HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 69-1984 RESOLUTION NO. 69-84
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PETITION OF
N.O.I.S.E. AND AOCI REQUESTING THE
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that:
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco is in the San Francisco International
Airport ("SFO") environs area; and
WHEREAS, noise generated from aircraft operated at SFO has adverse affects
on the health and welfare of the citizens of South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, one means to alleviate said adverse affects is to ~egulate the use
of particularly noisy aircraft; and
WHEREAS, the National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
(N.O.I.S.E) and the Aircraft Operators Council International (AOCI) have submitted
a petition to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for amendment of Parts 36,
47 and 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Parts 36, 47 and 91) to
prohibit the registration or operation of certain aircraft in the United States
unless they are type certificated to the Part 36 Stage 3 noise level limits;
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of South San Francisco
that:
1. The City of South San Francisco (hereinafter "City") does support the
aforementioned petition of N.O.I.S.E. and AOCI requesting that the FAA amend its
regulations set forth above, except that the City suggests that said prohibition
should be based upon aircraft performance as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular
meeting held on the 23rd day of May , 1984, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Emanuele N. Damonte, Richard A. Haffey,
Gus Nicolopulos; and Roberta Cerri. Teqlia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
STL'DI ~: S -D,EsIo~
EXHIBIT "A"
1714 ~E
April 28, 1984:-
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
and the City Manager,
City of South San Francisco,
P. O. Boz 711,
South San Francisco, California 94080.
-.
Subject~ Petition for FAA Rule Making of N,O.I.S.E and. AOCI.
Noise Certification of Turbojet ..and Large Transport 'Cateqoz%[ Aircraft.
Dear Mr~ Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Mr. Bizkelo:
Pursuant to a .telephone conversation ha¢] yesterday with
Mr. Birkelo~ I submit enclosed herewith a draft of a proposed
comment on the recent Petition for a Cut-off of Production of
noisy Stage-II Aircraft, heretofore entered by the National
Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (H.O.I.S.E.)
and the Airport Operators CoUncil, International, (AOCI). If
you are in agreement with the Draft, the Comment shoul~l be filed
by the City of South San Francisco on or before June 1, 1984,
by mailing an original and duplicate copy of your Comment by
cer.tified mail to the following address:
Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attn.: Rules Docket (AGC-204), Docket No. 23943,.
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, .D.C. 20591.
My comments stem from my studies over the past sevezaI
years and from extensive discussions had by me (1) with leading
members of the Planning and Environmental-Affairs Committee
of AOCI (in Albuquerque, March 19th and 20th, last), (2) with
Mr. Thomas Duffy of N.O..I.S.E. (in San Francisco, April 25th,
last), (3) with Mr. Richard E. Russell, Director, Noise Technology,
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, (4) with Mr. Arn H. Feener
of the San Francisco International Airport, and (5) with staff
members of a number of airlines over' the past three yeazs.
I shall be glad to provide any additional information and
clarification that you might require pertinent to the (M)ntents
of the enclosed draft.
Encl.
Respectfully submitted
/Maurice A. Garbell~
SSF Comment on FAA Docket No. 23963- Page i.
COMMENT BY THE CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
ON FAA DOCKET NO. 239/~3, A PETITION FOR RULE-MAKING
THAT WOULD AMEND I~CFR PARTS 36, ~7, AND 9 I.
Statement o__[f Substantial Interest by the City.
:
The City of South San Francisco, California, (hereinafter "City") has a .~ubstontia!
interest in the subject Petition for FAA Rule Making of N.O.I.S.E and AOCl, which
Petition relates to the Noise Certification of Turbojet and Large Transpod Category
Aircraft.
Clualification o__[f ,the City.
The City and its residents are situated in an area that lies directly underneath the
straight so-called "GAP" departure path of turbojet and large transport-category aircraft
shortly after their takeoff from Runways 28-Left and 28-Right at the San Francisco
International Airport. During conditions of intense, Iow-altitude, temperature inversions
and adverse windshear, the City is exposed to hour-long sequences of noisy westward
"overshoots" of aircraft engaged in so-called "SHORELINE" and "QUIET" deparlures from
Runways 28 which exert a heavy noise impact upon the City and its people. At other
times, "PORTE" departures from Runway 01-Left make a short left turn over Mount San
Bruno to a heading between 200 and 180 degrees and produce a noise impact from their
Iow-altitude overflights over the western and northwestern portions of the City~
Identification of Pertinent Stage-Il Aircraft as a Source of
Noise Impact .on the City.
Many of the noisy single overflight events over the City are produced by aircraft of
Stage-Il types~, such as the Boeing 737-200 ADV and Boeing 7~7 models that are currently
still in production and that, according to their manufacturer and various air-carrier
operators, are yet to be delivered over a period of several years. Moreover~ the recent
repatriation of exceedingly noisy Stage-Il DC-9-50 aircraft into the United States,
after their disposal by SWISSAIR attributable at least in part to their excessive noise,
adds one rr~re compelling reason for bringing to a halt the rnanufacture and return or
repatriation of all noisy Stage-II aircraft.
Endorsement of the Evaluation of the Current Status of the Aircraft-Noise Problem Set
Forth by t. he I~I.O.I.S.E.-AOCi Petition. ----
The City endorses the evaluation of the current status of the aircraft-noise
problem set forth in the section "1.0 Summary" of the subject N.O.I.S.E.-AOC! petition.
Should the Decision by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the Petition be
Address-~'-to Specific TypeS o_[f Aircraft and Solely Relative to Their Certification und'~
14CFR ParT3__6, o_[r S~ould the Decision~Be Contingent on th~-Attairiment 9[ Real-World
Noise Performance Standards at Criterial Airports?
I
Before responding to the six specific questions by the FAA listed in its Petition
Notice PR-8¢-3, the City suggests that the following five pertinent basic consideratior~,
be regarded in terms of their factual significance:
SSF Comment on FAA Docket No. 23943. Page 2.
Th__e Objective of the Petition.
The City believes that the objective of the N.O.I.S.E. and AOCI Petition is to
terminate the production of aircraft that are noisy in actual operation, not a'
punitive action against specific types Of ~c-~-~t that c:~- be or cannot [~ operated
Jess noisily'in the future-than heretofore. ·
I!.
Types o_.~f Aircraft Affected°
.
The two principal Stage-il types of United-States-manufactured aircraft still in
production are the Boeing 737-200 ADV and certain subtypes of the Boeing 747°
i!1.
