The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About931606.tiff - ri- _Jv-,stir.r.e- - - .r- - _ 44 Federal Register / Vol.-47;-No -171:/-Thursday. September 2,1982 r/ Rules and Regulations 38773 Pilot Cerhfficotiont: --diver does when engaged in his sport -- The FAA has observed ultralight - z`c - - + The FAA has noted and commends the operations during the twilight periods - - A large number of commenters . efforts of the USHGA to eatablish - and has found the light available for " believe that there should be some design standards and flight testing of _ -- -such operations to be adequate in many requirement thaexhibit pilots o ultral be , new bang glider designs.The FAA . . .- instances.Operators were able to - • requred to a ie bit some knowledge endorses the development of similar-- maneuver safely to avoid each other and and/or experience before being allowed- standards and testing of new powered-- also effect safe takeoffs and landings. - i_ to operate thn.n vehicles.The designs by the ultralight communitl. Since most vehicles are operated at - . a suggestions range from no requirements c However,the FAA presently has no - - = nearly the same altitude,they could be-- to certification under the • : intent to require certification of these- easily seen silhouetted against the -t, requirements of Part 61.Thegeneral groupings of the comments are:(1)No •I'''•-•_ .vehicles by Federal regulation.:z- reled sky.labvyOcloae proximity to eaerations were dch — , cart fication (2)required ground training Subpart B—C)perala+g Roles •_• - other,and each operator was readily i _ix! on regulations and conventional aircraft - - - — a operations (3)required ground training Section 103.9 Hazardous operations aware of the others'presence.The mild _ , -,i and instructor sign-off for unsupervised (proposed,S 101.7} ._.a „ _ weather conditions which generally- , i(4) P -section prevailed during the twilight periods- _ id solo operation=t(4)successful passage * This-section prohibits any ti iralight combined with the controllability and y of a written test.such as the FAA glider operatorfr m engaging in activity which s maneuverability of these vehicles to it pilot written exa.ninrition,(5)issuance . jeopardizes the safety of persons or enhance the safety factor for flight- - __ of an d Pilo t ot Certificate by the , property on the ground or in the air.The The FAA is concerned,however,that FAA based on satisfactory completion prohibition against hazardous flight or unlimited operations of this type could of an examination,and observed - • dropping of objects is common to the _- - pose a threat to aircraft which operate performance as the pilot of an ultralight;- regulations pertaddre to civil aircraft, • -. at higher speeds and higher altitudes. - ! and (6)conforming to the certification- and the FAA is addressing ght The number of potential encounters requirements of Part 61 for student and operations with equivalent stringency. - between aircraft and ultralights _ ! private pilots - - _ Section 103.11 Daylight operations ' The FAA endorses the ultralight increases significantly as ultralights gh (proposed #101.43). - - - - - operate into areas normally traversed . - - r9 mma efforts to develop and The proposed rule would have limited - by certificated aircraft-Also,the ability ._ administer,Hader FAA guidelines,a the operation of ultralights to the hours of aircraft pilots descending into the national pilot ei'er, program.At between oujcial sunrise and official • - lower altitudes to see ultralights would- this time however,pilots of ultralight sunset The limitation on daytime be minimal due to the darkened, vehicles are not required by Federal _ operations was retained with an added backdrop of the ground.Pilots would . = regulation to be certificated provision for twilight operations under often not be aware of such operations Aircraft Registration _ _ _ _ certain conditions.Other night-time_'- _ taking place easily 8l? and could overrun an operations are not allowed r....L._ - ultralight without ever having visual Some commenters,primarily State - A-large number of commenters - contact -"-- -- , - :al and and local governments,recommend that these vehicles be registered and be request that flight dining the twilight The FAA has adopted an alternative - required to display their registration periods of the day be allowed since, . -which provides an acceptable level of , # ° number.The reasons center-around • r :those are prime times to conduct= =_;safety to aircraft while still allowing,,` identification of any offenders.The '=-ultralight operations.They state that .,.ultralights'to_operate in uncontrolled - ' ' ' FAA's experience-in identification -meteorological conditions are often bestairspace during this period of the day.,:'-': during thoseperiods and are . ▪ . The FAA's conclusion on this issue is to s • � offenders andproce -rec mmenemeot g , action validates thefr recommendahons3i' characterized by a lack of wind and .-. disallow ultralight operations in -. - - .c- The FAA endorses the ultralight •" 4r' turbulence-The AOPA.believes that--: i, -controlled airspace during the period t -+` • :�_• calm air is partimrlarly.important for the-- -from sunset to sunrise.This affords r'` ' -� community's efforts to develop and .-! maintain,under FAA guidelines;a --_,...s-„t novice flyer and provides an increased. -.aircraft operators the margin of safety to ' = national registration system which ores s`:-`safety factor,especially during training which they-are entitled and,at the same_; , ^iG 'r when confidence building is essential. - would be immediately accessibleto the - time,leaves adequate airspace to the Many commenters believe that the ultralight operator during a 30-minute v FAA.However,rbe re required of ultralight- available' available light is generally adequate to vehicles will not be required by Federal q - twilight period. - - -- allow operations during those periods - The FAA has determined that the regulation at this time _--. -. and that other craft could be safely--,- _: occasional aircraft operation in --- - 7, Aircraft Certification _ . avoided. - ' - -:- - - - - uncontrolled airspace during the twilight There are some commenters who period should not entirely preclude There are a small number of - - ` '°"'. commenters who recommend additional believe that operations in Alaska should ultralight operations.-The visibility from .• - ! `_ Federal regulations requiring - be excluded from the daylight - above of ultralights operating at very ' certification of nitralight vehicles to operations section.They allude to the low levels can be significantly enhanced :. some design standards.The FAA has uniqueness of their-normal"day and by the addition of an anticollision light consistently refrained from the how ultralight operations would be - - on these vehicles.Such a light would ;fill, certification of these vehicles because adversely affected- provide the descending aircraft pilot ;- they were operated by a single occupant Several comments support the original with a distinct indication of the .-.-- 4.: fur sport or recreational purposes.This proposal and do not want operations ultralight's presence.Additionally,It '4' - Po' cv is in accord with Federal - during the night-time hours.The primary would enable ultralight operators to- r- reguatory policies regarding other sport concern centers around the difficulty in - better see and avoid each other. .);-../.1,- activities.The pilots of these vehicles seeing these vehicles,especially at the For the purposes of ultralight - ':Y ?ccept the responsibility for assuring_ higher altitudes,and the perceived operation,an anticollision light is xY • hie, ereona7 sa e. much a th 'v inability of these operations to be defined as any flashing or stroboscopic - - o:a mu, street ve..icle or a scuba - conducted safely. device that is of sufficient intensity so -- iii-1--..i_ PL0637 %• `pT : $1." : - 931606 • Y .. .j'y y ,,,.,..V :-----*—..- .;------...e---,-.: ...rte.- e...•ariev!• a o+.t.r._ �., _ar°..—"'n'"-^ _ _ Y e `-�• -Y Iy Y f: • 106 THE VETERINARY RECORD, FEBRUARY 9, 1974 I blood tested on arrival.Thirty-nine out of 58(68 percent) unexplained death excluded.)were found to have an immunoglobulin level below 2$ - 3. The financial loss on the batch was approximately 1 j zinc sulphite turbidity units (Z.S.T.). Twenty-eight were £750, of which £600 was attributable to the I even below 20 ZST units. During the course of their with levels less than 20 ZST units. It would stillpin this six week period on milk feeding these calves suffered an case have been worthwhile paying £20 a head extra for i outbreak of salmonellosis due to S.mouton and S.noose- calves with guaranteed high immunoglobulin levels,• _ • ` video with a resultant death of I0 calves and the treatment 4. Not all the high colostrum calves could have had .[s; f 35 lions are calvesm in total. The following practitioner's observe- specific antibody protection against S. mentor. and S. nanreeideo (all different sources) ... v'.k"'• I. Every calf with a level less than 20 ZST units had to succumb to the infection yet they still did not i be treated. Eight of the 10 deaths were in this category. 5. The overall level of"colostrum deficient" calves in .+:. `-§ • I 2. Only two out of the nine calves over 25 ZST units our trial so far is 35 to 40 needed treatment and then only one course. (One sudden This batch was 68per cent (920 calves tested). .. ^. • per cent. + H i ORIGINAL PAPERS 1 CG 1' / Behavioural resp nse in . , tl a Win+. moo.. ,s a. .�tERe ant. sheep exposed to rti sonic booms and low-altitude subsonic flight noise q • {= j •j YNCVE ESPMARK, LARS FALT and BIRGITTA FALT, Department of Zoology, University of • � ` Stockholm, Sweden :a • I . Vet Rec.(1974). 94. 106-i13 species, plus mink, are often mentioned in the claim !A5 1 SUMMARY.-Studies files (Grubb et al, 1967). Whether the studies have ARY.—Studies were made on behavioural been performed with real or simulated booms, the reactions in 20 cattle and 18 sheep exposed to 28 authors come to the same general conclusions: sonic I • sonic booms and 10 low-altitude sub-sonic flights booms and subsonic flight noise have very little effect ` .'S._. during four days. No adverse effects were observed, on the animals' behaviour (Fausst, 1966; Boutelier, - - and behavioural reactions were considered minimal 1967;Casadv and Lehmann, 1967; Nixon et id, 1968; in both species. Both cattle and sheep were less Cottereau, 1972; Espmark, 1972). Avian. species disturbed towards the end of the test period, thus seem to be more _ fl •... WM auapsanon had taken place. Adap- flying subsonic air:_f: a..amsamu.,ausviis any strlowonger G II1 t.:hJn y -' u ;u Faux stronger :c;ywoarn vises masked some of the dose- reactions than sonic booms., It is also suggested that • -As response relationships which were more obvious in the animals develop adaptation to the disturbances u )i the cattle than in the sheep. No difference in reaction although the available information is not satisfactorily �4, intensity was found in cattle with regard to their documented. j ;4 different immediate pre-exposure occupations. The In a series of Swedish experiments on sonic boom i'. 3. sheep tended to be more affected when standing effects, a project called Bang 72 was carried out in i' . than when lying. It is suggested that animals under October 1972 on the Southern part of the island of 1 ; other environmental and physiological conditions Gotland in the Baltic. The study was primarily y would display other and more severe reactions than designed to investigate the effects on humans but good {; reported in this study.Introduction Toe introduction of supersonic aircraft has raised the question of whether booms are to be considered as opportunities were also provided for observation of ldpjf behavioural responses in cattle and sheep, which were the most abundant farm animals in the area. A full account of the experiments is given by • Rylandcr et al, (1973). The project was initiated and • severe environmental pollution with adverse effects on conducted by the division of environmental hygiene • humans, animals and structures. Much of present at the National Swedish Environment Protection knowledge is based on occasional booms, many of Board from which we also received financial support. which have resulted in complaints and claims. Although probably not always legitimate, these Materials and methods complaints indicate that concern has developed about Twenty cattle and 18 sheep were studied. The the effects of the new environmental factor and this cattle,which were dairy cows, heifers and steers of the concern should stimulate intensified research. How- Swedish red and white breed were divided into two .n. , ever,only a few investigations under real or simulated groups consisting of 11 and nine animals respectively conditions have been undertaken so far in order to try (Table I). The animals were in fields of approximately and elucidate the possible effects. We are thus six hectares each which were located in the centre of hindered by very limited facts estimating the possible the flightwereaout s -"�• .Vita troublesome or dangerous effects of sonic booms and metres8 apartt ltwc were studied sindependently and the intense flight noise on humans and animals. animals' behas lour just prior to, at, and immediately s+>:.;;i Behavioural responses to sonic booms in domesti- following each exposure was recorded by means of r cated animals such as horses,cattle,sheep and poultry Super 8 mm movie cameras and portable tape arc dealt with in a small number of papers. These recorders. r(I I `Y • • • • 107 TIIE VETERINARY RECORD, FEBRUARY 9, 1974 _ ., .FEBRUARY 9, 19'y .TABLE I.—Animals in the two study groups of cattle levels. During the last two days only supersonic flights were made. After the first two days the flight lai Group Number and kind of animal Age -programme was broken by one day due to unfavour- a 2 dairy wws three and four scan able weather conditions. In all, the animals were A 6 heifers I8 months exposed to 28 sonic booms from altitudes of 2,000 to 3 stars 18 months 6,500 meters and noise from 10 subsonic passages at • heifers 10-12 months 50 to 200 meters altitude(Table 2). 4 heThe boom levels were not quite evenly distributed • g S stem 9-¢months over the test period but tended to increase towards the end. This tendency was particularly evident for the ,,. • noise levels of the subsonic overflights(Fig. I). When e The sheep (Gotland; a variety of the Swedish measuring "ordinary" sounds such as flight noise at ^> Landrace) were in a field approximately two hectares in size which was situated about 1 5 km from the subsonic speeds, the decibel system was used, while C the level of sonic booms was measured by giving the centre of the flight path. Observations of the reactions overpressure (Newton per square metre). For com- were recorded by means of a portable tape recorder parative purposes,however,the boom levels shown in (20 flights),Super 8 movie camera l2 flights)and on Fig. 1 have been transformed into decibels. tape and film simultaneously (five flights). The • comparison between the two methods showed a good es(n) i t�= :.'4).„ correspondence with regard to the criteria that were •i `` used. to For several reasons it was not possible to use --a—stReoNiC SiG1(Ta identical methods when evaluating the data obtained ,�w�g$ G FLIGHTS o from the cattle and sheep. Individual animals in the zn , cattle groups were readily distinguished by differences w li in pelage, size and other natural markings while the sheep were highly uniform. The cattle could be easily l studied from short distances without being disturbed u. I but the sheep had to be studied front longer distances. r7 t Compared with the cattle, the sheep group was often o y1%. very concentrated which made it difficult to observe w L' , 1 iLu dehavic'.r of individual sheep. Due to these and as _._ ..—... ,o n m . .ys. .. .�. ss 0 tin! dtfferr«rs, the quantitative data s from the cattle could be evaluated on an individual expoa,ee N°""=�._ basis While for the sheep we chose to use the maximum pia 1.—Distribulion of the exposure levels over the test distance a sheep ran after an exposure and the time period. (Although inefficient to measure sonic booms in Cr j it took for the majority (15 or more) of the sheep to anthis hasbeenused hereforcomparativepurpouawithreturn to "neutral" behaviour patterns (grazing, ':,msefrom subsonicIlighu.) Ilying and slow walking). We also had to disregard slight reactions in the sheep such as orienting move- The boom levels used in this report were obtained at ments by the head and pricking of cars. ground level at the research camp centre. The noise f The test site was overflown for nine to 10 times a levels, which were also measured at the camp centre, day for a period of four days, by the Royal Swedish were extrapolated with regard to the distance between • t Air Force J 35 Draken lighter aircraft. During the the fields and the (light tracks. The boom levels and first two days the aircraft made one overflight at noise levels from subsonic passages were recorded with F. • supersonic speed at various altitudes and returned a microphone system (sensitivity 0O1 Hz-10 KIlz) -about five minutes later at subsonic speed at low connected to an instrumentation tape recorder using • TABLE 2.—Boom levels in N/mt (A) and ds(A) (A,) outdoors, subsonic flight noise levels in dB(A)(R) and rise times in . m sec.during different exposure days. 1 Day I Day 2 Day 4 Day 5 Rise Rise • time Rise Rise time time time A A, A m sec. B A A, m sec. B A A, m sec. A A, m I ise 70 95 2 95 110 96 4 114 180 100 4 240 1110 I - 170 97 2 102 330 99 6 112 370 101 <01 100 97 2 130 96 4 99 160 97 4 111 60 97 2 140 99 1 • • 250 99 I 107 120 96 4 116 250 100 12.5 250 101 <01 105 96 4 91• . 130 97 <0I 128 80 97 4 290140 98 3 I O 1999 I +� • 130 99 2 340 102 2 150 98 1 420 103 2 • i On�s• • • 108 THE VETERINARY RECORD, FEBRUARY 9, 1974 THE VETERINA frequency modulation,allowing frequencies from DC raised and the animal scented into the air and listened • up to 2.5 KHz to be recorded. For each boom the with pricked ears but without specific orientation.The outdoor (and indoor) overpressure, rise time and pre-exposure occupation or another"neutral"activity l duration was determined. was usually resumed within 10 seconds.Sometimes the The animals, the cattle as well as the sheep, had reaction also involved running or walking various probably experienced sonic booms and low-flying distances, the maximum distance observed was 20 i noise before the experiment. The extent of this metres. Standing and grazing animals sometimes I experience was unknown but we had reason to believe responded to high boom or noise intensities by .f that exposures had been only occasional and were of momentarily assuming a somewhat crouched posture, l considerably lower intensity than during the test nodding the head and taking a few quick steps back- I I period, since the minimum altitude for•supersonic wards or to the side. After live to 10 seconds of looking i i flights in Sweden is 10,000 metres over land and 5,000 and scenting they usually resumed normal activity. i metres over sea or uninhabited areas. Aggressive reactions were observed after two boom I I The behaviour reactions of the cattle have been exposures, when an animal butted its neighbour • { classified into three subjectively defined groups: no immediately after the first response. $ reaction, moderate reaction and strong reaction. The It is believed(eg May, 1971)that the intensity of the ,y 1 i• behavir"_r reactions under the different classes and startle response is to some extent controlled by the rise under different pre-exposure occupations of the time, which is defined as the time between the onset z animals are listed in Table 3. It should be noted that of the boom and the peak maximum overpressure. u i i the main response classes should be looked upon in Short rise times result in "sharp" booms which in a t/ IIrelation to each other. Thus,strong reaction does not humans have been shown to cause stronger startle i I necessarily mean that the animals stampeded,galloped responses than booms with longer rise times. In the I I I or displayed other violent responses but that the cattle, but not in the sheep,we were able to count the responses classified as strong have been considered number of animals showing startle and these frequen- 1 f i strong in relation to moderate reactions. ces arc listed in Table 4 together with the different rise times. The highest frequency of startled animals was / TABLE 3.—Behaviour responses in cattle under different pre- observed at booms with the shortest rise times, thus / t exposure occupations supporting the earlier published conclusions (May, ' - op.cit.). With rise times from 1 to 12.5 ms,however, Grazing the frequence of startled animals increased. At the Eta 2.—Develc r I M ,...,.. n..,•,:,,,, I c,,.,l. .,., ;..,.,,n,;,,,, "r...yin. present time there is no reasonable explanation for 28 sonic booms III 2. Interruptionol grazing,raising Mad, •�•r results. We believe,however,that ' pricking wars.no locomotion. our data arc o meagre to allow any meaningful p•v was This Strong reaction Interruption of grazing,locomotion up conclusions. Due to limitations in the experiment to at most 20 metres. situation a meaningful evaluation of the effect upon while the freq { Lying startle responses of overpressure versus rise time could relatively corn No reaction not be made in the present study. the fact that t Moderate reaction I. Intentions to get up. r the test perioc 2. Quick raising of head, pricking of still more pro cars. TABLE 4.—Frequency of startle response in 20 cattle in relation No indicatii Strong reaction Momentary raising into standing posi- to different rise times noise was few' tion, listening with pricked cos, scenting. Percentage of that the anima Rise time Number Number of observed animals showing sages during t Standing m sec. of booms animals startle for adaptatmor No reaction increasing cor Moderate reaction Startle,momentary raising of head,no <0.1 3 32 784 { It cannot be d locomotion. I 6 92 34.8of exposures Strong reaction Startle, momentary nodding of head, 2 8 120 41.7 p locomotion. 3 1 16 37.5 structure and 4 8 115 53-9 experienced in Walking 6 1 20 60'0 i Contrary to No reaction 12-5 I 8 62-5 Casady and Le Nlodenm reaction Interruption of walking.raising of head, that the deers looking around. Strong reaction (not observed). I attributed to I Adaptation I Observer ada! { Behavioural adaptations in animals as a result of I quantitative d Results repeated exposures to sonic booms and Ilight noise is defined criteria { A. CATTLE indicated by Fausst (1966) and in Nixon et al(1968) animal adaptat { No panic reactions such as stampede or other although no supporting evidence was given. Adapts- cattle had hey adverse effects were observed. The minimum effect non'sac also noticed in heanimalsduring the Edwards experiments. ' observed was a slight startle response manifested as a Air Force Base experiments. although the authorsI temporary general muscle contraction, moscmcnts of explained this in terms of observer adaptation and I Dose-response. tcars, whisking of the tail, but the animal did not animal adaptation to the presence of observers ) The animals'interrupt the current activity. The general effect, (Casady and Lehmann, 1967). as moderate, to however, was that current activities were interrupted, As is shown in Fig. 2 there was a considerable i levels (Fie. 4). • startle responses were evident, the head was quickly decrease its response to the booms over the test period. between the e; { J • • rre..��,...,._. .s 'A.:M..,w.;:,;- ...:"y'____;__ ..,,, M,t,-svjye5iye.Y,asbr,_ I 109 ,aRUARY 9, 1974 flu VETERINARY RECORD. FEBRUARY 9, 1974 . r and listened - 1�>• t '- �� • "e 1 "64 I E4 cc Or.r I NZ. r11^�niti I i> I 64 A slS®ANIMA ienmtion.The ...near actin ity ) sometimes the • CI N.%coon REACTION W Eking various 0 naoERnTs REAcnw Is Toed somaimesi I Si STROMO REACTION 'ntensitics by ( • _ „Ached posture. ! 0 k steps back- 1 $ 0 ids of looking l3 w 7 !real activity. t f ' i rr two boom ₹ / w I ! Is neighbour 7 j / `� / / ₹ I p - aensity of the w / / / / / � ° // s % % % I % t ,/��I % k - ed by the rise / / / i % % % % v. r U en the onset t w - 7 r / i i / I- ° . _ ,-. a-:' overpressure. u v / j ! % OVER u•M Me ms which in w -/ v / '/ / • onger startle ) J // Flc. 3.—Development of responses in 20 cattle exposed to w / 2. �, i � ' ]0 subsonic overflights during two consecutive days. Imes. In the t i i /J 2 Interpretations as in Fig.2 to count the - - r � i i % here frc uen- ' i / [ / / % / NUMBER CC EXPOSED ANIMALS different rise i i,Y�],l i i ! /J J +sa I ms I a" 1 `6 animals was 'C J ;II (, e times, thus / i s F1 -' 7 � � I I-" I 3-t 10-r] I13 I., I/-_U '1 -L, 2:-it 60. / isions (May, DOOM Me. / I ms, however. / �] rd. Sr II,.• .-,. —TMvetnnment of responses in 20 cattle exposed to 50- / 7 ✓� !')1 t )i+,,.N.,,, is., I iii.nnic booms during four days. n / / hi toweveq that t / 7 ' r meaniment 090- 7 s experiment This wasparticularly true for the strong reactions : effect upon while the frequency f moderate reactions remained Z 2 / / se time could relatively constant throughout the period. In view of -°- /, / / / the fact that the boom levels tended to increase over w / / / / the test period (Fig. I) the adaptive effect is probably t5 , still more pronounced than shown in the figure. Ls). �- ' ' / altfc in relation No indication of adaptation to the subsonic flight w / / / / P noise was found(Fig. 3).It should be noted,however, w / / r / / vantage of that the animals experienced only ID low-altitude pas- a e- / / i nal%showing sages during two days, thus reducing the possibilities i / 1 / A / / startle for adaptation to develop and also the sound levels / I / I. / yi / increasing considerably over the series (see Fig. 1). /6 _,..L. I /w-.�. vn-oa1. / /,w/.n, 78-I It cannot be disregarded, however, that the two types Cvew'REssuRE (n,rn) 34.7 of exposures duller signiiicantiy in their physical 37.7 . 37a structure and that they might be perceived and Plc. 4.—Responses in 20 cattle related to different outdoor 53 9 experienced in different ways by the animals. boom overpressure. Interpretations as in Fig. 2. 60.0 Contrary to the explanation of adaptation given by 625 Casady and Lehmann(1967)we have reason to believe trend shown in Fig. 4 might be expected to be more that the decrease in response shown in Fig. 2 is conspicuous. It is suggested, however, that some of attributed to the animals' adaptation to the booms- the effect is masked by the fact that the animals were Observer adaptation can be disregarded as the less affected at the end of the lest period when theot I a result of quantitative data are based on film analysis and boom levels reached their highest values. • ight noise is defined criteria. We have also reason to exclude The connection between behaviour responses and • et al(196s) animal adaptation to the presence of observers as the different noise levels at subsonic flights was found to :n. Marna- cattle had frequent contacts with people prior to the be stronger than the connection between responses and the Id wards ) experiments. boom levels (Fig. 5). This is particularly true with k the authors regard to the responses classified as strong. In support ptation and Dose-response relationships of the suggestion mentioned above, this might be i. --f observers • The animals' responses, particularly those classified expected as no adaption to the low-llying noise was as moderate, tended to increase with increasing boom observed. considerable levels (Fig. 4). With regard to the great difference As is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 it was not possible to :test period. between the extremes on the boom level scale the Jcilne the lower and upper limits for the dose-response '.t twr1se...rr' 0411:41M4.. ' .-..i......__-._-.....ad- i, «.sn— • ^'� •J • 2i:fyyiYsr vl • I It0 The VETERINARY RECORD, FEBRUARY 9, 1974 •T' Irelationships, ie at which levels no or all animals B. SHEEP - I respectively displayed responses. At strong reactions the sheep flung up their heads I I and started running,formed a"bunch",and then they Response in Relation to Pre-exposure Occupation all moved off together. In our group there were no "'`=; i i In a previous paper it was indicated that reindeer pronounced tendencies by the sheep to run towards • f.•�• O I . (Rangijer tarandus) were less affected by sonic booms their nearest neighbour, as described by Scott(1945), "( a I I when sleeping and foraging than when occupied in but rather an orientation towards the centre of the -. } i 1 other activities prior to the exposure(Espmark, 1972). flock (Figs. 7a and b). This relationship was also investigated in the present y study, but as is shown in Fig.6 the cattle were affected to about the same extent regardless of immediate pr star e- 1 exposure occupation. atatwoo°'a- to at.% 4) As D!R Or E{POsED NVIM.LS �� la J 30 1 27 1 33 1 tr - . I ' IP rw it i 714 O i(t�� I • / 5 �.. / Flo. 7.—The sheep group just prior to (a), above, and LL / / immediately following a boom exposure (b), below. (Draw- / / ings from photos.) • -,T� was- / / yy / / At weak reactions there was an immediate fast run•W / / two to 10 metres in length whereupon t hey either started T j I / / grazing or stood'rigidly staring. If they were lying / /- - i it down prior to the exposure they immediately rose, _ , I To- Q % stood staring or ran, stopped and stood staring and - _s — r lay down again or started grazing. The irZ i I H. G1 h 11 N C1 IA V W ♦'I ,1 Ii I ri+etnnr. covered by running in the first phase of the 10' ; i ! yO IB % ✓ r reaction depended upon where the animals were / , r placed in relation to each other. The most peripheral ",r 1� ,_� LLL 1 <t G1 I / r sneep covered a longer distance than those in the °' de(Al 1 i,-,-,..- ;riddle of the group. I At very weak reactions the grazing animals raised FIG. 5.—Responses in 20 cattle in relation to different their heads and stared towards the middle of the flock. s , noise levels from subsonic overflights. Interpretations as It grazing with their back towards the others, they in Fig 2. first turned around before staring. Grazing was u.+tsER Of E*rb9Eq nHinocc usually resumed within a couple of seconds. 4 60 'YMS I f61 I t0s On two occasions a lamb contacted its mother and • > I started suckling after the boom exposure. Barnicoat �" et at(1949)also mention that the stickling response in so- j lambs is affected after disturbance. Suckling responses have been seen to be elicited by disturbances also in « •,71 h feral goats (Geist, 1960) and in reindeer (Espmark, j ao 1971), 71 t Adaptation ' • ! 50 ' One of the criteria for reactions that we used, was ' ' s i , the maximum distance that any of the sheep (usually <`m, j the most peripheral)ran alter an exposure. The other • main criterion was the time between the exposure and car 8 7 return to "neutral"activities such as grazing,lying or 10- / slow walking. 4:;' z j Before discussing the dose-response relationships iG J / j >.�- we have to consider the possibility of adaptation. ti o .,, . ._ Fie u re 8 shows how the reactions varied with time. No ,,,_F.�o-,,,,,,,t,.jo,sri„r.', flights were made on the third day because of bad ' • , weather, which was very unfortunate in this context. Fla 6—Responses to sonic booms and subsonic fights by Fi^_tire 8 shows a very clear drop in reaction duration • !u cattle in different pre-exposure occupations. inicrpre- al t.:r Iliulu 15(day 4 amt. The phase of rigidly staring aeons as in f=ig. 2. in the reaction suddenly because very short or coin- I ' ' .rtn+e:.es�+•zr.-.�.:..wt..N.. .. _ .. :.pc",+h4.-1..,+fy,yn,�,:x. ; " Lean,Fran u, `• • •Dsg VETERINARY RECORD, FEBRUARY 9, 1974 .. 111 pletely ceased. The sheep still reacted to the exposures within the range of exposure level that was used in this by a short and fast run, but then they immediately experiment. returned to"neutral"activities. The adaptation might be even greater than what is shown in • . bthe figure since Response in Relation to Pre-exposure Occupation the boom levels tended to increase towards the end of The total number of sheep observations during the Cythe experimental period(Fig. 1). experimental period was 466. Before the exposures I 369 sheep were standing(mainly grazing)and 97 were'j Dose-response Relationships lying. These animals have been divided into two Because of adaptation it is difficult to draw con- groups: reactive and non-reactive. To be considered , ' elusions on the dose-response relationships. As is as reactive, a standing animal must make a fast run shown in Fig. 9 there was a slight indication towards and a lying one must rise or rise and run. According shorter reaction duration at higher boom levels. This to these criteria 351 (95.1 per cent) of the standing ' effect might, however, be due to the fact that the and 77 (794 per cent) of the lying sheep reacted. exposure levels were gradually raising during the • k experimental period and the adaptation might mask NUMBER_ OF BOOMS - the effect. The mean values and distribution of the 12- 1 q I 4 1 4 S maximum distances (estimated) run by a sheep at a t'-fore an' boom levels are shown in Fig. 10. There are no obvious correlations between reactions and boom ase darna ne;. levels. used as t In Figs. 9 and 10 we used mean values. If we I therapy,Cup-.• consider each individual flight and pick out those iency in which gave notably strong reactions as shown in j running distance and reaction duration we get flights 60_ • with the following boom levels:80, 120. 130, 130,250 good thin_ and 370 Nisq.m. This gives a further indication that I' ciency is that - there are no obvious dose-response relationships jth f'nnrin - i I_ NiMRFR OF ROOMSto 5 l 5 I — T 5 I 4 1 4 14 O - 0 W • v co- Z 40- O I I. D w O I 0 Zoo Z O O v W 1 W W z0^ r fZ I- -- 20- / + Y + I 2 I a 5 60--1491150-23921+0-329330-420 my m�e.T 'o.mI rm. OVERPRESSURE (N/^t'-) o Fin. 8—Development of reaction duration in I8 sheep Fie 9.—Reaction duration in the sheep in relation to exposed to 27 sonic boom. during tour days. boom levels. • Glaxo { ta (� 112 The VEr:tunny RECORD. FEBRUARY 9, 1974 THE VEIEA I There is thus a clear difference in the tendency to during the flights,we got 180 sheep observations. At FSnwAai4 y i react if the animals are standing or lying before the six of these the animals interrupted their grazing and --(19 FAUSST We exposure (p-c 0001). A reasonable explanation of stood listening for 3-4 seconds (one at 80 dB(A), on cent 1 ` this is that lying sheep have a higher reaction threshold two at 92 and three at 109 dB(A)). Three lying and one Veterin -4 '; to disturbances than animals on foot. standing sheep were listening for a couple of seconds and Fe There is a tendency towards more non-reactors (80 and 83 dB(A)respectively). Thus we got only 10 Gorr,V.(I C. among the lying sheep towards the end of the test very weak reactions out of 180 sheep observations. GRDRr n i period. In the last four exposures with lying sheep boom under observation (flight nos. 21-24; 100, 140, 250 Conclusion Contra{ and 290 N/sq.m respectively) 12 out of 15 individuals Although the boom and noise levels used in this v AYN C p did not react. This is still another indication that study were of considerably higher intensity than Sonic t I I adaptation had taken place. normally delivered from the permitted minimum sonic 1 I altitudes, the effects upon cattle and sheep were livestoc Response to Subsonic Flight Noise considered minimal and probably within the range of RrulCuiDrER, ,l SSLf As in the cat le the sheep were exposed to noise from reactions caused by disturbances from daily human R. I. 10 low-altitude subsonic passages with noise levels activities in the animals' vicinity. The animals will i Human zanginr front 75 to 109 dB(A). Very few reactions probably adapt to such disturbances as they did to the 1 SCOTT, 1. were observed. Since all of the 18 sheep were visible exposures during the test period. It might be difficult psdersll Pto draw any meaningful conclusion on the response of y a species to sonic booms or flight noise without con- RESUME- NUMBER OF BOONS . sidering the possibility of adaptation. We are of the comport= 1opinion that this possibility has been disregarded or quatrc)our i t 1 2. 1 -r 4 Lt P soniques en not given enough consideration in most of the previous r quences net studies. especes teat 30- For reasons which are accounted for in a previous bovins Carat section, the criteria used for recording responses in cattle could not be used for the sheep. It is therefore n, C� • difficult to compare the dose-response relationship in The the two species. We feel,however,that the sheep were more ready to react to the exposures and displayed requfr I. stronger reactions than the cattle. N 11 I I I I rsitnougn use impact of the exposures upon the C. I.1 vv ti animals in Inns investigation was considered minimal, Agricttur 8 • some of the responses in cattle classified as strong give reason to speculate what could happen to animals Vet. Rea(I S• under other environmental conditions. One of these y 20 - reactions was that the animals lowered their heads SUMMAF F m instantly at the same time they jerked backwards or to must bo t I" the side. Suchareactian is normally of no consequence w ( logical cri to an animal out in the open field but might be measured v dangerous for a tied up animal. It is also possible that may be the effects of disturbances could be more severe for nutrients Ui animals under other physiological conditions, for individual v example gestation and to the Z This study gives no clear indication about the effect andrec to ter Q of subsonic)lights upon the animals. This is particu- ( of very lira 0 larly true for the sheep. We believe that the main A wide m reason for this is insufficient data due to the small 10 - p e currently o number of overflights. As subsonic(lights are supposed for pigs. to be far more common than supersonic flights, we restricted 0 suggest that more attention should be devoted in conventioi future research to the effects of subsonic overflights. 