- Submissions for the Record

[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

AVIATION NOISE: MEASURING PROGRESS IN
ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS

=======================================================================

(117-43)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

MARCH 17, 2022

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-707 WASHINGTON : 2023

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana

Subcommittee on Aviation

RICK LARSEN, Washington, Chair
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DON YOUNG, Alaska ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
JOHN KATKO, New York NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin Georgia
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota JULIA BROWNLEY, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey MARK DeSAULNIER, California
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
NANCY MACE, South Carolina ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas GREG STANTON, Arizona
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
MICHELLE STEEL, California CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
District of Columbia
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Chair, Subcommittee on Aviation, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation,
opening statement.............................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 83
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 83

WITNESSES
Panel 1

Kevin Welsh, Executive Director, Office of Environment and
Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Beth
White, Senior Strategist for Public and Industry Engagement,
Air Traffic Organization, FAA, and Michael Hines, Manager,
Planning and Environmental Division, Office of Airports, FAA
Oral statement of Mr. Welsh.................................. 10
Prepared statement of Mr. Welsh.............................. 11
Heather Krause, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, oral statement............... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16

Panel 2

Sharon Pinkerton, Senior Vice President, Legislative and
Regulatory Policy, Airlines for America, oral statement........ 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Frank R. Miller, Executive Director, Hollywood Burbank Airport,
on behalf of Airports Council International-North America, oral
statement...................................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
David Silver, Vice President for Civil Aviation, Aerospace
Industries Association, oral statement......................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Emily J. Tranter, Executive Director, National Organization to
Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.), oral
statement...................................................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
JoeBen Bevirt, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Joby
Aviation, oral statement....................................... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen:
Statement of Hon. Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................... 84
Statement of Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia................. 85
Statement of Hon. Jim Cooper, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Tennessee................................ 85
Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................... 86
Statement of Hon. Ruben Gallego, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona.................................. 87
Letter of April 1, 2022, from Hon. Stephen F. Lynch, a
Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.............................................. 87
Statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York........................ 89
Letter of April 1, 2022, from Hon. Grace Meng, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York...... 90
Letter of April 1, 2022, from Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California.... 91
Statement of Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................... 92
Statement of Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland................................. 92
Statement of Hon. Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California...................... 93
Letter of March 31, 2022, from Hon. Brad Sherman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California.... 93
Statement of Hon. Adam Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington............................... 94
Statement of Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................... 95
Letter of March 31, 2022, from Hon. Thomas R. Suozzi, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York...... 97
Letter of March 31, 2022, from Georges C. Benjamin, M.D.,
Executive Director, American Public Health Association..... 97
Statement of Ed Bolen, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Business Aviation Association..................... 98
Letter of April 1, 2022, from Jamie Banks, Ph.D., M.Sc.,
President, Quiet Communities Inc........................... 100
Letter of April 1, 2022, from Sam Hindi, City of Foster City,
Roundtable Chairperson, and Al Royse, City of Hillsborough,
Roundtable Vice-Chair, San Francisco International Airport/
Community Roundtable....................................... 106
Statement of Melissa Elstein, Coalition Organizer, Board
Chair, and Secretary, Stop the Chop NYNJ, Submitted on
Behalf of Hon. Jerrold Nadler and Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,
Representatives in Congress from the State of New York..... 109

APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Heather Krause,
Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 111
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Frank R. Miller,
Executive Director, Hollywood Burbank Airport, on behalf of
Airports Council International-North America................... 112
Questions to David Silver, Vice President for Civil Aviation,
Aerospace Industries Association, from:
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson................................... 113
Hon. John Garamendi.......................................... 113
Question from Hon. Troy Balderson to JoeBen Bevirt, Founder and
Chief Executive Officer, Joby Aviation......................... 114

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

March 15, 2022

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Aviation
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Aviation
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Aviation Noise:
Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Aviation will meet on Thursday, March
17, 2022, at 10 a.m. EDT in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building
and virtually via Zoom for a hearing titled, ``Aviation Noise:
Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns.'' The
hearing will examine aircraft noise, airport noise, noise
mitigation strategies, methodologies for measuring noise,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) community engagement, new
and emerging technologies, and the implementation of noise
provisions from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. The
subcommittee will hear testimony from two panels. The first
panel will feature government witnesses from the FAA and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). The second panel will
include witnesses from Airlines for America, Airports Council
International, Aerospace Industries Association, National
Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
(N.O.I.S.E.), and Joby Aviation.

BACKGROUND

I. FAA NOISE PROGRAMS

A. NOISE MEASUREMENT NEAR AIRPORTS

The majority of airport-related noise is generated by the
takeoff and landing of aircraft. The FAA measures noise based
on a yearly day-night average sound level (DNL) produced by
flight operations, which is measured in decibels.\1\ DNL is an
aggregate measure of aviation noise over a 24-hour period, with
10 decibels added to nighttime noise events between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m.\2\ FAA has identified a DNL of 65 decibels as the
threshold for significant adverse impact on the community and
uses this standard in determining whether aircraft noise at a
nearby airport is compatible with residential land uses.\3\
According to the FAA, a comparable indoor sound comparison to
the 65 decibels threshold would be a person speaking from three
feet away.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 14 C.F.R. Part 150.
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id.
\4\ FAA, Fundamentals of Noise and Sound, https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/basics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. REGULATORY PROGRAMS

A. PART 150

The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (49
U.S.C. 47501 et. seq.) provides the FAA with statutory
authority for providing federal funding of noise compatibility
projects through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).\5\ The
FAA administers its statutory authority under 14 C.F.R. Part
150 (hereinafter Part 150).\6\ An airport operator is not
required to participate in Part 150--instead or in conjunction
with Part 150, airports can utilize funds received from the
passenger facility charge (PFC) and can fund noise projects
independent of Part 150, allowing them to work more directly
with stakeholders and establish voluntary noise abatement or
mitigation programs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pub. L. No. 96-193 (1980).
\6\ 14 C.F.R. Part 150.
\7\ See 49 U.S.C. 47504; 49 U.S.C. 40117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an airport decides to participate in Part 150, it is
required to submit a Noise Exposure Map, which is a scaled
geographic visualization of the airport, its noise contours,
and the surrounding area depicting existing and future
community noise exposures.\8\ The airport must also formally
submit a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) to the FAA.\9\ The
NCP must show that the program: (1) reduces existing
noncompatible uses and prevents or reduces the probability of
the establishment of additional noncompatible uses; (2) does
not impose an undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce;
(3) does not derogate safety or adversely affect the safe and
efficient use of airspace; (4) meets both local interests and
federal interests of the national air transportation system;
and (5) can be implemented in a manner consistent with all the
powers and duties of the FAA Administrator.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. PART 161

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act (49 U.S.C. 47521 et.
seq.) was enacted in 1990 in response to community noise
concerns which had led to inconsistent restrictions on
aviation.\11\ The law called for a national aviation noise
policy and increased FAA's authority over aviation noise
matters.\12\ The law also included mandates related to aircraft
types based on noise and allowed airports some ability to
restrict louder aircraft types.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Pub. L. No. 101-508 (1990).
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA implemented associated regulations in 14 C.F.R.
Part 161 (Part 161), which imposes requirements on airports
seeking to implement certain noise rules or restrictions.\14\
As such, airports which mandate noise and access restrictions
must satisfy certain criteria, including requirements to: (1)
be reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory; (2) not
create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce; (3)
not be inconsistent with maintaining the safe and efficient use
of the navigable airspace; (4) not conflict with a law or
regulation of the United States; (5) be imposed following an
adequate opportunity for public comment; and (6) not create an
undue burden on the national airspace system.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 14 C.F.R. Part 161.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION

The FAA imposes noise standards for airplanes operating in
the United States.\16\ The FAA classifies airplanes meeting
noise standards into five stages, with Stage 1 being the
loudest and Stage 5 the quietest.\17\ Stage 1 and Stage 2
airplanes are currently prohibited except under very limited
circumstances.\18\ During the aircraft certification process,
the FAA ensures that airplanes comply with U.S. noise
standards. FAA can also recertify airplanes to comply with a
more stringent noise certification standard than the standard
to which it was originally certificated.\19\ The
recertification process is initiated by a manufacturer or
operator.\20\ The process for recertification is described in
the graphic below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 14 C.F.R. Part 36.
\17\ FAA, AC 36-1H--Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign
Aircraft (Nov. 15, 2001), available at: https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/
document.information/documentID/22942.
\18\ See FAA, Aircraft Noise Levels and Stages, https://
www.faa.gov/noise/levels/.
\19\ 14 C.F.R. 36.2(c).
\20\ 14 C.F.R. Part 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: Overview of FAA's Process for Recertificating Airplanes to
Stage 4 or Stage 5 Noise Standards

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
information. GAO-20-661

In a 2020 report, the GAO surveyed the aviation industry
and FAA and evaluated data to find that while a majority of
U.S. airplanes are Stage 3, most are able to meet more
stringent noise standards.\21\ The GAO found that 98 percent of
current large commercial passenger airplanes and 79 percent of
large commercial cargo airplanes are able to meet Stage 4
standards.\22\ Because of this, many aviation stakeholders
believe a phase-out of Stage 3 airplanes would not
substantially reduce noise and could instead be costly and
challenging.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO, Aircraft Noise: Information on a Potential Mandated
Transition to Quieter Airplanes (Aug. 20, 2020), GAO-20-661, at 12.
\22\ Id. at 13-14.
\23\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED NAVIGATION PROCEDURES IN
METROPLEXES AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH

The FAA is in the midst of modernizing the national
airspace system (NAS). The FAA's effort to modernize the air
traffic system, referred to as the Next General Air
Transportation System, or NextGen, is a large set of
interconnected programs within the FAA that refreshes the air
traffic control system by leveraging the capabilities provided
by the Global Positioning System, fiberoptic broadband
connections, and communications satellites, enabling transfers
of vast amounts of data between aircraft in flight and ground
facilities.\24\ As part of this effort, the FAA is implementing
new Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) routes and procedures to
improve safety, increase airspace efficiency, reduce
environmental impacts, and increase user access to the NAS,
while simultaneously addressing air traffic growth.\25\
According to the FAA, PBN will: \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ FAA, How NextGen Works, available at https:/www.faa.gov/
nextgen/how_nextgen_works/
\25\ FAA, NextGen and Performance-Based Navigation (Aug. 18, 2020),
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/nextgen-and-performance-based-navigation.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincrease safety through procedures during descent
that reduce the risk of crashes and loss of control;
Limprove airport and airspace access in all
weather conditions;
Lreduce delays at airports and in dense airspace
by applying new parallel routes, enabling new ingress/egress
points around busy terminals, improving flight re-routing
capabilities, making better use of closely spaced procedures
and airspace, and de-conflicting adjacent to airport flows; and
Lincrease efficiency through less circuitous
routes and optimized airspace, especially in lower flight
altitude stratums.

The FAA has undergone the process of reconfiguring the NAS
by redesigning airport terminal airspace around large areas
with multiple airports called Metroplexes.\27\ As FAA took
action, complaints from communities increased.\28\ Complaints
included airplanes routed over areas not previously overflown
and increased concentrations of arriving and departing flights
along narrower flightpaths and more frequent overflights.\29\
In response to community concerns and provisions in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018, the FAA updated its Policy on
Addressing Aircraft Noise Complaints and Inquiries from the
Public in December 2019.\30\ The FAA also established regional
noise ombudsmen around the country to serve as public liaisons
for issues about aircraft noise questions or complaints and
provide technical support to airport noise working groups and
roundtables.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id.
\28\ GAO, Aircraft Noise: FAA Could Improve Outreach through
Enhanced Noise Metrics, Communication, and Support to Communities
(Sept. 28, 2021), GAO-21-103933 at 41.
\29\ Ibid.
\30\ FAA, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Policy on
Addressing Aircraft Noise Complaints and Inquiries from the Public
(Dec. 4, 2019), available at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/FAA_NoiseComplaintPolicy_191204_
FNL.pdf
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. HELICOPTER NOISE

A. FAA TOOLS TO ADDRESS HELICOPTER NOISE

While not legally mandated, the FAA works to reduce noise
from civilian helicopters through a voluntary set of guidelines
developed by the FAA and industry that identify noise
mitigation practices called ``Fly Neighborly.'' \32\ The FAA
has also developed helicopter route structures for some major
metropolitan cities to assist in managing helicopter air
traffic for safety and efficiency.\33\ The following cities
have helicopter route structures: Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort
Worth, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, and the
Washington, D.C. area.\34\ While these routes are not imposed
solely to mitigate noise, these routes can result in noise
mitigation in some areas.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ GAO, Aircraft Noise: Better Information Sharing Could Improve
Responses to Washington, D.C. Area Helicopter Noise Concerns (Jan. 7,
2021), GAO-21-200 at 6.
\33\ Id. at 7-8.
\34\ Ibid.
\35\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLANS

Under the National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000,
the FAA, in coordination with the National Park Service (NPS),
were required to implement Air Tour Management Plans
(ATMPs).\36\ An ATMP is a plan used to develop acceptable and
effective measures to mitigate or prevent the significant
adverse impacts, if any, of commercial air tour operations upon
natural and cultural resources, visitor experiences, and tribal
lands. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 amended the
Act to allow the FAA and NPS to enter into voluntary agreements
with air tour operators in lieu of developing management
plans.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40128 (2020).
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. FAA RESEARCH AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

The FAA has established a series of noise research programs
including:
LFederal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise.
The FAA works with the Volpe Transportation Center, NASA, and
other government agencies on noise research.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ FAA, Noise Research & Programs, available at: https://
www.faa.gov/noise/research_programs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). AEDT
is a software system that models aircraft performance in space
and time to estimate fuel consumption, noise, emissions, and
air quality consequences.\39\ It is used across industry,
governments, and academia and is the primary tool used by the
International Civil Aviation Organization.\40\ The tool also
facilitates FAA environmental review activities.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ FAA, Aviation Environmental Design Tool, available at: https:/
/aedt.faa.gov/.
\40\ FAA, Noise Research & Programs, supra note 43.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASCENT Center of Excellence. The FAA uses the
ASCENT program to explore ways to reduce noise exposure from
airplanes, helicopters, and new entrants, such as through
unmanned aircraft systems and advanced air mobility vehicles,
among other things.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ASCENT, https://ascent.aero/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAirport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). ACRP
is an industry-driven, applied research program that develops
practical solutions to problems typically faced by airport
operators. The ACRP aims to focus on issues that other Federal
research programs do not address.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ FAA, Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)--Airports,
https://www.faa.gov/airports/acrp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LContinuous Lower Emissions Energy and Noise
(CLEEN) Program. The CLEEN Program is a public-private
partnership to accelerate the development of technologies to
reduce aircraft noise and emissions and improve energy
efficiency.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ FAA, Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN)
Program, https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/
research/aircraft_technology/cleen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. FUNDING FOR NOISE MITIGATION

Airport operators may use Airport Improvement Program or
Passenger Facility Charge funds for noise-related projects,
including acquiring homes and relocating people, soundproofing
homes and other buildings, and constructing noise barriers.
Regarding sound insulation in homes, according to a September
2019 report to Congress, the FAA had funded over $6.91 billion
through the AIP grant program and approved over $4.4 billion
through the PFC program to insulate over 143,000 homes and
other noise sensitive locations (e.g. schools and
churches).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ CRS, Federal Airport Noise Regulations and Programs (Sept. 27,
2021), R46920, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The AIP was established by the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). Funds obligated for the
AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is
primarily funded from excise taxes imposed on domestic airline
tickets, cargo waybills, and aviation fuel sales. The AIP
generally funds projects that are needed to enhance airport
safety, capacity, security, and noise mitigation. The AIP
program provides federal grants to airports for airport
development and planning. AIP funding distribution is based on
a combination of formula grants and discretionary funds. Some
airports use AIP formula funds for noise projects, however,
most funding for airport noise projects comes from AIP
discretionary funds. According to the CRS, between fiscal years
(FYs) 2011 and 2020, AIP funded over $1.2 billion for airport
noise projects.\46\ Of this amount:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNoise mitigation projects accounted for 88
percent;
LLand acquisition accounted for 9 percent; and
LNoise compatibility studies and planning
accounted for 3 percent.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE

To provide additional resources for airport improvements,
the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-508) permitted airports to assess a charge on enplaning
passengers called the passenger facility charge (PFC). The PFC
is a federally-authorized user fee that an airport sponsor,
subject to FAA-approval, may choose to levy on most enplaned
passengers. Airports may impose a maximum $4.50 PFC on
enplaning passengers, up to a maximum of $18 on a roundtrip
ticket. PFC revenues may be used for a wider variety of
projects other than AIP grants; most notably, PFC revenues are
commonly used for terminal development projects that are
unlikely to be funded through the AIP because AIP grants are
typically used for higher-priority airside projects. PFCs may
also be used to fund noise projects that are independent of
Part 150.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to CRS, between FY2011 and FY2020, the FAA
approved over $247 million in PFCs for airport noise projects.
Of this amount:
LNoise mitigation projects accounted for 76
percent;
LLand acquisition accounted for 18 percent; and
LNoise compatibility studies and planning
accounted for 6 percent.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. OTHER AIRPORT FUNDING SOURCES

Airports may use their own operating revenues from
commercial leases, parking charges, and other sources to fund
noise projects as well, but FAA does not keep track of such
spending.

III. NOISE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018

In response to community concerns and requests from Members
of Congress, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 included a
series of robust provisions designed to address aviation noise
issues.\50\ A section-by-section summary of those provisions is
included in the attached Appendix A. The status of
implementation of these provisions is included in the attached
Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Pub. L. No. 115-254 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. GAO RECOMMENDATIONS

Status of 2021 GAO Recommendations Related to Aircraft Noise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation FAA Response Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator of the FAA In December 2021, Open.
should direct the Office of FAA officials
Environment and Energy to told GAO that
develop a mechanism to exchange they are working
helicopter noise information to identify a
with operators in the D.C. mechanism to
area. (GAO-21-200 share complaint
Recommendation 1) \51\. data with
helicopter
operators in the
Washington D.C.
area. FAA
officials also
stated that they
plan to conduct
quarterly
meetings in the
area with local
helicopter
operators to
examine trends in
helicopter
complaint data
and discuss
helicopter noise
mitigation
efforts. FAA
officials said
they plan to
begin holding and
facilitating
these meetings in
spring 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator of the Federal As of January Open.
Aviation Administration should 2022, the FAA has
identify appropriate said it is
supplemental noise metrics, conducting a
such as the ``number above'' noise policy
metric, and circumstances for review and plans
their use to aid in FAA's to consider
internal assessments of noise whether and under
impacts related to proposed PBN what
flight path changes. (GAO-21- circumstances
103933 Recommendation 1) \52\. supplemental,
companion, or
alternative noise
metrics are
appropriate to
inform research
and policy
considerations.
FAA plans to
complete this
review by the end
of 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator of the Federal As of January Open.
Aviation Administration should 2022, the FAA
update guidance to incorporate plans to update
additional communication tools guidance on
that more clearly convey community
expected impacts, such as other outreach by the
noise metrics and visualization end of 2022.
tools related to proposed PBN
implementation. (GAO-21-103933
Recommendation 2) \53\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator of the Federal As of January Open.
Aviation Administration should 2022, the FAA
provide clearer information to plans to develop
airports and communities on an appropriate
what communities can expect process and post-
from FAA, including the implemen- tation
technical assistance FAA can outreach tools by
provide. (GAO-21-103933 the end of 2022.
Recommendation 3) \54\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

\\ \\ \\ \\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ GAO, Aircraft Noise: Better Information Sharing Could Improve
Responses to Washington, D.C. Area Helicopter Noise Concerns (Jan. 7,
2021), GAO-21-200, available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-
200.
\52\ GAO, Aircraft Noise: FAA Could Improve Outreach through
Enhanced Noise Metrics, Communication, and Support to Communities
(Sept. 28, 2021), GAO-21-103933, available at https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-21-103933.
\53\ Id.
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESSES

Panel 1

LKevin Welsh, Executive Director, Office of
Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration
Accompanied by
LBeth White, Senior Strategist for Public and Industry
Engagement, Air Traffic Organization
LMike Hines, Manager, Office of Planning and
Programming, FAA Office of Airports
LHeather Krause, Director, Physical
Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office

Panel 2

LSharon Pinkerton, Senior Vice President of
Regulatory and Legislative Policy, Airlines for America
LFrank R. Miller, Executive Director, Hollywood
Burbank Airport, on behalf of Airports Council International-
North America
LDavid Silver, Vice President for Civil Aviation,
Aerospace Industries Association
LEmily J. Tranter, Executive Director, National
Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
(N.O.I.S.E.)
LJoeBen Bevirt, CEO, Joby Aviation

Appendix A: Section-By-Section Summary of Noise-Related Provisions in
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018

Section 172. Authorization of certain flights by stage 2
aircraft. This section authorizes the FAA to initiate a pilot
program to permit one or more operators of a stage 2 (noise
designation level) aircraft to operate that aircraft in
nonrevenue service into not more than four medium hub airports
or nonhub airports if the airport and the operator meet
specific criteria. The pilot program shall terminate on the
earlier of either the date 10 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, or the date on which the FAA determines that no
stage 2 aircraft remain in service.
Section 173. Alternative airplane noise metric evaluation
deadline. This section requires the FAA to complete the ongoing
evaluation of alternative metrics to the current Day Night
Level (DNL) 65 standard within 1 year of the bill's passage.
Section 174. Updating airport noise exposure maps. This
section clarifies an existing statutory provision regarding the
submission of noise exposure maps from airport operators to the
FAA and when an airport must update them.
Section 175. Addressing community noise concerns. This
section requires the FAA to consider the feasibility of
dispersal headings or other lateral track variations to address
noise concerns from affected communities, if asked by the
airport owner and local community, when proposing new area
navigation departure procedures or amending an existing
procedure below 6,000 feet over noise sensitive areas.
Section 176. Community involvement in FAA NextGen
initiatives located in Metroplexes. This section requires the
FAA to review the FAA's community involvement practices for
NextGen projects located in Metroplexes. NextGen is the FAA's
ongoing effort to modernize technology used for air traffic
control.
Section 178. Terminal sequencing and spacing. This section
requires a report to Congress on the status of Terminal
Sequencing and Spacing (TSAS) implementation across all
completed NextGen Metroplexes with specific information
provided by airlines regarding the adoption of aircraft
equipage and the training of pilots in its use.
Section 179. Airport noise mitigation and safety study.
This section directs the FAA to initiate a study to review and
evaluate existing studies and analyses of the relationship
between jet aircraft approach and takeoff speeds and
corresponding noise impacts on communities surrounding
airports.
Section 180. Regional ombudsmen. This section directs each
FAA Regional Administrator to designate a Regional Ombudsman to
serve as a regional liaison with the public on issues regarding
aircraft noise, pollution, and safety.
Section 182. Mandatory use of the New York North Shore
Helicopter Route. This section requires a public hearing
regarding changes to the New York North Shore Helicopter Route.
This section also requires an FAA review of the route
regulations.
Section 186. Stage 3 aircraft study. This section directs
the Comptroller General to conduct a review of the benefits,
costs, and other impacts of a phase out of stage 3 (noise level
designation) aircraft.
Section 187. Aircraft noise exposure. This section directs
the FAA to conduct a review of the relationship between
aircraft noise and its effect on communities surrounding
airports. The FAA is then required to submit a report to
Congress containing appropriate recommendations for revising
land use compatibility guidelines in part 150 of title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations.
Section 188. Study regarding day-night average sound
levels. This section directs the FAA to evaluate alternative
metrics to the current average day night level standard, using
actual noise sampling and other methods to address community
airplane noise concerns. This section also requires the FAA to
submit a report to Congress.
Section 189. Study on potential health and economic impacts
of overflight noise. This section directs the FAA to enter into
an agreement with eligible institutions of higher education to
conduct a study on the health impacts of noise from aircraft
flights on residents exposed to a range of noise levels from
such flights.
Section 190. Environmental mitigation pilot program. This
section allows the DOT to carry out a pilot program comprised
of no more than six projects at public-use airports aimed at
achieving the most cost-effective and measurable reductions in
or mitigation of the impacts of aircraft noise, airport
emissions, and water quality at the airport or within five
miles of the airport.

Appendix B: Status of Noise-Related 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act
Provisions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Title Summary Deadline Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
172............................. Authorization of Initiate a pilot 4/5/19............ APL/AGC developed
certain flights program to permit a Federal
by stage 2 stage 2 aircraft Register Notice
aircraft. to operate in a (FRN) which is
limited way at under review.
certain defined Purpose of the
airports. FRN is to see if
there is interest
among airports
meeting statutory
requirements. If
so, we will
develop a pilot
program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173............................. Alternative Study alternatives 10/5/19........... Complete.
airplane noise to the DNL.
metric evaluation
deadline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
174............................. Updating airport Requires No due date-- Complete.
noise exposure submission of an change in policy.
maps. updated noise
exposure map in
certain instances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
175............................. Addressing Study dispersion No due date....... In compliance,
community noise for new because FAA will
concerns. departures or consider any
airspace changes valid request
(on existing from an airport
departures) at but FAA is still
6,000 feet or formalizing
lower at the repeatable
request of an process.
airport.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
176............................. Community Review community Review due 4/5/19. Complete. Report
involvement in engagement Report due 6/5/19. was submitted to
FAA NextGen practices at Congress 7/2/20.
projects located Metroplex sites
in metroplexes. and report on
ways to improve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
178............................. Terminal Provide a briefing Briefing due 12/5/ Complete. Briefing
sequencing and on status of TSAS 18. complete on 11/27/
spacing. implementation 18.
across all
metroplexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
179............................. Airport noise Review existing Initiate the Complete. The FAA
mitigation and studies and review by 10/5/19. submitted the
safety study. analysis of Report due 10/5/20 report on 12/29/
relationship 20.
between approach
and takeoff speed
and noise impacts
and submit a
report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
180............................. Regional ombudsmen Designate Designate all Complete.
ombudsmen for ombudsmen by 10/5/
each region. 19.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
182............................. Mandatory use of Take comments, All due by 11/4/18 Completed all
the New York hold a hearing tasks on time.
North Shore and assess the
Helicopter Route. North Shore route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
183............................. State standards Requires FAA to No due date-- Complete. Updated
for airport provide technical change in policy. the appropriate
pavements. assistance to a advisory circular
state to develop 12/6/19.
standards, for
pavement on
nonprimary public-
use airports in
the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
186............................. Stage 3 aircraft GAO study No FAA due date. GAO study
study. reviewing costs GAO's study was completed August
and benefits of due April 2020. 2020.
phasing out stage
3 aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
187............................. Aircraft noise Publish the noise 10/5/2020......... The study was
exposure. survey with any released.
recommendations Late on the report
determined articulating
necessary related recommendation.
to land use
compatibility
guidelines in
part 150.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
188............................. Study regarding Study alternatives Study and report Complete. The
day-night average to the DNL and due 10/5/19. report was
sound levels. publish a report submitted to
on the findings. Congress 6/24/20.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
189............................. Study on potential Study health Enter into an Completed the
health and impacts agreement with agreement--it is
economic impacts attributable to university by 4/5/ with Boston
of overflight noise exposure 19. University & MIT.
noise. from aircraft. Submit the results It will be
of the study 90 several years
days after before they
receiving them. complete their
study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190............................. Environmental Establish pilot No due date....... FAA issued a
mitigation pilot program where up Federal Register
program. to 6 airports notice on May 10,
could receive 2021. Section 190
grants for required the FAA
mitigation to create a pilot
projects to program for
reduce or environmental
mitigate aviation mitigation. FAA
impacts on noise, provided the
air quality or Notice of Funding
water quality Opportunity for
within 5 miles of the Environmental
an airport. Mitigation Pilot
Program, 86
Federal Register
25060, on May 10,
2021. The notice
explained that
FAA was accepting
pre-applications
from eligible
airports and
consortia for the
Environmental
Mitigation Pilot
Program. The
program will fund
up to six
projects that
will measurably
reduce or
mitigate aviation
impacts on noise,
air quality or
water quality at
an airport or
within five miles
of the airport.
Public-use airport
operators had
until July 9,
2021, to submit a
preapplication to
the FAA.
Once FAA has
reviewed all
applications, the
Agency will fund
up to six
projects that
provide the
greatest
environmental
benefits. The
cost of each
project cannot
exceed $2.5
million. The
federal share of
the project cost
is 50 percent
with the selected
airports
providing the
other 50 percent.
Grants will be
made from the
noise and
environmental set-
aside of the
Airport
Improvement
Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVIATION NOISE: MEASURING PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS

