Airport Noise Act (AIRNOISE Case)

     CASE NUMBER:   290
     CASE MNEMONIC: AIRNOISE
     CASE NAME:     Airport Noise Act

1.   The Issue

     In 1990, the US Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity
Act, SEC. 9301 - 3909.  This legislation set forth the rules and
regulations for all commercial and private aircraft over 75,000
pounds and the airports available to them.  The two issue areas of
most concern to the legislators, as well as the public and the
Environmental Protection Agency were those of noise pollution and
air pollution caused by low flying or grounded aircraft.  It was in
fact the air freight and commercial transportation airlines that
brought these issue before the governement in the hopes of
harmonizing their fleets and stablizing the number of individual
disputes.  While the debate was actively being resolved in the US,
the debate had just begun in the international arena.

2.   Description

     Before 1990, there was very little regulation of airport
traffic outside safety measures.  Many people, especially those
that lived near airports at the time, were in a constant battle
with individual airlines or airports in order to manage the noise
and emissions from aircraft flying over their homes or places of
business.  With no regulation or uniform code provided on the
federal level, each incident or complaint had to be decided on an
individual basis.  This created a situation where all airports had
there own set of particular rules, thus making it virtually
impossible for the larger freight lines and airlines to keep track
of all the different restrictions set by both state and local
governments.

     As the situation only appeared to be getting more and more
chaotic, the 'air' industry recognized the need for nation-wide
standards for airport noise and capacity, and it was in fact the
air industry that pushed for harmonized regulation of these issues. 
As long as the state and local levels had control of regulation,
the industry had no assurance that the rules would not change on a
moments notice.  With the constant possibility of change came
serious economic questions for the industry as it was impossible to
know whether they would be able to use all or even part of their
aircraft for their full economic lives.  No one in the industry was
comfortable buying aircraft that they may not be able to use in
another few years.  Their solution to this problem was to ask the
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to create a set of nation wide
standards.  In 1990, with the assistance of the FAA, the United
States Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, SEC.
9301-3909.  

     The Airport Noise and Capacity Act, as its name would
suggest, is primarily concerned with aircraft noise, not with
emissions.  While it puts the FAA in charge of establishing the
regulations for aircraft noise, it does not give the federal level
absolute jurisdiction to supersede state and local governments as
the industry had originally hoped.  It has, however, been very
successful in eliminating most complaints, and many state and local
authorities have found it either suits their needs or makes the
process of creating sub-regulations such a tedious one that it is
not worth the effort.  Overall, the number of complaints has
dropped dramatically.

     The law says that all aircraft over 75,000 pounds must meet
the required levels of quietness by the four deadlines given.  It
is important to note the weight exemption because it includes a
large number of aircraft.  Smaller planes, like those used by
American Eagle and the USAir shuttle, as well as most private
aircraft, are in fact under 75,000 pounds and have no regulations
applied to them.  These craft make up a large percent of many
airport's total traffic.  In some cases, they have been excluded
because they do not make enough noise to cause concern, and in
other cases the necessary retrofitting and upgrade would be a large
enough cost as to make the change impossible or just economically
inpractical to all parties.

     The levels of noise are measure in three stages, with Stage 3
craft being the quietest.  The law sets out the deadlines as
follows:

* By December 31, 1994: Either 25% of Stage 2 craft have to have
been removed from the fleet, or 55% of the total fleet must meet
Stage 3 requirements.

* By December 31, 1996: Either 50% Stage 2 out or 65% Stage 3 in

* By December 31, 1998: Either 75% Stage 2 out or 75% Stage 3 in

* By December 31, 1999: Entire fleet must be Stage 3

     When these standards were set in 1990, it provided the
necessary guidelines for the industry to be able to purchase new
aircraft and know that it would be able to use that aircraft for
its full economic life.  Meeting these requirements does not seem
to be a problem for the large majority of companies within the
industry.  There have been several requests for extensions of
deadlines by the newer airlines that boast the cheaper fares. 
These fares are in large part due to the fact that these airlines
buy their planes used and in many cases believed they could apply
for a continuance claiming they cannot afford to retrofit their
fleet's engines.  In every single one of these cases, the FAA has
rejected all applications for deadline extensions.  On the other
hand, Burlington Air Express and Southern Air Transport are
examples of two air freight corporations that are already 100%
Stage 3, and USAir and UPS will also be 100% well before the
deadline in the year 2000.  

