with the Refan tech-

nology.*  The Refan research program should be accelerated, if evalua-

tion of the present research program indicates that this will maximize

in an efficient manner reduction in airport noise exposure.

               To achieve any cumulative noise level, the more

rapid the technology and airport options are implemented, the smaller

will be the land use option financial requirements.  This result

suggests that as soon as a level of public noise exposure is selected,

then to minimize the costs of achieving this level, the timing for

implementation of the various options of a noise reduction program is

such that an action program must shortly follow.
*    It may be economically reasonable, and desirable, to subsequently
refan the entire JT8D portion of the fleet.
                               -8k-

-------
     In terms of the economic question of which combinations of




options are the most efficient to achieve a desired cumulative out-




door noise environment level, the following findings can be stated.








     o  The costs of transferring aircraft source noise abatement




        technology into the civil aviation fleet are always less




        than the costs of achieving cumulative noise without such



        transfers.




     o  Transferring the aircraft source noise reduction technology




        into the civil aviation fleet alone cannot eliminate the




        outdoor noise environment problem around the nation's air-




        ports .




     o  Source technology cannot be fully implemented into the




        civil aviation fleet until 1977 at the earliest, and path




        technology by 1978; however, intermediate relief can occur




        before this period by the effective exercising of fleet




        operational procedures, airport operator options and local




        government land use options.  Such intermediate relief




        must occur, especially the curtailment of further en-




        croachment of population around airports, if the costs




        of achievement are to be kept at a minimum.




     o  The problem of equitable treatment of populations re-




        siding near large military airports cannot be ignored




        and appropriate remedies and costs will have to be




        developed.








     Finally, the achievement of cumulative noise levels around the
                              -85-

-------
nation's airports will require international cooperation due to




the high level of foreign flag air carrier activity at a number of




domestic airports.  Questions as to whether, and how, these nations




can comply with the domestically developed schedule of achievement,




how requisite investment and operating expense enter into their




cost functions, and whether such increased achievement costs will




be passed through or used as a competitive advantage, must and




will be addressed in the subsequent rulemaking study effort.








     (c)  Cost Allocation and Financing Options








     In order to completely evaluate the implications of identifying




and achieving given levels of cumulative noise exposure, two




additional issues must be addressed:  (1) who should pay for the




costs of civil noise abatement programs, and (2) how should such




programs be funded or financed?








     There are a number of cost allocation alternatives which can




be determined by various legal/institutional plans.  The first is \




to "let the costs fall where they may."  Under such a system, the




airport neighbor would continue to bear the economic and social




costs of aircraft noise pollution; the aircraft operator along with




the passenger and shipper would absorb the cost of noise control




devices; and the general taxpayer would, for example, bear the noise-




related losses in delivery of public service efficiency.  A second




possible allocation plan would shift the cost of both noise damages




and noise abatement to the general taxpayer through governmental, as
                              -86-

-------
opposed to airport proprietor or airline, liability for noise




damage compensation and through subsidies to airlines and airports



for the implementation of noise control technology and land use



options.  A third alternative would shift the cost of damages and



noise abatement to the air transport consumer, by means of in-



creased landing fees, taxes on air transport use, increased



tariffs, etc.  Due to market or institutional imperfections, the



cost allocation method selected may never exist in pure form.  For




example, attempts to shift cost to general taxpayers or air




transport consumers may not be wholly successful, due to the



legal inability in either the short or long term to adjust landing



fees, tax rates, or government subsidies.








     Furthermore, the distinction must be made between short term



financing problems vs. the Issues of long-term cost allocations.



To install noise abatement equipment creates serious short-term




capital finance problems for the airlines.  Solution of this



problem is a separate though related matter from the question of



how such noise abatement cost will ultimately be allocated.  Both




issues must be addressed and solved.








                      Allocation of Costs^








     In economic terms, aircraft noise is a "technological




externality."  That is, the public costs of noise are not included




in the price of air transportation services.  Because of this price




system defect, these costs therefore fall on economic activities
                              -87-

-------
other than those which produce the cost.  Economic "welfare" doctrines




hold that if the beneficiaries of a given level of air transportation




could fully compensate those persons subject to the noise impacts




thereof, and still acquire some net benefit, then that level of




aviation which produces the noise externality would be economically




justifiable (20).








     In order to promote the most efficient and rational use of




air transportation, economic "efficiency" criteria dictate that




air transport beneficiaries must pay the full cost of providing




air service, including secondary costs such as those of abating




pollution.  Economic principles suggest that where such costs are




fully internalized, i.e., are included in the price of the service,




consumers can more rationally choose among different modes of




transportation  (21).  Only if all costs, including those en-




gendered by noise, are internalized into the aviation industry,




will users, beneficiaries and operators of air transport be able




to adequately balance all factors in making the most efficient




investment and'operational decisions.  However, in the case of




aviation, a large measure of the research and development has




already been accepted as proper expenditure on the part of the




Federal government, and thus that portion of the cost of control




is being borne by the public at large, as a public benefit charge.




