Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY PLANS WITH RESPECT TO STAGE 4 COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
Thursday, September 21, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DUNCAN. I would like to go ahead and call this meeting to order and welcome everyone to the 38th meeting of the Aviation Subcommittee this Congress.
Today's hearing will focus on Government and industry efforts to create new Stage 4 noise standards. This is an extremely timely and very, very important issue.
The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, will meet early next year to consider new international noise standards. These new standards will have wide-ranging effects on the quality of life in hundreds of communities near commercial airports, on the level of air service to small communities, and on international trade and investment.
The reduction of aircraft noise has been a top priority of this committee for many, many years. In 1990 we led efforts to pass the Aviation Noise and Capacity Act, which required all commercial aircraft operating in the U.S. to become Stage 3 compliant by December 31st of 1999.
As a result, the number of people in this country now living in areas exposed to unacceptably high aircraft noise has dropped, according to estimates, from a high of approximately seven million in 1978 to an estimated 500,000 today—tremendous, tremendous progress.
Yet, despite this great reduction in aircraft noise, this issue remains one of the most difficult and pervasive environmental obstacles to airport expansion.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have noted on several occasions that it seems to me that people who live near airports develop super-human hearing at times, but it, nonetheless, is a very, very important and controversial issue and we all need to try to do better, within reasonable parameters.
Many believe that we must make significant changes to our domestic policy to minimize the impact of noise emissions if we are to increase airport capacity in a meaningful way, and that is the hope of all of us after passing AIR–21, that we are going to make some great improvements in airport infrastructure and expansions. It is almost politically impossible to build new airports, but if we are going to meet the demands in the years ahead we are going to have to expand and improve the airports that we have.
The renewed debate over aircraft noise started up in a big way again last year when the European Union adopted a rule that prohibits the use of hushkitted aircraft in the EU. This rule has become one of the most controversial and divisive issues in the history of international aviation. Some observers feel that the European action has threatened ICAO's standing as the only international standard-setting body in the world.
While Congress strongly condemns the EU hushkit ban as a violation of the Chicago Convention, we recognize the need to reconsider the 23-year-old Stage 3 noise standards and hopefully adopt new standards that all nations will recognize and that will be reasonable within economic considerations.
As we move forward with these new standards, we must be mindful of the hundreds of billions already invested in the Stage 3 fleets. The transition from Stage 2 aircraft began in 1977 and was only completed this past December. A premature phase-out of Stage 3 aircraft would place an astronomical financial burden on the airlines. More emphasis needs to be placed on other alternatives such as modifying air traffic procedures, land use planning, and other mitigation measures before anyone imposes another phase-out schedule, particularly an overly-rapid one.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In this hearing we will hear the different perspectives of various Government and industry representatives. On our first panel we will hear from The Honorable Ed Stimpson, U.S. Ambassador to ICAO; Ms. Louise Maillett, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and International Affairs for the Federal Aviation Administration; and Governor Gerald Baliles from the Coalition for a Global Standard on Aviation Noise.
Our second panel, also a very distinguished panel, will consist of: Mr. John Meenan from the Air Transport Association; Mr. Stephen Alterman of the Cargo Airline Association; Mr. David Plavin, representing the Airports Council International; Mr. John Douglass of the Aerospace Industry Association; Mr. Ed Bolen of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association; and Mr. Ed Wytkind of the Transportation Trades Department.
I would like to thank all of these witnesses for taking time out of their very busy schedules to be with us today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
I now recognize my good friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have a formal statement that I request permission to insert in the record, and if there are no objections I will do that. I have a few opening remarks, though, that I will make.
You talk about those people who live near airports having super-sensitive hearing. Well, I live eight blocks west of Midway Airport in the city of Chicago, the fastest-growing airport probably in the country, as far as an airport that is one mile square. Fortunately, the airport runs from 5500 south to 6300 south, and I live on 59th Street; consequently, all the traffic goes off and I live over here, so I do not really have a problem with it, but a lot of people do have a problem with it.
I think that the movement to Stage 3 aircraft certainly has helped. I am a strong supporter of moving to Stage 4 as soon as it is economically feasible to do so.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I also know the problems with expanding airports because of the situation around O'Hare Airport, the other airport in the city of Chicago on the northwest side, where a runway or two probably is needed but, because of the community opposition to it, we have not made any progress whatsoever on that over the course of a number of years.
I did hear yesterday a rumor, though, that a Senator—not from Illinois, but a Senator from another State is thinking about introducing legislation to preempt any local or State prohibiting an airport from expanding or building new runways. It will be interesting to see if he comes forward with that proposal. It certainly would affect the other airport in the city of Chicago, O'Hare.
This hearing also deals with the European Union and the hushkit situation. I have been very disappointed in how slowly the United States has moved on this particular issue. I thought that we should have been much more assertive in dealing with the Europeans on this issue, because I really feel now, even though we do have formal proceedings going on, I think the hushkit industry is probably finished because of the fact of the long period of time that we are going to be in a state of doubt on what is going to happen here.
This is a very interesting hearing. There are a lot of aspects to it. I look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lipinski.
We will now see if other Members have opening remarks or statements.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also thank you for attending the hearing in my District in August.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you.
Mr. MILLER. Airline safety is a major issue for my District.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I represent Ontario Airport. We really have very few calls about noise. It is a very-well-laid out airport, with industrial zoning on both ends, so it really has not impacted the residents. But, I have received quite a few calls from many of the carriers and the concerns they are expressing, especially with meeting the Stage 4 when they are meeting the Stage 3 currently.
I am looking forward to hearing the testimony, and I would like to submit my statement in the record, rather than extend this process prior to the testimony.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boswell?
Mr. BOSWELL. No statement.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Isakson?
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Chairman for having the hearing, and I will submit a statement.
I would add, however, like Mr. Miller, I am very interested in this issue. Although I do not represent Hartsfield International, I represent most of the people that work there because they live in my District, and most of the people are subject to the noise issue, so I appreciate the Chair having this hearing.
I will submit my formal statement for the record.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. McGovern?
Mr. MCGOVERN. No statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. We will go ahead and proceed with the first panel. I previously announced all of the witnesses and their titles. We once again thank each one of you for being here.
Ambassador Stimpson, we do proceed in the order the witnesses are listed in the call of the hearing, and that means, Ambassador Stimpson, we will start with you. You may begin your statement.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR EDWARD W. STIMPSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID S. NEWMAN, OFFICE OF LEGAL ADVISOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; LOUISE E. MAILLETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, PLANNING AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. GERALD L. BALILES, CHAIRMAN, COALITION FOR A GLOBAL STANDARD ON AVIATION NOISE
Ambassador STIMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With me this morning is David Newman from the Office of Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State, who is also the agent for the United States in the Article 84 procedure.
We appreciate the interest of this committee, the ongoing work at ICAO, and the issues related to noise and international civil aviation.
We are at a very critical time, and steps taken within the next few months and the next year at ICAO are crucial to the international noise standards and emissions. Consequently, I would like to outline the process by which the 185 ICAO member states are taking on the colossal task of reaching agreement on noise standards, then discuss the dispute pending between the United States and member states of the European Union over the hushkit regulation.
The mission of ICAO is to establish international standards to increase the safety, security, and efficiency of the world's air transportation system. Uniform standards for aircraft noise and emissions are imperative to the orderly development of civil aviation and has been an important part of ICAO activities since the 1960's.
The international aviation community requires uniform standards for certification and operation. Without such uniform standards, countries might adopt unilateral, arbitrary, and conflicting aircraft standards that would mean chaos for our international airlines and business aviation users.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Work on environmental issues continues at ICAO. The ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, so-called CAEP, is a special technical committee of the ICAO Council. It is comprised of representatives of the United States and 17 other countries. The CAEP is now analyzing a number of possible scenarios for large, subsonic jet aircraft, including a noise certification standard for new types of aircraft and possible strategies for transition for existing fleets.
The environmental and economic analysis, while not fully completed, will provide detailed information, including environmental benefits and impacts on different scenarios of existing airline fleets.
This type of detailed economic data was not available to past CAEP efforts and is very helpful and extremely important in the current effort.
In addition to participation by ICAO member states, international organizations such as ACI, IATA, and the International Coordinating Council of the Aerospace Industries Association participate as observers in the CAEP. Representatives of U.S. airlines and manufacturers attend CAEP meetings and subcommittees as members of these organizations.
Let me briefly outline the time table for ICAO's work on new noise standards. The next CAEP steering group meeting will be held in Seattle next week. A full CAEP meeting called ''CAEP Five'' is scheduled for January 18th to 17th, next year, in Montreal. An open meeting to which all ICAO members and recognized international organizations will be invited is planned for April 9th to 11th next year to discuss CAEP's work.
The 33-member ICAO Council is responsible for adopting new noise standards. It will decide whether to adopt CAEP's recommendation for a new noise standard during its May-June session in 2001. The Council will also consider CAEP's recommendation on a transition strategy as a basis for its recommendation to the triennial assembly, which is composed of all 185 member states and will meet in late September, 2001. The assembly will consider environmental policy issues and implementation schedules, including any transition strategy to a new noise standard, which will be incorporated into a resolution if agreed on by the assembly.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If the ICAO Council adopts a new noise certification standard, if the ICAO assembly adopts a resolution on transition guidelines, these policies are not binding on airlines operating in the United States unless and until they are adopted into U.S. law by Congress, as you did in 1990, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, or by U.S. regulations.
Nevertheless, the importance of ICAO successfully forging a global consensus on these aircraft noise issues cannot be over-estimated. Success in ICAO means a uniform approach to international noise regulation. Some countries will adopt these new standards quickly; others will move more slowly. Failure to address noise issues on an international basis, however, will undoubtedly result in a proliferation of regional and local standards.
Unilateral actions such as the European Union's recent adoption of the hushkit regulation are detrimental to the orderly development and operation of civil aviation throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address the second major issue, the controversy over hushkit regulations and our use of the Article 84 proceedings.
Let me begin this discussion by reiterating that unilateral action at the regional or local level undermine the ICAO role establishing goals and standards and leads to an unpredictable patchwork of regulations that impairs the development and efficiency of international air transportation in the aerospace industry. The problem becomes even worse when countries acting unilaterally deviate from ICAO standards in a manner that discriminates against foreign carriers. This committee recognized these problems when you previously examined the hushkit issue and reported House Concurrent Resolution 187 last year.
These considerations led the United States on March 14, 2000, to initiate proceedings under Article 84 at the Convention on International Civil Aviation, or the Chicago Convention, against EU member states asking the ICAO Council to settle the dispute relating to the hushkit regulation. The filing, called a memorial, was not undertaken lightly. It came only after three years of interventions by the United States and several months of intensive, high-level discussions and negotiations between the U.S. and EU officials.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
ICAO initially gave the EU member states approximately three months to respond to the U.S. memorial. They were later given two extensions. In late July, the EU member states informed ICAO that they would present a common defense by a single agent. Instead of responding to the substance of the U.S. case, the EU member states filed preliminary objections to the application of memorial of the U.S., alleging that the U.S. failed to meet certain prerequisites for filing an Article 84 case, and therefore ICAO should dismiss the U.S. claims.
On September 15th, just last Friday, the U.S. filed its response to preliminary objections. The U.S. strongly refuted the contention that: one, adequate negotiation had not been held before the U.S. filed the case; two, that claims must be brought in local courts in Europe before the U.S. may pursue them in ICAO; and, three, while the ICAO Council may determine whether a state has violated the Chicago convention, it may not compel a state to cease or correct any behavior that violates the convention.
The U.S. asked the Council to reaffirm its competence to consider the application of memorial of the U.S. and to deny any further requests for additional time for the EU respondents to file their counter-memorials.
We expect the ICAO Council to schedule a hearing on the preliminary objections in the next session, which begins in October. At the hearing, all parties to the proceeding will have a chance to argue their positions and respond to questions. If the Council denies the preliminary objections, it will likely give the EU member states a short time to file their counter-memorial, responding to the merits of the U.S. Article 84 filing.