1 lower nut give unprr REFERENCES BARNIcoAT, C. R.. LOGAN, A. G., .Y GaArrr, A. I. (1949). Introducf { I..4gric.Set 39.44. IN comma BOUiELlea. C. (1967). Revue Carps Vet. Biol. 'Inners(F). 20. linearly to 113.Cited from E. McNeil:An annotated bibliography on { animal response to ',ante boons and other loud sounds. I tune is g A report of the Subcommittee on Animal Response , increasing GO-149 !150-239!240--329!330-520 Committee on SS -Sonic Boom. Washington. DC. 1970. (a to b) ail 1 OVERPRESSURE N CAsnnr, R. B.,&Luw.wN, R. P. (1967).Studies at Edwards n ( /ms) Air Force Base, June 6-2_0th, 1966. Interim Report, Sec. 7 If.National Sonic Boom Evaluation Ollice.Arlington,Va. ,:.: . .. Ha I0.—Ma simum distance covered by sheep exposed to Contract :\P(5351-1758. Stanford Research Inst. Corr This pant booms of different levels. Ph.(1972),Revue AM!. 123. 1767. Congress,St • .. - - . . . I Ir , •a,sosrisPwA,4 t .yid ''.... saR.--- - ##:: 'EBRUARY 9, 1974 Ms VETERINARY RECORD, FEBRUARY 9. 1974 _ - 113 • eervati0ns. At l Fsnazic,Y.(1971).Z.Tierpsycea/.29.42. la fin de Is periode d'essai,ce qui indiquerait quel'adaptation y$ :if grazing and - —.(1972).J.Brit. Deer Soe.2.800. avait eu lieu. II est probable que le processus d'adaptation a at' •` at 80 d6(A), Estrin WORKING PAPER,435.(1966)."Effects of sonic booms egalement masque les relations entre l'intensite du bruit et Is '= e lying and one f on animals during Exercise Westminster". Report of reaction, qui so manifataient davantage chez la bovins que a. Veterinary Officers of the Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries chez la moutons. Chez la bovins,on n'a pas releve de ditfer- ple of seconds and Food. coca dans l'intensite de!curs reactions par rapport aax differ- 4 we got only 10 1 GElsr,V.(196O).Minder.IL 1. entes occupations qui precedaient immediatement ['exposition st bservations. Gauna, C. A.,VAN ZANDT, 1. E., & BocKHULT, J.L.(1967). au bruit. Debout, les moutons rdagissaient plus vivement qua 7 I Report on data retrieval and analysis of USAF sonic lorsqu'ils etaicnt couches. II rate possible quo, dans un boom claim tiles. Stanford Research Institute TR 4. environnement autre et dans des conditions physiologiques 4 Contract AF 49(638)-1696. diBerentcs;des animates manifaten[des reactions difftrcma et a s used in this MAY• D.N.(197q.J.Smmd and Vibrotfon. 18. 144. biers plus viva que Cells decrites dans la prescnte etude. ntensity than NtxoN,C.W.,HuEE,H.K.,SoMatca,H.C.,&GUILD,E.(1968). 4 Sonic booms resulting from extremely low-altitude super- ZL'SAMMENFASSUNG.—Zwanzic Binder and IS Schafe '1 ed minimum sonic flight: measurements and observations on house, wurden vier Tage dem [Arm von 28 Oberschallknallen and 10 I sheep were livestock and people.AMRL-TR-68-52- niedrig flicgenden Unterschallflugzeugen ausgesetzt and ihre 47 the range re 2 RvuNnee, R.,ANDRAE, B.O.,CHArzura,G., EspMARn,Y., Verhaltensreaktionen eingehend studiert. Es wurden keine ofIdaily human IOcssuNao,W., LARSSON,T.,SORENSEN,S.,&THACKRAY. nachteiligen Folgen beobachtet and die Verhaltensreaktionen R. I. Sonic Boom Exposure Effects—A Field Study on bei beiden Tierarten wurden Cur minimal erachret. Sosvohl it, animals will t Humans,Animals and Structures.(In press). Binder wie Schafe zeigten gegen Ende der Vcrsuchszeit weniger hey did to the ) Scot•', J. P. (1945). "Social behaviour, organisation and Stdrungsanzeichen,woraus zu schliessen war, Bass Anpassung ht be difficultI leadership in a small flock of domestic sheep". Comp. stattgefundenhatte. Anpassungvemebelte alter Wahscheinlich- Psydm/.Monogr.18.I. keit such einige der Beziehung,g,en zwischen Larmdosis and If: to response of Reaktion,die bei den Rinndem dcutlicher zutage traten als bei without con- RESUME.—Les observations portent sur les reactions de den Schafen. Belden Rindem wurde kein mitihrer Beschaftigung 41 We Ve are of the comportement de 20 bovins et I8 moutons soumis pendant unmittelbar vor Versuchsbeginn zusammenhangender Linter- isregarded or I quatre joun a 28 explosions supersoniques et a 10 vols sub- schied in der Reaktionsintensitat fatgateltt. Die Schafe waren 'Nile previous soniques en basso altitude. Ca bruits none pas eu de cons¢- zumeist stehend starker betrolfen als liegend. Es wird fur. quences nefastes et on a trouve que les animaux des deux wahrscheinlich gehalten.doss bei Tieren unteradderen Umwelt- -ill Li especes rcagissaient asset ppu dans lour comportement. Les and physiologischen Bedingungen andere and heftigere Reak- in a previous bovins comme les moutons srmtblaient morns incommodes ven lion=als in diner Studio gemeldet auftrcten wurden. s. responses in e 1 t is therefore �� II 3—�1/ i Iathenship in ,- The determination and nrnvicion of the nutrient / r sheep were ! r Hi ..•ayiareu requirements of pigs-ft - 4 is upon the C. TJWHITTEMORE. NDA, BSc, PhD arid F. W. H.IELSLEY, BSc,-DipAgric,-PhD, School of strong nimal, Agridulture, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Reed; Edinburgh s give to animals Vet. Ace.(1974). 94. 113-117 to a point at which it ceases (b to c). The point of )ne of these inflexion(b)and the point of zero response(c) repre- their heads SUMMARY.—The pig's requirements for nutrients sent the outer limits of rational operation. Below (b) _ :wards or to must be determined by economic as well as bio- the response to the next increment of input is at least :onsequence logical criteria since responses to nutritional inputs equal to the last, and above (c) there is no further '"t might be measured solely on the basis of biological criteria response to be had. Between(b)and (c) the producer bse that may be financially unrewarding. Responses to must attempt to identify the position at which the seveevere for nutrients also differ according to each producers litions, for individual environment, to the production policy it the effect ! and to the criteria of response chosen. Generalised s is particu- recommendations for feeding standards are therefore • t the main of very limited use, t the small A wider variety of dietary ingredients than-are "e supposed • currently in use are appropriate to provide nutrients flights,supposed for pigs. The use of these ingredients is, however, C we icvotcd in t restricted by inadequate information on the less ( overflights. conventional feed sources, particularly those of lower nutrient density which tend as a result to give unpredictable responses. a b I. 1. (1949). Introduction - • Wet(F). 20, IN common with other animals, pigs respond cun•i- a • iograNiy on linearly to nutrient inputs. A schematic response a • I. and sounds. curve is given in Fig I, and comprises a zone of a I Response increasing rate of response to a point of inflexion a _ DC. 1970. i at Edwards (a to b) and a zone of decreasing response thereafter et ' Nutrient input t tenon, Sec. it. This paper was presented at the British Veterinary Association Congress,Stirling,September, 1973. Fun I: Schematic response function (or nutrient inputs. - , -j_ ,, „._ „ _, \i ... _ NC• 5 ... ,. Its Effect onthe `�y Physiology and ,_t . 1 Behavior of Animals ....r,-......... i i JAMES BOND I 3 THE constantly increasing intensity of ambient whether noises of still higher intensities and greater 1 sound in the modern world is now recognized frequency will interfere with efficiency of pro- as a form of environmental pollution that can have duction. serious adverse effects on the organic, sensory, and Effects on Caine j other physiological functions of man, as well as on his behavioral patterns. Although extensive studies ONE of the earliest studies directly related to this I have been made on the responses of man and labo- area of research was that conducted by Ely and i ratory animals to various kinds and intensities of Petersen (10)1 in the late 1930's at the Kentucky i sounds, little research has been conducted on the Agricultural Experiment Station.Actually,the study i effects of noise on animals, particularly farm-raised was concerned primarily with the factors involved 1 animals, in the ejection of milk in an effort to learn why Most farm animals,of course,are seldom exposed cows habitually"let down" or"hold up" their milk. to sounds of extremely high intensities. However, a In one phase of their study,these researchers created number of factors must now be recognized as having fright stimuli caused by exploding paper bags every the potential for increasing stress in animals: the 10 seconds for 2 minutes just prior to attaching the 1 location of animal production units—particularly mechanical milker. Such stimuli resulted in an im- ipoultry—near metropolitan centers, the growing mediate cessation of milk ejection. Thirty minutes I tendency toward production units with large popu- after the fright stimuli,hand milking produced only lations of animals, and the rising incidence of am- 70 percent of the normal amount of milk. Intrajug- bient sounds in the modem world—particularly ular injections of adrenalin produced somewhat i within the environments under which animals are the same results. now produced. The advent of jet aircraft and supersonic flight in Any environmental factor that places farm ani- the late 1940's and early 1950's and the accompany- ; male under severe stress can decrease efficiency and ing growth of the aircraft industry introduced new profits. Therefore, there is a need to know how well present noise levels are tolerated by livestock, and 'Italic numbers su parentheses refer to Literature Cited,p. w. Reprinted from AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW, Vol. 9 No. 4 Fourth Quarter 1971. Published quarterly by Cooperative State Research Service, O.S. Department of Agriculture sources of noises, some of which allegedly caused groups of animals and to note behavior patterns of losses on livestock and.poultry farms.Because of the the animals just prior to, during, and immediately growing number of complaints—and in some cases following each boom. They also noted disturbances the filing of lawsuits—the U.S. Air Force requested caused by low flying aircraft used in noise tests. 1 proposals for a study, and in 1957 the Department Results of the study showed that the reactions of Agriculture was authorized to investigate the of the sheep and horses to sonic booms were slight. 11 effects of aircraft sounds on dairy cattle. Objective Dairy cattle were little affected by sonic booms (2.6— iof this study (16) was to determine if there was any .75 pounds per square foot (psf). Only 19 of 104 measurable effect of jet aircraft noise and flyovers booms produced even a mild reaction, as evidenced on the milk production of dairy herds located in the by a temporary cessation of eating, raising of heads, vicinity of existing air bases. Data covering a pe- or slight startle effects in a few of those being milked. Hod of 12 months were obtained on the daily milk Milk production was not affected during the test deliveries from 182 herds located within 3 miles of period, as evidenced by total and individual milk 8 Air Force bases using jet aircraft. yield. 4 Thirteen percent of these herds were within one In beef cattle,the daily frequency of total changes 3 mile of the end of any active runway; 31 percent in activity was somewhat lower after sonic booms Iwere between 1 and 2 miles; and 56 percent were at a farm much closer to the flight track than an- t between 2 and 3 miles distant. The herds were also other farm. This may simply reflect observer differ- i classified as "exposed" or "not expuxsl" to flight ences in judging activity changes in animals. At all 1 activity according to their location regarding the farms there was an apparent decrease in activity 1 path of take-off and landing for the aircraft. after 16 days of sonic booming which might be at- An analysis of data from 42 herds surrounding tributed to adaptation to noise. However, it is also the Lockbourne Air Force Base, Ohio, and from possible that this was due to animal adaptation to complete data on flight activity at that base did not the presence of observers. show any evidence that flyovers or proximity to the Casady and Lehmann (7) developed a summary ends of the active runways had an effect on the milk by species and farms indicating that the few abnor- production of the herds. Comparisons at this base mal behavioral changes observed were well within were made between days of flight activity and no the range of activity variation within a group of activity as well as between the areas mentioned animals.They defined these changes as hones jump- above. Analyses of the less complete data available ing up and galloping around the paddock, bellow- { at the other seven bases confirmed the results ob- ing of dairy cattle, and increased activity by beef j tanied at the Lockboume Base. Results of this sur- cattle. vey showed no evidence of an effect on milk pro- Since so few abnormal behavioral changes were duction of dairy cattle resulting from flyovers by jet evident in the Edwards Air Force Base test results, i aircraft or proximity to the air base. it seemed advisable to conduct some closely con- Casady and Lehmann (7) selected animal in- trolled observations on normal changes in behavior stallations for observations on animal behavior of animals. Therefore, a series of tests were con- under sonic boom conditions in areas near Edwards ducted at the Agricultural Research Center, Belts- Air Force Base,Calif. Numbers of animals observed ville, Md., with groups of beef cattle, dairy cattle, in this study were about 10,000 commercial feedlot and sheep to supplement the Edwards Air Force beef cattle, 100 horses, 150 sheep, and 320 lactating Base studies. These groups were observed by two dairy cattle. Booms during the test period were individuals per group, working independently, from scheduled at varying intervals during the morning 9 to 11:30 a.m. on three consecutive days. ; hours, Monday through Friday of each week. The From these data, differences among classifiers, iland area around Edwards Air Force Base had been days, and time periods of a day were observed.Each exposed to about 4 to 8 sonic booms per day for of these effects was evaluated statistically. In the several years prior to this study, but the intensity of Edwards Air Force Base data, the pertinent figures the previous boorgs was somewhat less than those are simply the percentages of normal changes for presented during the sonic boom tests of this study. each of the species. When the values obtained in the Observers were stationed to watch specified Beltsville study were compared to percentage 2 Agricultural Science Reuiew •, i 1 changes in activity among animals at the test farms pigs raised by the sow and the time required by the at Edwards Air Force Base, it was concluded that sow to return to feeding during the previous test. the booms had very little effect on changing the To determine possible harmful effects of aircraft behavioral pattern of farm animals.The assumption noise, pigs, boars, and sows were exposed at Belts- is that behavioral changes in activity among animals ville, Md., (5) to reproduced aircraft and other at Beltsville would reflect normal activity changes loud sounds at various stages of the life cycle. The among animals at the test farms at Edwards Mr swine unit, animals, and diets used were typical of Force Base. It was therefore concluded that the those found at most swine production operations. observed behavior reactions of large animals to the The sound reproduction system consisted of a tape sonic booms were minimal. Reactions by animals reproducer,amplifiers,horn-type loud-speakers,and were more pronounced, however,to low flying sub- control equipment.The tape recording used in these sonic aircraft noise than to booms. The reactions studies was of propeller-driven and jet aircraft in were of similar magnitude and nature to those re- flight and airfield background noises. Schedules of suiting from flying paper, the presence of strange jet and B-36 flyovers was random so that the in- persons,or other moving objects which may indicate tervals of sound and no-sound periods were not that stress may be more pronounced when an object uniform. is seen. Observations were made of animals during ex- In a review paper by Bell (4), the sonic boom posure to the following sounds: fixed frequency effect on beef cattle moving from winter to summer (104 to 120 decibels (db) ) ; varying frequency pasture was described as an initial startled reaction (from 200 to 1,200 cycles per second (cps) at 100 (13). Recorded overpressures reached 144 psf, and to 115 db) ; alternating sound and quietness (450 farmers in the area reported only minor visible re- to 4,500 cps at 115 to 120 db) ; and the recorded spOnse by their animals to the booms—such as a squeal of a baby pig at 110 db. short scattering run of 10 to 30 yards and a subse- The typical reaction of a nursing sow to those quent return to grazing. Pilots observed horses and sounds was initial alarm during which she arose to cattle moving away from approaching planes, indi- her feet and appeared to search for the source of eating the possibility that animal reaction may have sound, followed by resumption of suckling by the been caused more by visual rather than auditory baby pig and apparent indifference to the sound. stimuli. It should be noted, however, that animals When suckling pigs were exposed to the sounds in in the area under study had been previously sub- the absence of the dam,they appeared to be alarmed jetted to sonic booms, low-flying aircraft, and blast- and crowded together. No differences were detected ing noises. in the responses to the various sounds used; sounds of frequencies ranging from 200 to 5,000 cps at 100 Effects on Swine to 120 db intensity elicited like responses, while the DAWSON and Revens (9) studied the behavior effect of a recorded squeal of a baby pig reproduced of 42 female pigs by using an electrical sparking at 100 db was similar to that of the other sounds 1 device which caused a bluish white spark and made used. A detailed report of behavior during exposure a distinct, though not loud, hissing and crackling to loud sounds is given elsewhere (21). sound. They found that while many of the pigs were Boars and sows were almost entirely indifferent appreciably bothered by the spark at first, almost to loud sounds during mating. Conception rate of all the pigs showed very rapid adjustment to it. No exposed sows was similar to that of unexposed sows. 1 association was found between the average time Neither the number of pigs farrowed nor the man- required by the pigs to return to feeding and their ber of survivors were influenced by exposure of the average daily gain. In those females which raised parents to sounds during mating. Sows were exposed j litters the next spring, no relation could be shown to reproduced sounds from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.at 120 db between previous treatment and whether one or 3 days before farrowing until their pigs were I more of her suckling pigs were or were not crushed weaned. The birth weight and weaning weight of by her during early lactation because the death loss the experimental pigs were higher than the control was similar to that of the control. No relation could pigs. be shown between the weekly weight of the suckling To simulate conditions in proximity to an air- , Fourth Quarter 1971 3 field, weaned pigs were exposed to jet and propeller it decelerated rapidly after the sound was discon- aircraft sounds reproduced at 120 to 135 db daily tinued while the pattern of the electrocardiogram from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. from weaning time,or earlier, appeared to be unchanged. In trials in which pre- until slaughter at 200 pounds body weight. Five viously unexposed pigs were exposed to loud sound, trials were carried out with 3 to 5 groups of 4 to 6 differences in response between intensities ranging weaned pigs each. Aside from ambient sound levels, from 100 to 130 db were just below the level of sig- environmental conditions were similar for all groups. nificance. A significant intensity effect was found 1 An analysis of variance failed to show a significant when previously exposed animals were subjected to difference between the rates of gain of treated and sounds of 120, 130, and 135 db. No significant dif- iuntreated groups. Feed intake, efficiency of feed ference was found in responses of unexposed pigs to j utilization,and rate of gain of treated and untreated frequencies ranging from 50 to 2,000 cps at 110 to 11j pigs were similar. 120 db. Measurements of heart rate before, during, and Ramm and Boord (17) studied the effects of air- Iafter sound exposure were made of a large number craft noise on the cochlea of the ear of experimental 1 of weaned pigs to supplement the prior production pigs from the USDA study (5). They found no evi- results. A telemetering electrocardiograph that re- dence of injury caused by exposure to jet and pro - i corded heart action without necessitating the pres- peller aircraft sound.A morphological and histologi- c cal study of the organ of Corti of 39 experimental i ence of attendants in the acoustical chamber was employed to eliminate possible errors due to un- animals showed no evidence of severe or extensive i injury as compared with the normal ear. Minor vari- es favorable responses of the animals to the presence of ations noted in the organ of Corti were of such a I humans. These studies showed that the heart rate nature that in this study it could not be determined i was significantly increased during exposure but that if they were due to delayed fixation, tissue artifacts, or minor noise injury. Histological examinations were also made of the thyroids and adrenal glands Man's Concept of Animals of pigs that had been exposed to recorded aircraft sounds of intensities up to 135 db. No evidence of We need another and a wiser and perhaps injury or changes suggesting impaired function was a more mystical concept of animals. Remote found. None of these investigations (5, 9, 17) has • from universal nature, and living by compli- yielded evidence indicating that swine are influenced cated artifice, man in civilization surveys the significantly by noise. creature through the glass cf his knowledge Bugard et al. (6) studied the neuro-endocrine sys- and sees thereby a feather magnified and the tern of young castrated male pigs. They found that whole image in distortion. We patronize them noise of 93 db for several days caused aldesteronism for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate and severe retention of water and sodium. They of having taken form so far below ourselves. also noted that sounds ("alarm signals") recorded • And therein we err, and greatly err. For the from pigs in the slaughterhouse were more dis- animal shall not be measured by man. In a turbing than noise from mechanical sources. world older and more complete than ours i they move finished and complete, gifted with Effects on Poultry extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. SOME research has been done in the United They are not brethren, they are not under- States on the effects of noise on poultry. Most of the lings; they are other nations, caught with recorded studies deal with sonic boom effect which ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow apparently were prompted by claims from hatchery- prisoners of the, splendour and travail of the men soon after the advent of supersonic flights. earth. Heinemann (13) reported a 1965 study con- From The Outermost House ducted by the USAF Environmental Health Lab- By Henry Beston oratory, Kelly AFB, Texas, to determine the effects of sonic booms and low-flying subsonic aircraft on 4 Agricultural Science Review poultry and poultry eggs. The test site was White A second study reported by Heinemann (13) at- Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, where the Fed- tempted to determine the effects of aircraft noise on eral Aviation Agency was conducting the National broilers and laying flocks. This study was made in Sonic Boom Structural Response studies. Sonic west-central Arkansas where one of the major U.S. booms were produced by supersonic aircraft ap- poultry production areas is located. Most of the proaching the site from eight different directions, poultry farms there are large-scale operations which creating free-field overpressures in the range of 3 to consist of two or more poultry barns, each housing 19 pounds per square foot. over 10,000 birds. Five different sets of incubating eggs, totaling Sound-pressure-level recording instruments and 3,415 eggs, were exposed to sonic booms for varying remote-controlled motion picture cameras were lo- numbers of days. A control zone was established cated on 11 poultry farms, housing broilers 1 to 9 50 miles away from the test site so that control eggs weeks of age and laying chickens 20 to 62 weeks of and experimental eggs not being"boomed"could be age. More than 600 low-level missions were flown protected from shock waves. over the poultry farms in this area of Arkansas,and • The eggs were incubated in small commercial- poultry exposed to 75 of these overflights were ; type incubators, each capable of holding over 2,000 filmed and accompanying sound-pressure levels eggs. Condensor microphones were shock-mounted recorded. , inside the incubators so that intra-incubator over- During low-level overflights, which produced pressures could be recorded. Overpressures in the sound-pressure levels of 85 to 140 decibels in the test site incubator ranged from 0.3 to 4.8 pounds barns, the birds commonly stopped their usual ac- tper square foot; levels in the incubators at the con- tivities and exhibited what could be termed an trol site never exceeded the background noise pro- "alert" reaction. They quieted down, attempted to ' duced by fans inside the incubators. locate the source of the noise, and then either main- At the end of the incubtaion period,during which tained their position or moved away from the area over 600 sonic booms were produced at the test site, from which the aircraft was approaching. When • the hatch was taken off,and hatchability and terato- flock "movement" occurred, it was never a panicky i genic data were collected. No significant difference stampede but merely a shift of the flock away from in these parameters was found between exposed eggs t the approach-side roach-side of the building. and their corresponding controls except in one group PP g' where the control eggs were noticeably lower in Young chicks tended to move a greater distance in hatchability and number of functional chicks and response to the approaching aircraft than did higher in mortality. The mean hatchability of all broiler-sized birds or birds in layer flocks. Crowding 1 exposed eggs was 83.2 percent; that of the controls and piling up was never a problem. No injured, 1 was 81.3 percent. These data also fell within the smothered, or crushed birds were ever seen follow- range of hatchability reported by the egg supplier ing an overflight. . on hatches of this particular variety of eggs in his There was no evidence from production records, 1 hatchery. maintained by the large cooperative that owned i Ten percent of the hatched chicks from each test most of the poultry in this part of Arkansas,that egg and control set were subsequently raised to sexual 4 Y production, weight gains, feed efficiency, or flock 1 maturity and put into egg production. No differ- mortality were altered by these aerial operations. t ences were found between test and control birds A study by Hamm (11) published in 1967 was 1 in weight gain, feed conversion, onset of egg laying,or egg production. Pathological studies were made the direct outgrowth of alleged loss of egg production 1 in South Carolina from army maneuvers Swift of randomly selected, 12-week-old birds from each Strike in 1963 and 1964. Poultry producers claimed I set; no gross or microscopic differences were found. It was concluded that sonic booms of equal or that during the height of the maneuvers their egg greater overpressures than are normally created by production dropped 20 percent and the total loss operational aircraft or supersonic transport do not during the period was $250,000. adversely affect the normal development of chick Harnm's study showed that a single short stress of embryos and their subsequent growth. aircraft noise was not damaging, but that longer Fourth Quarter 1971 5 periods of stress (three days or more) did affect breeding pastel females and over 1,250 kits were production. He concluded, however, that the stress used in the study. per se did not affect egg production, but instead Mink were boomed four times between 0930 and kept hens from feed and water which in turn caused 1130 and four times between 1300 and 1530 from egg production loss. April 8 to June 1 at a special experimental site. The According to Stadelman (19), his studies showed times were picked at random with no less than 10 that recorded aircraft sounds of 96 db inside an minutes between booms. An approximate equal incubator and 131 db outside caused no damaging number of mink were kept at the control farm and effects to eggs.Sounds of 115 db did,however, inter- were not boomed. Since all groups of mink were rupt the setting tendencies of broody hens. His ex- bred in a similar manner before the moving or periments with day-old broiler chicks continuing booming was initiated, the production of kits per through market age showed no adverse effects from female whelping is considered to be the most valid recorded aircraft noise. criterion of reproductive performance in this One of the more recent research projects is that experiment. now being set up by South Carolina. Titled "Effect Kit production per female on experiment for the of Noise Pollution on the Fowl," two of the objet- mink receiving the sonic boom treatment with staffs- • tives are to determine (a) the hearing range of tically higher than that of the control (724 live kits chickens and (b) the degree of sound intensity that at 10 days from 180 females for an average per can produce damage to fowl hearing organs.Certain female kept of 4, compared to 427 live kits from phases of the study will involve the use of recorded 120 females for an average of 3.6). This was pri- hawk cries. manly because of a higher percentage of females whelping. The percentage of females whelping was Effects on Mink 91 percent for the boomed mink compared to 78 • percent for mink that did not receive the boom. Afair amount of research attention has been di- On a basis of kits per female whelping, the mink rected to the effects of noise on farm-reared mink, receiving the sonic boom treatment had essentially which are characteristically sensitive to stress. As the same litter size at 10 days (4.4 kits per female with other animals, some of the studies were ini- whelping compared to 4.5 kits per female whelping tiated to determine the legitimacy of damage claims f. in the groups not boomed). from producers. The highest percent of kit mortality was for mink Fallen (15) reported that if a female mink be- boomed the entire period. This contributed to comes nervous she is very liable to unintentionally slightly higher mortalities in the boomed group and kill some, if not all, of her kits in an attempt to pro- the group whelped at the farm where mink were tect or hide them. Such worry and excitement may boomed. However, the overall production (kits per also cause hardening of the mammary glands and, female on experiment) was higher for boomed mink being unable to nurse, the kits will die. Low flying and for mink whelping at the farm where the mink planes and severe electrical storms have caused were boomed. losses of very young kits. Hartsough (12) reported No effect could be attributed to differences in that noises or disturbances to which the mink are intensity of the boom, and there were no visible in- unaccustomed may result in kit losses. During the spring of 1967, a study (20) was con- dications that repeated booming caused increased ducted by USDA's Agricultural Research Service on excitability or nervous reactions. . two commercial mink farms in Virginia to determine Under the conditions of this study, no harmful the effects of simulated sonic booms upon preg- effects to mink were observed that could be attrib- nancy, parturition, and kit production of farm- uted to exposure to the simulated sonic booms. Re- raised mink. Sonic booms were simulated by a large production in both the boomed and not-boomed horn into which 2 charges of compressed air were groups could be considered normal. released sequentially by time-controlled ruptures of One of the most recent research studies on the the two diaphragms.This produced overpressures of effect of noise on mink was an interdisciplinary one 0.5 to 2.0 pounds per square foot. Three hundred conducted cooperatively in 1970 by the U.S. Depart- 6 Agricultural Science Review merit of Agriculutre, U.S. Air Force, University of --4 Phantom jet plane on straight-level flight Alaska, and Washington State University. Aim of ath at 8,000 feet moving at speed Mach 1.2. Over- the project was to determine the effects of real and ressures measured on ground plane averaged 6.45 simulated sonic booms on the behavior, reproduc- ounds per square foot for the 3 booms. tion,and growth of farm-raised mink. On May 12, mink at the "simulator" site were The study was conducted on Mitkof Island, near objected to three simulated booms produced by a Petersburg,Alaska—a location chosen because mink evice made for this purpose. It consisted of a 13.5- are successfully raised there, experienced personnel oot-diameter exponential horn into which two were available for management, test mink could be narges of compressed inert gas could be released isolated for booming without booming the control oddenly from the small end by rupture of thin site, and isolation would eliminate other possible iaphragms, producing a pressure pulse propagated disturbance of the animals. rom the horn. Mink nearest the simulator were Test animals were violet colored and homozygous ubjected to overpressures of 5.8 pounds per square for the recessive aleutian genes. Mink with this oot. genetic background are less hardy and more difficult Observers recorded running descriptions of on- to raise than mink not homozygous for the aleutian roing activity of females for 3 days prior to boom at genes, thus providing a stringent test of possible he"boom"site to provide baseline data on behavior adverse effects of sonic booms under farm conditions. if undisturbed females during whelping season. On May 11, when 40 percent of the females had iimilar observations on May 11 included the period whelped, mink at the "boom" site were subjected before, during, and after booms. Other observers to three sonic booms produced by a U.S. Air Force )btained similar information at the "simulator" site in the day before and the day of the simulated wom. ,Tye repast is in the paver of being published. At the time this Following both real and simulated sonic booms, 1 ankle wee written,publishing data wee not yet available. I 4 h � li' / t i a Fourth Quarter 1971 451.124 a 72 2 I sacrificed likewise gave no evidence that bacterial Noise and Man disease was induced following exposure to booms. Examination of females and kits 8 weeks after ex- A possible teaching of a recent critical and posure to booms indicated infection by pyogenic historical analysis of environmental noise 1bacteria, but it did not appear to be related to the is that, other than as a damaging agent to treatments. No evidence of aleutian disease, mink i the ear and a masker of auditory information, virus enteritis, canine distemper virus, or mink noise will not harm man or interfere with his encephalopathy was found. mental or motor performance. According to this concept, man should be Effects on Sheep I able to adaptphysiologicallyto his noise P A limited amount of research has been conducted environment, with only transitory interfer- on the effects of noise on sheep. In a Kansas study ence effects. Yet this concept, or its converse, (1) 10 early weaned lambs were subjected to 12 is difficult to substantiate by scientific research days of continuous 75 db noise followed by 12 days { and must be recognized as hypothetical at of continuous 100 db noise. A second group was j this time. subjected to 12 days of continuous 100 db noise. Because of the striking similarity of the A 14-day control period (background noise of 45 organ of hearing among people, both the db) preceded each trial. Data were collected on 7 auditory damaging effect and the masking heart and respiration rate,oxygen consumption,and of information can be predicted and meat- pituitary, ovary, and uterine weights. There were Iured with considerable accuracy. Not so, significant changes in heart rate, and adrenal and I however, with other physiological stress re- pituitary weights declined during sound exposure. lactions. People tend to respond differently Lambs in the 75 db group gained more than those 1 to noise, and—depending on the character of in the 100 db group and the controls. ) the stimulus—may exhibit annoyance, frus- Two other Kansas sheep studies (2,3) indicated tration,or fear. Authorities seem to agree that that (a) sound intensities of 90 db inhibit the re- if such stress reactions are not eliminated lease of thyroid hormones, and (b) the audiogram through learning, they would undoubtedly be curve for sheep occurs at a higher frequency than i harmful to mental and physical health. for humans. 