----------

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2022

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Rick
Larsen (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr.
DeFazio, Ms. Norton, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Massie, Mr.
Stauber, and Ms. Van Duyne.
Members present remotely: Mr. Carson, Ms. Davids of Kansas,
Mr. Kahele, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Payne,
Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Lamb, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Burchett, and Mrs. Steel.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. The subcommittee will now come to
order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder to everyone, again, please keep your
microphone muted unless speaking. And if I hear any inadvertent
background noise, I will request the Member please mute the
microphone.
To insert a document into the record, a reminder to please
have your staff email it to [email protected].
And I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning, and welcome to today's Aviation Subcommittee
hearing titled, ``Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in
Addressing Community Concerns.''
Before I begin today, I want to wish all my colleagues on
the subcommittee a happy St. Patrick's Day, and now I will turn
to today's hearing.
At one time or another, all of us on this subcommittee have
heard from constituents concerned about noise from airports and
aircraft. In my district, Paine Field Airport in Snohomish
County logged over 2,100 noise-related comments in January of
this year alone.
Studies from the Federal Aviation Administration, the NASA
Langley Research Center, and others have found that noise from
airports and aircraft can have negative effects on residents'
physical and mental health. These studies have also documented
the impact of aviation noise on schools and businesses located
near airports.
This subcommittee takes aviation noise seriously and is
focused on finding meaningful solutions to this persistent
issue.
The 2018 FAA reauthorization law included several
provisions aimed at reducing and mitigating aircraft noise. The
law was a victory for community advocates and other key
stakeholders working to reduce the adverse impacts of airport
and aircraft noise. As Congress prepares for the next FAA
reauthorization, this subcommittee must evaluate how the FAA
implemented provisions from the 2018 law and identify ongoing
challenges. For instance, there are questions about whether the
metrics used by the FAA to measure the impacts of aviation
noise accurately portray the effects of noise on communities.
Now, prior to this hearing, I invited all Members of
Congress to submit written statements for the record
highlighting priorities and issues of importance to their
constituents related to aviation noise. I want to thank my
colleagues who have submitted testimony on this issue, and
remind everyone the record is open until April 1st.
The issue of aviation noise is not just an annoyance, it is
a public health issue, it is an economic issue, it is an equity
issue, and certainly a quality of life issue. A
disproportionate number of communities negatively impacted by
aviation noise are historically disadvantaged communities. And
since the 1970s, community advocates have raised the issue of
noise with lawmakers and Federal agencies in hopes of
protecting public health and noise-sensitive locations, like
schools and churches, near where aircraft operate.
The subcommittee must ensure community advocates and the
general public continue to have a voice in the FAA's ongoing
efforts to alleviate aviation noise. For example, public
participation must be included in the development of flight
corridors based on performance-based navigation, or PBN. PBN is
just one of many of the elements of the FAA's ongoing NextGen
process designed to improve the management and efficiency of
the national airspace. By providing more precise flightpaths
for aircraft, PBN will offer significant economic and
environmental benefits as it continues to be implemented, but
also may concentrate noise emissions for certain communities.
Congress and the FAA must work with local communities to
improve PBN implementation, while continuing the realization of
other NextGen capabilities. And nearly 1 year ago, this
subcommittee held a hearing on innovation in the U.S. airspace,
and how emerging airspace entrants and new aviation
technologies offer potential societal, safety, and
environmental benefits.
The aviation sector continues to develop new methods for
limiting and mitigating aircraft noise. Technological
improvements in engines, alternative propulsion systems, and
airframes have already led to reductions in aircraft noise.
The question before us today is, what more can Congress and
the industry do to foster these improvements? Congress, Federal
agencies, stakeholders, and the industry must lay the
groundwork to meet these challenges that communities will face
10, 20, even 30 years down the road. We have already seen the
effects that drones and other small, unpiloted vehicles can
have on communities.
The next emerging technology is advanced air mobility, or
AAM, aircraft, commonly known as flying taxis, which the AAM
industry plans to introduce into the national airspace soon.
So, I am encouraged by the prospects of these technologies, and
interested to hear how the FAA and manufacturers are looking at
potential noise impacts for communities when these aircraft
fly.
In fact, working with my colleague, subcommittee Ranking
Member Garret Graves and Representatives Titus and Balderson,
along with others, I recently introduced H.R. 6270 to create a
pilot program to help communities plan for AAM deployment into
the NAS. Part of that planning process may include a
description of efforts to reduce the adverse effects of
aviation noise related to these aircraft.
Congress must be forward looking in dealing with the
problems of today, while also preparing for the problems of
2050.
Just a heads-up before we get to the other opening
statements. We will have two witness panels to further discuss
aviation noise issues.
The first panel will include Government representatives
from the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, the Office of
Airports, and the Air Traffic Organization. The GAO, or
Government Accountability Office, is also here to discuss their
reports on FAA's progress to limit and mitigate noise aircraft.
The second panel includes representatives from airlines,
airports, manufacturers, and a community-based association
concerned with this issue and working to find solutions.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on the
progress made since the enactment of the 2018 bill, and what
steps Congress needs to take to prepare for the 2023
reauthorization bill to build on that progress. So, while the
2018 FAA reauthorization law included multiple provisions to
help alleviate aviation noise, there are still ways to improve
the implementation of these provisions and address our
constituents' valid concerns.
Thank you, and I look forward to everyone participating in
this discussion today as we try to tackle these issues in a
collaborative manner.
[Mr. Larsen's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Chair, Subcommittee on Aviation
Good morning and welcome to today's Aviation Subcommittee hearing
titled ``Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community
Concerns.''
Before I begin, I would like to wish all my colleagues on the
Subcommittee a happy St. Patrick's Day.
And to my friend Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts, a happy Evacuation
Day.
Now, turning to today's hearing. At one time or another, all of us
on this Subcommittee have heard from constituents concerned about noise
from airports and aircraft.
In my district, Paine Field Airport in Snohomish County logged over
2,100 noise related comments in January of this year alone.
Studies from the Federal Aviation Administration, the NASA Langley
Research Center and others have found that noise from airports and
aircraft can have negative effects on residents' physical and mental
health.
These studies also have documented the impact of aviation noise on
schools and businesses located near airports.
This Subcommittee takes aviation noise seriously and is focused on
finding meaningful solutions to this persistent issue.
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization law included several provisions aimed
at reducing and mitigating aircraft noise.
The law was a victory for community advocates and other key
stakeholders working to reduce the adverse impacts of airport and
aircraft noise.
As Congress prepares for the next FAA reauthorization bill, this
Subcommittee must evaluate how the FAA implemented provisions from the
2018 law and identify ongoing challenges.
For instance, there are questions about whether the metrics used by
the FAA to measure the impacts of aviation noise accurately portray the
effects of noise on communities.
Who Is Hurt by Aviation Noise?
Prior to this hearing, I invited all Members of Congress to submit
written statements for the record highlighting priorities and issues of
importance to their constituents related to aviation noise. I would
like to thank my colleagues who submitted written testimony on this
issue and remind them that the record is open until April 1.
The issue of aviation noise is not just an annoyance.
It is a public health issue;
It is an economic issue;
It is an equity issue; and
It is a quality-of-life issue.
A disproportionate number of communities negatively impacted by
aviation noise are historically disadvantaged communities.
Since the 1970s, community advocates raised this issue with
lawmakers and federal agencies in hopes of protecting public health and
noise sensitive locations like schools and churches near where aircraft
operate.
This Subcommittee must ensure community advocates and the general
public continue to have a voice in the FAA's ongoing efforts to
alleviate aviation noise.
For example, public participation must be included in the
development of flight corridors based on Performance Based Navigation
(PBN).
PBN is one of many elements of the FAA's ongoing NextGen process
designed to improve the management and efficiency of the National
Airspace System (NAS).
By providing more precise flight paths for aircraft, PBN will offer
significant economic and environmental benefits as it continues to be
implemented, but also may concentrate noise emissions for certain
communities.
Congress and the FAA must work with local communities to improve
PBN implementation, while continuing the realization of other NextGen
capabilities.
Emerging Technologies
Nearly one year ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing on innovation
in U.S. airspace and how emerging airspace entrants and new aviation
technologies offer potential societal, safety and environmental
benefits.
The aviation sector continues to develop new methods for limiting
and mitigating aircraft noise.
Technological improvements in engines, alternative propulsion
systems and airframes have already led to reductions in aircraft noise.
The question before us today is what more can Congress and the
aviation industry do to foster these technological improvements?
Congress, federal agencies, stakeholders and the industry must lay
the groundwork to meet the challenges communities will face 10, 20 and
30 years down the road.
We have already seen the effects drones and other small unpiloted
vehicles can have on communities.
The next emerging technology is advanced air mobility (AAM)
aircraft or ``flying taxis''; which the AAM industry plans to introduce
into the NAS soon.
While I am encouraged by the prospects of these technologies, I am
also interested to hear how the FAA and manufacturers are looking at
potential noise impacts for communities where these AAM aircraft will
fly.
Working with my colleagues Subcommittee Ranking Member Garret
Graves and Reps. Titus and Balderson, along with others, I recently
introduced legislation (H.R. 6270) to create a pilot program to help
communities plan for AAM deployment into the NAS.
Part of that planning process may include a description of efforts
to reduce the adverse effects of aviation noise related to these
aircraft.
Congress must be forward-looking in dealing with the problems of
today and also preparing for the problems of 2050.
Today we have two witness panels to further discuss aviation noise
issues.
The first panel includes government representatives from the FAA's
Office of Environment and Energy, the Office of Airports and the Air
Traffic Organization.
The Government Accountability Office is also here to discuss their
reports on the FAA's progress to limit and mitigate aircraft noise.
Today's second panel includes representatives from airlines,
airports, manufacturers and a community-based association concerned
with this issue and working to find solutions.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on the progress
made since enactment of the 2018 FAA reauthorization law and what steps
Congress needs to take in the 2023 reauthorization bill to build on
that progress.
While the 2018 FAA reauthorization law included multiple provisions
to help alleviate aviation noise, there are still ways to improve
implementation of these provisions and address our constituents' valid
concerns.
Thank you and I look forward to this discussion to tackle these
issues in a collaborative manner.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. And with that I will turn now to
the ranking member, Representative Graves of Louisiana, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for having this hearing today.
I think it is important that we look at data when we look
at issues like this. And there is a really great dataset that
shows the progress that has been made. In 1970, there were 7
million complaints about aviation noise, 7 million. Yet in
2018, that number dropped to 430,000. So, it went from 7
million complaints in 1970 to 430,000 in 2018. Keep in mind,
Mr. Chair, that the number of actual flights increased
significantly during that period of time. So, the good news is
that we are moving in the right direction: advances in aviation
technology, we have seen safer aircraft, we have seen quieter
aircraft, we have seen greater performance, greater
convenience.
And as with anything, Mr. Chair, as you know, there are
pros and cons, there are tradeoffs. And as we move forward, we
have got to make sure that we continue to take into
consideration absolutely the complaints, the concerns that are
raised by those that are affected, but also take into
consideration the benefits of commercial air travel, of general
aviation, that has just had a tremendous impact on this
country, on the growth and the convenience, on the ability to
improve quality of life, business, seeing relatives, and other
things.
As you mentioned in your opening statement, as we move
forward, there have just been extraordinary advances in
technology and advanced air mobility and unmanned aviation
systems that have the ability to continue this incredible trend
of dropping the number of noise complaints, of improving
convenience, and improving performance and options for
consumers across the United States, for citizens across the
United States.
Mr. Chair, recently the Department of Defense worked with
the National Capital region in evaluating complaints related to
aviation noise, specifically looking at helicopters. A pretty
amazing outcome of their analysis, between January of 2018 and
August of 2021--so between January 2018 and August of 2021
there were in excess of 6,200 complaints, 6,200. However, half
of them were from the same person. I am not sure if it was the
pilot, or who, or if this person works, but half of them came
from one person. Another 1,128 of the--I remind you--6,243 were
from another person. In fact, 63 percent of the complaints were
from just two people, and 89 percent of all of those complaints
were from the top 10. Not to discount anyone's concerns, but I
do think that it is important to take that into consideration
as we move forward, and make sure that we are solving problems,
that we understand the gravity of concerns as we move forward.
Today, we have a number of witnesses, but one is the CEO of
Joby Aviation. And I really look forward to hearing from him
talk about the opportunities, the advancement that is going to
be available as a result of some of the technologies that they
are pioneering, the improved experience for consumers and
American citizens across the country that some of the amazing
innovations in advanced air mobility and in unmanned systems
are going to provide citizens of our country and citizens
around the world, once again improving convenience, improving
performance, and improving safety for American citizens.
So, within the realm of the possible and plausible, I look
forward to hearing more about progress achieved and how the
future of noise will be much quieter as innovations advance,
and how Congress can be helpful to ensuring additional gains in
this area.
So, Mr. Chair, again, I want to thank you for holding the
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today.
[Mr. Graves of Louisiana's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Aviation
Mr. Chair, thank you for having this hearing today.
I think it's important that we look at data when we are looking at
issues like aviation noise. There is a great data set that shows the
progress made.
In 1970, there were 7 million people exposed to significant levels
of aircraft noise. Yet in 2018, that number dropped to 430,000. Keep in
mind Mr. Chair, the number of actual flights increased significantly
during that period of time. The good news is that we are moving in the
right direction.
Advances in aviation technology have resulted in safer aircraft,
quieter aircraft, greater performance, and greater convenience. And as
with anything, there are pros and cons, and tradeoffs. As we move
forward, we have to make sure that we continue to take into
consideration the complaints and concerns raised by those that are
affected. But also, we have to take into consideration the benefits of
commercial air travel and general aviation that have had a tremendous
impact on this country's growth, convenience, ability to improve
quality of life and business, capability to see relatives, and other
things.
As we move forward, there have been extraordinary advances in
technology. Advanced air mobility and unmanned aviation systems have
the ability to continue this incredible trend of dropping the number of
noise complaints, improving convenience, improving performance, and
providing options for consumers and citizens across the United States.
Mr. Chair, recently the Department of Defense worked with the
National Capital Region in evaluating complaints related to aviation
noise, specifically looking at helicopters. There were some amazing
outcomes in their analysis.
Between January 2018 and August 2021, there were in excess of 6,200
complaints. However, half of them were from the same person. Another
1,218 of the 6,243 total complaints were from another person. In fact,
63 percent of the complaints were from just two people and 89 percent
of all of those complaints were from the top 10 sources of complaints.
Not to discount anyone's concerns, but I do think it is important to
take those numbers into consideration as we move forward and make sure
that we're solving problems and understanding the gravity of concerns.
Today we have a number of witnesses, but one is the CEO of Joby
Aviation, and I look forward to hearing him discuss the opportunities
that are going to be available as a result of some of the technologies
that they're pioneering. That includes the improved experience for
consumers and Americans across the country who will benefit from some
of the amazing innovations in advanced air mobility and unmanned
systems. Once again, this technology can improve convenience,
performance, and safety for American citizens. So, within the realm of
the possible and the plausible, I look forward to hearing more about
progress achieved, how the future of noise will be much quieter as
innovations advance, and how Congress can help ensure additional gains
in this area.
Mr. Chair, again I want to thank you for holding the hearing and
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Representative Graves.
The Chair recognizes the chair of the full committee,
Representative DeFazio of Oregon.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the chair. Ranking Member Graves
already talked a little bit about the extraordinary number of
flights compared to earlier, and the noise issue, but we have
got to look to the future, where we are looking at perhaps 10
billion passengers in 2040, 90 million flights. This is going
to have an impact.
I am particularly interested in the testimony we will hear
about new technologies, bypass technologies, other things that
relate to engine design, or the hull and configuration of the
airplane that can further mitigate noise. And I am pleased that
we have the CLEEN Program, and we are making money available,
and doing research, and moving in that direction.
The other issue has been with NextGen and performance-based
navigation. The FAA did a pretty miserable job of communicating
about this with communities. With Mike Capuano, former member
of the committee, I sat through a number of meetings with the
FAA.
One question we had which never really ever got answered
was, would it be possible just not to run the same PBN every
day over exactly the same place every day of the week? And
could there be dispersed lateral tracks? I think this is
something that hasn't been--I know it is expensive and time
consuming to develop alternatives to one approach, but I think
that is something that hasn't been fully explored by the FAA.
And then, of course, we will hear some criticism of their
outreach thus far, although it appears that they are putting in
place new parameters that, hopefully, will do a better job of
listening to people in the impacted communities.
And then the mitigation on the ground, the use of AIP
funds. I am pleased that we did, through the IIJA, make
available more funds through AIP, which could be used for
soundproofing, noise barriers, and acquiring land in
flightpaths or future flightpaths so as to mitigate the
problems.
So, I am looking forward to hearing from a range of
witnesses on what the solutions will be or could be as we move
forward, so that we continue to make progress.
It is great that--I mean, Ranking Member Graves talked
about one particular area, and the complaints by just a few
individuals multiplied, but I have been in other cities where
it is way more widely dispersed, and it doesn't just involve a
few individuals. And we have got to deal with that as we
continue to assist the aviation sector in its future growth.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Larsen, for calling this important hearing today
focused on aviation noise. I would also like to thank the FAA, GAO, and
the many aviation stakeholders appearing before us today.
As air travel has become cheaper and more accessible than ever
before, the demand for air travel has dramatically increased. According
to the International Civil Aviation Organization, the number of annual
worldwide air passengers grew from 1.46 billion in 1998 to 4.5 billion
in 2019. And as the aviation industry recovers from the pandemic, that
number is expected to grow to nearly 10 billion scheduled passengers by
2040, with the number of departures expected to reach nearly 90
million.
This rising demand for air travel has created an urgent need to
invest in the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the rising number
of travelers at airports. For instance, last year, Airports Council
International estimated a backlog of more than $115 billion in airport
infrastructure needs to address the rising demand for air travel.
Last November, we made incredible strides in addressing this gap
with the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
which provided $25 billion over five years to modernize and upgrade our
nation's airport infrastructure. And I will continue to support an
increase in the passenger facility charge, which hasn't been raised in
over 20 years and is still critical to addressing airport's long-term
infrastructure needs.
However, despite these needed investments, the growth in air travel
and airport capacity does not come without a cost. Communities near
airports know all too well that growth at an airport often yields
increased noise emissions. And these noise emissions can be more than
just temporary annoyances. Aircraft noise has the potential to cause
sleep disturbances, contribute to hearing issues, and adversely affect
a person's physical and mental health.
That is why it is imperative we do everything we can to ensure we
reduce and mitigate these noise impacts on the communities around
airports. This includes continuing to fund critical research and
development programs, such as the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions,
and Noise, or CLEEN, Program. The CLEEN program is FAA's principal
environmental effort to speed the development of new aircraft and
engine technologies that reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn. In
pursuit of this mission, the program has leveraged over $600 million in
public and private investments since its inception in 2010.
Moreover, we must also ensure that we are developing and deploying
new and advanced technologies in a responsible way. For instance, the
NextGen program has provided incredible benefits to the aviation
industry. From 2010 to the present, NextGen programs have:
Saved operators $1.25 billion in fuel costs;
Slashed carbon emissions as a result;
Delivered $4.2 billion back into the economy by reducing
passengers' travel time; and
Reduced non-fuel operating costs by $1.5 billion.

One of the advances that has allowed NextGen to deliver these
benefits is performance-based navigation (PBN). PBN enables aircraft to
fly more precise flight paths, thereby decreasing fuel use and carbon
emissions and potentially reducing the number of people affected by
aircraft noise by flying aircraft over fewer communities. But these
more precise routes also could cause more noise emissions for the
communities that remain in an aircraft's flightpath. As the FAA
continues to deploy NextGen and other new technologies, it must do a
better job of listening to these affected communities if the agency
hopes to successfully address their concerns.
Effectively addressing aircraft noise also requires prioritizing
funding for critical noise mitigation projects. Typically, these
projects are funded through the FAA's Airport Improvement Program
(AIP), which, among other things, provides funding for airports to help
soundproof homes, construct noise barriers, acquire land, and fund
other types of noise mitigation projects. Unfortunately, AIP funding
has remained largely flat since this committee reauthorized the program
in 2018 and, consequently, has been oversubscribed and is incapable of
meeting the growing demand for noise mitigation in local communities.
Fortunately, the IIJA provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
reverse this trend and finally provide airports with the resources they
need to effectively alleviate harmful aircraft noise emissions in their
communities. For instance, the IIJA provided $15 billion in formula
funding to airports for AIP-eligible development projects, including
noise mitigation. Airports should ensure a significant amount of this
funding goes directly to these projects, thereby protecting the health
of their local communities and limiting the adverse effects of growing
airport capacity. If we fail to do so, then the tremendous economic and
societal benefits that come along with improved airspace efficiency,
newer aircraft technologies, and increased airport capacity risk being
completely ignored by public.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important
issue. I yield back.

Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair. I will now turn
to our witnesses. We will be hearing testimony from witnesses
on two panels today, with each panel followed by questions from
Members.
So, on the first panel today we have Kevin Welsh, who is
the Executive Director of the Office of Environment and Energy
at the FAA. Accompanying Mr. Welsh is Beth White, Senior
Strategist for Public and Industry Engagement at the Air
Traffic Organization, the FAA; and Mike Hines, Manager, Office
of Planning and Programing, Office of Airports at the FAA. Mr.
Welsh, I think, will be giving the testimony. Ms. White, Mr.
Hines, and Mr. Welsh will all be available for questions.
And then, after Mr. Welsh's testimony, we will hear from
Heather Krause, who is a frequent visitor here at the
committee, and the Director of Physical Infrastructure at the
Government Accountability Office.
Thank you for joining us today, and we will turn now to
Kevin Welsh of the FAA for your testimony.
Without objection, your full written statement will be
included in the record. Since that is the case, the
subcommittee requests you limit your oral testimony to 5
minutes. Mr. Welsh, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN WELSH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY BETH WHITE, SENIOR STRATEGIST FOR PUBLIC AND
INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FAA, AND MICHAEL
HINES, MANAGER, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF
AIRPORTS, FAA; AND HEATHER KRAUSE, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Welsh. Good morning, and thank you, Chair DeFazio,
Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me and my colleagues to
speak with you today about the Federal Aviation
Administration's role in reducing the impact of aircraft noise
exposure.
The FAA's core mission is to provide the safest and most
efficient aerospace system in the world. We are also committed
and work closely with stakeholders to address the environmental
impacts of aviation, such as climate change, local air quality,
and noise. With respect to noise, the FAA's first actions to
address noise were in the early 1960s, and we have continued to
take action and address this issue seriously in the decades
since.
Over time, with quieter aircraft, new operational
procedures, and land-use planning measures, the country has
seen a dramatic reduction in aircraft noise exposure. Since the
1970s, the number of people living in areas exposed to
significant levels of aircraft noise declined from 7 million to
around 450,000 in 2019. At the same time, the number of
passengers increased from 200 million per year to nearly 1
billion per year. So, we have seen an overall reduction in
noise contrasted with a steady growth in air traffic and
passengers.
This is important context for where we are today. We do not
share this information to minimize the ongoing concerns that
aircraft noise has on communities and their experiences today.
Instead, it is both to note the track record of improvement in
the sector and highlight that, with the improvements made to
date, further improvements have become increasingly more
challenging. Addressing the noise concerns from one community
or neighborhood will often result in noise impacts to another.
At the FAA, we are not standing by and, instead, have
increased our efforts to address aircraft noise exposure and
engage with stakeholders and communities. As we have long
emphasized, successfully addressing aircraft noise requires
collaboration and cooperation among all aviation stakeholders,
including air carriers, airports, manufacturers, and
communities. And we will continue to increase our collaboration
to better address the issue.
With respect to technology and reducing aircraft noise at
the source, the FAA is working closely with aerospace companies
through the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise
Program, or CLEEN, to accelerate the development and
introduction of new technologies that will reduce noise,
emissions, and fuel burn. The CLEEN Program has already led to
the introduction of quieter technologies in today's aircraft
fleet.
Another important tool is the FAA's Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning Program. Since 1983, the program has
provided more than $10 billion in funding to more than 250
airports to support changes in local land-use planning, sound
insulation, aircraft noise abatement procedures, and other
measures.
In recent years, we have also significantly increased the
FAA's community engagement on noise issues. Our community
engagement framework is based on nine regional teams, each with
a regional administrator, an air traffic service center, and
other FAA officials who work with community engagement officers
to work directly with communities to listen, share information,
and address noise concerns. This is a top issue for our
regional administrators, and we are carrying out efforts all
across the Nation on a daily basis.
In line with this increased engagement, we have also
launched the FAA's noise portal. This noise portal provides
information on aircraft noise and a place to submit noise
concerns and complaints directly to the FAA.
In late 2021, we initiated a comprehensive review of FAA's
noise policy. This review will identify updates and
improvements to the FAA noise policy based on the latest data
and information available. This is a wide-ranging review, and
will include evaluation of the day-night average sound level,
known as DNL, as well as the 65 DNL threshold. We will also
explore whether and under what circumstances supplemental noise
metrics are appropriate. Most important, this review will
include stakeholder outreach and engagement as part of the
process, and before recommending any policy changes.
Finally, I would like to also note that nearly all the
directives in the noise and environmental subtitle of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 are complete, and we remain
committed to completing the rest in a timely manner.
Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, Chair DeFazio, members
of the subcommittee, in summary, the FAA is and will continue
to be fully committed to addressing the effects of aviation
noise on communities, and working closely with all of our
stakeholders and elected officials to do so. Thank you.
[Mr. Welsh's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared statement of Kevin Welsh, Executive Director, Office of
Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration
Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about
the Federal Aviation Administration's role in reducing the impact of
aircraft noise exposure. My name is Kevin Welsh and I am the Executive
Director of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy. My office
conducts research, develops policy, and collaborates with other FAA
offices and the aviation community to address aircraft noise.
Accompanying me today are my colleagues in this effort: Michael Hines,
Manager of the Planning and Environmental Division in the Office of
Airports; and Beth White, Senior Strategist for Community and Industry
Engagement.
The FAA's core mission is to provide the safest and most efficient
aerospace system in the world. This mission also includes addressing
the environmental impacts of aviation, such as climate change, local
air quality, and noise. Congress first gave the FAA the responsibility
