Page images


Senator Caxxox. The hearing will come to order.

Dr. Meyer, Senator Tunney has not arrived yet. He had some further questions for you, so I am going to ask you to step aside for the moment. Is Mr. Hellegers here? Is Dr. John Hellegers and Ms. Raelyn Janssen representing the Environmental Defense Fund and Mr. Jerrold Fadem, and Ms. Darlene Mitcheltree, are any of those persons here?

[No response.)
Seantor Canyox. V r. Skully, Richard Skully?
Mr. SKULLY. Yes.
Senator Cannon. You may proceed.



Mr. SKULLY. Senator, I have Mr. Arvin Basnight, who is the Regional Director for the Western region. If there are any questions on the local California issues.

Senator Caxxon. Step up there, Arvin.

Mr. SKULLY. I have submitted a statement for you for the record, which I would like to refer to and add some additional comments.

Senator CAxxox. All right, sir.

Your statement will be made a part of the record in full and you can summarize from it and make such comments as you desire.

Mr. SKULLY. In 1968 the Congress enacted legislation which gave the FAA the authority it needed to put a stop to the escalation of aircraft noise. By November of 1969 the Agency implemented part 36 to the Federal Aviation Regulations for the certification of the new turboprop aircraft, jet aircraft. The results of part 36 are well known.

The aircraft certificated under this regulation include the Douglas DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, the Boeing 747, Focke F-28 and the Cessna Citation.

By Jue of 1973 there will be over 300 of these aircraft in service. Now, all of these aircraft are substantially quieter than the previous aircraft in their weight categories. A much less well-known fact is that almost 100 noise certification actions and modifications to older aircraft have been processed without a further escalation of noise.

An example of a modification would be a change in the powerplant, or an engine modification resulting in increase in thrust. The regulation requires that the manufacturer demonstrate that proposed modifications do not increase the noise level of the intended aircraft.

Actually, noise escalation has been prevented in several hundred individual aircrafts by this part of the regulation.

In 1970 the Airport and Airway Development Act was passed. Procedures to ensure that airport projects are environmentally sound were made preconditions to Federal planning and airport construction funding. Thus, the ability to forestall future environmental problems by airports was improved. The goal is to contain clearly unacceptable noise level within the airport controlled boundaries.

As an example the airport developed under this philosophy is the new Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport which will encompass over 17,000 acres. By contrast, Los Angeles International Airport, one of the Nation's busiest terminals, is built on only 3,000 acres.

Kennedy, in New York, is 5,000 acres and Dulles, next to the largest, is 10,000 acres.

The new aircraft coming into the system are getting quieter, which does help existing airports. But, there is a continuing problem of what can be done about the aircraft certificated prior to December 1969, and about the airports that were built prior to 1970.

The office that I represent was established in January of 1971, and we are moving to curb the noise problems created in the past, which are still impacting citizens and communities today.

This means doing something about the noise levels of today's jet aircraft engines. It means changing more flight patterns and operating procedures and encouraging local governments to change incompatible land use practices in the vicinity of airports.

A primary FÀA project is the engine retrofit feasibility program. The technological progress in perfecting quite engine nacelles have been excellent. Quiet nacelle configurations have been developed for many inservice commercial aircraft which will meet the requirements of part 36.

These modifications, which evolved from NASA's excellent proofof-concept programs, will also comply with the FAA air worthiness sa fety standards.

The retrofit program, supplemented by other NASA noisé source reduction programs, has provided the technical base for our fleet noise level concept. The fleet noise level is a proposal to reduce aircraft noise through individual operators. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking to explore this concept has recently been issued.

Operating procedures, such as the FAA's air traffic control program to keep the aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible prior to landing, also serves to minimize noise levels. This program supplements the use of preferential runways and routings also used to minimize noise impact, as well as a new departure procedure that has been established to permit aircraft to get higher above the ground earlier in the takeoff-climb profile. We are currently evaluating other operating techniques.

The problem of reducing approach noise through operating procedures has been more difficult than reducing departure noise. However, simulation and tests of noise abatement arrival procedures are currently being appraised by the FAA and the airlines. The airlines have recently instituted a new standard approach procedure that provides considerable relief to people on the ground in the approach area.

This new procedure provides that the aircraft operate with a lesser flap setting which requires less power during the approach and landing and results in lower sound levels.

Another approach procedure undergoing extensive evaluation is the two-segment approach. Basically this involves a steeper descent

during the initial part of the approach. The aircraft stays higher longer and descends with less power. The evaluation, which is being supported by an ongoing NASA flight program, must determine whether the two-segment approach can be utilized with a high degree of safety under widely varying conditions of weather, airport geometry, and aircraft mix. Several air carriers, including PSA and United Airlines here in California, are evaluating this procedure at several California airports, under carefully controlled conditions, to assist us in obtaining the needed information.

A Federal Aviation regulation was implemented this week which will prohibit commercial jet aircraft from generating sonic booms over the domestic United States.

Other regulatory programs have been proposed, or are under development. We have proposed an amendment to part 36 that would require newly produced aircraft, certificated prior to December 1969, to meet part 36 standards.

Included would be transport aircraft such as the 707, 737, DC-9, and 727. Also included would be business jets such as the Learjet and the Gulfstream II, and others

Senator Caxxox. What do you mean by that; would you explain that a little ?

Mr. SKULLY. It would mean that where a production aircraft, such as the 727, currently does have a noise suppression kit that meets part 36, that any future production of that type of aircraft would have to be with the proper noise suppression treatment meeting our regulations.