Likewise, since financing of major projects such as airport land




redevelopment may involve the use of traditional measures of




financing, the  cost of interest and bond retirement may be




broadly spread beyong a purely classic internalization of costs.
                               -88-

-------
The following discussion highlights the practical side of this
complex issue.

                       Financing of Costs

     Information available at this point indicates that development
and implementation of noise control and abatement strategies
necessary to achieve specific noise exposure levels will require
substantial financial resources.  While,a few strategies, such as
new operating procedures, would not incur large capital investment
or increased operating costs, a comprehensive noise abatement
program—including research and development of engine noise control
technology, retrofit, insulation of residential structures, and
relocation of persons within zones of remaining incompatible
land uses—will necessitate a major commitment of financial
resources and the development of financing methods.  Without
adequate financing mechanisms, expeditious implementation of a
comprehensive program to alleviate even the most severe airport
noise impact problems will be impossible.

     Implementation of such a comprehensive program will entail
commitment of financial resources in a number of public and private
sector expenditure areas.  For these areas of expenditure, financ-
ing methods must be found if the contemplated comprehensive noise
reduction program is to be successful (22).  A variety of mechanisms
have been suggested to fund these expenditure areas.  The basic alter-
native is private market funding of the program elements.  However,

                              -89-
   99-739 O - 73 - 7

-------
depending upon the degree of noise reduction requirements,


private funding capability could be exceeded (17, 22).  In this


case, other financing alternatives must be employed.  Examples of


such alternatives are:




     o  A passenger head tax and freight tax, of a set amount


        (e.g., per person and per pound) imposed on all commercial


        air transport, either "at the gate," or as a surcharge on


        tickets and freight invoices.*

     o  Head and freight tax imposed only at noise-impacted air-


        ports.


     o  Expanded use of the Airport and Airway Development Act

                          \
        Trust Fund, for use in grants to airports and airlines


        for noise abatement.


     o  A surcharge on the aircraft fuel tax.


     o  A "dollars for decibels" landing fee.


     o  A general fare increase, either by a fixed amount (e.g.


        $1 a ticket) or, on a percentage basis (e.g. 1 percent

        per ticket).


     o  Grants to aircraft manufacturers, airlines and airports


        financed by general tax revenues.


     o  Increased airport concession (e.g. parking and restaurant)

        rentals or fees.


     o  Government-guaranteed loans to airlines and airports.
*    The head tax at the gate scheme has just been prohibited by
Congress in the recent (P.L. 93-44) AADA two-year appropriation act,
                             -90-

-------
      o   Interest-bearing loans  directly to  local  governments  to



         finance their options.








      Different financing methods  may be chosen to fund various



 noise abatement options and thus  a matrix of  possible expenditure/



 financing alternatives must be  analyzed, and  appropriate  choices



 made  therefrom.








      To  choose the best financing arrangements or combination of



 options  several questions need  to be addressed:








      o   Who has authority to adopt the plan?




      o   How could it be designed  and administered?



      o   What would be the cost  incidence—that is, if adopted,



         who would ultimately pay  for the cost of  the noise




         abatement expenditures  so financed?



      o   How appropriate is the  plan for financing the various



         expenditures required for the achievement of specific



         cumulative noise levels?








      Answers to these questions for feasible  financing methods




will  be  developed during the rule making process.  However, from




 the options  delineated it appears that  Federal legislation and/or



administrative  action might be £equired to:   (l)  establish a  loan




or grant fund,  prescribing the  uses,  designating  the agency respon-




sible for disbursement,  setting the amount  of  the charge, identifying




methods of collection,  and determining  the  life or time period of
                               -91-

-------
the fund (12); or (2) authorize airports and carriers, (with CAB




approval) to impose various tariffs or charges to finance the




noise control options for which they are responsible.








     In the course of proposing regulations under Section 7(b) of




the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA will carefully explore these




questions, and make appropriate recommendations thereon.
                              -92-

-------
           Overall Environmental Policy Implications
      A major implication of adopting a cumulative noise exposure



 system,  from the overall environmental policy viewpoint, is the



 relative impact,  if any, on other  environmental  requirements



 (such  as air quality)  arising  from the institution  of measures



 to achieve such  levels.   As an example,  if  the required proce-



 dure for operational flight control  to meet a cumulative noise



 health and welfare  limit results in  increases in air pollution



 such that primary (health)  air quality standards are jeopardized,



 the question  arises as to what balance is to be  struck between



 these  requirements, and  how.   The  Administrator  recognizes these



 practical questions, and will  take them into account in any pro-



 posals relating to noise regulations  as  well as  to  actions re-



 garding  air  quality requirements.