to regulate and address aircraft noise in 1968. In the decades since,
the FAA has established a strong track-record of addressing the impacts
of aircraft noise on communities by reducing noise from airplanes and
engines through technology development and standard-setting, adopting
Federal guidelines for compatible land use, providing Federal financial
assistance for noise mitigation measures, working with airport sponsors
and stakeholders to develop noise abatement procedures, and
communicating with stakeholders. Today, I would like to provide you
with a summary of what we've done to achieve a substantial reduction in
exposure to aircraft noise since that initial congressional mandate and
outline our recent actions and plans to continue to address aviation
noise and reduce exposure where possible.
Successfully addressing aviation noise requires collaboration,
cooperation, and coordination across aviation stakeholders, including
the FAA, air carriers, airports, aircraft manufacturers, local land use
planning authorities, communities, and elected officials. Decisions
about flight times, number of operations, and aircraft types are in the
scope of private industry. Land use planning near airports, including
the proximity of residential development, schools, and other noise-
sensitive uses, is addressed at the state and local level. In short,
the FAA has an important role in taking action to address aircraft
noise, but we cannot do it alone.
Progress Over Time
During the last 50 years, we have seen a dramatic reduction in
noise exposure despite a nearly five-fold increase in the number of
passengers transported in the U.S. aviation system. Since the mid-
1970s, the number of people living in areas exposed to significant
levels of aircraft noise \1\ in the United States has declined from
roughly 7 million to about 440,000 in 2019. At the same time, the
number of passengers has increased from approximately 200 million in
1975 to approximately 935 million in 2019. We are not, however,
asserting that aircraft noise exposure is no longer a concern. Instead,
exposure to aircraft noise has changed over time and making further
reductions in noise has become more challenging. The FAA is not
standing by, but instead we have increased efforts to understand and
address aircraft noise reflecting today's environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under longstanding FAA policy, the threshold of significant
aircraft noise exposure in residential areas is a Day-Night Average
Sound Level of 65 decibels (dB). See the ``Aviation Noise Abatement
Policy,'' issued by the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA
Administrator in 1976. This document is available on the FAA website at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's civilian aircraft are quieter than at any time in the
history of jet-powered flight, but there are many more operations. The
noise produced by one Boeing 707-200 flight, a typical airplane in the
1970s, is equivalent in noise to 30 Boeing 737-800 flights that are
typical today.\2\ While communities no longer experience very loud
single flights, like the airplanes of the 1970s, they do experience
more frequent operations of much quieter airplanes. This change in
noise exposure has changed the way in which communities are impacted by
noise. Despite this, the FAA has increased efforts to understand and
address aircraft noise reflecting today's environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on an average of approach and takeoff certificated noise
levels as defined in 14 CFR part 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued Efforts to Reduce Aircraft Noise
The FAA, aircraft manufacturers, and airlines continue to work
toward further reducing aircraft noise at the source through efforts
like the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program,
which began in 2010. The FAA's CLEEN program provides funding to
develop and accelerate the introduction of technologies that will
reduce noise, emissions, and fuel burn. The technologies demonstrated
during the first phase of CLEEN are estimated to result in a decrease
in the land area exposed to noise by 14%. In 2021, the FAA initiated
the third phase of CLEEN with over $100 million in funding and
including a target for community noise exposure.
In addition to research and development, the FAA plays a leadership
role in the development of international standards for noise
certification at the International Civil Aviation Organization,
including the establishment of the currently applicable Stage 5 noise
requirements that were agreed in 2013, and a recent decision to
evaluate the possibility of a more stringent noise standard.
Land Use Planning and Airport Noise Compatibility
Another factor in the reduction of aircraft noise exposure has been
cooperative efforts by airports, airlines and other aircraft operators,
State and local governments, and communities to reduce the number of
people living in areas near airports exposed to significant levels of
aircraft noise or provide other means of mitigation. Under the FAA's
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program \3\, airports may choose
to consider measures to reduce existing noncompatible land uses,
prevent new noncompatible land uses, and provide mitigation in areas
exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. Since 1983, the FAA
has provided over $10 billion to more than 250 airports to use this
program to implement changes in support of local land use planning and
zoning, sound insulation, acquisition of homes and other noise-
sensitive property, aircraft noise abatement routes and procedures, and
other measures. The FAA issues grants to airport operators and local
governments to fund noise mitigation projects under the program,
including to sound-insulate homes, schools, and other noise-sensitive
facilities. The FAA encourages participation by providing financial and
technical assistance to airports to develop noise exposure maps and
noise compatibility programs and to implement eligible noise-related
mitigation measures, depending upon the availability of funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This process is outlined under 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq., as
implemented by 14 CFR part 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airspace Modernization
In 2012, Congress directed the FAA to accelerate Next Generation
air traffic technologies.\4\ The introduction of satellite-enabled
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures and more precise flight
paths has improved the safety and efficiency of the national airspace
system. It has also provided noise benefits by reducing the
geographical area that flight paths cover, resulting in a reduction in
the overall number of people exposed to aircraft noise. At the same
time, however, the implementation of PBN, combined with a growth in air
traffic, has increased the concentration and number of flights over
certain communities. These changes, both air traffic procedures and air
traffic growth, have resulted in new and increased concerns about
aircraft noise, particularly by communities that are experiencing an
increased number of flights, even if the overall noise levels have
decreased. As a result, the FAA has significantly enhanced its focus on
addressing noise concerns and working with communities, airports, and
other key stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See section 213 of PL 112-95: https://www.congress.gov/112/
plaws/publ95/PLAW-112publ95.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Engagement
Since the initial years of PBN implementation, we have greatly
expanded community outreach beyond the process requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to include broad and ongoing
communications with airports, elected officials, and community
leadership through ad hoc committees, task forces, and airport and
community sponsored roundtables. Some of the most productive community
groups are typically made up of representatives from multiple
communities around an airport, who are or may be affected by aircraft
operations, and may include the airline industry and other stakeholders
who may serve in an advisory capacity. The FAA is fully committed to
meaningful engagement and open dialogue with those affected by airspace
changes and we routinely engage the public to understand specific
challenges and concerns.
The FAA's community engagement framework is based on nine regional
teams, each staffed by a regional administrator, a service center, and
other FAA officials who work with community engagement officers to
determine how to best engage with communities.\5\ Our approach to
community engagement is guided by time and experience proven practices
and techniques described in detail in our Community Involvement Manual
and our Community Involvement PBN Desk Guide. The FAA is constantly
participating in community engagement activities and initiatives across
the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/community_engagement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Systems
In addition to extensive outreach, we are constantly striving to
provide communities with new tools that will help them access noise
information resources. As part of our Noise Complaint Initiative, we
have taken several meaningful actions to provide greater transparency
regarding aviation noise complaints and inquiries submitted by the
public. Through this initiative, the FAA seeks ways to address the
underlying issues raised by the public, proactively educate, inform,
and engage in aircraft noise issues, and partner with airports to
gather their complaint data and better understand nationwide concerns.
As part of this initiative, members of the public can, for example,
access our web-based noise resources to learn more about aviation
noise, access information on FAA noise research and noise programs, as
well as understand how to make a noise complaint.\6\ The FAA has also
designed a noise portal that accepts detailed complaint information and
allows users to file noise complaints directly with the FAA.\7\ For
quick answers to frequently asked questions related to FAA's metroplex
program, flight path information, regional administrators, and
community engagement in general, users can also access our ``chatbot''.
The chatbot is an artificial intelligence powered chat function that
enables users easy access to the vast information on the FAA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.faa.gov/noise/inquiries/.
\7\ https://noise.faa.gov/noise/pages/noise.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise Research and Policy
A key component of the FAA's noise research program is to better
understand the effects of aircraft noise on individuals and communities
through research into annoyance, health and human impacts (e.g., sleep,
cardiovascular), speech interference, and children's learning. We also
conduct noise modeling and develop noise metrics and environmental data
visualization tools to help FAA and the aviation community estimate and
share environmental impacts of aviation in a way that is accessible and
understandable to the general public. These activities, including the
research and development of tools and models, are critical to
addressing aircraft noise, refining our approaches, and periodically
updating policy.
As part of these efforts, we recently published the results of a
nationwide survey regarding annoyance related to aircraft noise--the
Neighborhood Environmental Survey.\8\ This was a multi-year research
effort and is one of many current FAA research efforts to update the
scientific evidence of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure
and its effects on communities around airports. The survey results were
released along with an overview of FAA's broader noise research program
in a January 2021 Federal Register Notice.\9\ The notice requested
public comment on the scope and direction of FAA's noise research
program, and we received over 4,000 comments which are being reviewed
to help inform the agency's noise research priorities and noise policy
review planning efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/
survey/.
\9\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/13/2021-
00564/overview-of-faa-aircraft-noise-policy-and-research-efforts-
request-for-input-on-research-activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In late 2021, the FAA initiated a review of our noise policy as
part of our ongoing commitment to address aircraft noise. This effort
will build on our work to advance the scientific understanding of noise
impacts as well as the development of analytical tools and
technologies. Our review will be evidence-based, thorough, and
collaborative. It will consider new evidence from the agency's noise
research program, including from the Neighborhood Environmental Survey,
and the distribution of environmental risks, tradeoffs, or
externalities across communities. We expect to review the continued use
of the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the FAA's primary noise
metric for assessing cumulative aircraft noise exposure, as well as
whether DNL 65dBA should remain the definition of the limit for
residential land use compatibility and the significant noise exposure
threshold. We also expect to explore whether, and under what
circumstances, supplemental or alternative noise metrics are
appropriate to inform research and policy considerations. The review
process will identify and assess other policy options not noted here,
consider feedback on the notice, and, if appropriate, recommend policy
updates. We also anticipate that our noise policy review will include
stakeholder outreach as we consider any recommended policy changes.
Conclusion
The FAA is fully committed to a long-term effort to minimize the
effects of aviation noise as part of the FAA's mission. To be
successful, we will continue to work closely with all stakeholders and
elected officials. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Welsh.
Ms. Krause, you may proceed for 5 minutes.
Ms. Krause. Chair Larsen, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss our work on aircraft noise.
While the aviation system moves millions of people and
goods each day, the noise generated from aviation can severely
diminish the quality of life for nearby communities. Such noise
can expose residents to various negative effects, such as
disrupted sleep and health issues, and spur community
objections to airport operations and continued growth.
Mitigating and addressing aviation noise involves multiple
stakeholders. This includes affected communities, airports,
aviation manufacturers, and aircraft operators, as well as FAA,
who manages the air traffic control system and helps to fund
airports.
Despite trends towards quieter airplanes and fewer people
exposed to noise, community concerns about noise have
persisted. In particular, FAA has been changing flightpaths
around airports as part of its efforts to modernize the air
traffic control system with performance-based navigation, or
PBN. PBN allows for more precise flightpaths that reduce flying
time, fuel use, and emissions.
Because of these new and more precise routes, noise is
likely to be concentrated over a smaller area, meaning that,
while fewer people may experience increases in noise, people
directly under PBN routes may have more persistent noise.
Affected communities and Members of Congress have raised
concerns about FAA's implementation of PBN, including whether
it provided timely and adequate information about potential
noise effects to the public.
My testimony today is based on our recent work examining
FAA's efforts, and focuses on, one, how FAA engages with
communities to understand and address noise concerns before and
after implementation of PBN; and two, areas for improvement.
In response to rising community concerns and legal
challenges, FAA increased its outreach efforts. For example, at
locations where PBN was first implemented, FAA only conducted
briefings with airport officials. Later, FAA expanded its
outreach to members of the public, including holding public
workshops and webinars.
However, community stakeholders across the country told us
that the information the FAA provided on potential noise
impacts was not clear enough to understand planned changes. In
particular, our analysis showed that the metric FAA uses to
assess noise impacts does not provide a clear picture of how
changes in flightpaths or activity may affect noise levels at a
given location.
This metric, the day-night average sound level, or DNL,
takes into account multiple components of aircraft noise to
create a single metric. Because of this, the same DNL level may
be associated with vastly different numbers of flights at a
given location. For example, small numbers of relatively loud
operations can result in the same DNL as large numbers of
quieter operations.
Because FAA relies on DNL for communicating noise impacts,
communities may not have the information needed to understand
how the number of flights over each location will change. After
implementing PBN, FAA primarily conducts outreach through
community forums established to address the noise concerns and
provide some guidance on this outreach. However, some forums
are unclear on how to engage productively with FAA and the
extent to which they could expect FAA assistance in proposing
changes or other measures to address noise concerns.
To address these various issues, we have recommended that
FAA, one, identify additional metrics for assessing noise
impacts of new flightpaths; two, use additional tools to
clearly convey expected impacts; and three, improve guidance
for communities on effectively engaging with FAA. FAA concurred
with our recommendations, and told us that they plan to act on
them by the end of this year.
Taking actions like these will also be critical as aircraft
operations evolve and increase. In particular, emerging
technologies such as electric aircraft may present
opportunities to reduce noise with quieter operations, but they
could also present new noise challenges if they operate at a
higher frequency and closer to populations.
In closing, FAA has an ongoing responsibility to balance
the growing demand for aviation capacity against their noise
effects on communities. Although FAA is unlikely to eliminate
all noise concerns, improved information, expectations, and
communication will enable communities, airports, airlines, and
FAA to better anticipate and more meaningfully engage on noise
issues.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering
your questions.
[Ms. Krause's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Heather Krause, Director, Physical
Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Aircraft Noise: FAA Should Improve Efforts To Address Community
Concerns
Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on our body of work
related to aircraft noise. While airports provide access to
transportation for millions of people each day, aircraft noise can be
disruptive to communities. It can potentially expose residents to a
variety of negative effects, such as disrupted sleep and increased risk
for cardiovascular disease,\1\ and spur community objections to airport
operations and continued growth. Despite trends toward increasingly
quieter airplanes, community concerns about noise have persisted,
particularly with regard to changing flight paths around airports as
part of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) efforts to
modernize the national airspace. Moreover, new entrants to the national
airspace--such as uncrewed aircraft systems, commonly known as drones--
may further contribute to challenges with aviation noise issues. In
coordination with stakeholders, FAA works to address noise concerns by
conducting research on aircraft noise impacts, ensuring that aircraft
meet federal noise standards, overseeing and funding airport noise
mitigation projects, and conducting community outreach related to
potential noise effects of proposed changes to the national airspace,
among other efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ M. Basner, C. Clark, A. Hansell, J. I. Hileman, S. Janssen, K.
Shepherd, and V. Sparrow, ``Aviation Noise Impacts: State of the
Science,'' Noise & Health, vol. 19, no. 87 (2017) 41-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today is based largely on reports we issued in 2020
and 2021 related to aircraft noise.\2\ Specifically, this testimony
primarily describes: (1) the transition of the U.S.-based commercial
fleet to quieter airplanes and (2) FAA efforts to engage with
communities to understand and address aircraft noise concerns. To
conduct our prior work, we reviewed relevant statutes and regulations.
We also reviewed FAA documents on its application of aircraft noise
standards, environmental impact analysis and community engagement
practices in relation to the agency's implementation of performance-
based navigation (PBN).\3\ We interviewed FAA officials and a range of
industry and community stakeholders to discuss their perspectives on
the impacts of aircraft noise and efforts to address it. More detailed
information on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in
each of the reports. For this statement we collected and reviewed
updated information from FAA on its efforts to implement
recommendations we made in our 2021 reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See AIRCRAFT NOISE: Information on a Potential Mandated
Transition to Quieter Airplanes, GAO-20-661 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20,
2020); AIRCRAFT NOISE: Better Information Sharing Could Improve
Responses to Washington, D.C. Area Helicopter Noise Concerns, GAO-21-
200 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 2021); and AIRCRAFT NOISE: FAA Could
Improve Outreach through Enhanced Noise Metrics, Communication, and
Support to Communities, GAO-21-103933 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28,
2021).
\3\ Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) involves making changes to
existing flight procedures (that is, paths for planes to fly through
the air using pre-determined flight maneuvers) to transition from a
ground-based air traffic control system to one that uses satellite
navigation. PBN procedures enable aircraft to fly a particular flight
path more precisely, so aircraft will be closer to the ``center line''
of a flight path than when using conventional navigation procedures.
Our work for GAO-21-103933 focused on PBN implementation at both
metroplex projects (major metropolitan areas with multiple airports and
complex air traffic patterns for which FAA has redesigned the airspace
and deployed PBN procedures for several airports concurrently) and
single-site airports (individual airports for which FAA has designed
PBN procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted the work on which this testimony is based in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on audit objectives. We believe the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
FAA has an ongoing responsibility to balance the growing demand for
aviation capacity against the environmental concerns and effects on
communities caused by aircraft noise, whether that noise is caused by
airplanes, helicopters, or new entrants to the national airspace. To
address these concerns, FAA regulates aircraft noise by ensuring
compliance with relevant noise standards through its aircraft
certification process. FAA is also charged with implementing and
enforcing limitations on the noise-related restrictions airports may
place on aircraft operations (such as limiting certain types of planes)
as well as noise standards for airports' noise mitigation projects that
can receive federal funding.\4\ FAA administers two programs--the
Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge program--that
may fund airports' noise mitigation projects, including sound
insulation of homes and other buildings near airports as well as land
acquisitions. We last reported on these programs in 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FAA administers Airport Noise and Access Restrictions (14 CFR
Part 161) and Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (14 CFR Part 150).
Part 161 requires that certain airport operators receive approval from
FAA to implement noise restrictions related to certain aircraft.
Through the Part 150 program, FAA provides guidance to airports on the
types of land uses that are incompatible with certain levels of airport
noise and provides a process for airports to develop noise
compatibility programs to reduce and prevent such uses. Airports that
participate in this voluntary program can receive funding from FAA
through the Airport Improvement Program for noise mitigation projects
such as soundproofing buildings.
\5\ GAO, AIRPORT NOISE GRANTS: FAA Needs to Better Ensure Project
Eligibility and Improve Strategic Goal and Performance Measures, GAO-
12-890 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to FAA, airports, airlines, and other stakeholders have
a role in addressing aircraft noise. For instance:
Most airports are owned and operated by public
authorities, such as cities, counties, or port authorities, which have
primary responsibility for addressing community concerns about noise.
Airports help FAA identify noise sensitive communities as well as
participate in mitigation efforts such as funding the installation of
sound insulation in homes and buildings exposed to significant aircraft
noise. Also, collecting and addressing noise complaints is a shared
responsibility between FAA and the airport authorities. Airport
authorities generally do not have control over many of the causes of
aviation noise such as the types of aircraft in service and traffic
volume (generally controlled by airlines) or flight paths (generally
controlled by FAA, in coordination with airlines).
Airlines have a role in addressing aircraft noise
concerns by, for example, coordinating with airports and FAA air
traffic controllers to participate in voluntary airport noise abatement
procedures or by transitioning their fleets to include newer, quieter
aircraft.
FAA has collaborated with helicopter industry groups to
develop and update ``Fly Neighborly'' procedures and guidance, a
voluntary set of guidelines that identify helicopter noise mitigation
practices.
Most Commercial Airplanes Are Quieter Than Required
FAA issues what is known as a ``type certificate'' as part of a
certification process for new aircraft designs to signify that the
design is in compliance with applicable airworthiness, noise, and other
standards. Airplanes are certificated to the noise standards that were
in effect at the time of the type certificate application. In August
2020 we reported that, based on FAA data and GAO estimates, most U.S.
large commercial jet airplanes were certificated at the minimum
required stage 3 noise standards, but nearly all of them would be able
to meet more stringent noise standards.\6\ By analyzing January 2020
data from airlines and aviation manufacturers, we estimated that 96
percent of large commercial airplanes were manufactured with
technologies that are able to meet more recent and stringent stage 4 or
5 standards. According to FAA officials and aviation stakeholders we
interviewed, the primary reason many large commercial airplanes
certificated as stage 3 produce lower than stage 3 noise levels is
because engine and airframe technology has outpaced the implementation
of noise standards. More recently, in response to the decrease in
travel amid the COVID-19 pandemic, some airlines have accelerated
retirement of certain airplanes, some of which are certificated as
stage 3. For example, one airline told us it is retiring its MD-88
fleet--which constitutes the majority of its remaining stage 3 fleet--
and MD-90 fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See GAO-20-661. FAA classifies airplanes that meet the various
noise standards into 5 stages. Airplanes classified as stages 1 and 2
(the noisiest aircraft) have been prohibited by regulation and statute
respectively from operating in the United States. Airplanes operating
today in the United States--classified as stages 3, 4, or 5--are much
quieter. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 required large jet
airplanes to comply with stage 3 noise standards by 1999, leading to a
phase-out of the noisiest airplanes (stage 1 and 2 airplanes). Pub. L.
No. 101-508, Sec. 9308, 104 Stat. 1388. Additionally, in 2013, FAA
promulgated a rule in response to Section 506 of the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 that required smaller airplanes to comply with
stage 3 standards by 2016. Adoption of Statutory Prohibition on the
Operation of Jets Weighing 75,000 Pounds or Less That Are Not Stage 3
Noise Compliant, 78 Fed. Reg. 39576 (July 2, 2013) (codified at 14
C.F.R. Sec. 91.881); FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L.
No. 112-95, Sec. 506, 126 Stat. 11, 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders we interviewed generally agreed that a government-
mandated transition (i.e. phase-out) of stage 3 airplanes would not
substantially reduce airport noise and could be costly and challenging.
Since most U.S. large commercial jet airplanes are certificated at the
minimum required stage 3 noise standards, a phase-out could require
recertificating them to comply with stage 4 or 5 standards. This
process could be costly for operators and manufacturers but would
provide little reduction in noise since we found that nearly all of
those aircraft already meet the more stringent noise standards.
Further, airplanes currently unable to meet more stringent standards
would require modifications or face retirement. For older airplanes
that could not be recertificated to meet stage 4 or 5 standards, some
operators could incur costs for replacement airplanes sooner than
originally planned. Although stakeholders indicated that a phase-out
would not substantially reduce noise, they identified other limited
benefits newer airplanes generate, such as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption.\7\ In addition, some stakeholders noted
that factors other than noise from stage 3 airplanes are key
contributors to airport noise in recent years. Such factors include a
large increase in the number and frequency of flights at some
commercial airports in recent years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and
changes to flight paths raising community noise concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ At the time of our 2020 report, the U.S. commercial airplane
fleet was younger and quieter when compared to the last time the
federal government mandated a transition to quieter aircraft. For
example, according to February 2020 data we reviewed for passenger and
cargo airlines, the average age of the passenger airplane fleet was
approximately 12 years, and for the cargo fleet, about 21 years. In
comparison, in 2001, we reported that the average age of passenger and
cargo airplane fleet was approximately 26 and 31 years old,
respectively. See GAO-20-661.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking to the future, emerging technologies may present
opportunities to further reduce aircraft noise. For example, as we
reported in November 2020, companies are developing innovative new
aircraft designs, including electrically powered aircraft and aircraft
with vertical takeoff and landing capabilities.\8\ Among these
potential future developments is the concept of advanced air mobility,
which is expected to take advantage of the potential lower operating
costs of electrified aircraft in support of moving people and cargo
more quickly between local, regional, and urban places. According to
FAA, significant technological improvements are expected to enable
electrically powered aircraft that will reduce noise traditionally
associated with helicopter transportation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GAO, AVIATION CERTIFICATION: FAA Needs to Strengthen Its Design
Review Process for Small Airplanes, GAO-21-85 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
16, 2020).
\9\ Federal Aviation Administration, Concept of Operations, v1.0:
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Information and Communication Could Help FAA Better
Understand Noise Impacts and Engage With Communities
As directed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, FAA
has continued modernizing the national airspace through NextGen, a
multi-billion dollar effort to implement technologies and capabilities,
including PBN, which relies on satellite navigation.\10\ PBN is
intended to allow aircraft to fly more precise flight paths intended to
reduce flying time, fuel use, and emissions. The precision and
predictability of PBN procedures increase safety and may allow more
planes to safely fly in a given airspace at the same time or in closer
succession, which in turn would allow for increased airspace capacity
if demand increases. However, because PBN flight procedures are more
precise, noise is likely to be concentrated over a smaller area. As a
result, while fewer communities overall may experience noise, those
communities directly under new PBN flight paths may experience more
frequent noise. Community concerns about increased noise after PBN
implementation, among other factors, have led to legal challenges and
delays, reducing the realized benefits of PBN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. No. 112-95, Sec. 213, 126 Stat. 11, 46-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we reported in 2021, using additional metrics to assess the
potential noise impacts of proposed PBN flight path changes may provide
FAA with a better understanding of such impacts.\11\ Currently, FAA
assesses the potential noise impact of proposed flight path changes
(such as PBN procedures) on locations within the area surrounding an
airport by using the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric.\12\
Our analysis showed that because DNL takes into account both the amount
of noise from each aircraft operation, as well as the average annual
flights per day at a given location, the same DNL may be associated
with vastly different numbers of flights above that location. As such,
DNL does not provide a clear picture of the flight activity or
associated noise levels at a given location. For example, as shown in
figure 1, 100 flights per day can yield the same DNL as one flight per
day at a higher decibel level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See GAO-21-103933.
\12\ DNL is expressed in decibels (dB), which measure the intensity
(or loudness) of a sound. The higher the decibel level, the more
intense the sound, and the louder it will be perceived. The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, implementing
regulations, and FAA's implementing Order require FAA to examine the
potential impacts associated with a major federal action, including
potential noise impacts. As a result, operational changes, such as
changes to flight paths, as well as airport development proposals, such
as adding new runways or otherwise expanding capacity, must be reviewed
to identify potential noise effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: Different Numbers of Flights and Sound Exposure Levels Result
in a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) of 65 Decibels

