I
EPA 550/9-74-01 9B
5SE
v!>
CIVIL AVIATION STUDIES AND
INTERAGENCY COORDINATING
ORGANIZATIONS
VOLUME II
APPENDICES
DECEMBER 1974
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, O.C. 20460
-------
EPA 550/9-74-0198
CIVIL AVIATION STUDIES AND
INTERAGENCY COORDINATING
ORGANIZATIONS
(Appendices)
DECEMBER 1974
Prepared by
Carl Modig
Under Contract 68-01-2229
for the
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this
report .reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible Tor "the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policy of EPA. This report does not constitute
a standard, specification, or regulation.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This compilation could not have been produced without the help of many
people on the staff of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, in addition to
the staff of the Informatics Noise Information Program.
ONAC staffers who assisted included John Schettino and Harvey Nozick,
who provided overall guidance; Dorothy Stuart and Eileen-Fadely, who made
significant research contributions and also provided much-appreciated typing
support; and Stan Durkee and Cosimo Caccavari, who reviewed the draft.
Other ONAC personnel provided many useful insights into particular organiza-
tions from their direct experience. These included Eugene Wyszpolski, Alan
Merkin, William Sperry, and ONAC consultants Joseph Blatt and Dr. Henning
von Gierke.
From the Informatics, Inc., staff, Jerry Rafats, Librarian for the Noise
Information Program, was indispensable in tracking down hard-to-find docu-
ments; Mrs. Shellie Ballon provided editorial support; and last but far from
least, Frank Wilson contributed a painstaking and highly useful review of the
interim draft.
iii
-------
VOLUME H
APPENDICES
A. Outline History of Air Coordinating Committee
B. Texts of Executive Orders Establishing and Disestablishing the ACC (E. O.
9781, 10883)
C. Verbatim Text of Finan Report Recommendations Concerning the ACC
D. Restatement of Objectives in Terms of Work Plan by PEDC, July 1967
E. Excerpt from Summary Status Report, Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement
Program
F. Presidential Documents Associated with FANAP
G. 1972 IANAP Membership List
H. Conclusions of the Doolittle Report
I. Excerpts from the Harding Report on Government Organization, Inter-
agency Coordination, and the Federal Role in Civil Aviation. Comments
of J. G. Bennett, Jr. and N. E. Halaby
J. Contractor Reports for Curtis Report
K. Recommendations of the Curtis Group Concerning Aircraft Noise
L. Organization of and Persons Cooperating with the Card Study
M. RADCAP Study Organization
N. Members, Staff, Consultants, and Organizations Assisting the Aviation
Advisory Commission
-------
O. Members and Consultants, Task Group 1, EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
P. Excerpt from Report of Task Group 1, EPA A ire raft/Airport Noise Study
Q. Memorandum on Government Organization for Civil Aviation, by P. W.
Cherington, for the Aviation Advisory Commission
vi
-------
APPENDIX A
Outline History of Air Coordinating Committee
-------
APPENDIX A
OUTLINE HISTORY OF AIR COORDINATING COMMITTEE
ACC established by interdepartmental
memorandum. Mar. 27, 1945
ACC formally established by President
Truman to provide "fullest development
and coordination of Federal activities
(Exec... order 9781). Sep. 19, 1948
ACC Industry AthrisoxyrPanel.organized. Fall 1946
ACC publishes A Statement of Certain Policies
of the Executive Bfanch of the Government in
the General Field of Aviation. This ACC Policy
statement, representing views of the executive
branch, covered routes, air mail, airports,
all other aspects of a national aviation policy.
Used as an input by the PAPC. ACC's first
big special report. Aug. 1, 1974
Annual report; calls for increased aircraft
production, covers ICAO activities in detail. Feb. 10, 1948
ACC accepts RTCA's SC-31 Report Recommenda-
tions for an all-weather traffic control system. Mar. 16, 1948
Air Traffic Control and Navigation Panel (NAV Panel)
organized to implement the SC-31 Report of the RTCA
for an all-weather traffic control system. July 1948
State/Local Advisory Panel organized, per PAPC
and CAPB recommendations (Ay . Daily, Sept. 13,
1948). July 1948
Stanford Report, technical study of the aircraft
industry, released. July - Aug., 1948
CAB Chairman J. J. O'Connell appointed
Chairman. Aug. 4, 1948
Treasury Dept. named to full voting member-
ship by President Truman (Exec. Order 9990). Aug. 24, 1948
Charles O. Gary named Esecutive Secretary. Dec. 7, 1948
A-l
-------
ACC firm on change from statute to nautical
miles against civil aviation industry opposition. Apr .719 52
President Eisenhower requests a comprehensive
review of Federal aviation. Sept. 23, 1953
Release of a report prepared by the Secretariat
for the President: Civil Air Policy. Criticism
that Secretariat is exceeding its place by adopt-
ing too much of a leadership role. May 1954
Criticism of ACC's ineffectiveness as a
coordination mechanism in Harding Report.
Parts of ACC report of May 1954 used as an
example. 1955
FCC named to full voting membership in ACC
by President Eisenhower by Executive Order
10655. Jan. 28, 1956
Curtis Report proposes that ACC be
eventually dissolved. May,1957
ACC rejects San Diego's proposed location for
new city airport because of Navy Dept's.
objections that it would be too close to a Navy
Air Facility. (Av. Daily, Jun. 13, 1957) Jun. ,1957
Statement of Organization and Functions issued
by ACC Secretariat. Oct., 19 57
FAA established by Act of Congress. Aug. 23, 1958
Executive Order 10796 makes FAA a full
member and the FAA representative the
Chairman of ACC. Dec. 24, 1958
Functions of the ACC's Aerospace Division
transferred to FAA. (During 1959 most of ACC's
NAV panel Functions were absorbed by FAA.) Julyjl959
ACC's Subcommittee in Aeronautical Charts and
Maps inactivated when representative announces
at meeting of subcommittee that FAA is assuming
this function under'the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
FAA statement, read into the minutes of the meet-
ing, contain the information that FAA move was
approved by BOB and concurred in by the military
departments. A.ug. 12, 1959
A-2
-------
ACC terminated by Executive Order 10883, effective
Oct. 11, I960. FAA charged with winding up ACC .
affairs. Aug. 11, I960
ACC being phased out by FAA to meet Oct. 10
deadline set by Eisenhower Executive Order.. New
IGIA- being developed, FAA absorbing ACC Functions
and personnel. Aug-Sep.; I960
A-a
-------
APPENDIX B
Texts of Executive Orders Establishing and
Disestablishing the ACC (E. O. 9781, 10883)
-------
APPENDIX B
TEXTS OF EXECUTIVE 'ORDERS ^ESTABLISHING
AND DISESTABLISHING THE AQC (E. O. 9781, 10883)
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9781
ESTABLISHING THE AIR COORDINATING COMMITTEE
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the
United States, and in order to provide for the fullest development and
coordination of the aviation policies and activities of the Federal
agencies, and in the interest of the internal management of the Govern-
ment, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. (a) There is hereby established the Air Coordinating
Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee)
•which shall have as members one representative
from each of the following names agencies (hereinafter
referred to as the participating agencies); the State,
War, Post Office, Navy, and Commerce Departments
and the Civil Aeronautics Board. The members shall
be degisnated by the respective heads of the par-
ticipating agencies. The President shall name one of
the members as the Chairman of the Committee.
The Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall des-
ignate a representative of the Bureau as a non-voting
member of the Committee.
(b) Each officer of body authorized under subparagraph
l(a) hereof to designate a member of the Committee
shall also designate one or more alternate members,
may be necessary.
(c) The Committee shall establish procedures to provide
for participation, including participation in voting,
by a representative of any agency not named to sub-
paragraph 1 (a) hereof in connection with such aviation
matters as are of substantial interest to that agency.
2. The Committee shall examine aviation problems and
developments affecting more than one participating
agency; develop and recommend integrated policies
to be carried out and actions to be taken by the par-
ticipating agencies, or by any other Government agency
charged with responsibility in the aviation field; and,
to the extent permitted by law, coordinate the aviation
activities of such agencies except activities relating
to the exercise of quasi-judicial functions.
B-l
-------
3. The Committee shall consult with Federal inter -
agency boards and committees concerned in any
manner with aviationactivities; and consult with the
representatives of the United States to the Provisional
International Civil Aviation Organization or to the
permanent successor thereof and recommend to the
Department of State general policy directives and
instructions for the guidance of the said represen-
tatives.
4. The Committee, after obtaining the views of the head
of each agency concerned, shall submit to the
President, together with the said views, (a) such of
the Committee's recommendations on aviation
policies as require the attention of the President by
reason of their character or importance, (b) those
important aviation questions the disposition of which
is prevented by the inability of the agencies concerned
to agree, (c) an annual report of the Committee's
activities during each calendar year, to be submitted
not later than January 31 of the next succeeding year, and
(d) such interim reports as may be necessary or
desirable.
5. The heads of the participating agencies shall cause
their respective agencies to use the facilities of
the Committee in all appropriate circumstances and,
consonant with law, to provide the Committee with
such personnel assistance as may be necessary.
Harry S. Truman
The White House
September 19, 1946
B-2
-------
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10883
TERMINATION OF THE AIR COORDINATING COMMITTEE
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the
United States, it is ordered as follows:
1. The Air Coordinating Committee is hereby
terminated.
2. Executive Order No. 10655 of January 28,
1956, relating to the Air Coordinating Committee,
and Executive Order No. 10796 of December,
24, 1958, amending that order are hereby revoked.
3. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency
shall make such provisions as may be necessary
for winding up any outstanding affairs of the Air
Coordinating Committee, and such provisions may
be made at any time after the date of this order.
4. Except as provided in paragraph 3, this order shall
become effective pn the sixtieth day following the
date thereof.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
The White House
August 11, I960
1 3 CFR, 1956 Supp. , p. 55.
2 3 CFR, 1958 Supp. , p. 78.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
Verbatim Text of Finan Report
Recommendations Concerning the ACC
-------
.APPENDIX C
VERBATIM TEXT OF FINAN REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE ACC
General Findings
The Air Coordinating Committee is a valuable mechanism for the
coordination of aviation policies, programs, procedures rnd
standards, and, as such, should be retained c=nd supported by
the participating Federal departments sr.d agencies,
Virtually all representatives of the agencies which h^ve taken
Dart in the vork of tlie .^ir Coordinating Committee or its principal
components recorunend the retention of the Committee ?nd prefer it
over any alternative mechanism for coordinating aviation natters of
intersgency concern. A review of the achievements of the Committee
From: Bureau of the. Budget, Survey of the Air Coordinating Committee,
Nov. 1959, pp. 5-50.
r.-i
-------
end actual observation of its current activity support these views.
The features of the present Committee which were most often
mentioned PS contributing to its usefulness are (1) its executive
order status, including the right to bring matters which cannct be
resolved unanimously to the President, (2) the high rank of the
principal members of the Committee, (3) the hierarchic arrangement
of divisions and subcommittees which makes it possible for matters
to be considered and resolved at the most appropriate level, (U)
the specialization at the lower levels which enables the best-
qualified experts from the interested agencies to come to grips
with problems in their fields, (5) the known availability of estab-
lished components with approved terms of reference, (6) the know-
ledge of and confidence in the Committee which alternates, liaison
officers and component members have acquired over the past nine
years, and (7) an independent, full-time secretariat capable of
taking the leadership in facilitating the work of the Committee.
II, The value and effectiveness of the Air Coordinating Committee can be
substantially enhanced by the adoption and implemenb?tion of the
findings, recommendations and guidelines set forth in the follow-
ing pages of this report,
The general satisfaction of representatives of the participating
agencies with the Air Coordinating Committee from en over-ell view-
point did not extend to many of the details of organization, pro-
cedures, agency participation and relationships with the aviation
industryo Criticisms of the Committee were evaluated in the course
of the survey and many were found to be well taken. If the Air
Coordinating Committee is to achieve its full potential effective-
ness and if it is to secure and maintain the fullest confidence
of the member agencies, it should make every effort to correct the
deficiencies revealed by the survey•
Specific Findings, Recommendations, and Guidelines
Specific findings, recommendations, and guidelines designed to
improve the effectiveness of the Air Coordinating Committee are set
forth and explained in the remainder of this report. To facilitate
their presentation, they have been grouped under four sections,
Section A is concerned vrith the organization and operations of the
top Committee and v?ith recommendations affecting all or a substan-
tial part of the subordinate components. Section B is concerned
with the elimination, reorganization or strengthening of individual
components. Section C treats the participation of industry and non-
government persons in the vork of the Air Coordinating Committee.
Section D contains recommendations relating to the secretariat.
C-2
-------
A• The Air Coordinating Conmittee Organization and Operations
lc The present status of the Air Coordinating Committee,
established by Fxecutive Order of the President, is
adequate ?nd should be continued, but Executive Order
9761 should be replaced by a new charter incorporating
changes recomnended in this rei)ort7"pnd'gd.iusting the
tone and emphasis to better serve current needs.
Throughout the'history of the Air Coordinating.Com-
mittee questions have been raised ?s to the status which
it should occupy and the nature of its brsic charter. At
one ti-ie there was considerable sentiment, both in Congress
and in the Committee, for statutory recognition of the Air
Coordinating Committee. In 19UB the International Aviation
Facilities Act (62 St?t. U$0) required that the Air Coordi-
nating Committee be consulted in connection with the estab-
lishment and operation of aviation facilities in foreign
territories and specifically required unanimous approval
of the Air Coordinating Committee prior to transfer of
airport or airway property to a foreign government or an
international organizption.
The practical experience gained in nine years of
operation has convinced most persons closely associated
with the Air Coordinating Committee that it should have
no statutory powers or recognition. It is now acknowledged
that the value of the Air Coordinating Committee is largely
derived from its flexibility and from its capacity to pro-
mote coordination without divesting any of the member
agencies of their statutory powers. Any future effort to
establish the ^ir Coordinating Committee on a statutory
basis or to Rive it functions by law should be strongly
resisted by the Committee as a peril to its present and
future usefulness.
An executive order is desirable for the Committee
since, through the Presidfnt as the Chief Fxecutive, it
prescribes certain ground rules, terms of reference and
fgeneral organizational features of sufficient importance
to justify specification by the President.
An executive order enhances the prestige of the Com-
mittee without, however, altering its standing PS ? device
through which the aTected agencies can voluntarily coordi-
nate related activities.
C-3
-------
4The present Fxecutive Order should at this time be
redrafted and reissued to effect cert?in changes in member-
ship, to restate the interest of the President in the Com-
mittee and to require that each member agency reappraise
the adequacy of the charter from its point of view*
2. The Federnl Communications Commission should be reconsidered
Tor fn7l i7i?.r. nera hip 'oh tn ss /'iv C oordi r~ tinp; Comr..i t Lee an-i
should • irT ?r.y evcrvo, cc'rTtribute funcHf ' to il7e~supp;irt of~the
components on v;hich it. regularly parT
The Federal Communications Commission now has member-
ship on the Technical Division, of x.'hich its member now
serves as a vice-chairman^ It is also represented on the
Subcommittee on .Aerodromes, Air Routes and Ground Aids (AGA),
the Subcommittee on Airmen Qualifications (A1IQ), the Sub-
committee on Air Space, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic
Control (ASP), the Subcommittee on Aeronautical Communications
and Tlectronic Aids (CCT7)> and the Subcommittee on Search and
Rescue (SAR), The Federal Communications Commission is also
active in and has membership on the Air Traffic Control
&nd' Navigation ..Panel. ;
The validity of FCC participation in these ACC compo-
nents has been evaluated and the Commission has been found
to have a major interest in the technical aspects of aviation.
It is now somewhat handicapped by the lack of membership on
the top Committee, Several instances in which the interest
of the Commission in a pending item was overlooked vere, in
fact, encountered in the course of the survey. As one means
of avoiding such oversights in the future, the Secretariat
is now treating the Commission as a full menber in the dis-
tribution of ACC documents,
In May, 19U5, the Federal Communications Commission, in
0 letter to the Chairman of the Air Coordinating Committee,
indicated its interest in the v?ork being carried on by the
Committee and suggested that FCC be invited to attend meet-
ings on an observer basis with the privilege of participating
in the discussions. On June 26, 19U5, the Air Coordinating
Committee advised the Federal Communications Commission that
it wrs not necessary for the Commission to be represented.
The letter did state that the Committee would be gird to
include a representative of. the Commission on my subcom-
mittee in which the Commission v;ould have an interest. In
19U? the Federal Communications Corimission obtained member-
ship in the Technical Division and its p?rticipntion has
since expanded to include the subcommittees and panels
listed above.
C-4
-------
Because of the rebuff which it received in 19U5 at a
time when the substantial concern of the agency in aviation
matters had not been fully revealed, the Commission has been
reluctant to initiate a new request for full membership. The
Air Coordinating Committee should, therefore, consider taking
the initiative in inviting the Federal Communications Com-
mission to assume full membership, if such membership is
determined by the Committee to be desirable. The invitation
could be extended in the course of revising Executive
Order 9781,
The Federal Communications Commission makes no direct
financial contribution to the support of the Air Coordi-
nating Committee or the Air Space Subcommittee, Regardless
of what action is taken with respect to full membership., the
Commission and any other Federal agencies regularly repre-
sented on s major component should be. required to contribute
to the support of the Air Coordinating Committee under ah
equitable formula,
3, The scone ?nd intensity of the Post Office Department's
participation in the /.ir Coordinating_Committee have
become so~limited that its need for full membership on
the Committee should be reevaluated,
The Dost Office Deprrtment became a full member of the
Air Coordinating Committee in Tlarch, 19k6> and is specifi-
cally listed in Executive Order 9781. The department is
represented on the Subcommittee on General ICAO Matters,
the Economic Division, the Subcommittee on Aviation Infor-
mation and Statistics and the Legal Division, As a prac-
tical matter, the department rarely takes part in the wori
of the Legal Division and the functions of the Subcommittee
on General ICAO Matters are of a largely administrative
character involving little direct impact on the Post Office
Department, Its represent?tion on the Economic Division
is passive, snd relatively few matters coming before this
division or the Subcommittee on Aviation Information and
Statistics warrant sustained participation by the Department.
With the removal of its responsibility for subsidies, the
justification for the full membership of the Post Office
Department on ACC has been further diminished.
From time to time matters will arise in ACC in which
the Post Office Department is directly concerned* However,
these items may be sufficiently infrequent for the Depart-
ment to adequately safeguard its interest by ad hoc voting
-------
-10-
participation as now provided for by paragraph l(c) of
Executive Order 9781, Some economies would be realized by
the Post Office Department and the Air Coordinating Com-
mittee if, after study, it were decided that the Depart-
ment should participate on an ad hoc basis instead of as
a full member.
U. The three military departments should continue to have
individual memberships in the Air Coordinating Committee
but the Secretfry of Defense should arrange for appro-
priate coordination within the Defense Department in
dealing withTCG matters^
%
The Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy have
individual memberships on the Air Coordinating Committee,,
The Department of Defense is represented on the Airport Use
Panel .and occasionally participates in the meetings of other
components, but it does not have a membership on the Air
Coordinating Committee, Shortly after the creation of the
Department of Defense an attempt was made to replace the
military departments on the Top ACC by a Department of Defense
membership. This effort was unsuccessful since the Department
of Defense was not prepared to come to grips with man;/ of the
problems taken up by ACC. In September, 1950» the Air Force
and the Navy were again designated as. members of the Air
Coordinating Committee with the Air Force being made responsi-
ble for representing the interests of the Department of
Defense generally and for advising the Secretary of Defense
of matters of interest to him. In 1952, the Department of
the Army became a member of the Air Coordinating Committee,,
It would be undesirable at this time to seek to replace
the direct membership of the military departments by a Depart-
ment of Defense membership. However, there is considerable
evidence that the Department of Defense needs to improve its
internal arrangements for determining its interest in and
its position on matters coming before the Air Coordinating
Cormittee. Reliance upon the Air Force to protect Defense
interests when two other military departments are serving
on the Committee hns serious disadvantages. It is suggested
that the Department of Defense consider the establishment
of an Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Committee on ACC Matters
charged with assessing the Department of Defense's concern
with matters coming before the Top ACC, its panels rnd divi-
sions, and vith providing a medium for furnishing full advice
and information to the Secretary of Defense.
C-6
-------
-n-
When the Secretary of Defense has an immediate Interest in
a natter coming before the Air Coordinating Committee he
can and should be directly represented on a voting b?sij3
in the appropriate component PS provided for in para-
graph l(c) of Executive Order 9?B!U
The undesirability of regular manbership on the part of
the Department of Defense in the Air Coordinating Committee
does not mean that the Secretary of Defense should not be
directly represented by appropriate persons from his office
when matters in which he has an immediate concern come before
the Committee. As sug,7ested in the case of the Post Office
Department, the Secretary of Defense may, under an^existing
provision in Executive Order 9781, take part on an ad hoc
basis with the right to vote whenever an item of substantial
concern to the Department is on the sgenda of an ACC com-
ponent. The Office of the Secretary of Defense should also
be included on the distribution list of such ACC papers as .
it may wish for its use and information0
The participation of a V/Tiite House assistant in the work of
the Air Coordinating Committee on a liaison br»sis adds
materially to the effectiveness of the Committee.
During the present .administration Mr. Charles Willis,
an administrative assistant to the President, has attended
meetings of the Air Coordinating Committee and has taken a
direct interest in such phases of its work as the preparation
of the Civil Air Policy Report. It is the consensus of the
secretariat and representatives of the agencies that the
presence of an administrative assistant to the President
enhances the standing of the Air Coordinating Committee ?nd
encourages the members to make effective use of the Committee.
Such a liaison relationship v/ith the White House is also
helpful in those instances in which the gravity of a matter
or the inability of the agencies to agree makes it necessary
to refer an issue to the President for decision,
Regulatory commissions represented on the Air Coordinating
Committee or its components cannot, of course, deprive
parties at interest of the right of hearing pnd .judgment
on the f?cts PE provided by law, but such cpTrniigsioris can,
and should, play a positive role in the Committee r-nd enggpe
in the freest possible exchange of information with other
participating agencicso
From the first days of the Air Coordinating Committee,
regulatory commissions participating in its v;ork have been
C-7
-------
-12-
troubled bv the implications of taking part in interagency
decisions which might influence the subsequent exercise of
regulatory or quasi-judicial powers, Elements of the aviation
industry have also expressed concern lest a regulatory com-
mission become prejudiced by taking part in the deliberations
of the Air Coordinating Committee. There have also been a
few instances in which a regulatory commission has agreed to
one thing as a member of the ACC and failed to implement the
agreement in specific esses that came before it.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that both regu-
latory commissions and the Air Coordinating Committee have
benefitted from the active participation of the former. No
better example could be provided than the current close
cooperation between the Subcommittee on Air Space and the
Federal Communications Commission on matters affecting the
erection of television and radio towers. The Air Space
Subcommittee considers the effect of each proposed tower
upon the safe operation of aircraft and advises the Federal
Communications Commission of its determination. The individ-
ual licensee may at any tine demand a full hearing before the
Federal Communications Commission but, as a practical matter,
the FCC has always supported the position taken by Federal
aviation agencies and coordinated through the Air Space
Subcommittee,
The Civil Aeronautics Board is P major participant in
both .the technical and economics aspects of ACC committee
work and benefits substantially from this activity,
6, The function of designating the Chairman of the Air Coordi-
nating Committee should continue to be exercised by the
"PresidenTI
Executive Order 9781 provides that the President shall
designate the Chairman of the Air Coordinating Committee
from among the members. Since the issuance of that order
in 19U6, State Department, Civil Aeronautics Board and the
Department of Commerce members have held the chairmanship.
The present Chairman is the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Transportc?tion, who also serves as the Commerce member of
the Committee,
There is strong sentiment among officials and staff of
the particioating agencies in favor of changing the present
method of selecting a chairman,, Advocates of ? change are
divided among those who favor rotation of the chairmanship,
as is now done in several components of the Committee, and
a chairman independent of the member agencies appointed by
the President.
C-8
-------
-13-
The alternative methods of oroviding for s chairmen
have been evaluated and rejected for two reasons. First,
the principal objections to the present arrangement can be
dealt with by the relatively simple measures and pr-ecuations.
Second, the alternatives involve such serious questions and
disadvantages as to discourage their use under present
conditions0
Rotation of the chairmanship is s mechanical approach
which has left much to be desired in other interagency com-
mittees in which it has been used. Under it each member
serves a term without regard to the scope of his agency's
interest or other relevant factors. The President'is also
deprived of the freedom to decide which official should
head an interagency group charged with advising him on
important policy matters. Rotation could, for all these
reasons, do damage to the effectiveness and standing of the
Air Coordinating Committee.
An independent chairman, presumably serving in the
Executive Office of the President, has been considered in
the past in connection with a number of interagency com-
mittees and has usually been rejected. The difficulties
involved in establishing a position with significant stature
without undermining the status of the agencies or compli-
cating lines of responsibility have generally been found
insurmountable. A successfully operating interagency group
like the Air Coordinating Committee has little to gain from
such an untried device as an independent chairman,
The demands for a change in the method of selecting
a chairman stem largely from fears that the chairing agency
will come to dominate ACC to the point where the other
members will be deprived of an equal voice in the decisions
of the Committee, :'Iore specifically, there is apprehension
lest the continued designation of Under.-Secretaries of
Commerce for Transportation as chairmen vail lesd to such
a hegenony that other agencies will be discouraged from
fully utilizing the Committee,
The equal status of all agencies serving on the Air
Coordinating Committee is provided for in Executive Order
9781, which lodges no special powers in the Chairman. The
establishment of the management and Steering Group recom-
mended below should provide further assurance that each
member agency vail have equal authority both in the sub-
stantive and the facilitative aspects of the Coramittee's
C-9
-------
-1U-
worko Of course, it is manifest that among the obligations
of the Chairman is to so serve as to leave no doubts as to
the coordinate status of all members.
9» The effectiveness of the Air Coordinating Committee could
be improved significantly by the establishment of a Manage-
ment and Steering Group consisting of an alternate from
each member agency, The Group should be charged with such
functions ast (1) consulting with the Executive Secretary
in the scheduling of meetings of the Air Coordinating Com-
mittee and the determination of agendas for such meetings;
(2) reviewing the effectiveness and procedures of divisions,
panels and subcommittees and working with the secretariat
and component chairmen in correcting deficiencies} ^"assis-
ting and guiding the secretariat in the discharge of its
function; (U) reviewing annual budget estimates for ACC, and
(5) developing solutio'ns to any ACC management problems
requiring attention of a high-level group with an interest in
all aspects of the Committee,
One of the most serious deficiencies in the organization
of the Air Coordinating Committee is the lack of a competent
management group capable of maintaining surveillance over the
ACC components and the secretariat on behalf of the principal
members. The principals are busy men of subcabinet rank who
are able to give but brief time to the details of ACC oper-
ation and who cannot, therefore, exercise effective super-
vision over a large number of components and the full-time
secretariat. The secretariat is not in a position to super-
vise itself, nor can it be expected to exercise the authority
required to come to grips with some of the problems raised
by poorly functioning components. The Chairman of the Air
Coordinating Committee is simply another busy principal.
Moreover, any attempt on his part to exercise a greater
degree of supervision over the Air Coordinating Committee
would alarm other manber agencies apprehensive of domination
of the Committee by the Chairman,
The alternates are excellently suited t? serve as a
management and steering group because they have an across-
the-board concern with the functioning of the Air Coordi-
nating Committee; they are close to and have the confidence
of the principal members; they tend to have a reasonably
detailed knowledge of the Committee and its problems; and
they are in assignments which permit them to devote a
reasonable amount of time to the Committee,
C-10
-------
In the past, there have been periods in which the
Executive Secretary has met regularly with the alternates
to consider the planning of agendas for Air Coordinating
Committee meetings and related matters,. To this day, the
alternates have the responsibility for approving ACC
positions on ICAO Matters, although this function has
become perfunctory and is not fully understood by the
alternates. In the preparation of the Civil Air Policy
Report, the alternates provided the personnel of the so-
called Special Liaison Group which reviewed policy papers
developed by the divisions. There is considerable senti-
ment within the agencies for the establishment of a frame-
work within which the alternates could, as a group, meet
regularly with the Executive Secretary and take up matters
such as those listed in the recommendation. There is every
reason to expect that substantial improvements in ACC effec-
tiveness would result from such meetings and that the work
of the Executive Secretary would be greatly aidede
The terms of reference for the Management and Steering
Group should be kept relatively simple and the meetings
should be conducted on an informal basis. However, the
chairman of the group should be carefully selected and
should be drawn from an agency other than that providing
the chairman for the Air Coordinating Committee.
10. Each agency should assure that among its alternates is a
person who has the qualifications and opportunity to con-
tribute constructively to the success of the Management
and Steering Group.
Under the current procedures of the Air Coordinating
Committee, each member designates one or more alternates.
As indicated in the discussion of the proceeding recommen-
dation, most of the members have designated at least one
alternate who is admirably equipped to serve as a member
of the Management and Steering Group, In the case of one
or two agencies, however, the designated alternates do not
seem to include a person in an immediate relationship to
the principal »r with a sufficiently broad interest in the
matters coming before ACC to enable him to serve most effec-
tively as a member of the proposed management and steering
group. Each agency should, to the extent necessary, make
changes in or additions to its alternates to assure
effective representation on the new group.
C -11
-------
11. The Air Coordinating Committee and the menber agencies
should reevaluate agency participation in each of the
components of the Committee with a view to adjusting
membership in the divisions, panels and subcommittees
so as to best serve current needs and interests. In
general, an agency should not seek membership, as con-
trasted to ad hoc participation, in a component in which
it does not have a significant and continuing interesto
Some waste of manpower and unnecessary increases in the
size of ACC components have resulted from membership by-
agencies which have relatively little interest in the matters
being considered. The Air Coordinating Committee could be
• made more efficient and the cost of participation reduced
if each agency would review the benefits which it is receiv-
ing from its participation in each of the divisions, panels
and subcommittees on which it is represented. Whenever,
after such review, the agency finds that it does not have
a sustained interest in the matters coming before the com-
ponent, it should terminate its membership. Such discon-
tinuance of regular menbership in a component does not, of
course, preclude an agency from taking part whenever a
matter of genuine interest to it arises.
12, The representative of an agency having a fully justified
membership in a component of the Air Coordinating Committee,
but lacking a significant interest in a particular matter
under consideration, should feel free to abstain from
voting and should exercise particular care notjbo protract
discussion or to stand in the way of agreement,
It frequently happens that a matter coming before an
ACC component does not directly concern an agency which has
a fully justified regular membership. In those cases, the
representative of the agency should feel under no obligation
either to attend the portion of the meeting in which the
item is being discussed or to take an active part should he
be present. On the other hand, the representative of an
agency lacking a direct interest should not be bound to
silence. It often happens that a disinterested member «f
a component is able to contribute to the quality of decisions
arrived at. However, when the disinterested member has
made his point of view known to the agencies with a direct
concern, he should be content to let those agencies arrive
at their own conclusions and not press for acceptance of
his personal preferences^
C-12
-------
,17-
13. To be fully effective, the Air Coordinating Committee
should have members of subcabinet rank, and these members
should take an affirmative interest in the work of the
Committee.
The present representation on the Air Coordinating
Committee from agencies having a voting membership is drawn
entirely from officials of subcabinet rank. Moreover, some
of these assistant secretaries and board members attend the
meetings of the Air Coordinating Committee vdth reasonable
regularity. V.'hile it is true that attendance at such
meetings constitutes an additional duty for officials already
heavily burdened with other assignments, it is absolutely
essential to the success and effectiveness of the Air Coordi-
nating Committee that the principal members continue to be
drawn from the subcabinet level. However, the mere listing
as members of officials sufficiently high in their agencies
is not sufficient. For ACC to reach its full potential, the
principal members must regard the Committee as a useful aid
in carrying out their aviation responsibilities, and must
take a positive interest in assuring that the Air Coordi-
nating Committee is utilized whenever it is the appropriate
instrumentality.
1U, Attendance at meetings of the Top Air Coordinating Committee
should be curtailed to the minimum number of persons actually
needed to dispose of the business at hand.
Three meetings of the Air Coordinating Committee were
observed in the course of the survey. The first was attended
by about 35 persons, the second by 30* and the third by 25»
The last two meetings had agendas largely or wholly limited
to one principal item.
These meetings had a relatively small attendance of
principals, the number present being three (including two
non-voting members), four (including one non-voting member).
and one, respectively. The other persons in attendance were
alternates, agency liaison officers, division members, tech-
nical staff or secretariat. It is, of course, to be hoped
that among the inprovements in ACC operations will be a more
regular attendance of principals, but the question might be
put as to the effect of so many onlookers upon both the
attendance and the manner of participation of principals.
It ia not unreasonable to assume that many things which
the principals might be willing to say in a smaller meeting,
or one limited to themselves, will not be broadcast to a
C-13
-------
-18-
room full of assorted observers. Moreover, such large
meetings waste manhours and detract from the business-like
atmosphere which should prevail.
In the past, ACC has occasionally excluded all persons
except principals and a few others whose presence was speci-
fically requested by their principalsc This was last done
early in 195U in connection with the selection of a nev;
Executive Secretary.
•It would be desirable in the future for meetings to be
limited to principals, alternates attending for principals,
essential secretariat staff, and possibly one additional
individual requested by the principal. The standard repre-
sentation of an agency for a meeting would thus be held to
two. There should, of course, be a procedure under which
industry representatives and specialists can be brought in
to be heard or to give support in the discussion of a partic-
ular item, but this does not require th?t such persons sit in
the conference room throughout the meeting. Some personnel
of both the agencies and the ACC staff benefit from observing
proceedings, but these benefits are not sufficient to offset
the disadvantages of attendance at meetings where their
presence is not required.
The chairman and the members of the divisions, panels and
subcommittees of the Air Coordinating Committee should be
officials of rank commensurate with the functions involved;
they should be able to attend meetings rfcrrularly; and they
should take a. positive responsibility for the success of
the components on which t'aey serve.
Just as the effectiveness of Top ACC is dependent upon
the regular and purposeful participation of subcabinet officers
so each component is dependent for its success upon the suit-
ability of its members. VJith respect to the divisions, it is
essential that members be of bureau chief or equivalent rank
in the civilian agencies, and that members from the military
departments have the rank and organization?! standing to
represent their departments in the resolution of major policy
and program matters. Subcommittee members should be drawn
from the appropriate technical level and should be individuals
with the qualifications required to understand and construc-
tively participate in subcommittee discussions. Wot infre-
quently, representatives serving on a component fail to
attend regularly or are conspicuously unequipped to serve
effectively. Fach agf.-ncy needs to take additional steps to
assure that its representatives are qualified r.nd partici-
pate faithfully.