1 As previously noted in Casady and Lehmann's i 'The Effects of Noise on Mon,Karl D.Kryter,Academia Press. study (7) hones, and sheep, reactions of N.Y.,1970. on cattle, P. sheep to both actual and simulated sonic booms were slight. the reaction of most female mink appeared to be Researrh in Other Countries brief and of little consequence to on-going behavior. RESEARCH on the effects of noise on farm- ; General activity returned to levels comparable to raised animals in foreign countries has followed those observed on days of baseline observations somewhat the same pattern as that in the United within 5 minutes after each boom.Decrease in overt States. The most recent research, however, con- response to each successive boom suggested that cerns primarily the effect of sonic booms, and in i the observed females adapted quickly to recurring most instances the results are negative. A number sonic booms not accompanied by other sensory cues of these studies were discussed at an international to danger. No activity suggesting continued arousal conference on sonic noise held in Stockholm,Sweden or general panic within the colony was noted. in 1971. Necropsy examinations of all mink that died im- The French research program appears to be mediately before or immediately after exposure to an on-going one and coven studies on the reactions booms (April 30-May 13) indicated spontaneous of poultry, swine, cattle, and bees—also on life disease commonly found in ranch aleutian mink. organisms (chick, pheasant, and partridge embryos None of the deaths could be related to sonic booms, during hatching) exposed to sonic booms. One of Bacterial examination of animals that died or were the aims of the French research is to determine the 8 Agricultural Science Review - 1 maximal frequency and intensity which animals can site from another farm appeared nervous for the 1 endure without any damage. Cottereau (8) has first 7 weeks, after which they showed little con- reported that chick embryos exposed to six simu- cem for the noise. lated sonic booms daily were not affected by the Conclusions I noise. However, broilers that had been exposed i to six sonic booms since birth showed a marked ON the basis of the research studies conducted I startled reaction and stopped all activity for 20 to to date, it seems reasonable to conclude that sonic i 30 seconds whenever boomed. The growth rate and booms from aircraft have little or no effect on the a efficiency of these broilers were normal. behavior and productive capacity of farm-raised Ruddelsden (18),a British researcher,has studied animals—at least at the intensities and frequency of the sonic boom effect on laying birds.Originally,his occurrence to which they have been exposed so far. }1 study was set up with pheasants as the subject birds, Most of these studies were initiated primarily to ob- tain reliable data on which to base decisions about 9 but a flock of lapwings had established nests in the 7 vicinity of the test range, and he decided to include damage claims allegedly resulting from supersonic them in the experiment. aircraft flying over animal installations. The inci- t The lapwings appeared to be unperturbed by the dence of such claims had been rising sharply since s booms,and the process of laying,incubation, hatch- 1961 and reached a peak in 1964. During the 10- ing and chick rearing was accomplished in a natural year period from 1961 to 1970, the U.S. Air Force manner.Daily egg production trend of the pheasants reported 238 claims totaling $898,000 (4). Of appeared to fall on days subsequent to boom activ- these, only 98 were allowed and the total amount ' ity, but, when compared with trends pertaining to awarded was $127,953. Most of the claims were for the same pheasantry over two other seasons during alleged mink losses. In 1970, only one claim was which no boom activity occurred,the similarities im- filed—for $275—and it was disallowed. Apparently l plied that the day-to-day variations were due to some mink ranchers are not yet convinced that sonic some influence other than the effect of the simulated boom causes no adverse effects to their animals,and sonic booms. Rate of fertility in the pheasantry was it was largely for this reason that the previously men- highest for the season when sonic booms were ex- tioned comprehensive Alaskan study was initiated. perienced. Even though research has given us some solid , Ruddelsden believes the evidence obtained from answers about the effects of sonic boom on farm- his observations tends to indicate that the laying raised animals, our knowledge about the stress ef- habits within these two species of birds will not be fects of the rising incidence of ambient sounds I adversely affected by the anticipated supersonic which most animals endure is still rather meager. i flights of transport aircraft. Few if any studies have been set up in the United Quite in contrast to the generally negative results States under settings similar to the previously cited reported elsewhere, a 4-year Japanese study (14) one in Japan. Perhaps eventaully we will learn that in the late 1950's reported severe reactions and re- farm animals have a greater capacity to endure duced milk flow of 5 dairy cows housed near the sound stress than has been demonstrated for man. site of speed boat races running 72 hours a month But the full answers to the problem have not yet been j for several months. The lowered lactation curves brought out by research. coincide exactly with the periods of high noise in- Much of our present knowledge about the effects i of noise on farm animals has resulted from only a tensity; however, the small size of the sample tested is far from ideal. few planned studies. We know even less about the effects of noise on wildlife, although a number of As a part of the same Japanese study, laying hens incidents have been recorded indicating that the housed 20 meters from a busy highway and a rail- effects can be even more detrimental than on road track were observed for nearly a year. liens domestic animals. Admittedly, planned studies in that had been originally hatched and raised at the this area would be difficult to set up. Therefore, i site appeared to pay no attention to the traffic noise whatever knowledge we glean may have to come and their egg production was near normal. How- from further and more comprehensive studies on ever, 50 60-day old chicks brought in to the test those animals over which we have some control.The Fourth Quarter 1971 9 present consensus seems to be that noise pollution enough to conclude that the animals on which we is primarily a concern of man. But do we know depend are immune to its effects? LITERATURE CITED (1) AMES, D. R., AND AREHART, L. A. (13) HEINEMANN, J. M. 1969. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF LAMBS TO 1969. EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOMS ON THE HATCH- IS DB AND 100 DB USASI NOISE. PUT. of ABILITY OF CHICKEN EGGS AND OTHER Animal SCI., 31 (1). STUDIES OP AIRCRAFT-GENERATED NOISE (2) Amax,D. R. EFFECTS ON ANIMALS. Paper presented to 1971. THYROID RESPONSES TO SOUND WAVES. Symposium on Extra-Auditory Effects of Jour. of Animal Sci., 33 (1). Audible Sound, AAAS annual meeting. (3) AREHART, L. A., AND AMES, D. R. Boston. 1969. AUDIOGRAM FOR SHEEP. Jour. of Animal (14) ODA, R. SCI., 31 (1). 1960. NOISE AND FARM ANIMALS. Anim. Indus. (4) BELL, WILSON B. Japan 14(7):888. 1972. ANIMAL RESPONSE TO SONIC BOOMS. JOUr. (15) PALLEN, D. of the Acoustical Soc.of America.Jan. 1944. PRACTICAL MINK BREEDING METHODS. Fur (5) BOND, JAMES, WINCHESTER, C. F., CAMPBELL, Trade Jour. of Canada. Nov. L. E., AND WEBB, J. C. (16) PARKER, J. B., AND BAYLEY, N. D. 1963. EFFECTS OF LOUD SOUNDS ON THE PHYSI- 1960. INVESTIGATIONS ON EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OLOGY AND BEHAVIOR OP SWINE. USDA- SOUND ON MILK PRODUCTION OF DAIRY ARS Tech. Bull. No. 1280. CATTLE. 1957-58. USDA-ARS 44-60. (6) BUOARD,P.,HENRY,M.,BERNARD,C.,AND LABIA,C. (17) RAMM, GORDON M., AND BOORD, L. 1960. ASPECTS NEURO-ENDOCRINIENS ET METABO- 1957. ANATOMY OF THE PIG'S EAR AND SOME LIQUES DE L'AORESSION SONORA. Revue EFFECTS OF THE NOISE ON SWINE. 36 pp., de Pathologic Generale et de Physiologic illus. Univ. of Md. (Unpub. Rpt., USDA Clinique 60:1683. Contract No. 12-14-100-282(53). (7) CASADAY, R. B., AND LEHMANN, R. P. (18) RUDDLESDEN, F. 1967. RESPONSES OF FARM ANIMALS TO SONIC 1971. SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE EFFECT OP BOOMS. Sonic Boom Exp. at Edwards Air BANG NOISES ON LAYING BIRDS. Tech. Rpt. Force Base. 71084. Royal Aircraft Establishment. (8) Cori:awl, PH. ST UDY A STUDY ON THE PHYSIOLOGIC AND PATH- Ministry of Defense Aviation Supply. OLOGIC EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOMS ON SOME (19) STADELMAN, W. J. ANIMALS. 1957. EFFECT OF SOUND OP VARYING INTENSITY (9) DAWSON, W. M., AND RAVENS, R. L. ON HATCHABILITY OF CHICKEN EGGS. Poul- 1946. VARYING SUSCEPTIBILITY IN PIGS IN ALARM. try Sci. 37:1. Jour. of Comparative Psychology 39 (20) TRAVIS, H. F., RICHARDSON, G. V., MENEAR,J. R., (6):297. AND BOND,JAMES. (/0) ELY, F., AND PETERSEN, W. E. 1968. THE EFFECTS OP SIMULATED SONIC BOOMS 1941. FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE EJECTION OF ON REPRODUCTION AND BEHAVIOR OF MILK. Jour. of Dairy Sci., 24 (3): 211-23. FARM-RAISED MINK. USDA—ARS 44-200. (/I) HAMM, D. (21) WINCHESTER, C. F., CAMPBELL, L. E., BOND, 1967. SENSORY STRESS EFFECT ON LAYERS. Poul- JAMES, AND WEBB,J. C. try Sci. 46:5. 1959. EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT SOUND ON SWINE. (/2) HARTSOUGH,G. R. U.S. Wright Air Development Center 1968. ITEM. Amer. Fur Breeder. Sept. Tech. Rpt. 59-200. The Author, JAMES BOND, is a researc animal scientist, Animal Science Research Division, Agri ultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Belts'I. r, Md. r sy ",yq;;F ym'r ye A t x 1,-;',..,!.i.,.. '3v,.ku t,�y •F. 't} , s. ' { Jam , moo -t 3 't iv., t" 4+"a x• (::::::{4,4,44, 4?!.: 4,`a f yt'1'7"''' v c , 2 9`z t "`x''1 .;.r:$1. >F .f' ,;,:;:A*.,;..-{' t ,#t:r li.l 03 4' adz a4 `.`� .p^ "�'"' "°+°}�"TM i�" �` F�� s :44, f ,} e w'�w .+age, a'xa � �f� f e I5. r i"a €2101:y,1T,�' 1 r4'+-f' is &$ 4t4` . 4� ` 1,K5r'r x " �f?` NSai'lT lilac, a Y i i f r x 14**P "T`r. 4,t g s l �m r*„r ,t av°) J.v. at4 fi, y Jm`c'��S t 'a". Tic ., =';qr}s E� '" p ', ' -a , a;,, 3c;� is "z; ,tit f *y4' .R s m"� r r,gtss " .4,1_41/.4:5',44L, aw t efr T ks 4q g t"f,`_ 4', `' y, ( '§,T Z' '+, '/„i M, Fy �.f _. y 1 .- 'AM #t 'e £ M i ) k $° ,q t 45:0i�h L x a v:Srf n r t , &, a a wr txs 7 a ,, } o v Er, nN �' .,� ,ts r z � L r !��'?C� �� rT+ � . 'rKM � `.:y �a r k�i�r� 3 '�f(}.y.T -::,..:1/42..0' p n a:14,t'3 c '13;‘"';';i' .3.f rc 4 ',1':.'t «j h 7M3: 1 .1"b�'1 r�' `fr 4 '' i a' '? 7 ^;' in-,}4i., .io-xr Pfv r s k-{ i r, # 1..,..s:4 }ny- 4 is r4'''''''''‘''.1W` YA if, 3y',—fN + 'Y�'b. J w -"@ ''r".?m:- ,ass' -G R !'e� r,' ,.•' � at" vaa` r� �r�r` `" M1'' ri Fn.ly .ar " (3 `$�'+�tJR � �7'�.rCrt wE�4 % yf n (34;.r .3 ♦ 1 54 4' :.'33 31'f/.:.,44.1--";"-54,4.4,4%°-4 " #♦ w3 �ju 4. n' xi'' :ha; t 1. r ' & 1"M YdtR :.4...'{�' y'�' r .'r 4. 'eVr 1.,1741":/.”,:',4'1,4-dtl `MST` Yw *' ' i .4: k 'I 153 Registration and Taxation of Aircraft 41-2-101 C.J.S. See 2A C.J.S., Aeronautics and Aerospace, 4 7. Law review. For article, "From the Floor of ... Hell to the Ceiling of Heaven", see 16 Dicta 1'-5 0939). : t" 41-1-107. Ownership of space. The ownership of space above the lands ;; ' and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of 5 ' " the surface beneath, subject to the right of flight of aircraft. k ' Source: L. 37, p. 252, § 7; CSA, C. 17, § 15; CRS 53, § 5-1-6; C.R.S. 1963, § 5-1-6. a , w Cross reference: For estates above the surface,compare article 32 of title 38. : Am. Jur. See 8 Am. Jur.2d, Aviation, Law review. For article, "From the Floor of ]_ S § 3-g Hell to the Ceiling of Heaven", see 16 Dicta , C.J.S. See 2A C.I.S., Aeronautics and 125(1939). Of Aerospace,§8. ,'s., 41-1-108. Penalty for violation. Any person who violates any provision of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall .be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprison- i 4:444t. ment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. I ,t. Source: L. 37, p. 254, § 12; CSA, C. 17, § 20; CRS 53, § 5-1-7; C.R.S. 1963, § 5-1-7. 1t1 TM 'r' Am. Jur. See 8 Am. Jur.2d, Aviation, § 137. C.J.S. See 2A C.J.S., Aeronautics and '. Aerospace,4 287. 66 � 7 ARTICLE 2 t-e2sqq-r vacsJJf� 1 `/ 11 ji T Registration and Taxation of Aircraft . II - tie mr 41-2-101. Definitions. 41-2-114. Expiration of registration — r. 100 41-2-102. Application of tax. renewal. NI , , 41-2-103. Registration of aircraft—excep- 41-2-115. Registration upon transfer. 1 $ tion. 41-2-116. Disposition of fees. I A 41-__-104. Aircraft exempt from registration. - f 41-v - - 41-2-117. Registration not required,when. � " I05. Application for registration—fee. 414-106. Amount and collection of specific 41-2-118. Nonresidents. t' ownership tax. 41-2-119. Registration suspended,when. , 41-2-107. Compilation of aircraft. 41-2-120. " 41 P� Registration not granted,when. r 108. Ownership tax prorated. 41-2-121. Registration rescinded and can- celed.When ownership tax effective. celed,when. 3:l.'s 41-2-110. Disposition of tax. a x 41-2-III. Registration of war surplus air- 41-2-122. Violation of registration provi- ...%.' craft. sions. 41-2-112. Department to keep records. 41-2-123. Penalty. ,.1$ 41-2-113. Markers furnished by department. 41-2-124. Actions based on flight in aircraft. 41-2-101. Definitions. As used in this article. unless the context otherwise g t / requires: ₹a yw As 4,r 3 A 49 USCS § 1303 TRANSPORTATION INTERPRETIVE NOTES AND DECISIONS b � 1. Purpose Starr v United States (1975, ND Tex) 393 F 2. Duty of care Supp 1359. 3. —Extent of duty 4. Federal liability 3.—Extent of duty e.71at 5. Promotion of civil aeronautics Public interest in air safety embodied in 49 < 6. Removal of restrictions on authority USCS § 1303 extends to safety of persons on F ground as well as to pilots and others aboard 1.Purpose aircraft. Starr v United States (1975, ND Tex) Federal Aviation Act (49 USCS §§ 1301 et 393 F Supp 1359; Himmler v United States seq.) was passed by Congress for purpose of (1979,ED Pa)474 F Supp 914. creating one administration with power to frame rules for safe and efficient use of nation's air- 4.Federal liability space. Air Lines Pilots Asso., International v Federal government sustains no liability for Quesada (1960, CA2 NY) 276 F2d 892, 9 BNA city's failure to take adequate safety precautions at'sg 3 FEP Cas 1027, 46 BNA LRRM 2022, 1 CCH in operation of municipal airport where FAA EPD 119663, 40 CCH LC ¶66459, later app lacked any viable means of controlling airport (CA2 NY) 286 F2d 319, 9 BNA FEP Cas 1031, operations. Starr v United States(1975,ND Tex) 47 BNA LRRM 2571,42 CCH LC¶ 16785,cert 393 F Supp 1359. den 366 US 962, 6 L Ed 2d 1254, 81 S Ct 1923, . 9 BNA FEP Cas 1407, 48 BNA LRRM 2430, 5.Promotion of civil aeronautics a reh den 368 US 870, 7 L Ed 2d 71, 82 S Ct 27. Regulation allowing only all-cargo carriers to provide blocked space service is consistent with 2.Duty of care duty, under 49 USCS §1303(b), to promote civil tl: Government's duty of care and maintenance aeronautics. American Airlines, Inc. v Civil in promotion of safe and efficient air traffic Aeronautics Board (1966) 123 App DC 310, 359 P control system is defined in part by provisions in F2d 624, cert den 385 US 843, 17 L Ed 2d 75, procedure manuals, and extends to both flight 87 S Ct 73. ' crews and their passengers. Delta Air Lines, Inc. . ' v United States (1977, CAI Mass) 561 F2d 381, 6.Removal of restrictions on authority 1 - 46 ALE Fed 1, cert den 434 US 1064, 55 L Ed Board's deemphasis of economic feasibility 2d 764, 98 S Ct 1238 and competitive injury in cases involving re- x FAA controllers in airport tower breach their moval of restrictions on operating. authority, duty of care imposed by 49 USCS § 1303 by based on theory that removal of operating re- failing to observe that boy was riding motorcycle strictions merely permits, rather than demands, near runway and failing to either communicate additional service, is sufficiently attuned to pub- "N f.. such information to plane which struck and lic interest considerations of 49 USCS §1303. pub- :#1,-III,- a `a t. killed boy, or to refuse landing clearance to United Air Lines, Inc. v Civil Aeronautics Board 1 e aircraft until runway was known to be clear. (1967,CA7)371 F2d 22L t: , § 1304. Public right of transit There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of N - 4., .."S.;....... the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable t) . airspace of the United States. (Aug. 23, 1958, P. L. 85-726, Title I, § 104, 72 Stat. 740.) HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES a :cr 37. ; Effective date of section: 4 a ;• Act Aug. 23, 1958, P. L. 85-726, § 1505, 72 Stat. 811, which appears as w`,, ..r ' fi „ 49 USCS § 1301 note, provides that this section shall be effective on the '., ,rl <,n 60th day following the date on which the Administrator of the Federal ��i' , § l4;: Aviation Agency is first appointed, which occurred on Oct. 31, 1958. w d,, ' t4` 222 s 4Sii,...4rte'O ,t„n.t'! e: �d xs 4/tv.t:i- ' 3i-,4:4:O(•••• x t 4t F t ."4.,^744,4 "Y',.1-' 1"''-':".=r3s,kf7r.,'-''',4;4=== 3j. b a v: ♦' y :a yis J az4 4 ,*`v'4 zx tit .-, .3,. �p .x y a''kt,A; a 'Ff'M 3 }a+.4 a fy f . ,�, --4 [t' ,,. f $ .,=(,44,(c.".-'-t.7,-,,,:t.-a .* •. :d . �` tM 6 e S'.."d i.V }' . . s +x45e ^ ''^y it &. r+, t f,N4.iS5w *a,,a r, rc r . s*'-, Ai. '�t''- �1 w. 74^.91 .•,y yr P,-41,,`,•-.ciftFcirF'H': �u r a .t' 3. m x , . :'i' ♦ .L:$ �,*'�. - +,_:i'"d '5.+{ .�' k.'�ir��. :A- # ''..Y;:-.,-.:41C42!; •'''..',',(4.....,v�� a •.Z ��t y,�y,' p � a, cz: vA l'i h'"' .',i s:- ✓, o S a 1 q.,"r>t 4�f r} ,,1 .f v 4 o- ,X: t`" �,: ixl`` r," : r *'I8iI * '�' 4.y x r' • , �,):' '�§w - a �k,� d�t�;; k vY^r R , r i ¢ k3i .a r, q, a y,4 # a I f'aa .�. _r t � �. "Fit !*� FEDERAL AVIATION ACT 49 USCS § 1304, n 3 .-:, , ,+_ li �? CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Airworthiness directives for unsafe products, 14 CFR Part 39. ' '° .x Objects affecting navigable airspace, 14 CFR Part 77. ' 4-. ; RESEARCH GUIDE Am Jur: 8 Am Jur 2d, Aviation §§ 6, 55. ', 70 Am Jur 2d, Shipping 520. a PP B § Am Jur Proof of Facts: - - ' . Airport Noise, 18 Am Jur Proof of Facts, p. 123. ,'Ir t_, INTERPRETIVE NOTES AND DECISIONS iy1-•:•,.„.:.-*? I. Generally whether distribution of preferentials is made on 2. Exclusive control the spot, or by advance classification through • , j::c,..4•.• .',.1. ' '•`-'"3s 3. Liability of airports regulations which have as their object attainment 4. Condemnation and compensation of efficient utilization of airspace or air safety, or f 5. —Notice and opportunity to abate nuisance both. Aircraft Owners & Pilots Asso. v Port Authority of New York (1969, ED NY) 305 F I.Generally Supp 93. f Y Federal acts regulating air commerce are Since commercial aviation represents right of T based on Congressional power to regulate inter- greater number of people to use navigable air- .:-,O',,-,15:1:. state commerce, not on national ownership of space of United States, implementation of con- SS navigable air space. Braniff Airways, Inc. v gressional policy requires preference for commer- ., s Nebraska State Board of Equalization & Assess- cial aircraft over private aircraft and by implica- r w.',aI•' ment (1954) 347 US 590, 98 L Ed 967, 74 S Ct tion over air cargo. Dallas v Southwest Airlines ti x'* 757, reh den 348 US 852, 99 L Ed 671, 75 S Ct Co. (1973, ND Tex)371 F Supp 1015, affd(CA5 'I 18. Tex) 494 F2d 773, reh den (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d *"R a :4 "Navigable airspace," includes not only space 1407 and cert den 419 US 1079, 42 L Ed 2d ° x `� • above minimum altitude prescribed by regulation 674, 95 S Ct 668, reh den 420 US 913, 42 L Ed Y ,- • a ,. but also that space below fixed altitude needed to 2d 845,95 S Ct 837. set flight paths for climb and descent that are' !. - consistent with safest operating techniques and 2. Exclusive control '%",, practices. Newark v Eastern Airlines, Inc. (1958, 49 USCS § 1304 provides for exclusive federal DC NJ) 159 F Supp 750. control of navigable air space and invalidates +,!t Legislation, whatever its purpose, that denies State court order enjoining expansion of town's ==r_- access to navigable airspace by local rule cannot airport to extent that such order prevents air- ≥;. - { but be regarded as plain and forbidden exertion craft from using navigable air space. United . of power to regulate commerce; federal regula- States v New Haven (1974, CA2 Conn)496 F2d Lion of air navigation and air traffic is so com- 452, cert den and app dismd 419 US 958, 42 L plete that it leaves no room for local legislation Ed 2d 174, 95 S Ct 218. ..... _ which might impose different and inconsistent rules. American Airlines, Inc. v Hempstead 3. Liability of airports -` (1967, ED 'NY) 272 F Supp 226, affd (CA2 NY) Fact that Congress has declared freedom of ;, . • 398 F2d 369, cert den 393 US 1017, 21 L Ed 2d transit through navigable air space and defined 561, 89 5 Ct 620. navigable air space to include space needed for .J'"A • - • ' Considerations of safety and of efficient utiliza- safety in takeoff and landing does not immunize y.;? tion of airspace are both valid grounds upon owner and operator of airport from liability for which to establish preferential assignments of failure to appropriate land and air space neces- landing and takeoff time, and are perfectly com- sary to provide adequate approach. Aaron v Los patible with interest of every person in protec- Angeles (1974, 2d Dist)40 Cal App 3d 471, 115 tion of his freedom of access to navigable air- Cal Rptr 162,cert den 419 US 1122, 42 L Ed 2d -4=t,', k ways and related landing areas; this is true 822,95 S Ct 806. y, 223 `4`c,•,a � . Ax';4:-,44i,-..17.4r .,�. v ,FY �t>w e[s ' ;:` v TRANSPORTATION t 49 USCS b 5` ,r. 4.Condemnation and compensation No property owner in path of raise of VASI Low landings and takeoff flights by airplanes equipment may erect or allow to grow any to and from defendant county's airport over structure or tree so as to interfere with operation of such equipment; however, where nght to k} A. of air plaintiff's ment for rl property stios "taking" of air easement which compensation must be maintain and enjoy trees is acquired before right 'r �. paid, Griggs v Allegheny County (1962) 369 US of Air Board is fixed by law, such right is a - '• 84, 7 L Ed 2d 585, 82 S Ct 531, reh den 369 US protected by Constitution and may not be taken 4 except by condemnation. Shipp v Louisville & '0t t r " 857, 8 L Ed 2d 16, 82 S Ct 931. Jefferson County Air Board (1968, Ky) 431 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensation SW2d 867, cert den 393 US 1088, 21 L Ed 2d z for taking of their property by United States, 782 89 S Ct 880. through its use of property's navigable airspace, ti Though 49 USCS § 1304 recognizes that there below minimum altitudes of flight. Matson v s r• exists public right of free transit through naviga- ble airspace in United States where evidence ' 283. shows that in use of airport facilities low overf- sr �. Original taking of aviation easement does not lights of great numbers of aircraft of all types ',".'..; '1,- bar award of additional damages when introduc- , . which, m their landings and takeoffs, habitually tion of larger, heavier, and noiser aircraft at air and constantly invade airspace immediately su- _ field further reduce value of land over which peradjacent to property, substantially impairing original aviation easement was taken. Avery v enjoyment and use of property, there is constitu- United States (1964) 165 Ct CI 357, 330 F2d tional taking of private property for public use 640. for which compensation must be paid. Jackson s Landowner owns only as much of space above Municipal Airport Authority v Wright (1970, a $ ground he occupies as he uses in connection with Miss) 232 So 2d 709, later app(Miss) 300 So 2d � .: land and airspace which lies above immediate 805,later app(Miss)344 So 2d 471. aj '• I? reaches of land is defined as public domain and Inverse condemnation is remedy available to 1 may be used by public as navigable airspace; one whose land has been taken for public use ;;l flight of aircraft across land cannot be said to be without formal condemnation proceedings; it is trespass without taking into consideration ques- characterized as action or eminent domain pro- ?AA', x .rer tion of altitude; landowner may maintain private ceeding initiated by property owner, rather than u. i -t ? action for trespass but there must be evidence condemnor, to allow owner to obtain just com- ` a''.; ; ? not only that aircraft passed over his land but pensation for his property in accordance with his also that there was unlawful invasion of immedi- constitutional right where condemnor has no ? , ate reaches of his land and interference with intention or willingness to bring condemnation ,' ^- possession and use of airspace. Newark v East- proceeding or there is no proceeding provided -` ern Airlines, Inc. (1958, DC NJ) 159 F Supp for by statute; compensation is to be calculated ,K 750. when cause of action accrues,which is at time of m . • r j'40 Frequent flights of aircraft over property, at taking of easement. Jackson Municipal Airport low altitudes, may cause injury and damage for Authority v Wright (1970, Miss) 232 So 2d 709, « ,' which landowner is entitled to just compensation later app (Miss) 300 So 2d 805, later app(Miss) or damages, or may be so low and so frequent as 344 So 2d 471. to constitute taking of property by government Persons who have mere rights of use, rather for public use; if such flights do not amount to than proprietary interest in land, have no inter- taking, but cause physical injury or damage, est in airspace immediately above their property ' f7Y" ai action for damages may be maintained under and may not allege trespass in airspace near to '§a)of:, 1 y - Federal Tort Claims Act (28 USCS §§2671 et or above their easement. Mills v Orcas Power & K seq.) Western v McGehee(1962,DC Md)202 F Light Co. (1960) 56 Wash 2d 807, 355 Pad 781. .-- f ,, 4.,. %.1.:"`44.1', Supp 287. No overflight or direct physical invasion of � Jet aircraft passing over land within approach airspace over land is necessary to maintain ac- -4 `k• "I'",!!-,;?..� ;z-. zone to runway several times a day at height of tion charging government "taking or damaging" t c rra�` .,...,,,s,...,,,,.. less than 500 feet is sufficiently direct and imme- of land; landowner may be compensated when- diate' Jt .�( + -,t,.1,„ interference with owner's use and enjoy- ever there is interference with use of land of ment of land to constitute taking by municipality sufficient directness, peculiarity, and magnitude which owns and operates airport. East Haven v that fairness and justice require burden to be Eastern Airlines, Inc. (1971, DC Conn) 331 F borne by public and not by individual alone. Supp 16, supp op (DC Conn) 333 F Supp 338, Martin v Port of Seattle(1964) 64 Wash 2d 309, affd (CA2) 470 F2d 148, cert den 411 US 965, 391 P2d 540, cert den 379 US 989, 13 L Ed 2d 36L Ed 2d 685,93SCt 2144. 610, 85 SO701. 224 3 r i j ',Fes 'I S 3 ti . . , µ �.. V‘;'4-4,t ,b;' E r �t `a "'i"E� ;'.-;41''..�.. " ..4 .:k y ^R 01 M 4' I*."xu, k+47•" ant -2 e. , -�'� U.S.Department 800 Independence Ave., S.W. of Transportation Washington, D . 20591 Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Archie Trammell Executive Vice President AOPA Air Safety Foundation 7315 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Subject: Interim Recognition of Ultralight Vehicle Safety Programs Dear Mr. Trammell: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) , based on a review of the ultra- light pilot competency and vehicle registration programs submitted by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation (ASF) on March 8, approves the immediate implemen- tation of those programs. While the FAA has not, as yet, officially established guidelines for these programs, the ASF programs meet those presently proposed. The ASF will be informed if any revisions to their programs are necessary on issuance of those guidelines. Pilot Competency. The FAA will recognize, as proof of achievement of a national standard of competency, documents issued under the ASF's ultralight vehicle pilot competency program. Vehicle Registration. The FAA will recognize, on a national basis, marking registration numbers and vehicle requirements issued under the ASF's eg ultralight vehicle registration program. Vehicle Airworthiness. The FAA understands that the ASF will also submit an ultralight vehicle airworthiness program in the near future. We commend the Air Safety Foundation for its role in initiating these first efforts toward achievement of "self regulation" within the ultralight comnunity in important user safety areas. Sincerely, ,� Bernard A. Geier Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division SUBJECT ASF POWERED ULTRALIGHT VEHICLE PILOT COMPETENCY AND REGISTRATION PROGRAM Interest of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation The AOPA Air Safety Foundation (ASF) is a nonprofit foundation dedicated to general aviation safety through pilot education and training, accident prevention and aeronautical research. The ASF has gained an international reputation for enhancing safety through the development of outstanding aviation training courses and for the high caliber of instruction provided by ASF programs. ASF currently conducts more than 1000 airman training programs annually throughout the nation. In cooperation with FAA, it provides revalidation clinics for more than 18,000 certificated flight instructors and it publishes two safety periodicals plus numerous safety notices, bulletins and alerts each year. Since 1950 all of these safety services have been available to the entire airman public without regard to membership in any organization. One ASF bi-monthly publication, the Air Safety Journal is mailed, free of charge, to all active airman with no other qualification necessary. A second publication, the quarterly Flight Instructor Safety Report, is mailed free of charge to all CFIs. The ASF has now embarked on new safety programs designed for the rapidly evolving ultralight industry. The primary objective of the ASF is to create and administer a national program for collecting, analyzing and rapidly communicating ultralight safety information. ASF is uniquely qualified to meet that objective through established and long standing national programs for certificated flight instructors, pilot safety seminars, safety research and communications through periodicals dedicated to safety issues. To facilitate that primary objective, ASF will establish and maintain a national list of ultralight vehicle pilots and vehicle owners, a national accident/ incident reporting and feedback system and programs to assist ultralight vehicle pilots in acquiring and documenting the knowledge and skills necessary for safe ultralight operations as specified in FAR 103 and FAA Advisory Circular 103-1. POWERED ULTRALIGHT VEHICLE PILOT COMPETENCY AND REGISTRATION PROGRAM The ASF powered ultralight vehicle pilot competency and registration program is that part of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's (ASF) overall ultralight safety activities which is designed to fulfill the request of the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration (FAA) as stated in the preamble to FAR Part 1O3: "The ultralight community is expected to take positive action to develop these (pilot competency and registration) programs in a timely manner and gain FAA approval for their implementation." In this document "ultralight vehicle" and "ultralight" will mean powered ultralight vehicle. The ASF powered ultralight pilot competency and registration program consists of: 1) A national network of ASF Registered Examiners. ASF Registered Examiners will test and observe the knowledge and competency of ultralight pilot applicants. Upon successful completion of examinations by an applicant, the ASF Registered Examiner will be privileged to recommend that the ultra- light pilot be registered with the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. 2) A common national registration list of powered ultralight pilots. Each ultralight pilot who requests a competency evaluation from an ASF Registered Examiner and successfully completes all portions of that evaluation to the satisfaction of the ASF Registered Examiner may then request to be registered with the AOPA Air Safety Foundation as an Ultralight Pilot. The Ultralight Pilot registration list, and the ASF Registered Examiner list, will be used for timely communication of safety information pertinent to the ultralight pilot and vehicle he or she flies. I. ASF Powered Ultralight Pilot Examiner. This part prescribes the requirements for the registration of ASF Registered Examiners. In order to be registered by ASF as an ASF Registered Examiner the applicant will: (a) before October 1, 1983, certify that he/she is an active ultralight vehicle flight instructor. Further, the applicant will: 1. Certify that he/she: a. Has flown powered ultralights for not less than 20 hours over a period of not less than six months, b. Has flown powered ultralights from at least three different sites, c. Has flown at least five hours in each make and model of powered ultralight in which he/she is instructing, d. Has given instruction to at least five powered ultralight students while they were in flight; and, e. Is at least 18 years of age. 2. Successfully complete an ASF Registered Examiner seminar conducted by ASF which includes a written test on all subject areas defined in FAR Part 103 and Advisory Circular 103-1, paragraph 17, items a through w, plus the following: a. Student evaluation and testing, b. Accident/incident reporting procedures; and, c. ASF Registered Examiner responsibilities. (b) after October 1, 1983, he/she will be required to: 1. Present to ASF a written recommendation from an ASF Registered Examiner stating that the applicant is a competent ultralight flight instructor, 2. Be registered as an ultralight pilot; and, 3. Complete all of the items listed in sections 1 and 2 above. -2- The ASF Registered Examiner program will be administered by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation on a national basis. Seminars will be available to all qualified ultralight flight instructors who wish to be designated as ASF Registered Examiners. Seminars will be held in various geographic locations intended to correspond to the powered ultralight actLvity levels throughout the fifty United States. The seminars will be conducted on a continuing basis, determined by need, and are planned to number more than fifty during the first year this plan is in effect. In the case of an ASF Registered Examiner applicant who does not meet the require- ments as prescribed in 1 a through d, but does meet requirement le, he/she may attend an ASF seminar and upon successful completion of that seminar be privileged to ad- minister the written test only. He/she may subsequently certify to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation that requirements in 1 a through d have been satisfied and then be privileged to administer the entire powered ultralight pilot competency examination during the remaining duration of his/her registration period. An ASF Registered Examiner shall maintain compliance with lc before commencing flight instruction in each particular make and model ultralight vehicle. An ASF Registered Examiner shall complete, to the best of his/her abilities, an ASF accident/incident reporting form whenever he/she becomes aware of, or has additional relevant information about, an accident or incident in his/her area which in any way involves an ultralight vehicle. The completed form shall be mailed to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation in an expeditious manner. Each ASF Registered Examiner shall do his/her utmost to insure safe ultralight operating practices at all times and places and shall exercise, and cause to be exercised, peer pressures on all ultralight pilots observed committing unsafe acts or flying in an unsafe or reckless manner. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation expects that in practice an ASF Registered Examiner will have given flight instruction to the pilot applicant and will, therefore, be confident of his/her student' s abilities before administering competency examinations. -3- The ASF Registered Examiner may charge a reasonable fee for administering a competency evaluation, but must charge the same rate for each pilot applicant. Standardization will be achieved by using evaluation sheets supplied to the ASF Registered Examiner by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. The basis for evaluation is stated in Advisory Circular 103-1, paragraph 17 a through w; paragraph 18b 2 and 3; paragraph 19 a through f; paragraph 20 a through e. The designation of an ASF Registered Examiner will expire two calendar years from the date of registration. This designation may be renewed by attending an ASF Registered Examiner seminar. An ASF Registered Examiner designation may be terminated prior to the expiration date when: 1. It is determined by a federal, state or local authority that any person authorized to conduct examinations under this plan has been found in violation of FAR Part 103 or any other law or regulation related to ultra- light flying, 2. Any person authorized to conduct examinations under this plan has conducted an examination or demonstration which does not conform to the requirements and guidelines in the FAR Part 103 and Advisory Circular 103-1; and, 3. He/she fails to submit accident/incident reports as required in this plan. An ASF Registered Examiner shall document the recommendation of not less than ten ultralight pilot registrations during the previous year before qualifying for re-registration. In the case of an ASF Registered Examiner who cannot document the recommendation of not less than ten ultralight pilot registrations during the previous year, the ASF Registered Examiner may not be re-registered for a period of six months from the expiration date of his/her last registration. An ASF Registered Examiner shall maintain a written record of each competency examination he/she administers. This record shall be kept for not less than two years and will be available upon request to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation or to federal, state or local authorities. The contents of this record shall include: -4- 1. Name of pilot applicant, 2. Address of pilot applicant, 3. Date of examination, 4. Location of examination; and, 5. Examination results. II. ASF Registered Ultralight Pilot. This part prescribes requirements for the registration of an Ultralight Pilot. In order to be registered as an Ultralight Pilot an applicant must request an examination from an ASF Registered Examiner. This examination will include: 1. Written test. The written test is to be supplied by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation to each ASF Registered Examiner. The test subjects, as defined in AC 103-1, include: a. Determination of Part 103 applicability, b. Inspection requirements (103.3), c. Hazardous operations (103.9) , d. Daylight operations (103.11) , e. Right of way (103.13) , f. Congested areas (103.15) , g. Operations in certain airspace (103.17), m. Visual reference to the surface (103.21) , n. Conventional aircraft operations (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17n) o. Operations in prohibited or restricted areas (103.19) , p. Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements (103.23) , q. General characteristics of weather (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17q) r. Elements of micrometerology and applications to ultralight flight (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17r), s. Common weather hazards and avoidance (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17s) , t. General elements of ultralight aerodynamics and performance (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17t) , u. General procedures for operating in the vicinity of conventional air- craft and the problems of wake turbulence (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17u) , v. Preflight inspection of the vehicle, with emphasis on critical elements of the inspection such as proof loadings of the controls (AC 103-1, • Paragraph 17v) ; and, w. Limitations and restrictions applicable to the specific vehicle being flown (AC 103-1, Paragraph 17w) . The objective of the written test is to determine if the pilot applicant meets the knowledge standards as stated in AC 103-1. At least two questions on the written test will pertain to each item in AC 103-1, paragraph 17 a through w. These written tests will be reviewed and updated as required by the FAA with one revised copy being forwarded to the FAA for approval before implementation. (See Appendix 1 for the written test.) 2. Oral test. The oral test will pertain to airspace and conventional aircraft operations, particularly those related to the applicant's primary operational area, and will include a review of any incorrectly answered written test questions. 3. Flight competency test and demonstration. a. The objective of the flight competency test, which is required by AC 103-1 as amended from time to time, is to enable the ASF Registered Examiner to observe the applicant in the following: 1. Execution of procedures and maneuvers within the performance cap- abilities and limitations of the ultralight vehicle, including use of all vehicle systems (AC 103-1, Paragraph 20a) , 2. Properly executing the appropriate procedures and maneuvers (AC 103-1, Paragraph 20b) , 3. Handling the vehicle with smoothness and accuracy (AC 103-1, Paragraph 20c) , 4. Exercising good judgement (AC 103-1, Paragraph 20d) ; and, 5. Applying aeronautical knowledge (AC 103-1, Paragraph 20e) . b. The content of each demonstration of flight competency, as required by AC 103-1 and the amendments which can be expected from time to time, is: -7- 1. Preflight check (AC 103-1, Paragraph 19a) , 2. Ground handling (AC 103-1, Paragraph 19b) , 3. Takeoffs and landings (AC 103-1, Paragraph 19c) , 4. Traffic patterns (AC 103-1, Paragraph 19d) , 5. Flight at minimum controllable airspeed (AC 103-1, Paragraph 19e) ; and, 6. Emergency procedures (AC 103-1, Paragraph 19f) . The basis for issuance of an Ultralight Pilot registration document is: 1. A written test score not less than 70% correct on all questions related to the objective stated in AC 103-1, paragraph 17. 2. Successful completion of the oral examination. Success is attained when the ASF Registered Examiner is satisfied that the applicant understands the knowledge areas of incorrectly answered questions on the written test, as well as airspace and conventional aircraft operations related to the primary operational area of the applicant. 3. Standards for completion of the flight competency evaluation are stated in AC 103-1, item 20. Each ASF Registered Examiner will use those standards when he/she is conducting a flight competency evaluation. Each ASF Registered Examiner will be supplied with a flight evaluation form, from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, to be used when evaluating flight competency. This form will include the standards for reference. An Ultralight Pilot registration will expire two calendar years from the date of issuance, unless the Ultralight Pilot successfully completes a re-evaluation by an ASF Registered Examiner. The re-evaluation may include any portion of the original ASF Ultralight Pilot competency evaluation, but normally would be comprised of an oral evaluation only. The purpose is to determine that the pilot has maintained his/ her knowledge level and is aware of changes that may have occurred in FAR 103, any associated Advisory Circulars and any changes which may have occurred in the airspace and in conventional aircraft operations related to the primary operational area of the pilot. -$- III. Documentation and registration numbers. A series of registration numbers will be assigned by ASF beginning with one and continuing indefinitely for ASF Registered Examiners; and another series of registration numbers, beginning with one and continuing indefinitely for Ultralight Pilots. Documentation and registration numbers will be issued to each applicant by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation upon receipt of notification that he/she has successfully completed the appropriate examination. (See Appendix 2 for copies of the documents that will be issued to both ASF Registered Examiners and Ultralight Pilots. ) Record keeping. Current ASF Registered Examiner and Ultralight Pilot registrations will be maintained in an ASF computer program for a minimum of 36 months. Expired and renewed records will be maintained on microfiche for a minimum of five years. Records will be released to the FAA as needed, to individual state governments (but only records or residents of that state) and to law enforcement agencies on a per case basis. Lists and/or mailing labels of registration records will not be sold for commercial purposes. Any other FAA approved organizations engaging in Ultralight Pilot registration must not sell or indiscriminately release information received from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation for the purpose of administrative continuity. This program will be administered on a national basis and will be available to the general public in a fair and equitable manner without regard to membership in any organization. This program may be amended from time to time based on service input, or to reflect changes in FAR Part 103, Advisory Circular 103-1 or subsequent documents produced by the FAA. A copy of any proposed changes will be forwarded to the FAA, AF0-800, for approval before implementation. -9- ASF POWERED ULTRALIGHT VEHICLE REGISTRATION PROGRAM The AOPA Air Safety Foundation (ASF) Powered Ultralight Vehicle Registration Program will provide powered ultralight vehicle owners with a method of theft pro- tection and proof of ownership, as well as provide ASF and the industry with a means to communicate safety information concerning specific aircraft. (In this document "ultralight vehicle" and "ultralight" will mean powered ultralight vehicle.) Registration numbers will be assigned by the ASF to all ultralights that comply with the prerequisites. The owner will receive a set of tamper-resistant labels containing the registration numbers to mark critical parts of the ultralight, a wallet-size registration certificate and instructions on how the visible wing markings are to be positioned. The registration will be valid until the ultralight is sold or destroyed, the owner dies, or two years elapse, whichever comes first. Provisions are made for renewal and transfer. A central computer data base of all registration transactions will be maintained at ASF headquarters and will be available to government agencies and other legitimate organizations on a need-to-know, noncommercial basis. All transactions will be accomplished by mail. The data compiled in the registration and renewal process will serve as a statistical base for growth rates and accident/incident experience. It will also facilitate timely communication of safety information to specific ultralight owners and pilots. Each owner of a registered ultralight will receive a quarterly safety newsletter at no charge, in addition to notices, bulletins and alerts as appropriate. REGISTRATION PROGRAM A. This program will be conducted by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, currently at 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. B. The person responsible for this program will be John Ballantyne, Director of Ultralight Programs, Telephone: 301-951-3973. C. Administration and conduct of the program: 1. This program will be made available on a national basis via announcements in a variety of trade publications and direct mail programs. This registration system will be made available to all owners of ultralight vehicles without regard to organizational affiliation. A registration fee will be charged. 2. All registration transactions will be accomplished via mail, with processing being done at AOPA Air Safety Foundation headquarters. 3. Registration prerequisites. All applicants must conform to the following pre— requisites before registering an ultralight with the AOPA Air Safety Foundation: a. Compliance with FAR Part 103. An applicant must possess an ultralight vehicle that meets the criteria stated in FAR Part 103. b. Proof of ownership. The applicant for registration of an ultralight must submit proof of ownership with this application. A copy of the bill of sale for the ultralight or kit is usually sufficient proof. If the applicant did not purchase the ultralight from the last registered owner, the applicant must submit conveyances completing the chain of ownership from the last registered owner to the applicant. If the ultralight is amateur-built, a notarized affidavit describing the vehicle and stating that it was amateur-built should be submitted as proof of ownership instead of a bill of sale. 4. Registration numbers. The registration numbers will consist of two numbers followed by three letters. The first number will be 1, the second number will be 0 through 9. The letters I and 0 are not to be used. Certain combinations of letters and numbers used for distress purposes will not be used in a registration number. These com- binations are: Any three letter combinations beginning with the letter Q, any number with the three letter ODD, TTT, XXX, YYY and PAN. (See Appendix 1 for complete list of possible combinations.) Registration numbers will be randomly assigned unless a special number is requested. An additional fee is charged for requested numbers. 5. Visible marking requirements. A registration number must be displayed on each registered aircraft as follows: -2- a. Characters shall be in Arabic numerals and upper case (capital) letters in a Roman style typeface. b. Characters must be six inches high and four inches wide, except the number "1" which must be one inch wide and the letters, "M" and "W" which may be six inches wide. Characters must be formed by solid lines one inch thick. c. The registration number shall be permanently affixed to the underside of the lowest left wing. The number shall be oriented spanwise with the top of the characters pointing forward. The center of the number shall be at least three feet, but not more than five feet, from the left wing tip. d. Letters shall be spaced a minimum of 11 inches apart. e. In the case of an ultralight that has a configuration which prohibits the practical implementation of the preceeding visible marking requirements (5a through d), a variation may be requested by the ultralight owner to the ASF. 6. Duration of registration. The ultralight registration is valid for two years or until one of the following occurs: a. Sale of the ultralight. Sale of the ultralight voids the registration of the ultralight. The new owner may apply for registration in his/her name. If the new owner does not register the vehicle, all registration markings and numbers must be removed. b. Destruction or withdrawal from service. In the case of destruction of the ultralight or withdrawal from service, the registration is no longer valid and must be returned to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation and all registration markings removed from the ultralight. c. Death of the registered owner. Death of the registered owner of the ultralight voids the registration. Refer to item 6a or 6b. 7. Registration Certificate content, see Appendix 2. 8. Administrative processing. Registration applccations and associated documents proving ownership will be verified and entere into a central computer data base at Foundation headquarters. A registration c -d will be computer produced and mailed to the registrant. 9. Record keeping. Current registration records will be maintained in an in-house computer for a minimum of 36 months. Expired records will be maintained on micro- fiche for a minimum of five years. Records will be released to the FAA as needed, to individual state governments (but only records of residents of that state) and to law enforcement agencies on a per case basis. Lists and/or mailing labels of registration records will not be sold for commercial purposes. Any other FAA approved organization engaging in ultralight registration must not sell or indiscriminately release information received from ASF for the purpose of administrative continuity. 10. Additional features. A nationally organized method of registering and marking ultralight vehicles is important in a self-regulating atmosphere because it provides the basis for: a. Ultralight vehicle ownership identity for the purpose of: 1. Theft recovery, 2. Identity of an offender, 3. A communication base from which accident/incident/maintenance information can be disseminated to owners and operators; and, 4. Maintaining a current data base of ultralight vehicles and ultralight vehicle exposure. b. The use of ultralight registration and exposure data in combinations with accident, incident and maintenance problem data. The comparisons of these information sources will result in: 1. Accurate accident statistics, 2. Identification of geographic areas of concentrated ultralight activity, 3. Identification of areas of flight safety problems, 4. Identification of generalized maintenance problems; and, 5. Identification of recurring mechanical defects pertinent to a specific make/model of vehicle. 11. Safety information dissemination. The culmination of this information gathering and subsequent analysis will be published by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation in a periodical safety newsletter. The purpose of this safety newsletter will be to relate meaningful statistics and information pertinent to the safe operation of ultralight vehicles. This safety newsletter will be published on a quarterly basis, or more frequently, and will be sent free of charge to every ASF registered Ultralight Pilot and ultralight vehicle owner. In addition, ASF will disseminate pertinent safety information on a need-to-know basis to specific owners and pilots through notices, bulletins and alerts. -5- a 744 9-sx 3271 . PART 103-ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES* -s..—.-. _ _ --- DI[116175] See. Subpart A—General Sec 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. 103.1 Applicability. 103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted 103.3 Inspection requirements. areas. 103.5 Waivers. 103.21 Visual reference to the surface. 103.7 Certification and registration. 103.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. Subpart 8—Operating Rules Authority:Secs.307,313(a),601(a),802,end 103.9 Hazardous operations. 603,Federal Aviation Act of 1958(49 U.S.C. J- 103.11 Daylight operations. 1348,1354(a),1421(a),1422,and 1423):sec. 103.13 Operation near aircraft;right-of-way 8(c),Department of Transportation Act(49 rules. U.S.C.1655(c) 103.15 Operations over congested areas. Subpart A—General designee,to inspect the vehicle to - - [Q 6176] determine the applicability of this part. (b)The pilot or operator of an I §103.1 Appllcabllity. ultralight vehicle must,upon request of This part prescribes roles governing the Administrator,furnish satisfactory the operation of ultralight vehicles in the evidence that the vehicle is subject only United States.For the purposes of this to the provisions of this part. ( part,an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle I that: [§6178] (a)Is used or intended to be used for §103.5 Waivers. manned operation in the air by a single No person may conduct operations occupant; that require a deviation from this part (b)Is used or intended to be used for except under a written waiver issued by recreation or sport purposes only; the Administrator. (c)Does not have any U.S.or foreign airworthiness certificate: and [116179] (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 - --- -- - i pounds; or §103.7 Certification and registration. i (e)If powered: (a)Notwithstanding any other section (1)Weighs less than 254 pounds pertaining to certification of aircraft or empty weight, excluding floats and their parts or equipment, ultralight safety devices which are intended for vehicles and their component parts and deployment in a potentially catastrophic equipment are not required to meet the I situation; airworthiness certification standards (2)Has a fuel capacity not exceeding specified for aircraft or to have 5 U.S.gallons; certificates of airworthiness. (3) Is not capable of more than 55 (b)Notwithstanding any other section - - - knots calibrated airspeed at full power pertaining to airman certification, in level flight; and operators of ultralight vehicles are not (4) Has a power-off stall speed which required to meet any aeronautical does not exceed 24 knots calibrated knowledge,age. or experience • 7 airspeed. requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical [11 61771 certificates. I (c)Notwithstanding any other section § 103.3 Inspection requirements. pertaining to registration and marking of (a)Any person operating an ultralight aircraft. ultralight vehicles are not vehicle under this part shall, upon required to be registered or to bear request, allow the Administrator, or his markings of any type. I 1 ' As Issued S4-r tvmher 2, P.M. "Rrrttvr Urtoh.-r 1. 19:42. 47 F 11 1a70a Aviation Law Reports f 103.7(e)¶ 6179 1 3272 Ultralight Vehicles 764 9-s2 s Subpart B—Operating Rules creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft. ------ [11 6180] tc)Powered ultralights shall yield the ) §103.9 Hazardous operations. right-of-way to unpowered ultralights. (a)No person may operate any [¶6183] ultralight vehicle in a manner that §103.15 Operations over congested creates a hazard to other persons or areas. property. No person may operate an ultralight (b)No person may allow an object to vehicle over any congested area of a be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if city,town,or settlement,or over any / such action creates a hazard to other open air assembly of persons. persons or property. [¶6184] ------4. [¶6181] §103.17 Operations in certain airspace. No person may operate an ultralight §103.11 Daylight operations. vehicle within an airport traffic area, (a)No person may operate an control zone,terminal control area,or - - ' ultralight vehicle except between the positive control area unless that person hours of sunrise and sunset. has prior authorization from the air (b)Notwithstanding paragraph(a)of traffic control facility having jurisdiction this section, ultralight vehicles may be over that airspace. operated during the twilight periods 30 (¶61851 minutes before official sunrise and 30 §103.19 Operations in prohibited or f minutes after official sunset or, in restricted areas. j Alaska,during the period of civil No person may operate an ultralight f twilight as defined in the Air Almanac, vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas ) if: unless that person has permission from i (1)The vehicle is equipped with an the using or controlling agency,as _A operating anticollision light visible for at appropriate. — ) --- ---- - _ least 3 statute miles;and 1§61861 (2)All operations are conducted in §103.21 Visual reference with the surface. uncontrolled airspace. No person may operate an ultralight [¶6182] vehicle except by visual reference with ` ------ .... . - _. 1 §103.13 Operation near aircraft;Right-of- the surface. way rules. [1f 61871 (a)Each person operating an ultralight §103.23 Flight visibility and cloud vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to clearance requirements. see and avoid aircraft and shall yield No person may operate an ultralight the right-of-way to all aircraft. vehicle when the flight visibility or (b)No person may operate an distance from clouds is less than that in ultralight vehicle in a manner that the following table, as appropriate: —..J Minimum �._...____- Flight altitudes flight Minimum distance from clouds visbiaty' 1.200 feet or less above the surface regardless of MSL altitude: (1)Wmhn controlled airspace. 3 500 feel below. 1,000 feet above, 2,000 feel horizon- 7 — • W. (2)Outside controlled airspace 1 Gear of clouds. More than 1.200 feel above the surface but less man 10.000 feel MSL: (1)Waren controlled airspace 3 500 feet below, 1,000 het above,2,000 feet horizon- tal (2)Outside caroaid evspace 1 500 feel below, 1,000 feet above. 2.000 feel horizon- tat •Mae than 1200 feel above the surface and at or 5 1.000 feel belay. 1.000 feel above. 1 statute mkt above 10,000 feet MSL horizontal. 'Statute moles. 4 [The next page is 3275.) s_. -, . .._ 1 5180 4 103.9 ©1982,Commerce Clearing House,Inc. 676 12-78 1841 FEDERAL AVIATION ACT OF 1958 [Q 1001] Act of August 23, 1958 (Public Law 85-726, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess.; 72 Stat. 731; 49 U. S. Code 1301), as amended. AN ACT to continue the Civil Aeronautics Board as an agency of the United States, to create a Federal Aviation Agency, to provide for the regulation and promotion of civil aviation in such manner as to best foster its de- velopment and safety, and to provide for the safe and efficient use of the airspace by both civil and military aircraft, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, divided into titles and sections according to the following table of contents, may be cited as the "Federal Aviation Act of 1958": [see table ---- of contents commencing on page 1821]. TITLE I-GENERAL PROVISIONS n]1002] DEFINITIONS Sec. 101 [49 U. S. Code 1301]. As used in this Act, unless the context other- - wise requires— (1) "Administrator"means the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. (2) "Aeronautics" means the science and art of flight. (3) "Air carrier" means any citizen of the United States who undertakes, whether directly or indirectly or by a lease or any other arrangement, to engage in air transportation: Provided, That the Board may by order relieve air carriers _._ who are not directly engaged in the operation of aircraft in air transportation ` --__--- -- - from the provisions of this Act to the extent and for such periods as may be in the public interest. (4) "Air commerce" means interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce . or the transportation of mail by aircraft or any operation or navigation of - . _ aircraft within the limits of any Federal airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce. (5) "Aircraft" means any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used,or designed for navigation of or flight in the air. (6) "Aircraft engine" means an engine used, or intended to be used, for propulsion of aircraft and includes all parts,appurtenances,and accessories thereof other than propellers. (7) "Airman" means any individual who engages, as the person in command or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, in the navigation of aircraft while -�-- -- -- under way; and (except to the extent the Administrator may otherwise provide with respect to individuals employed outside the United States) any individual who is directly in charge of the inspection, maintenance, overhauling, or repair of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances; and any individual who serves in the capacity of aircraft dispatcher or air-traffic control-tower operator. ' (8) "Air navigation facility" means any facility used in, available for use in, or designed for use in, aid of air navigation, including landing areas, lights, any apparatus or equipment for disseminating weather information, for signaling, for radio-directional finding, or for radio or other electrical communication, and any other structure or mechanism having a similar purpose for guiding or controlling flight in the air or the landing and take-off of aircraft. (9) "Airport" means a landing area used regularly by aircraft for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo. -, -� (10) "Air transportation" means interstate, overseas, or foreign air transpor- _ tation or the transportation of mail by aircraft. Aviation Law Reports ¢ 101(10) ¶ 1002 ! • M l: s • 5 e: riN D 't1 570 2-4-74 Cited 12 Avi. 17,889 City ttf Burbank v.Lockheed Air Terminal,Inc. 7 r to Nfissouri did not effectuate a change under, and under the rule of construction of ownership U i.rs r -American Fire Ins. favoring the insured plaintiff's coverage, Cu,. 148 Pa. 349 First Wear/tester National included its repossession activities syhile the B ink th. .V to England Ins. Co 204 N. Y. S. aircraft was being flown in its behalf by a (2)754. Moreover, in our view the possible qualified pilot with a special airworthiness repossession by the lienhol tier preparatory flight certificate issued by the Federal Avi- to an Actual change of title and ownership, ation Administration, especially since there seas a right in the lienholder contemplated is no proof that the damage to the aircraft by the li cuhelder's clause of the insurance resulted from lack of airworthiness: Papa- policy It is a cardinal principle of insurance dell ro. 11or! l cat(L: Mutual t analh Co., law that the insurance contract should be 111 Pa. 214; National Casualty Co. o C moral 5 construed in favor of the insured or hene- Motors Acceptance Corp., 161 So. (2) 548. t ficiary :and against the insurer: Snider a 7 London and I.nneash ire Ind(mnity c-,. of Order Lrueric'r. 360 I'a_ 5414; IrosIn ills Slate Farm And now, b[ay loth, 1972_, defendant's Eirc Ct. (lasnalt. 'b_, 218 Pa. Super. 1; Evans motion for smnnary judgment is overruled u. Baltimore i Ins. Co., 216 Pa. Super. and refused, and Plaintiff's motion for sum- 5"171ii` 425; Fvik a Lumbermen's Mutual Cassell Y mary judgment is sustained and judgment CA 172 PA t Super. 533. is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff, Fay- ,ate Bank and Trust Company, and against r (I onehu?+n) defentdant, Ranger Insrance Company, in We :ore satisfied that the separate the amount ot $1,617.03, together with in- li aTIalder's endorsement or certifirate con- terest at the rate of 6Cc therefrom October '411, s igii5144r sittings the plaintiff a special insured there- IS, 1969. ;r,ll CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL. v. LOCKHEED AIR TERMINAL, INC., ET AL. United States Supreme Court, May 14, 1973 (For prior proceedings in the United States District Court, Central District of California, see II Avi. 17,850 and 17,910, and in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, sec 12 Avi. 17,207.) t A -;I4141,-...:k AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL-MUNICIPAL CURFEW-NIGHT TAKEOFFS— ri -; t FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION.—The Noise Control Act of 1972 reaffirms and reinforces the conclusion that the Federal Aviation Administration, now in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, has full control over aircraft noise, pre-empting state and local control including a municipal ordinance which imposes a curfew on the <$ takeoff of pure jet aircraft from an airport between the hours of 11 P.M. and 7 A. M. 1121,1. 2., ,� Back references: ',1 15,255.303; 15,453.156, s1 1665'1- s x.qt. y .,.15 ,Ayr u.,,I I rlicl and Richard I.. Sief„ Jr-, for Appellants.ellants. f f „sew ft V'srn n n t h _t� phor Ralph VA Al Dau, and Michael 11 Zim merman, 111 West Sixth '. sir t, 1.,n Angeles, California, HT Appellees. ><r l y tl ment of easel as imperatively demanding that diversity, e 3yS s x ', which alone can meet the local incises- a p r l \i t lit rot Doueuss khv-red the opinion .hues of nisi iii,m t " f the C' ni rt_ AA h atever subjects of this .wee d :lot, a >f ;r I r ..oil in C I'y Hoard A I('�trdens ire in their¢ nature national, .r film it only 12 I I s .2,0, tirst iTited the rule of pre- i one unit nut sl un oli Pim a ul,r 1141", may )u tls bra u I t Lo -.h a11 ° n. , n .s ht h i Ibo ni it i�Vlr in theI ,� i ' ,ttnn P"` iii" mull NI ru slier t,tCoi a tr r it es O:7fi k t M1v I tt 'a„ pt nkin� i i��n� by t arc 17 :it l r ..Y' a Ll I his snit brought , Apia 11 , . k d lo t tai Dot h ai � i Imr". m brnuct n a nit the i-in t! r t at of � `� - a s Ist held, containing tainif g not an r linanoAdoptedL by the I ft I .until s ,�y tiiyg, tl .any Ira e Let hu Iv various ub- f Pin-bank, t I 1 rut h eh n it WI- j. a r , 'unlike in their nature, amt s` ?` din nil i,.r a ilr�l Iii t u :alt to a .,e'u t r. tt I t dl S ta -Mule uniformise take —if iron, the I lolly d Ihi I r k Air- fd' t t ,tt dlv n the c toter d port bt�hs: •n I I p in of Aid a ' .,nd 7 Ili, L, ut I shoe,lto .rev port, and u.fid a. !.k ubj t .n ql cat t n, t. tt. rIo neat day, it'll n akin. It . .. 4 41' '"- 17,890 Aviation Cases 570 2.4-74 City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air 7errninol,Inc. for the operator of that airport to allow spects "airspace management" there is pre- any such aircraft to take off from that emption. That, however, is a fatal con- airport during such periods.' -1-he only cession, for as the District Court found. regularly scheduled flight affected by the "The imposition of curfew ordinances on a ordinance was an intrastate flight of Pacific nationwide basis would result in a bunching Southwest Airlines originating in Oakland, of flights in those hours immediately pre- . +W California, and departing from Hollywood- ceding the curfew. This bunching of flights Burbank Airport for San Diego every Sun- during these hours would have the twofold day night at 11 3f1 effect of increasing an already serious con- gestion problem and actually increasing, ,; The District Court found the ordinancerather than relieving, the noise problem by ,, • , to be unconstitutional on both Supremacy increasing flights in the perirxl of greatest Clause and Commerce Clause grounds. 318€ annoyance to surrounding communities. hx`+ F. Stipp. 914. The Court of Appeals af- Such a result is totally inconsistent with firmed on the grounds of the Supremacy the objectives of the federal statutory and Clause both as respects pre-emption and regulatory scheme." It also found "(t)he ` .. :x' as respects conflict' 457 F. 2d 667. The .r a is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. imposition of curfew ordinances on a nation- case§ 1254(2). We noted probable jurisdiction. wide basis would cause a serious loss of efficiency in the use of the navigable air-•- •� 409 U. S. 840. We affirm the Court of space." Appeals. Cul-fens such a. 1(urbmk has null,-t I'2,4tv7. t [Federal per-nnption] would,ld, according, to the testimony at the w a"+r The Federal Aviation A<t of 1918, 72 trial and the District (-wind . in'lin_� r - -. Stat. 731, 49 t'. " (.• § '. 301 -•/ "y- :is crease congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972, and aggravate the noise problem. FAA has 86 Stat. 1234, and the regulations under it, occa:ion:ills olio's cd cur iews- Sei I.l.,golinn, 14 ClR Pts. 71, 73, 7> 77, 91, 93, 95, 97, far Dulles v. Volpe [12 Avi. 17,420], 344 1 are central to the question of pre-evumption. F. Supp. 573. But the record shows that Section 1508 provides in part, "The United FAA has consistently opposed curfews, 3 ' States of America is declared to possess and unless managed by it, in the interests of its p management of the "navigable airspace.,, exercise complete and exclusive national ,,,y-s.: sovereignty in the airspace of the United As stated by Judge fooling in American States . . By §§ 1348(a), Sc) the Airlines v. Hempstead [10 Avi. 17,337] 272 Administrator of the I edeial :\y iation \d- F. Supp 226, 230, aff'd [10 Avi. 18,029], ministration (FAA) has been pin n broad 398 F. 2d 369: 4 , authority to regulate the use mid-of the mid- "The aircraft and its noise are indi- '� gable airspace, "in order to insure the safety visible; the noise of the aircraft extends ;.. of aircraft and the efficient utiliz itton of outward from it with the same insepara- w bility as its wings and tail assembly; to �, such urspace and yang the {,n,tec exclude the aircraft noise from the Town " ' tion of persons 'uid ,Pert on the anmml. is to exclude the aircraft; to set a ground level decibel limit for the aircraft is di- ,y t4" rectly to exclude it from the lower air ..�, The Solicitor General, though arguing that it cannot use without exceeding the against pre-emption, concedes that as re- decibel limit." '44 x4e 'Burbank Municipal Cone 4<irs<.r. inc orut- "(a) the Administrator Is authorized and di- "' nonce provides an exception for "emergency" reeted to develop plans for and formulate policy ;_ _ ^> flights approved by the City Police Department with respect to the use of the navigable airspace: 'The Court of Appeals held that the Burbank and assign by rule, regulation. or order the use ordinance conflicted with the runway preference of the navigable airspace under such terms, order. BUR 7100.5B, Issued by the FAA Chief conditions, and limitations as he may m of the Airport Traffic Control Tower at the necessary in order to insure the safety of air- rg,' "' Hollywood-Burbank Airport. The order stated craft and the efficient utilization of such air- that "(p)rocedures established for the Holly- space. . . . -,-, wood-Burbank airport are designed to reduce community exposure to noise to the lowest "lc) The Administrator is further authorized ," practicable minimum. The Court of and directed to prescribe alt traffic rules and Appeals concluded that the ordinance "Inter- regulations governing the flight of aircraft. for feres with the balance set by the FAA among the navigation. protection and identification of the Interests with which it is empowered to aircraft. for the protection of persons and '} _ deal, and frustrates the full accomplishment of property on the ground, and for the efficient the ghats of Congress." 