UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON,. t>.C.' 20460
July 19, 1974
I am transmitting the initial draft of a project report dated .
July 16, 1974, entitled, "Regulation of Airport Noise".
This draft has not been formally released by the. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and should not be construed to represent
Agency policy. Nor should it be construed to represent the official
view of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control. It is being circu-
lated to interested representatives of government, industry, environ-
mental organizations and the general public for review and comment.
This project report (as it evolves through sequential drafts
to its final form) should be looked upon as the evolving data base
to support a regulation which the EPA will formally submit to the
FAA as provided for in Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Ac£ as
amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972. The target date for this
submittal to the FAA is the spring of 1975.
.'-'"' ""';'/'.
Your comments on the general thrust and scope;df the development
effort as revealed by this draft are particularly solicited, together
with any views, data, or recommendations which you believe may assist
in the further development of an airport noise regulatory program.
Your comments, in writing prior' to October 1, will be greatly
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
r. Mefer,' Jr
mini s t r a t or
fowNoise Control Programs
-------
DRAFT
PROJECT REPORT
REGULATION OF AIRPORT NOISE
July 16, 1974
NOTICE
This document is a preliminary draft.
It h"s net bf.r" "vmally released by FPA and
should not :•! ' [:, stage be construed to
represent A.-r:nr.v ;:oiicy. It is being circu-
lated for cfti^ment on its technical accuracy
and policy implications.
-------
SUMMARY
The aviation industry is of immense importance to the United
States; contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the national
economy by providing a fast, efficient system of transportation. But
aviation produces noise which is severely detrimental to the health
and welfare of millions of individuals. The result has been an ever-
increasing conflict between the beneficiaries of aviation and those who
suffer from the noise which it produces.
To resolve this conflict. Congress has given the Federal Avia-
tion Administration (FAA) the authority to control aircraft and airport
noise, and has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to advise the FAA on how best to exercise that authority to protect
the public health and welfare. There are three, and only three, possible
types of approaches to the reduction of airport noise impact: reduction
of noise at the source through changes to aircraft, reduction of noise
at the receivers through changes in aircraft flight paths and proced-
ures and reduction of the sensitivity of receivers through changes in
land use. None of these approaches can completely solve the problem,
but some combination of them -- the particular combination depending
upon the characteristics of particular airport environments -- can
bring about a resolution of the conflict between noise and the benefits
of aviation at each airport.
Other reports by the Office of Noise Abatement and Control
will consider in detail the possible modifications to aircraft and flight
procedures to reduce noise. This particular draft report discusses
the possible approaches to land use control to reduce airport noise
impact; a procedure by which a noise abatement plan representing an
optimal set of noise abatement options can be established for each
noise-impacted airport; and the existing legal authority with which
the Federal Government could enforce such plans. Based upon the
final report, a regulation will be proposed to the FAA to bring about
the creation of plans both to ameliorate noise impact at airports where
this nuisance is now present and also to help prevent the growth of
this problem at airports which do not presently have an encroachment
problem.
-------
PROLOGUE
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) amended the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to. include to concept of "public health
and welfare" among the decisional criteria for regulatory actions and
to define the responsibilities of an interrelationships between the
Federal Aviation Administration and the Environmental Protection
Agency in the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom.
Specifically, the Noise Control Act requires that, in order to afford
present and future relief and protection to the public health and wel-
fare from aircraft noise and sonic boom, the FAA, after consultation
with the EPA, -prescribe and amend such regulations as the FAA may
find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft
noise and sonic boom.
The Noise Control Act also requires that EPA submit to the FAA
proposed regulations to provide such control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom (including control and abatement through
the exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over air com-
merce or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA
determines is necessary to protect the public health and welfare. EPA's
regulatory proposals to the FAA are to be submitted not earlier than
completion and submittal of the comprehensive Report to Congress on
Aircraft and Airport Noise, also required by Section 7 of the Noise
Control Act.
That aircraft/airport noise study, which was completed and sub-
mitted to Congress in July 1973, was required to investigate the
1. adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration flight and opera-
tional control;
2. adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing air-
craft, together with recommendations on the retrofitting and phase-out
of existing aircraft;
3. implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative
noise exposure around airports; and
4. additional measures available to airport operators and local
governments to control aircraft noise.
This study was implemented by a public task force composed of six
task groups whose product consisted of six task group reports. The
report to Congress was developed by EPA staff, following the comple-
tion of the task force effort. 1-7/
Concurrent with the aircraft/airport noise study, the EPA prepared
a general document of criteria related to noise and its effects, 8/ as
mandated.by Section 5(a)(l) of the Noise Control Act. This "criteria
document" reflects the scientific knowledge most useful in indicating
11
-------
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on the public health and
welfare which may be expected from different qua"ntitities and qualities
of noise.
In addition, as mandated by Section 5(a)(2)of the Noise Control Act,
the EPA prepared and published in March 1974 a document on the levels
of environmental noise, the attainment and maintenance of which in
defined areas under various conditions are requisite to protect the
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. 9/ It
should be emphasized that the levels identified therein represent only
one of several (conflicting) statutory decisional criteria which must
be considered by the Federal government in promulgating regulations
concerning noise.
As a result of the aircraft/airport noise study of 1973, EPA deter-
mined that an effective program to protect the: public health and welfare
with respect to aircraft noise would require the development by EPA
and FAA and promulgation by FAA of three complementary types of
regulations, which taken together form a comprehensive aircraft noise
control program:
1. noise abatement flight procedures;
2. noise source emission regulations affecting the design of new
aircraft and requiring the modification or phase-out of certain portions
of the existing fleet; and
3. an airport noise regulation.
The airport noise regulation is the topic of the present project report
and associated development program.
To complete the reader's perspective against which to review this
pro ject report, it should be noted that EPA intends to submit to the FAA
proposals concerning the first two categories (flight procedures and
emission regulations) prior to submittal of the airport noise regulation
proposal. The specific regulatory topics (under development at EPA
and FAA) in these two categories are:
1. Flight procedures
a. Takeoff procedures
b. Approach and landing procedures
c. Minimum altitudes
2. Noise Emission Regulations
a. Retrofit/fleet noise level
-------
b. Supersonic civil aircraft
c. Modifications to FAR 36
d. Propeller-driven small airplanes
e. Short haul aircraft (including vertical, short or reduced
takeoff or landing aircraft)
Information concerning the status of, and schedule for, the above regu-
latory topics at FAA and EPA can be obtained by contacting the FAA
Office of Environmental Quality and the EPA Office of Noise Control
Programs respectively.
At both EPA and FAA, the development of a noise regulation begins
with the preparation of a project report, which is primarily a technical
document incorporating as much definitive information as possible on
those aspects of regulatory alternatives which are necessary to de-
cision-making. The project report, in its final form, provides the
basic input necessary for the preparation of a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM), which will be the format of each regulation to be sub-
mitted by the EPA to the FAA. Whenever the FAA precedes the EPA
in proposing a regulation for any of the above topics (as is the case
in several of the aircraft noise regulation topics listed above), the EPA
project report becomes the supporting document for the official EPA
position in the consultation process.
There are a series of opportunities for public input into the aircraft
and airport noise rule making process. On February 19, 1974, the
EPA issued a Notice of Public Comment Period listing the above reg-
ulatory topics and inviting interested persons to participate in EPA's
development of regulatory proposals, by submitting such written data,
views or arguments as they might desire. 10/ For the airport noise
regulation, the official comment period in that Notice closed June 26,
1974. However, public comments are always received and considered
by EPA, regardless of official closing dates, up to such time as they
can no longer be effectively considered prior to the submittal of the
regulatory proposal to FAA.
Project reports provide a more definitive basis upon which, public
review and comment can be based. They are circulated to anyone who
requests to be placed on the mailing list for project reports on a spe-
cific regulatory topic.
Following the proposal of a regulation by the EPA to the FAA,
there will be additional opportunities for public participation in the
rule making process. Within thirty days of EPA's submission of a
proposal to the FAA, the FAA is required to publish the proposed
regulation, in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, in the Federal
Register. Within sixty days after such publication, the FAA is
required to commence a hearing at which interested persons are
afforded an opportunity, for oral and written presentations of data,
views and arguments. "Within a reasonable time after the conclusion
iv
-------
of such hearing and after consultation with EPA, " the FAA is required
in Section 7 of the Noise Control Act to (i) prescribe regulations
substantially as submitted by EPA or which are a'modification of those
proposed by EPA, or (2) publish in the Federal Register a notice
that it is not prescribing any regulation in response to EPA's submis-
sion of proposed regulations, together with a detailed explanation
providing the reasons for this decision. There then ensues a dialogue
between the FAA and EPA, as set forth in Section 7(c) of the Noise
Control Act, plus the publication by FAA of an environmental impact
statement. The final decision on whether to promulgate a regulation
in a specific subject area, and the precise nature of the regulation to
be promulgated, rests with the FAA, or with levels of the Executive
Branch above the FAA Administrator.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary i
Prologue ii
Table of Contents vi
I. Introduction 1
A. .The Aviation Industry 1
B. The U. S. Airport System 2
C. Sources of the Airport Noise Problem 3
D. Scope of the Problem 5
E. Legal Resources and Ramifications 6
(1) The FAA Act of 1958 7
(2) The Noise Control Act of 1972 8
(3) The Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970 10
(4) Other Agency Participation 11
(5) The National Environmental Policy Act 13
(6) State and Local Authority 13
(7) Proprietary Authority 15
(8) Constitutional Law and Preemption 15
II. The Solutions Available 18
III. The Need For and Objectives of an Airport Regulation 22
A: The Need for a Decision Making Process for Each Airport 22
B. Decision Making Through the Economic System 24
(i) The Market Theory ' . 24
(2) Applications of the Theory to Airport Noise 24
(3) Limitations of the Market Theory for Airport Noise 26
vi
-------
Page
C. Decision Making Through the Political Process 28
' ' •
(OTThe Political Process 28
(2) Complete Decision Making at the Federal Level 29
(3) Complete Decision Making at the Local Level 30
D. Joint Federal-Local Decision Making feoles 31
(A) Role of the FAA' . 31
(2) Role of the Airport Proprietor 35
(3) Role of Local Governments 35
1 i
(4) Role of Local and Regional Planning Authorities 36
(5) Role of State Governments 37
(6) Role of the.Environmental Protection Agency . . 37
E. Enforcement of Adopted Plans 38
IV. The Role of an Airport Regulation in the Total Program and
a Statement of the Process Envisioned t 42 ,
A. Problem and Approach 42
B. The Role of An Airport Regulation 43
(1) The Encroachment Classification of Airports 43
(2) Required Application of Noise Units Methodology 43
(3) Identification and Implementation of Insignificant Cost
Options , . 44
(4) The Determination and Required Implementation of .
Cost Effective Abatement Options . 45
C. The Process i:Invisioned • 48
D. Technical Assistance from the Federal Government to
Proprietors, States and Local Governments. 50
E. Relation to Ongoing State/Local Land Use Planning/Control
and to Federal Decisions Affecting the Airport and Surrounding
Communities 51
V. Alternative Regulatory Proposals and Evaluation of Their Impacts 55
vii
-------
Page
VI. The Recommended Regulatory Program 57
•
VII. Footnotes 58
VIII. Appendix
A. Text of the Proposed Airport Noise Regulation
B. Relationship to Other Federal Aviation Regulations
C. Guidelines and Process for Development of Airport
Implementation Plans
D. Community Noise Prediction Model
E. One Potential Method of Evaluating the Degree of Relief
to the Public Health and Welfare Afforded by Any Proposed
Regulatory Action
F. Proposed Model legislation for Positive State/Local
Control of Land Use/ Building Design
G. The Airports Pilot Project
H. Monitoring for Airport Noise Control
I. Report on the Land Use Control Study
' J. Report on the Economic/ Financing Study
K. Analysis of the EPA Docket
Vlll
-------
-1-
I. Introduction - The Airport Noise Problem
A. The Aviation Industry
The aviation industry has an appropriate analogy in the time-
worn "iceberg" concept. The tip of the iceberg is the airport where the
general public is most often exposed to its normal conception of avia-
tion, i.e., commercial air carrier operations. The submerged part of
the iceberg, of which the public is often unaware, consists of a multitude
of manufacturing enterprises and service organizations which are an
integral part of commercial, general and military aviation. The avia-
tion industry is a major employer. In 1970, employment in com-
mercial aviation was 349,000 persons and that employment induced
for its suppliers was estimated at nearly 103, 000 persons; in addition,
about 645, 000 individuals were employed in the manufacture of civilian
aircraft, engines, and parts. Another 500, 000 persons may have been
employed by other industries as a result of indirect investment gen-
eration, if
The facet of the total aviation industry which is of greatest
concern to this project is transportation and other public services,
e.g., scheduled carriers, commuter (scheduled) airlines, charters,
corporate/executive aviation, personal business aviation, personal
non-business aviation and specialuses. A brief description of the sev-
eral classes of aviation activity is presented below.
(1) Scheduled Carriers -- Scheduled carriers satisfy the bulk
of public needs for air transportation on the high density routes. The
domestic trunk and regional airlines carried 156 million passengers
between 479 points in 1970; this was accomplished with less than 2000
aircraft, each of which was operated more than 3000 hours per yea.r.2]
(2) Commuter (Scheduled) Airlines -- In 1970, the 161 small
local airlines flew 690 aircraft an average of 1000 hours per year and
carried 4.5 million passengers between 404 airports, of which 174
airports were served by them exclusively.
(3) Charter -- Charter services are being performed by sche-
duled airlines, supplemental airlines (using about 150 large jet trans-
port aircraft) and by about 1900 air taxi operators who use about 3600
aircraft. 3/ Supplemental airlines meet special needs and air taxis
provide flexible commercial service throughout the nation, filling the
gaps left by the scheduled carriers.
(4) Corporate/ Executive Aviation -- To accomodate the needs
of business, 20, 000 professional pilots and nearly 7000 aircraft are
employed to extend the capabilities of middle and upper management
of many major corporations. The corporate/executive ileet is tending
toward large aircrai'tand more and more toward jet aircraft, i. e. , the
"biz jet". A majority of the corporate fleet is based at the tower con-
trolled airports. 4/
-------
-2-
(5) Personal Business Flying -Personal business flying is simi-
liar to corporate/ executive aviation in-purpose; however, the aircraft
are smaller and the principal traveler is also the pilot. .Nearly 30, 000
aircraft are operated in this category and only about one-third of
these aircraft are based at the tower controlled airports.
(6) Personal Non-Business Flying -- This encompasses flying
for personal or recreational purposes. There is a great deal of cross-
over between personal non-business .flying and business flying and
the FAA uses the aircraft owner's declaration of primary purpose to
differentiate between uses. Personal non-business aviation includes
about 63, 000 aircraft.
(7) Special Uses -- About, one third of general aviation flying
. is Tor special purposes such as training, security (police and fire,
etc. ), industrial services (survey and mapping, pipeline patrol, etc. ),
and recreation and sport. j
i
i
The aircraft noise problem is most often associated with two
classes of aviation activity, the scheduled air carriers and corporate/
executive aviation.. This is to be expected since air carrier and some
corporate/executive aircraft are the larger and noisier airplanes.
Further, in order to perform their mission, these aircraft are usually
operated from airports which are located in areas of high population
concentration.
In 1973, the U.S. Air Line Fleet consisted of 2,583 aircraft
of which 2, 569 were turbine powered and 811 were 4 engine turbojet
powered, 759 were 3 engine turbojet powered and 548 were 2 engine
turbojet powered. 5j 6/ As of the same time period, there were nearly
1, 700 turbine powered corporate/executive aviation aircraft in oper-
ation. (All of the figures quoted above are exclusive of aircraft of
foreign registry which may operate to and from U.S. airports.) As of
December 31, 1972, there were 267 jet transport aircraft on order by
domestic carriers; the value of these orders is in excess of 3. 6 billion
dollars. 7/
B. The U.S. Airport System
An airport is the interface between the air and ground trans-
portation modes. It is also one of the most complex elements of the
"aviation system", because it is the operation meeting ground for many
of the regulatory policies which impact on and control aviatiom The
FAA lists more than 12, 000 airports, heliports and seaplane bases, but
public interest questions are centered on only a small portion of the
total airport listing. Of the more than 7,000 airports which are open
to the public, certificated carriers serve only about 500 and slightly
in excess of 3, 000 facilities are part of the National Airport System.
The National System of Airports consists of those public, civil
and joint use (military/civil) airport facilities within the United States
-------
-3-
and its territories which are considerednecessary to provide an airport
system which can anticipate and meet the needs of1 civil aeronautics. 8/
The configuration of the National System of Airports is, by law, perio"-
dically identified by the FAA.
Although the U. S. has about 4000 airports which are capable
of accomodating some kind of reliable, scheduled air transportation,
a full 70 percent of all enplanements are now handled by only about 27
facilities. 9/ In 1972, -the Aviation Advisory Commission set about to
determine~the length of time that planned improvements could delay
saturation at major U. S. Airports. Under the most optimistic of
scenarios, the Commission determined that 23 out of the 27 of the coun-
try's busiest airports would become saturated sometime between now
and the year 2000 if their growth were not constrained. The U. S.
airport system is thus made up of a large number of airports, but the
majority of aviation activity is concentrated at a very small number of
airports. The lack of great volumes of traffic at most airports does not
make them any less important to the National System of Airports,
rather, it just serves to focus attention on those heavily used airports
which now have or may soon have, major environmental problems.
C. Sources of the Airport Noise Problem
Three basic factors have caused the aviation industry to become
associated with a rapidly escalating noise impact problem:
First, the number of aircraft operations at many major airports
has multiplied far beyond anything that was imagined when the
airports were originally established. Airports such as Wash-
ington National, Boston-Logan, and Wold-Chamberlain (Min-
neapolis-St. Paul), for example, were located in the 1920's
and 1930's to provide their communities with the closest, most
convenient service possible on the limited air carriers of that
era. Those locations were perfectly compatible with the sur-
rounding area with the limited number and type of air operations
for which they were envisioned; but they have become gradually
less and less compatible over the years as the level of opera-
tions has increased.
Second, the noise impact took a quantum leap with the introduc-
duction of commercial jet aircraft in the early 1960's. Communi-
ties which never noticed the noise of propeller-driven aircraft
were suddenly subjected to the impact of jet noise since then as
commercial and, more recently, business jet operations have
been spread to an ever-growing number of airports.
Third, many airports, such as Los Angeles International and
Chicago O'llare, were farsightedly located at an adequate dis-
tance from population centers but have since become encroached
by new land developments. In part, this is due to the general growth
which all urban areas have experienced over the last generation.
-------
-4-
v But in large part it is also due to the development pressure
brought about by the airports themselves. Airports have
become major centers of employment and economic activity as
well as transportation. Except for noise, the areas around them
are often prime prospects for residential and other develop-
ments because of:
(1) Proximity to air transportation, and to the employ-
ment and economic activity which it generates.
(2) The usual location of airports in the flattest, most
easily developed areas.
(3) Availabilty of ground transportation, sewer, and other
facilities installed to serve the airport.
(4) Proximity to the urban area which the airport was
established to serve.
It is often stated, with some justification, that encroachment
of incompatible development around airports should have been prevent-
ed by land use control authorities. But the problems of both encroach-
ment and emissions present difficult dilemmas to the decision makers
responsible for their control at the local level. On the one hand, local
land use decision makers have the duty and responsibility to consider
many factors in addition to noise in the development of land use plans
and imposition of requisite land use controls, the most important of
of which include fiscal solvency, the potential effectiveness of selected
powers granted by restrictive state charters, and the constituents. The
decision as to whether a particular tract of land should be developed,
and the uses for which it is best suited is complex and justifiably
political. The development may provide much needed housing, a more
diversified economic base, or a very favorable revenue/cost ratio
capable of alleviating a continuing burden on the public fisc. Within.
an economic trade area, restrictive policies in one jurisdiction will
generally displace development to a jurisdiction with less restrictive-
policies. Entrepeneurs engaged in diversified development can exert
considerable pressure on local decision makers, i.e., restrictive poli-
cies toward residential development can result in the displacement
of tax rich commercial office and retail development to competing jur-
isdictions, not to mention the more obvious direct political pressures
which may be applied.
The dilemmas are aggravated by the fact that most major air-
ports are owned and operated by a number of political jurisdictions
separate from many of the communities which are impacted by their
noise. Noise from O'Hare International Airport , which is owned and
operated by the City of Chicago, impacts Chicago among the least
of the scores of communities which it affects. Noise from Los Angeles
International Airport affects the City of Los Angeles much less than
it does communities adjacent to the airport such as Inglewood. Such
communities sometimes argue that it is unfair to expect them to restrict
their growth and development because of another jurisdiction's airport.
And whether this is "fair" or not, such communities could well point
-------
-5-
out that in many cases they could not have adequately planned their
development around the airport because they had no way of predicting
(much less controlling) the rapid changes in the nature and scope of
airport operations which have taken place. Finally, effective land use
control around airports has been divided among many competing jur-
isdictions affected by the airport.
D. Scope of the Problem
One contemporary measure used to describe the magnitude of
the aviation noise problem is the number of people exposed to some par-
ticular level of an equally particular noise scale. Although highly
detailed estimates of impacted population, on a national basis, are not
available, gross estimates do exist. For example, consider the following
data:
Number of People (in millions) exposed to Day-Night
Average Sound Levels, due to Aircraft operations,
above the Stated Value 10/
Day-Night Average Number of People
Sound Level, dB Exposed
60 dB and above 16. 0
65 dB and above 7. 5
70dB and above 3.4
75 dB and above 1. 5
80 dB and above . 2
It should be noted that in Reference 10, it was also stated that
complete elimination of aircraft noise in the urban area will still leave
a large proportion of the population exposed to high levels of environ-
mental noise unless control of non-aircraft noise sources is also ob-
tained.
Additional data on the magnitude of the impacted population will
be available this year from the DOT1 s Airport Noise Reduction Forecast
Program. This study considers 23 major airports and addresses the mag-
nitude of the impacted population to a very fine level of detail. How-
ever, the results for 23 airports cannot directly be used as a proxy
for the magnitude of the national impact problem. Additional work is
needed to determine a basis for estimating the impacted population
around the thousands of small airports which are part of the total U. S.
system of airports, especially those facilities which do not receive
scheduled air carrier service. As noted elsewhere in the this document,
only about 500 out of roughly 12, 000 airports receive scheduled air
carrier service and about two dozen of the 500 handle about 70% of all
enplanements. This highly centralized distribution of activity gives
rise to the following thought: Even though the impacted population
around smaller airports may be very small, there are so many small
airports, that, on a national basis, the total population impacted by
-------
-6-
small airports may be very large. In an attempt to determine the
magnitude of the impacted population around all airports, the EPA has
embarked on a program to develop an estimating technique which is app-
licable to all classes of facilities. The estimating technique is.a two
part effort: (1) estimate the land area which is impacted by aircraft
noise, as a function of airport activity levels, and (2) estimate the pop-
ulation density in the areas around the airport, as a function of urban
form, distance from airport to population center, etc.
One often cited symptom of the airport noise problem is the
almost complete stoppage of airport expansion in the more heavily pop-
ulated parts of the country. Hand in hand with the halting of airport
expansion is the increasing level of pending noise litigation against air-
ports and the increasing value of noise litigation settlements.
The problems of specific airports, i. e., their own impasse,
range from organized complaints to billions of dollars of litigation.
For example, noise suits involving Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) have a total approximate amount in prayer of complaint of 4
billion, 800 million dollars and the amount of potential liability from
all actions against LAX, those completed and those pending, is esti-
mated at 2 billion, 500 million dollars, ll/ While LAX is probably the
most sued of all U. S. airports, it is not "alone and one has good reason
to expect that, as in many other environmental matters, as California
goes, so goes the country.
Other than suits to recover damages, the public concern about
the environment has manifested itself in a whole new attitude about
airports. For example, in Minneapolis-St. Paul recent candidates for
posts on the Twin Cities' Metropolitan Airport Commission were cam-
paigning on a platform that recommended closing down the airport
altogether. This is a harbinger of the real impasse which is yet to
come --a desire on the part of the public to eliminate airports which,
accordingto someone's perception, are not compatible with the comm-
unity without any consideration of maintaining the levels of transpor-
tation service which the airport provides to the community.
E. Legal Resources and Ramifications
Prior to exploring alternatives and implementation strategies
of a proposed airport noise regulation, it is appropriate to examine
the relevant statutory and case law upon which the regulation will
largely depend. The applicable statutes are the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958, as amended, the Noise Control Act of 1972, and the Airport
and Airway Development Act of 1970. Though the general mandate of
the EPA in reference to noise control is covered by the Noise Control
Act, when the area of concern shifts to aircraft and airport regulation,
the Federal Aviation Act is the more pertinent and commanding sta-
tute. 12/ Enacted in 1958, this act has been amended several times.
Cognizance of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) perspective must
be taken at this point, however, for under its mandated author-
-------
-7-
ity, noise abatement is only a single factor of many that must ^t con-
sidered. A chronological examination of the 1958 Act and its amend-
ments will serve the dual purpose of clarifying the content aud illustra-
ting the trend of the law in these matters. For a more detailed ex-
plication of this discussion see the Environmental Protection Agency's
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study Report, "Legal and Institutional Analysis
of Aircraft and Airport Noise and Appointment of Authority between
Federal, State and Local Governments," NTID 73.2 (July 27, 1973).
(1) The Federal Aviation Act of 1958
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U. S. C. 1301, et seq.,
Public Law 85-726) is the statute under which the Federal Government
regulates air commerce. Title III sets out the FAA Administrator's
general powers and duties. Title IV sets out the Administrator's
powers and duties related to safety.
Under Title III, the FAA Administrator has power to "prescribe
air traffic rules and regulations governing the flight of aircraft ... for
the protection of persons and property on the ground ..." (Section 307
(c)). The FAA has stated that it "considers (its) statutory authority
(under section 307 (c)) ad equate to prescribe rules restricting the pollu-
tion of the airspace by aircraft engines when that pollution has an
adverse effect upon persons and property on the ground" (35 Federal
Register 5264, March 28, 1970). This authority would logically extend
to noise pollution of the airspace by aircraft engines.
Section 302 (a) of this title states that no Federal funds of any
sort shall be expended upon the construction or operation of landing
areas or facilities except upon the written certification of the Admini-
strator. Section 309 states that even if no Federal funds are expended,
no landing facility shall be established or altered without giving prior
notice to the Administrator, pursuant to regulations prescribed by
him. 13/ The Airport and Airways Development Act (AADA), by way of
an a~mendment to the 1958 Act, elaborates upon this certification
procedure. The AADA amendment states that every airport serving
civil air carriers must obtain an operating certificate from the FAA,
the criteria including but not limited to "such terms and conditions as
are reasonably necessary to assure safety in air transportation. " 14/
The Administrator's power to certify an airport is explicit and exclu-
sive --as was the intent of Congress at the time. A more pertinent
question for the purposes of this report is by what criteria does the
Administrator issue the certification.