-------
-19-
16, The rapid turnover of members of the components of the
Air Coordinating Committee creates a continuing problem
of orient jbg newcomers» The 'orientaiion should be facili-
tated by ths preparation of suitable informational materials*
The terras of reference governing the functioning of the
ACC are found in widely scattered documents, many of which
are unknown to persons newly appointed to membership. More-
over, informal rules of pariiicipation which add to the effec-
tiveness of a member have never been converted to writing
and have to be absorbed by newcomers through experience. It
would be helpful if the Air Coordinating Committee,, through
its secretariat, would prepare some general orientation
materials for the instruction and guidance of new members
and supplement these general materials with specific informa-
tion relating to the functions and operations of particular
components.
17• The three budgets of the Air Coordinating Committee should
be consolidated and consideration should be given to deter-
mining the share of the unified budget to be contributed
py each agency on the basis of the number of major compo-
nents on which it holds membership,
Each agency having membership on the Air Coordinating
Committee contributes to an over-all budget from which most
of the activities of the Committee and its components are
financed. However, certain agencies contribute also to
separate budgets maintained for the Airport Use Panel and
the Air Space, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control
Subcommittee, respectively. For the 1955 fiscal year, the
approved budget for the Air Coordinating Committee is
$119,790; for the same year, the budget for the Airport Use
Panel is $l5,65h; and that for the Air Space Subcommittee*
is &38j630i Thus, the total current budget of the Air
Coordinating Committee is R17U,07U.
The separate budgets for the Air Space Subcommittee
and the Airport Use Panel have their origin in the fact that
the predecessors of both these components existed prior to
being brought into the ACC framework. The separate budgets
were continued partly because not all agencies with ACC
membership took part in the two specialized components.
The separate budgets no longer serve a useful purpose
and they tend to create confusion as to the true cost of
the Air Coordinating Committee. It is now the practice
C -1.5
-------
-20-
to divide each of these budgets into equal shares, with
each participating voting agency contributing its portion.
Once a unified budget is established, it would be prefer-
able to develop a formula under which each agency share can
be determined on the basis of the number of major ACC com-
ponents in which it has a full membership. For budgetary
purposes, it would appear sufficient to consider as major
components the Air Coordinating Committee itself, the
Technical Division, the Air Space Subcommittee, the Air
Traffic Control and Navigation Panel, the Economic Division,
the Legal Division and the Airport Use Panel. Under such a
formula, an agency having membership on all seven components
would make a maximum contribution, while an agency repre-
sented on but two"or three would support a substantially
smaller portion of the total ACC budget.
18, The member agencies should place plans, programs, or con-
templated actions which require interagency coordination
before the Air Coordinating Committee prior to enteiIng
into commitments or undertaking expenditures of fund's
which might stand in the way of coordinated interagency
action.
The recent experience of the Airport Use Panel, which
eventually led to a demand for modified terms of reference,
and the difficulties encountered in reaching agreement on
certain elements of the common system, graphically estab-
lish the importance of matters of interagency concern being
taken up and resolved before any single agency proceeds to
a point where it finds it difficult to accommodate its actions
to the needs of other affected agencies. Strict adherence to
this guideline will make it possible for the Air Coordinating
Committee to limit the scope of interagency conflicts and
will occasionally save substantial sums which would otherwise
be misdirected.
1°« Each member agency should review its use of the Air Coordi-
nating Committee for the consideration of .bilateral mntters,
and Executive Order 9781 should be revised to authorize the
disposition of purely bilateral items outside of the Air
Coordinating Coirimittee.
Executive Order 9781 charges the Air Coordinating Com-
mittee with examining "aviation problems affecting more then
one participating agency." Since the issuance of the order,
a number of bilateral matters have come to be dealt with
outside of the Committee by the two agencies directly con-
cerned. .
C-lti
-------
There is every reason why matters involving only two
agencies should be disposed of through the relatively simple
method of bilateral discussions* It is not to the advantage
of any "ACC component to have the time of its members con-
sumed by matters in which the majority have little or no
interest.' It is, therefore, desirable that the Executive
Order be revised to make it clear that agencies are not
bound to use the ACC for the resolution of problems affecting
but two agencies. Concurrently, each agency should review
matters which seem to concern only itself and one other
agency to determine whether or not they should be taken up
outside of the Air Coordinating Committee.
A word of caution is needed in connection with this
recommendation. No matter should be regarded as purely
bilateral unless the agencies involved have substantial
evidence that this is the case. Consultation with the
secretariat, or an announcement to the appropriate component
of an intention to proceed bilaterally, will often be desir-
able before an agency can safely conclude that direct
negotiations with another agency are desirable. Attempts
to treat matters of multiagency concern on a bilateral basis
can be embarrassing and costly to all concerned and can
undermine the effectiveness of the ACC,
20, The Air Coordinating Committee should not attempt final
coordination of the views of the executive branch on draft
legislation proposed to be presented to the Congress, nor
should it seek to coordinate agency reports on legislation
before the~C"onf{res5; but in connection with the implementing
of international conventions and some domestic problems,
the Committee can appropriately take a more active part in
the development of draft legislation,
Several years ago, the Air Coordinating Committee became
deeply involved in the coordination of positions of the execu-
tive branch on aviation legislation. There was a belief
among some members of the Committee and the secretariat that
ACC could provide such coordination in lieu of the Bureau of
the Budget, and this view had some support in the Congress^
Consequently, ACC began to receive requests from congressional
committees for its views and ACC responded with its comments.
About the same time, efforts were being made to give the ACC
statutory functions, or at least statutory recognition.
The dangers to the Air Coordinating Committee from
becoming an agency in direct communication with Congress
were eventually perceived, and the Committee ceased
C-17
-------
-22-
attempting to coordinate the reports of member agencies
on pending bills. At the present time, ACC is strongly
opposed to involvement in legislative coordination. In
fact, there is evidence that the pendulum has swung so far
that it is neglecting opportunities to develop legislation
when it is the most appropriate mechanism to do so.
One example of a need to develop legislation is pro-
vided by the Mortgage Convention, ratified by the United
States in 19U9. Legislation to implement this convention
within the United States was not needed at first because
few other nations joined in ratification. The recent
ratifications by Pakistan, Norway, and Brazil have brought
the problem of implementation to the fore, and it is hard
to conceive of a more suitable group to draft le gislation
in this area than ACC's Legal Division.
In the domestic field, an example of a potentially
useful ACC role in developing legislation is provided by
the work of the Fconomic Division's Subcommittee on Facili-
tation of Civil Aviation. This group has been drafting
legislation to facilitate the admission into the United
States of technical and supervisory personnel of foreign
air carriers. Progress on completing coordination of a
draft was delayed by reluctance on the part of an agency
represented on the Subcommittee to giving its views without
a request from the Bureau of the Budget. It does not seem
inappropriate for an ACC subcommittee to act as a drafting
group for legislation involving aviation. Certainly, such
activity is consistent with the Bureau of the Budget's
Circular NO. A-19, revised, as long as coordination through
an interagency group does not prevent the direct trans-
raittal to the Bureau of the Budget of the views of individ-
ual agencies at such time as they are requested,
21o As a general rule, matters originating in the divisions,
panels, or subcommittees should not be placed on the agenda
of the Air Coordinating~Cornmittee until there has been full
consideration and maximum resolution of issues in the sub-
ordinate components.
For the principal members of the Air Coordinating
Committee to be in the best position to deal with a matter
coming from a lower component, the issues and supporting
factual data need to be defined and stated in a manner which
permits high-level, but largely non-technical officials to
arrive at a decision. When items placed before the Air
Coordinating Coinmittee are not in such form, the result is
C-18
-------
-23-
delayed action and dissatisfaction with the Committee on
the part of the principal members. On the whole, the
materials now being presented to the Committee do conform
to this guideline, but there have been several instances
in recent months in-which a matter not ready for definitive
ACC action has appeared on the agenda.
Consultation between the Executive Secretary and the
proposed Management and Steering Group, as recommended above,
should help assure that the matters taken up by the Top
Committee are in shape for action*
The same rule applicable to the Top Committee also
applies to the divisions. Subcommittees and working groups
have, from time to time, placed before the divisions papers
which were not thoroughly thought out and coordinated at the
working level« Any subcommittee, working group, ad hoc
committee or other component can contribute to the effec-
tiveness of the Air Coordinating Committee by doing its
work completely before referring a paper to a division or
panel.
22. When a matter cannot be resolved at a lower level, it
should be promptly placed on the agenda of the component
occupying the next higher position in the Air Coordinating
Committee hierarchy.
If anything is more harmful to the Air Coordinating
Committee than having incompletely considpred items placed
on its agenda, it is to have matters which require action
bottlenecked by a subordinate component. Such failures to
act are caused by (1) ineffective committee work stemming
from a weak chairman, inadequate manbership or poor secre-
tariat support, (2) overloading of a committee, or (3)
futile efforts to teach an unattainable unanimity.
The firsttwo of the reasons for failure to act can be
remedied following the reevaluation of subordinate components
recommended in this report. Delays caused by a reluctance
to move without unanimity are based upon either a misunder-
standing of the ground rules for ACC or an excessive defer-
ence toward a participating agency or its representative.
Unanimity is required for ACC decisions, it is true, but a
failure to agree at the lower levels should simply call for
a referral of the matter to the next higher component —
with, of course, the issues clearly stated and the support-
ing documentation. It is a common weakness of interagency
C-19
-------
-2U-
committees to wallow in indecision in the face of dissent
or to seek agreement by watering down a .decision to a
disastrously inadequate common denominator. The ACC
hierarchy provides a means of minimizing such shortcomings
and should, therefore, be more fully and promptly utilized
to force decisions in matters requiring action.
23« The unanimity rule which now governs all components of the
Air Coordinating Committee should be retained,
The proceeding recornmendation dealt with the importance
of referring to higher components matters which cannot be
resolved at lower levels in the Air Coordinating Committee.
It is sometimes suggested that the Air Coordinating Committee
would be more effective if decisions could be arrived at by
a majority vote. Action by a vote of the majority is appro-
priate for boards or commissions with statutory powers.
However, a majority vote in ACC hos little meaning if, among
the dissenters, is a member from an agency which must be
relied upon in the implementation of a decision. Thus, the
unanimity rule simply recognizes the facts of life of an
interagency committee which depends upon the voluntary
action of its members. As a practical matter, the full
utilization of the hierarchy established by ACC will, as
pointed out in the discussion of the proceeding recom-
mendation, often make it possible to resolve a matter
encountering disagreanent at the lower levels.
If the unanimity rule prevents a decision on an
important matter in the Top ACC, the Committee can and
• should refer the issue to the President for a decision,
Such referrals should, however, take place only after the
Secretary or Board of each affected member agency has
received a report of the disagreement and has concluded
that Presidential action is required. Disagreements
affecting only two agencies should normally be taken to
the President by a responsible agency head, not by ACC
as an entity.
2Ue The informal action procedure for obtaining agency con-
currences without formal meetings is a useful means of
expediting decisions on matters coming before ACC
components.
Many of the papers considered in the Air Coordinating
Committee are disposed of at t he division or ACC level by
informal action; i.e., by referral of the pertinent
C-20
-------
-25-
documents to the member agencies for approval or disapproval.
Within the agencies, informal action papers are circulated
in accordance with the subject matter and the component of
ACC involved. In those instances in which no significant
dissents are voiced by the member agencies, the paper is
considered approved by the Air Coordinating Committee.
Although there are certain risks that perfunctory action
by agencies or errors in the distribution of informal action
documents could lead to a false assumption of unanimity, the
savings of time fully justify the continuation of the infor-
mal action procedure under adequate procedural safeguards.
25, The authority to take final action on matters coming before
the Air Coordinating Committee should be delegated selec-
tively and only when the status of a component or the
character of its functions so warrants.
To reduce the number of items coming before the Top
ACC, the divisions, the Airport Use i-'anel, the Air Naviga-
tion and Traffic Control Panel, and certain subcommittees
have been granted the authority to take final action on
pending papers. The more extensive this delegation, the
smaller the number of items which must be acted upon by
the higher levels within ACC.
There is little agreement among persons participating
in ACC as to the degree to which final action authority
should be delegated. The argument in favor of further
delegations contends that if all the subcommittees could
dispose of matters on a final action basis, the work of
the divisions would be reduced. Those opposing further
delegations of final action authority hold that the members
of most of the subcommittees occupy such subordinate posi-
tions within their agencies that they are not equipped to
enter into final commitments. There is sufficient sub-
stance in the opposing argument to require that the burden
of proof be on the readiness of the subcommittees to receive
final action authority. In cases such as the Subcommittee
on Aviation Meteorology, on which the Chief of the Weather
Bureau and the principal weather officers of the Air Force
and Navy serve, final action authority is clearly appro-
priate, Such authority is also justified in connection
with the Air Space Subcommittee because of the extremely
large number of specific technical determinations which
it makes in the course of its work.
C-21
-------
-26~
The delegation of final action authority to some of
the subcommittees of the Technical and Economic Divisions
under present circumstances could either hamper their work
or lead to decisions being made which one or more of the
participating agencies would later be compelled to repu-
diate. That this is not an academic consideration is
demonstrated by the number of recent instaices in which
the Technical Division has made major.changes in positions
unanimously recommended by subcommittees. It is true that
the members of the subcommittees could be directed to take
no positions which have hot been thoroughly cleared with
their agencies, but the effect of such an approach could
be to engender a rigidity in positions taken which woul'd
prevent or seriously delay adjustment and compromise. It
would seem more prudent to giv^ the subcommittees a some-
what freer rein, and to assure the acceptability of their
decisions by review at the division Ievel0
26. The Air Coordinating Committee cannot compel member agencies
to implement its decisions. These agencies should, there-
fore, arrange individually to assure that implementation
does take place or that the Committee is advised of
obstacles which justify reconsideration of a decision.
One of the criticisms of the Air Coordinating Committee
is that is has, on occasion, failed to implement its deci-
sions. Such criticism cannot appropriately be leveled
against the Committee for it neither has, nor should have,
mandatory powers over its member agencies. It is nonethe-
less true that in the long run the standing and effective-
ness of the Air Coordinating Committee will be strongly
influenced by the seriousness with which participating
agencies carry out their roles in the implementation of the
decisions in which they take part. The most satisfactory
approach would thus seem to be for each agency to establish
the internal procedures required to advise appropriate
officials of the Air Coordinating Committee's decisions
and to follow up on actions taken pursuant thereto.
27• Additional measures are needed to assure that classified
information and administratively confidential matters
coming before the Air Coordinating Committee are protec-
ted against breaches or unnecessary disseminatione
Agencies desiring to coordinate aviation matters
involving a high classification, or which are particularly
sensitive from an administrative standpoint, have been
C-22
-------
-27-
inclined to avoid full or sufficiently early utilization
of the Air Coordinating Committee because of their mis-
givings as to the extent to which such information would
be safeguarded. The fact that members of ACC components,
liaison officers, and many industry representatives have
received security clearances, does not dispose of the pro-
blem. The safeguarding of classified or sensitive infor-
mation also requires that the number of persons having
access to that information be held to the absolute minimum.
ACC procedures have almost guaranteed a wider dissemination
of classified or sensitive information than that required
to assure inter agency coordination.
The Air Coordinating Committee should, therefore,
establish special arrangements under which any agency may
feel free to place classified or administratively delicate
information before an appropriate component of ACC and with
full assurance that disclosure will be held to the minimum
required to achieve coordination. This can be done by
authorizing each agency to introduce matters within ACC
on a "controlled" basis. The agency with primary interest,
or tliat taking the initiative, should have positive control
over determining what agencies would be represented on the
component taking .up the matter and should be free to specify
the distribution of papers bearing on the item. This would
mean that the appropriate subcommittee, working group, or
ad hoc committee would be limited to agencies believed to
have a direct interest, and the normal distribution of
papers through agency liaison officers would be replaced
by a limited circulation of pertinent documents to the
actual members of the working group. The agency with a
major interest, or the group considering a controlled item,
should also be authorized to place the matter directly on
the agenda of a division or the Top ACC, and to require
that access to the documents involved be limited to the
members of the reviewing component.
A completely adequate procedure for reassuring agencies
that the Air Coordinating Committee is an appropriate
mechanism for considering classified or administratively
confidential papers will require additional refinements
and adjustments in the light of experience. However, the
two basic principles of controlled participation and con-
rolled distribution of documents, both to be determined
by the initiating agency, would seem to be the essential
foundations of a satisfactory system.
C-23
-------
-26-
288 The Air Coordinating Committee should establish procedures
and controls to limit distribution of documents to the
minijnum required for efficient conduct of its work,,
The number of documents produced by the Air Coordi-
nating Committee and its components is a source of surprise,
if not amazement, to virtually everyone who comes into con-
tact with the Committee. A study of the number of copies
of documents distributed during the 195U fiscal year revealed
that the total was llj£,000. The Department of Commerce
received nearly U0,000 copies, the Air Force over 17,000,
the Civil Aeronautics Board over 13,000, the Navy nearly
13>000, the Coast Guard over 10,000, the Department of
State and Department of Army about 7,000 each, and the
industry recipients about 8,000, While at first glance
the volume of documents produced and distributed may appear
excessive, there is little question but that most of the
papers are generated as a necessary result of committee
work* The secretariat, agency liaison officers, and to
the extent required, the Management and Steering Group
should, however, establish procedures to keep distribution
lists current.
On September 21, 195U, the Executive Secretary requested
the members of the secretariat to make a study of the list
of persons receiving copies of ACC publications in addition
to the designated members and alternates of components.
Secretaries are also to be informed of requests upon the
Document Section for copies of papers on a regular basis.
This is a desirable procedure, but it needs to be supplemented
- by periodic reviews of document distribution lists both by the
secretariat and by the participating agencies,
29o The work of components of the Air Coordinating Committee
would be facilitated if agencies planning to propose sub-
stantial changes in pending papers would give the appro-
priate secretary sufficient advance notice to permit
duplication and distribution of the changes prior to
the meeting.
The survey revealed instances in which the work of a
division or subcommittee was delayed by an agency intro-
ducing papers containing important changes or substitutions
which had not been received or studied by the other parti-
cipants in advance of the meeting. Such a procedure is
natural in working groups developing drafts for later review
by higher components, but at the subcommittee and higher
-------
-29-
levels, members are often guided by positions taken by their
agencies on the basis of.documents previously distributed.
It is only natural that members of such components are often
reluctant to give their blessing to substantive changes of
which they were unaware until the meeting*
Admittedly, the urgency of a particular situation may
prevent adequate notice and advance distribution of proposed
changes, but agencies should make every effort to arrive at
their positions in time to enable the component's secretary
to put relevant additional documents in the hands of the
other participants.
300 The State Department should continue to exercise its final
authority over the size of delegations sent by the United
States to internptional aviation meetings, but the Depart-
ment should makerfurther efforts to accommodate the recom-
mendations of the Air Coordinating Committee,
Under procedures now in effect, the State Department
exercises final authority over (1) whether or not the United
States shall participate in an international aviation meeting,
and (2) the number of persons to be included in the United
States delegation. Since the United States is very active
in international aviation matters, it virtually always
attends meetings in which it has a discernible interest.
However, there has been some friction between the State
Department and other members of the Air Coordinating Com-
mittee over the number of persons to be included in United
States delegationso
The State Department is responsible for deciding how
the limited appropriations for participation in inter-
national conferences can(best be used to advance the interests
of the United States. The Department therefore takes the
position that it must limit the size of delegations to inter--
national aviation meetings so as to assure that money will
be available for conferences in other fields of foreign
affairs. While admitting that the State Department does
have a problem, many members of the Air Coordinating Com-
mittee and its components contend that State is not tech-
nically qualified to decide how maiy delegates will be
required adequately to represent the United States in
meetings concerned with international aviation.
There is substantial evidence that in the early years
of PICAO and ICAO membership, the United States sent dele-
gations of such size that they could be justified only en
C-25
-------
-30-
the basis of the training which the participants received.
Certainly, more persons were sent than the immediate need
to represent the Nation's interests required. On the other
hand, the number of international aviation meetings has
declined markedly in recent years. Technical meetings under
the ICAO Air Navigation Commission have, for example, been
reduced from fifteen in 19U6 to three in 19153. Moreover,
the size of the delegations has been cut down,
The Third North Atlantic Regional Air Navigation meeting
•which began on October 5> 195U, involved disagreement between
the State Department and the Air Coordinating Committee as to
the size of the delegation. .The State Department insisted on
a delegation of fifteen members, while the Air Coordinating
Committee was unable to recommend less than sixteen members,,
The State Department refused to increase the number on the
delegation. The gap between the ACC and Stcte determinations.
was finally resolved by the decision of the Coast Guard to
send one member of the delegation at its expense,
The uneasy equilibrium created by conflicts in the points
of view and. responsibilities of the State Department and the
Air Coordinating Committee as a whole can be maintained with
a minimum of friction only by reasonableness on the part of
all concerned. As the agency with the statutory authority,
the State Department should avsid arbitrary action and
should utilize ACC to achieve maximum agreement on matters
relating to United States delegations to international
aviation conferences.
31 $. The Air Coordinating Committee and its secretariat should
improve the scheduling of .work on United States positions
for ICAO meetings so as to complete position papers
reasonably in advance of deadlines.
It is almost the usual situation for a delegation to an
international meeting to have to wait until the last minute
for its instructions. Occasionally, the position papers
will be in final shape a day or two before a conference,
but often the delegation is hnnded its instructions as it
boards a departing plane or receives them by mail after
arrival. Because there are often last-minute crises, some
of which require meetings of the ACC, and because critical
questions should not be decided without full consideration,
the tendency for the development of positions to drag on
is both nerve-wracking and potentially injurious to the
interests of the United States,
C 26
-------
-31-
Of course, it is not easy to schedule preparatory work
in the face of competing priorities, but a greater effort
should be made to set .and adhere to timetables which will
assure that most positions are agreed to well in advance
of the starting date of international meetings.
32, The Air Coordinating Committee provides a mechanism for
periodic reviews of civil air policy, but the findings
end recommendations derived from such surveys will reflect
many compromises and will tend to emphasize policies which
the participating Federal agencies are prepared to propose
and implement,
The recent survey of civil air policy undertaken by the
Air Coordinating Committee at the request of the President
culminated in May 195li in the release of a report substantially
concurred in by all the participating agenciesc The attain-
ment of a virtually unanimous report dealing with many con-
troversial areas of civil aviation policy was possible only
because numerous compromises were accepted and certain partic-
ularly stubborn problems were sidestepped. While many of the
persons who were closely associated with the pr eparation of
the report acknowledge that a certain amount of watering dovn
took place, they also feel that the survey was worthwhile for
two reasons. First, it required each of the principal members
of the Air Coordinating Committee and their staffs to focus
attention on virtually the entire range of civil aviation
policy and, second, because the final product was one which
the participating agencies were prepared to accept and im-
plement. There is every reason to believe that the Air
Coordinating Committee could be profitably used for such
reviews at intervals in the future as a means of forcing
the aviation agencies of the executive branch to reexamine
the policies by which they are being guided.
Dissatisfactions with the Civil Air Policy Report stem
largely from the feeling that the document failed to promote
new ideas or to rally public opinion behind urgent aviation
problems. There is disappointment that the report lacks
some of the characteristics of the reports of the President's
Air Policy Commission of 19U7 and the President's Airport
Commission of 1952. It is certainly true that the Air
Coordinating Committee will not review civil air policy
questions with the detachment, and, with the willingness to
recommend novel and imaginative solutions often expected of
a temporary advisory .conmission drawn largely from persons
not responsible for implementation. It should be recognized
that a policy reviciv by an inter agency committee and advisory
C-27
-------
-32-
study by a non-Government group have different purposes and
settings* Both should be used in accordance with the demands
of particular situations and with an appreciation of their
limitations.
B» Components of the Air Coordinating Committee
Prior to a discussion of specific recommendations relating
to the status, organization, or methods of operation of individ-
ual components, a few general observations are in order.
The number of components functioning under the Air Coordi-
nating Committee almost inevitably produces questions as to the
need for so many standing units. The urge to streamline ACC
by simply abolishing every component which is not meeting regu-
larly or producing a comforting list of citable achievements
becomes strong. Such a course would not, however, assure im-
provements in the Air Coordinating Committee, In fact, it could
disrupt relationships snd break down divisions of labor of real
value to the Committee,
In this survey, the approach taken is to recommend abolition
of those components which have.clearly outlived their usefulness
or whose residual or potential functions can be assumed by other
components with more viable missionsc Because none of the rel-
atively inactive subcommittees has a full-time secretary or
entails other significant adninistrative costs, there is vir-
tually no expense involved in mere existence. On the other
hand, a known membership and est?blished terms of reference
make it possible for a subcommittee to move quickly and with a
minimum of organizational preliminaries when a problem arises
in its field. Therefore, potential as well as present useful-
ness and the merits of alternative arrangements should be weighed
along with present activity before a decision is made as to the
future status of a subcommittee or other standing component,
10 The ACC Advisory Panel should be abolished»
The ACC Advisory Panel consists of fourteen private
citizens with a background and interest in aviation matters.
The Chairman of the Air Coordinating Committee also serves
as the Chairman of the Panel, and secretariat services are
provided by the Executive Secretary of the Air Coordinating
Committee. The Adivsory Panel held its last meeting as a
group on September 18, 1951. Although individual members
of the Panel are, from time to time, consulted by staff of
the Air Coordinating Committee, the ACC itself has made no
recent use of the Panel. As a general practice, it would
C-28
-------
-33-
seem to be preferable for the individual agencies of the Air
Coordinating Committee to obtain advice from suitable indiviv-
uals outside the Government and not for the ACC as an entity
to have an advisory panel. If a situation should arise in
which the Air Coordinating Committee finds it desir.?ble to
solicit advice fron a group of private citizens, it should
establish ?n ad hoc committee for this purpose with its
membership determined by the nature of the subject matter
to be dealt with. Certainly there is nothing from past
experience with the present advisory panel which would
indicate that such a formally constituted group with a •
fixed membership will have my substantial future atility.
2, The AGO Industry Advisory Panel should be abolished.
The Industry Advisory Panel held its last meeting on
July 18, 1952, when it took part in a joint meeting with
the Air Coordinating Committee to discuss the report of the
President's Airport Conmission. The ranel has been unsuc- :
• cessful because of the lack of common interest on the part
of the various industry members. Koreover, alternative
arrangements for representation of industry on ACC and its
components have rendered the concept of a panel obsolete
and indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Panel
should disappear from the scene. It is not expected that
there id. 11 be much in the way of industry objection to the
formal abolition of a unit so lacking in usefulness.
3« The ACC Subcommittee on the Chicago Convention should
be abolished.
This subcommittee, which was actively concerned for
several years with the development of positions on proposed
amendments to the Chicago Convention, has held no meetings
since 1951«> At the present time, there is little likelihood
that any problem requiring consideration by this subcommittee
will emerge. Once the subcommittee is abolished, any matters
which might arise T.'ithin its present field of responsibility
can be dealt with by the Legal Division or the Subcommittee
on General ICAO Matters,
U« The Aircraft Claimant Division should be abolished and its
functions transferred to 'en Aircraft Claimant Subcommittee
in the proposed Economic and Resources Division.
During the period of active remobilization following
the outbreak of the Korean conflict, the Aircraft Claimant
Division was charged with important functions related to
civil aviation requirements and the determination of programs
C-29
-------
eovering essential civil air carrier needs* With the passage
of time and the alleviation of shortages of aircraft com-
ponents, the division has become less active and is now
concerned largely with a quarterly review of the air carrier
aircraft production program. Status as a division is no
longer warranted by its scope of responsibility, the gravity
of the problems dealt with, or the character of its member-
ship. As a subcommittee of an Economic and Resources Divi-
sion, its present membership could be retained on a standby
basis available for the consideration of any problem within
its field which might arise in the future^
The Economic .Division nds fallen short of its potential
and should be reconstituted as an Economic and Resources
faivisione
There are few matters coming before the Air Coordinating
Committee which are so complex and which are so urgently in
need of solution as those in the fields of economic policy*
This was clearly demonstrated during the preparation of the
Civil Air Policy Report when a majority of the papers were
developed under the Fconomic Division,, Fxcept in periods
of unusual pressure, such as that created by the President's
request for a survey of civil air policy, the Economic
Division has been unable to come to grips withp or to
achieve a resolution of, most of the problems falling within
its field of activity,, The disappointing record of the
division is partially attributable to the reluctance of the
agencies to place questions of economic policy before it
even when a need for coordination exists,, It is also true
• however, that the division has proved unable to act on many
of the problems referred to it» Some of the subcommittees
and standing working groups have been toying with importst
questions of economic coordination for long periods without
generating documents or proposals on which the division
can take action^
It is to be hoped that, with the addition of responsi-
bility for coordinating aircraft claimant and related air-
craft manufacturing matters, the Fconomic Division will be
so reconstituted as to (1) encourage the member agencies
to more fully utilize its facilities, and (2) establish
machinery and procedures to force prompt action on problems
coming before the divisione The proposed Management and
Steering Group, the secretariat, and the reorganized
divisions should make a systematic review of matters now
deadlocked in the division for the purpose of expediting
action,,
C-30
-------
-35-
6, The type and rank.of membership on the Economic and Resources
Division should be such as to enable it to deal effectively
with*the complex issues that should receive consideration
"by the Division,
In the process of replacing the present Economic Division
with an Economic and Resources Division, each agency should
reappraise its membership with a view to placing on the new
division representatives whose standing in their agencies and
whose qualifications will permit them to play a constructive
part in the work of the division, Each of the members
designated should be willing to devote the unusually close
attention to the work of the new division required to get it
off on the right foot and to acquire the reputation needed
to encourage full utilization by the member agencies,
7, The Subcommittee on Facilitation of Civil Aviation needs to
be strangthene^ both in terms of membership and agency sup-
port if it. is to Advance aviation facilitation a3 an important,
element in the foreign economic program of the United States*
The Facilitation Subcommittee of the present Economic
Division includes in its membership representatives from non-
aviation agencies such as the Justice Department, Agriculture
Department, and the Department of Health, Fducation, and
Welfare, since these agencies have the responsibility for
administering the health, quarantine and immigration laws
involved in the facilitation of border crossings by aircraft^
In fact, it is upon these agencies, together with the Treasury
Department, that the Air Coordinating Committee must largely
depend for the success of its facilitation efforts^
The action agencies on the Facilitation S\?.bco.Timittee
have often been represented by subordinate personnel whose
effectiveness in advancing facilitation measures has been
disappointing. Recently, in an effort to stimulate the
facilitation progran, the Assistant to the President signed
a letter to the heads of agencies r-presented on the subcom-
mittee stressing that they should adopt and support aviation
facilitation as an important element in the United States
foreign economic program. If this letter is to have full
effect, the agencies involved must participate on the Facili-
tation Subcommittee with greater energy and devotion to its
puiposes than has been the case to datee
C-31
-------
-36=
The other subcommittees and standing working groups of the
Economic Division need to be reviewed by the reconstituted
Economic and Resources Division vith s view to reappraising
the need for each and assuring th?t e?ch h?s the status gnd
terms of reference required to best perform its functions,,
In addition to the Subcommittee on Facilitation of
International Civil Aviation discussed under the preceeding
recommendation, the Economic Division contains a Subcommittee
on Intern?tional Aviation Facilities and a Subcormittee on
Aviation Information and StstisticSo The first of these sub*
committees is charged with a mixture of technical and eco-
nomic problems* No conclusion has been drawn as to the
appropriateness of retaining this subcommittee under the
proposed Economic and Resources Division,, This decision
should be made at such time as the new division is estab-
lished and the scope of its responsibilities considered.
The Aviation Information and Statistics Subcommittee is
relatively inactive, but its field of responsibility is
sufficient to appear to justify a continuing standing group
in this area0
The Fconqmic Division slco has six standing working
groups concerned with the economics of air naviagetion facili-
ties, international airmail, multilateral agreements, taxationff
Insuroice requirements, and the Council of Europe„ Several of
these groups are active on a more or less continuing basis
and would seem to warrant the strtus of subcommittees under
the proposed Economic and Resources Division,, Certainly,
each shovld be carefully analyzed in terms of the status
which it should have after the reorganization,,
The Legal Division has, on the whole, performed its functions
well but a chairman should be chosen as soon as practicable,,^
Of late, the principal functions of the Legal Division
have involved the drafting and revision of international
conventions involving intricate legal considerationso Most
recently, the division has developed a United States position
on a proposed aerial collisions convention„ Some of the work
performed by the division is not of its own choosing but,
instead, originates from the insistence of the ICAO Legal
Committee on taking under consideration certain legal questions
which members of the Legal Division regard as having little
practical significance. Since the United States is a member
of ICAOp it is bound to participate in its deliberations,
and the Legal Division has no choice but to develop positions
which will protect the United States to the greatest extent
possible,,
C-32
-------
-37-
As has already been indicated in the discussion of the
Air Coordinating Committee's functions with respect to the
development of legislation, the Legal Division has lagged
in the preparation of drafts for such necessary legislation
as that implementing the Mortgage Convention,
It is believed that the effectiveness of the Legal
Division in planning its programs and disposing of its
potential workload would be aided by the selection of a
chairman. In the past, the member from the Civil Aeronau-
tics Board has been chairman but after the resignation from
the division of the last incumbent, the meetings have been
chaired on an ad hoc basis. The uncertainty as to who should
serve as the officially recognized chairman of the division
should be promptly resolved,
10, The ICAO Section of the Legal Division should be abolished,
The Legal Division officially contains an ICAO section.
This group has held no meetings for about four years and has
been replaced by working groups specifically established to
deal with international legal problems. No practical pur-
pose is served by retention of the section,
lie The Technical Division has been one of the most successful
and highly regarded of the components of the Air Coordinating
Committee, but it co-.'.ld serve more effectively in. the future
if all the members were of.the standing in their agencies
warranted'by the major technical problems coming before the
Division, ;
Almost without exception, agency personnel who have
served on or worked closely with the Technical Division
regard it as a highly successful component serving a wide
variety of useful coordinative functions for the member
agencies, Vhile it is true that experience with interagency
committees has generally shown that they are more effective
in dealing with specific technical questions than with pro-
blems of economic policy, the reputation of the division
is a distinct asset to the Air Coordinating Committee,
The effectiveness of the Technical Division is some-
what hampered by the fact that not all of the agency members
have a standing within their agencies which permits them to
speak with authority in the division. Some agencies do have
as their representatives the chiefs or directors of major
bureaus, but others could profit by designating principal
C-33
-------
-38-
members on the division of more comparable status,, Some of
the lower-ranking members could be retained in a constructive
relationship vith the division by being placed on an alter-
nate strtuso It is difficult to avoid drawing comp? risons
between the representation of some of the agencies serving
on the Technical Division and the persons seat b- the same
agencies to the Airport Use Panel,,
12o The subcommittee structure of the Technical Division should
be thoroughly reexamined vith a view to clarifying functions
gnd adjusting terms of reference to current needs.
