REPORT
ON
AIRCRAFT-AIRPORT
OISE
July 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
REPORT TO CONGRESS
ON
AXRCBAFT/AIRPGRT NOISE
REPORT Or THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IK COMPLIANCE WITH
NOICF. CONTROL ACT OF 1972
PUBLIC LAW 92-574
JULY 1973
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
Paee
Adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration
Flight and Operational Noise Controls 14
Adequacy of Noise Emission Standards on New and
Existing Aircraft; Recommendations on the
Retrofitting and Phaseout of Existing Aircraft 30
Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels
of Cumulative Noise Exposure Around Airports 46
SECTION 4
Additional Measures Available to Airport Operators
and Local Governments to Control Aircraft Noise 100
SUMMARY 108
-------
INTRODUCTION
Noise, "unwanted sound," has been a problem throughout the
history of the human race. The increasing use of noise producing
machinery concurrent with vastly greater magnitudes of sound gen-
erated therefrom (of which aviation systems are a classic case)
has resulted in the noise problem increasing to a point of major
environmental concern. The relations between noise and man with
respect to his health (well being) and welfare (in its broadest
sense) are extremely complex. These are discussed in considerable
detail in the EPA document, "Public Health and Welfare Criteria
for Noise," issued by the EPA under Section 5 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972. As discussed in that document the effects of noise
cover a wide range of human response, including that (the most
severe) of permanent impairment of hearing; interference with the
ability to communicate or undertake desired hearing tasks; annoy-
ance of varying degree, and other vague and difficult to define
reactions. A major consideration with regard to noise as an
environmental problem, and one having considerable importance in
regard to aviation noise, is that hearing is one of man's main
sensory contacts with his environment (being second only to vision
In that regard). A part of the reaction to aircraft noise may be
(and by many authorities is so considered) attributed to a number
of connotations, such as fear, or social antagonism, in the "mess-
age" interpreted by its listener.
Aircraft/airport noise is not a new problem for the United
-1-
-------
States. Virtually from the dawn of aviation, there have been com-
plaints regarding aircraft noise. It was recognized early that
noise from aircraft engines could affect the hearing of pilots and
ground crew personnel, as evidenced by the fact that one of the
earliest investigations conducted by the Aero Medical Laboratory
of the Army Air Corps, during World War I, related to aviators'
hearing (1).. One of the earliest recorded official noise complaints,
related to aircraft operations, occurred in 1928 at which time a
farmer wrote to the Postmaster General stating that low flying air-
craft were disrupting egg production (2).
Until World War II, air transportation in the civil sector
developed at a very slow rate. During World War II, the extensive
utilization of military aircraft for passenger and freight trans-
portation provided an impetus to the aviation industry which laid
the basis for the spectacular postwar growth of commercial trans-
portation which has continued until the present time.
In 1946, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA -
now enfolded into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration -
NASA), the Air Transport Association and the Aerospace Industries
Associated were invited by the Civil Aeronautics Administration
(CAA) to participate in a joint approach to the noise problem which
"threatens to undermine aviation progress" (2).
Noise from reciprocating engine, propeller driven aircraft was
-2-
-------
of major concern to the military In the World War II time period.
Numerous studies were conducted by the U.S. Air Force on this
problem in the period 1948 to 1951. Of considerable significance
were those relating to noise levels resulting from the operation
of B-36 aircraft. These studies showed that levels between 70dB
to 120 dB (overall sound pressure levels) were experienced through-
out an area of 144 square miles, under the takeoff and approach
zones, when these large aircraft operated.
In apparent anticipation of the seriousness of jet aircraft
noise, as compared with the already recognized propeller noise
problem, the Port of New York Authority issued a regulation in
1951 forbidding landing or takeoff of jets, without permission
from the Authority (3). Early in 1952, the problem of noise re-
sulted in action within the air transport industry to develop a
"National Air Transport Coordinating Committee" to consider pro-
blems of aircraft noise in the New York area.
The introduction of high performance, jet engine powered air-
craft into military use preceded their entry into civil aviation
by a considerable period of time (approximately 12 years). By 1952,
the noise problem associated with military jet aircraft had grown
to such proportions in regard to the reactions of civilian
communities that the U.S. Air Force issued a special pamphlet "Air
Force Pamphlet 32-2-1, Noise Guide for Air Base Commanders."
Various elements of the Department of Defense had instituted com-
-3-
-------
prehensive research programs aimed at trying to develop both
noise suppression techniques associated with the engines as well
as protective measures for military personnel and civilian
communities directly adjacent to military installations.
There have been many additional studies over the past 25
years that have echoed the foregoing concern. These included the
1965 studies of the Office of Science and Technology Jet Air-
craft Noise Panel, the 1970 joint DOT/NASA Civil Aviation Research
and Development Study - CARD, the 1971 Environmental Protection
Agency Report to the President and Congress on Noise under Title
IV, P.L. 91-604 and the report of the Aviation Advisory Commission,
established by Congress under P.L. 91-258.
Against this background of intensive inquiry and concern
about noise, since 1946, civil aviation has indeed grown in a
most remarkable manner. There are presently approximately 2000
large jet propelled aircraft operating in the U.S. fleet, compared
with none in 1957 (4). In 1972, these aircraft served an average
of almost 500 individual major terminals and carried approximately
190,000,000 passengers. In 1946, by comparison, there were only
65 airports at which jet aircraft were operating, with a then
"optimistic estimate" that by 1969 jet service would be available
at a total of 134 locations. Information available from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) indicates that in addition
to the current air carrier fleet, there are approximately 130,000
-4-
-------
other aircraft of all types in use by air taxi services, corpora-
tions, personal business and private use, which provide trans-
portation annually for another 50 million or so persons. Even
better appreciation of the order of magnitude of the growth of
air travel can perhaps be obtained by a comparison of the
commercial airlines revenue growth in revenue passenger miles.
In 1950, there were approximately 8 billion revenue passenger
miles provided by the domestic commercial air carriers, repre-
senting travel by some 17 million passengers. In 1972, the
total had grown to 152 billion revenue passenger miles with the
growth in numbers of passengers to 190 million.
The impact of this sharp increase in air traffic in terms
of takeoffs and landings is also highly significant. In 1972, as
an example, according to preliminary data of the FAA, there were
approximately 660,000 takeoffs and landings at O'Hare Airport in
Chicago, the Nation's busiest terminal. The faster, more comfort-
able mode of transportation represented by high performance
commercial jets has undoubtedly contributed to the growth in
utilization of the Air Transportation System both for passengers
and freight. The economic competition of this mode of transporta-
tion with others has also resulted in a high utilization by ever
increasing segments of the public. The concurrent increase in
the size of the noise impact, in terms of numbers of people ex-
posed and its severity, occurred at a greater rate than the
apparent ability of either governmental entities or the industry
-5-
-------
to anticipate and then cope with the problem in an effective sense.
This situation led to the enactment of Section 7 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972.
It should also be noted that the growth of aviation in the
United States (and worldwide) has coincided with the major expan-
sion of metropolitan areas served by air transportation both in
size and population. This expansion has resulted in an increase
in types and severity of many other environmental problems (a
situation not restricted to noise alone) such as air and water
pollution. Concurrent expansion of problems has resulted,
in many instances, from a lack of exercise, by the many govern-
mental jurisdictions, of their authorities such as zoning, or
other powers. This has all too often resulted in sharp increases
in residential populations immediately adjacent to the major air
terminals. It is fruitless at this late date to attempt to
find "culprits" but it is likewise significant to highlight the
fact that as early as 1964, there were warnings regarding the need
for local community or state actions with regard to this issue (5).
In spite of the recurring forecasts of increasing aviation
noise impact, and a substantial investment in aviation noise con-
trol research and development in the Federal and private sector,
the aviation noise problem had, because of a combination of the
wide variety of influences, grown to major proportions by the
time of the 1971, Title IV, EPA Report on Noise. Approximately 16
-6-
-------
million persons are presently 'impacted by aviation noise in the
United States, and in spite of the introduction of quieter new
aircraft, the number will continue to be of major proportion
until the mid 1980's unless aggressive action is taken. The
adverse effects of this noise range from annoyance to the possi-
bility of hearing damage. These effects have resulted in numerous
law suits and, in some cases, have prevented expansion of existing
airports or construction of new ones.
It is evident that there is a need to mobilize available
resources and technology, including those of providing newer and
quieter aircraft for the future, to deal with this problem in
a coordinated time-phased fashion. By enacting the Noise Control
Act of 1972, Congress provided the Administrator of EPA with
authority to coordinate Federal noise control activities, Federal
research and development related to noise, and to provide technical
assistance to States in the area of model codes and laws. Congress
has thus established a means to integrate the activities of the
Administrator under the Noise Control Act, those of the FAA under
the Federal Aviation Act, and of other Federal Agencies, such as
NASA, to accelerate a coordinated program of correction.
However, if noise levels protective of the public health and
welfare are to be achieved around the Nation's airports in the
near future, it will be necessary to establish a Federal regulatory
program which effectively combines Federal controls on aircraft
tlight procedures, technology, and noise control options available
to airport operators and local jurisdictions.
—7 —
-------
The present study is part of that action, and results from
the requirements of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-
574) in Section 7(a), which directs the Environmental Protection
Agency as follows:
"The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested persons,
shall conduct a study of the (1) adequacy of Federal Aviation
Administration flight and operational noise controls; (2)
adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing
aircraft, together with recommendations on the retrofitting
and phaseout of existing aircraft; (3) implications of
identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure
around airports; and (4) additional measures available to
airport operators and local governments to control aircraft
noise. He shall report on such study to the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Commerce and Public Works of the Senate
within nine months after the date of the enactment of this
Act."
Under Section 7(c) of the Act, not earlier than the date of
submission of the report to Congress, EPA is to submit to FAA
"proposed regulations to provide such control and abatement of air-
craft noise and sonic boom (including control and abatement through
the exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over air
-8-
-------
commerce or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations)
as EPA determines is necessary to protect the public health and
welfare."
The descriptive material on health and welfare contained in
the Criteria Document and the Environmental Noise Effects Document
required by Section 5 of the Noise Control Act will be considered
by the Agency in developing such proposals. This present report
on the studies undertaken by the Agency is the first step in the
regulation process established in the Noise Control Act.
The study to develop the Section 7(a) report has been carried
out through a participatory and consultive process involving a
Task Force made up of six task groups. The membership of the six
task groups was formed by sending invitations to organizations
representing the various sectors of interest. These included other
Federal agencies, organizations representing State and local govern-
ments, environmental and consumer action groups, professional
societies, air traffic controllers, pilots, airport proprietors,
airlines, users of general aviation aircraft, and aircraft and
engine manufacturers. A press release was distributed concerning
the study, and additional individuals and organizations expressing
interest were asked to participate. Written inputs from others,
including all citizen aircraft noise complaint letters received
during the period of the study, were called to the attention of
appropriate task group leaders and placed in the public master file
for reference.
-9-
-------
A plenary session of the Task Force was held on February 15,
1973. Each of the task groups then held 4 to 6 working meetings
for the duration of the study. As a result of these meetings and
a final plenary session on June 21 and 22, 1973, reports were
developed which represent the consolidated, but not unanimous,
opinions, suggestions and specific data inputs from the participating
task group members.
Each report includes the membership list for the task group
and a list of the master file documents collected during the study
effort. The file was maintained throughout the study for the
use of task group members and other interested persons, and will
continue to be maintained for public reference at the Office of
Noise Control Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
B.C. 20A60.
The reports of the six task groups are entitled:
o "Legal and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft
and Airport Noise and Apportionment of Authority
between Federal, State and Local Governments"
o "Operations Analysis Including Monitoring,
Enforcement, Safety, and Costs"
o "Impact Characterization of Noise Including
Implications of Identifying and Achieving Levels
of Cumulative Noise Exposure"
o "Noise Source Abatement Technology and Cost
Analysis Including Retrofitting"
o "Review and Analysis of Present and Planned
FAA Noise Regulatory Actions and their
Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport
Operations"
-10-
-------
o "Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and
Opportunities for Reduction without In-
hibition of Military Missions"
The reports of the task groups' studies are the results of the
efforts of a unique gathering of interested persons, experts and
concerned citizens, representing a wide spectrum of interest in
the development of an expeditious and effective resolution of
the aircraft/airport noise problem. The reports of the task
groups do not reflect official policy statements of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, but should be viewed as an effort to
obtain as much information on all aspects and views on the
subject as was possible within the time period available. They
have provided most of the basic information for the analysis of
the aircraft/airport noise problem. They will be considered by
the Agency, together with other data such as that developed for
the EPA Title IV Report to the President and Congress on Noise
and in the public hearings held by the Agency associated with that
report, the Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission, and such
additional information as becomes available, in preparing the de-
tail support for the proposed regulations to be submitted to the
Federal Aviation Administration under Section 7(c) of the Act.
Copies of the individual Task Group Study Reports will be
available at the EPA Regional Offices and in the public master
file of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control. They will
become available for purchase later in 1973 from the Superin-
tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
-11-
-------
In the following four sections, the essentials of the infor-
mation relevant to the four specific areas called for in Section
7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 are discussed. In effect,
the Agency has conducted, for the Congress, a technological re-
assessment of the areas of concern stated in the Act. The final
Section of this report provides a summary of the principal find-
ings of the study and of the plans for regulatory proposals to
satisfy the further continuing requirements of the Act, not only
with reference to Section 7 but as they relate to the larger
responsibilities of dealing with the problems of aviation and air-
port noise in accordance with other authorities of the Act.
-12-
-------
References
1. "Doctors in the Sky," Benford, Robert L., Editor.
2. FAA Historic Fact Book, 1966.
3. Goldstein, S. and Odell, A., "Comments on the Problem of
Jet Noise," Port'Authority of New York.
4. ATA Annual Report, "Air Transport 1973"
5. "Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise," Joint
Publication U.S. Air Force and United States Federal Aviation
Agency, Washington, B.C., October, 1964.
-13-
-------
SECTION 1
ADEQUACY OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FLIGHT AND
OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTROLS
Based on this Agency's studies, it appears that existing FAA
flight and operational controls* do not adequately protect the public
health and welfare from aircraft noise. Since the existing controls
do not consider the levels of noise to which people are exposed
or the number of people so exposed. Although existing regulations
have been useful, insofar as they accomplish some noise reduction
without having to change the air traffic control system, the in-
formation available to EPA indicates that there are additional
flight and operational procedures which could contribute to the
protection of the public health and welfare.
* The FAA has adopted two Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's)
and two Advisory Circulars (AC's) related to flight and operational
noise controls. (Advisory Circulars inform the aviation public of
nonregulatory material of interest. They are not binding as are
regulations.)
These are:
o FAR 91.55 prohibits flight at speeds in excess of Mach 1 and
thereby prevents the occurrence of sonic booms unless a specific
authorization is given.
o FAR 91.87 regulates operation at airports with operating
control towers. FAR 91.87(d) and (f) specify that the minimum
altitude for turbine powered or large aircraft is 1500 feet
above the surface of the airport except when lower altitudes are
necessary for takeoff or landing. FAR 97.87(d) further requires
that such aircraft when approaching to land remain on or above
the glide slope (if available). In addition FAR 91.87(g) re-
quires pilots of these aircraft to use, whenever possible, the
preferential noise abatement runways designated by FAA. (Footnote
continued on page 15.)
-14-
-------
Flight and operational noise controls alone, however, cannot
be expected to totally resolve the noise problem. At best, they
must be considered as only one element of what must be a more
comprehensive plan which also includes controls on the source of
the noise, the number and time of day of flights, and the location
of people exposed to noise.
Implicit in this discussion is the fact that flight safety is
of paramount importance in developing flight and operational noise
controls. It is the FAA's legal responsibility to ensure that
o AC 90-59 describes the FAA "Keep-em-High" program wherein
controllers issue clearances to keep high performance aircraft as
high as possible as long as possible (1). This program was
initially introduced for the purpose of collision avoidance, but
it also provides some noise relief by preventing unnecessary low
altitude flight. The program is not regulatory in nature, al-
though pilots must follow clearances once accepted. The Keep-em-
High program does not require the use of any specific noise
abatement takeoff or approach procedure.
o AC 91-36 encourages pilots flying in visual weather conditions
to maintain at least 2000 feet altitude above noise sensitive
areas (2).
