Mr. SKULLY. The second aircraft to be evaluated is a DC-8 and the DC-8, in my and others' judgement, is a critical one on a two segment approach. I have had the opportunity of flying the 727 on two-segment approach with its particular instrumentation. I think, the decision will be made sometime early next year.

Senator CANNON. Yes.

Mr. SKULLY. That is assuming we have the complete results of the DC-8 tést.

Senator CANNON. Now, who is doing the DC-8 test?

Mr. SKULLY. NASA and United Airlines.

Senator CANNON. All right.

Mr. SKULLY. Now, there is a B-727 that goes into service on the west coast between San Diego, Los Angeles, up to Portland, and this is one that Cliff Moore mentioned this morning would be in operation and this would go into a scheduled service evaluation.

Senator CANNON. Now, is PSA running a two-segment VFR approach now?

Mr. SKULLY. Yes they are operating VFR and the United project has IFR capability.

Senator CANNON. Now, is the FAA running the measurement test, for example, here at the Los Angeles International-Arvin, are you testing the program out?

Mr. BASNIGHT. In the sense that we are monitoring the safety of the operation by PSA, we support the concept of visual operation. The airport itself is acquiring sound measurement devices and installing them so that all of the flights will be monitored in profile around the airport. We are working with the airport in that regard.

Senator CANNON. When will that equipment be installed?

Mr. BASNIGHT. It is now in some stage of installation. The actual equipment has had some performance difficulty and the tuneup is part of the current process.

Senator CANNON. So, it is going to be a relatively short period of time?

Mr. BASNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator CANNON. And they expect to keep a continuing measurement process going, then, so that you can go back and compare that against the mix of planes to see what type of noise reduction is being effected?

Mr. BASNITE. Yes, sir

Senator CANNON. Senator Tunney?

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Skully, why hasn't the FAA been sitting in on meetings with the Environmental Protection Agency for the purposes of helping in this study that is mandated by the Congress?

Mr. SKULLY. My first invitation was received Monday of this week and I had a meeting with a representative from Mr. Meyer's staff yesterday. We are scheduled to attend a meeting this coming Monday.

Senator TUNNEY. Your first invitation was yesterday?

Mr. SKULLY. Monday.

Senator TUNNEY. Monday?

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.

Senator TUNNEY. Was that the first invitation that the FAA received?

Mr. SKULLY. The first one that I had received. Senator.

Senator TUNNEY. Do you have any idea whether anyone else in the FAA has received an invitation?

Mr. SKULLY. I know that there is correspondence between the EPA and the DOT.

Senator TUNNEY. And do you know with whom at the DOT? Has anyone spoken to you about attending these meetings?

Mr. SKULLY. No, not really.

Seanator TUNNEY. Can you explain why these meetings have been going on and the FAA or Department of Transportation have not had a representative?

I understand that you say that you have not personally gone because you did not receive an invitation until Monday. What about other people?

[No response]

Senator TUNNEY. I understood from the testimony this morning that the invitation was extended quite some time ago to the DOT, to FAA inviting them come down and participate in these meetings. Were you here when we heard that testimony?

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir. I was here.

Senator TUNNEY. Well, wasn't it your impression from that the thrust of the testimony that there had been an invitation extended? Mr. SKULLY. That there had been correspondence with the Secretary of Transportation extending an invitation to attend. I might add that I was never aware of a schedule as to when the meetings were to take place.

I was quite surprised to encounter in Washington members of the aviation community engaged in the noise activities from other parts of the country. That was my first knowledge that there were meetings going on.

I would like to make one more comment relative to the cooperation with the EPA. I was in California early in February and served on a panel with EPA on aircraft emissions standards. In January I was in Boston with the EPA, with the air quality group. So, it is not unusual for the FAA to serve and participate with EPA.

Senator TUNNEY. I am glad to hear that you are developing that kind of communication with EPA in other areas. It seems to me it is most important that the FAA have the same kind of relationship in regard to noise problems and I must say that I was somewhat unhappy to learn that the FAA had not consulted with the Environmental Protection Agency before the advance notice of proposed rules relating to fleet noise levels were published in the Federal Register.

As you recall, a series of letters in the Congressional Record between myself and Mr. Shaeffer and between Mr. Meyer and you. Can you tell me why you did not consult prior to

Mr. SKULLY. I guess this issue becomes a matter of judgement, and in my judgement we did consult with EPA. I believe the consultation initially dealt with issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, rather than an advance notice.

After that meeting, I called Al Meyer on the telephone advising him that we were going out with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and his comment at that time was that he had no problem with it.

Now, there is a great deal of difference between an advance notice and a notice. The liberalization of issuing an advance notice, in my opinion, was the reason that I felt Mr. Meyer had no problem with our going ahead with it.

Senator TUNNEY. Mr. Meyer, in his letter, says "We take strong exception to exempting U.S. carrier airplanes engaged in either foreign air commerce, or overseas air commerce from either the proposed FNL regulation or any other retrofit rule".

Why have you exempted foreign aircraft?

Mr. SKULLY. In the prepared testimony I mentioned that we thought the timing was extremely important. We had a meeting with ICAO in March of this year in which we hoped to have the international body move forward with the retrofit program.

To go ahead and include foreign operations at that time, we thought, would be presumptuous. I think our actions were proper. For the first time ICAO has actually faced the problem and established the retrofit plan.

Now, ICAO has not implemented a program, but this is the first time that they dave done anything in this area, and I feel that the advance notice has served as the catalyst.

Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Mr. SKULLY. This does not mean that we are precluded from changing our mind and moving at our own speed, and in our own way of going about it.

Senator TUNNEY. Given the practice of most airlines to rotate aircraft in the fleet, this advance notice of proposed rulemaking would exempt from retrofit coverage virtually all 707's and DC-8's. Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.