However, the EU member states may try to delay the proceeding further by appeal an adverse Council decision on the preliminary objections at the International Court of Justice. Such an appeal could take a year or more. We would strongly disapprove of such a step and would have to consider other avenues for dealing with the regulation in the event that EU member states were to stall the Council's efforts.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Significantly, the Article 84 filing is on the work agenda for the upcoming fall session of the Council. This means that the party to the disagreement should have an opportunity to present a brief statement of its case before the Council in late November or early December. At this juncture, the Council will likely inquire into whether the parties are willing to try to negotiate a settlement of the case.
The tactics pursued by the European responders we hope will not delay this procedural step.
In any event, the Article 84 process is a slow and unwieldy one, with many opportunities for procedural detours, as we advise members of U.S. industry and others prior to filing this case, and we never predicted that it would be completed prior to the ICAO assembly next fall.
I want to stress that the Article 84 proceeding is independence of the work CAEP and ICAO are doing in developing the new noise standards, so we sort of go down two tracks here.
In the history of ICAO, there have only been four other Article 84 actions filed, two between India and Pakistan, one between the U.K. and Spain regarding Gibraltar, and one between Cuba and the United States. It has been ICAO's practice to make every effort to encourage settlement of all disputes, and Dr. Kotaite, the president of the Council, has been successful each time he has been involved.
Article 84 proceedings are conducted according to ICAO Rules of Settlement of Differences, which encourage settlement, but also provide general procedures for formally resolving claims with the Council acting as a panel of judges.
On a closing note, I want to articulate our objectives with the support of this subcommittee and the Congress: to pursue international consensus through CAEP, to reach consensus on a new noise standard that is balanced and provides relief for people living near airports; two, provide protection for airlines' investment in their existing fleets; three, prevent a patchwork of noise standards; and, four, ensure that states intending to adopt stricter noise standards do so in a uniform manner consistent with ICAO's standards and principles. These objectives require commitment to the CAEP process by all.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Stimpson.
Ms. Maillett?
Ms. MAILLETT. Thank you. Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the ongoing development of a new international aircraft noise certificate standard known in the United States as Stage 4.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize my remarks and ask that my full statement be made part of the record. Thank you.
Before I proceed to a discussion on what is currently going on at the international level, first let me briefly comment on how we got here.
As you mentioned, over the last 25 years, even as our national aviation system experienced significant growth, we have seen an enormous reduction in aviation noise and its impacts. Today we estimate there are fewer than 500,000 Americans living near airports who are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. That exposure is down from the six to seven million people affected in 1976. That success has been a result of action taken by Congress, the airlines, airport proprietors, and the FAA.
In the area of local noise mitigation, much has been done. AIP grants now total over $2.7 billion for noise mitigation, PFC collections exceed $1.6 billion for this purpose, and airports, themselves, have financed substantial noise mitigation with other locally-generated funds.
We have also seen dramatic technological advances in reducing noise at the source. Commercial jets produced today are 20 decibels quieter than the original 707s, or, to the human ear, one-fourth as loud. And, as the technology has become available, we have established more-stringent noise certification standards.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition to those noise certification standards, we have also phased out aircraft from operating in the United States.
As you know, this past December the U.S. industry successfully completed the phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft. The airlines deserve a tremendous amount of credit for complying with the deadline established in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act. This act made possible these achievements, and we applaud this committee in its leadership, its formation, and its passage.
While we have seen great progress, both in the United States and globally, we know that noise is and will likely remain the number one environmental issue facing aviation and a key issue affecting continued growth and improvement of our aviation system. It is, therefore, critical that we work with our international partners on a balanced approach that considers not only reduction of noise at the source, but also better ways to operate aircraft, as well as continuing our work with local communities and airport operators on land use policy measures.
To that end, the FAA is working within the ICAO Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection, as the Ambassador mentioned, to develop a new international noise certification standard. CAEP members represent 18 governments and 10 observer organizations. This work began in April of 1998, when the CAEP's working group on noise was tasked to define parameters for a new noise standard, as well as a range of possible implementation options. Last October CAEP reached agreement on four noise options for analysis, and shortly thereafter completed work on seven transition scenarios to be used for cost/benefit analysis. Together, these resulted in over 20 different scenarios that were analyzed. They ranged from a do-nothing scenario to a middle ground of providing for only a new certification standard, to the most stringent scenario, which calls for both a new certification standard and an aggressive phase-out of Stage 3 aircraft.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Next week CAEP members meet to review for the first time the results of this analysis and to begin discussions on what should be considered before the full CAEP scheduled in January of 2001. At that meeting, the full committee will adopt final recommendations for ICAO's governing body, the Council, and, finally, as the Ambassador mentioned, it is expected that noise will be an issue or be addressed at the ICAO assembly in September of 2001. So we have a busy year ahead of us on this issue.
Consistent with the direction provided by Congress in section 727 of the most recent FAA reauthorization, AIR–21, the FAA is being guided by the following principles throughout its international negotiations with ICAO:
Any action taken by CAEP must first endorse a single global noise standard to be applied uniformly within an internationally agreed-upon framework.
Second, any standard must be performance based and be technically feasible.
Third, any action must provide further noise relief for people living near airports.
Fourth, it must contain appropriate economic protections for the existing Stage 3 fleet.
Fifth, it must be based on sound cost and benefit analysis.
And, last, it should be part of an overall balanced plan, as I just mentioned, including technology, operational practices, and land use policy considerations.
The CAEP effort has involved all stakeholders, as was mentioned by the Ambassador. The FAA also meets regularly with all the U.S. stakeholders, and those stakeholders will participate in the process used by the U.S. Government to clear aviation policy matters.
The U.S. Government has not yet formulated its policy position for the CAEP meeting in January. As I said earlier, we are just now receiving the first comprehensive set of ICAO cost/benefit analyses, and we are currently reviewing the work done on the other elements of a balanced approach. But I assure you that we will insist that the CAEP's ultimate outcome reflect our balanced approach to noise abatement and be consistent with the principles listed above.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We recognize that the stakes are high, both here in the United States and abroad. Global standards provide this vital industry with the firm foundation necessary to make sound business decisions and the stability needed to enable the industry to take advantage of emerging technology in a rational way.
Given strong public pressure to act on environmental issues, there is a strong temptation for governments to look for quick fixes outside of the international process. These unilateral actions open the door for balkanization of international civil aviation standards and regulations and could destroy the very stability that has allowed the industry to thrive. The CAEP process affords us an opportunity to avoid that unfortunate outcome.
Although we can be proud of the enormous environmental progress that we have made in aviation over the last 50 years, we will always be asked to do more. By continuing to work together within the recognized international process, we can meet that challenge.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my oral statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members may have.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Maillett.
Governor Baliles?
Governor BALILES. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the members of this committee for inviting me to give the views of the Coalition for a Global Standard on Aviation Noise on the importance of reaching a new chapter four or, as is sometimes referred to, ''Stage 4'' noise certification standard within ICAO.
The Coalition, formed earlier this year, is as international as it is broad-based, and it is growing. Our members include airlines from every continent. We have airports from around this country and Europe. Boeing and Airbus are both members, as are European and U.S. engine manufacturers. We also have labor organizations. A full list was submitted to together with my formal statement.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Why, you might ask, have all these apparently disparate interests come together around the same table on this issue? The answer is simple: because it is vital to their collective futures. Without a new international standard, the current commercial aviation system will founder. If that happens, there will be less business done, fewer people employed, fewer families able to celebrate special occasions together, and fewer products delivered to people who want to buy them.
Our members know that what is at risk is the stability of the international aviation system, so the ICAO process for setting a global standard must succeed. That is the Coalition's bottom line. Noise standards for the international aviation industry are now and must be in the future global in scope and application because the aviation industry is global. Any solution on aircraft noise must allow the air transportation system to grow. It must be one that can be managed by the airlines in a way that does not disrupt service. It must be one that can be managed by manufacturers who are already responding to rising demand for new equipment. And it must provide real noise relief to people who live around airports.
In a few minutes, you will hear representatives of the major trade associations representing airlines, airports, and manufacturers. They each have their own ideas on how to settle this political conundrum. Some may advocate that the new standard be set at a lower level, some at a higher level. Some may say that the noisier aircraft must be rushed out of the fleet right away. Others may say that those aircraft meet current standards, are quieter than their predecessors, and should be permitted to remain in service.
All of this is now the subject of discussion and debate within ICAO, as we have heard, and it will continue through September of next year. Members of the U.S. Government and the aviation industry are participating and are monitoring those proceedings.
I hope—and our Coalition hopes—that you will remember that all of these people on your next panel recognize the importance of a single global noise certification standard, as do their international counterparts. Our members also believe that a way can be found to balance the political and scientific equation so that airlines, airports, and manufacturers can meet the demand for more service, and people around the airports can hear real noise relief.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Most importantly, our members recognize the need to preserve the stability of the global aviation system by maintaining the integrity of the principle of a single ICAO standard that will apply worldwide.
Finally, this debate has been driven on both sides by an almost obsessive preoccupation with the issue of transition—that is, whether and how quickly airlines would be forced to phase certain aircraft out of their fleets.
Although this issue is a critical one because each aircraft represents tens of millions of dollars of asset value, and they generate the noise that people around airports complain about, some lose sight of what the fundamental goal must be when they are engaged in this transition debate. The fundamental goal must be an internationally-agreed standard. What should that standard be? When should it be implemented? How do aircraft owners certify and recertify their aircraft to meet the standard? It is this last issue, after all, that led to the infamous hushkit debate.
By the way, some might say, Mr. Chairman, that the European members of ICAO will never agree to a new recertification issue. I disagree. The ICAO process represents our best chance to settle this issue, and I believe that the chance must be seized.
But these issues must be addressed before the phase-out issue can be properly settled. These issues must be addressed for ICAO to succeed. But if the debate is driven solely by the transition issue, we will never get there.
As I conclude, I would like to spell out for you the three principles to which all of our members subscribe, the three principles that animate our Coalition's work, the three principles around which we believe success can be shaped.
First, preservation of the international principle of a single global certification standard for noise reduction.
Two, protection of the industry's investment in the chapter three fleet.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Third, development of an effective and technically-feasible new aircraft noise certification standard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Governor Baliles.
All three of the witnesses have been with us before, sometimes several times before, and we appreciate your being back with us today.
Ambassador Stimpson, to what extent are ICAO standards binding or enforceable, and what actions can you take if someone does not go along with an ICAO standard?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Well, of course, you know, a state has the right to file a difference with ICAO if their standard does not comply fully with the ICAO standard. For example, our standard on noises differ. We had an implementation date of 2000, ICAO standard is 2002. So differences are filed often in accord with the rights of the state when they differ with the ICAO standard.
What you cannot do is be discriminatory. You have to acknowledge the aspects of the Chicago Convention, which call for, like, the fair play and fair treatment, and so this is why we are in the hushkit regulation, because it is not only a difference, but it has got a design standard, discriminates against foreign carriers. There are a whole other series of reasons. So there is a procedure for differences, but it is limited.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, what would be something that ICAO would do if a country or some countries did not agree to a Stage 4 standard, for instance?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Well, there is a provision in the Chicago Convention whereby, if a state is found, like in 1984, not in compliance with the ICAO standards and it does not take action to correct its unlawful behavior, it potentially can lose its vote in ICAO. The convention calls for a loss of the vote in ICAO, if the Council and the assembly so decide.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Newman, do you want to elaborate on that?
Mr. NEWMAN. Thank you, Ambassador.
Mr. Chairman, if I just might add——
Mr. DUNCAN. Sure.
Mr. NEWMAN. Certainly a correct response, but I would supplement that by noting that states are not bound to implement ICAO standards. It is up to each state to incorporate ICAO standards into its law, as in 1990, the U.S. legislation or IFA regulation.
When ICAO passes a new standard, it becomes available for states to adopt. Some states will move more quickly to adopt those standards, others more slowly as the circumstances of that particular state.
Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right.
Well, the European Union agreed to Stage 3, and then we ran into the problems on the hushkit issue. You know, the Congress has been almost totally unified by this. I asked my counsel a minute ago what was the vote on Mr. Oberstar's bill on the hushkit issue. I asked if it was 400 to 4, and he said no, it was 402 to 2, so we are having a little disagreement over what the vote was. Do you know what it was?
Mr. OBERSTAR. No, I am not sure.