In addition to the above system-wide controls, there are specific
noise abatement procedures in effect at Washington National Air-
port, which is operated by the FAA. There the airlines use a thrust
reduction during climbout from a point 3 nautical miles northbound
or 4 nautical miles southbound until reaching an altitude of 6,000
feet or a distance of 10 nautical miles, whichever occurs first.
Aircraft on approach must follow the Potomac River. A jet curfew
is in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Only certain types of aircraft
are permitted to use the airport (the largest being Boeing 727's),
and trip lengths are limited to 650 miles with exceptions for non-
stop flights to 7 cities within 1,000 miles (3,4,5).
-15-
-------
flight and operational procedures are consistent with the highest
degree of safety, and EPA, therefore, cannot conclude that specific
flight and operational noise controls are either safe or unsafe.
This Agency has, however, studied a number of noise abatement flight
procedures which the Agency believes merit consideration for rule-
making or implementation by the FAA.
The discussion which follows is based primarily on the data
contained in the EPA aircraft/airport noise study report (6).
-16-
-------
Takeoff
There are at least two distinct types of takeoff noise problems:
noise alongside the runway and noise under the climbout flight path.
They are distinct in that reducing one generally results in increas-
ing the other.* For most airports, the climbout noise is more
critical, but there are some locations where sideline noise is the
dominant departure problem** (7).
At present there are no FAA controls relating to noise abate-
ment takeoff procedures. There are, however, several different
noise abatement takeoff procedures employed by various segments
of the aviation industry. Each of these procedures provides noise
benefits for different areas in relation to the departure runway.
Unfortunately, at the present time, (except at Washington National
Airport), the actual location of noise sensitive areas is not
considered in selecting the takeoff procedure.
For residential areas very far from the airport (more than
approximately 10 miles), the most beneficial procedure is generally
to climb at the steepest angle possible with nearly full power. Such
a procedure is recommended by the Air Transport Association (ATA)
* On takeoff, the factors of distance and power setting work
against one another: lower power settings mean less noise output
but also lower altitudes, so the location of noise sensitive areas
must be carefully considered in determining whether any given
procedure will provide a noise benefit.
** Los Angeles and Boston are examples of airports where the
critical departure noise problem is sideline.
-17-
-------
and is in use by American Airlines and United Airlines, among
others (8). Similar procedures are also recommended by the National
Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) (9).
For areas approximately 2 to 10 miles from the airport, the
most beneficial procedure is generally to climb steeply and then,
at an altitude of approximately 1500 feet, reduce power to not less
than that required to maintain safe flight in the event of an
engine failure. Power is not re-applied until the aircraft
reaches an altitude of approximately 4000 feet. This procedure
is recommended by the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) (10). It
is similar to procedures currently in use by Northwest Air Lines
at all airports it serves and by all airlines using Washington
National Airport* (11,5). Compared to the maximum angle (full
power) climbout, this power cutback procedure reduces noise
approximately 2 to 7 EPNdB** (depending on aircraft type and weight)
in the distance range of 2 to 10 miles from the airport. It causes
a noise increase, however, for approximately one mile prior to the
* Although one can calculate that the noise impact at Washington
National Airport could be much greater without the noise abatement
flight procedures, to EPA's knowledge there has been no on-going
program of noise monitoring to document the noise benefit. In
spite of the noise abatement procedures, National Airport noise
has been the subject of recent litigation although the court con-
cluded that there was not actionable noise damage (12).
** Throughout this section, noise reductions will be stated in
terms of single event Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB). A
10 EPNdB noise reduction would be perceived as a halving of the
noise. See Section 3 for additional discussions of single event
and cumulative noise measures. In general, the cumulative noise
level at a given location will be reduced by the same amount as
the reduction in average single event noise level (energy average).
-18-
-------
cutback (while flaps are being retracted) and then again after power
is reapplied (6,13).
The procedure which is most beneficial for sideline noise
reduction is to use reduced thrust from the start of the takeoff
roll when the takeoff weight, runway length, and other conditions
permit. Many FAA-approved aircraft flight manuals allow this
for the purpose of reducing engine wear. This procedure can de-
crease sideline noise by up to 2 EPNdB (6). The procedure results
in lower altitudes and higher noise levels under the clirabout
path, however, so it is not optimum when near-downrange noise is
the critical problem.
On a national basis, the maximum benefit would be achieved by
having the takeoff procedure tailored to each specific runway/
community configuration. On the other hand, some pilot and industry
groups feel that a single, standard procedure rather than multiple
standards is necessary to insure safety (14). Countering arguments
suggest that every takeoff is different anyway because of runway,
wind, weight, and other factors rendering the concept of a "single"
standard meaningless (15).
Based on all of the above considerations there seems to be
compelling evidence that several noise abatement takeoff pro-
cedures could be standardized for selective use at specific airports.
This Agency believes that this merits further evaluation through
the FAA rule-making process and therefore intends to propose, to
-19-
-------
the FAA, appropriate regulations as provided in Section 7(b) of the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
Approach
At present, other than the glide slope requirement of FAR
91.87(d), there are no FAA regulations or other controls relating
to noise abatement approach procedures. There are, however, several
different noise abatement approach procedures currently employed by
various segments of the aviation industry or undergoing flight tests.
Most air carrier approaches (under instrument weather conditions)
are made on an electronic Instrument Landing System (ILS) glide
slope.* The standard approach angle for new ILS installations is
3 degrees. A few existing installations are at greater angles,**
but most (65%) were installed before the 3 degree standard was adopted
and are between 2.5 and 2.9 degrees (16). The requirement of FAR
91.87(d) to remain on or above the glide slope is therefore less
effective than it could be (a one-half degree increase in approach
angle reduces noise 2 to 3 EPNdB) (6). The reason that all glide
slopes have not been raised to at least 3 degrees appears to be
one of economics: one FAA estimate indicates an adjustment cost
of $62,000 per installation (17).
* The ILS glide slope is often followed in visual weather also,
although considerably more leeway exists for pilot or controller
initiated deviations.
** These airports have glide slope angles above 3 degrees for the
purpose of terrain clearance: San Diego, California (3.22°); Fort
Worth (Meacham Field), Texas (3.33°); Annette Island, Alaska (3.27°);
Berlin (Tempelhof) Germany (3.5°) (6).
-20-
-------
The two SRgwent approach .n^ir.c to hold the most promise for
significant approach noise rclieif. In this procedure, the initial
descent is accomplished at a fairly steep angle (nominally 6 degrees)
and at associated reduced power settings; then transition is made
to a normal glide slope at an altitude (500 to 1,000 feet) sufficient
to safely reduce the initial high descent rates. Visual weather
versions of this procedure are currently in use at certain airports
with 727 and 737 aircraft by National Airlines, Pacific Southwest
Airlines, and Air California, and by all airlines (with aircraft
types as large as DC-8'c) at the San Diego Airport (the latter
because of high terrain) (18, 19, 20, 21). The National Business
Aircraft Association a.lsc rer.ocvnends use of two-segment approaches
in visual conditions (9). Flight tests of two-segment approaches
have been conducted during the last 10 years by FAA, NASA, and the
airline industry, many using prototype instrumentation for all
weather operations (22, 23, 24, 25). Tests are currently being
conducted in scheduled airline passenger service by United Airlines
under contract to NASA (25). This further testing should result
in suitable instrumentation and pilot acceptance so that all weather
use of two-segment approaches can be instituted throughout the
civil air carrier fleet.
The noise benefit from two-segment approaches has been measured
to be as high as 17 EPNdB under the steep portion of the flight
profile (6). The noise reductions become smaller as the aircraft
gets closer to the airport, becoming zero when the transition to
the final glide slope is complete (approximately 2 to 3 miles from
-21-
-------
touchdown). Information available to this Agency indicates that
the two-segment visual approach used by Pacific Southwest Air-
lines has received favorable community support in California
(26,27).
The main objections to two-segment approaches come from ALPA
pilots and some segments of the airline industry. They desire
more testing to be certain that safety will not be degraded by
the higher descent rates in the steep segment (28). They are also
concerned that introduction of a "visual conditions only" two-
segment approach would erode standardization and thereby safety
28, 29). Countering arguments suggest that adequate testing
has already been accomplished, and that "standardization" does not
in fact exist at present, every landing being unique and different.
Specific charts are published for every runway, and air traffic
control procedures differ from visual to instrument weather
conditions (30). A further concern, expressed by the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is that small aircraft with-
out two-segment instrumentation may experience wake turbulence if
following behind and below a large aircraft conducting a two-
sgement approach (31). The FAA is currently planning flight tests
to investigate this potential hazard.*
* The wake turbulence hazard can be minimized or eliminated by
providing a sufficient separation distance between the large and
small aircraft, or by assigning them to widely separated runways.
Such procedures are already in effect even for standard ILS
approaches.
-22-
-------
It appears that two-segment approaches may require either
ground based or airborne instrumentation, or both. Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME), co-located with the glide slope on the
airport, is likely to be a prerequisite. Only 10 such DME's had
been commissioned by FAA as of December 31, 1972; 6 were approved
but not commissioned, and FAA planning documents indicate a slow-
down in the installation rate for new DME's (32,33).
Cost estimates for DME range from $26,400 to $60,000 per instal-
lation (1973 dollars) (34,17). Airborne equipment estimates range
from zero for visual procedures to $31,400 per aircraft for a
glide slope computer relying upon the airport DME (34,35).
On any approach, noise reductions can be achieved by using
a flap management program where thrust is minimized (provided the
runway length is sufficient to accommodate the increased landing
speeds). Noise levels may be 3 to 5 EPNdB lower than on a full
flap approach (6). This flap management approach is recommended
by ATA and is in use by American Airlines, United Airlines, and
Northwest Airlines, among others (29).
At some airports, thrust reverse noise on landing contributes
to noise annoyance (7,36). In cases where the runway is long, it
is possible under certain weather conditions to avoid the use of
thrust reversers (36). The pilots are concerned, however, that
limitations on the use of thrust reversers for noise abatement
-23-
-------
purposes may erode safety margins (14). Environmental groups
believe, on the other hand, that pilot indoctrination in the proper
use of thrust reversers and their noise effects could be beneficial
in minimizing their use where not necessary (15). Consideration
must be given to possible increases in aircraft ground taxi time
with resultant increase in air pollutant emissions.
Based on all of the preceding, there seems to be compelling
evidence that several noise abatement approach procedures could
be standardized for use under certain conditions and that existing
ILS glide slopes could be raised to at least 3 degrees. This
Agency believes these merit further evaluation, and insofar as
this can take place through the FAA rulemaking process intends
to propose to the FAA appropriate regulations as provided in
Section 7(b) of the Noise Control Act of 1972.
Minimum Altitudes
Turbine powered or large aircraft can make significant
amounts of noise at the minimum altitude of 1,500 feet permitted
by FAR 91.87 (105 EPNdB for a Boeing 707) (6). Increasing this
altitude to 3,000 feet would reduce the noise level by approximately
10 EPNdB (6). The FAA "Keep-em-High" program may help prevent over-
flights at unnecessarily low altitudes but its primary application
is for altitudes between 5,000 and 10,000 feet (1). The EPA does
not have documentation on the effectiveness of either FAR 91.87
or AC 91.36 related to visual flight rule (VFR) operations near
-24-
-------
noise sensitive areas, but its staff has received some citizen
complaints regarding low flying aircraft (37,38).
One potential disadvantage of increasing the regulatory minimum
altitudes is that it may cause some aircraft to travel farther (on
a circling approach) in order to intercept the glide slope at a
higher altitude. This could spread noise over a larger area
(although at lower noise levels). The experience at San Jose Air-
port, however, indicates that pilots may simply elect to fly a
steeper approach, in effect shortening the distance and further
reducing noise (39). Another potential disadvantage is that higher
minimum altitudes may reduce the available maneuvering airspace and
thus contribute to increased air congestion. This problem may be over-
come by issuing specific clearances for reduced altitude operations,
where necessary, but doing so may increase controller workloads.
Because of the potential noise relief, increased minimum
altitudes seem to merit further evaluation through the FAA rule-
making process and this agency therefore intends to propose appropri-
ate regulations to the FAA.
From the foregoing, it can be seen that a number of noise abate-
ment flight procedures are available for implementation. Although,
by themselves, they cannot totally resolve the noise problem, they
play an important part in any comprehensive plan for noise reduction.
EPA therefore intends to propose regulations to FAA in accordance
with Section 7(b) of the Noise Control Act of 1972. In the process
-25-
-------
of proposing such regulations, the Agency will fully take into
account the safety or other implications of adopting these re-
gulations as determined by the FAA, which has the final authority.
-26-
-------
References
1. FAA, Advisory Circular 90-59: "Arrival and Departure Handling
of High Performance Aircraft," February 28, 1973.
2. FAA, Advisory Circular 9—36: "VFR Flight Near Noise
Sensitive Areas", August 7, 1972.
3. FAA, "Notices to Airmen," Airman's Information Manual, page
3A-2 (District of Columbia), April 12, 1973.
4. FAA, "Washington National Airport Noise Abatement Procedures,"
Effective June 1, 1970.
5. Air Transport Association, "Takeoff Procedures for Washington
National Airport," August 21, 1972.
6. EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 2 Report,
Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety,
and Costs. July 1973, NTID 73.3.
7. Hurlburt, R. L., "A Survey of Noise Problems as Perceived by
the Airport Administration at 19 Large Hub Airports," EPA,
June 30, 1973.
8. Flynn, Roger, paper presenting views on aircraft and airport
operational procedures, received March 19, 1973.
9. National Business Aircraft Association, NBAA Noise Abatement
Program, Report SR 67-12, June, 1967.
10. Rockwell, R. N., and Stefanki, J. X., Letter "To All Members,"
ALPA, January 27, 1970.
11. Soderlind, Paul A., Letter to Administrator of FAA regarding
takeoff and approach noise, Northwest Airlines, November 24,
1970.
12. Virginians For Dulles vs. Volpe, 344 F Supp. 573 (E.D. Va.,
1972)
13. Erzberger, Heinz, et__al., "Technique for Calculating Optimum
Noise Abatement Take-Off Profiles," Progress of NASA Research
Relating to Noise Alleviation of Large Subsonic Jet Aircraft,
NASA SP-189, October 8-10, 1968.
14. Air Line Pilots Association, Comments on Position Questionnaire
Task Group 2, March 19, 1973.
-27-
-------
15. Tyler, John and Hinton, Lloyd, Letter to Randall L. Hurlburt
Re: "Comments and Recommendations for the Report to the
Congress," National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled
Environment, June 6, 1973.
16. FAA, "Glide Slope Angles at Airports," December, 1971.
17. Skully, R. P., Letter to Alvin Meyer regarding the draft EPA
Report (Operational Procedures), FAA, May 21, 1973.
18. Hurlburt, Randall L., Steep Approaches for Aircraft Noise
Abatement - A Collection of Research Studies, City of Inglewood,
California, July, 1972.
19. Carmichael, Robert E. L., Letter to Randall Hurlburt regarding
policies involving noise abatement during arrivals and departures,
Pacific Southwest Airlines, March 28, 1973.
20. Tucker, John R., Letter to R. L. Hurlburt regarding initial
draft of Task Group 2 report to Congress, Air California,
May 11, 1973.
21. Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Comparison of Aircraft Approach Angles
at Los Angeles and San Diego International Airports, City of
Inglewood, California, June, 1972.
22. Tanner, Carole S., Measurement and Analysis of Noise From Four
Aircraft During Approach and Departure Operations (727, KC-135,
707-320B, and DC-9), FAA Report FAA-RD-71-84, September, 1971.
23. NASA, Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology, March 30, 1973.
24. Denery, D. G. et al., Flight Evaluation of Three-Dimensional
Area Navigation for Jet Transport Noise Abatement, NASA, AIAA
Paper 72-814, Aug 7-9, 1972.
25. Quigley, H. C., e_t al., Flight and Simulation Investigation of
Methods for Implementing Noise Abatement Landing Approaches,
NASA TN D-5781, May, 1970.
26. Boettger, Wolfgang A., A Study of Steep Approaches for Noise
Abatement Flown by Pacific Southwest Airlines, City of Inglewood,
California, November, 1972.
27. Duffelmeyer, H. James, Letter to R. L. Hurlburt concerning PSA
two-segment approach, July 11, 1973.
28. Marthinsen, Harold F., Letter to R. Hurlburt regarding EPA's
Report - Draft No. 1 of Chapter 3, Air Line Pilots Association,
May 18, 1973.