Are the Boeing 737-200 AVD and Boeing 747_ Aircraft Dominant-
i_.n P~-ucinq Aircraft Noise? ---'
(a_) The Stage-Il 737-200 ADV.
According to accurate noise monitoring by the Zurich Airport and others, the.
Stage-I! Boeing 737-200 ADV is found to be noisier than the Stoge-I Boeing 737-200
and the Stage-! Boeing 727-200. (See Exhibit A)
It is true, according to accurate noise monitoring performed by the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport (SEATAC) and by the Airport Safety and Noise Consultant of
the City of South San Francisco at the Palm Beach International Airport in West
Palm Beach, Florida, that, at an airport at which Boeing 727,200 depart with a
heavy load of fuel for a long route segment and at which Boeing '737-200 ADV
depart with relatively lighter fuel loads for short route segments, the 727 aircraft'
dominate the noise impact by approximately 3 to 4 dB. However, wherever 727 and
737 aircraft depart for comparable route segments, 1he two types of aircraft yield
substantially comparable noise impacts and~ hence~ must both be regarded as the
dominant source of noise impact. Hence, the manufacture of additional Boeing
737-200 ADV of the specific type certificated heretofore under Iz~CFR Part 3&
would add aircraft of the noisiest type to the existing fleet of noisy aircraft.
(_b) The Sta.qe-li 747.
At some airports, notably at the San Francisco International Airport and, more
specifically~ over the City~ the overflight of residential areas in rising terrain, in
conditions of adverse windshear and a sharp iow-altitude temperature inversion,
renders highly loaded Boeing 747 aircraft the dominant source of the highest
single-event noise-exposure levels~ far in excess of those produced by Boeing 727-
200 ADV, Boeing 737-200 ADV, or other aircraft.
IV.
SSF Comment on FAA Docket' No. 23~43. Page
Is a Boeing 737-200 Aircraft Inherently Noisier Than Stage-Ill Aircraft
o-~:an it Be Enabled to Emulate the Noise Characteristics of--
~a.-~lr~craft i_Qn P'~'actical Air'fine Operation?
A recent example of an improvement of the noise characteristics o! the Boeing
737-200 ADV is the .introduction by Western Air Lines of Boeing 737-200 MOD
aircraft, which reportedly embody a daisy-shaped exhaust-p~Pe system and
modifications to the burner section of the engine-. While'thiS modification
apparently does not remove the aircraft so equipped from t)~e "Stage-Ii"
certification category~ it would appear that such aircraft approach closely the
noise performance of some Stage-Ill-certificated aircraft when the comparison is
not based on the EPNLs measured in the laboratory-like circumstances of FAR-3¢
airworthiness certification tests~ but on the actual performance of tl~ aircraft in
the real-world conditions of a noise-sensitive airport.
Specifically, the DC-%80 is a Stage-Ill aircraft which, were it actually flown in
airline practice to the specifications on airplane configuration and.' airspeed and
engine-power management adhered to during its FAR-3~ oirworthiness
certification tests, would be spectacularly superior to its Stage-l$ predecessor
types. In fact~ however~ the practical and safety considerations obtaining in actual
airline operations reduce the margin of noise superiority of that aircraft in actual
airline operation from "spectacular" (approximately 10dB) to '~ignificant"
(approximately zt to 5 dB).
Yet~ accurate noise monitoring by the County of Santa Ana~ at its John Wayne
Airport in Orange County~ California~ has demonstrated that the noise performance
of the Stage-Il Western Air l_'ines Boeing 737-200 MODs 'in actual o~oeration~ is
virtually identical with that of Stage-Ill DC-~-80 air&raft.operated I~ experienced
and capable operators such as AirCal and PSA and t~heir pilots (see l:~hibit B); it
would appear that the quieter operation of Boeing 737-200 MOD oi~craft could
remove the Boeing 737 from its present participation in the cat~ of noise-
dominant aircraft.
It follows, in the opinion of the City~ that a regulatory compulsion.. I1~ make the
continued manufacture of Stage-Il aircraft contingent on the practical
achievement of improved real-world noise charateristics of' such (~rcraft that
emulate the real-world noise characteristics of Stage-Iii aircraft w~d be more
effective and more beneficial than a cessation of the manufacture ~)f all such
aircraft based solely on their pertinence to the formal "Stage-Il,' certification
category. .
V,
Are the Boeinq 737-200 Airplane and its Subtypes of Any. Particular
or Unique Value~ Assuminq That They Can Be EnabTed to Emulate
~-~aqe-IiI Noise Characteristics in Practical Airline op~r-ation?
The City notes the following excerpt from the testimony of its Aviatizm Safety and
Noise Consultant~ Dr. Maurice A. Garbell, entitled "Limits of Fligb! Safety in
Noise-Abatement Takeoff Procedures," submitted on behalf of the Cit~, ,3t the FAA
Transport Airplane Takeoff Performance Requirements Conference in Seattle,.
Washington, on November !~;, 198 !.
SSF Comment on FAA Docket No. 239/~3. Page
~' 12. End of the Line ?
Quite evidently~ there is a limit to the attainment of noise abatement
through safe and effective takeoff and climb procedures. Further
noise abatement at the source, by the introduction of aircraft ~dth
quieter engines, which has contributed the most striking gains in the.
operation of heavy ]et aircraft from long runways, appears to be
limited in application to aircraft of the lO0-to-2OO-paSSenger
category on short runways~ having a length of approximately 6.,000
feet. On short runways, especially when runway contamination
and/or a downward gradient of the pavement at some small airports
make reliance on effective reverse thrust after a touchdo~vn
mandatory, aircraft with less then optimal~ reverse-thrust
performance may not be acceptable to air carriers currently equipped
with "reverse-thrust champion~' such as Boeing ?37s and their'
equivalents, regardless of how quiet the new aircraft equipped with
high-bypass-ratio (HBPR) engines might be.
If new quiet and fuel-efficient aircraft with HBPR engines cannot
match the reverse-thrust effectiveness of the Boeing ?3?, then the
Boeing ?3? and its similes will remain in operation "for ever," and
noise abatement for airports with short runways will remain in statu
quo awaiting quiet airscrew-propelled aircraft for their further
progress.