I'hen the Technic?! Division was established in 19U6, it
assumed responsibility for a subcommittee structure rather
faithfully patterned after the divisions of the ICAO Air
Navigation Commission, Such a subcommittee structure was
valuable at the tine because it permitted the Air Coordi-
nating Committee to work with ICAO annexes vithin a frame-
. work built around the then overwhelmingly predominant ICAO
activity. Vith the decline in the relative Importance of
ICAO activities and with the changes in emphasis vhich have
occurred in the aviation field in the past eight years, the
Technical Division subcommittee structure, while still func-
tioning with reasonable effectiveness, has begun to show
signs of inadequacy. In some cases, the functions of the
subcommittees have been recently restudied and their terms
of reference modified. The constructive steps taken in
past months to rescue the Search and Rescue Subcommittee
from its previous doldrums and to induce it to undertake
• the long-delayed task of developing a national search and
rescue plan is particularly commendablee The Air Space
Subcommittee has likewise received relatively close
scrutiny, and has undergone adjustments to enable it to
keep pace with an extraordinarily heavy workload.
There is some demand for reducing the number of Tech-
nical Division subcommittees on general principles, but for
the reasons indicated in the introduction of this section,
this approach is not recommended. There is every reason to
believe that some consolidations, such as a merging of the
Aeronautical Taps and Charts Subcommittee with the Aero-
nautical Information Services Subcommittee, are practicable.
Additional consolidations should await positive evidence
that an increase in the rscope of responsibility of a com-
mittee would not place before it such a '.vide rrnde of pro-
blems as to make it difficult or impossible to find members
technically qualified to understand and resolve them.
C-34
-------
-39-
Another facet of the review of the subcommittee struc-
ture should be directed tovard the ICAO sections attached
to several of the subcommittees. The decrease in.the burden
of ICAO problems being considered by some of the subcommittees
may have rendered their ICAO sections obsolete. Moreover, it
is possible that the vitality of a subcommittee rnd its con-
trol of work being performed under it would be enhanced by
use of ad hoc working groups instead of ICAO sections.
13* The relationships between the Air Traffic Control and Navi-
gation Panel and the subcommittees of the Technical Division
concerned with the common system should be reviewed and
adjusted to conform to crnyent-needs.
As indicated above, the subcommittee structure of the
Technical Division and the terns of reference of m?ny sub-
committee? hrve undergone relatively little change since 19U6.
The Mr Traffic Control and Navigation Danel (NAV-Panel) did
not appear on the scene until 19UG, when it was established
under the Technical Division,
The largely technical character of the NAV Panel
justifies its status as a component of the Technical Divi-
sion. The intimate interrelationships between the Panel's
work and that of several of the Technical Division's sub-
committees also support its present location. However, the
superimppsition of the NAV Panel upon a previously existing
subcommittee structure has created overlappings of fields
of activity and confusion of responsibility. The demand
for adjustments aimed at minimizing this overlapping and
uncertainty is strong among the representatives of several
of the agencies.
At present^ there are a number of approaches which
could be taken in attacking this problem. The NAV Panel
could be abolished and its functions assumed by the sub-
committees and the Technical Division. However, the need
for a single unit directly concerned with all aspects of
the common system is so great that this alternative is not
recommended. Another choice is to place certain of the sub-
committees most concerned with the common system directly
under the NAV Panel, but such a step would add another layer
to the Technical Division hierarchy and is of dubious merit.
The most promising approach a;:pe?rs to be a revision of the
terms of reference of the subcommittees to clarify relation-
ships with the NAV Panel and implement an agreed-upon dis-
tribution of responsibility.
C-35
-------
-Uo-
1U. The relationships between the Air Traffic Control and Navi-
gation Panel and the Radio Technical Co'firaission for Aero-
nputics have become coifused and should be clarified by
the Air Coordinating Cornmittee,
The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics was
organized in 1935 through the initiative of the Department
of Commerce and is now a nonprofit cooperative association
composed of Federal agencies concerned with aviation com-
munications rnd industrial organizations with a similar
interest. The Executive Committee consists of representatives
of eight Federal agencies and seven industrial organizations.
The Assembly has about ninety private firms and associations
and eight Federal agencies in its membership,
The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics has-
provided a means of bringing to bear the knowledge and advice
of experts from both industry1 end the Goverament on matters
relating to radio aids to air navigation, communication, ?nd
traffic control. It has conducted a number of studies of the
"state of the art" in its field of interest. Recently, it
was asked by the Air Coordinating Committee to make a study
of the problems associated with the measurement of altitude,
In 19U7, the Air Coordinating Committee requested the
RTCA to undertake a study of the airway problems which were
handicapping the development of postwar civil aviation,
RTCA established Special Committee 31 of which, after thorough
study, recommended the establishment of a single all-weather
traffic control system. The report further proposed the
creation of a permanent Air Traffic Control and Steering
Committee to assure continuity in the implementation of the
common all-we?ther system. The present Air Traffic Control
?>nd Navigation Panel was established to implement the report
and was placed under the Air Coordinating Committee,
The fact that industry has full membership and a vote in
RTCA inclines some of the non-governmental participants to
prefer it over the Air Traffic Control ?nd Navigation,./.
Panel (MAV Panel), as a forum in which to take up matters
affecting 'the common system. On June 8, 195U> with the
affirmative vote of the Government members, RTCA established
a Steering Committee on a permanent basis to redefine the
requirements of the common system. This development has
brought into the fore the issue of NA^ ^enel-RTCA relation-
ships« There is now a risk of friction between elements of
the two groups, and the latent uncert?inty as to the role
of each hps been accentuated. This awkward situation cnn,
C-36
-------
-la-
in large measure., be remedied by the initiative of the Mr
Coorinating Committee whose members also play a decisive
role in RTC/,
This report cannot spell out in detail the division
of responsibility which would produce the most satisfactory
cooperation between the RTCA and the ACC. Certain factors
do exist which should be considered,
In the first place, the RTCA has demonstrated its value
for "state of the art" studies. The extensive and active
representation of the industry, including manufacturers of
equipment, m?kes it possible to focus the best expert attention
available on the solution of problems studied by the Commission.
Since members of the special committees often work more in an
individual capecity thai as organizational representatives,
.and since decisions are by majority vote, it is often possible
to come up with recommendations of ?n imaginative and far-
reaching character which are not watered down by compromises
and the predilections of organizations.
On the other hand, RTCA is not a Government agency and,
in spite of an overlap in membership, it is not a part of
the ACC compleXo The NAV.Panel is the appropriate mechanism
to achieve coordination among Government agencies and this
fact should not be obscured bv the way in which ACC members
take part in RTCA. The determination of performance and
operational requirements.for the common system, and the
continuing coordination of implementation of that sjrstem,
. should be lodged and retained in the Air Coordinating Committee*
15. The revised terms of reference being adopted for the Airport
Use Panel can add significantly to the value and effective-
ness of that component'pnd shouldy therefore, be conscien-
tiously implemented.
The Air Coordinating Committee has in recent v;eeks had
under consideration a f^r-reaching revision of the terms of
reference of the Airport Use Panel, This group, which
coordinates the plans of Federal agencies for the utilization
of airports, had suffered from an unsatisfactory chairmanship
arrangement, hnd often been unable to take up a case until a
major conflict had developed, had been compelled to hold
frequent public hearings, and had lacked clear provisions
for industry participation.
C-37
-------
-U2-
The new terms of reference replace the earlier rion-
Government chairman with a chairman designated by the Depart-
ment of Commerce from among its full-time employees. They
also provide .for a separate non-Government advisory committee
to consist of industry representatives, which group will
periodically meet with the Airport Use Panel. Both these
provisions have been approved and are being implemented.
The third major objective of the revised terms of
reference is to assure that the plans of the various agencies
which may significantly affect the use of an airport i
are brought before the panel for coordinption before pre-
sentation to the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress. The
purpose is. to he?d off possible conflicts between uses before
they become public, politically-charged controversies. Diffi-
culty was encountered ,in arriving at language which would
effectuate this objective without delaying the programs of
the airport construction or using agencies, but a compromise
version was approved by informal action of ACC on October 5f
195U.
The work of the Airport Use Panel is often closely
related to that of the Air Space Subcommittee. Sometimes
it is difficult to decide whether or not a particular
problem is chiefly one of air space or airport use. For
this reason, the two groups and their secretaries should
exercise care to minimize conflicts or duplication of effort
arising out of the natural relationships between their fields
of activity.
C« Industry Particip?tion
One of the unusual features of the Air Coordinating Committee
is the extent to which representatives of the aviation industry
take part in the deliberations leading to Committee action. This
participation by interested persons from outside the Government
has variously been a source of concern or satisfaction, depending
upon the component involved or the role played by the industry
representatives.
After study of the manner and effects of industry parti-
pation in the work of several components, it must be concluded
that the results have on the whole been beneficial to the work
of the ACC. Yet, there are dissatisfactions with the present
st?te of affairs, and considerable in the way of improvement in
ACC-industry rel?tionships is needed.
-------
-U3-
1, The present confusion in the relationships between industry
and the Air Coordinating Comnittee needs to be clarlfied
along lines understood bv both the Federal and industry
participants.
The role of industry in ACC components such as the
Search and Rescue Subcommittee and the Airport Use Panel
has lately been studied in connection with revisions of
their terms of reference, and has been clarified for these
individual units. Other components have evolved more or
less firm ground rules for working with industry repre-
sentatives. Yet many Federal members, industry repre-
sentatives, and component chairmen do not fullv understand
the status which should be accorded the industry in ACC
work«
The practices within; ACC with respect to industry
participation have thus come to vary widely, partly because
they have been determined on a component-by-component basis
and partly because of the lack of firm guidelines for in-
dividual chairmen,, The Economic Division, for example,
only occasionally invites industry representatives to its
meetingSo The Technical Division's meetings are regularly
attended by industry representatives, end executive sessions
of the Federal members are rarely held,. The Air Traffic
Control and Navigation Panel has accorded industry repre-
sentatives non-voting membership, including the right to
make and amend motions. Several Technical Division sub-
committees have either formally or as a matter of custom
conferred on industry representatives a status approaching
that found on the WAV Panel. The Airport Use Panel has
recently decided to establish an advisory committee of non-
Federal composition which will from time to time meet with
the Panel. Top ACC often invites industry observers, but
it also meets without industry representatives being
present. It is also clear from the conduct of meetings of
Top ACC that industry representatives do not h?ve an offi-
cial standing.
There is no question but that some variation in the
nature and e>~tent of industry participation is warranted by
the differences in the functions ?nd subject matter of the
various components. Yet insofar as practicable, general
rules should be established for the entire Air Coordinating
Committee. Such general rules, when combined with specific,
written supplementary provisions for the individual com-
ponents, should dispel existing uncertainties and make it
C-39
-------
-Ill*-
possible for chairmen to preserve correct relationships with
8 minimum of awkwardness. The guides established should take
into account the other recommendations on industry partici-
pation set forth below.
2* Only representatives of Federal agencies should vote in
the /ir Coordinating Committee or its components,
According to the o'Jflcial tei'ros^of reference, only^
representatives of Federal members:may vote in ACC or its
components. This is a natural corollary of the status of
the Committee as a coordina'tive'device for Federal executive
agenciesfl In the pest, various elements of the industry have
sought the right to vote, but such industry groups as the Air
Transport Association no longer seek voting status for non-
Federal participants* Some industry organizations are still
pressing for voting memberships, but their positions cannot
be accepted by the Mr Coordinating .Committee without doing
violence to its position as ?n interagency committee,
It is important that component chaimen ?nd members
fully recognize that the industry does not h?ve p vote. In
some components, industry members do appear to vote arid, in
others, their dissent has the automatic effect of forcing
the matter to ? higher echelon — the equivalent of a vote.
Unless a Federal agency can be convinced that a case made by
the industry is such that it should be taken to a higher
component, industry objections should not prevent the action
of a subcommittee, panel, or division from having the s?me
. force and effect which it would have had in the absence of
industry protests.
3» Whenever the public interest will be pdv?nced thereby,
industry representatives should be afforded an opportunity
to present their views and to t?ke part in the discussion
of matters under consideration,
The industry includes user and manufacturing groups
which have a detailed understanding of many of the effects
of decisions of the Air Coordinating Committee. By being
present during the discussion of items, especially those
of a technical character, the industry represent?tives can
often present facts end evaluate the significance of pro-
posals in n manner which greatly nids the component in
reaching sound decisions.
i-Jhen granted the right to participate, the industry
representatives should do so with a recognition that the
Federal members are responsible for decisions and that
C-40
-------
-us-
the component may have e heavy workload. Brevity to the
extent consistent v'ith the presentation of essential facts
should be observed by industry participants. Moreover, when
industry participation will not make P significant contri-
bution to the work of a component, it should be curtailed,
U, Components having industry representation on a regular
basis should be more willing to utilize executive sessions.
One difficulty which has arisen in divisions, panels,
and subcommittees in which industry personnel serve on a
regular basis is the tendency to discontinue executive
sessions limited to Federal representatives. Chairmen
either forget that such a device is available, or they and
the Federal members become reluctant to use it for fear of
giving offense to industry representatives. Yet there are
few, if any, of the components of ACC which do not take up
at least occasionally matters which can best be discussed
or decided by the Federal members alone.
It may help to have the availability of the executive
session stressed by the general and component ground rules
recommended in this report. It may also be desirable to
require that all subcommittees, panels, and divisions hold
an executive session prior to adjournment of each meeting.
It may happen that nothing will remain to be taken up in
the executive session, but the opportunity to use it will
at least exist in fact on a basis which will minimize
embarrassment to all concerned.
Executive sessions should also be used whenever a matter
is to be voted upon if the chairman of the component believes
an executive session to be desirable, or any member requests
one,
5. The right to place an item on the agenda of the Air Coordi-
nating Committee or one of its components should be confined
to the representatives of the Federal agencies,
Since the Air Coordinating Committee exists to coordinate
the activities of Federal agencies, only the voting members
should have the right to place an item on the agenda of a
component. If an industry group has an item which it would
like to see considered, it should approach the most directly
concerned Federal agency and suggest that the matter be taken
up in the ACC,
C-41
-------
6, The Air Coordinating Committee should not consider matters
which are, in effect, appeals of the industry from a
decision made by a member agency under its legal authority.
Once an aviation agency exercises a responsibility
vested in it by law, it nay disturb or arouse the opposition
of some effected private person, company, or industry group«
The natural recourse of any affected party is to the responsi-
ble agency, but occasionally an appeal is directed to the Air
Coordinating Committee.
Of course, an act or decision by an agency and adverse
reactions by affected parties may involve some broader pro-
blem which can appropriately be taken up by the Air Coordi-
nating Committee. An example is provided by a letter which
the Overseas National Mrvays sent on July 15, 195U, to the
Chairman of the Air Coordinating Committee. The letter
protested a decision of the Civil Aeronautics Board relating
to the application of the tariff provisions of the Civil
Aeronautics Act to irregular air carriers conducting charter
and contract services for the Government. The letter was
referred to the Economic Division for study, but upon
objection by the Civil Aeronautics Board the study was
abandoned, as was proper. There is, however, the problem
of achieving some reconciliation between the regulation of
tariffs and competitive bidding in Government chartering
of aircraft. This problem, in which the "part U5" operators
are deeply involved, is one of the many wich need study and
resolution by the proposed Economic and Resources Division
• and the Air Coordinating Committee. This problem could be
placed before the Committee by any of several agencies with-
out invading the st?tutory powers of the Civil Aeronautics
Board,
7, The Chairman of each Air Coordinating Committee component
should be responsible for enforcing the ground rules govern-
ing industry participation,
It will do little good to develop ground rules pro-
viding for orderly and constructive industry participation
if they are not observed in the actual meetings of the
components. The chairman must be looked to, and understand
his responsibility for,holding discussion within proper
bounds, for excusing non-Federal participants when appro-
priate, for safeguarding the right of Federal members to
vote in executive session, and for seeing to it that an
executive session takes place at the conclusion of each
meeting. The present situation in which the Federal
C-42
-------
-U7-
members of some components h?ve never had an opportunity
to discuss a matter by themselves will be ended only by
tactful but firm administration of approved ground rules
by those presiding over meetings,.
Do The Secretariat of the Air Coordinating Committee
1» The full-tine, independent secretariat of the Air Coordi-
nating Conmittee is one of its most valuable assets ?nd
should be retained,
The independent, full-time secretariat has without
question contributed much to the effectiveness of the Air
Coordinating Coi.unittee. Although officials of the parti-
cipating agencies have raised questions about certain
aspects of the operation of the secretariat, they none-
theless regard it as an essential feature of the Committee
end, on the whole, have a high regard for its efficiency.
2. The usefulness of the secretarjpt depends largely upon its
independence^ from domination by any member agency, and
every possible precaution should be taken to prevent such
domination either in fact or in appearance,
The secretariat of the Air Coordinating Committee
occupies space in the Commerce Department Building and also
receives certain administrative services (position classi-
fication, accounting, procurement, duplication, etc.) from
the Department,' In most respects, however, the secretariat
is an independent unit subject to the direction of the
entire Conmittee,
In spite of the substantial independence of the secre-
tariat, there are many persons in the member agencies who
feel that it is beholden to the Department of Commerce and
inclined to take its point of view. Much of this sentiment
can be traced to the preparation of the Civil Air Policy
Report, when difficulties arose over the function of the
secretariat in receiving and editing papers developed by
working groups and approved by the divisions. However, the
very proximity of the secretariat to the Commerce Department,
together with the fact that the Chairman of the Committee is
from that Department, encourages apprehensions as to the
secretariat's impartiality.
The survey revealed no evidence of a current bias
toward any agency. The establishment of the proposed
Management .and Steering Group will, however, provide an
C-43
-------
..US-
organizational safeguard against domination by any single
agency and should, therefore, help protect the secretariat
from future suspicions on this score,, Naturally, each
member of the secretariat must do everything in his power
to serve all member agencies with equal fidelity, ?nd must
avoid actions which could be construed as partial.
3» The secretariat shoiild be alert and vigorous in all facili-
tative matters, but it should not take positions on sub-
stantive questions.
The readjustments occurring in the Air Coordinating
Committee as the result of a change in administration, the
appointment of a new executive secretary, and the preparation
of the Civil Air Policy Report have produced questions both
within the secretariat and the agencies as to the role which
the former should play0
There are two types of functions which are carried on by
the Air Coordinating Com"iittee; namely, substantive and
fpcilitstive. The first involves the evaluation of the merits
of items corning before the Committee and the re?ching of
decisions thereon. The second is concerned with the adminis-
trative support which enables the agencies to come together
and apply their knowledge and authority to the reaching of
substantive decisions.
The secretariat may have persons on it with technical
aviation backgrounds but, regardless of such factors, it
should avoid taking a position on any substantive question.
• Should the secretariat become a proponent of a long distance
aid or a system of user charges and seek to promote its
position, it would invade the responsibility of the members
of the AOC and lose their confidence. Some persons in the
member agencies are of the view that, in the preparation of
the Civil Air Policy Report, the secret?riat did go beyond
its facilitative role by pushing for the adoption of certain
papers in ? form opposed by the Special Liaison Group and
the working groups. However, there is substantial evidence
that the secretariat is now aware of the need to set limits
to its efforts to stimulate accomplishment.
The facilitative functions of the Air Coordinating
Committee are in large measure best performed through the
secretariat, and the secretariat really exists only as a
fscilitative agency. Facilitative functions inelude pre-
paring agendas, notifying members of meetings, taking notes
of meetings, preparing minutes, duplicating and circulating
documents, advising interested persons of the decisions of
C-44
-------
-U9-
the Committee, maintaining files and records, recommending
and calling attention to schedules and deadlines, referring
items to the proper component, and all related operations.
The actual drafting of papers to reflect decisions of a
component, assistance to chairmen in making components func-
tion smoothly, helping draft and revise terms of reference,
preparing progress reports, and maintaining continuous
liaison with agency representatives, are also facilitative
functions,, All these activities, plus any others which
help the Committee to reach substantive decisions without
seeking to determine their content, are appropriate for a
secretariat. In fact, the more energetically the secre-
tariat acts in the facilitative area, the more valuable
it will be.
U« The secretariat of the Air Coordinating Committee is
generally adequate for its present functions..
The secretariat of the Air Coordinating Committee serves
the Top Committee, the divisions, the panels, and certain sub-
committees,, However, the facilitative support of most of the
subcommittees and working groups is provided by the member
agencies,, For this reason, the full-time secretariat is only
the exposed top of the facilitative iceberg, and the cost of
the Air Coordinating Committee is by no means fully reflected
in the three formal budgetse
The size of the full-time, independent secretariat and
the amount of money which will be required for its support
is dependent upon what the Air Coordinating Committee really
• wants done. If the higher components and some of the sub-
committees ere to be served by an independent secretariat,
the present staff will be required. If the Committee wishes
to reduce the central secretariat and its cost, it must
either arrange for a more limited type of service, or have
the agencies provide secretaries for more components. Such
a curtailment would not produce,a saving in the total cost
of the ACC. In fact, a retrenchment of this sort is of
doubtful desirability and is not recommended.
There are other functions which could be curtailed. The
drafting of papers in the Legal Division could be done by the
ngency members and their staffs, but the members do not favor
such s change. The services of the Documents Section could
be cut back by discontinuing the-writing of names of agency
personnel on routed documents, but this would then have to
be done by the Liaison Officers, The cartographic work of
C-45
-------
-50-
the Air Space Subcommittee could be moved to an agency, but
the present arrangement seems to be efficient and is satis-
factory to the members,
In short, no basis for recommending further curtailment
of the secretaript exists unless the agencies are willing to
agree on what services should be reduced or eliminated.
It would, thus, be best for the Air Coordinating Com-
mittee to review wh?t it wishes done and then be prepared
to divide the cost equitably among the participating agencies*
The proposed Management and Steering Group will make possible
a more .searching and systematic considerption of future ACC
budgets on behalf of the Committee than has heretofore been
practicable. It is the present lack of such a mechanism for
conducting general reviews of services and costs that is the
major deficiency of the Air Coordinating Committee in the
field of budgeting,
5, The authority and responsibilities of the Executive Secre-
tary should be redefined and made commensurFte with each
other,
The terms of reference adopted by the Air Coordinating
Committee assign certain functions to the Executive Secre-
tary. These terms of reference fall short of present needs
both in their omissions and their obscurity of language.
There is particular uncertainly as to the responsibilities
of the Executive Secretary over division secretaries and
other personnel of the central secretariat,
Since divisions, panels, and subcommittees are not
capable of exercising effective supervision over their
secretaries, and since economical management demands that
8 single person assign work smong secret?riat personnel,
it would be desirable to vest in the Executive Secretary
e more complete authority over the assignments and tenure
of the members of the secretariat than he now appears to
have. The Executive Secretary should, of course, exercise
such powers only after giving due consideration to the
needs and preferences of the components affe.ctede The
general personnel policies of the Executive Secretary
should also be reviewed from time to time by the Management
and Steering Group.
C-46
-------
APPENDIX D
Restatement of Objectives In Terms
of Work Plan by PEDC, July 1967
-------
APPENDIX: D
RESTATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES IN TERMS OF WORK
PLAN BY PEDC, JULY 1967
Source: U.S. Executive Office. Office of Science and Technology
(Executive Summary) Recommendations for Updating
and Improving the Federal Aircraft Noise Alleviation
Program. July 3, 1967, pp. 3-4.
C. Work Plan. A year of experience in implementing the program has pointed
up the need for re-emphasizing certain aspects of the program and re-
orienting others. The following work plan is proposed:
1. Early adoption of national noise measurement standards and
criteria for evaluation of noise, and continuous research to
refine standards and criteria. Establishment, in due course, of
international agreements regarding noise standards.
2. Determination of the magnitude of the aircraft noise problem in
terms of noise exposure (which considers aircraft type, number
of operations, etc.), population density and land use.
3. Development and analysis of alternative solutions and selection
and implementation on a time-phased basis of appropriate technical,
operational, land use and other actions.
n. At least the following specific steps should be taken /it
the earliest practicable date:
(1) Establishment of flight paths and procedures for
minimum noise generation and exposure at those airports
where aircraft sound is considered "noise."
D-l
-------
(2) Establishment of feasible engine/airframe retrofit
programs using existing state-of-the-art technology to
reduce noise generation to the maximum practicable
extent.
(3) Modification and application of the FAAP, HUD Urban
Renewal Program, and other applicable Federal programs
to insure that Federal financial incentives are made
available to those communities which have developed
feasible compatible land use plans.
b. At least the following should be continuously pursued and
implemented as appropriate:
(1) Analysis and establishment of noise certification
requirements.
(2) Establishment of research, development and study programs
to formulate alternative solutions; development of cost-
effectiveness and other rationale for ranking alternative
solutions; and consideration of over-all planning,
technology, socio-government and systems analysis aspects.
4. Development of cost allocation rationale and appropriate Federal
financial assistance.
5. Encouragement of aircraft noise abatement comnunication and public
information programs.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
Excerpt from Summary Status Report.
Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Program
-------
APPENDIX E
EXCERPT FROM SUMMARY STATUS REPORT, FEDERAL
AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
III. SUMMARY STATUS
This section summarizes the status, as of April 1, 1968, of efforts
being pursued in response to the recommendations of the March 1966
Office of Science and Technology Report entitled "Alleviation of
Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports."
t
Recommendations 1 and 2: Analysis of the Aircraft Noise Problem
and Formulation of Appropriate Alleviation Programs and Guidance
The objective of work pursued in response to these recommenda-
tions is to improve the capabilities of noise affected communities
in the vicinity of airports to more effectively cope with their
respective aircraft noise problems.
Initial studies required for an analysis of the noise problems at
John F. Kennedy, 0'Hare, and Los Angeles airports have been com-
pleted. ^ An analysis of land use information for the Noise Expo-
sure Forecast areas (NEF's)^, in the environs of the three airports,
currently provides the most reliable definition of the magnitude of
the noise exposure problem that may .be expected at these airports
in the future, these analyses have also helped in designing further
studies needed to identify effective techniques for land use change
and control in the vicinity of the airport.
Land use analyses have shown that in the vicinity of JFK, the 30
N.E.F .contour- fbt 1965. bounds an. area of '80 square miles, in which-
approximately 665,000 people already reside; by 1975, the
1. 1965, 1970, and 1975 Noise Exposure Forecast Areas for Chicago,
Los Angeles, and New York International Airports, FAA Reports
DS-67-10 through DS-67-17, August 1967.
2. An NEF area is one which is enclosed by a contour of constant NEF
value which represents a measure of the noise level of combined
aircraft operations and the subjective response thereto.
E-l
-------
JO NKF contour is likely to expand to an area of 121 square miles,
which will include more than 1,500,000 people in homes, and over
100 schools. similar noise exposure conditions exist in Chicago,
and Los Angeles, although there are definite differences in the
degrees of severity o-f noise exposure in those two cities as well
as differences in the options available in each area for alleviat-
ing or preventing noise exposure problems through land use planning.
Estimates of land use study areas set forth by FAA before the
development of wEF's proved to be too- small for URD and LAX.
Accordingly, work to enlarge original land use studies at these
two airport areas, in order to ensure congruence of the NUF's and
land use information for the second phase of analyses, has been
undertaken.
An additional twentyvnine airpdrts have been selected for the
second phase. The selection includes a proportionate share of
general aviation and..small, medium, and large commercial airports,
and locations where remedial, preventative, or a combination.of
these two actions appear most appropriate. The NEF's will be
developed by a computer program which will be written to allow
trade-off studies to be accomplished to determine the maximum
noise reduction practicable at any given airport. The program
will subsequently be used by the FAA to develop NEF's for all jet
airports in the Nation.
At each airport studied, legal powers of the airport owner and
the community to achieve land use compatability, through both
remedial and preventative means, will be abstracted and analyzed.
Program efforts are directed to developing and implementing both
preventive and remedial programs to achieve use compatability.
Preventive programs will be developed to enable Federal, state,
and local units of government to act expeditiously to keep
appropriate areas, surrounding existing, and proposed airports free
from incompatible uses in the immediate, as well as the long-
range future.
In furtherance of the related objectives of Recommendation 2 of
the original Intcragency Program, a program of study and research
is being implemented to evaluate the actual efforts of specific
localities to abate aircraft noise, and to translate planning and
land development programs into effective actions to achieve more
compatible land usage in present or potential noise exposure areas,
These studies will enable the program to develop and demonstrate
procedures and to. issue land use planning guidelines with which
other localities may achieve both preventive and remedial relief
from aircraft noise exposure.
-------
Recommendation 3; Cost Allocation
In view of the likelihood that any effective program for coping
with the jet aircraft noise problem may involve the expenditure of
public and private funds, the question of how such additional costs
are to be allocated among producers of aircraft, aircraft and air-
port operators, and users of commercial aircraft and others needed
to be resolved. Accordingly, the FAA prepared a study of applicable
economic relationships, and of the public policy issues which should
be formulated to provide needed cost allocation rationale.^ The
study was based in part, on two analytical reports prepared espe-
cially for the FAA.
These reports were not designed to respond completely to the
requirements for a detailed cost allocation study, however, and
only the FAA report contains a complete response. Conclusions of
the FAA report are as follows:
1. Definite recommendations on funding and charging for new
action programs must await the findings of study efforts now
underway to determine the magnitude of the noise problem in
individual metropolitan areas and the likely costs and effec-
tiveness of the various ways to alleviate noise.
2. Federal Government financial assistance to local governments
will probably be needed to ensure effective program implementa-
tion. Financial assistance to the aviation industry will
apparently not be necessary.
3. The most appropriate form of financial assistance to local
governments would be direct loans for which interest would be
charged.
4. A grant program to local governments may be needed instead of,
or in addition to, a loan program to ensure effective nation-
wide efforts to deal with noise.
1. "Allocating the Costs of New Programs to Alleviate Aircraft Noise
Near Airports," FAA Office of Policy Development, February 1967
5. "Allocating the Costs of Alleviating Subsonic Jet Aircraft
Noise;" Paul K. Dygert, University of California (Berkeley); February
1967; "Air Traffic Grow.th, Airline Finances, and Public Benefits in
Relations to the cost of New Programs to Alleviate Jet Aircraft Noise
Near Airports; SARC; FAA Report 67/WA-1656, January 1967
E-3
-------
5. Net costs of any assistance by the Federal Government whether
loans or grants, should be recovered from the aviation industry—
in effect, from the air travellers and shippers. Such cost
imposition would, not significantly retard the growth of civil
aviation.
6. Assignment of cost responsibility for noise alleviation to
airport.traffic users is called for in the interests of an
economically efficient allocation of the nation's resources.
Indirect economic and national defense benefits of air
transportation to the general public do not justify use of
general tax revenues without recovery to pay the cost of noise
alleviation.
7. Airport noise is a problem of conflict between residents near
airports and the aviation industry.. The important subject of
• equity in this problem must be faced first in•program defini- • •
tion. Balancing the conflicting interest must be achieved when
action programs are chosen.
Recommendation 4: Moise Measuring Methods and Evaluation Techniques
NASA and FAA are working toward the development of physical, psycho-
acoustic, sociological, and other research results needed to provide
the basis for quantitative noise, evaluation techniques and standards
which can be used by the FAA, airport and aircraft operators, and
aircraft/engine manufacturers.
The FAA has proposed that aircraft certification regulations be
expanded to include noise as well as safety, and legislation is
now pending in the congress which would enable the promulgation
and enforcement of such regulations. For the purpose of further
defining proposed noise certification regulations, the FAA is
presently formulating, in cooperation with industry and professional
organizations and representatives of interested foreign countries,
acceptable definitions, noise standards, and measurement and analysis
methods.
The aircraft noise certification scheme proposed by the FAA consists
of the following major elements:
1. Unit of Measurement
That the measurement quantity for the purpose of describing
applicable noise levels be effective Perceived Noise Level
(EPNL) in units of EPNdB.
E-4
-------
2 . Location of Measurement Points
That aircraft should not exceed applicable noise levels at
specific sideline, takeoff, and approach locations.
3. Absolute Noise Levels
That noise levels should vary with the aircraft by a defined
reference to the following levels for a 300,000 Ib. gross weight
aircraft: 108 EPNdB at the approach and sideline, and 103
EPNdB at the takeoff measurement locations.
^. Climb Gradient and Power Reduction
That the takeoff climb gradient beyond a point of 3.5 nautical
miles from the start of takeoff roll should be at least 6%, IE
required for compliance with the level established, a power
reduction may be employed, but not until the aircraft has
attained at least 1,000 ft. altitude.
5 . Tolerances
That the specified levels may be exceeded at one or two points,
provided that:
a. The total excess is not greater than 3 EPNdB;
b. The excess at any single point is not greater than
2 EpNdB; and
c. The total excess if offset by at least a corresponding
reduction at the other points.
6 . Variation with Distance Beyond the Measuring .Point
That noise levels must be progressively less as the outward
distance from the measuring points established above increase.
for an initial limited period, these tradeoffs may be applied to
levels' of up to 3t;PNdH higher than the prescribed levels at each
point. If this tolerance is used, the aircraft must be modified to
comply with the prescribed levels within 3 years from the date of
issuance of the noise certificate unless the manufacturer can
satisfy the noise certification authority that it is impractical to
do so.
E - 5
-------
7. Aircraft and environmental Conditions for Measurement
That the test conditions required to show compliance with the
applicable levels will be corrected to the maximum takeoff weight
of the aircraft under specified conditions.
The FAA is coordinating the proposal with industry, and is
studying aircraft applicability and effectivity dates. The
proposed noise bill pending before Congress will provide for
retroactive application of the standards if found feasible.