In the original 1958 Act there are two sections whi •]- \»e par-
ticularly relevant here. Section 307(a) states that "The Ac'rcr-nstrator
is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy
with respect to the use of the navigable airspace ... as he may deem
necessary to order the safety of the aircraft and the efficient utiliza-
tion of such airspace. " 15/ Aircraft safety and airspace regulation is
the area in which the FATThas its primary mission. The second rele-
-------
-8-
vant section, Section 307 (c), states that the Administrator is directed
to prescribe air traffic rules for, inter alia, the protection of persons
and property on the ground. "16/ Pursuant to these guidelines, the FAA
has issued regulations concerning noise abatement in the form of takeoff
and landing restrictions. One of the first airports so regulated was J.
F. Kennedy Airport, with all airports with FAA operated control towers
following in 1967.
It is clear from the above that as originally passed Title III
of the 1958 Act authorized and directed noise abatement procedures
under air traffic rules and flight regulation authority. Title VI of the
same act, encompassing the general FAA safety powers and duties,
was not so explicit in reference to noise abatement. It was not until
the addition of Section 611 ten years later that any mention was made
of noise abatement under this title. (Section 611 was added by Public Law
90-411. )
The purpose of Section 611 is to "afford present and future relief
and protection to the public from unnecessary aircraft noise ..." The
mechanism to achieve this relief and protection is the prescription by
the .FAA Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Trans-
portation, of "standards for the measurement of aircraft noise" and
the "prescription of such rules and regulations as he may find neces-
sary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise ..."
The FAA Administrator is authorized to apply "such standards, rules
and regulations in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension
or revocation of any certification authorized by this Title (VI).'
The 1958 Act was further amended by the addition of a new
Section 612 in 1970 (Section 612 was added by the AADA, Public Law
91-258). Section 612 authorized the FAA Administrator to issue airport
opera tin c>: oertlfi rates to airports serving air- carriers certified by ti-e
C'ivil Aeronautic :-j Board. As no.ed, Section 611 authorized the FAA
Administrator to apply "standards for the measurement of aircraft
noise" and "such rules and regulations as he may find necessary to
provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise" in the issuance
of any ccrtifi.-ato auirorized by Title VI. Such rules and regulations
may be applied to airport operating certificates as well as to other cer-
tificates (airmail certificate, aircraft type certificate, production cer-
tificate, air agency certificate) authorized by Title VI.
(2) The Noise Control Act of 1972
Until the Noise Control Act (49 U. S. C. A. 4901, et seq., Public
Law 92-574) was passed in 1972, EPA was not directly involved in
aircraft noise regulation. By the passage of the Noise Control Act,
Congress instructed the EPA, inter alia, to study and make recommen-
dations concerning aircraft and airport "environmental noise conditions.
It was the stated policy of Congress to promote for all Americans an
environment free from noise which jeopardizes their health and wel-
fare. Though the rolu of the local and state governments in this area
-------
-9-
is significant, "Federal action is essential to deal with the major noise
sources in commerce, control of which requires national uniformity
of treatment. " IT/ Congress was clearly concerned with the aircraft
noise problem, for though the means were available to control the prob-
lem (as shown below), the airport noise problem was persisting. Section
611 of the 1958 Act was modified by Section 7 of the NCA from "relief
and protection to the public from unecessary noise" to "relief and pro-
tection to the public Health and welfare from aircraft noise". No long-
er is it sufficient to protect the public from unnecessary noise; relief
must be such as to protect the public health and welfare. This crucial
shift in criteria was evidentiary of Congressional concern with the
public health and welfare.
The initial responsibility of the EPA under the Act in regards
to aircraft and airport noise was to conduct a study of the adequacy
of the FAA operational controls, noise emission standards, airport
noise levels, and additional measures available to state and local gov-
ernments to regulate air craft noise. This study has been accomplished.
18/ In order to determine the levels that are necessary to protect
tEe public health and welfare, Congress required the EPA Administra-
tor to "issue criteria with respect to noise" and to "publish information
on the levels of noise the attainment and maintenance of which in de-
fined areas under various conditions are requisite to protect the public
health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. " EPA has ful-
filled that requirement by publishing two documents, the "Criteria Doc-
ument" and the "Levels Document". 18_/
The "Levels Document" states:
"The levels of environmental noise identified in this report pro-
vide the basis for assessing the effectiveness of any noise
abatement program. These noise levels are identified irrespec-
tive of the nature of any individual noise source. One of the pri-
mary purposes of identifying environmental noise levels is to
provide a basis by which noise source emission regulations,
human exposure standards, land use planning, zoning and buil-
ding codes may be assessed as to the degree with which they
protect the public health and welfare with respect to noise. Such
regulatory action must consider technical feasibility and eco-
nomic reasonableness, the scale of time over which results can
be expected, and the specific problems of enforcement. In the
process of balancing these conflicting elements, the public
health and welfare consequences of any specific decision can be
determined by comparing the resultant noise environment
against the environmental noise levels identified in this report."
Congress desired that EPA, after completion of these studies,
enter into a cooperative relationship with the FAA in the development of
aircraft and airport noise regulations. Thus, Section 7 of the Noise
Control Act requires EPA to 'submit to the FAA proposed regulations
to provide such control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom
-------
-10-
(including control and abatement through the exercise of any of the
FAA's regulatory authority over air 'commerce or transportation or
over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is necessary
to protect the public health and welfare. " The FAA must publish
such proposed regulations in a notice of proposed rulemaking within
thirty days of the receipt from the EPA; and must commence a public
hearing on them within sixty days. Within a reasonable time thereafter,
FAA must either prescribe the regulations substantially as proposed
or as modified by EPA, or publish in the Federal Register a notice
that it is not prescribing the regulations together with a detailed expla-
nation of the reasons for that decision. The Act then goes on to set out.
formal mechanisms to insure continuing interaction between FAA and
EPA.
No proposed standards or regulations may be prescribed, how-
ever, without consideration of whether they are "consistent with the
highest degree of safety in air commerce or transportation in the public
interest", and "economically reasonable, technologically practicable,
and appropriate for the particular type of aircraft, aircraft engine,
appliance or certificate to which it will apply" in addition to other-
factors.
(3) The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970
The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (49 U.S. C. A.
1701, et seq., Public Law 91-258) provides for Federal aid to airport
development projects (which include the location of an airport, an
airport runway or a runway extension). Encompassing the process of
application, hearing and approval at all levels for airport develop-
ment projects is the declaration of national policy that "airport develop-
ment projects ... provide for the protection and enchancement of the
natural resources and the quality of the environment of the Nation."
The Secretary of Transportation may not approve an airport develop-
ment project found to have an adverse environmental impact unless he
has issued a written statement that there is "no feasible and prudent
alternative" and that "all possible steps have been taken to minimize"
such adverse effects.
Thus, an airport development project may not be approved if
there is an adverse effect on the "noise environment" unless there is
"no feasible and prudent alternative" and that "all possible steps have
been taken to minimize" the noise impact. As indicated in Citizens
to Preserve Overton Park vs. Volpe (401 U.S. 402, 1971), a case"
involving a similiar requirement under Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act, the Secretary's actions will be subject to sub-
stantial judicial inquiry.
Even if a project satisfies the needs of the local environmental
conditions, it must also meet Federal substantive, standards. Section
I6(a) requires that all proposed development be "in accordance with
standards established by the Secretary, including standards for site
-------
-11-
location (and) airport layout ...." This allows DOT/FAA to pre-
scribe standards for airport location, layout and improvements based
on noise considerations,!
Section 18, preserving a requirement of Federal law since 1964,
provides that prior to approval of an airport development project the
Secretary must have received satisfactory written assurances that
"appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, nas been or
will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land ad-
jacent to or in the immediate vicinity of airport operations. " The Act
further states that "No airport development project may be approved
by the Secretary unless he is satisfied that fair consideration has been
given to the interest of communities in or near which the project may
be located. "19/ ' "Fair consideration" shall be based upon criteria
designed to "provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural
resources and the quality of the environment of this nation. " This
language allows the issuance of land use guidelines for sponsors based
in part on noise consideration. :
The statutes above construct a firm foundation for the formu-
lation of airport and air craft regulations in regards to noise abatement.
The 1958 Act insures the FAA Administrator the power toicertificate
airports and aircraft, and delineates quite clearly that one of the major
factors to be considered is noise impact. The Noise Control Act de-
monstrates Congress's concern that consideration of the effects of noise
be taken by all Federal agencies in their planning procedures. The
Noise Control Act also mandates the EPA to1 create recommendations
for aircraft and airport regulation and requires a prompt and formal
consideration by FAA of these recommendations. The AADA has its
most significant impact through its comprehensive emphasis upon con-
sideration of environmental effects and land use planning. |
I
I
The trend of the law has been to focus more attention and give
greater weight to consideration of the secondary effects of the aircraft
industry, i. e., upon people and property that are not directly involved
as either proprietors or users. From the initial mandate of the 1958
Act, primarily concerned with aircraft safety, the emphasis has slowly
been shifting to encompass many non-safety concerns.
4. Additional Agency Participation
Six other Federal agencies or departments also have authority
to act in the area of aircraft/airport noise. The first is NASA, which
has the authority to undertake research and development to abate air-
craft noise at the source and to propose the results thereof to the FAA
for incorporation in the- Federal Aviation Regulations. Such research
and development includes not only hardware items, design changes and
model development, but'also the software of noise abatement operating
procedures.
-------
The second Agency is the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), whose
primary responsibility is to regulate the .economic aspects of the air-
line industry. Though there is no explicit requirement in the enabling
legislation fo.r CAB to consider the environmental impact of its de-
cisions, under NEPA this consideration has been mandated. Board
functions include the issuance of certificates of public convenience and
necessity authorizing an air carrier to engage in air transportation,
the approval of mergers, and the regulation of air fares.
The third Federal entity is the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), which has the authority and expertise to plan for
and contribute to compatible land use in noise affected areas adjacent
to airports and to advise on noise-resistant building constructions.
The fourth is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
(and the National Institutes of Health), which conducts research on the
health effects of noise. Fifth is the Department of Defense, which
has a continuing program for compatible land use at military airports
and which conducts research and development on technology for quieter
aircraft and a certain amount of research on health effects of noise.
Sixth is the Department of Labor, which, through the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, is authorized to promulgate rules
concerning the levels of noise in the working area of employees, in-
cluding those of an airport or an airline, whether their noise exposure
occurs within or outside the aircraft.
HUD has taken action which will be helpful in the control of
airport noise at the receiver. The HUD legislative authority contains
no explicit provision mandating that HUD adopt regulations designed
to protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise. However,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C.A. Section 3521, et seq., Public Law 89-174), which created
HUD, And The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 implicitly
provided authority for HUD to act. The Department of Housing and
Urban Development' Act declares that the general welfare of the nation
requires the "sound development of the Nation's communities and
metropolitan areas. " The Secretary was given the authority to adopt
such rules and regulations as were necessary to carry out the purposes
of the Act. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 required
all Federal agencies to develop procedures to carry out the purposes
of NEPA.
In July of 1971, HUD promulgated Circular 1390. 2, which estab-
lished noise exposure policies and standards to be observed in the
approval or disapproval of all HUD projects. The Circular cited the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act and NEPA as auth-
orities. The Circular covers assistance for planning, funding new
construction, and rehabilitation of existing structures. To be eligible
forplannuig assistance, projects are required to take sufficient consid-
eration ft noise exposures and sources of noise so as to assure that
new housing and other noise sensitive accommodations will not be planned
-------
-13-
for areas whose current or projected noise exposures exceed the stan-
dards of the Circular. All forms of HUD assistance are prohibited
for new dwelling units on sites which have or are projected to have
unacceptable noise exposures. The Circular also provides that HUD
is to encourage modernization of existing buildings for noise purposes
so long as such modernization does not extend the useful life of the
life of the buildings.
5. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
Superimposed on all Federal regulatory programs and major
actions is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U. S. C. A.
Section 4321, e_t seq., Public Law 91-190), which provides that ". .. to
the fullest extent possible, . . . the policies, regulations and public
laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in ac-
cordance with the policies set forth in this Act. " This directs all
agencies, such as the above cited Civil Aeronautics Board, to for-
mally consider the environmental impact of a decision even though
there is no requirement in the relevant enabling legislation with refer-
ence to environmental concerns. This formal consideration of
environmental factors may often require the formulation of an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS is designed to illuminate all
facets of the agency decision making process, develop all possible envi-
ronmental impact that will proceed directly or indirectly from the
proposed action, and examine all possible alternatives to the action
that might have different environmental impact.
In the instant case, all agencies that have some impact upon
the lands around airports that are affected by aircraft noise have a
duty of strict compliance with NEPA. Though the degree of impact
and the possible solutions will still prove difficult for all concerned
to assess and formulate, NEPA provides that all Federal agencies
will "use all practicable means to ... assure for all Americans safe,
healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing sur-
roundings. "
6. State and Local Authority
To various extents, airport noise control efforts have been taken
by state governments, local governments, and airport proprietors.
The power of the state and local governments to control noise is de-
rived from the police powers. The power of the proprietor to control
noise is derived from his status as lessor. In most instances, airports
are owned and operated by governmental bodies, in which case, the
police and proprietary powers might be held to have commingled.
Conceptually, aircraft noise can be controlled at the source
and at the receiver; theoretically, control can be exercised at both
intervention points by proper authority. Legally, the power of a govern-
mental entity to intervene to control noise at the source through its
police power has been circumscribed by Federal preemption.
-------
-14-
A series of court cases, culminating in City of Burbank vs.
Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., (411 U. S. 624, (1973)), has established
the preemption of local governmental control of aircraft noise at the
source. Locally imposed minimum overflight altitudes were held in-
valid in Allegheny Airlines, Inc. vs. Village of Cedarhurst (238 F.
2d 812 2d Cir., 1956), and American Airlines vs. City of Audo5on Park
(407 F. 2d 1306, 6th Cir., 1969). A locally imposed maximum noise
limit for overflying aircraft was held invalid in American Airlines
vs. Town of Hempstead (398 F. 2d Cir., 1968, cert, denied. 393 U.57
1017 (1969)). A locally imposed curfew was held invalid by City of
Burbank vs. Lockheed Air Terminal, Lie., supra. The essence 57
each case was that the attempted controls either directly or indirectly
affected the flight of aircraft, which is controlled exclusively by the
FAA under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The impact of the
decisions is that control of aircraft noise at the source by state and
local governments under the police power is invalid. However, the abil-
ity of the airport proprietor, as a lessor, to control noise at the source
is unclear. The Burbank opinion left open the power of the airport
proprietor to impose a curfew.
Given the relative lack of success of enjoining the operations
of a noisy airport, nearly all other case law concerns either constitu-
tional "taking or "damaging". The landmark case is Griggs vs.
Allegheny County (369 U. S. 84 (1962), which held that the local govern-
mental authority, i.e., the airport owner, was liable for taking the
aviation easement on the directly overflown property. Other cases
have found that overflight was not necessary for liability for "damaging"
property.
While control of aircraft noise at the source by state and
local governments is invalid if an exercise of the police power, control
of aircraft noise at the source by state and local governments is valid
if accomplished as a part of an FAA regulatory plan. Further, local
control of airport noise by intervention at the receiver is clearly not
preempted and need not be done under Federal auspices. Such inter-
vention is in the form of land use and building design controls. Aside
from the three land use measures that have been traditionally available,
several states have adopted an advanced and comprehensive approach
to assure that there is some regional control over the area adjacent to
airports other than the zoning authority.
Minnesota, for example, has adopted an Airport Zoning Act
(Chapter III, 1969 Session Laws) that establishes state and regional
airport neighborhood planning agencies. These agencies are respon-
-------
-15-
. . I
sible for determining incompatible land use boundaries and for pro-
mulgating land use regulations that preclude development of incompat-
ible uses and encourage the conversion to compatible uses in airport
affected areas. California also has adopted a comprehensive land
use planning program for airports (Title 4, Cal. Bus. Reg. Section
5000 et. seq. ). The point to be made on the basis of the approaches
taken~T5y these two states is that compatible land use can normally
be achieved only if a regional procedure is adopted so that there will
be the necessary and uniform jurisdiction over all noise affected land
surrounding the airport.
In states where comprehensive regional planning has not been
or cannot be adopted under applicable state law, control of the impact
of noise is dependent upon more traditional controls. The first con-
sists of the zoning ordinances, to exclude incompatible uses in noise
impacted areas. The second consists of a.governmental unit acquisi-
tion of property by condemnation or purchase and the imposition of
(similar type) limitations in its capacity as-ewner. And the third con-
sists of imposing soundproofing requirements on residences located
in noise sensitive areas.
7. Proprietary Authority
Port of New York Authority vs. Eastern Airlines (259 F. Supp.
745 (E.D. N. Y. 1966)), upheld the right of the proprietor to prohibit
the use of a new runway until a second runway was completed. The
Port Authority has also been able to withhold permission to use its
airports from aircraft that produced more than 112 PNdB. The impact
of Bur bank on these restrictions is not clear. The airport operator
may still be able to place conditions in its leases and contracts with
airport tenants (including airlines) upon the use of airport property.
Such restrictions may include restrictions on the types of aircraft which
may use the airport, number of operations per day per lessee, hours
of operation of the airport and noise limits to be complied with.
8. Constitutional Law and Preemption
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate
interstate air commerce. There are facets of air commerce, how-
ever, that have been regulated by the states and have not been regulated
by the Federal Government. The question that arises in regards to
state regulation of an interstate industry is whether or not the state
regulation places undueburden on interstate commerce. The Supremacy
Clause holds the Federal Government supreme in interstate matters
and has been interpreted to mean that where Congress has acted or
where'it has provided for Federal regulatory action, the "area" covered
is said to be "preempted" so as to preclude any state or local action
that conflicts witli the Federal action.
-------
-16-
-This area of the law was discussed and briefed before the
Supreme Court in City of Burbank vs. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.
(93 Sup. Ct. 1854 (1973). The Court in Burbank reviewed a municipal
ordinance that made it unlawful for a privately owned airport located
within the jurisdiction of the municipality to permit jet aircraft oper-
ations between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Court held that the Bur-
bank was an invalid exercise of police power because the "pervasive
nature of the scheme of Federal regulation of aircraft noise... leads
us to conclude there is preemption.
In its rationale, the Court first cited two sections of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958. Section 1508 of the Act provides that "The United
States of America is declared to possess and exercise complete and
exclusive national sovereignty in the airspace of the United States... "
Section 1348 gives the FAA authority to regulate the use of the navigable
airspace, "in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
utilization of such airspace... (and) for the protection of persons and
property on the ground. The Court next analyzed the Noise Control
Act of 1972 and concluded "that the FAA, now in conjunction with EPA,
has full control over aircraft noise, preempting state and local con-
trol. "
There can be no doubt that the holding in Burbank means that
a state, or any political subdivision thereof, cannot use its police power
to protect its citizens from aircraft noise - if the police power action
attempts to regulate the source of the noise. This of course, raises
the question of whether the airport owner may exercise its own pro-
prietary right to control the noise of aircraft using its airport. This
question was purposefully left open in a footnote in the opinion. The
text of the footnote is as follows:
"The letter from the Secretary of Transportation... expressed the
view that "the proposed legislation will not affect the rights of a.
state or local public agency, as the proprietor of an airport, from
issuing regulations or establishing requirements as to the permis-
sible level of noise which can be created by aircraft using the
airport. Airport owners acting as proprietors can presently deny
the use of their airports on the basis of noise considerations so
long as such exclusion is nondiscriminatory. " (Emphasis in opin-
ion) "Appellants and the Solicitor General submit that this indicates
that a municipality with jurisdiction over an airport has the power
to impose a curfew on the airport, notwithstanding Federal respon-
sibility in the area. But, we are concerned here not with an ordinance
imposed by the City of Burbank as "proprietor" of the airport, but
with the exercise of police power. While the Hollywood Burbank
Airport may be the only major airport which is privately,owned,
many airports are owned by one municipality yet physically located
in another. For example, the principal airport serving Cincinnati
is located in Kentucky. Thus, authority that a municipality may
have as a landlord is not necessarily congruent with its police
power. We do not consider here what limits if any apply to a
municipality as a proprietor. "
-------
-17-
It is not clear what authority a municipality has as proprietor of an
airport, but it is clear that the municipality, as proprietor, is liable
for noise created by airport traffic and has, in the past, been sued
on the basis of such noise.
The case law defining private rights and remedies for aircraft
noise has thus influenced the allocation of authority between state
government, local government and airport owners to deal with the
aircraft noise problem. Given the relative lack of success of enjoin-
ing the operations of a noisy airport, nearly allof the caselaw concerns
either a damaging or constitutional "taking". The "taking" cases rep-
sent the so-called Federal rule, which originates with the decisions
of the Supreme Court in United States vs. Causby (328 U. S. 256 (1946))
and in Griggs vs. Allegheny County. (369 U. S. 84 (1962)). The Causby
case announced that the Federal government (apparently as a partial
lessor of the Winston-Salem Airport rather than as the operator of the
military aircraft in question) had in the constitutional sense "taken"
an interest or "aviation easement" in the property the aircraft over-
flew. Because of this, the United States was required to pay just com-
pensation under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the measure
of damages being the diminution in the value of the overflown property.
Some ten years later in the Griggs case the Supreme Court had before
it an airport which was owned by state authorities, was used by com-
mercial aircraft, and had flight patterns which were regulated by
Federal authorities. It was clear that there could be no taking in the
constitutional sense by the commercial carriers who used the airport
and generated the noise. The Court held that the local governmental
authority, i. e., the airport owner, was liable for taking the aviation
easement on the directly overllown property.
Since both Causby and Griggs involved direct overflights, the
theory of these cases has been called the trespass theory of inverse
condemnation which requires the actual physical invasion of the prop-
erty, i. e., the air above the ground. This direct overflight approach
has not been frequently followed in those state courts whose constitu-
tions bar not only governmental takings but also governmental damaging
unless there is just compensation. Those jurisdictions have allowed
recovery against the governmental airport owner on a broader rationale
that does not require.' overflight.
The point to be made here is that the power still left with the
states and local governments to achieve aircraft noise abatement at the
source appears to be their right as property owners to defend them-
selves from liability and to keep their air terminal systems viable.
They also continue to have the power to control exposure to aircraft
noise through land use control and building design.
-------
-18-
II. The Solutions Available
In the airport noise problem, as in any other community noise
problem, the appropriate remedial or .preventive actions to be taken
depend upon a variety of factors. However, for each specified quality
criterion or "level of protection" under consideration (and no matter
which of these values may be finally adopted as a short- or long-range
goal), the most cost-effective "solution for each situation is always a
mixture of options. Often this is true of the most effective solution,
as well, even prior to consideration of cost.
The traditional way of looking at any noise abatement problem -
whether it involves children in a schoolroom, to be protected from high-
way noise; workers in a factory, to be protected from machinery noise;
or any other "scenario" - is to simplify the scenario into three basic
elements: (1) the noise source, (2) the propagation path between noise
source and "receiver, " and (3) the "receiver" of the noise, who is to
be protected. Figure 1. In this traditional "source-path-receiver
model," the propagation path is usually defined to include everything
between the noise source and the (human) receiver that can have an
effect upon the noise level at the receiver. Hence, the "path" part of
the model includes sound propagation distance; any hills, walls, rows
of buildings or other sound-attentuating elements. If the "receiver" is
indoors, the "path" includes the noise reduction (exterior-to-interior
noise level difference) afforded by the building's exterior shell. If
the "receiver" is wearing ear plugs or "ear muffs" such as worn by
workers in extreme noise environments, they are a part of the "path
of the sound, too.
The human "receiver (s)" play no active role in this model; they
simply represent the composite result of human physiological and
psychological characteristics, including activities with which noise
may interfere, leading to the numerical values of noise environment
limitation which would be desirable, prior to consideration of conflict-
ing factors such as economic costs.
The elements of the model upon which intervention is possible are
at the source and in the propagation path. Examples of typical phys-
ical interventions (and the corresponding legal/ regulatory actions which
might be used to require them) are shown in Figure 1.
In the entire history of noise abatement studies and programs, it
has been the case that little is accomplished, sometimes in spite of
large expenditures of money, unless a comprehensive approach is taken
which considers all the elements of this "model" and their relationship
to each other. Reduction of noise output at the source is usually of
great importance, since for any specified exposure criterion level or
limitation goal, very large reductions in the amount of land area (and
hence people, dwelling units, etc.) accompany each 10 decibel or even
5 decibel reduction in source noise characteristic. This is true re-
gardless of whether the "source" is a point source (such as a stationary
noise source in a community), or aline source (suchas a freeway) or a
complex source (such as the total aviation activity at an airport).
-------
-19-
This results simply from the geometry and sound propagation physics
of the situations involved.
However, if one places total emphasis on source noise control,
to the exclusion of "path" control actions, a point of diminishing re-
turns is reached, where each additional reduction in source noise
emission becomes increasingly more difficult and costly to obtain.
Most machines cannot be made totally silent, nor even quiet enough
to allow neglect of "path" control actions. This is certainly true of
aircraft; even if it were somehow miraculously possible to propel them
without any engines at all, there might still be a significant remaining
noise problem, for very nearby communities, simply from the aero-
dynamic noise generated by their movement through the air - this can
be confirmed by riding in a sailplane.'
Hence, we are left with the necessity (which becomes even more
evident when cost-effectiveness studies are done) of accompanying our
source noise control efforts by good transportation and community
planning, land use controls, designation of "noise insulation districts
where building design and construction must meet noise insulation
codes, and so on. It should be evident that costs associated with such
measures will be much smaller in the case of new development than
where remedial measures are required, but there are numerous histor-
ical cases which prove the point.
In the case of community noise from aviation activities at an
airport, the conceptual model can be further simplified, as shown in
Figure 2. The model has been reduced to two elements, one represent-
ing the noise exposure environment produced by the aviation activities,
and the other representing the "receiver community. " In this model,
the total activity at an airport is viewed as comprising a noise source,
the magnitude and directivity pattern of which are determined by:
. The noise characteristics of specific aircraft types, *
. The application of noise abatement operating procedures, **
. The proportion of the flight operations occurring at night,
. The types of aircraft utilizing the airport, ***
The frequency of flight operations (by aircraft type).
* Appropriate subjects for Federal aircraft noise emission regulations.
** Appropriate subject for Federal aircraft flight procedure regulations.
*** Appropriate subject for restriction by the airport owner, particularly
if supported in such action by a Federal regulation,,
-------
-20-
The runway orientations and flight paths utilized by the aircraft
as they approach and depart from the airport.
These are the basic ingredients of every valid scale for quantifying com-
munity noise exposure from airport operations, developed from twenty
years of field and laboratory research in this country and others (see
Appendix D and its references). From the necessary input data, using
such scales, one can calculate the magnitude of the noise exposures as
a function of geographic location.
