United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Noise Abatement
And Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA 550/9-80-319
February 1980
Noise
v>EPA
-------
EPA 550/9-80-319
AVIATION NOISE
THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS
FEBRUARY 1980
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
AVIATION NOISE -
THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 7
AVIATION NOISE EXPOSURE GOALS 9
ACTIONS TO DATE 11
NOISE EXPOSURE STATUS AND PROJECTIONS 17
STRATEGY FOR FURTHER REDUCTION OF AVIATION NOISE 19
APPENDIX A 29
REFERENCES 33
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A great deal of progress has been made since
1973 to deal with the aviation noise problem posed
by commercial carrier operations. The Federal Avia-
tion Administration (FAA) has promulgated a
number of important regulations which, when fully
effective, will provide dramatic relief for a large
number of people around our nation's airports who
are now exposed to high levels of noise from com-
mercial aircraft operations.
Progress has also been made on the control of
noise at the local level. Both the Courts and the
Federal Government have articulated more clearly
the rights and responsibilities of the airport pro-
prietor to reduce the noise from his specific facility,
and a small start has been made at the Federal level
to finance the development of plans which lay the
groundwork for such actions.
It would be a very serious mistake, however, to
become too complacent about this progress and to
lose sight of the substantial portion of the aviation
noise problem which remains. Accomplishments,
though considerable, fall far short of what those who
live around our nation's airports had expected at the
time Congress enacted the Noise Control Act of
1972, directing the Executive Branch to deal ag-
gressively with this problem. There is still widespread
dissatisfaction on the part of those who live in the
vicinity of airports with the current level of aircraft
noise abatement progress. Community objection to
aircraft noise has in some cases already resulted in
airport restrictions involving night curfews, aircraft
type restrictions, and limitations on expansion of ex-
isting airports. Construction of new airports is also
being blocked. Legal action involving noise damage
claims is continuing.
Aviation Noise Exposure Goals
Stated in general terms, the national goals of
aviation noise abatement are to confine severe out-
door aircraft noise exposure levels greater than
Ldn75 dB,* around U.S. airports to the areas in-
cluded within the airport boundary, or to areas
which are otherwise being used in a manner com-
patible with this level of noise, and to reduce
substantially the number and extent of areas receiv-
ing noise-exposure levels that interfere with human
activity. The EPA, the FAA, and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) all have
essentially the same noise exposure goals for avia-
tion.
Based on actions taken to date, in the year 2000
there would still be approximately 2.5-million peo-
ple living in areas exposed to outdoor noise levels,
from aviation operations, of Ldn 65 dB or above.
Approximately 100 thousand of these will live in
areas with extremely high levels of noise (Ldn 75 dB
or greater). Many more millions of people will still be
exposed to levels greater than Ldn 55 dB.
EPA's Proposed National Strategy
In this Report Plan, EPA proposes a national
strategy for dealing with these remaining cases of
high noise exposure from aviation (greater than Ldn
65 dB). To be fully successful this proposed strategy
must receive the support and active involvement of
the FAA, the aircraft manufacturers, the airlines, the
pilots, the airports, elected officials, and airport
neighbors. The strategy is divided into two parts:
The first is focused on providing relief to airport
neighborhoods as soon as possible but no later than
the year 2000. Since the nature of the aircraft fleet is
to a large extent already determined by actions
previously taken, the strategy for this period is
targeted on operational changes and compatible
land-use actions. Changes in the noise character-
istics of the aircraft fleet are more possible in the
"The generally accepted measure of community noise exposure is the
outdoor annual average day/night level in decibels, denoted Ldn.
-------
years beyond 2000 // steps are taken now to begin
the process of facilitating those changes. These
necessary changes are spelled out in the second half
of the proposed national strategy.
The Next 20 Years
Relief for the approximately 2.5 million people
expected to be still exposed to noise levels of Ldn 65
dB or greater by the year 2000 is possible but, of
course, difficult. EPA proposes that a goal be set of
relocating those families living in neighborhoods ex-
pected to remain exposed to noise levels of Ldn 75
dB or higher, and providing relief to families living
within the Ldn 65 dB areas at least inside their
homes. Such a strategy identifies soundproofing as
the ultimate solution for these families if relief is not
obtainable in other ways at less cost. We believe that
there are a number of steps which should be taken
which will have the effect of reducing the number of
people who will need to be protected through
soundproofing. These include the following:
• Optimization of aircraft flight procedures, in-
cluding throttle and flap management, flight
tracks, and preferential runway utilization.
• Airport noise abatement planning.
• Off-airport land-use management which pre-
vents future encroachment of neighborhoods
on airports.
Optimization of Aircraft Flight Procedures
The FAA has promulgated two regulations per-
taining to noise-abatement flight procedures. One
prohibits sonic booms from SSTs over land; the
other requires pilots of subsonic aircraft to use less-
than-maximum flap settings when approaching an
airport. Lower flap settings require lower thrust
thereby leading to less noise exposure.
The FAA has issued an advisory circular which
recommends noise abatement takeoff procedures
which can reduce noise exposure considerably. In
addition, it is possible to optimize the selection of
runways (use of "preferential runways") and the
flight tracks to be followed for approach and depar-
ture so as to minimize population exposure to noise.
Pilots and airlines should be encouraged to adopt
these noise abatement flight procedures. The FAA
should take the initiative by convening one or more
conferences and a series of training seminars for af-
fected individuals. The FAA should also explore the
need for further regulation in this area. For its part,
EPA proposes to initiate a program with several air-
port operators to monitor approach and departure
flight procedures routinely employed by commercial
air carriers to determine whether procedures recom-
mended by the FAA are being employed and to
determine the benefits resulting from them. Reports
will be published quarterly to determine seasonal
weather effects as well as effects of schedule and
traffic pattern changes. These data will be provided
to the FAA, air carriers, airport proprietors and
pilots in support of FAA-sponsored conferences and
seminars and will be available to support the
development and promulgation of regulations, if
they are found to be necessary.
Airport Noise Abatement Planning
As recognized by the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979, airport noise-abatement
planning must play a key role in future abatement ef-
forts. Site-specific changes at individual airports can
have a major influence on the impact of aircraft
operations on surrounding neighborhoods. EPA
promoted this idea in its 1973 Report to the Con-
gress on Aviation Noise and its 1976 regulatory pro-
posal to the FAA calling for mandatory planning at
all commercial air carrier airports. This feature was
also emphasized in the Department of Transporta-
tion's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy issued in
1976.
All airport proprietors should be encouraged to
map noise-exposure areas around their airports and
to work with representatives of surrounding com-
munities to develop noise-abatement plans. This in-
formation will aid the proprietors in recommending
site-specific flight procedures of the sort mentioned
above. The proprietors may also use noise-exposure
mapping as a basis for restricting numbers of aircraft
operations or types of aircraft operating at their air-
ports based on their noise levels and for taking other
site-specific actions. There is still some confusion
about the authorities and responsibilities of airport
proprietors, particularly in light of airline deregula-
tion. EPA will work with the FAA and the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) to develop a unified
Federal policy regarding appropriate noise-abate-
ment actions by airport proprietors. The Department
of Housing and Urban Development and the
-------
Council on Environmental Quality should partici-
pate in this policy as well.
The Quiet Communities Act of 1978 directs EPA
to assist in the development of noise abatement
plans in areas around major transportation facilities
including airports. This authority builds on EPA's ex-
perience in working with airports in the develop-
ment of airport noise abatement plans in the past.
While the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 is very re-
cent, EPA has received many requests for assistance
from public officials and city governments which do
not qualify for FAA planning grant funds, i.e., the
FAA can make grants for planning only to airport
proprietors. In many cases, the communities sur-
rounding those airports do not feel that their con-
cerns, particularly with regard to compatible land
use can or will be adequately studied under an air-
port proprietor's planning process focused on abate-
ment at the airport itself. In addition, land-use com-
patibility planning around airports can be very help-
ful even in the absence of on-site planning by the air-
port proprietor.
Airport plans developed without the active in-
volvement of local officials and citizens in the sur-
rounding communities affected by the airport cannot
assure that all the resources of the larger community
will be brought to bear on the task of making the air-
port compatible with the community and the com-
munity compatible with the airport. During the next
several years EPA will work with local officials in
communities surrounding the nation's largest air-
ports to seek the active involvement of these officials
in the airport planning process and the issue of com-
patible land-use development around the airport. In
this task EPA will use the mechanisms and institu-
tions developed in conjunction with other portions
of EPA's noise control program — namely, Region-
al Technical Assistance Centers, the national Each
Community Helps Others (ECHO) program, and
State noise control programs.
Off-Airport Land-Use Management
New encroachment by neighborhoods on noisy
airports must be restricted. Although all parties to
the aviation noise problem, aircraft manufacturers
and airline operators, airport proprietors and neigh-
bors agree that future encroachment should be dis-
couraged, they have not spoken with one voice on
this subject. EPA will take the initial steps to form a
"Compact" of these parties to work in a united
fashion along with the National League of Cities and
the National Association of Counties to help per-
suade local officials and developers to find compati-
ble uses for land near noisy airports.
The Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP)
requires airport proprietors who receive funds for
expansion of facilities to assure compatible land use.
The mechanism of assurance is based upon Letters
of Cooperation between the airport proprietor and
the impacted communities. Letters of Cooperation
cannot assure anything unless all parties agree on a
compatible land-use plan. Thus, in those situations
where no such plan exists or where disagreement
develops, the Letters of Cooperation are totally inef-
fective. EPA will ask FAA to join in a thorough re-
view of its policies regarding compatible land use
with the expectation that these policies can be
strengthened.
Soundproofing and Relocation
For those people who will continue living in areas
where the outdoor noise exposure is between Ldn 65
and 75 dB after all the above actions are taken, EPA
believes that a program of soundproofing of homes
could provide adequate relief by the year 2000.
While such a program might not be wholly satisfac-
tory to these people because their enjoyment of the
outdoors would still be limited, they could at least
escape to the privacy of their homes and enjoy a
good night's sleep, family conversation, and relaxa-
tion around the television or stereo without the
nerve-racking disruption of over-flying aircraft.
Where the outdoor exposure exceeds Ldn 75 dB,
residents should be relocated to quieter
neighborhoods.
There are a number of ways in which funds for
soundproofing or relocation might be found. In fact,
a variety of sources should probably be tapped. For
instance, landing fees at airports and the targeting of
existing grant programs should be examined. The
application of such grants to the soundproofing
needs of communities should be an interagency ef-
fort which is consistent with the President's August
1979 Environmental Message to Congress.
EPA will propose to the FAA to undertake the
joint implementation of a soundproofing and reloca-
tion program. The program would investigate possi-
ble funding mechanisms and would also conduct an
in-depth soundproofing study to establish as precise-
ly as possible the number of residences affected,
-------
together with cost and time estimates, and to resolve
questions pertaining to the stewardship, use, and
disposition of those properties which would be can-
didates for purchase. While we believe that the
FAA's leadership, with full EPA participation, is
desirable in developing this program, EPA is
prepared to undertake the development of the pro-
gram alone, if necessary.
Beyond the Year 2000
Looking beyond the year 2000, we realize that if
we want quieter neighborhoods in the 21st century,
or if we just want to maintain the gains we are mak-
ing in this century, further actions must be taken
now. Future expansion of the national air trans-
portation system is likely and desirable, but not at
the expense of airport neighborhoods. It is therefore
essential that the following elements be added to the
aviation noise-abatement program:
• Accelerate research and development to en-
sure the design and manufacture of quieter
engines and airframes.
• Establish more forward-looking regulations for
certification of new types of aircraft, derivative
aircraft, and new-production aircraft. To
achieve Ldn 65 dB for outdoor environments
on a national basis would require that noise
levels of future air carrier aircraft be reduced
below present certification levels (Stage 3) by
approximately 10 to 15 dB.
