aircraft engine companies and with the aircraft companies for the purposes of developing a quiet engine.

It is my understanding that the new budget cuts have resulted in an elimination of the program to develop a change in the JT-3D engine which would enable that engine to reach a noise emission level equivalent to a DC-10. They are now just compensating on the JT-8D engine and so we can assume that the B-707's and DC-8's are not going to have the research and development done on their engines which would enable them to be quieter. I would like to know what your view is on that.

Mr. SKULLY. Given the time and the limited funding that NASA had, it really seemed to me that you could only move forward with one powerplant. The nacelle treatment program that we will be demonstrating the 7th of May does produce a significant reduction.

We are talking about reduction of 15 EPNdB on approach and we are hoping for as much as 10 EPNdB on takeoff. The front fan project would possibly lower the noise another 2 or 3 EPNdB and we are talking in a time frame of about another 2 years. In addition to that, the nacelle treatment will be required as well as the front fan retrofit.

The cost, instead of the approximately $700,000 for the nacelle treatment would be close to $2 million per aircraft. I think, as mentioned previously, it would be putting more of an additional investment in these aircraft than is warranted. By the time the front fan retrofit would be ready for the 707 and DC-8 it will be late in the 1970's and possibly early 1980's.

One other factor that needs to be said: In terms of a 24-hour-operation day in the United States, the engine that you just described, the JT-3D represents less than 20 percent of air carrier takeoffs. Almost 80 percent of the takeoffs are by aircraft using the JT-8D.

So, since frequency of operation as well as absolute noise levels are both facets of the noise problem, you can buy a great deal more noise reduction by concentrating-if you can only concentrate on one engine on the JT-8D engine.

Senator TUNNEY. I am not objecting at all to the fact that the decision to concentrate on the JT-8D engine was made once the funds were cut. I think it was probably a wise decision, assuming that there was a limited budget.

I think it is also clear to the people in this community that there are an awful lot of DC-8's and 707's that are landing and taking off. When you consider that you get almost $200 billion worth of lawsuits from school districts against the airports, the additional $15 million to have done the R.D. that was originally anticipated on the JT-3(d) engine does not seem to be a bad investment. In fact, it seems to be a very good investment. Maybe if more people at OMB lived near an airport in Inglewood, they would realize that this was a valuable piece of money and would pay extreme dividends in the future.

And, since the DC-8's and the 707's represent about 30 percent of the fleet, I think that it is really outrageous that these funds would be cut.

The program of Research and Development on the JT-3D engine was a year ahead of the work on the JT-SD engine. So by cutting off these funds, and not allowing this research and development to go ahead, we have wasted money that has presently been spent unless more money is brought into the pipeline down the line.

At any rate, what you have done is sentenced the people, who live near airports, which have DC-8's and 707's flying into them, to more years of that particular type of noise. I am talking not only about the flying, but also about the exhaust noise.

It is my understanding that your process, this new nacelle treatment engine has very little impact on exhaust noise.

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, sir. It is not nearly as effective on takeoff noise. Senator TUNNEY. Right.

Mr. SKULLY. And the 10 EPNdB noise reduction that we are talking about would be partially accomplished by a thrust cut.

Senator TUNNEY. Right. From the tape recordings of aircraft noise around airports which I listened to, it did not seem to me the nacelle type engine would have much effect on reducing the dangers to health and welfare because it was just about as noisy as what existed before. The DC-10, however, is substantially lower in noise emissions.

O.K.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CANNON. Thank you.

I certainly do not want to defend the Administration and their cuts for the research in this area, but I think it ought to be pointed out that I queried NASA at some length in connection with their budget hearings for this year, their authorization hearings and found that, even if you devoted all of this money for research and development to refine the engine, the JT-3D engine, still that engine could not come into the fleet in a retrofit fashion prior to 1978. So, you are not taking care of 5 years of lawsuits in the interim. no matter what you spend and the question then becomes one of economics.