Even where there is "noise exposure, " there is not "noise impact"
unless there are people present, in communities around the airport,
engaged in noise sensitive activities; and the level of the exposure is
above some threshold value where interference with those activities
occurs. The amount of "noise impact, " therefore, is a function not
only of the above listed components of aviation activity, but also of
the surrounding land use patterns. Included in the term "land use" as
used herein are (1) degree of noise sensitivity of various land uses
(e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) according to the types of
human activity wich normally occur there, and (2) for those land uses
where only indoor activities are of importance, the noise insulation
characteristics of the buildings' exterior shells.
The prevention or decrease of noise impact from aircraft noise
associated with airport activity therefore requires:
(a) Making aircraft inherently quieter and having them flown as
quietly as possible.
(b) Designing or modifying the total operating plan of the airport
so as to minimize the extent of the airport noise impact zone and tailor
its shape to avoid existing noise-sensitive land uses where possible.
(c) Preventing buildup of new housing or other noise-sensitive land
uses in present and anticipated future noise zones and, where neces-
sary, resolving by land use measures (soundproofing or conversion)
those few impacted areas where the noise exposure cannot be ade-
quately decreased by other means.
There simply are no other physical actions possible that are not encom-
passed within one of these three general categories.
The conceptual model symbolized in Figure 2 is also convenient
for crystallizing one's thoughts regarding one of the primary reasons
why there has been no solution to the airport noise problem thus far -
and why there is presently no real way to get a solution: the fragmented
institutional arrangements. On the one hand, Federal agencies are able
(if they would) to control the aviation side of the problem. On the other
hand, local governments-are able (if they would) to control the land side
of the problem. Airport proprietors and noise impacted communities
-------
-21-
are caught in the middle, the former able to do a great many things
to limit the noise exposure but not to control the land uses, yet bearing
the total legal liability for property "taking" and "damaging" from
aviation noise from their facilities; and the latter unable to do much
of anything except bring suit.
Nowhere is there a single entity that has complete capability to
cover both halves of the problem, for either remedial or preventive
purposes, even though a very large amount of improvement appears
technically and economically feasible (over a reasonable time scale).
What appears to be needed is a joint Federal-state-local program,
under a Federal umbrella, to coalesce all the elements of ' solution"
for each airport/community situation. That is the purpose of a Federal
airport noise regulatory program.
The objective of these (EPA) efforts is to develop an appropriate
and effective set of institutional/regulatory processes which (when
combined with an aggressive Federal program of aircraft noise
regulations) will form a framework within which all parties (including
the Federal government itself) can - and will be motivated to - work
together to reduce existing noise impact situations and prevent new
ones.
-------
THE ELEMENTS
OF PREVENTION/SOLUTION
MORE DISTANCE
BETTER BUILDINGS
FREEWAY SHIELDING
WALLS, ETC.
REDUCED NOISE OUTPUT
PROTECTIVE INTERVENTION (TECHNICAL)
:0>ISE EMISSION
LBPJ18TS, ECONOMIC
INCENTIVES, ETC.
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
LAND USE PLANNING,
PERFORMANCE ZONING
BUILDING CODES
RECEIVER
FUNCTION;
SET CRITERIA FOR
DESIRED AMBIENT LIMITS
(LEGAL)
Figure 1
-------
II
SURROUNDING THE PROBlfM
WITH AN AIRPORT NOISE REGULATION PROGRAM
THE AIRPORT
AS A COMPLEX SOURCE
THE COMMUNITY
AIRCRAFT
SOURCE NOISE
REDUCTION
NUMBER
OF
FLIGHT
LAND USE
(INCLUDING
RETROFIT)
INCLUDES GEOGRAPHIC
PATTERNS. LAND USE
TYPE/ACTIVITY, AND
BUILDING NOISE
INSULATION PROPERTIES
TYPES OF
AIRCRAFT
NOISE
ABATEMENT
FLIGHT
PROCEDURES
OF
OPERATIONS
(DAY/NIGHT)
COMPATABILITY
GOAL
Figure 2
-------
-22-
III. The.Need For and Objectives of an Airport Noise Regulation
Having now examined the legal context within which action must
take place and the possible courses of action, it is appropriate now to
determine in what manner these three options discussed above will
be meshed to create satisfactory solutions for individual airports. An
examination of the political and economic decision making processes
will illustrate some of the complexities of the proposed airport program.
A. The Need for a Decision Making Process for Each Airport
As discussed above, there are three general ways to reduce or
prevent noise impact at any airport:
(1) use of quieter aircraft;
(2) changes in flight patterns, schedules, and other
aspects of airport operations; and
(3) land use control and conversion around the airport
to prevent and correct incompatible land uses.
There are no other options.
If any one of these options, or any combination of them, could
be termed in some sense the "best" answer to the problem for all
airports, the development of an airport noise regulation would be vastly
simplified. It would require only the application of technological
expertise in a manner not unlike that by which our society has found
innumerable solutions to isolated problems, from designing highways
capable of moving large numbers of vehicles safely at high speeds
to landing men on the moon.
The airport noise problem, however, is not susceptible to a
general solution. No technological breakthrough in any of the three
types of options which would eliminate the problem is likely. Each
type of option can, however, provide varying degrees of relief. Opti-
mum noise abatement can therefore be achieved only by the application
of some combination of these three types of options. But the particular
options called for depend to a groat extent upon factors which are
different at each airport, such as the physical characteristics of the
surrounding land and the distribution of the neighboring population.
The problem would still be relatively simple if the only compli-
cating factor were the differences between airports. A "best" solution
could then .be found for each airport. Applicable models could l.e
developed which would provide the solution for each airport based upon
its particular data. The required process would be no more complex
conceptually than the process which has existed by which generally
applicable principles of highway design have been used to design high-
ways for particular locations.
-------
-23-
But unlike the problems of highway design and space travel,
which have in the past have been reduced to simple absolute quanti-
ties such as vehicles per hour or orbital velocity, airport noise unavoid-
ably concerns directly the health and welfare, of individuals and their
economic well-being. While these factors can be quantified to some
extent, they cannot be weighed against each other according to any
universal formula. They are intimately bound to the unique values
and goals of individuals, and the trade-off or resolution between them
when they come into conflict is therefore best made by each individual
for him (or her) self. Where the required resolution is of such a
nature that it cannot meaningfully be made at the individual level,
democratic ideology requires that it be made in a manner which will
allow each concerned individual to arrive at his or her own judgement
as to proper resolution and give that judgement fair consideration.
Decisions made in such a manner are accepted not because they are
regarded as the "best" solution to the problem under consideration
according to any universal formula, but because they are regarded as
representing a fair resolution of inevitably conflicting interests and
values.
There is no "best solution" to the noise problem at any air-
port, in the sense of a solution which would be acknowledged as 'best"
by all concerned. Any combination of noise abatement options will
help different individuals who are affected by the noise to different
degrees; and some options might even increase the noise exposure
of a minority of those affected. Individuals who are not impacted at
all by the noise from the airport will be variously affected by the
different economic impacts of the noise abatement options. Even if
everyone concerned were affected to the same degree by the same
health and welfare and economic impacts of the possible noise abate-
ment options, they would not agree as to a "best" solution because
their values regarding health and welfare and economics differs. The
"best" solution for the noise problem surrounding any airport can,
therefore, only be one which in some agreed upon sense represents
an optimal resolution of the conflicting interests and values involved.
Until now, there has been no mechanism to bring about any
such resolution for any airports. The remainder of this section will
discuss how the airport noise regulation might be structured to create
such a mechanism.
The need for such a decision making mechanism is independent
of the noise abatement options which might be brought to bear on the
noise problem facing a given airport, of the tools which might be used
to help evaluate the effects of possible options before a decision is made
among them, and of the means by which a decision as to the best
"mix1 of options might be implemented and enforced. The noise
abatement options involving aircraft design and flight procedures are
the subjects of separate studies being conducted by both EPA and FAA.
-------
-24-
B. Decision Making Through the Economic System
(1) The Market Theory
The mechanism by which our society has resolved most of its
conflicts among various possible courses of action is the economic
market system. In theory, whenever there is not enough of a given
commodity to satisfy all of those people who desire it, a market will
develop in which the price of the commodity will reflect the supply
of it and the aggregate demand of all people for it. Individuals desiring
that commodity can then decide for themselves whether they desire
it enough to pay that price.
Since the price relates to the supply and demand for the product,
this amounts to a decision by the individual as to whether his desire
for the commodity is as great or greater than the desire of others
for the commodity, given its available supply. But since individuals
have limited resources with which to buy commodities, a decision by
an individual to satisfy his desire for one scarce commodity will
preclude his ability to satisfy his desire for some other commodity.
Each individual must therefore decide on an allocation of his limited
resources which optimizes the satisfaction of his desires for the
various scarce commodities available. Since the market for all scarce
commodities is the composite of such decisions on the part of all
individuals, it represents an optimum allocation of all scarce commod-
ities to maximize the amount of satisfaction in the society. And,
since every individual is regarded as being free (at least within the
limits of his resources) to decide for himself which of his desires
to fulfill and to what extent to fulfill them, the market system of
allocation of resources is regarded as the closest possible approxi-
mation to the democratic ideal of letting everyone live according to
his own values.
(2) Application of the Theory to Airport Noise
Airport noise has now become so prevalent in many areas that
"quietude" can accurately be regarded as a scarce commodity. The
things which might be affected to varying degrees by the possible
options to reduce airport noise and thus increase "quietude , i. e.,
the convenience and cost of air transportation and the economic benefits
which airports bring to communities, can also be described as scarce
commodities. In theory, therefore, a market system ought to be
capable of determining a "level of quietude" which is "optimum", iri
the sense of representing the compromise between noise abatement
options and the effects of the implementation of those options on aviation
and the benefits brought by aviation which will maximize the total
well-being of the community. The "natural law" of economics would
thus serve as the decision-making "model" which would determine the
"best" solution for each airport.
-------
-25-
Professors William F. Baxter and Lillian R. Altree have
described how a theoretical system could achieve such a resolution
of the airport noise problems ("Legal Aspects of Airport Noise", --
Journal of Law and Economics, 1-113, March, 1972). If all of the
land impacted by noise from an airport, and the airport itself and the
airlines and aircraft operating therefrom, were owned and operated
by a single entity, and that entity was motivated by a desire to maximize
the income from all of its holdings, it would manage its holdings so
as to achieve an "optimum" level of noise impact. It would do so
because the noise impact would represent a cost to the entity, in terms
of reduced potential income from its noise-impacted land holdings,
which could be weighed against the cost of implementing various
possible noise abatement options to reduce the impact. Land use
options, such as limitations or conversions to noise-compatible land
uses or addition of sound insulation, would be undertaken to the extent
that they were justified by resulting increases in income from those
properties. Similarly, changes in airport operations, scheduling, and
aircraft to reduce noise would be implemented to the extent that the
increased cost (or decreased revenue) in airport/aircraft operations
brought about by the change were offset by increases in income from
land which was freed from noise impact by the change. Conversely,
changes in operations which would increase noise impact, such as
addition of more or noisier aircraft using the airport, would be imple-
mented only if the resulting increase in airport revenues offset the
decrease in land revenue brought about by the added noise.
The key feature of this "unified firm" concept which would
theoretically bring about these results is the establishment of a direct
relationship between the .cost of abating airport noise and the benefit
of the abatement. In other words, those in a position to abate airport
noise would have an incentive to do so, to an "optimum" or cost-
effective degree, since they would directly realize the benefits of the
abatement. The economic system would "automatically" lead airport
operations to an "optimum" level of allocation of all of the "scarce
commodities" consumed by those operations, including "quietude",
since the beneficiaries of the airport would be paying all of the costs
of the benefit received - including the cost of noise.
The only mechanism existing at present to transfer the cost
of airport noise from airport neighbors to the users of aviation is the
courts, through the device of constitutional taking or damaging or
nuisance suits. But the irrational rules of recovery used make the
courts an extremely limited cost transfer mechanism. Even if the
rules were rationalized, the courts are so inefficient for making large
scale transfer of costs that the theoretical "market" for quietude would
not function.
Recognizing the limitations of the courts and the extreme
practical difficulties involved in creation of a "unified firm", Baxter
and Altree propose an alternative mechanism for effecting a transfer
-------
-26-
of the costs of airport noise from airport neighbors to the users of
the airport. A government agency of'some sort would periodically
assess the level of noise impact of each airport, in terms of the
decrease in market value of the impacted land brought about by the
noise. The airport operator would then be required to make payments
to all of the owners of noise impacted land to compensate for that
decrease. In exchange for the payments, the airport would receive
easements giving it the right to impose noise on the properties. The
payments and the resulting easements would be limited to the time
period before the next assessment of noise impact. At the time of that
assessment, the required payments for the next period would be
adjusted up or down in accordance with any increases or decreases
in noise impact.
Airport operators could pass these required payments on to the
passengers who benefit from air service, either directly through head
taxes or indirectly through increases in aircraft landing fees which
could be passed on by the airlines to the passengers through increases
in ticket prices. The market system would then theoretically create
incentives for all the parties involved to act in such a way as to bring
about an "optimum" level of noise impact, produced by the "right" mix
of changes in aircraft design, aircraft and airport operating proce-
dures, flight schedules, and land uses to maximize the well-being of
the community. Those individuals who would remain subject to some
level of noise would supposedly have no complaint, since the compen-
sation for that noise impact would be presumed to put them on an equal
basis with all others in the society to decide for themselves whether
the benefits of living near the airport outweigh, in their personal scale
of values, the detrimental impact of that level of noise on their health
and welfare.
(3) Limitations of the Market Theory for Airport Noise
Useful as the market system is for resolving many problems
of resource allocation, some of its basic assumptions as well as its
practical limitations make it inappropriate for use as a decision making
mechanism for the airport noise problem:
a. The nature of noise impact
First, the market theory rests on the assumption that
individuals can make more or less conscious judgements as to an
appropriate resolution, for them, between the benefits of living near
airports and the impact of noise on their health and welfare. They are
thus presumed to have no reasonable complaint with the noise, if only
a compensation mechanism is established to put them on an. equal
footing with others in the marketplace for places to live.
-------
-27-
But experience with the limited compensation mechanism pres-
ently offered by the courts indicates that individuals do not regard
monetary compensation as a "fair exchange" for the noise to which
they are subjected. They seem much more desirous of stopping the
noise altogether. Failing that, they of course accept whatever amount
of monetary damages they can recover. But they apparently regard
the money as a windfall rather than as a real exchange of property
rights for value, since even after obtaining money damages they con-
tinue to regard the airport with equal animosity and continue to use
whatever political means are available to oppose it.
It is altogether understandable that this is the case. The real
impact of noise is not upon property values, as presumed by the market
theory, butuponthe health and welfare of individuals. Property values
are affected only incidentally, as a result of the effect on health and wel-
fare. Indeed, in most instances the value of property (at least for non-
residential uses) is increased by its proximity to an airport and by
increases in airport operations, in spite of the noise. The most basic
fallacy in the legal treatment of airport noise as a case of past or
present taking or damaging of property, is the fact that it ignores
the future damage that continuing noise will do to the health and welfare
of individuals. In other areas of law money damages are regarded
i merely as the best available compensation for past harm, not as an
adequate remedy for preventable future harm. Our society does not
! regard money as a fair exchange for damage to individual health and
i welfare. Money is merely the only available compensation for damage
! which has already occurred and is therefore unavoidable.
i
i
Even if money were a fair exchange for harm to individual
health and welfare, it would be impossible for any individual to make
j a meaningful trade-off between the advantages to him of living near an
} airport and the harm which the noise from the airport might do to his
health and welfare. The harm to health and welfare caused by various
I levels of noise is presently known only in the statistical sense of harm
•• to public health and welfare. It is known that certain levels of environ-
j mental noise should not be exceeded if the health and welfare of the
j public as a whole is to be protected, and that if those levels are exceeded
I some individuals will suffer detrimental effects. It is not possible to
i ' predict in advance winch individuals will suffer what degree of harm.
Individuals therefore cannot make a meaningful assessment of the im-
pact airport noise might have on them, or make a meaningI'ul trade-off
! between such an assessment and other factors in deciding where to live.
• This is true even if they are knowledgeable about the effects of noise.
, ta. Limited .Freedom of Action by the Parties
i
' Second, the market theory assumes that the economic
' incentives which a market would create would lead the various parties
i to the airport noise problem to take appropriate action. This assumes,
! in turn, that the parties are capable of taking such action. But the
j parties to the airport noise problem do not have freedom of action.
i
1
i
-------
-28-
Airport proprietors, for example, have no ability to modify flight
procedures or (unilaterally) to modify flight paths to abate noise since
those procedures are completely regulated by the Federal Aviation
Administration. It is unclear to what extent airport proprietors have
any authority to modify aspects of their operation other than flight
procedures, such as schedules and types of aircraft allowed at an
airport, to abate noiseJ./ Airlines are similarly constrained by
pervasive Federal regulations. People using land impacted by airport
noise, on the other hand, are limited in their ability to deal with
airport noise by the present unpredictability of changes in airport
operations which might increase noise and by their fixed investments
in noise impact areas; as well as by the nature of noise impact dis-
cussed above.
In short, the airport noise problem is not continuing because
of any absence of incentive to solve it. The existence of opposition
to noise intense enough to virtually haU airport expansion across the
country, and billions of dollars of law suits based on noise, are
incentive enough. What is lacking is a mechanism capable of considering
and resolving the various types of interests (economic and non-
economic) affected by the problem,/and capable of carrying out that
resolution. ..,'
•'** -i
C. Decision Making Through a 'Political Process
_^{
(1) The Political Process
The airport noise problem is far from being the only one which
our society has^faced which could not be resolved in purely economic
terms. Virtually all questions affecting the health and welfare of
people, from education, to medical care, to safety in air transportation,
are beyond the realm of economics because they unavoidably involve
value judgements about the importance of the health and welfare of
individuals which cannot be quantified.
Most such questions are resolved by some mechanism which
'permits the interjection into the decision-making process of such non-
quantifiable values. These are broadly termed 'political" processes.
They include popular referendums, elected decision-making bodies
such as legislatures, and processes such as administrative procedures
which are created by elected bodies and are answerable to them.
Since the value judgements involved in such questions can only
ultimately be resolved by each individual for himself, the decisions
made by political processes are seldom accepted universally as the
"best" answer to the questions. The decisions are accepted, neverthe-
less, because they are viewed as giving fair consideration to the
-------
-29-
separate values and interests of all concerned. They therefore repre-
sent the best solution of problems which cannot meaningfully be
answered at an individual level or by some universal mechanism such
as economics.
(2) Complete Decision-Making at the Federal Level
The most readily available political process which could be
used to find answers to the airport noise problem is the rule making
procedure of the Federal Aviation Administration. Existing law clearly
gives the FAA authority to regulate aircraft design, flight procedures,
and airport operations for purposes of noise abatement as well as for
purposes of safety. The FAA could therefore take it upon itself to
develop a plan for controlling the noise problem at every airport in
the country. The various parties whose interests and values would be
affected by such plans, including airport operators, airlines, pilots,
local economic interests benefited by the airport, airport neighbors,
and environmental groups, could raise their separate concerns and
judgements through the normal rule-making processes guaranteed by
the Administrative Procedure Act.
The FAA does not, however, have any authority to make deci-
sions regarding land use./"'around airports. The decision-making
process offered by its normalVule making powers and procedures is,
therefore, incomplete to deal with the total airport noise problem.
It can only deal directly with the half of the problem which involves
possible modifications to airport operations, flight procedures, and
aircraft design; leaving the land use options untouched.
This problem is only the most severe manifestation of a more
basic problem with developing noise control plans for each airport at
the Federal level. It is a basic tenet of our society that decisions
affecting individuals should be made by a mechanism which is as close
to them as possible, so as to reflect as strongly as possible their
judgement as to what the decision ought to be. This is the basis for
the strong commitment throughout our history to local government. A
corollary of this tenet is that, where possible, decision-making
processes ought not include directly the judgements of individuals who
are not directly affected by the decision.
While some decisions affecting the aircraft noise problem are
national in scope and can effectively be made only at the Federal level,
many decisions regarding the noise problem at particular airports will
have no direct effect on individuals in other locations. This is
especially true of land-use decisions but it is also true of decisions
regarding changes in flight procedures and airport schedules and opera-
tions at least insofar as those changes are consistent with a safe and
-------
-30-
efficient national system of air transportation. It would be unfair to the
people in the local communities which will feel almost all of the effects
of such decisions for them to be made through a process (like the
normal FAA rule making procedure) designed to give their judgements
only.equal weight with the judgement of other people who will be only
peripherally (or not at all) affected by those decisions. And because
such a process would not be designed to give fair weight to the judge-
ments of the individuals most directly concerned with its decisions,
those decisions could not be said to represent the "best" resolution
of the conflicting interests and values involved.
Quite aside from considerations of available authority and fair-
ness to affected individuals, it would be a mammoth burden for the FAA
to undertake to develop complete noise control plans for every airport
by itself. Such a task would require FAA to duplicate much of the
knowledge and capability which is already in existence at the local
level. It would be much more efficient for individual airport proprie-
tors and representatives of noise impacted communities to work out
between themselves the best answers to the questions that concern
only their particular airport and communities.
(3) Complete Decision-Making at the Local Level
If all of the above is true, then why should not the airport noise
problem (or at least those aspects of it affecting primarily individual
airports and communities) be left entirely to airport proprietors and
noise-impacted communities to work out between themselves?
The short answer to this alternative is that the law does not
allow it. Congress and the courts have concluded that all aspects of
aviation, including noise, are of such nationwide concern and impact
that (with the possible exception of the airport proprietary power, if
any, noted in the Burbank opinion) only the Federal government can
appropriately regulate them. Aviation is, therefore, the subject of
"pervasive" and complete" Federal regulation.
. This conclusion is not without justification. Aircraft design
requirements can only be dealt with at the national level; and all aspects
of safety and efficiency in air transportation are certainly of nationwide
concern. Decisions regarding changes in flight procedures and airport
operations and schedules for purposes of noise abatement, although not
inconsistent with considerations of safety and efficiency of air transpor-
tation, are nevertheless inseparable from them. It is therefore quite
appropriate that the law allows only the Federal government to enact
regulations on aircraft design, flight procedures, and airport opera-
tions. Because only the Federal government can regulate those aspects
of the airport noise problem involving aircraft and airport operations,
-------
-31-
local authorities cannot adequately deal with those aspects of the prob-
lem involving land use. Like the FAA, their authority only covers half
of' the'problem. ' ' , '. ,. ,••'.-
. D. Joint Federalr Local Decision Making Roles
1) :R61e of the FAA; '• ''-••';
. , a. Authority : . .-.''"-.: V, ''..'•• ' .
As noted above, the Federal Aviation Administration alone has
the regulatory authority to order changes in aircraft design, flight
. procedures, arid airport operations for noise abatement. The focal
point of a process to resolve the airport ridise problem must therefore
be'FAA rule-making procedures. Those: procedures can be shaped
by; the FAA,' however, so as to give appropriate roles to local and
national inputs regarding local and national aspects, respectively,
of the airport'noise problem.
b. .Aircraft Design :
One partof a total process to resolve the airport noise problem
has already been implemented by the FAA. The normal rule-making
procedures' (as augmented by the Noise Control Act of 1972).have been
and are being used to determine,:.at the national level, appropriate
noise emission standards for'new and existing aircraft. This aspect
of the problem is purely national in scope; and the normal rule-making
process, is1 intended to give fair consideration to all of .the national
interests involved. , .Airlines, aircraft manufacturers, pilots,, national
environmental groups, and airport and local government officials (in
their rolbs,as national interest groups) are all entitled to present their
comments bin the'propbsed rules in the same manner: While reason-
able people 'might differ over whether FAA is the best body to make
these ^decisions,, there is little doubt that they should be based almost
, entirely upon nationwide concerns (both f6r aviation and for the envir-
'Ohment).| Individual airports and communities should be heard only
insofar;as 'they represent geheral concerns, and not with .regard to •
'their :u'nique:problems. . : !, ' . ;.,' ,; .
• : ;' 'C.' •' Flight Procedures ,..'.'';' >:" '''.'-,' •• ::'"','.': ..'. .'.;""'.'•'," .• ' •...''
| The same; process should be followed in designating a set pf
flight procedures for rioi'se abatement which'are consistent with safety.
The problem here is to determine: which possible noise abatement flight
procedures are consistent with safety. The answers, to that problem,
like the problems of aircraft design, turn on technical aspects of air-
craft operation'which do not vary from placeto place. Like the answers
to problems of aircraft design,; therefore, they shpuld be sought on a
-------
-32-
purely national level. Inputs to the questions involving safety and ef-
fectiveness of noise abatement flight procedures should be received on
an equal basis from all who can shed light on the subjects, without
regard for unique problems. of particular localities or groups.
normal rule -making process of the FAA, as aug-
mented by the Noise Control Act, of 1972, is intended to serve these
purposes. •
d. Implementation Plans for Individual Airports
The choice of a particular set of noise abatement options
for a particular airport, while having national implications, is a
matter which much more directly affects the unique concerns of the
individuals whose livelihood and lives are directly related to that air-
port. The FAA should therefore use its existing authority over aircraft
and airport operations to create a process for the development of
individual airport noise control plans which gives first consideration
to the judgments of the people (or their representatives) who will be
directly affected by such plans, limiting those judgments only by the
necessity that the individual airport plan be consistent with the national
aviation system. .
This could be accomplished by a new FAA regulation,
issued under the authority of Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, as amended, which would incorporate the following features:
(i) A requirement that all airports have a noise con-
trol plan as a condition of operation. Such a plan
would at least include all of the noise control
options involving airport and aircraft operations
and required acquisition of property rights by the
airport, which are decided upon by one of the
means outlined in paragraph (iii) below. It might
include as well the options involving land use con-
trol by local jurisdictions. But if it did include
the latter types of options, it would have to "in-
clude" them in a different sense from the former;
since in contrast to the FAA's pervasive authority
over aircraft and airport operations, the only
authority which FAA possesses to make or enforce
decisions regarding land use control options is
that which is related to future AADA grants.
(ii) A specified procedure for the development of such
a plan. This procedure should include means by
which the judgements of all affected or concerned
• persons as to what the plan should contain can be
included in its development.
-------
-33-
Such persons include the proprietor, local
. governments, local and regional planning bodies,
local environmental groups, and state environmen-
tal and aviation agencies;, but do not include national
interests such ,as airlines, aircraft manufacturers,
pilots, or'national environmental organizations.
These national interest groups will have ample oppor-
tunity to voice their 'concerns on,.an equal basis on
the national aspects of the aircraft/airport noise
problem. The development of individual airport
• .noise control plans is basically a local problem
which should be skewed toward local inputs.