The state-of-the-art in psychoacoustics and sociological measure-
ments as related to compatible land use and selection of criteria
for aircraft designers and operators is considered adequate to
support action programs in both areas now. The Effective Perceived
Noise Level (EPNL) concept consisting of the Perceived iNoise Level
(WIL), modified to account for tones, and'duration, as defined! in'.- •
ISC- R507 is now being used as the basic yardstick to develop noise
exposure forecast (wEF) contours around airports and as the criterion
the proposed scheme for aircraft noise certification. Interim
standards can be selected and used on the basis of both immediate
action and long-range planning. Future research will serve to
further validate and refine the EPNL concept and its relationship
to individual and community action. It has been assumed that by
requiring aircraft to meet specified noise levels at specified
locations under the most difficult conditions they will be improved
at all conditions. This is probably a reasonable assumption for an
interim requirement. However, to ensure minimizing total noise
exposure a careful study will be required of the relationship between
the noise exposures resulting from actual operations of the aircraft
and total community disturbance. The advisability of periodic
review and updating of the selected criterion does not negate the
fact that the data is adequate for immediate and positive action.
As for the development of domestic standards, methods of measure-
ment of aircraft noise and methods of evaluation of such measure-
ments with respect to human response are specified or are to be
specified in standards of the USA Standards Institute, having been
promulgated through the sectional committees under the Acoustical
Standards Board. In addition recommended procedures with regard
to measurement are formulated by Committee A-21 of the Society of
Automotive engineers. Such procedures can also be recommended as
USASI Standards, but up to the present time no standards have been
created by that means. Recently that A-21 Committee has also
been asked to assume initiating responsibility in the writing of
standards related to aircraft noise for USASI under Sectional
Committees S-3, bioacoustics and S-l, Physical Acoustics. Thus
far no draft standards have been put forward.
E-6
-------
In the case of international standards, efforts under TC 43 (Acoustics)
have resulted in the publication of ISO Recommendation R-507, "Proce-
dure for Describing Noise in the Vicinity of Airports." This document
describes measurement technique and a calculation procedure that yields
both levels and contours of perceived noise level for different kinds
and numbers of aircraft operations. Working Groups 12 and 13 of TC 43
are in the process of recommending 'amendments to R-507 that will permit
the calculation of a noise-exposure quantity that involves both duration
of individual events, number of events, and corrections for tonal com-
ponents. In addition, these working groups have refined R-507 with
respect to the analysis methods and will recommend it for vote by the
member nations in the future.* (It is of interest to note that the
procedures in the R-507 and the proposed amendments are essentially the
same as those proposed in the FAA Noise Certification Program.) The
work of these groups has been supported enthusiastically by such
international groups as the Conference on Disturbances from Aircraft
Noise that was held in Londonin 1966 and a portion of the Interagency
Aircraft Noise Abatement Program will be devoted to continued support
and participation in international standardization.
Research efforts cpncerned with the sociological noise assessment
aspect of the program include a NASA two-year contract with TRACOR, Inc.,
to study and assess community reaction to aircraft noise. Extensive
data is being collected around eight major airports chosen to represent
a cross section of the airports in the United States ranging in activity
from high density to moderate jet operations. In addition to collect-
ing social and attitudinal data, noise surveys are being made so that
the community noise exposure will be defined by actual neighborhood
noise measurements rather than by estimations based upon aircraft move-
merits and geographical locations. Comparisons are being made of the
different methods of noise assessment to' determine their correlation
with the socio-psychological data. Instrumentation has been developed
to collect data by automatic recording where appropriate. Instrument
design information and specifications are being developed to permit
future monitoring of airport noise with simple, reliable, automated
equipment for the purpose of ..making .further assessments..
In summary, substantial research effort has been devoted to human
response to aircraft noise. The work for the most part, conforms
closely with the intent of the original Aircraft Noise Alleviation
Program.. But beyond that, work has notably progressed or been
initiated on sociometric studies of noise and on aircraft noise certi-
fication. The state-of-the-art in psychoacoustics and related socio-
logical measurements is not complete but is believed to be more than
adequate to support aggressive action directed to the development of
noise certification procedures and to request regulatory action from
Congress. Additional work is being done on noise exposure forecast
procedures and measurement yardsticks to increase the confidence level
in their use as proper instruments for determining human response to
aircraft noise.
E-7
-------
Recommendation b; engine Noise Reduction
With the initial development of the program, NASA expanded the
scope of its existing broad based noise research programs in order
that priority attention could be given to obtaining an early solu-
tion to the fan noise problem. This effort was designed not only
to accelerate basic research on the fundamentals of noise generation
with application to advanced enginesj but also to provide informa-
tion for assessing research and development and direct and indirect
airline operating costs in terms of jfNdB levels of noise reduction.
The objectives and status of the major programs in which NASA is
currently, engaged are summarized below.
A. Nacelle Acoustic Treatment
•™™"""™ — —»^^—«— ~" - ••«^™^~™^MM o
Contracts have been negotiated with the Boeing Gomp'any .and ..the
•McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company to investigate means for
suppressing the fan-compressor whine of subsonic turbofan air-
planes with emphasis on noise alleviation during the landing
approach phase of flight operations. In each case, the work
consists first of analytical studies, model tests, and full-
scale ground tests (utilizing a JT3D engine) to identify promis-
ing modifications to the inlet and fan-discharge ducts of
typical nacelles. The initial research and development work
will be followed by flight tests of 707-320/DC-8 airplanes
powered by JT3D engines to confirm the initial study results
and to investigate performance, operational, and safety problems.
Economic factors will be studied throughout the program with a
goal of establishing retrofit, new installation, maintenance,
and direct operating costs associated with the nacelle modifica-
tions, together with benefits afforded by the modifications
through improved utilization flexibility.
contracts have been underway for over a year and both companies
have developed materials, design techniques, .and full-scale
ground rig models for application to attenuating fan radiated
noise from JT3D-3B engines.
cround test studies conducted by McDonnell-Douglas on acous-
tically treated inlets using sound absorptive liners and concen-
tric inlet rings has indicated that fan noise reductions of
about 12 pfldb are possible, similar results were experienced in
fan exit noise by using sound absorptive liners in the 1/3 length
fan discharge duct. The acoustic materials in these tests were
principally fiber metals. This treatment is quite flexible in
application, and should be able to be tailored to a wide variety
of engine inlet designs, studies of a "lightbulb" ccnterbody
10
E-8
-------
indicate noise reductions equivalent to that obtained with
concentric inlet rings, and tests with a full length fan dis-
charge duct configuration without any acoustic treatments have
resulted in a 2 - 4 PNdb reduction over that of an untreated
short duct design.
Boeing research on full length duct passages indicated a
possible noise reduction of 12 PNdb to 15 PNdb with acoustic
treatment. The acoustic material in these tests were principally
non-metallic fibers. In this regard, for present fan jet
engines, jet exit noise will become predominant when the inlet
noise is reduced by 10 PNdb to 12 PNdb.
These acoustic treatment data, obtained at landing approach
power conditions, are very promising, but further work is
required to determine effects of treatment on engine/aircraft
performance, weight and operating costs. The full scale nacelle
flight tests planned by both contractors should provide the
desired information.
Boeing research on a variable geometry 5-door inlet design which
can be used to choke the inlet flow has resulted in inlet noise
reductions of over 16 PNdb during landing approach power condi-
tions. However, the effect of inlet sonic choke operations on
engine safety,. performance, and life will be examined before
flight tests with inlet sonic choke devices are conducted.
Approximately 35 related aircraft 'noise research reports
received from Boeing and Douglas as specified in these contracts
will be listed in NASA's STAR and available in microfiche form
by early fall.
B. Properties of Fiber Metal
• '^Because of.- the good acoustic characteristics of'fiber .metals in
nacelle duct treatments, a series of studies of their physical
properties has been supported under contract to the tiuyck Metals
Company. Evaluation of such items as cleanability, freeze-thaw
cycling, salt-corrosion, water saturation, air oxidation, fuel
combustion, etc. are nearly completed.
In-house work is underway to document the static strength,
fatigue life and dynamical behavior of various densities of
fiber metal materials.
C. yuiet Engine Program
The objective of the quiet engine program is to provide an
integration of existing knowledge with the generation of new
11
E-9
-------
technology that will be incorporated in an experimental turbofan
engine to demonstrate noise reduction at the source. wAbA in-
house research on engine components to reduce noise at the source
has been underway for the past year, engine design studies and
noise estimates are being made by two contractors, Pratt and
whitney and Allison. The specified engine parameters include a
takeoff thrust of 20,000 - 25,000 pounds and a cruise thrust of
4900 pounds, with bypass ratio being examined through a range oC
3-8, fan pressure ratio through a range of 1.3 - 1.7, compressor
ratio of 15 - 30, and turbine inlet temperature of 1600 - 2100°p.
Low fan tip speed is inherent in the design philosophy of the
Quiet Engine, that is, 1000 feet per second or less. The Quiet
tingine program had as its initial objective a minimum noise reduc-
tion below present turbofan engines of at least 15 PNdb during
takeoff, and 20 PNdb during landing approach conditions.
Preliminary results of the Quiet tingine studies, when compared
with the JT3D engine, indicate that fan noise on takeoff and
approach could be reduced by up to 19 PNdb and 15 PNdb respec-
tively, while a jet noise reduction of up to 19 PNdb and 8 PNdb
on takeoff and approach were noted, when compared to the scaled
JT9u engine, fan noise could be reduced by up to 7 PNdb on takeoff
and approach, while jet noise reductions of 7 PNdb and 2 PNdb on
takeoff and approach respectively were noted.- The lower jet noise
floor of the Quiet tingine was considered significant since the
application of acoustic nacelle treatment could result in the jet
noise floor becoming the limiting factor affecting the optimum
overall noise suppression of high bypass ratio engines. Cruise
bFC improvement of the Quiet engine over the scaled JT9U of up to
5 percent was also noted.
The problems of integrating a quiet engine with! an airframe are
being studied by McDonnell-Douglas under contract to NASA.
Nacelle design, nacelle placement, structural loads, and aero-
dynamic interference are being studied, wind tunnel tests of
model airplanes w.ith model nacelles will be made. The economics
of a quiet engine will be studied.
Research on the noise characteristics of candidate fans for the
quiet engine is being planned. A facility for noise and perform-
ance tests of full-scale fans is now under construction at
Lewis Research center. A 72-inch single stage fan with a
pressure ratio of l.b is now under construction.
This fan will be tested in a nacelle with and without sound
absorbing treatment in the ducts.
Additional Can tests by engine manufacturers under contract to
are being considered for early initiation.
12
E-10
-------
sound absorption techniques applicable to high by-pass engines
are being investigated utilizing impedance tubes, small-scale
fans and a J-65 engine.
An effort is directed toward the use of ejectors as a means for
jet noise suppression. Cold air jets have oeen employed in tests
so far. Large-scale experiments using a J-65 engine are imminent.
It is concluded that the present state-of-the-art, represented by
the technology associated with the Jf9jj (Boeing 747 aircraft) and
UF6 engines (DC-10 aircraft), can provide a reduction of about
4 PNdB on takeoff and 6 PNdB on approach for uninstalled high
bypass ratio engines in the 20,000 pound class, with nacelle
treatment comparable to that of the JT3D nacelle program an
additional suppression of 3 PNdB at takeoff and 5 PNdB on approach
should be possible.making a total noise reduction on takeoff of
7 PNdB and 11 FNdB on approach. The "7-11" PNdtf reductions also
represent the state-of-the-art noise reduction expected by
acoustic treatment of current low bypass ratio fan engines.
L)» Inlet ijuide Vane Spacing and Aerodynamic uhoking
NASA in-house studies are in progress using a 12-inch diameter
three-stage transonic research compressor. Effects of inlet
guide vane thickness and turning angle are being evaluated.
Initial results indicate very large noise reductions are avail-
able from inlet guide vane choking and that variable geometry
vanes are needed for.practical application.
smaller but substantial noise reductions are available due to
adequate spacing between inlet guide vanes and rotor. Further
tests on an engine are planned to compare with laboratory results.
hi. Compressor Noise Prediction
v-'V A/method for predicting, the' noi.se radiation patterns and the
acoustic power level of an axial flow compressor from a know-
ledge of its geometry and operating conditions has been formulated
under a contract to wyle Laboratories. Application of this
method to the prediction of the noise fields of two compressors
for which the necessary data are available is planned as a
critical test of validity. • '
F. Jet Exhaust Noise
Basic jet exhaust noise studies are being supported at New York
University and at Syracuse University, emphasis is on the use of
additives to reduce shear gradients of subsonic jets and on the
suppression of supersonic jets.
13
E-ll
-------
G. Noise Generated by Flow Discontinuities in Ducts
Under contract to Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., studies are being
made of the noise generated by flow over appendages inside a jet
engine. Such sources may be very important regarding the generation
of broad band noise in high by-pass ratio engines and may dominate
the noise sources in the jet mixing region. The nature and behavior
of these sources and suitable methods of noise prediction are subjects
for continued studies,.
H. Helicopter Rotor Noise
Two studies are in progress at the Institute of Sound and Vibration
Research and at the Rochester Applied Science Associates, Inc. The
first of these relates to the "banging" phenomena and includes the
. . . definition .of .the physical-mechanism.of generatVon and a method of . : -.-..
predicting its levels. The second relates to the vortex shedding
noise of a rotor and is directed toward developing a vortex noise
prediction method.
I. Atmospheric Propagation
Measurements have been made in flight for the purpose of better
defining the atmospheric attenuation in the higher frequency bands
and in establishing the variability of noise measurements due to
atmospheric effects. Data reduction and analyses are being
accomplished under contract by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.
In addition to the NASA engine noise reduction programs discussed above,
the Federal Aviation Administration is also actively supporting research
and development programs designed to predict and reduce noise at the
source. Specifically, the FAA efforts are directed at:
1. determining the primary aircraft/engine performance variables
that cause or influence the generation or propagation of noise
and the development of prediction techniques;
2. developing guidelines for changes in normal aircraft/engine
equipment and components to control the generation or propagation
of noise; and
3. developing guidelines for special hardware to be installed in or
attached to the aircraft/engine as either original equipment or
retrofit to control the generation or propagation of noise.
The control of noise may take the form of over-all sound power reduction,
sound pressure reduction in the direction of maximum radiation, a shift
of noise to less annoying frequency bands, a changing of the tonal com-
bination to a less discordant quality, or a reduction in signal to noise
ratios.
E-12
-------
The FAA has completed, in-house or under contract, a number of
studies relating to the six major sources of gas turbine engine
noise: core exhaust stream, fan exhaust stream, compressor
blades, fan blades (inlet duct radiation) fan blades (fan
exhaust duct radiation, and turbine blades). Of particular
interest are two recently completed studies, and one currently
underway, which are summarized below.
A. study and Tests to Reduce Compressor Sounds-of Jet Aircraft
Specialized laboratory facilities were designed for study-
ing materials and techniques for reducing turbomachinery
noise by absorption and choked flow. Various configurations
of materials suitable for use on surfaces of engine ducts,
guide vanes, struts, and splitters were investigated for
sound absorption.
The effect of airflow on the reduction of sound was
studied with a two-dimensional choked flow facility con-
taining vanes simulating engine inlet ducts with guide
vanes. Final tests were conducted with a large scale com-
pressor having a weight flow of 475 pounds per second.
The important material properties of sound absorption
treatment have been identified and cataloged. Extensive
test data has been compiled to facilitate judgments of
component materials for optimized composite configurations.
Also, design curves have been developed for predicting the'
noise reduction through guide vanes that can be accomplished
by virtue of sound propagating against the direction of flow.
Normalized design curves have been developed for predicting
the effects of vane-blade number combinations on the sound
power generated by compressors and fans.
•:rne **/:> pounds 'per second compressor demonstrated, significant
noise reduction due to air flow through the inlet guide
vanes. Semi-empirical relationships between the compressor
noise generation and transmission and various engine
performance variable were established and a normalized
prediction technique developed.
B. Model Freon Compressor Acoustical Studies
The purpose of this study is to conduct aero-acoustic test-
ing of model compressors in a Freon-type atmosphere which
permits high Mach Number operation at a fraction of the
rotational speeds that would be required in an air atmosphere.
15
E-l 3
-------
Testing was conducted in Freon 12 on a model CF-700 fan which
has OGV's but no IGV's, and at top speed, transonic flow over
the entire rotor with a tip Mach Number of 1.24. Also, testing
was conducted in Freon 12 on a model TF-39 outer panel fan
which has both IGV's and OGV's., and at top speed, supersonic
flow over the entire rotor with a tip Mach Number of 1.35.
Wide range performance tests, from surge to choke, were con-
ducted on the model CF-700 fan in atmospheres of Argon-Freon 12,
Freon 23, Freon 12, and Freon C318. The purpose was to verify
and extend the acoustic scaling relationships.
Acoustic near-field tests with probes were conducted for the
purposes of correlation with acoustic far-field tests, detec-
tion of impending stall, and evaluation of stall patterns.
Special-.near and far-field tests were- conducted for the
purpose of correlation with full scale tests made on the
Convair 990 and Pan Am Falcon aircraft which contain large
scale versions of the test fan component.
C. Acoustic Far-Field Prediction Method for Coaxial Jet Flows
An acoustic far-field prediction method applicable to coaxial
jet flows is currently being developed for varied entrance
conditions. The flow parameters to be included will be area
ratio (secondary to primary), axial position of secondary
exit plane with respect to primary exit plane, ratio of
secondary to primary velocity, primary stream pressure ratio,
and ratio of secondary to primary stream total temperatures
for a given secondary total temperature. The range of these
parameters will correspond to that anticipated for near-future
aircraft engines.
An experimental model-scale program will be conducted in an
anechoic chamber to aid in the development of the method and
to establish confidence levels in the prediction procedure.
The measured flow profiles will be related to the acoustic
far-field characteristics in validation of the prediction
method.
The effect of non-zero flight velocities on the acoustic far-
field will be studied and alternative experimental facilities
and approaches to establish this effect will be evaluated.
Dii Fan and Compressor Noise Prediction
This program is presently under negotiation with contract
award scheduled in jfY 68. Its goals are the:
. Development of relationships which define fundamental
noise generating mechanisms.
16
E-14 '
-------
. Establishment of functional relationships and constants
between the various noise contributors.
. Verification of noise prediction technique.
I
. Noise reduction prediction and development.
. Noise measurements on large scale supersonic fan test vehicle.
. Experimental evaluation of fan noise reduction methods.
. Correlation and integration of experimental and theoretical data.
Recommendation 6: Landing Approach Procedures^
Studies are being conducted which involve changing landing approach
procedurestD minimize community noise problems, and of the potential
safety problems involved therein.
The FAA, in cooperation with NASA, has developed and is testing a two-
segment approach procedure which would have an aircraft approach the
airport at an altitude higher than is the practice today until it is
approximately three nautical miles from the end of the runway, at which
point it would assume a normal approach glide slope angle.
Funds have been released to provide for the procurement of four
engineering, models of a vertical flight path computer which will
provide the above noted capability to fly a two-segment noise abatement
approach under VFR conditions. An intensive evaluation of this equip-
ment will begin approximately July 1, 1968. The four computers are
programmed to be installed in the following FAA aircraft: B-727, B-720,
Lockheed Jetstar, and Beech Queen Air.
NASA has also been conducting.a separate series of tests over a period
of several year's" to explore operating problems associated, with the use
of steep approaches. Tests on a wide variety of aircraft have indicated
practical upper limits (roughly 6°) to the glide slope which could be
flown under simulated instrument flight conditions by research pilots
and have also indicated an area of research which must be further
pursued to provide safer and more accurate flight path control. This
area, known as Direct Lift Control (DLC), is a means of changing air-
craft position vertically along the flight path, whereas more conven-
tional flight control systems (elevator/stabilizer) rotate the aircraft
before any build-up in lift or vertical displacement is achieved.
Practical applications of direct lift control to aircraft to permit the
use of steeper approach paths are difficult to predict at this point in
the research program. DLC systems in one form or another will be
17
E-15
-------
required for aircraft in the size class of the "jumbo" jets and
the SST. Practical application of the results of NASA research
in noise is a matter which involves the economics of aircraft
operations, and until research has been completed and potential
gains weighed against costs answers will not be forthcoming.
Recommendation 7; Climb-Out Procedures
Another aspect of the program involves standardizing noise abate-
ment takeoff procedures which represent optimum techniques for
reducing noise exposure consistent with safe and reasonable opera-
tion of the aircraft. • '. .
A two-segment noise abatement takeoff profile has been developed
and implemented at Washington National Airport (WNA)."1 It consists
of an initial rapid climb to a specified altitutde or DME. fix, . . •
followed, by-a thrust reduction calculated to maintain a reasonable
positive climb gradient. Reduced thrust is maintained until the
aircraft is crossing.the ten mile DME fix at which time standard
enroute climb power can be used. This procedure is being used
for two and three engine air carrier aircraft as well as executive
jet aircraft.
The FAA is now engaged in developing, in cooperation with the
industry, a standardized noise abatement takeoff profile for
heavier, four engine aircraft. Additional technical problems need
to be considered. These involve the proper selection of an
altitude for initiation of a thrust reduction, and selection of
appropriate power settings after the thrust reduction.
The FAA has established a regulatory project which will permit the
standardization of climb-out procedures to be used at all airports,
and is currently circulating a proposed Advisory Circular which
recommends criteria to .be used in implementing a noise abatement
takeoff profile. It is anticipated that the Advisory circular
will be published in the near future.
There do not appear to be any constraints that will prohibit
implementation of this recommended program. Guidance from the
FAA's Air Traffic Service has been furnished to FAA Field Facilities
pointing put the necessity of implementing air traffic procedures
at noise sensitive airports that are designed to minimize noise
exposure by overflying the least densely populated areas. This
program is continuing in nature and there arc no constraints uther
than those associated with high density terminal operations that
may prohibit implementation.
L8
-------
It shoul.d be borne in mind that there are certain communities located
with respect to some airports that require overflights if aircraft are
to be operated safely into and out of the airports. Therefore, there
are limits to what can be accomplished in the operational area for
purposes of noise abatement.
Recommendation 8: Compatible Land Use
The objective of this phase of the program is to develop practicable
approaches to a coordinated Federal program for stimulating airport
community development in directions which would tend to anticipate or
ameliorate community aircraft noise, problems.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development organized a Task Force
to pursue this objective under the Chairmanship of the Assistant Secretary
for Metropolitan Development. Assignments were given to representatives
of the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, Health,
Education and Welfare, and HUD, as well as FAA, NASA, and the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board. These representatives reviewed and analyzed their
respective programs to determine the potential for assisting local
communities in achieving land use patterns more compatible with aircraft
noise.
Approximately 70 such programs were identified. Initial responses
indicated that the potential leverage of the existing program to affect
land development around airports was slight and at best were extremely
difficult to assess on a program-by-program basis. A March 22, 1967,
.memorandum from the President to heads of all Federal departments and
agencies directing that explicit account be taken of aircraft noise
whenever it is relevant to their various programs was a result of and
substantial assistance to the work of the Task Force.
j
The Task Force work also resulted in specific coordination arrangements
being established between-HUD and FAA at the regional office level for
notifying FAA of.projects proposed under the 701- Urban Planning Assist-
ance Program and the Open-Space Land Program administered by HUD. FAA
informs HUD whether there is an "airport interest" or "relationship"
concerning the proposed project. If so, HUD applicants and FAA field
staff are brought together to determine what action should be taken at
the local level. More recently, the Renewal Assistance Administration
of HUD issued a Local Public Agency Letter requiring closer coordination
with the FAA in the early stages of urban renewal project planning. The
letter establishes a positive procedure to assure that FAA is advised of
the initiation of local Community Renewal Program and the specific
planning and urban renewal projects and the preparation of General
Neighborhood Renewal Plans to permit such activities to take account of
airport operations and development plans.
19
E-1Y
-------
Current work of the Task Force is directed toward introducing or
strengthening requirements Cor taking appropriate account of air-
port noise in the processes of approving requests for Federal
assistance for community planning and for construction of specific
facilities. Drafts of revised program requirements have been
prepared. Under the FHA mortgage insurance programs, no new con-
struction is accepted for insurance if it is located in an area of
severe aircraft noise exposure as defined by FAA noise criteria.
Study is also being given to development of procedures to assure
that facilities assisted under the HUD Public Facilities Loan and
Grant Programs do not contribute to incompatible development in
severe noise areas. Comprehensive planning assistance programs
used by local and regional agencies to provide a basis for rational
and orderly community development are also being reviewed for the
incorporation of planning standards relating to aircraft noise.
The design, for-a Metropolitan, Aircraft. Nois.e .Abatement Policy.
Study is''based on land use information gathered pursuant to the
original OST Recommendation 2 in the vicinity of JFK, ORD, and LAX
airports, and is intended to reflect different types of aircraft
noise exposure problems and local planning and development oppor-
tunities to be considered. The study design includes three addi-
tional airport areas according to the classes of airport areas
recommended for further study by the PEDC subcommittee. These
airports represent a variety of airport growth, land use planning,
and community exposure conditions, and afford opportunities for
testing various methods of achieving preventive and remedial relief
from the problem of excessive aircraft noise in the environment.
The studies have been designed to take into account the substantial!)
different levels of opportunities for achieving land use compat-
ability near existing airports in built-up areas as distinct from
those areas not yet developed.
Additional Recommendation: Sound Insulation of Houses
A conclusion of the original Interagency Program recognized the
need for experiments in building technology to demonstrate 'and test
techniques for insulating housing in noise locations. This recom-
mendation reflected the statutory obligation of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to conduct studies of noise insula-
tion for the purpose of relieving property owners who have expe-
rienced economic loss and other hardship as a result of exposure
to excessive aircraft noise. It has been recognized that insulating
dwellings against the intrusion of aircraft noise may provide a
means of achieving at least partial compatability between residen-
tial development and airports in Locations exposed to high levels
of noise. The results of noise insulation studies prepared and
20
E-18
-------
scheduled'for field testing by the K11A are expected to provide means
of evaluating noise insulation ns an alternative to land use change
or the encouragement of housing or other facilities with appropriate
noise insulation.
Additional Recommendation; Legislation
Another conclusion of the original program expressed the need for
noise certification legislation. Consequently, the administration
submitted an aircraft noise bill (S.3591/H.R. 16171) to the 89th
Congress in July 1966 which empowered the Administrator of the FAA to
promulgate noise standards and to exercise all of the regulatory and
certification authority contained in Title VI (now limited to safety)
on the basis of such noise standards. Such certification authority
covered airmen, aircraft, air carriers, airports, and air agencies.
Hearings on the bill were held before the Transportation and Aeronautics
subcommittee of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on
October 12, 1966. No congressional action was taken during this session.
The Administration bill submitted to the 90th Congress (S.707/H.R.
3400) differs from the prior bill in that the phrase,"aircraft noise,"
includes "sonic boom," and the noise authority is vested in the
Secretary of Transportation rather than the Administrator of the FAA.
Also, the authority for regulation is limited to specific certificates
rather than all certificates issued by the Administrator.
The proposed legislation would complement existing authority conferred
by section 307(c) of the Federal Aviation Act which is properly
construed as authorizing the promulgation of air traffic rules and
regulations governing the flight of aircraft for the protection of
persons and property on the ground from aircraft noise and sonic boom.
As of April 1, 1968, the legislation is still in the Transportation
and Aeronautics Subcommittee.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Office of Noise Abatement.
Summary status report. Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement
Program. Washington, 1968, pp. 3-21.
E-1
-------
APPENDIX F
Presidential Documents Associated with FANAP
-------
APPENDIX F
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
FANAP
Source: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents
March 1966; March 1967.
1. Tr;ius|x»rt;uion lor Amuka
EXERPT
AIRCRAFT NOISE
The jet age has brought progress and prosperity t.i
our air transportation system. Modern jets can carry
passengers and freight across a continent at speeds close
to that of sound.
Yet this progress has created special problems of its
own. Aircraft noise is a growing source of annoyance
and concern to the thousands of citizens who live-near
many of our large airports. As more of our airports
begin to accommodate jets' and as the volume of air
travel expands, the problem will take on added dimension.
There are no simple or swift solutions. But it is cirri r
that we must embark now on a concerted effort to al-
leviate the problems of aircraft noise. To this end, 1
am today directing the President's Science Advisor to
work with the Administrators of the Federal Aviation
Agency and National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration, and the Secretaries of Commerce, and of Housing
and Urban Development, to frame an action program to
attack this problem.
\ I am asking this group to:
—study the development of noise standards and the
compatible uses of land near airports,
—consult with local communities and industry,
—recommend legislative or administrative actions
needed to move ahead in this area.
EXERPT
F-l
-------
7L . Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise
J
Memorandum to the President From the Special
Aslant for Science and Technology.
M,,rch IS, IMb
March 17, 19G6
Memorandum for the President
Your recent Transportation Message highlighted the
problem of jet aircraft noise in these words :
"Aircraft noise is a growing source of annoyance and
cc-ivem to the thousands of citr/ens who live near many
of our large airports. As more, of our airports begin to
accommodate jets and as the volume of air tra\ el expands,
tlie problem will take on added dimension.
••There .v.e no simple or swift solutions. But it is clear
th.it we must embark now on a concerted effort to allevi-
ate the problems of aircraft noise. To this end, I am
tovi.iy directing the President's Science -Advisor to work
with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
the Secretaries of Commerce, and of Housing and Urban
Development, to frame an action program to attack this
problem."
, _ , ,n_. T , , , T »• r
In October 1963 I convened an ad hoc Jet Aircraft
Noise Panel to examine the relevant technical aspects of
this, subject and its many associated economic, sociologi-
cal, governmental and legal issues. The members of this
Pajiel were drawn from the airframe and aircraft engine
industry, the airlines, the field of land use planning and
federal and local government agencies.
I am pleased to be able to present to you the report of
this Panel entitled "Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near
Airports." This report outlines the Panel's unanimous
views concerning the reduction of engine noise, the meas-
urement of noise levels, noise standards, patterns of air-
craft operation near airports, and compatible land utiliza-
tion. It provides a set of recommendations in each of
these areas with suggestions for their .future implementa-
tion. The principal recommendations arc:
— Initiation of Federally supported studies of the ex-
pected scope of the noise problem through 1975
and of the public and private programs which will
be needed to combat the problem.
— Creation of a high level Federal Ta.sk Force to
undertake, on an urgent basis, a "systems" type
analysis of the problem in the vicinity of the. Ken-
nedy. O'Harc and Los Angeles airports, the analy-
sis to be extended to other affected areas as soon as
practicable.
—Development of valid, broadly applicable stand-
ards of noise measurement.
• — Pursuit of a definitive technical study pointed to-
ward a reduction in noise levels produced by jet
rnyiiK s arid by aircraft, togr.lher with a dr.tcriiiina-
don of ^ costs »*
-------
3. Aircraft Noise and Land Use
Near Airports
The President's Memorandum to Heads of Departments
mid Agencies, With the Report of the Science Adviser
to the President. March 22, 1967
The President today sent the following memorandum
to the heads of all Federal departments and agencies on
ihe subject of aircraft noise and compatible land use in
the vicinity of airports. He also released the attached re-
port by his Science Adviser, Dr. Donald Hornig.
FOR HKADS OF DEPARTMENTS AN11
. \CP.NCIES
SUBJECT: Aircraft Noise and Compatible Land Use in
1 1 ic Vicinity of Airports
Air traffic in the vicinity of airports has increased
enormously in recent years and the expansion of air com-
merce and air travel promises to continue. One of the
'•^sults is that persons and property in the vicinity of air-
ports are being exposed to an increasing amount of aircraft
noise. At the same time, our growing economy and
population create pressures for increasingly intensive land
»sc near transportation facilities, including airpxirts.
It is imperative to the growth of aviation and to the
welfare of our people that means be found to contain
such noise within levels compatible with the pursuit of
other desirable activitii-s and the quiet enjoyment of
property. We must do all in our power to assure that the
environment in which we live is not overburdened with
any form of pollutant, including excessive noise.
Various agencies of the. Federal Government cither
have programs which ad'ect land u>e near airports or par-
ticipate in various ways in actions affcctm;; surh land.
They must all be deeply concerned with seeking solutions
to the problems of noise and compatible land use around
airports. To obtain the maximum benefit from knowl-
edge and technology developed within the Federal Gov-
ernment, each Federal Agency or Department should
coordinate its efforts and cooperate fully \vith the partic-
ular Departments most concerned, which are the Depart-
ment of Transportation in- matters relating to the
prevention, control and abatement of aircraft noise, and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development in
matters relating to the compatible use of lam I in the
vicinity of airports.
Continued next page—
-------
The Heads of the Departments, Agencies and Estab-
lishments of the Executive Branch of Government are
therefore directed, consistent with the performance of
their mission and the relevant legislation, to take into
explicit and due account aircraft noise whenever it is
relevant to any of their programs or to action in which
they may participate, and to cooperate with the Secre-
taries of the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in
efforts to control and reduce the problems of aircraft
noise.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT FROM DR. DONALD HORNIO
Your Transportation Message of March 2, 1966, di-
rected me to work with the Administrators of the Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), and the Secretaries
of the Department of Commerce (DOC) and of the De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
to frame an action program aimed at alleviating the
problems of aircraft noise in the vicinity of our Nation's
airports. I am pleased to report that a comprehensive
program was agreed to on April 29, 1966, and that the
participating agencies are working actively to implement
its several objectives.
Briefly, the program seeks first to identify, from the
viewpoints of technology, economic efficiency and public
policy, the combination of noise alleviation actions which
must be undertaken to improve the environment in the
vicinity of airports significantly; and second, to develop
practical ways and means for accomplishing such actions.
Our current efforts are being devoted primarily to
finding out how noise can be reduced through (1) engine
and airframc design, (2) flight operating procedures and
techniques, and (3) land use in the vicinity of airports
which is compatible with aircraft operations. The prod-
uct of this work will include an analysis of the costs and
'benefits associated wilh each technically feasible reduc-
tion so that we can decide which combination of reduc-
tions will be best. In addition, the broad economic and
policy implications to boih government and industry of
such actions as our research suggests are bring studied.
Any substantial and lasting improvement to the noise
environment of airports will require, fust of all, that the
noise generated by aircraft be reduced. To this end, the
FAA has introduced legislation on behalf of the Admin-
istration which, if enacted, will empower the Secretary
of the Department of Transportation to certify new air-
craft on the basis of noise as well as safely standards.
The FAA and NASA arc developing takeoff and land-
ing procedures and techniques which will reduce the noise
levels in adjacent communities.
The impact on communities of aircraft noise which
cannot be dispelled by quieting the aircraft or by (light
procedures and techniques must be minimized through
proper land use near airports. HUD and FAA arc study-
ing this aspect of the problem with a view to utilizing exist-
ing land use programs and developing new programs
which, among other things, result in the conversion of
residential properties adjacent to airports to more com-
patible uses (such as their conversion to industrial parks,
etc.); and, with the cooperation of state and local gov-
ernment, prevent residential areas from encroaching on
the airport environment.