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Aviation Administration information.
GAO-22-105844

Note: Sound exposure level (SEL) is a measure of the acoustic energy
(that is, the sound pressure) of an individual noise event as if that
event had occurred within a one-second time period.

\a\ Decibel (dB): A measure of sound intensity, or loudness.

\b\ Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL): A cumulative measure of
aircraft noise exposure at a particular location.

This analysis as well as recent research published by FAA
demonstrate the limitations of FAA relying solely on DNL to identify
potential noise impacts. In January 2021, FAA issued the results of a
survey showing a substantial increase in the percentage of people who
are highly annoyed by aircraft noise, including at lower DNL levels, as
compared to earlier survey results. According to FAA, one factor that
may have contributed to this increase is changes to the nature of noise
exposure, such as changes to the number of flights overhead. Since no
single metric can convey different noise effects, using additional
metrics--such as changes in number of flights overhead--in designing
proposed flight paths could help FAA identify and address potential
noise concerns and better facilitate PBN implementation. We recommended
that FAA identify appropriate supplemental noise metrics and
circumstances for their use to aid in FAA's internal assessments of
noise impacts related to proposed PBN flight path changes. As of March
2022, FAA said it is conducting a noise policy review and plans to
consider whether and under what circumstances supplemental, companion,
or alternative noise metrics are appropriate to inform research and
policy considerations. FAA plans to complete their initial noise policy
review by the end of 2022.
Over time, FAA has increased its community outreach efforts through
the PBN implementation process. For example, at locations where PBN was
implemented first, FAA only conducted briefings with airport officials.
For later locations, however, FAA started to conduct more outreach with
members of the public, including public workshops and webinars among
other outreach activities. However, FAA could improve the public
outreach it conducts prior to implementing PBN procedures. We reported
that most community stakeholders said the information FAA provided on
potential noise impacts during outreach efforts throughout the PBN-
implementation process was not clear enough to understand the planned
changes. For instance, because FAA described the impacts in terms of
DNL, communities may not have had the information needed to understand
how the number of flights over each location was expected to change. We
recommended that FAA update guidance to incorporate additional
communication tools that more clearly convey expected impacts, such as
other noise metrics and visualization tools related to proposed PBN
implementation. As of March 2022, FAA said it plans to update guidance
on community outreach by the end of 2022.
FAA has also faced challenges in its outreach after implementation
of PBN procedures. After implementing PBN, FAA primarily conducted
outreach through community forums established to address noise
concerns. However, members of some forums we spoke with were frustrated
and unclear on how to productively engage with FAA to address noise
concerns. FAA had provided some public guidance on this process, but it
was unclear about the extent to which communities could expect
assistance from FAA in proposing changes to flight paths that cause
noise concerns. For example, FAA's guidance advises that FAA's Air
Traffic Organization can provide technical expertise on airspace
procedural design when requested, but is unclear about the extent of
the assistance available. We recommended that FAA provide clearer
information to airports and communities on what communities can expect
from FAA related to post-implementation outreach, including the
technical assistance FAA can provide. As of March 2022, FAA said it
plans to develop an appropriate process and post-implementation
outreach tools by the end of 2022.
In addition to its PBN-related outreach, FAA has established
positions within regional offices and headquarters to collect and
respond to community complaints about aircraft noise. Within the Office
of Policy, International Affairs, and Environment, the Aviation Noise
Ombudsman serves as a public liaison for questions and complaints
related to aircraft noise.\13\ Additionally, in response to a
requirement in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, FAA established the
Community Engagement Officer position within each of FAA's nine
regional offices to serve as a regional ombudsman and coordinate public
outreach with the appropriate FAA officials.\14\ As we reported in
2021, FAA officials told us the agency seeks to respond to and address
the noise complaints it receives, and complaints are generally
forwarded to the appropriate regional offices.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Ombudsman was established by the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-264, Sec. 1210, 110 Stat.
3213 (codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 106(q)).
\14\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 required FAA to designate
a regional ombudsman for each of FAA's regions. Pub. L. No. 115-254,
Sec. 180, 132 Stat. 3186, 3230. In addition to the regional noise
ombudsmen, FAA also has a noise ombudsman, which is a separate national
position that serves as a liaison with the public on issues regarding
aircraft noise. FAA has also formed a Noise Complaint Initiative group
consisting of representatives from across FAA with the goal of more
efficiently and effectively responding to and addressing noise
complaints.
\15\ For additional information, see GAO-21-103933 regarding the
handling of noise complaints related to airports and GAO-21-200
regarding the handling of noise complaints related to helicopters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related to helicopter noise complaints in particular, in 2021 we
reported how FAA and industry stakeholders collect and respond to
helicopter noise concerns in the Washington, D.C. area.\16\ According
to FAA data for 2017 through 2019, over 50 helicopter operators
conducted approximately 88,000 helicopter flights within the D.C. area,
though limited data on noise from these flights existed.\17\ While FAA
and operators reported taking steps to address public concerns on
helicopter noise in the D.C. area, the ability of FAA and operators to
address noise issues in the D.C. area was impeded because they did not
consistently or fully share the information needed to do so. FAA
receives and responds to complaints on helicopter noise from the public
through its Noise Ombudsman and had recently developed online forms
that improved FAA's ability to identify and respond to helicopter noise
issues. However, according to nearly all of the 18 operators we
interviewed, FAA had not communicated with them about helicopter noise
or forwarded complaints to them. According to FAA, this was due to
limitations on personally identifiable information on complainants that
FAA can disclose to private operators. Similarly, operators often
received noise complaints from the public that were not directed to the
correct operator, but they did not typically share these complaints
with FAA. As a result, operators had not consistently responded to
residents' inquiries about helicopter noise and activity. For example,
Fairfax County Police Department officials estimated that over 80
percent of noise complaints they received were unrelated to their
flights, and thus they were unable to determine the source of the noise
that spurred the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See GAO-21-200.
\17\ The D.C. area was defined in our report as the area within 30
miles of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended FAA develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise
information with operators in the D.C. area. As of March 2022, FAA
officials said they were working to identify a mechanism to share
complaint data with helicopter operators in the area. FAA officials
also stated that they plan to conduct quarterly meetings in the area
with local helicopter operators to examine trends in helicopter
complaint data and discuss helicopter noise mitigation efforts. FAA
officials said they plan to begin holding and facilitating these
meetings in spring 2022. Although our work related to helicopter noise
focused on the Washington D.C. area, other cities may experience
similar concerns about heavy helicopter traffic and, in general,
seeking to increase communication among FAA, operators, and
stakeholders may assist in addressing their concerns.
As FAA continues in its efforts to expand the use and types of
uncrewed aircraft systems and other emerging technologies into the
national airspace system, these new aircraft could present new noise
challenges. For example, electric take-off and landing vehicles have
the potential for quieter operations but may also operate closer to
populations and raise new concerns for communities. FAA stated in 2020
that stakeholder concerns about noise will need to be considered when
designing corridors (defined airspace) where these aircraft might
operate.\18\ In addition, continued growth in commercial space launches
is expected, but as we reported in 2020, stakeholders have expressed
concerns that FAA's process for licensing launch sites may not
adequately consider combined noise effects of commercial space
activities with aviation activities on surrounding communities.\19\
Assessing and addressing community noise concerns will be critical as
the nature and extent of aircraft operations continues to evolve and
increase. Fully implementing our prior recommendations can help FAA
more effectively understand the effects of aircraft noise and address
community concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Federal Aviation Administration, Concept of Operations, v1.0:
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2020).
\19\ GAO, COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION: FAA Should Examine a
Range of Options to Support U.S. Launch Infrastructure, GAO-21-154
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much for your
testimony. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I will
start with Member questions.
First off for Ms. Krause, in your report, your GAO report,
it references communities that feel the FAA is simply,
``checking a box'' in post-PBN implementation engagement, and
you recommend the FAA provide clearer information to
communities on what they can expect from the FAA. Is this a
problem of the engagement process, or is this an issue
internally in the FAA about the ability to incorporate input
from communities?
Ms. Krause. I think what we had found is that offering
clear expectations to communities on what they might get in
terms of assistance from FAA, and what that process should look
like. And so, that is where we had recommended to FAA to kind
of clarify what communities should expect and how that process
might work.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Mr. Welsh, what have you done
about that recommendation? And understanding that this might be
yours to answer or Ms. White or Mr. Hines.
Mr. Welsh. Yes, thank you. I will turn it to my colleague,
Beth White, for this question.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you.
Ms. White. Thank you for the question. Yes, one of the
things I think we are referring to is, really, the level of
expectation at the roundtable--through that roundtable process
with airports. And the recommendation was to provide some
clarity, really, on that. We were working on a form that we
have that we have on the website talking about resources, how
we best engage with roundtables, how we best engage through the
regional process. We have reached out through our community
engagement officers, through our regional administrators, and
updated some of that guidance on our website very recently.
It is a challenge in looking at each one of these
situations at a roundtable, what we may or may not be able to
do with each one of those organizations, but we are doing our
best to ensure that we kind of manage to the realm of the
possible. Heather just mentioned managing expectations. That is
where we are really starting, is trying to make sure folks
understand what we can and can't do, and continue to have a
dialogue.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, Ms. White, maybe this might
be for you. What role is the regional ombudsperson playing in
this outreach?
Ms. White. Thank you very much for that question. The
community engagement officer is also the regional ombudsman.
They have the designation of regional ombudsman.
And I want to first actually thank you, thank Congress for
the funding that is really a resource that we use here for
hiring those individuals. They have become the focal point for
our community engagement efforts.
In each one of the regions, there is a community engagement
officer in each region. They are the representative that works
with the airport noise officer. And if there is a leadership
position at an airport roundtable, they are responsible to be
the collection point for the discussion about what happens at
that roundtable, the concerns that may be raised by the
community, and we have restructured that process internally.
So, when we look at a new flight procedure or an airspace
change, that community engagement officer is part of that
process. They sit on that full working group, and they are
there to raise the concerns that they have heard in those
roundtable meetings and with those airports about community
concerns. And if there is a question about whether or not they
are not being heard, they have access to the regional
administrator, and they have access to me at headquarters to
help elevate the issue.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Back to Ms. Krause.
In your report, you discussed--I believe in your report,
you discussed identifying alternative metrics for sound,
creating sound envelopes and such. Are there alternative
metrics?
Ms. Krause. Yes, and the FAA had actually developed a
report identifying some of those alternative metrics. And our
recommendation is to--that no one metric is going to give a
full picture of the noise impacts, but that looking at DNL
along with some other metrics where appropriate could be
useful.
So, things like time above or flights above, to get a sense
of how much time folks are exposed to certain levels of noise,
or how many aircraft they are exposed to, as well as sound
level exposure. So, there are different metrics with different
tradeoffs to consider.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, Mr. Welsh, do you have
comments on that, and how FAA might approach those alternative
metrics?
Mr. Welsh. Yes. And actually, I really agree with the
comments that my colleague from GAO just made, because, number
one, we currently today can use supplemental metrics and do.
And number two, as we have talked about today, the increased
concentration and number of flights has sort of changed the
noise experience.
So, something like the number of flights above in a given
period of time may be a really important supplemental metric,
but I think most important is to underscore that all of these
metrics have tradeoffs. The current DNL metric absolutely has
tradeoffs, but the other metrics do, as well. So, in our
current noise policy review, these are the types of things that
we are looking at to make a recommendation on how to proceed.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great, thank you. I am going to
just turn my mic off for a moment and get direction on who is
going to be next on Q&A. Hold on a second.
[Discussion off the record.]
All right, great. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member
Representative Graves of Louisiana.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the witnesses for being with us today.
Mr. Welsh, the FAA has a very complicated task and, again,
has an impressive safety record in regard to just the number of
accidents and incidents, the safest way to travel. The FAA is
really charged with, I guess, the safety and the efficiency of
the National Airspace System.
Mitigating noise is something that you look at, and you
diligently work to mitigate that, but can you talk about sort
of the core mission of the FAA in regard to efficiency and
safety, and sort of how that is your top mission?
Mr. Welsh. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member Graves,
absolutely.
Without question, that core mission of safety is the top
priority of the agency. And so, when it comes to particular
noise procedures, we are not going to trade off any amount of
safety for noise.
That said, in many cases, we really can--we can--the gains
can go hand in hand. But when we are talking about maybe it
being more challenging today to identify improvements, it is
because we are talking about greatly increased numbers of
flights in very complex airspace. And there are safety issues
to be considered, and maybe ones that are not obvious to the
general public.
So, these are things that we take into account, and we work
very carefully when we are looking at any changes to address
noise considerations because, absolutely, safety is our mission
and our top priority. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, and you touched on this
a little bit, both in the chair's question and the one I just
asked you, but I first need to put those statistics I gave
earlier in the right context. I put them in the wrong context
earlier. So, they were--in 1970 there were 7 million folks that
were exposed to high levels of aviation noise, and that was
reduced to 430,000 in 2018.
Can you talk a little bit--and again, I know you touched on
this a bit, but directly can you touch on the tools that the
FAA has used to have such a profound reduction in the number of
people exposed to high levels of noise whenever you have had an
extraordinary increase in the total number of flights during
the same time?
Mr. Welsh. Yes. So, by far and away, the number-one reason
for that reduction over time is the improvement in technology.
With every generation of aircraft and engine, we see noise
improvements, although, again, it is becoming more limited and
more challenging as we proceed.
Number two, noise abatement operational procedures that are
in place around the country.
And three, really importantly, the Noise Compatibility
Program run by FAA's Office of Airports that I mentioned, as
well.
Those are really some of the three--the big components. And
then, of course, along with all of this, kind of working with
communities, particularly in the last years, on ways to further
mitigate noise exposure.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
Ms. Krause, looking forward, I talked in the opening
statement, as did the chair, about incredible technologies in
aviation space, UAS and AAM. Considering the metrics, or sort
of the data points that we use now to measure noise impacts,
what do we need to be thinking about moving forward on how that
needs to change reflecting new technology?
Ms. Krause. In terms of new technology, I think thinking
ahead and better--now, better understanding the types of noise
this technology might create, and the types of impacts, because
they will be--if projected as the industry is talking about,
could be operating at a much higher frequency and closer to
population.
So, I think, first, understanding what types of noise that
they create and the noise impacts, and then having that inform
sort of standards and development of where these aircraft will
operate.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. I want to go back to
the FAA, to Mr. Welsh for just a minute.
Mr. Welsh, I was looking at some of the other data I
mentioned in my opening statement about the military's working
with the Washington area on the helicopter flights, looking at
National Airport, at Ronald Reagan National Airport. In 2019,
two complainers accounted for 22.3 percent of all the
complaints. That was in excess of 20,000 complaints a day,
which is in excess of 50--excuse me, 20,000 complaints over the
year, in excess of 50 complaints a day. I am not sure what
these people do for work, but I am curious.
I understand the FAA didn't collect the data points, and
doesn't oversee military operations. How do you use the noise
complaint data to inform your role in mitigating noise, and do
some of these outlier complaints that I referenced in my
opening statement and now, does that obscure the work?
Mr. Welsh. So, first of all, in the data that we collect,
we see a similar trend. About roughly 45 to 50 percent of the
complaints are repeat complaints from the same individuals.
However, our primary reason for taking--we take these
complaints and respond to them, so--to provide information
where we can to address the concerns. So, that is our kind of
number-one role we use. And now that we have this noise portal
system that I mentioned, where we can better track the data, we
are not using that to necessarily make policy changes based on
any individual complaints, but we will use it to look at trends
over time, or maybe identify hotspots if we do see a spike in
concerns in a particular area.
So, the idea would be to use it over time, to kind of
consider trends. But it is not really the primary driver of our
policy, particularly given some of the issues that you pointed
out.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Welsh.
I yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. The Chair recognizes the chair of
the full committee, Representative DeFazio of Oregon, for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Welsh, can you give us an example of where community
engagement has gotten proposed changes enacted to mitigate
problems in a particular community?
Mr. Welsh. Yes. Thank you, Chair. I will turn this to my
colleague, Beth White.
Ms. White. Thank you for the question, Representative
DeFazio.
We have had pretty meaningful engagement on a number of
different fronts with different communities. And I can actually
point to some successes in San Francisco, Oakland area, and the
L.A. Basin, and most specifically San Diego just recently,
talking to the airport there. They worked collaboratively with
stakeholders and the FAA and developed some solutions to some
challenges, noise challenges, in the area.
I would say that in not every instance is there a
possibility for there to be a solution. We have all mentioned
that we are not removing noise, we are moving noise. So, in
some instances there are the operational opportunity to move a
flightpath, move a waypoint, adjust the procedure in a way that
doesn't affect the safety and efficiency of the operation. But
just because we don't have that opportunity in every area, it
doesn't mean we are ceasing that engagement. And we remain
optimistic that there may be things as we evolve, too, that may
change that equation.
I think, really, what we are seeing is, the best way
forward is getting the communities and the airports and others
engaged in the process when it begins. So, not going back and
trying to deconstruct an existing flightpath, but having that
meaningful engagement on the front end of a project.
And we are really seeing that with the metroplex efforts in
south central Florida, and some of the ones that came along at
the end of our new enhanced community engagement. We have, in
almost each instance in Florida, we have areas where the
community brought to us as part of the process, working with
the airport or, again, community roundtables, we were able to
incorporate positive flight changes that impacted the community
in a positive way.
So, I think that is really where we really want to head
strategically in the future, is working with the front end of
the project to engage more with the community prior to it
getting to a design and implementation.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, that seems like some progress.
Looking at, Ms. Krause, your testimony and your graphics, I
find it is really extraordinary on page 7, how it seems to me
that the DNL is really a pretty indiscriminate measure when you
see--you can meet the standards with--have got one really loud
plane--I can't even count on the bottom graph. I guess it is
1,000 at 84.4 decibels, but because of the dispersal you still
meet 65 decibels. This seems to really cry out for a new
measurement, a new way of measuring things.
Ms. Krause. Yes, and that is why we are recommending the
FAA consider additional supplemental metrics to DNL.
I mean, changing DNL, as FAA is talking about reviewing,
would have some implications to consider in terms of whether
you change the metrics or change the threshold. There is
regulatory and sort of budget considerations.
But regardless, we think, no one metric really does give a
full picture. And so, other metrics, as we were talking about
in terms of looking at the number of flights above, or the time
above in terms of exposed to certain thresholds of noise,
looking at a number of metrics will give communities a better
understanding, and FAA a better understanding of potential
impacts.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And you also were somewhat critical of the
engagement. We have been hearing about improved engagement,
forward engagement, pre-engagement before developing routes.
Have you seen that progress?
Ms. Krause. In terms of following up on our recommendation,
I know FAA has said that they are looking to update some of
their guidance on the additional tools and information that
might be available by the end of the year. So, we look forward
to taking a look at those steps that they are taking in
response to our recommendations.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. I will now turn to
Representative Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
[No response.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Just waiting on Representative
Fitzpatrick. All right.
[No response.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right.
Representative Van Duyne.
[No response.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. OK.
Representative Steel.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Go ahead.
Mrs. Steel. Great. The residents of Orange County and of my
district care a lot about our airports. In addition to the
convenience of having a world-class airport close to home, my
constituents are also deeply concerned about the impacts noise
and pollution have on our community.
Today I want to focus, as I have before, on the need for
greater community engagement by the FAA with our constituents
who are most impacted by airport noise. And we went through all
these hearings with the FAA for a long time going through the
metroplex implementation.
FAA has limited the community engagement officer's
interactions to only interacting with the communities that have
formed a formal roundtable. This means many in my district are
excluded from working on solutions.
Mr. Welsh, it is my understanding that the law currently
does not limit how the FAA ombudsman offices interact with
local communities to address their concerns. Communities in my
district have shared with me that FAA ombudsmen are not
engaging with their communities outside of a formal roundtable.
What does the FAA need to help fuel these critical
conversations at the local level in a timely fashion?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative Steel. I am going to
hand this to Beth White.
Ms. White. Thank you, Representative Steel. Yes. In looking
at communities around airports, we have found that it is the
most effective way to use the historical place for communities
to talk. And that is usually an airport and an airport-
sponsored roundtable. And that is really because each
individual community may have a desire to have a plane in one
area versus another. It doesn't become that larger consensus
conversation that the community is making a decision, it would
be an individual community.
Now, I understand that the Orange County John Wayne Airport
does not have a roundtable. That does not preclude the
communities to bring a proposal--if they would like to see
something addressed--to the airport, and the airport can bring
it to us if that roundtable does not exist.
I will tell you that we were very successful in northern
California in putting together and producing a community forum
to talk about, in a post-metroplex world, how the operations
are working, bring the stakeholders together, and then have a
question-and-answer period to talk about what we might be able
to do. We have had discussions about a similar type of meeting
in southern California, which would allow questions and answers
on these issues with your constituents. We are confirming and
working with the community and the stakeholders now, but that
would be another alternative that we'd offer.
But meeting with individual communities doesn't have a
productive effect, because each community has a parochial
interest in where they would like to see the aircraft move.
Mrs. Steel. Ms. White, actually we have a roundtable with
city council members from Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, the city
of Santa Ana and Tustin. So, we are having--it is not just one
community meet the groups, but this is a roundtable that--you
know, constantly asking. But those meetings have been very hard
to set up, except it has to go through my office to do it. When
I was supervisor, we used to try to have a meeting, and then we
had one meeting since I came to Congress.
So, you know what? Let's have a little more discussion
after this hearing. I would love to talk to you, and I would
love to introduce you to the roundtable if you don't know
anything about it.
And then how can Congress improve the Office of Ombudsman
to truly make them community engagement officers?
Ms. White. Well, the community engagement officers, as I
mentioned before, are an integral part of our team. They are
the central focal point for all of the issues. And they
coordinate with our Air Traffic Organization, they coordinate
with our Airport District Offices, our Office of
Communications, our regional administrators, our service
centers. They are the point in bringing the issues that they
see in the community and through their engagement back to the
team.
They work, again, as I mentioned, with each one of the
regions. They report up and make sure I am aware of issues so I
can bring those to the headquarters' attention. I feel like
they are really helping us integrate and increase our
engagement efforts.
Mrs. Steel. OK. So, you mean that you have officers that--
--
Mr. Larsen of Washington. The Representative's time has
expired, and you can follow up with Ms. White. We are going to
turn to Representative Carson of Indiana.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carson. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Just briefly--I am curious. Noise mitigation impact on air
traffic efficiency, our committee has strongly supported
efforts to improve the efficiency of air traffic management
with performance-based navigation. This has also improved fuel
efficiency and benefits to our environment. But I don't think
we adequately anticipated the increase in noise level with the
concentrated flightpaths.
How can noise mitigation be improved without diminished
effectiveness for the air traffic improvements, or even fuel
efficiency?
And where are the approaches that have worked well that
could be utilized in other locations?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative. That is a great
question, and also one of the more difficult questions that we
are currently addressing.
It is particularly regarding that tradeoff of efficiency
and noise procedures because we really do, when we look at
these issues, need to look at them on a case-by-case basis if
we are considering changing procedures to address noise
concerns.
So, I don't have a specific example for you right now.
Perhaps one of my colleagues does. But it is an area that we
are very focused on and that we actually--we review. We will
look at the fuel burn associated with changes. We will consider
those tradeoffs when we are looking at these procedures,
because, as you know, we are also very focused on opportunities
to continue to reduce emissions and fuel burn from flights
throughout the National Airspace System.
And I will just pause to see--I don't know if any of my
colleagues want to add anything to that.
[Pause.]
Mr. Welsh. OK, that is it. Thank you.
Mr. Carson. OK, second question: disproportionate impacts.
Many of my colleagues have pointed out, unfortunately, that
some of the communities impacted the most by the worst of these
noise problems are disadvantaged communities. Are noise
mitigation actions being carried out in a way that doesn't
double down on disproportionate impacts on disadvantaged
communities?
Mr. Welsh. Thanks, Representative Carson. That is also a
really good question. And I think I will start by saying, with
President Biden's top priority on environmental justice and
equity--and that really has flown down through the FAA--it is
one of the top focuses of our Deputy Administrator, Brad Mims.
And so, when we undertake environmental reviews, and work
on the issue of aircraft noise, we are absolutely focused on
how we can improve environmental justice and equity in those
decisions.
That is not to say that we are doing it perfectly, and that
there is not a lot of work to do. There is, in fact, yes,
absolutely, a lot of work to do to make this a more equitable
topic and to reduce impacts on disadvantaged communities. But
it is certainly among our top priorities, as we look at this
issue.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.
Thank you, Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
Representative Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question
for Mr. Welsh.
The Trenton-Mercer Airport. The flightpath is right over my
district, and my constituents are directly impacted by an
airport that is not even located in the State that I represent.
TTN is currently seeking FAA approval for an ``improvement
project.'' I believe that this is an expansion project because,
among other factors, it will make two outdoor and partially
used gates into two indoor, fully used gates, which will
clearly lead to a significant increase in traffic. This project
includes building a brandnew terminal building over existing
wetlands to house all four gates.
And obviously, my constituents, as am I, are rightfully
concerned about the increase in noise and environmental impacts
of this expansion. I believe that a cost-benefit analysis would
show that TTN's goal is to increase traffic.
So, my question, sir, for Mr. Welsh, why doesn't the FAA
require and publish a cost-benefit analysis for airport
projects?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative Fitzpatrick. I am
going to turn this to my colleague, Mike Hines, from the Office
of Airports.
Mr. Hines. Thank you for that question. Well, the FAA does
require a benefit-cost analysis for projects if the sponsor is
seeking funding in excess of $10 million for capacity projects.
We understand this project to be a replacement project, as
you said. And what we look at is what is the purpose of the
project, and is it justified. And it is our understanding that
this is a replacement terminal project, replacing what is
currently there, that it will meet the needs of the forecast
demand, which was included in the environmental assessment.
When you replace an old, aging facility, there are certain
requirements that have to be met for today's standards. For
example, the ADA, so the Americans with Disabilities Act
standards have to be met. So, there are provisions in the new
terminal for those. The Transportation Security Administration
guidelines have to--our standards have to be met. So, a lot of
times there is additional space just for those requirements.
We also understand that they are taking two aircraft that
are essentially operating on the apron, and putting them on a
contact gate. We think that does a couple of things: it
provides a higher level of service; it provides security and
safety for the passengers. Any time that you have--passengers
have to walk out of a terminal onto an apron and onto an air
stair, there are safety concerns for the passenger, and there
are certainly security concerns for the airport.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Hines, this project calls for making
two rarely used outdoor gates into fully operational internal
gates. So, would you agree that, by moving these two gates
indoors and making them fully operational, it can cause an
increase of annual [inaudible] in airport traffic?
Mr. Hines. So, the way we typically look at projects is we
will do the forecast, and is the project meeting the forecast
requirements. What you are talking about is induced demand, and
we believe that the forecasts that were developed for this
project are sound, and the facility that is being proposed will
meet those requirements.
The desire for an airline, rather, to fly into a certain
airport is a lot based on their business plan and, really,
where their routes are currently structured.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. TTN has submitted traffic numbers that do
not show their full growth over the last decade, another thing
I would like you to address. The FAA employment data cited that
this project uses 9 years of growing numbers plus 2020 figures
to hide the pattern of growth.
So, could you tell us why the FAA would allow 2020, an
outlier for air travel, to be included in the FAA forecasted
data?
Mr. Hines. Well, it was my understanding that the forecasts
were published in 2020 but used 2019 numbers. And, of course,
we saw a decline in numbers through COVID, and the numbers, at
least in the current draft, catch back up in a couple of years,
and show modest growth through the planning period.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Kahele of Hawaii for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves,
and thank you for leading this issue that is of critical
importance to my constituents here in Hawaii, which is aviation
safety, aviation noise, and environmental impacts.
Mr. Chairman, the number-one issue in Hawaii is helicopter
commercial air tour activities, and the associated noise
throughout the State, which has been a topic of legislative and
regulatory interest at both the Federal and State level for
over 30 years.
On the island of Hawaii in 2017, the Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park experienced 16,520 commercial air tours a year,
second only in the Nation to the Statue of Liberty. That is an
average of 46 air tours every single day, 365 days a year, over
one of the Nation's most treasured national parks.
I really believe that Americans that go to our beloved
national parks should be able to experience them in its quiet
and pristine condition. However, air tour management plans,
first passed by Congress in 2000, 22 years later have still not
been implemented in Haleakala National Park or Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park.
According to the FAA, there are a total of 49 air tour
operators conducting tours in the State of Hawaii. And at the
core of regulation in Hawaii is the Hawaii Air Tour Common
Procedures Manual and the air tour management plans over our
national parks.
My question is for Mr. Welsh.
The last time the Hawaii Air Tour Common Procedures Manual
was published was in August of 2008. It has lived beyond its
useful life, and needs to be updated by the local Flight
Standards District Office. There have been significant changes
to population density and land use since then, and I believe
that the FAA and our local FSDO need to implement new policies
and procedures for rotary-wing and commercial air tours,
because the current situation in Hawaii is unsustainable. So
far, there has been very limited community input and lack of
urgency in updating this manual.
So, my question is, can I get an update from you on both
the air tour management plan for Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
and Haleakala?
And do you have an update on the Hawaii Common Air Tour
Procedures Manual?
And moving forward, will I have your commitment in working
together with community organizations and neighborhood boards
here in Hawaii through the local Flight Standards District
Office to update new policies and procedures, and ensure that
they are not written exclusively by the local FSDO and air
operators?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative Kahele.
Just starting with the last one, yes, you have our
commitment on that score. As you mentioned, the Common
Procedures Manual is something that needs to be updated. And
the FAA's flight standards organization is planning to update
the procedures associated with that, and modernize how we do
that, and will absolutely include public engagement with the
communities in Hawaii before doing that, while doing that.
The second topic, on the air tour management plans, the FAA
and the National Park Service are currently developing air tour
management plans for 24 national parks. We expect to complete
approximately 12 to 15 of those by this summer. However, for
the parks in Hawaii, it will take a bit longer to do because of
the environmental considerations involved, the number of
operations, and considerations regarding Tribal engagement. So,
we are planning for that to take a little bit longer, but that
is in part due to, like I said, the level of helicopter traffic
there, and all of the stakeholder interest and consultations.
But we are hard at work on that, and we are very closely
working with the National Park Service on those air tour
management plans. Thank you.
Mr. Kahele. All right. Thanks, Mr. Welsh, I appreciate your
commitment on that.
And mahalo, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. I will now recognize
for 5 minutes the Representative from Minnesota, Representative
Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Larsen and Ranking Member
Graves, for holding this very important hearing today, and I
want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony.
I won't have any questions, but I just want to make a few
comments, and I agree with many of my colleagues today in the
sense that noise mitigation really is a community issue. It is
one that should be addressed at a local level, with the help of
Federal resources.
There are plenty of folks who will never be happy with any
amount of effort that industry, the community, or the airport
itself puts in to mitigate noise and disturbances.
However, I would like to highlight an airport in my
district that is truly doing it right. The Duluth International
Airport has been an outstanding member of the community, and a
proud home of the 148th Fighter Wing. They have been incredibly
engaged with the community and proactive in voluntarily
commissioning a part 150 noise study. This helped them identify
current and future noise impacts on the surrounding community,
and develop proactive solutions that support thriving air
commerce, are supported by the public, and enable the long-term
presence of the 148th Fighter Wing. After various public
workshops, numerous public advisory meetings, and engagement
with the surrounding localities, the Duluth International
Airport has cemented itself as a proactive and engaging partner
in our community.
This is all to say that airports and industry work really
hard to mitigate impacts to their neighbors. They are important
job creators to their regions, and we must continue to enable
them the freedom to work with their communities in ways that
fit their needs.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Representative. The
Chair now recognizes Representative Williams of Georgia for 5
minutes.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today,
y'all, I have people tuning in in my neighborhood in southwest
Atlanta and the cities of East Point and College Park to listen
to this discussion, because it is so critically important to
our communities.
Noise and other emissions from our transportation sector
are major issues in Georgia's Fifth Congressional District.
And, y'all, I know firsthand, because my house is close enough
to the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the
world's busiest and most efficient airport, that planes fly
over my neighborhood in southwest Atlanta every 60 seconds. I
have timed them, and they start before daybreak and continue
past midnight. So, noise issues are a big part of why I am the
``no neighborhood nuisance'' congresswoman.
Last month, I introduced bipartisan legislation to fund
sound barriers for neighborhoods in my district that have too
long had to deal with the highway noise. I am deeply committed
to cleaner and quieter skies, and I am working on legislation
with Chairman Larsen to benefit the communities where our
airports reside.
And today I am glad that we are bringing the critical issue
of aviation noise to the subcommittee, so that we can get the
answers we need to help all of us live peaceful lives in our
homes, no matter our zip code, and allowing our airports to
continue to thrive.
Mr. Welsh, as you know, the GAO recommended that FAA employ
additional communications tools to convey the impacts of noise
to communities. I understand the FAA plans to update their
guidance on community outreach by the end of the year. In the
meantime, has the FAA begun to identify communications tools or
key strategies for engagement?
And just let us know where things currently stand for
everyone that is tuning in back in my district in Atlanta.
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative Williams. I really
appreciate your comments on this topic. And I will say just a
couple of things and then hand it to my colleague, Beth White,
who focuses on this topic every day.
But we are certainly not waiting to do the updates of our
guidance. We are doing a lot of things in real time to help the
public. I mentioned the noise portal. We are responding to
complaints faster than we ever have before, with an average of
14 days' response. We have put new technology on our website to
make information more readily available, and of course, we are
engaging with communities all over the country.
So, I will turn it to Beth to maybe highlight a couple more
examples, but I really appreciate those comments.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you.
Ms. White. Yes, thank you, Representative. And I think
that--just highlighting again--the challenge is that when
people look out and see traffic on the road, they know exactly
what we are talking about. They can see the congestion, they
understand how things get into knots. When you are looking up
in the sky, it is a whole different situation.
So, really, for us, developing more effective tools to help
communicate how and why the National Airspace System works and
what the challenges and constraints are is so important.
And we are working, as Kevin mentioned, we are not waiting.
We are developing things that we are putting on our website. We
are creating webinars. We are creating other videos and
graphics that help us to do that. When we meet with
communities, we are very prescriptive in making graphics that
show what we are trying to visualize in ways that folks can
understand, seeing maps that have communities on them, or
roadways, or something that gives them that indication.
We have a very vast website. We just recently added an
artificial intelligence chat bot to help folks find those
questions, those answers quickly. Kevin mentioned the portal,
and we are working diligently to continue to have those updates
as fast as we can. But a constituent may have just a single
question. And if they go to our website, it might be difficult
to find that information.
So, we wanted to put that in place, not to be a barrier,
not to be a robot between us and the public, but to help them
find information that we may have there. We have added
frequently asked questions. We have links to a system that
actually visualizes and animates procedures so they can see
exactly where they fly.
That chat bot will be moving into Spanish in the next year
so we can, again, be more accessible to the community. And we
have visualization tools we are working on for the website to
even further help explain how and why the airspace operates,
which, I think, is the most important point, is effective
communication.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you. On this committee, we
must be doing all that we can to reduce aviation noise and
other emissions. And our next generation aircraft need to be
cleaner and quieter. Chairman Larsen and I are currently
working to update and introduce the House companion of the AERO
Act, which would invest in sustainable aviation fuel.
How would investments like this and investments in other
aircraft improvements ultimately benefit communities living by
our airports?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you. That is really exciting to hear, and
it is an area that we are very focused on in the Office of
Environment and Energy at FAA with the CLEEN Program that I
mentioned in my testimony. And these changes, technology
changes--as the aircraft enter the fleet with new technology,
we are talking about lower emissions and noise, and
improvements for the community.
And you mentioned sustainable aviation fuels, which are
perhaps one of the most promising developments, in terms of
utilizing existing infrastructure----
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Mr. Welsh, as exciting as this
topic is to me, I am out of time, and I am going to have to
continue this conversation offline and report back to my
district. Thank you so much for your time.
Mr. Welsh. Thank you.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yield back. The Chair recognizes
Representative Van Duyne of Texas for 5 minutes.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
agree. I mean, this can actually be a very exciting issue to
some, especially if you are living right outside the airport,
and you are affected by that noise. I was mayor of the city of
Irving; DFW Airport is right in the middle of the city. And I
can tell you, this is a really very important issue to a number
of people.
But airports are a critical economic driver, at the same
time, in many of our communities. And in my district, it is no
different. DFW Airport is actually one of the largest in the
world.
I understand the airport noise to be, predominantly, a
local issue. But it often involves multiple stakeholders who
have a distinctive authority and share responsibility
concerning noise reduction and mitigation. Being a member of
this community, it is important for all stakeholders to help
address these issues.
At DFW Airport last summer, the airport had to adjust
flightpaths on arrivals and departures, due to runway work.
Beforehand, the airport reached out to community members to
mitigate concerns and address the problem before all the
complaints could come in. So, if people were notified of it,
they knew. They knew that it was going to be short term, and
they knew why it was happening, and I think they were much more
accepting of it. And I think communication is key there.
I want to thank all of the panelists for being here, and I
have a question for Mr. Welsh.
The 2018 FAA reauthorization bill established aviation
noise ombudsmen to serve as a public liaison for questions and
complaints related to aircraft noise. Can you tell me what the
average response time is in addressing a community's concern or
issue?
Mr. Welsh. Sure. Thank you, Representative, for that
question.
I will just--as I just previously mentioned, in terms of
the complaints we receive, our average response time is about
14 days right now.
And then I will turn it to my colleague, Beth White, if she
has anything additional to add.
Ms. White. No, I would just say, again, in some of the
engagement then with the regions, whether it is the airport
roundtable, our teams are working on a daily basis in
communication with those roundtables, with those airports on
any upcoming agendas or meetings that they may be having.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK, I appreciate that.
In an August 2020 report, GAO noted that, for those stage 3
aircraft that could meet more stringent noise standards,
retesting of those aircraft without modifications could cost up
to $1 million and take between 2 to 3 years to complete. Does
the FAA have plans to make the retesting and recertification of
aircraft when no modifications are required--do you have plans
to make that more expedient?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you. We don't currently have plans to do
that, but the recertification, of course, wouldn't change the
absolute noise level. And what we have found is that those
stage 3 aircraft are increasingly in smaller numbers in the
fleet. So, actually, our efforts are really focused on making
sure that the latest technology gets into the fleet.
And in fact, just recently, at the International Civil
Aviation Organization, we worked on a commitment to look at the
existing noise standard, and consider updating it over the next
3 years.
Ms. Van Duyne. But is there any way that we could expedite
it to actually save?
I mean, some of it is bureaucracy. Some of it is the
regulatory redtape that we have got to work through. If you
don't have plans, I would suggest--I mean, it is one thing to
look at new technology coming in and to motivate that, but I
think, with the existing technology that we have, if there is a
way to expedite it, you might want to consider that.
Mr. Welsh. We will look into that.
Ms. Van Duyne. How accurate and reliable are FAA's noise
models?
Do the FAA's noise models have the capacity to accurately
assess noise from new airspace entrants, such as small and
large drones and electrically powered aircraft?
Mr. Welsh. So, we have an AEDT model that is very good at
addressing noise for conventional aircraft. But as you
mentioned, the new entrants, the new types, we need to improve
our tools, and we are in the process of doing that. And part of
that is understanding the noise that those vehicles make,
because, as we all know, these vehicles look different, they
sound different, they operate differently.
So, we are in the process, working very closely with
industry, on measuring noise and updating our tools to be able
to better understand their noise exposure.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK, I appreciate that.
Ms. Krause, could I ask you, how can the FAA prepare for
these new entrants when it comes to noise issues?
So, they are looking at it, but what specifically can they
do?
Ms. Krause. I think starting to understand and gather data
on the noise impacts of these aircraft as they get into
service, and there is data available, I think that will be
important, as well as starting to think through locations of
where these aircraft might operate, and how FAA might have a
role in where those are located. Those are some areas to
consider.
Ms. Van Duyne. All right, thank you.
I am not sure what my time is. I don't know if we started
it, but----
Mr. Larsen of Washington. It's right now.
Ms. Van Duyne. Excellent. All right, thank you very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks a lot.
The Chair recognizes Representative Payne of New Jersey for
5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Welsh, aviation noise is in populated areas. The
problem can seem like an unavoidable one, given airplane
flightpaths to airports. However, I understand that the FAA is
making progress in the implementation of NextGen, which would
upgrade the Nation's air traffic control systems to make use of
enhanced capabilities in GPS communications satellites.
The system can also take advantage of new population data
to identify new areas of concentrated populations.
How would routing planes to best avoid new population
centers reduce aviation noise, and how can advances in NextGen
be used to achieve that goal?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative Payne. So, there are
certainly opportunities to do so with the new technologies in
place, and looking at the impacts on communities.
As I mentioned, perhaps one of the most significant
challenges is the tradeoffs that happen in these dense urban
populated areas where we have noise trading off from one
community to the other. And so, over the last few years, we
have been working in Boston, for example, with the airport and
MIT on exactly that: evaluating how we can use existing
technology procedures and understanding of noise exposure to
make improvements and identifying specific solutions.
There are opportunities there, though it is important to
underscore that it is challenging, and there are a lot of
tradeoffs that need to be considered among all the
stakeholders.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
Ms. Krause, I understand that, as part of the aircraft
certification process, noise generated by airplane engines is
one of the criteria that is examined. From your testimony, it
appears that, while today's aircraft engines have the potential
to reduce noise, there is always room for advancement.
How could future aircraft engines be designed so that the
noise would be further dampened?
Ms. Krause. I think there are efforts underway to look at
electric engines, which hold some promise to addressing some of
the noise issues. But I think, in terms of the ways that
industry is talking about how those might be used, they could
be at a very high frequency and sort of closer to populations.
And so, as you are looking at some of those new
technologies, or how the aviation industry is transforming to
new and different uses, it will be important to engage with
affected communities and understand the impacts as they evolve.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. And in terms of the potential of
electrifying the engines and that technology, how far along, do
you have any idea?
Ms. Krause. There is some testing going on of vehicles now.
FAA may be able to speak to some of the actions they are taking
when it comes to standards and certification efforts.
Mr. Payne. OK, thank you.
And, Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Representative Payne.
The Chair recognizes Representative Lynch of Massachusetts for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Welsh, look, let me just say it is hard to reconcile
your testimony with the testimony of Ms. Krause, and I tend to
believe her.
As you know, I represent a big part of the city of Boston
and 21 towns and 2 other cities, Brockton and Quincy, in the
Eighth Congressional District in Massachusetts. And we have a
hellacious problem with aircraft noise in my district. And I
find it hard to believe that only 450,000 people across the
country have been complaining about aircraft noise. I think I
have got that many in my own district, just based on the calls
I get and the calls that go into Logan Airport.
And I just want to say, in terms of your outreach program,
with all due respect, the last FAA meeting that the FAA agreed
to do in my community, my district, we had about 800 people
show up, very angry about the nonresponsiveness of the FAA. So,
I don't want to be rude, but you have got a lot of work to do
in terms of doing real outreach and real listening to the
people that we all work for. And that is the truth.
I don't live next to--well, let's--my airport isn't as big
as Hartsfield-Jackson or Dallas-Fort Worth, but I live close
enough to the airport that I can tell whether the passengers
have their trays in the upright position. It goes right over my
home. But there is no hope for me, I live so close to the
airport. But there are a number of communities that are in the
suburban areas of my district, such as the town of Milton, that
it has become unbearable for many of the families there to
enjoy their yards and go outside. The noise is just
unbelievable and extremely unhealthy.
So, we are working with MIT to try to figure out some ways
to mitigate the damage. But the damage is being done, and noise
has become worse because of the NextGen RNAV system, which has
a vector that all these flights go over the same homes each and
every day, 365 days a year, and that is a system that you are
pushing.
And so, having looked at this--and I am a cochair of the
Quiet Skies Caucus, so I deal with this every single day--there
are things that you can do to help. And I like the idea of the
PBN and looking at case-by-case basis.
In my district, we are right on Boston Harbor. But the
layout of the runways, which was established back in the 1930s,
goes over the homes, not over the water. So, I have been trying
to convince the FAA that we can realign these runways so that
we maximize over-the-water landings and over-the-water takeoffs
to save the people from the harm that they are experiencing
right now. And I need your help on that.
When Logan Airport was laid out, there was very little air
traffic in the 1930s, compared to now. And the population
wasn't as densely settled. And the aircraft back then had very
low thrust, so they needed to take off into the wind. That was
much more important than today's situation.
So, I am just looking for some cooperation from the FAA to
deal with these problems. Come to my district, have a meeting
with us, we will go to Milton High School again. And I
guarantee you there will be at least 800 people waiting to talk
to you. But you have got to do much better with your outreach,
and we have got to be much more serious about--rather than just
waiting for new technology, we have answers that are available
now, but we have got to work together.
And we all work for these people, the public. The FAA has
been one of the most unresponsive public agencies that I deal
with and that my constituents deal with. And that is not a good
reputation for the FAA to have. So, I just ask you to--I have
consumed all my time, but you got to do better. You have got to
do better. And I will meet you halfway, but you have got to do
better. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Representative Lynch.
Just to make sure the FAA--I won't call on the FAA to
respond, but I want to make sure the FAA responds to Mr.
Lynch's offer.
Now I will recognize Representative Stanton of Arizona for
5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. During my
time as mayor of the city of Phoenix, the FAA unilaterally
altered flightpaths out of Sky Harbor International Airport.
This was done without proper notice or public outreach to the
city or to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Prior to those changes, the airport had fewer than 25 noise
complaints a year. With the altered flightpaths, air traffic
over city neighborhoods increased by 300 percent, and noise
complaints skyrocketed to 12,000 a year; ended land-use and
development decisions that I--as a member of city council and
mayor--and the city had made over decades based on the air
traffic routes that had been in place for decades.
Despite our best efforts to work with the FAA, we
eventually had no other choice than to fight these changes in
court. And we won. The court recognized the FAA's lack of
engagement with the city and the affected communities, and
noted that, ``The FAA found a potential for controversy, but
did not notify local citizens and community leaders of the
proposed changes as the agency was obligated to do so, much
less allow citizens and leaders to weigh in.'' This resulted in
the implementation agreement between the city, the historic
neighborhoods nearby the airport, and the FAA to return
departure routes to their pre-2004 locations.
Now, fast forward a few years. In October, the FAA regional
administrator for the Western Pacific region notified my office
that the FAA was considering possible changes to the procedures
at Sky Harbor, and that a working group was formed to study
concept related to the airspace. I have questions regarding
this issue.
Mr. Welsh, my understanding is that this working group will
not reopen or in any way alter the implementation agreement
with the city of Phoenix. Is that correct?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative Stanton. I do not know
the answer to that question today, so I would have to follow up
with you. I am not sure that my colleagues do either, but I
will turn it to Beth, in case she does have information.
Mr. Stanton. Can anyone else answer that easy question? Is
that correct, that there will not be an alteration to the
implementation agreement with the city of Phoenix?
Ms. White. I understand that there is going to be a full
working group. It was set up for pre-COVID, around December,
and then they had to readjust that as being rescheduled.
But I also would prefer, Representative, to get back to you
on that answer, and not speak to legal matters without
confirming.
Mr. Stanton. OK. I appreciate a swift answer to that very
fair question.
Hard lessons were learned from the FAA's failure to conduct
the proper environmental studies and public outreach before
implementing the 2014 changes.
As the working group moves forward, community engagement
and dialogue will be paramount. However, I am concerned that
the FAA has not yet communicated with the public on this group,
or the purpose. What is the FAA's plan and timeline for
community engagement related to this working group with
communities in the Phoenix metropolitan area, Mr. Welsh?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you, Representative. We will have to
follow up with you. I apologize for not having a specific
answer, but I also want to acknowledge your point about the
lessons learned, and the fact that what we did in Phoenix--and
have learned from it--has changed how we do business.
And so, we will absolutely follow up with you, and commit
to that type of engagement.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that. I look forward to hearing
that answer, and I am glad to hear that there were lessons
learned for all involved.
How will the FAA ensure that any future flightpaths in the
Phoenix area will be done with complete stakeholder and
community engagement, Mr. Welsh?
Mr. Welsh. Thank you. I will hand that one to Beth.
Ms. White. Thank you, Representative. And I want to echo
what Kevin said, that I do think that the situation in Phoenix,
and as we developed the number of the metroplex projects, was
definitely a turning point and a lesson learned for the FAA on
outreach, and what we needed to do, and how we needed to do it
sooner and in different ways, in ways that we really were doing
a better job of explaining what we are talking about with the
purpose and need, really, of these procedures as we modernize
the National Airspace System.
As we just talked about a minute ago, talking about a full
working group, we have been engaging with the airport, the
region has, on this very early. We are working on a
communications and community engagement strategy with the
airport, with the local offices there to ensure that we are
reaching out to the community, taking those lessons learned,
and ensuring that we are getting out effectively and early.
Mr. Stanton. One final point, and that is this: I am a
mayor. I come to this job in Congress with a mayor's hat. We
work really hard at the local level to develop land-use plans
around our airport. We have an urban airport. We are blessed
with an urban airport. We make land-use plans around the
airport to best facilitate the balance between protecting
neighborhoods, particularly historic neighborhoods, and the
needs of a growing airport. And what the FAA did was kind of
upended that balance. And we hope in the future that you will
take into better account the important land-use decisions that
local officials have made to----
Mr. Larsen of Washington. The Representative's time has
expired.
Mr. Stanton [continuing]. Best implement aviation in our
community.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
Congresswoman Holmes Norton from Washington, DC, for 5 minutes.
[No response.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Just a moment. We have Members
who are signed up to speak who are not on screen. So, I am
going to give folks a moment to get back on the screen, if the
witnesses would just be patient.
[Pause.]
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. OK, that concludes questions for
panel 1. I want to thank the witnesses from the FAA and the
GAO. We will have some followup questions for you all, and I
look forward to getting prompt answers to those, as well as
prompt answers to the questions that were asked of you by
Members today.
So, with that, we will move on to panel 2, and I thank the
witnesses from panel 1.
And as panel 2 comes up on the screen, we will let folks
know for the record we will be hearing testimony from witnesses
on panel 2. I ask the witnesses on the panel to please turn the
cameras on, and keep them on for the duration of the panel.
The witnesses on panel 2 are Sharon Pinkerton, the senior
VP of regulatory and legislative policy at Airlines for
America; Frank R. Miller, the executive director of Hollywood
Burbank Airport, he will be here on behalf of Airports Council
International-North America; David Silver, who is the vice
president for civil aviation of Aerospace Industries
Association; Emily J. Tranter, the executive director of the
National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment;
and JoeBen Bevirt, the CEO of Joby Aviation.
I want to thank you for joining us today, and we look
forward to your testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your written statement has been made part of the
record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
And we will hear from the witnesses in the order that I
have introduced them. So, we will start with Sharon Pinkerton
of Airlines for America.
You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF SHARON PINKERTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY POLICY, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA; FRANK
R. MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOLLYWOOD BURBANK AIRPORT, ON
BEHALF OF AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA; DAVID
SILVER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR CIVIL AVIATION, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES
ASSOCIATION; EMILY J. TRANTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
(N.O.I.S.E.); AND JoeBen BEVIRT, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, JOBY AVIATION