457 F' 2,1 C67, BAG. In utilization of the navigable airs ce, including r` view of our disposition of this appeal under rubs is to safe altitudes of flight and rules for „ ', the doctrine of pre-emption, we need not reach the prevention rf collision between aircraft. + - question. between aircraft and land or water vehicles. ,yp�° this X4,5 _ follows: r { Ml t ififrfr Z 570 2-4-74 Cited 12 Avi. 17,841 (-Ity of Rhthank7'.Lockheed Air Terminal,Inc. [The l✓is,. Control Are of 1972[ poet! regulations in a notice , f pr<p,-sc tt + rut nrl.ulr- Vi ithm (0 I r. Alter "Lit . n. A„I.,. t-,,nlr,l .Act of 1t) srla pull{ ati,on. I-VA a directed to commence `e ,., 'rl cb�hrr I'i72 l es I:! It Pic V lulil i< rator "titer c it suit itioii a public hearing on. the proposed rubs. +n' Section rill(c)(I). That subsection noes „u 'ono,IILrt. '1.1 di ra!, Slate. uol Bleat t on to provide that within "a re as( mode i-n-i.., :rid touted I�er , rs' mall con- - . . Jai-in-fig time after the conclusion of such bearing lust a stuck of yalunl>, lacers of the ait- and after consultation with EPA " If \A _.tt -etc , 1!cno :Ind report to the I,y July it is <Infected either to prescribe the rem '- +; .<itli l a months.' - - "b Aet, lie unendln n v Soil 11 s substantially as submitted by FT'1/4, or prescribe theirs in modified form or Z'r. i t• I r , oil Astation Act "Il.n ,,;‘,,Ivesl'A) ' publish in the Federal Register a notice I, air' I.t'.I 1'1,01331011 Alcncr 1[PA) - as " = that it is not prescribing any regulation in el f I op, t la der n. d faler.I con_ response to EPA's.A s submission together 4 m , . +d I t nrcrtt Rise robl,tn. (inter rwith its reasons therefor. '� la I - Ell ill ).11, I AA tt ;on- ction rill( 1(21 as amended, id s° 1 ro- Lei u t ' i' tl: I \, it'll t Me • , .i tr 1 at.I abatement ant of arc I t a and -vi des that if EPA believes that FA Vs t inn. le ,anl, inclednie the Apple tt.on of a'tion wit1Y respect to a regulation proposed -wit a ni-EardsI regulation- 1 II e issu- by EPA "does not protect the public health s ., lilt 311,121,101711I, modification, -est- n-ion. will welfare from aircraft noise or sonicac oc, — EPA shall consult with FAA an<t x a t any certificate rte .u: mixed boom,' iit 1 title • Section (II(I,ii '), as may request FAA to review and report to jy intended, provides that n tort certificates EPA on the advisability of prescribing the � t i.,1 r` lit operation.atnns -hall not issue tin- regulation originally proposed by El'A. r, `e4,.e•h in‘x vi*., th.' :IC's aircraft noise requirements That request shall be published in the Fed- "r '^'5 'HaF,r , Fr mat Seetion 611(e)(I) an amended, eral Ha'Kls-ter, FAA shall complete the ha 4 -1 vi files that not later than Jul. 1n7-1regulations EPA review requested and report to EPA in the u � t` ' time specified together with a detailed cute- .il l l 1,l I- tic PA A pl 1 i . ateulent of P' -. . +-'4 I�, mot Li Tech "control and abatement of merit of FAA's findings and the reasons for '✓� its conclusion and shall identify any impact =t+., : qri x w lilt t n ii,r and sonic boom"m" :u EPA .. r It-terming, i rescarn to protect the statement filed under § 102(2)(F) of the upublic 1,...ilth and welfare," F\-A is di- National Environmental Policy Act of .) ₹ 1 t,'clod irhin 111 [lye. to publish the pro- 19fi9," 8,3 Stat. 8.73, 42 L S. C. §h:i32, with 6.�'t i, n- .{'�q t n e1#Ly ' sect'ion ain provides: from aircraft onsul n Ilse and h nla retar the F Trans- y.� ,1a 4 -The At Federal, , consultation with oft consultation with the Secretary ( and ands interested Fed. ti, State, and beat agencies t an en and with EPA, eat prescribe and d and t.ct, nit- oily if shall conductpatio a study t standards for i the measurement shall s air- e s the n i 1 1 Iy t Federal Anise c ndm n- craft noise and soul regulations-m Ind .-hall Irsrrlay t 21 at dequacy ' Itt,h[ and - erat oat nua a nn' :md nmantl such rovidfas the FAA may r b e new 1 1 . of aircraft. .emission standards ei- rind m necessary to provide for the lctmccontrol :�rid i� '' rr and onet <d rimer. together with redo- abatement of aircraft noise and sonic I nd '' -, 4. 'tat m on the retrofitting mplicti and Phasai of Juding the application theissu of such ameiidrmt standards Ind r 4 u r, ', t- eis implications of identifying regulations a In the issuance,re e.)m .1,1 I "It of dm da tear tinier expo- n W n - riz d i or in r n e i Alit- rid t aG Ili rind by this C'1 No erne t sIM1 1,i r 1 1 e' t its- and tp] additional and mea- rt �y� cl v it sal trot operators aircraftnoise and local respect may a standard rtl r regulation yn i r this ,,,,-;;$41 governments h I t d it hec Misr. FP shat- section he grantedth FAAe Id-r any Vr ,it of i i'sa.,rt 1S' re{ i h .lady to the e if th House o Iof this A2 unl s th - h111 h vtls nrtnleA t S #7 Ild tt,pr i 1 i end (the C m a the of with EPA a h tth Ah opt .#1,1``�,'�af ey t i,. Ii tr ti 11 c and the Committees tees on Corn- tr that ei e FAA ] t coma, t n frayc �p,� t' Public Worksdate of the senate within t in t s commerce x p air tr n I rest isn I ':PA t� u-'S nine ml.1,t hs utter the of the enactment of an such an ezemphen A• granted h fore 'PA ran h consulted, the tea shalt , 11 , ro.ek ?" 49 EPA s n Ir tmrlhl (ter th 'nip-.rip- T.. t tillt the Federal Art ti m Act, fi c - 1411 t 111111131 t a'i. Act 1, is sum. vl py�a -^y p F I 21 Id Pun, L D?-01 A t Stat. 395 h FAA 0),(2) provides-v � u ,zax The under section t -n 1 r t ' rr- I r to by the 11 At, It provided � n .tat the Ahuture relief Ida rt 't to r II I l fore t n tilt It f VIs Act f any ill1. ,� ed I out . rid future r 11 I 1,r r t noon lie e ft fair. 11 h fit no a r ' ng _ n. m- .Hod 'ill fr 1 Irma Ir 1[-mo (f n 115 Ih 11 r 'mil un- f' r "all i t r in end amend r t 1 u s I r a n ce, ] 1 ill 1� 1 "l i G 61 ind 1.or h e s h nlvfind nres he shrill hay,' {r . nth 4 4'$it �' •t n-I for ih control and ')l te it s truer/yet., unfit ih s t the t .$( tt moral s 1,l boom • 4') U. S. C. Apply t -a h r eft. I11 „omit t bl from r t (t n .. 1 n- @S" ' M it ., n r er- + et II lit tl ill as 'mended,rl, re uIs t l crib th v ter r I .-t d n ,Is I r l l ' I-_ ,rdrr t' 'rR he present and future ii welfare a as i e paw tndi 1 tti n i rv.' s ;, n la In. p uhllc health +rid eel(n re - i Iv, 17,892 Aviation Cases stn x -ts C ily of Burbank r.I.orkhe ed Air T erminal,Inc. respect to FAA's action. FAA's action. if -I Lei . , I., le snit, ne , st I'n,r NH., adverse to EPA's proposal, shall be pub- of prr t niptinn in the 1972 Act That, bo+c- lislied in the Federal Register ever, is not decisive. As we stated in Rice t-. Santa Fe li/nalor Corp_ 331 U. S Congress did not leave FAA to act at ,18 230. tars. ',r'-iided in §611id1, a` a 'n uudod' "Congress legislated here in a field particularized standards: which the States have traditionally ec- =r ' .r "In prescribing and amending standard. angled So we start with the as- s.. and regulations under this section, the sumption that the historic police powers c ` . - FAA shall— of the States were not to be superseded •'s7 "(1) consider relevant available data by the Federal Act unless that was the 'k- t.- relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom, clear and manifest purpose of Congress. C: ; including the results of research, develop- . Such a purpose may be evidenced ment, testing, and evaluation activities in several ways. The scheme of federal y q, conducted pursuant to this Act and the regulation may be so pervasive as to Department of Transportation Act; make reasonable the inference that Con- "(2) consult with such Federal, State, gress no room O for thee States of to gress and interstate agencies as he deems ap- supp may touch a fih eld in which the propriate; federal interest is so dominant that the "(3) consider whether any proposed federal system will be assumed to pre- standard or regulation is consistent with dude enforcement of state laws on the the highest degree of safety in air com- same subject. Likewise, the object merce or air transportation in the public sought to be obtained by the federal law interest; and the character of obligations imposed "(4) consider whether any proposed by it may reveal the same purpose standard or regulation is economically Or the state policy may produce a result reasonable, technologically practicable, inconsistent with the objective of the - and appropriate for the particular type federal statute." of aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate to which it will apply and It is the pervasive nature of the scheme "(5) consider the extent to which such of federal regulation of aircraft noise that a standard or regulation will contribute to leads us to conclude that there is pre- .. carrying out the purposes of this section.„ cmption. As Ur. Justice Jackson stated, : The on inal con laint was filed on May concurring u+ Northtent Airliner, Inc. g P_ Minnrsala I Avi. 1181), 1321J- S. 39_2, 303 -�,. 14, 1970; the District Court entered its � 1 yya judgment November 30, 1970; and the "Federal control is intensive and ex- --i- ' Court of Appeals announced its judgment elusive. Planes do not wander about ;<.S ; „ and opinion March 22, 1972—all before the in the sky like vagrant clouds. They Noise Control Act of 1972 was approved move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of by the President on October 27, 1972. That federally certified personnel and under an "-.;,,;' Act reaffirms and reinforces the conclusion intricate system of federal commands. 1 4, that FAA, now in conjunction with EPA, The moment a ship taxis onto a runway •,„:Aiu, has full control over aircraft nurse, pre- it is caught up in an elaborate and ., angling state and local control. detailed system of controls." .` "The Congress authorizes and directs that, special expertise with respect to any environ- to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies. mental impact involved. Copies of such state- ',40.7. . regulations. and public laws of the United States ment and the comments and views of the shall be Interpreted and administered in accord- appropriate Federal. State, and local agencies. once with the policies set forth in this chapter, which are authorized to develop and enforce and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government environmental standards, shall be made avail- '- • shall—. . . (C) Include in every recommendation able to the President, the Council on Environ- or- :,.�. ' o F e proposals for and other mental Quality and to the public h as provided major Federal actions significantly affecting the by section 552 of Tigh 5, and shall mpanY review i •1 ,+•: quality of the human environment, a detailed the proposal through the existing agency review r ₹.- statement by the responsible official on—U) the processes." 4t environmental impact of the proposed action, Section 611(e)(3) of the Federal Aviation Act, os t can any adverse id environmental proposal o which am under. provides )hat iI FAA nes nE iron- a , +. cannot ebed avoided thould ese ebe im- men undo S 102(2)(C)"then of the National a uestrthe Z _ action, (iv) (ill) tn ipes to the proposed mental A Policy e Act then EPA may reqwhich the tt term n. the relationship environment between nt local art- FAA to she a Insupplemental report, steichSha X., irt,i. uses or han ment of on and the main- bsuch u published f the Federal Register such within penance and enhancement r long-term produc- ime a period as EPA may specify (but s L4c4:. tivi[y, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable time specified shall not be less than ninety days P "Z . commitments of resources which would be in- from the date the request was made), and which _,4'.'i=_ volved in the proposed action should it be shall contain a comparison of (A) the envlron- "'1a implemented. Prior to making any detailed mental effects (including those which cannot be a a�„ statement. the responsible Federal comments shall FAA in of the action actually taken by the ,r consult with and obtain the comments of any FAA in response to EPA's proposed regulations. r Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or and (B) EPA's proposed regulations." ! ,. • .. y.( 1 arm "ar+ 570 1 457 Cited 1≥Avi. 17,893 Lity ofl, trbnnkv Lorklmrd.i it Tcnnin.d.Inc It' e "_Hind/ Inlrnti senator }L name Wit Author tit ',Ns A rkr t) a,kc-I Secretary 1 I -tust' rat..on Lntil the c Han :nil ii,-,use Cnmrnittees I;r,•,d whether ii tt nlv,. I u'. 171,41 sc,nlld 11.1 ,r,ed in 'ii it Rep,lit, :Itar start bents r ' 1 , Wry' digit proem t 'wit(' a . i In,-al Putt the I dI s: a . 'e k the t sistrng z ^" e nuneN n ,"lame! Ialterait n and r > re l peer] rule Ili li''n Is I rt r Icd: s' _ >r - 1 ut, hhc t tin' r 1 tad \u I ci,ion t .0 ',II! -llut xl ter alter _ .4i.' ' h ter slh Hut a ss nl( rut :err m ,< " iris scat the r lain" I ip bcttt nn, nt the ,> i.A he ,ta'etl' 's I 'errant lit and t I u �la[c I luu I c , ;':,..,,i."••.." Witt of e tit I roll i1.a I I 'e S at uv! lor al turn �rn mints Flip (nitre, L iv . Cr Id that tr e I ' Lecrai h.lt t .i t t re I tit to Hiatt,ITh coy- ( t I( It e it f r 't ntIv r t In 5 I hilt! i'';'''..15.';-: w•-•,7:1,,j, rj i nor-„e Ie 11111 n insular i t 'nitrites c •t l ,ti. n t 11 i IiI II aI :1 cation ' '" 7✓ ' rat limp the luglit 1 t rat - . ktr v y, \et ur 1 ):S (nor to ;Ire i n.tetnient of II le il-Oll tin WI int Telt t NI, I he k,tL^-,�,y • YrsP 11 l I a its tort stated: t I 1 u ,s n1 1_ut Ir t1 't al- a •Ht',take, awl CI S,ri ern, n nG are Pre- r l Iv I - t nI t I. It -.null l urge ey syt�}'x xn a:p 1 II 'I.1 1• _ nl rt itl. "(Ilse h ( '.'wrote::- "it t rid .v- II Sy ,�d k ten n ::inter 1, - LItIl:t Witt a such ltl.te.Wt, V. r:1.Ltlfl Wn Inl1 t.eir Yt - _( nli I I :in tI H ell t ttntlarl pre- I pi y„en, to ( 111111 t aILe seise 1% "u, I 1 .ier the, 11 I his It , not I t r n;e u1 the tli II t nC all fi old', perinleirtit or r- ,I Alt port \cirri-it-re to tl e l. 'Hilt Rh ir, it Was 'Ter or I., eel n ) pr ei-him et the bill is "n H I into t 1 the c 1 u LL .n •tp_ ra , h:. Ic i to tire. t me t o the r ration- W n 1 . ihi'. I },0„,,, t r elic ut !pg.(' . v y it ,•iII, I et'.vorn *Ile :heir rite of the [Patera' in the re i,t n;; hely,'th il ,font iii inmitts s q Je s ( n trot uI l that f Mate anti local I I :n the I'r rIcral anti "talc And Inca! v s t .in!. LI 1[ dac I '.lira n•,Ilrct to r I.enl: I A.e e rt r ;.i r,ed , r��r '.ti cuter, I hr .t t1 ell rtt the in the s rep_ sit firth he I e 4eretars in .,$at�t�_ Ie• l it Aviatunt .A,t .•f ),R prior to the Incletter-" r -f,'4-,...) 1• (t �& �t� (,yam,4'• lullthe " - o J+ « - Ih "unite stliti t ti 1�t :a1 as r„:-t, � v -sii,Cih n net at ail :yipelants. it pi the e 1'LLc t I t 1 . . slli'e'ss s a" lii I' t Vast 1 Aet• }e l 1(a) provided pie enlptliilt seen"!." Let Ile Sr nett cer- r 0 .Ile A linen-al nt•ir fill piI•.rrIN_ anti ;„n ❑escr at pre t.ritcet to the 1muse. > ctt "a.t V. u I h Nile' UPI r latinu 'is he Ito .el, the 'whale h I tills n erel- 1 n 4. ..:. v n1 1 u 1 ci lr I 'r Chc ; lent .le fl rcr n i iiuse, 'hy� b' � 1 '' Itlt 11,11`t and a ei II e1 1l!!!(11'..,- n ,,,,,,.r I ill bi es '-4. i,. Hr it i+ L_nler §611 on elm t n nlel Ihi A l as '. u \ l In.Iratnr rah, rill' irerl to 1 e I 1 onll Wl Pt 1 t rr 1.1 the r'" n I v.l ct u;'; pi rse I -.tanrlard, II l Awl 5 Its I:, en tlu IWI ;net that •lit bey 3 +" n l r -_lI etI n i, e tent ssith the e 1 l h ul earl r Ipl roved AV!nu the lb :Iled I.l 1 I .tite l 1 Air e mrc{r nle pi,u, rats re the lee-ells \,-1 s., I 'lore Y"': 3 c '.r tin II t .p I in [Writ ultra-est." the ILuse, C itneIel All title ,' - c hair- Jr-"S'!';''.' u< tt:`1'''' 1 $ I rif, A 1 I'tlicn which • n 1 t the I 1 t tt t n l isle „r e ,,`t 1 I leneil .A thou II t n11 nIn' •1 " .nse kkttj ,}4 V r et it Ut?. If ,rte h tlmgs•_ RI His it i s R III r Ir .. lira e .Z-L.,', ,r•."`a�,, 4'�' 11 s l non 1151.5 h t tae' to I �f `t I I t A I S to l-mittrw 9 ?dit y.�e I t n rr an S. 1 _I : o n e auto;e l t un But, we F j .t r ct f not 11 r l _me ) I I h r Itement :mere.it ter Ow r de o f r hams r- •• 2 a r 'rl 3 ' 5, 9c 1:1' . ---54- . . v ;RY ' rietni ors "'t^Z nv .kv- ) �p s- s," � _r. 17,894 Aviation Cases 570 2-4-74 City of Burbank r.Lockheed Air 7ermined,Inc. "I cannot say what industry's inten- sources of noise move in int era ate corn- tion may lie, hot I can say to the gentle- rnerce and can be effectively regulated only man what my intention is in trying to at the federal level '' si get this bill passed. We have evidence that across America sonic cities and [Conclusion] States are trying to do (sic) pass noise Our prior cases on pre-emption are not regulations ttop Certainly we da not want 1 that to happen. It would harass industry precise guidelines in the present coptro- and progress in America. That is the versy, for each case turns on the peculiar- - reason why I want to get this bill passed ties and special features of the federal �• (luring this session." regulatory scheme in question. Cf. Hines When the House approved the blended v Dovidoaite, 312 U. S. 52; Huron Portland ,-, ' provisions of the bill, Senator Tunney moved Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440. Control that the Senate concur. He made clear' of noise is of course deep seated in the that the regulations to be considered by police power of the States Yet the per- EPA for recommendation to FAA would vasive control vested in EPA and in FAA include: under the 1972 Act seems to us to leave 4:47,7 "proposed means of reducing noise m no room for local curfews or other local airport environments through the appli- control.- what the ultimate remedy may cation of emission controls on aircraft, be for aircraft noise which plagues many the regulation of flight patterns and air- communities and tens of thousands of people craft and airport operations, and ntodifica- is not known. The procedures under the limo in the number,frequency,or scheduling 1972 :Act arc under way" In addition, the of flights (as well as) . . . the imposition Administrator has imposed a variety of of nwfesr nn noisy airports, the imposi- regulations relating to takeoff and landing lion of flight path alterations in areas procedures and runway preferences. The where noise was a problem, the imposi- tion Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate eofx noise emission aircraft—with hdthes xo new balance between safety and efficiency, 49 and existing retrofit schedule the to noise ois- and the protection of Lion of a schedule to abate U. S. C. § 1348(a), ,-,+,- emissions from existing aircraft—the ins persons on the ground. 49 U. S. C. §1348(c). position of controls to increase the load Any regulations adopted by the Admiuis- ,at:gt 1 factor on conunertial flights, or other re- trator to control noise pollution must be duction.c in the joint use of airports, and consistent with the "highest degree of such other procedures as may be deter- safety." 49 U. S. C. § 1431(d)(3). The mined useful and necessary to protect interdependence of these factors requires public health and wd Care." (Italics added.) a uniform and exclusive system of federal '% The statements by Congressman Staggers regulation if the congressional objectives eta? and Senator Tunney are weighty ones. For underlying the Federal Aviation Act are 1' Congressman Staggers was Chairman of to be fulfilled. ,t,�`. the House Committee on Interstate and If we were to uphold the Burbank ordi- t`" Foreign Commerce which submitted the nance and a significant number of nwniei- yl Noise Control Act and Report; and Senator palities followed suit, it is obvious that , ,t,,,•? Tunney was a member of the Senate Corn- fractionalized control of the timing of take- mittee on Public Works, which submitted offs and landings would severely limit the the Act and Report. flexibility of the FAA in controlling air traffic ". When the President signed the bill he flow." The difficulties of scheduling flights ��1, stated that "many of the most significant to avoid congestion and the con-comitant r of '91d., at S 18644 (Oct. 18, 1972). airplane in the fleet and the number of takeoffs 7'8 Weekly Comp. Pres. Does. 1582, 1583 (Oct. and landings of the fleet. Until July 1, 1976. s„,e, 2g 1972). the cumulative noise level of any fleet subject 'i- M "The Administrator has adopted regulations to regulation could not exceed the FNL during prescribing noise standards which must be met the previous 90-day base period. In 1976 each as a condition to type certification for all new fleet would be required to reduce its FNL by subsonic turbojet-powered aircraft. 14 CFR pL SOS's of the difference between the original base- .u. 36. On January 30, 1973, the Federal Aviation period level and the level ultimately required - Administrationgave advance notice of ro peed by 14 CFR pt. 36. :;F p p a In order to insure efficient and safe use of '4 ..= rulemaking for the control of fleet noise levels th7 navigable airspace, the FAA uses central- (FNL) of airplanes operating In interstate mm- Iced "flow control." regulating the number of com- merce. 36 Fed. Reg. 2769. also pertain pin aircraft that will be accepted in a given area would not pertain to carriers also operating in and restricting altitudes and routes that may ,E• foreign commerce.) The proposed rules are a9designed to limit FNL prior to July 1, 1978. be flown' Flow control has resulted in the Los P [ Angeles Air Route Trafllc Control Center hold- when the covered aircraft become subject to tog aircraft on the ground at the Hollyaood- a if 14 CF, the requirements of 14 CFR pt. 36. Burbank Airport. The FNL would be determined as a function Prior to April 1970. 21 regional Air Route ," of the takeoff and approach noise levels of each Traffic Control Centers exercised independent rW3 It ,.' jai 2. r a .. - l A'. vx rh4f .a.2fSRW 6 1 k 570 z_♦-71 Cited 12 Avt. 17,895 r 'sd r 'fir•' t ity rf l?ur%sankv la ,e1.4=r 1ernlinn!,Inc "" Ier a,e in safety vv- 1 1 be com,iounded. ( r en the ( t tindrittitioir. the I 'ct says e a In I >firt the FA rejecte=d a rm.q posed le- ll It tiar Mid? r,, lrurn, pal .force, r h.II Or: let 'The: at Ism f. An c4, 1 crud n . A A I �,: IInjuno- ^� • ' Y,= IS - Sri '�`irt'^d +mr t i or hr c w 1'1 I m. mil - 1.m. he- tit ii ..nh I I A '�r_1. r ll air I tii 4�r air- ' q@se � t itch r li'llon could "crate crib- nut t a-, cis tin 1. h' and local 4.d 5-.y�. 1 h c inns 1,,,,bieul, U all .Ltr traurportatnin rt [ c and Y 4r , „tee % It1,1 r1. k 01.1 t. l AA Itte nunt lid: it I I A I .. wI"`Ir 'ra he raj 1 I - nr .nn n the .e tit I tI I II . I t e anti = 1 tire nun ort its, jet urrraft ln tn.een the "dirt :1 tr firlI n el HI. 111 leen -tt tick h} a 1f + '0 ,.f 1 p m. and t nt_ under earsyule. n I-II L 1rca. t - i y .a . 1 in :ul r miml n lrtiona has alto I I I • I -.. ''.I Fr,. 'I f• I � I'.I � can Ier valuated and tin s I rolicion .Rs II-emir: the c ncrtl cm-Hate r.eet at rt der n omitted fnom the IIII ' he practice rs . .1". tIr Ian tiltift 'tea ui rt ne the [ r icr airport.; �` rT,x cart Ir -pi•ro' t 4d Iran. °.. I t :c t t tr aril I al , i I t e 11 Is r t l 1 r. or Iran.- j I 1., n. i'I Iu Intel The ut II of ni n it] merit t Ion i t I II 1 rted at � t it tar nt. ,t. the Unite-I btates and .ill, r tIr Ir lug, I Drovi- air, -' , --..n_I int s-alal It r of the,e airprrt-s m di- I 'I in Inn, I I - -es not w �Kk 1�4*< 1 . a rlial in INC rlrintrnttn-e of .a I , t t,' rift -cu a ti air 4 rt Iv -tin:tit air taut to rP..t e n ,till The con- ir alt n ("es 1 ' LI, at "t. tat.'. ce, et-ninth of I rl.c acceptance of "1 Ire rrport c nt tin t tale st iarcllly: t� I r is r , lUor are in tatssenner S r plot I-,11,11 I�t a bill , intended isfr. zt_itr t' It I r I II .Ind t e nrrua et,ly silt- `mss:*"+'w" "a'1', 1 "Pt n eI th r' :.'1""1-1,1P be- y ,tatA,y� I ran Ile a ;mplation m rI Cov- Y d :(fir 11. t 1 11 ntt t t F s"ta t. :N I e. v 1 emf die ti : , inn local r 1' �+ '4'"- m .. I 1111 t 1 n thl li I e he its art um I.at t i rr, t t Ow 11 II L, I r an cd. t 'rnl I [ t at I t I null I .I act y• :at ties -,.:, t •,ca, c ,u hale l then are that the extent Matti'r ` ,re r l le: r tI n I the " ry IrIt, I from the Lei', nthlcm Will( -1.-r:Il Atl tam A t E 11,3,1 tarot- to the ,t@' +.4"" V I actnl nt t ld. It Ill. �' : 6t ;� t•-.;-€.: I Pt• n tort r:e t-t r I'I tic AVot ks a� ;, I . , , I-I I I t ,ter e of rc- _ r l n mi!n S 1 \''‘ 0 LAt I "eased � ..,* 5" I �u t t m t uLl I t amine-n.1' - on to- • �+ � y II Hymnal 'API] r t pre ^'y_ I II ( 'v'' i_ r u I nln I n Pei}, rcm ms ' - trll u natter' the r. _tc (f the rr 'Putted nmaw-lu C I )rCl- " r A I I r I rl 11,11% h the input rf n anal I '.n Ir I v pit (sue '�~ . p i2�i- n I _ 1t, are not 1[ liberty to dth..sc I_ t In hl x "11 7,? y' t p. r.cr •i r-cn r .n prey t-. I'AA an,l - I I_AA. Ige,7)1 : "„I'° * ' v L. Iii' V i I tl ILe �tnte= or mitt icipalit3 is -_ uovl P^`tt r'rr I n the 111111. II that It rte e is to Le le, r . „ a,.n. n.0 t I�> it 'I h#•.aS 'I%.-6 \ Irat-I 1 rsa- .-1,-;4-if:It:tilt , r Or .i t lr. h ig �?, Ir 1 I .1 s'. Ith Iom 1llr. -u v '.1 rat to t.' i s s 'ROTA, ' ti% -il AI I 'Ian I t}, ,I al Ar i A [ t I`r I or Gr 44 "h as.t.. •'os:' '7 %.4(4-et ti t w I 11 I , , r' _: in oil t, 0. -. i __ __ n __ _.. + 1 I 1 thrr x 1 r nl t t II :In *girt, «4 ,� . I rt f v r ,t r_, e 1 tar e Cv u -, OYvt 4�i - � .. I It�.•�t .,.r I - - '* ",fit" —. ;, 17,896 Aviation Cases sic IJ-04 City of Burbank r.Lockheed Air Terminal,Inc. earlier enactments that the Court of Since Congress' intent in enacting the Appeals concluded that Congress had pre- 1972 Act was clearly to retain the status emphxl the field from side or local men cquo al regulation,cbetween in federaling of t�nplirrl i and b.- ' of the type that the city of Burbank tion of the field depends upon whether two enacted. The Burbank ordinance prohibited jet earlier congressional enactments, the Fed- takeoff- in iii the Hollywood-Burbank ernl :Anation Act of 1958, 72 St-it. 7,11, 4') t`. S. C. § 1301 et cep., and tie 196k noise .,, Airport during the late evening and early abatement amendment to that Act, 49 morninglresidents hours. Its purpose partial was to afford it, S. C. § 1431, manifested the clear intent $ t:' local reside pi at least pf rtml relief, du as to preclude local regulations, that our prior normal sleeping hours, from the noise as- Y- decisions require. 3E:'• in no ew with jet airplanes th . The ordinance in no way dealt with flights over the city, The 1958 Act was intended to consolidate 47. a. ' cf. Amu'i,an Airlinec, 7 IIemp.ctvad X10 in one agency in the Executive Branch the r Sri 173371 272 F Supp 226 (1 DyA' control over aviation that had previously �y 1967), aff'd, 398 F. 2d 369 (CA2 1968), cert. been diffused within that branch. The denied, 393 U. S. 1017 (1969), nor did it paramount substantive concerns of Con- , ‘..t: categorically prohibit all jet takeoffs during gress were to regulate federally all as- those hours. pects of air safety, see, e.g., 49 U. S. C. 7- § 1422 and, once aircraft were in "flight," Appellees do not contend that the noise airspace management, see, e g., 49 U. S. C. produced by jet engines could not reason § 1348(a). See S. Rep. No. 1811. 85th ably be deemed to affect adversely the Conq 2d Se≤s., 6, 13-15 While the health and welfare of persons constantly Act might be broad enough to permit the • exposed to it; control of noise, sufficiently loud to be classified as a public nuisance Administrator to promulgate takeoff and at common law, would be a type of regu- landing rules to avoid excessive noise at lation well within the traditional scope of certain hours of the day, see 49 l'. S. C. § 1348(c), Congress was not concerned with loc police power possessed by States and local governing bodies. Because noise the problem of noise created by aircraft and did not intend to pre-empt its regu- of of local, f traditionally been an area lation. Furthermore, while Congress clearly s s ? of loyal, not national, concern, in deter- intended to pre-empt the States from reg- . mining whether pli ati congressional foreclosed melegdia to elating aircraft in flight, the author of the has, by implication,"we, wit the assual lo- bill, Senator Monroney, specifically stated ti`` cal enactments h tostart with the ssof the that the FAA would not have control "over States on hat the e historic police powers by the the ground space" of airports.' Federal were l to be superseded eclear the The development and increasing use of Act unless that was the and P 1 manifest purpose of Congress." Rice v. civilian jet aircraft resulted in congres- Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 sional concern over the noise associated (1947). This assumption derives from our with those aircraft. Hearings were held '+.'•„_ o over a period of several years, resulting in m toconstitutionale division States s legislative a report but no legislation. The report of ' competence between the e and Con- the House Committee on Interstate and 4 refs; from "due a rci for the 1p system, gress; of our embracing federal system, Foreign Commerce, H. R. Rep. No. 36, . '"s ;,... including the principle of diffusion of Power 88th Cong., 1st Sess., shows clearly that not as a matter of doctrinaire localism but as the 1958 Act was thought by at least some 14/*e a promoter of democracy . . ." San Diego in Congress neither to pre-empt local legis- n ' Building Trades Council v. Garman, 359 U. S. lative action to alleviate the growing noise 236, 243 (1959) (italics added). Unless the Problem, nor to prohibit local curfews: ry' .p` requisite pre-emptive intent is abundantly "Until Federal action is taken, the local clear, we should hesitate to invalidate state governmental authorities must be deemed ,i.,r and local legislation for the added reason to possess the police power necessary to protect their citizens and property from " that "the state is powerless to remove the the unreasonable invasion of aircraft s ill effects of our decision, while the national noise. The wisdom of exercising such government, which has the ultimate power, power or the manner of the exercise is remains free to remove the burden.' Penn a problem to be resolved on the local Dairies, Inc. t-. Milk Control Conuu'n, governmental level. 318 U. S. 261, 275 (1943). ' ' • This guidance is partieularly appropriate In 'Hearings before the Subcommittee on Avis- ',,a this case, as the statements of two individual lion of the Senate Committee on Interstate and • tCongressmen quoted In the Court's opinion are Foreign Commerce (hereafter Commerce Com- at odds with the views expressed In the corn- it th nn 1e69S 2 S 3833 Federal s27 Aviation Agency 77-°" mittee reports. .. sass t � a w - ,1e^`'r z!>rI t ',,s5'"-5i e ,i ta r .. -. ---„..„,,,,„:„,,,,t,„„:,.., S t. � s i - yTMw ' . sma z-a-n Cited 12 Avi. 17,897 tel� N C fly of Burbank _. i d.l it'Terminal,Inc. te_p rr 'i Mk 1 irports in the United States, a The latter group is frequently burdened e t o;l general rule, are operated by a to the point where they can neither p worriment-id au h oly ithrr a mu a en oy nor rzason thl use their Find be- st— a t eferFilir-1 panty, a county, or some independent cause of noise resulting from aircraft wigilesWitsigtariloustia§4 unit These airport operator. are clot s 'rug h Mane sir 'hem derite no directPis ;00 Lail geographically and politically, to C.; benefit from the a reoperations alt which ywl t Ar problem of the conflict of interests Is— crate tae imwiund, n'-r. Th reiore, it is t i i en Heise Cirisen chit hake been all easy to understand ashy they complain, rsely- aff cted by the aircraft noise :nn' and complain most s homently The pus- c.'A m tars needs of the community for air corm able solutions to this damaging and - 'eylt serer- Some airport opera xs hat's v axing problem which appear to offers ocercised the proprietary right to restrict the most promise are (I) new or modified In a reasonable manner, the use of any engine and airframe designs, t3) special `° - 9� 'm nav-1V hp 111110'111g Tither the hours dunes flight operating techniques and proce- �, � which t may be used or the types " lures, and (.31 g) planning- for land use in r ' (is it trui-port aircraft that naav use it. - areas adjacent to airports so that such y i�n,k ii. R. Rep. No. in, ISSth Cong., I t land 'The will he most compatible with aircraft operations. This lt yr.-latian it S , Sitarsal years after the conclusion t. director! beard the primary Irobin,:: - rva,F n' hs _r'h.oe n i„ nl :..r SOfwra_" ,y r hear n Congress ,. enacted the '9n` �' ' _a alias neat amiss lucent. �mz beat ..'+ I Italic added L) If. R. Rep. No. 1463. ta` 3,,,, i "'.. tae t n ? 1St . ;. alT;t^ to the- 19. i :Art. 1c') U S C $ 1111 which s { , e scats the first congressional legislation dell- Par from indicating any total t r,-emptive + , intent, the House Committee :observed: fug with the problem of aircraft not>c. g•- av;'.`ts. On its face.' the present C 611 neither pre- "Rather, the committee expects manu- ` " . opts the mineral hell of regulation i.t faciurers, air carriers, all other segments aircraft noise nor deals specifically time of the aviation counnmity, :m. State and �ia ° 'S- tile more limited I question of curfews. The g - ,' continue and increase their contribution I1 Ire Committee reciting Interstate and For ✓; v ` i . amerce after the serious toward the common goal of goat" Ibid. pro- porn-ins of the problem, outlined the type The Senate Commerce Committee's view 1, y,th ' of federal regulation that the Act sought of the House bill followed a similar vein: s aT .-!.flii to .repose_ "This investment by the industry is c.,— ise ,istela;:. 'The noise problem is basically a con- representative of one of the avenues of 'salptX f, that between two groups or interests approach to aircraft noise reiloction, that r ? On the one hand, there is a group %v'hn is, tde development of aircraft which Q i a y[ t procidc carious air transportation 'c n- generate less noi A i t cr roach to cya. On the other hand there is a group noise reduction is through the :stablish- �. 111iaa who live work, and go to schools an'.1 merit of special Hight eprratin techniques of "1'c'' a%ct is' churches in communities near airport= anti procedures. The thirst principal con- Ta't" "'(a) Consultations: standards; rules :and highest degree of safety in air rommeree or ,W,',.....,-,,,,,, Fad g�. regulations,to air I-ti transportation n e the ❑y nr Interest: -". "in order to afford present and future relief (hi considerwhe[her.any prop sad standard, .,a'"-ay k" '4:' and prod .lion to the public from unnecessary rule or regulation is ei.kmomically reasonable. lirrraft noise and sonic boom, the Administ rat-.r technologic-illy practicable and appropriate for f the pedt.ral Aviation Administration, after a the particular type of aircraft, airtreft engine, y "� rink Itatinn with the Secretary of Transports ipphanee, cr on-unsafe to which it will apply: w x tion shall prescribe and amend standards far and 'f w the measurement of aircraft noise and sonic '(5) consider the extent to which such stand- y}. S• yZ- boom untl shall prescribe and amend such rules ard, rule, or regulation will •ontrihute to earn- & x and regulations as he may find necessary In ing out the purposes of this section. ri p ' t prole Ede for the control and abatement of air- "(c) Amendment, modification, suspension. or rurft noise and sonic boom. Including the appli revocation of certificate: notice and appeal ' ti n of such standards, rules, and regulations rights- t ' in the 'sse mac, amendment. modification. sus ''In any action to amend, modify. suspend, '?ys Pension. or r'vnration of any certldcate author- in. revoke a certillrate in sy m h :soon of air- tzed by this subchapter_ raft noise -Sr sonic' boom srmdardc. rules. or (hi Considerations determinatlsc of stand- regulations Is at the 'erirate holder a � ..1 arils, rubes, and regulations_ shall have the some notice and' appeal rights 'in prescribing .Intl :unending standards. is .-ire "In tuned in ;is?tun ia:9 of this title, rules, and regulations under this section. it. :and in Inv 'orb al i f:atinnal ransµir- Almintrhrhll - cant fly Lard 1 - rd ' amend, ,y ;at .:..in wie il to n modify, or revere ire tiger if Oit Adminls- In or-raf mike aie.d sonic boon, Including tr.. Irunr If it ands that ntrol or abatement of , results drms.