Accelerated Research and Development
Industry believes that up to a 10-dB reduction
may be possible by the year 2000 with an aggressive
Federal R & D Program. Continued expenditures in
noise-abatement research will provide benefits in the
post-2000 time period and may be necessary to
maintain the level of environmental compatibility
that will result from the national noise-control
strategy proposed for relief in the next 20 years. Un-
fortunately, there has been a dramatic reduction in
Federally sponsored programs in aviation noise re-
search. From a high of $47 million in FY 1973, Fed-
eral expenditures were down 60% to $18 million by
1978 and this downward trend is continuing.
The Congressional Office of Technology Assess-
ment (OTA) has a study underway on advanced air
transport technology. EPA recommends that OTA
supplement that study with an evaluation of the
existing NASA noise research program to identify
the additional program effort required to develop
and demonstrate the necessary technology to realize
the long-range noise goals. Active participation of
FAA and EPA would probably be necessary. In
addition, EPA plans to undertake several joint proj-
ects with NASA to demonstrate the effectiveness of
available emerging technology and to publish
reports on results.
More Forward-Looking Regulations
The Federal Government needs to establish air-
craft noise limits based upon future requirements to
achieve realistic goals. It is not adequate in EPA's
view to establish limits which are based on "common
practice" technology as is now the case. The 10-15
dB goal should be incorporated in Federal noise
regulations so that engine and airframe designers
can identify and develop the technology necessary
for its attainment and the necessary R & D programs
can be undertaken and supported. The longer-
range goal levels would apply to new aircraft designs
which may become operational after the turn of the
century, thereby providing adequate lead time to
identify, develop, and demonstrate the requisite
technology.
EPA will continue to press the FAA to act favor-
ably upon its proposed "Stage 4" regulations, which
would essentially meet an interim goal level of 3-5
dB noise reduction below current certification levels
and would be effective in 1980. EPA may consider
holding a series of formal hearings with the aircraft
manufacturers to determine why some aircraft
designs are now producing noise levels within EPA's
proposed Stage 4 limits although some manufac-
turers claim that these limits are neither technologi-
cally feasible nor economically reasonable.
Further noise reduction should be required in the
Stage 2 aircraft now in the fleet and those being
manufacturered. These aircraft will dominate the
noise situation for many years in communities adja-
cent to many of the nation's air carrier airports. One
approach would be to prohibit, after some future
date, any change in air carrier fleet makeup that
would of itself result in an increase in fleet noise
level, unless operations are reduced so that fleet
noise level remains the same or decreases. The EPA
is re-investigation the potential benefits of a Fleet
-------
Noise Rule that would incorporate these considera-
tions and will provide appropriate recommendations
to the FA A.
Another approach that has merit, and is being in-
vestigated by the FAA, is to issue a rule that after
some date certain, e.g., 1982 or 1983, newly pro-
duced State 2 aircraft would have to meet Stage 3
noise limits. This approach is called "State 2 Pro-
duction Cut-Off". It could hasten the purchase of
available quieter and more fuel-efficient engines for
use in the newly produced aircraft of older design.
General Aviation and Military Aviation
While the primary emphasis of this report is on air
carrier noise, EPA recognizes that both general avia-
tion and military aviation may also become signifi-
cant contributors to the national aviation noise
problem. Studies, now under way, to evaluate the
noise implications of these activities, will form the
basis for additional national strategy recommenda-
tions.
Summary
Since the success of our proposed national
strategy for actions during the next twenty years
depends heavily on its acceptance by the FAA and
other parties to the aviation noise problem, EPA will
devote its resources during the next few months to
discussing this strategy with these parties and taking
the initial steps to clarify the strategy in such areas as
soundproofing and relocation as mentioned above.
EPA's plans for the next five years depend to a large
extent on the degree of acceptance which this pro-
posed strategy receives.
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Report has been prepared by the EPA in ac-
cordance with its broad mandate to implement and
coordinate the Federal Government's overall efforts
to control noise. Many significant/actionsyiave been
(taken to alleviate the aircraft/airport noise problem
since the 1973 Report to Congress on Aircraft-
Airport Noise.1 This[Report assesses the adequacy"]
of these actions gnd proposes a strategy for further
reduction in aviation-related noise during the next
20'years and beyond/l
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS REPORT
This Report was prepared after consultation with
several groups outside of EPA. Results of a recent
EPA forecast and assessment of the national noise
exposure due to air carrier aircraft through the year
2000, together with related questions, were sent in a
letter to the industry and the concerned public with
requests for their views. Replies to the letter have of-
fered a wide range of views2 and have been very
helpful in the preparation of this Report. In addition,
meetings were conducted with representatives of air-
craft and aircraft-engine manufacturers to give EPA
the benefit of the industry's detailed views on the
issues raised by the EPA forecast and assessment.
The views of the industry representatives regarding
aircraft noise and their outlook for the pace of future
improvements in aviation noise were considered
carefully in the development of the strategy for
future aviation noise abatement proposed in this
Report.
In the area of general aviation, the EPA spon-
sored a three-day conference in October ,1979,
focusing on General Aviation Airport Noise and
Land Use Planning. Participants represented the full
spectrum of interests affected by the planning pro-
cess.
The EPA also sponsored a Noise Technology
Research Symposium in January 1979. The Sym-
posium was motivated by the Congressional man-
date expressed in the Quiet Communities Act of
1978 relating to aviation noise research.
CONTENT OF THIS REPORT
The adequacy of aviation noise abatement actions
taken to date is measured in this Report against the
common FAA and EPA goals for aviation noise ex-
posure reduction. While considerable progress has
been made, EPA studies show that the noise ex-
posure goals will not be reached unless further ac-
tion is taken. Therefore, a national strategy for
reducing the number of people exposed to excessive
aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports is proposed.
The national strategy has two major parts: (a) ac-
tions to provide further relief to airport neighbors
(within the next 20 years) and (b) actions to main-
tain this degree of relief and provide for futher con-
trol of aviation noise beyond the year 2000. The
need for support of all parties — aircraft and engine
manufacturers, airlines, pilots, airport operators,
Federal, State and local governments, and the
public — is outlined in the Report, and EPA's plans
to initiate its portion of this national strategy are
detailed.
-------
AVIATION NOISE EXPOSURE GOALS
Three Federal agencies have responsibilities for
establishing Federal policy for civil aviation noise.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the
primary responsibility through its authority to
regulate aircraft noise emissions and flight pro-
cedures. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) exercise mandates which cut
across many sources of noise, specifically including
aviation noise.
EPA has the responsibility to coordinate all
Federal noise activities and policies. In addition, in
the aviation noise area, EPA is required to make
specific recommendations to the FAA regarding
aviation noise regulations which are necessary to
protect the public health and welfare.
HUD establishes guidelines for the use of Federal
housing and redevelopment assistance in areas im-
pacted by noise, including aviation noise. These
HUD guidelines presently represent the Federal
policy on identification of land uses that are com-
patible with high noise exposures.
In keeping with its mandate to coordinate Federal
efforts to control noise, EPA in 1977 established
some tentative goals for noise from all sources in its
publication, "Toward a National Strategy for Noise
Control"3. Three of these noise exposure goals for
the nation are given in terms of annual average out-
door day-night levels of community exposure, Ldn,
expressed in decibels, as follows:
• "Reduce environmental noise exposure of the
population to an Ldn value of no more than
75 dB immediately, utilizing all available tools,
except in those isolated cases where this would
impose severe hardship."
• "Through vigorous regulatory and planning ac-
tions, reduce environmental noise exposure
levels to Ldn 65 dB or lower, and concurrently
reduce noise annoyance and related activity
interference caused by intrusive noises."
• "In planning future programs concerned with
or affecting environmental noise exposure, to
the extent possible, aim for environmental
noise levels that do not exceed an Ldn 55 dB.
This will ensure protection of the public health
and welfare from the adverse effects of noise
based upon present knowledge." (emphasis
added)
As applied to aviation noise the national goal is to
confine noise exposure at and above Ldn 65 dB to
the airport boundaries or to those land areas which
are used for purposes that are compatible with their
exposure to noise (generally not residential). Further
degradation of the environment due to aviation
noise should not be permitted.
The FAA has set aviation noise goals for Ldn 65
dB and greater essentially similar to those set by
EPA4, and these goals are also compatible with the
HUD land-use guidelines5 as well as State aviation
noise regulations in California and Maryland.
Consequently, these goals form the basis for evalua-
tion of progress to date and for the formulation of
future aviation noise strategies discussed in this
Report.
9
-------
ACTIONS TO DATE
Considerable progress has been made in the con-
trol of aviation noise since EPA last reported to the
Congress on this subject in 1973. While more needs
to be done to bring relief to airport neighbors, future
actions need to be based on the progress made to
date. Actions taken since 1973 are described in this
chapter in three sections dealing with Federal, State,
and local efforts. As will be seen, the roles of each of
these levels of government have been significantly
clarified during the last six years, although the boun-
daries between the authorities of the three levels are
still not entirely clear.
The FAA regulates the manufacturers of aircraft
and", to a lesser extent, the air carriers regarding the
design, production, and use of quieter aircraft, in
the U.S. fleet. NASA carries out research on the
design of quieter aircraft and both the FAA and
NASA study and demonstrate noise abatement
flight procedures in order to promote the develop-
ment and incorporation of new techniques by air-
craft manufacturers and operators. The FAA also
controls airspace use and management, air traffic
control, and safety, all of which can affect noise
around an airport.
State and local governments, acting as proprietors
of air carrier airports, control the selection of airport
sites, the acquisition of buffer zones around the air-
ports, and also control airport design, scheduling,
and operations — subject to the Constitutional pro-
hibitions against creation of an undue burden on in-
terstate and foreign commerce, unjust discrimina-
tion, and interference with exclusive Federal
regulatory responsibilities over safety and airspace
management.
All States and local communities, whether airport
proprietors or not, may protect their citizens through
land-use controls and other police powers, provided
they do not transgress areas of Federal regulation or
the airport proprietor's rights.
FEDERAL ACTIONS
The Federal Government has been very active
during the past six years in controlling aviation
noise. Activities fall into four basic categories which
ensure:
• that through regulations and research, quieter
aircraft are designed, produced, and operated
in the U.S. fleet;
• that aircraft are flown in a quieter manner
(flight procedures);
• that aircraft are flown into and out of airports
along the most appropriate flight tracks (airport
operations); and
• that airport proprietors and local officials are
assisted in carrying out noise abatement ac-
tions.
1. Source Regulation and Research
The EPA 1973 Report to the Congress
highlighted the essential need to control the amount
of noise generated by aircraft if the overall noise
from the U.S. fleet of commercial aircraft were to be
significantly reduced. As a general rule, control of
noise at the source (the aircraft) is more cost effec-
tive than trying to protect people from an excessively
noisy source at each location where it operates.
In 1969 the FAA took one major step in this direc-
tion by issuing a new Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 36 (FAR 36)s requiring that new design aircraft
be certificated to meet specified noise levels. These
1969 noise standards came to be known as Stage 2
levels. The unregulated aircraft in operation prior to
1969 were designated Stage 1.
Although FAR 36 was an excellent first step in air-
craft noise regulation, it was understood by both the
FAA and the industry that there remained many
other problems to be resolved. The 1969 rule ap-
plied only to new design aircraft, that is, those
whose application for initial certification was
11
-------
submitted after the 1969 effective date of the rule.
This left the manufacture of older design aircraft
unregulated, as well as the operation of the older
design aircraft. Thus, it was not surprising that, in
1973, the U.S. jet-powered carrier fleet of approxi-
mately 2000 aircraft consisted of more than 90%
older design aircraft which did not meet, nor were
they required to meet, the Stage 2 noise levels. Fur-
thermore, due to the long structural and economic
life of these aircraft, they would probably remain in
the fleet for 10 to 20 years or more as a significant
factor in the airport noise problem.