-28-
-------
29. Flynn, Roger, paper containing recommended steps for noise
abatement approach, received March 6, 1973.
30. Jeppesen & Company, Airway Manual, Denver, Colorado.
31. Hartranft, J. B., Jr., Letter to FAA Administrator John H.
Shaffer, AOPA, November 27, 1972.
32. FAA, The National Aviation System Plan, Ten Year Plan 1973-
1982, March 1972.
33. FAA, The National Aviation System Plan, Ten Year Plan 1973-
1982, March 1973.
34. NASA, "Implementation of VFR/IFR 2-Segment Approach Capability
for Noise Abatement," received April 2, 1973.
35. NASA, Chapter 3. Operating Procedures for Aircraft Noise
Reduction, received March 19, 1973.
36. The communities of El Segundo, Inglewood, Lennox, Playa Del
Rey, and Westchester, California, Joint Policy Statement on
Airport Noise, Supporting Technical Data, December, 1972.
37, Kelly, M. P., Letter to Alvin F. Meyer regarding Opa Locka
Airport, February 12, 1973.
38. Plumlee, Lawrence A., Letter to Elizabeth Cuadra: "Police
Helicopters," Environmental Protection Agency, February 22,
1973.
39. Nissen, J. M., "Program for Improving San Jose Municipal Air-
port Environmental Quality as Affected by Aircraft," San Jose
Municipal Airport, received March 6, 1973.
-29-
-------
SECTION 2
ADEQUACY OF NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS ON NEW AND EXISTING AIRCRAFT;
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RETROFITTING AND PHASEOUT OF EXISTING AIRCRAFT.
Existing FAA noise emission regulations did not utilize public
health and welfare considerations as a basic constraint in their
development, since this was not required by the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958, until its amendment by tne Noise Control Act of 1972.
Based upon the EPA studies under the Noise Control Act, the present
aircraft noise emission standards do not provide adequately for such
needs, as shown in the analyses of the extensive data considered
and cited in this report.
Technology
The Report of the Aviation Advisory Commission and the present
EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study clearly indicate that currently
available technology is capable of being translated into equipment
that, together with employment of noise abatement flight procedures,
can significantly decrease the noise impact from aircraft (1,2.3).
Current source noise abatement technology can be applied as a retro-
fit option for existing aircraft, as a modification to newly produced
airplanes of older type designs, and also, be included in the design
and development of new aircraft systems. The latter application
provides the most effective use of technology to achieve maximum
source noise control. Continued source noise abatement research
and development is required, therefore, if civil aviation systems
-30-
-------
are to evolve with effective aoise emission controls (4.5).
The combined research, design, and development efforts of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Trans-
portation, Department of Defense, and industrial members of the
aviation community have provided a demonstrated technology base
which, if fully exploited, can provide a family of new aircraft for
both the commercial and business jet fleets starting in the 1978-
1980 time frame (4). The noise characteristics of these new air-
craft (depending upon aircraft type and measurement point) could
be 5-10 decibels below the present values in Appendix C of FAR 36
and thus, significantly quieter and more acceptable than the current
narrow-body jets (3, 6).
These more favorable conditions are the result of approximately
$138 million of Federal research and development (R&D) funds invested
in noise control in the period 1969 to date which is in addition
to the large military and industry expenditure prior to and during
this time. However, even if the decision to proceed with their
development were to be made today, the noise from the narrow-body
jets would dominate until the late 1980's (7) due to the relatively
long structural and probable economic life of the equipment which
would encourage their retention in the fleet.
For instance, in 1972, the U.S. jet powered air carrier fleet
was comprised of approximately 2,000 aircraft of which more than 90%
did not meet the current noise standards for newly certified aircraft
-31-
-------
(FAR Part 36, Appendix C) (7, 8). The fleet has been projected to
increase by 30% over the next 10 years. This growth will be accom-
plished by new procurement of current aircraft (747, DC-10, L-1011,
707, advanced 727, 737 and DC-9), the majority of which will comply
with the current FAR 36 noise criteria. However, during this
period, and possibly beyond, there will still remain 1100-1500
operational aircraft that will not meet the above limits (7).
Therefore it follows, that if there are to be significant
reductions in the impact of aircraft/airport noise prior to the
1980's, quieting or replacing current aircraft will be required.
Noise Emission Regulations
The FAA, in its fifteen years of existence, has devoted sub-
stantial effort to the technological, economic, and legal back-
ground necessary to propose seven noise emission regulations
capable of effecting significant noise reductions in a safe and
economically reasonable manner (9).
As of this writing, the FAA has issued two regulations:
1. "Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36: Noise
Standards: Aircraft type Certification", effective
1 December 1969.
2. "Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 91.55: General
-32-
-------
Operating and Flight Rules: Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom",
effective 27 April 1973.
In addition to these two regulations, the FAA has issued two Notices
of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and three Advanced Notices of Proposed
Rule Making (ANPRM) that have not yet resulted in regulations as
proposed. The notices, the general titles, and the dates of issue
are:
1. ANPRM 70-33; Civil Supersonic Aircraft Noise Type
Certification Standards, 4 August 1970.
2. ANPRM 70-44; Civil Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit
Requirements, 30 October 1970.
3. NPRM 71-26; Noise Type Certification and Acoustical
Change Approvals, 13 September 1971.
4. NPRM 72-19; Newly Produced Airplanes of Older Type
Design; Proposed Application of Noise Standards, ~]_
July 1972.
5. ANPRM 73-3; Civil Airplane Fleet Noise (FNL) Requirements,
24 January 1973.
FAR 36, issued as a new part to the Federal Aviation Regulations,
prescribed noise standards for the issue of type certificates, and
changes to those certificates, for subsonic transport category air-
planes, and for subsonic turbojet powered airplanes regardless of
category. This regulation initiated the noise abatement regulatory
program of the FAA under the statutory authority of PL-90-411.
-33-
-------
FAR 36 made a significant contribution in the form of three
appendixes that have come to be used as standards or recommended
practices in the measurement and evaluation of aircraft noise.
Appendix A of the regulation prescribes the conditions under which
noise type certification tests for aircraft must be conducted and
the noise measurement procedures that must be used. Appendix B
of the regulation prescribes the computational procedures that
must be used to determine the noise evaluation quantity designated
as effective perceived noise level (EPNL). Appendix C of the
regulation provides the noise criteria levels, noise measuring
points, and airplane flight test conditions for which compliance
must be shown with noise levels measured and evaluated as pre-
scribed, respectively, by Appendixes A and B.
The criteria levels of Appendix C provide an "umbrella" for
aircraft propelled by the new high-bypass ratio engines in the
sense that the noise from such aircraft can be controlled to levels
below that criteria (3). However, these criteria levels are
technologically practical for aircraft that are propelled by the
existing turbojet and low-bypass ratio turbofan engines which can
comply with the criteria only with the aid of some sort of retro-
fit modification.
The Appendix C levels if applied to the existing turbojet and
low-and high-bypass ratio turbofan fleet at this time would result in
an improvement in the airport noise situation. Future types of FAR 36
category aircraft and possibly the current widebody, high bypass
-34-
-------
ratio jet aircraft should be.regulated by the FAA to levels
more protective of health and welfare as more specific data is
developed. Consideration must be given for the approach
condition, however, to ensure that such levels are not lower
than those that can be achieved by available technology for control
of the airframe aerodynamic noise (4).* It would be appropriate to
include, in any revised FAR 36 regulation, the ''Acoustical Change"
adjustments proposed in NPRM 71-26 as determined necessary to make
the rule clearer and more effective. Also, a revised FAR 36 should
contain requirements to produce certified noise and flight perform-
ance data sufficient to compute noise contours for a wide range of
noise levels associated with both the take-off and the approach
procedures which represent normal modes of operations, and the
requested health and welfare requirements in the form of new limits
The FAR Part 91.55, sonic boom rule, is adequate and will b*
effective in protecting the public from routine sonic boom
exposure created by civil supersonic aircraft (9).
The five proposed regulations had evidently satisfied (at
least under preliminary examination by the FAA or they would not
iiave been proposed) the four basic requirements of PL 90-411 (10),
that is:
o consistent with the highest degree of safety in air
transportation in the public interest,
o economically reasonable,
o technologically practicable, and
~~* There is available information which shows that such technology
Ls available for significant reductions in these levels, which must
be considered by EPA and FAA in the proposed rule making to follow
this study.
-35-
-------
o appropriate for the particular type of aircraft,
aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to which it
will apply.
As stated earlier in this section, the studies of the Aviation
Advisory Commission and the EPA clearly indicate that practical and
appropriate technology is available for applications to current and
future aircraft types (1, 3).
Aircraft safety as a. regulatory constraint is the responsibility
of the FAA solely and the EPA has no responsibility in that area.
However, if the major impediment to the issuance of any or all of
the five proposed noise regulations is the inability to determine
the economic reasonableness of noise control in the absence of health
and welfare criteria, such an obstruction will be avoided with the
publication of the health and welfare documentation called for by
Section 5 of the Noise Control Act.
The Aircraft/Airport Noise Study included a cost-effectiveness
analysis that compared the costs of source noise control (technology)
with the costs of compatible land use noise control for several
zones of noise exposure (11). The results clearly indicated that
technology alone was capable of complete noise control (no
residential exposure) only for the highest noise level zone.
However, the combined costs of source and land use noise control
for all other zones were reduced by a significant amount with
applications of the available technology options.
-36-
-------
A regulation being considered for civil supersonic aircraft
(ANPRM 70-33) solicits public comment on a number of issues and
problems and does not include suggestions or recommendations (9).
Consequently, if SST noise is to be adequately controlled, a
regulatory plan must be developed and implemented (12). In this
regard, the following discussion related the findings of the EPA
study.
The noise of existing SST aircraft types (Concorde and TU-
144) is not capable of being controlled by available technology
to levels as low as the criteria of FAR 36 (4). Therefore, the
Agency will take this into account in proposing regulations to the
FAA regarding SST noise control to protect public health and wel-
fare. Future SST aircraft types should at least be regulated to noise
levels conforming to the original FAR 36 levels. As more advanced
noise control technology becomes available, limits should be
reduced accordingly.
The regulation being considered for newly produced airplanes
of older design (NPRM 72-19) would require that these aircraft meet
the noise criteria of FAR 36. Such a regulation would require the
use of available technology to ensure that all new production air-
craft either by design, retrofit, or both can comply.
Retrofit and Phaseout of Existing Aircraft
There are two retrofit options that can reduce the noise of
-37-
-------
the existing turbofan aircraft to levels equal to or below those
specified in FAR 36. These retrofit options can be accomplished
at less cost and elapsed time than is predicted for fleet replace-
ment (phaseout) (1, 3, 7).
(1) Application of sound absorption material (SAM) in the engine
nacelle and bypass duct. This concept has been in develop-
ment since the early 1960s under the sponsorship of FAA and
NASA. The results of the NASA program established concep-
tual validity for JT3D engines by a series of successful
flight demonstrations of 707 and DC-8 aircraft with exper-
imental ("boiler plate") hardware. Subsequently, the results
of the FAA program established conceptual and feasible validity
for JT3D and JT8D engines by a series of successful flight
demonstrations of 707 and 727 aircraft with practical (flight
weight, flightworthy, and capable of being certified) hardware.
Boeing is currently in production on SAM-treatad 727
and 737 aircraft which have been certified in conformance
with the requirements of FAR 36, Appendix C (3). McDonnell-
Douglas has contracted to sell SAM-configured DC-9 aircraft
as well. The aircraft industry has demonstrated that these
retrofit options are technologically feasible. A program to
retrofit the existing fleet of JT3D and JT8D engine powered
aircraft can be initiated immediately.
In discussions with the Agency during the course of this
-38-
-------
study, some members of the aviation community asserted that
the application of SAM treatment will not produce any dis-
cernible relief, in terms of public awareness. However, the
EPA Studies indicate that for the 707 and DC-8 aircraft powered
by the JT3D engine, (currently the worst noise offender),
the reductions would be significant, both for the takeoff and
approach modes (3). For the JT8D powered aircraft (727, DC-9
and 737), the assertion is correct for those airports that
are takeoff-sensitive. At approach-sensitive airports, however,
th& SAM treatment for the JT8D would result in significant
reductions in community noise impact (3).
(2) Modification of the existing JT3D and JT8D engines (Refan).
By replacing the present low-bypass ratio fan with a slightly
higher bypass, larger diameter fan, in conjunction with some
degree of SAM treatment, noise reductions in excess of those
achievable with only SAM treatment are predicted (3). The
fan modifications and change in engine airflow bypass ratio
are the primary design parameters that influence the source
noise characteristics. However, other components of the
engine (e.g., turbine, fan duct, and nacelle) and possibly
the airframe (e.g., pylon and landing gear) also require
modifications. The refan program is considered to be
technologically practicable. However, the modified engine
designs for the JT3D and JT8D engines have yet to be ground
and flight tested to confirm their predicted noise and
aerodynamic performance characteristics.
-39-
-------
Source noise control for the smaller business jet air-
craft fleet presents a somewhat different problem. Eighty
percent (80%) of the aircraft in this fleet are powered by
turbojet or very low bypass turbofan engines (with noise
characteristics similar to that of the turbojet) (7). The
noise problem is primarily associated with the jet exhaust
characteristics. The options available to reduce this noise
are installation of exhaust suppressor kits with weight
increase and some performance loss, or by re-engining the
aircraft with moderate bypass ratio turbofan engines which
may improve performance.
Both of these options are being tested and evaluated by
the business jet aircraft manufactures at this time with
substantial indication that satisfactory noise reduction
programs are technologically feasible for this category of
aircraft (3).
Two of the previously identified proposed regulations have essen-
tially the same objective, that is, retrofit of the currently type-
certificated subsonic low bypass ratio turbofan powered aircraft.
The earlier "straight retrofit" notice (ANPRM 70-44) merely discusses
the need for noise reduction and emphasizes that current technology
is available for a feasible retrofit program. The later notice
(ANPRM 73-3) on fleet noise level (FNL) was published after consider-
ation of comments received in response to the first notice and
presents a detailed methodology and implementation procedure that
-40-
-------
permits and encourages other alternatives as well as retrofit.
The FNL proposal is well developed and could be converted to a
regulation in a short time, while the straight retrofit proposal
might require considerable additional development before it could
be structured as a regulation.
The concept and structure of the FNL proposal is adequate to
effectively exploit the current technology (nacelle retrofit), to
encourage the use of near future technology (refan retrofit) as it
becomes operable, to provide incentives for the phaseout of aircraft
not amenable to retrofit by the introduction of new quieter wide-
body aircraft, and to require full implementation of future technology
as it becomes feasible (12). In addition, the FNL concept would
periodically provide a great deal of useful information to the
Government on air carrier fleet size, mix, and utilization. However,
there are several features in the proposal that weaken its effective-
ness and should be removed, and there are several that would add
strength if included. They are:
o Omit exemption for airplanes engaged in foreign air
commerce.
o Omit exemption for airplanes engaged in overseas air
commerce.
o Omit expiration date of 1 July 1978 and continue the FNL
concept indefinitely to permit the implementation of
technological advancements (e.g., refan) as they become
available.
-41-
-------
o Include airplanes engaged in intrastate air commerce.
o Include FNL requirements for sideline noise as well as
takeoff and approach.
The FNL proposal (ANPRM 73-3) with the above exceptions could
be prescribed as a regulation that would be an effective retrofit
rule for the immediate noise problem and also be an effective rule
for insuring that future technology is adequately exploited. A
fleet noise level rule would be superior to and obviate the need
for a straight retrofit rule such as considered in ANPRM 70-44.
Differences in opinion exist on most of the above subjects,
as reflected in the EPA Aircraft/Airport Noise Study master file
documents and task group reports.
A primary question, not addressed by the Agency in any of its
Task Group's studies because of its policy rather than technical
nature, is that of the degree of implementation of the Administrator's
responsibilities for coordination of aviation noise research under
the responsibilities and authorities established for the Adminis-
trator in Section 4(c) of the Act. Following the recommendations
of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) "Jet Aircraft Noise
Panel" discussed in the Introduction of this present report, an
"Inter-Agency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program" has been conducted
under the combined overview and coordination within the Executive
Branch of the Office of Science and Technology, the Office of
Management and Budget, and the National Aeronautics and Space
-42-
-------
Council. This latter entity has perhaps had the most direct in-
fluence in the coordination of R&D efforts of NASA and of the Depart-
ment of Transportation and FAA. It also has undertaken in its
latter existence, recommendations relating to the application of
military technology to civilian aviation use.