In one year the program has achieved an industry and
government-wide consensus as to two of the basic ap-
proaches that must be followed if there is to be long-run
success in the area of aircraft noise abatement. Of these
perhaps the most important is that we now have, for the
first time, a generally accepted method of assessing human
reaction to aircraft noise. Secondly, it is now agreed
that the certification of aircraft must be based on noise
criteria as well as considerations of safety.
Many Federal Agencies, through a great variety of pro-
grams, participate directly or indirectly in decisions
regarding the use of land near airports. For this reason
it appears desirable to insure that the Heads of all Fed-
eral Departments and Agencies give due weight to air-
craft noise considerations in their programs and actions.
Although little immediate relief is foreseeable from the
disturbance of aircraft noise, existing research and devel-
opment programs hold promise of noise reduction in air-
craft and engines. The effects of noise which cannot be
eliminated from the aircraft can be minimized by appro-
priate use of land in the vicinity of airports. While ob-
vious results will not come about quickly, long-term
improvement should be realized if all the participating
agencies continue their efforts along all of the lines we
have suggested.
F-4
-------
APPENDIX G
1972 IANAP Membership List
-------
APPENDIX G
1972 IANAP MEMBERSHIP LIST
INTEBAOENCY AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT PBOOBAM
COOBOI.1ATION COMMUTED MEMBERS AND PANEL CHAIRMAN
Civil Aeronautics Board . •
B. J. Sherer, Civil Aeronautics Bonrd. 1825 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20428, 382-7781 (Code; 128). Alternate: J. C. Constantz, Civil Aero-
nautics Board B-69, -1825 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20428, 382-
3763 (Code 128).
Department of Defense
Dr. H. E. von Glerke (Chairman, Human Response Panel), Blodynamlcs &
Bionics Division, Bio-Physics Lab. AFSC, Wright-Patterson AFB. Ohio 45433.,
513-256-3602.
Mr. Raymond M. Standahar, Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. "0301.
Col. Herb Bell, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defen.se (Health & Envi-
ronment ; 3D171, Department of Defense, Washington, DC. 20301.
Department of Commerce
Mr. N. A. Lieurance, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adnjin. (OP-6), SOO
Independence Ave. S.W., Rm. J>04B, Washington, D.C. 20500. 420-3223. Alter-
nate: Mr. Thomns C. Council, NOAA—OP, SOO Independence Ave. S.W. Bm.
904A, Washington, D.C. 20590.
Department of the Interior
Dr. Theordore Sudia (Chairman*), National Park Service (Rm. 1211). U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, 343-213S. Alternate: Mr. Martin
Prochnik, Office of the Science Advisor, Department of the Interior, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20240, 343-4180. (Mr. Prank Carlson).
Department of Transportation
Mr. Charles R. Foster (Chairman, Coordination Committee), Director, Office of
Noise Abatement, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590,
426-^553.
Mr. Richard P. Skully, Director, Office of Environmental Quality EQ-1, Fed-
eral Aviation Administration, Washington. D.C. 20590, 426-S5Sf. Alternate: Mr.
Ron Shreve (Chairman, Operations, Environmental Quality EQ-1, Federal
Aviation Admin., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Mr. Eugene Lehr, Chief, Environmental Research Div. TEU-20, Office of
Environment and Urban Systems, Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C. 20590, 426-0103.
Mr. Jos. Canny, Acting Chief, Environmental Program Div. TEU-14, Office
of Environment and Urban Systems, Washington, D.C., 420-4388.
Dr. Ira J. Hirsh (Consultant to the DOT Office of Noise Abatement), Box
1094, Washington University, St. Louis, 03130, 314-863-0100 Ext. 4235.
Cdr Leon D. Santuian (Chairman, Legislative/Legal Pace!), Assistant Gen-
eral Counsel for Regulation, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
^20590,426-4,723.
Department of lioiising and Urbun Development
Mr. George Winzer (Chairman. Structures Panel), Chief, Urban Noise Abate-
ment, Research Program. Rm. 4^12, Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment, Washington, D.r. 20410. 755-5597.
Mr. Richard II. Uroun (Chairman, Ltnid Use/Airport* Pond), Ac-ring Direc-
tor, Environmental Planning Division (R:n. 7238), Department of Housing and
Urban Dev.. Washington, D.C. 2W10. Alternate: James !•'. Miller. Chief.
Transportation, Environment K- Urban Iieslu'ii Branch. Department of Housing
find Urban Development. Wnsnington. D.C. 20410, 755-0180.
Department of Health, Education, and \\'--lfarc
Dr. Ernest S. Tierkel, Dirt*:tor of the Ofilc» of Science, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 33t> Inilepi'iHU'iav Ave. S.W., Rm. 5000, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20201, 963-0430 (13-204301.
•Chairman, Natural Environment Pnr.ei.
G-l
-------
.Yctionol Academy of Sciences
Mr. John P. Baylor, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave.
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418, 961-1291 (1224-291).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. A. J. Evans, Office of the Administrator National Aeronautics and Space
Admin., Washington, D.C. 20546, 962-0176 (13-20176).
Dr. Leon Fox, NASA Headquarters Rm., 600 Independence Ave. S.W., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20546, 962-0033.:Alternate: Mr. Allan Merkln, NASA Headquar-
ters, Room 626, 600 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C., 962-0311
13-20311.
Mr. James J. Kramer, (Chairman, Noise Research Panel), Chief, Noise and
Pollution Reduction Branch, Aeronautical Propulsion Division, Office of
Advanced Research and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space A'dmin.,
Washington, D.C. 20546.
Dr. T. L. K. Smull (Chairman, Sonic Boom Panel), Office of the Administra-
tor, National Aeronautics and Space Admin., Washington, D.C. 20540.
Mr. Harry W. Johnson, Aeronautical Propulsion Div., Office of Advanced
Research and Tech., National Aeronautics and Space Admin., Washington, D.C.
20546.
Dr. Russell Drew, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the
President, Executive Office Bldg., Rm. 285, Washington, D.C. 20506.
Dr. Da vies—CEQ.
Dr. Alvln Meyers—EPA.
Mr. Woodall -FAA, RD-SOO. •
COORDINATION COMMITTEE ADVISORS
Capt R. N. Rockwell, Air Line Pilots Assn., 563S Fremont Ave. South, Min-
neapolis, Minn. 55419. A carbon copy of all material should be sent to: Mr.
Harold F. Mnrthinsen, Air Line Pilots Assn., 1329 E. Street N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20004, 347-2211.
Mr. John J. Gunther, Executive Director, Conference of Mayors of the U.S.
1707 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, 298-7535.
Mr. Russell Hoyt, Executive Director,-American Assn. of Airport Executives,
2029 K. Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Mr. Victor J. Kayne, Vice President, Policy and Technical Planning, Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Assn., Washington, D.C. 20014.
Mr. F. W. Kolk, Vice President Engineering Development, American Airlines,
633 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017, 212-SG7-1234
Mr. Joseph C. Snodgrass, Director, Transport Aircraft Council Aerospace
Industries Assn. of America, Inc., 1725 De Sales Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036.
Mr. John O. Woods, National Association of State Aviation Officals (Suite
1002), 1000 Vermont Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, St 3-03SS.
Mr. Donald J. Reilly, Airport Operators Council International 1700 K Street
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20012, 296-3270. Alternate: Mr. Jack E. Koepke, Air-
port Operators Count-it lnternt'1., 1700.K Street, Washington, D.C. 20012.
General Clifton F. von Knnn, Vice President, Operations and Engineering.
Air Transport Assn., 1000 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 2003G
296-5800 X311. Alternate: Mr. William B. Becker, Air Transport Association.
1000 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 29G-5SOO.
Mr. Robert B. Ward, Executive Director, National Business Aircraft Assn.,
Inc., 401 Pennsylvania Bldg., 425 13th Street N.W., Washington. D.C. 20004.
783-9000 Alternate: Mr. Lawrence P. Bedore, National Business Aircraft
Assn., Inc., 401 Pennsylvania Bldp., .42.' 13th Street N.W., Washington. D.C.
20004, 783-9000.
INTEBAGENCY AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM
HUMAN RESPONSE PANEL
Members fil) and Advisors (A)
Chairman: Dr. H. E. von Gierko, (i.'jTO AMKL/BB, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio 45433, 513-255-3002.
G-2
-------
(A) Professor Raymond A. Bauer, Graduate School of Business Administra-
tion, Harvard University, Morgan 327, Soldiers Field, Boston, Mass. 02163,
617-491-3174.
(M) Dr. Alexander Cohen; Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Occupa-
tional Health Research Facility, Public Health Service, 1014 Broadway, Cincin-
nati, Ohio 45202, 513-OS4-20SO.
(A) Dr. John K. Cullen, Medical Director, Pan American World Airways,
Inc., International Airport, Jamaica, N.Y. 11430.
(A) Dr. Hallowell Davis, Central Institute for the Deaf, 818 S. Euclid
Avenue. St. Louis, Mo. 63110, 314-052-3200.
(A) Dr. Ira J. Hirsh, Box 1094, Washington. University, St. Louis, Mo.
03130, 314-863-0100, ext. 4235.
(M) Mr. Phillip M. Edge, Acoustics Branch, NASA Langley Research
Center, Langley Station, Hampton, Va. 23365, 703^-722-7061, ext. 3691.
(A) Dr. William Galloway, Bolt Bernaek and Newman, Inc., 21120 Vanowen
St., Canoga Park, ca 91303, 213-347-S360.
(A) Dr. Karl D. Kryter, Sensory Science Research Center, Stanford
Research Institute, 333 Ravenswood Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025,
415-3l>G-
-------
Cart D. Hart, Director, Special Financial Projects, Air Transport Association
of America, 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)
29ewwoo. :
Lyman M. Tondel, Jr., Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 52 Wall Street,
New York, N.Y. 10005 (212) 344--0600.
J. Donald Reilly, Director, Legal Services, "Airport Operators Council, Inter-
national, Inc., 1700 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 296^3270.
Lloyd Hlnton, Executive Director, Metro. Aircraft Sound Abatement Council,
630134th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minn., 55650 (612) 726-8411.
James Strunck, Asst. Corp. Counsel, City of Chicago, Boom 611, City Hall,
Chicago, 111. 60601 (312) 744-6928.
John L. Taylor, City Manager, 29th Floor, City Hall, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
(818) CR 4-2474.
Captain Clifford Bragdon, Edgewood Arsenal, Edge wood, Md. 21010.
INTERAOENCY AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM
LEGISLATIVE/LEGAL PANEL
Members
Cdr. Leo. Santman, Asst. General Counsel for Regulation, Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590, (202-963-6025).
Mr. Charles J. Peters, Associate General Counsel Litigation Division, FAA,
Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-962-5301).
Mr. Grant C. Reynolds, Deputy Assistant General Counsel (Installations),
Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. 20301.
Major William F. McCormack, Claims Division, Office of the Judge Advocate
General, Department of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. 20301.
Mr. John Kruse, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C. 20530.
Advisers
Mr. Lyman M. Tondel, Jr., Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton,'52 Wall
Street, New York, N.Y. 10005.
Mr. Morton H. Wilner, Wllner, Scheiner & Greeley, Landmark Building, 1343
H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005.
Mr. Sidney Goldstein, General Counsel, The Port of New York Authority,
111 Eighth Avenue at 15th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011.
Other Participants
Mr. Carl J. Green, Office of Operations and Legal Counsel, Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.
Mr. Howard Walderman, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1126 South Blclg., 4th & Independence Are. SW., Washington. .D.C. 20201.
Mr. Robert L. Paullin, Associate Director for Regulatory Policy and Stand-
ards, Office of Noise Abatement, Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C. 20690.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PANEL
Dr. Theodore Sudia, Chairman, National Park Service (Rm. 1211), U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
Mr. Martin Prochnik, Deputy, Science Advisor, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 20240.
Mr. R. A. Shepanek, Federal Aviation Admin., Department of Transporta-
tion, Washington, D.C. 20590.
Mr. Robert H. Rose, Division of Resources Management and Visitor Protec-
tion, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 20240.
Dr. James Bond, Animal Husbandry Research Division, Agricultural
Research Center, Beltsville, Md. 20705.
Dr. Paul Sund, Bureau of Commerical Fisheries, Department of the Interior.
Washington, D.C. 20240.
Dr. John Buckley, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Offices of the
President, Washington, D.C. 20506.
Dr. A. F. Esplriosa, ESSA—Coast and Geodetic Survey, 6001 Executive Blvd.
Tovkblllr, Md. 20852.
Mr. Charles H. Williams, Chief, Plans and Programs Div., Office of Noise
Abatement, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.
G-4
-------
INTEBAGENCY AlBCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT PBOORAM
NOISE EESEABCH PANEt
Mr. James/Kramer, Chairman, Chief, Noise and Pollution Reduction Branch,
Aeronautical Propulsion Div., NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 20546.
Mr. Carl Bristol, Project Engineer, Noise Reduction, Engineering 2-B, Pratt
4 Whitney Aircraft Division, United Aircraft Corporation, 400 Main Street,
East Hartford, Conn. 06108, 203-563-1321 ext. 7165.
Mr. W. Harry Close, Assoc. Dir. for Environmental Research, Office of Noise
Abatement (TRT-50), Department of Transportation, 800 Independence
Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20500, 202-962-5531.
Mr. Leo A. Oorrigan, Allison Division, General Motors Corporation, P.O. Box
894, Indianapolis, Ind. 46206. 317-243-4022.
Mr. Harry Drell, Department 7401, Lockheed-California, P.O. Box 551, Bur-
bank, Calif. 91503, 213-847-5542.
Mr. I. J. Gershon, Propulsion Branch, Turbine Engine Division, Wright-Pat-
terson, Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, 513-255-2767.
Mr. Harvey H. Hubbard, Chief, Acoustics Brunch—239, NASA Langley
Research Center, Langley Station, Hampton, Va. 23365, 703-722-71)61 ext.
3691.
Mr. Victor Mlllman, Project Engineer, ROHR Corporation, P.O. Box 878,
Ohula Vista, Calif. 92012, 714-^22-7111 ext. 11)15.
Dr. W. R. Morgan, Manager, Quiet Engine Program, Bldg. 501, J174, General
Electric Company, Evendale, Ohio 45215.
Mr. A. L. McPike, Chief, Acoustics Branch C-l-253, Structural Mechanics
Section (35—42), Douglas Aircraft Division, 3S55 Lakewood Boulevard, Long
Beach; Callt 90801, 213-593-3461.
Mr. Thomas J. O'Brien, Technical Support Staff No. 10, Office of Abatement,
Department of Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20590, 202-962-8234.
Dr. John O. Powers, Chief, Technical Support Staff No. 10, Office of Noise
Abatement, Department of Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-982-8234.
Mr. R. E. Russell, Chief, Aircraft Noise Unit, Org. 6-8570, Mall Stop 29-05,
Commercial Airplane Division, The Boeing Company, Box 707, Renton, Wash.
!>S055, 206-654-5588.
Mr. Q. P. Sallee, Development Engineer, Powerplant and Noise Technology,
American Airlines, 633 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017, 212-SG7-1234.
Mr. Newell D. Sanders, Director, Chemistry and Energy Conversion, NASA
Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road,' Cleveland, Ohio 44135,
216-433-6432.
Mr. Ira Schwartz, Research Division, NASA Headquarters, 600 Independence
Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20540, 202-962-0171.
Mr. John Schettino, Propulsion Branch, Supersonic Transport Development,
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 800 Independ-
\Vaslungton, D.C. 20".90, 202-962-8234.
.. Mr. Wjlliam C. Sperry, Technical Support Staff No. 10, Office of Noise
Abatement,'"'Department'of Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-9G2-S234.
Mr. Stafford W. Wilbur, Executive Secretary, Propulsion Branch, RAP,
Aeronautical Vehicles Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 20546,
202-962-0183.
OPERATIONS PANEL
Mr. M. E. Russell, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Aininistration,
800 Independence Avenue'SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, 426-8452.
Mr. F. C. Sanchez, Air Traffic Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington. D.C. 20591, 426-S532.
Mr. Joseph W. Howell, Office of Supersonic Transport, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591,
426-8485.
Mr. James F. Woodall, Systems Research and Development, Federal Aviation
Administration, SOO Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591,
426-8446.
G-5
-------
Mr. Bedore,. Airports Service, National Business Aircraft Association, 401
Pennsylvania-Buildihg; Washington, D.C. 20004, 783-9000.
Mr. J. P. Loomis, Associate'Chief,'Aerospace Mechanics Research Division,
Batelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories, 505 King Avenue, Colum-
bus, Ohio 43201, 614-299-3657.; - :
Mr. George CherrjvVDeputy 'AssociationAdministrator—Programs, National
Aeronautics arid Space'Admin.;-400 Maryland 'Avenue SW., Washington, D.C.
Mr. L. J. Sullivan; .Chief 'Engineer'Test. Pilot, Lockheed-Georgia Company,
Lockheed Aircraft Corporatioi&Marietta, Ga. 30060, 404-424-5012.
Mr. William B. Becker, Assistant' V.P., Operations, Air Transport Associa-
tion, 1000 Connecticut Avenue'NW\,. Washington, D.C. 20036.
Mr. L. Achitoff, Cfilef, Aviation Technical Service, The Port of New York
Authority, 111 Eighth Avenue .at••; 15th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011,
212-620-7503. - ' •y'V'i'.r'V ^ •••';• .' -•• ' - ':-'- " .
Mr. Richard Judy,; Director, Dade County Port Authority, Miami Interna-
tional Airport, Miami, Fla. 33130. ,
Mr:' Donald B. Franke, Exec.-Director, Air Traffic Control Association, Suite
409, ARBA Building, 525 School Street SW., Washington, D.G, 347-5100.
Mr. diaries H. Williams, 'Chief, Plans and Programs Division, Office of
Noise Abatement, Department -of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20591,
426-4558.
Mr. Harold Marthensth, Engineering and Air Safety, Air Line Pilots Associa-
tion, 1143 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20004.
Mr. R. P. Skully (Chairman), Office of Environmental Quality, Federal Avia-
tion Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591,
426-8406.
INTEBACENCY AIBCBAFT NOISE ABATEMFNT PROGRAM
SONIC BOOM RESEARCH PANEL
Dr. T. L. K. Smull, Office of the Administrator, NASA Headquarters, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20546, (202-962-0201).
Dr. James K. Angell, Chief, Atmospheric Trajectory Research Laboratory,
619 Gramax Building, 8060 13th Street, Silver Spring, Md. 20910
(301-495-2283).
Mr. Harry W. Carlson, FSRD—Supersonic Mechanics Section, NASA Lan-
gley-Research Center, Langley Station, Hampton Va. 23365 (703-722-7961 ext.
3260). :•
Dr. Wallace D. Hayes, Department of Aeronautical and Mechanical Sciences.
Forrestal Research Center, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540
(609-452-6108). ' •
Mr. Clarence S. Howell, Chief, Aerodynamics Staff, Supersonic Transport
Program, The Boeing Company, P.O. Box 3733, Seattle, Wash. 9S124
(2067855-6477).
Mr; Lynh-W. Hunton, Vehicle Aerodynamics, NASA Ames Research Center,
Moffetwraeld, Calif. 94035 (415-961-2252).
Mr. Norman McLebd, Acoustic Section, Loads Subdivision, NASA Flight
Research Center, P.O. Box 273, Edwards, Calif. 93523 (805-268-3311 exr.
455).
Mr. Kenneth J. Power, The Special Projects Div., Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, Washington;,; D.C. 20590 (202-962-4195).
Mr. Ira R.' Schwartz, Fluid Dynamics, RRF, NASA Headquarters, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20546' (202^862-0171).
Dr. Richard Seebass, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Aerospace
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithlca, N.Y. 14850 (607-275-3600).
Mr. Jim R. Thompsom, Department 74-30, Building 63, Lockheed California
Company, P.O. Box 551^ Burbank, Calif. 91503 (213-S4 7-5685).
Mr. Eugene F. Wyszpolski, Executive Secretary, Aerodynamics Branch, RAA,
Aeronautical Vehicles Division, Washington, D.C. 20546 (202-962-0201).
Mr. William G. Osmon, Manager, Technical Information Services, Air Trans-
port Association, 1000 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20036
(2
-------
Mr. W. Harry Close, Associate Director for Environmental Research, Office
of Noise Abatement, Departmeat of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.
. • INTEBAOENCY AtBCSArr NOISE ABATEMENT PBOORAM
.. . 8TBOCTUBE8 FAHEL
Mr. George Winzer, Chairman, Federal. Housing Administration, Dept of.
Housing and Urban Deve., Washington, D.C. 20410. :
Mr. Wm. C. Snerry," Office of Noise. Abatement, Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, Washington,D.C. 20590.
Mr. Slgnmund Gerber, Director, Office of.the Deputy Asst Secretary of
Defense for Family "Housing, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. 20301.
Mr. Walter E. Mylecralne, Asst. Commissioner for Construction Services,
Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 20201.
Mr. Win. H. Mayes, Head, Acoustic Dynamics Section, National Aeronautics
and Space. Admin., Langley Field, Va. 20546.
Mr. Neil A. Connor, Consulting Architect, Office of Technical Standards, Fed-
eral Housing Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D.C. 20410.
Mr. Richard J. Conavan,* Staff Vice President, Builders Services Division,
National Assn. of Home Builders, 1625 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Mr. James H. Cypher,* Technical Representative for Contract Research
Development, PPG Industries, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222.
Dr. John -Robertson,* Director of Technical Services, U.S. Gypsum Company,
Arlington, Va. 22203.
Mr. J. Donald Re Illy,* Director of Legal Services, Airport Operators Council
International, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Colonel John P. Taylor, USAF (Ret.), Executive Secretary, National Acad-
emy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, D.C. 20418.
Mr. Robert .L. Paullin, Associate Director for Regulatory Policy and Stand-
ards, Office of Noise Abatement, Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C. 20590.
SOURCES U.S. House. Subcommittee on Aeronautics and Space
Technology of Committee on Science and Astronautics. Hearings
of January 18, 19, and 20, 1972 on "Aeronautical Research
and Development," pj>
-------
APPENDIX H
Conclusions of the Doolittle Report
-------
-APPENDIX H
CONCLUSIONS OF THE DOOLITTLE REPORT
The Airport and Its Neighbors
Part I
Section 1. Summary
The task of the President's Airport Commission has been
to consider means to safeguard the lives of people living in the
vicinity of airports.and to alleviate for them, as far as possible,
the disturbance that arises from the operation of aircraft. As
directed by the President, the Commission has studied these prob-
lems in the light of: an urgent need for continued development of
both civil and military aeronautics for the welfare and safety of
this country.
Establishment of.,the Commission was an outgrowth of ^se-
quence of tragic accidents in the New York-Northeastern New
Jersey metropolitan area. The fact that these mishaps were
confined, by coincidence, to a single community accentuated
fears of many Americans that aircraft represent a serious hazard
to ground-dwellers. They also served to increase awareness of
nuisance aspects in the use of airports, particularly with regard
tcjjoise. Aj5 the result of a careful and detailed study of both
hazard and nuisance factors, the Commission feels that a great
deal is being done to protect the people; it also feels that more
could and should be done.
Along with every other vehicle invented and used by modern
man, aircraft suffer occasional accidents with resulting fatalities
to their occupants. More rarely, people and property on the
ground are also involved. Incidents of this sort are most likely
ear airports because operations are somewhat more
" •• ' '
Source^ President f's; -.-Airport Commission, The Airport and its
Neighbors, Washington: t|.S. G. P. O. , 1952, pp. 3-21.
1 ' ' .,.•-•..-'
H-l
-------
hazardous at terminals than en route. Current improvements
in equipment and in operational procedures, however, offer
the possibility that accidents of all kinds will be further reduced.
Accidents involving aircraft on airways and at air terminals
should eventually fall well below rates now considered normal
for other forms of commercial transportation.
The same favorable trend cannot be forecast as confidently
for the nuisance factors. Exhaust mufflers and slow-turning
multi-blade propellers of large diameter have been applied
successfully to quiet small airplanes. As aircraft become larger
and faster, the power required to propel them and the resultant
noise multiplies many fold. Some noise reduction can be
achieved, even in these large aircraft, by reduced propeller tip
speed and by removing more energy from exhaust gasses, but
reducing their noise to comfortable proportions still presents a
difficult problem.
In the future, with wider use of high speed turbine-driven
propellers or high thrust j^t-prppulsion, there will be a tendency
for the volume of noise to increase beyond levels now experi-
enced and for the character of the noise to become more
objectionable. Research is now under way in these areas, but
the problems are technically difficult and no effective solutions
are in sight.
Airport Growth
The growth of air transportation has put a severe strain on
many major airports. Original facilities for handling airplanes
in the air and on the ground and for taking care of passengers,
mail, express and freight in terminal buildings have been out-
grown. Many airports are approaching saturation. Some of
them are badly out of balance due to a deficiency in one or
another of their facilities. For example, some of our large mu-
nicipal airports now-have traffic control capabilities permitting
a great many landings and take-offs per hour but their runways
or their servicing facilities on the ground have not kept pace.
In some cases runways which were once adequate in strength
H-2
-------
will not noVv support today's heaviest airplanes. Larger and
faster airplanes making more landings and take-offs in worse
weather will call for more adequate runways, larger clear
approach areas and improved traffic control facilities and
procedures.
Definite traffic patterns have been established by the Civil
Aeronautics Administration at every major terminal airport in
the country. These flight tracks have been designated after
careful consideration of all flight safety factors. Serious efforts
are being made to reduce ground hazard and noise. Eventually
airports and their runways should be planned so that all approach
and holding patterns minimize flights over thickly settled areas.
Tighter control of aircraft near airports must be achieved.
To accomplish this, necessary equipment must be developed, pro-
cured and installed. Once adequate facilities are operational,
positive traffic control at congested airports should be insisted
upon at all times, even under what are now considered Visual
Flight Rule conditions. The ceiling and visibility limits for
VFR flights in congested terminal areas and the minimum ceil-
ings and visibilities under which aircraft are permitted to circle
and maneuver after instrument approach should be raised.
Airport use becomes more complicated when there is joint
use by civil aviation and the armed services. In the interest of
economy it is common practice for air defense, military air trans-
port or air reserve training units to be based on municipal air-
ports.._ Combat, airplanes are generally noisy and will probably
becfome noisier with the advent of more powerful jet types. Be-
cause of the noise of military operations (especially on week ends)
and because accidents have occurred, people living near such
airports have complained. Joint military and civil use of major
airports is undesirable. Separation should be effected whenever
it is economically .feasible. Military training operations over
thickly settled regions should be prohibited.
In some cases, manufacturing plants are located on busy civil
airports and both experimental and production aircraft are
H-3
-------
being flown frqm these airports. Recognizing the potential
hazard involved/ especially with the very fast jet types, some
manufacturers have established test facilities on remote airports,
and are making;trial and shakedown flights away from congested
areas. Whenever practicable this should be required. Flight
delivery of production aircraft may be permitted under proper
procedures and under conditions where nuisance and hazard to
the surrounding community are reduced to the minimum.
Community Encroachment
Another aspect of the problem deals with the technical and
economic forces which are pressing for airport expansion and
which, in turn; are opposed by the encroachment of the sur-
rounding community. Many communities are approaching an
impasse arising from limitations to safe operation on existing
airports combined with a physical inability to improve or extend
them because homes or factories have been built close to the
runway ends. .
The pattern of development for major airports has been his-
torically similar. ;:Twerity years ago when airplanes were small
in size and few in number, airport sites were selected at a distance
beyond the city limits where ground was cheap and where few
buildings obstructed the natural approaches to the field. Few
then complained of the noise because it was infrequent and not
very loud. As a matter of fact, this audible evidence of the
arrival and departure of mail and passenger airplanes was often
a source of local pride.
Normal growth, greatly augmented by the wartime movement
of people to the cities, caused a spreading out toward the air-
port. Furthermore, the airport and its activities frequently
acted as a magnet, drawing first the sightseer and then the busi-
nessman interested in concessions. Because desirable land was
cheap, and a new and advantageous ty.pe of transportation was
available, industries (sometimes aeronautical, sometimes not)
settled near the airport.
H-4
-------
.'•-•I
£.:-<:;--.-^.i,-^
LOS ANGELES—1939
VJl^
*,«.-'
'••' '•'- '". ".-.;. '••"•"-!
• -• /V-.;I"';'- •'^"", :*-<
, _^». • • •,:!?'
LOS ANGELES—1949
H-5
-------
Attached to all of these enterprises were people. People
required homes within a short distance of their jobs. Specu-
lators saw the opportunity to subdivide cheap land at a profit.
Public utilities established primarily for the airport could be
made available to the adjacent housing. Villages emerged,
complete with shopping centers, schools, hospitals and recrea-
tion facilities. As a consequence, many municipal airports
which were started less than two decades ago in the open coun-
try were progressively surrounded by residential and industrial
areas. j
The immediate problem is to find a way to protect present air-
ports and the people residing near them by applying some means
of control of ground use in approach zones. Local authorities
should prevent further use of land for public and residential
buildings near the ends of existing runways. If this is not done,
new contingents of home owners will be added to the ranks of
those who are now protesting against noise and hazard. In time
public pressure may threaten .the continued existence of the air- .
port and large investments of public and private funds will be
jeopardized.
This Commission has two suggestions to make in this connec-
tion : ( 1 ) that certain extensions or over-run areas be incorpo-
rated in the airport itself, and (2) that larger areas beyond such
extensions .be rzoned by .proper authority, not only to prevent
the erection of obstructions that might be harmful to aircraft,
but also to control the erection of public and residential build-
ings as a protection from nuisance and hazard to people on the
ground. :
Many airports already maintain cleared areas beyond the
ends of paved runways to reduce the danger from accidental
over-runs on landings, or from aborted take-offs. The Com-
mission feels that no new airport should be planned without
clear and, if possible, level areas at least 1,000 feet wide and at
H-6
-------
least one-half mile long beyond each end of the dominant run-
ways. These areas should be incorporated within the boundaries
of the airport.
Beyond such extensions, the problem of control of the use
of the land in approach zones becomes more difficult because
of the large area involved. For reasons shown elsewhere in
this report, it would be desirable to protect approaches to domi-
nant runways for a distance of at least two miles beyond the
runway extensions. Such protective zones should be fan-shaped
with a width of at least 6,000 feet at the outer ends.
Outright ownership of sufficient land at each end of the
dominant runways would provide the best solution. There is
no legal question but that airports engaged in interstate com-
merce are a public utility for which public funds may be ex-
pended. Also, there is no legal question but that States, counties
and municipalities may join together to condemn land (where
enabling legislation exists) outside the boundary of any one.
municipality for airport purposes. The cost of acquisition of
sufficient land, however, is frequently beyond the capabilities
of a single community.
Where it is not economically feasible to purchase such tracts
of land so that absolute control of their use could be maintained,
reliance must be placed on zoning laws to protect both the air-
craft using the airport from obstructions to flight and the people
on the'ground from hazard and noise.
Although there arc legal means to zone approach areas to
protect aircraft from collision with obstructions, no zoning laws
have been enacted to the knowledge of this Commission to
control land use generally in approach zones. Consideration of
basic property rights raises the question in both cases as to
whether or not such control of use constitutes a "taking" of
the property, and as such should be compensable to the owners.
Traditionally the power to control the use of land rests with
the States and may be delegated to counties and local communi-
ties. The Federal Government should, however, propose model
H-7
-------
airport protective legislation for enactment by the States, and
should help where practicable toward reaching a satisfactory
solution of this type of zoning problem.
It is recommended that the responsibility for zoning be left
with the States and their political subdivisions, at least for the
present, and until they have had a full opportunity to cope with
the problem under adequate Federal guidance. It is further
suggested that the Federal Government commit no funds for
new airport construction unless the State, or other local author-
ity gives reasonable assurance that the air approaches to the
airport will be protected in accordance with the recommenda-
tions made herein. The land under the approaches should
not be put to any use which might later serve as a basis for an
effective argument that the space above should not be used by
aircraft. Future residents should not be given any grounds
forclaims that aircraft approaching or departing from the air-
port, or which may be involved in accidents, create a nuisance
which entitles them to an injunction, to recover damages or
-to demand that the airport be closed.
The suggestions made above apply particularly to new air-
ports to be laid out in areas free from natural and artificial
obstructions. Such ideal conditions are to be found in a very
few localities desirably adjacent to sources of air traffic. For
a long time to come, therefore, most airports must make the
best of existing conditions even if they fall short of the ultimate
airport specifications recommended here.
To promote the general welfare and to protect necessary sys-
tems of air transportation, it is essential that the major airports
,now engaged in interstate commerce, the postal service, or in
defense activities be continued in operation. Furthermore, these
airports must not be allowed to deteriorate. They must be con-
tinually improved to the greatest possible degree along the lines
recommended. They should be made to approach the ideal
airport as closely as local conditions permit. Local zoning au-
thorities should employ their powers to prohibit further develop-
H-8
-------
ments which will interfere with appropriate use of existing
airports. Here also availability of Federal funds should be de-
pendent upon such local action.
Federal Assistance
/Federal aid for construction at airports was inaugurated in
the early 1930's. The Federal Airport Act of 1946 set up a
continuing program with an authorized maximum expenditure
rate of $100 million per year. In general, the program called
for financing airport projects on a "matching" basis, with the
Federal Government providing grants-in-aid to the communities
concerned. Unfortunately, this program has lagged because of
inability to synchronize the availability of Federal and local
funds. Such difficulties should be resolved at the earliest pos-
sible date. Priority of expenditure of Federal funds should be
given to the lengthening of runways and to the acquisition of
cleared extensions beyond the runways for incorporation in the
airport.
Runway -Design
A solution to many aspects of the airport problem is, in the
opinion of the Commission, the early acceptance of the single
or parallel runway design of airport with approaches over rela-
tively clear areas. By this means, airport development could
proceed along economical lines with minimum hazard and an-
noyance to neighbors. The single or parallel runway airport
has one shortcoming—difficulty of operation in strong cross-
winds—but this is being overcome through pilot training tech-
niques, the use of tricycle gears and the further development of
special cross-wind landing gears.
Too much emphasis has been placed on statistics of prevailing
winds, including light and variable airs of little consequence in
modern flying practice. As a result large sums still are being
programmed unnecessarily for multiple intersecting runway air-
ports, and too little consideration is being given lo the hazard
H-9
-------
zones off the ends of these same runways. Simplified traffic
. control, economy of navigational aids, more effective use of radar,
leas/airport acreage, room for expansion, protected runway ex-
tensions and smaller paved areas are favored by an oblong rather
than a square airport. This is a principle that can be applied
to new airport design and, in many cases, to present airports
which are being hemmed in on some sides by residential areas.