Since 1973 the FAA has taken steps to fill these
gaps. The FAA has issued a rule which requires that
new production of older design aircraft comply with
the Stage 2 noise levels. In addition, in December
1976 the FAA set a phased compliance schedule by
which all aircraft in the U.S. fleet, not engaged in
foreign commerce are to be brought into compliance
with Stage 2 noise levels no matter when they were
designed or manufactured. Finally, because the
Stage 2 noise levels were no longer sufficiently
stringent for new-design aircraft, the FAA has fur-
ther reduced the permissible noise levels for them
(StageS).
The FAA rule for new production of older design
aircraft7 was made effective on December 31, 1974.
It brought under the Stage 2 limits the manufactur-
ing of all turbojet subsonic aircraft which were of
designs certificated before 1969. This represented
the bulk of the aircraft being manufactured at that
time, and therefore significantly increased the
number of aircraft subject to the FAR 36 noise re-
quirements.
Compliance with the December 1976 rule8 can be
achieved by the acoustic modification (retrofit) of
noncomplying airplanes or by their replacement
with complying airplanes. This "retrofit/replace-
ment" rule was intended to encourage the intro-
duction of new-generation aircraft rather than
retrofit of older aircraft. FAA plans call for expand-
ing this regulatory requirement and effective date to
include all international carriers operating in the
United States.
Having established requirements for compliance
of current civil subsonic airplanes with the noise
levels established by FAR 36 in 1969 (Stage 2), at-
tention was next focused on lowering noise levels for
new-design aircraft. In March 1978, the FAA re-
vised its noise standards9 to reflect the noise
reductions which are available in the more-fuel-
efficient, advanced-technology engines. The new
allowable maximum noise limits (defined as Stage 3
levels) provide approximately a 5-dB reduction from
the earlier Stage 2 limits, when averaged across the
fleet. This revision was made retroactive to Novem-
ber 5, 1975. It is in substantial conformity with
modifications to the noise standards recommended
by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) Committee on Aircraft Noise.
The FAA has also promulgated regulations cover-
ing small propeller-driven airplanes and supersonic
transports. Propeller-driven airplanes with max-
imum certificated weights less than 12,500 pounds
were made subject to FAR 36 noise certification re-
quirements in late 197410. Civil supersonic airplanes
(SST), except the Concordes with flight time before
January 1, 1980 (presently expected to include no
more than 14 Concordes), are required to comply
with the Stage 2 noise limits in order to operate in
the United States, by amendment to FAR 36, effec-
tive July 31, 1978."
The above regulatory actions took advantage of
the results of an aggressive, Federally sponsored
R & D program. The predominant activity in avia-
tion noise-abatement research, technology develop-
ment, and demonstration programs during the late
60s and early 70s was directed at reducing noise
levels of the large aircraft, which make up the bulk of
the commercial air carrier fleet. The significant pro-
grams of that period, notably the Sound Absorbent
Material (SAM) demonstration program and the
refan program, are now finding their way into
operational use. SAM treatment is being applied by
some airlines as a retrofit to their fleets and is also in-
corporated in new-production aircraft as a noise
reduction measure. The technologies demonstrated
in the refan and SAM programs are both utilized in
the new DC-9-80 series aircraft, which has been
designed to meet the Stage 3 FAR 36 noise levels.
Although it is generally agreed that aircraft noise
control at the source is the most cost-effective way to
reduce noise exposure, particularly when techno-
logical improvements are applied early in the aircraft
or engine design and development cycle, there
tends to be a 7-10 year time lag between the demon-
stration of a new technology and its introduction into
new designs for fleet use. Then an additional 10 or
more years must go by before these quieter planes
12
-------
make up a substantial portion of the fleet so that they
make a noticeable impact on the noise exposure of
the affected communities.
Air Carrier Technology For The Future. The in-
troduction of the first generation of "quiet" aircraft
(meeting Stage 2 noise limits) is only now beginning
to make a significant change in neighborhoods im-
pacted by airport noise. A second generation of
quiet aircraft (e.g., B-757, B-767) utilizing the Stage
3 technology developed during the early 70s is now
being produced for service in the 80s and will begin
to be fully appreciated by airport neighbors in the
90s. It should be noted that some of these second-
generation quiet transports are powered by
derivative versions of existing engines and therefore
may not incorporate all of the noise control
technology that could be available in a newly de-
signed advanced-technology engine. These second-
generation aircraft will contribute to reduced noise-
exposure levels at most commercial airports during
the 1985-2000 time period. However, the projected
reduction will still not result in achieving the
previously stated Ldn 65 dB goal. Therefore, a third
generation of quiet transports entering commercial
operation in the late 80s or early 90s must have still
lower noise levels if exposure levels are to be further
reduced, especially in the face of the forecasted
growth in fleet size and operations.
Noise-abatement technology continues to ad-
vance and newer developments, when applied to
future aircraft designs, will permit a further lowering
of the maximum allowable noise levels. However,
the long-term success of the noise-abatement pro-
gram is strongly dependent upon establishing chal-
lenging goals for the program.
A recent new engine-technology program, spon-
sored by NASA and conducted by both the Pratt &
Whitney Aircraft Company and the General Electric
Company has been stimulated by the energy shor-
tage. This program will provide technology for use
in new engines to be produced in the late 80s and
early 90s. The primary design criterion is a 12-15%
reduction in fuel consumption with a noise-level
goal that will only meet the present Stage 3 require-
ments. EPA believes that the noise-reduction goal
should be 5 dB below Stage 3 to assure incorpora-
tion of all available noise-abatement technology.
Previous studies indicated that reductions in air-
craft approach noise were limited by the airframe
noise "floor," caused by air flowing across the air-
craft. It was believed that significant reductions in
engine-generated noise, in the approach mode,
might not be perceived due to this airframe noise.
More recent studies now indicate that this floor is
somewhat lower than previously indicated and that
further reductions in engine-generated noise can be
realized.12
The NASA/industry acoustics program for ad-
vanced supersonic aircraft has included validation of
the performance of advanced noise-abatement con-
cepts uniquely applicable to supersonic aircraft. A
recent Congressional Office of Technology Assess-
ment (OTA) study13 states that present NASA work
indicates the possibility of meeting the FAR Part 36
Stage 2 noise regulations. More research and de-
velopment and technology validation will be needed
to meet Stage 3 requirements. EPA believes that
future supersonic transports should be required to
meet the same noise regulatory requirements as are
met by subsonic transports.
2. Flight Procedures
The FAA has promulgated two regulations per-
taining to noise-abatement flight procedures; one
addresses the sonic boom of supersonic transports14
and the other the landing flap settings of subsonic
aircraft.15 The operator of an SST is prohibited, ex-
cept over specified test routes, from conducting
flight procedures over land which would cause the
aircraft to exceed the speed of sound and thereby
cause a sonic boom. Regarding landing flap settings,
the operator is required to use a lower-than-
maximum flap setting unless the pilot determines
that weather, runway conditions, or other safety fac-
tors require the maximum. A lower flap setting re-
quires lower thrust, which results in less noise ex-
posure. -Both of the FAA flight-procedure regula-
tions are effective in controlling noise.
Noise-abatement takeoff procedures have been
recommended by the FAA in an advisory circular.16
The recommended takeoff procedures are capable
of effecting substantial noise reduction. However,
because the recommendations are so broad and on-
ly advisory in nature, cooperating airlines are not
necessarily going to achieve the maximum noise-
reduction benefits due to the flexibility in the cir-
cular.
Nevertheless, the advisory circular on takeoff pro-
cedures is a step forward. It does recommend
13
-------
narrowing the flight-departure options to achieve
reduced noise, increased safety, and decreased fuel
consumption. If all airlines choose to cooperate with
the circular, there will be a reduction in the number
of differing procedures that have existed since the jet
age began roughly 20 years ago. The result will be
more consistent operations and reduced overall
noise exposure.
3. Airport Operations
Each airport has a unique distribution of popula-
tion relative to its runways. At many airports, oppor-
tunities exist for reducing noise exposure by devising
approach and departure ground tracks for each run-
way that take advantage of areas that have the least
population, e.g., water, industrial land, agricultural
land, etc. The development of minimum noise ex-
posure ground tracks requires a coordinated effort
shared by the airport proprietor, the public, the
airlines and other aircraft operators, and the FAA to
reduce noise impacts while maintaining high safety
standards and airport capacity. This effort may in-
volve adjustments to flight paths for both arrivals and
departures to maintain adequate separation, locat-
ing new navigational aids, and training both air traf-
fic controllers and flight personnel.
Recent experience at Los Angeles International
Airport showed major noise impact reductions when
departing aircraft changed ground tracks and
climbed out over the ocean, recrossing the coast at
altitudes exceeding 7500 feet. At Logan Interna-
tional Airport in Boston, the FAA is studying more-
effective use of the harbor for climbout. By in-
creased utilization of the Logan runway which has
the greatest potential for community noise im-
provement, the number of people estimated to be
exposed to Ldn greater than 65 dB can be reduced
from 31,000 to 9,000 and the number exposed to
Ldn greater than 75 dB can be reduced from 3,300
to nearly zero.
In addition to optimizing the ground tracks asso-
ciated with each runway, there often is an oppor-
tunity to optimize the relative use of each runway to
minimize noise exposure. In many parts of the
United States, the winds vary significantly from day
to day and season to season in both velocity and
direction. It is often possible to design a preferential
runway system which enables maximum use of run-
ways which result in the least noise impact and mini-
mum use of those runways which result in the
maximum noise impact. Preference rules for runway
use can be defined as a function of both capacity
and wind conditions so that a minimum total noise
exposure results. Such a program requires the air-
port proprietor, the airlines and other aircraft
operators, and the FAA to devise practicable
systems that meet both capacity and safety re-
quirements.
4. Airport Noise Control Planning Programs
From the Federal perspective, airport develop-
ment and noise control planning are primarily local
concerns with the Federal role limited to providing
technical assistance and financial support. The funds
are provided through the Airport Development Aid
Program (ADAP), which was authorized by the Air-
port and Airway Development Act, Amendments of
197617 to include, as allowable costs, ". . . the pur-
chase of noise suppressing equipment, the construc-
tion of physical barriers, and landscaping for the
purpose of diminishing the effect of aircraft noise on
any area adjacent to a public airport, . . . (and) any
acquisition of land or of any interest therein
necessary to insure that such land is used only for
purposes which are compatible with the noise levels
characteristic of the operation of a public airport."
From the date of enactment of the 1976 ADAP
amendments (July 12, 1976) to June 30, 1979, 13
airports received $22.1 million to acquire lands for
noise control purposes. During the same period
about $0.5 million was granted for the construction
of physical barriers. While $22.6 million is a sub-
stantial amount, it is a very small fraction of the total
ADAP program, and is nearly insignificant with re-
spect to what some airports have spent on their
own. For example, Los Angeles International Air-
port has spent $144 million on land acquisition for
noise control purposes between 1965 and 1978.
The FAA also conducts an Airport Noise Control
and Land Use Compatibility (ANCLUC) Program.
Some forty airports are participating in this grant
program which will demonstrate noise control plan-
ning concepts on an airport-by-airport basis. Ul-
timately, a model planning process may evolve from
these concepts and a base will be established for
future planning programs.
STATE ACTIONS
Several States have taken the initiative in protec-
ting the health and welfare of their citizens from the
14
-------
adverse effects of aviation noise. Some examples
follow.
California
The State of California has established 65 dB
measured on the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) scale as the level to protect people
residing in the vicinity of the airport. This level is
very similar to EPA's Ldn 65 dB. The responsibility
for adopting and enforcing the noise standards is as-
signed to the county in which the airport is located.
The community noise standards state that no air-
port shall operate so that adjacent areas are exposed
to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL unless the pro-
prietor has obtained a variance. The variance pro-
cess requires airport proprietors to do site-specific,
time-phased planning which will contribute to the
improvement of the noise environment around the
airport.
Maryland
The Maryland airport noise control program ad-
dresses the problem of off-airport land-use compati-
bility by: (a) attempting to minimize noise levels at
existing noise-sensitive developments; and (b) pre-
venting the introduction of new noise-sensitive de-
velopments. Maryland's Environmental Noise Act of
1974 requires the following:
• Airport operators must assess the off-airport
noise impact of current and projected aircraft
operations.