The Administrator recognizes that with the abolition of the
Office of Science and Technology, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Council, his coordinating role established in the Noise
Control Act will have vastly important implications regarding major
decisions yet to be made as to the degree and allocation of in-
vestments of Federal funds in apparently competing, but in fact
perhaps compatible (if dealt with in a comprehensive time sequence),
programs for retrofit and development of new and quieter air trans-
port systems. Because of the magnitude of the questions involved,
and the evolving situation with regard to the assumption by the
National Science Foundation of some of the advisory functions
formerly conducted by OST, additional time is needed by the Agency
to develop a complete protocol as to how these important respon-
sibilities will be undertaken. In the interim, communications
have been established among the responsible level officials of
DOT, FAA, NASA and EPA, to provide for continuing necessary ex-
changes of information and, as appropriate, action by EPA. These
informal arrangements will be translated into an effective formal-
ized procedure before the end of FY 1974. They will be reported
to the Congress in a periodic report on Federal activities as
called for by Section 4(c)(3) of the Act.
-43-
-------
References
1. Aviation Advisory Commission Report, Advance Copy, January
1973.
2. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study; Task Group 2 Report, "Operations
Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement, Safety and Costs."
July 1973. Section 2, Flight and Operational Noise Controls.
(NTID 73.3).
3. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise Source
Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retrofitting"
July 1973. Section 2, Current Technology Options. (NTID 73.5).
4. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retro-
fitting" July 1973. Section 3, Future Technology Options and
Restraints. (NTID 73.5).
5. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retro-
fitting" July 1973. Section 6, Research and Development
Recommendations. (NTID 73.5).
6. Noise Standards: Aircraft Type Certification - Federal
Aviation Regulation Part 36.
7. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
Retrofitting" July 1973. Section 1, Aircraft Fleet Size
Forecasts. (NTID 73.5).
8. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including Retro-
fitting" July 1973. Section 1, Technology Evolution and
Development. (NTID 73.5).
9. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 5 Report, "Review
and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport
Operations." July 1973. Section 3, Review of FAA Regulatory
Status. (NTID 73.6).
10. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 5 Report, "Review
and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and
Airport Operations." July 1973. Section 1, Legislative
Evolution and Development. (NTID 73.6).
-44-
-------
11. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
Retrofitting" July 1973. Section 4, Cost and Economic
Analysis. (NTID 73.5).
12. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study, Task Group 5 Report, "Review
and Analysis of Present and Planned FAA Noise Regulatory
Actions and Their Consequences Regarding Aircraft and Airport
Operations." July 1973. Section 6, Recommendations. (NTID
73.6).
-45-
-------
SECTION 3
IMPLICATIONS OF IDENTIFYING AND ACHIEVING
LEVELS OF CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE AROUND AIRPORTS
Measure of Environmental Noise Exposure
Section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 directs the
Environmental Protection Agency to study the "—implications of
identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure around
airports." This section discussed selection of a method of
measurement of cumulative noise exposure appropriate to public
health and welfare effects, and considers the principal legal
and economic implications resulting from its use.
These implications are discussed in terms of the day-night
average sound level adopted for this report as the measure of
cumulative noise exposure. However, the implications are in-
sensitive to minor variations in the definition of the measure
selected, and would be essentially unchanged if discussed in terms
of other possible measures of cumulative noise exposure.
Measure of Cumulative Noise Exposure
A physical measure of cumulative noise exposure applicable
to evaluation of airport noise should be based on consideration
of the following requirements:
-46-
-------
1. The measure should correlate with the human responses
regarding hearing loss, speech interference, and
annoyance due to noise exposure.
2. The measure should be capable of assessing the accumu-
lated effect of all noises over a specified time
period.
3. The measure should be simple enough that it can be
obtained by direct measurement without extensive
instrumentation or elaborate analysis equipment.
4. The required measurement equipment, with standard-
ized characteristics, should be commercially available.
5. The measure for airport noise should be closely re-
lated to measures currently used for noise from other
sources.
6. The single measure of noise at a given location should
be predictable, within an acceptable tolerance, from
knowledge of the physical events producing the noise.
Every scientific investigation of airport/community noise, re-
gardless of the country of origin, shows that the impact of aircraft/
airport noise is a function not only of the noise intensity of a
single event (i.e., each takeoff or landing), but also a function of
its duration and the number of events occurring throughout the
day and night* (1). This fact is recognized in the documents of the
* Other factors have been considered in some studies to be relevant
to particular effects, for example: attitude and prior experience
with the intruding noise, residual or background noise, season (windows
open or closed).
-47-
-------
International Standards Organization, the International Civil
Aviation Organization, and the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development relating aircraft noise to community response
(2, 3, 4).
A number of methodologies for combining the noise from individual
events into measures of cumulative noise exposure have been developed
in this country and in other developed nations, e.g., Noise Exposure
Forecast, Composite Noise Rating, Community Noise Equivalent Level,
Noise and Number Index, Noise Pollution Level. These methodologies,
while differing in technical detail (primarily in the unit of measure
for individual noise events), are conceptually very similar and are
highly correlated with each other. Further, using any one of these
methodologies, the relationships between cumulative noise and
community annoyance (5, 6) are also highly correlated.
The day-night average sound level (L, ) adopted for use in the
present EPA studies is consistent with existing methodologies and
meets the previously stated requirements for a measure of cumulative
noise exposure. It has been defined for this study as the
average A weighted* sound level during a 24-hour time period with
a lOdB penalty applied to nighttime (2200-0700 hours) sound levels.
The day-night average sound level especially excels, as a
* The use of an A weighted sound level precludes the assessment
,>r i>vi\\rt ll \&* t,>i i he lisi&teiiuti of liMUJd in the noise in the interest
of simplifying Vhf ropamjve \M oopvhu e. \)\\e\\ apiU'opMdttf, i^nalt l«»!»
for tones and other subjective attributes should be made in source
regulations such as in FAR 36.
-48-
-------
measure of cumulative noise among the several available measures,
in that it can be easily measured with simple, relatively inexpen-
sive equipment, and because Lt is appropriate to the wide variety of
sources which create community noise environments. As has been
shown in Reference 1, it can be used for interpreting cumulative
noise exposure in terms of known health and welfare effects.
Health and Welfare Effects of Cumulative Noise Exposure
The currently established specific effects of noise on the
health and environmental welfare of humans were considered for the
purposes of this report* to provide the best ways of identifying
and evaluating the impact of noise around airports. The primary
effects of noise, identified at this time, on public health and
welfare are the potential for producing a permanent loss of hearing,
interference with speech and the generation of annoyance. Although
the possibility of indirect effects of noise on health and well-being
exists, there is insufficient evidence at this time to include any
such indirect effects in noise impact analyses.
The documented scientific data available** were considered
* The analyses on the effects of noise performed were in direct
response to the requirements of the aircraft/airport noise study.
Concurrent with this analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency
is preparing a genal document of criteria for the effects of noise
on people, as required by Section 5(1) (1) of the Noise Control
Act. While it is believed that the conclusions on the effect
of noise reached in this study will be consistent with the criteria
report, the position of the Environmental Protection Agency on
noise criteria, and any regulatory action proposed for noise, will
be based on the criteria report and not on the Taak Group report
generated in this study.
** Citations for the scientific data utilized in the Task
Group analyses are contained in Reference 1.
-49-
-------
sufficient to establish the potential for hearing damage in various
proportions of the population exposed to different values of the
day-night average sound level. The hearing threshold for an
individual at a specific frequency is determined by measuring the
level of the quietest sound that can be heard by the individual.
The amount of hearing loss at any frequency is measured by the
amount by which the hearing threshold has shifted upward from a
previous value, or from the population norm.
Noise can interfere with one of the chief distinctions of
the human species—speech communication—thereby disturbing normal
domestic activities, creating a less desirable living environment,
and therefore acting as a source of extreme annoyance. Of chief
concern in this study is the effect of noise on speech communication
in the home, for face-to-face conversation indoors or outdoors,
telephone use, and radio or television enjoyment. Research over
a number of years since the late 1920's has made great progress
in quantifying the effects of noise on speech communication, data
from which has been used in this study to relate the quality of
listening conditions for speech in the presence of noise to
various values of the day-night average sound level. Finally, the
proportion of a population expected to be highly annoyed when exposed
to various noise environments was related to the day-night average
sound level. The word annoyance is used in this report as a general
term for reported adverse responses of people to environmental
noise. Studies of annoyance are largely based on the results of
sociological surveys. Such surveys have been conducted among
residents in the vicinity of airports of a number of countries
including the United States (7, 8, 9, 10).
-50-
-------
The results of these surveys are generally related to the
percentage of respondents expressing differing degress of distur-
bance or dissatisfaction due to the noisiness of their environments.
Some of the surveys involve a complex procedure to construct a
scale of annoyance, some report responses to the direct question
of "how annoying is the noise." Each social survey is related to
some kind of measurement of the noise levels (mostly from aircraft
operations) to which the survey respondents are exposed. Correlation
between annoyance and noise level can then be obtained.
The results of the social surveys show that individual responses
vary widely for the same noise level. Borsky (11) has shown that these
variances are reduced substantially when groups of individuals having
similar attitudes about "fear" of aircraft crashes and "misfeasance"
of authorities are considered. Moreover, by averaging responses over
entire surveys, almost identical functional relationships between
human response and noise levels are obtained for the entire surveyed
population as for the groups of individuals having neutral attitudinal
responses. In deriving a generalized relationship between reported
annoyance and day-night average sound level, the average overall
group responses were used, recognizing that individuals may vary
considerably, both positively and negatively compared to the
average depending upon their particular attitudinal biases. The
table on the following page summarizes the effects expected for
different noise environments.
-51-
-------
EFFECTS OF NOISE FOR DIFFERENT VALUES
OF OUTDOOR DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL, L , IN DECIBELS
dn
HEARING
Outdoor Day-Night Hearing Risk
Average Sound Level for Speech
in Decibels in % of
re-20 tnicronewtons Exposed People
per square meter
SO
60
70
80
90
0
0
0
0
8
Percent of Exposed People With
Permanent Threshold Shift
(5 Decibels at 4000 Hertz)
0
0
0
4
66
SPEECH
Maximum Speech
Interference*
in Percent
OU TDOORS **I NDOORS ***
ANNOYANCE
0.8
2.5
53
100
100
0.1
0.1
0.1
1. S
3.2
Highly Annoyed
in % of Exposed
People
13
23
44
62
Complainants
in % of
Exposed People
1
2
10
20
UNKNOWN
*Percentage of key words misunderstood in spoken sentences.
**Normal voice effort and 2 meter separation between talker and listener. When speech interference is excessive the average communication can be improved by
reducing separation distance and/or raising voice level.
***15 decibels noise reduction through partially opened windows, and relaxed conversational effort.
Example; When the day-night average sound level is 90 decibels outdoors:
HEARING RISK:
The percentage of people suffering a hearing handicap in a group exposed to this level of noise is expected to be 8 percentage points higher than the
percentage of people with hearing handicaps, in a group, otherwise similar, who are not exposed to noise levels of this magnitude. (This column refers
only to hearing impairment in the frequency range most important to understanding speech frequencies of the 500, 1000 and 2000 Hertz (cycles per second) bands. )
66% of the entire population is expected to have a noise induced permanent threshold shift greater than 5 decibels at a frequency of 4000 Hertz
(cycles per second). The average human ear is most sensitive at this frequency and hence more easily damaged.
SPEECH INTERFERENCE:
For conversation outdoors, the percentage of key words misunderstood in spoken sentences will be 100%, and for conversation indoors, 3. 2%.
ANNOYANCE:
The number of noise exposed people who are highly annoyed and the number who are expected to complain about the noise are unknown for this level
of exposure, but they are greater than 62% and 20%, respectively, which are the values appropriate to an outdoor L of 80 decibels.
-------
An important consideration in assessing the relative impact
of airport noise is its contribution to the national noise environ-
ment, considering the contributions of other sources of noise. The
following Table, developed in Reference 1, provides an estimate of
the population presently exposed to different levels of cumulative
exposure from different major sources of urban noise:
Number of People (In Millions) Exposed to
Day-Night Average Sound Levels Above the Stated Value
Day-Night Average
Sound Level
Decibels
60 dB and above
65 dB and above
70 dB and above
75 dB and above
80 dB and above
Freeway
Traffic
3.1
2.5
1.9
0.9
0.3
Aircraft
Operations
16.0
7.5
3.4
1.5
0.2
Urban*
Traffic
18.0
7.5
3.2
0.6
0.1
Total**
37.1
17.5
8.5
3.0
0.6
These estimates indicate that, of those 92 million people
included in this calculation living within moderate to high levels of
environmental noise, aircraft are a major cause of the noise ex-
posure received by approximately 30 to 40 percent of these people.
The estimates further indicate, however, that complete elimination
of aircraft noise in the urban cornmunity will still leave a large
proportion of the population exposed to high levels of environ-
mental noise unless control of these non-aircraft noise sources is
also obtained.
* Cities with population in excess of 25,000 used in this estimate
total population at 92 million.
** Some duplication may exist in this total.
-53-
-------
Public Health and Welfare
Cumulative noise exposure levels as defined by such methodo-
logies as day-night average sound level, NEF etc. are believed to
be the best available means of identifying and evaluating the
impact of noise around airports. Cumulative noise exposure levels
can also serve as the basis for generally applicable environ-
mental standards designed to control the noise exposure of members
of the general population, as well as the most critically exposed
individuals, to levels that will protect their health and wel-
fare with an adequate margin of safety.*
Finally, establishing values for cumulative noise exposure
must be contingent on an appropriate balance between desirable noise
levels and varying economic capability, and sociological effects among
communities. The study reported in a following subsection (economic
implications) estimated the approximate economic costs to achieve various
values of the day-night average sound, and considered aircraft activity
as the only source of noise. However, as inferred from the preceding
table this may not be the case for selected levels at specific air-
ports. Identifying the broader sociological implications of achieving,
various levels of cumulative noise exposure was not possible during
the time period available for this study. These implications in-
clude such questions as:
* With regard to "welfare" effects, there is a wide range
of degree of human response to noise; and thus there may be a
range of such levels taking this into account.
-54-
-------
What is the effect of possible residential re-
location to achieve compatible land use on neighbor-
hood social structures?
What are the contributions of the other potential
noise sources in the community?
What, if any, are the long-term effects on the
social structure of residential neighborhoods if they
remain in a high noise environment?
Can conversion of noise impacted, lower density
residential housing into renewal, high density resi-
dential areas be acceptable if adequate noise control
is incorporated in the new structures, as contrasted with
conversion to possibly higher value commercial and
residential uses?
Consideration of these and other social costs and benefits
will be made by the EPA in its preparation of proposed regulations
for airport noise.
There are several main "implications"* of adopting mechanisms
for identifying and then achieving cumulative noise measures as a
means of controlling aircraft noise. The most important, beyond
* As used here, "implications" applies to the relationship of
the proposal to possible consequence of its adoption.
-55-
-------
those of public health and welfare, are discussed in the following
subsections, and include those relating to legal, economic and
fundamental policy considerations. In examining these, others
have been noted which require further study and which will be
addressed by the agency in greater depth in developing details
of proposals on this measure.
Legal Implications
This discussion deals with the legal implications of identifying
and achieving levels of cumulative noise around airports adequate
to protect the public health and welfare. Although the nuances
of the governing case law are extremely complex, the following
legal implications must be kept in mind:
o Identification of cumulative noise levels at airports
to protect public health and welfare could be used to
support additional liability against airport owners.
This could follow from the mere act of "identification."
o Under the Burbank decision, achievement can be accomplished
to great extent only by overall Federal regulation.
o Identification of Federal regulations and establishment of
cumulative noise levels may shift liability from airport owners
to the Federal Government; but achievement should reduce airport
noise liability.
o Any shift in liability to the Federal Government will create
a problem during the period between Federal identification
and the achievement of noise levels requisite to protect the
public health and welfare.
-------
o If the Court were to hold that liability had shifted by
reason of preemption, a legislative solution for the
interim period is unlikely, because liability is largely
based on the constitutional requirement that just com-
pensation must be paid for the taking of property.
Three decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are
in point. These cases are: United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256
(1946); Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84, (1962); and
City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.