     Adoption of a measure  of  cumulative noise exposures for



 identifying  and then achieving adequate  levels of noise in



 communities  adjacent to  airports represents a major environ-



 mental policy decision.   This  arises  from the situation that



 it is inconsistent  to utilize  one  such plan for  a particular



 set of noise  sources when those persons  exposed  thereto are



 also exposed  to noise from  a variety  of  other sources; either



 in their homes, work, or other life  situations.






     Congress, in the Noise Control Act  of 1972, moreover, has



established  a division of powers in  regard to noise control



which  assigns to the Federal government  those relating to





                               -93-
  99-739 0-73-8

-------
control of noise emissions from specific sources, "but at the same




time reserves to the States and their political subdivisions the power




to establish and control ambient cumulative noise levels, with the




exception of aviation noise which is subject to Federal preemption




and domain.  The Congress has charged the Administrator with the




responsibility of prescribing recommended noise levels (Section 5 of




the Act) to be utilized by State and local governments and also has




given him authority to provide advice and assistance to the State and




cities in controlling noise through the use of such ambient (and




thus cumulative) noise levels.  In fact, the one considered in the




Aircraft/Airport Noise Study has many advantages over existing plans,




due to its simplicity and ease of use for the vast majority of




situations.  One of the major implications of use of such cumulative




noise levels for airports is that such action may make it necessary




to adopt such an approach for use in characterizing other noise




environments.  The impact of adoption of any one system for use for




all environmental situations requires further study by EPA.




     Keeping in mind the divisions of power established in the




Noise Control Act discussed above, there are a number of implications




that arise from use of cumulative noise levels for airports; these



include:









     (l)  Under Section Me)(2) the EPA has a responsibility to



          see that standards or regulations with respect to noise




          regardless of which Federal agency is the origin of such




          rules, are consistent with protection of the public health




          and welfare.  The use of a common measure for assessing




          such effects would provide a uniform approach by EPA in



          dealing with such standards.




                                -9k-

-------
     (2)  A major consideration of the implications of adopting




     a common measure of cumulative noise exposure relates




     to the apportionment of responsibility for regulating



     aircraft noise between the FAA and EPA.  By adopting



     a common measure of cumulative noise exposure it be-



     comes possible to establish goals and schedules for



     reducing airport noise which are consistent with those



     for other major noise systems, thereby making possible



     a coordinated overall program to reduce environmental



     noise.  Furthermore, it would become possible to



     evaluate regulations proposed by either agency in terms



     of the beneficial results to public health and welfare



     since their relationships to cumulative noise exposure



     will have been established.  In summary,  the arrange-



     ment between  the FAA and EPA envisioned by the Noise



     Control Act of 1972, which  allows  for  exercise of



     judgments on  safety exclusively by the FAA while ex-




     pecting both  agencies  to work cooperatively in reducing



     the impact  of aircraft/airport noise,  based on cumula-




     tive noise  exposure, alleviates possible  problems and



     facilitates communication between  the  agencies and  is




     a viable arrangement.








(3)   The provisions of  the Noise Control Act  require  that



     the EPA establish noise emission performance  standards



     for new products "necessary to protect public health



     and welfare with an adequate margin of safety."   It



     is clear from a scientific  viewpoint  that such  "per-
                         -95-

-------
          fonnance standards" must somehow or other relate to a

          general overall environmental health and welfare

          requirement,  or else the Congressional  mandate cannot be

          met.   In devoting attention to the principal sources

          of noise in a specific situation such as noise from

          aircraft, consideration must be given to the other

          contributing sources of noise even through the pre-

          dominate source may be the major offender.   The use

          of cumulative noise levels affords a planning tool
                                                              \
          which, with some limitations, takes into account the

          relative contribution of various sources.   Thus if

          intelligently used, it can be a major aid in the over-

          all product regulation process the Agency is required

          to undertake.  Use of this methodology,  however, also

          presents some difficulty in that there  are possible

          over-simplifications of interpretation  of the relation

          between source emission control (the Federal respons-

          ibility) and restrictions on use or other limitations

          (a State and local matter).