Ms. Pinkerton. Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, members
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting Airlines for
America to be part of this important discussion on reducing
noise.
We have made significant progress working together in
reducing noise impacts. In fact, since 1975, the number of
people exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise has
dropped by 94 percent at the same time the number of people
traveling has more than quadrupled.
Now, we recognize that, despite this tremendous progress,
more work remains to be done. And that is why you have the
airlines' commitment and our commitment to continue to work on
both reducing our aircraft noise footprint and our----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Ms. Pinkerton,
this is the chair. You are not showing up on the screen, so you
can check your camera, please.
Ms. Pinkerton. Can you see me now?
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much. Now I can
see you. We could hear you, we couldn't see you.
Ms. Pinkerton. Very good.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. All right, go ahead,
just continue where you were.
Ms. Pinkerton. Thank you. We have made good progress on
both the noise side, but also the emissions side, as well.
The fuel efficiencies we have achieved over the last many
decades equate to taking 27 million cars off the road each
year.
As you know, last year, in coordination with the
administration, we announced our mutual goals of achieving net-
zero emissions by 2050, as well as having 3 billion gallons of
cost-competitive, sustainable aviation fuel available by 2030.
Now, you might be asking why I am talking about climate
change at a noise hearing, but that is because these two goals
are really interdependent, and sometimes in conflict with each
other, which we will talk more about later. But with that
context, what I would like to do today is talk about what
actions carriers are taking to reduce noise.
Well, first, I would be remiss if I didn't state the
obvious, and that is that COVID initially devastated our
industry, bringing it to a standstill. The last 2 years have
been rocky, but there is no doubt that less noise was
generated. Fortunately, domestic operations are recovering.
International operations are still lagging. Most experts don't
expect our operations to return to 2019 levels until 2023 at
the earliest, maybe 2024.
But if there is a silver lining to COVID and this demand
drop-off, carriers not only parked planes, but we retired our
oldest and noisiest fleet. Carriers have spent almost $60
billion in the last 5 years on quieter and more efficient
aircraft and engines, as well as other technologies. And those
airplanes are 50 percent quieter than planes we bought just 10
years ago. That is important because, as you have heard the FAA
say, reducing noise at the source through improving technology
is the most effective way to reduce noise.
That is also why airlines have been leading advocates for
more resources spent on research and development programs for
noise-reducing technologies.
Last year, we helped spearhead the Green Aviation
Coalition, with all stakeholders urging Congress to devote more
resources to FAA's CLEEN and ASCENT Programs that you heard the
FAA discuss.
So, we have got technology and operations that airlines are
using to drive down noise, but standards play a key role, as
well. And as a result, A4A and our members are key participants
in the process at the International Civil Aviation Organization
as they develop more stringent noise standards for new
aircraft.
The stage 5 standard, which has been effective since 2018,
requires new aircraft to be 35 percent quieter. And as the FAA
mentioned, ICAO has already turned their attention to
developing the next more stringent standard.
In addition, airlines are engaging with the FAA as they
evaluate the 65 DNL metric. We don't have a position on whether
the metric should be changed, or other metrics should be used,
but we are very open to having a data and evidence-driven
discussion about the issues that FAA outlined.
Finally, community roundtables. They are absolutely a
critical tool in the toolbox for addressing noise. As you well
know, Congress asked the FAA to step up their engagement in
community roundtables. A4A and our carriers supported FAA in
doing that. We stepped up our own engagement, as well, to be at
the table. We recognize that, even when NextGen procedures
result in overall reduction in noise, noise can shift, or be
concentrated over certain flightpaths, creating legitimate
concerns. That is why these roundtables are such a critical
element of balancing the sometimes conflicting goals of noise
and emissions reductions. We want to accomplish both.
To wrap up, we have made significant progress in reducing
both noise and emissions, but we know more work remains to be
done. We need to utilize all the tools in our toolbox if we are
going to achieve our shared goal, which is a safe and efficient
air traffic control system that supports a vibrant aviation
system that creates excellent jobs, connects people, keeps our
supply chain moving, all while minimizing our noise and
emissions footprint.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I am happy to take
any questions.
[Ms. Pinkerton's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Sharon Pinkerton, Senior Vice President,
Legislative and Regulatory Policy, Airlines for America
On behalf of our Airlines for America (A4A) members,\1\ thank you
Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves for the opportunity to
testify today. The U.S. airlines have long understood that if we are to
remain a critical engine of prosperity and progress we must proactively
address and reduce environmental impacts associated with flying. This
is especially true with regard to aircraft noise, and engaging with and
responding to concerns of local communities will continue to be
essential to successfully addressing aircraft noise in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A4A's members are: Alaska Airlines, Inc., American Airlines,
Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Federal Express
Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways Corp., Southwest
Airlines Co., United Airlines Holdings, Inc. and United Parcel Service
Co. Air Canada, Inc. is an associate member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a strong track record of deploying new, quieter technology and
implementing noise abatement operational procedures, the U.S. airlines
have played a critical role in the tremendous reductions in aircraft
noise exposure achieved in the United States to date. Indeed, Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) data confirm that the number of people
exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in the United States
dropped by 94% between 1975 and 2019, even as enplanements nearly
quintupled \2\ and the importance of air transportation to the
continued vitality and growth of our national, state and local
economies dramatically increased. Before the COVID-19 pandemic U.S.
airlines drove about 5% of the nation's GDP, transporting 2.5 million
passengers and 58,000 tons of cargo per day, helping drive $1.7
trillion in annual economic activity and more than 10 million jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ From 1975 to 2019, the number of enplaned passengers grew from
202 million to 967 million, while the number of people exposed to
significant levels of aircraft noise fell from 7 million to about 440
thousand. From 2000 to 2019, noise exposures were reduced by 50% while
enplanements rose 37%. See: https://www.airlines.org/dataset/u-s-
airlines-tremendous-noise-record. During this period, cargo service
grew even more rapidly, rising over 600% from 6.2 revenue ton miles
(RTMs) in 1975 to 43.5 RTMs in 2019. See also FAA, Overview of FAA
Aircraft Noise Policy and Research Efforts: Request for Input on
Research Activities To Inform Aircraft Noise Policy, 86 Fed. Reg. 2722,
2723 (January 13, 2021) (``Since the mid-1970s, the number of people
living in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in the
United States has declined from roughly 7 million to just over 400,000
today. At the same time, the number of commercial enplanements has
increased from approximately 200 million in 1975 to approximately 930
million in 2018'') (footnote omitted); FAA History of Noise (``In 1975,
one person on the ground experienced significant noise exposure for
every 30 enplanements, compared to today where more than 2100
enplanements are flown for every person on the ground experiencing
significant noise exposure.'') (available here: https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/history/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft noise cannot be addressed in isolation as we face equally
pressing needs to address other environmental impacts--especially
climate change. This can be challenging as technologies and strategies
that reduce noise can have independent, often countervailing effects on
other environmental impacts. For example, procedures and technologies
that reduce noise may negatively affect fuel efficiency and, thus,
aircraft emissions, including emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Despite these challenges, our success in dramatically reducing aircraft
noise has been matched by equally dramatic success in reducing aircraft
emissions. Over the past several decades, the U.S. airlines have
improved fuel efficiency and reduced GHG emissions by investing
billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines, innovative technologies
like winglets (which improve aerodynamics), and cutting-edge route-
optimization software. As a result, between 1978 and 2019, U.S.
carriers improved their fuel efficiency by over 135%, saving more than
5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is equivalent to
taking more than 27 million cars off the road on average in each of
those years. Looking at a more recent snapshot, data from the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics confirm that the U.S. airlines improved their
fuel- and CO2-emissions efficiency by 40% between 2000 and 2019.
As leaders of a global aviation coalition, we have been committed
to aggressive emissions goals for many years. In March 2021, A4A and
our carriers announced a significant strengthening of our goals: we
pledged to work across the aviation industry and with government
leaders in a positive partnership to achieve net-zero carbon emissions
by 2050. A4A carriers also pledged to work with the government and
other stakeholders toward a rapid expansion of the production and
deployment of commercially viable Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) to
make 2 billion gallons available to U.S. aircraft operators in 2030. On
September 9, 2021, as a complement to the federal government's
announcement of a SAF ``Grand Challenge,'' A4A and its members
increased the A4A SAF ``challenge goal'' by an additional 50%, calling
for 3 billion gallons of cost-competitive SAF to be available for use
in 2030. These new goals were adopted in the midst of the most severe
economic crisis the commercial aviation sector has ever faced,
demonstrating the strength of the airline industry's commitment to the
environment and the depth of our recognition that environmentally
responsible growth is essential to the vitality of our sector.
We recognize that despite our tremendous progress to date, aircraft
noise remains a critical concern to many, particularly local
communities. As such, ensuring continued progress in addressing
aircraft noise levels--together with reducing aircraft emissions--
remains a critical concern to U.S. airlines. A4A and our members are
especially attuned to the reality that any particular person
experiencing aircraft sound may have a negative experience and that
changes in the sound environment--including those resulting from
changes in aircraft operations--can influence that experience.
Accordingly, we are strongly committed to continued progress and
support the array of aircraft noise management regulations and
procedures in place to address aircraft noise as well as ongoing
efforts to assess concerns about aircraft noise. Here, it is essential
to continue to improve community engagement, to continue participation
in processes leading to the adoption of new or changed aircraft
operational procedures and to reaffirm and expand the commitment of
funding for research and development of noise reduction technologies.
Finally, we welcome and strongly support the FAA's initiative to
conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based, and inclusive review of
existing noise policy.
Airlines' Efforts to Address Aircraft Noise
The tremendous progress made in reducing aircraft noise over the
last several decades did not occur by happenstance. Rather, this
success is the result of hard work and collaboration among
policymakers, including Congress, the FAA and state and local
officials, and aviation stakeholders including airlines, airports,
aircraft and engine manufacturers, and community representatives. A4A
and our member airlines are proud to have had a critical role in this
success and welcome this opportunity to briefly highlight the
activities that have brought past progress. We are committed to
continuing these efforts and are confident they will contribute to
further reducing aircraft noise and positively and proactively
addressing ongoing public concerns.
Reducing Aircraft Noise at the Source
Acquiring Quieter Aircraft
Reducing noise at the source is inarguably the best way to reduce
aircraft noise impacts on communities and deployment of new, quieter
aircraft has been a key focus of carriers. Indeed, the FAA has affirmed
that ``the single most influential factor'' contributing to the
dramatic decline in the public's exposure to aircraft noise has been
the ``transition to quieter aircraft, which effectively reduced the
size of the areas around airports experiencing significant noise
levels.'' \3\ Despite the significant financial challenges posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic, airlines have continued to invest heavily in new
aircraft. From 2017-2021, U.S. cargo airlines spent approximately $20
billion on aircraft and related equipment and took delivery of 154
aircraft; for 2022, they plan to spend an additional $5 billion for new
aircraft, with 77 on firm order. U.S. passenger airlines took delivery
of more than 1,300 new aircraft from 2017-2021, spending approximately
$48 billion on aircraft, with plans to spend approximately $15 billion
this year \4\ and firm orders for 2,198 new aircraft for delivery in
2022 and beyond. These new aircraft are 75% quieter than first
generation jets and 50% quieter than jets coming off the line 10 years
ago.\5\ The practical impact of the 75% reduction noise produced by
aircraft is to decrease the area impacted by aircraft noise by an even
greater amount.\6\ Operating much quieter aircraft also enables
carriers to provide more service without increasing overall noise
impacts to the communities they serve: as the FAA affirms, ``the noise
produced by one Boeing 707-200 flight, typical in the 1970s, is
equivalent in noise to 30 Boeing 737-800 flights that are typical
today.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 86 Fed. Reg at 2723.
\4\ Total capital expenditures of U.S. publicly traded passenger
airlines were $73 billion from 2017-2021 and are expected to reach a
record $23 billion in 2022 alone. This tally includes payments made for
aircraft and other flight equipment, ground and other property and
equipment (e.g., vans, air stairs, lavatory trucks, deicing vehicles),
airport and other facility construction and information technology. The
expenditures for aircraft are conservatively estimated to account for
two-thirds of total capital expenditures.
\5\ CRS, Supersonic Passenger Flights (Nov. 14, 2018) at 11 (``[I]n
general, the subsonic commercial aircraft fleet is considered to be 75%
quieter overall than aircraft produced in the 1970s''): The Boeing
Company, 2021 Sustainability Report at 21 (``each new generation of
Boeing airplanes reduces emissions and fuel use 15%-25% more than the
previous generation and has noise footprints up to 50% smaller than its
predecessors'').
\6\ See National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Fact
Sheet: NASA's Quiet Aircraft Technology Program (available here:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/pdf/70882main_FS-2002-09-73-
LaRC.pdf). See also EASA, Aircraft Noise--Figure 2.1 (available here:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/eaer/topics/technology-and-design/aircraft-
noise).
\7\ 86 Fed. Reg. at 2723 (footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the pandemic severely impacted the industry, it also
accelerated the turnover of our industry's fleet as older, noisier, and
less efficient planes have been grounded and will ultimately be
replaced by quieter and more efficient aircraft as we continue to
emerge from the crisis. As a result, carriers started 2021 with an
operating fleet nearly 20% smaller than at the beginning of 2020, with
the bulk of aircraft removed from service being older aircraft with
greater noise footprints. In fact, in 2020, the top nine carriers
retired 339 aircraft, with 280 more retirements announced to occur in
the coming years. From 2017-2021, the 11 top passenger carriers and
their regional airline partners removed over 1,500 aircraft from
service, with over half removed in the last two years. So, as we build
back our fleets from COVID-19 we will not only start from base fleet
that is quieter but, as demand for air travel recovers, we will meet
that demand by expanding our fleets with quieter (and more fuel-
efficient) aircraft.
Supporting More Stringent Aircraft Noise Standards
A4A and our members have also strongly supported the development
and implementation of increasingly stringent aircraft noise standards,
which help ensure that as airlines acquire new aircraft those aircraft
are ever quieter. As you know, aircraft noise certification standards
are developed and approved at the international level through the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and incorporated into
U.S. law by the FAA. International coordination and cooperation are
critical to ensure aircraft manufacturers can market their aircraft
throughout the world and airlines have access to aircraft with improved
noise performance. A4A and its member carriers commit significant time
and resources to the ICAO process and have long supported the
development of successively more stringent aircraft noise standards as
we see this as critical to helping reduce aircraft noise at the source.
The latest ICAO noise certification standard (codified as the Stage 5
noise standard in the United States) went into effect for large
aircraft at the end of 2017 and for small aircraft in 2020. This new
standard requires a cumulative reduction of 7 decibels from Stage 4
standards (ICAO's Chapter 4 standards adopted in 2006), which required
a cumulative reduction of 10 decibels from the Stage 3 (ICAO Chapter 3)
limit.\8\ In an August 2020 report, the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that ``96 percent of large commercial airplanes [in
the United States] are able to meet stage 4 or 5 standards.'' \9\
Importantly, the recent February 2022 meeting of ICAO's Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), agreed that it would explore
development of a new ``dual'' standard governing aircraft noise and CO2
emissions, updating the existing standards by combining them into one
``integrated'' standard that would strengthen both aspects.\10\ This
will be challenging, but as pointed out above there can be significant
interdependences (tradeoffs) between noise and CO2 emissions and A4A is
fully supportive of this effort. A4A--as always--will be participating
in this ICAO effort to establish a standard that will provide the
foundation for the production and certification of even quieter and
more fuel-efficient aircraft in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more detailed discussion of the history of ICAO's noise
standards, see Government Accountability Office, Aircraft Noise--
Information on a Potential Mandated Transition to Quieter Airplanes
(August 2020) at 7-10.
\9\ Id., ``Highlights'' summary.
\10\ The Obama Administration negotiated the existing first-of-its-
kind CO2 Certification Standards for Aircraft, which were adopted by
ICAO in 2017 and adopted into U.S. law in January 2021 (Final Rule,
Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG
Emission Standards and Test Procedures, 86 Fed. Reg. 2136 (Jan. 11,
2021) and will not be fully implemented until 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting Investment in Research & Development
The U.S. airlines also are engaged in public-private partnerships
with FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
aircraft and engine manufacturers to further advance quiet aircraft
technology through efforts such as FAA's Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) and Center of Excellence for Alternative
Jet Fuels and Environment (ASCENT) programs. The CLEEN program has the
longstanding goal to achieve a 25dB cumulative noise reduction relative
to Stage 5. As part of CLEEN III, the noise goal has been updated to
include a new element that explicitly targets reductions in community
noise exposure. CLEEN has supported development of multiple
technologies that help reduce noise, including adaptive trailing edge
systems, advanced acoustic fan and liners, and composite frame,
integrated propulsion system nacelle and ultra-high bypass propulsion
technologies. An analysis completed by the Georgia Institute of
Technology has confirmed that technologies developed ``in the first
phase of CLEEN will contribute to a 14% decrease in the land area
exposed to significant noise, as defined by a day-night noise level
(DNL) of 65 dB.'' \11\ CLEEN III will support development of quiet
high-lift systems and landing gears as well as advanced engine fan,
combustor and nacelle technologies that will further reduce noise.\12\
Importantly, Clean III also includes an effort to develop ``noise-
optimized flight path algorithms with integration into the Air Traffic
Management System'' to enable reduction of community noise exposure. As
discussed above, airlines are investing billions to acquire these
technologies in the form of new aircraft and engines as they become
available. Importantly, CLEEN and ASCENT are also advancing our
understanding of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and
health impacts, helping ensure that policy is based on sound, peer-
reviewed science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise Program (CLEEN)
Summary and Status Report (available here: https://www.faa.gov/
newsroom/continuous-lower-energy-emissions-and-noise-cleen-
program#_Toc80621736). An analysis of the noise benefits of CLEEN II
technologies is expected this year.
\12\ See https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/continuous-lower-energy-
emissions-and-noise-cleen-program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibly Implementing New Noise-Reducing Aircraft Operational
Procedures and Championing Community Engagement
Implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) has been a key priority of both the FAA and airlines as it is
essential to improving the safety, efficiency and capabilities of the
National Airspace System (NAS). Performance Based Navigation (PBN) is a
core element of NextGen and a key to delivering its benefits including
the potential to reduce environmental impacts on communities. NextGen
not only improves safety of flight, it also critically improves
efficiency, which directly translates into emissions reductions, not
only of carbon emissions but other ``criteria'' pollutants subject to
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), such as oxides of
nitrogen (NOx, a precursor to the formation of ozone) and particulate
matter (PM). Reductions of such pollutants can be particularly relevant
in areas that have failed to attain NAAQS (known as non-attainment
areas), many of which are urban areas where achieving environmental
justice is a particular challenge that must be met.\13\ Accordingly,
A4A and our member carriers are keen to ensure implementation of
NextGen delivers these benefits to local communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A4A and its members have long supported development and
implementation of increasingly stringent aircraft engine standards
governing NOx emissions. In addition, we strongly support the
Environmental Protection Agency's pending proposal to adopt PM
standards for aircraft engines. Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft
Engines: Emissions Standards and Test Procedures, 87 Fed. Reg. 6324
(February 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation of new procedures can also reduce net noise
exposures around an airport. However, we recognize that in some cases
PBN procedures may concentrate flight paths such that certain members
of the community experience more noise or frequency of noise events,
while others benefit from noise reductions. In addition, there have
been challenges in communicating to affected communities the potential
changes in the noise environment that can come with implementation of
new procedures. No one benefits when new procedures are put in place
after public consultation only for the procedures to be questioned on
grounds that potential impacts were not properly communicated. Airlines
devote a great deal of time and resources to ensure the successful
development and implementation of new procedures. Uncertainty regarding
newly adopted procedures not only puts their considerable benefits at
risk but raises the specter of reverting to less efficient procedures
that potentially increase overall noise impacts as well as emissions.
For these reasons, A4A and our members have championed improvements
to the process used to develop new procedures to ensure communities are
heard and their views taken into account as the procedures are
developed and implemented. For example, A4A and our members were active
participants in the NextGen Advisory Committee's (NAC) PBN Blueprint
Community Outreach Task Group, which developed recommendations and best
practices for community engagement for large and small NextGen
projects, much of which centered on engaging with communities regarding
aircraft noise exposures.\14\ More recently, A4A was the principal
author of a report prepared to respond to the FAA's request to the NAC
for further advice regarding ``delivery and use of PBN capabilities and
in achieving operational benefits.'' \15\ This report underscored that
``the aviation community supports the sentiments in the FAA
Administrator Dickson's January 24, 2020 letter to House of
Representatives Member, Eleanor Holmes Norton, that the FAA is
committed to engagement and dialogue with communities.'' \16\ The
report went on to affirm:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See PBN Blueprint Community Outreach Task Group--Report of the
NextGen Advisory Committee in Response to a Tasking from The Federal
Aviation Administration (June 2016).
\15\ Letter from Daniel K. Elwell, FAA Deputy Administrator
(December 10, 2019), included as Appendix A to Final Report of the
Major Air Carrier Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Way Forward
Workgroup for the FAA's PBN Clarification Tasking to the NextGen
Advisory Committee (NAC) (June 2020) (2020 PBN Way Forward Report).
\16\ 2020 PBN Way Forward Report at 18-19.

There is a recognition from the aviation community and the
FAA that this engagement must include local communities. The
FAA has employed a series of enhancements to its community
engagement efforts, incorporating interface opportunities at
several points throughout the procedure development process.
This engagement occurs early and often on multiple levels to
ensure an understanding of the need for the procedural changes
and what the proposed changes could mean to the community.
While this engagement has increased the time and cost
associated with the development and implementation of PBN
procedures, it is necessary and appropriate. The expectation of
the Workgroup is that the FAA's efforts to expand community
engagement and to increase outreach and partnership with
airport authorities will help address concerns and decrease
costly challenges. The aviation community will continue to
support the FAA in its community engagement efforts to further
the common goal of national PBN proliferation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 2020 PBN Way Forward Report at 19 (emphasis added).

We have done more than just champion improvement of community
outreach efforts: A4A and our members have been actively engaged in
numerous community roundtables throughout the country. A4A, for example
has presented by invitation to community roundtables for Ronald Reagan
National (DCA), Charlotte Douglas International (CLT), San Francisco
International (SFO), Chicago O'Hare International (ORD) and
Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP) and participated directly in
former Congressman Rouda's Coastal Orange County Aircraft Noise
Mitigation Task Force. A4A has also facilitated our members'
participation in multiple FAA community outreach sessions regarding
procedure changes, including at the Las Vegas, Denver, South-Central
Florida, Northern California and Southern California Metroplexes. A4A
members also have proactively engaged with communities, participating
directly in community roundtables dedicated to addressing aircraft
noise issues at airports throughout the country, including:
DCA: Reagan National Community Noise Working Group
Seattle International (SEA): SEA Stakeholder Advisory
Round Table (StART)
John Wayne International (SNA): City of Newport Beach and
Airport Working Group; Coastal Orange County Aviation Noise Task Force
Los Angeles International (LAX): LAX/Community Noise
Roundtable
John F. Kennedy International (JFK) and LaGuardia
International (LGA): New York Community Aviation Roundtable, JFK
Airport Committee and LGA Airport Committee
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International (FLL): Broward
County Aviation Department Noise Abatement Committee
Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International
(BWI): DC Metroplex BWI Community Roundtable
Louisville Muhammad Ali International (SDF): SDF
Community Noise Forum
CLT: Airport Community Roundtable
ORD: O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission
San Francisco International (SFO): SFO Airport/Community
Roundtable
MSP: Metropolitan Airports Commission--Noise Oversight
Committee
Boston Logan International (BOS): Massport Community
Advisory Committee
San Diego International (SAN): Airport Noise Advisory
Committee

In this context, it is important to point out that to successfully
address impacts of aircraft noise on communities, all stakeholders need
to pull in the same direction. We note that even with strong engagement
from airlines, airports and other community members warning against
adoption of local plans that permit land uses incompatible with
aircraft noise, local governments have nonetheless approved such plans.
Recently, the City of Newport Beach approved a 13-acre development
including a 314-apartment building near John Wayne International
Airport, and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved the
construction of residential townhouses directly under the flightpath
and within Dulles International Airport's 65 dBA DNL noise contours.
Certainly, such actions are not the only reason for the challenges we
all face in addressing aircraft noise and, as discussed in detail
above, airlines recognize their responsibility to take strong measures
to reduce noise impacts. However, it is imperative that local
governments also take into account public concerns about aircraft noise
and act responsibly when considering land use decisions within their
jurisdictions.
Supporting Airports in the Development of Airport Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Planning Studies (Part 150 Studies)
Airlines also support airports in the development of Airport Noise
and Land Use Compatibility Planning Studies (known as ``Part 150
Studies'' because they are undertaken pursuant to a process defined in
14 CFR Part 150).\18\ Under the FAA's Part 150 program, an airport can
voluntarily develop a Noise Exposure Map and consider noise mitigation
measures to reduce exposure to significant aircraft noise levels around
airports both by reducing existing and preventing new noncompatible
land uses, such as residential housing or schools. Such measures are
included in a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) developed through a
collaborative process which must include public notice and opportunity
to comment before it is submitted to FAA for approval. Airlines have
participated alongside community members in the development of Part 150
Studies across the country. Noise mitigation measures can include noise
insulation and land acquisition programs as well as aircraft noise
abatement routes and procedures.\19\ The programs are largely funded
through two sources, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs, federally
approved local taxes collected by airlines and remitted to airports)
and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants (funded through the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is predominately funded through
taxes on airlines and their customers). To date, more than 250 airports
have used the Part 150 process to implement noise mitigation measures
costing nearly $10 billion.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This program is authorized by the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47501 et seq.
\19\ Implementation and funding of measures included in a Part 150
NCP requires more than FAA approval of the NCP; other requirements,
such as FAA safety review and final approval of noise abatement
procedures and compliance with requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are prerequisites to implementation and
funding.
\20\ FAA has provided nearly $6 billion in AIP grants, while
airlines have collected more than $3.4 billion in PFC revenue devoted
to noise mitigation measures. https://www.faa.gov/airports/
environmental/airport_noise/part_150/funding/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking Forward--Airlines Support Taking a Hard, Evidence-Based Look at
Noise Policy
A4A and our members welcome FAA's recent confirmation that it is
undertaking a comprehensive review of current federal policy on
aircraft noise. We agree with FAA Administrator Dickson's affirmation
that this review must be ``thorough and nuanced'' and based on
evidence,\21\ including data developed through FAA research and its
Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES), as detailed in its recent
Federal Register Notice on FAA Aircraft Noise Policy and Research
Efforts.\22\ This science-based approach to assessing current aircraft
noise policy is completely consistent with the law and common sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Letter from FAA Administrator Dickson to the Honorable Stephen
F. Lynch (May 10, 2021).
\22\ 86 Fed. Reg. 2722 (January 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We commend the FAA's decision to avail itself of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service to ensure the process is broadly
inclusive and attracts participation from all interested stakeholders,
including local communities. An inclusive, science-based discussion
that ``challenge[s] long-standing assumptions'' \23\ is entirely
appropriate. Among the important issues that will be considered are (a)
whether the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric should continue
to be used as the metric to assess noise exposure, (b) if so, whether
the DNL 65 dBA should continue to define the ``significant noise
exposure threshold'' and the compatibility of residential land uses,
and (c) whether the use of alternative or supplemental metrics may be
appropriate in some circumstances. In this context, we also commend the
FAA statement that it ``will not make any determinations on
implications from the emerging research results for FAA noise policies
until it has carefully considered public and other stakeholder input,
and assesses the factors behind any increases in community impacts from
aircraft noise exposure.'' \24\ This is particularly important where
the issues are so complex and nuanced. For example, the GAO has
observed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Letter from FAA Administrator Dickson to the Honorable Stephen
F. Lynch (May 10, 2021).
\24\ 86 Fed. Reg. 2722, 2728 (Jan. 13, 2021).

Using additional metrics for regulatory activities or as a
significance threshold could require policymakers to develop
new standards against which to judge aircraft noise and balance
competing priorities regarding the safety and efficiency of the
national airspace, aviation noise, and fuel emissions, among
others. Additionally, other available metrics may not
incorporate all of the elements of noise required by law (for
instance, metrics conveying the number of overhead flights may
not account for the duration of noise events). It is also
important to recognize that the extent to which FAA can address
noise impacts identified through the use of supplemental
metrics may be limited due to a range of constraints related to
airspace safety and security as well as competing priorities
such as fuel efficiency.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ GAO, Aircraft Noise--FAA Could Improve Outreach through
Enhanced Noise Metrics, Communication and Support to Communities
(September 2021) at 29 (footnote omitted).

Additionally, the airport-specific results from the NES show that
responses to aircraft noise exposure at the same DNL varies widely,
suggesting that more than just aircraft noise exposure is driving those
responses. A science-based assessment of aircraft noise policy requires
an understanding of the role co-determinants play in people's responses
to aircraft noise. It will also be important for FAA to consider that
if, as the Congressional Research Service has observed, its ``findings
and recommendations based on these studies support an adjustment to the
65dB threshold, this would have policy and budgetary implications,''
including increasing airport funding needs for Part 150 programs and
potentially reducing the tax base of local governments surrounding
airports by taking away land available for commercial/residential
development.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Congressional Research Service, Federal Airport Noise
Regulations and Programs (September 27, 2021) at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are all important considerations that must be taken into
account in the FAA's review of current aircraft noise policy. A4A is
confident that the inclusive, evidence-based approach the FAA has
committed to will produce effective results and provide the foundation
for successfully addressing aircraft noise impacts in the future.
Conclusion
A4A remains committed to using all the tools in our toolbox to
strive for an aviation system that is safe and efficient, while
minimizing the impact of noise and emissions.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much. The Chair
recognizes now Mr. Frank Miller, on behalf of Airports Council
International-North America.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Miller. I apologize.
Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, for
inviting me to participate in today's hearing. I am Frank
Miller, executive director of the Hollywood Burbank Airport in
southern California. I appreciate this opportunity to speak
with you about the efforts, progress, and remaining challenges
in addressing community concerns related to aviation noise.
Turning from the national perspective to the specific
experiences I have had as executive director at Hollywood
Burbank Airport and addressing community concerns related to
aircraft noise, I would like to highlight recent outreach
efforts and measures that will be initiated in the near future.
In 2018, Hollywood Burbank Airport held two night-time
public meetings in Burbank, where community members provided
comments relative to their own personal experiences with
aircraft noise and the southern California metroplex flightpath
changes in March of 2017. In response to community concerns
voiced in these earlier meetings over SoCal metroplex and the
FAA's implementation of its next generation air transportation
system, the Hollywood Burbank Airport and Van Nuys Airport
convened the Southern San Fernando Valley Airplane Noise Task
Force to investigate the issues that were previously raised.
The task force consisted of a set of eight voting members
from the cities of Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, and Los
Angeles. The task force also included five nonvoting members
representing the offices of Senator Feinstein, former Senator
Harris, Congressman Schiff, Congressman Sherman, and
Congressman Cardenas. Staff from the FAA, the Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport Authority, and Los Angeles World Airports
attended the task force's meetings as technical advisors.
The task force conducted seven meetings over an 8-month
period. At the final meeting, which lasted more than 8 hours on
May 6 and May 7, 2020, the task force successfully completed
its objective of developing a set of recommendations to address
community noise issues related to aircraft operations from
Hollywood Burbank Airport and Van Nuys Airport. Most of the
recommendations were directed to the FAA, but Hollywood Burbank
Airport is moving forward on items that are specific to it.
Most significantly, after a few more months of recovery
from the COVID-19 pandemic, Hollywood Burbank Airport will
conduct a new Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. This study
will measure current and future aircraft noise levels and their
associated effects on the surrounding communities. It will
outline actions that will reduce or minimize aircraft noise
over sensitive areas. It will establish land-use guidelines to
address compatibility between the airport and its surrounding
communities. It will identify areas where aircraft noise is
present, and encourages land uses that are compatible. And it
will develop a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program for
the airport.
In conjunction with the part 150 study, Hollywood Burbank
Airport will convene a Citizen's Advisory Committee to help the
community stakeholders understand the process and the final
analysis. It is currently anticipated that the committee will
include Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, and Los Angeles residents
nominated by their local government officials. The committee
will function until the part 150 study has been completed and
submitted to the FAA, which is estimated to take approximately
8 months.
Hollywood Burbank Airport will respectfully request that
Congress provide additional funding for the FAA's part 150
program to support Airport Improvement Program grant awards
that help with noise mitigation for noncompatible land uses and
sound insulation.
In an ongoing effort to address the impact of aircraft
noise, Hollywood Burbank Airport continues to monitor noise
complaints reported by residents in the surrounding
communities. To provide nighttime noise relief through a
voluntary curfew, Hollywood Burbank Airport has a standing
request to all commercial airlines that they refrain from
scheduling departures or arrivals between 10 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.
Additionally, Hollywood Burbank Airport utilizes WebTrak, a
community-facing platform that provides flight information to
the public and tracks noise inquiries. Community members can
submit a noise inquiry through WebTrak or contact the toll-
free, 24-hour Noise Concerns Hotline.
Hollywood Burbank Airport also publishes a quarterly noise
monitoring report on its website that documents the noise
impact boundary of the airport, as defined by Federal law.
Thank you for the opportunity this morning to speak to you.
[Mr. Miller's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Frank R. Miller, Executive Director, Hollywood
Burbank Airport, on behalf of Airports Council International-North
America
Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, for inviting
me to participate in today's hearing. I am Frank Miller, Executive
Director of the Hollywood Burbank Airport in Southern California. I
appreciate this opportunity to speak with you about the efforts,
progress, and remaining challenges in addressing community concerns
related to aviation noise.
National Perspective
As Congress considers the topic of aviation noise, I believe it is
critical that Congress takes into account two factors, particularly
when considering any potential next steps. First, airports across the
country have a wide range of experiences related to aircraft noise.
Over the past four decades, the aviation community--including airports,
the FAA, and aircraft operators--have made great investment and strides
to reduce the impact of aircraft noise through a variety of means,
including quieter aircraft, improved flight procedures, acoustic
treatment of residential and other noise-sensitive structures, and land
use initiatives. As a result, many U.S. airports have reduced or
eliminated controversy over aircraft noise in their communities.
However, in other communities, despite very similar efforts, aircraft
noise remains a subject of significant controversy and creates ongoing
challenges for airports. This varying experience underscores that there
is no guaranteed ``one-size-fits-all'' way to address the problem of
aircraft noise across the country.
Second, it is critical to bear in mind that the aviation industry
has been particularly hard hit from the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting
economic crisis. Even as travel begins to return to pre-pandemic
levels, other shocks--such as escalating oil prices, supply chain
challenges, and labor shortages--create uncertainty as to when the
industry will achieve a level of economic stability. This is a
particularly sensitive time for airports, which are striving to be good
neighbors and provide world-class facilities and services, while
working to recover from historically low levels of revenue and
continued uncertainty about the course of recovery. Airports are also
working to balance all aspects of sustainability, equity, and
environmental issues beyond noise, such as air quality emissions, as
just one example. Any discussion about national noise policy needs to
reflect these challenges, as well as the limited ability of airports to
absorb new costs.
I would note that community concerns related to aircraft noise most
often are directed to the airport. However, airports do not have
authority over the FAA. Moreover, pursuant to the Airport Noise and
Capacity Act (ANCA) enacted over 30 years ago, federal law bars
airports from imposing new noise controls on aircraft operators. While
each airport crafts community engagement programs that are appropriate
for its individual facility and community situation, I think it is fair
to say that all airports invest significant resources in terms of both
staff time and money. I will share some specific Hollywood Burbank
Airport examples.
I am sure Congress is also interested in the airport perspective on
the FAA's Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES), which was released
in January 2021. Airport staff who work with concerned communities, as
I and my staff do, are not surprised by the findings that many
communities are more sensitive to aircraft noise today than they were
nearly 50 years ago when the national noise policy based on the 65 Day/
Night Sound Average Level (DNL) was first established. Generally
airports find that the FAA's historic approach to aircraft noise issues
has served the industry well. By relying primarily on the 65 DNL
standard as a threshold of compatibility, FAA policy has provided an
easily applicable standard to serve as a guide for responding to
aircraft noise concerns, and has provided a degree of flexibility to
allow for State and local governments to set a different threshold of
compatibility. This affords reliable clarity, which, in turn, has
helped the industry make enormous strides towards reducing, and in some
places eliminating, community concerns about aircraft noise and towards
providing meaningful noise mitigation to the residents most affected by
aircraft noise.
That said, airports acknowledge that many people have questioned
whether the 65 DNL threshold accurately reflects the limit of non-
compatible and/or significant noise impacts, and whether the Schultz
Curve accurately reflects current aircraft noise exposure effects on
communities near U.S. airports. Accordingly, I applaud the FAA for
undertaking the NES and beginning the process of examining and updating
U.S. aircraft noise policy as necessary to reflect current concerns and
potential effects on people.
The airport community believes that any new aircraft noise policy
should be based on a clearly defined set of goals that have been
identified based on objective, empirical factors. While the NES is an
important first step to providing relevant information, it is only the
first step and should be backed by additional data. Airports support
the ongoing, and future, efforts by the FAA to develop the empirical
data needed to inform any changes to aircraft noise policy.
In response to the FAA's Federal Register notice announcing the
release of the NES, Airports Council International-North America (ACI-
NA), the trade association for airports, provided the following
comments on further research that is needed in order to inform any
policy revisions. I include them here as items that Congress may want
to consider, as congressional funding would be key to this research.
1. General Comments on Further Research
The NES suggests that the historic understanding of the levels at
which aircraft noise becomes ``highly annoying'' is no longer
consistent with current perceptions of aircraft noise. In the past, the
65 DNL standard focused on areas relatively close to airports where
noise impacts were the greatest, so that was a reasonable guide for
aircraft noise policy. Because the NES suggests that the area in which
people are ``highly annoyed'' is much greater than previously assumed,
the NES raises the more fundamental question of whether the goal of
aircraft noise policy should be to reduce the number of people who are
``highly annoyed'' by aircraft noise, or to address specific, and
objectively measurable, impacts, such as health impacts, education
impacts, sleep disruption, or other environmental impacts of aircraft
overflights, as currently being studied by FAA. If the goal is to
reduce levels of ``high annoyance,'' the FAA should conduct research to
develop a better understanding of what causes someone to become
``highly annoyed,'' how to more uniformly quantify that ``annoyance,''
and how to measure success in reducing levels of ``high annoyance,''
particularly given the subjective nature of ``annoyance.'' If the goal
is to address other more specific impacts, the FAA should conduct
research to define acceptable levels of such impacts.
It is imperative that the FAA define the goal of its aircraft noise
policy in order to appropriately direct further research and frame
solutions that are appropriate to actual societal problems. This is
critical because any change in the FAA's noise significance and
compatibility threshold will affect a suite of different financial,
legal and policy areas including:
Aircraft Noise Liability
Airport Development (Planning and NEPA)
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance
Airspace Use and Changes, Including NextGen, PBN and
Metroplex Changes
Land Use Compatibility
Sound Insulation Programs
Community Engagement
Relationships (including rents and charges) with Airlines
and Other Users
Economic Impacts
Part 150 Program
Land and Easement Acquisition
Noise Monitoring
Airport Noise Management Costs

Although it is premature to formulate or advocate any specific
proposals, I urge Congress and the FAA to adopt the following high-
level principles to guide analysis of the NES and consideration of any
aircraft noise policy changes:
Science-based: Any changes to federal policy on aircraft
noise must be based on the latest science. Results from the underlying
FAA research projects should be made public in a usable form.
Stakeholder engagement and transparency: Any changes in
aircraft noise policy must be preceded by a robust stakeholder
engagement effort by the FAA, with meaningful dialogue and
opportunities for input from airports. The FAA must clearly communicate
the policy development process, any changes in policy, and the
justification for the changes to all stakeholders.
Roles and responsibilities: The FAA must take ownership
of its role regarding the regulation of aircraft noise, and must
clearly communicate its role to the public and stakeholders.
Funding: Airport funding is already extremely
constrained, and airports should not be mandated to pay more for noise
abatement and mitigation, regardless of the outcome from the policy
discussions, without an adequate funding source.
Effective: Aircraft noise policy must address
identifiable problems and provide cost-effective solutions to those
problems.
Clear standards: Any new aircraft noise policy should be
accompanied by clear guidance and standards for evaluating aircraft
noise impacts in all applicable regulatory contexts, such as Part 150,
NEPA, new air traffic procedures, and AIP funding. This should include
clear thresholds for evaluation, specific guidance on the use of
alternative noise metrics, and clarity on the kinds of impacts that
merit consideration.
Forward Looking: Any new aircraft noise policy should be
forward looking, minimize disruption, and not attempt to revise or undo
Records of Decision or other FAA approvals that have been issued based
on current policy. Likewise, any new aircraft noise policy should
minimize the need to revise, amend, or reconsider studies or projects
ongoing at the time the new policy is issued. Airports and the Federal
government have made considerable investments of time and treasury, and
a change in aircraft noise policy should not jeopardize that investment
by affecting the validity of already completed, or ongoing review and
approval processes.
2. Specific Areas of Further Research
ACI-NA noted that Chapter 8 of the NES concludes by stating
``[f]urther research is underway by the project team to examine
historical trends in aircraft noise annoyance data, including
comparisons to other recent research.'' I appreciate that updates on
the research in important areas such as Children's Learning, Health and
Human Impacts Research, and Economic Impacts are provided through the
REDAC process. It would be helpful, however, if the FAA could identify
milestones in the studies and make some level of interim information
available. Airports would also benefit from the non-auditory health
effects of noise being conveyed in a way that is understandable by the
public \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ACRP Research Road maps at: https://public.tableau.com/
profile/hmmh1#!/vizhome/ACRPResearchRoadmapAirportEnvironmental/
ACRPAirportEnvironmentalResearchRoadmap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, airports recommend that the FAA conduct the following
research, and make that research available to stakeholders, as it
considers changes to aircraft noise policy:
a. While ``annoyance'' appears to be correlated to DNL, the FAA
should further research whether there is a more precise cause of such
annoyance, such as the frequency of overflights, changes in flight
patterns, the loudness of individual overflights, or some other
acoustic factor(s).
b. Similarly, the FAA should further research the extent to which
non-acoustic factors--such as demographic and socio-economic factors,
vehicular and other non-aircraft noise, recent airport or aviation-
related controversies, air emissions, and aviation incidents--may play
a role in levels of annoyance, as suggested by recent research.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ E.g., Diana Sanchez, Jack Naumann, Nicole Porter, & Andy
Knowles, Current Issues in Aviation Noise Management: A Non-Acoustic
Factors Perspective, The 22nd International Congress on Sound and
Vibration (July 2015; C. Asensio, L. Gasco, & G. de Arcas, A Review of
Non-Acoustic Measures to Handle Community Response to Noise Around
Airports Current Pollution Rep. (June 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The FAA notes in the Federal Register that aircraft noise
generally results in higher levels of annoyance than other sources,
including ground transportation. Further research is appropriate to
understand why that it is, and why people indicate high levels of
annoyance with aircraft noise that is far quieter than many other
sources of noise that people accept and, in some cases, choose.
d. The feasibility of phasing out noisier aircraft and
accelerating introduction of quieter engines and airframes.
e. Further integrating consideration of noise impacts into the
design and implementation of flight procedures and routes that are not
limited to just geographic location (performance, speed, climb and
descent rates, etc.).
f. The FAA noted in its February 22, 2021 presentation on the NES
that ``noticeable'' flight event characteristic, (i.e., the number of
events having a maximum sound level at or above 50 dB, NA50Lmax),
demonstrated marginal significance and should be investigated further
because of the high correlation of NA50Lmax with DNL. ACI-NA believes
that research regarding the specific kinds of noise events that cause
higher levels of annoyance will yield important information to guide
future policy development. The FAA should similarly consider using
other ``supplemental metrics'' to better understand the specific causes
of annoyance and associated health impacts.
g. Although the FAA reaffirmed the use of DNL in its 2020 Report
to Congress,\3\ experience shows that many complaints arise from
anomalous, notably disruptive single events and that supplemental
metrics can provide a useful way to focus understanding on the nature,
or causes, of complaints or annoyance. To that end, the FAA should
examine the appropriate role of additional/supplemental noise and
operations metrics in NEPA, Part 150, and related guidance and orders
before implementing any change(s) to aircraft noise policy. Further, to
the degree that supplemental metrics are adopted, the FAA should
provide clear guidance on what these metrics would be used for,
criteria for using these supplemental metrics, how the use of multiple
metrics would work together, and relationships to annoyance and
potential health impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAA, Report to Congress, FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub.
L. 115-254) Section 188 and Sec. 173 (April 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Additional research should include determination of
quantifiable impacts of aircraft noise--such as health impacts, sleep
disturbance, education impacts, life expectancy, and property values--
that is necessary to put the ``annoyance'' data in context and also to
identify critical environmental impacts that new policies can (and
should) address. I understand that the FAA is currently pursuing a
number of research projects related to aircraft noise, several of which
have been underway for a number of years. Airports would like to
understand whether there are ways in which the studies could be
accelerated with increased funding or other methods. The acceleration
of ongoing studies relates to our request to understand the road map to
updating policy. As pieces of research similar to the NES are released,
airports will be required to manage continued uncertainty while waiting
for policy updates.
i. Research on the change in both noise and operational metrics
correlated to the change in annoyance to aid in better understanding
the significance of a change.
j. In the NES, the FAA stated that ``Recent academic research and
internal assessments have raised questions about the benefits of sound
insulation relative to the costs.'' Airports would like to learn more
about the internal assessments that the FAA has conducted and the
conclusions reached in those assessments. Further research on the cost-
benefit of noise mitigation measures may also help inform future
aircraft noise policy.
k. Airports recognize the likelihood of including benefit-cost
analyses as a means to aid in deciding appropriate policy decisions.
Accordingly, airports recommend the FAA conduct research defining an
appropriate cost effectiveness methodology that is consistently applied
in aiding decision-making related to policy. Airports also recommend
the findings be documented and coordinated with stakeholders and
results be made available to the members.
l. The Airport Cooperative Research Program has undertaken several
research projects, including an Environmental Research Road Map \4\.
Airports request that the FAA's research portfolio include the
following noise items identified in that road map:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.trb.org/ACRP/researchroadmaps.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Assessing Community Annoyance of Noise from Unmanned Aerial
Systems
b. Best Practices for Effective Sound Insulation
c. Best Practices for Stakeholder Engagement and Assessment and
Reporting on Multiple Noise Metrics--Airports particularly are
interested in learning if the dataset from the NES would provide new
areas of knowledge related to noise metrics.
m. As noted in the Federal Register notice, the FAA has
continually developed its high-fidelity modeling capabilities. As AEDT
becomes more and more complex, it becomes more of a ``black-box'' to
community members. Research on the soft skills of how to explain the
model and make public its results would be helpful to airports.