U.S. (1973). The rule in the Causby case was that
the Federal Government (either as the partial lessor of the Winston
Salem, North Carolina, Airport or as the operator of the military
aircraft in question) had "taken" in the constitutional sense of
the Fifth Amendment, a property interest or "aviation easement" in
the land the military aircraft overflew. The United States was
required to pay just compensation for the diminution of the value
of the overflown property. In practical effect the result was that
compensation was paid for the right to continue the damaging noise.
In the Griggs case the Supreme Court had before it another
overflight damage/taking case. The airport was owned by a political
subdivision of Pennsylvania. The aircraft generating the over-
flight noise were those of commercial scheduled air carriers, the
flight patterns and paths of which were regulated by the FAA.
It was clear that there could be no Fourteenth Amendment taking by
the commercial carriers (analogous to the Fifth Amendment taking of
-57-
-------
Causby) since the carriers who used the airport and generated the
noise were not state bodies. The majority of the Court, per Mr.
Justice Douglas, held that the local government, as owner of the
airport, has responsibility and authority to acquire adequate approach
land to the airport (using the analogy of a governmental bridge
builder who must acquire by condemnation sufficient land to build
approaches to the bridge) and was therefore in the position of
having taken property consisting of an aviation easement from Mr.
Griggs whose property had been directly overflown by the air carriers'
aircraft. The Court thus held that the local governmental owner of the
airport must compensate the property owner for the taking. In the dissent,
Mr. Justice Black noted that the airport construction including landing
layouts and approach ways had been supervised and approved and in large
part paid for by the FAA under its Federal Aid to Airports Program; and
that since the airport approaches were both placed and limited by the
Federal Government rather than the airport owner, the former should be
liable for the resulting just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
In Burbank, the Court had before it a municipal ordinance
that made it unlawful for a privately owned airport located within
the jurisdiction of the municipality to permit the operation of
jet aircraft between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Court held that curfew
was an unconstitutional exercise of the municipalities' police power
because the "pervasive nature of the scheme of Federal regulation of
aircraft noise. . . leads us to conclude there is Federal pre-
emption." This was based on the Court's analysis of the Noise
Control Act of 1972 which determined "that FAA, now in conjunction
with EPA, has full control over aircraft noise, preempting
state and local control."
-58-
-------
The holding in Burbank means that a state, or any political
subdivision thereof, cannot use it police power to protect its
citizens from aircraft noise because the Federal government has
preempted the power to do so. However, more than 99% of the noise
impacted airports used by scheduled air carrier aircraft are in
fact owned by the states, or political subdivisions thereof. Can
these governmental owners exercise their own property rights to
achieve noise abatement? This questions is a very real one. Would,
or could, the FAA permit one of the large international or hub
airports to curfew operations at night as a matter of proprietary
right? The Court in Burbank cited action by the FAA in 1960 which
"rejected a proposed restriction on jet operations at the Los
Angeles airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. because such restrict-
ions could create critically serious problems to all air transporta-
tion." However, in a footnote, the Burbank opinion declines to
determine whether "proprietary" rights such as curfews and non—
discriminatory quotas would either stand or fall under the pre-
emption doctrine.
The footnote in question deals with the legislative history of
the 1968 Act (PL 90-411). The text of the footnote is as follows:
"The letter from the Secretary of Transportation. . .
expressed the view that 'the proposed legislation will
not affect the rights of a State or local public agency,
as the proprietor of an airport, from issuing regula-
tions or establishing requirements as to the permissable
level of noise which can be created by aircraft using
-59-
-------
the airport. Airport owners acting as proprietors can
presently deny the use of their airports on the basis of
noise considerations so long as such exclusion is non-
discriminatory. '" (Emphasis in opinion.) "Appellants and
The Solicitor General submit that this indicates that a
municipality with jurisdiction over an airport has the
power to impose a curfew on the aiport, notwithstanding
Federal responsibility in the area. But, we are concerned
here not with an ordinance imposed by the City of Burbank
as 'proprietor' of the airport, but with the exercise of
police power. While the Hollywood-Burbank Airport may
be the only major airport which is privately owned,
many airports are owned by one municipality yet
physically located in another. For example, the
principal airport serving Cincinnati is located in
Kentucky. Thus, authority that a municipality may have
as a landlord is not necessarily congruent with its
police power. We do not considere here what limits
if any apply to a municipality as a proprietor."
-60-
-------
As discussed earlier, the "identification" of a noise level
standard requisite to protect the public health and welfare may
generate Griggs type litigation against airports. For example,
assume EPA were to identify "X units" of some cumulative measure
of noise as completely unacceptable to public health and welfare.
Without further Federal action, such identification could be used
by lawyers to attempt to define a cause of action based on the health
damage to their clients which would, of course, then be subject to
proof on an individual basis. Without more, the sole act of
identifying a Federal noise level would not necessarily shift
Griggs type liability to the Federal government. However, if in
addition to identification, the airport owner is denied the right
unilaterally to limit the use of its airport to defend itself from
litigation based on the Federally identified noise level, the
possibly of a shift in liability cannot be ruled out.
-61-
-------
In .short, achievement would appear to EPA to be most feasible
through noise certification of airports which would enable the FAA to
work out a national system of noise abatement options for each
airport to achieve the identified levels locally and prevent local
action inconsistent with the national air transportation system. To
the extent the airport owner would be required to, and did, comply
with the Federal noise certification system, the owner might be
immune from noise nuisance litigation because of the defense of
legalized nuisance. It will also mean that in taking litigation, the
defendant might be the Federal Government, since the airport operator
would be acting in compliance with and under the mandate of a Federal
regulation.
The above legal implications have been summarized and then
discussed in the context of the governing case law. The acts of
identification, airport certification for noise, and the statutory
goal of achievement are all presently mandated by Congress (12).
Thus, Section 5 of the Noise Control Action of 1972 directed EPA
to (1) develop and publish by July 27, 1973, "criteria with respect
-62-
-------
to noise. Such criteria shall reflect the scientific knowledge
most useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on the public health or welfare which may be expected from
differing quantities and qualities of noise;" and (2) by October
27, 1973, to "publish information on the levels of environmental noise
the attainment and maintenance of which in defined areas under various
conditions are requisite to protect the public health and welfare
with an adequate margin of safety."
Next, EPA was directed by Section 7 of the Noise Control Act
of 1972 to "submit to the FAA proposed regulations to provide such
control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom (including
control and abatement through the exercise of any of the FAA's
regulatory authority over air commerce or transportation or over
aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is necessary to
protect the public health and welfare."
In summary, the EPA has the duties to define noise criteria,
to publish and thus identify levels of environmental noise requisite
to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin
of safety, and, after reporting to Congress, to propse regulations
to the FAA for the abatement and control of aircraft noise as EPA
deems necessary to protect the public health and welfare.
With respect to the authority to achieve FAA's explicit
regulatory authority over airport operations, Section 611 added
noise to the criteria that must be taken into account in issuing
any certificate under Title VI. More specifically, the new
-63-
-------
Section 611 directed the FAA, after consultation with DOT, to
prescribe:
"Standards for the measurement of aircraft noise. . .
and prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as
the FAA may find necessary to provide for the control
and abatement of aircraft noise. . .including the
application of such standards, rules and regulations in
the issuance of any certificate authorized by . . .(Title
VI)."
In 1970, the Airport and Airway Development Act (AADA), also
by way of amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, required that every
airport serving civil air carriers operating under a CAB certificate
of public convenice and necessity must obtain an airport operating
certificate under Section 612. Then, as noted earlier in this
report, the Noise Control Act of 1972, amended Section 611 to
require the FAA after consulation with DOT and EPA, "in order
to afford present and future relief and protection to the public
health and welfare from aircraft noise. . .(to) prescribe and amend
standards for the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic boom and
shall prescribe and amend such regulations as the FAA may find
necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft
noise. . .including the application of such standards and regulations
in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation
of any certificate authorized by this title."
-64-
-------
The Agency has concluded that the timely adoption and implementa-
tion of an airport noise certification regulation is the keystone of
a comprehensive program to dimish aircraft noise in communities to
level adequate to protect public health and welfare.
The FAA's airport certification process appears to EPA to be
the proper mechanism for administering the airport noise regulation,
and no new legislation is needed. The process envisioned is as
follows:
After the promulgation of the Federal airport noise regulation,
the existing airports with jet aircraft operations would be reviewed,
and those not in compliance with the regulation identified. A number
of large air carrier airports could be so identified immediately after
promulgation of the regulation. Proprietors of identified airports would
be given a specified amount of time to develop, and submit to the
FAA, their implementation plans. Development of implementation plans
for each airport should be done by a consultive local process,
involving governments and concerned persons in the airport vicinity.
Testing the effectiveness of various alternative operational
modes for the airport should be carried out as part of the local
development of the implementation plan.
The agreed-upon implementation plan for the airport would then
be submitted to the FAA for approval. Any final adjustments of the
plan required during the approval process would be incorporated,
and the implementation plan adopted as a Federal regulation for
the airport. Elements of the plan dealing with aircraft opera-
tions would be promulgated as FAA regulations and thus become
-65-
-------
subject to FAA enforcement. Airport proprietors that fail to pro-
pose an implementation plan by the specified deadline would have
implementation plans imposed upon them at the Federal level. This
would follow FAA development of a plan, including participation
by all concerned persons. Progress in implementing approved plans
would be reviewed on a periodic basis.
Two additional legal implications deserve comment. They arise
under different authority and therefore are discussed separately. The
first concerns the application to airport and airline employees
(as well as other employed persons whose work place noise environment
may be dominated by aircraft noise) of the occupational noise exposure
standards as promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 CFR Section 1910.95).
The OSHA occupational noise exposure standards require protection
against the effects of noise when sound levels exceed a limit value,
e.g. 90 dBA for an 8 hour work day. This is a hearing impairment
standard not geared to "public health and welfare." Rather, the OSHA
standard is derived from the replacement of the old common law
concepts of master-servant and assumption of risk, which denied all
work-incurred liability with the concept of workman's compensation,
which while limiting recovery, made recovery easy.
The only area of conflict that could arise would be where the
airport employee, for example, were to work at the maximum OSHA
standard for an 8 hour day and reside in a maximum noise impacted
area under an EPA identified level. It is possible that this could
lead to additional liability, particularly if hearing impairment were
-66-
-------
proven.
The second implication concerns the identification by EPA of levels
of noise requisite to protect the public health and welfare and the
application of such levels to noise impacted areas adjacent to military
airports. As noted earlier in discussion of the Causby case, the
Federal government is liable under the Fifth Amendment for takings of
property by military aircraft overflight noise. Such liability might
be extended by identification of a public health and welfare level in a particular
case since it could be used to assert that the overflown property was
damaged to the extent it could not be safely used as a residence.
However, the cause of action would have to remain one for a constitu-
tional taking, because the Federal government is subject to suit
in tort only by reason of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The act bars
suits arising out of actions taken under the "discretionary function"
of the Federal government. Thus a litigant would have to prove that
the flights of the military aircraft were pursuant to a negligent
decision of the Federal government and not pursuant to a responsible
decision. Such proof would be difficult, it not impossible, under
the prevailing case law.
The extension of Federal noise liability at military airports
is also countered by the present DOD compatible use programs,
"Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). AICUZ seeks to
assure that the use of privately owned real property near
military airports is used in a manner compatible with both mission
accomplishment and protection of the public. As is set forth in
Reference 13, AICUZ uses a cumulative noise criterion to determine
-67-
-------
noise impacted property, and if local zoning or other desired action
is not forthcoming appropriate Federal action would be required.
Economic Implications
The objective of this discussion is to delineate the economic
costs and problems of identifying and achieving several specified
levels of cumulative noise exposure, by various methods of noise control
and abatement. In analyzing the implications of identifying and
achieving such levels of noise exposure, the following issues are
examined:
o economic implications of identifying cumulative average
day-night noise exposure levels jL, used in this studyV
o the costs of achieving such levels for each of the entities
contributing to the airport environmental noise problem,
o cost allocation and financing options.
(a) Economic Implications of Identifying Cumulative Noise
Exposure Levels
Identification of cumulative noise exposure levels embodies
several implications with the potential for economic costs apart
from the costs required to achieve such levels through noise abate-
ment and control strategies. The implications arise in two areas
of interest: (1) the cost of monitoring airport noise and measur-
ing noise exposure levels around airports and (2) the cost or
liability which might be incurred by responsible institutions if
-68-
-------
cumulative noise exposure levels are used to define causes of
action for personal or property damages resulting from aircraft/
airport noise.
Costs of Monitoring
With the identification of cumulative noise levels and their
statistically expected population effects, responsible local
government organizations can be expected to attempt to determine
the extent of their respective airport noise environment problems.
Necessarily, such actions will require resources. Based on
current information (15), the cost of establishing and maintaining
a monitoring program for approximately 500 commercial airports,
representing 99 percent of all commercial aviation operations, are
estimated at 5 million dollars per year*. This estimate does
not cover the cost of monitoring, if desired, at smaller general
aviation airports which do not serve commercial carriers.
Possible Compensation Liability
As indicated in the discussion of legal implications of
identifying airport noise exposure levels, it is possible that
any cumulative noise exposure measure, and the statistically
expected population health and welfare effects identified by
* This figure (in 1973 dollars) includes the cost of purchase
or lease of monitoring equipment and labor, calculated on the
basis of four man days and one 24-hour monitoring period per
1000 annual operations.
-69-
-------
the Federal Government, will be used by private litigants to
define causes of action for the recovery of personal or property
damages resulting from aircraft noise.
Any discussion of potential liability or litigation recovery
resulting from identification of noise exposure levels is highly
speculative. Past experience regarding compensation suits against
airports indicates that the threat of litigation is much greater
than the actual judgments resulting therefrom. To date, several
billion dollars of airport litigation has been filed against
just one air terminal (LAX). Recoveries, nationally,
for noise related damages have amounted to approximately one
tenth of one percent of the claims.
Identification of cumulative noise exposure levels is not a
new concept. The Noise Exposure Forecast methodology, developed
by the FAA, was introduced in the late 1960's, and although
later withdrawn by FAA, has continued to be used by HUD and other
state and federal agencies. Only in one state, California, were
such NEF forecasts used as evidence of the extent of airport
noise impact. Thus, it is uncertain, at best, whether mere
identification of cumulative noise exposure levels will in
fact result in substantial airport noise compensation recoveries
(12).
Assuming, however, that such noise exposure levels were
adopted by the Courts as means for defining a cause of action for
noise related damages, the most likely use would come in personal
-70-
-------
damage suits. If it were determined that a given level of
cumulative noise exposure resulted in a potential risk of hearing
loss to those exposed for long durations to such levels, a new
type of airport litigation might evolve. Such suits would
be brought by airport neighbors asserting damages resulting from
anticipated impaired hearing and/or substantial diminution of
property value in areas made "unhealthy" by aircraft noise.
Approximately four percent of the persons living for long periods in areas
subject to cumulative noise levels equivalent to the L^n 80 used in the EPA
study are subject to a potential risk of hearing loss above that which would
normally be expected (1). If this level were the ultimate standard, and
assuming these individuals sued for damages for hearing loss
caused by airport noise, the upward bound of possible litigation
can be estimated from experience in workman's compensation cases
arising out of occupational noise related deafness.
If each litigant recovered the average amount ($2500) paid to
workmen suffering occupational caused hearing loss (16), airport,
airlines or the United States government might be subject to
liability on the order of 20 millions of 1973 dollars.
A bound on the possible recovery for property value losses
which might be claimed if cumulative noise exposure criteria are
adopted by the courts in inverse condemnation litigation may be
calculated from the costs of soundproofing or relocating noise-
-71-
-------
sensitive land uses subject to the Lcjn levels used as examples in this study.
Table I below sets forth such estimates, indicating that, for example, if 60
were held to define a right to compensation for property value
diminution, recoveries might total as much as 33 billion dollars.*
Table I
Estimates of the National Extent of the Current
Airport Environmental Noise Problem
Day-Night Avg. 1972 Population Exposed (1) Compatible Land Use
Noise Level (Millions of people) Costs (17)**
(Ldn) (Billions of 1973 dollars)
Greater Than
80 0.2 2.0
70 3.4 19.0
60 16.0 33.0
These figures assume (1) that every court adopts such levels
as defining proper causes of action for compensation; (2) that every
person living in such noise impacted areas sues for damages; (3)
that every litigant could show substantial diminution of property
value to the maximum amount—e.g., that their land was not more
valuable for other purposes; and that no obstacles to litigation,
such as statutes of limitation, exist to bar recovery.