Senator Canxon. Well, what about the 707, they are not making any of those now, are they?

Mr. SKULLY. They have production lines open. All of the sales at the present time are foreign sales. There are no U.S. sales. No date has been established for the 707.

Senator CANNOx. So that really it does not mean very much to include it in this group then, if it is not still being manufactured for domestic sale.

Mr. SKULLY. The intention-as I understand it, the Boeing Co. would like to keep that option open in the event that there are domestic sales.

Senator Cannox. I see.
Mr. SKULLY. That would be further down range.
Senator CANNON. Well, doesn't the DC-9 meet the part 36--
Mr. SKULLY. No, sir.
Senator CAXXON. [continuing) Right now?
Mr. SKULLY. No, sir, it does not.

Senator CANNox. And it has to have the modification kit, is that it?

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, and Douglas's best estimate is that it could be this fall before they could comply with the part 36.

Senator CANNON. And the 727-200, is it being manufactured to compliance now!

Mr. SKULLY. That depends on who is ordering it. It can be delivered in compliance with part 36.

Senator CAXXOX. All right.

Mr. SKULLY. The FAA recently proposed to reduce the fleet noise level for jet aircraft over 75,000 pounds. Now, this advance notice of proposed rulemaking concieves a phased reduction of noise generated by aircraft fleets operated by scheduled and supplemental air carriers, as well as other commercial operators.

This proposed rule, which at this stage is developmental in nature, would require fleet operators to achieve an interim noise level goal by July 1, 1976, and would require all aircraft in the carrier's fleet to comply with the noise limits of part 36 by July 1, 1978.

The United States adopted a position at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm that the competence of specialized agencies, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization should be used on international aviation problems affecting the environment.

Consequently the fleet noise level notice deferred consideration of aircraft engaged in foreign air commerce. Since then, at the regular meeting of ICAO in Montreal, earlier this month, the U.S. Delegation actively pursued the attainment of an international recommendation which would facilitate the extention of the fleet noise level to U.S. international aircarriers.

We believe that this objective was accomplished and that the U.S. action will serve as a catalyst in achieving implementation of aircraft acoustic retrofit on a worldwide basis.

The fleet noise level concept is designed to reduce aircraft noise as rapidly as possible, given technological and economic feasibility. It gives the carrier the alternative of achieving the noise reduction goal by modifying existing aircraft, replacing them with less noisy aircraft, operational procedures, or a combination of these actions.

This notice atfords the FAA the opportunity to receive a wide range of views on the subject and further rulemaking will be dependent upon the analysis of the comments received.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 formalized the consultive process between the FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency. This formal process may produce more effective and comprehensive noise rules.

However, the fullest cooperation must be exercised by all parties to insure that the rule making process isn't unnecessarily lengthened and complicated. Any unnecessary delays would be clearly counterproduction to achieving the environmental improvements we are all seeking

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to invite your subcommittee and your staff to a flight demonstration of the B-707 with acoustically treated nacelles. We will conduct this demonstration at Dulles International Airport on May 7 and we will have a series of flybys by treated aircraft and the standard aircraft and we will provide you with a formal invitation and the particulars of the demonstration later on.

Senator CANNON. Does the nacelle treatment permit the 707 to comply with FAR 36?

Mr. SKULLY. The ground prediction that we have, it will meet part 36 if the flight demonstrations work.

Senator Caxxon. This will await the flight demonstration, then?

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.
Seantor CANNON. For flight determination.
Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.
Senator Carxon. And what weight does that add to the airplane?
Mr. SKULLY. Approximately 2,400 to 2,600 pounds.

Senator Cannon. And do you have precise figures as to the cost, or perhaps a rough estimate?

Mr. SKULLY. Boeing's last estimate has been in the neighborhood of $700,000 for the ship set.

Senator CANNON. For the entire ship set?
Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.

Senator Cannon. Now, in your statement, you said that the proposed rule, which at this stage is developmental in nature, would require fleet operators to achieve an interim noise reduction goal by July 1, 1976.

How are they to achieve an interim reduction goal, for example, if they are going to, let's say, give the airplane the nacelle treatment?

Mr. Skully. Well, a lot of it depends, of course, on the fleet mix, If the operator is operating B-727's, there are kits available which would enable them to comply. The hangup, really, will be in the B-707 and DC-8, for which the earliest that we forecast that any kits will be available is the latter part of 1974, and only then for the B-707.

Senator Cannon. That is the earliest that the kit would be available?

Nr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.
Senator Canyon. And how long would it take to retrofit?

Mr. SKULLY. We feel it would be a 3-year implementation program.

Senator Caxxon. So, based on that, even for the acoustic treatment on the nacelles we are talking about a 1977 time span?

Mr. SKULLY. Or 1978.
Senator CANXON. 1977 or 1978 ?
Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.

Senator Caxxox. Now, as I understand it, you are saying that they will have to do something to make a reduction in their overall fleet noise. Is that right?

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.

And the other purpose was to preclude anyone from letting their fleet increase in noise levels, discourage anyone from purchasing the nontreated aircraft.

Senator CANYON. How many 707's and DC-8's do you estimate would be remaining in the fleet by 1978?

Mr. SKULLY. I would have to speculate on the number. There have been any number of projected figures. It would be in the neighborhood of 500 or 600 in the U.S.

Senator Canyon. I think that perhaps General Von Kann would be able to address himself to that point at least in respect to the commercial carriers.

Now, you referred to the two segment approach that is being tested.

When do you expect to have a decision on the feasibility of using this type of approach or requiring it?

« PreviousContinue »