July 1973
      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460







         PUBLIC LAW 92-574
             JULY 1973

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
     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


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

SUMMARY                                                  108


     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


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

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-

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

craft noise and sonic boom (including control and abatement through

the exercise of any of the FAA's regulatory authority over air

commerce or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations)

as EPA determines is necessary to protect the public health and


     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.

     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

          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.

     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.


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.

                            SECTION 1



     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

     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.)

     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).

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).


     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.


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).

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

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

Noise Control Act of 1972.


     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).

     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

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


     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

     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

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

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

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.

 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,

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

                            SECTION 2



     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.


     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

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

(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

         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


     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.

     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


 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.

     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.

     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


     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

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

     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.

          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

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


     o  Omit exemption for airplanes engaged in overseas air


     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



     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

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.

 1.  Aviation Advisory Commission Report, Advance Copy,  January

 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).

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

                            SECTION 3


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:

          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


          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


          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).


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.


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.


sufficient to establish the potential for hearing damage in various

proportions of the population exposed to different values of the

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

individual at a specific frequency is determined by measuring the

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

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

amount by which the hearing threshold has shifted upward from a

previous value, or from the population norm.

     Noise can interfere with one of the chief distinctions of

the human species—speech communication—thereby disturbing normal

domestic activities, creating a less desirable living environment,

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

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

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

telephone use, and radio or television enjoyment.  Research over

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

in quantifying the effects of noise on speech communication, data

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

listening conditions for speech in the presence of noise to

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

proportion of a population expected to be highly annoyed when exposed

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

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

term for reported adverse responses of people to environmental

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

sociological surveys.  Such surveys have been conducted among

residents in the vicinity of airports of a number of countries

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


     The results of these surveys are generally related to the

percentage of respondents expressing differing degress of distur-

bance or dissatisfaction due to the noisiness of their environments.

Some of the surveys involve a complex procedure to construct a

scale of annoyance, some report responses to the direct question

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

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

operations) to which the survey respondents are exposed. Correlation

between annoyance and noise level can then be obtained.

     The results of the social surveys show that individual responses

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

variances are reduced substantially when groups of individuals having

similar attitudes about "fear" of aircraft crashes and "misfeasance"

of authorities are considered. Moreover, by averaging responses over

entire surveys, almost identical functional relationships between

human response and noise levels are obtained for the entire surveyed

population as for the groups of individuals having neutral attitudinal

responses. In deriving a generalized relationship between reported

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

group responses were used, recognizing that individuals may vary

considerably, both positively and negatively compared to the

average depending upon their particular attitudinal biases. The

table on the following page summarizes the effects expected for

different noise environments.

                                                         EFFECTS OF NOISE FOR DIFFERENT VALUES
                                             OF OUTDOOR DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL, L   , IN DECIBELS
  Outdoor Day-Night     Hearing Risk
  Average Sound Level    for Speech
  in Decibels             in % of
  re-20 tnicronewtons     Exposed People
  per square meter
Percent of Exposed People With
Permanent Threshold Shift
(5 Decibels at 4000 Hertz)





     Maximum Speech
     in Percent







                 1. S

Highly Annoyed
in % of Exposed
in % of
Exposed People
  *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.

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


            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
60 dB and above
65 dB and above
70 dB and above
75 dB and above
80 dB and above
     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.

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.

          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.


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

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."

     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


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."

     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.

       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

     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


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


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


          "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


     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."

     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


     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


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


     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


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


     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

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.

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


     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


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-

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.

     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.

     (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

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,


therefore, will be the cost of implementing noise source abatement

technology and airport/aircraft operational options plus the

expense of soundproofing or relocating those noise-sensitive receivers

which remain impacted by such noise exposure levels after technological

and operational options have been employed.  Clearly, the more

extensive the implementation of source and path noise reduction, and

airport operational options, the lower the requirements for receiver

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

question raised by the discussion here is what combination of

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

resolution of the civil airport noise exposure problem.  There do

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

costs of achievement for impacted areas around military airports.

     Source noise reductions, requiring retrofit into the existing

fleet, necessitate time to fabricate, demonstrate, certify and

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

important role in the dynamics of noise level achievement in that

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

vary with time.  For example, future production versions of

the current narrow body commercial  aircraft will most likely be

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

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

trend is towards a gradual reduction in airport environmental

noise as these relatively quieter aircraft constitute an in-

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

fit candidate set of noisy aircraft will decrease with time which

means that lower source abatement cost may obtain.  The timing


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.


                                                                                                    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'"











Null (Do Sotting)

Appro mch




All Others




2 34

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
707 t, DC-SPro:o- 1978 0.4
typet C*m03»o»d

See Above 1978 0.6

RiFAN: Defi(« 1979 1. S
SAM. See Above
Deiijn Snxlits 1979 1.7

RET AN Deiiga 1979 2.0
SAM See 2 Above
Denjn Studies 1980 2.3

• •50

:. 0
:3. 2


11. S




S. 5


24. S
1. 1
11. 3
10. D
20. 1
I. S
9. 1
7. S

   *  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.

     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.

     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


     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-

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,
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.


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


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.

     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


     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-


     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


     Finally, the achievement of cumulative noise levels around the

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

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

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.

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,

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-


     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.

     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


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.

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


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


     (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.


     (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-

          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

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.

(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,

(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

(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.

                                SECTION 4


      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,

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

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


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


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.

     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


to proposed expansion of existing facilities, and absolutely

vital to any planned, orderly redevelopment of existing impacted


     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



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


     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


                   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.

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

 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


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.

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


      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.

      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


     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


     Based on these findings, and on the noise criteria document

and environmental noise document to be published pursuant to


Section 5 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA intends to take the

following actions as authorized by Section 7(b) of the Act:

o     In order to obtain an environment consistent with public health

and welfare needs with respect to noise, the Environmental Protection

Agency will propose to the Federal Aviation Administration:

         —Regulations concerning flight and operational noise

           controls.  The regulations will include options for

           takeoff procedures, approach and landing procedures,

           and minimum flight altitudes.

         —Amendments to FAR Part 36 to specify lower noise

           levels for future aircraft.

         —Regulations to control and reduce the noise emissions

           from existing aircraft.  The FAA's proposed Fleet Noise

           Level  (FNL) methodology will be considered as a flexible

           means of promoting any of the source technology options

           (nacelle treatment, refan, or aircraft replacement.)

         —Cooperative actions to develop an airport noise certi-

           fication regulation that will assure control over cumu-

           lative noise near airports.

     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.

     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


     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.