respondence should be brought to the attention of Mrs. Jane Frank, my legislative assistant. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. The Public Works Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, and I would hope that we will be able to report the bill to the Senate floor at that time. Sincerely, JOHN V. TUNNEY, U.S. Senator. September 14, 1972. AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposal that the Noise Pollution Control Act (S. 3342) include language which calls for either the retrofitting or retirement of noisy aircraft that do not meet FAR 36 maximum noise requirements by January 1, 1976. Your proposal also specifies that new aircraft types manufactured after the date of enactment would be required to meet the best available technology or, at a minmum, a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than the Part 36 standard by January 1, 1975. Airport operators believe this is an excellent approach. We have long recognized that aircraft noise pollution constitutes a primary constraint upon the U.S. aviation system. The proposal to include a specific date at which time all aircraft must meet or better the noise levels of FAR Part 36 is an absolutely essential component of any noise abatement plan. Progress in noise reduction will be made only if specific future goals are set now, and adhered to by those Federal agencies charged with the responsibility of reducing aircraft noise. Although the NASA and Rohr studies of 1969 and 1970 clearly indicated that the technology existed to retrofit existing aircraft, the FAA began another comprehensive study regarding retrofit. These studies are nearing completion. A flight test of the retrofitted 727 will take place this fall with a final report due in the first quarter of 1973. A flight test of a retrofitted 707 will take place during the summer of 1973 with a final report due in the fourth quarter of 1973. Contracts have been awarded for studies of the DC-8 and DC-9 with their completion dates scheduled for late 1973. A contract for the study of retrofitting the 737 will be awarded this fall with the completion date as yet undecided. Preliminary test results from the above studies, that is static ground tests and other acoustical data, indicated that it is technologically possible to retrofit aircraft to meet FAR Part 36. These studies strongly support your proposed additions to S. 3342. While it is clear that the technology exists to mandate retrofit, the decision to either retrofit or retire should be left to the individual airlines. The language that is suggested would permit the owner of the aircraft to consider any option, that is, retrofit, retirement or other conforming use. We do not believe that the airlines can be burdened with the costs of retrofit or retirement to an extent that would seriously impair their financial position. It is very important that this country [p. 30] have a nnancially healthy national air transportation system. Several different approaches exist for providing financial assistance to an aircraft owner if that assistance is needed or requested. They include: accelerated tax depreciation benefits, Federal funding and loan guarantees, or a small increase in passenger ticket and cargo waybill user charges for the short period of time required to assist in financing the above options. Another economic consideration which must be considered is the great boost that a decision to retrofit, or replace noisy aircraft, would give to the sagging aerospace industry. We believe that your second concept requiring that new types of aircraft manufactured after January 1, 1975 meet either the best available technology or, at a minimum, a noise level 15 EPNdB lower than Part 36 is a laudable goal. In summary, we believe that the proposal to require that all aircraft after January 1, 1976 meet FAR Part 36 is an excellent one. We further support the proposal for setting a goal of reducing the noise by 15 EPNdB within three years. I would refer you to our more detailed presentation before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution on April 13, 1972 at which time we discussed at some length our support for these proposals. There must be action now to reduce aircraft noise pollution. We believe that the best way to accomplish this without incurring further delays is to mandate the agency which is conducting investigations and studies in this field at this time to issue such regulations. This would be the Federal Aviation Administration. Further delays in the implementation of aircraft noise regulations only increase the grave threat that noise pollution presently poses to our national air transportation system. Sincerely, J. DONALD REILLY, Executive Vice President. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. New York, N.Y., September 18, 1972. MY DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Thank you for your letter of September 12, concerning proposed changes to the noise pollution control bill (S. 3342): We believe that language such as that suggested in your third paragraph is essential if the new bill is to result in timely and effective reduction of aircraft noise. The best information available to us indicates that January 1, 1976 is a reasonable target date for a retrofit program if action is started now. Of critical importance, however, is the development of a financing program for the capital required to accomplish retrofit. Without Federal Government leadership in this area, I am afraid that retrofit will be jeopardized. The suggested limit of 15 EPNdB below FAR Part 36 seems excessive for the present state of the art. The joint DOT-NASA "CARD" Study indicated that a 10 dB reduction seemed feasible within 10 years. We suggest that, in the language of Part 36, new aircraft for which application for a type certificate is submitted on or [p. 31] after January 1, 1975, be required to meet noise levels at least 10 EPNdB lower than those of present Part 36. Only by early action of this sort can the public be assured that developing technology will be applied to further noise reduction rather than increased payload and range. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these aspects of S. 3342. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, NEAL R. MONTANUS. CITY OF SAN JOSE, San Jose, Calif., September 14, 1972. DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: Your letter of September 8, 1972 to Donald Reilly of Airport Operators Council International relative to S. 3342 has come to my attention. I enjoyed our meeting at Oakland Airport when you met with RASSC relative to our Bay Area Systems Study. I feel rather strongly on the subject and would like to comment further. I would like to offer you a summary of recommendations, my credentials, and discussion giving reasons for the recommendations. In summary, it is technologically and economically feasible to accomplish these recommendations. It is specifically recommended that: 1. FAA be required to establish a retrofit trust fund with the monies to come from a national enplanement tax levied against the air passenger; 2. That the FAA establish a formula for paying for the retrofit, said formula to consider cost of retrofit and tax credits; 3. The retrofit program be as follows: (a) That existing aircraft not now meeting FAR 36, be required to have nacelle retrofits and meet FAR 36 by January 1, 1976, with funds from the trust fund; (b) The same aircraft be required to re-engine or incorporate the new NACA front fan treatment by January 1, 1979, with funds from the trust fund: (c) That both (a) and (b) may be accomplished by January 1, 1976 if desired by the air carrier, with total payment to come from the trust fund formula; (d) That in lieu of retrofit, an air carrier may choose to retire existing aircraft from service, in favor of purchasing new, quieter aircraft, and that in such cases, the equivalent of retrofit be awarded from the trust fund to the air carrier toward purchase of the new aircraft; 4. That any language relative to new aircraft be explicit to include new aircraft, regardless of country of manufacture. As to my credentials, I graduated from the University of California at Berkeley, with a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering, with an aeronautics option. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California. I served four years as a naval aviator, flew airline with Pan American, spent five years as an experimental test pilot with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (now NASA) and North American Aviation, and twenty-five years as Airport Manager. I served as an airport representative on the Aeronautics and [p. 32] Space Engineering Board ad hoc study advisory committee which resulted in the joint DOT/NASA civil aviation R&D policy recommendation. I have kept in close contact with my former associates at NASA and feel I have fairly good knowledge of the state of the art of research and development. To solve the problem, we ask what is technologically and economically feasible. The airlines say they cannot afford to retrofit and they cannot. We would take the position and state that aircraft must be retrofitted (including new front fan treatment) by a given date, then if we say how to finance it, we will have the solution. The NASAGE quiet engine research program has yielded noise reductions greater than anticipated when the contract was let. We know that noise can be reduced to about one-fourth of what it is now and, in the case of the 707 and DC-8 aircraft, the noise footprint under the 90 PNDB contour can be reduced from the present 47,500 acres to about 3,000 acres. If all air carrier aircraft today were equipped with this new generation of quiet engines, I believe that every air carrier airport in the United States would be environmentally acceptable from a noise standpoint. This then states that by some year, say 1985, we will have an environmentally acceptable industry. The problem is, then, how do we live until that time. I believe that a strong, firm act by the Federal Government, such as you are proposing, is our only salvation. We have plotted the noise contours for the San Jose Municipal Airport and have determined that we can meet State of California noise requirements, and have no residency inside the 65 CNEL curve by purchasing houses in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, and by having all aircraft equipped with the new generation of quieter engines. Thus, the current state of technology has reached the plateaus of offering known solutions. With continuing research, even greater strides can be made for the future. If your bill would provide the means of financing retrofit, then it might offer a clearer method of solving the problem. If society has to pay for noise reduction, then the user should be given the opportunity to pay for that reduction. A passenger head charge of say $1.00 per passenger would currently generate some 175 Million Dollars annually. The money could be borrowed against this revenue which yields 1.75 Billion Dollars. I agree with James Carr that the airline passenger should be given the chance to pay to reduce the noise and thereby improve the environment. The acoustically treated nacelle and the new treated front fan installation could be financed by this method by having the FAA levy an enplanement tax, with the proceeds to go to a trust fund to pay for the retrofit. As James Carr has pointed out, the equivalent of the retrofit cost could be given to an airline if a noisy aircraft is retired, and new aircraft meeting new noise standards is purchased. This is an economical and not a technological problem. This alternative would help modernize our air fleet and would stimulate our air frame and engine industry. For the above reasons, I support the addition of language that requires all aircraft to meet Part 36 by January 1, 1976. We know how to do it and it can be financed by a user tax. I think there might be some problem in requiring retrofit of aircraft manufactured after date of enactment to meet the noise level [p. 33] of 15 EPNdB by 1976. I would suggest that 10 EPNdB by 1975 would be more realistic criteria. If the criteria is too severe and applies only to new types of aircraft, it might tend to discourage design and development of new aircraft unless some premium or assistance were offered. It would be more economical to continue to manufacture the same aircraft. I suggest that the language state that new aircraft manufactured after January 1, 1976 be clarified to include aircraft, regardless of country of manufacture, or the foreign manufacturers would have an unfair advantage over United States manufacturers. I further suggest that the 707 and DC-8 aircraft can be reasonably retrofitted with acoustically treated nacelles, and retirement may be more attractive than subsequent engine retrofit; however, that would be the airline's decision. The B-727, 737 and DC-9 are expected to be with us well into the 1980's. I suggest that the nacelle retrofit as you propose be required by January 1, 1976 and that the new NACA front fan be required by January 1, 1979, with the airline having the option of doing both by January 1, 1976 if they desire, with payment being made from the new trust fund. This would result in a mix of aircraft that by 1980 would consist principally of a re-engine 727, 737 and DC-9, wide body jets and some new aircraft with the new generation of quiet engines. The DC-8 and 707 will probably be retired in favor of the new aircraft with quieter engines. This would result in a positive program that would stimulate the aircraft industry and would give the general public which must endure the noise relief with programmed reduction for the future. The user would pay the tab and the United States would set the pattern for the rest of the world to follow. The rest of the world to follow. The rest of the world is waiting for the United States to come to grips and solve the noise problem before they take a hard stand. This has come to light at international meetings on the noise problem. Specific recommendations were presented at the start of the letter and I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments to you. Very truly yours, JAMES M. NISSEN. Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, Washington, D.C. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., West Lynn, Mass., September 14, 1972. Attention of: Mrs Jane Frank, Legislative Assistant. DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: I am pleased to respond to your letter of September 8 addressed to Fred J. Borch requesting specific comments on the current state of engine noise technology with respect to retrofit of the older aircraft types, retirement of these aircraft and their replacement by the new quieter types, the appropriateness of the FAR36 noise standard for all aircraft landing at U.S. airports after January 1, 1976 and FAR36 minus 15 EPnL for new aircraft types by January 1975. I have not attempted to address myself to the specific language of vour Bill but rather to the basic issues raised in your letter. As you indicate in your letter, different approaches to the noise problem may be appropriate for the different classes of aircraft. [p. 34] 525-314 O 73-7 |