Mr. DUNCAN. At any rate, do we have any assurances that, if we go to a Stage 4 standard, that we will not run into the same type of problems? Have you had some discussions about that?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Well, I think it is generally reviewed that if you are going to have CAEP 4 or CAEP 5 it is got to be a process that everybody agrees to. ''Would you put this amount of effort going forward?'' You have got to have general consensus, as Governor Baliles talked about, also, in reaching this agreement.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is the only forum we have got. There is no other forum in the world for doing this. And if we fail in ICAO, it will be too bad because there is no other thing.
So the assurances—I guess there are never complete assurances in something like this, but it really is the power of an international organization saying, ''This is the standard,'' and a state which decides to go otherwise is not in compliance with that.
Mr. DUNCAN. You mentioned, yourself, how rare this Article 84 process is, that it has only been done, I think you said, four times before, and how we did not take it lightly when we got into this. Some people have said that we should go on through this Article 84 process before we go further into these other discussions in the CAEP meetings, and so forth, and yet I assume that you disagree with that because of what you said that you say the Article 84 is such a slow process, and I think you said there are so many detours.
Ambassador STIMPSON. Potentially, yes. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. We are really operating on a two-track process. We have the CAEP process, which is moving forward on a schedule within ICAO, and then we have the 84 process. They are both important, so I hope the 84 will not deter the progress which has been made in CAEP and which needs to be made.
We are in a very crucial time, as I pointed out in my testimony and as Ms. Maillett did, of the whole CAEP effort right now. They are both important.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Oberstar, Adam has pointed out to me that he was right in the 402 to 2 and I was wrong in the 400 to 4. It was a great vote.
Ms. Maillett, these noise problems, you know that the GAO has said that there is about 200,000 more people that are affected by serious noise problems than what the FAA has estimated. Why is there that discrepancy there? Do you know?
Ms. MAILLETT. No, I do not know. We do intend to sit down with the GAO. We just recently received that report. I am happy to say that we are in agreement roughly on what the trend is throughout the whole country, but they, I believe, asked individual airports for their estimates, and so theirs is kind of a bottom up approach. Ours is more of a top-down approach. That would be at least my guess. But we do intend to sit down with GAO and see if we can have a meeting of the minds on the numbers.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Are your most serious problems concentrated at certain airports today, or are they just spread out all over the country?
Ms. MAILLETT. No. Noise is inherently a local issue, and so there are different airports having different problems. That has been true, I think, across time, and it is true as we continue to reduce noise, especially with the phase-out. So it really is a very, very specific situation. Some airports are still having a growing noise contour. Many are not. Many noise contours are still shrinking.
Mr. DUNCAN. You know, the FAA predictions and everyone predicts that air traffic is going to greatly increase in the very near future. Air passenger traffic is already just going way, way up. Air cargo traffic is going up, they tell me, at a rate two-and-a-half times the air passenger traffic.
With all the airports around the country wanting to build new runways or lengthen runways and do those types of things—and those things being necessary—do you think this is a problem that is going to grow? Is it growing now?
I mean, we have supposedly come way down and had great progress over the last few years. Are we going to see a reversal of that? Or is it going to continue to improve, in your opinion, because of the technological advancements in the new engines and so forth?
Ms. MAILLETT. The information that we received from the analysis I mentioned that we are doing for the international effort for CAEP shows that in the United States the number of people significantly impacted by noise is going to continue decline between now and the year 2020. It is not as dramatic a slope of the decline as before, but the numbers will continue to decline overall across the United States.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, with almost any problem you can make your most dramatic progress at first.
Ms. MAILLETT. Right.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN.—And then it gets tougher as more progress is made.
What does the FAA say about other alternatives to Stage 4 requirements? I mean, can you do more with other or different air traffic control procedures, or are there other alternatives that we can explore or work with?
Ms. MAILLETT. We have always, in the United States, and in ICAO and CAEP, as well, argued for what you are referencing, the balanced approach. We think that it includes both operational procedures, land use mitigation, and land use planning—in fact, we have a part 150 process that encourages that at airports here in the United States—as well as source noise control. We think those are the three pieces of the answer to how do we address noise.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you.
Governor Baliles, what, in your opinion, is a realistic time frame of implementation of Stage 4 standards or requirements?
Governor BALILES. For implementation?
Mr. DUNCAN. Yes.
Governor BALILES. That depends upon what the number is. The Coalition is not taking a specific position on what the numbers should be, but emphasizing the importance of the process succeeding.
Mr. DUNCAN. In other words, what you are saying is you want something done, but you are not being real specific about the numbers or the time frame?
Governor BALILES. Well, consider this, Mr. Chairman. Your questions that you have raised this morning at this table are very perceptive questions because they go to the heart of what the problem is.
In context, this aviation industry that we all depend upon is becoming more and more a part of the international economy. Of the world's cargo by value, 40 percent now moves by air. The aviation system moved nearly two billion people last year. In this country, alone, it is double what it was when deregulation started. This year there are 20 million more people flying in the U.S. than just last year. So you have more people flying, more aircraft in the air, and we are not building any new airports.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is difficult to expand airports, build airports because of the noise opposition. When the opponents point out that technology will permit quieter aircraft when there are sound abatement technologies that can be employed, when there are better land use patterns that can be used at the local government level, you get the argument being made, ''Why can't something be done if we are going to live with this additional noise?''
So when you look at all of that you say, you know, if we do not address this the airports do not get expanded, new ones do not get constructed. Ad hoc unilateral regulations start getting imposed around the globe, and it disrupts the stability of the aviation system which this country and the rest of the world are increasingly dependent upon for economic growth.
So the Coalition believes that the ICAO process offers the best chance of finding common ground on the new noise standard, as long as it provides real noise relief.
Now, recognize, Mr. Chairman, that if a new standard does not provide additional noise relief, you will not have political support. If you do not have political support, you will not get consensus at ICAO. And if ICAO fails, the system breaks down.
So the Coalition is framing three principles for trying to get all the parties with different numbers, different interests, to look at what unites them as opposed to what divides them. So if we can find a standard that provides additional noise relief without bankrupting the industry and preserves the single principle of ICAO's standard for noise certification, then we will be satisfied. That number right now is being debated within the CAEP process of ICAO, and they will winnow down those options next week.
The ICAO Council will start looking at this beginning in January and taking action in June, and the ICAO assembly will vote in September.
We want to make sure that the process works, and so we have got these members from Europe, from Asia, from different continents and countries, different interests, all trying to make sure that we stay together on the same page in order to produce this result.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. You mentioned in that answer, you say you want to do something without bankrupting the industry, and that leads into the next area in some ways.
One of my questions is: should we allow hushkitted aircraft in Stage 4? And, going from that, I have read and I have been told extremely wide variations in the estimated cost of what all this would cost the airlines. I mean, I have seen and been told figures ranging all the way up to $100 billion, and then many estimates far, far less than that.
What do you say about all of that, about the cost aspect?
Governor BALILES. Well, the ICAO process we think, as I mentioned in my opening statement, has too often focused on the question of transition. That is putting the cart before the horse. What you really need to do first is to say: what is the standard? What should it be for new aircraft produced in the future? What should be the date of implementation of that standard? When should it apply to new aircraft in production? Then settle the issues of certificate and recertification. That is where that question gets resolved. It has not been in the past. Address it now.
Once you know those components, Mr. Chairman, then you can look down at the impact on the fleets, and the fleets of airlines around the world differ. You look at the impact on the fleet, and then you can try to reach an agreement on transition if any transition is required at all.
So our view is let's do first things first. Determine the standard. Determine the date of implementation. Settle certification and recertification issues. And then address properly the question of transition.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I just was told by my staff that the FAA called this morning and said they have an estimate now of $150 billion.
Are you familiar with that, Ms. Maillett? Do you know anything about that, or is that from somebody else?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MAILLETT. I think you may be getting a whole range of different numbers legitimately, and that is because the numbers that came out of the cost/benefit analysis just this last week, September 11th, shows the cost and the benefit of approximately 20 different scenarios, so it can range from as low as zero cost to as high as almost $100 billion cost, as well.
The fact that there are a lot of numbers does not distress me. Actually, it makes me happy that everyone is using the same source of analysis, the ICAO analysis.
So, depending on which scenario people are talking about, you could be talking numbers that range that greatly.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, I have run way over my time and I apologize, and we will go now to Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Ambassador, in your statement you mentioned on page three that the ICAO Council adopts a new noise certification standard, and if the ICAO assembly adopts a resolution on transition guidelines those policies are not binding on airlines operating in the United States unless and until they are adopted into U.S. law by an act of Congress, as in 1990, or as U.S. regulations.
I am assuming that what you are saying there is that if the Congress does not get around to passing a law in regards to this, that the FAA, Department of Transportation can put forth rules to implement it in this country; is that correct?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Well, you have done that in the past. This has been the case in the past. We have had some regulative aspects done for not noise, but the 1990 legislation, as you know, was very comprehensive and this would be a call, I presume, there would be legislation. But, again, that is your call.
Ms. MAILLETT. If I could, sir?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LIPINSKI. Go right ahead.
Ms. MAILLETT. Yes, in the area of noise——
Mr. LIPINSKI. I am going to ask Mr. Oberstar, too.
Ms. MAILLETT. In the area of noise certification standards, that has normally been implemented in the United States through FAA regulation. The ambassador is absolutely correct. The Congress has indicated its intent in the area of phase-outs, most recently in the 1990 Act, so I would guess the answer is both. It can be done by both means.
Ambassador STIMPSON. In fact, I think back in 1968 the Congress originally gave the FAA the authority to certify noise standards, and that goes way back, if you recall.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Is that the correct story, Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Maillett has it right.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you.
I certainly would hope that when the Stage 4 standards come forth, that the Congress of the United States takes care of this by an act of Congress and, not to be detrimental to the FAA or anybody else, but I am a strong believer that the elected representatives of the people should take care of these matters and not pass them along to somebody else to put forth rules on it.
Ambassador, I would appreciate if you could be as candid as possible. Do think we will get a ruling in the next decade in regards to the hushkit situation?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Within the next decade, yes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Could we cut that down to within the next five years, perhaps?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Let me answer this way, Mr. Lipinski: we are doing whatever we can up there to move forward. We have submitted excellent briefs stating our case. We are now really in a judicial proceeding before the Council. We hope the Council will act soon on this, this year at least on the procedural objections. We are doing our best to move it as fast as we can.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LIPINSKI. Are there any other avenues being pursued directly by the United States with the European Union to try to resolve this problem?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Well, the hushkit issue is basically at this time in the Article 84 arena.
Mr. LIPINSKI. That is all we are doing?
Ambassador STIMPSON. We have had a lot of discussions, as you know, in the past, as our filing shows. Extensive discussions and negotiations have gone on for a three-year period. At this point in time, we are, you might say, in a judicial proceeding before ICAO.
There are, under the ICAO process, as Mr. Newman points out, ICAO's procedure in practice has been to try and negotiate these out.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I understand that.
Ambassador STIMPSON. Yes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I am not really asking about ICAO. I am talking about some back channel efforts by the United States Government to try to resolve this problem before there is no longer a hushkit industry left to save.
Ambassador STIMPSON. You know, there may be. There have been a lot of discussions that go on informally on this issue. My colleagues at ICAO, for example, are very interested in talking informally about this issue, and there may be informal discussions that I do not know about.
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. You do not know about any direct discussions with the European Union?
Ambassador STIMPSON. I do not know at this time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Ms. Maillett, I believe that the Europeans, in regard to this hushkit situation, went after us because most of the hushkits, if not all of the hushkits, are manufactured in this country, and I am extremely upset with the Europeans, and I think there are a number of other things that they are doing and have done to hurt the American aviation industry very seriously.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, in regards to this hushkit situation, I understand there is about 5,000 American corporation passenger planes, and I understand there is about 20 percent of those are fitted with hushkits. It is my opinion that, if the Stage 3 standard is here, the hushkit puts you about here, and the new planes, re-engined planes put you about up here, relatively speaking. OK?
Ms. MAILLETT. Yes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Was there any thought that went on at the FAA at the time that the level of relief from noise that the hushkits give you might possibly create a problem shortly down the line in regards to this situation with Europe, principally because the Europeans maintain that their airports are so surrounded by populations that they have a greater—I mean, their whole thrust on this is that they have to have Stage 4 because they have so many people living near airports. As I say, I do not believe that is what their motives are.