However, where high cross-winds are prevalent an additional
but shorter runway, oriented at 90° to the dominant runway, will
be needed for some years.
Runway Length
Some manufacturers suggest that future transport airplanes
(derived from current long-range high speed bombers) could
be designed to have a marked gain in performance and efficiency
if airports with runways several miles long with clear, flat ap-
proaches of several additional miles at each end were available.
Such, configurations for a few new airport projects might prove
economically feasible, but for existing municipal airports such
extensions are impractical. There are very few sites available
within reasonable distance of population centers where airports
with extremely long runways could be built. A well balanced
system of civil air transportation, adequate to meet the needs
of national defense, air commerce and the postal service calls
for a wide-spread network of airports of reasonable size with
the future to., determine the requirements for a few "super"
airports at strategic points for very long-range routes.
Most municipal authorities consulted by this Commission
wish to retain their present airports. They urge that current
standards of runway length be "frozen" and remain in effect
for a substantial period of time in order to protect their already
large investment. They argue that airplane designers should
apply the results of research and invention to the improvement
of the safety, performance and economy of their products within
existing runway length limits.
H-10
-------
Standard runway lengths for different categories of airports
have been proposed. As many airports as possible should bring
themselves up to these standards. It seems to this Commission
that major air terminals should eventually provide principal
runways, for the'-.use of transcontinental or intercontinental air-
plaries, that are at least 8,400 feet long. A length of 10,000 feet
should accommodate all types of practical transport airplanes
now forseen. Additional runway length would provide an addi-
tional safety factor but should not be required for normal
operations.
A future change in the established, standards for runway
length should come only after compelling considerations. Its
effect on the air transport industry would be world-wide. Few
principal civil airports could undertake .any substantial increase
in runway length, and a new system of airports would have to
be undertaken.
While runway length standards are desirable, it appears
undesirable to specify a long term standard for strength of run-
way construction, or to Attempt to limit airplane designers on
airplane weight or wheel loads. Airports should be designed for
the greatest wheel loads anticipated, and in the event that run-
ways prove inadequate in strength for future airplanes, they
can be reinforced or rebuilt.
Nuisance Factors
•Some excuse may be found for failure to have foreseen the
rapid rate of aeronautical progress in designing airports in the
past, but it is to be regretted that more consideration was not
given to the comfort and welfare of people living on the ground
in the vicinity of airports. To be sure, many settled near an
airport after h was in operation, with little realization of the
potential nuisance and hazard. The public cannot be expected,
however, to anticipate technical developments and it should be
informed and protected by the responsible authorities.
The public deserves a clear explanation of necessary airport
H-ll
-------
procedures, accompanied by valid assurances that everything
possible is being done to alleviate both noise and hazard. For
example, in low visibility, incoming aircraft sometimes must
be "stacked" near an airport under precise traffic control to
prevent collisions. The public will understand and accept this
necessity if it is assured that, within the limit of safe operation,
the holding areas are selected so that the stacks will not be a
source of nuisance. Also where operators are making a sincere
effort to reduce engine run-up noise by controlled ground pro-
cedure and by the provision of proper acoustical treatment, and
are avoiding take-offs over inhabited areas, reasonable people
can be persuaded to tolerate some noise as a part of the cost of
living in this age of technology. Operators, pilots and airport
controllers must be indoctrinated to consider the people on
the ground and make every effort consistent with safe flying
practice to reduce hazard and noise.
Aircraft designers and manufacturers must also assume a
share of the noise alleviation task. So far, they have been con-
cerned mainly with noise levels inside the airplane. They should
also strive to minimize noise outside the airplane. If the manu-
facturer is given a penalty for high noise or better yet a pre-
mium for low noise level, it will stimulate competition in the
development of quieter aircraft.
Standardization and Training
• ^It'tebelieveS'that through standardization and training, acci-
dents due to pilot error can be reduced. There is, at the mo-
ment, a regrettable lack of uniformity of design and arrangement
of transport aircraft cockpits. Not only is there variation be-
tween different types of aircraft, but also variations in the same
type, depending on the ideas of individual airlines. A useful
step in improving the training of pilots in emergency procedures
would be the standardization and simplification of equipment
in cockpits. Simplified emergency procedures naturally would
H-12
-------
follow. .The pilot's job--would be easier and safety would be
increased^ :T-
Moreitrauiingjiin emergency procedures should be required.
Sim^ated emergency drills, in airplanes without passengers,
should D? conducted periodically. Such training flights should,
' of course, be conducted over uninhabited areas. A method of
training flight 'crey&.without hazard, is through the use of flight
simulators. These are complicated devices duplicating the cock-
pit and flight deck of the airplane. The equipment and instru-
mentation are operated by an instructor to simulate various
emergency conditions. The crew then deals with the situation
as it would in flight. Necessary practice is thus provided with-
out risk.': Sirice flight simulators are expensive and one is re-
quired for each type of aircraft, it may be necessary to purchase
and use them on a .cooperative basis.
,''•".*"..•-*'.. . . i
Airport Planning*
Alleviation of presently undesirable conditions is not enough.
Poh'aes jaid pla^ for the future must take into account trends
in the airtransport system of the nation. This will require con-
tinuing study.
It is to be expected that air transportation will continue to
develop at a rapid :rate. • Municipalities should anticipate this
expansion. They should plan for it and prepare to finance their
share of it. Plans should include improvement of existing air-
ports up to the point of balanced saturation and also the purchase
of land required for additional airports some years before satu-
ration is reached. If the latter is not done, the purchase cost
.will be much greater and the chance of obtaining and protecting
a desirable site correspondingly reduced. Insofar as topogra-
phy, present land use and economics will permit, the airport
should be as close as possible to the center of the area from which
air traffic originates. Comprehensive forward planning is es-
sential to the establishment of efficient, economical, nuisance-
free airports.
H-13
-------
Such planning may require changes in the laws that govern the
use of the navigable airspace, including the flight path to and
from airports. Coordination and standardization in the devel-
opment of airports used in interstate commerce are necessary.
It is possible that the future will call for a system of airports for
a metropolitan area with separate facilities for certain types of
air traffic. This involves regional and city planning and par-
ticularly questions of interconnecting highway and air services
and the integration of the air and ground traffic. It also im-
plies successful development of short-haul aircraft, possibly of
the helicopter type.
The inadequacy of our present road network, particularly in
the vicinity of rnajor cities and between city and airport, is one
of the greatest deterrents to the further development of trans-
port aviation.
Navigable Airspace
As a result of fear engendered by low flying aircraft, several
communities have recently passed local ordinances prohibiting
flight over them at altitudes less than 1,000 feet. Along airways,
such regulations would present no problem. They could, how-
ever, severely hamper approaches to certain airports. It is an-
ticipated that the courts will shortly be called upon to decide
this question.
This Commission believes that the Federal Government,
through the Civil Aeronautics Board and the CAA, now has
authority from Congress to regulate and determine approaches
for* airports used in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the CAA
should determine what is the best approach pattern for a par-
ticular airport, and should then declare that the "safe altitude"
in that area is in conformity with the airport approach pattern.
Pursuant to the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, this should mean
that there is a "public right of transit" in accordance with that
airport approach pattern. If the pattern appears to depreciate-
property values of underlying landowners, the Federal Govern-
ment might, if funds are made available by the Congress, exer-
H-14
-------
cise the power of eminent domain to acquire title to the land. If
an casement through the airspace is involved, it appears that
additional legislation would be required.
Airport Certification.
It is clear that commercial airports are instrumentalities of
interstate and foreign commerce. As such, they have a definite
public character^: "Th
-------
and municipal governments should be prepared to assume their
proper share of this expense.
2. Expand Federal-Aid Airport Program. Authorization of
matching funds for Federal aid to airports should be implemented
by adequate appropriations. Highest priority in the applica-
tion of Federal aid should be given to runways and their pro-
tective extensions incorporated into the airport, to bring major
municipal airports up to standards recommended in this report.
3. Integrate municipal and airport planning. Airports
should be made a part of community master plans completely
integrated with transportation requirements for passenger, ex-
press, freight and postal services. Particular attention should
be paid to limited access highways and other transportation
facilities to reduce time to the airport from sources of air trans-
port business.
4. Incorporate cleared runway extension areas into air-
ports. The dominant runways of new airport projects should be
protected by cleared extensions at each end at least one-half mile
in length and 1,000 feet wide. This area should be completely
free from housing or any other form of obstruction. Such ex-
tensions should be considered an integral part of the airport.
5. Establish effective zoning laws. A fan-shaped zone,- be-
yond the'half-mile cleared extension described in Recommenda-
tion 4, at least two miles long and 6,000 feet wide at its outer
limits .should be .established at, new airports by zoning law, air
easement or land purchase at each end of dominant runways. In
this area, the height of buildings and also the use of the land
should be controlled to eliminate the erection of places of public
assembly, churches, hospitals, schools, etc., and to restrict resi-
dences to the more distant locations within the zone.
6. Improve existing airports. Existing airports must con-
tinue to serve their communities. However, cities should go as
far as is practical toward developing the cleared areas and zoned
runway approaches recommended for new airports. No further
H-16
-------
building should be permitted pn runway extensions and, wher-
ever possible/OTJec^ipriiible structures should be removed. Op-
erating procedures shoiuid be modified in b'ne with Commission
recommendations for minimizing hazard and nuisance to persons
living in the vicinity of such airports.
7. Clarify laws and regulations governing use of airspace.
Authority of the Federal, State or municipal governments with
respect to the regulation of the use of airspace should be clarified
to avoid conflicting regulation and laws. N
8. Define navigable airspace in approach zones. The limits
of the navigable airspace for glide path or take-off patterns at
airports should be defined.
9. Extend Civil Aeronautics Act to certificate airports. The
Civil Aeronautics Act should be amended to require certification
of airports necessary for interstate commerce and to specify the
terms and conditions under which airports so certified shall be
operated. Certificates should be revoked if minimum standards
for safety are not maintained. Closing or abandonment of an
airport should be ordered or allowed only if clearly in the public
interest.
10. Maintain positive air traffic control. Certain air traffic
control zones in areas of high air traffic density should be made
the subject of special regulations to insure that all aircraft within
the zone are under positive air traffic control at all times regard-
less of weather.
11. Raise circling and maneuvering minimum*. Present
straight:in instrument approach minimums are considered satis-
factory but the minimum ceilings and visibilities under which
aircraft are permitted to circle or maneuver under the overcast
in congested terminal areas should be raised.
12. Accelerate installation of aids to air navigation. Re-
search and development programs and installation projects de-
signed to improve aids to navigation and traffic control in the
H-17
-------
vicinity of airports, especially in congested areas, should be
accelerated. Installation and adequate manning of radar traffic
control systems should be given high priority.
13. Revise present cross-wind component limits. Existing
cross-wind component limitations should be reviewed to estab-
lish more liberal cross-wind landing and take-off specifications
for each transport-type aircraft.
14. Develop and use cross-wind equipment. Although mod-
. em transport aircraft can operate successfully in any but very
strong cross-winds, the further development and use of special
cross-wind landing gears should be accelerated.
15. Extend use of single runway system. New airports should
adopt a single or parallel runway design. This should be ade-
quate except under strong wind conditions, in which case a
shorter runway at 90° to the main one may be required. Present
airports should plan to develop the dominant runway at the
expense of those less used. Airport expansion should be achieved
through additional parallel runways.
16. Meet standard requirements for runway length. For
each category of airport a standard runway length has been
established consistent with its future planned use. Airports
should bring their runways up to the standard. For interconti-
nental or transcontinental airports, the length of the dominant
runways should be 8,400 feet with possibility of expansion to
10,000'f'qet'if later required and'Vith clear approaches as per
Recommendations 4 and 5.
17; Accelerate ground noise reduction programs. Engine
run-up schedules and run-up locations should be adjusted to
minimize noise near airports. Adequate acoustical treatment in
run-up areas and at test stands should be provided.
18. Instruct flight personnel concerning nuisance factors. A
tight discipline with respect to airport approach and departure
procedures to minimize noise nuisance to people on the ground
H-18
-------
(withinthe limits of safe operating procedures) should be main-
tained at all times.1
19. Arrange flight patterns to reduce ground noise. Airways
and flight patterns near airports should be arranged to avoid
unnecessary flight over thickly settled areas to minimize noise,
but only within the limits of safe flight practice.
20. Minimize training flights at congested airports. Flight
crew'training should be conducted, as far as practicable, away
from thickly settled areas and with a minimum number of flights
into and out of busy airports.
21. Minimize test flights near metropolitan areas. Produc-
tion flyaway from aircraft factories under proper conditions is
acceptable but all flights of experimental aircraft and test flying
of production models near built-up areas should be reduced as
far as possible.
22. Avoid military training over congested areas. Although
the basing of reserve air units at airports near cities has been
considered generally desirable, and the location of certain com-
bat units there is sometimes necessary, training maneuvers, par-
ticularly with armed military aircraft, should be conducted only
over open spaces. Rapid shuttle service to an outlying military
training field offers minimum interference with civil air opera-
dons and maximum safety and freedom from nuisance to people
on the ground.
23. Separate military and civil flying at congested airports.
Military aircraft should not be based on congested civil airports
except when it is not economically or otherwise feasible to pro-
vide separate facilities for them nor should'commercial aircraft
operate regularly from busy military airports.
24. Provide more flight crew training. Every flight crew
should be required to have frequent drills in instrument and
emergency procedures. This can be accomplished in part in
flight simulators. These flight simulators should be located at
H-19
-------
conyenient points and should be available to all operators on a
faif;basis.
25. Develop Helicopters for civil tue. Concurrent with mili-
tary helicopter development, interested government agencies
should encourage, civil helicopter development for inter-airport
shuttle •services'," and for short-haul use, emphasizing safety, re-
liability and public toleration factors.
H-20
-------
APPENDIX I
Excerpts from.the-Harding Report on Government Organization,
Interagency Coordination, and the Federal Role in Civil Aviation.
Comments of J. G. Bennett, Jr. and N. E. Halaby
-------
APPENDIX I
EXCERPTS FROM THE HARDING REPORT ON GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION, INTER AGENCY COORDINATION, AND THE
FEDERAL ROLE IN CIVIL AVIATION. COMMENTS OF J. G.
BENNETT JR. AND N. E. HALABY.
ORGANIZATION
By Jo Gordon Bennett, Jr0
Prior to 1926 — the infant days of aviation — matters pertain-
ing to navigation aids, communications, and air traffic control were the
responsibility of the Bureau of Lighthouses. The Air Commerce Act of
1926 created an Assistant Secretary to help the Secretary of Commerce
foster air commerce and designate air routes.
The Air Mail Act of 193k established a commission to recommend a
U. S. aviation policy. The recommendations of this commission contri-
buted to the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 which created an independent
agency called the Civil Aeronautics Authority. The Civil Aeronautics
Authority was responsible not only for developing, installing, and operat-
ing airways and air traffic control facilities, but also for economic and
safety regulation and accident investigation.
Under Reorganization Plans III and IV of 19liO, President Roosevelt
divided the Civil Aeronautics Authority — keeping the adjudicating,
economic, and accident investigation functions, and the promulgation of
broad safety regulations under what we now know as the Civil Aeronautics
Board. He .placed airports, safety enforcement, airways, communications,
and air traffic control under the Civil Aeronautics Administration. He
then put the Civil Aeronautics Administration within the Department of
Commerce, where it remains today.
From 1938 to 19U6 there was a massive expansion and technical
growth of aviation, domestic and international, civil and military.
Aviation thus spread out into many new areas of our governmental
structure. .In order to have a coordinated government policy on both
domestic and International aviation, the President in 19^6 established
the Air Coordinating Committee. The mission of the Air Coordinating
Committee was to examine aviation problems and developments affecting
more than one participating agency and to develop and recommend, inte-
grated policies.
As post-war civil and military air traffic increased, delays
caused by inadequate air navigation and traffic control facilities in-
creased. To meet their individual needs, civil and military agencies
were developing separate devices for air navigation and traffic control.
In 19U7 the need for development o£ a single or "common system" was
recognized and an industry-government advisory organization, founded in
1935, and known as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, drew
up the basic requirements of such a system.
In order to keep the civil and military agencies coordinated in
the implementation of this long-range effort, the Air Navigation
I 1
-------
Development Board was created in 19U8. The Air Navigation Development
Board was charged with preparing a single budget for all research and
development required in connection with the common system, and neither
the civil nor the military agencies were to begin or maintain any
research and development without the express authorization of the
Board.
In summary then, the present responsibility for Aviation Facilities
development, within the Government, is distributed somewhat as follows:
• The Civil Aeronautics Administration has the
responsibility for operating the airways.
. The military services fly under Civil Aero-
nautics Administration's control but must,
of necessity, provide certain traffic con-
trol and air navigation services to meet
their own requirements, if the Civil Aero-
nautics Administration is unable to meet
them.
. The Air Coordinating Committee has the
responsibility for coordinating broad
aviation policies.
,*
• The Air Navigation Development Board is
responsible for coordinating Aviation
Facilities development programs.
• The Radio Technical Commission for Aero-
nautics is a government-industry advisory
organization with no continuing official
government status;- which serves upon
request.
There are now over 75 committees, subcommittees, and special
working groups addressing themselves to Aviation Facilities matters.
The existence of so many groups is not, in itself, an evil, but it is
increasingly apparent that the process of coordination is becoming more
and more time consuming, and that preoccupation with current issues tends
to obscure forward vision.
-30-
1-2
-------
SectioQ 6
THE ORGANIZATION OF A STUDY LEADING TO A PLAN
FOR A NATIONAL AVIATIQN FACILITIES SYSTEM
By ~N. E. Halaby
It is clear that a great deal of effort has been made to coordinate
the activities of various government departments and agencies in the de-
velopment and operation of Aviation Facilities. But it is also clear that
the development of the required facilities is lagging far behind the needs
of aviation. ' '
It seems appropriate to re-examine the organizational structure of
the government for handling the planning, programming, and development of a
national Aviation Facilities system.
We find that none of the interdepartmental committees dealing with
coordination has any independent executive authority. Their members serve
only on a part-time basis and the membership changes frequently. While it
was originally intended that, in addition to exercising their coordinating
functions, they -would be instrumentalities for the development of forward
looking policies, they have, in practice, become primarily mechanisms where-
in the representatives of various? Federal agencies iceet to debate and,
whenever possible, coordinate action on pressing current problems. Further-
more, the coordination among the committees themselves has become a problem,
and the delineation of their respective functions is not always clear.
It is not our desire to belittle the useful functions which these
organizations perform, but we do wish to note their practical limitations.
Be think it is abundantly clear that, because of their basic structure,
they cannot be expected to provide the dynamic leadership required for
origination and development of a comprehensive national Aviation Facilities
system. Certain essential elements of effective government action seem to
be missing — full time direction, full disclosure of departmental in-
formation and plans, closely coordinated budgetary planning and funding,
and a unified approach to the Congress in matters of appropriations.
Most of the reports which come put of these committees appear to be
statements of requirements, which may be excellent in themselves; but these
requirements require budgetary support and authoritative decision and
assignment of necessary resources before they can become programs ready
to be put into action.
A recent report of Special Working Group No. 13 of the Air Coor-
dinating Committee, entitled "Aids to Air Navigation and Landing", contains
two statements which illustrate the problem:
"It has been concluded that ' research and development programs
have been severely handicapped for lack of continued participation
-31-
1-3
-------
of operational planning groups.' Such groups 'after writing
reports and recommendations, disbanded and their sponsoring
agencies did not continue to review progress and keep opera-
tional requirements up to date1."
"There has been insufficient recognition of air traffic control ,
requirements from a budgetary standpoint. Not only is strong
budgetary support needed for the immediate needs of the air
traffic control system, but strong support is needed for a
proper research and development program for air traffic con-
trol. This is essential because it is impossible to imagine
that any air traffic control system will in itself become the
ultimate. Keeping pace with the rapid advancements in air-
craft design will actually result in a series of so-called
'ultimate1 systems which through evolution will in themselves
become interim transitions to a better system.H
It seems evident that there is a need for forceful, high level
direction of the studies leading to a national Aviation Facilities program.
Inasmuch as the regular departments of the government are fully occupied
with heavy operating responsibilities which are diverse and sometimes
conflicting, and as the interdepartmental committees are fully occupied
in resolving day-to-day conflicts, it seems logical to conclude, as we
have done, that the direction of the study necessary for intelligent
future planning should be established elsewhere in the government.
It is our conclusion that the study should be undertaken within
the framework of tb.6 executive branch and should be headed by an individual
serving under a temporary appointment in the Executive Office of the President.
The personal qualifications of the individual selected for this assign-
ment are of paramount importance, in our opinion. He will have to exercise
a high degree of leadership in dealing with the disputes which will inevitably
arise as a result of the varying objectives of the users of our airspace. The
Armed Forces, for example, aggressively strive for optimum combat performance
other considerations being secondary. The airlines put safety and economy
ahead of maximum performance. The owners and operators of small private
and miscellaneous commercial aircraft are often unable to afford some of the
very expensive and heavy equipment that the military, the airlinen and large
business aircraft operators may be willing, to buy, and therefore sometimes
find themselves at odds with both the military and the scheduled airlines.
We believe that placing responsibility on an individual is more likely
to produce successful results than would be the case if the assignment were
made to a board, committee or commission, although we recognize that the
individual selected might desire an advisory commission or committee to help
him, and may need to enlist the aid of talents available outside of the
government.
We believe the urgency of the problem is such that no effort should
-32-
i-4
-------
be spared to find an individual of superior talents and proper background
who has the President's confidence and rho can work on a basis of mutual
trust and respect with those members of the Cabinet most directly concerned.
Source: U. S. Aviation Facilities Study Group, W. B. Harding, Chairman.
Aviation Facilities; The Report of the Aviation Facilities Study
Group to the Director, Bureau of the Budget, Dec. 31, 1955,
pp. 24-33.
1-5
-------
APPENDIX J
Contractor Reports for Curtis Report
-------
APPENDIX J
CONTRACTOR REPORTS FOR CURTIS REPORT
Vol. I. Summary - Final-Report on National Requirements for
Aviation Facilities 1956-1975,-- (Airborne Instruments
Laboratory, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Aero-
nautical Research Foundation), May 1957.
Covers in broad terms the character of air
traffic today and over next twenty years;
aircraft characteristics; and forecast of air
commerce and general aviation.
Vol. II. Air Traffic Volume -- (Airborne Instruments Laboratory),
May, 1957.
Covers in detail the techniques and results of
an air traffic survey in eight air traffic hubs
~ ancTalbhg one enroute area and relates this
survey to 48 other important hubs. The data are
in terms of the numbers of airplanes in the air
at different instants during the day and the
numbers of movements per hour. This type of
interpretation of air traffic is applied to future
years.
Vol. III. Aircraft Characteristics -- (Cornell Aeronautical
Laboratory), May, 1957.
Describes in detail evolving performance
characteristics of commercial arid private
aircraft over next twenty years. A classified
supplement covering future military aircraft
performance characteristics was '•'-' available
to authorized persons.
Vol. IY,. Forecast of Aviation Activity -- (Aeronautical Research
Foundation), June, 1957.
Describes in detail the research and the
findings of the Aeronautical Research
Foundation with respect to the national J
economy, air carrier passenger traffic,
and air carrier and general aviation aircraft
movements in the Nation, and in eight selected
metropolitan areas over the next twenty years.
J-l
-------
Vol. V. Modernizmgyj the National System of Aviation Facilities --
(Curtis Systems Engineering Team), May, 1957.
Describes a concept of air traffic control as a
guide for the modernization of the Nation's
aviation facilities. It also sets forth a three -
part program" (1) to obtain the most efficiency in
the current Federal airways; (2) the application
of existing technology for the modernization of air
traffic control; and (3) a method for continuing
modernization of the system.
3-2
-------
; APPENDIX K
Recommendations of the Curtis Group Concerning Aircraft Noise
-------
APPENDIX K
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CURTIS GROUP CONCERNING
AIRCRAFT NOISE.
Source:
Office of Aviation Facilities Planning, the White House,
Modernizing the National System of Aviation FacilitiesT
pp 61 -62.
IX. AIRCRAFT NOISE
A factor exerting tremendous influence on current
airport design is the consideration of aircraft noise
resulting from landing and takeoff .operations as well
as maintenance operations on the airport. This con-.
sideration becomes increasingly important as air
traffic grows, as airports approach capacity opera-
tion, and as the new jet aircraft are introduced into
operation.
To minimize the potential effect of this factor, the
airport planner, should—
a. Align runways consistent with operational
considerations, such as air traffic control and
wind requirements, to make maximum use of
natural open areas, such as waterways and
parks, for approach and departure paths.
b. Provide areas on the airport which, -
through location or construction of physical
facilities, will keep ground runup noise level to
a reasonable value.
The Federal Government shoohl'r-y
a. Encourage research to minimize
the noise generated by both military and
civil aircraft. Obviously, to avoid inter-
ference with the primary defense mis-
sion, the limitation on military aircraft
may, from necessity, be less severe than
that for civil aircraft. However, much
pioneering work in this field can i»e ac-
complished and applied to military air-
craft, and thus benefit the communities
in those areas where military operations
are conducted.
b. Consider the noise factor in adopt-
ing air traffic control procedures, in
order to minimize noise to the commu-
nities, within the limits of providing safe,
efficient air traffic control.
c. Provide the installations needed
to support noise control procedures
adopted as a result of item b. For in-
stance, instrument runways should be
completely equipped for bidirectional
use, thereby practically eliminating the
need for low-altitude circling during IFR
conditions. For the very small percent-
age of approaches during IFR weather
which cannot be accommodated on the
main instrument runway when it is
equipped for bidirectional use, proce-
dures should be developed for straight-in
letdown to cross runways.
The control of aircraft noise during landing and
takeoff operations must be accomplished in the man-
ner which will permit maximum development of our
present airport system. To assume that the prob-
lem can be solved by moving airports out of devel-
oped areas is fallacious. Airports must be located to
serve the traffic-generating areas, which means they
must be relatively close to these areas. Further,
large metropolitan areas have such a tremendous
potential for air traffic development that existing
airports, as well as new airports, will be needed to
handle this capacity. The air traffic control system
needed to feed airport complexes in large metropol-
itan areas will require that existing airports be ex- .
panded to their maximum, and that new airports be
located far enough from existing airports to avoid
conflict between approach and departure paths. The
solution to the aircraft noise problem will lie in
reducing the noise at the source—the aircraft engine.
K-l
-------
APPENDIX L
Organization of and Persons Cooperating with the Card Study
-------
APPENDIX L
ORGANIZATION OF AND PERSONS COOPERATING WITH
THE CARD STUDY.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
An Advisory Committee, organized within the framework of the National Academy-of Engineering.
was established at the outset and provided invaluable advice and guidance in the course of the Joint
Study. Members of the Advisory Committee were:
Chairman
H. Guyford Stever
President
Carnegie-Mellon University
Harmer E. Davis.
Director. Institute of Transportation
and Traffic Engineering
University of California
John E. Gallagher
President
McCulloch International, Inc.
James E. Gorham
Vice President
Systems Analysis and Research
Corporation
Robert E. Hage
Vice President for Engineering
Douglas Aircraft Company
Willis L. Hawkins
Senior Vice President for Science
and Engineering
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
Samuel L. Higginbottom
President
Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
James E. Knott
Vice President and General Manager
Allison Division
General Motors Corporation
John M. Kyle. Jr.
Chief Engineer
The Port of New York Authority
(Deceased September 20, 1970)
Vice Chairman
Raymond L. Bisplinghoff
Deputy Director
National Science Foundation
William P. Lear, Sr.
Chairman of the Board
Lear Motors Corporation
George B. Litchford
Consultant
William C. Mentzcr
Senior Vice President for
Engineering and Maintenance
United Air Lines, Inc.
Rene H. Miller
Head, Department of Aeronautics
and Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James P. Mitchell
Vice President
Chase Manhattan Bank
James M. Nissen
Manager
San Jose Municipal Airport
William L. Pereira
President
William L. Pereira & Associates
Perry W. Pratt
Vice President and Chief Scientist
United Aircraft Corporation
Stanley Seltzer
Director of Air Traffic Control RcseUrch
American Airlines, Inc.
L-l
-------
George E. Solomon
Vice President and Director of
Systems Laboratories
TRW Systems Group, TRW, Inc.
Edward J. Swearingcn
President
Swearingen. Aircraft
Dwanc L. Wallace
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Cessna Aircraft Company
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The work of the Joint Study was accomplished under the general direction of a Management
Committee, made up of:
Chairman
Robert H. Cannon, Jr.
Assistant Secretary for Systems Development
and Technology
Department of Transportation
Neil A. Armstrong
Deputy Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Roy P. Jackson
Associate Administrator for Advanced
Research and Technology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Vice Chairman
Alfred J. Eggcrs, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Policy
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Gustav E. Lundquist
Associate Administrator for
Engineering and Development
Federal Aviation Administration
Robert N. Parker
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Systems Development and Technology
Department of Transportation
JOINT STUDY STAFF
The Joint Study was staffed with selected personnel from the following agencies:
Civil Aeronautics Board
Department of the Air Force
Department of the Army
The following individuals participated:
Executive Director1
Clarence A. Syvcrtson
Department of Transportation
Charles C. Baker, Colonel
United States Air Force
Department of the Navy
Department of Transportation
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Deputy Director
Clotairc Wood
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
James S. Bauchspies, Lt. Col.
United States Army
1 Lawrence P. Greene served as Executive Director of the Joint Study from its beginning until July 1 970.
11-6
L-2
-------
Neal A. Blake i
Federal Aviation Administration
Lee K. Brccce
Department of Transportation
William F. Brown
Department of Transportation
Allan C. Butterworth
Consultant
William H. Close
Department of Transportation
Paul E. Cotton
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Theodore P. Crichton, Colonel
United States Air Force
Hubert M. Drake
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Walter W. Fclton
Federal Aviation Administration
George B. Graves, Jr.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Richard C. Hannori .
Department of Transportation
S. Paul Johnston
Consultant
Cletus C. Kresge, Colonel, USAF
Department of Transportation
Samuel A. LaMar
Consultant
Alfonso B. Linhares
Department of Transportation
John G. Lowry
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Robert L. Maxwell
Department of Transportation
Bedford D. May
Department of Transportation
James C. McCollom
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Myron Miller
Dcparthicnt of Transportation
James H. Mollenauer
Federal: Aviation Administration
William J. Nemercver
Consultant
Norman G. Paulhus, Jr.
Department of Transportation
Richard H. Petcrsen
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John O. Powers
Federal Aviation Administration
William E. Simpson, Captain
United States Navy
Stanley M. Smolensky
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Philip J. Stcccc
Federal Aviation Administration
David A. Lehman
President's Commission on Executive
Personnel Interchange
IBM Corporation
Fred R. Steven
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
William Weinfcld
Civil Aeronautics Board
11-7
L-3
-------
Paul D. Wilburn
Federal Aviation Administration
Wilbur Williams
Department of Transportation
Richard J. Wisniewski
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Additional individuals who also participated
in the Joint Study are: William H. Allen,
Francis J. Bassett, G. W. eleven, Benjamin F. L.
Darden, Lee D. Goolsby, Harold Hoekstra,
Jules I. Kanter, Marcus A. Kaplan, -George C.
Kenyon, Laurence K. Loftin.Jr., Daniel P.
Maxfteld, Marion Maxfield, Vernon S. Meissner,
Charles E. Miller, Clyde: W. Pace, Jr., Walter N.
Pike, Lewis W. Still, and Richard J. Wasicko.
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Joint DOT-NASA Civil Aviation
Research and Development Policy Study was first
recommended by Dr. Glen P. Wilson of the staff
of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and
Space Sciences. Dr. Wilson made a preliminary
study in the summer of 1965.
CONTRACTORS
COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS
The Joint DOT-NASA Civil Aviation R&D
Policy Study acknowledges the assistance and
advice of the following agencies and
organizations:
Aerospace Industries Association of America
Air Transport Association of America
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of Justice x
Department of State
Export-Import Bank of the United States
General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Interstate Commerce Commission
Library of Congress
National Aeronautics and Space Council
National Science Foundation
National Transportation Safety Board
President's Advisory Council on Executive
Organization
Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics
Science Council of Canada
Scientific Manpower Commission
Transportation Association of America
The following contractors provided informa-
tion used in the course of the Joint Study:
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Aviation Data Service, Inc.
Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc.
Control Data Corporation
George Washington University
Lockheed-Georgia Company
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
Operations Research, Inc.
Peat, M;irwick, Mitchell & Company
Planning Research Corporation
Source: U. S. Department of Transportation and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Civil
Aviation Research and Development Policy Study,
DDT TST-10-4 and NASA SP-2o5. Washington,
D. C. , March 1971, Appendix B, pp 11-5 to 11-8.
L-4
-------
APPENDIX M
RADCAP Study Organization
-------
APPENDIX M
RAPCAP .' STUDY ORGAN i ZAT i ON
'I').):':;:. C. Muse, Chairman
J.i'.f.:-".•;:-:•• K. Loft in, Jr.
C.U::.a ; ve 'WoOi!/'-ch---rd Wisnicwski
A'lj.-i:i '.'. But tcrv:Gri-.]i
DoD/DUKf,E
•DoD/SAl-'KO'
NASA
DoT
Col Jo'in G. Pauli r.i ck
Joiner. ?... Sin^crr ,
Carl I.. Meyer
Piiilj;; Donely
Ou'ir.irs C. Troha
DoD/USAF(Al-SC/ASD)
DoD/USAr(AI:SC/ASD)
NASA/Lewis
NASA/Langlcy
DoT
WORKING GROUP ADVISORS
J. Arthur Boykin, Jr.
Johvi Li. Short
Jc:'t:i 5. Attinollc;
DoD/USAFCAPSC/ASU)
DoD/USAF(AFSC/ASD)
IDA
MA!RMF.N
Charles- R. Hudson, Jr.