* It should be noted that with noise conditions such as that
described by the L^ gQ value - other sources of noise may be
of equal or more importance.
** In the re-development of incompatible land uses, public
Investment recoveries from high density commercial and industrial
land uses can result in off-setting, if not exceeding, the total
costs of such land use conversion, given the demand for such uses;
but note, the Federal Government has no police power or other
direct authorities in this regard.
-72-
-------
Furthermore, it is rare that compensation litigation is the
first step taken by aggrieved airport neighbors. Rather, law
suits often appear as a reaction to frustrated efforts to lessen
noise impacts via other methods. The compensation implications
discussed here therefore should not be expected to be realized
immediately upon identification of cumulative noise exposure levels
requisite to protect public health and welfare. When identification
of such levels is not followed by a viable program to achieve
necessary noise control and abatement, however, airport neighbors
and courts may be inclined to take more precipitous action as
discussed herein. When and if such actions can be taken, local
governments should be expected to try to minimize the extent of
their respective noise environment problems with the methods
available to them. Among the set available, if they are the
owners of the airport, are curfews on operations and aircraft type
restrictions, which, if instituted, can affect the levels of air
and mail service to a community and increase the cost of operations
to the civil aviation industry.* Note that such local actions
could severely distort the operations and costs of the national
transportation system. Thus, if cumulative noise exposure
levels are identified, expeditious development and implementation
of a coordinated program to achieve such levels must be pursued.
Such a program should include a complementary effort relative to
populations adjacent to large military airports.
* As is discussed earlier, there is a question as to whether
such proprietary acts would not adversely affect interstate
air commerce.
-73-
-------
(b) Costs of Achieving Cumulative Noise Exposure Limits
The Noise Control Act of 1972 establishes the ultimate goal
of reducing noise exposure—from aircraft as well as other sources—
to levels which adequately protect the public health and welfare.
In terms of aircraft/airport noise, achievement of this goal will
require action to:
(1) Reduce source noise impact - through application
of aircraft and engine noise abatement takeoff and
approach procedures. In addition, possible airport
operational controls may be applied, such as the
selection of approach and departure routes; realign-
ment of airport runways; limitation in the use of
certain aircraft types at some airports; imposition
of partial or total curfews; restrictions on
flight frequency, etc., and/or
(2) Protect noise-sensitive receivers - through the
soundproofing of residential and other sensitive
structures or through the relocation of existing
incompatible land uses.
Achievement of a desired cumulative day-night noise exposure
level, for the purposes of this discussion,infers separation of
incompatible, noise-sensitive land uses from specified levels of
noise impact. This may be done by reducing the noise impact at the
noise-sensitive receiver and/or by insulating or relocating the
-74-
-------
receiver. Often achievement of a given L level will require a
combination of these actions, which will result in a change in
the shape of, or diminish, the area around an airport which is
subject to the given cumulative noise exposure. Similarly,
modifications of flight routes around airports may be used to
shift noise impact zones to areas containing fewer or no noise-
sensitive receivers. Yet, actions to reduce sound levels through
such aircraft source abatement and operational options may not
totally solve the problem at a given L, level. These options
alone may not be capable of separating all noise sensitive land
uses from incompatible noise impacts as defined by the given
cumulative noise exposure level. In such cases, additional
actions must be taken to soundproof the structures in the noise-
sensitive areas, or relocate incompatible land uses which remain,
after other options have been implemented.
However, there is a limit to the effectiveness of structural
treatment or (soundproofing) technology. For those noise-sensitive
receivers exposed to noise which cannot be effectively reduced to
compatible levels by soundproofing the only remaining alternative
is relocation (17). Furthermore, the application of soundproofing
does not address the problem of outdoor noise levels. For pur-
poses of this discussion, it has been assumed that all noise-
sensitive receivers which involve outdoor as well as indoor
activities, e.g., all residential uses, must be relocated from
the area subject to cumulative noise levels which would result in
eventual hearing loss. The cost of achieving any given L, level,
-75-
-------
therefore, will be the cost of implementing noise source abatement
technology and airport/aircraft operational options plus the
expense of soundproofing or relocating those noise-sensitive receivers
which remain impacted by such noise exposure levels after technological
and operational options have been employed. Clearly, the more
extensive the implementation of source and path noise reduction, and
airport operational options, the lower the requirements for receiver
or land use controls to "achieve" a given L, goal. The economic
dn
question raised by the discussion here is what combination of
these options form the most efficient, or cost-effective and timely
resolution of the civil airport noise exposure problem. There do
not exist sufficient data at this time to estimate the extent and
costs of achievement for impacted areas around military airports.
Source noise reductions, requiring retrofit into the existing
fleet, necessitate time to fabricate, demonstrate, certify and
install such kits on the aircraft. This time element plays an
important role in the dynamics of noise level achievement in that
the fleet mix, levels of operations, and cost of achievement will
vary with time. For example, future production versions of
the current narrow body commercial aircraft will most likely be
in compliance with current FAR 36 standards; new wide body air-
craft will be even quieter. Consequently, by 1980 the expected
trend is towards a gradual reduction in airport environmental
noise as these relatively quieter aircraft constitute an in-
creasing portion of the operating fleet. Note also that the retro-
fit candidate set of noisy aircraft will decrease with time which
means that lower source abatement cost may obtain. The timing
-76-
-------
of the retrofit implementation then has a significant impact on when
a level of achievement can be realized and the costs of achieving
a particular day-night average noise level.
For the situation where no source abatement options are im-
plemented, there will be reductions with time in the constant
dollar costs of achieving average day-night noise environments using as examples
the values 60, 70, and «U decibels tor the 1978-1980 time period as
compared to those for achieving the same results in 1972 (Option
A, Table 2 and Table 1). Essentially, the gradual retirement
of noisy narrow body jet aircraft and their replacement with
new quieter aircraft results in a reduction of the 1972 impacted
areas to the extent that the impacted 1972 populations for the 60>
70, and 80 example levels of day-night average noise are reduced by 19,
17 and 50 percent respectively.*
Various flight path and source noise reduction options have
been investigated (15, 17). Table 2 reflects the preliminary
results of a complementary DOT study (18) which included represent-
ative technological options as indicated in column 1 of this Table.
Table 2 also contains derived data from the EPA Task Force study
(17). Some of the data in this Table may be revised in the final
DOT study report but the relative relationships shown are expected
to obtain.
* This assumes no change in population distributions with time
in the impacted areas.
-77-
-------
TABLE 2
NATIONAL ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGE REDUCTION OF AIRPORT NdSE EXPOSED POPULATION AND
COST INDICATIONS (BILLIONS OF 197} DOLLARS) OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THREE DAY-NIGHT
AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS USING VARIOUS OUTDOOR NOISE REMOVAL OPTIONS'"
I
-g
oo
1
TECHNOLOGY OPTION
a.
b.
1.
2.
J.
4.
S.
6.
7.
Null (Do Sotting)
TM.-S.rny
Appro mch
SAM |T8D
SAM JT3D
SAM JT8D C
SAM JTJD
REFAN 7270 SAM
All Others
REFAN JTSDOoly
REFAN JT8D t.
SAM )T3D
RCFAN rrBD C
JT3D
2 34
TOTAL
STATUS DATE TECHNOLOGY COST1
S. A. 1978 1980 0.0
In Service night 1976 O.I
Ten of Prototype
727 F, 737 ID Pro- 197S 0. J
ductloo, DC-9 in
Prototype
707 t, DC-SPro:o- 1978 0.4
typet C*m03»o»d
See Above 1978 0.6
RiFAN: Defi(« 1979 1. S
Studies
SAM. See Above
Deiijn Snxlits 1979 1.7
RET AN Deiiga 1979 2.0
Studies
SAM See 2 Above
Denjn Studies 1980 2.3
DAY-NIGHT AVC.
NOSE LEVa DECIBELS
80
70
60
SO
70
60
80
70
60
50
70
60
80
70
60
80
70
60
80
70
60
80
ro
60
80
70
60
S
PERCENT 1972
POPULATION EXPOSED
-IN EXCESS OF LEVEL
• •50
8i
81
••50
77
78
.
71
75
.
71
79
*
65
75
.
29
19
.
29
14
.
24
11
.
18
9
6
COMPATIBLE
LASOUSECOST1' 3
to
IS.S
24.8
:. 0
:3. 2
22.3
12.2
20.9
11. S
20.8
10.2
19.5
5.5
7.6
6.9
&.Z
4.3
S. 5
3.1
4.3
7
COST OF
ACHIEVING NOISE LEVEL
AT COMPU T1ON DA . : '
1.0
15.5
24. S
1. 1
11. 3
22.4
0.1
12.5
21.2
0.4
119
21.2
0.6
10. D
20. 1
I. S
7.0
9. 1
1.7
8.6
9.9
2.0
6.3
7. S
2.3
5.4
6.6
-------
NOTES:
* Modeling and computational methods allowed estimates of
population to the nearest 100 thousand people. Particular
airport problems will result in a residual population,
estimated to be less than 50,000 people, within the 80 day-
night average noise level zone.
** These population impact and resulting cost estimates have
been adjusted to reflect expected results rather than depending
upon modeling and computational method results which predict
identical results for all options.
*** Costs, availability dates and population impact estimates
are based upon Department of Transportation preliminary
data of the 23 airport study.
1. All costs are stated in billions of 1973 dollars. Technology
costs include following elements: investment, operating
costs, down time and lost productivity.
2. Operational effects and implementation costs of the two-
segment approach are included in each subsequent option.
The estimated costs of this Technology Transfer is 67
millions of dollars. The 100 million shown here results
from rounding to the nearest significant digit in billions.
3. The costs for compatible land use include soundproofing
and/or relocation and land development depending on the
noise reduction requirement.
4. 0.3 billion to cover only the cost of noise retrofitting
the general aviation jet fleet may have to be added to
each option in order to insure population reductions
indicated in the Table.
5. Airport administrative and operational options may be
optimized for the airport's specific problems and thus
reduce impacted residential land areas by as much as 50%.
Consequently, values shown in column 6 could be reduced
approximately 50 percent.
-79-
-------
One noise reduction option not investigated in detail was
the complete replacement of the commercial aviation fleet with
quieter current technology aircraft. Implementation of this option
was found to be impractical since there does not currently exist
a replacement alternative for the JT8D powered portion of the fleet
(17). If a replacement alternative were available, the cost of
total fleet replacement has been estimated to be in excess of 8
billions of 1973 dollars (19).
Before discussing the effectiveness and environmental noise
level achievement cost estimates, two basic shortcomings in the
data must be outlined. Briefly, the set of airport noise re-
duction options, which minimize the population exposed, is unique
at each airport due to the local topography, demography, runway
orientation, flight frequencies, etc. This uniqueness precludes
a quantitative extrapolation to a national estimate at this time
because sufficient data on the effectiveness of each option for
an adequate number of airports are not available. The "best
estimate" of the combined national effectiveness of these airport
options is that as much as a 50 percent reduction in the remaining
impacted land area can be expected (15); the remaining impacted
land area is that residual remaining after adjustments for source
and path alternatives have been made. Implementing these options
will incur additional costs which are not estimated here, such as
increased operating costs resulting from possible curfews or
flight frequency limitations.
-80-
-------
The second shortcoming in the data was the inability to
locate or develop data on the extent to which general aviation
aircraft activity contributes to the national and/or individual
airport noise environment problem. There are several types of
business jet aircraft whose noise output exceeds the current FAR
36 levels and for which there exists source noise reduction
technology. To insure consistency in the alternative effectiveness
estimation and in computing the costs of achievement, the
assumption was made that these aircraft would have the appropriate
technologies retrofitted into the respective airframes by 1978.
The total investment costs under this assumption are estimated
to be on the order of 300 millions of 1973 dollars (17). Down-
time and lost productivity cost estimates for retrofitting this
portion of the civil aviation fleet are not available at this
time.
One final point, land use cost, as used in the subsequent
discussion, includes the costs associated with local government
action, in the remaining impacted area, of zoning, relocations,
redevelopment and/or some degree of structure treatment.
To implement a national, all weather, two-segment approach
(option B of Table 2) the aircraft must be retrofitted with the
requisite instrumentation and the airports must also adjust and/or
install attendant instrumentation. These requirements are
estimated to cost some 67 millions of 1973 dollars to implement
(shown as 100 million in Table 2 due to rounding) (15). Implement-
-81-
-------
ing this option will reduce the number of people exposed to the
Ldn levels of 60, 70, and 80 decibels by 22, 23 and 50 percent
respectively in 1978 as compared with 1972 estimates. The cost
to achieve outdoor environments of L^ 60, 70 and 80 decibels for
those people still impacted are estimated to be 22.3, 13.2, and 1
billion dollars respectively. Note the achievement costs for a
70 L environment have dropped from 15.5 billions to 13.3 billions
of 1973 dollars. Thus, if 70 L, was the level to be achieved,
dn
implementing a two segment approach would be desirable since the
savings in achievement costs more than offsets the implementation
costs of the two segment approach.
Retrofitting the entire commercial fleet with SAM kits and
implementing the two segment approach, all of which can be
accomplished by 1978, will reduce even further the levels of 1972
impacted population and the achievement costs. The combined costs
of implementing the requisite hardware and instrumentation, plus
the resulting increase in operating expenses and lost productivity
to the airlines, are estimated to be some 600 millions of 1973
dollars. To realize the impacted population estimates, some
portions of the business jet fleet will also have been retrofit
with available technology as was discussed earlier. For these
technology transfer costs, the 1978 impacted populations at 60,
70 and 80 L, reflect a reduction of 25, 35, and 100 percent*,
* Due to the estimating procedure it is acknowledged that
particular airport problems will result in residual population
remaining. For 80 Ldn it is estimated that less than 50,000
people will be exposed to such levels where the percent reduction
is stated as 100.
-82-
-------
when compared to 1972 estimates respectively. Costs of achieving
the L, levels for the remaining population are estimated to be
20.1, 10.8 and 0.6 billions of 1973 dollars. Again it should be
noted that these achievement costs can be significantly reduced
by the effective implementation of airport operator options.
Retrofitting Refan kits into aircraft will require a longer
period to implement. In addition, the investment and operating
costs of this technology option are significantly higher than
those of the previous options discussed. Offsetting these costs
is their increased effectiveness in reducing the 1978 impacted
population estimates. Consequently, the total implementation
costs (including residual land use costs) of achieving various
outdoor noise levels decreases. In every case, the savings in
achievement cost exceeds the costs of aircraft modifications.
These data may also be found in Table 2.
These decision data on the effectiveness and cost effects
of the various noise reduction options can be used as a base to
design an effective airport environment noise reduction program.
Different design strategies can be developed taking into account
technology transfer and total achievement costs plus various
degrees of risk. Table 2 indicates that there are potentially
greater reductions in impacted population with Refan retrofits
than with SAM retrofit options. However, the SAM technology can
be implemented earlier at lower cost and the resulting noise
reductions are more reliably known. A decision to rely entirely
-83-
-------
upon Refan retrofit will result in a minimum two-year delay of
relief for some of the population. In addition, if the Refan's
performance is less than predicted then the final population results
and costs of achievement will be less favorable than expected.
The benefits of a decision to SAM retrofit are earlier relief via
demonstrable technology but higher land use costs to achieve a
compatible noise level. However, reliance only on the SAM retro-
fit may preclude the possibility of a more effective and financially
equitable solution by not allowing for the technological potential
of the Refan program. There is an intermediate strategy which
would accommodate a continuous program of further noise relief via
technology. This is to initiate prompt actions to retrofit the
fleet with SAM. If the current phase of the Refan research program
is successful, then that portion of the fleet which has not already
been retrofitted with SAM could be retrofitted with the Refan tech-
nology.* The Refan research program should be accelerated, if evalua-
tion of the present research program indicates that this will maximize
in an efficient manner reduction in airport noise exposure.
To achieve any cumulative noise level, the more
rapid the technology and airport options are implemented, the smaller
will be the land use option financial requirements. This result
suggests that as soon as a level of public noise exposure is selected,
then to minimize the costs of achieving this level, the timing for
implementation of the various options of a noise reduction program is
such that an action program must shortly follow.
* It may be economically reasonable, and desirable, to subsequently
refan the entire JT8D portion of the fleet.