But was there any thought or consideration in the FAA at the time that hushkits were permitted?
Ms. MAILLETT. Well, the history of hushkits actually goes back quite a bit. Hushkits were used to allow the airlines to comply with the phase-out of Stage 1 aircraft, so the issue of a hushkit is not a new issue at all. In fact, when we were doing the analysis of the phase-out of stage two, we once again assumed in our economic analysis that there would be some aircraft that would be meeting the Stage 3 standards by hushkits.
So my first point is it is not a new issue, and it is a way that we have been allowing aircraft—and acceptably allowing aircraft—to meet the standards, the noise certification standards.
What we are so concerned about—and I am speaking now for the U.S. Government—is that we believe that once you have a noise certification standard and you have procedures in place for how you achieve that noise certification standard, it is a performance-based standard. Once you get there, it is a pass/fail test. How you get there, what kind of technology, whether it is a hushkit muffler, whether it is re-engining, whether it is operational procedures, that is a design element. We are not interested in how you get there as long as you meet the standard.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We believe—and that is why we have the Article 84 case—that the hushkit ban is not consistent with our noise certification approach, and, certainly in the United States, is not consistent with what we have done since the 1980's for the phase-out of Stage 1 aircraft.
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Well, I hope that when we go to Stage 4, whatever that is going to be, that we do not wind up with a similar problem.
Ms. MAILLETT. I hope so, too. In fact, I agree with the Governor that that is one of the things we are looking at in the CAEP process, the issue of recertification. I do not want to go through this twice. The issue of recertification and of these types of issues needs to be settled.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Talking about that CAEP process, I understand that CAEP is made up of 18 member countries, correct?
Ms. MAILLETT. Correct.
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Eight or nine are also member states of the European Union; is that correct?
Ms. MAILLETT. Yes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. And three or four more are nations that want to be part of the European Union; is that correct?
Ms. MAILLETT. Yes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, given that, and the fact that the United States only has one vote while the EU has eight or nine and growing, perhaps even more than that, do not you think that our impact upon CAEP is going to be rather limited in comparison to the European Union?
Ms. MAILLETT. It never has, sir. The CAEP process has always worked on consensus, not on votes. Although I am still impressed with the 402 to 2 vote that you were referencing earlier, we do not operate that way in CAEP. It has been a very, very collegial, very technical discussion on all of the issues, and, in fact, on some of the issues that we have mentioned, including on the recertification issues.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So no, I do not think that the number of votes is determinative. I think it is the level of participation and the willingness of those countries, all of the individual member states, to participate in the CAEP process.
To date they have been right in there working on the technical issues, on the certification issues, all of the issues in what I see as really good faith, and I hope that will continue.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Who are the representatives from these European nations that serve on CAEP? I mean, do they work for—I assume that they are governmental officials for these countries?
Ms. MAILLETT. Yes. For the 18 voting member states they are officials, usually chosen for their technical expertise in noise. For example, in the United States, James Ericson, who is sitting in back of me, is the U.S. member to CAEP. He is the director of our Office of Environment and Energy, and that is the office that does noise certification standards in the FAA. So it is that level of expertise.
Of course, there are also 10 observer organizations, so we get a lot of help in CAEP from the international airport organizations, the international air carriers, and, on the certification area, from the manufacturers. We rely very heavily on the technical expertise that those types of organizations bring to the discussion.
Mr. LIPINSKI. The gentleman who you referred to in the back, I would appreciate having a meeting with him in my office some time in the near future. I would like to talk to him.
Ms. MAILLETT. Certainly. We would be happy to arrange that.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you.
Ambassador STIMPSON. Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ambassador STIMPSON. I would just add to what Ms. Maillett said, that the help that is given from various other international observer organizations—the airline economic data and the manufacturing's technical data—is imperative to the CAEP process. It is very helpful. CAEP could not do its function unless it had this sort of support.
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Governor, how did your organization come to be? I mean, did you wake up one day and say, ''This Stage 4 is coming down the line. We would better make sure that we have some people here that are representing the interests of airlines and airports,'' although I see you have many more airlines than you have airports here. But how did it come to be?
Governor BALILES. Several leading executives across the country approached me early this year——
Mr. LIPINSKI. Leading executives of what type of entities?
Governor BALILES. Of airlines and some airports—and expressed their concern about the risk that the aviation industry faces if the ICAO process dissolves, if it is unsuccessful.
We began a discussion of what I thought might be useful to them as they continued to express their different views, and I suggested that they might really want to consider an international coalition of trying to bring the different parties together to find a framework of principles that would focus on common interests rather than the kinds of issues that divide these organizations and companies.
Out of that grew a coalition that represents airlines, airports, some labor organizations, and we are still working to add members.
They all subscribe to the three principles, even though they have different ideas about what the numbers should be. They agree that the single standard for certification should be the ICAO standard. They agree that the industry's investment in its chapter three fleet should be preserved. They agree that any new noise standard must be technically based, scientifically driven, and provide additional noise relief. If they agree to that, they can join this Coalition, and we look for ways then to try to keep them together, even though they advocate different points of view, as you may hear in just a few moments.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LIPINSKI. Has this organization come up yet with any idea of when they would be willing to think it was realistic to phase out Stage 3 aircraft?
Governor BALILES. Mr. Lipinski, that decision is one that really has to be made by ICAO on the basis of council recommendations to the assembly next June and July and assembly action in September.
The Coalition, itself, is not taking a specific position on transition because we are trying to make sure that the ICAO process focuses first on what the number ought to be. As I suggested in my earlier remarks——
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. So ICAO comes up with a number. then you are going to determine—then your organization will determine how long of a phase-out period it will support?
Governor BALILES. No, sir.
Mr. LIPINSKI. No? OK. Straighten me out.
Governor BALILES. The Coalition exists to ensure that the process works. It cannot be allowed to fail. We are trying to keep the different parties with different interests working together to support the ICAO process—that is, CAEP developing the recommendation, the Council considering and then acting upon the recommendation, and the assembly voting in September.
We are trying to keep the different parties together to support the process so that when the numbers are developed, the certification issues are settled, and the transition question is addressed we have all these parties supporting the ICAO process that will then make recommendations to the member nations around the world.
Then Congress can take up that recommendation. The German legislature can do the same. All around the world then those actions are matters of sovereignty for each member state of ICAO.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We want to make sure we get there, and so the process for the Coalition is not to develop the scientific numbers, not to determine a transition policy, but to make sure that the parties work with ICAO to make that happen.
Mr. LIPINSKI. But at the end of the ICAO process and they say, ''This is what Stage 4 is,'' whatever that happens to be, ''and you are going to have 10 years for all aircraft to meet that stage,'' is your Coalition at that particular time prepared to support what ICAO had to say?
Governor BALILES. The Coalition wants to make sure that ICAO does act on a new noise standard. As long as the process preserves the single standard, provides additional noise relief, and preserves the industry's investment in the chapter three fleet, we will be there in support.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Could there not be a conflict there in preserving the investment in the Stage 3 fleet and the rest of what you had to say?
Governor BALILES. Mr. Lipinski, we are looking for ways to overcome the conflict. We do what you do—we look for ways to make things happen.
Mr. LIPINSKI. All I am trying to do is find out if, at the end of this process, we will be able to count on the support of the Coalition for Global Standards on Aviation Noise in support for the findings, let us say, of ICAO.
But I took much, much more time, and I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Governor BALILES. I hope we will be here, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.
Mr. Isakson?
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Maillett, I believe you said in your testimony that you estimated a half a million people in the United States——
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MAILLETT. Yes.
Mr. ISAKSON.—were affected by noise now under the current standard? If you assume for a second a Stage 4 standard was in place—and I realize that standard is not there now, but assuming it was for a second and assuming, with your knowledge, it was at some predictable level, and assuming all Stage 3 aircraft were not flying, how many less people in America would be affected, would be your guess?
Ms. MAILLETT. A significant reduction in that 500,000 people figure. It, of course, depends on how quickly that phase-out is, but that would be a significant drop.
Mr. ISAKSON. So if——
Ms. MAILLETT. But at a significant cost, depending, again, on the phase-out scenario if you are assuming a phase-out.
Mr. ISAKSON. If, hypothetically, it was done tomorrow, it would be a significant part, which I assume would be more than half of the half million people that are affected?
Ms. MAILLETT. Again, I mean, it is very difficult on a hypothetical. It depends on the phase-out. But the data we have internationally shows that phase-outs, while very costly, also remove people from the significant impacts, so there is a direct correlation between those two.
Mr. ISAKSON. Ambassador Stimpson, I want to revisit Chairman Duncan's enforcement question, which was really his first question. I think what you said is ICAO sets a uniform standard, then each country or state—but I think you probably meant country—would then adopt that standard, and ultimate enforceability, I presume, would be that a country would not allow an airplane that did not comply to operate in its airspace and use its airports; is that correct?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ambassador STIMPSON. Yes. To correct one thing, in ICAO parlance a ''state'' is a country, so when I speak of a state we speak of a country.
Mr. ISAKSON. I assumed that. Yes.
Ambassador STIMPSON. All right. So yes, it is up to each individual state to implement the ICAO standard. Hopefully, you get 100 percent compliance throughout the world on any standard, but you do not. States have different views on safety issues, for example, and we have seen cases where, you know, states move faster in certain areas than others. But, fortunately, at least when we went to Stage 3 standard, you know, we had fairly good acceptance. The United States was, in fact, as I pointed out, ahead of ICAO's standard in that case.
Mr. ISAKSON. But I guess what I am getting at—this is just to help me understand.
Ambassador STIMPSON. Sure.
Mr. ISAKSON. Ultimately, though, let's just say the Italian government adopted a new Stage 4 ICAO standard as the standard and a U.S. airline that operated into Rome had a Stage 3 aircraft that did not meet that, ultimate enforcement would be Italy was not going to allow those airplanes to operate; is that correct?
Ambassador STIMPSON. Yes. That would——
Mr. ISAKSON. So ultimate enforcement, again, is really pretty much economic when you get to the bottom line. Am I right on that?
Ambassador STIMPSON. It is a large part of it. Yes.
Mr. ISAKSON. I wanted to ask Governor Baliles a question, and really I think in his last answer to Mr. Lipinski he may have answered this, but in your remarks you refer to people being obsessed over the phase-out issue, and I, being a former businessperson before I came to Congress, I understand the obsession with governmental regulation wiping out a capital investment before it is depreciated or recovered, and I think I have been pretty obsessed in my life a few times over things like that.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I think then when you answered just the most recent question, instead of ranking a new universal standard, which in your statement you said, ''We have three things to do. Number one is have a single uniform standard, and number two is protect the investment of the Stage 3 fleet.'' But in your answer to Mr. Lipinski you really said those are tied, and what you are looking for is some recognition of the importance of protecting the investment, while not letting it stop us from looking to a new standard. Is that a better way of doing it, rather than saying one is superior to the other?
Governor BALILES. I think I would agree with that.
Mr. ISAKSON. Otherwise, I do not know anything about airplanes except I am on them every week and I appreciate them every much, particularly as they get back and forth to Atlanta on the hour, and that makes it very nice, but I know that ultimately you can really disrupt the economic health of a country in a hurry through a government change in regulation that just wipes out a significant portion of their assets and cripples them. That does not do us any good.
I know in government we issue a lot of franchises and there are a lot of lobbying people that lobbyists issue one type of franchise via regulation or another, but it is aimed at benefitting one company or, in this case, it may be, given airline production being pretty much a few producers, few in Europe, few in the United States, you could have a great effect on the economic market of aircraft, itself.
Governor BALILES. Mr. Isakson, I have enjoyed your comments because I think they highlight what a lot of people do not recognize, and that is the global aviation industry is much more integrated than people realize. When you look at the numbers that I mentioned earlier about the number of people flying, the value of exports traveling by air these days, the demands upon airlines to meet passenger traffic demand, the demands upon airports to accommodate the additional flights, it really shows us just how critical finding a solution to this is because it can all come unraveled just by going from a chapter three to a chapter four standard, whatever that number is. Just by doing that, you have automatically affected the balance sheets of the airlines because the asset value of those companies are tied up in aircraft and the replacement value, running from $60 million to $180 million, let's say, as a range, is significant.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So when you start talking about just immediately forcing aircraft to stop operating, you have affected the balance sheets of those airlines.