-us-h. desolopmprit, testing 'ir I or-raft noise or son, boom aid the public c'5 v-'k I - n a ti 'tiesconducted p r ant to this t rest 1 not gale lure t a n of such h pt r and h' ❑t r-1 f this tit rder- or that such e Is not o tent with yY� k p - - e I t with such o d d State, and safety In air Sommer r air tr sportatlon. iy r t it'. Ina rsta e ag ncl is as he deigns appropriate: .a c, '1 111 consider whethor any pmlws, .and rat us:. rubs or n'gulatlnn Is ermddent with '.tie '- - "?..t,..., J.?. 17,898 Aviation Cases 570 24-74 ( :rt.of Hur/ank v. Lurk/Iced Air Terminal,Inc trol technique which merits scrim:. con- will rennin unalde to use their police inar the planing for land use power,tcer, tr, control aircraft noise by reg- in areas near airports so a{ to make such eliding the flight of aircraft. use compatible with aircraf t <qre rations. "'Flow ever, the proposed legislation This is a matter largely within the pros- will not affect the rights of a State or ince of State and local governments. local public agency, as the proprietor of _ While all of these techniques must be all airport, from issuing regulations or thoroughly studied and employed, the establishing requirements as to the per- '^�'-'k, first order of business is to stop the es- missible level of noise which can be *"`3 calation of aircraft noise by imposing created by aircraft using the airport. vi standards which require the full applica- Airport owners acting as proprietors can � s r�- tion of noise reduction technology presently deny the use of their airports the rl "A peed within t quiet airplane whit not be siderations so o aircraft t long as sis suchf noise con- exclusion is y developed it the tc i future nondiscriminatory. _ Hoterver, with the technological and 'Y' regulatory means now at hand, it is pos- "'Just as an airport owner is respon �� ` >: sible to reduce both the level and the sible for deciding how long the runways ` impact of aircraft noise Within the limits will be, so is the owner responsible for of technology and economic feasibility, it obtaining noise easements necessary to is the view of the committee that the permit the landing and takeoff of the Federal Government must assure that the aircraft. The Federal Government is in e w ri potential reductions are in fact realized." no position to require an airport to accept ,.. -_ 7 S. Rep. No. 1353, 90th Cong.. 2d Sess., service by larger aircraft and, for that -3. purpose, to obtain longer runways. Like- wise, the Federal Government is in no r,: ,' With specific emphasis on pre-emption, the position to require an airport to accept rN Senate Committee observed: service by noisier aircraft, and for that "Relation to Local Government Initiatives purpose to obtain additional noise ease- "The hill is an amendment to a statute ments. The issue is the service desired describing the powers and duties of the by the airport owner and the steps it is Federal Government with respect to air willing to take to obtain the service. In commerce As indicated earlier in this dealing with this issue, the Federal Gov- report, certain actions by State and local ernment should not substitute its judg- public agencies, such as zoning to assure ment for that of the States or elements compatible land use, are a necessary part of local government who, for the most sAix.' of the total attack on aircraft noise. In part, own and operate our Nation's air- this connection, the question is raised ports. The proposed legislation is not whether this bill adds or subtracts any- designed to do this and will not prevent thing from the powers of State or local airport proprietors from excluding any governments. It is not the intent of the aircraft on the basis of noise considera- committee in recommending this legisla- tions.' -s,-.1.--.-.i tion to effect any change in the existing "Of course, the authority of units of apportionment of powers between the local government to control the effects Federal and State and local governments. of aircraft noise through the exercise of land use planning and zoning powers is , r.• "In this regard, we concur in the fol- J. s {-xJ,- ' lowing view's set forth by the Secretary not diminished by the bill. in his letter to the Committee of June "Finally, since the flight of aircraft has 22. 1968: been preempted by the Federal Govern- fv --47;,Aj- "'The courts have held that the Fed- ment, State and local governments can eral Government presently preempts the presently exercise no control over sonic ,. field of noise regulation insofar as it boom. The bill makes no change in this """ :. - involves controlling the flight of aircraft. regard." Id., at 6-7. Local noise control legislation limiting the permissible noise level of all over- In terms of pre-emption analysis, the se"'" flying aircraft has recently been struck most reasonable reading of §611 appears d xrt down because it conflicted with Federal to be that it was enacted to enable the ?, 16 regulation of air traffic. American Air- Federal Government to deal with the 'tors v Town of Hempstead (10 Avi. noise problem created by jet aircraft ,,. 17,337], 272 F. Supp. 226 (U. S D C., through study and regulation of the "source" E. D, N. Y., 1966). The court said, at 231, of the problem—the mechanical and strut- "The The legislation operates in an area con- tural aspects of jet and turbine aircraft de- r mitted to Federal care, and noise limiting sign. The authority to"prescribe and amend rules operating as to those of the ordinance such rules and regulations as he may find must come from a Federal source." H. R. necessary to provide for the control and 3400 would merely expand the Federal abatement of aircraft wise and sonic boom;' Government's role in a field already pre- while a broad grant ' w'" ' empted. It would not change this pre- 49 U. S. C. § 1431(a), emotion. State and local governments of authority to the Administrator, cannot . '4+5 r .a - r , "45 y t4tt �{ 5 r 9F `T it A$.4Y'�S y .' 570 2-4-74 Cited 12 Avi. 17,899 4' City of Burbank a Lockheed Air Terminal,Inc f 's" I 47t fairly be read as prohibiting the States Considering the language Congress en- from enacting every type of measure, which acted into law, the available legislative his- e. a s might have the effect of reducing aircraft tory, and the light shed by these on the ?t 'y noise, hi the absence of a regulation to that congressional purpose, Congress did not °• qi effect under this section. The statute estab- intend either by the 1958 Act or the 1968 fished exclusive federal control of the tech- Amendment to oust local governments from -. nological methods for reducing the output the enactment of regulations such as that of the city of Burbank. The 1972 Act quiter ,t s°"" of noise by jet aircraft, but that is a far " cry from saying that it prohibited any local clearly intended to maintain the status quo regulation of the times at which the local between federal and local authorities. The '% +``.f''•t ^t, legislative history of the 1972 Act, quite .aT1 airport might he available for the use of jet g nY p sir aircraft. apart from its concern with avoiding addi- y 1, bona) preemption, discloses a pnman focus r ' � w 'e� ssr s _ The Court of Appeals found critical to on the alteration of procedures within the i * a rsr its ileciSILM1 the distinction between the lo- Federal Government for dealing with prob- t. ,4 -1 II :anent an :url rl proprietor and loins of aircraft noise already entrusted by ,,,, �. the local government as a regulatory agency, Congress to federal competence. the 1972 ' x Act set up procedures by which ?obtain- v' which was reflected in the views of the7 ' ,1 P '� ' Secretary of Transportation outlined in the istra[or of the Environmental protection r• .,�, 'w'F Seuate Report on the 196 Amendment. Agency would have a role to may in the it. .,.;' W' formulation and review of standards pro- a.a a •.t Under its w reasoning,t a erloate gave airportent s t-" unit that owned and operated an airport nul7;ated by the Federal Aviation ado miss i �5- �, p p tration dealing with noise emission- of jet s "* a.i eve, dv 'e ul t not be pre-empted by §nil I front - r 4 t totally, or, s here, partially, eye'iding aircraft. But because these agencies have -i vd'�..- , exclusive authority to reduce noise by pro- �+. '�' a '. :tors- aircraft from using its facilities, but a municipality having territorial jurisdiction cool{,acing regulations and implementing :rte=a: r7 .' ter, oCrthe airport would be pre-cmpted from standards directed at one or several of the • causes of the level of noise, local govern- e " n� enacting the statute actually c having ca similar '2 'cad govern- effect If e enacted drew mental bodies are not thereby foreclosed � from dealing with the noise problem by 1° t i. distinction, I are ale of course respect s ="`= every other conceivable method. w' k2c�.sip it !tut since t dealing with " la- " tit rstor rather than the words actually _ y; \ local ovrrning t sty that owns and 1;2 tt mitten by Congress into law, I do not iterates an airport is certainly not. by the tiyi,, , aII t it is the controlling significance aunt's opinion, prohibited f troan a- k t �,,,�2- trbt t d to it by the court below. nently closing down its facilities. A local ,y, } ^4. " i governing body could likewise ro use its era- ,: t. The pre-emption question to which the ditioital police power to prevent the estab- 6 �,y+y Secretary's letter was addressed related to hshment of a new airport or the expansion a s n�,,. "the field of noise regulation insofar as it of an existing one •.cithin its territorial jur- C > �'YIJ, involves_ controlling the flight of aircraft" iAiction by declining to grant the necessary -,, {Z �. (italics added? and thus included types of 41 zoning for such a facility- Even t^.ough the ' �x'"gry`,�,' regulation quite hfferent from that enacted local govern inent's decision in each case %4 i 'k3rfri, t. ho the city (if Burbank that would be clearly was motivated entirely because of the noise I I. M -Innoil lirlinrt. v Hcrnp- associated with airport I to not read the .. .r r%r.i. But more Imp rt.nt is the highly Court's opinion a: indicating that such ac- t � 7rg r 1.,75 J n II it III Ih at lilt' fiatwrxtd- toils v mild be prohibited by the Supremacy " *i '' Porb ink 5 ifis a[ iprt.ba I the nobntm Ecd- Clause merely because the Federal levern- y},, x f : II I I t h Hann a lit federally Ines[ has undertaken ler[al.en the responsibility for 1 a riotil sir: etrrers that i not owned and me aspects f ircrait noise control Yet r >,1 I I I to Io.-,II t r Ili. Their if this may he bone the t opinion af"43a Cs siregt art a ii r -� a I '.i. I I>-.mil `r [D tl✓' surely it ul[ at satisfactorily explain ashy ti e `Ne i ni t; it rear r Commome. .,r that the is local got crning body in ay nn t cud,t a I • .I n p ..rtutr n vas A's are of it far lo.s 'hntru•n -' or Iul..nct• -.tub as that ..n n' g,:: t the rrty of Burbank.o limning 1.1; 11[e r. It simply drains X} �yJ r i ray ✓:, r v. t r;t ti S r. teary, tha f T l -,i ry >f - n r i i., I nLitr t ,mnntt or Congress intended tin ' Id .I ni n r d s I T I' -t.- vi vhrm- TgY.,krie(11-41.4te'tiiteye ,a that ill :imports except the If Ily.v . I Run fly I mgresoona mt,ut t v hxal i' du`• '.. ink \h-port could enact curfews. ',iodation But et n if it li I n, t 4,1 that R a" m .ri t anti, el ear s,n This point, ns it or the h tlarl t Ih. There T�ka hat it does ny,penr In be the I Although 9 •.t app et to be t➢ 'rh,.r vntely r t .•, u t•rap re-rts d Ir y numb.,pail- irppol- nrl.ul ,irp rr it lTh v u.4 . _-.rrlere r _ r.ell ..at u' In,,den mil '..i•1+ an.q . Mp 17,900 Aviation Cases 370 2-4.71 Gabel v.Hughes Air Corp. far, that history surely does not reflect this Court's opinion, in view of their deter- "the clear and manifest purpose of Con- urination as to pre-emption, reached that gress" to prohibit the exercise of "the his- question. The District Court's conclusion toric police powers of the States" which our appears to In Laced. at least in part. on a deri.,nms require hciurr a conclusion of consideration of the effect on interstate implied pre-emption is reached. Clearly commerce that would result if all municipal Congress could pre-empt the field to local airports in the country enacted ordinances 1'- regulation if it chose, and very likely the such as that of Burbank. Since the proper a . 1 ':. authority conferred on the Administrator determination of the question turns on an rrr Ft of the Federal Aviation Administration by evaluation of the facts of each case, see, 49 U. S. C. § 1431 is sufficient to authorize r Bibb 7' Navajo Freight Liner, 359 him to promulgate regulations effectively U. S. 520 (1959), and not on a predicted pre-empting local action. But neither Con- proliferation of possibilities, the District gress nor the Administrator has chosen to Court's conclusion is of doubtful validity. i`,t,t go that route Until one of them does, the The Burbank ordinance did not affect emer- ordinance of the city of Burbank is a valid gency flights, and had the total effect of exercise of its police power. prohibiting one scheduled commercial flight The District Court found that the Bur- each week and several additional private flights by corporate executives; such a re- bank ordinance would impose an undue suit can hardly be held to be an unreason- burden on interstate commerce, and held it able burden on commerce. Since the Court Kr„ invalid under the Commerce Clause for that expresses no opinion on the question, however, reason. Neither the Court of Appeals nor I refrain from any further analysis of it.' GLENDA GABEL, Individually, ET AL. v. HUGHES AIR CORP„ Doing Business as AIR WEST and HUGHES AIR WEST United States District Court,Central District of California, October 12, 1972. aye (For concurrent proceedings in the United States District Court, Central District of California,see 12 Avi. 17,909.) FEDERAL AVIATION ACT-CIVIL REMEDY-SAFETY VIOLATIONS.— ' ' The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the safety regulations promulgated under it impose a duty upon an air carrier to perform its services with the highest possible degree of safety and a violation of that duty creates a cause of action in favor of the one who is injured or damaged by the death of a person as a result of such a violation. The violation of this duty is sufficient to support federal jurisdiction- However, the measure of damages is to be determined by applicable state law. Back reference: ¶16,605.365. Miller, Bronn, Brummett and Porter, 610 Fidelity Federal Plaza, 555 East Ocean ate'; Blvd., Long Beach, California, and Magana and Cathcart and Lawrence J. Galardi, 1800 s. '= Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles,California,for Plaintiffs. s 1, Shield and Smith, 1010 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California, and Lord, Bissell and ,.,4 Brook, 135 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, for Hughes Air Corp. Belcher, Henzis and Biegenzahn, 510 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, for McDonnell Douglas Corp. William D. Keller, Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., James Stotter II, and Alan W. Peryam, for United States of America. [Background of rase] against Hughes Air West for the death of HALF., District Judge: The above-num- Keith A. Gabel, a passenger on Air West bered action is brought by the next of kin Flight 706 from Los Angeles, California, t q lt„ *Although cited by the Court, this situation articulated federal policy, to wit, a non-manda- ;, is clearly not a Cooley situation, in which the tory runway preference order of the FAA tower control of aircraft noise of regulation, (s) only of one chief at Burbank which requested pilots to use uniform system, or plan of regulation, (which) a particular runway at night. The Court does may Justly be said to be of such a nature as not decide this case on that ground: I see no to require exclusive legislation by_Congress." occasion to express in detail my views on the +fir Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 32 flow. 299, 319 conflict issue, except to note my doubt as to (18.52). The court below also held, but by a the correctness of the disposition of that clues- divided vote, that the Burbank ordinance was tion. invalid because it was in conflict with a clearly Thursday September 2, 1982 14/-kt RECD ANM.600 - L-parts Div = SEP 14 '82 ::t.M 601 ✓ �� 1.%,.i-6}•3 E05 a L. Ufi0 ANN:c.-.3 B c DEN = = HEN Part II Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Ultralight Vehicles; Operating Requirements 38770 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 171 / Thursday, September 2. 1982 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: into adverse weather conditions in I Ken Peppard, Airspace and Air Traffic which operations may be conducted by Federal(AAT-220),a Federal Aviation Administration Rules Branch ( ) pilots and aircraft which are qualified 14 CFR Part 103 Aviation Administration, Washington, for instrument flight (IFR conditions). DC 20591, telephone(202)426-3128,or The midair collision potential presented (Docket No.21631;New Pei-11O3J _. .. • Gary Perkins, General Aviation J_ I by unauthorized operations is contrary Operations Branch (AFO-820), Uttralight Vehicles,Operating Federal Aviation Administration, to the FAA responsibility of ensuring the Requirements ) Washington.DC 20591,telephone safety of all airspace operations t (202)426-8194. including air carrier aircraft. AGENCY:Federal Aviation-. _ To illustrate the of _ r'_ : SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: p entiaLfnr Administration (FiNA).DOT.' - .. , �iazardous situations that can arise, the ACTION:Final rule( Background FAA-has recorded data detailing ( The FAA issued Advisory Circular numerous instances of ultralight SUMMARY:This ariendment establishes. . No.60-10, entitled "Recommended vehicles in controlled airspace causing _rules governing the operation of - .Safety Parameters for Operation of near-miss situations with aircraft.The ultralight vehicles 1n the United States:,, 'Hang Gliders" on May 16,1974.That o owing examp es ighlight the • The rule defines ultralight vehicles in !advisory circular contained problem: two categories:powered and r . :... r 8 P - recommended safety parameters for the (1)On March 24, 1981,an MU-2 flew unpowered.To be Considered an . . .. :operation of sport hang gliders,in lieuf ultralight vehicle, d hang glider Must •' ' (formal Federal regulation.The advisory end of the two ultralights at W operating Winter-Haven, , the weigh less than 154 pounds;while a• ' ..circular defined "hang glider"as "an \\. and of runway ig is were equip powered vehicle mist weigh less than unpowered, single place vehicle whos • , Florida.Both ultralights were equipped • 254 pounds:is limited to 5 U.S.gallons Of launch and landing capability depends withth floats and were operating at night. + fuel:must have a r4aximtm speed of twt 'on the legs of the occupant and whose without lights. - more than 55 knots and must have a '- ' lability to remain in flight is generated bit (2)On April 11, 1981.a Western power-off stall spe of not more than )1atural air currents only." Airlines 727 captain reported a-near- 24 knots.Both pow red and unpowetell-. , 1 The sport of hang gliding has `- aniss with an ultralight vehicle in the ultralight vehicles are limited to a single advanced dramatically since Advisory vicinity of_Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport occupant.Those vehicles which exceed Circular No.60-10 was issued.There is (3j In May of 1981,the pilot of a single the above criteria will be considered now widespread use of powerplants, aircraft for purposes of airworthiness landing gear, and movable control engine aircraft reported a near-miss , certification and registration, and their surfaces to increase the speed, altitu with n aorni vehicle i gr Paso th operators will be subject to the same and distance capabilities of the vehicles. Robles. California.According to the certification requirements as are aircraft Many models have passenger-carrying report filed under the FAA Aviation operators.These rules for ultralight capability.As a result of those ,, Safety Reporting Program, the ultralight vehicles are needed to achieve an developments,many hang gliding was operating at 7000 feet in IFR • acceptable level of air safety by vehicles no longer fall within the scope \ weather conditions.The airplane pilot, reducing potential conflict with other envisioned by Advisory Circular No.60- '`who was operating on an IFR flight plan, j airspace users and to provide protection 10.The addition of powerplants and s aaJorced to take evasive action to j to persons and property on the ground. controllable aerodynamic surfaces has avoid a'collision. The rule governs the operation of created vehicles which can approximate To establish regulations to deter I ultralight vehicles by specifying the the operational capabilities of fixed- flights which present a serious danger to airspace which requires prior wing and rotary-wing aircraft. aircraft and to provide a basis for I authorization of Air Traffic Control The increasing performance necessary enforcement action, the FAA (ATC), prohibiting operations over capabilities of these vehicles, and their published Notice of Proposed congested areas, and providing for greatly increased number, have created operations during twilight hours with potential FRRu 38472). No.81-6 on July ed 1981 (46 a hazard to other aircraft and FR 38472). That notice proposed to i proper lighting. Right-of-way and operators.as well as to the ultralight include both powered and unpowered minimum visibility rules are also operators themselves.As the result of established. aerodynamic improvements, many hang gliders under the generic term The FAA has chosen not to unpowered hang gliders are now "ultralight vehicle" and included : promulgate Federal regulations capable of extended soaring to altitudes proposed weight and fuel limitations for I regarding pilot certification,vehicle exceeding 10.000 feet above the point of those vehicles. The notice proposed a launch and distances of over 100 miles. • certification,and vehicle registration, number of operational limitations for The powered hang gliders now have the preferring that the ultralight community ultralight vehicles,while recognizing assume the initiative for the capability of sustained flight above that the vehicles are used primarily for 10,1100 feet and forward speed exceeding sport purposes.More than 2.500 persons development of these important safety 50 knots.The operations of these and organizations submitted comments programs. The ultralight community is expected to take positive action to vehicles are now a significant factor in to that proposed rule.This rule is the aviation safety.The vehicles are result of FAA consideration of those develop these programs in a timely manner and gain FAA approval for their routinely operated,without comments in light of its responsibility authorization, into regulated airspace, for safety in the National Airspace implementation. Should this approach such as airport traffic areas, terminal System.Because of the growing fail to meet FAA safety objectives, control areas, positive control areas, significance of this segment of the further regulatory action will be necessary. and prohibited and restricted areas. aviation community, the new rules have EFFECTIVE DATE:October 4, 1982. Many operations have also taken place been codified under a new part of the over congested areas and spectators and Federal Aviation Regulations.Part 103. Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 171 / Thursday, September 2, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 38771 , The Rule will not be affected by these regulations that the higher weights resulted from because,as a number of commenters improvements which provide greater : Subpart A—General indicate, they are usually conducted in structural integrity,better stability,more i Section 103.1 Applicability(proposed rural or remote areas, at low altitudes, positive controllability. and other §101.1(a)(3)). away from areas where safety of other safety-oriented additions which do not This section defines the term persons in the air or on the ground is derogate the characteristics commonly "ultralight vehicle."The proposed rule compromised.It is only in congested associated with ultralight operations. I would have limited the term to single- areas, airport traffic areas. and other Those characteristics are identified as occupant designs weighing less than 155 areas frequented by aircraft involved in low forward speeds,low wing loadings. pounds,with a fuel capacity of 15 air commerce that these rules would low stall speeds. short takeoff and pounds or less,and which had no U.S.or restrict operations of unpowered landing capability,and on enclosures t foreign airworthiness certificate.The ultralight vehicles. around the pilot. final rule expands the definition to The USHGA's self-regulation program Some commenters suggest that differentiate between powered and lacks the legal authority to enforce limitations of 220 pounds or 330 pounds I unpowered ultralight vehicles.The 155- others. to ensure the safety of be adopted because they are t pound limitation been others.There is no requirement for any "international standards."This is not pound retained weightfor unpowered has designs aand is hang glider operator to be a member of correct. Canada. England, and Australia I the USHGA.Current hang glider the only criterion for those vehicles. adopted 220 pounds as the maximum Those ultralights equipped with publications have carried a number of weight for a particular category of 1 powerplants must weigh less than 254 articles describing hang glider aircraft.In those countries, even if the operations which violate Part 9] weight limitation is met,the aircraft pounds empty weight.In addition, regulations as well as the must be certificated and the pilots powered ultralight vehicles must have a recommendations of Adviso Circular fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. Advisory licensed.The 330-pound limit was i and be incapable of more than No.80-10.Those descriptions have established by the Federation gallons P included operations near and into Aeronautique Internationale for a 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full clouds,low-altitude operations over t power in level flight.The power-off stalles category called"microlight aircraft." speed of apowered ultralight must not open-air close prox i yp to airports and That category was established merely S flights in close proximity to with for the purpose of recording t exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. large concentrations of airline and t The rule restricts both powered and general aviation aircraft operations. Performance achievements of a unpowered vehicles to single occupants Those potentially hazardous operations particular group of aircraft. I and requires that the aircraft be used created the requirement for Federal The FAA agrees that the weight exclusively for sport or recreational regulatory limitations on hang gliders. limitation for powered ultralight i purposes. The proposed maximum weight vehicles should be raised from the The FAA estimates that nearly all restriction of less than 155 pounds was proposed 155 pounds.The 254-pound • unpowered vehicles currently on the retained for unpowered ultralight limitation was established because it , market will fall within the definition of vehicles to: (1)recognize the unpowered closely corresponds to commenters' • ultralight vehicle.The new criteria will vehicles as a separate entity from those recommendations that the weight • exclude approximately 7%of the that are powered; and(2)ensure that the limitation be raised to at least 115 kilos, 7 powered vehicle designs currently being unpowered vehicles continue to meet and because the vast majority of current marketed as ultralights, although many essentially the same criteria that vehicles on the market weigh less than I of those may be suitable for 254 pounds.This weight does not prevented their being classified as modifications to bring them within the gliders. include floats or safety devices intended conventional Under this rule, t scope of the definition. those unpowered vehicles weighing 155 for deployment in an emergency Unpowered Ultralight Vehicles pounds or more must be certificated situation,e.g..parachutes and the p 8 under the appropriate FAR's. No specific harnesses and ballistic package A number of commenters,including comments were received which objected necessary for deployment. t the United States Hang Gliding to the 155-pound limitation on A large number of commenters Association(USHGA), object to the unpowered vehicles. recognize that,if the weight were raised, inclusion of"pure"hang gliders in the some restriction would have to be r same definition as powered hang Powered Ultrolight Vehicles imposed to ensure that the ' gliders.They raise the point that there A large number of commenters characteristics associated with , are a number of distinctive operational request that the proposed maximum ultralights would be preserved.Those t differences between a pure hang glider empty weight of 155 pounds be raised commenters include organizations such r and a powered vehicle which should be for powered ultralight vehicles.The as the Experimental Aircraft t considered when assessing the necessity suggestions range from 180 to 350 Association(EAA), the Aircraft Owners . for regulations for these vehicles.The pounds.The reasons offered include and Pilots Association (AOPA),and the USHGA emphasizes its own self- greater structural integrity,more Professional Ultralight Manufacturers regulation program and safety record. opportunity for design innovations, and Association(PUMA). I The FAA recognizes that the the fact that many of the vehicles The restrictions they propose range i measures taken by the USHGA to presently operated exhibit all of the from simple wing loading values to promote safety at USHGA launch sites other characteristics generally complex aerodynamic formulas.They t have been effective,particularly those attributed to ultralights but weigh more include maximum wing loading i. measures taken to protect the than the proposed weight limit. suggestions, minimum wing areas in t participants.However,the basic The FAA,by review of ultralight relation to weight,maximum power rationale for issuance of this rule is the advertisements as of March 1982, has capabilities in relation to weight. and t safety of all users of national airspace, concluded that the empty weights of calculations of launch mass.Some r not just the ultralight operators.The most of those vehicles range from 150 to commenters suggest, and the FAA great majority of hang gliding operations 250pounds.It was further concluded considered.that thepilot be required to j Y P 9 38772 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 171 / Thursday, September 2, 19bh / Rules and Regulations be exposed fully to the relative wind. qualifications. Because pilot Section 103.5 Waivers This requirement was dropped to qualifications are not controlled or In proposing to include ultralight accommodate cold weather operations monitored, the single-occupant operations under Part 101.ultralights and to avoid stifling design and requirement is a necessary component would have been eligible for the waiver efficiency improvements within the in the continuation of the policies which applicableeeligible all f parameters of an ultralight vehicle. allow the operation of ultralight vehicles provisions s part.By e to removing operations che The maximum forward airspeed free from many of the restrictions limitation was selected by the FAA imposed on aircraft.Persons wishing to ultralight proposal from Part 101.the because it is faster than almost all operate two-p waiver eligibility for ultralights would lace vehicles have the ultralight vehicles currently being sold availability of existing provisions of the have been lost.The FAA has concluded but still places those vehicles in a FAR's for conducting such operations. that the ultralight industry and the significantly slower performance public would be best served by category than conventional aircraft.The Recreation or Sport Purposes Only retention of waiver eligibility for these determination and enforcement of this Recent activities and advertisements vehicles. speed limitation is within the capability Thus. § 103.5 is added to the final rule, and resources of the FAA under the in ultralight-oriented publications giving the ultralight operator the inspection requirements of the rule. (included in the docketj'imply that commercial operations may be opportunity to apply for a certificate of A number of commenters suggest waiver from any provisions of Part 103. maximum stall speed restrictions conducted by an uncertificated pilot in ranging from 18 to 25 miles per hour, an ultralight which has not been Section 103.7 Certification and believing that this limitation would certificated as an aircraft.Those types registration continue to ensure the safe nature of of operations are not allowed under the ultralight vehicles.The FAA believes rule. The intent of the FAA is to provide for that the ability of those vehicles to Several commenters suggest that safety in the national airspace with a operate from surfaces other than those ultralight vehicles be limited to sport or minimum amount of regulation. designed for aircraft is a factor which recreational purposes only.The position Accordingly, those vehicles which meet ! lessens the potential for collisions and of the FAA had consistently been that the definition of"ultralight vehicle"will reduces the interference with aircraft these vehicles may be operated for sport be exempt from FAA certification and operations.A relatively slow stall speed and recreation purposes only.TTie registration requirements. Similarly, y s a major contributing factor in s Ica on for atfow rrgtfte at-Oration pilots of ultralight vehicles,as defined in 1 allowing ultralight pilots to operate in a of these vehicles without requiring this part,will not be required to possess } safe manner. ircraft and pilot certification has been FAA pilot certificates or airman medical I A maximum power-off stall speed of that this activity is a "sport"generally certificates. 