• If the off-airport impact exceeds Ldn 65 dB, a
noise-abatement plan must be developed to re-
duce the impact on noise-sensitive land uses to
the extent practicable.
• In cases where the noise abatement plan does
not reduce the off-airport noise exposure to Ldn
65 dB, a State-certified airport noise zone must
be established. The zone must, at a minimum,
encompass the area within the Ldn 65 dB con-
tour. The State has control over land-use ac-
tivities within the airport noise zone to prevent
additional incompatible use.
Two other States, Florida and Minnesota, also
have programs which encourage noise reduction in
the airport vicinity, and at least two additional States
(Illinois and Oregon) are considering the adoption of
similar programs. These State programs can play an
important role in bringing the parties together to
seek an agreed-upon solution and in controlling
land use where the local jurisdictions are unable or
unwilling to do so.
LOCAL ACTIONS
At the local level, the control of airport noise ex-
posure involves use restrictions imposed by airport
proprietors and compatible land-use planning.
Airport Use Restrictions
Beginning in 1962, the courts placed the financial
liability for aircraft noise damages on the airport pro-
prietor.18 Since the mid-70s, the courts have begun
to recognize and define the authority of the pro-
prietor to regulate aircraft activity so as to avoid or
minimize this financial liability. The authority of the
proprietor to establish noise limits applicable to all
types of aircraft has been upheld,19 as has the setting
of limits applicable only in stated time periods, such
as nighttime,20 and the control of training activities.21
Use restrictions at airports are important tools for
near-term reduction of noise exposure around ma-
jor airports because control of noise at the source
(the aircraft) alone will not provide adequate relief.
Ideally, such restrictions should be imposed on the
basis of a thorough study of the noise levels in sur-
rounding neighborhoods (calculated or measured)
and a careful consideration of the most cost-effective
and least-disruptive restrictions which will produce
the desired reduction of noise levels. It was in recog-
nition of the importance of airport-specific restric-
tions and the need for careful planning that Con-
gress passed the Aviation Safety and Noise Abate-
ment Act of 1979.22 Title I of this Act authorizes
financial assistance to airports and communities in
the development and implementation of noise-
abatement plans and should make a significant con-
tribution to the number and quality of individual air-
port noise abatement plans.
Local Land Use Planning for Airport Noise
Control
Changing the use and operation of the airport is
only part of the aviation noise-abatement effort at
the local level. The use of the land around the air-
port is equally important. If this land is unde-
veloped, it is important that it be developed only for
purposes which are compatible with the airport
15
-------
noise. If the land is already developed, but has in-
compatible uses (such as residences), then there
may be land-use changes such as rezoning which
can slowly bring the land into a more compatible
configuration.
Land use is clearly a local matter. In most cir-
cumstances, this means that local officials have the
power to control local zoning, to acquire interests in
land (such as "development rights"), to develop
compatible land-use guidelines, to enact building
codes, and to determine airport locations.
The establishment of compatible land-use plans
for noise-exposure control can be a very useful step
toward establishing satisfactory co-existence of air-
ports and communities. Such plans are especially
helpful if they are prepared in conjunction with an
on-site airport noise-abatement plan which ex-
amines possible restrictions on the use and opera-
tion of the airport.
Environmental assessments or environmental im-
pact statements must be prepared whenever
changes or new developments requiring Federal
support are proposed at an airport which might
significantly affect the surrounding environment.
The FAA has proposed new policies and procedures
which will clarify and simplify earlier requirements
for actions to be taken by airport proprietors in
preparing these environmental assessments and en-
vironmental impact statements.23 If done well, these
assessments can foster compatible land-use planning
by local officials in conjunction with the planning for
the airport development.
Funding for Implementation of Local
Land-Use Programs
Financing for off-airport land use management
actions may be available to the airport proprietor
through ADAP. However, in the past, ADAP fund-
ing for these purposes has been minimal. A more
promising avenue, open to local political jurisdic-
tions, is the Community Development Block Grant
Program (CDBG) administered by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under
the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-383). Specifically, the objectives of
Section 101 of the Act include both the elimination
of detrimental conditions and more rational land
utilization. CDBG financing is now being used for
noise related land use changes at Hartsfield Atlanta
International Airport.
Another aid to financing land use changes for
more noise impact reduction purposes is being con-
sidered by the Treasury Department in the form of
revised project eligibility guidelines for tax-free
Industrial Development Bonds, If programs related
to noise reduction are made eligible for tax-free
bonding, local financing of such programs will be
easier to obtain.
Airport proprietors may find it necessary to fund
noise-control programs without Federal subsidy.
Locally funded programs could include the pur-
chase of land, or an interest therein, the manage-
ment of growth patterns through zoning and utility
(sewer, water) extension policies, the preservation
of important land resources by means of unique tax-
assessment procedures, and the soundproofing of
noise-sensitive structures.
A potential source of funding for airport noise-
control programs, which has yet to be used in this
country, is a noise charge, i.e., a charge to aircraft
operators for the noise they make. Noise charges
would be an incentive for aircraft operators to pro-
duce less noise and also be a source of funds for
noise-abatement actions. This has the attractive
feature that those who make the noise and benefit
from the aviation service causing it would pay for the
costs it imposes on the rest of society (the so-called
"polluter pays" principle). The advantage of such a
system is that it would force aircraft operators to take
into account noise costs just as they now account for
material and labor costs. Noise charges are now
assessed in several foreign countries, including
Japan, France, Netherlands, and Germany. Some
part of the noise charges is used to support noise-
control programs, such as soundproofing of build-
ings. Communities in the United States could also
benefit substantially from the use of noise charges.
16
-------
NOISE EXPOSURE STATUS AND
PROJECTIONS
EPA's major effort in noise exposure analysis has
been to study the impact of air carrier operations.
Studies are just beginning on noise exposure due to
general aviation (GA) and to military aircraft operat-
ing from joint-use civil/military airports. In this
chapter we present some of our air carrier noise
study results. We discuss the nature of the GA and
military aviation noise problems in Appendix A.
AIR CARRIER NOISE EXPOSURE
Population Exposed to Air Carrier
Operations
Of about 185,000 aircraft operating from about
14,000 airports in the United States only about
3,000 aircraft and some 600 airports are certificated
for air carrier operations, the remainder are
designated for general aviation. The noisiest aircraft
are the air carrier jets weighing in excess of 75,000
pounds. They only operate to any significant extent
at about 300 airports. Thus for the 600 or so air car-
rier airports, the noise at about half of those airports
is due mainly to air carrier jet operations. The noise
at the remaining 300 or so air carrier airports results
principally from the operations of small jet aircraft,
small and large propeller aircraft, and helicopters.
EPA has studied the noise exposure of large air
carrier jets for the time period through the year
2000.242S It should be noted that the results ob-
tained are dependent upon basic assumptions regar-
ding types and numbers of aircraft, numbers of air-
craft operations, fleet mixes at various airports, noise
levels of the aircraft, and population distribution.
Thus, they are based upon estimates for the next 20
years of a nurnber of key factors, any one of which
may change substantially as a result of economic,
technological, or social changes in the United
States. These difficulties have not deterred us from
making projections based on best assumptions. It is
very important to have a general concept of the size
of the problem in the year 2000 in order to design
and implement abatement actions today which will
have their real impact in the year 2000.
EPA predictions of noise exposure were made for
the baseline year of 1975 and for every five years
thereafter through the year 2000. The fundamental
assumptions concerning types, numbers, and
operations of aircraft, fleet mixes, etc., were based
upon FAA data. The EPA baseline studies assumed
that flight procedures were conducted essentially in
accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 91-39 and
that source regulations in effect at the time of the
study would apply. The following table presents the
mean values of the projected population exposures
for a case of moderate aviation growth. It is apparent
that without additional noise-abatement actions
neither the Ldn 65 dB nor the Ldn 75 dB goal will be
achieved by year 2000. A large reduction in ex-
posure occurs over the 5 years between 1980 and
1985 due to the retrofit/replacement regulation.
However, the decrease in the following 15-year
period is comparatively modest.
Population Exposed To Noise From
Air Carrier Aircraft.
Outdoor
Exposure Level
(dB)
Ldn 75 or greater
Number Of People
Exposed (Thousands)
1975 1980 1985 2000
400 300 150
Between Ldn 65 and
Ldn75 5150 4450 3000
100
2550
TOTAL: Ldn 65
or greater
5550 4750 3150 2650
17
-------
The tabulated noise exposure forecasts are na-
tional estimates that are based primarily on control
of noise generated at the source and do not take into
consideration the potential benefits of site-specific
airport noise-abatement planning and implementa-
tion of compatible land-use controls. The site-
specific noise-abatement factors not included were
optimizing both noise-abatement flight procedures
and flight tracks leading into and out of the airport,
use of preferential runways, altering service to take
advantage of the availability of quieter aircraft, im-
posing curfews, purchasing land in heavily exposed
areas, etc. Therefore, in developing a national pro-
gram for aviation noise abatement and control and
considering resulting costs, the noise-exposure
forecasts in the table should be considered probable
"high-side" estimates.
The above predictions of air carrier noise ex-
posure assume that the only noise certification re-
quirements are those in effect at the current time.
That is, all new types of aircraft after 1975 must
comply with Stage 3 noise limits and all older types
must comply with Stage 2 limits on or before 1
January 1985. Among the noisiest and least fuel
efficient of the air carrier jets are those propelled by
JT8D engines (B-727, B-737, and DC-9). These
aircraft contribute to the overall noise exposure in
excess of their proportion of fleet size and annual
operations because of their higher noise levels. The
above predictions also assumed that these aircraft
would no longer be produced after 1985. That
assumption by the FAA, which was adopted in the
EPA study, is presumably based upon the belief that
increased fuel costs would force these aircraft to be
discontinued by 1985 or produced with modern
engines that are more fuel efficient and less noisy.
However, EPA discussions with the aircraft manu-
facturers in preparation for this report revealed that
the manufacturers are unwilling to indicate any in-
tentions of stopping production by 1985. A new
regulation requiring these aircraft to comply with
Stage 3 would apparently be necessary to stop pro-
duction of these noisy aircraft by 1985.
One of/the most important conclusions that can
be drawn from the EPA study is that the regulatory
actions already taken to control air carrier noise at
the source have determined what the noise charac-
teristics of the air carrier fleet will be between now
and the year 2000. That is, no matter how stringent
future source noise regulations may be (short of of
further retrofit of the existing fleet), their effects on
the reduction of noise exposure will not be large, on
a fleet basis, until beyond the year 2000. This con- '
elusion is not to be interpreted to mean that more
stringent source regulations will not be effective. On
the contrary, the conclusion dramatically points out
that, because of the inertia of the system, further
source-control regulations must be initiated at the
earliest possible time if a quieter fleet is to be
achieved in the post-2000 period.
There is a basic principle involved. The introduc-
tion of quiet aircraft into the fleet does not by itself
bring about a reduction in noise exposure. Such
reductions can be accomplished only if the introduc-
tion of new quiet aircraft is accompanied by re-
tirement or quieting of older noisy aircraft or by
decreasing the number of aircraft operations. The
average life of an aircraft is about 20 to 25 years.
Noisy aircraft introduced into the fleet now will con-
tribute disproportionately to the noise exposure untij
they are ultimately replaced about the year 2000 or
later by quieter aircraft. Furthermore, all FAA
estimates predict the size of the air carrier fleet to in-
crease through the year 2000. Therefore, the noise
reduction that will occur in the fleet between now
and the year 2000 will be accomplished solely by
replacement of noisy aircraft by quieter ones. Thus,
primary relief for airport neighbors during the next
20 years must be found in noise-abatement actions
at specific airports.
18
-------
STRATEGY FOR FURTHER REDUCTION OF
AVIATION NOISE
A great deal of progress has been made since
1973 to deal with the aviation noise problem from
commercial carrier operations. The FAA has prom-
ulgated a number of important regulations which
when fully effective will provide dramatic relief
around our nation's airports for a large number of
people exposed to high levels of noise from com-
mercial aircraft operations.