At the same time, you have got airports that need to accommodate the airline traffic, your flights as well as mine, and yet they can't expand because of the additional noise that is already being generated.
While most people think about European cities—or at least in Europe they talk about noise problems—there are noise problems in this country—Burbank, Minneapolis, Chicago. There are a lot of cities in this country where noise is becoming increasingly a political problem as airports seek to expand in order to accommodate the need, and you have got to address that. It is a political problem as well as an economic issue.
So the question is: how can you adopt a standard that will provide noise relief, that will produce the consensus for ICAO, without adversely affecting the economics of the airline industry, and at the same time preserve this single standard for the rest of the world? It is a very complex, sensitive issue, and we are looking for ways to try to keep all the parties talking, because we think the consequences of failure are significant.
Mr. ISAKSON. Just as an observation—and, again, I do not know a lot about how they work. I just enjoy using airplanes. But it would seem to me like that a part of this has to do with the possibility of grandfathering equipment that exists which is at some phase of age in its use and changing the standards to which future aircraft are built.
I know that may be an over-simplistic answer to the question, but in most things where standards are raised that affect long-serving assets, some type of grandfathering or some type of consideration is given, and then you all of the sudden can get to, ''OK, now what is the best standard for us to be meeting by 2020 or 2030 in Europe and in the United States,'' because those planes are not going to fly forever. I think they fly 30 to 40 years at the outside. Is that correct?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Governor BALILES. There are a lot of planes of that age still flying. I might point out that the average age fleet in Asia and Europe is considerably younger than the fleet age in the United States, but that is not at odds here.
Your concept about grandfathering and transition are really one in the same, but you cannot make that determination, we argue, until you know what the numbers are. Once you have done that, the you can determine the impact, and then address the question of transition.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Isakson.
Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your holding these hearings to review, stop, take stock of where we are, look back, look ahead.
In a way we are where we were a decade ago. It was ten years ago that we began the process in this Aviation Subcommittee on noise. Bill Clinger, as my partner, and I held 50 hours of hearings—long days of hearings on aviation noise. In the end we concluded that this was too complex a problem to attempt to resolve, and, as Mr. Lipinski said earlier, it is one that should be resolved by public policy set by Congress, not by administrative action by the FAA. It is far too complex, time consuming, too much of a delay to get that done through regulation. This is one that the Congress ought to stand up to.
In the course of those hearings, a number of factors emerged, one of which was, if noise could be reduced to tolerable levels below those at the time, airport capacity could be increased 22 percent at major airports in the United States, substantial improvement.
I said at the beginning of those hearings that, while the committee was focusing on and we had passed legislation to deal with increasing the outlays from the aviation trust fund for the AIP program, for the F&E account, for operations, for safety and security, that those were hard asset capacity issues, but noise is a capacity issue, as well.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If we make all the investments possible under the aviation trust fund in technology and runways and taxiways and vastly increase, double the capacity of airports, but do not deal with noise. We will not increase air traffic because the public will not tolerate it.
I thought, ''Well, we need to wait until the next year and work this issue, achieve a broad national consensus.'' Events were moving faster than the Congress was moving, even. Airport authorities were beginning to adopt noise regulations that differed from one airport to another, even down to a much more precise definition than the European Community adopted, down to the type of engine and airframe that would be permitted after their noise curfew hour, say 10:00 in the evening or before 7:00 a.m.
By the time our authorization bill reached the Senate, the events were potentially running out of hand, out of control.
Senator Ford and I agreed that we had to deal with this issue in conference. After a great deal of debate, negotiation, we agreed on Stage 3.
One of the options we considered at the time was: should we just simply adopt an ICAO standard? The reason we did not—and I explained this to Madam DePalacio of the European Commission, to every minister of transport in the EC that I have talked to over the last few years, and several legislators of the European parliaments, individual and in the European Parliament, is that, one, the ICAO process is interminable; two, it is without teeth, without effective enforcement. This was the view in 1990. And Europe was not ready. There was no consensus in the European Community on noise.
We had a deal with the domestic environment.
The second major consideration was: how do we get there? I took a lesson from this committee's experience in the Clean Water Act. In legislation prior to 1972, Congress consistently set technology standards to be achieved by sewage treatment plants and industries, but industry technology was moving very fast and said, ''Just tell us how clean you want the effluent and let us figure out how to get there.''
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I said, ''Apply the same principle to noise. This is the standard. You figure out how to get there.'' The European Community later, ten years later, accuses us of adopting a technology that favored U.S. industry over European industry. They were not even in the ballpark in 1990.
And we did not say, ''Use hushkits or use re-engining.'' ''Use your ingenuity to get to this level of noise reduction.'' And they did.
We went from 2,340 Stage 2 aircraft in 1990 down to zero in the domestic fleet today, and we set benchmarks, learning from the Stage 1 transition to Stage 2. And the airlines got up to the end and said, ''Oh, my god, we cannot reach. The sky is falling. Chicken Little is right. You have to give us an exemption and an extension.'' ''No, you will make this percent in two years, and that percent in five years,'' and so forth.
Secondly, we increased the amount of money under part 150 to invest in soundproofing homes and businesses and schools later and churches even so that in the ten years we spent $6 billion, the public sector, the Federal and local airport authorities. You know what Europe spent in that same ten-year period? Hardly $500 million. They did not make the effort. They did not have an over-arching policy in any of the European countries. France moved stronger and farther than others. But because Europe was a decade behind the United States, we have this problem today, we have this logjam.
The European Community all of the sudden was overwhelmed by the green movement. Let's understand the politics of the green movement, as well. It is multi-faceted, but a core of it is environmental awareness, an environmental awareness that started three decades earlier in the United States with Rachel Carson. It has caught up with Europe in the last five years.
Example: Mme. Durant is the Vice Minister of Transport for Belgium. She was elected last year to the Belgian Parliament, her first attempt at public office. She was elected to Belgian Parliament and catapulted to vice minister of transport, never having held public office before, and said, ''I am here for one reason: the people in the area that I represent want quieter airplanes, and I cannot return to be reelected unless I deliver on my commitment.''
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And so it is with friends that I have known for years in the Bundestag, in the Assemblie Nacionale of France, in Italy. Aircraft noise and emissions are an overwhelming issue.
We have to recognize that political reality and deal with the European Community on that basis. So, as we move forward with the Article 84, which I think we could have avoided had we earlier begun negotiations in seriousness on a Stage 4. We have to now show the European Community that we, the United States, are serious about Stage 4, that we are willing, no holds barred, everything on the table to discuss all options.
I am sensitive, as the gentleman from Georgia said, as Governor Baliles said, to the asset sheet of airlines. I understand that. I still have documents this thick in my file from 1990—I re-read them in the last few days—on the representations by the airlines of the enormous costs that they were going to incur, some projecting bankruptcy, others more dire consequences. But I am also sensitive and responsive to airport neighbors who camped in my office in 1990 in sleeping bags insisting that Congress change the law, make airports quieter.
Their quality of life is being degraded every bit as much as the asset value of aircraft is being degraded by a rush to judgment. It is our job to balance those equities out. It is not an easy task, and we are not going to resolve it in this hearing and we are not going to resolve it in the course of a year. We are going to resolve it, though, by putting our thinking caps on and working on this.
Now, it does not help the debate for the airlines to say, ''Phase-out, that is off the table. You cannot talk about that.'' You have to talk about it. There is an asset life value to aircraft. We dealt with this ten years ago.
Some would like to think that an aircraft is forever. In my District, they are rebuilding iron-ore-carrying rail cars that are 60 years old. I said, ''Do not tell that to the airlines. They will get an idea.''
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The value of an aircraft is extremely important. We have to be sensitive to the economic life span of an aircraft as seen by the airline. But airlines also have to understand that if the public does not believe that we are serious about reducing noise, there will be drastic actions.
In Paris FedEx built a hub at Charles DeGaulle Airport, their major European hub, 2,300 jobs. The French government awarded the Legion d'Honneur to Fred Smith for making a quarter of a billion dollar investment. But the Aeroport Paris, Paris Airport Authority, had to agree to a limit of 235,000 operations per year in order to accommodate that investment and that development.
Now, this is serious stuff. If you cut aircraft noise 50 percent but double operations, you still have the same noise impact on airport neighbors.
How fast can you move with Stage 4? The answer to that question is not, ''We will talk about it.'' The answer is, ''What is the technology available? Can the geared turbo fan engine now being developed produce the noise reductions and fuel efficiency gains attractive enough for airlines to make the investment?''
That is for U.S. carriers and foreign carriers alike to evaluate, and that has to be considered in the course of this debate.
Those I see are the parameters and do not neglect in this equation the emissions issue, because if we only talk about noise, the European Community will come back with, ''Ah, but we also have unacceptable levels of NOX and CO and CO2 and carbon in the atmosphere, and that adversely impacts our lives.''
And understand also European cities are more densely-clustered than the United States.
Finally, think about an option. If it is going to cost the industry $88 to $100 billion to convert a fleet of almost 6,000 aircraft in the United States and Europe has about 3,000 aircraft, the European Community, together we have 60 percent of the world's fleet. It is going to cost $80 to $100 billion to convert that fleet. Figure out what the economy gains are—and they are substantial—operational efficiency gains, and then think, ''Maybe it will cost $40 to $50 billion to simply buy up homes and move people out of the noise footprint of airports, and that may be a cheaper solution.'' In Shanghai they did it, moved 400,000 people out of the Pudong area to build a new airport at Shanghai. They just arrived one day and said, ''You are moving.'' No environmental impact statement, no Uniform Relocation Act, they just moved 400,000 people and said, ''Goodbye. We have got new homes for you.''
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We do not quite operate that way, but we moved 400 homes out of New Ford Town in Minneapolis to extend a runway to 12,500 feet. We bought the homes up. I was out there while the graders were moving 4th Street. It can be done. Those options have to be considered, as well.
So I do not have any questions. I just have some thoughts for all of you to consider. I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate all of you coming here and testifying and appreciate your contributions.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberstar.
Ms. Millender-McDonald has some questions and comments. Do you want to try and to them very quickly, or do you want to come back?
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Really, I suppose I will try and come back because I want to really get some answers for the questions that I raise.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, all right. We will be in recess while we go to take this vote, and then we will start back for this panel as soon as we can. We will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. We are ready to proceed now with Ms. Millender-McDonald.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and thank you for your indulgence, those of you who are here.
I represent parts of Los Angeles. Those of you who are familiar with Los Angeles and LAX, then you know that the statements that have been made by members here on this panel really are true. I look at with great interest the statements made talking about developing a new international aircraft noise certification standard, and then the number of people living in areas exposed to unacceptable high aircraft noise has dropped significantly. While those things are perhaps true, domestically the noise environment has become a tremendously important issue for us.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Noise is a capacity issue, as the soon-to-be Chairman Oberstar said——
[Laughter.]
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Trying to get a few points here. But noise is a capacity issue, especially with the Los Angeles Airport.
As Chairman Baliles said, noise has become a political issue. That issue certainly is a political issue in California, as we have looked at a lot of the airports.
My question is to Ms. Maillett, and the question is: what role does land use planning and zoning around airports play in the Stage 4 debate? And what is the FAA doing to encourage proper planning and zoning around such airports such as LAX, Burbank, and others because of capacity need in terms of preserving noise reduction to date?
Ms. MAILLETT. Certainly those are excellent questions.
We believe that, along with the international effort in CAEP and ICAO, it should be a balanced approach. In addition to noise source issues like certification standards, you also have to address operational procedures and land use planning, because it is very important. Those are the three pieces to the puzzle of how we can address the problem of noise impact around airports.
Here in the United States that balanced approach has been what we have advocated and done for many, many years. We have a part 150 program that encourages airports to do noise planning, identify what their noise problem is, and then find what the solution is, including land use and zoning for that.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. What is that again? Part what planning?
Ms. MAILLETT. I am sorry, it is called 'part 150.' It is a regulation that says, ''If you, the airport proprietor, are willing to go out and work with the community to identify what your noise problem is and to identify the ways to address it, such as responsible land use planning, those issues that you identify are then eligible for Federal funding under the AIP.'' In fact, it has been used in many communities around the country.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have also just developed a book that we have distributed to various airports and to the States that talks about how land use fits into addressing noise problems at our airports, and talks about what you can do, what you cannot do, I would be happy to provide that to you if that would be of any interest.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. I certainly would be interested in that, as we are looking critically at capacity at LAX and other airports.