24 knots was chosen because it conducted away from concentrations of I While this rule does not,at this time, encompasses most of the vehicles population and aircraft operations.Like require airman/aircraft certification or currently on the market.The stall is any sport.the participants are viewed as vehicle registration and is premised on easily determined through a simple taking personal risks which do not affect the absolute minimum regulation eadi available uae information theFAAinspector wheh i others not involved in the a aclivi 1 necessary to ensure safety in the public readily to the FAA _ __.._... _. - activity- r--- - interest,a continuation of burgeoning when inspecting a specific vehicle. Section 103.3 Inspection requirements growth of the ultralight population could The total allowable fuel capacity was (proposed §101.55). nece re ulation.The best raised from the proposed 15 pounds to 5 and methods to preclude the U.S.gallons.The decision to increase This section ensures that FAA's practices the volume of fuel is a direct result of authority to inspect ultralight vehicles need for further Federal regulation the desire by the FAA,in response to for compliance with the limits specified appear to at least include:self- 1 public comments,to ensure that adequate fuel reserves are available for in §103.1 and is retained in the final rule regulation and self-policing,safety as proposed in Notice No.81�. standards, membership in organizations safe flight. A large number of commenters object and associations equipped to function ! Single Occupant to the inspection requirements,believing and operate programs approved by the that considerable FAA manpower and FAA,markings and identification of The rule limits both powered and resources would be required in this vehicles, programs including provisions unpowered ultralight vehicles to a single effort.The USHGA and its membership similar to Federal Aviation Regulations occupant.A few commenters suggest contributed a majority of the objecting relating to aircraft(both operation and that two-seat versions be available for comments,citing the remoteness of hang wort i Cr carrying passengers or for training gliding sites as impractical for the FAA FAA will continue to monitor { purposes.The basis for allowing to monitor. performance of the ultralight community ultralight vehicles to operate under Given the current level of ultralight in terms of safety statistics,growth special rules which do not require pilot trends, and maturityand,if indicated, and aircraft certification is the"sport" activity, the FAA is confident that aspect of the operation.For example,the enforcement of the provisions of Part will take additional regulatory actions to assumption can be made that a person 103 can be accomplished with the preclude degradation of safety to the who elects,without pilot qualifications, existing resources.As is the case today, general public while allowing maximum to operate an uncertificated vehicle many investigations of suspected freedom for ultralight operation.In alone is fully aware of the risks violations are prompted by reports summary, it should be emphasized that involved.This assumption does not hold received from pilots, air traffic the individual ultralight operator's true of a passenger selected randomly controllers, citizens,and other sources. support and compliance with national from the general public.Persons in the general public will likely assume that The FAA foresees no appreciable self-regulation programs is essential to increase in the number of these reports the FAA's continued policy of allowing the operator has certificated pilot as a result of this rule. industry self regulation in these areas. S Federal Register / Vu. . .7, No. 171 / Thursday. September 2, 1. . / Rules and Regulations 38773 kit Pilot Certification ! .diver does when engaged in his_sport._ The FAA has observed ultralight of commenters The FAA has noted and commends the operations during the twilight periods believe that there should be some efforts of the USHGA to establish and has found the light available for I requirement that pilots of ultralights be design standards and flight testing of such operations to be adequate in many required to exhibit some knowledge new hang glider designs.The FAA instances.Operators were able to and/or experience before being allowed endorses the development of similar maneuver safely to avoid each other and to operate these vehicles.The standards and testing of new powered also effect safe takeoffs and landings. designs by the ultralight community. Since most vehicles are operated at suggestions range from no requirements to pilot certification under the However,the FAA presently has no nearly the same altitude, they could be requirements of Part 61.The general intent to require certification of these easily seen silhouetted against the groupings of the comments are:(1)No vehicles by Federal regulation. lighted sky.Operations were conducted certification; (2)requiredground training Su in relatively close proximity to each q part — pero mg u es other,and each operator was readily on regulations and conventional aircraft Section 103.9 Hazardous operations aware of the others'presence.The mild operations; (3)required ground training (proposed § 101.7). weather conditions which generally and instructor sign-off for unsupervised solo operations;(4)successful passage This section prohibits any ultralight prevailed during the twilight periods of a written test, such as the FAA glider operator from engaging in activity which combined with the controllability and pilot (5) jeopardizes the safety of persons or maneuverability of these vehicles to written examination, issuance the enhance the safety factor for flight. of FAAanbased Ultralight sPatisfactory ctCeoryicote property prohibition on the ground hazardous or in the air.t The The FAA is concerned,however. that xam on ion,and ob completion i objagaects ismmoflight or unlimited operations of this type could of an examination,and observed dropping of objects is common to the pose a threat to aircraft which operate performance as the pilot of an ultralight; regulations pertaining to civil aircraft, at higher speeds and higher altitudes. and(6)conforming to the certification and the FAA is addressing ultralight The number of potential encounters requirements of Part 61 for student and operations with equivalent stringency. between aircraft and ultralights private ilots. Section 103.11 Daylight operations e FAA endorses the ultralight (proposed § 101.43). increases significantly as ultralights community's efforts to develop and operate into areas normally traversed The proposed rule would have limited by certificated aircraft.Also.the ability administer.under FAA guidelines, a • national pilot certification program.At the operation of ultralights to the hours of aircraft pilots descending into the this time,however,pilots of ultralight between official sunrise and official lower altitudes to see ultralights would vehicles are not Federal sunset.The limitation on daytime be minimal due to the darkened -es are not required eqite by. operations was retained with an added backdrop of the ground. Pilots would provision for twilight operations under often not be aware of such operations Aircraft Registration certain conditions.Other night-time taking place and could easily overrun an primarily State ultralight having operations are not allowed. without ever visual and local governments.recommend that A large number of commenters contact. these vehicles be registered and be request that flight during the twilight The FAA has adopted an alternative required to display their registration periods of the day be allowed since which provides an acceptable level of number.The reasons center around those are prime times to conduct safety to aircraft while still allowing identification of any offenders.The ultralight operations.They state that ultralights to operate in uncontrolled FAA's experience in identification of meteorological conditions are often best airspace during this period of the day. offenders and processing enforcement during those periods and are The FAA's conclusion on this issue is to characterized by a lack of wind and disallow ultralight operations in action validates their recommendations. g P 1ffe fAA en arses e u ra ig t turbulence.The AOPA believes that controlled airspace during the period community's efforts to develop and calm air is particularly important for the from sunset to sunrise.This affords maintain,under FAA guidelines,a novice flyer and provides an increased aircraft operators the margin of safety to national registration system which safety factor, especially during training which they are entitled and,at the same would be immediately accessible to the when confidence building is essential. time,leaves adequate airspace to the Many commenters believe that the ultralight operator during a 30-minute FAA.However,registration of ultralight vehicles will not be required by Federal available light is generally adequate to twilight period. illation et this time. allow operations during those periods The FAA has determined that the and that other craft could be safely occasional aircraft operation in ircro err ;cation avoided. uncontrolled airspace during the twilight num er of There are some commenters who period should not entirely preclude commenters who recommend additional believe that operations in Alaska should ultralight operations.The visibility from Federal regulations requiring be excluded from the daylight above of ultralights operating at very certification of ultralight vehicles to operations section.They allude to the low levels can be significantly enhanced some design standards.The FAA has uniqueness of their"normal"day and by the addition of an anticollision light consistently refrained from the how ultralight operations would be on these vehicles. Such a light would certification of these vehicles because adversely affected. provide the descending aircraft pilot they were operated by a single occupant Several comments support the original with a distinct indication of the for sport or recreational purposes.This proposal and do not want operations ultralight's presence.Additionally,it policy is in accord with Federal during the night-time hours.The primary would enable ultralight operators to regulatory policies regarding other sport concern centers around the difficulty in better see and avoid each other. activities.The pilots of these vehicles seeing these vehicles, especially at the For the purposes of ultralight accept the respons76{GtjTor assuring higher altitudes, and the perceived operation,an anticollision light is their personal TaTety muc�i as the driver inability of these operations to be defined as any flashing or stroboscopic ore moped-strewe1Tcle or a scuba conducted safely. device that is of sufficient intensity so r C k - c 38774 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 171 / Thursday, September 2, 1982 / rtules and Regulations as to be visible for at least 3 statute able to see the ultralight vehicle as aircraft based on catastrophic incidents miles.This regulatory approach does not readily as the pilot of the ultralight iIsiEfEh-Thiccur,ed in the past_i he impose on the ultralight owner the vehicle will be able to see or hear the joten�lTa oor such an incident makes the economic burden associated with a large aircraft.Due to the forward speeds ��ene�rat —issuance of the suggeatrd __ certificated lighting systgm.The of the majority of aircraft,it maybe aut ionization unacceptable.The FAA ultralight must remain in uncontrolled impossible for the aircraft to make believes that concentrations-of the airspace,and the anti-collision light sudden changes of direction required to general public must be protected from must be operating during the twilight avoid small objects sighted at close the possible dangers inherent in the periods whenever the vehicle is in quarters.The FAA recommends that operations of vehicles of uncertificated, motion. operators engaged in ultralight possibly unproven designs.In specific With respect to twilight operations in operations avoid,if possible,areas limited instances,with appropriate Alaska.the FAA recognizes that the where significant operations of aircraft operational limitations, ultralight periods of twilight are significantly are occurring so as to minimize the risk operations may be approved over different from those experienced in the of midair collisions. congested areas, through the waiver lower latitudes.A review of the Air Some ultralight operators express provisions of§ 103.5. Almanac reveals that,in the upper concern that,if they are not given the latitudes, some days have no daylight right-of-way over aircraft,the pilots of Section 103.17 Operations in certain periods but have over 4 hours of civil those aircraft might deliberately fly in airspace (proposed §101.45). twilight.Civil twilight is defined as the close proximity to the ultralights.In The NPRM proposed to require the period between official sunset and situations where this act can be ultralight operator to obtain sunrise when the sun is less than 6 substantiated, an investigation will be authorization prior to operating within degrees below the horizon. initiated to determine whether the pilot airport traffic areas,control zones, Regulations currently exist in Parts 91 of the conventional aircraft operated in terminal control areas,and positive and 101 which acknowledge the need to a careless or reckless manner in controlled airspace. grant special allowances for operations violation of§91.9. Operators of aircraft commented that in Alaska after sunset,and the FAA has Some commenters recommend the the speed and visibility of ultralights are determined that ultralights are entitled establishment of areas where ultralight incompatible with other operations and to the same consideration.Therefore,a operations could be conducted and all that they should not be allowed at all in provision to permit ultralight operations aircraft operations would be prohibited. those areas. Some even suggest that a in Alaska during civil twilight has been While the FAA has undertaken to maximum operating altitude, such as added to §103.11.The requirement to identify locations on aeronautical charts 3,000 feet AGL,be imposed on all !i have an operating anticollision light where a specialized aeronautical ultralight operations. during twilight operations is applicable activity,such as parachute jumping or The FAA shares the concern to operations during this period in gliding, is being conducted,no action is expressed by pilots who are wary of the i Alaska. anticipated which would restrict other ability to intermix faster aircraft safely Section 103.13 Operations near aircraft types of aeronautical activities in those with the relatively slow ultralights;but, and other ultralight vehicles;Right-of- areas and, similarly, no such action is experience has shown that aircraft of way rules(proposed 101.49 . contemplated for ultralights. (p P § ) significantly different performance The proposed regulations with respect Section 103.15 Operations over characteristics can be accommodated to ultralight vehicle right-of-way are congested areas [proposed §101.47). when operations are conducted in adopted.An additional provision is The proposed prohibition of ultralight accordance with specific authorizations. added to clarify the right-of-way vehice operations over congested areas There is considerable precedence in the requirements in situations involving t e in e e. a form of glider operations,hot air powered and unpowered ultralight comma g an easing of the ballooning, and parachuting being vehicles. proposed rule focus on three main areas: conducted while aircraft safely transit ' The comments regarding right-of-way (1)Those who favor permitting the area.Historically, the greatest range from those who believe that operations with a minimum altitude danger comes not from performance unpowered ultralight vehicles should ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 feet AGL; (2) variables,but from operations unknown have the right-of-way over all other those requesting that the minimum to the pilot or controller.The vehicles and aircraft to those who altitude requirements of§ 91.79 be requirement to gain authorization before believe that the requirements of§ 91.67 allowed; and(3) those who believe that entering these airspace areas enhances should be adopted,with unpowered no minimum altitude should be the safety to all airspace users.The FAA , ultralights being grouped with gliders specified, especially for unpowered has concluded that ultralight vehicles in and the powered ultralights grouped vehicles,due to the short field landing compliance with the provisions of with airplanes.The most salient reasons ability and small size of the vehicles. §103.19 will be able to operate safely in cited include lack of maneuvering ability r-The representatives oTcities and - "[ those airspace areas. and inability to change location in the o towns who commented generally favor , Although the subject was not air quickly. the prohibition, believing that i addressed in the NPRM. some The suggestions and associated uncertificated aviation activities have s commenters voice concern about rationale do not reveal any areas which no place over congested areas. _j ultralight operations conducted at or has not been considered during the t'-ThiTAAIs position WEaased on th_e-- near uncontrolled airports,with many fomulation of the NPRM.The FAA has fact that ultrahght vehicles are not._ persons noting a need to develop determined that uncertificated sport `Eetlificated as air/earth-1r by_any.. standard operating procedures.The operations should not be given the right- approved metliod and are flown by FAA agrees with the need to establish a of-way over all other aircraft.The small "oncertificaedpifoisTorsport or compatible method of operation at size and sport nature of the operations is -,ecreadoltatpurposes""only.Similar uncontrolled airports but believes that a major factor in that determination.It is -lirnitatiens"apply t01t1e operations a) - the variables associated with each unlikely that the pilot of aircraft will be erpeFimentai and restricted-ea€gary locality(terrain,runway configuration, ' Federal Register / Vu.. +7, No. 171 / Thursday, September 2, 1 _, / Rules and Regulations 38775 t t and the physical properties of the and land safely at any time without and other aeronautical activities. I airport)combine in such a manner to entering obscuring weather phenomena. Establishment of specific visibility preclude a generalized nationwide Many commenters support the standards is viewed as enhancing the regulatory approach.The FAA has proposal as reasonable and legitimacy and utility of ultralight I concluded that such operations could be representative of normal ultralight operations. handled much more efficiently by operations.they recognize the Some commenters believed that the t airport managers developing local possibility of being caught"on top" and distance from clouds should be reduced procedures in concert with the ultralight the danger.both to themselves and to community.In this way the available other airspace users,of trying to to"clear of clouds."Their basis for such a change centers around the difficulty in facilities can be used to the full extent descend through a layer of clouds.A while operational safety is maintained. few commenters believe that visual determining • dactual distances from I Additionally,the interaction of the reference to the surface is necessary clouds. ultralight operators and the airport only while climbing or descending and Other commenters suggest that hang managers will serve as a basis for not while in level flight. gliders be allowed to continue their t mutual understanding of the role this The FAA has determined that visual practice of operating near and in the growing segment of aviation will play in . reference with the surface is necessary base of clouds.Their rationale is based the years ahead.The FAA encourages at all times.Experience with certificated on the added lift available from being in . and supports efforts to reach such aircraft has shown that many pilots, close proximity to cumulus clouds.Some agreements and has been working with with fully instrumented aircraft,have hang glider operators fear that the user groups in the development of been caught"on top"and have required restriction on in-cloud operations would guidelines for ultralight operations at assistance from Air Traffic Control to eliminate their ability to vie for long- , uncontrolled airports. descend safely.Flying"on top"or distance and high-altitude records. Section 103.19 Operations in between cloud layers often presents The FAA cannot support the i visual illusions which cannot be verified operation of ultralights in or near clouds. prohibited or restricted areas. without instrumentation.The effect of p g In the NPRM,requirements for these illusions is to disorient the airman A specific distance from clouds is i operations of ultralights were included spatially,with a resulting loss of control required when operating in controlled i under the provisions of§101.5. of the craft.It takes a well-trained and airspace,primarily due to the presence In the final rule, the requirement for disciplined pilot to ignore what of aircraft conducting instrument flight ultralight operators to obtain information the human senses are operations through the clouds.The cloud authorization prior to operating in providing and rely on the clearance requirements serve as a prohibited or restricted areas is retained instrumentation aboard the aircraft. practical buffer to reduce the possibility and restated under §103.21. In the case of ultralights,there is of having an aircraft exit the clouds on Prohibited areas have been developed relatively little,if any,instrumentation an unalterable collision course. to provide for the safety and security of with which to confirm the flight attitude Operating too close to clouds does, in operations being conducted and to of the vehicle.Further,if the ultralight effect,cause a blind side in the aviator's segregate activities,considered to be operator should get caught"on top, vision.Operation in and near clouds hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. there is no alternative available but to severely restricts the ultralight Such operations in these areas include descend unannounced through the operator's ability to see and avoid, an military and presidential security,flight clouds.The ultralight operator would be ability that is paramount in allowing training and testing,experimental risking not only his own life,but the ultralight operations to take place. weapons testing.and the launch and lives of persons who rely on the In maintaining a safe distance from recovery of rocket-powered vehicles. safeguards inherent in certificated clouds,the FAA has concluded that Many commenters recognize the need aviation. to limit access to these operating areas The FAA has determined that ultralight operators can reasonably and accept the requirement to obtain inclusion in the final rule of the approximate.when operations are being permission prior to operating in these requirement to maintain visual reference conducted,the required distance from areas.A few commenters believe that with the surface is necessary to reduce clouds.Experience with other segments this restriction should not apply to them the potential for collisions and insure of aviation has shown that it is readily and that ultralight vehicles should be the safe operation of ultralight vehicles. apparent that,when operations allowed to operate at their own risk. approach an unsafe distance from Section 103.23 Flight visibility and clouds and adherence to the prescribed The FAA has determined that allowing any aeronautical activity to cloud clearance requirements (proposed minimum distance determination §101.53). enter prohibited or restricted areas becomes relatively easy.Therefore, without prior authorization would The flight visibility and cloud retention of the flight visibility and derogate the purpose for which these clearance requirements proposed in the clouds clearance requirements,as areas were established.Avoidance of NPRM are the same as those under proposed,is essential for maintaining such areas by ultralight operators is not §91.105,the basic minima for VFR flight airspace safety. viewed as imposing a significant burden operations by fixed-wing aircraft.Since on ultralight operations. ultralight vehicles will be sharing the List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 103 same airspace,the FAA has determined Aviation safety,Ultralight vehicles. Section 103.21 Visual reference to the it is practical to apply the same g surface(proposed §101.51). operating minima. Adoption of the Amendment NPRM No.81-6 proposed that Many commenters to this proposal are ultralight operators be required to receptive to the similarity in visibility Accordingly,the Federal Aviation maintain visual reference to the surface requirements for all airspace users. Regulations(14 CFR Chapter I)are during all flight operations.This would Many ultralight operators indicate an amended,effective October 4,1982,by ensure that the operator of an ultralight appreciation for the inherent safety in adding to Subchapter F(14 CFR Chapter would have the opportunity to descend being able to see and avoid obstructions I)a new Part 103 as follows: 38776 Federal Register / Vol. 4' No. 171 / Thursday, September 2, 1982 rules and Regulations PART 103-ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES §103.5 Waivers. (1)The vehicle is equipped with an No person may conduct operations operating anticollision light visible for at Subpart A—General that require a deviation from this part least 3 statute miles; and Sec. except under a written waiver issued by (2)All operations are conducted in 103.1 Applicability. the Administrator. uncontrolled airspace. 103.3 Inspection requirements. 103.5 Waivers. §103.7 Certification and registration. §103.13 Operation near aircraft Right-of- 103.7 Certification and registration. (a)Notwithstanding any other section way rules. Subpart B—Operating Rules pertaining to certification of aircraft or (a)Each person operating an ultralight 103.9 Hazardous operations, their parts or equipment,ultrali t vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to 103.11 Daylight operations. vehicles and their component parts and see and avoid aircraft and shall yield 103.13 Operation near aircraft right-of-way equipment are not required to meet the the right-of-way to all aircraft. rules. airworthiness certification standards (b)No person may operate an 103.15 Operations over congested areas. specified for aircraft or to have ultralight vehicle in a manner that 103.17 Operations in certain airspace. certificates of airworthinesj. creates a collision hazard with respect 103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted (b)Notwithstanding any other section to any aircraft. areas. pertaining to airman certification, (c)Powered ultralights shall yield the 103.21 Visual reference to the surface. operators of ultralight vehicles are not right-of-way to unpowered ultralights. 103.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance required to meet any aeronautical requirements. §103.15 Operations over congested Tibo iv edge, age,or experience areas. Authority:Secs.307,313(a).601(a),602,and requirements to operate those vehicles 603,Federal Aviation Act of 1958(49 U.S.C. have dil No person may operate an ultralight pr to airman or medical 1348,1354(a).1421(a),1422.and 1423);sec. vehicle over any congested area of a 6(c).Department of Transportation Act(49 certific tes. city,town,or settlement,or over any U.S.C.1655(c) (c)Notwithstanding any other section open air assembly of persons. pertaining to registration and marking of Subpart A—General aircraft.ultralight vehi lrc� c are not §103.17 Operations in certain airspace. §103.1 Applicability. required to be registered or to bear No person may operate an ultralight markings of any type. vehicle within an airport traffic area, This part prescribes rules governing control zone,terminal control area,or the operation of ultralight vehicles in the Subpart B—Operating Rules positive control area unless that person United States.For the purposes of this has prior authorization from the air part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle §103.9 Hazardous operations. that: (a)No person may operate any traffic control facility having jurisdiction (a)Is used or intended to be used for ultralight vehicle in a manner that over that airspace. manned operation in the air by a single creates a hazard to other persons or §103.19 Operations in prohibited or occupant; property. restricted areas. (b)Is used or intended to be used for (b)No person may allow an object to No person may operate an ultralight recreation or sport purposes only; be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas (c) Does not have any U.S.or foreign such action creates a hazard to other unless that person has permission from airworthiness certificate; and persons or property. the using or controlling agency,as (d)If unpowered, weighs less than 155 §103.11 Daylight operations- appropriate. pounds;or a No person may operate an e Ifpowered: ( ) P §103.21 Visual reference with the surface. (e) ultralight vehicle except between the No person may operate an ultralight (1)Weighs less than 254 pounds hours of sunrise and sunset. empty weight. excluding floats and b Notwithstanding (a) the surfacee. except of vehicle by visual reference with - safety devices which are intended for ( ) this section,ultralight vehicles may be deployment in a potentially catastrophic operated during the twilight periods 30 §103.23 Flight visibility and cloud situation; minutes before official sunrise and 30 clearance requirements. (2)Has a fuel capacity not exceeding minutes after official sunset or, in No person may operate an ultralight 5 U.S.gallons; Alaska,during the period of civil vehicle when the flight visibility or (3)Is not capable of more than 55 twilight as defined in the Air Almanac, distance from clouds is less than that in knots calibrated airspeed at full power if: the following table,as appropriate: in level flight; and (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated Minimum airspeed. Flight altitudes visibility Minimum distance from clouds §103.3 Inspection requirements. 1,200 feet or less above the surface regardless of (a)Any person operating an ultralight MSL altitude: vehicle under this part shall,upon 11)wnhm controlled airspace . 3 s 0 feet below. 1.000 feet above, 2,000 feet ho,uon- w. request,allow the Administrator, or his 121 outswe controlled airspace 1 clear of clouds. designee,to inspect the vehicle to / More than 1.200 feel above the surface but less than • determine the applicability of thispart. 10,000 feet Mal.: PP Y (1)wdhm controlled airspace . 3 500 feet below, 1.000 feet above,2.000 feet havon (b)The pilot or operator of an '+' ultralight vehicle must,upon request of 121 Outside controlled airspace 1 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above,2,000 feet horizon- ' the Administrator,furnish satisfactory More than 1,200 feet above the surface and at cc 5 1,000 feet below, 1.000 feet above, 1 sates ,fee evidence that the vehicle is subject only above 10.000 feet MSL horeontat to the provisions of this part. ,Saone miaow e ...........-.___---._.T�_..—..__-,..,,. ._.. .—,,- Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 171 / Thursday. September 2, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 38777 Note.—The FAA has determined that this regulation is not a major rule under Executive Order 12291.Because the rule will regulate a new user segment and because of substantial public interest.it has been determined that it is a significant rule pursuant to the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures(44 FR 11034; February 26.1979).The total projected costs of this rule may be found in a copy of the regulatory evaluation contained in the public docket.A copy of that evaluation may be obtained by contacting the person identified above under the caption"FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT."It is certified under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.There are very few small entities involved in ultralight vehicle activities and the majority of those will be unaffected by the implementation of this rule. Issued in Washington,DC.on July 30.1982. J.Lynn Helms. Administrator. (FR Doc.02-23938 Filed 8-27-82:1:02 pmt BILLING CODE 4910-1NA SERVED: November 28, 1979 NTSB Order No. EA-1344 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. Adopted by the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD at its office in Washington, D. C. on the 14th day of November 1979. LANGHORNE M. BOND, Administrator, ) Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant, ) vs. ) Docket SE-4078 RONALD V. JONES, ) Respondent. ) OPINION AND ORDER Respondent has appealed from the initial decision of Administrative J Law Judge John E. Faulk, issued on August 22, 1979. The law judge therein affirmed the charges in the Administrator's complaint, which reads as follows: 1 . Respondent is the holder of Airman Certificate Number 1540367, with commercial pilot privileges and airplane — single engine land and instrument ratings. 2. On September 9, 1977, respondent, as pilot-in-command, operated Civil Aircraft N8423V, a Rockwell International Model S-2R, the property of another, over a farm located approximately 3-4 miles west of Imperial , Nebraska. _/ A copy of the law judge's decision is attached. 2737 -2- 3. On the occasion of the flight referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, respondent operated the aircraft closer than 500 feet to a person and buildings on the surface. 4. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, respondent violated section 91 .79(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) g/ and operated an aircraft in a careless manner so as to endanger the life and property of others contrary to section 91 .9 of the FAR.3/ 5. On or about July 2, 1978, respondent, as pilot-in-command, __-- operated Civil Aircraft N5527X, a Rockwell International Model S-2R, the property of another, over a farm located approximately 3-4 miles west of Imperial , Nebraska. 6. On the occasion of the flight referred to in paragraph 5 hereof, respondent operated the aircraft closer than 500 feet to animals and buildings on the surface. 7. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, respondent violated section 91 .79(c) of the FAR and operated an aircraft in a careless manner so as to endanger the life and property of others contrary to section 91 .9 of the FAR. The law judge also affirmed the 180-day suspension of respondent's airman certificate, as ordered by the Administrator. 2/ Section 91 .79(c) reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "§91 .79 Minimum safe altitudes; general . Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: * * * * * (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel , vehicle, or structure." * * 3/ Section 91 .9 reads as follows: '491 .9 Careless or reckless operation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." -3- In support of his appeal , respondent has filed an appeal brief in which he argues that the law judge erred in finding (a) that the en route portion of the flight from an agricultural operator's base to and from the location where economic poison is to be dispensed is not exempted from the minimum altitudes prescribed under section 91 .79(c) by the provisions of either section 137.29 or 137.49 of the FAR, and (b) that respondent's turnarounds over the complaining witness' property —" were not "reasonably necessary". The Administrator has filed a reply brief opposing the appeal and urging that the initial decision be affirmed. Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, and the entire record, the Board has determined that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require affirmation of the Administrator's order. We adopt as our own the findings of the law judge. The complaining witness, who raises hogs, testified that an aircraft (piloted by respondent) made approximately six passes on September 9, 1977, and three circling passes on July 2, 1978, over his farrowing complex at altitudes the witness described as under 50 feet by virtue of fact that the plane had to climb to get over utility lines attached to poles 35 feet in height. He further testified that, on the first occasion, the hogs were so agitated that they burst out of the sheds, while on the second occasion, the farrowing building was 4in a total uproar and one sow killed two newborn pigs. 1/ The above witness' testimony was generally corroborated, although in considerably less detail , by his wife. _4_ Respondent generally acknowledged flying; in the area on the dates in question but in effect denied that the fl - its were as low, or as directly over the farrowing complex, as descr Ded above. The law judge, after discussing the tesT nony of the various witnesses, found the testimony of the complaining witnes - and his wife to be "reliable and persuasive" (I.D. 9) , made "all credibil - y findings" (I.D. 9) against respondent, and thereby concluded that respor ent operated an aircraft closer than 500 feet to persons, property, ve ides and structures located on the surface on each of the two dates in c. ,stion. We have no reason to disturb that conclusion, which rests directi on a credibility determination, and indeed respondent does not dispute it or opeal . Respondent's defense on appeal is essen : ally identical to that advanced to, and rejected by, the law judge. Respondent thus argues that the flights of September 9, 1977, being f1igF .s enroute to spray fields several miles distant from the complaining w '. tness' hog farm, were necessarily either approaches and departures during actue dispensing operations, such as would be exempted from the requirements of Part 91 by section 137.49 of 6/ the FAR, or at least nondispensing aerial wc:rk operations relating to agriculture, similarly exempted from the requirements of Part 91 by !/ Respondent also called two other witnesse. , one airborne and one on the ground, whose testimony tended to confirm rn :ondent's description of events. n' Section 137.49 reads as follows: 4137.49 Operations over other than conger i areas. Notwithstanding Part 91 of this chapte dung the actual dispensing operation, including approaches, departures nd turnarounds reasonably necessary for the operation, an aircraft ma ;e operated over other than congested areas below 500 feet above the su ice and closer than 500 feet to persons , vessels , vehicles, and structur if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or pr ty on the surface." Y---- -5- 7/ section 137.29(c) . The law judge, based on an analysis of the legislative history and intent of the pertinent regulatory provisions , concluded that the phrase "nondispensing aerial work operations related to agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation", as used in section 137.29(c) , was not intended to cover the operation of an agricultural aircraft closer than 500 feet to persons, vehicles or structures on the surface when the plane is en route between the operator's place of business and the location where the economic poison is to be dispensed. Rather, the quoted language was intended to apply to such activities as bird chasing, air agitation and the dropping of live insects for pest control purposes. With respect to section 137.49, the law judge pointed out that said provision permits operation of an aircraft closer than 500 feet to persons, vehicles, or structures on the surface during actual dispensing operations only if such operations are (1 ) reasonably necessary and 8/ (2) conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface. — From the record as a whole, considering the distance from the hog farm (1/2 mile) , the orientation of the field being sprayed, and the type of spraying operation involved, it is patent that the turnarounds on July 2, 1978, it such low altitudes directly over the farrowing complex were not necessary a 9/ and that the Administrator met the burden of proof on this point. 7/ Section 137.29(c) reads , in pertinent part, as follows: 137.29 General . (c) The holder of an agricultural aircraft operator certificate may deviate from the provisions of Part 91 of this chapter without a certificate of waiver, as authorized in this subpart for dispensing operations , when con- ducting nondispensing aerial work operations related to agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation in accordance with the operating rules of this subpart. " * * * * * 1 Part 91 is waived only if both of the above requirements are met. 9/ It follows , a fortori , that the low passes of July 9, 1979, were likewise nnPrncr,lrlr intrrI ri, ic tkn find i. _.. .� i5 , ... -6- In addition, respondent's operations constituted a direct hazard to persons, animals and structures on the surface and in fact were responsible for the death of two newborn pigs. As the law judge further noted, the fact that respondent was well aware of the hazard he was creating, because of prior complaints, made the violations all the more egregious. In sum, our examination of the record confirms the validity of the law judge's findings, and respondent has advanced no matter on appeal which would warrant modification of those findings10 / ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 . Respondent's appeal be and it hereby is denied; 2. The Administrator's order, and the initial decision, be and they hereby are affirmed; and 3. The 180-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate 11/ shall commence 30 days after service of this order. KING, Chairman, DRIVER, Vice-Chairman, McADAMS, GOLDMAN and BURSLEY, Members of the Board, concurred in the above opinion and order. 10/ We likewise find that there is no need for oral argument in this case, and respondent's motion therefor is denied. 11/ For the purposes of this order, the respondent must physically surrender his certificate to an appropriate representative of the Federal Aviation Administration, pursuant to section 61 . 