Mei.corolo;iy
Maj James B. GcbJiard
Robert. H. Dear, (Alternate)
Avloni cs
Ricl'aj-d J. Frar.ime
Ma Verio. Is
Albert Olevitch
Hu::i;:n Factors/Aviation' Medicine
Dr. V.'aJlter F. Grethcr
DoD/USAF (AFSC/AFAPI.O
DoD/USAP(AKS)
' DoD/USAF (AV.'S)
DoD/USAF(AFSC/ASD)
DoD/USAF(AFSC/AFML)
DoD/USAF (Al'SC/AMRL)
M-l
-------
RADCAP STUDY ORGANIZATION (Continued)
WORKING GROUP PANEL CHAIRMEN (Continued)
Ai r Vehic.l '• Techno]ugy
Howard A. Majj'mth
Technology IVisc Rc3ovancy_/Ciyi 1 Aviation
Capt Jerry R. Stockton
Development Ijase, Relevancy/Civil Aviation
Fred D.. Orszio, Sr.
: Aeronautical R£D Funding
Kelsey P. Schlosser
DoD/USAF(Al;SC/AFr-m.)
DoD/USAF(AFSC/ASD)
DoD/USAF(AFSC/ASD)
DoD/USAF(AFSC/ASD)
Source: U.S. Dept. of Defense, NASA, Dept. of Transportation.
R & D Contribution a tn Aviation Progress. Aug. 1972,
Vol. I, PP 4-5.
M-2
-------
APPENDIX N
Members, Staff, Consultants, and Organizations
Assisting the Aviation Advisory Commission
-------
APPENDIX N
MEMBERS, STAFF, CONSULTANTS AND ORGANIZATIONS ASSISTING
THE AVIATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
Sourcet U.S. Aviation Advisory Commission. Report, The Long
gauge Needs of Aviation. January 1, 1973.
AVIATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
CROCKER SNOW, Chairman
, Director
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
•Aeronautics Commission
LESLIE 0. BARNES
President
Allegheny Airlines, Inc.
LAURETTA FOY
Chief Pilot
Southland Helicopters
Los Angeles, California
GERALD GRINSTEIN, Partner
Preston, Thorgrimson, Starin,
Ellis and Holman
Attorneys-at-law
Seattle, Washington
. " JAMES s. MCDONNELL
Chairman of the Board
McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
RAI Y. OKAMOTO
President '.
The Okamoto Associates
Planners and Architects
San Francisco, California
WILLARD G. PLENTL
Director
Commonwealth of Virginia
Division of Aeronautics
ELVIS J. STAHR
President
National Audubon Society
New York City
THOMAS M. SULLIVAN
Executive Director
Dallas/Fort Worth Regional airport Board
N-l
-------
STAFF
Beverlee K. Ahlin
John P. Ahrendes
Diane L. Barringham
George W. Baughman
Jane L. Bitting
George F. Brewer
Thomas E. Burnard
Rose M. DeSimone
Frank H. Ferguson
John W. Gooding
Margaret W. Hart.
Maria Jenkins
George W. Kinney
Cletus C. Kresge
Pauline A. Labrie
Evelyn C. Lombardi
Mark Mason
Harvey J. Nozick
Esther M. Patras
John J. Pfarr
Alviadean Ramseur
Mary Nel J. Ryals
Peter Schauffler
Barbara S. Schilberg
Christine A. Schweitzer
Jeanne M. Stroude
Maurice A. Sulkin
Mary J. Tolbert
John P. Woods
* * *
The average size of the staff at any one time
was fourteen people.
N-2
-------
Contractors & Consultants
VI
AVIATION MANAGEMENT INTL. V.
Mary.Anderson . .-••.•.• ••••'-•••-
BACK & STERLING ASSOCIATES
Peter Back ,
BATTELLE COLUMBUS LABORATORIES
Dr. Alfred Robinson
RICHARD J. BARBER : ;
(National Academy of Sciences),
BOLT, BERANEK & NEWMAN
Dr. William J. Galloway .
BOOZ ALLEN APPLIED RESEARCH
Dr. Williarh P. Sommers
FRANK B. BRADY
(Kearlott Division Singer-Precision)
JOHN'M. BURZIO ; J
ROBERT BURKHARDT "'.,-. ., ;
. DR. JAMES.G. COKE ..'...
(Kent State University) .
CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABS
Dr. Charles Siark Dr^oer
KENNETH M. ELDRED
(Wyle Labs)
JOHN B. FISHER '"'
GLEN A. GILBERT ASSOCIATES
Glen A. 'Gilbert •'."..
DR. ROBERT HORONJEFF.
(University of California) ,
KENDALL K. HOYT
LOUIS T. KLAUDER
(Louis T. Klaua'tir & Associates)
LANDRDivl & BROWN INC.
Cha'les Lanrirum
LINCOLN LABORATORIES
Massachusetts in?tilL'te of Technology
Dr. Herbert G. Weiss
ARTHUR D. LITTLE. INC.
Dr. AI.VT Doiihoiser
GROVER LOENING
DR. DORN C. McGRATH
(George Washington University)
JAMES B. MINOR
DR. RENE MILLER
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
MITRE CORPORATION
Charles Zraket
Robert Nutter
Arnold Cohen
NORTHROP AIRPORT
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Wintield Arjita
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, INC.
- Dr.'Howr.rd Eisner
DAPHNE M. PETTY
Daphno M. Petty Associates
SANBORK'E ASSOCIATES
William F. Burke
SIMAT. HELLiESEN i\ EICHNER
Nathan S. Simat
DR. ROBERT W. SiMPSON
(Flight Transpoilaiion Center, MIT)
RICHARD AUSTIN SMITH
R. DIXCN SF-EAS & ASSOCIATES
R. Dixon Speas
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS &
RESEARCH CORPORATION
James H. Gorham : -
SIMPSON & CUP.TIN
ROBERT H. TARH
•- (Engineering £. Economic Planning Group)
JEWPLE: BARKl-R f, SLOANC
Dr. P?v' Cf-isrlricjior.
JOSEPH C. W/\':'SOM
N-3
-------
AAC Studies
REPORT ON NATIONAL GOALS, September 1971, Systems Analysis
Research Corporation
REPORT ON EXISTING AVIATION POLICIES, September 1971,
James B. Minor, and Joseph C. Watson
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF AVIATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS
Final Report, March 31, 1972, Operations Research, Inc.
AVIATION NEEDS 1972-2000, PRELIMINARY FUTURE CONCEPTS,
April 3, 1972, R. Dixon Speas Association, Inc.
FORECAST TECHNOLOGICAL PROBABILITIES, Final Report Task 220,
February 1972, Northrop Airport Development Corporation
SYSTEM SELECTION STUDY, TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, May 26, 1972,
Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc., Landrum & Brown, Inc.,
Simpson & Curtin, Inc.(Draft)
SYSTEM SELECTION STUDY, SYSTEMS EVALUATION, May 17, 1972,
Booz Allen Applied Research, Inc., Landrum & Brown, Inc.,
Simpson & Curtin, Inc^(Draft)
(IMPLEMENTATION) INFORMATION MEMORANDUM - AAC,
Volumes I and II, April 10, 1972, Arthur D. Little, Inc.
IMPACT OF BUSINESS JETS ON COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE,
August 21, 1972, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.
COST ESTIMATES FOR REMOVAL OF RESIDENTIAL & RELATED
LAND USES NEAR SELECTED AIRPORTS, August 25, 1971,
Back & Sterling, Inc.
CLASSIFICATION OF AIRPORT ENVIRONS BY AIRPORT/COMMUNITY
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, January 28, 1972, Back & Sterling, Inc,
N-4
-------
86
Acknowledgements
The Commission has benefited greatly from the advice
and assistance of a large number of individuals and
organizations. All of them will be gratefully acknowl-
edged in the Technical Annex. Listed here are only
the 56 organizations which helped in the selection of
major issues, and those that participated in Commission
conferences to develop those issues.
Organizations Responding To Major Issues
Questionnaire
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
Air Line Employees Association, International
Air Line Pilots Association
Air Traffic Control Association. Incorporated
Air Transport Association of America
Airline Passengers Association
American Association of Airport Executives
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
American Institute of Planners
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Planning Officials
Association of Local Transport Airlines
Aviation Development Council
Aviation Distributors and Manufacturers Association
Civil Aeronautics Board
Dallas/Ft. Worth Regional Airport Board
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Health. Eoucation & Welfare
Department of Transportation
Experimental Aircraft Association
Feaeral Aviation Administration (DOT)
Feoerai Communications Commission
Fiighi Safely Founoaiion. inc.
.General Aviation Manufacturers Association
Jzaak Walton League or America, inc.
National Aeronautic Associaiion
National Aeronautics ano Space Administration
National Air Transportation Conferences, inc.
National Association of Sia;e Aviat.on Ori.ciaii
National Aviation Trades Association
National Business Aircraft Association. Inc
National Center for Urban ano Industrial Health
National Governors' Conference
National Heliport Standards Council
National League of Cities
National Parks and Conservation Foundation
National Pilots Association
National Resources Defense Council, Inc.
National Transportation Safety Board (DOT) ^
National Wildlife Federation
Preston, Thorgrimson, Starin, Ellis & Holman
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization
Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Sierra Club
Society of Air Safety Investigators
Soaring Society of America
The Conservation Foundation
The Everglades Council
Transportation Association of America
United Automobile, Aeronautics & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America—DAW
U. S. Conference of Mayors
N-5
-------
APPENDIX O
Members and Consultants, Task Group 1,
EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
-------
APPENDIX O
MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS, TASK GROUP I, EPA
AIR CRAFT/AIR PORT NOISE STUDY.
I o Members
Ms0 Elizabeth Cuadra (Chairman)
Mr. George Alderson
Mr. David Bach
Ms. Judy Campbell Bird
Mr. Wallace E. Brown
Mr. John E. Bryson
Mr. George U. Carneal, Jr0
Mr. Dick Danforth
Mr» Clifford A. Deeds
Mr. Dick Denney
Mr, Charles H. Dudley
Mr, Dick Dyer
Dr. Marjorie W0 Evans
Ms. Ellen S. D. Flynn
Ms. Joan S. Gravatt
Mr. Stanley J. Green
Mr. Georgr Grumbach
Mso Janet Gray Hayes
Mr. John Helleger.s
Mr., Lloyd Hintor.
0-1
I-A.-1
Representing
Environmental Protection Agency
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Protection Agency
National Association of Counties
Department of Commerce
Natural Resources Defense-
Council , Inco
Federal .Aviation.Adninistration
Town-Village-Aircraft Safety and
Noise Abatement Committee
(TVASNAC)
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of State
National Association of State
Aviation Officials
Sierra Club
Council of State Governments
Department of. State
General Aviation Manufacturers
Association
Air Transport Association of
America
City of San Jose.-, California
Environmental Defense Fund
National Organization r.o Insure
a Sound-Controlled Environ.-ient:
(NOISE)
-------
I. Members
Representing
Mr. Steven Horowitz
Mr. Craig W. Johnson
Mr. Daniel Joseph
Mr. George Lapham
Ms. Catherine Lerza
Mr. Joseph Lesser
Mr. Neil G. McBride
Mr. Ivars V. Mellups
Brig. Gen. Martin Menter
Mr. Charles Miller
Ms.'Isobel Muirhsad
Mr. John Nammack
Ms. Elizabeth Parker
Mr. Robert H. Rollins II
Mr. Seth Rosen
Ms. Gail Schultz
Mr. George P. Smith
Mr. Larry Snowhite
Mr. Robert J. Stowel1
Mr. Lyraan Tondel
Mr. Robert L. Tully
Mr. John Mo Tvler
Department of Housing & Urban
Development
Natural Resources Defense
Councilf Inc.
Department of Transportation
Air Transport Association of America
Environmental. Action, Inc.
Airport Operators Council
International
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Civil Aeronautics Board
Aircraft Owners & Pilot.? Association
Airport Operators Council
International
National Association of State
Aviation Official's
National League of Cities and U.S.
Conference of Mayors
National Aeronautics =nd Space
Administration
Airlines Pilots Association
American Institute of Planners
Environmental Protection Agency
National League of Cities and U.S.
Conference ot" Mayors
The Boeing Company
Air Transport Association of America
Airline Pilots Association
National Organisation to Insure a
Gound-Con trollc-d Sr.vironment
T , ., (N.O.I.S.K. )
0-2
-------
I. Members
Mr. John E, Varnum
Mr. Geoffrey Vitt
Mr. R. Timothv Weston
Representing
Departm&nt of Justice
Environmental Defense Fund
Council of State Governments ,
II. Other Participants (EPA Consultants and Contractors)
Ms. Behsy Amin-Arsala
Mr. Peter P. Back
Ms. Joan Gelber
Mr. Louis B. Mayo
Mr. Robert E. O'Brien
Mr. Robert L. Randall
Mr. Edward Studholme
Mr. Ernest Weiss
l
George Washington University
Consultant in Economics
George Washington University
George Washington University
Environmental Protection Agency
Legal Consultant
George Washington University-
George Washington University
Note: The membership list includes all persons who attended
one or more meetings but does not indues individuals
serving as occasional alternate of their organization's
usual representative.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Report on
Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport
Noise ajid Apportionment of Authority between Federal.
State, and Local Governments, June 1, 1973.
I-A-3
0-3
-------
APPENDIX P
Excerpt from Report of Task Group 1,
EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study
-------
APPENDIX P
EXCERPT FROM REPORT OF TASK GROUP 1, EPA
AIR CR AFT / AIRPQRT_ NpJBE_ST U DY.
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR MODIFYING THE EXISTING LEGAL/
INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM: ALTERNATIVES
Having-discussed the problems encountered in the present legal/institutional
framework for solving the aircraft/airport noise problem, this section analy/es the
major alternatives both for actions pursuant to the current institutional arrangements
and authority, and for modification of the legal/institutional arrangements. Each of
the problems identified in Section 1-4 will be addressed and alternatives for its solu-
tion discussed. Some of these alternatives can be accomplished under existing legnl
authority while others would require new legislation on either the Federal, State or
local levsl.
The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, to the extent they can be
identified, will be evaluated. Finally, in the next section, the Task Group Reconnr.on-
dations, chosen from among these alternatives, will be presented.
HOW TO ASSURE EXCHANGE OF AGENCY EXPERTISE. INFORMATION. AND
VIEWPOINTS
It was noted above that a substantial number of Federal agencies—as well as Slate
and local governments—have expertise, information, and important viewpoints which
should be considered in solving the airport noise problem. There are a number of
ways such expertise can be exchanged, and adequate balancing of information and
opinion promoted.
1. Agencies can exchange reports through a clearinghouse, such as the EPA
noise research coordination process under the Noise Control Act.
2. Agencies can be required to review and comment upon proposed regulatory
actions, as under the Noise Control Act, NEPA, and the A-8.r> process.
P-l
-------
3. Agencies having special expertise or authority can be required formally to
present their findings and determinations to the regulatory body having juris-
diction over the final decision, as for example, EPA is required to propose
to the FAA those regulations EPA determines are necessary to protect health
and welfare.
t
4. An interagency body could be formed of concerned agencies to discuss all
aspects of the problem and recommend appropriate actions to the responsible
regulatory bodies.
5. An interagency body could be formed which w.ould establish a coordinated
program and exercise actual rulemaking authority binding on all the concerned
agencies.
Both 1 and 2, report exchange and proposed action review, are passive measures
While these options promote interagency input of information, they do not address the
need to hammer out a coordinated attack on the noise problem by all of the responsible
authorities. Review and comment procedures, in particular, are reactive processes-
only engaged when action is proposed. Yet much of the problem is not ill-thought action
but inaction—an issue which is not amenable to solution by a review and comment
requirement.
Option 3, the formulation of formal input requirements, is an alternative first
suggested in Section 7 of the Noise Control Act. Under a formal input procedure, for
example, EPA would be required to determine and report to the FAA those levels of
noise found adverse to public health and welfare and recommend actions to avoid such
adverse effects. Similarly, NASA could be required to determine and inform the FAA
whenever it found a particular strategy was technically feasible, safe, and effective,
together with its estimate of the cost of implementing the technology. And HUD could
be required to report the land use problems incurred by both airport noise and alterna-
tive noise abatement strategies.
P-2
-------
The advantage of the formal determination and report process is that it is dynamic
and not reactive. Information and views which should stimulate new regulatory and
abatement programs would be exchanged prior to formulation of regulatory actions,
rather than in reaction to proposals. However, mere exchange of information and
determinations is ineffective unless the regulatory body to which they are addressed
has a duty to review and respond to the information. In this respect, for example, the
Noise Control Act contains provisions requiring FAA hearings and formal adoption or
refutation of EPA proposals, guaranteeing that the information and views exchanged
do not languish in files, but are actually acted upon.
Provisions extending formal input and response requirements to the determinations
of NASA, HUD and/or HEW would require amendment of §611 of the Federal Aviation
Act, although probably the same process could be established via an executive order
requiring the FAA to solicit the views of other agencies and action thereon within a
specified time.
Although a formal determination exchange procedure may have salutory effects
in prompting regulatory action in the noise area, there is some fear this scheme may
result in a process of interagency "ping-pong" and regulatory impass. There is a
distinct need, not just to make appropriate findings, but to reconcile the information
thus brought together and formulate a coordinated program for solving the problem.
This cannot be done by an exchange of memos, but requires some method of bringing
all the concerned agencies together in the policy-making and decision-making process.
A continuing interagency exchange and coordination process could be accom-
plished through formation of some type of Interagency Aircraft/Airport Noise Abate-
ment Committee (IAANAC). Two types of inlcragency group are possible. The first,
which could be established by executive order, would be formed of representatives
from concerned agencies—such as FAA, DOT, NASA, EPA, HUD and HEW—and
charged with developing coordinated approaches to the problem and recommending
appropriate actions to the member agencies. Under this option, actual regulatory
power und final decision authority would remain in the respective agencies. The
-------
second type of group would be composed of sirriilar representatives, but would have
the power to make decisions binding upon the member agencies—that is, to exercise
real regulatory authority. The latter type of authority could be conferred only by
new legislation.
Both types of IAANAC would serve the function of providing a forum to work out
a coordinated control and abatement program. The extent to which the first will
succeed, however•, is dependent on three conditions:
1. That the representatives are appointed from'policy making levels in each
agency, and are not merely technical advisors.
2. That each agency commit itself, to the maximum extent possible, to imple-
menting the recommendations arrived at by the interagency group.
3. That the interagency committee determinations and recommendations are
regularly made part of the public record through publication and promulga-
tion in the Federal Register.
An interagency committee with final policy and regulatory powers would be free
of the problem of obtaining voluntary compliance and cooperation by all concerned
agencies. On the other hand, shifting of responsibility for land use, aircraft design,
airport operations, research, and environmental effects decisions as to noise to one
interagency group might raise the problem of coordinating those decisions with similar
aircraft, airport, land use and environment programs remaining in the original agen-
cies. The solution must be a mechanism which allows both coordination of the noise
abatement program and coordination of the noise program elements with other regu-
latory, development and environmental programs. Further, the total noise environ-
ment is what must be reduced, and not just the contribution made to it by any single
type of noise source, and therefore any process which tends to decouple the abatement
planning for one source type from the overall exposure limitation goal is undesirable.
An available mechanism which might be considered is that of the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation. The OST presently presides over a confederated
1 ri-4
P-4
-------
Department of Transportation, with most, if not all, of its modal agencies (i.e. , FAA,
FHWA, etc.) acting independently from direct DOT supervision. Yet many of these
modal agencies have an interest in transportation noise abatement generally. Thus
the OST, which at least in theory has direct control over the FAA, could be used as
a home for an interagency committee with final policy and regulatory authority.
Alternatively, because of the need to coordinate noise abatement with respect
to all sources in order to achieve limitation of cumulative noise exposure according
to public health and welfare needs, the coordination of aircraft/airport noise abate-
'menl could be carried out by a subcommittee, which would be part of an interagcncy
noise abatement committee chaired by EPA as a part of its coordination responsibHi-
ties under Section 4(c) of the 1972 Act.
Source- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
bource. u.o. ^ T_,,.m..^™a1 Analvsis of A
pp 1-5-1 to 1-5-5.
-------
APPENDIX Q
Memorandum on Government Organlzaton for Civil Aviation,
by P. W. Cherington, for the Aviation Advisory Commission
-------
APPENDIX Q
MEMORANDUM ON GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION FOR CIVIL AVIATION,
BY P. W. CHERINGTON, FOR THE
AVIATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
Government Organization for Civil Aviation
Introduction
The Aviation Advisory Commission has been concerned,
inter alia, with the present and prospective organization within
the federal establishment for handling civil aviation problems.
It considered whether the present federal organizational
structure was adequate for the plans and programs which it
was proposing/ whether the directions in which the organization
was trending were desirable and whether there were organizational
changes which might make possible a more effective civil avia-
tion program. Finally, it examined the relationships that
exist or may exist between the present and prospective federal
civil aviation agencies on the one hand and state and local
government agencies and industry and public groups on r.he other.
This memorandum seeks to address itself to these questions and
to set forth what appeared to be the major options which con-
fronted the Commission in recommending a federal organizational
pattern. -
The Commission was, of course, aware that many interests
in Washington are seeking an escalated position in the Govern-
ment hierarchy for their particular interest, function or
industry. Thus planners want to escalate the planning function
in the organizational hierarchy; teachers want a .separate
department of education, etc., etc. It was also aware of the
fact that most studies of federal organization (including the
recent Ash Commission study, which forms the basis for many of
the administration's pending organizational proposals) have
Q-l
-------
1-508
concluded first, that there must be a reduction in the number
of top, cabinet, level departments and in the number of people
reporting to the President and second, that the "special
interest" agencies should be grouped with others having a
similar area of interest so that competing or conflicting
interests can be harmonized at the departmental, rather than
the White House, level. Thus we have the Ash Commission recom-
mendations for four civil super departments (Department of
Human Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Department
of Community Development and the Department of Economic Affairs
which would absorb the functions of Agriculture, Interior,
HUD, HEW, Commerce, Labor and Transportation. It is clear
that any organizational pattern that the Commission recommends
that calls for an independent civil aviation agency will be
swimming against the current tide favoring greater amalgamation
of civil functions and the tide against "special interest"
agencies.
While the Commission is aware of these trends or fashions
in federal organization patterns, it is,not, of course, neces-
sarily bound by them. A recommendation that runs counter to
these trends may, to be sure, be expected to meet heavy
opposition from organizational personnel in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). But in the view of the Commission,
the urgency of improving civil aviation programs may, neverthe-
less, dictate organizational patterns that run counter to
fashion. Indeed it appears to be one of the tacit objectives
of the organizational experts to weaken the program of special
interest groups, leaving to an enlarged staff in the White
House and the Executive Office of the President or at the
secretarial level in the proposed super departments, the deci-
sion-making, selection and control of these programs. Thus,
no,matter how sound and strong a civil aviation program the
Commission may recommend, it can be seriously weakened by an
organizational pattern that permits it to be blocked or nibbled
away by a growing staff of economists, budgeters, etc. surround-
ing the President and the super Cabinet officers. It may be
noted that these staff members are usually without responsibil-
ity for seeing that anything gets accomplished and that they
often are determined not to spend money which may help industry.
The Commission is convinced that regardless of current
styles in Government organization, civil aviation merits an
organizational position and pattern that will permit it to
develop to the fullest extent and make a maximum contribution
to the economic/social structure of the country. A corollary
of this belief is that the present diffusion of responsibility
Q-2
-------
1-509
for civil aviation and the lack of independence that it has
had since 1967 have somehow and in some degree stultified
civil aviation's role. The Commission believes that this
situation should not be allowed to continue.
I. The Present Federal Structure for Civil Aviation
At the present time the handling of the several segments
of the civil aviation program is somewhat dispersed throughout
the federal establishment. The FAA in DOT is certainly the
main focal point for civil aviation matters but on many admin-
istrative, economic and technical matters other agencies and
offices are also involved and are sometimes preeminent.
The most important of these instances lie in the technical
or R & D area and involve NASA which (like its predecessor,
NACA) has important R & D functions in aeronautics. Having
been transformed from a laboratory organization to a mission-
oriented organization for the space program,. NASA is not only
competent but at times eager to move well into the develop-
ment cycle in both aeronautics and electronics (Air Traffic
Control). Its technical and managerial competence is certainly
a valuable asset to have brought to bear on civil aviation.
The only question is whether over time the DOT-NASA-FAA pro-
gram can be adequately coordinated and whether NASA will keep
abreast of real civil aviation needs and be sensitive to the
economic and operational realities of the civil aviation
industry.
A second instance of divided responsibility for civil
aviation involves the CAB. CAB performs two types of functions
which are of importance to civil aviation. It is, of course, >
the regulator of the for-hire aviation industry in the economic
sphere. In this connection it ajudicates adversary proceedings
as in the case of route certificates. In the second place it
engages in extensive rule-making for the economic governance
of industry. Finally in connection with either one or both
of these functions, it performs a considerable number of essen-
tially ministerial functions - negotiation of international
agreements, gathering of statistics, planning, doing economic
research and analysis. While ostensibly most of these minister-
ial functions are in support of its regulatory responsibilities,
many are in fact only remotely related to regulation per se
and fall rather into the economic policy-making and economic
fact-gathering area. The FAA has never had a commanding voice
in this field, nor, as will be discuas.ed below, does it have
one today.
Q-3
-------
1-510
A third instance of the fractionalization of civil avia-
tion responsibility involves the State Department which by
tradition, fiercely defended, has the responsibility for nego-
tiating all international agreements in civil aviation, as in
other areas. These are both economic and technical in nature.
Whereas State, in many instances of non-political matters, has
permitted the concerned department to determine the U.S.
position for negotiations, it has not done so in the case of
aviation economics, although it has done so with respect to
safety and technical matters. Whether this is related to the
fact that the main substantive agency was a quasi-juducial,
quasi-legislative commission is not clear. In any event until
the creation of DOT in 1967, State insisted on having a major
voice in the development of U.S. substantive positions on
economic aviation issues. Nor has the situation changed
materially since DOT arrived on the scene. It is granted a
somewhat grudging place at the table in the development of
U.S. policy positions. The present situation can only be
described as a somewhat uneasy "troika" with State, DOT and
CAB being more or .less influential in the establishment of
U.S. positions, depending on personalities, issues and the
countries involved.
Still another area where civil aviation responsibility
is dispersed is the field of.labor relations. Here the
Department of Labor has been largely successful in defending
its position as the exclusive Government voice in labor manage-
ment relations. DOT has made some gestures to challenge DOL's
exclusive voice, but these attempts have not been outstand-
ingly successful and have primarily involved modes other than
aviation. Apart from its own labor relations with the Con-
trollers, the FAA has played almost no role in aviation labor-
management relations.. In an industry with a very high labor
content and one which has been plagued with numerous work
stoppages, and crises, DOL's exclusive handling of labor rela-
tions matters may be less than optimum. In any event DOL has
succeeded in elevating labor-management to what is probably
the industry's most important problem and has thus far offered
no politically attainable solutions.
There are, of course, other more sharply focused areas
where other agencies either dominate or have a major voice in
substantive issues which have a major impact directly on civil
aviation. Thus, the EPA has primary jurisdiction over smoke
and noise pollution standards for aviation, as for other
industries. DOD has a strong influence on civil aviation via
the GRAF program, its- airlift policies, its maintenance (or
non-maintenance) of an industrial base and its policies and
programs in the field of air traffic control. The Department
of Justice seeks to apply strict Clayton Act standards to
Q-4
-------
1-511
mergers in aviation, despite the specific provisions of the
Federal Aviation Act concerning mergers and competition.
Other agencies have a direct impact on aviation in various
specific fields or in connection with ad hoc issues, e.g.,
Interior in connection with Trust Territory air service, or
HUD in the area of urban land use planning and the siting of
airports, the FCC in the allocation of radio frequencies,
Treasury in handling customs clearance at airports, etc.
The Government is, of course, an establishment of impres-
sive size covering an enormous spectrum of activities and
issues. It is not surprising that there is a good deal of
dispersion of responsibility in many functional areas' that
affect or are affected by civil aviation. Not all of the
dispersion can be eliminated. Civil aviation is now too
closely woven into the economic and social framework of the
country. But there is every reason to believe that to the
greatest extent possible^civil aviation functions should be
centralized in the federal government and that the agency
having the major concern for aviation should have the position
and the "clout" to implement whatever programs are determined
for civil aviation.
Not even within DOT does the FAA have the sole role in
the development and implementation of civil aviation programs.
The Secretary, of course, is the superior of the Administrator
and has the ultimate decision-making authority (short of the
President) by statute and in fact. (The only exceptions to
this statement are certain safety functions which are speci-
fically reserved to the Administrator by the DOT Act.) The
Administrator's plans and actions are subject to review and
scrutiny by many members of the Secretary's staff, the Under-
secretary, the Deputy Undersecretary, (Budgets and Programs)
and virtually all of the Assistant Secretaries - Systems and
Technology, Policy and International Affairs, Safety and Con-
sumer Affairs, Environment and Urban Affairs and Administration.
The National Transportation Safety Board, although not "under"
the Secretary, can be highly critical of the Administrator
and the FAA.
In the early days of DOT, members of the Secretary's
staff and the FAA were in sharp disagreement as to the policies
to be incorporated in a new airport/airway bill. This disagree-
ment contributed to .the non-passage of the bill in 1968.
Since then there has, on the whole, been an improvement in the
OST-FAA relation. Nevertheless, the Administrator has at times
chafed under certain departmental policies which he felt were
inimical to the best interests of civil aviation. In the
personnel, environmental and R & D areas, there have been
Q-5
-------
1-512
several sharp differences of opinion and, of course, the DOT
Budget Office has usually reduced somewhat the FAA budget
requests. Thus in the policy, program and budget areas, the
Administrator is far from being able to move unilaterally in
the vigorous support of civil aviation interests.
Still by Washington standards, the Administrator enjoys
a considerable measure of prestige and autonomy. All Administra-
tors of industry or modal-oriented agencies have had to bow to
the new social concerns and all have been frustrated from
time to time by budget cuts and barriers to their programs.
It is difficult to strike that nice balance between a well-bal-
anced program and no action at all.
Two additional features concerning the position of the
FAA should .be mentioned. At present the main channel for the
Administrator to the President himself is through the Secretary,
rarely direct. This is only natural since the Secretary is
the Administrator's superior. In at least one previous admin-
istration the Administrator at times had frequent direct access
to the President. This was true during part of the time when
the FAA was an independent agency. But this direct access
appears to have been more a function of close personal ties
between the President and the Administrator than it was a
function of the independence of the FAA. While direct access
to the President may prove ego-building for the Administrator,
it is not clear that it is a significant factor in the success
or failure of the civil aviation program. In the present
administration it appears that the Administrator has been
able to communicate on a free and untrammeled basis with the
White House and EOP (Executive Office of the President) staff, :
without any interference from OST. On the other hand, the
Administrator has often found it helpful to accompany the
Secretary oh EOP visits or to be accompanied by one of the
Assistant Secretaries. Thus it cannot be said that the location
of the FAA in DOT has adversely affected FAA communications
with EOP on aviation matters.
In the area of Congressional relations, the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST) has imposed some restraints
on trying to pre-sell programs that were in excess or at
variance with the program of the President. Early in the
present administration it was decided to centralize the congres-
sional liaison function in OST. This decision caused consider-
able concern to the Administrator and in fact.the decision has
never been fully implemented. The present Administrator has
a large circle of friends on the Hill and the evidence is that
he has visited with them extensively and to good effect. More
routine Congressional matters and contracts are somewhat less! -
Q-6
-------
1-513
unfettered than when the FAA was independent. On the other
hand, the OST staff provided considerable support and cooper-
ation to the FAA in the passage-of the Airport/Airway bill.
It cannot be said that the present location of the FAA in DOT
has led to a critical congressional relations problem.
Conclusion. While the present degree of dispersion of
civil aviation responsibility within the federal government is
not great, civil aviation programs would undoubtedly be bene-
fited from a greater concentration of clear-cut responsibility
and authority. Similarly, so far as the FAA goes (the single
most important focal point for civil aviation in the Executive
Department) any steps to downgrade, this agency should be
resisted. Some up-grading of its position would undoubtedly
aid in the more effective and rapid implementation of civil
aviation programs.
II. History as a Guide to the Future
In considering various federal organizational patterns
for civil aviation, the AAC has reviewed the evolution of
these patterns especially during the last 35 years.
Prior to the Act of 1938, the Department of Commerce
(Bureau of Air Commerce) and the Post Office Department (POD)
were the only federal departments which had any appreciable
interest in civil aviation. (The ICC was briefly given some
regulatory authority over rates but never really implemented
a program). The POD provided subsidy to the carriers through
the award of air mail contracts. The Bureau of Air Commerce
performed the functions of licensing airmen, registration of
aircraft and erection of such air navigation aids as there
were at that time.
Following the Black investigation into the award of
air contracts, their cancellation, the unfortunate Array oper-
ation of air mail flights and a series of bad air carrier
accidents. Congress passed the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.
With some modifications and some reshuffling of responsibilities
and organization, the Act of 1938 is still the basic legisla-
tive foundation for civil aviation programs.
The Act of 1938 merged most of the functions affecting
civil aviation into a single Authority in the Department of
Commerce. The Authority itself was divided in turn into the
five-member Authority, an Administrator and a separate and
.autonomous accident investigation unit, the Air Safety Board.
Thus most of the major functions of government concerning civil
Q-7
-------
1-514
aviation were brought together in a single, albeit three-
headed, agency. The Department of State was only beginning
to be active in the international area, where prior to World
War II, Pan American had conducted most of the international
dealings. NACA was outside of the structure but confined
itself almost exclusively to advanced and fundamental research
in the field of aeronautical science, much of it primarily
of concern to the military. But unification did not last
long. President Roosevelt by Reorganization Plans III and IV
abolished the Authority in 1940. Simultaneously he abolished
the Air Safety Board, putting this function into the newly
.created Civil Aeronautics Board which became a largely inde-
pendent regulatory agency. To be sure the Department of
Commerce (DOC) continued to "house-keep" for CAB, and CAB's
budget was incorporated in the DOC budget. It nevertheless,
developed a high degree of autonomy in substantive matters.
Only the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) was left in
Commerce.
This was essentially the organizational pattern in
effect for civil aviation for the 20-year period to 1958. The
only events.of major organizational significance during this
period were the rise of the influence of State as international
aviation rose to prominence after World War II and the creation
of the Air Coordinating Committee, created in 1944 and abol-
ished in 1958.
The ACC was created late in the war to help coordinate
military-civil matters which, as the war approached its end,
became of more and more significance, and to handle the post-
Chicago Convention decisions and events. A great deal of the
work of ACC was involved in determining the U.S. position on
a host of technical issues which had to be resolved in the
establishment of a network of international civil air routes
and operations in the post-war period.