The plan development process should be de-
' signed to encourage allof these relevant parties to
.' participate by making it in their self-interest to do
so. A corollary of this is that no party should be
• capable of delaying or halting the'process by delay-
ing or refusing to fulfill its responsibilities; since
the interests of any one party might in some situa-
tions call for it to delay or halt.the process if it
could do so. The process should, therefore, be
•'capable of proceeding without the input of any given
party. In the key steps of'development of airport
implementation plans, this should its elf be an ade-
quate sanction to assure that each party will fulfill
its role, since if it does ' not, it will feel the
effects of an implementation plan which does not
reflect its input. Mechanisms .should be provided ,
• to assure, to the maximum extent possible, that
each party will understand what its responsibili-
ties are'and that it is within its-ability and best
interests to fulfill them. ,. '
(iii) A specified form in which the FAA will receive
and consider proposed airport'noise control plans '
for approval or disapproval, and the basis for that
•' consideration. As discus.sed above, • the existing
legal authority as well a's the necessity that indi-; •
vidual'airport noise control plans be'.consistent •
with'the national aviation system make it'essential;
that the FAA make the final >determination as to'
whether'each proposed airport plan is acceptable.
•Proposed plans could be received and considered
in at least two ways which would 'be consistent ,
, with the need for local development of plans: '• •
-------
-34-
FAA could require airport proprietors to
submit a single proposed plan for approval or dis-
approval accompanied by evidence that the airport
proprietor has sought the cooperation of the other
affected local parties and considered their input
in the development of the proposed plan. This
would put the airport proprietor at the center of
.. the plan development process, and limit the FAA
to the role of reviewer. The real effectiveness
of the inputs of local parties other than the airport
would be dependent to some extent on the good
faith of the proprietor in considering them.
Alternatively,. FAA could receive proposed
plans directly from all of the relevant local par-
ties who care to submit them, as well as the air-
port proprietor, and make its own initial decision
as to the best proposed plan or combination of pro-
posed plans. This would put the local parties on
more of an equal footing in the decision-making
process.
Either, of these decision-making forms would
allow the FAA to insure that individual airport
noise control plans are consistent with the national
airport system. Either form would also allow it
to determine that -plans met minimum standards
for protection of public health and welfare, mon-
itoring for enforcement .purposes, and the like,
which could be established as part of the airport
noise regulation.
The latter form, however, would put the
FAA much more in the position of determining as
well what is thej"best" plan for particular airports.
This might be loss desirable from the viewpoint of
the theory of decision-making discussed above; but
it would make the final plan more definitively a
a national plan. ...
(iv) A specified set of sanctions, based upon existing
FAA powers, for violation of various parts of ap-
proved airport noise control plans. The problems
of enforcement of an accepted plan are separable
from the problem of establishing an equitable
mechanism for developing plans. The available
means for enforcement of airport, noise control
plans are discussed in Section III(E) of this report.
-------
-35-
Finally, consistent with its established control of
all airport tower operations and the fact that ac-
cepted airport noise control plans will be FAA
regulations, the FAA should probably be respon-
sible for monitoring for enforcement of accepted
plans.
(2) Role of the Airport Proprietor
As indicated above, the role of the airport proprietor would
vary slightly, depending upon the nature of the approval mechanism es-
tablished for airport noise control plans. It will be either the central
figure in the development of the plan, or an advocate of one proposed
plan on a theoretically equal basis with other local parties advocating
other proposed plans, or perhaps other roles, derived from some other
type of plan development powers. ,
In any of these roles, however, the airport proprietor must be
the key party to provide the data regarding present and projected future
airport operations which is necessary for .use in the development of a
noise control plan. The airport noise regulation should, therefore,
require airport proprietors to develop data and supply it to all of the
other parties involved and to the FAA. ; .
The airport proprietor might be the central figure in many of
the possible financing mechanisms , for the airport noise regulation
(such as Federally levied .passenger head taxes .or noise-related landing
fees) which pass the economic burden on to the consumer of air ser-
vices. If it were determined that the FAA could not or should not
undertake the monitoring function for enforcement of accepted plans,
that role, or some portion of it, might'fall to airport proprietors under
FAA supervision. . '
(3) Mole of Local Governments
The role of local governments would also vary slightly depend-
ing upon the form of the mechanism foir adoption of proposed plans,
from giving input to the airport proprietor to possibly developing com-
plete proposed plans of their own. In any role, however, local govern-
ments must serve as the prime representatives.of the people impacted
by the airport. Local political forces can be expected to generate'a
more or less definable position for each community impacted by the
airport, which will be based to some degree on both the environmental
and economic impacts of the airport on the community. That position
will then characterize the position taken by that local government. in
the airport plan development process. ' • .' _ • •
Since local governments are the only parties with real authority
-------
-36-
to control land use (in ways other than acquisition of property rights)
the decision upon and enforcement of those aspects of the airport plan
dealing with land use control must depend largely upon their "enlight-
ened self-interest." Participation in the airport plan development
. process should give them every opportunity to perceive that self-inter
est, however. And they will have every incentive to participate, since
by doing so, they can influence the shape of the final airport operating
plan adopted bytheFAA. The extent of their influence can be expected
to depend to a large degree upon the extent of their good faith participa-
ting in the plan development process.
. Failure of any affected local governments to participate should
not be allowed to delay or stop the plan development. The other parties
should proceed as best'they can'on the other aspects of the plan, espe-
cially those involving airport operations, which are within their power.
At the same time, they should make it clear to the people in any non-
participating jurisdiction that their government is not representing their
interests. Political blame for shprtpomings in the airport operating
plan affecting whole communities, which could be avoided by such rep-
resentation, should then fall, where it belongs. (Since the final adopted
plan will represent an FAA decision regarding a part of the national
aviation system, individual claims regarding legal rights affected by
that decision should be directed at the FAA.) .
Furthermore, the failure of some local governments to partic-
ipate does not preclude inclusion of decisions regarding proper land
use in the final plan, although it would, of course, greatly hamper the
enforcement of those decisions. The FAA could still decide that par-
ticular types of development should not be allowed in particular areas;
and those decisions could be "enforced" to somedegreeby the economic
sanctions within the power of the Federal government. The fact that
such enforcement would be far from complete would not negate the
value of such decisions, .since they would still serve as a. deterrent
to incompatible development and as a stimulus to future local officials
to enact proper land us'e controls fpr such area. ,
•' » • i . ' ' ' '
•'••••• (4) Role of Local and Regional Planning Authorities
The relevant planning'authorities are, in the best position to
develop and supply to all the other parties, the data, regarding present
and projected future land use which, is necessary for development of
airport plans. Their initial role should, therefore, be to develop and
supply such data. Once again, there ,should be alternative means (such
as census data) to obtain such information and proceed with,develop-
ment of the plan if planning authorities cannot or will not cooperate.,
' Planning authorities can be expected to servers somewhat of
an,objective check on the other local parties, since they are relatively
-------
-37-
isolated from the politics affecting land use and the economics of air-
port operations. The plan development process should, therefore,
be designed so as to enable the final decision-maker (the FAA) to
isolate the views of cooperating local planning authorities from the
views of the airport proprietor and/or the local land use control author-
ity. This could take the form of an appraisal of land use by the planning
authorities to be submitted separately from the proposed airport plans
(whether proposed plans are submitted only by airport proprietors or
by both proprietors and local governments).
(5) Role of State Governments
State governments are likewise relatively isolated front
local pressures and therefore are in a position to serve as a check
on them. They can participate in the process either by advising the
local parties and the FAA on the merits of proposed plans, or by
preparing and submitting to the FAA separate proposed plans of their
own. The latter, role should put them in a more authoritative position
to mediate between the local parties, since both airport proprietors
and local governments would want the support of the State behind their
position when the FAA is faced With differing positions to choose
between. "
Several separate agencies are relevant: the state aviation
agency and the state environmental protection and/or land use (when and
if the latter are created) agencies. These agencies can he expected
to represent, on a hopefully somewhat more detached and objective
level, the interests which are more directly represented by individual
airport proprietors and local governments. Airport noise control plans
worked out between them could, therefore, serve as a test of the merits
of plans worked out at the local level, to help the FAA in its decisions
upon final plans.
(6) Role:of the Environmental Protection Agency
• 'EPA should continue to develop and evaluate tools which can
be used to determine, the effects (environmental, social, and economic)
of various possible airport noise; abatement options, and to advise the
parties responsible for developing airport noise control, plans in the
use of such tools. EPA can thus' help the. other parties understand
what decisions ihey will have to make and what the consequences of
those decisions are likely to be. , '
Further, since each FAA approval of a local plan will consti-
tute a major Federal action affecting the environment, an environmen-
tal impact statement will be required, on which EPA must comment.
This places EPA, in a sense, in the Federal review process for local
plans.
-------
-38-
E. Enforcement of Adopted Plans
As discussed above, adoption of airport noise control plans
by the FAA will greatly advance resolution of the problem regardless
of the degree to which those plans can be enforced. Some aspects of
those plans will clearly be enforcible to a greater degree than others.
However, under existing statutes, the following powers are available
to the 'Federal Government and are being used by it to enforce respon-
sibilities analogous to those which would be imposed by an airport
regulation.
(1) FAA: The FAA is the key legal authority in the entire
airport regulatory process, since it and it alone has the authority
under Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, to
certificate airports for noise. A number of powers are available to
the FAA to enforce its regulations.
a. Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended,
(49 U.S. C. 1429) provides that the Administrator may from time to
time reinspect any civil aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance, air
navigation facility or air agency, or may reexamine, or if, as a re-
sult of any such reinspection or reexamination, or if, as a result of
any other investigation made by the Administrator, he determines that
safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest
requires, may issue an order/amending, modifying, suspending, or
revoking in whole, or in part, any type certificate, production certif-
icate, airworthiness certificate,,' • airman certificate, air carrier
operating certificate, air navigation facility certificate, or air agency
certificate.
This po'ver is commonly used against airmen for serious
or continued- violations of flight safety procedures. In a few cases
its use has been threatened to obtain compliance with FAR 139, which
requires operating certificates based on safety equipment and pro-
cedures for all .airports serving C.A.B. certified air carriers; but
in the one year that FAR 139 certificates have been in effect it has
not been necessary to actually invoke it against an airport to obtain
compliance. _2/
b. Section 901 of the Federal Aviation Act (49U.S.C. §1471,
elaborated in FAR $.13. 15) provides for the imposition of civil penal-
ties, not to exceed $1, 000, for each violation of Titles III, V, VI, or
or XII of the Act and regulations issued thereunder. Each day of a
continuing violation constitutes a separate offense. Such penalties are
expressly made subject to compromise- by the FAA General Counsel,
Associate General Counsel for Operations and Evaluations, Aero-
nautical Center Counsel, or Regional Counsel. Aircraft involved in
-------
-39-
violations are subject to seizure and lien for the penalty. Fines of
$1, 000 per day have been imposed on airports on.six occasions to
obtain compliance with the FAR 139 certification program. 3_/
c. Section 902 of the Act (49 U. S. C. § 1472) provides criminal
penalties for certain willful acts, including forgery or "false" making
of certificates and willful failure to make or keep required reports or
records.
d. Sections 313 and 1004 of the Act empower the FAA Admin-
istrator to perform such acts and conduct such investigation as he
determines necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act, including
authority to hold public hearings, take evidence, issue subpoenas, and
take depositions.
e. Section 1007 of the Act (49 U. S. C. § 1487) authorizes the
FAA Administrator or the Civil Aeronautics Board or their agents to
apply to United States District Courts to enforce by injunction provis-
ions of Chapter 20 of the Act (which includes Title VI) and any rule,
regulation, requirement, or order under it, or any term, condition,
or limitation of any certificate or permit issued under it.
f. Section 1005(a) of the Act, (49 U.S. C. § 13. 20) authorizes
the FAA Administrator himself to issue cease and desist orders when-
ever he is of the opinion that an emergency requiring immediate action
exists in respect of safety in air commerce.
g. Section 1101 of the Act (49 U. S. C. § 1501), requires public
notification of the construction or alteration, or the proposed con-
struction or alteration, of any structure where notice will promote
safety in air commerce. Although there is no authority to forbid such
construction or alteration, FAR Part 77 establishes an elaborate pro-
cedure for determination of whether a hazard will exist and for notifi-
cation of all interested parties - including particularly any local
jurisdictions or government agencies which might have authority to
prevent the construction or alteration if the determination is positive.
In addition, the Secretary of Transportation may deny further AADA
projects at an airport unless he receives satisfactory assurances, in
writing, that "the aerial approaches to the airport will be adequately
cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking,
or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by
preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards '
[49U.S. C. 1718(3)]. This power has been used to put pressure on
airport proprietors to negotiate with their neighboring property owners
regarding hazards.
This procedure has in most cases been sufficient to prevent
construction or alterations which would constitute hazards. In some
cases where the hazard is not prevented or removed, it is modified
-------
-40-
to include elaborate warning devices to mitigate the danger. Occasion-
ally, however, it has been necessary to modify, flight procedures (such
as minimum visibility requirements) at particular airports to compen-
sate for hazards which could not be prevented. _4/
h. The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C.
§ 1711 et seq.) calls for the formulation of a National Airport System
Plan and for Federal grants for airport projects consistent with the
plan. As noted above, the "carrot" of AADA funds has been used by
FAA to bring about the removal or prevention of hazards to aviation.
The same "carrot" is available to encourage appropriate land use cont-
rols with regard to noise. Under Section 18(4) of the AADA, 49 U. S. C.
1718(4), the Secretary of Transportation may condition approval of
AADA projects on the receipt of assurances in writing, satisfactory
to him, that "appropriate, action, including the adoption of zoning laws,
has been or will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict the
use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to
activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, in-
cluding, landing and takeoff .of aircraft. "
In addition, all AADA projects must "provide for the pro-
tection and enhancement of the natural resources and the quality of
environment of the nation, " take "all possible steps to minimize" en-
vironmental damage, be "in accordance with standards established by
the Secretary, including standards for site selection and airport layout
and be "reasonably consistent with plans (existing at the time of ap-
proval of the project) of planning agencies for the development of the
area in which the airport is located...."
i. Finally, the FAA routinely brings about compliance with its
regulations, including particularly FAR 139, through .administrative
sanctions such as "letters of correction" and ."warning notices." Such
communication backed up by the ability to impose legal sanctions, are
usually sufficient to correct violations. See FAA Order 5200. 3, "Air-
port Certification Program Compliance and Enforcement."
(2) HUD; The Department of Housing and Urban Development
has authority to condition its grants.and loans in whatever (constitu-
tional) ways it finds necessary to bring about "safe, decent, and sanitary
housing. " Pursuant to their authority, it has already established noise
guidelines for its housing grants. It should be willing to add to its
noise guidelines a requirement that proposed projects be compatible
with relevant airport implementation plans.
(3) VA; , The Veterans Administration is in the process of
adopting the HUD noise guidelines, or an equivalent of them, and should
likewise be willing to include as a guideline compatibility with airport
plans.
-------
-41-
(4) EPA: EPA has some authority ovefr land use under the
Clean Air and Water Acts. The possibilities for utilizing this power
to further compatible land use around airports are being investigated.
(Especially see"EPA Authority Affecting Land Use, " by F. P. Bossel-
man, D. A. Feurer and D. L.', Callies, March 12, 1974.)
(5) DOT: The location of transportation facilities is a prime
factor in the pattern of development of land. The possibilities for
using conditions in DOT grants to further compliance with airport plans
are being investigated,
(6) FDIC: Banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-
poration (FDIC), and all banks which deal with such banks, are now
prohibited from financing development in flood plains. A similar
provision with regard to airport noise impact zones would be very
effective in preventing incompatible development. It would probably,
however, require new legislation.
-------
-42-
IV. The Role of an .Airport Noise Regulation in the Total Program
and a Statement of the Process Envisioned""^"
A. The Problem and Approach
Throughout the history of the aircraft noise dilemma, it has
been extremely difficult to determine the accountability and respon-
sibility of the parties involved. This is particularly applicable in the
local milieu -- where airport proprietors, local governing bodies and
regional planning agencies have been attempting to ameliorate the con-
• flict between airports and adjoining land uses. Solutions have been
elusive because of the unforseen consequences resulting from the intro-
duction of jet aircraft into the air carrier fleet and the competition
between political jurisdictions for scarce resources within economic
trade areas.
The noise levels emitted by aircraft utilizing a facility are not
iwithin the proprietor's control and, 'further, substantial uncertainties
exist concerning the legality of operational abatement strategies which
may burden interstate commerce or infringe on a regulatory area pre-
empted by the Federal Government.' Nevertheless, the proprietor has
been held responsible for aircraft noise.
In attempting to identify an appropriate, role for an airport noise
regulation and design a workable process, it has been necessary .to
emphasize the local decision making process and the relationships be-
tween local institutions forced into an adversary situation. The.local
milieu has been viewed as being affected by three broad variables;
(1) The noise emissions resulting from the operation of the airport,
(2) The extent of existing and potential incompatible encroachment near
flight paths, and (3) The degree of political fragmentation present in
the airport impact zone. '
The measurement of aircraft noise, the prediction of its effects,
and the forecasting of future emissions based on a wide variety of var-
iables is a highly developed and sophisticated science. The lack of
a universally., accepted methodology and type' of format employed in
presenting the level and extent of emissions are two remaining but
readily soluble .problems. . . • , „ '
Measuring and predicting the extent of encro'achment has raised
more serious problems. In the past, analysts have attempted to classify
land development as being either preventative or remedial and as1 being
basically compatible or incompatible with specified levels of aircraft
noise. The extent of encroachment is 'more clearly dependent upon the
degree of compatibility of existing and projected, land use, and the
level of land use control and commitment to development affecting
.undeveloped land. Both compatibility and preventivenessmust be viewed
as continuums if .accurate estimates of encroachment and impact are
to be obtained. ' ' •
-------
-43-
The degree of political fragmentation is extremely important
in identifying the role of an airport noise regulation. Where the impac-
ted jurisdiction and the airport proprietor are the same governmental
entity, the certification of the airport may require very specific land
use analyses and abatement strategies; where the impacted jursidiction
is not affiliated with the proprietor, sanctions available in the certifi-
cation process are clearly not applicable. In such situations, it is
important that the certification process itself create significant incen-
tives capable of eliciting local cooperation and compliance. However,
it is imperative that such cooperation and compliance consist of local
decisions and commitments which force the problem of unacceptable
noise exposure resulting from inadequate land use planning and control
into the local political arena. Local land use decision makers should
face the consequences resulting from a commitment to development in
areas known to be adversely affected by aircraft noise -- not through
Federal sanctions but through the local political process.
B. The Role of An Airport Regulation
The proposed airport regulation should:
* Establish a uniform process for airport impact evaluation.
* Provide a mechanism for the amelioration of conflict at the
local level.
* Establish reasonable classification criteria for both aircraft
and airports which may be effectively utilized in equitably dis-
tributing abatement costs among users.
The first objective, the Establishment of a Uniform Process
for Airport Impact Evaluation, could be accomplished .by prescribing
the following sequence of events:
(1) The Encroachment Classification.of Airports. A designated
agency of the Federal Government would assume primary responsibility
for classifying airports as to the degree of encroachment of incompa-
tible development upon major flight paths, the types of aircraft utilizing
the facility, and the number of annual operations; Proprietors would be
notified of the classification of their airports and provided information
and assistance requisite for an appeal of the .classification. Final class-
ification would determine which sections of the regulations were appli-
cable and whether compliance was mandatory, discretionary or exemp-
ted.
(2) Required Application of the Noise Units Methodology. Class -
ifications indicating a substantial degree of encroachment would require
the application of a prescribed methodology for determining the extent
of the noise exposure problem. The extent would be measured in Noise
Units closely approximating person hours of exposure. Proprietors
would only be required to develop the emissions component of the meth-
odology, which would include the generation of noise exposure values for
-------
-44-
parcels described by a geographic grid, 'with a higher degree of reso-
lution (smaller sampling areas) specified as a function of proximity
to flight paths and the airport's runways. Proprietors would also be
required to distribute a standard notice to all local planning agencies,
local governing bodies, and in particular, to the regional planning
agency with the most comprehensive interjurisdictional authority to
plan.
The development of the "sensitivity" component of the methodo-
logy would require the generation of noise sensitivity ratings for the
parcels delineated by the geographic grid. Notification would also
include an offer of monetary assistance (financial assistance for the
planning effort, though flowing through the proprietor, should originate
at the Federal level as planning grant money), and indicate that while
compliance was clearly discretionary, failure'to provide the necessary
information "in a timely and expeditious manner" could result in the
noise certification of the airport without their input. The procedure.
for developing both the emissions component and the sensitivity compon-
ent would be described in a noise units manual, provided by the Federal
government. Localities would have the option of applying the methodol-
ogy themselves or assigning the responsibility to the regional planning
authority with the most comprehensive interjurisdictional authority.
A critical part of the sensitivity component would include the
classification ofundeveloped land and determination of "potential noise
units" existing therein, as a function of the level of public and private
commitment to development (status in the local comprehensive plan,
whether and how recently it has been subdivided, what agreements have
been made with a developer, and the status of the supporting community
facilities --especially water, sewers, roadways and utitilities) and the
level of public control exercised over the property (zoning, housing and
building codes, official mapping, subdivision regulations, easements,
leasebacks, sellbacks with covenants, fee simple title, taxation, etc.)
Combining the emission and. sensitivity components would then
yield both actual and potential noise/units and depict their spatial dis-
tribution at a meaningful level of geographic resolution. The total noise
units resulting from a "Base .Case" operational configuration would
constitute a criticalcriterionfor classifying and regulating the airport.
The local disposition of potential noise units could be used as one cri-
terion in determining whether a given airport qualified for exceptions,
variances, conditionaluses, or temporary certification.
(3) Identification and Implementation of Insignificant Cost Options
From the Noise Units Methodology, it may be determined that
certain abatement options, having little or no measurable cost, can
improve the noise climate in the vicinity of the airport. This would
include certain operational strategies, such as changes in flight paths
and runway utilization, and in some cases, changes inland use control.
Again, local cooperation would be encouraged by the fact that attitudes •
-------
-45-
toward potential noise units would predispose the certificating agency
to grant exceptions and variances to the proprietor. Of course, any
jurisdiction directly affiliated with the proprietor would be excluded
because of the possibility of collusion -- in such instances changes in
land use control, and reduction of potential noise units would be requi-
site for certification, as would the reduction of actual noise units achie-
ved through other mechanisms.
(4) The Determination and Required Implementation of Cost
Effective Abatement Options"
It is likely that the most effective abatement options will incur
considerable costs. Night curfews, selected use of quiet aircraft,
changes in runway alignment and the acquisition of avigational or use
easements (to prevent incompatible new development) are but a few of
very costly but effective abatement options available to the proprietor.
It is equally important to recognize that changes in land use control,
even when accomplished through low cost applications of the local public
power, may result in substantial costs in terms of displaced economic
activity and adequate housing. Such costs, together with the more direct
costs resulting from forms of control requiring compensation and cap-
ital investment, must be determined for a wide variety of abatement
options. Once such determinations have been made, the most cost
effective strategies should receive priority and adequate funding be
made available.
This final set of strategies, including phasing, financing, re-
location, and participation elements would constitute the airport noise
abatement plan. An airport would be certified where the plan could
reasonably be expected (the test here being the actual levels of comit-
ment made by participating parties) to reduce noise units by an accept-
able amount within a specified time period and/or prevent the addition
of new noise units arisingfrom new development. Where the proprietor
failed to meet his obligations set forth in the plan, the most appropriate
and effective remedy would probably be a fine imposed by the certifi-
cating agency. Adverse changes in local land use policy would result in
an appropriate increase of the number of noise units permitted for that
time period, i.e., the increase in potential noise units could be deducted
from the proprietor's quota. In any case, the realization of actual noise
units from potential noise units resulting from incompatible develop-
ment would not be the responsibility of the proprietor, unless he were
directly affliated with the affected jurisdiction.
The second objective, the provision of a mechanism for the
amelioration of conflict at the local level, would be met by the suc-
cessful application of the above impact evaluation process.
The described process attempts to force local adversaries
with competing needs and priorities to cooperate and arbitrate. On the
one hand, proprietors have the capability and responsibility to reduce
aircraft noise impact to the fullest extent that is technologically feasible
-------
-46-
and economically practicable. On the other hand, local land use de-
cision makers have the authority and responsibility to prevent incompa-
tible development from encroaching upon airports and for implementing
cost effective abatement options in the interest of protecting the public
health and welfare.
Probably the agency or agencies responsible for administer-
ing the airport noise regulation should deal directly only with proprie-
tors. Proprietors, in turn, would be directed to solicit cooperation
and compliance from local land use decision makers through a process
of notification which must be carefully worded and presented so as to
avoid giving the impression that either the proprietor or the Federal
government is attempting to make local land use decisions, or that the
Federal government is attempting to elicit compliance by using the
threat of continued noise exposure as a sanction. The impression that
notification should impart is that the local land use decision maker is
being afforded both the opportunity and the financial resources to sub-
mit evidence that will result in reduced noise exposure in his com-
munity.
However, certain actions (or lack thereof) are likely to be
interpreted by the administering Federal agency as indicating that the
local decision makers have considered the matter and determined that
aircraft noise is a less important consideration than other factors.
The local decision makers would realize that the prescribed public
hearings required of the proprietor (also mentioned in the notification)
would be likely to make a highly noise sensitive segment of their consti-
tuency aware that they are in a position to assist both the proprietor
and the Federal government in the reduction of aircraft noise in their
community. Thus, an existing political institution may be utilized
in the arbitration process in a manner permitting considerable local
discretion while placing an equitable portion of the burden of protection
of the public health and welfare upon the elected local governments of
the people whose health and welfare is being protected.
Notification of local land use decision makers should also
distinguish between those steps in the process requiring cooperation in
providing basic planning data (i.e., the sensitivity component) from
those involving some local commitment to a land use control strategy.
Planning data can be provided by a regional (and more impartial) agency
in a more consistent and efficient manner. Land use controls must be
left to local communities. The application of the noise units methodo-
logy has been deliberately designed to require only planning data, and
hence, only the cooperation of a regional planning agency is necessary.
This insures that an important step in the process will be completed
even in the absence of local cooperation. However, it would be advi-
sable to give local land use decision makers the option of conducting
the. noise sensitivity component themselves because the delegation of
that responsibility to a regional planning agency would essentially con-
stitute a local commitment to the process itself and would render the
local decision maker more accountable for its findings.
-------
-47-
Specific land use control strategies would actually be a
required component of the airport proprietor's plan; it would not be
necessary for the proprietor to have the power to implement all of
the elements of his plan. In fact, in many situations, this would be high-
ly undesirable -- certainly a broad interpretation of the "public welfare"
would include the right to influence local land use decisions through
one's elected officials„ However, where the land use control component
of the proprietor's plan cannot be implemented through a carefully doc-
umented process of negotiation, certain variances and exceptions would
be in order, presumably because local decision makers and their con-
stituents do not consider the existing or projected noise exposure to
be important. It would clearly be a waste of resources to implement
expensive abatement strategies to protect a segment of the population
that does not treat the reduction of noise exposure as a priority con-
sideration. Even where there is a complete lack of cooperation at the
local level, the affected land use decision makers would inherit the
responsibility for permitting future incompatible development in areas
experiencing high levels of aircraft noise exposure.