The difficulty in providing HBPR aircraft with high-reverse-thrust
capability is fully appreciatdd. However, the need must be met, if
the pressure for extreme noise-abatement flight procedures by
today's generation of aircraft is to be relaxed. ~
The City is aware of current endeavors to provide the Stage-Ill Boe~.ng 737-300
airplane with effective thrust-reversal capability. However, until the thrust-
reversal problem for the HBPR engines is fully resolved, it would appear that a
prohibition of manufacture, registration, or operation in the United States
conditioned on Stage-Iii type reqistration would apparently be ineffective and
harmful to aircraft manufacturers, air carriers, and small communities that are
dependent on air transportation as an almost exclusive link to the outside world.
The City does urge, however, that the continued manufacture, registration, and
operation in the United States of Stage-I! aircraft, at least over a transitional
period, be made contingent on their fulfillment of suitable noise-performance'
standards, as yet to be established, in actual airline operation at noise-sensitive
airports, such as, for example, the John Wayne Airport, the San Francisco
International Airport, and the Palm Beach International Airport, and that a
prohibition be regulated by the FAA against aircraft and aircraft operations that
cannot meet such performance standards.
The City notes that such reliance on the real-world performance of aircraft and
aircraft flight procedures at a criterial airport is not unprecedented, in fact, the
City notes that the dominant factor in the deliberations of the said FAA Transport
Airplane Takeoff Performance Requirements Conference in Seattle, Washingtor~,
November I~;, 1981, was indeed the real-world performance of air-carrier aircraft
at the John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California~ and not the performance
of the respective aircraft types recorded during the 'airworthiness type-
certification tests under FAR 3~;.
I.
.
SSF Comment on FAA Docket' No. 23943. Page 5.
Responses to the six specific questions posed by the FAA:
Economic reasonableness ond technolc~jicol practicability of the proposal.
(a) Economic Reasonableness.
Comparisons between the operating costs of Stage-il Dc-~-SO and Stage-Ill DC-5~-
80 (MD-80) aircraft and comparisons between the operating costs of Stage-Ii
Boeing 727 and Stage-Iii Airbus aircraft (with adjustment for differences in payload
and range) appear to indicate persuasively that Stag~-lll aircraft' are economically
far superior to Stage-II aircraft over the full anticipated lifetime and even the
early service period of either aircraft.
.
The only area' in which Stage-ii aircraft ore operationally indispensable at this time
is the afar,described operation into "bush" airports with short, frequently
contaminated, and perhaps downwardly sloping, runways.
(b) Technoloqicol practicability.
Stage-Ill aircraft and their HBPR powerplonts already exist and are fully
practicable. Their safety of operation has been proved so fully that the FAA is
currently contemplating the removal of over-water limitations her.afore imposed
on two-engine aircraft. Initial thermal-stress problerr~s in their engine cores
manifested in short-segment-flight high-cycle operations have reportedly been
resolved by the industry.
Concurrently, Stage-il aircraft with modified powerplonts, capable of emulating
the real-world noise performance of at least some Stage-.Ill aircraft, already exist
and are fully practicable.
Conclusion:
A total halt in the manufacture of oil Stage-Il aircraft types might lead to the
acceleration of the production of' Stage-III aircraft types. Economic advantages of
such an acceleration would, inure to some segments of the air-carrier industry,
whereas negative impacts could harm other segments of the air-carrier industry
and the aircraft-manufacturing industry. Yet, if a regulatory determination were
made that would oblige the industry to terminate the production of practically
noisy aircraft and to produce only practically less noisy aircraft of the Stage-Il
types, the practical objective of the N.O.I.S.E./rAOCI could be met without a
harmful impact on the manufacturing industry and the air-carrier industry.
Appropriateness o_.~f excludinq jet airplanes, under 75,000 ..pounds from the proposed
limitations.
The City is not aware of a severe noise impact on its own residents by jet transport
airplanes under 75,000 lb. However, the City is informed by its aviation and noise
consultant that such impact does burden cities elsewhere, notably the City of West
Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, Florida, and the City of Newport Beach,
California. It would, therefore, appear appropriate to include civil turbojet'-
powered transport-category airplanes under 75,000 lb in the proposed limitations..
SSF Comment on FAA Docket No. 239'z~3' Page
Inasmuch as the City urges reliance on actually prevailing~ real-world, noise
performance of-airplanes, and not on the results of laboratory-like product-
certification tests under FAR 3~;, the foci' 1hat civil turbojet-powered transport-
category airplanes under 75,000 lb are not currently subjecl to the regulations
under FAR 36, should not impede the c~pplical'ion of a perI~inent production cut-off
regulation to such aircraft.
.
Equity. of ailowinq export of noisy airplanes that wop. ld_not b_~e allowed to be
operated into the U.S.
The measure of noise sensitivity of geographic areas outside the United States
varies greatly and, in any event, is subject to its assessment and regulation by
other national governments. C;overnments and air carriers outside the United
States have not hesitated, in the past, to place a practical ban on the noisy
operation of U.S.-built aircraft by re-exporting the offending aircraft' back to the
United States (note the disposal of the excessively noisy DC-D-50 aircraft by
SWISSAIR).
it would only appear fair that the United States protect its own citizens in a
comparable manner, provided that due notice is given to foreign purchasers of
aircraft that are to be exported with the stipulation that said aircraft would not be
allowed to operate in the United States.
Date of applicability for the proposed rule and aircraft t)~pes
to which the rule would be applied.
A review of the current state of the 'production technology and foreseeable
economic impact of an early cut-off of production ale noisy Stage-Il aircraft'
suggests that the proposed rule could be made applicable as of January !, 1986,
both for airplane types currently subject to FAR 36 and for airplane types having a
certificated gross weight of less than 75,000 lb, provided that the aircraft types be
categorized in accordance with their ability, or inability, to emulate, the noise
performance of Stage-Iii aircraft in [~eal-world operation at cfi!,rial noise-
sensitive airports and not merely in terms of the laboratory-like airworthiness
type-certification tests under FAR 3~;.
.
Effect o_.~n foreiqn commerce and~ particularly o._~n foreiqn air commerce.
This issue is beyond the immediate concern of the City. However, the action by
SWISSAIR described hereinbefore manifests the view of foreign air carriers and
governments that the protection of their own peoples against excessive noise (]nd
the interest of their national airline is paramount. Moreover, a noise-mitigating
modification for the remaining FAR-3~; Stage-Il aircraft types already exists, (]nd
comparable noise-improved models of types of aircraf! certificated to o gross
weight of less than 75,000 lb also exist, so that a real-world noise criterion could
be met, if a Stage-II! certification under FAF{ 36 could not be satisfied. Hence, the..
effect on foreign commerce and particularly on foreign air commerce could be
reduced to near-zero.