But it has become a political issue, and, indeed, we cannot do anything that is going to arouse the community any more than we have in those cities that are around there.
Are you helping the people at Los Angeles Airport right now with these plans that you have outlined? Or do you know whether FAA is now working with us on that?
Ms. MAILLETT. We have worked with airports around the country in the area of land use, we really have. I do not know the level of detail, but I would be very surprised if we were not working right now with those airports.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Can you get that information for me?
Ms. MAILLETT. Sure.
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. And get it back to me, so I will know, because there are other airports outside of Los Angeles Airport that we need to critically look at in terms of noise pollution and capacity.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
I want to thank this panel for your patience and for your willingness to be with us this morning, and thank you very much for your very helpful testimony.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We will excuse you and we will go now to the second panel. Thank you very much.
The second panel consists of, as I mentioned in my opening statement: Mr. John Meenan, the senior vice president of industry policy at the Air Transport Association; Mr. Stephen A. Alterman, who is the president of the Cargo Airline Association; Mr. David Z. Plavin, who is president of Airports Council International of North America; Mr. John W. Douglass, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industry Association of America; Mr. Edward M. Bolen, president and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association; and Mr. Edward Wytkind, the executive director of the Transportation Trades Department.
We are very pleased to have each of you with us, and we will proceed in the order the witnesses are listed on the call for the hearing.
Mr. Meenan, you may begin your statement.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN MEENAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-INDUSTRY POLICY, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT, CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; DAVID Z. PLAVIN, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA; JOHN W. DOUGLASS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; EDWARD M. BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; AND EDWARD WYTKIND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT
Mr. MEENAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have submitted a written statement, and I would like to just summarize it for you briefly.
Mr. DUNCAN. All full written statements will be placed in the record, and then the witnesses may proceed as they wish.
Mr. MEENAN. Thank you.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As we have heard repeatedly this morning, we have made some remarkable progress in the United States, and, indeed, around the world, in large measure due to the leadership of the Congress and this committee. I will not go back through those numbers right now, but I will say that the record of success that we have had has produced a very different noise problem today than the one that we had ten years ago. We need to be much more subtle in the way we address that. We can no longer use the sort of blunt instrument approach of fleet phase-outs to deal with the problems we are seeing today.
At the outset, let me be clear as to what our position is on the critical issues facing ICAO. These were reiterated to us just last week by our board of directors.
First, we support an environmentally-significant new noise stringency standard to be applicable to newly-certificated airplanes at the earliest practicable date. We are working with the manufacturers to identify what the appropriate standard should be, but we are emphatically in support of a new standard being adopted.
Second, we are absolutely opposed to any phase-out of the existing Stage 3 fleet or any portion of that fleet. There simply is no case to be made that supports a move in that direction.
Third, we believe that the United States, when it moves to its final position for ICAO, must make clear a number of other points. First, that standards must remain performance based. They must recognize the validity of recertification. We must be clear that there not be a penalty or trade-off between noise and emission standards. And, finally, we must insist that other ICAO states are as diligent in protecting the progress that we have made as we have been in the United States.
I would like to return briefly to our second point, why the industry feels so strongly that no phase-out can be supported.
As you are aware, the FAA sponsored the Magenta model, the model for assessing global exposure to noise of transport aircraft. What it indicates is that, over the next 20 years, even if we do absolutely nothing, we will achieve a 40 percent reduction in the exposed population in the 65 DNL contour. We do not, however, support doing nothing. We are emphatically in support of a new stringency standard. What we cannot support, however, is a phase-out that will undercut our ability to make the continuing improvements we know need to be made in our whole environmental performance over the next several decades.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Over those 20 years, we are looking at spending close to $390 billion on aircraft that will meet these new higher standards, and we have to be very careful in marshalling our assets to make sure that we can make that level of investment.
It is on this score that the various calls for forced retirement of aircraft make no sense. Looking at some of the more-aggressive demands for phase-outs favored by one of the airport organizations and by many in the European Community, we see the number of people within the 65 DNL would be dropped by only 121,000 in the United States. This is at the most-aggressive level of new stringency and phase-out. But that would cost somewhere on the order of $1.85 million per household. That simply is not a wise investment to make, in our judgment, in dealing with noise issues.
What do we need to do? We need much more focused attention on noise management solutions that do not look exclusively at the aircraft. We need to become even more serious about land use planning and zoning. We need to remain serious about noise mitigation and sound attenuation. We need to look at satellite-based flight tracks. We need to be far more aggressive in dealing with our friends in Europe as to how they deal with these noise issues and protecting the progress that has been made. And we need one world standard through ICAO, not one that looks to short-term solutions and political expediency.
In light of this committee's historic leadership in dealing with airport noise issues, there is one additional point which we think warrants your very focused attention. The point is this: we have a serious and growing capacity crisis in the United States. In the last decade, despite the massive growth in cargo and passenger demand, we were successful in adding only 14 new runways to medium and large airports. And with the projection of a billion passengers just a few years down the road, we know that the rate of growth at airports is not adequate.
Unfortunately, the problem of adding that capacity has not gotten any better, despite the tremendous progress on noise that has been made over the last ten years. What that suggests to us is that this technique of setting stringency and phase-outs to move airplanes out of the fleet is on longer an efficient way to deal with the kinds of problems we are seeing. We have to become more creative. We have to become more aggressive. And what we really need is a public will, a political commitment to get the capacity out there that will serve our economy well into the future.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that I will conclude and be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meenan.
Mr. Alterman?
Mr. ALTERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the members of the all cargo air carrier community, I am delighted to be here to testify.
Over the past few years, our industry has grown rapidly, and continued expansion is expected by virtually everybody, but these growth projections are tempered by the realization that capacity growth for both airlines and airports is dependent upon managing the environmental challenges that face all the segments of the industry.
The use of the word ''manage'' is important to understand. One of the first things that we all must recognize is that, short of simply eliminating all aircraft from the sky, there is going to continue to be noise in the vicinity of airports. And as long as this noise exists, there will be calls for restrictions on airline operations.
Therefore, the challenge before us is to address these environmental concerns, while at the same time providing for the inevitable growth of the industry. This challenge is even more daunting when we consider the local air quality mandates of the Federal Clean Air Act require a significant reduction in airborne pollutants, and that to fix either the noise or emissions issue may adversely influence the other. That is a tremendous challenge for all of us.
What can be done to address these challenges? To understand where we need to go, at least some history is probably necessary.
It is not necessary to go back any further than 1990 to understand the current regulatory framework and the reasons behind it. Although the number of industry living in the FAA-defined noise impacted area had been reduced from approximately seven million in 1975 to 2.4 million in 1990, noise complaints remained a continuing problem for all segments of the industry, and I suppose for Members of Congress, too.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Faced with this issue, Congress enacted the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, or ANCA, landmark legislation which required carriers to convert their fleets to an all Stage 3 configuration by the end of last year; prohibited most local operating restrictions based on noise, thereby allowing the air carrier community to make rational, long-range fleet planning decisions; and permitted local noise-based restrictions when an airport could demonstrate a compelling need for such actions.
The members of the Cargo Airline Association were early and vocal supporters of this legislation, and members of our industry fully complied with its provisions. Literally billions of dollars were spent in this effort, and today the FAA has estimated that the number of individuals living within the 65 LDN has been reduced to less than 500,000 individuals.
Moreover, in its proposed new aviation noise abatement policy published this last July, the FAA predicted that this trend will continue, even without any future regulatory action.
Does this success mean we can all declare a victory and go home? Of course not. We all have an obligation to balance industry success with environmental sensitivity and to make the lives of those living and working around airports as quiet as possible, but this does not mean—and I repeat that—this does not mean that we should be required to simply jettison the equipment that is now fully Stage 3 compliant and which has cost the industry billions of dollars to buy or convert.
Moreover, this process must also include more than new standards or restrictions on aircraft operations. Airports and local communities must engage in rational noise-based land use planning to ensure that unconstrained development does not continue to be a prime cause of any increasing noise complaints.
With respect to those already living in the noise-impacted areas, sound insulation and buy-out programs must continue.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If the goal of future action is to continue to reduce the number of individuals impacted by noise, these community-based initiatives must play an increasingly important role.
In any event, as we look forward to the ongoing debate over noise policy, there appear to be two central issues touching the aircraft we operate. One, which has been discussed at length, is should ICAO establish a new Stage 4 noise standard? And, two, should there be any mandated phase-out of the existing Stage 3 aircraft?
Unfortunately, many in the aviation community, both within the government and in the private sector, believe that the latter two issues are inseparable and must be considered in tandem. They argue we must have both the new Stage 4 standard and a phase-out of the remaining Stage 3 aircraft, and that any future noise plan must include both elements. We strongly disagree. These issues are clearly separable and should be separately considered.
With respect to the noise standard, at the present time, as we have heard, the ICAO process is clearly moving toward a recommendation that a new Stage 4 certification standard be established. As an industry, we recognize that this process must move forward, and we further believe that any such standard must be based on the three-pronged approach of technical feasibility, economic reasonableness, and measured environmental benefit. At this time, however, we will defer to others with more expertise, probably the manufacturers, as John has said, to determine what goals are actually realistic in this area.
At the same time, the establishment of a viable Stage 4 certification standard does not automatically trigger a pre-set transition scheme requiring the ultimate phase-out of all Stage 3 aircraft.
In our opinion, there is simply no reason to consider phasing out the existing Stage 3 fleet even after a new Stage 4 standard is established.
The United States airline industry has been fully Stage 3 compliant for less than a year. We have kept to our part of the bargain made in 1990. As noted previously, billions of dollars were spent on this effort, with the expectation that Stage 3 equipment would be able to be operated for their full economic lives.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As a practical matter, this need to operate aircraft for their economic lifespan is especially critical for the all cargo industry, which typically operates its aircraft only a few hours each day, and which therefore requires a longer time to recoup its investment in its aircraft fleet.
But economics are not the only reason for deferring any consideration of a Stage 3 phase-out. The real reason is that nobody has yet demonstrated the environmental as opposed to the political reason for such action. Moreover, if any local community can demonstrate a need for local action to address a legitimate noise problem, ANCA and the FAA have provided a mechanism for dealing with this issue.
Part 161 of the Federal Aviation regulations specifically permits noise-impacted communities to apply to the FAA for authority to establish local restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft. Until very recently, no such proceeding had been initiated anywhere in the United States. Yet, we now see a movement to phase out Stage 3 equipment everywhere in the world.
Where do we go from here? First, we need to clearly articulate precisely the problem we are trying to solve. Is there a nationwide problem? Is there any problem specific to a certain location? If so, where?
With respect to those individuals living within the established 65 LDN noise contour, where do these people live?
Until these facts are established, we are merely engaging in political rhetoric, not addressing real noise issues.
And then we need to establish the goals. What do we want to accomplish? These are not easy issues, but they must be addressed and must be addressed now, and for our industry we pledge to work with all segments of the community to do so.
Thank you very much.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Alterman.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Plavin?
Mr. PLAVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start my comments, as Mr. Oberstar did with a discussion of the 1990 Noise Act, because I think that that sets the stage for where we are today and why we are here today.
When the act was passed in 1990, with the support and the active involvement of this committee, there were a number of issues that airports faced. We recognized noise as a capacity issue. We knew we were not going to be able to grow without noise relief of some kind or another. And when the airlines were looking at a combination of phase-outs and other restrictions, we all knew that we had to make some sort of compromises. The 1990 act was, in every sense, a compromise—a good one, but a compromise.
The economics of aircraft activity at the time suggested to many of us—and that includes many people outside the aviation business—that some of the airplanes that were already approaching 25 years of age would not be with us very much longer. They were expensive the operate. They were expensive to maintain. Fuel prices were very high. They had high crew costs.
In fact, over a period of time, some of the things that would have pushed some of these airplanes out of the fleet have not come to pass. We were mistaken in our assumptions at that point.
But in the years that followed, our airport directors went out to the communities around the airports and said, ''The skies will get quieter. These airplanes will be leaving the fleet.'' In fact, it has not happened nearly to the extent that we all expected it would.