-81*-
-------
In terms of the economic question of which combinations of
options are the most efficient to achieve a desired cumulative out-
door noise environment level, the following findings can be stated.
o The costs of transferring aircraft source noise abatement
technology into the civil aviation fleet are always less
than the costs of achieving cumulative noise without such
transfers.
o Transferring the aircraft source noise reduction technology
into the civil aviation fleet alone cannot eliminate the
outdoor noise environment problem around the nation's air-
ports.
o Source technology cannot be fully implemented into the
civil aviation fleet until 1977 at the earliest, and path
technology by 1978; however, intermediate relief can occur
before this period by the effective exercising of fleet
operational procedures, airport operator options and local
government land use options. Such intermediate relief
must occur, especially the curtailment of further en-
croachment of population around airports, if the costs
of achievement are to be kept at a minimum.
o The problem of equitable treatment of populations re-
siding near large military airports cannot be ignored
and appropriate remedies and costs will have to be
developed.
Finally, the achievement of cumulative noise levels around the
-85-
-------
nation's airports will require international cooperation due to
the high level of foreign flag air carrier activity at a number of
domestic airports. Questions as to whether, and how, these nations
can comply with the domestically developed schedule of achievement,
how requisite investment and operating expense enter into their
cost functions, and whether such increased achievement costs will
be passed through or used as a competitive advantage, must and
will be addressed in the subsequent rulemaking study effort.
(c) Cost Allocation and Financing Options
In order to completely evaluate the implications of identifying
and achieving given levels of cumulative noise exposure, two
additional issues must be addressed: (1) who should pay for the
costs of civil noise abatement programs, and (2) how should such
programs be funded or financed?
There are a number of cost allocation alternatives which can
be determined by various legal/institutional plans. The first is
to "let the costs fall where they may." Under such a system, the
airport neighbor would continue to bear the economic and social
costs of aircraft noise pollution; the aircraft operator along with
the passenger and shipper would absorb the cost of noise control
devices; and the general taxpayer would, for example, bear the noise-
related losses in delivery of public service efficiency. A second
possible allocation plan would shift the cost of both noise damages
and noise abatement to the general taxpayer through governmental, as
-86-
-------
opposed to airport proprietor or airline, liability for noise
damage compensation and through subsidies to airlines and airports
for the implementation of noise control technology and land use
options. A third alternative would shift the cost of damages and
noise abatement to the air transport consumer, by means of in-
creased landing fees, taxes on air transport use, increased
tariffs, etc. Due to market or institutional imperfections, the
cost allocation method selected may never exist in pure form. For
example, attempts to shift cost to general taxpayers or air
transport consumers may not be wholly successful, due to the
legal inability in either the short or long term to adjust landing
fees, tax rates, or government subsidies.
Furthermore, the distinction must be made between short term
financing problems vs. the issues of long-term cost allocations.
To install noise abatement equipment creates serious short-term
capital finance problems for the airlines. Solution of this
problem is a separate though related matter from the question of
how such noise abatement cost will ultimately be allocated. Both
issues must be addressed and solved.
Allocation of Costs
In economic terms, aircraft noise is a "technological
externality." That is, the public costs of noise are not included
in the price of air transportation services. Because of this price
system defect, these costs therefore fall on economic activities
-87-
-------
other than those which produce the cost. Economic "welfare" doctrines
hold that if the beneficiaries of a given level of air transportation
could fully compensate those persons subject to the noise impacts
thereof, and still acquire some net benefit, then that level of
aviation which produces the noise externality would be economically
justifiable (20).
In order to promote the most efficient and rational use of
air transportation, economic "efficiency" criteria dictate that
air transport beneficiaries must pay the full cost of providing
air service, including secondary costs such as those of abating
pollution. Economic principles suggest that where such costs are
fully internalized, i.e., are included in the price of the service,
consumers can more rationally choose among different modes of
transportation (21). Only if all costs, including those en-
gendered by noise, are internalized into the aviation industry,
will users, beneficiaries and operators of air transport be able
to adequately balance all factors in making the most efficient
investment and operational decisions. However, in the case of
aviation, a large measure of the research and development has
already been accepted as proper expenditure on the part of the
Federal government, and thus that portion of the cost of control
is being borne by the public at large, as a public benefit charge.
Likewise, since financing of major projects such as airport land
redevelopment may involve the use of traditional measures of
financing, the cost of interest and bond retirement may be
broadly spread beyong a purely classic internalization of costs.
-88-
-------
The following discussion highlights the practical side of this
complex issue.
Financing of Costs
Information available at this point indicates that development
and implementation of noise control and abatement strategies
necessary to achieve specific noise exposure levels will require
substantial financial resources. While a few strategies, such as
new operating procedures, would not incur large capital investment
or increased operating costs, a comprehensive noise abatement
program—including research and development of engine noise control
technology, retrofit, insulation of residential structures, and
relocation of persons within zones of remaining incompatible
land uses—will necessitate a major commitment of financial
resources and the development of financing methods. Without
adequate financing mechanisms, expeditious implementation of a
comprehensive program to alleviate even the most severe airport
noise impact problems will be impossible.
Implementation of such a comprehensive program will entail
commitment of financial resources in a number of public and private
sector expenditure areas. For these areas of expenditure, financ-
ing methods must be found if the contemplated comprehensive noise
reduction program is to be successful (22). A variety of mechanisms
have been suggested to fund these expenditure areas. The basic alter-
native is private market funding of the program elements. However,
-89-
-------
depending upon the degree of noise reduction requirements,
private funding capability could be exceeded (17, 22). In this
case, other financing alternatives must be employed. Examples of
such alternatives are:
o A passenger head tax and freight tax, of a set amount
(e.g., per person and per pound) imposed on all commercial
air transport, either "at the gate," or as a surcharge on
tickets and freight invoices.*
o Head and freight tax imposed only at noise-impacted air-
ports.
o Expanded use of the Airport and Airway Development Act
Trust Fund, for use in grants to airports and airlines
for noise abatement.
o A surcharge on the aircraft fuel tax.
o A "dollars for decibels" landing fee.
o A general fare increase, either by a fixed amount (e.g.
$1 a ticket) or, on a percentage basis (e.g. 1 percent
per ticket).
o Grants to aircraft manufacturers, airlines and airports
financed by general tax revenues.
o Increased airport concession (e.g. parking and restaurant)
rentals or fees.
o Government-guaranteed loans to airlines and airports.
* The head tax at the gate scheme has just been prohibited by
Congress in the recent (P.L. 93-44) AADA two-year appropriation act.
-90-
-------
o Interest-bearing loans directly to local governments to
finance their options.
Different financing methods may be chosen to fund various
noise abatement options and thus a matrix of possible expenditure/
financing alternatives must be analyzed, and appropriate choices
made therefrom.
To choose the best financing arrangements or combination of
options several questions need to be addressed:
o Who has authority to adopt the plan?
o How could it be designed and administered?
o What would be the cost incidence—that is, if adopted,
who would ultimately pay for the cost of the noise
abatement expenditures so financed?
o How appropriate is the plan for financing the various
expenditures required for the achievement of specific
cumulative noise levels?
Answers to these questions for feasible financing methods
will be developed during the rule making process. However, from
the options delineated it appears that Federal legislation and/or
administrative action might be ^required to: (l) establish a loan
or grant fund, prescribing the uses, designating the agency respon-
sible for disbursement, setting the amount of the charge, identifying
methods of collection, and determining the life or time period of
-91-
-------
the fund (12); or (2) authorize airports and carriers, (with CAB
approval) to impose various tariffs or charges to finance the
noise control options for which they are responsible.
In the course of proposing regulations under Section 7(b) of
the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA will carefully explore these
questions, and make appropriate recommendations thereon.
-92-
-------
Noise and Overall Environmental Policy Implications
A major implication of adopting a cumulative noise exposure
system, from the overall environmental policy viewpoint, is the
relative impact, if any, on other environmental requirements
(such as air quality) arising from the institution of measures
to achieve such levels. As an example, if the required proce-
dure for operational flight control to meet a cumulative noise
health and welfare limit results in increases in air pollution
such that primary (health) air quality standards are jeopardized,
the question arises as to what balance is to be struck between
these requirements, and how. The Administrator recognizes these
practical questions, and will take them into account in any pro-
posals relating to noise regulations as well as to actions re-
garding air quality requirements.
Adoption of a measure of cumulative noise exposures for
identifying and then achieving adequate levels of noise in
communities adjacent to airports represents a major environ-
mental policy decision. This arises from the situation that
it is inconsistent to utilize one such plan for a particular
set of noise sources when those persons exposed thereto are
also exposed to noise from a variety of other sources; either
in their homes, work, or other life situations.
Congress, in the Noise Control Act of 1972, moreover, has
established a division of powers in regard to noise control
which assigns to the Federal government those relating to
-93-
-------
control of noise emissions from specific sources, but at the same
time reserves to the States and their political subdivisions the power
to establish and control ambient cumulative noise levels, with the
exception of aviation noise which is subject to Federal preemption
and domain. The Congress has charged the Administrator with the
responsibility of prescribing recommended noise levels (Section 5 of
the Act) to be utilized by State and local governments and also has
given him authority to provide advice and assistance to the State and
cities in controlling noise through the use of such ambient (and
thus cumulative) noise levels. In fact, the one considered in the
Aircraft/Airport Noise Study has many advantages over existing plans,
due to its simplicity and ease of use for the vast majority of
situations. One of the major implications of use of such cumulative
noise levels for airports is that such action may make it necessary
to adopt such an approach for use in characterizing other noise
environments. The impact of adoption of any one system for use for
all environmental situations requires further study by EPA.
Keeping in mind the divisions of power established in the
Noise Control Act discussed above, there are a number of implications
that arise from use of cumulative noise levels for airports; these
include:
(l) Under Section U(c)(2) "the EPA has a responsibility to
see that standards or regulations with respect to noise
regardless of which Federal agency is the origin of such
rules, are consistent with protection of the public health
and welfare. The use of a common measure for assessing
such effects would provide a uniform approach by EPA in
dealing with such standards.
-9U-
-------
(2) A major consideration of the implications of adopting
a common measure of cumulative noise exposure relates
to the apportionment of responsibility for regulating
aircraft noise between the FAA and EPA. By adopting
a common measure of cumulative noise exposure it be-
comes possible to establish goals and schedules for
reducing airport noise which are consistent with those
for other major noise systems, thereby making possible
a coordinated overall program to reduce environmental
noise. Furthermore, it would become possible to
evaluate regulations proposed by either agency in terms
of the beneficial results to public health and welfare
since their relationships to cumulative noise exposure
will have been established. In summary, the arrange-
ment between the FAA and EPA envisioned by the Noise
Control Act of 1972, which allows for exercise of
judgments on safety exclusively by the FAA while ex-
pecting both agencies to work cooperatively in reducing
the impact of aircraft/airport noise, based on cumula-
tive noise exposure, alleviates possible problems and
facilitates communication between the agencies and is
a viable arrangement.
(3) The provisions of the Noise Control Act require that
the EPA establish noise emission performance standards
for new products "necessary to protect public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety." It
is clear from a scientific viewpoint that such "per-
-95-
-------
formance standards" must somehow or other relate to a
general overall environmental health and welfare
requirement, or else the Congressional mandate cannot be
met. In devoting attention to the principal sources
of noise in a specific situation such as noise from
aircraft, consideration must be given to the other
contributing sources of noise even through the pre-
dominate source may be the major offender. The use
of cumulative noise levels affords a planning tool
which, with some limitations, takes into account the
relative contribution of various sources. Thus if
intelligently used, it can be a major aid in the over-
all product regulation process the Agency is required
to undertake. Use of this methodology, however, also
presents some difficulty in that there are possible
over-simplifications of interpretation of the relation
between source emission control (the Federal respons-
ibility) and restrictions on use or other limitations
(a State and local matter).
Lastly, adoption of a cumulative noise level
represents a major policy decision for the Federal government
in that this will constitute its acceptance of full responsi-
bility for establishing the limits within which aircraft noise
is to be controlled. In so doing, as the Administrator now
contemplates recommending, there will result preemption of
the State and Local levels, of government, as envisioned in the
-96-
-------
Supreme Court Burbank decision, with attendant possible Federal
liabilities. At the same time, those lesser powers still must
be brought to bear, in juxtaposition with the Federal authority,
on those elements of action needed to meet such limits for which,
as described in the following section, there are no Federal
police powers.
-97-
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 3 Report, "Impact
Characterization of Noise Including Implications of
Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise
Exposure," July 1973. NTID 73.4
(2) "Procedure for Describing Noise Around an Airport," R-507,
Second Ed,. International Standards Organization, Geneva,
1970.
(3) "Aircraft Noise - Annex 16 to the Convention on Interna-
tional Civil Aviation," International Civil Aviation
Organization, Montreal, August 1971.
(4) "Social and Economic Impact of Aircraft Noise," Technical
Annex to U/ENV/73.4, Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, Paris, April 1973.
(5) Galloway, W.J., "Review of Aircraft Noise Land Use Planning
Procedures," Interim Technical Report, USAF Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, March 1972.
(6) Alexandre, A., "Decision Criteria based on Spatio-Temporal
Comparisons of Surveys on Aircraft," presented at the
International Conference on Noise as a Public Health Problem,
Dubrovnik (Yugoslavia), May 1973.
(7) "Noise - Final Report," Cmnd. 2056, H.M.S.O. London, July 1963.
(8) "Second Survey of Aircraft Noise Annoyance around London
(Heathrow) Airport," H.M.S.O., London, 1971.
(9) "Community Reaction to Airport Noise - Vol. 1," Tracor Inc.,
NASA CR-1761, July 1971.
(10) C. Bitter, "Noise Nuisance Due to Aircraft," Collogue sur
la definition des exigences human a 1'egard du bruit, Paris,
November 1968.
(11) P.N. Borsky, "A New Field-Laboratory Methodology for Assess-
Human Response to Noise," NASA CR-2221, March 1973.
(12) Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 1 Report, "Legal
and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise
and Apportionment of Authority Between Federal, State and
Local Governments," July 1973. NTID 73.2
-98-
-------
(13) Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 6 Report,
"Military Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities
for Reduction without Inhibition of Military Missions,"
July 1973 NTID 73.7
(14) "The Economic Impact of Noise," NTID 300.14, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 31 December, 1971.
(15) Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 2 Report,
"Operations Analysis Including Monitoring, Enforcement,
Safety, and Costs," July 1973.
(16) Committe of Environmental Quality, Federal Council for
Science and Technology, "Noise—Sound Without Value," p.
34-35 (1968) and sources cited therein.
(17) Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
Retrofitting," July 1973.
(18) H. Safeer, "Aircraft Retrofit - A Cost Effectiveness
Analysis", Technical Memo, DOT/ONA, 18 May, 1973. (The
methodology for extrapolating these results from a six
airport sample to a national estimate and how the costs
of public protection were estimated may be found in
Chapter IV of Reference 6 herein.
(19) "Airline Industry Financial Analysis with Respect to
Aircraft Noise Retrofit Programs, 1972-1978," R. Dixon
Speas Associates, U.S. Department of Transportation No.
OST-ONA-73-1, January 1973.
(20) For a detailed discussion of welfare criteria, see William
Baumol, "Welfare Economics and the Theory of the State,"
Harvard University Press, 1962.
(21) Paul K. Dygert, "Allocating the Costs of Alleviating Sub-
sonic Jet Aircraft Noise," Special Report, Institute of
Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, February 1967.
(22) "The Long Range Needs of Aviation," Report of the Avia-
tion Advisory Commission, Advance Copy, 1 January, 1973.
-99-
-------
SECTION 4
ADDITIONAL MEASURES AVAILABLE TO AIRPORT OPERATORS AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO CONTROL AIRCRAFT NOISE
The types of actions which may be taken at or near individual
airports, to limit exposure of people to aircraft noise, fall into
two main categories: (1) actions to limit the noise environment
generated by operations at the airport; (2) actions to prevent in-
compatible land uses from building up around the airport, thus
placing people within the airport's noise environment.