SSF Comment on FAA Docket No. 23943- P~je 7.
Means of identification and enforcement o_[f proposed operalinq rule on
~ ..i,...
forei.cln_ owned and operated airplanes.
This question goes beyond the purview of the City of South, San. FronciSco~
California, but touches on subjects that apparently have already been resol've~ with
reference to the identification and enforcement of other Federal ~,viation
Regulations' with regard to the operation of foreign-owned and fore[gn-oDmrat~
airplanes on United States airports. Specific identification of types and sui~-ype of
existing airplane models is made as a matter of rouline in: the listings,; of the
Official Airline Guide (OAG) and in the printouts of computer-generated flight
plans and flight strips by Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs)~ of the
Federal Aviation Administration.
..
The City of South San FranCisco, California, is pleased to submit' the foregoing
comments as a municipal corporation that is profoundly concerned over the i~t of
aircraft noise on its citizens and residents. -The City is willing to provide oclditional
information and clarification of its views in this matter and to participate thereby~ in the
rule-making process.
Class
LEN dB (A)
I
ZRH: 101+
GVA: 97+
II
ZRH: 98-100
GVA:94-96
III
ZRH:
95-97
GVA:
91-93
IV
91-94
GVA:
87-90
v
ZRH:
90 or
less
GVA:
86 or
less
Allocation of
CH AIC
·
· .~
'-' .Table I
Airplane Types to
136/83, eff.. April I, 1984.
·
.
t¢oise
Cateqories,
ZRH = Zurich.
_ _ _
GVA = Geneva-Cointrin.
Airplane Type
and Model
DC-8-20/30/40
Airplane Type
and Model -
B-707-100 'through -400
BAC VC-10 (l100)/Super (1156)''
DC-8--50
I{S-.I21 Trident 1E/2E
B-707-100B/- 300B/- 300C
B-720 "
B-727-200 ADV (JT8D-15/17)
B-737-200 ADV (JT8D-15/17)
*SAC 111-200/-300/-400/-500/-..539
*DC-8-61-F/-CF . .
DC-8-63-F/-CF
*B-720B
B-727-100/-200
B-737-100/-200
Convair CV-990A
DA-01 Mercure Series-100 ·
DC- 8-62 (-CF)
DC-9-10/-20/-30 (Exc -34
Fokker-VFW F-28, Series 1-6000
· Gulfstream II/III
Hansa Jet HFB-320
HS-125 Series-400/-600 (RR Viper)
Airbus A-300 B2-100/-200/-300
Airbus A-300 B4 -100/--200
*Airbus A-300. C4
Airbus A-310-200
B-737-200 ADV/Mixed
*B-737-300
B-747-100 (-F)/200 (-B/-C/-F) /
/SP/300 SUD
B-757-200
B-767-200-
BAe-146-100/200
Canadair. CL-600/CT,-600E
Oessna Citatio~ Series-I/-II/-III
Corvette $R-601-100
* New Classification.
*DC--9-34/40/50 HS--106 Comet -4B/-4C
*HS-19.1 .Tr id ent--lC/- 3B*Ilyushin IL-76-M/-T/-SC*Ilyushin IL-86
SE-210 - 3/--6N/--6R
Tupolev TU 134;%
*'I lyush i n - IL-62-1~
Jetcommander 11..21
Jetstar L-1329 MK-1/MK-2
{JT12A)
*Lear j et IA{-20
~Pia99io PD-808
~.Sabreliner NA-265, Se[ies
-40/-60A (JTi2A)
SE- 210-10B/-1OR/-llR/-12
Tupolev TU-154 --A/-B-B2
Westwin4 IAI-1123 (CJ 610)
Yakovlev YAK-4[~
DC-8-70
DC-9-80
DC-'i 0-10/- 30/- BOER/- 40.
Falcon -10/-20/-50
Fokker VFW-614
*HS-125-600/-700 (TFE 731)
Jetstar L-1329/MK-2 (TFE 73~
Lear jet LR-30/--50
*Lockheed L-1011-385 Ser.
1-10~/-200/-500
*Mitsubishi MU-BOO Diamond 1:
Morane MS-.760
*Sabreliner NA-265 Ser~65-80
Yakovlev MAK- 4,2 "
Exhibit A
JOHN ¥'~AYNE AIRPORT
18741 AIRPO~'[° WA'V NORTH
(714) 834-2400
MURR¥ L CABLE
A~ RPOI/alT MANAGE R
POISE ABATEMEN'i~ PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
October
For the period
1983 through Dacember 31, 1983.
Prepared in Accordance with_
AIRPORT NOISE STAND~fRD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
o
Submitted by
Hurry L. Cable
Airport.}~nager
John Wayne Airport
Orange-County
February 15, 1994
Exhibit B!
AVERGE'SIIIGLE EVEHT i'[O'ISE. EXPOSURE LEVELS
OCTOBER '-
· ·
·
.-.
·
.ItDNITOi:: 1 2 3
C'ARP. IER: AitEP,,ICAR AIRLIIIES
4 7
·
AZ~CRAET TYPE ~C~-BO .
Count 444. 432.. 410. 125. 75. 444. 443.
£nersy Ave 96.Z- 89.0 88.3 93.3 BI./ 97.8 97.5 91.5 83.9
·
· CA~RIE~: AI~CAL
L
A]RCRFT TYPE:
Count eiB. COZ. 765..'~81. 43. 817. elY.
·
Enersy Ave 96.7 90.7 87.? 72.? 84.Z ~8.3 ?7.8 71,4 82.5 .
·
.
'.. AIRCRAFT-TYPE: B737 '-'
Count 373. 361. 360. 370. 51, Z96, 392, 366,.
Ener3y A~e ?9.8 92.6 B?.B 100,2 87,0 I0i:7 101.7 94,2 84.7
CAR~IER: FROUTIER AIRLI)IES
AIRCRAFT TYPE: ~Cg-BO
C~un% 388, 360. 322, 156. 77. 3B6. 387. 369, 12,
Ene)'0y Ave 94.4 86,8 8,5.6 72.8 83.6 97.4 96.8 89.7
R~F:CRRFT TYPE: ~7Z7
Coun~ 10. 10. 9. ~. 5. 10. 10 ~ 1
Energy Ave lOO,O 91.1 8~.9 Y5.2 84,0 102.1 103.0 73.8 0.0
.