As the aviation system recovers from the downturn caused by the
pandemic, the FAA should conduct research to understand shifting
community perspectives and reactions to aircraft noise during the next
several years resulting from potential lifestyle changes (e.g., working
and learning from home) and psychological effects resulting from stay-
at-home orders, limited human interaction, etc.
The last item that I would like to note is that new entrants are on
the horizon. There are a number of groups working on new vehicles
ranging from smaller delivery drones up to five- or six-passenger light
electric vehicles (eVTOL) that would compete with taxi-like services.
Based on the lessons learned and experience with community concerns
related to aviation noise, now is the time that Congress should be
considering and setting policy related to the community acceptance
issues that the new entrants may encounter.
Hollywood Burbank Airport Community Outreach
Turning from the national perspective to the specific experiences I
have had as Executive Director at Hollywood Burbank Airport in
addressing community concerns related to aircraft noise, I would like
to highlight recent outreach efforts and measures that will be
initiated in the near future.
In 2018, Hollywood Burbank Airport held two nighttime public
meetings in Burbank where community members provided comments relative
to their own personal experiences with aircraft noise and the Southern
California (SoCal) Metroplex flight path changes in March of 2017.
In response to community concerns voiced in these earlier meetings
over SoCal Metroplex and the FAA's implementation of its Next
Generation Air Transportation System, the Hollywood Burbank Airport and
Van Nuys Airport convened the Southern San Fernando Valley Airplane
Noise Task Force (Task Force) to investigate the issues that were
previously raised. The Task Force consisted of a set of eight voting
members from the cities of Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, and Los
Angeles. The Task Force also included five non-voting members
representing the offices of Senator Feinstein, former Senator Harris,
Congressman Schiff, Congressman Sherman, and Congressman Cardenas.
Staff from the FAA, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority,
and Los Angeles World Airports attended the Task Force's meetings as
technical advisors.
The Task Force conducted seven meetings over an eight-month period.
At the final meeting, which lasted more than eight hours on May 6 and
May 7, 2020, the Task Force successfully completed its objective of
developing a set of recommendations to address community noise issues
related to aircraft operations from Hollywood Burbank Airport and Van
Nuys Airport. Most of the recommendations were directed to the FAA, but
Hollywood Burbank Airport is moving forward on items that are specific
to it.
Most significantly, after a few more months of recovery from the
COVID-19 pandemic, Hollywood Burbank Airport will conduct a new Part
150 Noise Compatibility Study. The study will:
Measure current and future aircraft noise levels and
their associated effects on the surrounding communities.
Outline actions that will reduce or minimize aircraft
noise over sensitive areas.
Establish land use guidelines to address compatibility
between the airport and its surrounding communities.
Identify areas where aircraft noise is present and
encourages land uses that are compatible.
Develop a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program for
the airport.

In conjunction with the Part 150 Study, Hollywood Burbank Airport
will convene a Citizen's Advisory Committee to help the community
stakeholders understand the process and the final analysis. It is
currently anticipated that the Committee will include Burbank,
Glendale, Pasadena, and Los Angeles residents nominated by their local
government officials. The Committee will function until the Part 150
Study has been completed and submitted to the FAA, which is estimated
to take approximately eight months.
Hollywood Burbank Airport will respectfully request that Congress
provide additional funding for the FAA's Part 150 program to support
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant awards that help with noise
mitigation for non-compatible land uses and sound insulation.
In an ongoing effort to address the impact of aircraft noise,
Hollywood Burbank Airport continues to monitor noise complaints
reported by residents in the surrounding communities. To provide
nighttime noise relief through a voluntary curfew, Hollywood Burbank
Airport has a standing request to all commercial airlines that they
refrain from scheduling departures or arrivals between 10 p.m. and 6:59
a.m. Additionally, Hollywood Burbank Airport utilizes WebTrak, a
community-facing platform that provides flight information to the
public and track noise inquiries. Community members can submit a noise
inquiry through WebTrak or contact the toll-free 24-hour Noise Concerns
Hotline. Hollywood Burbank Airport also publishes a Quarterly Noise
Monitoring Report on its website that documents the noise impact
boundary of the airport as defined by federal law.
Finally, one thing has not changed during the pandemic: airports
continue to face substantial infrastructure needs. As travelers begin
to return to U.S. airports, inadequate airport infrastructure that
fails to meet the growing needs of local businesses and tourists puts
in jeopardy the economic recovery of American cities, states, and
regions. In addition to creating jobs, new investments in airports can
be valuable tools in helping local communities attract air service,
which increases competition and leads to lower airfares for passengers.
Airports need additional resources to build the terminals, gates,
checkpoints, and ramp areas necessary to attract new air carriers and
entice existing ones to expand service. The traveling public gets more
choices and lower airfares when airports can build the facilities that
provide more airline options and more service alternatives.
In March 2021, ACI-NA released an updated infrastructure needs
report detailing the more than $115 billion in infrastructure needs
across the national airport system over the next five years. Because
this survey was conducted during the pandemic last summer, it does not
fully account for all of the new public health-related infrastructure
upgrades airports need to make, such as future HVAC improvements to
provide airports the ability to keep up with developing air quality
technology, additional space for physical distancing near gates, and
touchless technology to assist passengers. Coupled with a current debt
burden of nearly $90 billion from past projects, the report clearly
shows that airports are falling further behind in efforts to upgrade
facilities and improve the overall experience for passengers.
Airports greatly appreciate the $20 billion in airport-
infrastructure funding included in the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
This one-time infusion of capital will help jumpstart new projects
around the country. Given the $115 billion in infrastructure needs
across the system, though, Congress must find new ways to ensure
continuity in funding more of these much-needed improvement projects
once the new federal funding has been exhausted.
As leading economic engines in their communities, airports are an
integral part of the overall travel and tourism industry. ACI-NA and
our member airports will continue to work together with our government
and industry partners to weather this current crisis so we can get
Americans and international passengers traveling again through an
aviation system that is stronger, safer, more secure, and more
resilient than ever.
Thank you for this opportunity today.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much. I now
recognize Mr. David Silver of the Aerospace Industries
Association for 5 minutes.
Mr. Silver. Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Graves, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to appear today. My name is David Silver, and I
serve as the vice president of civil aviation for Aerospace
Industries Association.
For over 100 years, AIA has advocated for America's
aerospace and defense companies and the more than 2 million men
and women who are the backbone of our industry.
For decades, aircraft manufacturers have invested in many
successful initiatives that have reduced public exposure to
aircraft noise, while still allowing the industry to grow and
deliver huge mobility benefits to our society. For example,
today's aircraft have cut noise levels in half, compared to
those made between 1980 and 2007. This significant change is a
result of newer, quieter engines, as well as airframe and other
design improvements.
According to the FAA, the number of people exposed daily to
significant aviation noise in the U.S. declined by roughly 94
percent since 1975. AIA appreciates this committee's past
leadership in supporting research and development that has
greatly contributed to the improvements seen to date, such as
higher bypass ratio engines, more aerodynamic airframes, and
improved engine nacelle treatments, all developed cooperatively
with industry, and all improving the noise environment.
Despite previous improvements in aircraft technology and
airport operations, our industry realizes that the work is not
done. AIA's members continue to make significant investments in
technology that will further reduce the aviation-related noise
near airports. AIA is committed to working with international
bodies, Federal agencies, and Congress to better understand,
reduce, and mitigate the impact of noise on these communities.
Internationally, we recognize this must be accomplished in
a holistic manner and consistent with the global nature of
aviation. I say more about this in my written testimony, but we
strongly support the International Civil Aviation
Organization's balanced approach, which offers a global
baseline for addressing noise issues.
Domestically, effective partnerships between the FAA, NASA,
and the aviation industry are critical to increasing
improvement in the noise characteristics of aircraft. We
believe collaborative support for aviation research and
development is vital for aviation's future, and the opportunity
exists today to double down on these public-private
partnerships, and accelerate the next generation of aircraft
and engines.
An example of this is the Sustainable Flight National
Partnership, a cooperative effort by the FAA, NASA, and
industry to accelerate the development of more efficient
aircraft and engine technologies. This partnership targets up
to a 30-percent improvement in fuel savings, compared to
today's airplanes, which also delivers substantial reductions
in noise and emissions.
AIA member companies are exploring a range of technologies
for the next generation of aircraft for introduction in the
2030s, offering improvements and fuel efficiency of 15 to 25
percent, compared to current aircraft. Realizing these benefits
will require both public and private investment in U.S.
manufacturing, especially given the impact of COVID-19 and the
billions of dollars in investment being made by European
governments in support of similar efforts overseas.
Congress can help in these efforts by continuing to support
increased funding for the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions, and Noise--CLEEN--Program to accelerate reductions
in noise and other emissions in conjunction with fuel
efficiency improvements; supporting and expanding the
alternative fuel and low-emission aviation technology grant
program in the House-passed Build Back Better legislation, and
introduced in the Senate as the AERO Act; passing the Advanced
Aviation Infrastructure Modernization Act to establish a pilot
program to provide grants related to advanced air mobility
infrastructure; and helping drive the development of a
comprehensive, long-term research agenda that supports
transformational aviation technologies, leveraging partnerships
between industry and Government agencies, including the
Departments of Transportation, Defense, Energy, and NASA.
AIA applauds the committee for this opportunity to discuss
the important topic of community noise, and allowing industry
to provide our views, and ongoing research, and our significant
efforts to reduce both noise and emission impacts. We
appreciate the support of Congress in authorizing and
appropriating funds for vital FAA research that will lessen
aircraft noise for existing and emerging technologies like
supersonic and AAM aircraft systems.
We look forward to working with this committee as you
consider important policy changes related to aviation noise
this year and in next year's FAA reauthorization bill.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Silver's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Silver, Vice President for Civil Aviation,
Aerospace Industries Association
Introduction
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear today. My name is
David Silver, and I serve as Vice President of Civil Aviation for the
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). For over 100 years, AIA has
advocated for America's aerospace and defense (A&D) companies and the
more than two million men and women who are the backbone of our
industry.
Our Industry's Role in Reducing Noise
Aircraft manufacturers have been investing in ways to reduce
aircraft noise for many years. To date there have been many successful
initiatives that have reduced the exposure of the general public to
aircraft noise, while still allowing the industry to grow and deliver
huge mobility benefits to our society.
Illustrating this trend, aircraft produced after 2010 generate
approximately half the noise of aircraft made between 1980 and 2007.
This significant change came from newer, quieter engines as well as
airframe and design improvements developed after 2010 which are
significantly quieter.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the number
of people exposed daily to significant aviation noise in the U.S.\1\
declined from roughly 7 million in 1975 to just over 454,000 today.
Over the same time period, the number of enplanements \2\ increased
from 202 million in 1975 to 890 million today and the U.S. population
grew by more than fifty percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Defined as noise of 65 DNL or greater, a metric which measures
cumulative noise exposure over an average 24 hours.
\2\ An enplanement equals one person flying on a single commercial
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIA appreciates this committee's past leadership in supporting
research and development (R&D) that greatly contributed to the
improvements seen to date. The longstanding partnership between
government and industry has resulted in significant improvements in
both noise and emissions, as noted above, and we believe that continued
cooperation is critical to future success. Examples of these
improvements include higher bypass ratio engines, more aerodynamic
airframes, and improved engine nacelle treatments, all developed
cooperatively with industry, and all improving the noise environment.
Despite these improvements, our industry realizes the work is not
done. AIA's members continue to make significant investments in
technology that will further reduce the aviation-related noise
occurring near our nation's airports.
Working with Government to Reduce Environmental Footprint
Noise is one category comprising the environmental footprint of
aviation. The aviation industry has long been involved with efforts to
reduce the entire environmental footprint, including emissions, noise,
and efforts to reduce climate change. For example, AIA and our members
have committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from the U.S.
aviation sector by 2050. Internationally, many of these improvements
are supported by governments, industry, and non-governmental
organizations working together at the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), a specialist branch of the United Nations. Due to
the global interconnectivity of aviation, ICAO provides the necessary
framework to ensure environmental standards and regulatory practices
are attainable and coordinated globally to ensure success.
Domestically, we continue to work with the FAA and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT). AIA commends the FAA's work to
better understand, reduce, and mitigate the impact of noise on
communities, and its wider actions to increase community outreach to
those affected by aircraft noise through community roundtables and
other measures. AIA strongly supports the data-driven approach the FAA
is taking to ensure that aircraft noise policy continues to reflect the
latest science on this matter. AIA also appreciates that the FAA
recognizes the importance of stakeholder engagement in decisions
related to aircraft noise policy and we are committed to continuing our
input on all aspects of aviation noise.
We were pleased to receive the most recent update of the U.S.
Aviation Climate Action Plan, which set out the U.S. government's plan
to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for the U.S. aviation
sector by 2050, a goal in line with our own efforts. The plan builds on
our industry's commitment to net-zero and highlights specific actions
and policy measures to foster innovation and drive change across the
entire sector. Though focused primarily on emissions, we believe this
plan will have a positive effect on aircraft noise because many of the
pathways to emissions reduction have the secondary effect of reducing
aircraft noise. These improvements will come about largely through: (1)
development of new, more efficient aircraft and engine technologies;
(2) improvements in aircraft operations throughout the National
Airspace System; (3) electrification, and potentially hydrogen, as
solutions for short-haul aviation; and (4) advancements in airport
operations across the United States.
We see much of this progress accomplished under the framework of
the Sustainable Flight National Partnership, a cooperative effort by
NASA, the FAA, and industry to accelerate the development of more
efficient aircraft and engine technologies targeting up to a 30 percent
improvement in fuel savings compared to today's planes, while also
delivering substantial reductions in noise and emissions.
The potential for improvement is not limited to technology, but
also includes opportunities in aircraft operational efficiency. While
the U.S. National Airspace System is significantly more efficient than
in the past,\3\ opportunities remain to reduce fuel burn and noise in
all phases of flight. These include boosting efficiency during taxi,
takeoff, and landing, as well as flying optimized trajectories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See for example, FAA's NextGen Annual Report for FY20, p. 19,
at https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/NextGenAnnualReport-
FiscalYear2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO's Balanced Approach--A Holistic Approach for Tackling Aircraft
Noise
Despite previous improvements in aircraft technology and airport
operations, AIA is committed to working with international bodies, FAA,
and the Congress to identify ways to further reduce and mitigate the
impacts of aviation noise.
This must be accomplished in a holistic manner and consistent with
the global nature of aviation. We believe the ICAO Balanced Approach
\4\ offers a global baseline for addressing noise issues. The Balanced
Approach consists of identifying the noise problem at specific airports
and identifying which of four available elements can reasonably address
the issue. The four elements of the Balanced Approach are: (1)
Reduction of Noise at the Source (Technology Standards); (2) Land Use
Planning and Management; (3) Noise Abatement Operational Procedures;
and (4) Operating Restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Aircraft Noise. International Civil Aviation Organization.
Retrieved April 14, 2021, https://www.icao.int/environmental-
protection/pages/noise.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduction of Noise at Source (Technology Standards)
Today we look to the certification of new products to ensure the
latest available noise reduction technology is incorporated into
aircraft. For example, the application of the new ICAO Chapter 14
international noise standard is expected to greatly reduce the number
of people affected by significant aircraft noise (defined as an average
sound level throughout the day of 55 decibels). Between 2020 and 2036,
average noise levels will reduce to below 55 decibels for more than one
million people. Industry is continuously looking at three particular
areas to contribute to these improvements: engine technology,
aerodynamics, and new materials.
Engine Technology
The increase in fan size allows the industry to increase the amount
of air, while also reducing the speed of the air as it moves around the
nozzle, thereby achieving high- or ultra-high bypass ratios.
Historically the nozzle was the noisiest part of the engine. The shift
to higher bypass ratios reduces the noise. Today fan noise remains the
dominant source.
With the introduction of ultra-high bypass ratio engines employing
geared turbofan technology (GTF), one manufacturer further reduces fan
speed. This technology allows additional slowing of the fan, preventing
the tips of the fans from potentially becoming supersonic. This feature
can further reduce a major noise source, reducing the noise footprint
by over 75 percent.
Reshaping the nozzles changes the air flow coming out of them to
specifically reduce noise, leading to the `chevron nozzle' design. This
technology, combined with the use of new materials such as acoustic
lining around the sides and underneath the engine shroud (cowl), has
also significantly reduced engine noise.
We have reached a point when it comes to noise that we can no
longer concentrate on one area. Every part of the engine plays a role--
the fan, booster, compressor, combustor, turbine section and exhaust
area. Through public-private partnerships between NASA, the FAA (CLEEN
Program), industry, and universities, we expect to see continuous
improvements in these areas with each generation of engine.
Aerodynamics
The landing gear, landing gear doors, extended flaps, and the
simple fact of moving a large object through the air no matter how
streamlined, creates noise. Better aerodynamics means less air
resistance, which means less noise. A more aerodynamically `slippery'
commercial aircraft gives us an opportunity to affect take-off noise
characteristics. On takeoff, this allows the operator to either reduce
the required take-off thrust due to less air resistance or maintain the
same amount of thrust but climb more quickly, meaning that the aircraft
is higher above a community at the end of the runway. By using the ICAO
balanced approach either of these could be used based upon the needs of
a specific airport.
However, there is a tradeoff in the landing phase of flight. The
more aerodynamic an aircraft, the more effort that may be required to
slow it down. In some cases, the pilot needs to deploy spoilers and
landing flaps earlier, which has the potential to generate additional
noise on approach to the runway.
Over the last few years, a series of NASA flight tests successfully
demonstrated technologies that achieve significant reductions in the
noise generated by aircraft and heard by communities near airports. The
Acoustic Research Measurement (ARM) flights conducted at NASA's
Armstrong Flight Research Center in California tested technology to
address airframe noise, or noise that is produced by non-propulsive
parts of the aircraft, during landing. The flights successfully
combined several technologies to achieve a greater than 70 percent
reduction in airframe noise. NASA also evaluated options to modify the
landing gears and flaps to reduce noise during take-off and landing,
directly focusing their R&D efforts on the major cause of noise
complaints around airports. The goal of NASA and its industry research
partners is to substantially improve the quality of life for
communities that experience aircraft noise today.
New Materials
A lighter airplane is quieter because it requires less thrust to
keep the aircraft in the air. Aircraft designers are continuously
looking to increased composite use and advanced manufacturing
techniques to further reduce the weight of an aircraft, while
maintaining the high safety requirements.
2. Land Use Planning and Management
The second pillar of ICAO's Balanced Approach is land use planning
and management. This is an effective means to ensure that activities
near airports are compatible with aviation. The goal is to minimize the
population affected by aircraft noise by effective land use zoning
around airports. Compatible land use planning, and management is a
vital instrument in ensuring that the gains achieved by the reduced
noise of the latest generation of aircraft are not offset by further
residential development around airports.
3. Noise Abatement Operational Procedures
The way aircraft are operated during day-to-day operations may also
present noise impacts that reach the ground. ICAO assists in the
development and standardization of operational procedures that reduce
noise while maintaining safety. These measures include noise
preferential runways and routes and noise abatement procedures for
takeoff and landing. The appropriateness of any of these measures
depends on the physical layout of the airport, its surroundings, and
the expected air traffic and air traffic management system, but in all
cases the procedure must give priority to safety considerations. With
the support of air navigation service providers and airport operators,
airlines and pilots can implement noise reduction procedures such as
reduced thrust takeoffs, displaced landing thresholds and continuous
descent operations to further reduce noise.
Controlling where planes fly during takeoff and landing has
important impacts on community noise. The placement and use of runways
is fundamental. For example, the routing of aircraft over bodies of
water often reduces the impact of community noise. One goal of air
traffic management (ATM) is to map out flight tracks that avoid the
most densely populated areas wherever possible. Recent developments in
navigation performance mean that aircraft can now follow more precise
tracks. This reduces the overall area exposed to noise, but often
results in some communities being subjected to a higher number of
flyovers. ATM planning must be undertaken in close consultation with
community leaders to effectively consider the tradeoffs between flight
track concentration and flight track dispersion.
4. Operating Restrictions
The final element of the ICAO Balanced Approach involves operating
restrictions--banning certain aircraft at noise-sensitive airports or
limiting their hours of operation. However, operating restrictions of
this kind can present significant economic implications for the
airlines.
AIA believes that continued application of the Balanced Approach
allows the global aviation industry to continue making progress on
noise while effectively involving all layers of government, local
communities, and stakeholders. We believe the first three elements
(technology standards, land use planning and management and noise
abatement operational procedures) will often provide the greatest
contribution to resolving community noise issues.
Current Standards and Future Changes
In 2013, ICAO introduced Chapter 14 in the ICAO Annex, establishing
a new standard in noise reduction. It stipulated that new aircraft
models must be at least seven decibels quieter than those built to the
previous Chapter 4 standard. That means that all new aircraft certified
to this standard will have half the noise footprint of aircraft that
are one generation older. It is up to individual regulatory bodies,
particularly states of design like the United States, to either adopt
the ICAO standard or (as the U.S. does) codify it in their individual
national regulations. U.S. industry appreciates the framework
established by ``Stage 5'' within 14 CFR Part 36, in which the FAA
adopted the more stringent noise certification standards for new
aircraft in line with ICAO Annex 16 Volume I Chapter 14.
AIA member companies are currently working with ICAO's Committee
for Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) to update the Chapter 14
limits to encourage even quieter aircraft in the future. These may
include more stringent limits for existing aircraft and the first noise
standard designed for the next generation of supersonic aircraft. AIA
member companies are also working closely with ICAO to begin
exploration of future noise standards for emerging technology such as
advanced air mobility (AAM) aircraft. We believe the speedy adoption of
ICAO standards in areas such as noise and emissions is critically
important, not only to improve the noise environment but also to ensure
that U.S. manufacturers stay competitive in both established and
emerging global aviation markets.
Future Aircraft Types
New aircraft under current development will have a major impact on
future aviation operations around the globe. These include supersonic
aircraft and advanced air mobility aircraft.
Supersonic Aircraft
Supersonic flight began famously in 1947 when U.S. pilot Chuck
Yeager broke the sound barrier. Commercial airlines began flying
oceanic routes in 1973, most famously the Concorde. Due to a wide array
of challenges, including untenably high operating costs, extensive
maintenance requirements for an aging fleet, and overland supersonic
flight restrictions instituted by the United States and other
countries, British Airways announced the retirement of the Concorde in
April 2003. There has not been commercial supersonic flight into or out
of the United States for nearly 20 years.
Several of our industry partners are currently working on new
aircraft designs and improved engines that would enable the U.S. to
lead the reintroduction of civil supersonic flight. Our industry
understands the environmental and economic challenges associated with
these aircraft and are working to solve them. While overland routes
remain unavailable due to the sonic boom generated when the aircraft
breaks the sound barrier, industry efforts are focused on design
requirements to be successful in transoceanic flight (avoiding sonic
booms over land) as well as research and development of low boom
technologies, which allow an aircraft to break the sound barrier with a
quieter ``thump'' rather than triggering an unacceptable sonic boom.
These companies are committed to design supersonic aircraft to meet the
current subsonic Stage 5 noise levels using innovative advanced
procedures.
These environmental challenges include not only noise, but also
carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Importantly,
ICAO is also looking to address these issues through harmonized
international rules, spurred on in part by FAA's leadership in
proposing a noise rule for supersonic aircraft pursuant to Section 181
of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This work by the FAA on an
updated noise rule for supersonic aircraft paved the way for
development of a harmonized international rule through ICAO. At the
most recent Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection conference
(CAEP 12), a new work item was added to set stringencies (limits) for
both landing and takeoff noise and emissions for new supersonic
aircraft.
Setting noise and emissions limits before an aircraft is produced
is a groundbreaking step strongly supported by the aviation industry.
It will allow aircraft and engine manufacturers to work on designs that
meet or exceed these standards, making future supersonic aircraft both
economically and environmentally positive.
Advanced Air Mobility Aircraft
Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is the emergence of transformative
airborne technology to transport people and goods in both rural and
urban environments. AAM technologies promise to transform how people
and cargo are moved, with significant benefits to the U.S. economy. In
the United States alone, the AAM market is estimated to reach $115
billion annually and employ more than 280,000 people by the year 2035.
AAM involves a new type of aircraft known as electric vertical
takeoff and landing, or eVTOL. These types of aircraft can take off and
land vertically like a helicopter and then shift to flight like a
fixed-wing airplane. Additionally, eVTOLs are community friendly, with
measured noise levels 100 times quieter than a helicopter. This will
allow them to integrate into a city without the noise footprint of
other aircraft.
Over time, changes to FAA's regulatory process may be needed to
enable higher volumes of AAM operations and autonomous operations. In
addition, AIA applauds Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves for
introducing bipartisan legislation in support of state and local
planning for AAM systems (the ``Advanced Aviation Infrastructure
Modernization Act''). This legislation would authorize a new grant
program that would lay the groundwork for communities to plan their
development and deployment of AAM technology. In doing so, it would
provide assistance for local governments to specifically assess the
siting of public use vertiports and any potential environmental effects
of AAM operations. We believe this legislation is a strong step forward
to ensure any noise impacts from this emerging technology are
understood local communities.
How to Get There Faster and Quieter
A critical factor for increased improvement in the noise
characteristics of aircraft is continuing the effective partnership
between the FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the aviation industry. We believe collaborative support for
aviation research and development is vital for aviation's future, and
the opportunity exists today to double down on these public-private
partnerships and accelerate the next generation of aircraft and
engines.
AIA member companies are exploring a range of technologies for
next-generation aircraft for introduction in the 2030s, offering
improvements in fuel efficiency of 15 to 25 percent compared to current
aircraft. To realize these benefits, U.S. manufacturers will require
support to remain competitive, given the impact of Covid-19 and the
billions of dollars in investment being made by European governments in
support of similar efforts overseas. Congress can help in these efforts
by:
Continuing to support increased funding for the FAA's
Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy and Noise (CLEEN) Program to
accelerate reductions in noise and other emissions in conjunction with
fuel efficiency improvements;
Supporting and expanding the Alternate Fuel and Low
Emission Aviation Technology grant program in the House-passed Build
Back Better legislation and introduced in the Senate as S. 3125
(``Aviation Emissions Reduction Opportunity'' or AERO Act);
Passing H. R. 6270, the ``Advanced Aviation
Infrastructure Modernization (AAIM) Act'', to establish a pilot program
to provide grants related to Advanced Air Mobility infrastructure;
Helping to drive the development of a comprehensive,
long-term research agenda that supports transformational aviation
technologies, leveraging partnerships between industry and government
agencies including NASA and the Departments of Transportation, Defense,
and Energy; and
Continuing to support NASA's work in the development of
enabling technologies for next generation aircraft, such as new
airframes and engines that reduce noise and emissions while improving
efficiency. This should include accelerating the timetable for a NASA
subsonic demonstrator `X-plane' incorporating airframe innovations, to
ensure U.S. companies can bring these technologies to maturity ahead of
European competitors.