The third objective, the establishment of reasonable classi-
fication criteria for both aircraft and airports which may be utilized
in equitably distributing abatement costs among users, is accomplished
by the application of the airport encroachment classification system
and the noise units methodology together with a regulation which would
classify aircraft according to their established noise emission char-
acteristics and assign an appropriate base rate of taxation for their
use. Because more research is necessary to establish the cost of a
comprehensive noise abatement strategy, the suggested procedure
below should be considered as a general example of a proposed process.
All aircraft meeting FAR Part 36 could be exempted from
user charges to be imposed by the CAB. All other aircraft might be
assigned a base rate of taxation which would be involved only when they
are operated from airports with a specified minimum classification.
The most equitable type of user charge would probably be reflected in
an increased ticket price paid by the passenger and correspondingly
•increased shipment charges for freight.
The encroachment classification assigned to all airports
would be used for tax purposes only for those facilities which achieve
a "discretionary" status, where the more extensive noise units metho-
dology is not mandatory. In such cases, passengers would pay only the
base rate assigned to the aircraft they selected. For example, an air-
craft meeting FAR Part 36, such as a DC-10, would not be taxed.
However, if the base rate assigned a Boeing 707 were $5. 00, this user
charge would be added to the ticket price.
The airport classification developed from the noise units
methodology would result in the imposition of a separate and additional
user charge on all aircraft, keyed to the actual noise exposure resulting
from its operation from a given airport. A DC-10, which would not
-------
-48-
have a base aircraft tax, would be taxed if it operated from an air-
port with a very high noise exposure rating, and the user charge would
be approximately factored.
In summary, the system of charges envisioned is one which
differentiates between aircraft types by their noise characteristics,,
and also scales upward or downward at specific airports according to
the degree of noise impact extant there.
Under existing law, it is likely that the CAB has the author-
ity to authorize such a user tariff, although it is not likely that the
resulting funds-could be disbursed for noise abatement purposes. New
legislation, (or amendment of the Airport and Airway Development Act)
authorizing the use of such funds for noise abatement strategies, t in-
cluding local land use options, would be necessary.
i
Such a system would have an enormous potential for gener-
ating revenue. For example, an average user charge at Chicago O'Hare
could generate over $350 million in revenue annually. The great dis-
parity in revenue generation potential is likely to require new legislation
authorizing the use of such funds at the local level. The availability
of such funding would create a strong incentive for cooperation, supple-
menting those previously mentioned in the certification process.
C. The Process Envisioned i
This section will be a detailed explanation of the step-by-
step process envisioned, related timing and phasing elements, and
required supporting documents. This analysis and presentation could
be shown as an organization matrix, with the stages in the process
listed in the left column and the following variables across the top row
as column headings:
1. Controlling decision maker(s)
2. Affected decision maker (s)
3. Required commitment
4. Means of eliciting compliance
5. Mechanism demonstrating compliance
6. Public participation and notification requirements
7. Supporting documents
8. Constraints and limitations
9. Solutions and alternatives
10. Research and analysis requirements
-------
-49-
The stages analyzed for each of these variables are:
1. Advance notification
2. Selected information request
3. Preliminary deletion of facilities from consideration
4. Federal encroachment classification
5. Notification of encroachment classification
6. Appeal and disposition of discretionary cases
7. Required application of the "short form" noise units
methodology
8. Required application of the "long form" noise units
methodology
9. Noise units classification of airports
10. Required submission of Phase I (Draft) Plan
11. Required public hearings (held by proprietor)
12. Implementation of insignificant cost options
13. Determination of variance, exception or conditional use
based on local disposition
14. Determination of cost effectiveness of options
15. Required submission of Phase II (Final) Plan
16. Required implementation of cost effective abatement -
options
Based on the identification of subtasks, attempts will be
made to estimate the timing of this sequence of events. A flow chart
will clarify the relationship between stages and subtasks, while the
completed matrix will be useful in identifying key actors, do.cuments
and requisite processes.
The following necessary documents are being developed at
EPA, as part of the airport regulation program:
Airport Encroachment Classification Manual
Noise Units Methodology Handbook
Standard Notification Forms
-------
-50-
. Federal/ Proprietor
. Proprietor/Local Land Use* Decison Makers
Initial indications of the forms of some of these documents
are provided in Appendix C.
D. Technical Assistance from the Federal Government to Pro-
prietors,and State and Local Government's"
' The Federal government has the capability of providing
technical assistance to the states and localities in preparing their plans.
This assistance may be in the form of:
. Permitting access to computerized models and data banks
for prediction of community noise from airports,
highways and'other major sources.
. Permitting access to general noise information literature
retrieval systems
. Lending of noise monitoring equipment
I
. Conducting training courses and conferences for public
officials, community financial leaders and the general
public i
Providing direct consultation on technical and legal
problems
Provision of model state and urban noise control legis-
lation
Provision of miscellaneous information (films, manuals,
etc. )
These are the kinds of assistance which presently are being
given by EPA and several other agencies, and are expected to continue
and increase. It is anticipated that the EPA regional offices will be
the central coordination points for persons requesting such assistance.
-------
-51-
E. Relation to ongoing state/local land use planning/control and
to" Federal decisions affecting the airport and surrounding'
communities.
Historically, land use zoning has been primarily a local
function and to a limited extent some states recently have been imposing
restrictions on land use. Several Federal land use bills have been con-
sidered but as of yet none has been enacted. However, several Federal
agencies (primarily EPA, DOT, and HUD) have some indirect influence
over land use. These influences fall into three categories:
1. Indirect control through their discretion over Federal
grant money to states or cities.
2. Control over Federal money which goes to individuals.
3. Specific authority to approve or disapprove certain state
programs; e.g., waste water treatment plans.
One of the goals is to determine how states might be en-
couraged to develop their own airport land use plans or require local
development of such plans by placing restrictions on the granting and
use of Federal monies. Two problems arise:
1. There is a continuing shift of Federal intergovernmental
monies from grant programs to the general revenue
sharing program, resulting in the loss of Federal re-
striction on the receipt and use of the money.
2. If states are encouraged to develop land use plans (or
at least policy) which coordinate with Federal goals,
the plan still has to be imposed on local governments, a
step which is difficult at best. This may be avoidable
by state enactment of requirements that local govern-
ments develop such plans.
Such efforts are confined to the interest and authority of the
particular agency or office and thus lack the pervasive and long range
aspects which are necessary for any efficient land use plan. For ex-
ample, if air quality is poor, regulations may be promulgated by.EPA
under the Clean Air Act to control further increases in air pollution,
but the air standards maybe met by increasing water pollution or some
other detrimental activity. HUD refuses to guarantee loans for housing
in noise impacted areas but at present the VA will. DOT has the
authority to refuse to finance roads that will induce new housing in noise
impacted areas, but the state road authority can merely do some budget
-------
-52-
reallocation to make sure the state requests money for non-noise area
construction, and earmarks state funds for projects around airport or
other noise impacted areas. j
•
Piecemeal plans such as those mentioned above either (1) im-
pact on a limited population, or (2) prevent only limited uses and thus
although they may prevent the specific acts they are designed to prevent,
they also create loopholes in the regulations, and place added burdens
on States and localities. The loopholes result from different definitions
and regulations applied by different agencies. The burden is that the
states, localities, and individuals must interpret several varying reg-
ulations, which slows up their own regulations and also delays the
imposition of Federal regulations and intent. Because of varied inter-
pretations of conflicting rules from different agencies, and intentional
hedging on the part of those individuals, localities, and states which do
not want to comply, the conflicts have to be resolved through court
action, legislation, negotiations, and adjusted regulations, all of which
takes time. It would be worth considerable effort on the Federal gov-
ernment's part to develop an integrated process with respect to the
various environmental requirements, so that local governments would
not be confronted by a multitude of conflicting constraints the effects
of which now become evident only at the point of land use decision-mak-
ing.
The most desirable situation would be for each state to have in.
existence a comprehensive land use control program which would
include control of noise impacted areas. However, to have a broad
Federal landuse program of some kind would lend continuity. The less
desirable alternative is the piece-by-piece control by specific agencies
over a limited number of activities. In this latter case it would be
necessary for EPA, for example, to focus on airport noise and air
quality impact and concentrate on those programs or grants which may
be used to effect such control. The first major considerations in such
an effort are:
1. Those controls which are likely to eliminate the most in-
compatible uses; and
2. Those controls which will have the most impact on future
state or local activity or individual action.
Finally, rather than consider agency-by-agency regulatory
action, legislation and/or the use of an Executive Order may be used
to impose on agencies the duty to consider the land use impacts of their
activities.
The President has authority to make use of the Executive Order
to delegate to Federal agencies the responsibilities which are imposed
upon him by Congress, or to direct agencies as to how the Executive
Branch will go about meeting the policies and standards laid down by
-------
-53-
Congress, including those in NEPA. An Executive Order lends
continuity to Federal action and imposes a standing legal duty on agency
heads to act in a given manner, thus narrowing the amount of interpre-
tive discretion left to individual agencies. .
The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority under
the Noise Control Act of 1972 to recommend for promulgation by the
Federal Aviation Administration airport/aircraft regulations to reduce
the noise impact of aircraft on the public health and welfare. Existing
technology and flight procedures can quiet aircraft only so much, there-
fore it is important to consider limitation on the development and use
of areas which are impacted by aircraft noise.
The construction of airports creates developmental pres-
sures. This includes residential housing and commercial/industrial
expansion and results from:
1. High level of ground transportation accessibility generally
available near airports;
2. Traffic volumes which attract:
(a) Industrial/ corporate offices because of high visibility
(b) Commercial uses that service the automobile passenger;
3. Realization by entrepeneurs that business can most easily
be conducted at the airport, motels, hotels, restaurants,
etc.
4. Employees of air facility - as an employment center, de-
mands are generated for housing, supporting services, etc.,
as general freeway congestion increases in a metropolitan
area; and
5. Generally flat topography, which makes land development
easy.
Control of these developmental pressures is a necessary part
of airport noise regulations as well as other environmental regulation;
e. g., air quality maintenance and sewage disposal. Efforts are under
way to control the land use around airports to be built in the future.
In most cases, however, the airport already exists and the ability to
control development is the more important task.
The development of a proposed strategy for concerted Federal-
state-local land use control, making efficient use of existing legal
-------
-54-
authorities and institutions, is part of the current airport noise regu-
lation program at EPA. It may well be the most challenging aspect of
the entire study program. In the final version of the project report
the resulting document will be presented as Appendix I. In this draft,
Appendix I contains an outline of the planned study report.
-------
-55-
V. Alternative Regulatory Proposals and Evaluation of Their Impacts
In the final project report, this section will display both the
several alternative regulations postulated for evaluation and the results
of those evaluations. The evaluation of alternatives will include all
those facets which EPA would have to consider if the regulation were
being promulgated by EPA. Hence, estimates of the nationwide effects
must be developed which are responsive to the statutory decisional
criteria incumbent upon both EPA and FAA in the regulation of noise
from aviation.
The reason for this is two-fold: First, reasonable and prudent
decisions by the EPA Administrator concerning the appropriate regula-
tion to submit to the FAA require this complete data base. Second,
the time table set forth in Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act (as
amended) for FAA response to EPA's submitted regulatory proposals
implies the necessity for such a data base within 30 days of EPA's
submittal, since FAA is required at that time to publish EPA's sub-
mitted regulation in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Without the
preparation and publication of such a data base in advance of EPA's
submittal, the required FAA public hearings would be much less use-
ful. More importantly, an extensive time delay between the FAA notice
of proposed rulemaking and promulgation of a final rule could result,
due to the necessity of carrying out the required studies to provide
the missing data base.
Further, the FAA will be required to prepare an environmental
impact statement on its proposed rule, which EIS will be subject to
EPA review and comment. EPA's program for developing the regula-
tory package therefore must lay the factual groundwork for comment
on the FAA's impact statement.
Therefore, the various regulatory alternatives must be evalu-
ated in terms of:
* Amount of improvement to the public health and welfare
with respect to noise, as a function of time (e.g., 1980, 1990,
2000).
* Maintenance of highest degree of safety. (Note that the final
evaluation of safety rests with the FAA, and that regulations
on aircraft noise emissions and flight procedures will have
been evaluated individually with respect to safety).
* Probable social and economic impacts on airport regions
(an approximate, national estimate).
* Probable economic impacts on the air transportation system,
including foreign commerce and with various financing strat-
egies acting on the economic system.
* Other major environmental (e.g., air quality) and resource
(e. g., land and energy) effects.
-------
-56-
Finally, there are certain pragmatic questions which must be
answered prior to promulgation of a regulation, whether statutorily
required or not. These include, in the case of an airport regulation.,
development of proposed methods for financing, the probable amounts
of financial resources demanded both for administration and for imple-
mentation, and proposed implementation support strategies for such
key issues as land use control and monitoring.
Study projects are under way to answer the above requirements.
In some cases, significant portions of the information needed is being
drawn from studies completed or under way in other agencies. The
remaining body of studies is being done by EPA staff, with heavy
support from contracted efforts.
There are two basic alternative paths which could be taken in
an airport noise regulation proposal, and within each of these there
are subsets. The two basic paths under consideration are:
(1) Specific performance standards with associated time tables
for different categories of airports (classified according to the diff-
iculty of achieving a specified standard). An example of this approach
is the California airport noise standard.
The many different ways of expressing such a performance
standard include, but are not limited to: (a) the amount of area of incom-
patible land, where "incompatibility" is defined for various land uses
by a limiting value of noise exposure in a cumulative scale such as
day-night average sound level (Ldn), (b) the number of people within
specified limiting values of Ldn, (c) the number of Noise Units asso-
ciated with a given airport and within its various emission intensity
zones, where Noise Units are computed from a technique accounting
for the presence of people, the relative noise-sensitivity of the activity
associated with the land use, and the degree of noise exposure excess
above a certain sensitivity threshhold.
(2) A specified process for local development and Federal
approval of airport noise abatement plans, whereby the data require-
ments and public consultation requirements are so completely specified
that a "best effort" result can be expected and yet maximum flexibility
is available for the tradeoff s which must be made between "protection of
the public health and welfare with respect to noise" on the one hand and
conflicting general public welfare demands on the other.
The present disposition of the EPA airport noise regulation de-
velopment team is toward the latter of these two basic alternative
paths. .
-------
-57-
VI. The Recommended Regulatory Program
In the final project report, this section will contain the high-
lights of the particular regulatory program being recommended to the
FAA. (An interim draft will utilize this section to provide the EPA
staff's recommendation to the EPA Administrator, subject to his
modification.)
The highlights of the regulation itself will be summarized
(with the actual text relegated to an appendix). The highlights of the
supplemental facets of the proposed program will also be summarized
here. These supplemental facets include:
Guidelines/processes/tools available for local development
and Federal approval of airport noise abatement plans;
Proposed strategy for administration, monitoring, and en-
forcement;
Proposed strategy for financing;
Proposed strategy for land use control consistent with ap-
proved airport noise abatement plans;
Proposed Federal interagency cooperation strategy for sup-
porting the implementation of the airport regulation;
Legislative recommendations;
Summary of anticipated impacts (positive and negative), based
on the impact studies associated with the recommended regu-
latory alternative (to be reported in Section V above).
Detailed information in support of this summary will be pro-
vided in Section V or as appendices.
-------
-58-
VII. Footnotes
Prologue
_!/ "Report on Aircraft/Airport Noise", Report of the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency in Compliance with Public Law
92-574, Senate Committee on Public Works, Serial No. 93-8, August
1973.
2/ "Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise arid
Apportionment of Authority between Federal, State and Local Govern-
ments", Report of Task Group 1, EPA NTID 73. 2, 27 July 1973.
3/ "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety
and Cost", Report of Task Group 2, EPA NTID 73. 3, 27 July 1973.
4/ "impact Characterization of Noise Levels Including Implications
of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure",
Report of Task Group 3, EPA NTID 73.4, 27 July 1973.
5/ "Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
Retrofitting", Report of Task Group 4, EPA NTID 73. 5, 27 July 1973.
C/ "Review and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
Actions and their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport Opera-
tion", Report of Task Group 5, EPA NTID 73. 6, 27 July 1973.
8/ "Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise", EPA Technical
Document 550/9-73-002, 27 July 1973.
9/ "information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", EPA
Technical Document 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
10/ "Aircraft and Airport Noise Regulations", Notice of Public Com-
ment Period, Federal Register Vol. 39, Page 6142, 19 February 1974.
Chapter I
I/ "Value of Aviation Activity", Fromm, G., Data Resources, Inc.,
"January 1973.
2/ "The Long Range Needs of Aviation", Volume II, Technical Annex
to the Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission, January 1973.
-------
-59-
3/ Ibid.
4/ Ibid.
5/ "FAA Statistical Handbook of Civil Aviation", Department of Trans-
portation Federal Aviation Administration (Annually).
6/ "Turbojet" powered also includes those aircraft engines which are
commonly referred to as turbofans.
77 Aerospace Industries Association.
8/ Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 150/5090
-2, 25 June 1971.
9/ "Forecast of Air Traffic Demand and Activity Levels to the Year
2000", Semat, Hellosen and Eickner, Inc. 27 March 1972.
10/ "impact Characterization of Noise Levels Including Implications
of Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure",
Report of Task Group 3, EPA NTID 73. 4, 27 July 1973.
ll/ Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, California.
12/ 49 U.S. C. §1301, et. seq. , (used interchangably in this text as the
Act). ~
13/ 49 U.S. C. §1349 & §1350.
!£/ Airport and Airway Development Act, §51(b)(l), -19 U.S. C.A. §1432
et. seq., 84 Stat. 234.
15_/ 49 U. S. C. §1348(a).
16/ 49 U.S. C. §1348(c).
17/ 42 U.S. C.A. §4901(a)(3).
18/ "information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", EPA
Technical Document 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
19/ 49 U.S. C.A. §1716(c)(3).
Chapter III
I/ City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 93 Sup. Ct.
T854 (1973).
-------
-60-
Chaoter III (con't)
21 Conversation between Bass Lockett of FAA and Larry Blackwood
of EPA, April 4, 1974.
3/ Ibid.
4/ Conversationbetween Charles Newpol of FAA and Larry Blackwood
of EPA, April 5, 1974.
-------
APPENDIX A
TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AIRPORT NOISE REGULATION
To be provided in future drafts of the project report, following
the postulation of specific regulatory alternatives, and following
their evaluation in terms of potential nation-wide benefits and
consequences, to be set forth in Section V above.
-------
APPENDIX B
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS
This Appendix is expected to appear in the final draft of the project
report. The intent is to identify significant changes in any other
sections of the FAR's -- not necessarily those specifically related
to noise -- which might be necessary for consistency with the pro-
posed airport noise regulation.
-------
APPENDIX C
GUIDELINES AND PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF AIRPORT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
In the final project report, this Appendix will consist of the set of
processes and procedural guidelines developed to assist airports and
local governments in developing a preferred implementation plan or
"airport noise abatement plan. "
In the interim, an indication of the nature of these processes,
guidelines and handbooks is provided in the preliminary text sections:
* A Proposed Airport Impact Evaluation Process
* Airport Encroachment Classification Manual
* Outline for the Handbook on Application of the Noise Units
Methodology
It will be noted that a summary version of the "process" was given in
Section IV C, above.
-------
C-2
A PROPOSED> AIRPORT'IMPACT
EVALUATION PROCESS
The following sequence of steps is intended to describe a
process which airport proprietors and local planning agencies might
employ in developing preferred Airport Noise Abatement plans. Such
plans would be submitted to the FAA in order to obtain specific FAA
certification for airport noise, in compliance with FAA Airport Noise
Regulations. Each step in the process is intended to require increasing
cooperation between proprietors and local planning agencies. Because
it may not be possible to complete the entire process at airports
experiencing intensive conflict with local jurisdictions, the successful
completion of each step should provide a useful output that is not depen-
dent upon further commitment or cooperation. The completion of the
entire process is actually an idealistic goal; more effective plans are
likely to result from the ideal" methodology, but significant abatement
potential should be realized if the process must be prematurely
terminated for legal, political, or financial reasons.
Although Table 1 indicates that the Airport Impact Evaluation
process is comprised of twelve ^sequential steps, there are only four
significant outputs; (1) the Classification of Airports, (2) The determin-
ation of the resulting Noise Exposure" (expressed in noise units) for
various abatement options, (3) iThe development of a Short Range
insignificant cost Airport Noise Abatement Plan, and (4) The develop -
ment of a Long Range cost effective comprehensive Airport Noise
Abatement Plan. These outputs are obtained as follows.
Table 1. Steps in the Proposed Airport Impact Evaluation Process
1. Proprietor's information request
2. Elimination and exemption of compatible facilities
3. Encroachment classification of airports
4. Notification of encroachment classification
5. Appeal of encroachment classification and disposition of discretionary
cases
6. Required application of "Short Form" noise units methodology at
selected facilities
7. Required application of "Long Form" noise units methodology at
selected facilities
8. Noise units classification of selected airports
9. Required submission of short range plan for implementation of
insignificant cost options
10. Analysis of trade-offs between program options available to
proprietors and local agencies
11. Federal review of proposed long range abatement plan
12. Required implementation of cost effective abatement options
-------
C-3
I. Proprietor's Information Request
Shortly following the promulation of the Airport Noise Reg-
ulation, the FAA would notify all airport proprietors of the purpose,
intent, and requirements prescribed therein. Such notification would
be accompanied by a questionnaire designed to obtain information
concerning the operational characteristics and future intended use of
air facilities (particularly general aviation airports in urbanized areas)
for which data necessary for classification might be considered
inadequate.
2. Elimination and Exemption of Compatible Facilities
Information received from such questionnaries and satellite
photography would be utilized in determining which airports could be
exempted from further analysis. Such exemption would probably be a
type of temporary certification granted in cases where surrounding land
uses and operational characteristics clearly indicate that a compatible
relationship is present and will continue to exist for a substantial
period of time.
3. Encroachment Classification of Airports
It is likely that a large number of airports will require more
detailed evaluation in order to determine the appropriate level of effort
and analysis techniques necessary to develop acceptable abatement
plans. For this purpose, aerial photography and census data would be
applied in a uniform way to all air facilities not previously exempted
in order to determine the general extent of the encroachment of in-
compatible land uses on major flight paths. Such analytical techniques
would result in numerical encroachment ratings, which would be
modified for fleet mix and flight path utilization characteristics to
obtain composite encroachment ratings. Such quantitative indices
would then be employed in classifying airports as follows:
Class A - Severe encroachment; must comply with all sections
of regulation; must employ both the short and the long
forms of noise units methodology; entitled to special
variances and exc options in certification process.
Class B - Significant encroachment; must comply with selected
sections of regulations; must employ the short form
of noise units methodology and those sections of the
long form pertainingto land use control for undevel-
oped land, must demonstrate hardship to obtain
variance in certification process. Exceptions granted
for severe political fragmentation.
-------
C-4
Class C - Impending encroachment: must comply with selected
sections of regulations; must employ the short form,
stressing identification of potential noise units for
undeveloped land. Variances granted only for severe
hardship.
Class D- Compatible facility with extensive emission potential;
must comply with selected sections of the regulation;
must identify potential noise units for undeveloped
land: abatement plan not required.
Class E - Compatible facility with insignificant emission
potential; granted temporary certification.
4. Notification of Encroachment Classification
The classifying Federal agency would notify proprietors of
the classifications assigned to their airports, provide the tools for
an independent evaluation (Airport Encroachment Classification
Manual) and a specified time period for appeal.
5. Appeal of Encroachment Classification and Disposition of
Discretionary Cases
Proprietors conduct independent evaluation and appeal
classification if there is a significant and detrimental discrepancy.
Some proprietors may wish to obtain a higher classification and will
be so classified upon written request. The classification of discre-
tionary cases, (i.e., those falling between classes) would be
determined on the basis of secondary considerations like the degree
of local political fragmentation, track record in obtaining local
cooperation in the land use decision making process, etc.
6. Required Application of the Short Form Noise Units Methodology
At this point, all airports not certificated during the classi-
fication process would be required to utilize the short form noise
units methodology. The responsibility for applying this methodology
would be divided between airport proprietors and local planning
agencies, with the former developing a study area and geographic
sampling system for the forecasting and presentation of noise
emission levels and the latter utilizing the sampling system (using a
grid, not contours) to develop and record the noise sensitivity of
various land uses, including the potential sensitivity of undeveloping
or redeveloping land. This portion of the noise units methodology
is termed short form because the data requirements have been
simplified in order to expedite the completion of a significant step
in the planning process. For example, the proprietor would be
making good estimates of emission levels for a limited number of
options, while the local planning agencies would be developing noise
sensitivity information from general land use and zoning maps.
-------
C-5
Local cooperation would be elicited as follows. The air-
port proprietor would receive a document (or set. of documents)
from the FAA addressed to appropriate local governing bodies,
inviting and encouraging their participation in the development of
the Airport Noise Abatement Plan. Data requirements and requisite
levels of commitment would be specified and financial assistance
offered.
If the desired information were not developed and delivered
in a timely and expeditious manner, the airport woudl qualify for
automatic temporary certification because of a demonstrated hard-
ship caused by the lack of local concern for the airport noise
problem. If compliance had not been obtained by the end of the
temporary certification time period, the proprietor would be author-
ized to engage a private consultant of his choosing to complete the
local governments half of the noise/units methodology. The exact
procedures for applying, the noise units methodology would be set
forth in a noise units methodology handbook.
7. Required Application of the Long Form Noise Units Methodology.
at Selected Facilities
The Long Form would differ from the short form in that
it would be. required only for those airports experiencing a substan-
tial and continuing aircraft noise impact, and would necessitate the
development of a more extensive evaluation process. Noise emission
characteristics for a wider variety of abatement options with more
detailed operational variables would be required of the proprietor,
while local planning agencies would need to include such factors as
structural attenuation, transient population, and ambient noise
levels in weighting the noise sensitivity of specific parcels of land.
Acceptability criteria for noise exposure levels would be factored
appropriately.
8. Noise Units Classification of Selected Facilities
The noise units resulting from both the short and long form
analyses would constitute a final criterion for the classification
of the more severely impacted airports. Such classifications could
be utilized in determining funding priorities and developing financing
mechanisms related to various user charges.
9. Required Submission of Short Range Plan for Implementation
of Insignificant Cost Options
The completion of the noise units methodology should
provide proprietors with detailed land use sensitivity information
which could quantitatively and graphically depict the configuration
of "Acoustical Space" in the vicinity of the airport, enabling them to
-------
C-6
develop low cost abatement strategies related to operational
options. In addition, the potential for increases in noise units resulting
from land use changes (further encroachment resulting from the
development or redevelopment of land) in specific geographic areas
would be identified, clearly indicating the need for local cooperation
and intervention or establishing priorities for the acquisition of
property rights where necessary.