AIRCRAFT lYPE) ~C?-~0 k
Count 575. 560, 537 ........ 20~ 70 57~
Energy ~ve ?7.B '~0.5 ?0.1 '73.0 B~.I ?B.7 ~B,3. ~I~? B3.0
CARRIER: ~EPU. BLIC AI~LII~ES '~ _-
AI~CEAFT TYPE ~C9-80 '- '
Count 633. 616, 562. 223. 93. 630.- 634, 608. .15. % -
Energy Ave 95.9 BB,6 87.0 .73;.2 83.3 98.4 97.7 89.8.
A1RCRAFT TYPE: DC?' · -
Count 206. 197. 182.. 183. 44. 1206. 205. IY3. 22.
· ~
Ener0y Ave 99.7 89.1 88.2 ?7.7 86.0 102.5 I02.3 92.5 84.5 "
CAP, RIER: UESTER)I AIRLI)!ES
AIP. C~:AFT TYPE: I~737
Count, . 23. 23. 21. 24. 11. 23. 23. 22.
Ener0y Ave ??.6 B?.? 88.4 ?B.3 85.1 102.3 102.'1 93.3 O
-; 'AI£CRAFT 1YPE: )737~ (~O~IFZE~) ~iS~'~l'D~lf8 "~
:tne,~y 6ye ~7_0. B3.2 ~-~ 95_1 B~.5 ~.1 ~6.7~ 91.2 65.9
.
.
:
.
:' 'E~rs7 Ave ~A.3 92.0 :~3.7 9~.1 ~B.~ ~4.~ ?~.!) ~2_0 ~6.1
Proposed Rules.
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contain~ notices to the public of the
proposed issuance of roles and
regulations. The purpose of these notices
is to give interested persons an
opportunity to participate in the rule
making prior to the adoption of the final
roles.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
F~deral Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 36, 47, and 91
[Docket No. 23943; Petition Notice No. PR-
84-3]
Petition for Rule Making of the
National Organization To Insure a
Sound-Controlled Environment and
Airport Operators Council
International; Noise Certification of
Turbojet and Large Transport
Category Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal AViation
Administration [r];',~.}. DOT. '
&C110N: Publication of petition for rule
making; request for comments.
SUMMARY: This notice publishes for
public comment the petition of the
National Organization to Insure a
Sound-Controlled Environment
{N.O.I.S.E) and the Airport Operators
Council International (AOCI) dated
March 16,1984, on behalf of its members
for amendment of Parts 36, 47, and 91 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations [14
CFR Parts 36, 4?, and 91). These parts
relate to airplane noise certification and
operation and prescribe both the noise
level limits for aircraft production and
the rules by which both foreign and
domestically produced aircraft are
registered and operated in the United
States. The N.O.I.S.E./AOCI petition
concerns these rules as they apply to
civil turbojet powered transport
category airplanes greater than 75,000
pounds that have not had any flight time
prior to January 1,1986. Under the rule
proposed in the petition, these aircraft
would be prohibited from being
registered or operated in the U.S. unless
they were Wpe certificated to the Part 36
Stage 3 noise level limits. It should be
noted that aircraft already in the fleet
before January 1,1986, would not be
affected by the proposed rule.
The petition would involve
rulemaking similar to that promulgated
hy the FAA in 1973 (Amendments 36-2
and 21-39, published in 38 FR 29569,
October 26, 1973), wherein further
issuance of U.S. certificates of
airworthiness were denied after
December 31. 1973 to large turbojets
powered by all engines except the JT3D
and after December 31. 1974 for those
powered by that engine. However, the
petitioners' proposal would, if enacted,
have some additional features. First, it
would not inhibit continued production
of the older, noisier airplanes by U.S.
manufacturers for export purposes.
Second, it would prohibit 'registration in
the U.S. of foreign as well as U.S. built
aircraft not .meeting the requirement.
Third, the petition proposes to bar
noncomplying aircraft from landing or
taking off from any airport in the U.S.
This latter proposal would specifically
affect foreign operators.
The FAA believes the petition should
be published verbatim in order to fully
expose it for public comment and to
ensure full consideration of the issues
raised. The notice sets forth the contents
of the petition as received by the FAA
without change, and its publication in
accordance with FAA procedures
governi~{g the processing of petitions for
rule making does not represent an FAA
position on the merits of the petition or
an FAA proposal to amend the current
noise rules.
DANS: Comments must be received on
or before June 1,1984.
Am)R~SSS:$: Comments on the proposal
may be.mailed in duplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules
Docket (AGC-204), Docket No. ~943,
800 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington. D.C. 20591
or delivered in duplicate:
Room 916, 800 Independence Avenue.
SW.. Washington, D.C. 20591
Comments delivered must be marked:
Docket No. 23943. Comments may be
inspected at Room 916 between 8:30 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Tedrick, Noise Policy and
Regulatory Branch (AEF-I10) Noise
Abatement Division, Office of
Environment and Energy, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone
755-9027.
13375
Federal Register
Vol, 49, No. 66
Wednesday. April 4, 1984
.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to
submit such written data. views, or
arguments on the petition for rule
making as they may desire.
Communications should identify the
docket or petition notice number and be
submitted in duplicate to the address for
submitting comments indicated above
under the "ADI~ESS~S." All
communications received on or before
the closing date for comments will be
considered by the FAA before taking
action on the petition for rule making.
All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the Rules
Docket both before and after the closing
date for comments,'
Issues
The N.O.I.S.E./AOCI petition raises
issues concerning 'the stringency of the
noise certification requirements
applicable to current and future
production aircraft, the FAA's role in
mitigating noise impacts around local
airports, and distribution of the costs of
mitigating those impacts. Therefore,'
rather than publishing a synopsis, it is
believed that public comments on 'the
full text of-the petition would be helpful. ·
To assist the F,tS~ in its review of the
petition, comments are specifically
welcomed on the following matters
concerning the petition:
1. Econcmic reasonableness and
technological practicability of the
proposal.
2. Appropriateness of excluding jet
airplanes under 75,000 pounds from the
proposed limitations.
3. Equity of allowing export of noisy
airplanes that would not be allowed to
operate into the U.S.
4. Date of applicability for the
proposed rule and aircraft types to
'which the rule would be applied.
, 5. Effect on foreign commerce and
particularly on foreign air commerce.