19(f) , FAR. SERVICE: August 22, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD /',C WASHINGTON, D.C. Cl * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T * LANGHORNE M. BOND, ADMINISTRATOR, * FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, * * Complainant * * • va. * Docket SE-4078 _ RONALD V. JONES, * * First Circuit Respondent * Los 'Angeles, California * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John L. Fitzgerald, Esq., for the Complainant. J. Scott Hamilton? Esq. , for the Respondent. INITIAL DECISION AND ORDER John E. Faulk, Senior Judge, First Circuit . This proceeding arises under the provisions of Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1429). It comes here on plea of Ronald V. Jones, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, seeking review of the order, which is the complaint, of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suspending Respondent's airman certificate for a period of 180 days. Specifically, the Respondent is charged with operating a Rockwell International Model S-2R aircraft, the property of another, within 500 feet of persons, animals and buildings on the surface during flights over a farm located approximately 3 - 4 miles west of Imperial, Nebraska, on September 9, 1977, and again on July 2, 1978. As a result, according to the Administrator, Respondent, on both occasions , violated -2- Section 91.79(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) which prohibits the operation of an aircraft in non-congested areas closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure and Section 91.9 in that Respondent's actions were careless so as to endanger the life and property of others. Except for conceding that he is the holder of an airman certificate, Respondent denies the allegations of the complaint. In addition, Respondent raises as an affirmative defense Sections 137.29(c) and 137.49 of the FAR which, according to the Respondent, exempts his operations from Section 91.79(c) . Public hearing was held in North Platte, Nebraska, on June 13, 1979. At its conclusion, the parties, at the writer's request, submitted briefs with respect to the applicability of Sections 137.29(c) and 137.49 of the FAR. These, along with all evidence of record have been considered although not necessarily discussed hereinafter. ADMINISTRATOR'S EVIDENCE The Administrator called Roy H. Billings who is employed by the FAA as a General Aviation Operations Safety Inspector. His testimony focused on his participation in investigations of both of the alleged incidents. The first investigation stemmed from the complaint of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Hevelone that over a period of several hours, on September 9, 1977, an aircraft, N8423V, made several low passes over the Hevelone hog farrowing operation. The plane, a Rockwell International, S-2R, was owned by Top Flight Ag Service Incorporated, of which Respondent is president. -3- An examination of Top Flight's records verified that the plane, piloted by Respondent, had sprayed on September 9. The witness ' office contacted Respondent, who admitted flying at a low altitude over the Hevelone property. He justified this action by asserting that he was carrying a heavy load and that the weather conditions mandated this flight path. Furthermore, Respondent felt the operation complied with Part 137 of the FAR. Inspector Ryan, co-investigator of the incident, discussed the FAA's interpretation of Part 137 with Inspector Billings. Neither Section 137.29(c) nor Section 137.49 is interpreted by the FAA as a blanket waiver of Part 91, the witness said. Inspector Ryan did not testify at the hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Hevelone further alleged that on July 2, 1978, N8423V -- again overflew the farrowing operation at a low altitude. Respondent told the witness that he was spraying in said aircraft on July 2. However, the company records revealed that Respondent conducted the spraying operations in another aircraft, N5527X, also a Rockwell International S-2R. The corn field was one-half mile due south from the Hevelone complex. The witness contacted Mr. and Mrs. Hevelone because of this discrepancy. Mr. and Mrs. Hevelone were shown photographs of the two aircraft. The photographs did not reveal identification numbers of the two aircraft. Without prompting, the Hevelones immediately recognized that N5527X was the plane involved on July 2, 1978, and N8423V on September 9, 1977. -4- The witness also testified that a pilot may increase or decrease the noise level of an aircraft by changing its propeller pitch. The witness explained that a pilot may adjust to the very deafening full takeoff position even when not taking off. On July 5, 1978, the witness and Respondent discussed the application of Part 137 to the July 2, 1978 incident. The witness stressed that Part 137 requires a pilot to maintain an altitude of 500 feet. Section 137.29(c) is considered a waiver of Part 91 if, for example, an agricultural aircraft is used to drop water on a forest fire. Section 137.49 permits operations closer than 500 feet to persons and property only if the pilot takes precautions so as not to hazard such persons and property. Neither Section, the witness testified, constitutes a blanket waiver of Part 91. Respondent took issue with the witness as to this construction of Part 137. Donald Hevelone testified that it is common knowledge in his town that he raises hogs. His hog operation consists of 600 - 700 hogs on 2-1/2 acres. The tallest structures at the farrowing operation are 35-foot utility poles. On September 9, 1977, a plane made six passes over the farrowing complex. The deafening noise of each pass greatly agitated the hogs. The witness said that occasionally the plane was lower than the utility poles. The witness followed the aircraft to the airport and got its number, N8423V, as the plane taxied. While the witness had complained to Top Flight about previous buzzing incidents, this was the first time the witness notified the FAA. -5- On July 2, 1978, the witness saw a plane coming toward the farrowing house from the southeast. Again the plane had to raise up to avoid the utility lines. The noise caused another disturbance in the farrowing house and two newborn pigs were killed by frantic mothers. The witness did not get the plane's registration number, but he recognized that the yellow plane belonged to Top Flight. When the witness reported the incident to the FAA, he identified the aircraft as N8234V. When shown photographs of the two aircraft, the witness immediately recognized that separate planes had been involved and corrected his identification to N5527X with respect to the July 2, 1978, incident. Joanne L. Hevelone, Donald Hevelone's wife,was the Administrator's last witness. On September 9, 1977, she saw a yellow plane make three or four passes. While she could not see the farrowing house from her vantage point, she could see that the plane was headed toward the farrowing — house. She did not notice an increase in noise as the plane headed toward the farrowing house. She was 200 feet away. On July 2, 1978, she was in the driveway when a yellow plane made its first pass . She thought that it was the plane from the September 9, 1977, incident. The witness corroborated her husband's and Mr. Billings ' testimony with respect to correcting the identification. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE Respondent, a pilot with 8000 hours of flying time, testified that he had never buzzed the Hevelone farrowing house. -6- On a Rockwell International S-2R, the propeller is not entirely controlled by the pilot. Respondent testified that the usual procedure is to set the propeller at a fixed RPM after takeoff and leave it there while in flight. Respondent testified that when the propeller is set, the pitch, and consequently the noise level, can automatically change according to shifts in demand on the engine. Prior to September 9, 1977, Respondent had promised Mr. Hevelone that company pilots would try to avoid the Hevelone farm. In fact, the corporation had instituted a policy of staying at least 500 feet away from the complex. Respondent contradicted Mr. Hevelone's statement that Hevelone's ex-wife worked for Respondent. Rather, the woman is married to one of Respondent's pilots. Further, Respondent testified that he had no vendetta __ against the Hevelones and that he did not try to harass them. On September 9, 1977, two Top Flight planes, N8423V and a Pawnee, ` sprayed chemicals. Respondent testified to consciously trying to avoid flying over the Hevelone property. He doubted getting closer to 1/4 mile from the property during the spraying operation. Respondent also maintains that at no time during his conversation with Inspector Ryan did he admit flying over any buildings. He conceded that he might have told Ryan that he was over Hevelone property at a low altitude because of the heavy load he carried. -7- On July 2, 1978, Respondent made three passes over Hevelone property in N5527X. He testified that when he made his turns during the spraying operation he executed standard downwind turns. Respondent indicated his flight path on Administrator's Exhibit 6. The path he traced did not take him near the Hevelone'j farrowing house. In his July 5th chat with Inspector Billings Respondent told Billings that he felt that under Part 137 he could fly wherever he wanted to provided that he did not create a hazard and operated in a safe manner. He acknowledged that flying as the Hevelones described would be hazardous. Respondent next called Stanley Johnson, a former pilot for Top Flight, who operated the Pawnee on September 9, 1977. Both he and Respondent conducted spraying operations in the same vicinity. The witness, who affirmed that Top Flight pilots had been instructed to avoid the Hevelone property, said that he only saw Respondent on the way to and from the airpark that day. He was sure that Respondent was never less than 1/2 mile from the Hevelone farm. Mike Robert Fanning, Respondent 's second cousin, testified that he was at the Hevelone farm on July 2, 1978. He saw the spraying aircraft pass over at least twice, but maintained that the altitude was between 400 and 500 feet. The lateral distance from where he stood was about 300 feet. Nothing about the aircraft 's flight path seemed strange to him. The witness testified that the Hevelones ' reaction was an angry threat to shoot the aircraft dawn. -- - -8- On July 5, 1978, the witness and Inspector Billings discussed the July 2 incident. He was unable to recall telling Inspector Billings that the plane flew over the farrowing complex at least twice at rooftop level. He did mention that he did not sign a statement for Inspector Billings because he did not want to get involved. ADMINISTRATOR'S REBUTTAL Inspector Billings was called to rebut Fanning's testimony. Fanning told Billings on July 5, 1978,that two passes were made at rooftop level. The witness confirmed that Fanning's mother desired that no written statement be given by her son. Inspector Billings said he made an appointment with Mrs . Fanning to contact a Mr. Cirro, who also had witnessed the July 2 incident. Mrs. Fanning later called to say Cirro would be at her home the next day. Cirro did not show up. When finally contacted by Billings on July 17, 1978, Cirro said the aircraft did not come any closer than 200 feet to the farrowing house and that nothing appeared amiss to him. Respondent bad previously worked for Cirro. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS While the Respondent has generally denied that he flew his aircraft aver the Hevelone property at low altitudes on both September 9, 1977, and July 2, 1978, during his admitted agricultural spraying operations, the evidence reveals otherwise. Respondent's denial is tainted by his testimony relating to his unalterable view that "Ag operators" enjoy a blanket exemption from Part 91 of the FAR. This attitude lends credence -9- to the testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Hevelone whose testimony is found to be reliable and persuasive. Accordingly, the factual findings are made that the Respondent flew his aircraft at less than 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, property, vehicles and structures located on the Hevelone property on both September 9, 1977, and July 2, 1978. All credibility findings are made against the Respondent. The above findings, however, do not put the matter to rest. Respondent ---- contends that his low flying agricultural spraying operations over the Hevelone's pig-farrowing operations have been exempted from Part 91 by Sections 137.29(c) and 137.49 J of the FAR. 1/ Section 137.29(c) provides : (c) The holder of an agricultural aircraft operator certificate may deviate from the provisions of Part 91 of this chapter without a certificate of waiver, as authorized in this subpart for dispensing operations, when conducting nondispensing aerial work operations related to agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation in accordance with the operating rules of this subpart. 1/ Section 137.49 provides that : Notwithstanding Part 91 of this chapter, during the actual dispensing operation, including approaches, departures, and turnarounds reasonably necessary for the operation, an aircraft may be operated over other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface. T -10- Respondent argues that the flights Jr. September of 1977 were flights en route to fields several miles dfitant to be sprayed and were necessarily either approaches or departure=.. during actual dispensing operations. As such, they would be exempte^ from the requirements of Part 91 by operation of Section 137.49, or =t least nondispensing aerial work operations relating to agriculture siz.. .larly exempted from the re- quirements of Part 91 by operation of Secti .n 137.29(c). And, since the flights on July 2, 1978,involved turnar .unds during actual dispensing operations, they are exempted by Section 13 '.49 as being "reasonably necessary for the operation." Moreover, cc:7:.tends the Respondent, the Administrator has the burden of proof to s :w that the flight paths on July 2, 1978,were unnecessary and that he :ailed to carry that burden citing Administrator v. Lewis, EA-1104 (197_;). Turning first to Section 137.29(c), is is clear that this section does not authorize an agricultural aircraft operator to operate his agricultural aircraft below 500 feet above .he surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vehicles, or structures when en route between the operator's place of operation and the locat:.on where economic poison is to be dispensed. Respondent's contention that the en route operations for the purpose of dispensing an economic poison constitutes nondispensing operations is without merit. Section 137.3 defines Agricultural Aircraft Operations to be: T---- -11- "'Agricultural aircraft operation' means the operation of an aircraft for the purpose of (1) dispensing any economic poisons, (2) dispensing any other substance intended for plant nourishment, soil treatment, propa- gation of plant life, or pest control, or (3) engaging in dispensing activities directly affecting agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation, but not including the dispensing of live insects." • Thus, Section 137.3 relates to three types of low flying operations (1) spraying of poisons, (2) spraying of chemical fertilizers, and (3) other low flying activities such as bird chasing, air agitation, and the dropping of insects for pest control purposes . As noted on brief by the Administrator, the legislative history indicates that at the time that subparagraph (3) of Section 137.3 was added, subparagraph (c) was also added to Section 137.29 for the purpose of permitting Part 137 certificate holders to engage in the above stated activities without obtaining a waiver from the Administrator. Hence, Respondent's en route operations were not ". . .nondispensing aerial work operations relating to agriculture.. ." within the meaning of Section 137.29(c) or subparagraph (3) of Section 137.3. Rather, his operations fall within subparagraph (1) of the latter section as dispensing of economic poisons. A flight to and from such activity is part and parcel of the overall operation of spraying of economic poisons . Consequently, Respondent 's operations were not exempted by Section 137.29(c). As to the applicability of Section 137.49 to the instant case, this section permits operation of an aircraft closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels , vehicles, or structures on the surface during actual dispensing _12_ operations only if: (1) they are reasonably necessary for the operations and (2) such operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface. Part 91 is waived only if Respondent meets both of these requirements. The evidence reveals that the turnarounds over the Hevelone property were not "reasonably necessary." The Respondent was not spraying in rows which would lead him to the Hevelone property. Rather, he was performing a boundary spraying operation in arcs around a field. As a result, Respondent had a choice of f1i .lt paths that would not have required him to fly over the Hevelone property. Moreover, Respondent 's operations created a hazard to persons and property on the surface. The altitudes at which the Respondent was flying constituted a direct hazard to farm buildings, livestock, a dwelling and persons on the ground. And, Respondent had previously been advised of the hazard he was creating. As noted by the Administrator in brief: "The existence of this hazard was confirmed by the death of two piglets, killed as a direct result of the Respondent's operation." Consequently, Respondent failed to satisfy both requirements of Section 137.49. As a result, his low flying operations do not come within the purview of Part 137. In view of the above, it is specifically found that the Respondent has violated Section 91.79(c) and 91.9 of the FAR as charged in the Administrator's complaint. -13- SANCTION In view of the repeated and deliberate low overflights coupled with the fact that Respondent had knowledge aforehand of the hazard he was creating, a suspension of the Respondent 's airman certificate for a period of 180 days will be imposed as provided for in the order below. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent's airman _ certificate number 1540367 is hereby suspended for a period of 180 days. Said certificate shall be surrendered to the Regional Counsel of the Central Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless stayed by the Board on its awn initiative or by the timely filing of a notice of appeal, this order shall become effective immediately from the date of service hereof. Entered this 17th day of August 1979, at Los Angeles, California. E. Fa Administrative Law Judge Reprinted From: Proceedings of the International environment Symposium. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, April 17-19, 1974 EFFECTS OF SIMULATED SONIC BOOMS ON EATING PATTERNS, FEED INTAKE AND BEHAVIORAL ACTIVITY OF PONIES AND BEEF CATTLE James Bond, T. S. Rumsey, J. R. Menear - Assoc. Member ASAE, L. I. Colbert, Dona Kern and B. T. Weinland U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS, BARC-East, Beltsville, Maryland 20705 Summary Eight ponies, 2 open cows, 6 cows with calves and 24 steers fed ad libitum were used in a series of 6 trials to study the effects of simulated sonic booms on eating patterns, feed intake and behavioral activity. Eating patterns were monitored for 5 days before exposure, during exposure and for 5 days after exposure to simulated booms by means of photoelectric cella and a time-operation recorder. The animals were similar in temperament to those found on small farms. The behavioral activity of all animals was monitored before, during and after the exposure to simulated sonic booms. On the day of exposure, one boom was generated at 10:00 a.m. and one at 10:15 a.m. by a 4.1-meter diameter exponential horn, into which two charges of compressed air were released sequentially by time-controlled ruptures of two diaphragms. The resulting boom from the horn produced overpressures of approximately 200 newtons per square meter. All animals clearly showed a startle response after each boom. Within 1 minute after the startle response, the animals returned to preboom behavioral activity comparable to that in baseline observations. The eating patterns and feed intake of the animals after exposure were not distinguishable from those of the same animals before exposure. Less overt response to the later boom suggests that the animals adapted or habituated quickly to recurring booms. Of more importance was the total absence of continual arousal or general panic in any of the animals. Introduction Farm animals under stress from any environmental factor will have a lowered efficiency and will be less profitable (Bond, 1971) . As a result of changing technology, more and more farm animals are being exposed to high intensity sounds such as those produced by supersonic aircraft. Therefore, we need to know how well noise levels are tolerated by livestock. Ely and Petersen (1941) showed that fright stimuli created by exploding paper bags every 10 seconds for 2 minutes just before attaching the mechanical milker to cows temporarily delayed milk ejection. Parker and Bayley (1960) reported no evidence that flyovers by jet aircraft or proximity of an air The authors are: James Bond and T. S. Rumsey, Res. Anim. Sci. , L. I. Colbert, Bio. Lab. Tech. , Nutrition Institute, Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory; J. R. Menear, Agric. Engineer, Agric. Envirn. Qual. Institute, Biol. Waste Management Lab. ; Dona Kern, Anim. Husbandman Res. Assistant, Nutrition Institute, Nutrl. Microbiology Lab. ; and B. T. Weinland, Biometrician, Northeastern Regional Office. • base had an effect on the milk production of dairy cows. Casady and Lehmann (1967) showed that the behavioral reactions of sheep, horses, dairy cattle and beef cattle to sonic booms were slight. Bell (1972) reported that the sonic boom effect on beef cattle moving from winter to summer pasture was mainly an initial startle response. The purposes of this study were to determine the eating patterns and feed intake of ponies and beef cattle exposed to simulated sonic booms producing an overpressure of 200 newtons per square meter and to observe their reactions. Experimental Procedure The eating patterns, feed intake and behavioral activities were observed in six separate trials with the following animals: (trials 1 and 2) a separate set of four mature gelded Shetland ponies (180 kg) in each trial; (trial 3) four Angus cows (410 kg) with calves (40 kg) and four Angus steers (400 kg) ; (trial 4) two Angus cows (420 kg) with calves (42 kg) , two open Angus cows (400 kg) and four Angus steers (400 kg) ; (trial 5) eight Angus steers (340 kg) and (trial 6) eight Hereford steers (372 kg) . The diet fed to the ponies and steers contained 452 alfalfa hay, 45% timothy hay, 8% soybean meal, 1% trace mineral salt and 12 dicalcium phosphate. The diet fed to the cows contained 502 cracked corn, 15% alfalfa hay, 152 timothy hay, 10% soybean meal, 92 molasses, 12 trace mineral salt and 16 grams vitamin A (250,000 units/gm.) . The hay was ground through a 3.2 mm screen and mixed with the other ingredients. Calves were not creep-fed but had access to their dam's feed. The animals were similar in temperament to those found on small farms. The trials were conducted in a small drive-through barn, with 3- x 3.7-m pens on both sides of a paved alley that ran the length of the barn. There was a complete ceiling 4 m above the floor. Each pen opened to a separate 3- x 18.2-m exercise yard. Animals were permitted free access to their respective exercise yards, feed and water during the trials. Time at the feeder and visits to the feeder were recorded 5 days before exposure, during exposure and 5 days after exposure to the simulated sonic booms by means of photoelectric cells and a time-operation recorder (Putnam, Lehmann and Davis, 1967) . Daily patterns were established on the basis of eight 3-hour periods or octaves. Feed intakes were recorded and feed was replenished at 9:15 a.m. daily. Feed, water and trace mineral salt blocks were available at all times. The eating patterns and feed intake data were analyzed statistically by least squares analysis of variance procedures. The fixed effect of octaves and the random effects of days and animals were fitted. The data were analyzed as follows: (1) Analysis of variance was used to measure differences between animals and (2) Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to measure differences between trial means. The appropriate error term used was the animal by day interaction. Trained observers monitored the behavioral activity of all animals (one observer per animal in trials 1 and 2 and one observer per two animals in the other trials) . In each trial, behavioral observations were made for 1 hour, from 9:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. , 48 hours before exposure to the simulated sonic booms and again on the day of exposure. On the day of exposure, two simulated 9 • - booms were produced, the first at 10:00 a.m. and the second at 10:15 a.m. Behavioral activity was recorded at 1-minute intervals. The behavioral events considered during each 1-minute interval were eating, walking, chewing fences, defecating, urinating, drinking, licking salt, lying, standing, playing, sleeping, rolling, licking calf, licking itself, nursing, ruminating and scratching. Simulated sonic booms were generated by a 4.1-m-diameter exponential horn developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Travis et al. , 1968) into which two charges of compressed air were released sequentially by time-controlled ruptures of two diaphragms. Each charge produced a pressure pulse that was propagated from the horn as a coherent wavefront. The simulator horn was placed 0.5 m from one end of the barn and directed into the paved alley. The door at the opposite end of the alley was closed during the trials. Doors between pens and exercise yards were open. In this small enclosed building, all pens received essentially the same sonic disturbance. The simulated booms (overpressures of approximately 200 newtons per square meter) closely replicated the rapid rises of real booms, but pressure variation between rises was not the same because the pulses of the simulated booms consisted of a rapid rise in pressure followed immediately by a rapid drop (Menear, 1972) . Results and Discussion The results indicated a statistically significant octave difference (Pc.01, except for trial 2 (P<.05)) for the time at the feeder and visits to the feeder (except trial 2) for all the animals. These results support previous work (Putnam, Lehmann and Davis, 1967; Kern and Bond, 1972) that showed that animals divided their eating time among the eight 3-hour periods in a 24 hour cycle. In the present study, 66% of the total visits to the feeder were between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. for all trials, and these visits accounted for 65% of the total time spent at the feeder. TABLE 1. TIME AT FEEDER, VISITS TO FEEDER AND FEED INTAKE OF PONIES AND CATTLEa Daily visits to Time at feeder feeder Feed intake Animals Hours 2 total Number 2 total Amount Rate daily b daily (kg) (min/kg feed) time visits b Ponies 5.3 55.3 40.8 58.1 3.1 101.7 Cows with calves 6.5 71.0 47.2 68.6 17.6 22.0 Open cows 4.1 63.2 65.6 64.5 14.4 17.2 Steers 4.6 69.7 31.2 72.6 10.7 27.4 a Species and types were not statistically compared because they were not observed in the same trial. b Between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. In a previous experiment with ponies, Kern and Bond (1972) found that 57% of the total visits to the feeder and 58% of the total time at the feeder were between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. ; in the present study these percentages were 58% and 55%, respectively. The data for total vista to the feeder and total time at the feeder for the cattle in the present study also agree favorably with previous experiments with beef cattle (Putnam and Davis, 1963; Putnam et al. , 1967; Putnam and Bond, 1971) . In the present study species and types of cattle were not statistically compared for these parameters, and while there were differences among these animals, the daylight hours (between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.) affected their eating patterns similarly (table 1) . In a previous experiment with the same ponies and similar diets (Kern and Bond, 1972) , the animals' feed intake was 2.8 kg of feed per day at a rate of 101.9 min/kg of feed. Feed intake and rate of intake for the ponies in the present study were 3.1 kg per day at a rate of 101.7 min/kg of feed, respectively. The data on feed intake and rate of intake by cattle in the present study agree with those of previous studies in which types of cattle and diets were similar (Putnam et al. , 1967; Putnam, Lehmann and Luber, 1968; Putnam and Bond, 1971). All cattle consumed their feed about four times faster than did the ponies. This difference was probably due to the ponies playing with their feed (Kern and Bond, 1972) , whereas the cattle spent their time at the feeder eating. There was an animal difference (P<.01) in all trials for time at the feeder, for visits to the feeder and for feed intake except in trial 5. There was no evidence that simulated sonic booms affected eating patterns, total feed intake or rate of feed intake. Table 2 presents the day or time effects on time at the feeder, visits to the feeder and feed intake of all experimental animals for the day before exposure to the simulated sonic booms (Day-1) , during exposure (Day 0) and for the day after exposure (Day+l). A statistical comparison of these days should indicate an effect of simulated sonic booms. The data presented are typical of the complete trial. If the simulated booms had an effect, time at the feeder, visits to the feeder and feed intake data should show dramatic changes from the average during the days of the trial. Although time at the feeder was different (P<.01) among days in trials 1, 2 and 6, there is no evidence that the simulated booms were the cause of this effect. TABLE 2. TIME AT THE FEEDER, VISITS TO THE FEEDER AND FEED INTAKE OF EXPERI- MENTAL ANIMALS IN ALL TRIALS FOR THE DAYS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER EXPOSURE TO SIMULATED SONIC BOOMS Trial Time at feeders (hrs) Visits to feederb Feed intakec (kg) Day-1 Day 0 Day+l Day-1 Day 0 Day+l Day-1 Day 0 Day+l 1 4.6 4.8 5.3 28.8 33.6 32.0 - - - 2 6.4 6.3 7.1 48.0 52.8 49.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 3 4.6 5.0 4.8 30.4 28.0 29.6 14.0 11.9 14.3 4 4.9 4.6 5.8 47.2 39.2 50.4 17.3d 11.5e 13.6e 5 5.4 4.7 4.5 30.4d 24.0e 24.8e 8.9d 12.6e 7.4d 6 5.0 4.9 5.4 45.6 38.4 36.0 11.0 11.8 9.4 a Day effects significant, P<.01, in trials 1, 2 and 6. b Day effects significant, P<.05, in trials 2, 3 and 5 and P<.01 in trial 6. c Day effects significant, P<.01, in trials 2, 4 and 6 and P<.05 in trial 3. d,e Means on the same line in the same parameter but with unlike superscripts are different, P<.05. There were statistically significant differences among days for visits to the feeder in trials 2, 3, 5 and 6, but the Duncan's test showed no trends that could be interpreted as an effect of the simulated booms. In trial 5, there were more visits to the feeder on the day before exposure (30) and the day after exposure (25) than on day of exposure (24) . However, the number of visits on the second day before exposure (29) was not different from that on any of the three days shown in table 2. Feed intake was affected by days in trial 4 and the means in table 2 show that cattle differed more on Day-1 (17.3 kg) than on Day 0 (11.5 kg) or on Day+l (13.6 kg) . However, feed intake ranged from 17.3 kg to 11.6 kg on the 4 days before exposure and from 13.6 to 16.6 kg on the 4 days after exposure. Feed intake in trial 5 was also affected by days; the cattle ate more on the day of exposure (12.6 kg) than on the day before (8.9 kg) or the day after exposure (7.4 kg) . Feed intakes for consecutive days were 9.9b, 8.9b, 12.6a (day 0) , 7.4b, 13.0a and 7.8b kg (means having unlike superscripts are different, P<.05) during trial 5. These data indicate that the simulated booms had no detrimental effect on feed intake. The observed behavioral activities showed that the animals spent most of their time standing. Periodically, an animal walked, ate, drank, ruminated, urinated, defecated or engaged in other activities such as playing, licking itself, lying down, rubbing and nursing. Table 3 presents data of group activity based on the observed behavior of the ponies and different types of cattle averaged over successive 5-minute blocks of time. The activity levels increased immediately after the first simulated boom and increased slightly after the second boom. However, the increase in activity lasted less than 1 minute and did not significantly change the activity levels when averaged into the 5-minute period. Travis et al. (1968) and Curran (1972) reported this type of response when female mink were exposed to simulated sonic booms. Casady and Lehmann (1967) in tests with dairy and beef cattle and Espmark (1972) in tests with reindeer reported that the animals' activities were interrupted or changed only occasionally by real sonic booms and then for only a few seconds. TABLE 3. GROUP BEHAVIORAL EVENTS AVERAGED OVER SUCCESSIVE 5-MINUTE BLOCKS OF TIME Activity levels Animals Animals Baseline 9:45a- 10:050 10:10a- 10:200 10:25a- (No.) average 10:00 1st boom 10:15 2nd boom 10:45 Ponies 8 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.4 Caws with calves 6 2.2 1.8 0.1 1.6 1.3 2.8 Calves 6 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.5 2.3 Open cows 2 1.8 0.5 2.5 3.8 2.5 3.5 Steers 24 2.7 1.5 1.3 1.6 2.5 2.2 a 5-Minute blocks averaged into the times cited. b 5-Minute block during simulated sonic booms. All animals showed a startle response after each boom, the response was greater to the first boom. The common reactions were raising head, walking or running several yards , pricking the ears, temporary cessation of eating, smelling the air and a general muscle contraction. These reactions are s similar to those of dairy and beef cattle as described by Casady and Lehmann (1967) and of reindeer as described by Espmark (1972) when these animals were exposed to sonic booms. In the present study, the ponies exposed to the simulated boom seemed to react most and the steers reacted least. After the initial response, the animals quickly returned to preboom activity comparable to that of baseline observations. A less overt response to the second boom indicated that the animals adapted or habituated quickly to recurring booms. Of importance was the total absence of continual arousal or general panic in any of the animals. On the basis of this study, we can reasonably conclude that simulated sonic booms of the magnitude used in these trials have little effect on the eating patterns, feed intake and behavioral activity of ponies and beef cattle. Literature Cited Bell, Wilson B. 1972. Animal response to sonic booms. J. Acoustical Soc. Amer. 51:758. Bond, James. 1971. Noise. Its effect on the physiology and behavior of animals. Agric. Sci. Rev. 9:1. Casady, R. B. and R. P. Lehmann. 1967. Responses of farm animals to sonic booms. Sonic boom experiment at Edwards Air Force Base. Curran, C. R. 1972. The behavioral response of female mink exposed to real or simulated sonic booms. In: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Effects of Real and Simulated Sonic Booms on Farm-Raised Mink (Mustela vison) . Report No. FAA-EQ-72-2. U. S. Department of Transportation. p. 85. Ely, F. and W. E. Petersen. 1941. Factors involved in the ejection of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 24:211. Espmark, Yngve. 1972. Behavior reactions of reindeer exposed to sonic booms. Deer 2:800. Kern, Dona and James Bond. 1972. Eating patterns of ponies fed diets ad libitum. J. Anim. Sci. 35:285. Menear, J. R. 1972. Physical environment and boom effects. In: An Inter- disciplinary Study of the Effects of Real and Simulated Sonic Booms on Farm-Raised Mink (Mustela vison) . Report No. FAA-EQ-72-2. U. S. Depart- ment of Transportation. p. 35. Parker, J. B. and N. D. Bayley. 1960. Investigation on effects of aircraft sound on milk production of dairy cattle - 1957-58. U. S. Department of Agriculture, ARS 44-60. Putnam, P. A. and R. E. Davis. 1963. Ration effects on drylot steer feeding patterns. J. Anim. Sci. 22:437. Putnam, P. A. , R. Lehmann and R. E. Davis. 1967. Ration selection and feeding patterns of steers fed in drylot. J. Anim. Sci. 26:647. Putnam, P. A. , R. Lehmann and W. Luber. 1968. Diurnal rates of feed intake by steers in drylot. J. Anim. Sci. 27:1494. Putnam, P. A. and J. Bond. 1971. Drylot feeding patterns for the reproducing beef cow. J. Anim. Sci. 33:1086. Travis, H. F. , G. V. Richardson, J. R. Menear and James Bond. 1968. The effects of simulated sonic booms on reproduction and behavior of farm- raised mink. U. S. Department of Agriculture, ARS 44-200. The authors wish to express appreciation to C. V. Beall, Jr. , F. L. Daniels, B. Phillips and D. Thompson for technical assistance in this experiment and to Marilyn M. Boone for secretarial assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Hello