     Lastly, adoption of a cumulative noise level

represents a major policy decision for the Federal government

in that this will constitute its acceptance of full responsi-

bility for establishing the limits within which aircraft noise

is to be controlled.  In so doing, as the Administrator now

contemplates recommending, there will result preemption of

the State and Local levels of government, as envisioned in the
                             -96-

-------
Supreme Court Burbank. decision, with attendant possible Federal



liabilities.  At the sane tine, those lesser powers still must



be brought to bear, in juxtaposition with the Federal authority,



on those elements of action needed to meet such limits for which,



as described in  the following section, there are no Federal



police powers.
                                 -97-

-------
REFERENCES
(1)  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 3 Report, "Impact
     Characterization of Noise Including Implications of
     Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise
     Exposure," July 1973.  NTID 73.4

(2)  "Procedure for Describing Noise Around an Airport," R-507,
     Second Ed,. International Standards Organization,  Geneva,
     1970.

(3)  "Aircraft Noise - Annex 16 to the Convention on Interna-
     tional Civil Aviation," International  Civil Aviation
     Organization, Montreal, August 1971.

(4)  "Social and Economic Impact of Aircraft Noise," Technical
     Annex to U/ENV/73.4, Organization for  Economic Cooperation
     and Development, Paris, April 1973.

(5)  Galloway, W.J., "Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning
     Procedures," Interim Technical Report, USAF Aerospace
     Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air  Force
     Base,  March 1972.

(6)  Alexandra, A., "Decision Criteria based on Spatio-Temporal
     Comparisons of Surveys on Aircraft," presented at  the
     International Conference on Noise as a Public Health Problem,
     Dubrovnik (Yugoslavia), May 1973.

(7)  "Noise - Final Report," Cmnd.  2056,  H.M.S.O. London, July  1963.

(8)  "Second Survey of Aircraft Noise Annoyance around  London
     (Heathrow) Airport," H.M.S.O., London, 1971.

(9)  "Community Reaction to Airport Noise - Vol. 1," Tracor Inc.,
     NASA CR-1761, July 1971.

(10) C. Bitter, "Noise Nuisance Due to Aircraft," Collogue  sur
     la definition des exigences human a 1'egard du bruit,  Paris,
     November 1968.

(11) P.N. Borsky, "A New Field-Laboratory Methodology for Assess-
     Human Response to Noise," NASA CR-2221, March 1973.

(12) Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 1 Report, "Legal
     and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise
     and Apportionment of Authority Between Federal, State  and
     Local Governments," July 1973. NTID 73.2
                             -98-

-------
(13)  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group  6 Report,
     "Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities
     for Reduction without Inhibition of Military Missions,"
     July 1973 NT1D 73.7

(14)  "The Economic Impact of Noise," NTID 300.14, U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency,  31 December,  1971.

(15>  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group  2 Report,
     "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement,
     Safety, and Costs," July 1973.

(16)  Committe of Environmental Quality,  Federal Council  for
     Science and Technology, "Noise—Sound Without  Value," p.
     34-35 (1968) and sources cited therein.

(17)  Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group  4 Report,  "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis  Including
     Retrofitting," July 1973.

(18)  H. Safeer, "Aircraft Retrofit - A Cost Effectiveness
     Analysis", Technical Memo, DOT/ONA, 18 May,  1973.   (The
     methodology for extrapolating these results  from a six
     airport sample to a national estimate and how  the costs
     of public protection were estimated may be found in
     Chapter IV of Reference 6 herein.

(19)  "Airline Industry Financial Analysis with Respect to
     Aircraft Noise Retrofit Programs, 1972-1978,"  R. Dixon
     Speas Associates, U.S. Department of Transportation No.
     OST-ONA-73-1, January 1973.

(20)  For a detailed discussion of welfare criteria, see William
     Baumol, "Welfare Economics and the Theory of the Stafe,"
     Harvard University Press, 1962.

(21)  Paul K. Dygert, "Allocating the Costs of Alleviating Sub-
     sonic Jet Aircraft Noise," Special Report, Institute of
     Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of
     California, Berkeley, February  1967.

(22)  "The Long Range Needs of Aviation," Report of the Avia-
     tion Advisory Commission, Advance Copy, 1 January,  1973.
                               -99-

-------
                               SECTION 4




    ADDITIONAL MEASURES  AVAILABLE  TO AIRPORT OPERATORS AND




           LOCAL GOVERNMENTS  TO CONTROL  AIRCRAFT  NOISE






      The types of actions which may be taken at or near individual




airports, to limit exposure of people to aircraft noise, fall into




two main categories:  (1)  actions to limit the noise environment




generated by operations at the airport;  (2)  actions to prevent in-




compatible land uses from building up around the airport, thus




placing people within the airport's noise environment.