6. Means of identification and
enforcement of proposed operating rule
on foreign owned and operated
airplanes.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 36
Noise standards. Aircraft type.
Airworthiness certification.
14 C~R Port 47
Aircraft registration.
13376 Federal RegiSter ! Vol. 49, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 4, 1984 /.Proposed Rules
14 CFR Port 91
Operating noise limits.
The Pefitkm
Accordingly. th~ Federal Aviation
Administratioa publishes verbatim for
public comment the following petition
for rule makin~ from the National
Organization to Insure a Sound-
Controlled Environment and the Airport
Operators Council International, dated
March 16, 1984.
Issued in Washington on March 29, 1984.
John H. Cassady,
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and'
Enforcement Division.
Petition for Rulemaking Noise
Standards, Aircraft Type, Registration,
.~.]rworihiness Certification
Requested By: National Orgonizotioa To
Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
[~o./.s.E.)
Airport Operators Council International
(AOCI)
1.0 Summary.
This petition requests amendments to
the Federal Aviation Regulations that
would effectively end the production of
those turbojet-powered transport
category airplanes that do not comply
with Stage 3 noise standards of FAR
Part 36 and are to be operated in or into
the United States. These amendments
are requested to bring the regulations
into conformance with available noise
reduction technology and to bring future
relief and protection to the public health
and welfare imm aircraft noise in
accordance with Pub. L. 92-574.
Several million residents in
communities near airports are suffering
unacceptable levels of noise exposure
from the operations of the present jet
transport fleet, 93 percent of which are
airplanes of older noise control
technology {Stage I and 2 technology}.
Stage 2 airplanes are the primary source
of the noise problem: They are by far the
most nUmerous, they include short-to-
mediUm range airplanes that operate
frequently, and they include designs
with high noise levels.
Although FAA regulations now in
· place will end the operation of Stage .1
airplanes by 1988, present regulations
permit the continued production of noisy
· Stage 2 airplanes indefinitely. FAA
forecasts indica'te that many of the
Stage 2 airplanes presently in the fleet
will continue operation into the next
century. The continued addition of
newly produced Stage 2 airplanes to the
'fleet, exacerbating the noise problem,
will prolong the date of relief from the
present unacceptable noise levels for an
indefinite time into the next century.
As the FAA has earlier recognized, ~ a
major precondition of responsive local
land-use decisions around airports 'is
Federal action to firmly contain, at
predictable and definable levels, the
source of aviation noise. Without_such
Federal activity, local land-use
decisions are jeopardized and a firm
basis for airline and airport planning is
lacking. Moreover, as the FAA earlier
recognized, the continued production of
older aircraft designs is an economic
disincentive to investment in new,
quieter types of aircraft.
It is recognized that the production of
Stage 2 airplanes should be ended only
when a variety of economical, quieter
Stage 3 airplanes is available for
purchase by the airlines. The point has
now been reached where Stage 3 '
airplanes in a complete spectrum of
payload and range capabilities are
available. In addition, studies conducted
jointly by the FAA and other member
groups of the Committee on Aircraft
Noise {CAN) of the International Civil
Aviation Organization {ICAO] show
that large operating cost savings can be
realized by an accelerated conversion of
purchases to those of Stage 3 airplanes.
This petition therefore requests the
adoption of amendments to the Federal
~.viation Regulations that would
e£.%ctive!y end by January 1, 1986 the
production of Stage 2'jet transport
airp!anes for operation in the United
States.
2.0 Proposed ru/e /anguage.
2.1 Add a new paragraph (4) to Part
36, Subpart A, Section 36.1(d) as follows:
[4) The provisions of this Part in effect
on (date of NPRM] except that for civil
turbojet transport category airplanes
with maximum weights greater than
75,000 lbs. that have not had any flight
time prior to January 1, 1986 compliance
must be shown with Stage 3 noise limits.
2.2 Add a new Section number 47.4
to Part 47, Subpart A as follows:
47.4 In addition to the other
requirements, of Part 47, Subparts A and
B, for the issuance of a Certificate of
Aircraft Registration in effect on {date of
NPRM) compliance must be shown with
the Stage 3 noise limits and with the
noise measurement and evaluation
procedures for Stage 3 airplanes in Part
36 in effect on {date of NPRM] for civil
subsonic turbojet airplanes with
maximum weights of more than 75,000
lbs. that have not had any flight time
before January 1, 1986.
'2.3 Modify paragraph 9.301{a)[1] of
Part 91, Subpart E to read as follows:
[1) Sections 91.302, 91.303, 91.305,
91.306, 91.307 and 91.312 apply to civil
o
~ Peramble t'o Amendment 38-2 of Part 36,
October 19,1973.
subsonic turbojet airplanes with
maximum weights of more than 75,000
lbs. and
2.4 Add a new Section to Part 91.
Subpart E as follows:
91.312 Airplanes newly produced
after January 1, 1986. No person may
land or take off an airplane that is
covered in Section 91.301{a}{1} and tl~t
has not had any flight time before
January 1, 1986, unless that airplane has
been shown to comply with the Stage 3
noise limits and the noise measurement
and evaluation procedures prescribed
for Stage 3 airplanes in Part 36 in effect
on [date of NPRM].
3.0 Petitioners' interests.
The National Organization To Insure
a Sound-controlled Environment
{N.O.I.S.E.} is a national organization
composed of local governments of cities
and counties whose residents are
involuntary aviation noise consumers.
These include, among others,
Minneapolis, and St. Paul, MN, near
Minneapolis St. Paul International
Airport; Aurora, CO, near Denver
St.apleton International Airport;
Inglewood, CA, near Los Angeles
International Airport; College Park and
Forest Park near Atlanta's Hartsfield
International Airport; Hempstead, N.Y ..
near ]ohn. F. Kennedy International
Airport. The petition is submitted in
response to pressures from the noise
impacted residents of our cities and
counties who are demanding
appropriate technological and regulatory
action for relief.
Airport Operators Council
International {AOCI} is the association
of the governmental bodies which own
and operate the principal airports in the
United States, as well as in many
countries abroad. AOCI members, such
as those listed in the attachment, serve
metropolitan regions in the United
States which encompass the vast
majority of citizens which are presently
subjected to aircraft noise. Our U.S.
member airports annually enplane more
than 90 percent of the domestic and
virtually all of the U.S. international
scheduled airline passenger and cargo
traffic. In addition, our local government
members operate many reliever and
'other general aviation facilities which
supplement the large airports in their
communities and regions. 4.0 Discussion.