As a result, when the year 2000 came along and the skies were supposed to be significantly quieter, the people around our airports said, ''Well, these airplanes are still flying.'' And it is not as if they do not know which airplanes are which. They know, absolutely. In fact, they can tell from the tail numbers which ones were here yesterday and which ones are here today.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So John Meenan is quite right. We have a very different noise problem from where we were ten years ago. The fleet, as a fleet, is quieter. But these airplanes, the ones who were recertified as Stage 3 airplanes are not significantly quieter.
Our view is very much along the lines of the principles that Governor Baliles articulated, and that you have heard from the first two witnesses on this panel. I would like to emphasize in particular, however, one piece which is different from Governor Baliles' principles. ACI does not believe that a new noise certification standard, which is a standard for new aircraft types, is that difficult to achieve. We think the technology to do any noise standard that is under consideration by ICAO is here, today, on planes that are already being delivered to the American fleet. So we do not think that this is a 'technological heavy lift.' That is the first issue.
The second issue is that we do not believe, as Mr. Alterman mentioned, that there needs to be a connection between a discussion of transition programs a new noise certification standard. We can have and should have a very high noise certification standard for newly-designed and -manufactured airplanes, and ACI worldwide is on record as advocating a stringent noise standard for new types of aircraft at 14 decibels quieter than the Stage 3 standard for comparable aircraft.
But that does not mean that every airplane that does not meet such a standard needs to be phased out of the fleet. I think we have become prisoners of that assumption, and it has not allowed us to look beyond what we have in front of us today to the possibility of actually crafting a noise standard both for new aircraft and for existing aircraft. That is from our point of view, the key to a meaningful solution to this issue.
I would also submit to you that the diverse members of his industry are, in spite of our comments that may appear contrary, not so far apart on this issue. What we do not have at the moment is a forum that forces us to come together in the way that this committee played such a positive role in doing that in 1990. We do not have anyone that is saying to our group, ''We will do this unless you folks come together and reach some sort of a consensus.'' I believe the consensus is not that far from being achieved, and I am hoping that we will see a leader emerge to make that consensus into policy.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you very much.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Plavin.
Mr. Douglass?
Mr. DOUGLASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking the members of this committee for having the hearing. This is certainly a timely hearing, and it is one of enormous importance to all of the people that are here today.
Listening to the first panel and listening to the three of you having your discourse with the panel, I am humbled by the knowledge that you already have demonstrated. We are not bringing up radically new ideas to you, but I think we can try to give you our perspective on the relative weights in this very complex issue.
And the issue is complex. There are measurement issues and definitional issues. There are burden-sharing issues, as you can imagine, from those of us who have different perspectives. There are operational issues. There is the issue that you can lose sight of the forest for the trees and forget the absolute DB level that somebody hears on the ground because of the way in which we measure things.
Finally, there is what I call ''good faith'' issues. Mr. Oberstar touched on some of these concerning our allies. It is possible for clever people to take the way the community is trying to approach this and turn it into a trade issue, as has clearly been done in the hushkit case. So, as we move towards Stage 4, all of us have the bad taste in our mouth from what has happened on hushkits.
It is clearly international. That has been discussed by many of the others. Our horror is that we would have to have one kind of a plane to fly to London, another to Montreal, another to Tokyo, another to Durbin. This would be an across the board nightmare for the industry.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And there are many sectors involved. In the manufacturing area, we have the engine people, we have air framers, we have component people, and then, of course, there are the airlines, the airports, the communities, and the cargo carriers, not to mention the labor unions. There are 800,000 American workers involved in aerospace.
I would be quick to point out, sir, that the Commerce Department just released the second quarter trade deficit figures for our economy, the largest deficit we have had in a long time. In the aerospace manufacturing sector, our positive trade balance is roughly equal to the rest of the entire economy put together. So when you damage this industry, sir, you are damaging the heart and soul of the American economy.
Speaking of damages, we have heard that issue discussed by the previous panel, ranging from fairly little economic impact, if you consider tens of billions to be fairly little, to huge economic impact in the hundreds of billions.
What comes to mind here—and I know that the three of you are aware of this, but it needs to be pointed out for the record are the huge opportunity costs at sway here, huge opportunity costs. What I mean by that, sir, is that we are talking about spending billions of dollars to deal with an issue that affects 400,000 or 500,000 Americans. Americans made 600 million trips traveling by air. They have interests in this that are opportunity interests.
What I mean by that is that for every dollar we spend on this it is a dollar that we cannot spend on airline safety or on some other thing. The balance that Mr. Oberstar and others of you talked about is critical when you think about this.
I would just point out, sir, a couple of statistics.
When Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, we spent 15 percent of our national R&D investment on aerospace issues. When Ronald Reagan was President, it got up into the 20th percentile. Today we spend less than 7 percent of our national investment in R&D on aerospace issues, and there are a host of issues to be resolved, running across the entire aerospace spectrum from our national access to space to all kinds of other aeronautic issues, not to mention the fact that our aeronautics infrastructure in this country needs to be rebuilt.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If Mr. Goldin were here on this panel today, he would point out to you that down at Langley, which is our center of expertise for aeronautical issues, there are more people on the payroll there over 70 years old than there are under 30 years old, and manufacturers no longer are going there because their wind tunnels and other things are out-dated. So there are huge areas in the aerospace infrastructure, a huge money-maker for this country, that need additional funds.
Finally, sir, we need a long-term solution. All of the other witnesses have said this. NASA has a program for a new, environmentally-friendly engine. They are going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in that program. The EU has a similar program for new engine development over there. What a terrible shame it would be if both sides of the Atlantic poured millions and millions of dollars into an environmentally friendly engine race and then designed their specifications around their own design to the disregard of everybody else.
When we look at those issues we come back to this position of balance. I will be a little bit bold here and say I am at the other end of the spectrum. I cannot see an economic argument for going much farther than minus-eight DB right now. I do not see the economic argument for a phase-out right now, given that we have just done phase three, and when you look at what NASA is working on, what the EU is working on, and numerous other things in the country today across the aerospace spectrum that the American taxpayers are facing.
Thanks for the opportunity to talk, sir.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Douglass.
Mr. Bolen?
Mr. BOLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I think the fact that I am being allowed to participate in this particular hearing is evidence of the fact that this committee very much understands and recognizes that all new models of turbine engine aircraft manufactured since 1978 have complied with Stage 3, and, once ICAO develops a new engine standard for Stage 4, newly-certified aircraft, regardless of its size or weight, will have to be Stage 4 compliant.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Over the past two decades, we have worked hard as an industry—and, indeed, as an entire aviation community. We have spent billions of dollars to reduce noise exposure to the general public. We have done that by 90 percent.
I think everyone in the community is very much committed to continuing that reduction process, but as we begin the discussion of the new noise standard I think there are a couple of guiding principles that we need to keep in mind. I think most of those principles have been articulated today, but there are few that I would like to emphasize.
One is that this should be a multi-faceted approach. It is not sufficient to just look at source noise. Yes, that is part of the equation, but that is not it. We need to look at engine quieting technologies, as well. We need to look at land use planning. And we need to look at operational procedures.
In my written statement I talk about how general aviation is particularly adept and able to be used in certain operational ways to reduce noise, and we ought to be very much cognizant of all the tools in our arsenal as we look at the noise issue.
This has got to be a performance-based standard, and that has been talked about today before. You asked, Mr. Chairman, earlier whether or not hushkits should be part of the solution, part of the way we move forward, and I would emphatically say yes, they should.
I look at this a little bit like the Olympic high jump. It should be whether or not you get over the bar. It is not about adding style points. When we set a standard, we ought to live up to the standard and not worry about the ingenuity that is used to get there. It ought to speak for itself on whether or not you clear the bar.
I think it has got to be technically achievable and economically reasonable. That has been talked about at length.
And it, of course, has to be international in nature. It has got to be something that we decide and we live with throughout the world. If we do not do that, the country or the region that sets the most stringent standard becomes, de facto, the world's standard, and that is not right.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think we also, going back to something that Mr Alterman talked about, have to recognize that it is not just foreign countries that are often setting the noise standard, it is sometimes local communities. We ought to be cognizant of the fact that the U.S. did establish the policy and process in 1990 whereby the balances between the inherently international nature of aviation and the local needs could be balanced, and we ought to follow that process.
When talking about a new Stage 4 standard, I think it has already been discussed today at length about whether or not this new Stage 4 standard should be coupled with a phase-out. In fact, we have talked about how long it is going to take. I think Governor Baliles said that that was really getting the cart before the horse, and I think he is right about that. I do not think we can determine how long it is going to take to arrive at a destination until we establish what that destination is. I do not think we should lose sight of that fact.
If and when it does become appropriate to talk about a phase-out period, I would hope that we would continue our precedent that was established in 1990 of establishing a 75,000 pound threshold for phase-out. I think the reasons that created that policy over a decade ago are still in evidence today and deserve to be continued.
Finally, I would just like to reiterate something that John Douglass talked about earlier, and that is that when we set these international standards we have got to be cognizant of the fact on how these can and will be used for trade purposes. We have seen over and over again over the past couple of years safety standards, environmental standards, and other engineering standards being used to try to affect a competitive outcome. We ought to be aware that it happens. We ought to be sensitive to that as we go into it. And we ought to try to guard against it.
Again, thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify today. I will look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bolen.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Wytkind?
Mr. WYTKIND. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having transportation labor appear before you. Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Oberstar, always a pleasure to work with you and this entire committee on a strong transportation policy agenda.
I am here on behalf of our 30 member unions, including the unions that comprise the entire aviation sector's employees.
We, as you know, have several million members across the country. This is not just an aviation labor concern; it is an American labor movement concern.
The interests of our affiliates and their members, both in the aviation sector and aerospace sector, on the issue of aircraft noise standards are substantial.
We appreciate the need to provide noise relief to communities throughout the world. It is something that this country has been doing for decades, as technological advances have come forward. You know, we have to think about it in terms of finding a balanced solution to these kinds of issues. At the same time, we firmly believe that our Government should address these issues in a manner that is deliberative, measured, and responsive to the genuine concerns of aviation and aerospace workers.
Now that Stage 3 standards are nearly implemented and complete, discussions on a Stage 4 standard should move forward carefully and, of course, under the auspices of ICAO. We must not allow these international talks to be manipulated and controlled by the EU as it pursues its own agenda. We are adamant and we have conveyed this point unambiguously to the Administration and to the Congress that we must not bow to the EU's transition schedule, which clearly is designed to put our interests and the interests of our members at an economic disadvantage.
And the call for a Stage 4 agreement in 2001 is totally arbitrary and in no way provides enough time for the proper type of evaluation that is needed within the framework of ICAO, which, itself, I might point out, is under enormous pressure from very dominant European members to complete its work by early next year.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We renew our call for a sensible noise standard that is the result of sound analysis.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, for aviation workers, making sure that global noise standards are fair, balanced, and economically reasonable means more to us than the bottom line. Everybody knows I do not agree with the interests at this table every day all day. We will probably have a fight tomorrow over something, I am sure. But we understand this issue. It means the security of our members, the security of their families, and it means the strength of an industry that continues to support the kinds of jobs that the labor movement has been fighting for for a long time.
We support a move to try to adopt better and more-proficient noise standards, but that standard must take into account the fact that our employers have spent billions to come into compliance with Stage 3. And when you talk about our employers, when they spend that kind of money, I can think of a few hundred thousand members in the airline industry that would like to see some of that money used to even further advance their individual and family economic interests. And so when we talk about a race or kind of an obsession to deal with this issue and all the complicated factors involved in it, we have to think about those issues, because the severe financial strain that my colleagues on this panel are talking about that may be endured by this industry is also going to affect our members.
If the EU's disposition before ICAO today is any indication of its willingness to work together worldwide for the implementation of a fair standard, we have very little confidence that we can meet the goal that we all have. But, at the same time, too much is at stake to allow chaos and uncertainty to reign. That is why we opposed the EU's hushkit regulation. That is why we fought to make sure our Government staked out a strong position. That is why today the Clinton/Gore Administration continues to look out for aviation workers' interests in this battle.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But, without going into specifics, suffice it to say that the EU hushkit policy contradicts well-established international trading rules, creates unreasonable restrictions on access of U.S. airlines, and undermines ICAO, the only place where we can all hang a hat and try to establish international standards. Further, it severely restricts aircraft that are fully compliant with Stage 3 noise mandates.