      The noise environment generated by activity at an airport




results from a progression of actions, some of which are under




the airport proprietor's control, except to the extent that there




is funding and approval from the FAA.  These include, for example,




the initial site selection for the airport,  the layout of the




runways as-related to surrounding land uses, the location of engine




maintenance runup areas, the amount and location of land Purchased




for airport purposes, and the progressive additions to airport




facilities which allow entry of new types of aircraft or greater




numbers of aircraft.  It is not clear from the Burbflpfc decision if




the airport proprietor may or may not in leases and contracts




with airport tenants (including airlines, fixed base operators




and others) place conditions upon the use of the airport property;




e.g., restrictions on the types of aircraft which may use the airport,




number of  operation per day per  lessee, hours  of operation  of the air-



port, noise limits to be complied with, etc.  Beyond actions of this type,
                                   -100-

-------
    ons  which the airport operator ir^y devise to control the




noise environment generated at the airport require either (a) the




voluntary cooperation of others or (b) the imposition of a higher




authority not available to the airport proprietor itself.  As




explained above, since the enactment of the Noise Control Act of




1972 and the decision in Burbank. it is not at all clear what




further legal authority remains with the airport proprietor and




what has been or will be assumed by the Fedaral Government.  It




is quite clear, however, that local governments acting in any




capacity other than airport proprietor have no authority by




which they can control noise environments at airports.  Further




detail on this subject, and the history of attempts by both State




and local governments to control airport noise by a variety of




legal means, are contained in the report of the EPA Aircraft/Airport




Noise Study Task Force (1).








     On the other hand, the legal authority of local governments




to control the development of land use around airportc is in-




herent in the land use planning, zoning, building code and build-




ing permit authority which States have traditionally delegated




to local government.  With reference to new construction,  these




authorities are adequate, if applied, to permit cities and




counties in the vicinity of an airport to coordinate their zoning




and building codes with the projected noise environment  of the




airport.  Thus, open space or other noise compatible uses  (e.g.,




industrial, commercial) can be required in zones of severe noise




impact and the quieter areas reserved for residential use.   In
                              -101-

-------
the case of a new airport,  the extent of land area to be so




controlled may be reduced by fee purchase of the projected impact




area or a large fraction thereof, with the potential for subse-




quent lease or resale with  deed restrictions.  Building con-




struction providing a high  degree of noise insulation can be




required by performance standards in building codes, where




exterior noise levels are high but only the interior building




uses are of importance.








     Major air carrier airports typically generate noise environ-




ments of such extent and scale that the land for which uses




should be controlled often  falls within the jurisdiction of




several separate local governments.  In many cases the airport




property boundary itself may adjoin several municipalities or




the airport property may be entirely within a jurisdiction




separate from that which owns the airport.  The coordinative role




of regional government, local councils of governments, or some




special purpose regional commission or airport development




district created by the State may then be applied to guide




development of airport-noise-affected land.  Examples of such




mechanisms in action are provided by the Dallas-Fort Worth




Regional Airport; the Kansas City International Airport; the



California Airport Land Use Commissions, and the Minnesota




Airport Zoning Act (the latter two being in very early stages




of implementation).








     Zoning, however, like eyery exercise of police power,




is limited by applicable constitutional requirements.  This




                              -102-

-------
means at least three things.  First, the restrictions imposed on



property may not be so severe as to deprive the owner of all, or



substantially all, of its beneficial use.  Applied more parti-



cularly, this rule prohibits legislation that limits the use of



property to purposes for which there is no reasonable economic



demand.  Second, a zoning enactment cannot be arbitrary,



capricious or unreasonable as applied to any particular land



owner, or group of owners; hence, noise-re}ated zoning should be



part of a comprehensive plan for the area.  And third, zoning



may not be employed as a substitute for use of the condemnation



power when an analysis of the governmental action involved dis-



closes that the government is, lor its own purposes acquiring,



using, or in the words of the courts, "taking" the zoned



property.  The second and third limitations have thus far been



the principal impediments to effective airport land use planning




based upon the zoning power.








     In spite of the foregoing restrictions,  zoning aud building




construction controls offer major potential  for prevention  of



airport noise problems.  Nevertheless, zoning and building  con-




trol techniques generally have been infrequently used and con-




tinue to be ignored in most localities.   This has been one  of




the major factors in the development  of  the  severe noise  impact



problems which exist around many airports today.








     When the problem to be resolved  is  an existing impact



situation, the measures available  to  both airport  proprietors



and  local governments  (in land use  conversion, retroactive




                              -103-

-------
soundproofing of homes, etc.) are most expensive, compared with




the situation where new construction is involved.  Also, most




airport proprietors do not have authority to condemn and acquire




land except for direct airport purposes or as a result of an




inverse condemnation action.  More importantly, local governments




cannot use zoning to change a preexisting, nonconforming use,




but instead must apply eminent domain powers and compensate the




landowner for the taking involved.