     Generally speaking, this is thought of as very good
legislation.  Both sides gave a little and got most of what they
wanted.  In the case of the FAA, the skies are quieter, and for the
industry, the have the economic assurances they needed.  While the
legislation has done well, there have been areas of controversy. 
To begin with, this act only deals with the issue of noise, not
emissions.  Regulation of emission was given to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the Clean Air Act.  While there would
not seem to be a direct area of conflict, there has been problems
between the FAA regulations and the EPA.  To begin with, in order
to create the quieter aircraft, it is necessary to either retrofit
or develop new engines, which has the simultaneous effect of
changes what levels of emissions come from these engines.  The two
issues are directly related, but there is very little cooperation
between the EPA and the FAA because of their different political
and beuraucratic compositions.

     Some view the FAA's jurisdiction as misplaced, and hold that
it should be transferred to the EPA, as they are meant to deal
exclusively with environmental issues.  In opposition to this
transfer stands most of the air freight and airline industry which
would like to se the emissions issue be given to the FAA, an
organization that has proven effective and cooperative in dealing
with the industry while still being environmentally friendly.  The
industry generally views the FAA as its ally in these matters and
has a strong working relationship with them.  If it were to
transfer to the EPA, it might create a log-jam of policy as the EPA
is less likely to know or understand the needs and limits of the
air industry.  Either way you look at it, this system of two
separate federal agencies at cross-purposes creates a great deal
more confusion and contradiction than should be allowed to occur.

     While the United States was enacting the legislation discussed
above, the international community was also looking into the issue
of noise and air pollution in and around airports.  The
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a body within the
United Nations system, had established the Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP), which was met three times in the
last decade in order to discuss noise and air pollution.  The
majority of the standardized levels of acceptable pollution and
regulations regarding the harmonization of all the member nation's
aircraft to these standards had been discussed during the second
meeting which followed close on the heels of the US legislation. 
It is important to note that on the international level, the issues
of noise AND emissions are being dealt with simultaneously within
one organization.  After the Second Meeting of the CAEP, the
General Assemble of the ICAO in 1992 adopted the Strategic Action
Plan which stated that the goal of the organization should be to
"minimize the environmental impact of international civil aviation,
in a manner that is acceptable on a global basis." (1)  

     The third and most recent meeting was held in Montreal on
December 5-15, 1995 and was important as it shows that there is
still further work to be done.  During his Opening Address, the
President of the CAEP discussed the problems the Committee has and
will continue to face with regards to both financial and
international political support.  As is commonly the problem with
international environmental groups and organizations, they face the
daunting and often impossible task of trying to create consensus
among peoples, governments, corporations and organizations from
different regions and cultures at all different levels of economic
development.  A further obstacle takes the form of the legitimacy
of international law.  As in most cases, the decisions and works of
the ICAO are considered purely recommendatory within the
international community, unless the member states chose to enact
domestic legislation to meet these recommendation, as has the
United States.

     While the United States and other countries do have some
legislation regarding these issues, this does not mean that they
have reached complete consensus on what further action needs to be
taken.  In Montreal, the CAEP voted on increasing the
stringency of both noise and emissions standards.  There was split
decision regarding the noise provisions, and the emissions issue
boiled down to a 10-4-1 vote in favor of 16% emissions stringency. 
The four desenting votes were the United States, Canada, Russia and
Poland, which makes it very likely that the ICAO will not adopt the
recommendations set forward in the proposal.  There were two key
arguments brought out by the dissenting nations.