Progress has also been made on the control of
noise at the local level. Both the Courts and the
Department of Transportation (DOT) have ar-
ticulated more clearly the rights and responsibilities
of the airport proprietor to reduce the noise from his
specific facility, and a small start has been made at
the Federal level to finance the development of
plans which lay the groundwork for such actions.
It would be a very serious mistake, however, to
become too complacent about this progress and to
lose sight of the substantial portion of the aviation
noise problem which remains. Accomplishments to
date, though considerable, fall far short of what
those who live around our nation's airports had ex-
pected at the time Congress enacted the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1972, directing the Executive Branch to
deal aggressively with aviation noise problems.
There is still widespread dissatisfaction on the part of
those who live in the vicinity of airports with the cur-
rent level of aircraft noise-abatement progress.
Community objection to aircraft noise has resulted
in both proposed and existing airport restrictions
involving night curfews, aircraft type restrictions,
and limitations on expansion of existing airports.
Airport expansion is being slowed in some cases by
citizen opposition to the increased noise which
would result and construction of new airports is be-
ing blocked. Legal action involving noise damage
claims is continuing (the total of such claims is
estimated to be approximately $250 million).
THE NEXT 20 YEARS
As shown earlier in this report, we expect that at
the end of the century, based on the actions taken to
date, there would still be approximately 2.5-milllion
people living in areas exposed to outdoor noise
levels, due to aviation operations, of Ldn 65 dB or
above. Approximately 100 thousand of these will
live in areas with extremely high levels of noise (Ldn
75 dB or greater). Millions more would be exposed
to levels above Ldn 55 dB.
What should be said to those who even 20 years
from now will still be living in such noisy neigh-
borhoods? Should we tell them that we are sorry
that they will not obtain relief and that no further
relief is forthcoming, or should we seek to design
and implement a program to bring relief to them as
well?
From a policy point of view, the Federal Govern-
ment has already taken a position on this issue. The
FAA, the EPA, and HUD are all in agreement that
having people live in areas exposed to high aviation
noise levels of Ldn 65 dB or greater is very undesir-
able and they have established policies to prevent
such exposures.
However, the policies of these three agencies
have not been translated into a total program to
achieve this degree of noise reduction around our
nation's airports. Nor has it been decided that the
Federal government should assume any financial
responsibility for this effort. In the past such a pro-
gram has been out of the question because of the
very large number of people affected and the atten-
dant costs of providing relief for all of them.
Now that several steps have been taken to require
quieter aircraft in the future, the number of people
remaining to be protected will have been signifi-
cantly reduced so that a solution seems feasible at
some time in the future. Of course, some airports
19
-------
are at and even below the Ldn 65 dB goal level at
this time, and others will be, in the year 2000. How-
ever, on a nationwide basis, trying to reach such a
goal within the next 20 years is probably still too am-
bitious.
Nevertheless, with one very important modifica-
tion to this Ldn 65 dB goal, we believe that a feasible
national program to provide relief to adversely ex-
posed people in the next 20 years could be designed
and implemented. This modification to the goal
would be that for the period up through the year
2000, protection of people inside their houses
would be deemed acceptable, if it is not feasible to
reduce the outdoor environment to satisfactory
levels. Although these people would continue to
find the use of their yards and outdoor space se-
verely limited, at least they could escape to the
privacy of their homes and have the opportunity to
enjoy a good night's sleep, family conversation, and
relaxation around the television or stereo without
the nerve-racking disruptions of over-flying aircraft.
Of course, providing relief to people only inside
their homes is not fully satisfactory. Even an Ldn 65
dB environment outside the home is destined to
give rise to many legitimate complaints. In the past
we have offered these people little hope of any re-
lief, partly because we could not offer them full
relief. Given a choice, partial relief in this instance is
clearly preferable, and we believe that if all parties
involved committed themselves to this objective, it
could in fact be achieved before the year 2000. We
believe that these families should be offered such a
hope of early relief and that a comprehensive
strategy to reach this goal should be put in place.
This concept of protecting people from exposure
to noise inside their houses rather than both inside
and outside their houses is especially attractive be-
cause of the new emphasis on soundproofing of
homes, schools, and hospitals in President Carter's
Urban Noise Program announced in the Environ-
mental Message of August 1979. Soundproofing
benefits can be achieved for very little additional cost
when a building is being insulated for energy con-
servation. In a recent EPA home soundproofing
study,26 it was estimated that in addition to an
approximate 25-dB reduction in internal noise, an
energy saving of approximately 64 percent could be
realized due to reduced heating requirements. The
noise reduction shown in the EPA study is approxi-
mately the same as that required for the proposed
soundproofing effort.
Soundproofing is not suggested here for people
whose outdoor noise levels exceed Ldn 75 dB. We
believe the opportunity should be provided these
people to relocate to quieter neighborhoods, thus
permitting the vacated property to be converted to
uses more compatible with the airport environment.
Of course, soundproofing of all houses exposed
to more than Ldn 65 dB and purchase of all houses
exposed to Ldn 75 dB or higher would be very ex-
pensive. Providing relief for these families exclusive-
ly by the method of soundproofing and purchase
would cost approximately $10 billion for the approx-
imately 2.5-million people affected by aircraft noise
in the year 2000.
We believe that there are a number of less costly
steps which should be taken which will have the ef-
fect of reducing the number of people left in the Ldn
65 dB and above area around the airport and hence
reducing the funds necessary for soundproofing and
purchase of homes. These actions can also assure
that no further noise degradation occurs in the resi-
dential neighborhoods around airports, including
those which are fortunate to be exposed to less than
Ldn 65 dB today. A national strategy should be de-
veloped to exploit these other methods of noise con-
trol, where feasible, with soundproofing and pur-
chase of land being carried out for those homes
remaining. Although we presently do not know how
much the problem could be reduced by these
means, we are confident that the total cost of achiev-
ing this goal would be considerably less than the $10
billions required when only soundproofing and pur-
chase programs are implemented. A more accurate
cost projection for this national strategy should be
developed for public discussion by the Federal agen-
cies involved during the next twenty-four months.
When we say "national" strategy, we do not
mean "Federal" strategy. The task of designing and
implementing such a strategy, and ensuring ade-
quate funding, should be shared in some manner by
the many parties to this problem: the passengers,
the airlines, the aircraft manufacturers, the airports,
the communities, and those affected by the noise.
Federal assistance under existing grant programs is
also a possibility.
Although in our view the Federal Government
should not shoulder the financial burden of meeting
20
-------
this year 2000 goal, it does seem appropriate for the
Federal Government to take the lead in developing
the necessary national strategy. To ask local com-
munities, the airlines, the airports, or the aircraft
manufacturers to take the leadership role is
unrealistic.
A national strategy for achieving indoor protec-
tion for airport neighbors by the year 2000 should
include the following:
• Optimization of aircraft flight procedures,
including throttle and flap management, flight
tracks, and preferential runway utilization.
• Airport noise-abatement planning.
• Off-airport land-use management to prevent
future encroachment of neighborhoods on air-
ports and remedy present encroachment
through soundproofing and purchase of struc-
tures.
Optimization of Aircraft Flight Procedures
The estimate of 2.5-million people living in areas
exposed to noise levels of Ldn 65 dB and above in
the year 2000 is based primarily on the implementa-
tion of FAA regulations which will ensure that the
aircraft in the U.S. fleet will be significantly quieter
than in the past. The number of people exposed to
such levels could be substantially reduced through
the employment of both optimized noise-abatement
flight procedures and optimized flight tracks, and
preferential runway utilization. Based on the results
of our studies, we estimate that the number of peo-
ple, nationally, exposed to excessive aviation noise
could be reduced by up to 25% through the wide-
spread use of optimized noise-abatement takeoff
procedures alone. With the employment of im-
proved noise-abatement approach procedures and
other airport-specific measures such as flight-track
optimization and the use of preferential runways,
the national population exposure could be further
reduced.
Ideally, the leadership for this flight procedure
optimization should come from the airline pilots and
the airlines, with assistance from air traffic controllers
and airport proprietors. We believe that noise-abate-
ment procedures are consistent with, and often en-
hance, the safety and fuel efficiency of aircraft
operations. On this basis, a broad consensus should
be established among pilots, airline operations man-
agers, air traffic controllers, and airport operators to
employ the available noise abatement flight proce-
dures more vigorously and uniformly and to reduce
the wide deviation from these procedures which
presently appears to exist. We recognize that the op-
timum flight procedures are somewhat site-specific,
but that from the standpoint of safety, it is important
that the number of different noise-abatement flight
procedures be kept to a minimum.
We will recommend to the FAA that they take the
initiative for establishing this consensus by conven-
ing one or more conferences and a series of training
seminars with these individuals and that they ex-
plore with this group the need for further regulation
in this area, as appropriate. While flight-track op-
timization and preferential runway use are airport
specific, sufficient experience has now been gained
whereby the successful noise-control procedures
developed and being used at several airports can be
more universally understood and adopted.
Should the FAA be unsuccessful in developing
this consensus, the possibility exists for individual
airport proprietors to monitor compliance with
noise-abatement procedures and seek enforcement
of them. However, this approach is clearly less
desirable than a voluntary effort by the pilots and
airlines, provided some way of assuring perfor-
mance can be found.
For its part EPA proposes to initiate a program
with several airport operators to mo'nitor approach
and departure flight procedures routinely employed
by commercial air carriers to determine whether pro-
cedures recommended by the FAA are being em-
ployed and to determine seasonal weather effects as
well as effects of schedule and traffic pattern
changes. These data will be provided to the FAA, air
carriers, airport proprietors, and pilots in support of
the FAA-sponsored conferences and seminars and
will be available to support the development and
promulgation of regulations, if they are found to be
necessary.
A number of site-specific actions should be taken
by airport proprietors. These actions and the author-
ity of the proprietor to undertake them were set forth
in the Transportation Secretary's Aviation Noise
Abatement Policy in November 1976.27 Since 1976,
several important precedents have been set which
clarify the extent of proprietary authority; these deci-
sions should be used to update the 1976 DOT Avia-
tion Noise Abatement Policy statement so that a
clearer statement of responsibility can be available to
21
-------
airport proprietors and others concerned with air-
port noise.
Airport Noise Abatement Planning
Mapping of noise-exposure areas and noise-
abatement planning are necessary at all air carrier
airports, both those with noise problems today and
those which could develop problems in the future.
Planning can help ensure the continued useful life of
the airport site, by preventing premature closing due
to noise impact. Because sites for new airports are
very scarce and usually impose difficult surface
transportation problems, present airport sites are
valuable assets. They should be preserved if they
can be made compatible with the neighborhoods in
which they are located.
The new Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act correctly includes local elected officials as well as
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) as im-
portant participants in airport planning and as possi-
ble recipients of implementation funds. In addition,
to help expand the number of airports protected, the
FAA should make noise-exposure mapping and
noise-abatement planning a requirement for any air-
port which must develop a master plan under the
Airport and Airway Development Act. EPA will con-
tinue its work with State and local elected officials to
encourage a broader participation by these persons
in airport planning in the future. The Agency's Each
Community Helps Others (ECHO) Program will be
expanded to assist local officials in this area.
In the past, airport proprietors have argued that
airport noise mapping and noise-abatement plan-
ning expose them to the possibility of lawsuits be-
cause they must admit that the noise extends into
the surrounding neighborhood. They have argued
that this mapping and planning in fact can cause a
"noise problem" where one did not exist before.
This rather cynical view of noise as a "political"
problem instead of a public health problem may ex-
plain why some airport proprietors have done little
or nothing to provide relief for airport neighbors.
The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979 lays much of this argument to rest by providing
protection to proprietors from spurious lawsuits and
from the use of the maps against them in lawsuits.