Pub. L. 90-411. enacted by the
Congress in 1968, directs the FAA to '
prescribe and amend regulations for the
control and abatement of aircraft noise.
and, in doing so, to consider whether
any proposed standard or regulation is
economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and
13378
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No: 66 / Wednesday, April 4, 1984 / Proposed Rules
technology at the earliest practicable
time:
(1) Airport neighbors will enjoy
welcome relief from excessive noise
levels. ~
[2} Airlines will 'enjoy lower operating
costs which can help reduce air fares
paid by the travelling public.
[3} Manufacturer's investments in new
technology designs will be compensated.
[PR Doc. 84.8715 Filed 4-3-04; 8:45 em]
BILLING CODE #10-1~.M
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMI881ON
17 CFR Plrte 3, 4 end 140
Commodity Pool Opemtor~ end
Commodity Trading Advleort;
Exemption From Registration lad
From Subpart B of Part 4 for Certain
Otherwi~e Regulated Per~ons lad
Other Regulatory Requlremente
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules~ extension of
comment period.
SOMMARY:'On February 8, 1984, the
Federal Resister published the
Commission's proposed amendments to
Parts 3, 4 and 140 of its regulations. 49
FR 4778. Among other thirds, these
proposals would exempt certain
otherwise regulated persons from
regulation as a commodity pool
operator. The comment period on the
proposed amendments will expire on
April 9, 1984.
The Commission has received several
requests for an extension of the
comment period. Because the
Commission wishes to be certain that all
parties have an opportunity to finalize
and submit their comments, it is
allowing an additional 30 days for
comment. °
DAleS: Accordingly, notice is hereby
given that all comments on the
Commission's proposed amendments to
Part 3, 4 ~nd 140 of its regulations (49 FR
4778, February 8, 1984) must be
submitted by May 9, 1984.
-FOR FuRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
Barbara R. Steru, Special Counsel for.
Commodity Pool Operators and
Commodity Trading Advisors, {202) 254-
8955.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 30,
1984.
Jane K. Stuckey,
Secretar~ of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 84--8~83 Filed 4-4-~; &45 em]
BI~ (~X)E ~361-01.-M '
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Comml~lon
18 CFR PErt 271 ,
[Dm:kot No. RM79.-76-227 C41omdo-1
Ame~lment III]
High-Colt Gas Produced From Tight
Formetion~; Notice of Propoeed
Rulemaklng
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulator,
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY:. The Federal Regulatory
Commission is authorized by section
10~[c][5] of the Natural Gas Policy Act
of 1978,15 U.S.C. 3301-3432 [1982), to
designate certain t~es of natural Sas as
high-cost sas where the Commission
determines that the 8as is produced
under conditions which present
extraordinary risks or costs. Under
section 107[c]{5], the Commission issued
a f'mal regulation desiguatins natural
gas produced from tight formations as
high-cost gas which may receive an
incentive price (18 CFR 271.703 [1983]].
This rule established procedures for
jurisdictional agencies to submit to the
Commission recommendations of areas
for designation as tight formations. This
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the
Director of the Office of Pipeline and
Producer Regulation contains the
recommendation of the State of
Colorado that portions of the ] Sand
Formation originally excluded by the
Commission in Order No. 124 be
included in the designated tight
formation under § 271.703[d].
DAT~: Comments on the proposed rule
are due on May 16, 1984. Public Hearing:
No public hearing is scheduled in this
docket as yet. Written requests for a
public hearing are due on April 13, 1984.
ADDRESS: Comments and requests for
hearing must be filed with the Office of
the Secretary, 825 North Capitol Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
FOR FuRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.
Leslie Lawner, (202} 357-8511, or Victor
Zabel, [202) 357-8616
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In the matter of High-Cost Gas
Produ~d from Tight Formations; Docket'
No. RM79-76-227, (Colorado-1
Amendment III).
-ISsued: March 22, 1984.
I. Background
On February 24, 1984, the State of
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission [Colorado] submitted to the
Commission a recommendation, in
accordance with § 271.703 of the
Commission's resulations (18 CFR
271.703 [1983]], that certain lands
previously excluded from the ] Sand
Formation be desisnated as a tisht
formation pursuant to § 271.?03[d]. The ]
Sand Formation underlies portions of
Adams, Boulder and Weld Counties in
north central Colorado. The Commission
adopted, in part, Colorado's
recommendation of JUly 9,1980, that the
] Sand Formation be designated as a
tight formation in Order No. 124, issued
January 23, 1981, in Docket No, RM79-76
(Colorado-I]. The description of the
area as designated appears in
§ 271.?03(d][11] of the Commission's
regulations. In Order No. 124, the
Commission excluded certain lands
contained in Colorado's
recommendation fTom the designation
under § 271.?03(c)(i][D), because it found
that these areas had been subject to
infill drilling orders, and informatiOn in
Colorado's recommendation indicated
that these areas could be developed
absent the incentive price for tight
fro'marion gas. A description of the
excluded acreage appears in the .
appendix to Order No. 124, in Docket
No. RM?9-?6 (Colorado-Il.
Colorado's recommendation contains
economic data detailing current well
development costs within the ] Sand
Formation. Colorado proposes that
twelve 320-acre non-contiguous drilling
units now be included in the tight
formation designation. Eleven of these
units were excluded by the Commission
in Order No. 124 and the twelfth unit, S
~ of Section 8, ToWnship 2 North,
Range 67 West, was' not excluded by
Order No. 124 but should have been '
excluded because of infill drilling.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
· issued under § 271.703(c](4] to determine
whether Colorado's recommendation
that the ] Sand Formation be desiguated
a tight formation should be adopted
amending § 271.703(d)(11] to add certain
lands to the Wattenberg ] Sand tight
formation area. Colorado's
recommendation and supporting data
are on file with the Commission and are
available for public inspection.
II. Description of Recommendation
The units which Colorado"
recommends are located in Township 1
North, Range 66 West, Section ?, S~:
Township 1 North, Range 67-West,
Section 18, N1/*; Township 2 North,
Range 67 West, W~t of Section 2, S~ of
Section 8, WYs of Section 9, N~ of
Section 17, N¥s of Section 18, E~t of
Section 32; Township 3 North, Range 66
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 66 ] Wednesday. April 4. 1984 ] Proposed Rules
appropriate for the particular type of
aircraft to which it will apply.