The ACC also had legal and economic units which attempted
to harmonize the views of the federal agencies on such matters
as a multilateral vs. a bilateral exchange of traffic rights,
the carrier liability issue, etc. In its early days the ACC
performed a valuable function. As time went on, and more and
more .matters were "processed" by the ACC staff, its membership
began to sink to lower and lower rank levels, the paper work
began to bury the substance, and it became a convenient
resting place for "non-decision-making."
There were, during this period, particularly during the
1950s, increasing conflicts between military and civil aviation
objectives, and the civil authorities were frequently thwarted
by the military's ability to proceed in their own way or with
Q-8
-------
1-515
their own system regardless of the civil requirements and
wishes. Thus there was the GCA/ILS controversy, the Tacan
struggle/ and almost constant friction concerning military-
civil use of airspace and airports.
Conflicts waxed and waned, in part depending upon the
personality of the key personnel involved. Because of the
Korean War and the cold war that followed it, military inter-
ests were often able to override the civi.l interests.
But of much more concern in the period from 1945 to
1958 was the growing inability of the CI\A to maintain and
expand an effective air traffic control system. Whi'le the
DME/Onni system of navigation was introduced, together with
a growing use of radar surveillance, the method of controlling
aircraft remained pretty much as it had been (flight strips)
and the advent of the much faster jets threatened a serious
breakdown in the system. A preliminary study of the problem
was undertaken by the Harding Committee in 1955 and this led
to the in-depth Curtis Committee study in 1956-57. The report
of this Committee led ultimately to the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958.
Part of the difficulties of the CAA related to funding.
The agency had trouble in running the successive budget
guantlets of Commerce, Bureau of the Budget and the Congress.
The result was a somewhat sporadic pattern of appropriations
which in aggregate were inadequate either to bring into being
an updated and upgraded traffic control system or to hire and
train a sufficient number of personnel to operate the exist-
ing system. The only times when the level of appropriations
came close to meeting needs were those years immediately
following serious accidents, especially those involving congres-
sional personnel. Inadequate funding cannot be traced directly
to the fact that the CAA was buried in the Commerce Department,
but this fact and especially inadequate leadership at either
or both the Administrator and Assistant Secretary level cer-
tainly explain a major part of the problem. (It may be noted
that in the same period, 1955-56, the Bureau of Public Roads
'which was also located in Commerce pushed through the Inter-
state Highway legislation. The Bureau was greatly aided in
this effort by the fact that it was able to interest President
Eisenhower personally in the program. The President did not
become particularly involved in aviation until late 1956 or
early 1957, at which time he appointed General Ted Curtis
and then General E. R. Quesada as his special assistant for civil
aviation. It was General Quesada who, acting on the Curtis
study report, spearheaded the drive for the Federal
Act of 1958.)
-------
1-516
The Federal Aviation Administration, set up by the 1958
Act, was. removed from Commerce and set up as an independent
agency. The first administrator was General Quesada who for
a time also maintained his title as Special Assistant to the
President for aviation. The new FAA took over from the CAB
the rule-making function of issuing Federal Air Regulations
(previously Civil Air Regulations). It had become increasingly
clear that the CAB lacked the necessary expertise to perform
this job adequately. Not only were the members not qualified
to pass on the increasingly complex technical issues involved
in the FARs, its staff was insufficient in number for the task.
CAB at this time retained the Accident Investigation function,
which it was to lose in the DOT Act of 1966 to NTSB. The Act
of 1958 made only very minor changes in the economic regulation
and promotion of civil aviation.
The 1958 Act did, however, contain two provisions of
importance to the present review of organization. In the
first place it provided for an Airways Modernization Board
which was attached to the FAA but which had a measure of
independence of the organization except via the Administrator
himself. The aim was to get work done on a new ATC system
without having it crushed by the weight and inertia of the
existing system (and its personnel). A second reason was to
attract persons to work on the ATC problem who could not
possibly have been persuaded to join the FAA. However valid
these reasons may have been at the time, the AMB did not work
effectively. Its interface with the FAA R & D and Operating
units was poor. It was abolished in 1962 by then Administrator
Halaby.
A second change of significance that was made by the
1958 Act was that the FAA was granted authority to develop
new aircraft. This authority was promptly utilized to begin
work on the SST project.
Independence did not bring an end of the troubles of
the CAA/FAA. Erratic, and on the whole inadequate, appropria-
tions continued to plague the agency throughout its decade of
independence.
When Congress passed the Department of Transportation
Act in 1966 (to take effect on April 1, 1967) , there was only
a modest amount of dissent from the proposal to put the FAA
into the new department. The euphoria of both industry and
the Congress which had greeted the FAA in 1958 had, by 1966,
largely evaporated. As an independent agency, FAA had failed
to attract -markedly increased appropriations support; it had
not made notable progress on the ATC system, and it seemed
Q- 10
-------
1-517
to have no very innovative ideas as to what kinds of programs
it should propose in the airport area nor on how to finance
the escalating costs of aviation programs. General lack of
enthusiasm for the agency , plus the popularity of the idea
of unifying all transportation in; a .single agency, easily
overcame any objections which were raised against loss of
independence for civil aviation.
The DOT Act of 1966 removed' the aircraft accident
investigation function from the CAB and placed it in the new,
largely independent National Transportation Safety Board.
Thus was the Air Safety Board of the 1938 Act rehabilitated,
this time with investigative and recommendary responsibility
for accidents and hazards in all forms of transportation.
III. Future Problems of Civil Aviation to Which Federal
Organization Must Be Responsive
The primary test of any organizational pattern is
whether it contributes importantly to the handling and solution
of problems and issues associated with the organization's
mission. A good organizational pattern can contribute mater-
ially to the achievement of the mission; a weak pattern can be
a serious drag and obstacle either in the way of attracting
resources (including management and manpower) or applying
them to the mission in a reasonably economical and efficient
manner. This does not mean that a strong organization guar-
antees mission performance; a sound program can fail even in
a strong organizational structure. But, given the difficulty
of obtaining effective action within the federal establishment,
under even the most favorable conditions , it would certainly
be an error for the Commission to recommend anything short of
the strongest, realistic organizational pattern.
Before examining various alternative organizational
patterns, it is important to have in mind the major civil
aviation problems and ieeues that are likely to confront the
industry and the Government over the next two decades, especi-
ally those which will differ or change substantially in priority
or. nature from the past. Essentially the prospective problems
of civil aviation, and their optimal solution, are the subject
of the Commission's entire report. They need only to be
mentioned here briefly, without any attempt to provide a
complete catalogue.
The problems and issues which will confront civil avia-
tion can be generally arranged under the seven following
categories.
Q-ll
-------
1-518
Safety - in all its aspects, including the certification
of airmen, certification of aircraft, and regulation of opera-
ting practices and procedures.
Civil Aviation Facilities - the development and furnishing
of airports, air navigation and air traffic control facilities.
While these do not necessarily have to furnished or operated
by the federal Government (as indeed is true of airports today)
it seems probabl that the federal Government will have to
take the initiative in seeing that the facilities are adequate
to the needs of civil aviation, that they are environmentally
acceptable and that they interface properly with the surface
transportation system.
Survivability of a U.S. Aircraft, Engine and Avionics
Industry - Whereas civil aviation in the past has largely
piggy-backed on the military so far as the research, develop-
ment and manufacturing industries are concerned, it appears
that this will no longer be possible to anything like the same
degree. Nor is it at all clear that market economics will
assure the survivability of R & D and manufacturing companies
for civil aviation products. Some involvement by federal
civil authorities with these industries seems called for.
This will be a new, or at least a greatly expanded, function
for the federal civil aviation organization. Relations with
military organizations will be especially difficult to resolve.
Functions of General Aviation - It seems probable that
it will be increasingly difficult to handle the many types
of general aviation activity within a framework essentially
designed and operated for high performance air carrier and
military aircraft. If all of general aviation is made to
conform to the equipment and operating specifications of the
air carriers and the military, it may constitute a manace to .
itself and others. This is an old problem which is likely to
become much more acute in the future.
Economics of For-Hire Air Transportation - The economics
of the air carrier industry, including especially relations
between various segments of the industry and of air carriers
to suppliers and manufacturers, pose increasingly acute
problems. Involved are questions of competition, pricing,
subsidy and service. A continuation of recent trends may
result in the inability of the industry to finance its anti-
cipated future growth.
International Relations - As the civil aviation capability
of foreign countries has increased our past policies and
practices may no longer be adequate to protect either the
Q-12
-------
1-519
interests of U.S. shippers and travellers or the interests of
our air carriers. This is especially true where the pretense
is that we are operating under rules of-open competition whereas
in fact the foreign country is pursuing a policy of virulent
restrictionism. Ability to settle problems quickly and vigor-
ously appears to be an urgent requirement.
State-Local Relations - Only a few states have had
well-staffed, aggressive aviation organizations, although
several are acquiring more or less adequate Departments of
Transportation. The only major influence on civil aviation
has been a small number of powerful, largely autonomous port
authorities. If, under revenue-sharing, the states and cities
ore going to be able to select the transportation projects
on which to spend money, aviation's voice;at the state and
local level must be greatly strengthened and relations between
the federal organization and state and local organizations
must be greatly improved.
The foregoing would appear to embrace the most pressing
problems which civil aviation is likely to face over the next
two decades. Some might prefer a different grouping; others
might like to single out and highlight a specific problem
area that they thought especially important, such as noise
or airport capacity. Whether this or another list is used,
there is no question that the prospective problems of civil
aviation are acute, that they cover a very wide spectrum of
activity and that many of the issues involved are highly contro-
versial and difficult to answer.
IV. The Organizational Options
i)
There are, of course, dozens of ways in which civil
aviation might be organized within the federal establishment.
In general, however, each of the many possible organizational
patterns can be classified as falling essentially into one of
the following categories.
1. The Status Quo. FAA continues in DOT as an administra-
tion. No basic change is made in the internal relations of
FAA to the OST staff or other parts of the department and no
basic change is made in the relations between DOT and other
agencies and organizations.
2. The Administration's Proposal. The Administration
has proposed a sweeping reorganization of the cabinet depart-
ments. The proposal is based on studies completed by the Ash
Q-13
-------
1-520
Commission, although as translated into proposed legislation
the timing and exact plan of the Administration's proposal do1
not follow the Ash recommendations precisely. Under this
proposal, State, Defense, Treasury and Justice would remain
essentially unchanged. The other seven cabinet departments
would be shifted and compressed into four new super departments:
Human Resources
Natural Resources
Community Development
Economic Affairs
Seven present departments would cease to exist (Agricul-
ture, Interior, Labor, Commerce, HEW, HUD and DOT). In the
case of DOT, its present functions would be split, with the
Urban Mass Transit Administration and all, or at least major
pieces, of the Federal Highway Administration going to Commun-
ity Development and with the rest of DOT going to Economic
Affairs. Thus FAA would be moved to Economic Affairs where
transportation as a whole might be represented by an Under-
secretary. As presently drafted it is not likely that the
Administration's proposal would bring about any concentration
of civil aviation authority and would almost certainly tend
to de-escalate the position of civil aviation in the federal
establishment. While this may not necessarily be bad in terms
of the overall organization and priorities of the Government,
it almost certainly reduces the chances of successfully
handling the civil aviation problems and issues discussed
above in Part III.
3. A move somewhat different from the Administration's
proposal would involve the organizational escalation of civil
aviation within either DOT or, if formed, the Department of
Economic Affairs (DEA). Such escalation would involve the
designation of an Undersecretary, of Civil Aviation, the trans-
fer of functions from other agencies, e.g., R & D from NASA,
a stronger voice in international negotiations, perhaps some
of the ministerial functions of the CAB, etc. This option would
thus be the vehicle for upgrading the position of civil aviation;
it would also place the chief spokesman for civil aviation on
the staff of the Secretary as well as in a line relationship
to him. Finally, it would provide a plausible location for
the central placement and concentration of civil aviation
functions now scattered in other departments or of new ones
yet to be developed.
4. Department of Civil Aviation. It has been suggested
that if civil aviation is to have the position it deserves and
needs to achieve its goals, it should be elevated to cabinet
rank, with a Secretary of its own reporting directly to the
Q-14
-------
1-521
President. Regardless of the merits of such an organization
from the standpoint of civil aviation, the proposal runs
exactly counter to general trends in federal organization.
In consequence it would seem to have almost no chance of being
adopted. A comparable or lesser amount of effort devoted to
"selling" one of the other options would be far more likely
to result in improvements for civil aviation interests.
What has just been said about a wholly separate and in-
dependent Department of Civil Aviation does not necessarily
apply to a "service-type" department with a "service secre-
tary" within either DOT or a new Department of Economic
Affairs (DEA). Presumably a "service-type" department would
be patterned along the lines of the Departments of Army, Navy
and Air Force in DOD. Such an organizational pattern would
be very close to that discussed in item 3 above concerning the
creation of an Undersecretary for Civil Aviation who would
have both line and staff responsibilities. A Secretary for
Civil Aviation would be especially feasible if the title of
the heads of the new super agencies is changed, as has been
proposed.
The foregoing appear to represent the basic patterns of
organization. Within each there is a wide variety of organi-
zational suboptions, involving not only particular patterns
of organization but various degrees of concentration of respon-
sibility and authority over the entire spectrum of civil
aviation.
V. Analysis of Organizational Patterns
The U.S. federal government is the largest organization
in the free world and as a machine supposed to make decisions
and implement them, it is certainly one of the most difficult
to operate. Getting things done in government has been
likened to kicking a feather bed or a large, damp sponge. In
part this is supposed to be. For on any issue there is
designed into the system an opportunity for various interests
and voices to be heard and their respective positions weighed.
The resolution of conflict is by nature a complex and time-
consuming task, one which inevitably involves a measure of
politics along with the merits of the issue.
In judging alternative patterns for organizing govern-
ment functions, there appear to be several features which tend
to make for effective programs and organizations as against
programs that drift and organizations which, while making a
great show of activity, in reality are doing nothing. In the
Q-15
-------
1-522
last analysis, a mission-orientea government organization with
program responsibility is nothing more than a mechanism for
acquiring a share of resources - money ^generally, but sometimes
manpower - and throwing them at a problem or series of prob-
lems in as artistic a fashion as possible. Thus the organiza-
tion must have the position and strength to develop a program
or series of programs, get them funded and then spend the
money in a tolerably effective way. To do this usually
requires some kind of public constituency which is kept rea-
sonably happy and whose views are reflected on the Hill. The
agency must have sufficient brfeadth of authority so that it
can devise and control programs which will resolve or ameli-
orate a fair number of the problems of its constituents. It
must be far enough up in the hierarchy so that its programs ,
are not strangled in the program review and budget process or
traded away completely for other programs which are currently
more popular in the department or OMB. It must have channels
for-dispensing its resources that are reasonably effective
(not too bureaucratic but not so loose as to invite pilferage)
and that are directed toward real needs. Finally the organi-
zation must not be so deviant from current fashions concerning
government organization that it arouses the attention of
government organization professionals.
If these are valid criteria, what can be said about the
alternative organizational patterns described in IV above?
The status quo - leaving FAA in DOT with its current
authority and relations - would not perhaps be disastrous,
but it would at the same time be far from optimal. Neither
the FAA nor the DOT at present has the breadth of authority
it needs to run an effective civil aviation program. In part
that authority resides in other agencies. In part it does
not exist at all, as in the case of R & D for new transports
and assistance in making the airplane, engine and avionics
industries viable. Even within DOT, there is a division of
authority and initiative as between the FAA administrator
and the OST staff. This has shown itself in the areas of
R & D, environmental acceptability and the economics of inter-
modal transportation. In large measure the OST staff has moved
in because of a vacuum within the FAA. But regardless of the
reason, initiative and authority has been fractured. In a
word it should be possible to devise organizational patterns
that will do better than the status quo.
At the other end of the spectrum, an independent cabinet-
level department of civil aviation, no matter how all-embracing
and centralized its authority, must be regarded as so deviant
from the current thinking of the Administration and of the
Q-16
-------
1-523
professional government organizers in OMB as to be unacceptable.
The trend is away from independent agencies; and the current
conventional wisdom is especially opposed to independent
agencies which have a strong one-dimensional constituency to
lobby for it - farmers, highway interests, etc. As already
noted, efforts made to sell this pattern, are almost certain
to be frustrated and the effort, which might have been used
to achieve good effects in other areas, wasted.
Either the Administration's proposal to create a Depart-
ment of Economic Affairs, to which the FAA would be transferred,
or the continuation of DOT, with an improved status for civil
aviation, would seem to offer acceptable and manageable alter-
natives. The former alternative has the advantage that the
legislation proposing the department is part of the President's
program. If the Administration is reelected, it can be
expected to push this legislation, although passage is not
anticipated in the near future. On the other hand the legis-
lative proposal is not so firmly cast in concrete that changes
along the lines suggested below could not be made.
A major disadvantage of the Administration's proposal
is that the Secretary of DEA would have a very broad sweep of
authority and responsibility to the point where he could be
expected to give only limited time and attention to civil
aviation. .Thus there is an urgent need in the new department
for a strong voice for civil aviation and an important and
visible place for the head of aviation in the departmental
hierarchy. Being a new department, this might be easier to
achieve than in DOT.
There are certain other drawbacks to the Administration's
proposal. Any new organization - and this is especially true
of a new Government organization with numerous personnel and
sweeping authority - takes some time to cook. Thus it is
probable -that it would be at least two years after it was
created, and maybe four or five, before the new department
would begin to function effectively. For civil aviation this
time might be shortened and if an Undersecretary for Civil
Aviation (or other top official) were given considerable
autonomy.
Another drawback to the establishment of DEA and its
companion department, the Department of Community Development,
is that there will be a renewed split in the Government's
concern for transportation as a unified function. This frac-
tional! zation was the key factor that led to the establishment
of DOT in 1967. And while the Department has not, perhaps,
lived up to the fondest hopes of its proposers, its record
has, nevertheless, been quite tolerable. There is certainly
Q-17
-------
1-524
no evidence that points to the desirability of splintering
the transportation functions again. But while it appears un-
desirable, from an overall transportation system standpoint,
to breakup DOT, it cannot be argued that such a split will
necessarily be damaging to civil aviation interests. Indeed,
some would take the contrary view.
The upgrading of civil aviation within DOT is likely to
pose a number of difficulties and problems. The Department
is at present structured along a strict line and staff pat-
tern. The Assistant Secretaries in the office of Secretary
are staff officers to the Secretary and to his alter ego, the
Undersecretary. With some exceptions they do not have, or
at least are not supposed to have, line authority and respon-
sibility. That authority is supposed to reside, and in general
does reside, in the Administrator. The exceptions which have
arisen are, nevertheless, instructive. The Assistant Secre-
tary for System Development and Technology has acquired a ~
substantial program of advanced research in aeronautics and
air traffic control, leaving to FAA R&D on nearer-term systems
and hardware. The SST office in its final years was removed
from FAA and put in OST presumably to avoid any conflict with
the development of the prototypes and ultimate certification
of the aircraft. Both the Assistant Secretary for Safety
and Consumer Affairs and the FAA have played major roles in
attempts to deal with highjacking. The Assistant Secretary
for Environment and Urban Systems has played a vigorous role
in engine noise and smoke standards and in the environmental
aspects of airport siting. Finally the Assistant Secretary
for Policy and International Affairs is the principal depart-
mental spokesman - rather than FAA - on airline economic
questions.
The maintenance of a strict line and staff organization
within DOT may well have weakened the decisiveness with which
the civil aviation program has been developed and implemented.
For a while in the early days of the department, there was an
open struggle between the line and staff as to the type of
program that was to be developed and who was to carry it out.
That struggle was largely resolved with the Airport/Airway
Act. But the Administrator's own staff has not been suffi-
ciently strong to argue with complete effectiveness for civil
aviation programs either with the OST staff or in the Execu-
tive Office of the President.
What is being suggested is that the Administrator should
become at one a line officer and a staff officer to the
Secretary - a line officer in the sense that he is responsible
for the operation of the FAA and the implementation of the
Q-18
-------
1-525
and a staff officer in the sense that he is the
:~ocretary's main program developer and adviser on all civil
.iviation matters (economic and technical) at least on a par
v.ith the Secretary's functional advisers. In addition he
w:v,:!d not only have clear responsibility • for the aircraft
coerating industries but for the civil aviation R&D and manu-,
:~;<7t.uring industries as well.
The gathering of these and similar DOT functions into a
siricle line and staff organization dealing with civil aviation
:;::o:..'.ld greatly strengthen the likelihood of achieving civil
aviations goals. In addition, there should'be added to the
responsibilities of this urgraded civil aviation organization
i.he following functions now performed by other agencies, or
-ol performed at all.
1. Research and development activities of NASA - in
Aeronautics, avionics and propulsion as they pertain to civil
aviation.
2. Establishment of an office, bureau or other organi-
zational unit to deal with problems of new aircraft, engines
and avionic systems needed for civil aviation. This office
would also administer programs designed to assure the contin-
ued viability of the development and manufacturing industries
of these items.
3. Development of substantive positions and policies
in the international area - now exercised by State, DOT and
CAB on a divided basis. State would continue to conduct
negotiations with foreign governments.
4. Development of policies and procedures and an active
role, in civil aviation labor-management relations. This
function is now performed almost exclusively by DOL.
5. Ministerial functions of CAB - This is probably
the most controversial of the functions proposed to be trans-
ferred to the Undersecretary for Civil Aviation. Indeed some
members of the Commission are known to be opposed to the
transfer of any CAB functions. The intent of the suggested
transfers is not to make the CAB's adjudicatory and legislative
decisions subservient to the Undersecretary of Civil Aviation,
but to remove those administrative and policy functions that
should be in the executive branch. At the same time, it is
hard to think of an effective "Mr. Civil Aviation" if the
economic concerns and policies of our domestic and international
airline system are handled by an entirely separate and inde-
pendent agency.
Q-19
-------
1-526
Basically the Board performs three functions. In the
first place, it hears and decides cases involving adversary
parties. What routes should be certificated, which carrier
should get which route, deciding whether a merger should be
approved, etc. This is essentially an adjudicatory role,
picking one or more applicants or petitioners from a group,
on the basis of an evidentiary hearing.
A second function is essentially legislative - the setting
of rates and fares. There is often a hearing, to be sure,
but it is not typically an adversary proceeding in the usual
sense of the word, although Bureau Counsel or other parties
may attempt to turn it into an adversary proceeding. Rate-
making from time to time has been undertaken by legislatures
although they now typically delegate this function to a
regulatory tribunal.
Finally the Board performs a large number of administra-
tive or ministerial functions. Some of these are loosely
related to the Board's adjudicatory or legislative roles.
Others are largely divorced from these two functions. For
example the Board does a considerable amount of work on
gathering and analyzing the accounting and statistical reports
of the carriers. This is neither a judicial nor a legislative
function. To be sure the accounting data are needed for
regulatory purposes, but they are widely used for other pur-
poses as well. Courts do not have accounting sections; neither
do legislatures, unless the G.A.O. be counted as such. The
Board, indeed, develops the chart of accounts for the airlines
and the methodology by which traffic surveys are conducted
and reported. Perhaps because of focus on regulation, the
accounting system is essentially one of financial accounting
and is ill-adapted to managerial control purposes. (For
example, it is impossible to get route segment load factor
data from the reported data.)
Another example of the essentially administrative or
ministerial roles performed by the Board at present can be
found in the Board's work in its International Division in
the way of working out positions for bilateral negotiations,
and in the research area where a variety of studies have been
performed, sometimes to confirm the soundness of one or
another Board decision.
The Board has also carried out the function of deter-
mining and awarding subsidy. While the carriers would declare
that the Board has been exceedingly parsimonious in its awards,
the fact remains that in the case of the local service airlines,
subsidy has declined and more recently increased, without
much regard for what it is that .the Government is getting for
Q-2U
-------
1-527
its money. It is certainly not getting air service to smaller
communities, i'f that is the program objective, since the
number of such cities receiving service by the local service
lines has decreased rapidly as the local service lines have
turned these points over to the unsubsidized third-level
carriers. What it does seem.to have obtained is a network
of regional carriers which are increasingly focusing on high
density short to medium haul markets in competition with the
trunklines. There is perhaps nothing wrong with this, but it
is a rather strange way to develop a rational route structure
and almost certainly a complete move away from the original.
purpose of local service subsidy. This change has been
brought about without any review of the''program relative to.
other aviation or to other transportation programs.
In common with virtually all of the regulatory agencies,.
the Board has no stated policies -as such. Its policies at
any one moment of time can be deduced .from a reading of the
dicta in current decisions, but this is often an unreliable
guide to what future policies will be. There thus tends to
be a policy (and planning) void since DOT is reluctant to
assert a policy role except in areas (such as international)
where it has a mandate, either by statute or at the direction
of the President.
It is true that the transfer of the Boards administra-
tive and ministerial functions to* the proposed Undersecretary
of Civil Aviation is no guarantee that they would be per-
formed in a superior way, but it seems inconceivable to set
up a "Mr. Civil Aviation" with a good deal of position and
centralized power and then in the same bresth say to him -
"By the way, don't worry about the economics of the airline
industry; the Board will do that." What is proposed here is
to turn the Board into a straight adjudicatory and legislative
body which would hear and decide adversary proceedings and
would legislate in the rate and fare area. The Board would
retain whatever staff was needed to assist it in carrying
out this role. The Board's ministerial functions - policy
and progi^im development for air transport, data collection,
research and analysis, etc. would be placed under the juris-
diction of "Mr. Civil Aviation."
With the addition of the foregoing responsibilities and
functions to the present FAA functions, there would be a
strong and centralized agency capable of dealing with all
facets of civil aviation at the federal level. It would have
a span of authority easily justifying sub-cabinet (Undersecre-
tary or "Service Secretary") rank and status either in DOT or
in a new Department of Economic Affairs.
Q-21
-------
1-528
The way in which the DOT might be structured under such
an agreement can be seen from the accompanying chart. Note
that the new functions are added primarily in a new administra-
tion (FADA) or at the staff level to the Undersecretary. The
chart also shows the possible placement of a government cor-
poration to handle the air traffic control function if it
were decided to proceed in this' direction. From the standpoint
of both industry and. of state and local officials, there
would be no ambiguity as to where the responsibility and
authority for civil aviation lay.
>
Inter-departmental Coordination:
As already noted there has .been from time, to time in
the past a need for interdepartmental coordination on civil
aviation matters. This need was met from 1944 to 1958 by the
Air Coordinating Committee. Since then it has been met by
more ad hoc arrangements. To a degree, the need for a large
standing committee to provide inter-departmental coordination
of policies and programs is a clear signal that there is in-
sufficient centralized authority in the regular departmental
structure; - there are too many drivers handling the same
reins. The creation of an Undersecretary for Civil Aviation
with the functions and responsibilities outlined above should
go far to cut down on the amount of required interdepartmental
coordination. The Undersecretary would have most of the reins,
in his hand and would presumably have the "clout" to drive '
the team.
Still, in an organization of the size and complexity of
the federal .government there is bound to be. some division of
interest and responsibility, particularly in a field like
aviation where there is a major military, as well as a major
civil, involvement. The Commission has considered, therefore,
how inter-departmental coordination could be achieved in an
effective manner, without the creation of an unwieldy bureau-
cracy or without undercutting the position, and authority of
the proposed Undersecretary. It did not accept one staff
suggestion that there be created in the Executive Office of
the President a new policy-maJcing, coordinating and planning
group since it appeared that such a group would very likely
usurp, or at least attempt to usurp, the functions of the
Undersecretary for Civil Aviation. It viewed more favorably
the use of the National Space Council, as modified to include
aviation, to perform the necessary coordination. Alternatively
some members of the commission believed that a National Avia-
tion Council set up in a parallel to the Space Council might
give aviation somewhat greater visibility.
Q-22
-------
1-529
In point of fact the Space Council, which is chaired by
the Vice President and has a small staff of its own, appears
to have been only moderately active in recent years. It has
become largely an information exchange on the space program-
and a public relations vehicle (for space shots and the like),
rather than a focal point for major policy coordination and
decision-making, en route to the President.
In this connection it is important to distinguish a
number of functions that are involved in interdepartmental
coordination and upstream communication;
. . " i
There are first those questions calling for interdepart-
mental resolution. Illustrative of this type of question is
the civil/military use of the airspace. Specific questions of ,
this type can generally be resolved on an interdepartmental
basis once some general policy guidelines have been established,
often at the White House level, if not indeed by the President ....
personally. Almost all of these questions involve some com- . ' .!
promise or yielding of parochial interests. For example, it
is simply not possible for the military, on the one hand, to ....
have all the air space reservations it would like, and it is
also not possible for civil aircraft to fly at will through
danger zones and reserved air space. Both sides must yield
somewhat. How much is a matter, in the last analysis, for
the President to decide, if a reasonable compromise cannot be '
reached by his "ministers."
To the extent that policy conflicts are of a bilateral
nature, they do not require a large coordinating committee
where in effect other ministers or their representatives sit
as umpires on matters which in fact are none of their business.
Nevertheless, it is important that there be some mechanism
for monitoring to assure that these matters do, in fact, get
resolved either through interdepartmental negotiation or by
the White House as a matter of last resort. This kind of
"monitoring" function is probably better performed by a
Presidential staff member, presumably one with a "passion for
anonymity" and a low profile. His essential qualification
should be that he does not fancy himself as "Mr. Aviation"
in lieu of the Undersecretary.
If such a Presidential staff member existed on a regular
basis, then the case for an interdepartmental aviation coor-
dinating group would be greatly weakened since multilateral
policy issues requiring coordination could be "crammed down"
on the departments for resolution, or alternatively decided
by the President. And in point of fact each of the last six
Presidents has, from time to time, had such a staff person
Q-23
-------
1-530
or persons. The title, rank and assignment of the "person"
has varied not only from administration to administration but
also during .an administration, as the personalities changed.
And given the fact that White House staff organization is
highly dependent (and should be) on the operating style of
the President, it is probable that this somewhat nebulous
situation will continue. The main case for an ongoing
Aviation Council (or combined Aviation and Space Council) is
that it would-provide an institutional continuity in an other-
wise highly fluid situation.
There is, however, a second reason for believing that an
Aviation Council could perform a useful role. The establish-
ment of a "Mr. Aviation" in the person of the Undersecretary
for Civil Aviation is going to provide regional, state and
local interests with a single point of contact in Washington
on civil aviation matters. In most respects, this will be a
real advantage. But it will also create the hazard that the
federal civil aviation monolith will steam-roller nonfederal
interests and concerns, regardless of how many advisory
committees or panels the Undersecretary may establish. An
Aviation Council with some nonfederal membership would provide
some assurance that legitimate regional, state and local
interests were not ignored or unduly submerged in the federal
program. This might have political as well as substantive
advantages for the administration in office.
In order to tie together the multilateral interdepart-
mental coordination function with the monitoring function (to
assure .that interdepartmental issues are in fact resolved) it
is suggested that the Executive Director of the Council be
the White House staff member designated to handle civil aviation
matters. He could, of course, have such support assistance
as was required. But his dual role should expedite the resolu-
tion of issues which were resolvable or speed those which
could not be resolved (and were of sufficient importance) on
their way to the Chief Executive.
Regional, State and Local Interests:
Thus far the primary focus of this memorandum has been
on the federal level. In fact regional, state and local groups
have major responsibility for implementing much of the federal
program and for initiating programs of their own. There are
more or less continuous complaints that the federal establish-
ment tends to ignore these groups both in the development of
policies and programs and in their implementation at the feder-
al level. Mention has already been made of the fact that the
centralization of civil aviation functions in the hands of an
Q-24
-------
1-531
Undersecretary should provide a partial resolution of these
problems. Presumably the Undersecretary would establish a
variety of channels of communication with regional/ state and
local interests in addition to his geographic organization.
There are, however, a number of further steps which might
well be explored and examined in connection with the gradual
evolution of mdre .transportation and aviation capability at
the regional and state level in the form of regional transpor-
tation authorities and state departments of transportation.
The exact nature of the federal-nonfederal relation and the
degree of delegation of.authority deserves to be explored in
much greater depth than can be done either in this memorandum - •,
or by the Commission. As part of such a study consideration
should be given to the question of the impact of revenue-shar- ,
ing, if implemented, on the aviation relationship. But the
more centralized civil aviation organization called for in this ^
memorandum would appear to facilitate improved federal/non-
federal relations. ,
Source: Cherington, Paul W. , "Memorandum on Government
Organization for Civil Aviation, " Aug. 9, 1972, in
Aviation Advisory Commission staff and consultants,
The Long Range Needs of Aviation, Technical Annux
to the Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission,
January 1973, Vol. I, pp 1-507 to 531.
Q-25
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
.1. Report No.
EPA 550/9-74-019B
3.N^ecipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
CIVIL AVIATION STUDIES AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATING ORGANIZATIOCi
Appendices
Volume 2, Excerpts from Source Documents
3. Report Date
December 1974
6.
7. Autlior(s)
Carl Modig
8- Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. PL" forming Organization Name and Address
Informatics Inc.
Noise Information Program
6000 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, Md. -20852
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-2229
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
Volume one contains the main report.
16. Abstracts
Seventeen source documents are reproduced in whole or in part to provide more detailed information on topics
. covered in the main report (Volume 1), which describes various federal organizations set up to coordinate or study
civil aviation policy, including those dealing with the aircraft noise problem. Included are complete recommendations
of reports, membership lists, organizational charts, and report excerpts. These selections represent a small fraction
of the source document collection on this topic available for use at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Civil Aviation Policy
Presidential Commissions
Congressional Commissions
Noise Pollution
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Air Coordinating Committee
Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Program
Doolittle Report
Harding Report
CARD Study
RADCAP Study
Aviation Advisory Commission
EPA Report to Congress on Aircraft/Airport Noise
17c. COSATI Fie.-Id/Croup
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNC1.ASS1F1HD
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASS1FIKD
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
THIS FORM MAY 13K RF.PRODUCF.D
USCOMM-DC 14052-P72
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Daca Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Rxamples
•!• ASlilVNS-87 and FA A-RD-68-09.
2. I .cave.- blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. . Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4- Title ond Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5- Report Date. Each re-port shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doc). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
nn organisational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGRDR-I.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Controct/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13- Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank. . • '
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in ... Supersedes . . . Supplements . . .
'6. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the rh,ost significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisc iplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
l-'ield./Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s). . I
18. Distribution Stotement. Denote releasabi 1 ity to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, with address and price. '
19 & 20. Security Clossi f icotion. Do not submit classified reports to the National 'lechnical
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including iliis one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
I ist, if any.
22. Price. Insert tin: price set by the National Technical Informal ion Service or tin- (ioverninent Printing Office, if known.
------- |