EPA will support the FAA in strongly promoting the
voluntary mapping and planning called for in the
Act, especially at the noisiest 100-150 airports. If
these maps are not produced voluntarily by the air-
port proprietors, then at least the mapping, if not the
planning, should be done by the Federal Govern-
ment or other parties in order to identify existing
problems and to allow parties other than the pro-
prietors to take corrective actions within the scope of
their authority, i.e., the imposition of land-use con-
trols. EPA is now helping several communities to
develop noise maps and interpret those results
through the Technical Assistance Program. Skilled
professional staff at EPA headquarters are available
to assist local communities to the extent that
resources will allow.
In October 1976 the EPA forwarded a proposal to
the FAA for an Airport Noise Regulatory Process.
This proposal called for mandatory noise-abatement
planning at all air carrier airports with the extent of
the planning effort directly related to the severity of
the noise impact problem at the specific site. The
FAA has yet to make its decision on this EPA pro-
posal which would cause all airport proprietors to
assess their noise situation according to a nationally
accepted methodology.
At some airports it may be necessary to go beyond
optimization of flight tracks and runways and make
changes in the airport layout and operations and/or
restrict the type of aircraft that can operate at the air-
port, for either some part of or all of the day. Restric-
tions on the use of the airport are clearly within the
authority of the proprietor so long as they are non-
discriminatory, do not violate Constitutional prohibi-
tions against undue burdens on interstate and
foreign commerce, and do not interfere with ex-
clusive Federal regulatory responsibilities for safety
and airspace management. For instance, carriers
presently serving the airport cannot be favored over
new entrants to the market. In order to facilitate
non-discriminatory actions of this sort, the FAA has
published advisory circulars listing the measured or
predicted noise levels of various types of aircraft at
standard measurement points on the ground. Air-
port proprietors can then "draw a line," so to speak,
at the decibel level deemed necessary for protection
of surrounding neighborhoods and thereby close the
airport to use by aircraft that exceed this level. If
done carefully and thoughtfully, this approach is a
reasonable exercise of a proprietor's responsibility to
make his facility compatible with the community in
which it is located.
22
-------
The advent of deregulation of the airline industry
has resulted in rapid changes to the airport opera-
tions in many communities. Increased flights and the
entrance of new carriers have created some confu-
sion in the minds of airport proprietors concerning
what local noise-control actions are appropriate.
Consequently, EPA will ask the FAA and the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB), with whatever assistance
from EPA may be helpful, to develop a coherent
and unified statement of Federal policy regarding
appropriate noise-abatement actions which local
proprietors may take.
In addition, EPA will continue to assist airport
proprietors and impacted communities to analyze
their noise environment and to utilize available data
in an objective and non-discriminatory manner. This
activity is mandated in the Quiet Communities Act
of 1978 (P.L. 95-609) wherein Sec. 14(c)(l)(C)
states that EPA shall "administer a nationwide Quiet
Communities Program, which shall include . . . de-
veloping abatement plans for areas around transpor-
tation facilities (including airports, highways and rail-
yards) and other major stationary sources of noise."
Quite often, EPA provides this type of technical
assistance in cooperation with the FAA. In other
situations, where requests for technical assistance
come from parties other than the airport proprietor,
technical assistance is provided directly to local
governments. It is legitimate in our view for these
decisions to be made on an airport-by-airport basis
because each airport is different in terms of the
neighborhoods affected and the traffic volume and
flight tracks involved. What is acceptable equipment
at one airport need not be acceptable at another.
Off-Airport Land-Use Management
Every year more and more houses are built in
neighborhoods which are now or will be severely af-
fected by the noise from our nation's airports,
including some of the noisiest ones. As a general
rule, very little is done to discourage building these
houses or to educate or warn prospective pur-
chasers of what is in store for them. By the time the
purchasers really find out what it is like to live under
a busy flight path day in and day out, it is too late for
them to do anything about it. It makes little sense to
launch new initiatives to cure the problem of in-
compatible development in existing neighborhoods
around our airports if at the same time new
residential developments are encroaching on these
same airports.
The various parties to the aviation noise problem
— the aircraft manufacturers, the airlines, the airport
proprietors, the pilots, local elected officials, and the
airport neighbors — all have differing views about
how to "solve" the aviation noise problem, but on
the subject of new encroachment by neighborhoods
on noisy airports, we believe there is unanimity. En-
croachment by incompatible uses is undesirable and
should be prevented. Yet the concerned parties
have not spoken with a unified voice to persuade
builders, property owners, and elected officials to
take steps to prevent this repetition of past mistakes.
Each of these parties has stated on separate occa-
sions its strong conviction that future encroachment
should be stopped, but the differences between
these organizations on other matters apparently
have prevented them from joining together in a
unified position to persuade local officials and
developers to seek compatible uses of land near
noisy airports.
We believe that the time is ripe for parties to the
aviation noise problem to put aside their philosophi-
cal differences on other aspects of the problem and
to join together in a "Compact" based on common
interests on this issue of future encroachment. A
unified voice would probably be "heard" far more
often than the occasional protest which is now
voiced. Not only should everyone be speaking with
one voice on this matter, but together these
organizations could offer something more positive to
local officials and developers. Members of the Com-
pact could do the research and development work
to suggest a variety of alternatives to local officials
and developers for use in situations such as these.
As an example, the concept of "development rights"
has not been carefully explored for use in the airport
noise area, and yet it seems to hold some promise
for allowing local officials to prevent incompatible
development at a price far below the cost of outright
purchase of the property. In addition, members of a
Compact, by their own actions, could demonstrate
that local officials are not the only ones being asked
to do their part to control aviation noise. A positive
approach by the members of the Compact might be
very effective in assisting local decision makers with
the difficult problem of saying "no" to residential
development near airports.
23
-------
EPA will take the initial steps to form such a Com-
pact with the expectation that EPA and the rest of
the Federal Government would need to play only a
supporting role once it is formed. The complexity of
developing and implementing land-use programs
around airports makes it difficult for local officials to
work effectively without technical assistance. In the
future EPA's regional offices will expand their efforts
in this important area. In addition, EPA's current ef-
forts to develop a model building code for possible
adoption by communities should be of considerable
assistance in this effort. The model building code will
be tested by several communities within the context
of their own airport noise situations. Preliminary
discussions have been held with several major cities
and there is strong interest in this subject.
State actions to legislate, plan, and control avia-
tion noise have emerged as one of the most sig-
nificant spheres of noise control since our last report
to Congress. A large part of the institutional recog-
nition that has been extended airport proprietors to
control airport and aircraft noise was the direct result
of the leadership of States such as California and,
Maryland. In addition, creative actions by local in-
stitutions should remain an essential component of
comprehensive State plans for aviation noise abate-
ment. State actions for aviation noise planning bring
credibility and a sense of permanence to the airport
noise abatement effort.
EPA's activity in support of State-level programs
will include a series of planning workshops con-
ducted with the Regional Technical Assistance
Centers. These workshops will be used to distribute
planning concepts and information and to deter-
mine future program directions. One such possible
direction could be the development of model State-
enabling legislation for airport noise-abatement
planning and the maintenance of compatible land
uses around airports.
Of equal importance to the planning process
could be the vigorous enforcement of the provisions
of the Federal Aviation Act which require that
assurances be given under the Airport and Airway
Development Act that the grantee (the proprietor)
has taken steps to assure that compatible land use
takes place in conjunction with expansion of the air-
port facilities. A number of years ago the FAA ap-
parently enforced this provision much more
vigorously than recently. Obviously, it is a hard pro-
vision to enforce since the law puts the pressure on
the airport proprietor rather than the local officials,
who may have ultimate control over whether or not
the land will be used compatibly; yet, in our view,
the problem of future encroachment of incompatible
uses on airports is so serious that every effort should
be made to discourage it from taking place. For this
reason, we will propose that a thorough review be
undertaken jointly with the FAA on ways to achieve
more effective implementation by the FAA of this
provision of law and its other authorities to prevent
more of these encroachment problems.
Soundproofing and Relocation
Even after flight operations as well as the equip-
ment serving a particular airport are optimized, and
after the possibility of future encroachment is de-
creased, there will still remain a sizable number of
people around airports who will continue to live in
environments exposed to Ldn 65 dB or greater,
through the year 2000. Relocation of those exposed
to Ldn 75 dB or greater and soundproofing for
houses located in environments of Ldn 65 to 75 dB
would then be necessary to provide these families
with privacy inside their homes.
There are a number of ways in which the funds for
this part of the program might be found. In fact a
variety of sources should probably be tapped. For
instance, landing fees at airports and the targeting of
existing grant programs should be examined.
We will propose to the FAA that the two Agencies
work cooperatively to further investigate the various
fund sources which should be tapped for the sound-
proofing and relocation program. The two Agencies
should undertake the development of a possible
noise emissions charge program at airports, in-
cluding determining the detailed mechanisms by
which noise charges could be assessed, collected,
and disbursed and to develop recommendations for
appropriate legislation if needed. Such recommen-
dations, including a detailed program plan, should
be available for consideration within the Administra-
tion by the end of 1982. Concurrent with this activi-
ty, the two Agencies should also conduct an in-
depth soundproofing study to establish as precisely
as possible the number of residences affected,
together with cost and time estimates, and to resolve
questions pertaining to the stewardship, use, and
disposition of those properties which would be can-
didates for purchase. While we believe that the
24
-------
FAA's leadership, with full EPA participation, is
desirable in developing this program, EPA is
prepared to undertake the devetopment of the pro-
gram alone, if necessary.
LOOKING BEYOND THE YEAR 2000
Twenty years seems like a long time, but in the
aviation noise area, solutions which involve equip-
ment changes necessarily take a long time. If we
want quieter neighborhoods in the 21st century, or if
we even want to maintain the gains we make in this
century, actions must be taken now.
The actions previously described in this chapter
will not reduce the noise levels of future aircraft, nor
will they ensure that the air carrier fleets assumed to
be operational at the turn of the century will not
become noisier. In addition, leaving the outdoor
environments in our neighborhoods at Ldn 65 dB or
above is satisfactory only for the short term and fur-
ther actions are appropriate to reduce outdoor levels
to Ldn 65 dB or below, ultimately to Ldn 55 dB. Fur-
thermore, future expansion of the national air trans-
portation system is likely, but it should not expand at
the expense of airport neighborhoods. It is therefore
essential that the following elements be added to the
aviation noise program:
• Accelerated research and development to en-
sure the design and manufacture of quieter
engines and airframes.
• Effective regulatory leadership for certification
of new types of aircraft, derivative aircraft, and
new-production aircraft.
Industry recognizes the need to further reduce air-
craft-generated noise. At a recent NASA/industry
meeting,28 the following viewpoints were indicative
of the industry consensus:
• There is a need for a continued, strong, funda-
mental, noise research program with emphasis
also on advanced concepts to reduce noise
from future aircraft with minimal sacrifice in
direct operating cost.
• The engine technology to be utilized in the
1990s must be available in the 1980s. The ma-
jor challenges of the 1990-2000 time frame will
be fuel, environmental considerations, critical
materials, costs, and performance.
• Public pressure for reduced noise will continue
and may even encompass smaller engines with
the growth in the commuter market.
Effective regulatory leadership includes the need
to establish aircraft noise limits based upon future re-
quirements to achieve realistic goals. It is not ade-
quate to establish limits which are based on "com-
mon practice" technology. To achieve total land-use
compatibility in communities adjacent to air carrier
airports requires that environmental noise exposure
not exceed Ldn 55 dB. This level is unlikely to be at-
tained nationally in the foreseeable future although it
is attainable at some airports and therefore should be
emphasized as an ultimate goal for air carrier air-
ports. However, Ldn 65 dB is considered a realistic
national goal. To achieve the latter level on a na-
tional basis for outdoor environments would require
that the noise levels of future air carrier aircraft be
reduced below Stage 3 levels by approximately 10
to 15 dB. It is possible that with aircraft quieted to
these levels and with the use of site-specific opera-
tional measures, some airports would approach or
meet the EPA long-range goal of Ldn 55 dB.