Is it going to be more economically feasible to retire the airplane after 1978, if it has to meet the requirements, and, because the percentage of those airplanes is going to be very small, would it be more economically feasible to do that or to force the carriers into a retrofit program starting in 1978 with an old airplane that may only have 3 years of useful life remaining on it? This latter program, as you stated, instead of costing $700,000 is going to cost upwards of $2 million for retrofit. This, is one of the balances and tradeoff's that NASA represented to us which they felt demonstrated the biggest opportunity for coming up with some meaningful reduction in the noise level. The JT-8 engine, which will be coming, will make it economically feasible. We will have more and more of them in relation to the total numbers and this offers the greater economic benefit. Now, of course, if your program works out and flights test well, then, of course, the decision will have to be made whether there should be a requirement to install of the nacelles and nacelle treatments at the much lower costs and, if that is determined to be feasible, the question would then be whether the airlines wanted to com

ply with this regulation or whether they wanted to retire the airplanes.

That is a business judgment that they would probably have to make, as I see it.

Mr. SKULLY. That is precisely what my views have been.

Senator CANNON. Well, thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Basnight.

We appreciate your being here.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. SKULLY

In 1968 Congress enacted legislation which gave FAA the authority it needed to put a stop to the escalation of aircraft noise. By November 1969 the agency added Part 36 to the Federal Aviation Regulations to implement noise standards for the certification of new turbojet aircraft. The results of the Part 36 regulation are well-known. Aircraft certificated under the regulation include the DC-10, L-1011, B-747, F-28 and the Citation. All are substantially quieter than previous aircraft in their weight categories. A less well-known fact is that almost 100 noise certification actions and modifications to older jet aircraft have been processed without a further escalation of noise.

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 funds. Thus the ability to forestall future environmental problems by airports was improved. The goal is to contain clearly unacceptable noise levels within airport controlled boundaries. An example of an airport developed under this philosophy is the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport which will encompass 17,400 acres. By contrast, Los Angeles International Airport, one of the Nation's busiest terminals, is built on 3,000 acres.

New aircraft are getting quieter, which helps existing airports. But there is the continuing problem of what else can be done about the aircraft certificated prior to December 1969, and about the airports built before 1970.

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

The FAA's Office of Environmental Quality, established in January 1971, is 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, both commercial and business. It means changing more flight patterns and operating procedures and trying to change incompatible land use practices in the vicinity of airports.

A primary FAA project is the engine retrofit feasibility program. The technological progress in perfecting quiet engine nacelles has been excellent. Quiet nacelle configurations have been developed for many inservice commercial aircraft which will meet the requirements of FAR 36. These modifications, which evolved from NASA's excellent proof of concept programs will also comply with FAA airworthiness safety standards. The retrofit program, supplemented by other NASA noise source reduction programs, has provided the technical base for our fleet noise level concept. "Fleet Noise Level" is a proposal to reduce aircraft noise through individual operators. An advance notice of proposed rule making (ANPRM) to explore this concept has been recently issued.

OPERATING PROCEDURES

Operating procedures, such as FAA's air traffic control program to keep aircraft as high as possible for as long as possible prior to landing, 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 get aircraft higher above the ground earlier in the takeoff climb. Other noise abatement operating techniques are being evaluated.

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 aircraft operate with a lesser flap setting which requires less power during approach and landing and results in lower sound levels.

Another approach procedure undergoing extensive evaluation is the two-segment ILS approach. Basically this involves a steeper glide slope during the initial part of the touchdown point. The evaluation, which is being supported by an ongoing NASA flight program, must determine whether the two-segment approach can be utilized with a higher degree of safety under widely varying conditions of weather, airport geometry and aircraft mix. Several air carriers, including PSA and United here in California, are evaluating this procedure at several airports, under carefully controlled conditions, to assist us in obtaining the needed information.