One of the earliest responses of the
FA ~, to this direction was th~
promulgation in 1969 of the first aircraft
noise standards, which became a
prerequisite for the issuance of aircraft
type certificates. Aircraft of earlier
designs, which were not able to meet
new noise standards, are called Stage 1
airplanes, and airplanes that meet the
1969 standards are called Stage 2
airplanes.
While it had been determined that
economically reasonable technology
was available to support Stage 2
standards for new designs in 1969, it had
not been determined, at that time. that it
was technologically or economically
practicable to restrict the continued
production of the earliel' Stage 1 designs.
However, by 1973, it was determined
~hat the production lines could be
economically converted to meet Stage 2
standards. The production of Stage 1
designs was therefore effective!y ended
by an amendment of Part 36 effective in
December 1973.
By 1977, the FAA had determined that
further developments in noise reduction
technology had become available and
could support even more stringent noise
standard for airplanes of new design.
Accordingly, more stringent standards
(Stage 3 standards] were adopted and
made applicable to new designs for
which applications for type certificates
were made after November 1975.
Although Stage 3 airplanes (1) are
now ,~vailable from aircraft
manufacturers in a complete spectrum of
payload and range capabilities, (2] have
demonstrated lower fuel consumption
and lower operating costs, and (3] have
demonstrated noteworthy' reductions in
Stage 2 airport community noise
exposure, the FAA, in contrast with the
action taken in 1973, has not yet acted to
end the production or earlier and noisier
airplane designs. Regulations that
permit the uncontrolled, unlimited
production of Stage 2 designs thus fall
short of regulations ..... to provide
for the control ..... of aircraft noise,
in accordance with the requirements of
Pub. L. 92-574.
Because of their numbers, the
frequency of their landings and takeoffs.
and their high source noise levels, Stage
2 airplanes are the primary source of
annoyance in communities around
airports today. These airplanes
represent 78 percent of the 1983 fleet of
iet transports. Of the total fleet, the
short-to-medium range twinjets and
trijets of older noise technology are
responsible for more than five times as
many operations as all other types.
1337'7
The later model short-to-medium
range Stage 2 twinjets and trijets
produced during the past 10 years (e.g..
DC-~9. B727. B')'37 airplanes) have
become especially noisy. Due to
increases in operating weights and
engine power, these airplanes expose
more people to annoying levels than
their Stage 2 prototype designs that
began operating 18 years ago.
Calculations of land areas that are
exposed to annoying noise levels and
that lie outside typical airport
bo;mdaries show that Stage 2 Boeing
727.-200 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9-
50 airplanes expose 46 percent more
area that their lower-powered
predecessors. On the other hand. noise
levels demonstrated for Stage 3
airplanes, now in production and
designed for the short-to-medium range
service responsible for the most frequent
operations show large reductions
relative to the order technology
airplanes. FAA Advisory Circular 36--3C
indicates reductions ranging from 5 to 17
decibels at takeoff and from 2 to 14
decibels at landing approach. Published
airport noise monitor data for short to
medium range airplanes designed for
comparable service indicate reductions
of 11 decibels at takeoff and 7 decibels
at landing approach.
Airport neighbors will perceive
welcome relief when such noise
reductions are experienced. It is
commonly recognized that a reduction of
10 decibels is perceived as a 50%
reduction in noisiness. This will result in
major reductions of noise levels and
noise impacted areas around airports. A
study by the Los Angeles Department of
Airports. for example, shows that the
total area of sensitive residential
property impacted by operations at
Ontario International if using aircraft
were all Stage 3 would be reduced to
only 11% of that forecast for currently
projected operations in 1985.
More important than acoustical
e.,~pressions such as Ldn or sheer
acreage is the personal human impact of
the individual noise event. Operational
noise that stops conversations inside a
home or interrupts normal activities
such as using a telephone or listening to
a radio or TV is in fact an invasive force
that disrupts family life. The reduction
of 50% or more in noise represented by
even one Stage 3 aircraft replacing a
Stage 2 version means that in every
operation stress and disruption are
.significantly reduced in hundreds of '
thousands of homes.
Until 1980, Stage 3 technology was
available only in large capacity
airplanes powered by high bypass ratio
turbofan engines (e.g., DC-10, (L--1011,
B747. A300). However, Stage 3 airplanes
in a complete spectrum of seating
capacity and range are now in
production or offered by manufacturers
(seating capacities ranging from 90 to
480 and maximum ranges from 700 to
5300 miles). In addition, manufacturers'
data show reduction in fuel consumption
per seat-mile of up to 37 percent for
Stage 3 airplances of equivalent
category.
The FAA recently participated in a
study by an ICAO CAN working group
on the question of effeCtively endi:~g the
production of Chapter 2 airplanes.
("Chapter" is the ICAO equivalent of
"Stage" in FAA nomenclature).
Estimates were made of the additional
number of Chapter 3/Stage 3 airplanes
that would be purchased by airlines if
purchases of Chapter 2/Stage 2
airplanes were terminated by regulation.
Atthou~h the study indicated that a
somewhat increased capital outlay by
the airline industry would be required,
large operating cost savings were
indicated due to the substitution of the
more efficient Chapter 3/Stage 3
airplanes. For the United States fleet, it
was estimated that a 1985 cutoff date
could force a requirement for an
additional capital investment of $19
billion for the period 198~-2000, but it
was estimated that operating cost
savings of $19.0 billion would be
realized in the same period. The report
of the CAN working group noted that the
absolute values of these estimates
naturally depend on the assumptions
made in the study, but it was considered
that the relative values would provide a
reasonat.;le guide to the financial
consequences of any Chapter 2
limitation. Thus, the operating cost
savings could repay the added capital
requirements in about 2 years. The large
magnitude of the estimated surplus of
savings relative to capital costs should
easily accommodate capital or cost
elements that were overestimated,
underestimated, or overlooked, and
should assure adequate access to the
credit markets. ~'
This is more than a theoretical
prediction. Three airlines have recently
placed mixed orders for Stage 2 and
Stage 3 versions of the same medium
range jet passenger aircraft. When
interviewed and asked why they had
placed a mixed order, they all answered:
We did~'t want any Stage 2's. We
wanted all Stage 3's. even if they cost
more. But we had to have some new
planes fairly soon and the manufacturer
couldn't supply the Stage 3 models on
time. We had to take Stage 2's as second
choice to meet our immediate needs.
It is clearly in the public interest to
convert the fleet to all-Stage 3