Industry participants in last year's Noise Tech-
nology Research Symposium29 expressed the belief
that up to a 10-dB reduction may be possible by the
year 2000 with an aggressive Federal R&D pro-
gram. Continued expenditures in noise-abatement
research will provide benefits in the post-2000 time
period and may be necessary to maintain the level of
environmental compatibility that will result from the
proposed national noise-control strategy. In terms of
realizing an additional 10-dB reduction in noise
generation, detailed component-technology devel-
opment needs were identified by the Symposium
participants. Further, the scope and difficulty of the
research needs for engine noise reduction led to the
conclusion that present funding levels are insuffi-
cient.
Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic reduc-
tion in Federally sponsored programs in aviation
noise research.30 From a high of $47 million in FY
1973, Federal expenditures were down 60% to $18
million by 1978 and this downward trend is con-
tinuing.
More than token progress can only be made in
aviation noise-control research if there are significant
increases in Federal support. Participants in the
Noise Technology Research Symposium felt that a
25
-------
reasonable starting point would be to increase the
Federal funding level for noise R & D by a factor of
two, starting in FY 81. This increased R&D funding
could lead to savings of billions of dollars that might
otherwise be spent on land-use change.
EPA recommends that the Congressional Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) undertake a
study, with the active participation of both EPA and
FAA, to evaluate the existing NASA noise research
program and to identify the additional program ef-
fort required to develop and demonstrate the
necessary technology to realize the long-range
goals. In its current study of Advanced Air Transport
Technology (initiated at the request of the House
Science and Technology Committee and endorsed
by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transporta-
tion Committee), OTA has identified noise as a con-
straint to the growth of the commercial air system for
both advanced subsonic and supersonic aircraft.
Therefore, we believe that this recommendation is a
logical extension of OTA's present study.
The 10-15 dB goal should be incorporated in
Federal noise regulations so that engine and air-
frame designers can identify and develop the tech-
nology necessary for its attainment and the neces-
sary R&D programs can be undertaken and sup-
ported. Meanwhile, technology is now available to
establish an interim level, 3 to 5 decibels below cur-
rent Stage 3 levels. Several commercial aircraft now
operating meet such reduced noise levels. These
levels should be made mandatory for all new aircraft
designed to become operational in the later 1980s
and early 1990s. The longer-range goal levels
would apply to new aircraft designs which may be-
come operational after the turn of the century,
thereby providing adequate lead time to identify,
develop, and demonstrate the requisite technology.
The FAA should act favorably upon EPA's pro-
posed regulations (Stage 4) which would essentially
meet the interim goal level of 3-5 dB reduction and
would be effective January 1, 1980. The levels pro-
posed by EPA to become effective January 1, 1985
(Stage 5) should also be favorably acted upon by the
FAA. As an alternative to the Stage 5 proposal, the
FAA should consider establishing a standard by
1985 which would require a 10-15 dB reduction in
some future year. We will discuss this alternative
with the FAA.
Also, further noise reduction should be required
in the Stage 2 aircraft now in the fleet and those
being added, which will dominate the noise situation
for many years in communities adjacent to many of
the nation's air carrier airports. Manufacturers have
little incentive to improve their products for noise
control, whereas they place considerable emphasis
on derivative aircraft programs to increase range
and payload, lower specific fuel consumption, ex-
tend useful life, reduce manufacturing costs, etc.
One approach to diminishing the influence of Stage
2 aircraft noise may be to prohibit any change in air
carrier fleet makeup after some future date, that
would result of itself in an increase in fleet noise
level, unless operations are reduced so that fleet
noise level remains the same or decreases. If opera-
tions are increased, airlines would have to put into
service derivative or new-production aircraft which
are quieter than their predecessors, thus assuring
that noise control becomes an integral element in
the product-improvement cycle. The EPA is re-
investigating the potential benefits of a Fleet Noise
Rule31 that would incorporate these considerations
and will provide appropriate recommendations to
the FAA.
Another approach that has merit, and is being
investigated by the FAA, is to issue a rule that after
some date certain, e.g., 1982 or 1983, newly pro-
duced Stage 2 aircraft would have to meet Stage 3
noise limits ("Stage 2 Production Cut-Off"). This
could hasten the purchase of available quieter and
more-fuel-efficient engines in the newly produced
Stage 2 aircraft. Either a Fleet Noise Rule or a Stage
2 Production Cut-Off should be promulgated by the
FAA to deal with this problem of continued produc-
tion of aircraft which do not provide the degree of
noise control which is possible. EPA will work close-
ly with the FAA to achieve a suitable solution to this
problem.
GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY
AVIATION
General Aviation
While primary emphasis has been placed on air
carrier noise in this report, we are mindful of the
potential problem presented by the growing number
of general aviation operations, including business
jets. However, until we obtain a better under-
standing of the noise implications of these growing
activities, it is not possible at this time to formulate a
general policy and strategy. The results of an
26
-------
on-going EPA study of general aviation noise,
scheduled for completion in the next twelve months,
will be the basis for additional national strategy
recommendations in subsequent revisions to EPA's
Five Year Plan for noise abatement.
Joint Use of Civil/Military Airports
EPA has initiated a study to evaluate the existing
military contribution to noise exposure at the joint-
use airports and to determine its significance as the
civil aircraft fleet becomes quieter. If the results of
this study show that the military aircraft fleet is a sig-
nificant noise source, then further studies with De-
partment of Defense participation may be necessary
to determine the best methods for protecting the
public health and welfare from military aircraft noise.
Both general aviation noise and civil/military
joint-use aircraft noise are discussed in more detail in
Appendix A.
ACTION SUMMARY
In summary, EPA will take the following actions
to implement its portion of a national strategy for air
carrier aviation noise proposed in this Report.
• Optimization of Aircraft Flight Procedures
— EPA will recommend to the FAA that they
take the initiative for establishing a consen-
sus among pilots, airline operations manag-
ers, air traffic controllers, and airport oper-
ators to employ more vigorously the avail-
able noise-abatement procedures and to re-
duce the wide deviations from these pro-
cedures which presently exist.
• Airport Noise Abatement Planning
— Pursuant to the explicit directive of the
Quiet Communities Act of 1978, EPA will
continue to assist airport proprietors and im-
pacted communities to analyze their noise
environment and utilize the available data in
an objective and nondiscriminatory man-
ner. Where appropriate these activities will
be conducted on a cooperative basis with
the FAA.
— EPA will develop new mechanisms for de-
livering airport and land-use compatibility
planning assistance, including the Each
Community Helps Others (ECHO) concept
and the use of regional technical centers.
— EPA will continue its work with State and
local elected officials to encourage a broader
participation by these persons in future air-
port planning actions.
— EPA believes that a need exists for a unified
coherent interagency statement of Federal
policy regarding noise-abatement actions
which local airport proprietors may take,
and will seek the development of such a
statement.
— EPA strongly promotes the voluntary map-
ping and planning called for in the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 at
all airports, but especially at the noisiest
100-150 airports.
• Off-Airport Land-Use Management
— EPA will take the initial steps to form a
Compact between the various parties to the
aviation problem to prevent future en-
croachment by incompatible land uses on
noisy airports.
— EPA will propose to the FAA that a thor-
ough joint agency review of FAA authority
in compatible land-use assurance under the
Federal Aviation Act and the Airport and
Airway Development Act be undertaken.
— EPA will work to involve State and local
governments in airport-oriented land-use
management activities, e.g., model building
codes, model State enabling acts, work-
shops.
— EPA will propose to the FAA that a joint
program be undertaken to develop a plan
for soundproofing and residential relocation
programs.
• Effective Regulatory Leadership
— EPA will continue to press the FAA to act
favorably upon its proposed regulation for
Stage 4*aircraft and to establish a 10-15 dB
reduction goal for future newly designed air-
craft.
— EPA is re-investigating the potential benefits
of a Fleet Noise Rule (FNL) and will provide
the FAA with appropriate recommenda-
tions in their consideration of rules pertain-
ing to new-production cut-off of Stage 2 air-
craft.
27
-------
Accelerated Research and Development
— EPA recommends that the Congressional
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
undertake a study, with the active participa-
tion of both EPA and FAA, to evaluate the
existing NASA noise research program and
to identify the additional program effort re-
quired to develop and demonstrate the
necessary technology to realize the long-
range goals.
28
-------
APPENDIX A
NOISE EXPOSURE DUE TO GENERAL
AVIATION AND TO MILITARY AIRCRAFT
AT JOINT CIVIL/MILITARY AIRPORTS
GENERAL AVIATION NOISE EXPOSURE
Population Exposed to GA Operations
The most prominent contributors to aircraft noise
exposure are clearly air carrier aircraft. Thus, the air
carriers and their airports have received, by far, the
greatest attention from communities, industry,
operators, and regulatory agencies. However, the
size and growth rates of the general aviation (GA)
fleet suggest that GA operators may also be a signifi-
cant contributor to the national aviation noise
environment. In terms of numbers of aircraft and air-
ports, GA constitutes the major portion of the civil
aviation transportation system. Of about 185,000
aircraft operating from about 14,000 airports in the
United States in 1978, only about 3,000 aircraft and
600 airports were certificated for air carriers; the re-
mainder are for GA.
In order to obtain the views on GA noise impacts
of a representative group of concerned people from
around the country, EPA convened a Conference
on General Aviation Airport Noise and Land Use
Planning in October 1979. Attendees included
members of affected communities, representatives
of Federal, State, and local governments, manufac-
turers and operators of GA aircraft, airport
managers, and land-use planners. This group's ad-
vice was sought on the potential seriousness of the
GA noise problem and on possible planning strate-
gies to cope with it.
The term "general aviation" encompasses all civil
aircraft operations not provided by scheduled, cer-
tificated air carriers. About 95% of the total GA fleet
The term "general aviation" encompasses all civil
aircraft operations not provided by scheduled, certi-
ficated air carriers. About 95% of the total GA fleet
consists of propeller-driven and jet aircraft not ex-
ceeding 75,000 pounds gross weight. The re-
mainder are helicopters and large air carrier-type air-
craft converted to GA use. Of increasing significance
to community noise is the rapid growth of this fleet.
Even more important for noise impact is the rate of
introduction of jets and turboprops. They have been
added to the domestic fleet in the last few years at a
rate twice that of the total fleet. Because many of
these jets and turboprops are significant GA noise
sources, their noise impacts dominate at many air-
ports.
A critical factor for GA noise is the fact that, in
general, background noise levels around GA and
most small air carrier airports are lower than the
background levels around most large air carrier air-
ports. Accordingly, noise from GA airport opera-
tions could be more intrusive on surrounding com-
munities. In addition, the typical small aircraft com-
monly operated from GA airports are usually the
ones which have not yet benefited from the noise-
control technology developed for the large commer-
cial aircraft.
It is clear from estimates of GA growth that the
FAA's limited actions to date to regulate GA aircraft
noise will do very little to prevent a significant in-
crease in noise impact around GA airports. A com-
prehensive noise-control program is required now.
For these reasons EPA has initiated a study to
assess the community noise exposure currently pro-
duced by GA operations, and to project this
29
-------
exposure through the year 2000. This information
will form a data' base for considering noise-
abatement and control actions to protect the public
health and welfare from GA noise.
General Aviation Technology For the Future
As indicated above, the fastest growing segment
of civil aviation is the small (below 75,000 pounds
gross weight) jet-powered aircraft. The first genera-
tion of these aircraft were primarily powered by
turbojet engines and were relatively noisy. Stimu-
lated by 1969 FAR 36, which applied to all turbojet-
powered airplanes as well as transport category air-
planes, the development of small, moderate by-
pass, turbof an engines for business jets was initiated.
The first aircraft powered by these engines, the
Cessna Citation, was delivered in 1972. Today, this
aircraft is still the quietest jet-powered civil aircraft in
production. In fact, the Citation is approximately 10
dB below the new Stage 3 requirements. All of the
succeeding new-production business jets powered
by the moderate-by-pass engines are significantly
below the noise levels required by FAR 36 Stage 3.