Such considerations would comprise important components of
the short range plan, which .would be presented at a public hearing
and submitted to the FAA (and possibly other reviewing agencies)
together with the comments and criticisms obtained. It is likely that
much controversy would focus on what constituted an insignificant cost
abatement option, for both proprietors and local land use decision-
makers. The resulting exchange of information should result in an
increased appreciation for the difficult situations facing both parties,
and in some cases could hopefully lead to the pursuit of a few significant
cost abatement options by both parties on a quid pro quo basis.
Approval of the short range plan would result in temporary, certification
of the airport. Failure to develop an acceptable abatement plan would
result in the proprietor operating his airport without certification,
and requisite sanctions would be applicable, but only in cases where
local planning agencies had fulfilled their obligations in a timely and
expeditious manner.
10. Analysis of Trade-Off s Between Program Options Available to
Proprietors and Local Agencies
Long term or continuing certification would be obtained by
developing an acceptable long range, time phased, abatement plan that
carefully analyzes a wide variety of program options associated with
significant costs for both airport proprietors and local general purpose
governments. Such a plan would stress the cost effectiveness of
comprehensive abatement strategies comprised of various combinations
of abatement options: flight schedule restrictions, land acquisition,
restricted use easements, leasebacks, sellbacks, building codes,
compatible use zoning, and restrictive growth policies related to the
witholding of community facilities necessary for development.
Such considerations would result in the development of long
range abatement plans that would achieve a reduction of a number of
noise units by specified dates (e. g., at five, ten and fifteen year incre-
ments) that were technically, economically, and politically feasible.
11. Federal Review of Proposed Long Range Abatement Plan
The FAA and other state and Federal agencies (including EPA
and HUD) would review the proposed long range abatement plan in order
to determine funding priorities and the appropriate sanctions that
-------
C-7
should be applied in order to elicit the requisite degree of local
governmental compliance. An acceptable plan would then be adopted, a
certificate granted, and monetary and administrative assistance
provided.
12. Required Implementation of Cost Effective Abatement Options
Such support and certification would continue only in the pres-
ence of indications that the described abatement plan is actually being
implemented. Provisions for exception and variances would be made
in cases where unforseen circumstances prevent timely implementa-
tion. Decisional criteria for the granting of exceptions and variances
should be set forth in the airport noise regulation itself.
-------
C-8
AIRPORT ENCROACHMENT CLASSIFICATION MANUAL
(PRELIMINARY DRAFT)
A. PURPOSE
This manual has been issued in conjunction with FAR ,
by the Federal Aviation Administration, to assist airport operators
in the determination of the general extent to which incompatible de-
velopment exists in the vicinity of the airport and major flight paths;
and is identical to the procedure employed by the FAA and participat-
ing agencies in determining whether more detailed analyses may be
necessary. Facilities experiencing a substantial degree of encroach-
ment will be required to apply the noise units methodology described
in Part of FAR . The noise units methodology is designed to
assist airport operators and local planning agencies in evaluating the
cost effectiveness of various noise abatement options, and to assist
the Federal government in administering the airport certification
process.
Because encroachment classifications are determined by par-
ticipating Federal agencies, it is important that airport operators
independently evaluate the land development in the vicinity of their
facilities in order that they may be afforded the opportunity to appeal
a given classification and more fully participate in the final disposition
of discretionary cases.
B. DATA REQUIREMENTS, TOOLS AND SOURCES
It is important that the proper specificity of data be employed
for the intended analytical purposes. Because the encroachment class-
ification is general and descriptive in nature, only two basic sources
of data are necessary: current aerial photography and the 1970 census
of population and housing. There exists a potential trade-off between
these two basic data sources. In highly urbanized areas, where land
tends to be intensely developed and presented as a complicated mix-
ture of building structures, aerial photography becomes difficult to use.
Fortunately, where such conditions exist, census data is presented in
the "block statistics" format, and may be used to validate conclusions
drawn from aerial photography, or in some cases may be substituted
for it. Conversely, in more sparsely populated areas, census data is
presented in the tract or enumeration distract format and should be
used only to estimate the occupancy ratios of dwelling units observed
in aerial photography.
The list of data requirements, tools, and sources necessary
to complete the encroachment classification of your facility is as
follows:
1. Aerial photograph along all flight paths, terminating not less
than 5 miles from the end of each runway.
-------
C-9
The U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey maintains such photog-
raphy for all air carrier airports in the United States at scales of
I" = 1500' and l" = 2500'. In addition the U. S. Geological Survey
•naintains aerial photography of the entire United- States at a scale of
l" = 2000', although some sections are somewhat dated. A map of the
United States, indicating the dates of the most recent photography, is
available free of charge.
Many local planning agencies also maintain excellent aerial
photography. Although scales of less than l" = 1000' are common,
requiring larger working spaces, they represent an important resource
which should not be overlooked. Finally, many private aerial photog-
raphy firms maintain a large inventory of current photography at var-
ious scales, and are equipped to respond quickly to specific requests.
2. TheU. S. Census of Population and Housing for 1970. Enumer-
ation district, tract, and block statistics are keyed to census maps at
various scales. If your study area falls within an urbanized area, as
defined by the Bureau of the Census, block statistics Hc(3), are avail-
able and keyed to census maps scaled to l" = 2000'.
3. One logarithmically segmented, transparent template, appro-
priately scaled to the data source employed. Figure 1 presents the
standard template at a scale of I1 = 2000'.
4. Current statistics on average annual daily runway utilization,
and practical annual capacity for your airport.
5. Estimates of the current mix of aircraft utilizing your facility.
C. PROCEDURE
1. Obtain and assemble aerial photography and/or census data
and maps as required.
2. Scale template in Figure 1 to match the scale of the data
sources.
3. Using the attached worksheet, fill in the required data. The
base of the template should be superimposed on the end of the runway
and center on the flight path under consideration (see Figure 2).
4. Before beginning, examine the attached worksheet, Figure 1,
and Table 1, to become familiar with the way in which the components
of the procedure relate to each other.
Note that the segmented template is not, a noise contour - it is
a simple sampling device designed to record land use in incremental
segments.
-------
Figure 1. STANDARD TEMPLATE
-------
C-10
The segments become progressively longer, because as the
distance between the aircraft and the ground becomes greater, equiva-
lent levels of noise are distributed over larger areas.
The entire template is blocked with a 10 acre grid to assist
the analyst in estimating population density. It is important to note
that the land use index (Column 1 on the worksheet) is derived from a
density factor (Column E) and is not indicative of the population exposed
to a given level of noise.
Note that there is one worksheet required for each flight path.
The land use compatibility rating for your facility is the sum of all
segment totals under Column 1.
5. The completed sample worksheet will clarify the procedure.
It has been used to record airport operating and land use data for flight
path 24R at a fictitious airport.
5. 1 Column A identifies the segment of the template being examined.
5. 2 In Column B, the analyst has made an estimate of the propor-
tion of the segment which has been developed primarily for residential
land use. It is often helpful to outline this area in grease pencil to
assist in the derivation of dwelling unit density factors. Note in seg-
ment 4, the analyst's identification of an elementary school.
5. 3 In Column C, the analyst has estimated the average number
of dwelling units per gross acre in the developed section. Since much
residential development is presented in fairly homogenous patterns in
accordance with local zoning laws, it is rarely necessary to count every
unit. The analyst will usually determine a dwelling unit density factor
for a 10 acre parcel and apply it to all contigious development that ap-
pears homogenous. In more rural situations, where it is difficult to
relate a parcel of land to a given dwelling unit, he must carefully exam-
ine the photograph to avoid counting the many outbuildings related to
agricultural land use as dwelling units. In very urban situations, where
a mixture of single and multifamily units is presented, census statistics
should be used in determining density factors.
5. 4 In Column D. the analyst has simply corrected for the average
number of occupants per dwelling unit. Such ratios are usually derived
from census data on housing and population for several tracts around
the airport.
5. 5 In Column E, the analyst has simply multiplied . Column B
times Column C times Column D.
-------
C-ll
5. 6 In Column F, the analyst has determined the appropriate dis-
tance* factor for each segment from Table 2, which adjusts the rate of
decrease for the mix of aircraft using the airport as a function of the
mean distance of each segment from the runway.
5. 7 In Column G, the analyst has computed a noise exposure factor
by multiplying Column F by Column E.
5. 8 In Column H, the analyst has corrected for the average number
of aircraft utilizing the flight path (takeoffs and landings). He has
simply taken the average number of overflights, entered, the log table
(Table 2) and found that Logio of 200 is 2. 3.
5. 9 In Column I, the analyst has derived the segment land use
index by multiplying Column G by Column H and totalling the segments.
Flight Path 24R therefore has a land use compatibility rating of about
197. The composite rating for the airport is obtained by totalling this
rating for all flight paths.
-------
TABLE 1 WORKSHEET FOR FLIGHT PATH 24R, U.S. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - SAMPLE
A BC DEF GH
Average Average Segment Distance Noise
Template Percent dwellings occupancy density factor exposure LogiQ daily
segment developed per gross ratio factor (from potential operations
acre (BxCxD) Table 1) (ExF)
1 .20 4 3.6 2.88 10.0 . . 28.8 2
(for
2 .30 4 3.6 4.32 5.0 21.6 2
3 .60 5 3.6 . 10.8 2.5 27.0 2
4 .20 3 3.6 2.16 1.25 2.7 2
*E.S.
5 .50 5 3.6 9.0 .6125 5.6 2
TOTALS 3.6 29.16 85.7 2
.3
200)
.3
.3
.3
*
.3
.3
I
Segment
land use
index
66.24
49.68
62.10
6.21
*E.S.
12.88
197.11
-------
TABLE 2
D E
A ' B C (Total Segment Weight
Aircraft Factor Percent (AxB) C) 1234 5
2
3
4
3
4
Eng 6
Eng 10
Eng 35
Eng HBPR 5
Eng HBPR 7
13-15 10 7 5 3 2
10-12 10 5 2.5 1.25 .6125
7-9 10 4 2 1 .5
4-6 10 3 1 .3 .1
-------
C-12
The following (preliminary) forms are indicative of the type
of notification which the FAA could transmit to airport proprietors,
apprising them of their airport land use compatibility ratings based
on Federal estimates, and advising them of actions they must take,
as well as of their opportunity for appeal.
-------
C-12L
FORM 1
AIRPORT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: PROPRIETOR'S
NOTIFICATION OF MANDATORY COMPLIANCE
Dear Sir:
The U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, in cooperation with the U. S.
Geological Survey and Bureau of the Census, under contract to and
at the direction of the Federal Aviation Administration, has determ-
ined that U. S. International Airport has obtained a land use compat-
ibility rating of 261.
A land use rating of 261 presently ranks 7th, between Seattle Tacoma
(437) and Detroit Metropolitan (166). The Administrator is pleased to
note that your facility maintains the lowest land use rating per annual
operation of the 20 largest airports.
Because a land use rating of 261 makes compliance with all sections of
Part of FAR __^__ mandatory, the Administrator encourages and
invites your independent evaluation of the above classification. Please
find attached one airport encroachment classification man vial and the
USCGS worksheets for U. S. International Airport.
This letter shall serve as notice of the Administrator's determination
that you must comply with the described sections of FAR . Failure
to contest this determination within 90 days shall constitute agreement
on the part of the proprietor.
-------
C-14
FORM II
AIRPORT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: PROPRIETOR'S
NOTIFICATION OF DISCRETIONARY COMPLIANCE
Dear Sir:
The U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in cooperation with the U. S.
Geological Survey and Bureau of the Census, under contract to and
at the direction of the Federal Aviation Administration, has determ-
ined that U. S. Regional Airport has obtained a land use compatibility
rating of 74.
A land use rating of 74presently ranks 35th, between Rochester, N, Y.
(75) and Charlotte, N. C. (73). Because a land use rating of 74 makes
compliance with Section , Part of FAR mandatory and com-
pliance with all other sections discretionary, the Administrator
encourages and invites your independent evaluation of the above class-
ification. In addition, the Administrator solicits your participation
in the determination of which sections of FAR will be considered
mandatory for your facility. Final determination will be made by rep-
resentatives of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Federal Aviation Administration not less than 60 days or more than 90
days from this date of notice.
Please find attached one airport classification procedure manual and
the USCGS worksheets for U. S. Regional Airport.
-------
C-15
FORM III
AIRPORT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: PROPRIETOR'S
NOTIFICATION OF TEMPORARY EXEMPTION
Dear Sir:
The U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, in cooperation with the U. S.
Geological Survey and Bureau of the Census, under contract to and
at the direction of the Federal Aviation Administration has determined
that U. S. Municipal Airport has obtained a land use compatibility rat-
ing of 16.
A land use rating of 16 presently exempts your facility from compliance
with FAR . However, a discretionary statis will apply if a land use
rating of 50 or more is obtained in the future.
Please find attached one airport classification procedure manual and
the USCGS worksheet for U. S. Municipal Airport.
-------
C-16
OUTLINE FOR THE HANDBOOK ON
APPLICATION OF THE NOISE UNITS METHODOLOGY
I. Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Scope
C. Structure
II. Encroachment Classification
A. Purpose
B. Procedure
III. The Short Form
A. Purpose
B. The estimation of emission levels: the proprietor's procedure.
1. Determination of study area.
2. Establishment of geographic sampling system.
3. Delivery of geographic sampling system to planning agen-
cies.
4. Manual techniques for estimating noise emissions for the
"base case. "
5. Application of the proprietor's noise emission data.
6. Application of land use sensitivity data provided by local
planning agencies.
C. Estimating Land-Use Sensitivities: Procedure for local
planning agencies
1. The application of the proprietor's study area,
2. The application of the proprietor's geographic sampling
system.
3. The use of general land-use characteristics in estimating
actual noise units sensitivity.
4. Criteria for estimating potential noise units for undeveloped
land.
5. Application of the proprietor's noise emission data.
IV. The Long Form
A. Purpose
B. Estimating emission levels: The proprietor's procedure.
1. Application of the short form sampling system.
2. The use of fully automated computer analysis techniques
to estimate noise emissions for the base case.
3. The use of fully automated computer analysis techniques
to determine noise emissions for selected options.
4. Application of "Long Form" land use sensitivity data pro-
vided by local planning agencies.
-------
C-17
C. Estimating land-use sensitivity: Procedure for local planning
agencies.
1. Application of the short form sampling system.
2. Factoring the specific land use characteristics and related
activities.
3. Factoring for structural attenuation.
4. Factoring for transient population.
5. Factoring for ambient noise.
6. Criteria for estimating potential noise units for undeveloped
land..
7. Application of noise emissions data provided by the pro-
prietor.
V. The identification of insignificant cost abatement options.
A. Purpose
B. Applicability of the encroachment classification, the long form,
and the short form.
C. The role of public participation in hearings.
It is likely that the completion of such a methodology would be
closely followed by the required development and submission of a
preferred implementation plan. For this reason, such requirements
should be specified and clarified in the noise units methodology hand-
book which would suggest the appropriate format, consideration, com-
mitment, alternative means of enlisting compliance, and the procedure
for developing and submitting such a plan.
-------
APPENDIX D
COMMUNITY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
In ,the final project report, this appendix will include the developed
and validated computer program, standardized aircraft data inputs char-
acterizing aircraft noise and operational data for present and future
aircraft types as required, protocol for collecting/specifying airport
operational data, and associated noise prediction model computer prog-
ram and computer facility access plans, to make it possible for airport
proprietors and local governments to quantitatively evaluate the noise
climates associated withpresent and alternative future modes of airport
operations. In its final form, the computerized noise prediction model
will contain provision for calculation of community noise from other
major sources as well as airports, so that the boundary of the airport
influence zone can be identified with respect to other major sources of
community noise.
In the meantime, the following text section provides a sense of the
activity currently under way, together with the types of airport opera-
tional data which will need to be provided by the airport proprietors in
order to utilize the noise prediction model.
I. Introduction .
The Community Noise Prediction Model is the mechanism which is
used to integrate the influence of all of the parameters which determine
the magniture of noise exposure*, as a function of geographic location,
which results from any specified aviation activity pattern at an airport.
This integratedapproach to determining and quantifying noise exposure
resulting from aviation activities at an airport has evolved from twenty
years of field and laboratory research in this country and others.
There are several, closely related scales which have evolved in this
process I/ 2/ including those most familiar in this country (in the
same order as their sequence in the evolutionary process): Composite
Noise Rating (CNR), Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) and Day/Night
Equivalent Level (sometimes called Day-Night Sound Level or Day-
Night Noise Level) (Ldn). '
It is EPA's intention 3/ to use the Ldn and Leq scales for quanti-
fying community noise exposure from all sources (including airports),
Throughout thisreport, the term "noise exposure" is used to indicate
the existence of a noise environment regardless of whether or not
there are people present within that environment; whereas the term
"noise impact" is used to mean the combined result of a noise envir-
onment plus the presence of people within that environment plus the
degree of noise sensitivity associated with their activities.
-------
D-2
and encourage all Federal agencies and 'the various levels of govern-
ment in doing likewise. By such standardization, the entire process
of facility planning, community planning, development of relative prior-
ities for source noise reduction - in fact, the entire policy guidance
for a national noise abatement program - can be facilitated and made
more efficient.
In developing a computerized model to quantify an airport noise
situation in terms of Ldn and Leq, much time and resources can be
saved by taking -as the starting point an existing computer program
for NEF, since all the basic physical equations (describing the move-
ment of aircraft through the air, the propagation of sound, etc. ) are
the same.
The calculation of NEF values requires as input the aircraft sound
level data in terms of Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) meas-
ured in EPNdB. Using the same basic methodology, but expressing
the aircraft sound levels in terms of the appropriate A-weighted sound
levels, one can compute the resulting Leq and Ldn values.
The basic methodology used to determine NEF values has been re-
ported in great detail in the open literature. 4/ 5/ The basic NEF
methodologyhas been implemented in the form of~a number of computer
programs. The EPA, not wishing to develop yet another computer
program unnecessarily, has surveyed and analyzed the currently avail-
able programs to determine their applicability to the Airport Noise
Project.
II. Computer Programs
The EPA survey of currently available NEF computer programs
indicates that four such programs are potentially applicable to this
Airport Noise Regulation project. All of the four programs evaluate
the same basic function, which is:
NEFi:J = EPNL^ + lOlog^N^ /K)-75
th th
where EPNL j. = EPNL due to the i aircraft on the j runway
th
n . . = number of identical operations of the i. aircraft
1-' off the j runway.
K = a constant that varies for time of day; tentatively
K = 20 for daytime operations and 1. 2 for night-
time operations
hence NEF = EPNL ±j + 1 0 logio M ± . -88
where Mtj = N±j (Day) + 16. 67 N . . (Night)
-------
D-3
Although each of the four programs evaluates the basic NEF
function, as shown above, each of the programs is unique with respect
to input requirements, computational details and output formats. A
complete description of each of the available programs is beyond both
the scope and intent of the Project Report. A great deal of the unique-
ness of each program is a reflection of the specific task for which it was
developed. All four of the programs are capable of determining noise
exposure in a grid type format and indeed this is the one capability
which is common to all of the computer programs. Each of the prog-
rams can also produce noise exposure contours. In order of increasing
complexity (and, by inference, increased capability) the four potentially
applicable computer programs are as follows:
1. DOT Program - This program was developed to operate in a
time-shared mode. Operation of the program is simple; however,
the program has no graphic display capability. The strongest
part of the program is its contour seeking algorithm; i.e., the program
will determine the coordinates of all points which constitute a contour
of predetermined NEF values. 6/ A well documented user's manual
exists for this program. Tj
2. DOT/NASA Program - The basic DOT program was refined
and a graphics display capability was incorporated into the coding; this
effort took place at NASA Ames Research; hence, the updated program
is called the DOT/NASA Program. As does the DOT Program, the
DOT/NASA version operates in a time-shared mode.
This program retains the contour seeking capabilities of the earlier
DOT program. Contours of constant NEF value are displayed on a
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). Once the operator is satisfied with the CRT
display, a hard copy can be produced at will. Both the DOT and NASA
Programs can also produce NEF values at selected grid point locations.
The user's manual for the DOT program is applicable to the DOT/NASA
version.
3. DOT/Wyle Program - This program was developed for use in
the Airport Noise Reduction Forecast Program which is being-done
by Wyle Laboratories and R. Dixon Speas for DOT. 8/ The DOT/Wyle
program is of the same species as the DOT and DOT7NASA programs.
However, it is capable of accepting and utilizing much more detail than
either of the other DOT programs. Because of its size and capability
to utilize large amounts of highly detailed data, the program does not
operate in .the time-shared mode. While retaining the contour seeking
algorithm, the DOT/Wyle program uses standard Calcomp software to
create a smoothed curve through the data points.
4. USAF/NEF Program - This is a program which was developed.
specifically for application to military airfields; program development
was under the auspices of the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
Air Force Systems Command. The program is well documented and a
-------
D-4
user's manual is available. 9/ 10/ This is the most complex of the
NEF programs, and like the DOT/Wyle Program, it is not time-shared
and requires the use of Calcomp software to produce contours. Unlike
the DOT/Wyle Program, the USAF/NEF Program only computes NEF
values on a grid. A Calcomp General Purpose Contouring Program
(GPCP) is used to determine,the shape and location of the NEF contours
from the grid point data. The program has been successfully applied
to civil aviation facilities and it has been installed at the NASA Langley
Research Center; unfortunately, a GPCP package is not now available
at Langley. .
EPA/ONAC staff have hands-on experience with the DOT, DOT/
NASA and USAF/NEF programs. Although the EPA/ONAC staff have
had no experience with the DOT/Wyle program, they are familiar, with
development of the program, its input/output characteristics and. the
available documentation.
As of this date, EPA/ONAC had. not selected a specific computer
program for use. in the Airport Noise Regulation development. It is
our intent touse at least two of the available computer programs during
the Airport Pilot Project in order to quantify the requirements for com-
putational precision and to evaluate which of the program operational
modes is best suited to routine use in support of the regulation during
its implementation; e. g», to time-share or not to time-share?
At first glance, it might appear that the use of more than one noise
model would overly complicate the Airport Pilot Project; e.g., spe-
cific instructions and manuals would be required for each model.
However, a close inspection of the four computer programs reveals
an amazing similarity in their input requirements. Perhaps the simi-
larity is not all that amazing since each of the programs computes NEF
and basically, there is only one way to do this.
For example, all NEF calculations require input data in the form
ofEPNdB'vs the distance between source and receiver. Each of the
programs is fully capable of analyzing the effects of power reduction
on noise impact; i.e., in one form or another, each program can relate
source sound level to engine power level. Two of the four programs
utilize a "curve" of sound level vs. percent of full power. The third
program uses an input quantity which specifies " EPNdB down" due to
thrust reduction along the flight path.* The fourth program uses a set
•'' The term "flight path" means the path of an aircraft through the air,
specified in three-dimensional coordinates. The flight path can be
expressed in its two parts: (1) the "flight track" (or track of the air-
craft over the ground, as seen in plan view, from above) and (2) the
"flight profile" (e.g., climbing, descending or in level flight -as
seen from a side view).
-------
D-5
of EPNdB vs. distance relations for various thrust levels and interpo-
lates between known "curves" to determine the sound level vs. distance
relation for the specified :engine thrust level. . . .
These three methods of evaluating the effect of engine power level
on,source sound level 'all require the same basic data and differ only
by the.,'trading off of analyses performed prior to using the program
against data storage and manipulation within the program; e.g., in
order to develop a "curve" of sound level vs. engine power level, one
must have sound, level data for several engine power levels and, if one
has th.at data, one. can easily determine the & EPNdB due to engine
power level changes.
To a very large extent, the difficulties inherent in working with the
NEF'data, especially with source sound level data, are a reflection of
the belief of the potential user that the data are hard to work with.
Hence, application 'of' the' Community Noise Prediction Model to this
project'requires a well .conceived data management plan.
III. Data Management
From the management point 'of view, there are two distinct types
of data., which enter into airport noise exposure calculation: (I) those
elements'of data which describe the airport facility and the operation
of aircraft in the vicinity of that facility and (2) those data which de-.
scribe the sound level characteristics of specific aircraft when they
are operated in a equally well specified manner. •
•The neceS'sary elements of the first data (airport data) are as
fol!6ws: ,,'''.',
• 1. Airport configuration in terms of the location of the runways
with respect'to a,given reference point. .
2. Location of, the landing thresholds and start of takeoff roll on
each runway. If there are several thresholds or start-of-roll points.
corresponding'to different types of aircraft, these'musi be noted. •
3. , Plight tracks; i.e., the projection on the ground of the paths
followed by,'arriving and departing aircraft.
40 Restrictions due to airspace management, curfews, etc.
5. Number of operations by type of operation (landing, takeoff,
touch-and-go), by aircraft type, by runway, by time of day, by flight
track. ' . . • ••
6. Seasonal variations in basic facility operational patterns.
-------
D-6
7. Flight profiles; i.e., aircraft altitude as a function of distance
from start-of-roll or distance to touchdown. Flight profile descriptions
imply a knoweldge of the parameters which affect aircraft perform-
ance; e.g., weight, thrust, flap management, etc.
The elements of the second data (aircraft data) set are as follows:
8. The relationship of aircraft sound level to distance between
source and receiver for both landing and takeoff operations, including
the effect of engine power level changes on the source sound levels.
The EPA will supply all of the aircraft sound level data used in the
Airport Pilot Project. AFthis time, the EPA is developing an aircraft
sound level data bank. The data bank contents can be used with any of
the available computer programs since it is only the data format which
varies between programs. The sound level data bank is a continuing
effort and it will be broadened to include all classes of aircraft. The
sound level data bank was started for two major reasons: (1) the EPA
desires to use a "standardized" set of aircraft sound level data and
(2) the airport operator cannot be expected to be able to supply such
data. In a similar manner, it is probably unreasonable to expect the
airport operator to be a good source of any aircraft performance data;
i.e., the specifics of aircraft performance are not generally within the
realm of the airport operator's sphere of cognizance. Hence, the EPA
has also undertaken the development of a methodology which can be
used to determine flight profiles as a function of basic aircraft char-
acteristics and operating environment; e.g., takeoff gross weight,,
runway elevation, outside air temperature, etc. This methodology
should be operable in time for application to the Airport Pilot Project,,
IV. Data Collection Protocol
Other than the EPA supplied "standardized" data such as sound
level data and flight profile data, the burden of the data collection ef-
fort will fall upon the airport operator. The weight of this burden is
not overwhelming if one remembers that data collection (like many
other activities) obeys the law of diminishing returns. Specific ele-
ments of the necessary data are easy to come by, other elements are
more difficult to obtain; however, in many cases the difficult to obtain
data elements can be approximated without significant loss of accuracy
in the results.
In the following, each of the major data elements is addressed with
respect to its characteristics and potential sources:
A. Runways
Runway locations are specified relative to a. specific reference
coordinate system. The end points of the runways must be specified
-------
D-7
with respect to the fixed reference. These data are the least difficult
to obtain and can be taken directly from the facility site plans, C & GS
charts, etc.
B. Landing Threshold-Distance From End of Runway
The landing threshold is the point on the runway where the aircraft
will touch down upon landing. For any runway, the touchdown point
is often assumed to be the same for all aircraft landing on that runway.