     To put the existing impact situation in its proper per-




spective, it must be emphasized that conversion to compatible




land use can be very expensive.  It requires condemnation in




the form of "downward zoning" or outright taking, both of which




require just compensation.  In other cases, it will require




sound insulation, which may cost between $3,000 and $15,000 a




dwelling unit, and which provides a solution only for those




indoors.  But the authority exists and the subsequent conversion




of the taken property to commercial or industrial us*> may well




result in economic gain.








     A discussion of the legal aspects of land use control for




airport compatability purposes is contained in Reference 1 and




in greater detail in Reference 2.  Attention is also invited to




HUD's recently published report, "Aircraft Noise Impact: Planning




Guidelines for Local Agencies."  Noise compatible land use as




well as noise source control costs are included in cost effec-




tiveness analyses contained in Reference 3.
                              -10H-

-------
     It is quite evident that the actual ability of airport




  9Prietors and State and local governmental agencies to con-




trol aircraft noise at existing airports is relatively limited.




For new airports they have some additional capabilities, but




again, these are extremely circumscribed in their effectiveness.




In both cases, the limitations are especially acute when there




are numerous political jurisdictions involved (as is often the




situation), even where they have been organized into a regional




council of governments structure.








     The exearciia of the police powers of the State and local




governments and the proprietary rights of the airport operators




have to date not been successful in preventing residential




encroachment into aircraft noise impacted areas.  Only the




indirect consideration of noise as a factor in approval of




Federally insured mortgages for residential development,




has been shown to be of value  in this regard  (1) .








     Taking all of the above,  together with the  Burbank decision,




it would appear that the States, local governments  and  airport




proprietors are severely limited in ability to  act  arid  that




there is an implication that the full burden  of controlling air-




craft noise rests on the Federal Government.  The fact  is,




however, that the effective application  of such powers  and




authorities, as are available  outaide the  Federal Government,




is a necessary  component of  a  eompr«hen*iv*  aircraft noi»« con-




trol program.   This  is  of  critical  importance with regard to new




airport siting  and construction;  a  major factor in relation






                            -105-

-------
to proposed expansion of existing facilities, and absolutely




vital to any planned, orderly redevelopment of existing impacted




areas.








     A Federal implementation procedure is necessary for the




Congressional assignment to provide technical assistance to




local governments and to prepare model State and local legisla-




tion and model codes for noise control.  The Agency already




has initiated action, with the Council of State Governments, to




develop recommended overall state noise legislation.  It has




plans for continuation of this activity; and is presently




engaged in the development of an aggressive program of expansion




of this responsibility.  Likewise, under Section 14(3) of the




Noise Control Act, the Administrator has the authority to




disseminate to the public (and this would include airport




proprietors) information on techniques for noise measurement




and control.  As a result of the findings of the present




study, we are presently developing proposals for joint efforts




with the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation




Administration and the affected interests such as the Airport




Operators Council International for a more comprehensive approach




to education and guidance of proprietors in this area of




responsibility.
                            -106-

-------
References

1.   Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 1 Report, "Legal
     and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise
     and Apportionment of Authority Between Federal, State and
     Local Governments," July 1973.  NTID 73.2

2.   Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 6 Report, "Military
     Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities for Reduction
     without Inhibition of Military Missions," July 1973.
     NTID 73.7

3.   Aircraft/Airport Noise Stt'dy - Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
     Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
     Retrofitting," July 1973. NTID 73.5
                               -107-

-------
SUMMARY




     In compliance with Section 7 (a)  of the Noise Control Act of




1972, the Agency has examined:




(1)  The adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration flight and




     operational noise controls;



(2)  The adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing




     aircraft, together with recommendations on the retrofitting




     and phaseout of existing aircraft;




(3)  The implications of identifying and achieving levels of




     cumulative noise exposure around airports;



(4)  Additional measures available to airport operators and local




     governments to control aircraft noise.




The Agency has considered the effects of noise, the magnitude of




the noise problem, noise reduction by source technology and other




alternatives.








                   Our Principal Findings Are;






o    High levels of noise cause widespread annoyance and dis-




turbance of speech  and may in some cases cause hearing damage.