'However, because these aircraft operate out of
many smaller suburban airfields contiguous with
very quiet residential communities, it is anticipated
that they will have to be still quieter in the future.
In 1974, NASA initiated a general aviation turbo-
fan engine program to demonstrate that the tech-
nology previously developed for large engines was
applicable to small engines. The noise target es-
tablished for this Quiet, Clean, General Aviation
Turbof an (QCGAT) program was 10-20 dB below
the FAR 36 Stage 3 levels. Two contractors
(AVCO-Lycoming and Airesearch) were funded to
produce these experimental engines. The develop-
ment program was limited because the contractors
were required to use an existing core for their engine
design. Nevertheless, preliminary results indicate
that both contractors surpassed the noise goals.32
Establishing a challenging noise goal resulted in
the demonstration of powerplants for future
turbofan-powered general aviation aircraft that can
bring about significant reductions in community ex-
posure to aircraft noise.
The continuing growth in the jet-powered busi-
ness aircraft market has also stimulated the industry
to develop advanced engines for new aircraft to be
delivered in the early 1980s. These engines,
The continuing growth in the jet-powered busi-
ness aircraft market has also stimulated the industry
to develop advanced engines for new aircraft to be
delivered in the early 1980s. These engines,
AVCO-Lycoming ALF 502, Airesearch ATF 3, and
GE CF 34, are in the 5-10,000-pound thrust class
and are medium-to-high-bypass turbofan derivatives
of existing engines. The predicted noise levels for
aircraft powered by these engines are well below
Stage 3. In addition to applications in high-per-
formance general aviation aircraft, these engines ate
suitable for new commuter aircraft which are likely
to be developed in the next decade to service the
many smaller communities which are losing carrier
service in this era of airline de-regulation.
In 1978, a jointly funded NASA/EPA small-
propeller demonstration project was initiated to de-
sign, develop, and flight test advanced-design pro-
pellers for small general aviation aircraft. The new
propellers are to be approximately 5 dB quieter than
existing propellers, with no loss in performance. Re-
sults from this program are due early this year.
Another recent technology development incor-
porates bent propeller tips (similar to wing end
plates). It has demonstrated up to SVfe-dB noise re-
duction when compared with a similar aircraft using
a conventional propeller.33 Initially demonstrated in
an aircraft conversion program, it is currently
planned for introduction in new-production aircraft.
Improved airfoil designs and composite-material
developments are readily transferable to propeller
design. The performance characteristics of various
blade shapes and blade loadings that have been
incorporated in advanced engine fans and turbines
and in advanced wing designs indicate the potential
for improved aerodynamic and acoustic perfor-
mance for future small propeller-powered aircraft.
Another element of the general aviation fleet that
needs to be addressed is the expanding civil heli-
copter market. In recent years, military helicopter
requirements have been dramatically reduced and
manufacturers are looking more and more to the
civil market. (f
Civil helicopter interior noise and vibration were
of so much concern that the early noise research
was directed at reducing the transmission bf engine,
rotor, and gearbox noise into the cabin. As is the
case for propeller aircraft, the rotor system is cur-
rently the primary source of helicopter noise. Re-
duced tip speed! and modified blade designs can
30
-------
bring about lower noise levels. However, the noise-
prediction methods for helicopter noise reduction
are not as developed or proven as they are for con-
ventional fixed-wing aircraft. Most of the current
helicopter noise research activity is related to the
development of refined noise-prediction techniques.
MILITARY AIRCRAFT CONTRIBUTION
TO NOISE EXPOSURE
Military aircraft operating from purely military
bases or from joint-use civil military airports con-
tribute to the national noise exposure. This discus-
sion is limited to the joint-use aspect of the problem.
Population Exposed by Military Operations
At Joint-Use Civil/Military Airports
Military aircraft operate into many certificated air
carrier airports. The majority of these joint-use air-
ports consist of civil airports that have Air National
Guard or Air Force Reserve squadrons stationed at
the air field. These joint-use airports have a very
wide range in number of air carrier operations. For
instance, eight of the airports had no scheduled air
carrier operations for 1978 and others are some of
the busiest civil airports in the country — Chicago
O'Hare, for example. As a result of this diversity in
size, the contribution of military aircraft operations to
noise exposure is expected to be significant only at
the small and medium-sized joint-use airports.
However, it is clear that the military contribution to
total noise exposure at many of the larger civil air-
ports will become relatively more pronounced as the
noise from civil aircraft is reduced.
The Department of Defense has a policy for
achieving compatible use of public and private lands
in the vicinity of military airfields.34 The policy states
that "all reasonable economical and practical mea-
sures will be taken to reduce and/or control the gen-
eration of noise from flying and flying-related ac-
tivities." The Secretaries of the Military Departments
are instructed to develop Air Installation Compatible
Use Zone (AICLJZ) programs for each military air in-
stallation.1 The AICUZ programs will study land-use
compatibility problems in the vicinity of each air in-
stallation and develop solutions, which may include
restrictions on land use due to noise characteristics
or flight safety. Air Force policy states that the Air
Force will cooperate in land-use compatibility plan-
ning at joint-use airports as well as at purely military
airports.
In addition, Air Force Regulation 80-36 states
that:
"Transport aircraft that the Air Force procures or
develops must be designed to comply with civil
airworthiness standards when their intended
usage is generally consistent with civil
operations."
This policy enables th^ Air Force to:
"a. Take advantage of lower development, pro-
duction, and operational costs when the civil
aircraft design is basically satisfactory for both
military and civil use.
b. Facilitate greater interchangeability of Air
Force and civil transport aircraft, to gain max-
imum airlift capacity and flexibility in emer-
gencies."
The Air Force has been responsive to this policy.
For example, the Advanced Tanker aircraft (KC-10)
that have recently been procured are similar to their
commercial DC-10 counterparts and therefore com-
ply with the FAR 36 Stage 2 civil aircraft noise
requirements and are in fact within 1 dB of the Stage
3 levels.
Further, the Air Force has recommended re-
engining of the turbojet-powered KC135 tanker.
The KC135, predecessor of the commercial 707
transport, is probably the noisiest aircraft in the U.S.
In addition to being in the regular Air Force inven-
tory, this aircraft is operated by the Air National
Guard (ANG) and the Air Force Reserve (APR), in
many cases from joint-use civil/military airfields.
Within the next few years, aircraft noise from joint-
use airports may be dominated by Air Force aircraft,
which could inhibit the continued use of these air-
fields to meet the AFR or ANG operational training
requirements, unless some remedial action is taken.
In the area of military subsonic trainer or light
transport aircraft, there are a variety of general avia-
tion aircraft which meet the FAR 36 Stage 3 require-
ments that should also satisfy the military opera-
tional need. For example, the advanced Falcon
20H, purchased by the Coast Guard to meet their
medium-range surveillance requirements, is 2-6 dB
below the FAR 36 Stage 3 noise levels.
31
-------
The EPA has initiated a study to evaluate the ex- significant noise source, then further studies with
isting military contribution to noise exposure at the DOD participation may be necessary to determine
joint-use airports and to determine its significance as the best methods for protecting the public health and
the civil aircraft fleet becomes quieter. If the results welfare from military aircraft noise.
of this study show that the military aircraft fleet is a
32
-------
REFERENCES
1. Report on Aircraft-Airport Noise, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, August 1973,
Washington, DC.
2. Responses to Air Carrier Noise Exposure Anal-
ysis, TR No. 1608, ORI, Inc., Silver Spring,
MD, December 1979.
3. Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April
1977.
4. The Federal Aviation Administration Fiue-Year
Environmental Plan, 1976-1980, Federal Avia-
tion Administration, January 1976.
5. Environmental Criteria and Standards, Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Register, Thursday, July 12, 1979.
6. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36. Noise
Standards: Aircraft Type Airworthiness Certi-
fications, Published 18 November 1969
(34FR18355).
7. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36, Noise
Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness
Certification, Amendment 36-2, Noise Stan-
dards for Newly Produced Airplanes of Older
Type Designs, Published 26 October 1973
(38FR29569).
8. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91, General
Operating and Flight Rules, Amendment
91-136, Phased Compliance with Part 36
Noise Limits by Turbojets with Maximum
Weights Greater than 75,000 Pounds, Pub-
lished 23 December 1976 (41FR56016).
9. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36. Noise
Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness
Certification, Amendment 36-8, Noise Limits
and Acoustical Change Requirements for Sub-
sonic Transport Category Large Airplanes and
Turbojet Powered Airplanes, Published 2
March 1978 (43FR8722).
10. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36. Noise
Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness
Certification, Amendment 36-4, Noise Stan-
dards for Propeller Driven Small Airplanes and
Acoustical Change Provisions, Published 6
January 1975 (40FR1024 and 40FR6346).
11. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91. General
Operating and Flight Rules, Amendment
91-153, Civil Supersonic Airplanes, Noise and
Sonic Boom Requirements, Published 29 June
1978 (43FR28406).
12. Assessment of Airframe Noise by P.J.W.
Block, NASA-Langley. Paper Accepted for
Publication in A1AA Journal of Aircraft. Date
Unknown.
13. "Impact of Advanced Air Transport Tech-
nology" Statement of Dr. John H. Gibbons,
Director, Office of Technology Assessment
before the Transportation, Aviation, and Com-
munication Subcommittee of the House
Science and Technology Committee, October
31, 1979.
14. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91, General
Operating and Flight Rules, Amendment
91-112, Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom, Published
28 March 1973 (38FR8051)
15. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91, General
Operating and Flight Rules, Amendment
91-134, Minimum Certificated Landing Flap
Setting, Published 29 November 1976
(41FR521388).
16. Noise Abatement Departure Profile, Federal
Aviation Administration Advisory Circular
AC91-53, 17 October 1978.
17. Airport and Airway Development Act, Amend-
ments of 1976, Public Law 94-353, H.R.
9771, July 12, 1976.
18. Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369US84(1962).
33
-------
19. British Airiuays Board v. Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey, 437 F Supp. 804
(S.D.N.Y. 1977).
20. National Aviation v. City of Hayward 418 F.
Supp. 417 (N.D. Cal. 1976).
21. Santa Monica Airport Association et. a/, u. City
of Santa Monica (C.D. Cal. No. CV77-2852-
IH (1979)).
22. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of
1979, Public Law 96-193, H.R. 2440,
February 18, 1980.
23. Environmental Impacts: Draft Order 1050.1C,
Federal Aviation Administration, 44 FR 32094,
4 June 1979.
24. Noise Exposure of Civil Air Carrier Airplanes
Through the Year 2000, WR 78-11, Wyle
Laboratories, El Segundo, CA, February 1979.
25. Estimate of the Impact of Noise from Jet Air-
craft Air Carrier Operations, Report No. 4237,
K. Eldred, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.,
Cambridge, MA, November 1979.
26. Energy Conservation and Noise Control in Ur-
ban Residences: Demonstration Program Plan,
Bolt Beranek and Newman, Report *4156A,
September 1979.
27. Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, November 18, 1976.
28. Minutes of Meeting. NASA Ad Hoc Advisory
Subcommittee on Advanced Aeronautical Pro-
pulsion Technology Requirements, NASA
Lewis Research Center, April 17-19, 1979.
29. Noise Technology Research Needs and the
Relative Roles of the Federal Government and
the Private Sector. EPA 550/9-79-311, May
1979.
30. Federal Noise Research — EPA Summary and
Assessment, EPA 550/9-78-308 dated June
1978.
31. "Fleet Noise Level Requirements," Regulation
Proposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency to the Federal Aviation Administration,
NPRM 75-6, 40FR8222, 26 February 1975.
32. Preliminary QCGAT Program Test Results,
R.W. Koenig and G.K. Sievers, NASA,
Lewis/SAE Paper 790596/April 1979.
33. Colemi// Panther Navajo Noise Test. City of
Torrance, Inter-office Communication,
January 4, 1979.
34. CFR Title 32, Part 256, 1/4/77 (amended
3/8/77).
34
O-U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980-311-132/93
------- |