On air traffic management improvements, the FAA continues to make
significant progress in delivering enhancements to the National
Airspace System (NAS) and reducing noise through its NextGen efforts.
Congress should continue to invest in and prioritize these
improvements, which are expected to further reduce noise through 2030.
The FAA should also ensure performance-based navigation (PBN) routes
are complemented by efforts to promote community involvement in changes
to airspace structure, delivering positive outcomes for community
noise.
Conclusion
AIA applauds the Committee for this opportunity to discuss the
important topic of community noise and allowing industry to provide our
views on ongoing research and our significant efforts to reduce both
noise and emissions impacts. We appreciate the support of Congress in
authorizing and appropriating funds for vital FAA and NASA research
that will lessen aircraft noise, and your support for emerging
technologies like supersonic and AAM aircraft systems. We look forward
to working with this Committee as you consider important policy changes
related to aviation noise this year and in the next FAA reauthorization
bill.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, and the Chair now
recognizes Emily Tranter, executive director of N.O.I.S.E.
Ms. Tranter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tranter. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Larsen, Ranking
Member Graves, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be with you today and share perspective on
progress and tools towards addressing community aviation noise
concerns. My name is Emily Tranter, and I am the executive
director of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-
Controlled Environment, or N.O.I.S.E.
N.O.I.S.E. is the country's oldest advocacy organization
representing a community perspective on aviation noise impacts.
Our organization is comprised of elected officials from all
over the United States, all directly impacted by aviation noise
and operations. Our board alone represents communities adjacent
to major airports in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington, DC,
Louisville, and the Denver area.
As you know, NextGen establishes flight tracks that become
part of a complex and growing network of procedures. For the
efficiency of NextGen implementation, the tracks should be
designed to be stable and sustainable, long term. To that end,
it is important to design tracks that will be acceptable to the
FAA and community.
NextGen is a transformational infrastructure investment,
and deserves the same due diligence and community input as any
other major transportation system on the ground would warrant,
as well as ensuring that this infrastructure does not cause
undue harm.
To be clear, we do not represent every impacted community
or interest on this issue. However, our organization's
engagement for nearly half a century provides a unique
perspective that we believe will give the committee background
on meaningful ways that have and can continue to measure the
progress of addressing community concerns related to aviation
noise.
First, it is clear that there is no silver bullet when it
comes to addressing aviation noise impacts. In our experience,
Congress and the FAA have made dedicated strides towards
focusing on community engagement over the last decade. However,
much progress still needs to be made. These efforts include the
FAA creating an Office of Community Engagement in the Air
Traffic Organization and directly engaging with airport
roundtables. It also includes individual Members and this
committee responding to constituent concerns through
legislative action, funding the study of noise metrics, and by
creating the Quiet Skies Caucus.
While these actions are meaningful and extremely important
to continue to invest in, many of the most impactful changes to
noise have come from the bottom up, or airport level, rather
than from top-down policy changes.
Understanding local dynamics is vital towards finding and
implementing meaningful solutions. That is to say, when you
have seen one airport, you have seen one airport, and a one-
sized fix does not fit all.
Early and frequent communication by the FAA, the airport,
and other industry stakeholders with the impacted communities
through a roundtable or by other public means is, in our
experience, key towards community awareness, engagement, and
understanding of noise changes. Even changes that do not
require environmental review should be paired with robust
community outreach, far ahead of any planned changes to the
airspace that could impact noise.
In many cases, educating and engaging local elected
officials can help provide an important bridge to constituents.
In others, where roundtables may be comprised of both elected
and non-elected officials, direct engagement and consistent
communication with those bodies is key. The engagement of local
FAA personnel, who do understand the community and operations,
has also proven valuable in many cases.
Where we have seen the most progress, even if seemingly
incremental, has been where tailored and transparent engagement
has been put into place, and when the community is equipped
with knowledge and understanding of what is and is not possible
from an operational standpoint.
Outside of the NEPA process, transparent and robust
communication can save time and avoid unnecessary hurdles
caused by community pushback when unexpected changes occur.
It is important to recognize that there is a relationship
between an airport and the surrounding communities, and when
each is doing well, they bolster the success of the others.
Thriving communities are places where a dependable workforce
want to live, and where people want to do business or visit.
The airport is an asset to a community, but a thriving
community is also an asset to the airport. Designing tracks
that respect the communities they impact and do not
unintentionally cause harm will foster this mutually beneficial
partnership. Investment in this partnership ahead of any noise
changes creates the foundation for sustainable outcomes and
long-term success.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today,
and I look forward to any questions.
[Ms. Tranter's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Emily J. Tranter, Executive Director, National
Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.)
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to be with you today and share perspective on
progress and tools towards addressing community aviation noise
concerns. My name is Emily Tranter and I am the Executive Director of
The National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment
(N.O.I.S.E.).
N.O.I.S.E. is the country's oldest advocacy organization
representing a community perspective on aviation noise impacts. Our
organization is comprised of elected officials from all over the United
States, all directly impacted by aviation noise and operations. Our
board alone represents communities adjacent to major airports in
Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Louisville, Kentucky and the
Denver area.
N.O.I.S.E. Executive Board:
President
The Honorable Brad Pierce
Council Member
City of Aurora, CO

1st Vice President
The Honorable Mary Rose Evans
Commissioner
City of Parkway Village, KY

2nd Vice President
The Honorable Ambrose Clay
Council Member
College Park, GA
Treasurer
The Honorable Libby Garvey
County Board Member
Arlington County, VA

Secretary
The Honorable Linea Palmisano
Council Member
Minneapolis, MN

As you know, the NextGen system puts new tracks into place that are
designed not to move or deviate--essentially creating infrastructure in
the sky. To successfully address noise impact concerns--it is important
to design those tracks to be sustainable so that they will be
acceptable to the FAA and community for the long term. Implementation
of NextGen and its many technological advancements for the air traffic
system, deserves the same due diligence and community input as any
other major transportation system on the ground would warrant.
As you know, NextGen establishes flight tracks that become part of
a complex and growing network or tracks and procedures. For the
efficiency of NextGen implementation, the tracks should be designed to
be stable and sustainable long-term. To that end, it's important to
design tracks that will be acceptable to the FAA and community. NextGen
is a transformational infrastructure investment and deserves the same
due diligence and community input as any other major transportation
system on the ground would warrant. As well as ensuring that this
infrastructure does not cause undue harm.
To be clear, we do not represent every impacted community, interest
or perspective on this issue, however our organization's engagement for
nearly half a century, provides a unique perspective that we believe
will give the Committee background on meaningful ways that have--and
can continue to--measure the progress of addressing community concerns
related to aviation noise.
First, it is clear that there is no silver bullet when it comes to
addressing aviation noise impacts. In our experience, Congress and the
FAA have made dedicated strides toward focusing on community engagement
over the last decade, however, much progress still needs to be made.
These efforts include the FAA creating an office of community
engagement in the Air Traffic Organization and engaging directly with
airport roundtables. It also includes individual Members and this
Committee responding to constituent concerns through legislative
action, funding the study of noise metrics, and by creating the Quiet
Skies Caucus.
While these actions are meaningful, many of the most impactful
changes to noise have come from the bottom up--or airport level--rather
than from top-down policy changes. Understanding local dynamics is
vital towards finding and implementing meaningful solutions. That is to
say--when you've seen one airport, you've seen one airport--and a one-
sized fix does not fit all.
Early and frequent communication by the FAA, the airport and other
industry stakeholders with the impacted communities--through a
roundtable--or by other public means is, in our experience, key toward
community awareness, engagement and understanding of noise changes.
Even changes that do not require environmental review should be paired
with robust community outreach far ahead of any planned changes to the
airspace that could impact noise.
In many cases, educating and engaging the elected officials can
help provide an important bridge to constituents. In others, where
roundtables may be comprised of both elected and non-elected
officials--direct engagement and consistent communication with those
bodies is key. The engagement of local FAA personnel who understand the
community and operations has also proven valuable in many cases.
Where we have seen the most progress, even if seemingly
incremental, has been in communities where tailored engagement has been
put into place.
Outside of the NEPA process, transparent and robust communication
can save time and avoid unnecessary hurdles caused by community push
back when unexpected changes occur.
Airports and the Communities They Serve
It's important to recognize that there is a relationship between an
airport and the surrounding and when each is doing well, they bolster
the success of the other. Thriving communities are places where a
dependable workforce want to live, and where people want to do business
or visit. The airport is an asset to a community, but a thriving
community is also an asset to the airport. Designing tracks that
respect the communities they impact, and do not unintentionally cause
harm, will foster this mutually-beneficial partnership.
Investment in this partnership creates the foundation for
sustainable outcomes and long-term success.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much, and now the
Chair recognizes JoeBen Bevirt of Joby.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bevirt. Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and the
members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the
invitation to be here today. It is an honor for me and for the
entire Joby Aviation team.
I founded Joby with a vision of creating a new form of air
travel that is clean, quiet, and accessible. My passion for
this work began while growing up in the California redwoods. I
remember walking home from school, where I experienced the
beauty of the land around me. But like any child, I dreamed of
a faster way to get there. I pictured myself flying in an
aircraft that could take off vertically, but then transition
and fly like an airplane, and blend seamlessly into its
surroundings.
In 2009, I founded Joby Aviation to bring this vision to
life, experimenting with new ways to design aircraft using
electric motors and batteries. We were honored to work with
NASA on pioneering projects like LEAPTech and the X-57 Maxwell
to demonstrate the potential of electric flight.
After years of testing and development, we were ready to
commercialize this technology, and started flying full-scale
prototype aircraft in 2017. We are now working with the FAA as
a formal applicant for type certification. I am pleased to say
that we are on track to bring our all-electric piloted aircraft
to market in 2024. It is capable of flying 150 miles on a
single charge to move four passengers at a top speed of 200
miles an hour.
Thanks to the foresight shown both by Congress and the FAA
when they rewrote part 23 airworthiness standards to encourage
innovation, the U.S. is out in front in this global race for
aviation leadership. The FAA's decision to apply part 23 to
aircraft like ours, and fully leverage the flexibility of the
existing rules is critical, as it means no significant new
regulation is needed. As a result, the United States leads the
world in bringing aviation into the electric age of flight. In
the decades to come, electric and hydrogen-electric propulsion
systems will allow us to build aircraft that are cheaper to
operate, quieter, and bring us much closer to net-zero
emissions.
For the sake of the planet and future generations, it is
critical that the Government continue to prioritize these
technologies. My company is deeply committed to delivering an
aircraft and a service that is emissions free, broadly
accessible, and quiet.
Making aviation a part of everyday life requires a
revolutionary approach to acoustics and aircraft design. And
that is exactly what we have done. Our aircraft emits 100 times
less noise than a traditional helicopter. During takeoff and
landing, the loudest moments of flight, it is about the same
volume as a normal conversation. In cruise, we are virtually
silent. Thanks to the motors and propellers that we have
created in-house, we have been able to eliminate the impulsive
``wop wop'' sound that defines helicopters. And instead, we
have created something that more closely resembles the sound of
wind passing through the trees.
Together with NASA, we have conducted a series of test
flights in September 2021 to measure and validate the acoustic
footprint of our aircraft, and some of the early results of
that work are included in my written testimony.
Looking ahead, we must be good citizens and neighbors in
the communities we plan to serve. That means engaging early,
listening to local stakeholders, and offering a service that is
broadly accessible. Our objective is to offer flights at a cost
equivalent to taxis or ride-sharing services today.
In the early days, we plan to use existing airports and
heliports, many of which today are underutilized. As we
demonstrate the benefits of our transportation service, and
prove how quiet our aircraft is, we believe early-adopter
communities will be interested in permitting new infrastructure
that is close to where people live and work. For this reason,
we support H.R. 6270, the Advanced Aviation Infrastructure
Modernization Act, sponsored by Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member
Graves, and Representative Titus, which would allow cities to
begin planning for this new type of mobility before it arrives.
Every major advancement in aviation began with a revolution
in propulsion technology. And each time our Nation has been at
the leading edge of adopting that opportunity, from the early
Wright brothers' flights in Kitty Hawk to the jet age. Today,
we have the opportunity to lead once more, this time with a
technology that not only opens the door to new possibilities,
but is also cleaner and quieter than ever before.
Thank you again for the opportunity, and I look forward to
your questions.
[Mr. Bevirt's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of JoeBen Bevirt, Founder and Chief Executive
Officer, Joby Aviation
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name
is JoeBen Bevirt, and I am the Founder and CEO of Joby Aviation (Joby).
It is my privilege to speak to you about topics that are a passion of
mine--aviation noise, sustainability, and the work Joby is doing to
create a clean, quiet, and accessible form of air travel.
Introduction and Joby Background
I founded Joby in 2009 with the vision of saving a billion people
an hour a day through sustainable flight. My passion for this began
while growing up in the Redwoods of California. I remember walking home
from school, where I experienced the beauty of the land around me, but,
like any child, I dreamt of a faster way to get there. On these walks,
I pictured myself flying in an aircraft that could takeoff vertically
and blend into its surroundings, with a sound that mimicked wind
rushing through the trees, and producing no emissions harmful to the
environment. My dream was not possible back then, as the technologies
necessary were not yet commercially viable. In 2009, this technology
matured leading me to start Joby.
At the beginning of our journey, we were a team of passionate
engineers working day and night at a workshop in the mountains above
Santa Cruz, California. We experimented with new ways to design
aircraft that could fly like airplanes, take off vertically and powered
entirely by batteries and electric motors. This early work set out the
path for electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft.
As we set out to design our aircraft, we had a few key goals in
mind. We wanted to build something more efficient and more economical
than traditional aircraft thus allowing millions of people to
experience routine air travel. We understood from day one that making
flight a part of everyday life required a revolutionary approach to
acoustics, and this had to be considered in every aspect of the
aircraft's design.
In 2009, this was an ambitious set of goals, as the Electric
Aviation industry was still in its infancy. However, the federal
government has long recognized and been committed to the research and
development of electric flight. In 2012, we were fortunate to partner
with the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) on several
critical projects to help prove that electric flight was possible. One
of the most successful, the LEAPTech project (see Figure 1), led to
NASA green-lighting its first-ever electric X-plane project--the X-57
Maxwell--which we helped design and build elements of its propulsion
system. This work was critical in showing the world that electric
propulsion was ready for flight.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the NASA LEAPTech Project which showcased Joby electric
aviation powerplant components

Meanwhile, we kept designing and testing our own motors, battery
systems, and prototype aircraft. In 2015, we felt confident we had
designed an aircraft that accomplished our goals, and we began flying
subscale versions of it. The early tests showed enough promise that we
proceeded to build a full-scale demonstrator that began flying in 2017.
After several hundred successful flight tests, our team was
convinced we had the right aircraft to fulfill our vision, and we have
since built two full-size pre-production prototypes and have been
flying this platform since 2019. At the same time, we expanded our
manufacturing facilities and--with the help of Toyota Motor
Corporation, one of our leading investors and strategic partners--built
our pilot manufacturing facilities in San Carlos, California, and
Marina, California. We are currently building our first ``production
prototype'' aircraft which we intend to fly later this year.
Simultaneously, in 2015, we began to engage with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), and in 2018, we formally applied to the
FAA as a type certification applicant. We plan to bring to market a
piloted electric airplane that seats four passengers, capable of flying
150 miles (plus FAA required 30 minute VFR reserve) on a single charge
at speeds up to 200 miles per hour. I am pleased to say that we are
currently on track to do this in 2024.
Ushering in a New Era of Flight
Our nation's history of aviation leadership is marked by
innovation. From the first flight at Kitty Hawk to the dawn of the jet
age, aviation has constantly reinvented what's possible, driven by the
introduction of new propulsion methods. Today, we're witnessing the
next propulsion revolution--the dawn of electric aviation. According to
Morgan Stanley, just one segment of the electric aviation industry
known as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is expected to be a $1 trillion
industry by 2040 \1\ and is projected to add 280,000 jobs to the US
economy by 2035.\2\ Communities that decide to actively take advantage
of this revolutionary technology will gain the societal and economic
benefits that accompany this advanced form of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, https://assets.verticalmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/
Morgan-Stanley-URBAN_
20210506_0000.pdf.
\2\ See, https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/
aerospace-defense/advanced-air-
mobility.html?id=us:2el:3pr:4diER6839:5awa:012621:&pkid=1007244#endnote-
sup-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this race for global aviation leadership, the FAA is leading the
world. It is imperative that the United States not take this for
granted and continue to take steps to ensure this leadership continues
as Europe and China also seek to lead the emerging AAM industry. This
leadership is possible due to the foresight of both Congress and the
FAA nearly a decade ago, when they undertook the task of rewriting Part
23 and is furthered by the FAA's approach of using the flexibility of
these and other existing regulations to their fullest extent.
On July 18, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously
approved the Part 23 rewrite, or the ``Small Airplane Revitalization
Act of 2013'' (SARA).\3\ The bill, which was signed into law by
President Obama later that year, created a new way to certify airplanes
that allowed for more flexibility in the design--provided that the
aircraft still maintained the rigorous safety standards set by the FAA.
The FAA's ``Part 23 Rewrite'' was created to modernize general aviation
with an eye to the future by being durable enough to support and enable
the design and certification of an entirely zero-operating emission
aircraft like Joby's. It is a credit to the FAA's work and an example
of the government maximizing safety while nurturing innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ53/PLAW-
113publ53.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the enactment of SARA, in 2020, the FAA decided eVTOL
aircraft that fly on the wing and show airplane-like flight
characteristics met the criteria to be considered a Part 23 21.17(A),
normal category, airplane.\4\ The FAA also created a range of special
conditions to address items like electric propulsion and vertical
performance of the airplane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOIe7qTejU&t=2778s
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This determination also strengthens our global aviation leadership
by enabling early eVTOL operations to use today's aviation system--
including commercial pilots, air traffic control, and existing
bilateral aviation safety agreements \5\--and therefore, no significant
new regulations are needed to begin commercializing this technology. By
choosing to leverage the new Part 23 for eVTOL aircraft, the FAA has
remarkably enhanced manufacturers' ability to innovate and get quiet,
sustainable flight to the masses--without compromising safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/joint-faa-and-united-kingdom-
caa-statement-evtol-aircraft
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I firmly believe that Joby's aircraft and other companies working
in our space are creating the start of a zero-emissions aviation
future. Today, the aviation sector has proven to be one of the hardest
to decarbonize. The industry is fully committed to creating a zero
emissions future and have pledged zero operating emissions by 2050.\6\
To meet this goal, companies are hard at work developing a path to in
sector net zero emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, https://www.aia-aerospace.org/news/net-zero-by-2050/ ;
https://ibac.org/posts/ibac-commits-to-net-zero-carbon-emissions-by-
2050 ; https://www.airlines.org/news/major-u-s-airlines-commit-to-net-
zero-carbon-emissions-by-2050/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric, and eventually hydrogen, aircraft will power a suite of
future aircraft that ultimately cover all potential use cases.
Development of this technology will take time and the government must
continue to heavily invest in order to decarbonize the industry, lead
the world in the next era of aviation, and fully realize the potential
benefits of clean aviation for society.
Noise as a Priority
Electric aviation has the potential to truly improve our cities and
communities--not just by eliminating emissions, but also creating
faster, affordable new ways for people to move around increasingly
congested areas. But these benefits can only be realized if industry
can design planes quiet enough to blend into their surroundings. While
replacing noisy combustion engines with electric motors helps to
address the acoustics of vertical flight, achieving truly quiet flight
requires careful design considerations throughout the aircraft.
At a high level, our airplane measures 65 A-weighted decibels (dBa)
during take-off and landing from a distance of 100 meters, and 40 dBA
in overflight. This is roughly 100x less acoustic energy than a
traditional rotorcraft, and for comparison, about as loud as a normal
conversation at its loudest point.\7\ However, noise is inherently
complex and it's important that when the aviation industry thinks about
it, we consider both the measurable quantity of the noise as well as
the quality of the sound. The Joby design addresses both in several
ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, Joby Dec. `21 Corporate Deck https://ir.jobyaviation.com/
about-us/presentations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we designed electric motors that create very high torque,
which enables our propellers to spin powerfully at low revolutions per
minute (RPM) while still generating substantial lift and thrust. As a
result, the Joby aircraft has double the battery capacity of a Tesla
Model 3 Long Range automobile, along with six times the torque density
and three times the total propulsion power.\8\ Next, we paired that
motor with specially designed lightweight propeller blades optimized
for low noise. The progression of our propeller design can be seen in
figure 2. High torque motors, combined with a large, purpose designed,
propeller capable of spinning at low RPMs has played a critical part in
drastically reducing our total sound profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, Joby Aviation Analyst Day Deck https://
ir.jobyaviation.com/about-us/presentations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2

Figure 2 shows the range of propellor designs Joby tested to determine
the optimal solution

The amplitude, or loudness, of a sound is just one piece of the
noise equation; sound quality is also critical to how noise is
perceived. We focused extensively on both aspects of noise and designed
our aircraft to avoid the ``wop wop'' of a traditional helicopter. We
instead created a sound that closely resembles nature by limiting the
impulsive sound coming off the aircraft.
Taken together, we believe our design approach resulted in an
aircraft that is extremely quiet and more pleasing to the ear than
today's aircraft. To validate this, it was critical for us to work with
a respected third party and, for that reason, we were fortunate to
partner once again with NASA as part of their Advanced Air Mobility
National Campaign. Together, we conducted a series of test flights over
two weeks in September 2021, using NASA's Mobile Acoustics Facility \9\
to analyze the noise footprint of the Joby aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-begins-air-taxi-
flight-testing-with-joby
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since completing that testing, we have gained valuable insights
into the noise signature of our aircraft, and figures 3 and 4 show some
of the results. In sum, it showed that our aircraft met our acoustic
design targets and emits a small noise signature compared to existing
helicopters.

Figure 3

Figure 3 compares the noise signature of a typical EMS Helicopter in
Overflight at 500 meters with the noise signature of the Joby Aircraft
in overflight at 500 meters

Figure 4

Figure 4 compares the noise signature of a traditional airliner as it
is landing at LAX with the noise signature of the Joby Aircraft as it
is landing at LAX.

Community Engagement Is Vital to the Future of eVTOL
Creating a fast, sustainable and quiet aircraft are essential
steps, but we must also be good citizens and neighbors in the
communities whom we plan to serve. As Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
noted before this Committee in his April 2021 testimony: ``Angelenos
are no stranger to noise from aircraft, particularly from daily
helicopter flights over urban neighborhoods and the broader noise
issues faced by people who live near our various airports. OEMs, like
Joby . . . are targeting noise levels less than 70 decibels at cruising
altitude. This is comparable to the higher range of a normal
conversation. Joby Aircraft, for example, has publicly made it known
that its aircraft's acoustical characteristics are just as important as
other performance characteristics. Communities demand quieter vehicles,
and the industry is responding.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
Garcetti%20Testimony.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joby intends to not only design and build our aircraft, but to also
serve as the commercial operator as well. We are on track to receive
our Part 135 certification from the FAA later this year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, https://www.jobyaviation.com/news/joby-nears-completion-
part-135-air-carrier-certification/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, most people have been unable to use air
transportation for short, routine trips given costs and other factors.
The objective of AAM is to create a new democratized, accessible form
of air travel. My long-term goal is for the cost of a Joby flight to be
lower than the cost of personal car ownership, but I recognize that
will take some time. This new form of accessible, sustainable air
travel will create a new paradigm in aviation where millions of people
can afford to travel on our service daily or weekly.
In the early days of our service, we plan on operating out of
today's existing aviation infrastructure. The United States leads the
world with 5,080 airports and many more heliports located throughout
the country.\12\ Built in the aftermath of World War II, these airports
triggered massive economic growth as they connected the U.S. in ways
that had never been possible. Today, many of these airports are
underutilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, https://www.statista.com/statistics/183496/number-of-
airports-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress, and specifically this Subcommittee, has devoted
substantial time and resources to foster air services among underserved
communities with underutilized airports around the country. We intend
to revitalize many of these airports by providing a new sustainable
service.
Due to the substantially reduced noise profile of our aircraft,
along with its enhanced affordability, we believe there will be
interest in and opportunities to permit new infrastructure closer to
where people live and work, commonly referred to as ``Vertiports'' or
``Skyports.'' Industry is actively working with the FAA to define this
new class of infrastructure, but they are largely envisioned as similar
in size to a heliport with electric charging and water available. In
the future, I believe that we could consider incorporating noise
standards into how we permit infrastructure. Quiet aviation is coming,
and cities should be able to work with industry to make it a part of
their transportation networks--but only with the promise that it won't
be disruptive to their citizens.
This future will only be possible if industry engages early and
often with local communities and can deliver a service that is both
broadly affordable and a welcome addition to everyday life. We are
already working with numerous cities to design a service that meets
their specific needs and requirements. I believe more local communities
will want to construct Vertiports to integrate quiet, accessible
aircraft into their transportation networks.
To help cities begin to plan for Advanced Air Mobility, Joby and
others in the industry have been pleased to support H.R. 6270, the
Advanced Aviation Infrastructure Modernization Act sponsored by
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Representative Titus.\13\
This legislation would enable one year planning studies for cities to
study how Advanced Air Mobility will integrate into their specific
community. To paraphrase something that Chair Larsen and I have talked
about before, ``the most important person may soon become the local
city planner''. I firmly believe that this piece of legislation is
critical to give that local planner the resources necessary to
understand how Advanced Air Mobility will benefit their local
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/
6270?q=%7B%22search%22%3A
%5B%22H.R.+6270%22%2C%22H.R.%22%2C%226270%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The electric age of aviation is the most exciting time for the
aviation industry since the dawn of the jet age, and the coming decades
will be defined by quiet, sustainable, and accessible flight. We
appreciate that both Congress and the FAA are doing their part to
ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the future
of sustainable flight. Joby is committed to doing our best to ensure
that we are providing them a service that is affordable, accessible,
sustainable, and quiet.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to your questions.

Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much. Thank you to
the panel. And we will now go to Members for questions. I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes. The first question is for Ms.
Tranter.
As part of the 2018 FAA reauthorization law, Congress
required FAA to appoint regional aviation noise ombudsmen. In
your view, how would you assess the role that the ombudsman
process has played?
Has it improved communication?
And what improvements can be made to the use of ombudsmen?
Ms. Tranter. Thank you for the question.
I know that the creation of ombudsmen was much anticipated
by communities across the country, and the impact and
investment of that position has made significant changes to, as
I spoke to, the local presence of the FAA and engagement.
I think there is some room for improvement, in terms of
ombudsmen's awareness of certain community dynamics, and of a
nonpartial role--not that the FAA is partial, but that
ombudsmen tend, and by definition, to have that background.
But I do think that it is exceedingly important that the
FAA continues to try. They are trying, they are putting these
things into place, and there is a lot of trial and error as
they go, but the most important factor is that these policies
and positions are put into place to build on and to learn from.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Are there specific
changes to the law as we prepare for 2023 that you think we
should consider?
Ms. Tranter. I think the law changes should continue to
invest and allow the FAA to invest in local community
engagement, so subject matter experts on the ground for and on
behalf of communities, whether that is through the FAA, through
outside consultants or contractors. That, in, I think, our
organization's opinion, is one of the strongest tools towards
giving communities that sense that they are well represented
and have the same footing as these new tracks go into place,
the new procedures go into place.
So, that investment for the FAA would be critical for them
to have those tools at individual airports to respond to the
individual needs.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, thanks.
Mr. Miller, your description of the Hollywood Burbank
experience sounded very sunny, and I am sure a lot of hard work
went into that. Do you have any advice for us on any hiccups or
challenges that you faced and, as well, how this would apply--
how your experience would apply to other airports?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, you are right, it wasn't all
sunny.
The purpose of the task force was really to identify issues
that have been raised before, that there are certain things
that we can and cannot do to provide an opportunity for the
community to understand the role of the airport. And as we went
through the process, we worked very closely with the FAA to
ensure that the task force would be able to accomplish what we
wanted. And the FAA was very instrumental in helping us convene
this task force.
We also made it clear that not everything that was
contained in the recommendations we could commit to
undertaking. There were some things that, obviously, can't be
done.
So, I think it helped us at least to get out there. I know
that the community wasn't always very happy with the idea that
it wasn't an easy fix. And as was stated once before, we are
not really eliminating noise, it is how you relocate the noise
impact.
So, there are issues that have to be discussed. Certainly,
we know that we weren't making everybody happy. But I think
most airports around the country want to be good neighbors. We
certainly want to be a good neighbor here in Burbank. And the
task force is, I think, a very important way of conveying that
to the community and giving them an opportunity to participate
in discussions with us. And I think it was very important to
have the elected officials represented on that task force to
also understand how their constituents could be affected either
by getting noise that they hadn't experienced before, or being
able to move the noise to a different area where it had
provided the least impact.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. I will have questions
for the record for the other witnesses around new technologies
and their impact on noise.
With that I will turn to the ranking member, Representative
Graves of Louisiana, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tranter, I was asking the FAA and the GAO in the first
panel about some of the distortions about noise complaints,
going over the helicopter analysis done with the Department of
Defense, as well as some of the complaints coming in to
National Airport, and just showing the incredible distortion of
numbers with the majority of complaints. For example, for the
helicopter analysis, 89 percent of the complaints were lodged
by the same 10 folks. The outliers can obscure a goal of trying
to truly mitigate noise complaints or noise issues.
How can we work together to help to make sure that we are
doing an accurate analysis, and truly working to address the
complaints collectively?
Ms. Tranter. Thank you for the question. Yes, noise
complaints are an interesting beast, in that the FAA, the
United States does not measure noise impact by complaints; it
is measured by the metric.
I would go back to my testimony that the engagement with
the roundtables who have been endorsed by the community or who
have been developed by the community, whether those be put
together by or comprised of elected officials and/or residents,
and also other subject matter experts: those bodies, those
public processes give, in our experience, the most accurate
picture of the impacts on the ground and what folks are
hearing. Because, yes, maybe one person gives a much more of an
unbalanced set of complaints in a process.
However, folks who are engaged, who are well educated on
the issue and impacts tend to engage with their local elected
officials and with anybody that is present. In Minneapolis,
there is the Noise Oversight Committee. Those are elected
officials and city staff and residents. They are known to
interact with them, and also with their elected officials in
Congress, and things like that.
So, that gives you a much more accurate picture to then
respond to and address where the issues lie.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
Mr. Bevirt, you win the prize for the best background. I
think I would like one of those.
But I wanted to ask, so I asked Ms. Krause on the first
panel from the Government Accountability Office about how we
need to be thinking about noise moving forward, considering the
evolution of technology and some of the innovation that you and
others are carrying out. We are going to be looking at,
potentially, aircraft that are much closer to residential and
commercial areas, potentially flying at different elevations.
Could you talk a little bit about how Joby is approaching
it, perhaps give us some advice on what we should be thinking
about as we consider the number of flights, when we consider
the different altitudes, meaning the lower altitudes of some of
the aircraft that will be flying, with newer technologies, and
some of the flightpaths, and that we are going to be
potentially having vertiports and others closer to residential
areas, and things along those lines?
Mr. Bevirt. Congressman Graves, thank you so much for the
question.
So, I think the key element here is, if you care about
aviation noise, if you care about acoustics, the best thing you
could do is invest in electric propulsion. Electric propulsion
is a game changer. It allows you to radically rethink the
design of aircraft in a really holistic way.
As I spoke about, we have been able to reduce the acoustic
signature of aircraft in hover by 100-fold, compared to
helicopters. That is unprecedented.
We have also been able to substantially reduce the noise in
overflight.
The reason we have invested in this, we have spent more
than a decade very, very focused on this, and the reason is, we
want to be able to serve communities. We want to be able to
land in a community. I am somebody who cares very deeply about
the tranquility of the place that I live, and yet I want access
to the next generation of transportation. And so, I want to be
able to take off from where I live without disturbing my
neighbors. And to do that, we have developed an aircraft which
is really a game changer in its acoustic signature.
To follow on, electric propulsion can enable those benefits
in aircraft of all shapes and sizes, and will be really
transformational as we look to the future of reducing aircraft
noise across the country.
Thank you again.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. A
question for Ms. Tranter.
One of the most consistent complaints we hear from
residents who experienced elevated levels of noise is their
inability to speak or direct their complaints directly to the
FAA. In response, this committee included a provision in the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to create a formal process for
addressing community concerns by establishing ombudsmen in each
FAA office to serve as community engagement officers.
How effective have these new ombudsmen been at addressing
community concerns regarding aviation noise?
Ms. Tranter. Thank you for the question. I do think that it
was a point of progress to have an FAA personnel at each
airport, at each regional--not at each airport, but at each
region of the FAA that can engage and be responsive.
I think that the key--and what we have seen as an
organization is the key--is to have that person have
continuity, have engagement with whatever the other
stakeholders are, and understand the dynamics there. The FAA is
a very large agency. They have a lot on their plate to deal
with, safety and efficiency, and safety being--we all
understand that we fly safely because of how hard everyone at
the FAA works.
But having the dedicated person on the ground is a great
step, but we do see room for improvement in just elevating all
levels of communication in terms of reading the room for each
scenario, each airport, and then responding back up to
headquarters, and using all of the tools that headquarters has,
and has put in place to then respond to the community concerns.
Ms. Norton. In your view, are there more changes that need
to be made to create a more effective engagement with local
communities?
Ms. Tranter. Yes, I think that continued investment by
Congress and the FAA into on-the-ground Government, FAA,
industry, and airport engagement, more investment in terms of
policy that you all would put into place, and positions that
are funded. An emphasis on the need for local understanding and
engagement is key because, again, all of these long-term
investments into looking at metrics, into the study of noise,
into new aircraft, which is all extremely vital and important,
that is very long term. And so, the investment into how the FAA
and Congress can support the individual local engagement, I
think, would be a great focus for the next reauthorization.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller, many airports that participate in
the part 150 program and receive Airport Improvement Program
funding for noise mitigation projects find that the demand for
these funds often outstrips supply. However, with the passage
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--and we have just
done that--airports will receive a record amount of funding for
all types of airport development projects, including noise
mitigation.
Can you explain how critical this law will be in helping
airports fund additional noise mitigation projects for their
local communities?
And can you specifically describe how your airport plans to
use this new funding to address your community's aviation noise
concerns?
Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, certainly, the funding that has
been approved will be very welcomed by airports around the
country, as well as here in Burbank. We rely upon it very much
to be able to do the noise mitigation efforts that we know will
be very crucial to our efforts to be that good neighbor, to
help noise-insulate homes around the airport.
We will continue a program that we have had in place for
some time. There has been a lapse in our efforts only because
of the COVID pandemic and the lack of available funding for us.
So, as the funding becomes available, and as we can draw down
on that money, we have already set aside the matching grant
dollars that we will need in order to move forward.
So, I thank Congress for approving that bill. I thank you
for the ability to have more funding available to ensure that
we can move as quickly as possible to complete the programs
that we have had in place for quite some time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burchett, you are recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here.
JoeBen, I am a flagrant inventor myself, I guess, and I
appreciate everything that you have got going. I wish you were
close to Knoxville, Tennessee, brother. I would love to crawl
all over one of those airplanes. That just fascinates me.
And I brought a picture of my mama. She actually flew an
airplane during the Second World War, which is pretty cool. She
was--my daddy was off fighting the Japanese, she was doing her
part for the war effort. And she lost a brother fighting the
Nazis, and she was about 18 years old and flying an airplane.
They were truly the greatest generation.
And I guess my question, just for anybody out there who
wants to answer it, do you all think that the U.S. can
realistically achieve the net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in
the aviation sector by 2050 without phasing out a majority of
the planes currently in the U.S. fleet? Because I know that
they are older planes, and probably not as efficient.
And of course, Mr. JoeBen is chomping at the bit, because
he knows they are not electric. So, I am wondering if you all
think that is a possibility.
Mr. Bevirt. So, I am incredibly excited about the
opportunity to utilize solar and wind and hydropower,
hydropower from places like Tennessee, to deliver energy
independence for our country, and to power our aviation and our
planes with electric and hydrogen-electric propulsion systems
to drive the economic value into our country, into our
communities.
If you have an airport, and you put in solar panels, all of
the revenue from that energy generation accrues to the local
community. If you are in Kansas, and you have got wind
turbines, and you power your planes, all of that revenue is
accruing to your community. I think that is really, really
powerful.
I think that, as you rightly point out, we need to drive to
a zero-emissions aviation future. We need to do that as
aggressively as we possibly can. The best way to do that is
with electric propulsion. And so, we should be investing in
research and development. We should be investing in
manufacturing. We should be investing in things like H.R. 6270
to drive community planning.
All of this will leave the country much stronger.
Investments made today will pay dividends for decades.
Mr. Silver. If I might, as well, there is no doubt that we
are currently being outspent by our European compatriots--
competitor mates, as we like to call them--in terms of these
technologies.
We, AIA, has made the commitment. We are the ones who are
required to design these aircraft to meet the goals of 2050. We
would not lightly make that commitment unless we thought we
could get there. However, it is going to take extraordinary
effort on all of our parts and putting in the necessary time,
research, and dollars to help us accomplish that, including,
but not limited to, the engine technology, the airframe
technology, but also sustainable aviation fuels, which are
going to be critical for us in helping us achieve these goals.
Ms. Pinkerton. Congressman, I will just jump in here, as
representing the airlines today.
Well, first of all, the story about your mom was amazing.
What an inspiring story, but----
Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. She was pretty cool.
Ms. Pinkerton. That is awesome.
Mr. Burchett. I am an unrepentant mama's boy, and I miss
her and my daddy every day.
Ms. Pinkerton. I did want to say, carriers also are very
excited about the potential for electric and hydrogen. In fact,
some of our carriers have invested in those technologies. I
think they are critical, but they are more of a medium or
longer term solution.
And as you know, carriers came together last year and
announced our net-zero goal by 2050. We do think we can meet
that, but we do think, in the short and medium term, we need to
be making these investments in sustainable aviation fuel. I
know we have got some leaders on this committee in that space.
It is very exciting, the work that is being done, but it is a
public-private partnership.
Airlines are committed to making that happen. Having 3
billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel available by 2030
is no easy task. But there is funding and incentives in the
Build Back Better bill that we are all very supportive of, and
I am looking forward to working with you and your colleagues to
make it happen.
With respect to the planes, I don't know if you heard my
oral testimony, but essentially what I said was, if there is a
silver lining on COVID, it is the fact that we not only parked
planes, but we retired a lot of our older and noisier fleet.
And we have spent $60 billion in the last 5 years on buying
newer planes. Those new planes that we bought in the last
couple of years are 50 percent more efficient and quieter than
the planes that we bought just 10 years ago. So, I think we are
off to a good start, but we will look forward to working
together----
Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Sharon, do you think my flight
bill will come down 50 percent?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pinkerton. It is already pretty low, I have to tell
you. It is already pretty low.
Mr. Burchett. All right. I don't know. My parents were
Depression-era. It could always go a little lower.
Thank you all so much. And Madam Chair, I yield back the
remainder of my time. It has been a pleasure with you all
today.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman.
That concludes our hearing. I would like to thank our
witnesses for their testimony today. Your comments have been
very informative and helpful.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments or information
submitted by the Members or the witnesses to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, and thank you to
today's witnesses.
Ensuring that airports and the aviation community work together
with nearby communities and the general public is critical to the
growth of the aviation industry.
Obviously, aircraft noise at airports can negatively affect
surrounding communities.
That is why over the years this Committee has given the FAA a
number of tools to help mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise.
However, it is important to remember that the FAA is an aviation
safety regulator, responsible for the safe, efficient operation of the
National Airspace System.
We also have to ensure that unfounded noise concerns are not used
as a weapon against our general aviation airport infrastructure.
Most general aviation airports have been around for decades, and
the noise from airport operations isn't new.
A robust network of GA airports will help drive the next few
decades of aviation growth and development, including with new
technologies like advanced air mobility vehicles.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can
work to mitigate the effects of aviation noise without compromising the
American leadership in aviation safety, operations, and technology.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves for holding
today's hearing. I would also like to thank our outstanding witnesses
for testifying before us today.
As a Member of Congress with two airports, Love Field and Dallas-
Ft. Worth, and two large airline hubs, American Air and Southwest,
based in and just outside my congressional district in Dallas, the
issue of aviation noise is a matter of great concern to me and to many
of my constituents living near these airports. As we've learned,
aviation noise isn't just an annoyance, but can lead to a host of long-
term health and behavior problems for those subjected to high decibels
of noise.
Dallas Love Field is a vital hub serving Dallas and North Texas. In
2020, Dallas Love Field was the busiest medium-sized airport in the
United States. Because of its central location within the city, it is
uniquely convenient for travelers, however, this also places the
airport near densely populated neighborhoods. According to FAA's 2021
analysis, roughly 300,000 residents live within 5 miles of the airport,
a statistic that ranks it in the top 25 of all airports surveyed.
In response to the noise, Love Field has created an Environmental
Committee which facilitates meetings with the community and airport
stakeholders, has installed monitors that collect noise data, and
launched a Noise Lab website that allows residents to submit noise
complaints for investigation, and provides live flight tracking and
other helpful airport information.
As airports continue to see more flights every day, addressing
aviation noise must be a priority for all our government leaders and
aviation stakeholders, and should continue to be a multi-pronged
approach utilizing new technology, innovative building materials, new
take-off and landing patterns, and strong community engagement.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the latest actions
being taken to address aviation noise and what we can be doing better.