     The United States, for one, is very hesitant to enact more
regulations in the international arena because it fears the
repercussions in Europe.  While generally speaking, Europe and the
US are in agreement in these areas, the Europeans tend to enact new
environmental rules must faster than the recommendation calls for
and faster than the US fleets can meet them, leaving the US
industry at a serious disadvantage.  The European reaction is in
large part due to the strong environmental sentiments in the
Scandinavian countries, as well as Germany and The Netherlands. 
The second argument put forward by the dissenting nations was that
further stringency on emissions did not significantly benefit the
environment to justify the enormous economic commitment it would
require.  They also cited the need for the international community
to look beyond the issues of noise and emissions in the protection
of the environment.

      It is likely that the CAEP and the ICAO will also meet with
a great deal of opposition in the larger forum of the entire
international community.  The members of the CAEP are all Western
developed nations, with the exception of Brazil, which is a member
but is also a developing nation.(2)  The lesser developed countries
have the justifiable argument that they had no say in these
decisions regarding the treatment of the global commons and that
the industrialized nations have the necessary technology readily
and more cheaply available than they ever could.

     The counter argument from the developed world is that the
majority of all civil air traffic is either based out of one of
their airports and that the airlines and freight lines of all
nations do use those airports frequently.  Because so much air
traffic is through the airports in industrialized nations, and it
is the areas around the bust airports that suffer the strongest
environmental impacts of the air and noise pollution, than it
should be at their discretion to implement the necessary
regulations to minimize environmental damage.  The underlying
threat to the lesser developed nations is that if they chose not to
adhere to the international guidelines, the may be refused the
right to use the airports in the industrialized world.  A further
incentive to those nations that may not see the need to comply with
the regulations because of the expense of having to update all
their aircraft is the current discussion of the possible
implementation of a system of charges and fines for violators.

      One critique of the international system's ability to deal
with the environmental issues that have become increasingly
important and controversial, is that within the statutes of many of
the relevant organizations and Committees there are specific
limitations as to their ability to go beyond their originally
outlined objectives.  In the case of the CAEP, their guidelines do
not permit the Committee to go beyond looking at possible engine
modifications relating to noise and air pollution.  While these
measured are important, there are other issues relating to air
traffic that must soon be addressed.  These issues include
effective land use planning, air space management, and aircraft
operational
procedures.  

3. Related Cases:

SST Case
MONTREAL Case
CLEAN Case
ECCO2 Case
SULFUR Case

Keywords:
           (1) USA
           (2) REGSTD
           (3) HEALTH

4.  Draft Author: Katharine Harris (April 1996)

B.  LEGAL Cluster

5.  Discourse and Status: AGRand DIS, INPROG

     The issues of the environment and civil aviation is very
current.  While there have been several important agreements to
date, there have also been areas of disagreement.  While the
existing organizations, such as the CAEP, would like to see further
stringency regarding noise and emissions, other groups, including
several key international powers like the United States, would like
to see the field branch into other areas like land use, aircraft
operations standards and air space management.

6.  Forum and Scope: USA AND MULTIlateral

7.  Decision Breadth: 150

     With the creation of the Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation
Organization which is an organization within the United Nations
system, this issue and the decisions regarding it have taken on a
global importance.  If and when these decisions are made and enter
into force, all members of the United Nations will be expected to
comply.

8.  Legal Standing: LAW

     While the United Nations and the ICAO have adopted
numerous proposals and recommendations for the civil aviation
communities within their member states, and for legislation to
regulate these companies and individuals, there have been no
international treaties in these respects.  Some countries, such as
the United States and many European nations, have enacted
domestic legislation to comply with the international standards set
forth, but a large number of countries have not. 

C. GEOGRAPHY

9.  Geography:
     
     Continental Domain:  North America
     Geographic Site:     East North America
     Geographic Impact:   USA

10.  Sub-National Factors: NO

11.  Type of Habitat: AIR

D.  TRADE FILTERS

12.  Type of Measure: Regulatory Standard

     At this time, the only measures taken have been recommended
standardization on the international level.  The idea of imposing
fines and charges for violations of these standards has been put on
the table for further discussion, but at this time no such
impediments exist.