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

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. FAA has proposed an amendment to FAR 36 that would require newly produced aircraft, certificated prior to December 1969, to meet the Part 36 noise 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.

The fact that the Boeing Company required only 22 months to make the 747-200B comply with Part 36 (lowering sound levels while adding fuel capacity and range) suggests to FAA that the proposal just described is neither technologically impractical not economically unreasonable. Moreover this feat demonstrated that, to sell aircraft, manufacturers are competing on the basis of noise as well as the more customary marketing factors. As a result, all new transport aircraft and jet engines are being designed around stringent noise parameters. Because of evidence that a further reduction in noise levels is possible, FAA may be issuing a notice of proposed rule making which will lower the noise standards in Part 36 for future aircraft.

THE FNL

The FAA recently proposed to reduce the fleet noise level (FNL) for jet aircraft of 75,000 pounds or more. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making conceives a phased reduction of noise generated by aircraft fleets operated by scheduled and supplemental air carriers, as well as commercial operators. The proposed rule, which at this stage is developmental in nature, would require fleet operators to achieve an interim noise reduction goal by 1 July 1976, and would require all aircraft in the carriers' fleet to comply with the noise limits of Part 36 by 1 July 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 (ICAO) should be used on international aviation problems affecting the environment. Consequently, the FNL ANPRM, as published, 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 extension of the FNL to U.S. international air carriers. 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 FNL concept is based on the principle that noise of any given fleet is the function of the jet engine noise of each aircraft in the fleet and the number of takeoffs and landings by each aircraft in a given period. An FNL for each carrier would be determined from data submitted for a representative 90-day period. The carrier then could not exceed the original FNL value during any subsequent 90-day period. On and after 1 July 1976 the FNLS originally established for each carrier would be required to be reduced to a level halway between the original level and the level that would exist if each air

97-555 - 73-7

craft covered by the proposed rule had been type-certificated under Part 36. The ultimate goal must be achieved by the carrier no later than 1 July 1978.

The FNL 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, or a combination of these actions.

The ANPRM affords FAA the opportunity to receive a wide range of views on the subject. Further rule making will depend on our analysis of the comments received.

NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972

The Noise Control Act of 1972 formalized the consultative process between 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 rulemaking process isn't unnecessarily lengthened and complicated. Any unnecessary delays would be clearly counter-productive to achieving the environmental improvements we are all seeking.

Senator CANNON. Dr. Meyer, if you would come back now, Senator Tunney has some further questions for you.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Meyer, before lunch we were talking about the delays in starting the study task forces and the actual fact that the working time for the task force is further diminished by the review time set aside toward the end of the 9-month period. Three weeks of this time is allocated for OMB review. Who established this schedule and why is this the schedule?

FURTHER STATEMENT OF DR. ALVIN F. MEYER

Dr. MEYER. The schedule was established for me by Mr. Schettino, who is the staff director of the standards and regulations staff, based on our experiences in preparing the report for the President and Congress last year. He took into account the fact that if we gave ourselves 3 weeks we had plenty of time because of the realities of the review process.

Senator TUNNEY. In view of the serious time restriction on the preparation of a document as complex as this, doesn't the OMB's 3-week review period unduly handicap the task force?

Dr. MEYER. Sir, that is not the OMB's 3 weeks. That is the time. period we set, that Mr. Schettino, as the project director, set to allow himself the slack time, if he needed it.

That was not set by OMB. That time period was set internally by my office, and as the person responsible to the Administrator, I approved it based on the fact that we had some experience in things such as typing, getting things put together at the end of the time period, so it is not an OMB dictated 3 weeks.

Senator TUNNEY. And OMB has agreed with the 3 weeks?

Dr. MEYER. Sir, we have not discussed this with OMB. OMB has the responsibility, as you know, of clearing all reports which have budgetary or legislative implications. I am responsible to the Administrator; there are a number of other elements within the Agency and within the Government concerned with clearance. For your information, in order to expedite the entire review of this manuscript, I have done the following things.