We as a labor movement will not allow the EU to unfairly discriminate against and impose economic disadvantage on the U.S. manufacturing and commercial aviation industry simply because it has an industrial trade policy objective that it wants to advance.
It is extremely troubling that the negotiations are on a somewhat fast track and that the issue of phase-out seems to be accelerated by some parties. We find ourselves in a race to complete a deal that, unless done carefully, will inflict harm to American interests.
Our view is simple: a new standard must ensure the solvency of the U.S. fleet. The hushkit regulation alone, as you know, is threatening the value of the U.S. fleet and impacts U.S. manufacturing and its workers. The repercussions for our members and for this economy are dire.
The leadership of this committee is on record opposing the hushkit regulation and in support of a deliberative process. We stand with you on that. We also understand you have to properly weigh community interests, environmental interests, and all the issues that have their rightful place at the table. But from out standpoint, we as a Nation must respond in kind to unwarranted tactics that are designed to manipulate and, frankly, control the outcome of the debate, and that is what we see as the EU's agenda.
I am not a technical expert about decibel levels. There are a lot of people who are. But I can tell you that this is a priority for us for a very simple reason: a new aircraft noise standard, good or bad, may be coming down the road, but it must not be adopted in haste, and we must not allow what is clearly a poorly-disguised agenda of others to go forward.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We look forward to working with the committee to try to resolve this issue and to try to be as cooperative as possible in fashioning a plan that will work for the Nation.
Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wytkind.
This was very good testimony by all the witnesses, and I think the key, as several witnesses mentioned, is balance.
Mr. Oberstar, I was going to come to you first.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Lipinski?
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
David, you were talking about people living around airports knowing planes that have not met the standards. What planes are you taking about, the hushkitted planes or——
Mr. PLAVIN. I was not suggesting that they have not met the Stage 3 standard. What I was suggesting was that, by comparison to most of the aircraft in the fleet, maybe three-quarters of the aircraft in the fleet, there are still a number of aircraft, and primarily those that have been recertified to Stage 3 from Stage 2, which are dramatically, noticeably, and intrusively noisier than the rest of the airplanes in the fleet. It is that group of airplanes, I would argue, that presents among the most difficult problems for airport expansion because, from the point of view of the people on the ground, they may have been recertified and may technically be compliant, but they are still very noisy. They are still airplanes which, especially because the others are so much quieter, attract attention.
So it is these airplanes that have been the focus of community opposition. That is one of the reasons why ACI, worldwide, has been arguing that the noisiest of those, those that have barely met Stage 3 certification levels, ought to be retired from the fleet more rapidly than the others. Others maybe not have to be phases out at all.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LIPINSKI. I can certainly agree with that. Living around Midway Airport, as I mentioned earlier, probably 90 percent of the flights out of there are much quieter than previous planes, but there is a certain percentage that just barely meets the existing Stage 3 standards.
Unfortunately, what that has done, it has really motivated, fired people up around the airport to make complaints saying that, ''We were promised,'' as you mentioned earlier, ''everyone was going to be a lot quieter come the year 2000, and that has not materialized.'' That definitely is a problem, and a problem that, whenever we go ahead with Stage 4 aircraft, I think it is a problem that we should try to address perhaps sooner, because I think really if we could remove those aircraft from our existing fleet here in this country it would help us appreciably with the problems we have around airports. It might even possibly be conducive to allowing some further expansion of airports, some additional runways of airports.
I was wondering exactly what you meant there.
I really do not have any questions of this panel, other than I want to make sure I understand that there is no one on this panel here that thinks that we should have phase-out of existing aircraft when we institute Stage 4; is that correct? Or did I miss a lone voice there who thinks there should be some kind of phase-out period?
Mr. PLAVIN. I am not suggesting that all aircraft that fail to meet new certification standards should be phased out. But, I do believe that there is a group of aircraft that are particularly troublesome. I believe that we would make great progress in solving some of our capacity and airport expansion problems if we could make a commitment to remove the noisier airplanes from the fleet. The fleet does not get any quieter by adding new, quiet airplanes. It only gets quieter by removing some of the noisier ones.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I understand what you are talking about and I concur with you. I was talking about, you know, in two years, five years, six years we come down with the new Stage 4 standard, and it is the opinion here that anyone who is meeting the Stage 3 standards, there should not be any—other than the real noisy ones you and I are talking about, that there should not be any phase-out period; that if there is a plane who today David and I consider as being a quiet plane, that we do not have to phase them out in ten years or fifteen years.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MEENAN. Mr. Lipinski, that is exactly the problem. The fact is that all planes operating today meet Stage 3 standards in the United States, and when we start talking about, ''Well, we are just going to cut off these bottom few,'' the fact of the matter is there is always going to be something at the bottom. The industry is committed to try to work constructively on these things.
When ANCA was passed, we made a commitment——
Mr. LIPINSKI. You can be very constructive and buy some new planes and let us get rid of the noisy ones.
Mr. MEENAN. They are, indeed, buying new planes, and, in fact, the models that we are working with suggest that those planes will retire at a normal attrition rate over the next 20 years. They are going to leave the fleet on that schedule.
The problem is when the Government regulators come in after we have established a Stage 3 fleet based on the assumptions that we went into ANCA with in 1990, to change the rules after the fact is extremely troublesome to the industry because there are some airlines, for example, that made a conscious decision to move in the direction of hushkits because that was a perfectly appropriate thing to do.
To come back ten years later and say, ''Well, you guessed wrong, your fleet goes and somebody else stays'' creates very, very serious problems, not just in the immediate sense, but moving forward. How will we ever get to Stage 4 or chapter four if we cannot count on those standards, once they are established, sticking.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I understand your side of the argument.
Mr. MEENAN. Thank you.
Mr. LIPINSKI. There is no question about that. I also understand my side of the argument.
Mr. MEENAN. We understand, as well.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LIPINSKI. And I feel that maybe it was being naive, but I feel like I was hoodwinked to a certain degree in regards to this whole process, because I was here in 1990 also and I was very much involved in the situation, certainly not to the degree that Mr. Oberstar was, but I do live near an airport. It is totally surrounded by single-family residents. I told people for years—and I know exactly what planes are landing and taking off at Midway Airport that are noisier than the other 90 percent of the planes. I understand that once we tell you you have got to do this we should not go back, and you say changing the rules. I would look at it as I do not want to change the rules, I probably just want to expand them a little bit.
Mr. MEENAN. We agree it is a difficult program. We would be happy to talk with you about it further.
Mr. LIPINSKI. And, as I say, it is a problem for me locally, but I look at it much more as a national problem because, as I say, I was under the impression that we were not going to have this degree of difference between what was Stage 3 or chapter three, whichever you prefer. And, as I say, maybe it was my own innocence that brought me to that conclusion.
But, getting back to my question that I started with several minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, leaving David out of the equation here, there is no one here that believes that we should have any kind of phase-out for existing Stage 3 qualified aircraft? If tonight we go to Stage 4, those Stage 3 aircraft can fly until whoever owns them decides to retire them, right?
Mr. ALTERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
I participated in four or five hearings about an issue that was pretty controversial at one time on the overflights over national parks, and we had several meetings, and, thanks to Jim Coon, who is seated back there, who had many more meetings, and several others, a compromise was reached. But I remember. We were very fortunate on that issue and included it in our recent bill.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I remember one hearing in which we had some noise experts, and I know you all are not noise experts, but we had some noise experts who testified that some people were demanding a standard or a noise level that would be quieter than a hiker stepping on leaves as he hiked through whatever national park it might be, or quieter than a fairly new, well-maintained motor vehicle driving slowly through a neighborhood would make.
What I am wondering about, can any of you tell me, in layman's or down-to-earth terms, what we are talking about here, how much noise these airplanes are making, how much noise an airplane makes in comparison to, say, a lawn mower or a leaf blower or something like that? Mr. Douglass?
Mr. DOUGLASS. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded, when you bring this up, of the problems I used to have as assistant Secretary of the Navy in talking to people about submarine quieting. There are so many physical variables involved, not only the amount of energy coming out of the airplane or engine, but, of course, its altitude, the temperature, the moisture content in the air, whether or not you are on top of a mountain and there are no trees around or whether you are in a forest, or whatever.
Mr. DUNCAN. Right.
Mr. DOUGLASS. So it is very, very difficult to make a judgment on that.
There is also, sir, an issue which is extremely difficult to get at, and that is that what you may determine to be an annoying noise for Mr. Lipinski. He might go out and pay somebody to make that noise so he can go to sleep at night. Human beings vary significantly as to what annoys them.
Mr. DUNCAN. Right. It is a difficult thing.
Mr. DOUGLASS. It is very, very difficult to pin that down, because as soon as one of us were to say, ''Well, it is like a leaf blower,'' you would have to say, ''Well, is that on a rainy day or a clear day or a leaf blower in a quarry or a leaf blower in the middle of the woods or electric leaf blower or gas?'' It is very difficult to tell.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But what I find amazing is that we are going to be able to make engines quieter as time goes by. And what I think all of us are trying to get at in one way or another is not throwing out the baby with the bath water as we move down this path. We want a long-term, international regime that is free of trade issues. That is what we are all trying to go for, sir.
Mr. DUNCAN. The staff has provided me with information that says that if the U.S. adopts the minus-eight option that, in our fleet, 43 percent of our aircraft would not be Stage 4 compliant, the minus-eleven decibel standard would eliminate 62 percent of the current fleet, and the minus-fourteen option 74 percent of the current fleet.
I realize that most of you on this panel are not advocating a phase-out of these Stage 3 aircraft, but what are your cost estimates as to how much that would cost? Mr. Meenan, do you have some figures on that?
Mr. MEENAN. We have some very comprehensive figures, Mr. Chairman. It might be better if we provided those to you in a package where I can go through them in detail with you.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right.
Mr. MEENAN. But, I mean, fundamentally at that higher end, at the 14 decibel level, that is where we are talking about $100 billion. That is where we are talking about almost $2 million per household. At the lower end, obviously, those numbers become lower. I also——
Mr. DUNCAN. I heard your testimony about that. That is fascinating. $1.85 million.
Mr. MEENAN. That is correct.
Mr. DUNCAN. That is $1,850,000 per household?
Mr. MEENAN. That is correct. And the costs vary greatly, depending on when you might start that phase-out cycle. But our point is, if you look at the data, there is no justification for any phase-out because the picture continues to improve for the next 20 years.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is why I say we have a different noise problem in the United States than we had in the past when phase-outs may have been a more-useful tool.
We need, if we are going to be spending money to deal with noise issues, we need to target that money and spend it much more creatively than this wholesale approach to fleet phase-outs.
In answer to your earlier question, there is a very handy chart that was developed by one of the manufacturers, and it indicates that typical airplane noise level at two to nine kilometers—it must have some European influence—from the flight path is the equivalent of a food blender or an alarm clock or a lawn mower.
We would be happy to provide you with a copy of that.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right.
Well, I noticed Mr. Douglass said that he saw no justification in even a reduction of eight decibels, and you said that there would be a 40 percent reduction, I believe, if we did nothing; is that correct?
Mr. MEENAN. If we do nothing, the population exposed to 65 DNL over the next 20 years declines by 40 percent in the United States. The numbers in Europe are a little bit different. They have a decline from 2000 to 2020, but if you look at it from 2002 to 2020 it creeps up very slightly.
There is a lot of positioning going on with some of the data that is out there right now, but it is a good picture right now and we do not think it would be helped by very expensive and really very clumsy phase-out programs. It is much better to approach it in a more-targeted way
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, of course, there is another side. I mean, just while we were waiting on Ms. McDonald a little while ago we had a gentleman representing LaGuardia Airport who talked about the great, great concern and how noise is still a tremendous issue there. We had a brief visit with Ms. Dunlap, who is a city councilwoman from a town that is adjacent or close to LAX. Just in those two cities, just in those two areas you have a lot more in population than what the FAA is telling us is greatly affected by these noise levels, so I do not know. I suppose we are going to keep on hearing about this for quite some time.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Well, all of you have been very persuasive and have made very clear your positions on this, and I thank you very much for being with us.
That will conclude this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[insert here]