13.  Direct v. Indirect: Indirect

     The measures taken to date have had an indirect, although
substantial impact on the economic entities concerned.  Millions of
dollars have been spent to upgrade or purchase new compliant
aircraft in all of the major fleets of aircraft in the US and
Europe.  The actual frequency of the services provided by the
airlines and air-freight carriers has not been effected though. 

14.  Relation of Measure to Impact

     a.  Directly Related To Product (Service):  NO
     b.  Indirectly Related To Product (Service):  NO
     c.  Not Related To Product (Service):  YES
     d.  Related To Process:  YES

15.  Trade Product Identification: Airlines

16.  Economic Data

     The largest economic impact of these regulations falls to the
corporations and individuals who privately own the fleets or
individual aircraft in question.  As there are so many different
types of economic activities relating to the use of aircraft, an
example of one group would be most illustrative in an economic
analysis.  In this case, the economic impacts and factors relate to
the United State's All Cargo industry, as corporations like the
United Parcel Service and Federal Express have two of the largest
fleets of aircraft in the world.  According to the studies done by
the air-freight industry, the cost to that industry has been
approximately $3 Billion.  According the FAA, the cost to the
industry has been considerably lower, at about $1.5 Billion. These
totals refer to the costs to the individual fleet owners to upgrade
and retrofit the engines that were purchased before the
regulations went into effect, as well as the additional costs built
into the purchase of new engines that meet the standards.

17.  Degree of Competitive Impact: LOW

     The question of competitive impact is difficult to determine
in this case.  The industry, while having to put forward billions
of dollars to meet these environmental standards, pushed for these
measures itself because it saw the possibility of no regulation at
all as even more expensive.  Therefore, it can be argued that the
environmental regulation has in fact held costs constant or even
decreased them.  More specific information is not available.

18.  Industry Sector: SERVICES

19.  Exporter and Importer: MANY

E.  ENVIRONMENTAL CLUSTER

20.  Environmental Problem Type: Pollution Air [POLA]

     The legislation and international attention focuses on
emissions standards and what emission do to the environment through
air pollution, the second issue of noise has also been important. 
Unfortunately, noise pollution is exceedingly difficult to
categorize with what most people think of as pollutants.  For this
case study, noise pollution will be grouped with other air
pollution sources.

21.  Species Information

     The species threatened by noise and air pollution are
countless and difficult to determine in any exact measure.  Many
feel that noise pollution is only a problem for humans, but this is
not an assumption held to by all scientists.  Determining the
adverse effects of loud engine noises on a household pet or a wild
animal is too large for possible study and if it could be achieved,
the results would be perhaps impossible to interpret.  

     Similarly, air pollution has effects on many species in
varying degrees.  Inherent in air pollution is it's ability to be
carried over large areas to other towns, states, countries and
continents.  The deterioration of air quality is detrimental to all
living organisms.

22.  Impact and Effect: Low and Regulatory

23.  Urgency and Lifetime: Low and 100s of years

24.  Substitutes: ALTERnative Ttechnology

     There simply is no possible substitute at this time for the
speed and efficiency of aircraft.  While it is possible to send
some articles or to travel by boat, the good outweighs the bad ten
fold when one considers the adverse effects to the ocean of an
increase in shipping.  It is also highly unlikely that people would
be willing to substitute a month long voyage on a ship for an short
trip by airplane.

F.   OTHER FACTORS

25.  Culture: NO

26. Human Rights: NO

27.  Trans-Boundary Issues: YES

28.  Relevant Literature

(See below.)

                           References

(1) From the Opening Address By The President Of The Council during
the Third Meeting of the Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection, Montreal 1995.

(2) Members attending the 1995 Montreal conference were:
Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The
Netherlands, Poland, The Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States; (and Norway with
observer status) 

The author would like to acknowledge and thank Steve Alterman of
the Air Freight Assocation for all his help, direction and
resources.