An estimated 16 million people are presently  subjected  to  a wide range




of aircraft noise effects varying  from very  severedto moderate.






o    A comprehensive national program  for aircraft/airport




noise abatement is needed to insure that the  noise  control




options available to the aircraft manufacturers  and operators,




the  airpert operator*, the F*d«r«l Govaznomtn and other public




authorities are implemented to  the extent necessary to  protect




the public health and welfare.
                                -108-

-------
0    Aircraft noise  around  airports Is presently a principal




constraint  on the  future  growth, of the air transportation system.








o    Currently available  technology is capable of being trans-




lated into  flight worthy hardware that, together with employment




of noise abatement flight procedures, can significantly decrease




the noise impact from aircraft.








o    While new aircraft types are presently required to meet FAR




Part 36 Appendix C noise levels, only about 10% of approximately




2000 existing U.S. aircraft meet these standards.  Except for




the Concorde and TU 144 supersonic transports, currently avail-




able technology can permit the existing aircraft to at least




meet FAR 36 noise levels and also allow for significant re-




ductions, below these levels for new aircraft  (depending upon




the aircraft type and the measuring point).








o    With respect to retrofitting the existing air eerier fleet,




the prime technological contenders are the nacelle acoustical




treatment retrofit and the  refan retrofit.  Nacelle treatment




is a demonstrated technology that can reduce  aircraft noise to




FAR 36 levels in the shortest time and at least cost.  Refan



has the potential for greater noise reduction but it has not been



sound or flight tested, so the time required is longer, the risk




greater, and the cost higher.








o    Eusiness jet  aircraft manufacturers are  developing modir-
                               -109-

-------
fication kits and re-engine alternatives to enable these aircraft




to meet the noise standards of FAR 36.









o    A number of noise abatement flight procedures are currently




in use in scattered parts of the air transportation system.  These




include:  maximum angle (full power) climbouts, power cutback




climbouts, reduced thrust takeoffs, higher approach glide slopes,




flap management approaches, two segment approaches, and higher




minimum altitudes.  If implemented at additional airports, where




appropriate, use of these procedures would provide meaningful




noise relief.









o    The most effective use of technology to achieve maximum




noise control is in the design and development of new aircraft




systems.  Consequently, noise abatement research and development




(both for source control and flight procedures) must continue to




be adequately funded to insure that these new aircraft systems




evolve with the capability for substantially less noise impact




than exists for current aircraft.









o    The only  realistic way of adequately assessing the  impact" of aircraft




noise at and around airports is to  use a measure of cumulative noise level.




Such a measure has been developed for use in this study,  based on




the currently established specific and direct effects of noise




on the health and environmental welfare of humans.  For a




range of values of this measure  (called "day-night average




sound level" and abbreviated L.  ) the statistical probability




of occurrence, for an expoaed population, of the following




                               -110-

-------
 specific effects  have  been presented: risk of permenent hear-

 ing  impairment, direct interference with  speech  communications,

 and  annoyance.  The  implications for public health and welfare

 protection, through  achievement of  the most protective level of

 cumulative noise  considered here, amounts to approximately 16

 million people, or approximately 40 percent of the persons

 presently impacted by  transportation noise in urban communities.



 o    Achieving progressively lower levels of cumulative noise

 near airports has specific economic implications.  Implementa-

 tion of  flight procedures, nacelle retrofit of a portion of the

 commercial jet fleet and sound suppression kit retrofit of

 business jets, where necessary, are the least expensive approaches

 and  most expeditdous to nearly eliminate public health and welfare

 impacts  around airport environs.  Complete implementation can possibly

 occur  in five years  at an estimated total investment  and opera-

 tional cost of less  than one billion dollars.  Achievement of  lower

 cumulative noise  levels  around  airports will require, in addition to

 retrofitting more effective noise reduction technology into the exist-

 ing  fleet, introduction  of quieter  aircraft, land use conversion, re-

 sidential soundproofing  and airport related operations control.  It is

 estimated to  cost in the range  of 5-13 billion dollars to acheive levels

 of noise indicative  of speech interference  (Ldn  70)*  and of 6-22 billion

 dollars to  achieve levels  of  the threshold of  community annoyance(Ldn 60)

 These  1973  constant dollar costs move toward the  lower values  cited,  the

 earlier the more  effective source noise.
*These values are not to be considered indicative of a specific
 EPA recommended value.
                               -Ill-

-------
control hardware becomes available and is retrofit into the commercial




fleet.  Some forms of financial assistance may be needed by those




affected by an expeditious implementation of a cumulative noise re-




duction program.









o     Maximum cumulative noise levels around airports could be




specified by the Federal Government as modifications to the FAA




Airport Certification Regulation.









o     Separate legal implications  are associated with "identifying" and




with "achieving" levels of cumulative noise adequate to protect the




public health and welfare from aircraft/airport noise:









      1.  Identification of cumulative noise levels at particular air-




          ports to protect public  health and welfare could be used to




          support additional litigation against airport owners.  This




          could follow from the mere act of "identification."









      2. Under the Burbank decision, overall Federal regulation is




          necessary.