The noise environment generated by activity at an airport
results from a progression of actions, some of which are under
the airport proprietor's control, except to the extent that there
is funding and approval from the FAA. These include, for example,
the initial site selection for the airport, the layout of the
runways as related to surrounding land uses, the location of engine
maintenance runup areas, the amount and location of land purchased
for airport purposes, and the progressive additions to airport
facilities which allow entry of new types of aircraft or greater
numbers of aircraft. It is not clear from the Burbjipfc decision if
the airport proprietor may or may not in leases and contracts
with airport tenants (including airlines, fixed base operators
and others) place conditions upon the use of the airport property;
e.g., restrictions on the types of aircraft which may use the airport,
number of operation per day per lessee, hours of operation of the air-
port, noise limits to be complied with, etc. Beyond actions of this type,
-100-
-------
actions which the airport operator may devise to control the
noise environment generated at the airport require either (a) the
voluntary cooperation of others or (b) the imposition of a higher
authority not available to the airport proprietor itself. As
explained above, since the enactment of the Noise Control Act of
1972 and the decision in Burbank, it is not at all clear what
further legal authority remains with the airport proprietor and
what has been or will be assumed by the Federal Government. It
is quite clear, however, that local governments acting in any
capacity other than airport proprietor have no authority by
which they can control noise environments at airports. Further
detail on this subject, and the history of attempts by both State
and local governments to control airport noise by a variety of
legal means, are contained in the report of the EPA Aircraft/Airport
Noise Study Task Force (1).
On the other hand, the legal authority of local governments
to control the development of land use around airports is in-
herent in the land use planning, zoning, building code and build-
ing permit authority which States have traditionally delegated
to local government. With reference to new construction, these
authorities are adequate, if applied, to permit cities and
counties in the vicinity of an airport to coordinate their zoning
and building codes with the projected noise environment of the
airport. Thus, open space or other noise compatible uses (e.g.,
industrial, commercial) can be required in zones of severe noise
impact and the quieter areas reserved for residential use. In
-101-
-------
the case of a new airport, the extent of land area to be so
controlled may be reduced by fee purchase of the projected impact
area or a large fraction thereof, with the potential for subse-
quent lease or resale with deed restrictions. Building con-
struction providing a high degree of noise insulation can be
required by performance standards in building codes, where
exterior noise levels are high but only the interior building
uses are of importance.
Major air carrier airports typically generate noise environ-
ments of such extent and scale that the land for which uses
should be controlled often falls within the jurisdiction of
several separate local governments. In many cases the airport
property boundary itself may adjoin several municipalities or
the airport property may be entirely within a jurisdiction
separate from that which owns the airport. The coordinative role
of regional government, local councils of governments, or some
special purpose regional commission or airport development
district created by the State may then be applied to guide
development of airport-noise-affected land. Examples of such
mechanisms in action are provided by the Dallas-Fort Worth
Regional Airport; the Kansas City International Airport; the
California Airport Land Use Commissions, and the Minnesota
Airport Zoning Act (the latter two being in very early stages
of implementation).
Zoning, howeyer, like eyery exercise of police power,
is limited by applicable constitutional requirements. This
-102-
-------
means at least three things. First, the restrictions imposed on
property may not be so severe as to deprive the owner of all, or
substantially all, of its beneficial use. Applied more parti-
cularly, this rule prohibits legislation that limits the use of
property to purposes for which there is no reasonable economic
demand. Second, a zoning enactment cannot be arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable as applied to any particular land
owner, or group of owners; hence, noise-related zoning should be
part of a comprehensive plan for the area. And third, zoning
may not be employed as a substitute for use of the condemnation
power when an analysis of the governmental action involved dis-
closes that the government is, for its own purposes acquiring,
using, or in the words of the courts, "taking" the zoned
property. The second and third limitations have thus far been
the principal impediments to effective airport land use planning
based upon the zoning power.
In spite of the foregoing restrictions, zoning and building
construction controls offer major potential for prevention of
airport noise problems. Nevertheless, zoning and building con-
trol techniques generally have been infrequently used and con-
tinue to be ignored in most localities. This has been one of
the major factors in the development of the severe noise impact
problems which exist around many airports today.
When the problem to be resolved is an existing impact
situation, the measures available to both airport proprietors
and local governments (in land use conversion, retroactive
-103-
-------
soundproofing of homes, etc.) are most expensive, compared with
the situation where new construction is involved. Also, most
airport proprietors do not have authority to condemn and acquire
land except for direct airport purposes or as a result of an
inverse condemnation action. More importantly, local governments
cannot use zoning to change a preexisting, nonconforming use,
but instead must apply eminent domain powers and compensate the
landowner for the taking involved.
To put the existing impact situation in its proper per-
spective, it must be emphasized that conversion to compatible
land use can be very expensive. It requires condemnation in
the form of "downward zoning" or outright taking, both of which
require just compensation. In other cases, it will require
sound insulation, which may cost between $3,000 and $15,000 a
dwelling unit, and which provides a solution only for those
indoors. But the authority exists and the subsequent conversion
of the taken property to commercial or industrial use may well
result in economic gain.
A discussion of the legal aspects of land use control for
airport compatability purposes is contained in Reference 1 and
in greater detail in Reference 2. Attention is also invited to
HUD's recently published report, "Aircraft Noise Impact: Planning
Guidelines for Local Agencies." Noise compatible land use as
well as noise source control costs are included in cost effec-
tiveness analyses contained in Reference 3.
-10U-
-------
It is quite evident that the actual ability of airport
proprietors and State and local governmental agencies to con-
trol aircraft noise at existing airports is relatively limited.
For new airports they have some additional capabilities, but
again, these are extremely circumscribed in their effectiveness.
In both cases, the limitations are especially acute when there
are numerous political jurisdictions involved (as is often the
situation), even where they have been organized into a regional
council of governments structure.
The exercise of the police powers of the State and local
governments and the proprietary rights of the airport operators
have to date not been successful in preventing residential
encroachment into aircraft noise impacted areas. Only the
indirect consideration of noise as a factor in approval of
Federally insured mortgages for residential development,
has been shown to be of value in this regard (1).
Taking all of the above, together with the Burbank decision,
it would appear that the States, local governments and airport
proprietors are severely limited in ability to act and that
there is an implication that the full burden of controlling air-
craft noise rests on the Federal Government. The fact is,
however, that the effective application of such powers and
authorities, as are available outside the Federal Government,
la a necessary component of a comprehensive aircraft noise con-
trol program. This is of critical importance with regard to new
airport siting and construction; a major factor in relation
-105-
-------
to proposed expansion of existing facilities, and absolutely
vital to any planned, orderly redevelopment of existing impacted
areas.
A Federal implementation procedure is necessary for the
Congressional assignment to provide technical assistance to
local governments and to prepare model State and local legisla-
tion and model codes for noise control. The Agency already
has initiated action, with the Council of State Governments, to
develop recommended overall state noise legislation. It has
plans for continuation of this activity; and is presently
engaged in the development of an aggressive program of expansion
of this responsibility. Likewise, under Section 14(3) of the
Noise Control Act, the Administrator has the authority to
disseminate to the public (and this would include airport
proprietors) information on techniques for noise measurement
and control. As a result of the findings of the present
study, we are presently developing proposals for joint efforts
with the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation
Administration and the affected interests such as the Airport
Operators Council International for a more comprehensive approach
to education and guidance of proprietors in this area of
responsibility.
-106-
-------
References
1. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 1 Report, "Legal
and Institutional Analysis of Aircraft and Airport Noise
and Apportionment of Authority Between Federal, State and
Local Governments," July 1973. NTID 73.2
2. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 6 Report, "Military
Aircraft and Airport Noise and Opportunities for Reduction
without Inhibition of Military Missions," July 1973.
NTID 73.7
3. Aircraft/Airport Noise Study - Task Group 4 Report, "Noise
Source Abatement Technology and Cost Analysis Including
Retrofitting," July 1973. NTID 73.5
-107-
-------
SUMMARY
In compliance with Section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act of
1972, the Agency has examined:
(1) The adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration flight and
operational noise controls;
(2) The adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing
aircraft, together with recommendations on the retrofitting
and phaseout of existing aircraft;
(3) The implications of identifying and achieving levels of
cumulative noise exposure around airports;
(4) Additional measures available to airport operators and local
governments to control aircraft noise.
The Agency has considered the effects of noise, the magnitude of
the noise problem, noise reduction by source technology and other
alternatives.
Our Principal Findings Are;
o High levels of noise cause widespread annoyance and dis-
turbance of speech and may in seme cases cause hearing damage.
An estimated 16 million people are presently subjected to a wide range
of aircraft noise effects varying from very severe-1 to moderate.
o A comprehensive national program for aircraft/airport
noise abatement is needed to insure that the noise control
options available to the aircraft manufacturers and operators,
the airport operators, the Federal Governemtn and other public
authorities are implemented to the extent necessary to protect
the public health and welfare.
-108-
-------
o Aircraft noise around airports is presently a principal
constraint on the future growth, of the air transportation system.
o Currently available technology is capable of being trans-
lated into flight worthy hardware that , together with employment
of noise abatement flight procedures, can significantly decrease
the noise impact from aircraft.
o While new aircraft types are presently required to meet FAR
Part 36 Appendix C noise levels, only about 10% of approximately
2000 existing U.S. aircraft meet these standards. Except for
the Concorde and TU 144 supersonic transports, currently avail-
able technology can permit the existing aircraft to at least
meet FAR 36 noise levels and also allow for significant re-
ductions below these levels for new aircraft (depending upon
the aircraft type and the measuring point).
o With respect to retrofitting the existing air carrier fleet,
the prime technological contenders are the nacelle acoustical
treatment retrofit and the refan retrofit. Nacelle treatment
is a demonstrated technology that can reduce aircraft noise to
FAR 36 levels in the shortest time and at least cost. Refan
has the potential for greater noise reduction but it has not been
sound or flight tested, so the time required is longer, the risk
greater, and the cost higher.
Business jet aircraft manufacturers are developing
-109-
-------
fication kits and re-engine alternatives to enable these aircraft
to meet the noise standards of FAR 36.
o A number of noise abatement flight procedures are currently
in use in scattered parts of the air transportation system. These
include: maximum angle (full power) climbouts, power cutback
climbouts, reduced thrust takeoffs, higher approach glide slopes,
flap management approaches, two segment approaches, and higher
minimum altitudes. If implemented at additional airports, where
appropriate, use of these procedures would provide meaningful
noise relief.
o The most effective use of technology to achieve maximum
noise control is in the design and development of new aircraft
systems. Consequently, noise abatement research and development
(both for source control and flight procedures) must continue to
be adequately funded to insure that these new aircraft systems
evolve with the capability for substantially less noise impact
than exists for current aircraft.
o The only realistic way of adequately assessing the impact" of aircraft
noise at and around airports is to use a measure of cumulative noise level.
Such a measure has been developed for use in this study, based on
the currently established specific and direct effects of noise
on the health and environmental welfare of humans. For a
range of values of this measure (called "day-night average
sound level" and abbreviated L , ) the statistical probability
of occurrence, for an exposed population, of the following
-110-
-------
specific effects have been presented: risk of permenent hear-
ing impairment, direct interference with speech communications,
and annoyance. The implications for public health and welfare
protection, through achievement of the most protective level of
cumulative noise considered here, amounts to approximately 16
million people, or approximately 40 percent of the persons
presently impacted by transportation noise in urban communities.
o Achieving progressively lower levels of cumulative noise
near airports has specific economic implications. Implementa-
tion of flight procedures, nacelle retrofit of a portion of the
commercial jet fleet and sound suppression kit retrofit of
business jets, where necessary, are the least expensive approaches
and most expeditious to nearly eliminate public health and welfare
impacts around airport environs. Complete implementation can possibly
occur in five years at an estimated total investment and opera-
tional cost of less than one billion dollars. Achievement of lower
cumulative noise levels around airports will require, in addition to
retrofitting more effective noise reduction technology into the exist-
ing fleet, introduction of quieter aircraft, land use conversion, re-
sidential soundproofing and airport related operations control. It is
estimated to cost in the range of 5-13 billion dollars to acheive levels
of noise indicative of speech interference (Ldn 70)* and of 6-22 billion
dollars to achieve levels of the threshold of community annoyance(Ldn 60)
These 1973 constant dollar costs move toward the lower values cited, the
earlier the more effective source noise.
*These values are not to be considered indicative of a specific
EPA recommended value.
-Ill-
-------
control hardware becomes available and is retrofit into the commercial
fleet. Some forms of financial assistance may be needed by those
affected by an expeditious implementation of a cumulative noise re-
duction program.
o Maximum cumulative noise levels around airports could be
specified by the Federal Government as modifications to the FAA
Airport Certification Regulation.
o Separate legal implications are associated with "identifying" and
with "achieving" levels of cumulative noise adequate to protect the
public health and welfare from aircraft/airport noise:
1. Identification of cumulative noise levels at particular air-
ports to protect public health and welfare could be used to
support additional litigation against airport owners. This
could follow from the mere act of "identification."
2. Under the Burbank decision, overall Federal regulation is
necessary.
3. Federal regulation, including Federal airport noise certification
may shift liability from airport owners to the Federal Government;
but "achievement" should reduce airport noise liability.
There are also possible liabilities for the Federal Government
as the proprietor of military airports.
-112-
-------
4. Any shift in liability to the Federal Government may
be a problem during the period between Federal iden-
tification and the achievement of noise levels
requisite to protect the public health and welfare.
If the court were to hold that liability had shifted
by reason of preemption, a legislative solution for
the interim period is unlikely because liability would
probably be based on the constitutional requirement
that just compensation must be paid for the taking of
property.
Airport proprietors may under some conditions and depending upon
in some situations interpretation by the courts either by airport rule
or in leases with airport tenants, place conditions upon the use of the
airport property, such as restrictions on the types of aircraft which
may use the airport, number of operations per day per lessee, hours
of operation of the airport, noise limits to be complied with,
or a schedule of landing fees based on noise generated. However,
it must be emphasized that the proprietary right to write noise
conditions into leases or adopt airport rules may well be denied
if they result in a substantial burden on interstate air commerce.
o Local governments can and must develop compatible land use
controls around airports using appropriate cumulative noise
criteria.
Based on these findings, and on the noise criteria document
and environmental noise document to be published pursuant to
-113-
-------
Section 5 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA intends to take the
following actions as authorized by Section 7(b) of the Act:
o In order to obtain an environment consistent with public health
and welfare needs with respect to noise, the Environmental Protection
Agency will propose to the Federal Aviation Administration:
—Regulations concerning flight and operational noise
controls. The regulations will include options for
takeoff procedures, approach and landing procedures,
and minimum flight altitudes.
—Amendments to FAR Part 36 to specify lower noise
levels for future aircraft.
—Regulations to control and reduce the noise emissions
from existing aircraft. The FAA's proposed Fleet Noise
Level (FNL) methodology will be considered as a flexible
means of promoting any of the source technology options
(nacelle treatment, refan, or aircraft replacement.)
—Cooperative actions to develop an airport noise certi-
fication regulation that will assure control over cumu-
lative noise near airports.
-11U-
-------
EPA recognizes that the implementation of a national airport noise
certification program encompasses a number of interrelated aspects requiring
thorough and careful review. The acquisition of substantial information,
in addition to that already available to EPA, is required from all parties -
governmental, public interest groups, industry, private citizens - to permit
evaluation and interpretation of the benefits and costs associated with
the noise levels requiring certification. Of particular interest for further
study, for example, are the impact of various noise levels relative to:
interference with interstate commerce;
cost of implementation and methods of financing;
airport operator control over non-airport noise contributing to
the cumulative noise level around airports;
effect on existing international air-transport agreements on
airport use;
enforcement with respect to (1) existing land uses and future zoning
actions around airports which are beyond the control of the airport
operator; and (2) pilot flexibility necessary for aircraft operation;
time-phasing for airports to achieve standards; and
sensitivity to total population impact and benefits to be achieved.
-115-
-------
EPA will vigorously undertake the responsibilities for
coordinating Federal noise control and Federal noise research
and development activities, as provided for in Section 4 of the
Act. It will also amplify the present activities relating to
assistance to State and local government model legislation, and
in providing advice and information to the public.
The cumulative noise level concept is useful; not only because
it summarizes the total contriution of individual noise sources, but
because it also allows decision makers to take into account the
total benefits associated with the achievement of a particular
level.
Taking all of the above actions as a whole, the Agency will
in effect be establishing a comprehensive set of national aviation
noise reduction objectives. These will be critically viewed
against the health and welfare criteria and environmental effects
goals now being prepared, along with further information on
technology, economics and other factors, and revised accordingly.
In so doing the Agency will continue its present practice of
consultation with the various affected interests, and with other
Federal Agencies. The periodic Reports to the Congress, called
for in the Act, will provide information as to an evaluation of
the effectiveness of progress toward achieving a comprehensive na-
tional pattern of action to meet the objectives of the Act.
-116-
------- |