The comments we received-there are a number of commentsmake quite clear the proper direction we should take, which is not to exclude these types of aircraft. If we can go forward with a rule, this would be our intention.

Senator TUNNEY. Well, I am glad to hear that apparently your objective now is not to exclude these aircraft.

Mr. SKULLY. That is correct, sir.

Senator TUNNEY. Good.

What is the current status of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the fleet noise levels?

Mr. SKULLY. The 15th of March was the cutoff date on comments, and we are currently assimilating them. I think a major rewrite of the proposed rule will be required before we issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. At that time, we will begin developing an environmental impact statement, and during this process we will be working very closely with the EPA staff.

Senator TUNNEY. I was pleased to see that the FAA has just issued a rule forbidding overflight of supersonic aircraft at supersonic speeds. Through my own interpretation, however, it appears

that that would not, for instance, stop a Concorde from flying across the country at subsonic speeds, or landing at subsonic speeds.

Mr. SKULLY. That is correct.

Senator TUNNEY. What noise level does the Concorde make? I am interested in the noise level simply because it is my inderstanding that the Concorde has an incredibly noisy engine and that it would create very substantial noise problems in and around certain airports if it is allowed to land.

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir.

The prototype was a great deal noisier than the one that is currently flying, the 02. I am not suggesting that that is quiet, but by comparison-as compared to our measuring points in part 36, to give you a comparison, B-707 300 series at takeoff is 114 EPNdB and so is the Concorde on sideline, the 707 is 108 EPNdB and the Concorde is 111; and on approach the 707 is 120 EPNdB and the Concorde is 115.

So, the Concorde, is a little lower on approach and a little higher on sideline. I might add that we have just received the information. at the ICAO meeting on the TU-144, which is little lower than the Concorde, these are their numbers, of course. We have not had a chance to verify any of this data.

Senator TUNNEY. Do international regulations exist to control the noise of SST's either flying supersonically or subsonically?

Mr. SKULLY. There are some states in Europe which forbid it, such as in Sweden, but I don't know what other countries.

Senator TUNNEY. Do you know if there is any international regulation as opposed to regulations by individual countries? Mr. SKULLY. No.

I am certain there is not.

Senator TUNNEY. Do you have any plans to issue further regulations on the SST?

Mr. SKULLY. We have an outstanding advance notice on it. It happens to be not a high priority in my judgment for two reasons.

One is that no U.S. manufacturers are developing an SST and no U.S. carriers are exercising options to purchase them.

There are so many other things that need doing that an SST certification rule is not very pressing at this time.

Senator TUNNEY. I read with interest a part of your statement that said in the next 6 months the FAA will be issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking which will lower the noise standards in part 36 for future aircraft.

During the lunch hour I had an opportunity to go out to Douglas Aircraft to take a look at some of the work they are doing under a NASA contract to develop a quieter engine. One of the things that I personally feel is important is deciding what is necessary with respect to the protection of health and welfare at some point within the next 18 months under part 36. We should not put ourselves in a position where we establish one level this year and then maybe 3 or 4 years from now a newer and possibly lower level, which will require a complete overhaul of existing equipment and perhaps the development of new technology at a cost of hundreds of millions if not billions of extra dollars. In your decision to revise part 36, are

you confident that those revisions are going to achieve a level of noise emissions from aircraft which is going to protect health and welfare to the point where we are not going to have another overhaul of existing equipment at some future point down the line?

Mr. SKULLY. I believe our view, actually is to strengthen the standards based on what we feel the technology can develop. Our concern in issuing the rule as soon as possible was to make certain that the manufacturers had the stronger standards as their objectives. Currently a number of aircraft are coming well below our present part 36 standards.

We plan, in addition to the normal three measuring points, to add a measuring point three-and-a-half miles from the landing area which I would prefer to call the community noise level.

We are anticipating new maximum noise levels which I think will certainly not be as troublesome as those of some current aircraft.

I was a bit concerned this morning when the mayor of Inglewood indicated disappointment in the DC-10 and the L-1011 because of all of our efforts and the millions of dollars that have gone into retrofit research. The retrofit results, I am inviting this committee to hear do not quite come down to the level of the DC-10 and L-1011.

If that is not satisfactory, then it is a moot point to attempt to implement a retrofit program.

The DC-10 is almost 9 to 10 EPNdB below our maximum takeoff noise level in part 36.

Senator TUNNEY. Today, at Douglas, I listened to a tape recording of the sound of DC-8 and a DC-10. Of course, it is not the same as being in the community with a DC-10 flying overhead, but after listening to it the only thing you can say is that the DC-10 is substantially quieter than a DC-8, substantially quieter.

This is particularly true on takeoff. The lower level of noise emission from a DC-10 is extraordinary. I think that anybody would have to agree that if all engines were as quiet as the new engines on the DC-10 it would be of substantial benefit to the community.

Are there any new types of aircraft on the drawing boards which, perhaps, will be in use by 1980?

Mr. SKULLY. I don't know specifically of any, I didn't have the opportunity to talk to the McDonnell-Douglas representative today. I have a suspicion that there are some that will be coming forth in the late 1970's.

Senator TUNNEY. The only reason I mention this is because the decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking within the next 6 months, to lower the noise standards in part 36 for future aircraft is relatively meaningless unless there are new aircraft coming into production. What we ought to be focusing on is retrofit and development of a new type of engine, or at least a modification to existing engines, which will reduce the noise emission levels to at least, perhaps, the level of the DC-10.

Mr. SKULLY. This is just one of many of our programs. I was not suggesting that we were not going to move forward with the noise level rules and retrofit rules for existing aircraft.

Senator TUNNEY. One thing I am concerned about is the significant cut in the funding made available to NASA for contracts with