(It is simple to verify the threshold location by inspection; the threshold
is where all the rubber is on the runway surface, provided a runway
cleaning project has not recently removed it.) Other than simple in-
spection, the rule which is generally applied to determine threshold
location is that the touchdown point is that distance from the end of the
runway which would permit an aircraft to clear a hypothetical 50 foot
barrier at the end of the runway. In some cases, a special threshold
location will have been designated for a particular runway. In any
event, the airport manager should be contacted to verify the thresholds
being used.
C. Start of Takeoff Roll
As with the touchdown point, the point on the runway where the take-
off generally starts is determined by procedures set forth by the
airport manager. Normally, most airports utilize the full runway
length for operations, and the takeoff roll starts at the point at which
the aircraft turns onto the runway. Thus, the distance to the start of
roll is usually specified as zero unless otherwise designated.
D. Flight Track
For airports with an FAA Control Tower, the location of the major
flight tracks can be obtained from the FAA Tower Chief at the airport.
In addition to the Tower Chief, the Airport Manager is also a potential
source of flight track information.
Flight track information is usually more readily available at air-
ports which already have a noise problem since the airport management
has already learned the importance of flight track location to the inci-
dence of noise impact. At smaller airports, without an FAA Control
Tower and/or without noise problems, flight track information may
consist of data like, "fly out to the river and turn right so that you
follow the railroad tracks. " This is valid data and often it is just as
accurate as thatwhich is available from more sophisticated data sources.
Without regard to its source, unless it is flight-by-flight radar track
information, flight track data contains certain inherent "errors" which
arise from the dispersion of actual aircraft flight tracks about the
specified or "average" track. For example, although pilots, are in-
structed to follow a prescribed course, the aircraft may wander from
-------
D-8
the prescribed path; this phenomenon is also noted with respect to
flight profiles. If the radar track information for a large number of
flights, all of which were supposed to be on the same track, were
plotted on a single sheet of paper, the result would not be a single heavy
line along the track: This is dispersion. The effects of dispersion can
be modeled by distributing the flights which are assumed to follow one
track among several tracks. However, what should the distribution
look like and where are the other tracks? "Guesstimating" data is
probably not better than assuming that all of the flights follow the pre-
scribed track. Hence, airport noise modelling is usually based upon
the assumption that all aircraft assigned to a track follow that track.
It should be noted that, in some cases, radar track information does
exist and such data then can be used to determine the flight track dis-
persion.
E. Restrictions
Restrictions come in many forms such as night curfews, avoiding
the overflight of designated areas, altitude restrictions, etc. Again,
the airport manager and the FAA Tower Chief, if there is a tower,
are the prime sources of such data. Each of the air carriers using
the facility should also be questioned about operating restrictions such
as deck-angle limitations, power cut backs, etc.
F. Number of Operations
The activity level of the airport must be described in terms of the
number of operations in some unit time period; the customary statistic
is the annual average daily number of operations. Each operation must
then be described according to the following scheme:
Type of aircraft- in order to specify the appropriate noise level
data.
Gross takeoff weight - in order to aid in the specification of a
takeoff profile. Gross landing weight is not needed since all
(large) aircraft will use a path which corresponds approximately
to the glide slope, if dispersion effects are neglected.
Type of operation; i.e., landing or takeoff - in order to model
the correct operation.
Runway and flight track - in order to properly allocate the loca-
tion of aircraft around the facility.
Time of day - in order to properly weight the noise exposure
according to the accepted conventions.
-------
D-9
Activity data can be in one of two forms, either direct tallies
counting each flight, or aggregate estimates for the entire airport and
flight track utilization rates for each type of aircraft. A number of
data sources exist which provide some of the data. No single source
exists for all of the necessary elements of the data.
The FAA and CAB issue an annual report entitled Airport Activity
Statistics of Certified Route Air Carriers which contains, among other
data, a listing of the number of scheduled departures performed, by
carrier, by airport, by aircraft type. These data are historical and do
not necessarily reflect the current activity level at the airport. The
activity level report is compiled from information reported to the CAB
by the certified route air carriers.
A data source for determining current activity levels is the Donnelley
tapes. The Donnelley tapes contain the schedules provided by the air-
lines to the Reuben H. Donneley Corporation and are used to construct
the Official Airline Guide. From these tapes one could construct a
schedule of commercial arrivals and departures for an airport by
aircraft type. With some additional analysis of the tapes, one could
determine the total stage lengths covered prior to arrival. Stage length
has been used as a proxy variable for aircraft weight. Weight data may
also be available in the form of landing fee data, if landing fees are
collected and if the data are available.
Scheduled operations are not the same as actual operations; how-
ever, the correlation between the two is quite high for scheduled air
carriers. The percentage of scheduled departures will vary by airport;
however, one can assume an overall departure rate of 95 percent of
scheduled operations; an error of plus or minus 5% will not perceptibly
affect the noise exposure estimates.
As noted before, the statistic which is generally used is annual
average daily operations. An error is introduced into the impact fore-
cast by the use of the annual daily average. If one is interested in
maximum exposure, then peak activity levels must be used; there may
be important seasonal variations in activity level which are smoothed
out by using the annual average daily activity level, resulting in a slight
underestimate of annual exposure. Assuming that the ratio of peak to
average day is same for all aircraft types, a doubling of the activity
level will increase the NEF value by 3. If the peak to average ratio
approaches 3, the increase in NEF would be about 5 units.
Thus far, this discussion has centered on data which are most re-
lated to numbers of operations (for annual activity data or airline
schedules), aircraft types (from airline schedules), and possibly weight
(from stage length or fee data). Schedule data also provides informa-
tion on the time of day of the operation. All of these data are useless
unless the aircraft operations can be assigned to particular runways
-------
D-10
and flight tracks. Once more, we return to the Control Tower, because
the aircraft assignments come from the tower.
Aircraft runway assignments depend upon many factors such as
the ability of the runway to accommodate particular sizes of aircraft,
origin, destination, wind direction, congestion, etc. If there is only
one runway, the problem is somewhat simplified since the only remain-
ing data item is concerned with the flight tracks. If there is only one
inbound track and one outbound track, there are no data problems, but
this is a rare situation. Again, the ultimate resolution of the aircraft
allocation problem resides in the tower as does the determination of the
shape and location of the tracks to which the aircraft are assigned.
With respect to this element of data, as well as all of the others,
the Airport Pilot Project will feed upon itself in that we have a practical
understanding of the availability of the necessary data and how it can
be acquired-the Pilot Project will serve to fine-tune that understanding
into a practical working data system concept,,
G. Flight Profiles
The manner in which an aircraft is operated has a major effect on
the noise exposure around the airport. The only sources of flight pro-
file data and engine operations information which provide anything more
than a gross average data set are the airlines and the manufacturers.,
The EPA is also developing a flight profile data base and the methodol-
ogy needed to generate flight profiles from basic performance data.
These data, or any other data set, must be augmented by specific in-
structions which the air carriers may provide to their pilots. In the
absence of flight profiles which are specific to the individual facility,,
the EPA will be able to provide "typical" flight profiles.
V. Data Collection Manual
The EPA will provide a manual suited to each of the computer prog-
rams which may be applied to this project providing guidance for the
specifying or collecting of airport operational data. The manual will
be totally directed at assisting the involved parties in collecting and
organizing the necessary data into the format which is required by the
computer analysis.
The basic format of the manual, as it is now envisioned, is centered
on a set of formalized data collection forms for airport configuration,
flight tracks and activity level. Each form will be augmented by text
material which indicates data sources, alternate data sources, and
what to do if no data is available. "User's Manuals" exist, to one de-
gree or another, for each of the available computer programs, but in
general they do not extend to the types of guidance needed by non-
engineering personnel. The necessary portions of. the ••x'.sting docu-
mentation will be abstracted to provide a basis for the development of
a Community Noise Prediction Model Data Collection Manual.
-------
D-ll
VI. Aircraft Data Standardization
EPA has accepted the responsibility for a critical review of the
existing noise characteristic data for current aircraft, followed by a
resolution of any identified errors or inconsistencies, in order to
provide a "standard Federal data set" representing the noise character-
istics of specific aircraft types.
Such an evaluated, standardized data set is necessary if major
noise abatement plans at airports are to be based upon calculated noise
exposure environments. The cooperation of the FAA, NASA, DOD, air-
craft manufacturers and relevant professional society committees
(such as the SAE A-21 Committee) makes such a standardization pos-
sible.
The noise characteristic data for future aircraft types depends upon
the outcome of Federal regulatory actions in aircraft noise emission
control. Of foremost importance, in terms of magnitude of effect
upon attempts to develop meaningful long range noise abatement plans
at airports, are the outcome (effective dates and specific limits) in
the anticipated retrofit rule, noise abatement flight procedure rules,
and lowering of limits for new aircraft (FAR 36). At general aviation
airports, the establishment of noise emission limits for propeller-
driven aircraft and the question of retrofit for business jets have a
strong bearing upon airport plans for noise abatement or avoidance of
future noise impact problems. Therefore, it is important that early
Federal decisions be made on all these regulatory actions, in order
that local airport and community plans be based upon realistic assump-
tions.
During the course of the airport noise regulation de\ elopment, and
in the Airports Pilot Project, KJ'A will utilize noise characteristic
data for future aircraft types whi.<-h we deem most liki-ly outcomes of
current Federal regulatory actions under way. In each case, the
amount of uncertainty in these numbers will always be stated and the
range of effect of these uncertain lies upon airport noise impact reduc-
tion will be illustrated by example cases.
VII. Model Validation
Rest assured thai EPA will not submit an airport noise regulation
to FAA for promulgation without having first verified the accuracy of
the noise prediction model based on field measurements. The risks
of adopting airport noise abatement plans, wherein major cost conse-
quences may be associated with significant errors in noise exposure
calculation, are too groat.
Fortunately, there is a significant and growing body of field-meas-
ured data from existing airport noise monitoring systems and from the
DOD'.s AK'UZ program; so that a large effort in new field data acquisi-
tion may not be required,, However, the Airports Pilot Project must
-------
D-12
begin prior to this validation. Hence, the numerical results from noise
exposure computations for specific airports in the pilot project must be
regarded as '^preliminary" even though their general magnitude (based
on past experience in applying such prediction models) are expected to
be close approximations to what would be measured in a properly de-
signed monitoring effort.
I/ "Noise Exposure Forecasts: Evolution, Evaluation and Land Use
"Interpretation , FAA Report NO-70-9, August 1970.
2/ "impact Characterization of Noise Including Implications of Iden-
tifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure", EPA
NTID 73.4, July 27, 1973.
3/ "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety", EPA
Technical Document 550/9-74-004, March 1974.
4/ "Procedures for Developing Aircraft Noise Exposure Contours
Around Airports", Society of Automotive Engineers, Draft ARP 1114,
March 1970.
5/ "A study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise Generated and
Potential Abatement", U. S. Department of Transportation, Report No.
OST-ONA-71-1. Vol. Ill--Airport/Air craft System Noise, Nov. 1970.
6/ Ibid.
7/ "Airport Noise Exposure Contour Model User's Manual", H. B.
Safeer and L.J. Williams, DOT Report No. OST-ONA-72-3, August
24, 1972. f
8/ "Airport Noise Reduction Forecast Program, Report for Six Air-
ports", Wyle Laboratories, submitted to US DOPT, Office of the Sec-
retary, under Contract No. DOT-OS-20088, July 1973.
9/ "Community Noise Exposure REsulting from Aircraft Operations:
Computer Program Operator's Manual", N. H. Reddingues, Bolt,
Beranek and Newman, Inc. Technical Report AMRL-TR-73-108, Pre-
publication copy, July 1973.
10/ "Community Noise Exposure Resulting from Aircraft Operations:
Computer Program Description", R. D. Horonjeff, R. R. Kandukuri
and R. H. Reddingues., Bolt, Beranak and Newman, Inc., Technical
Report AMRL-TR-73-109, Pre-publication copy, September 1973.
-------
APPENDIX E
ONE POTENTIAL METHOD OF EVALUATING THE DEGREE
OF RELIEF TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE AFFORDED
BY ANY PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION
There are a number of possible ways of quantifying the change
in the public health and welfare impact due to any potential noise reg-
ulation under consideration. For example, given adequate data on
approximate noise exposure patterns (as might; be obtained from pre-
diction models or surveys) together with approximate information on
land use patterns associated with the noise exposure zones, one could
approximately quantify the change in the number of people exposed to
various intensities of cumulative noise which would result from imple-
menting any given noise regulation under consideration.
In the final version of the project report for the airport noise
regulation, the results of such studies will be presented for several
alternative regulatory proposals. The opportunity is taken here, how-
ever, to obtain early public comment on one potential method of
expressing, in single number form, the effectiveness of a given reg-
ulatory action by a method which allows the combining of populations
exposed to varying intensities of cumulative noise exposure.
Such a technique can be applied on any scale (e. g. , for approx-
imate nationwide estimates or for evaluation of alternative noise
abatemcnl plans for a specific airport) and for any source, or com-
bined sources, of community noise;.
In this appendix, a proposed method of evaluating the effect
on the public health and welfare arising from a change in noise expo-
sure (expected from a proposed '-ogulatory action) is set forth for
comment. The approach taken is statistical in that an effort is made
to determine the order of magnitude of the population which may be
affected by the proposed action. Thus, there will exist uncertainties
with respect to individual cases or situations. However, such effects
cannot be completely accounted foe, thus the necessity to employ a
statistical approach.
To perform the analysis presented here, a noise measure is
utilized which condenses the information contained in the noise envi-
ronment into a simple indicator of quantity and quality of noise which,
in EPA's judgement, correlates well with the overall long-term
effects of noise on the public healih and welfare. This measure was
developed as a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, which required
that EPA present information on noise levels "requisite to protect the
public health and welfare with art adequate margin of safety."
-------
E-2
In accordance with this directive, EPA has selected those
noise measures it believes most useful for describing environmental
noise and its effect on people, independent of the source of the noise.
The noise produced, whether by motor vehicles, aircraft or indus-
trial facilities, is evaluated on the basis of a common measure of
noise. The magnitude of environmental noise that EPA considers
desirable from a long-term view of public health and welfare (prior
to consideration of economics or other practical constraints) has been
selected for a variety of occupied spaces and land uses.
In the following sections is a brief description of the measures
to be used in evaluating environmental noise, the numerical values
for these levels EPA will use as thresholds for assessing impact, and
a general methodology for quantifying the noise impact of any noise-
producing system being added to the environment, or the impact of
a change in an existing noise-producing system. Finally, we will
develop a specific application of this methodology to assess the effects
of the proposed regulations on airport communities. Since economics
and feasibility of remedial .action will be treated elsewhere in the
development of the regulation, we consider here only the health and
welfare impact.
A. How Environmental Noise Is Specified
Environmental noise is defined in the Noise Control Act of
1972 as the "intensity, duration, and the character of sounds from
all sources. " A measure for quantifying environmental noise must
evaluate not only these factors, but must also correlate well with
the various response modes of humans to noise and be simple to
meaure.
EPA has chosen the equivalent A-weighted sound level in dec-
ibels as its basic measure 'for environmental noise. The general
symbol for equivalent level is Leq, and its basic definition is:
L =10 l
\0 -f x.
ra- t,
where t2-tlisthe interval of "time over which the levels are evaluated,
P(t) is the time-varying sound pressure of the noise, and Po is a
reference pressure, standardized at 20 micropascal. When expressed
-------
E-3
in terms of A-weighted sound level, La, Leq may be defined as:
10
t,
At
There are two time intervals of interest in the use of Leq for impact
assessment. The primary interval of interest for residential and
similar land uses is a twenty-four hour period, with a weighting
applied to nighttime noise levels to, account for the increased sensi-
tivity of people associated.;with the decrease in background noise
levels at night. This twenty^fpur hour weighted equivalent level is
called the Day/Night Equivalent.;iLevel, and is symbolized as Ldn.*
The basic definition of Ldn in,terms of A-weighted sound level is:
0700
L-=IOHCT+
10
to
07 co
22 CO
= 10 I oft ^
'lo
24
(l5 * 10
10
where Ld is the "daytime" equivalent level, obtained between seven
a.m. and ten p.m. and Ln is the "nighttime" equivalent level ob-
tained between ten p.m. and seven a.m. of the following day.
)
* Note: Ldn is an abbreviation for "day-night equivalent level, "
which is obtained from accumulating the A-weighted acoustical energy
(received at a point) over a 24-hour period and computing an average
level over the accumulation time, after artificially increasing the
time-varying noise levels received during the night (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. ) by 10 decibels. Values of Ldn may be measured or com-
puted for any multiple of 24 hours; the monthly, quarterly and/or year-
ly Ldn may be especially of interest in the airport/community noise
application.
-------
E-4
B. Assessing Impact From !Environmental Noise
The underlying concept f :>r noise impact assessment in this
analysis is to relate the change in 'expected impact in terms of number
of people involved to the change expected in the noise environment.
Three fundamental components are involved in the analysis:
(a) definition of initial acoustical environment; (b) definition of
final acoustical environment; (c) relationship between any specified
noise environment and expected human impact.
The first two components of the assessment are entirely site
or system specific, relating to either estimates or measurement of
the environmental noise before and after the action being considered.
The same appropach is ued, conceptually, whether one is examining
one single house near one proposed road, the entire highway system,
or the totality of the nation's airports. The methodology for
estimating the noise environment will vary widely with the scope: and
type of problem, but the concept remains the same.
In contrast to the widely varying possible methodologies for
estimating the noise environment in each case, the relationships to
human response can be quantified by a single methodology for each
site or noise producing system considered in terms of the number of
people in occupied places exposed to noise of a specified magnitude.
This is not to say that individuals have the same susceptibility to
noise; they do not. Even groups of people may vary in response
depending on previous exposure, age, socio-economic status, poli-
tical cohesiveness and other social variables. In the aggregate,
however, for residential locations the average response of groups
of people is quite stabely related to cumulative noise exposure as
expressed in a measure such as Ldn. The response we use is the
general adverse reaction of people to noise. This response is a
combination of such factors as speech interference, sleep interfer-
ence, desire for a tranquil environment, and the ability to use
telephones, radio, and TV satisfactorily. The measure of this
response is related to the percent of people in a population that would
be expected to indicate a high annoyance to noise at a specified level
of noise exposure.
For schools, offices, and similar spaces where criteria for
speech communication or risk of damage-to-hearing is of primary
concern, the same averaging process can be used to estimate the
potential response of people as a group, again ignoring the individual
variations of one person as compared to another. In both instances
then, residential areas and non-residential alike, we are interested
in how the average response of people varies with environmental noise
exposure.
A detailed discussion of the relationships between noise and
human response is provided in several EPA documents. j.he diff^ent
forms of response to noise such as hearing damage, speech or other
-------
E-5
activity interference, and annoyance are related to Leq and Ldn in
EPA's "levels document". For our purposes, we consider that if
the levels identified in this document are met, no impact exists.
The community reaction and annoyance data contained in
Appendix D of the levels document show that the expected vcaeiion
to an identifiable source of intruding noise changes from none.' to
vigorous when the day-night sound level increases from 5 c!>1 boiovv
the level existing without the presence of the intruding noise t" l!.)~.T~d77
above the pre-intrusionlevel. When the combined values c>r i.;v,riuiia^
noise level and pre-intrusion noise level are considered, the change
in community reaction from none'to vigorous occurs when the k-vx-i
increases by 19. 7 dB above the pre-intrusion level. Thus, a change
of 20 dB is a reasonable value to associate with a change from 0 "to
100% impact. Such a change in level would increase the percentage
of the population which is highly annoyed by 40% of the total exposed
population.
For speech communication, an exposure intensity scaling can
also be derived. The level of environmental noise identified a^
requisite to protect the public health and welfare with reference to
speech communication indoors is an Leq of 45 dB. A noise environ-
ment having this level should provide, on the average, 100% speech
intelligibility for all types of speech material, and have a calculated
articulation index of 1. 0.
The intelligibility for sentences (first presentation U.
listeners) drops to 90% when the level of the noise environment, is:
increased by approximately 19 dB above the level identified in ;:ho
levels document, and to 50%. when the level is increased by approxi-
mately 24 dB. The intelligibility for sentences (known to listeners)
drops to 90% when the level is increased by approximately 22 dB
above the identified level, and to 50% when the level is increased by
approximately 26 dB. Thus, considering that normal conversation
contains a mixture of both types of material, some new and sumo
familiar, it is clear that when the level of environmental noise is
increased by more than 20 dB above the identified level, the
intelligibility of conversational speech deteriorates rapidly with each
decibel of increase. I/or this reason, a level which is 20 c!B above
the identified level is considered to result in 100% impact on the
people who are exposed. For environmental noise levels which art-
intermediate between 0 and 20 dB above the identified level, iiio
impact is assumed to vary linearly with level, i. e. , a 5 dB exe.o.^s
constitutes a 25%.impact and a 10 dB excess constitutes a 50% iinp'.if.
For convenience of calculation, these percentages may Kit-
expressed as fractional impact (FI): an FI of one represents an impa.'. r
of 100%, in accordance with the following formula:
FI - 0.05 (L-Lc) for L> Lc
FI = 0 for IXLc
-------
E-6
Where L is the appropriate value for the environmental
noise (i. e., Ldn or Leq) and Lc is the appropriate identified level.
(Note that FI can exceed unity.)
The appropriate identified level for use in calculating
fractional impact is obtained from Table 4 of the EPAlevels document.
For the analysis of the impact of community noise on people residing
in residential areas the appropriate identified level is an Ldn of
55 dB, which is measured outdoors. For other analyses concerned
with office buildings and other types of space when indoor speech
communication is the principal factor of concern, the identified level
is an Leq of 45 dB (indoors), which is translated to an outdoor level
by using a sound level reduction appropriate to the type of structure.
For the purpose of evaluating the airport system throughout the nation
in general, rather than the effect of a particular airport in a particular
region, the analysis may be made in terms of Ldn above, since only
a gross analysis may be possible.
Data on the reduction of aircraft noise afforded by a range
of residential structures are available. (2) These data indicate that
houses can be approximately categorized into "warm climate" and
"cold climate" types. Additionally, data are available for typical
open-window and closed-window conditions. These data indicate that
the sound level reduction provided by buildings within a given
community has a wide range due to differences in the use of materials,
guilding techniques, and individual building plans. Nevertheless, for
planning purposes, the typical reduction in sound level from outside
to inside a house can be summarized as follows in Table B-l. The
approximate national average "window open" condition corresponds
to an opening of 2 square feet and a room absorption of 300 sabins
(typical average of bedrooms and living rooms). This "window open"
condition may be assumed in estimating conservative values of the
sound levels inside dwelling units which result from outdoor noise.
-------
E-7
TABLE 1
SOUND LEVEL REDUCTION DUE TO HOUSES* IN WARM AND
COLD CLIMATES, WITH WINDOWS OPEN AND CLOSED(2)
Warm climate
Cold climate
Approx. national average
Windows
Open
12 dB
17 dB
15 dB
Windows
Closed
24 dB
27 dB
25 dB
^(Attenuation of outdoor noise by exterior shell of the house)
Where knowledge of structure indicates a difference in noise reduction
from these values, the criterion level may be altered accordingly.
-------
E-8
The final notion te be considered is the manner in which
the number of people affected by environmental noise is introduced
into the analysis. The magnitude of the total impact associated with
a defined level may be assessed by multiplying the numbers of people
exposed times the fractional impact associated with the level of the
environmental noise, as follows:
NU = (FI) P
where NU (or "Noise Units") is the magnitude of the total impact on
the population and is numerically equal to the equivalent number of
people which have a fractional impact equal to unity.
FI is the fractional impact for the level and P is the population
affected by the noise. Note that the effect of the fractional impact
is to count these people who are heavily impacted more than those
who are only marginally impacted.
When assessing the total impact of a given noise source or an
assemblage of noise sources such as an airport the levels of environ-
mental noise associated with the source(s) decrease as the distance
between the source and receiver increase. The magnitude of the
total impact may be computed by determining the Noise Units
corresponding to the group of people exposed at each exposure level,
and summing the resulting Noise Units over all exposure levels.
The total impact is given by the following formula:
(PI).
p.
6
where (FI)i is the fractional impact associated with the ith
level and Pi is the population associated with the ith level.
The change in impact (or change in total Noise Units) which
is associated with an action leading to noise reduction, or change in
population through a change in land use, maybe assessed by comparing
the magnitude of the impacts for the "before" and "after" conditions.
One useful measure is the percent reduction in impact (6), which is
calculated from the following expression:
A - [ M
- KJ U (A{ter)J U ( b
Note that the percentage change may be positive or negative
depending upon whether the impact decreases (positive change) or the
impact increases (negative change).
-------
E-9
Thus, a 100 percent positive change in impact means that
the environmental noise has been reduced such that none of the popu-
lation is exposed to noise levels in excess' of the identified levels.
In order to place this concept in perspective, consider a
simple example. In the recent. EPA study on Population Distribution
of the United States as a Function of Outdoor Noise Level (to be
published shortly), an estimate is provided for the number of people
in the United States exposed to various levels of urban noise. We
can use the above concepts to illustrate the current impact of this
exposure, and then assess the change in impact if all noise sources
were reduced 5, 10, or 15 decibels. In the following computation we
take the data from this study defining each Pi as the population
between successive 5 decibel increments of Ldn, assigning this
population an exposure level midway between successive Ldn incre-
ments. For this example, the identified level is an Ldn of 55 dB
measured outdoors.
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT REDUCTION EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCCESSIVE REDUCTION OF ALL URBAN
NOISE SOURCES IN 5 DECIBEL STEPS
Ldn
(dB)
55
60
65
70
75
80
Current conditions
Population p_
exposed to 1
higher Ld (millions)
(millions)
93.4 34.4
59.0 34.7
24.3 17.4
6.9 5.6
1.3 1.2
0.1 0.1
Total Noise Units
(millions)
Percent reduction
in impact
Koise reduction in decibels
FI± FliP-
(millions)
0.125 4.3 -— .
0.375 13.0
0.625 10.9
0.875 4.9
1.125 1.4
1.375 0.1
34.6
0
FI± FIiPi
(millions
0- -- ._0— -
0.125 4.3
0.375 6.5
0.625 3.5
0.875 1.1
1.125 0.1
15.5
55
FIj_ FlJPi
(millions)
0 0
0 0
0.125 2.2
0.375 2.1
0.625 0.8
0.875 0.1
5.2
85
FI. FI±P±
(millions)
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.125 0.7
0.375 0.5
0.625 0.1
1.3
96
-------
E-ll v
The results, provided in Table 2, show that a 5 dB noise
reduction results in a 55% reduction in impact, a 10 dB noise
reduction results in an 85% reduction in impact and a 15 dB noise
reduction results in a 96% reduction in impact.
The impact assessment procedure may be summarized by the
following steps:
1. Estimate the Leq or Ldn produced by the noise source system
as a function of space over the area of interest.
2. Define sub-areas of equal Leq or Ldn, in increments of
5 decibels, for all land use areas.