      3.  Federal regulation, including Federal airport noise certification




          may shift liability from airport owners to the Federal Government;




          but "achievement" should reduce airport noise liability.




          There are also possible  liabilities for the Federal Government




          as the proprietor of military airports.
                                  -112-

-------
      4.   Any shift in iiabiiity to the Federal  Government  may




           be a problem during the period between Federal  iden-




           tification and the achievement of  noise levels




           requisite to protect the public health and welfare.




           If the court were to hold that liability had shifted




           by reason of preemption, a legislative solution for




           the interim period is unlikely because liability  would




           probably be based on *:ht constitutional requirement




           that just compensation must be paid for the taking of




           property.




     Airport proprietors may under some conditions and depending upon





in some situations Interpretation by the courts either by airport rule





or in leases with airport tenants, place conditions upon the use of  the





airport property, such as restrictions on the types of aircraft  which





may use the airport, number of operations per day per lessee, hours





of operation of the airport, noise limits to be complied with,





or a schedule of  landing fees based on noise generated. However,





it must be emphasized that the proprietary right  to write  noise




conditions into leases or adopt airport rules may well be  denied





if they result in a substantial burden on interstate air commerce.









o    Local governments can and must develop compatible land  use





controls around airports using appropriate cumulative noise






r r iLor i u.




     Based on these findings, and on the noise criteria document




and  environmental noise document to be published  pursuant  to

-------
Section 5 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA intends to take the




following actions as authorized by Section 7 (b) of the Act:









o     In order to obtain an environment consistent with public health




and welfare needs with respect to noise, the Environmental Protection




Agency will propose to the Federal Aviation Administration:




         —Regulations concerning flight and operational noise




           controls.  The regulations will include options for




           takeoff procedures, approach and landing procedures,




           and minimum flight altitudes.




         —Amendments to FAR Part 36 to specify lower noise




           levels for future aircraft.




         —Regulations to control and reduce the noise emissions




           from existing aircraft.  The FAA's proposed Fleet Noise




           Level (FNL) methodology will be considered as a flexible




           means of promoting any of the source technology options




           (nacelle treatment, refan, or aircraft replacement.)




         —Cooperative actions to develop an airport noise certi-




           fication regulation that will assure control over cumu-




           lative noise near airports.
                                  -Lilt-

-------
     EPA recognizes that the implementation of a national airport noise




certification program encompasses a number of interrelated aspects requiring




thorough and careful review.  The acquisition of substantial information,




in addition to that already available to EPA, is required from all parties -




governmental, public interest groups, industry, private citizens - to permit




evaluation and interpretation of the benefits and costs associated with




the noise levels requiring certification.  Of particular interest for further




study, for example, are the impact of various noise levels relative to:




     interference with interstate commerce;




     cost of implementation and methods of financing;




     airport operator control over non-airport noise contributing to




       the cumulative noise level around airports;




     effect on existing international air-transport agreements on




       airport use;




     enforcement with respect to  (1) existing land uses and future zoning




       actions around airports which are beyond the control of the airport




       operator; and  (2) pilot flexibility necessary for aircraft operation;




     time-phasing  for airports to achieve standards; and




     sensitivity to total population impact and benefits to be achieved.
                                  -115-

-------
     EPA will vigorously undertake the responsibilities for




coordinating Federal noise control and Federal noise research




and development activities, as provided for in Section 4 of the




Act.  It will also amplify the present activities relating to




assistance to State and local government model legislation, and




in providing advice and information to the public.









     The cumulative noise level concept is useful; not only because




it summarizes the total contriution of individual noise sources, but




because it also allows decision makers to take into account the




total benefits associated with the achievement of a particular




level.
     Taking all of the above actions as a whole, the Agency will




in effect be establishing a comprehensive set of national aviation




noise reduction objectives.  These will be critically viewed




against the health and welfare criteria and environmental effects




goals now being prepared, along with further inforrrsLion on




technology, economics and other factors, and revised accordingly.




In so doing the Agency will continue its present practice of
consult at v 	 ^ — 	 S«f_:--
Federal I i n a
-P r~ H
M-I en •>-
for in tl 2 HI B
Q
Jq • -P
the effec -5} J; g £
w -r; 
n _ ^
r»* 'So
0 ft
2 . W (U
u ; ^ tf
j'ai
















Q.
! "
T O>
< H


















i
_
H
OM^te
S!^H
D
U
Ul z
1- IT
0 K
UJ
IT


UJ
2
<
Z
0)
ir
UJ
>
>
O
o;
Q;
o
"m


o
U LJ
- z
Sg
_r
Ma




















I'm • mi




















l*BH»Ui




















*».





















-------