3. Define the population, Pi, associates with each of the sub-areas
of step 2.
4. Calculate the Fli values for each Ldni and Leqi obtained in
step 2.
5. Calculate Fli x Pi for each sub-area in step 2.
6. Obtain the total Noise Units for the condition existing before
the change being evaluated, NU1 = Fli x Pi, by summing the
individual contributions of step 5.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 for the noise environment existing over the
area of interest after the change being evaluated takes place,
thus obtaining NU2. (Note that the sub-areas defined here will
not in general be congruent with those of step 2 above. )
8. Obtain the percent reduction in impact from
It should be emphasized again that this procedure is purely an
assessment methodology for quantifying changes in impact (to the public
y)
health and welfare with respect to noise only) due to actual or hypothe-
sized changes in the community noise environment. The amount of
change in this impact which is appropriate to expect from any given
regulatory action is dependent upon many other competing require-
ments. These include, but are not limited to, technological
feasibility, economic reasonableness, and other expressions of the
general public welfare needs such as demand for transportation,
housing, land and energy resources, and other environmental
considerations.
-------
E-12
REFERENCES
(1) ANSI S 3.5 5-1969 American National Standard, Methods for the
Calculation of Articulation Index, p. 23.
(2) "House Noise-Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of
Aircraft Flyover Noise, " Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,
AIR 1081, October 1971.
-------
APPENDIX F
PROPOSED MODEL LEGISLATION FOR
POSITIVE STATE/LOCAL CONTROL OF LAND USE/BUILDING DESIGN
Since the formation of an Office of Noise Abatement and Control
in EPA, there has been a continuing activity to provide technical assist-
ance to state and local governments in the establishment of their own
noiso control programs and improvement of their abilities to take
account of community noise in their general activities, such as trans-
portation planning and land use control.
This technical assistance activity takes many forms, including the
provision of training courses, development of model laws and ordinan-
ces, development of low-cost instrumentation for noise measurement,
and direct technical assistance (on request) from our Regional Offices.
In the area of model laws and ordinances, the first major product
was model state enabling legislation for noise control, resulting from
two years of joint effort between EPA and the Council of State Govern-
ments. _jl/ This model bill calls for the development of comprehensive
statewide programs of noise regulations, and envisions local govern-
ment participation in such programs. Its provisions include, among
others, the establishment of ambient noise standard (zones) and for
the establishment of special (building) noise insulation districts. It
specifically calls upon state agencies and local governments to exercise
their powers, to the extent not preempted by Federal law, to alleviate
and prevent community noise impact from airports.
The second step in this program of developing model legislation
is currently under way: A public task group, chaired by EPA, is
developing a model noise ordinance for local governments. 2/ The
planned model local noise legislation will be flexible enough to be used
by small communities (under 25, 000 population),, medium size commun-
ities (25,000 to 75,000 population), larger cities (over 75, 000 popula-
tion), counties or regional agencies.
Conceptual steps are presented to guide the community to the devel-
opment of noise legislation most suitable for its particular problems,
enforcement capability and budget.
One of the major areas of concern in the model noise legislation
is the control of land use around major noise sources .(e. g., highways,
airports). Several provisions have been included to control the land
use problem. i-'irst, a provision requiring the identification of high
noise areas as determined from guidelines or recommended practices
set forth by the appropriate Federal Agency (e.g., EPA, FAA, FHWA,
HUD, etc. ). Areas that are designated "High Noise Areas" will require
a site noise study to determine land use classification; a further re-
quirement will place use restrictions in high noise areas.
-------
F-2
Last, a "Truth in Lending" regulation is suggested to provide the
intended purchaser of real property with advance information on the
present and projected future level of the noise exposure upon the parcel
of land being considered for purchase.
In the coming fiscal year additional model legislation is planned
for noise control within buildings to complement the model state and
local noise regulations. With respect to the airport noise regulation
program, the importance of this effort is that it will provide the basis
for amending building codes (and possibly housing codes) to specify
noise insulation performance of building structures as a function of
building use and level of the exterior noise environment.
REFERENCES
1. "State Noise Control Act, " Suggested State Legislation, Vol. XXXII,
The Council of State Governments, Lexington, Kentucky, 1974.
2. Community Noise Handbook (Draft), EPA Issuance, Fall 1974.
-------
APPENDIX G
THE AIRPORTS PILOT PROJECT
In the final project report, this appendix will consist of
EPA staff and contractor reports on the airports pilot project. For
this draft, a description is provided of the purposes and status
of this projecto
It is EPA's intention to develop not only the airport
noise regulation itself (together with its supportive studies),
but also certain supplemental plans and supportive implementation
tools which will be required for the successful implemen-
tation of the regulation. Further, we intend to provide a functional
test of one or more forms of the draft regulation and draft ver-
sions of certain implementation tools prior to their finalization and
proposal to the FAA. This functional test will be performed in
an Airports Pilot Project, involving some eight to twelve airports,
in which the process of developing a "preferred implementation plan"
for the airport will be carried out just as if a Federal airport noise
regulation already had been promulgated and the airport proprietor
had been directed by the FAA to develop and submit such a plan.
In this Airports Pilot Project, the objective will be to identify
changes, clarification and previously unrecognized problems in the
draft regulation and particularly in the associated tools and process-
es, and based on this experience, to improve the regulatory package.
No actions will be taken actually to carry out any of the facets of the
airport implementation plans so developed.
The sample of airports to be included in the pilot project
should be as representative as possible of the span of airport char-
acteristics which may affect both the appropriate structure for the
'regulation and the recommended process for development of airport
'implementation plans under the promulgated regulation. Therefore,
in EPA's selection of preferred candidate airports for the pilot, proj-
ect, the following sampling objectives are being utilized:
1. Include airports with both large and small potential for
preventive measures.
2. Include airports over a range of magnitude of present
impact.
3. Include airports of various types by dominant aircraft use.
a. Primarily certified air carrier.
b. General aviation only, with heavy business jet use.
c. General aviation only, at threshold/decision on busi-
ness jet use.
-------
G-2
d. International air carriers use of, airport.
e. Civil - military joint use, with military activity a
major contributor to the noise impact.
f. STOL-port or heliport.
g. Marginal air carriers use (on order of 5-10 flights
per day), possibly on verge of phasing air carrier use
down or out.
4. Include one airport from each state with (markedly differ-
ing) existing state institutional mechanisms for land use
control affecting airports. These include: Florida, Cal-
fornia, Minnesota and Hawaii0 (The State of Washington
has new airport land use control legislation pending. )
5. Include airports with significant growth potential (based
on economic growth outlook of the region, and absence of
physical constraints).
6. Include one airport in each of the following situations:
a. "Brand X" - on the verge of a decision to become a
civil airport (i.e., a new siting decision or a surplus
military field).
b. "Brand Y" - on the verge of a decision to phase out as
an airport.
7. Include airports with both simple and complex political
jurisdiction pattern regarding control of surrounding land
uses.
i
8. Include airports from both ends of the spectrum in terms
of :
a. Probable airport staff resources related or relatable
to the noise problem.
b. Probable local government planning and land use con-
trol agency staff resources related or relatable to the
noise problem.
9. Include airports from both ends of the spectrum in terms
of:
a. Apparent interest in resolving/preventing noise impact
problems.
-------
G-3
b. Probable desire to participate in the airports pilot
project.
A group of candidate airports has been identified by EPA such
that this set of characteristics can be sampled in a set of eight to
twelve airports. The EPA will approach the selected airports' man-
agements and solicit their participation in the pilot project, at the
same time explaining the roles and obligations expected of both
parties.
The EPA will be providing the tools and processes which are
to be utilized, plus a limited amount of technical guidance from EPA
staff or contractors. The airport proprietors will be asked to apply
these tools and processes, plus the initiative and creativity they can
bring into the process, to the local development of a preferred,
long-range implementation plan. A significant amount of time and
effort will be required on the part of both airport and local planning
agency staffs, and no special incentives can be offered by EPA be-
yond (i) the opportunity to the airport proprietor and local agencies
of having a significant impact upon a major Federal regulation, and
(2) the opportunity to get a head start on the implementation planning
that would be required once the regulation is promulgated.
EPA headquarters is maintaining liaison with EPA Regional
offices and with FAA's designated liaison officer for the project:
Mr. Cole Morrow, FAA/EQ, (202)426-8406.
The EPA's contractor 1'or management of the Airports Pilot
Project is Mr. Joseph D. Blatt, (202) 337-9292. A competitive
procurement action has recently been completed to provide ad-
ditional contractor support to assist EPA and the pilot project
manager in working with the airport proprietors. To facilitate out-
ward communication with aviation sectors whose cooperation is
needed in the pilot project, Mr. Blatt has formed an "Aviation Lia-
ison Group for the Pilot Project," with membership as follows:
- Aerospace Industries Association -- Mr. W. E. Helfrich
- Aircraft Owners and Pilots
' Association (AOPA) -- Mr. Charles Miller
- Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) -- Mr. Harold Marthinsen
- Air Transport Association (ATA) -- Mr. William Becker
-------
G-$
• American Association of Airport
Executives (AAAE)
• Airport Operators Council
International (AOCI)
General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA)
National Association of State
Aviation Officials (NASAO)
National Business Aircraft
Association (NBAA)
-- Mr. F. Russell Hoyt
--Mr. J. Donald Reilly
-- Mr. Stan Green
--Mr. John A. Narnmack
-- Mr» Fred B. Mclntosh
Efforts are also under way to increase the amount of coord-
ination with and input from local governments and their represent-
ative national organizations. In particular, discussions are under
way with the National League of Cities/U. S. Conference of Mayors,
particularly regarding the land use control facets of an airport noise
regulation.
-------
APPENDIX H
MONITORING FOR AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL
i • ;
A study of the| monitoring required in implementing) an airport
noise regulation Has recently been contracted for by EPA. In the
final draft of the project report, the results of that study will form
this appendix. For the present draft, some background {information
and the objectives ;of the contracted study are presented. I
i
A necessary part of the implementation of an airport noise regu-
lation will be the'monitoring of progress in controlling or reducing
the impact of the incise generated by aviation activity associated with
the airport. . .!
Although a computerized noise model will be made available for
the estimation of airport noise environments during the development
of airport implementation plans, actual measurement of the noise en-
vironment is expected to be necessary, for two purposes: .(1) to confirm
actual progress in controlling or decreasing the cumulative noise ex-
posure levels at various points on the ground, and (2) to provide a tool
for controlling individual aviation-related facets of the airport's imple-
mentation plan which require cooperation by others, such as aircraft
operators.
For example, approved implementation plans for individual airports
may include any of the' following items (this list may be amended during
development and promulgation of the regulation): i
(a) Approach and departure paths applicable to specific runways
and, if desired, to specific parts of the 24-hour .day!
i
(b) Noise abatement flight procedures, selected from a'list of FAA-
approved takeoff, approach and landing noise abatement pro-
cedures, available for use in airport implementation plans, sub-
'ject to final FAA approval of the submitted plan.;
(c) Single-event noise limits applicable to specific'; runways and,
if desired, to specific parts of the 24-hour day; or, if desired,
applicable to the entire airport and/or to the entire 24-hour
day.
(d) Limitation or reduction of flight frequency on specific runways,
I 'during specific hours, or for the entire airport and/or the
, 'entire 24-hour day.
(e) LRules limiting the times and places, on the airport property,
where engine ground runups are allowed, particularly for
maintenance purposes; performance requirements for ground
-------
H-2
•
runup suppressors and/or resulting airport boundary noise
levels.
(f) Possible restriction on times and location for aircraft taxiing
under their own power, as opposed to being towed, for aircraft
producing noise levels above a specified level during ground
taxi operations.
(g) Complete closure of specified runways, temporarily or perma-
nently, either to all aircraft, or to aircraft with noise char-
acteristics above a specified value.
(h) Construction of new runway(s) designed to place approach and
departure paths over areas of compatible land use and remove
them from areas of noise-sensitive land use.
Although the complete implementation plan for each airport will
include land use control measures (which must be implemented by
other parties and will require some form of "status monitoring"), the
subject of the contracted study is limited to the monitoring of aviation-
related activities and the resulting cumulative noise environment gen-
erated. It is expected that the outcome of the monitoring study may
have an influence on the structure of the final regulation. At a mini-
mum, the regulation is expected to contain a definition of the minimum
legal requirement for monitoring (including a performance specifica-
tion) and to require affected airport proprietors to submit their pro-
posed monitoring programs as a part of the implementation plan they
submit for FAA approval.
Since the airport noise regulation will require implementation by
a wide variety of airports, a range of monitoring systems/procedures
is implied. That is, a considerable expense for monitoring may be
warranted at large airports generating major impact problems, but
the same scale and approach to monitoring would not be appropriate to
intermediate hub airports or general aviation airports (with businesV
jet activity) generating relatively little impact. A large percentage of
the airports subject to the regulation may not be required to perform
noise monitoring at all, depending on their noise impact situation. Over
a range of airport and impact size, the same monitoring system per-
formance specification may be expected to result in a spectrum of
actual systems, each system, having differing hardware and software
characteristics, personnel requirements, capital and operating costs,
requirements for continuous measurement versus periodic sampling,
etc. It may even be possible (and most cost-effective) for a group of
small airports (e. g., in a region or a. state) to share a number of port-
able monitors if their monitoring needs are only periodic, possibly
under the auspices of their state aeronautics agency or pollution con-
trol agency.
Further, consideration must be given in the monitoring study to the..
possibility that a number of agencies at varius levels of government,
-------
H-3
as well as the public, may wish to utilize the data. The FAA will be
the agency ultimately responsible for overall enforcement of the airport
noise regulation. However, various roles in the implementation may
be played by local planning agencies, state pollution control agencies,
and other Federal agencies such as EPA and HUD. Data on single
flight operation events (or statistical summaries thereof) may be re-
quired for distribution to (a) airport proprietors and aircraft operators,
to aid them in assessing their progress and diagnosing problems, and
(b) the FAA for enforcement purposes.
This problem is slightly related to the FAA's contracted study
under RFP #WA5R-4-0095, "Aircraft Noise Measurement System,"
dated December 6, 1973. Specifically, one section of that program is
a listing and identification of all foreign and domestic airports within
the free world with functional noise measurement systems, followed
by a detailed technical evaluation of "the ten most complete and com-
prehensive noise measurement systems available today. " Coordination
between EPA and the FAA has led to an FAA commitment to make the
results of this section of their study available to EPA as soon as com-
pleted by their contractor, estimated to be about October 1, 1974.
The contract recently intiated under EPA's auspices will be per-
formed in two phases. The first phase calls for the development of:
a comprehensive set of system evaluation criteria; a background report
on the basic characteristics, mode of application and effectiveness of
airport noise monitoring systems in this country and abroad; descrip-
tion of the several alternative monitoring approaches; and definition
of measurments or field studies (if any) necessary to evaluate the sev-
eral alternative monitoring approaches and associated monitoring sys-
tems. The second phase of the study will provide for: development of
a data base adequate to document the evaluation of the monitoring al-
ternatives under consideration (according to the criteria developed in
the first phase); a comparison of the alternatives; identification of the
most promising family of monitoring approaches; and determination of
the effectiveness, costs, personnel training requirements and other
factors utilized in the monitoring approaches.
-------
APPENDIX I
REPORT ON THE LAND USE CONTROL STUDY
In the final project report this appendix will consist of the
advisory document on strategies for land use control in conjunction
with airport noise abatement plans under a Federal airport noise regu-
lation. By the nature of the problem, this document must deal with all
three levels of government (Federal, state, local); however, the major
concentration will be in the area of the weakest link; means available
to the Federal government to influence land use decisions. Further,
the document must clearly separate those actions available under exist-
ing law and those which (no matter how desirable) cannot be carried
out without new legislation.
A contracted study is under way to produce this document, with
heavy participation by EPA staff and consultants, and with significant
benefit being obtained from other EPA efforts to delineate the existing
authorities in the hands of EPA and other Federal agencies to influence
land use.
Under a separate contract, a "law in action" study is being per-
formed regarding the experience of the State of California in regulating
airport noise. The study places particular focus upon diagnosing local
successes and failures in land use control adjacent to airports since
the instigation of a state regulatory system which includes: (1) an air-
port land use commission in each county, (2) numerical (noise expos-
ure) criteria for airport land use decisions, (3) requirement for a
noise element in all general plans, (4) requirement that zoning decis-
ions be consistent with general plans, and (5) requirement for an
environmental impact report (EIR)on proposed actions by state or local
agencies.
In a sense, the "California experience" is being looked upon as a
"pilot project" from which the Federal government may learn in form-
ulating a Federal regulation on airport noise.
The following preliminary outline of the advisory document provides
an indication of its proposed content.
-------
1-2
OUTLINE OF THE ADVISORY DOCUMENT
ON LAND USE CONTROL STRATEGY
"Compatible Land Use: Federal Interventions at the State and Local
Level Which are Necessary or Useful in Preventing Levels of"Aircrai't
Noise Exposure Potentially Injurious to the'Fublic Health and'Welfare'"'
I. Introduction
A. Background
- Brief review of pertinent legislation and regulations
B. Purpose „._-,- ,—> ^
. .— ——_;—^DHscriptioii""6r"t}Te~'gtoals~"'and objectives of the "Advisory Docu-
• ment"
C. Significance
- The necessity of a comprehensive approach i> •
- Such intervention has already occured in similar areas for
related purposes
II'. Urbanization and the conflicts precipitated by the concentration of
economic activity
A. Benefits resulting from the concentration of "incompatible" land
uses ••.'••
1. Interdependence of land uses
; • 2. Limitations of the temporal integration of dependent activ-
ities.
3. Advantages of the spatial integration of dependent activities
4. Specialization, diversity and productivity as a function of
spatial and temporal integration
B. Costs associated with the concentration of "incompatible" land
uses
1. Perturbations resulting from the spatial integration of de-
pendent activities
2. Externalities: limitations of the pricing mechanism
30 Health, safety and welfare as evaluation criteria: the reg-
ulatory frame work
4. Decreased utility under regulation: the secondard pricing
mechanism
-------
1-3
C. The role of government in the prevention and amelioration of
conflict resulting from "incompatible" land use.
1. Reducing perturbations associated with specific activities:
the test of technological feasibility and economic respon-
sibleness in "source control."
2. Prescribing optimal development patterns: land use con-
trol and the selective disintegration of incompatible,
dependent activities.
3. Providing public compensation for economic hardship res-
ulting from land use control: executive, legislative and
judicial Interpretations.
4. Requiring private compensation for damages to persons or
property resulting from incompatible activities; judicial
intervention.
III. The emerging Federal role in the prevention and amelioration
of conflict resulting from "incompatible" land use
A. Technological innovation and the evaluation of the effects of spe-
cific perturbations; new protection for the public health, safety
and welfare.
1. Measurement tools & techniques; making monitoring and en-
forcement a practical reality.
2. Prediction: forecasting impacts makes preventive action
reasonable and imperative.
3. Standards: acceptability criteria establish new values and
objectives.
B. Regulation of specific sources and activities: the established
Federal role.
, 1. . Air quality . ;
2. Water quality
3. Noise emissions
4. Transportation safety
.,:/?..;-t 5." Hazardous materials
-------
1-4
6. Occupational safety
7. Others
C. Incentives for the development of compatible land use: the
emerging Federal role.
1. VA & FHA mortgage insurance
2. A-95 agency review
3. National Environmental Policy Act
4. Comprehensive planning requirements for categorical grants
5. Others
D. Regulatory actions: directly controlling local land use: the new
frontier
1. FDIC Flood Plain insurance
2. Air quality
3. Airport clear zones
4. Others
IV. Airport land use compatibility as a local and regional adversary
condition: problems and solutions
A. The etiology of encroachment
1. The life cycle of an airport
2. "Preventive" and "remedial" situations: the continuum of
airport typologies
3. "Compatible" and "incompatible" development: the elusive
evaluation criteria
B. An idealized airport land use planning and control process
1. Elimination of the constraints imposed by political fragmen-
tation.
2. The planning function: establishment of a land use guidance
system and areawide comprehensive plan for undeveloped,
developing, developed and redeveloping land.
-------
1-5
3. The control function as selective application of appropriate
land use control mechanisms: acquisition, regulation, tax-
ation, capital improvements and contractual agreement.
V. The Federal role in the abatement of aircraft noise exposure through
land use control mechanisms
A. Incentives, controls and sanctions applicable at the state level
1. Authority under existing administrative discretion
2. Approaches requiring the promulgation of new regulations
3. Approaches requiring new legislation
B. Incentives, controls and sanctions applicable at the local level
1. Authority under existing administrative discretion
2. Approaches requiring the promulgation of new legislation
3. Approaches requiring new legislation
-------
APPENDIX J
REPORT ON THE ECONOMIC/FINANCING STUDY
In the final version of the project report, this appendix will consist
of the report(s) on the contracted studies on economic impact and finan-
cing, together with a summary representing the EPA/ONAC staff
assimilation and integration of those studies.
The objective of these studies is to assess the domestic and inter-
national economic impacts of implementation actions resulting from
alternate forms of a Federal regulation on airport noise. Since cost
allocation and incidence will vary depending upon the financing mechan-
isms made available, the economic impact study must have embedded
within it the most likely or feasible financing schemes.
To give a complete picture, the study must encompass not only the
repercussions of local land-side and airport operational abatement
actions, but also the actions resulting from the other aircraft regula-
tions which are so crucial to the achievement of any specified rate of
improvement in airport/community noise exposure; i.e., the retrofit
and noise abatement flight procedures regulations. Fortunately, a sig-
nificant amount of abatement cost-effectiveness work has already been
done in those areas, which can be utilized. The major areas of new
analysis are in the land-side actions and the airport operational
changes; some of the latter may have domino effects outward through
the entire air transportation system.
Several of the other ongoing studies in the airport regulation pro-
gram will, of course, generate new cost data (e. g., the monitoring
study and the airports pilot project). The administrative costs asso-
ciated with various forms of a regulation must also be estimated.
Finally, these studies will include an estimate of any major energy
demand effects (positive or negative).
At the date of this draft, EPA has received the results of two small
(preliminary) contracted studies I/ 2/ and is preparing to contract
for the major economics/financing study itself.
References:
1. "Analysis of Methodology for the Economic Impact of Airport Noise
Regulations, " Arthur D. Little, Inc., April 1974. (This Phase I
study develops methodology and assesses the adequacy of existing
data base.)
2. "Methods of Financing Airport Noise Regulation Requirements
Arising in the Airport Region, " Urban Systems Research and En-
gineering, Inc., July 1974. (This study qualitatively evaluates
alternative financing sources mechanisms, for land-side abatement
actions only, with respect to efficiency, equity, ability to mini-
mize adverse impacts, and administrative feasibility.
-------
APPENDIX K
THE DOCKET FILE
There are presently two paths by which entries to the docket for
the airport noise regulation are received:
""'" (1) Responses to the EPA "Notice of Public Comment Period,"
published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1974. (The closing
date for entries, for the airport regulations, was June 2(3, 1974.) (2)
Since the end of July, 1973, all citizen noise complaint letters concern-
ing airport noise and received at EPA headquarters are entered in the
docket, (Prior to that time, they were entered in the master file for
development of the EPA Report to Congress on Aircraft and Airport
Noise, submitted July 1973.)
Subsequent to publication of the first draft project report, a
third path for entries to the docket will exist -- the comments of
reviewers of the draft project report.
All entries are seen by the Program Manager for Airport Noise
regulation, before they go into the docket. After the closing date for
comments in response to the February 19 Notice, a detailed analysis
of the docket will be made and the results taken into consideration in de-
velopment of the regulation. For the present, an indication of the
number and type of docket entries being received is given in the
-following pages.
List I itemizes the docket entrties by originator's name and
assigns a serial number to the entry. List II broadly categorizes the
sources of docket entries, and List III broadly categorizes the subjects.
In the matrix provided in Figure 1, the serial numbers of the docket
entries are entered in the appropriate matrix location, according to
general category of source and subject.
A high percentage of the entries come from either state and
local governments or individual public citizens, with the split about
even between the two. In general, they are supportive of regulatory
action on the topics listed in the Federal Register Notice, and are
urging that we get on with the job on an expedited basis. Many entries
from both groups cite specific airport noise problems they are exper-
iencing; a large fraction are connected with Chicago O'Hare Airport.
Some entries contribute original research reports or detailed
technical comments and suggestions. These will be subject to further,
detailed analysis for purposes of developing the regulation.
X.
-------
K-2
LIST I
DOCKET ENTRIES
1. City Engineer, Christchurch, England
2. Janet Gray Hayes, Vice-Mayor, City of San Jose, Calif.
3. H. K. Rowan, Cypress, Calif.
4. Roger F. Honberger, Dpty. Admin. Officer, County of San Diego,
Calif.
5. Carl F. Nielson, Chrm. Noise Pollution Committee, The Conserv-
ancy Assn., Hong Kong
6. Mrs. Phyllis Kreitman, Pres., County Estates Civic Assn., East
Hills, N. Y.
7. Gary L. Singleton, M. D., Washington, D. C.
80 Robert E. Veverka, Minneapolis, Minn.
9. David G. Graeven, California State University, Haywood, Calif0
10. Robert Conot, Pres. Sunset Hills Homebuilders Assoc., Thousand
Oaks, Calif.
11. James F. Scearce, EPA (A-100)
12. Ms. Ethel Cameron, Squantum, Mass.
13. Joel D. Joseph, Staff Attorney, Action on Safety and Health, Wash-
ington, D.C. (2 letters: Dec. 10, 1973; and March 5, 1974)
14. Samuel W. Cohen, M.D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
15. Mrs. R. F. DeLamater, Atlanta, Ga.
16. Nigel D. Finney, R. Dixon Speas Associates, Minneapolis, Minn.
17. William C. Plentl, Jr., Director of Aviation, North Carolina Dept.
of Trans.
18. Richard C. Hartuis, Park Ridge, 111.
19. Thomas R. Fini, Clarence, N. Y.
20. G. Borgeaud, Geneva Airport Authority, Geneva, Switzerland
21. George W. Kamperman, P.E., Kamperman Associates, Downers
Grove, 111.
22. J. C. Holnian, Oak Park, 111.
23. Mrs. Roger Geske, Ithasca, 111.
24. Albert H. Castle, Chicago, 111.
25. P. Patrick Mann, Environmental Standard Supervisor, Inglewood,
Calif.
26. Edward K. Patten, Mayor, Glenview, 111.
27. Richard H. Plant, Prospect, 111.
28. Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Robey, Bensonville, 111.
29. John W. Braun, Chicago, 111.
30. John Baker, Palm Springs, Calif.
31. Mrs. R. Hoist, Park Ridge, 111.
32. Phillip Landahl, P.E., O'Hare Area N.O. I. S. E. Chapter
33. Herbert H. Behrel, Mayor, Des Plaines, 111.
34. C. W. Evans, The British Society of Aerospace Companies, Ltd.,
London
35. Walter Rittmueller, Principal, St. Paul Lutheran Church and
Christian Day School, Chicago, 111.
------- |