Statement of Hon. Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, thank you for the opportunity to provide
written testimony on today's hearing on aviation noise.
This is a timely hearing given that air traffic is rebounding to
pre-pandemic levels. In the 37th Congressional District of California,
aviation noise has had a devastating effect on many of my constituents.
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) implementation of the
Southern California Metroplex project narrowed the North Downwind
Arrival flight path into Los Angeles International Airport (LAX),
resulting in concentrated noise over parts of my district where
aviation noise had never been a large issue before. Even moderate
exposure to noise has been shown to have harmful effects on human
health, and excessive levels of noise like those afflicting parts of my
district can have serious health effects including exacerbating
hypertension and heart disease; and disrupting sleep, with all the
harms that come from that, including learning loss among school
children.
In addition to the human cost, aviation noise has direct economic
impacts in my district, which is home to several motion picture
studios, one of which lies directly under the North Downwind flight
procedure. The frequency of overflights has increased dramatically,
back to, and sometimes exceeding, pre-pandemic levels. There may be a
plane overhead every two to three minutes. Studios working outside of a
soundstage can find it difficult to have a stretch of time long enough
to film a whole scene without airplane noise interrupting the filming.
And those scenes filmed outdoors, including off of the studio lot, can
provide income to the city, to local residents and businesses, and of
course, to the workers who make all of the magic happen behind the
scenes. This has already resulted in production moving away from my
district, posing a significant financial loss for the 37th District.
Additionally, as Urban Air Mobility and Advanced Air Mobility
technology continues to develop, we must prioritize residents' health
and well-being. Large scale use of drones to deliver packages to
consumers, for example, will further increase noise exposure given the
low altitude of drone flight. While there are merits to this new
technology, there has been virtually no public discussion about the
noise annoyance accompanying delivery drones, air taxis and other low-
altitude flight technologies. We must plan to prevent those harms.
Rather than repeat past mistakes, implementation of new technologies
should take strong measures before implementation to assure that a
company's bottom line does not come at the expense of residents across
the country.
I strongly urge the FAA and Congress to do more to address the
problems faced by communities currently struggling with excessive
noise, and to engage in meaningful outreach and mitigation during the
planning phase of any changes to flight procedures moving forward. One
of the biggest problems with the NextGen implementation was that, by
the time FAA began outreach, millions of dollars had already been
invested in planning to re-construct the highways in the sky in a
particular way. Any input from terrestrial communities at that point
could have little effect on the outcome of that planning process.
As a former community organizer, I know that there is wisdom in the
community that can often result in solutions the planners had not
thought to explore. Including those on the ground in planning for
proposed changes affecting aviation noise could well result in much
more workable solutions, and at the very least help the community
understand the reasons why choices are being made. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to advocate for solutions to provide relief
to communities across the nation and prevent these problems in the
future.
Once again, thank you Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and
Members of the House Subcommittee on Aviation for the opportunity to
provide written testimony. I appreciate your time and attention.

Statement of Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Rick Larsen
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to provide testimony for
the Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation
hearing on ``Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community
Concerns.''
Aviation noise is something that impacts my constituents daily
because of the location of National Airport within Virginia's 8th
District. While I applaud the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
recent efforts to modernize their air traffic system, this has led to
flights being concentrated over specific neighborhoods, instead of the
scattered flight paths that spread the noise across several
neighborhoods. Aircraft noise is known to cause community annoyance,
disrupt sleep, and negatively impact overall health of impacted
residents.
Hundreds of my constituents have expressed to me their frustrations
with the slow pace of change following their input to government
authorities about aircraft noise. This problem isn't getting better
quickly enough. Northern Virginians have been patient, but there is
more that can be done to reduce the toll taken by noisy aircraft in our
community. It is my strong belief and that of my constituents that
airplanes should fly over the Potomac River for as long as possible
before turning east or west.
During my time in Congress, I have taken several measures to try to
mitigate the impacts of airplane noise. Every year, I join colleagues
in our annual appropriations cycles to push for mitigation measures in
the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bills.
I have offered amendments to FAA Reauthorizations, National Defense
Authorizations, and sought every opportunity possible to engage with
relevant stakeholders in the community and across government to help
mitigate the noise. While I remain committed to finding strategies to
help constituents, I think it is time the FAA engage in a more robust
way on these issues. We need an Administrator who is committed to
conducting detailed environmental impact assessment before flight path
changes over residential areas and who understands people under flights
are as important as those on flights. That is why I encouraged
President Biden to nominate a new FAA Administrator who is focused on
mitigating the impact of airplane noise on local communities.
While I know that my district is situated in such a way that
heightens the noise impacts of aircraft on people, I believe it is
imperative that we continue to work together to find ways to lessen
these impacts.
Additionally, attached to this testimony, please find a letter from
one of my constituents regarding his thoughts and concerns on the
issue.
Attachment
[Editor's note--The letter from Mark and Leanna McEnearney, Rep.
Beyer's constituents, is retained in committee files.]

Statement of Hon. Jim Cooper, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
I proudly represent Middle Tennessee, including the Nashville
International Airport (BNA), the best small-city airport in the world.
Nashville is one of the hottest cities in America. It's easy to get to
or from Nashville to anywhere in the country. Travelers from all over
the world visit Nashville to experience our live music, award-winning
restaurants, and southern hospitality. Last year, nearly 16 million
passengers traveled through BNA, and that number is estimated to grow
to more than 23 million over the next decade and a half.
Nashville is a welcoming city, but all these visitors are hurting
the quality of life of community members who live near the airport. My
office regularly receives complaints about aviation noise caused by
commercial flights at BNA.
Constituents who live up to ten miles from BNA routinely complain
of aviation noise starting from before 6:00am and lasting until after
11:00pm. One neighborhood association president reported, ``The
neighbors are growing increasingly upset about the disturbance to their
sleep and quality of life.'' A nationally-known musician in Nashville
says aviation noise from BNA frequently disrupts work at his home
studio. He often measures the exact decibel level of the noise with his
recording equipment.
I mostly hear from constituents who live outside of the FAA's
designated boundary for significant aircraft noise exposure, known as
the DNL contour. Thus, officially, the FAA does not have to address
their noise complaints. The current noise mitigation strategies are not
working and there must be a solution for Nashville residents who live
outside of this FAA boundary but who still experience high levels of
noise pollution.
Nashvillians also need greater clarity about reporting aviation
noise. One constituent who lives outside the DNL contour went to great
lengths to report the problem and find a solution, but he got nowhere
in the process. The Metro Nashville Airport Authority, which owns and
operates BNA, told this constituent the FAA has exclusive control over
all aircraft in the air and determines the appropriate routing and
altitude of arriving and departing aircraft according to wind direction
and BNA's runway configuration. Meanwhile, the FAA told the same
constituent that it ``does not control the time of day for aircraft
operations, airline schedules, or the type of aircraft airlines choose
to fly,'' and that it ``has no control over airport operations, local
airport noise abatement programs, or voluntary noise abatement
procedures.'' According to the FAA, BNA is best suited to address noise
impact. We still don't know who has control, but we do know that when
everyone passes the buck, nothing gets resolved.
BNA claims there have been no changes to flight patterns in the
past few years and that Nashville residents had grown accustomed to the
low air traffic levels of 2020 when fewer flights took place. But my
constituents insist this is not the case. Regardless, there is an
abysmal failure of communication and a total lack of leadership here.
We need to make it clear to members of our communities to whom to
report aviation noise issues and what remedies are available when their
quality of life is genuinely disrupted. They deserve nothing less.

Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing on an
issue that has substantially impacted the quality of life of my
constituents: aviation noise.
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) NextGen program
includes the use of Performance Based Navigation which allows aircraft
to fly along more precise flight paths. This technology also has the
unfortunate side effect of concentrating jet noise over communities
under these flight paths. Since 2015, noise complaints at San Francisco
International Airport increased by over 1,000 percent, and I continue
to hear from so many constituents who experience elevated levels of
noise.
I asked my constituents to participate in this hearing by
submitting their comments to me about how aviation noise has impacted
their lives. I received responses from 127 constituents; the Cities of
Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Saratoga; and the Chairman of the Santa
Cruz County Board of Supervisors demonstrating the ongoing frustration
of so many about the FAA not being able to resolve this issue. I've
enclosed each of the comments I received so that these important
concerns are included in the record of this hearing.
As the Subcommittee prepares to consider FAA reauthorization
legislation in 2023, I encourage you to consider the following policies
to help address aviation noise:
Noise Metrics
The FAA relies on the 65 decibel day-night average metric (DNL) to
determine noise impacts, but community surveys have consistently
demonstrated that this metric does not accurately measure how our
constituents living under flight paths perceive aviation noise. The FAA
has failed to adequately consider alternative metrics such as the
Cumulative Noise Equivalency Level, which is used by the State of
California, and the day-evening-night level metric (DENL) used in
Europe. The upcoming FAA reauthorization bill should direct the FAA to
develop a metric that properly reflects the burden of aviation noise on
impacted communities.
Consideration of Community Impact
The FAA has a statutory mandate to prioritize safety and efficiency
when designing flight paths. While safety should always be the FAA's
top priority, efficiency should be balanced against the environmental
impacts of changes to flight paths, including noise impacts. I've
supported legislative efforts to require the FAA to elevate the
importance of noise when designing flight paths, including introducing
H.R. 4925, the F-AIR Act with Congresswoman Jackie Speier, and I will
continue to support this policy.
Aviation noise is not merely a nuisance but substantially
diminishes the quality of life of so many of my constituents, including
many who live dozens of miles from San Francisco International Airport.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing and for
reviewing my testimony and the views of my constituents as you consider
legislation to mitigate aviation noise.
Attachment
[Editor's note--Comments from 127 of Rep. Eshoo's constituents; the
Cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Saratoga; and the chairman of
the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors are retained in committee
files.]

Statement of Hon. Ruben Gallego, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
I would like to thank Chairman Larsen for holding this important
hearing on aviation noise.
As a member of the Quiet Skies Caucus, I have worked with my
colleagues and my community for many years to mitigate the impact of
aircraft noise in Arizona's 7th District.
This advocacy began largely with the implementation of new flight
paths in 2014 at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.
These changes had the effect of exposing homes and businesses in
our community to unacceptably high levels of noise, disrupting the
daily lives of countless Phoenix residents.
They were also decided on and implemented without adequate input
from the community.
Fortunately, in 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals sided with a
coalition of Phoenix neighborhoods in a lawsuit claiming the FAA
inadequately analyzed the impact of the flight path changes before they
took effect.
This decision was a key development in the national discussion
around mitigating airplane noise and addressing community concerns,
which is why I would like to enter into the record of this hearing the
affidavits of my constituents that were first submitted to the FAA in
2015 as part of an Administrative Petition and then part of the
Historic Neighborhoods Petitioners' Opening Brief in 2016 for a
Petition for Review filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals/DC Circuit.
Thank you.
Attachment
[Editor's note--Retained in committee files are the following: Part
of the Historic Neighborhoods Petitioners' Opening Brief in 2016 for a
Petition for Review filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, followed by affidavits of Rep. Gallego's
constituents that were first submitted to the Federal Aviation
Administration in 2015 as part of an Administrative Petition.]

Letter of April 1, 2022, from Hon. Stephen F. Lynch, a Representative
in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
April 1, 2022.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Garret Graves,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves,
Thank you for hosting the Aviation Subcommittee hearing on March
17th, 2022, addressing community concerns surrounding aviation noise. I
appreciate your effort in asking for House wide insight on this topic
and I welcome the opportunity to provide extended remarks on this
issue.
Aviation noise pollution remains a top concern for a number of
communities in my district. As I mentioned in my comments during the
hearing, towns in my district, such as Milton, Massachusetts, have
endured airplane noise levels far beyond comfortable levels for years.
My constituents are unable to enjoy outdoor areas or, in some cases,
are impacted by the noise levels that permeate the walls of their home.
This problem persists in districts like mine, and in communities across
the country, due to the lack of response from the FAA. Congress has
repeatedly called for increased community engagement efforts to address
aviation noise levels, but the FAA appears to be unwilling to properly
address the issue. To better handle the issue of aviation noise on the
federal level, my top priorities include developing more efficient
community engagement systems that will provide proper communication
between community members and the FAA, requirements for improved
transparency and interaction on research efforts related to aviation
noise, and the passage of my legislation, H.R. 712, specifically
addressing issues related to the current noise level metric.
From my conversations with my constituents, airport officials,
local communities, there are new systems that can be used to improve
the way the FAA gather information. It would be helpful if the FAA
models and implements a procedure for a set of dispersed RNAV paths
used in rotation rather than a single RNAV for each arrival and
departure for a given runway. Doing that would help restore the
equitable dispersion of overflights across communities rather than
continued daily use of a single concentrated path over the same victim
communities that FAA imposed its RNAVs on. The concentrated RNAV paths
are the single biggest contributor to overflight noise. Yet, the prior
FAA dispersed paths were safely flown and equitably shared overflight
effects. Further, military combat aircraft equipped with RNAV
capability do not rely on single RNAV approach paths because they would
be too easily intercepted approaching in a straight line. The
technology to disperse and rotate paths' use is available. We would
urge the FAA to provide a report on the availability of requisite
technology for dispersed RNAV path rotational use. If the FAA were to
include a more inclusive system, our communities would be better
served.
Community members across my district have made their displeasure
with the FAA known throughout my time in Congress, specifically their
lengthy response times. Several years ago, the last time FAA
representatives came to my district, eight hundred of my constituents
showed up to express their anger with the lack of response from the
FAA. One of the most common concerns from community members is
overflight noise concentration due to the FAA's imposition of narrowly
concentrated GPS departure and arrival flight paths. FAA's substitution
of those narrow GPS overflight paths for its previously dispersed air
traffic controller administered paths has shifted all the noise onto
communities that previously shared that impact with other communities.
On multiple occasions I have called on the FAA to shift away from this
system that results in an unequal noise burden by utilizing over-water
take-offs and landings.
At the local level, airport organizations, like Massport, operates
airports and a seaport in my district, focus much of their efforts on
direct community engagement. Massport relies on a wide community
network, as well as a complaint hotline available to community members
to report high levels of airplane noise in their neighborhood.
Specifically, we want the FAA to pledge publicly to document hard-
deadlines for each step of its process to change its noise policy.
Ensuring public documents will keep the FAA in the public space
allowing for our communities to properly interact with this agency.
Further, we would request that FAA community roundtable meetings are
recorded and posted publicly. Efforts like these by local airport
groups to effectively engage and interact with community members should
provide an example to the FAA on best practices for addressing
community concerns.
To further address the issue of aircraft noise pollution, my
legislation, H.R. 712, would address this by evaluating health impacts
of air traffic noise and pollution and issue the Expert Consensus
Report on findings by the National Academies. There is a clear demand
from our constituents that we investigate the impacts of new flight
paths across the country. It is imperative that we understand and
remedy any health effects caused by aircraft flying over residential
areas, and the onus is on the FAA to produce this information. Evidence
from the Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES) \1\ study that more
people than previously thought report ``high annoyance'' from aviation
noise, even for DNL (day-night average sound level) estimates well-
below 50 dB makes it clear the current metric needs to be adjusted.
Scientific evidence from this study, as well as consistent feedback
from community members tells us that constituents are being harmed by
these numerous, repetitive, and persistent aviation noise events forced
upon them without their consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Neighborhood Environmental Survey'' https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/survey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to myself and my colleagues' commentary at the March
17th subcommittee hearing, I hope the FAA will work cooperatively with
Congress and local advocacy groups to continue proactively addressing
community concerns regarding aviation noise. With the upcoming
retirement of Administrator Dickson, there is an opportunity for growth
and rededication to community concerns. I am hopeful the new
Administrator will take seriously the FAA's responsibility to better
communities across the country impacted by noise and air pollution.
Attached are two statements from constituents, Amy McCoy and Cindy
Christiansen, on the matter. These correspondences are their own views
and pertinent to the topic at hand.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any
questions, please contact my staff, William Seabrook.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Lynch,
Member of Congress.
Attachment
[Editor's note--Statements from Amy McCoy and Cindy Christiansen,
Rep. Lynch's constituents, are retained in committee files.]

Statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Thank you so much for the opportunity to submit testimony for the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on
Aviation hearing on ``Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing
Community Concerns.'' Aviation noise is something I hear about from my
constituents constantly. In fact, my constituents in Queens tell me
that at peak times of day, they have helicopters flying directly over
their homes every six minutes.
Helicopter traffic in New York City is on the rise. Between October
2019 and October 2020, complaints about helicopter noise increased
130%.\1\ And this only became worse during the pandemic. According to
the city's 311 hotline, through the end of September 2021, New York
City received more than 17,000 calls about helicopter noise, which
eclipsed the helicopter-noise complaints made in 2019 and in 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jose Martinez, Helicopter Noise Complaints Sky High, as
Anxious, Cooped-Up New Yorkers Feel Buzzed, The City (Nov. 15, 2020),
https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/11/15/21566204/helicopter-noise-
complaints-sky-high-new-york-city.
\1\ Patrick McGeehan & Michael Gold, As Helicopters Fill the Skies,
Some New Yorkers Just Want Some Peace, N.Y. Times (Oct. 21, 2021),
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/nyregion/nyc-helicopter-noise-
complaints.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To put it simply, New Yorkers are being inundated with helicopters
and helicopter noise pollution, and it is negatively affecting their
quality of life, and potentially their physical and psychological
health.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Arline L. Bronzaft, Impact of Noise on Health: The Divide
between Policy and Science, 5 Open Journal of Social Sciences 108 (May
2017), https://www.scirp.org/journal/
paperinformation.aspx?paperid=76120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any New Yorker can tell you how deafening and disruptive
helicopters are. Helicopter noise during the pandemic has been
particularly disruptive. Over the last two years, New Yorkers have
spent time at home like never before, where they have been subjected to
the nerve-wracking sights and sounds of low-flying helicopters swooping
over their neighborhoods or hovering at dangerously low altitudes over
parks or open spaces.
There are many different possibilities for why New Yorkers have
experienced an increase in helicopter noise pollution during the past
two years: an increased number of unregulated helicopter tour flights
coming in from outside the city, the proliferation of helicopter
charter companies like Uber Copter and Blade, and residential buildings
having less soundproofing than commercial buildings.
How can you expect anyone to work from home in those conditions?
How can you expect someone to help their child with virtual classes
especially when studies have shown the negative effects of noise
pollution on educational outcomes? \4\ We are seeing a very small
number of people joyriding, or shaving time off their commute to the
airport, at the steep expense of the vast majority of New Yorkers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Stephen A. Stansfeld, Aircraft and Road Traffic Noise and
Children's Cognition and Health: A Cross-National Study, 365 The Lancet
1942 (Jun. 4, 2005), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15936421/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pandemic aside, New York City has one of the highest rates of
helicopter traffic in the world, and more and more helicopters are
flying over our city every year, including helicopter tours, commuter
helicopters that run between downtown and nearby airports, and private
helicopters.
In addition to the extreme quality-of-life concerns that
helicopters pose, they also pose an inordinate and unjustifiable amount
of risk to the safety of New Yorkers. Our city is the most densely
populated major city in the nation, meaning there is no place more
dangerous to fly a helicopter than New York City.
If a helicopter flying over New York City needs to make an
emergency landing, there is virtually nowhere in the city it can land
that doesn't endanger the lives of New Yorkers. Not even the parks and
open spaces are safe.
At the end of the day, what matters is that there are far too many
non-essential helicopters in our city's airspace, period. Between the
safety concerns and the quality-of-life concerns, I sincerely believe
that the number of non-essential helicopters in our city's airspace
should be zero.
That is why last year, I introduced the Improving Helicopter Safety
Act of 2021 with Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Nydia Velazquez. This bill
directs the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit non-essential
helicopters--namely private, charter, commuter, or tourist flights--
from flying in New York City airspace. That includes any of the five
boroughs, Roosevelt Island and Governors Island, and the parts of the
rivers that are within city limits.
This ban won't apply to military, government, or law enforcement,
or to essential public services such as emergency response or news
teams. What it will do is drastically cut back on helicopter traffic
and reduce noise pollution in New York City by limiting the helicopters
in our airspace to those that actually need to and should be there.
The risks and the disruptions that commuter, charter, and tourism
helicopter flights pose to New Yorkers far outweigh the benefit to the
very small number of people who use them. Yet our city is unable to
regulate New York City airspace, and therefore is unable to reduce the
number of non-essential helicopters in the sky.
There is absolutely no margin for error when you fly over somewhere
as densely populated as New York City, and on any given flight, you
will be disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I
believe that if the benefits don't outweigh the costs, you shouldn't be
flying at all.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to submit this testimony, and
I look forward to working with the Committee to reduce aviation noise
both in New York City and across the country.

Letter of April 1, 2022, from Hon. Grace Meng, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Rick Larsen
April 1, 2022.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Chair,
Aviation Subcommittee, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515.
The Honorable Garret Graves,
Ranking Member,
Aviation Subcommittee, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 592 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC
20515.
Dear Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Aviation,
I am pleased to transmit public comments from my constituents of
New York's Sixth Congressional District in response to the March 17th,
2022, subcommittee hearing on aviation noise. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grace Meng,
Member of Congress.
Attachment
[Editor's note--Public comments from Rep. Meng's constituents are
retained in committee files.]

Letter of April 1, 2022, from Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Rick Larsen
April 1, 2022.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
The Honorable Garret Graves,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Dear Chair Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
As the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
on Aviation holds its hearing on ``Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress
in Addressing Community Concerns,'' I write to share concerns from the
communities I represent regarding airplane noise, and request your
consideration in future Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
reauthorization. My constituents have endured more than seven years of
unprecedented commercial aviation noise following NextGen
implementation. They have worked in good faith with the FAA to find an
alternative that works for all parties. Unfortunately, they continue to
experience unacceptable levels of noise, and often feel overlooked by
the FAA decision making process.
The establishment of the Northern California Metroplex as part of
FAA NextGen implementation shifted approach routes crossing my
district. This led to a concentration of flights into San Francisco
(SFO) along the new SERFR arrival route and to San Jose (SJC) under the
BRIXX route. These flights approach at a lower altitude than the
historic Big Sur (BSR) ground track, flying over communities in Santa
Cruz County that previously experienced minimal commercial jet noise.
My constituents are not alone, as dozens of communities nationwide
have expressed concerns with the sudden and concentrated noise
generated by NextGen flight paths. I applaud the subcommittee for
listening to these concerns and implementing reforms and additional
research as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. I also thank
the FAA for its ongoing engagement with the communities I represent.
However, many of my constituents continue to experience unprecedented
and unacceptable noise levels caused by ahistorical flight paths.
While the FAA has made itself available to discuss the issue,
little was done to consult my constituents before NextGen was
implemented and, to date, the FAA and the communities I represent have
been unable to find a reasonable solution to this unprecedented
disturbance. In addition, many of my constituents have found it
difficult to engage on airport community forums because they are
located far from the airports generating flights over their community.
As the subcommittee considers the impact of aircraft noise,
especially in the context of future FAA reauthorization, I urge you to
build on the foundation of the 2018 reauthorization by expanding
resources for community input at the FAA, working to include input from
communities outside the immediate geographic footprint of an airport,
and formally adopting the New National Curve when evaluating noise
impacts. Specifically, I request the subcommittee:
Consider increasing FAA resources for ombuds serving
NextGen metroplexes so communities, including those far from an airport
geographic footprint but still impacted by noise, have a consistent
resource in the FAA to address community concerns.
Formally adopt the New National Curve when evaluating
noise metrics and lower the decibel threshold when determining
acceptable Day Night Level (DNL) standards.
Increase funds where necessary to ensure thorough noise
monitoring in communities which have contacted the FAA to report noise
outside acceptable new DNL standards.
Continue to explore additional metrics beyond DNL to
better understand and address the impact of aviation noise on various
communities.
Direct the FAA to contact impacted communities
proactively before deciding to change historic approach and departure
routes and continue rolling out new outreach tools.

I believe your strong leadership and dedication to constituent
input can help resolve this ongoing nightmare for Santa Cruz County
residents. I firmly believe that through listening to the people we
serve, the committee can ensure FAA has the tools to ensure safe,
environmentally-conscious procedures without adversely impacting
communities on the ground.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Panetta,
Member of Congress.

Statement of Hon. Katie Porter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, for holding
this hearing regarding aviation noise and for allowing me to submit
testimony about the concerns of Orange County families. My district is
adjacent to John Wayne Airport (SNA) in Santa Ana, California, and my
constituents have expressed concern and frustration with the noise
levels for years.
SNA is an asset to Orange County, providing easy travel access for
businesses and families, and creating many jobs throughout the
community. However, its central location means aircraft fly directly
over residential communities during departure and arrival. My staff and
I have been in communication with constituents who have been frustrated
by loud aviation noise. These constituents have shared their personal
experiences and their efforts to communicate with the Federal Aviation
Authority (FAA).
To assess these concerns, the FAA needs additional data about
aviation noise levels along departure and arrival flight paths. The
installation of noise monitoring stations is essential to acquire this
data; my constituents have specifically requested additional stations.
I urge the FAA to seriously consider these requests and to engage in
transparent conversations with the public regarding their decisions.
I appreciate that the Next General Air Transportation System and
Performance-Based Navigation can improve safety and efficiency. Modern
technology can advance the goal of a cleaner, quieter, and safer air
industry. I also applaud the FAA for implementing public liaisons to
establish a dialogue about aviation noise with Orange County residents.
I urge the FAA to share all relevant information and increase its
communication with the public. In Orange County, I have seen how this
communication has led to successful noise abatement programs. I
encourage the FAA to build upon such successes.
Finally, I'd like to emphasize the importance of the Continuous
Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program and its goals. In
conversations with my constituents, I have heard many requests for a
greater emphasis on quieter aircraft technology. The CLEEN program will
help domestic businesses develop products that reduce both aircraft
noise and emissions.
Thank you for considering these suggestions and feedback. I look
forward to the implementation and expansion of a cleaner, quieter
aviation system.

Statement of Hon. Jamie Raskin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Chairs DeFazio and Larsen and Ranking Members Sam Graves and Garret
Graves,
Thank you for you holding this hearing focused on addressing
aviation noise, which has profoundly affected the quality of life of
many constituents. I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
committee my constituents' concerns about noise pollution from
concentrated flight paths over our district. Thank you again for the
opportunity to share these concerns with the committee, and I look
forward to working with you to effectively address this pressing issue.
Attachment
[Editor's note--The noise pollution concerns of Rep. Raskin's
constituents are retained in committee files.]

Statement of Hon. Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the leadership of the
Hollywood Burbank Airport, the Southern San Fernando Valley Airplane
Noise Task Force, and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation for their efforts to listen to
communities and find and enact solutions to alleviate the impacts of
aviation noise across our nation.
Like many communities, my constituents live with a disruptive
amount of aviation noise--which has steadily increased in recent years.
My district is home to some of the most unique cultural and
entertainment sites in Southern California, as well as the Hollywood
Burbank Airport. I have been committed to community-led efforts to
mitigate disruptive airplane and helicopter noise for communities
living along flight paths near these attractions.
My colleagues and I have exhaustively studied these issues and have
diligently listened to community input. Aircraft noise continues to
pose a threat to quality of life issues for many of our constituents. I
have supported and championed legislation to allow airports to impose
community-driven recommendations for noise control, such as nighttime
curfews that would allow residents to sleep peacefully. In March 2019,
I joined Representative Brad Sherman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and
now-Vice President Kamala Harris in formally asking the FAA to lead
community roundtables to address noise issues. Community engagement
programming is the most appropriate path forward in addressing
mitigation strategies. Communities have asked for the FAA to establish
and sustain effective methods to measure, track, and investigate
aircraft noise, aircraft noise complaints, and the environmental impact
of aircraft noise and noise pollution.
I applaud the work and legislative recommendations from my
constituents and community organizations, such as the Los Angeles Area
Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC). Our communities should not have to
face the burden of bothersome aviation noise. Their experiences are
concerning and we cannot continue to ignore this issue. Urgent action
must be taken. I will continue to work together with affected
communities, the Hollywood Burbank Airport, the FAA, and the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to achieve meaningful relief for
San Fernando Valley. Thank you, and I urge the Committee and my fellow
Members of Congress to work on solutions to this problem that put our
communities first.

Letter of March 31, 2022, from Hon. Brad Sherman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Rick Larsen
March 31, 2022.
Hon. Rick Larsen,
Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Aviation.
Hon. Garret Graves,
Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Aviation.

Re: Constituent Testimony for the Aviation Subcommittee regarding the
March 17th hearing on ``Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in
Addressing Community Concerns''

Dear Members of the House Subcommittee on Aviation,
Attached to this letter are the voices of several of my
constituents from the San Fernando Valley whose quality of life has
suffered under newly concentrated low-flying air traffic above their
neighborhoods.
The great many of these constituents will rightly identify the
roll-out of the FAA's NextGen program as the moment when the sustained
injury of repeated flights over their homes began.
Please know that these few hundred letters represent the voices of
thousands that have been adversely impacted by the FAA's NextGen
program.
There have been public forums, multiple pieces of legislation
introduced in Congress, numerous formal requests from Members of
Congress, a lawsuit filed by the City of Los Angeles, and still the FAA
refuses to act.
I thank the Members of the Aviation Subcommittee for taking the
time to read their stories and I look forward to working with you to
find an immediate solution that will reduce unacceptable aircraft noise
and other aviation impacts in our communities.
Sincerely,
Brad Sherman,
Member of Congress.
Attachment
[Editor's note--Testimony from Rep. Sherman's constituents is
retained in committee files.]

Statement of Hon. Adam Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished Members
of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the key issues
facing communities impacted by aviation noise and emissions in my
district. I appreciate the attention to this issue by the Committee.
Aviation noise and emissions continue to have a significant impact on
communities near airports and airflight pathways. As a Member of
Congress whose district is home to one of the busiest and fastest-
growing hub airports in the country, Sea-Tac International Airport, I
have seen first-hand the impacts of aviation noise and emissions on the
environment, health, and quality of life of these communities.
I believe that we should treat the impact of aviation noise and
emissions as environmental justice and health issues. The impact of
noise and emissions disproportionally impacts low-income communities,
communities of color, and vulnerable populations. These communities are
often already facing greater risks and impacts from poor air quality
and other environmental and health hazards. I continue to encourage the
FAA to reevaluate its selection of noise measurement methodologies,
health impact thresholds, and abatement program effectiveness and
requiring them to consider the impact on human health and environment
when determining airport capacity and approving new flight routes.
Community engagement should be the centerpiece of our response to
aviation noise and emissions. While meaningful changes were included in
the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, many of these changes of not been
implemented in a timely fashion or at all. And some of the changes that
have been implemented, such as the FAA's Ombudsman Office, have not
taken meaningful action in addressing constituent and community
concerns. FAA engagement with community members has been woefully
insufficient. I believe we can and must do more to ensure that the
FAA's approach to community engagement on these issues is more robust,
inclusive, and responsive to all community members.
I will be reintroducing legislation that I first offered in the
115th Congress to improve the manner in which the FAA engages with
noise-affected areas. The Aviation Impacted Communities Act seeks to
help cities, localities, and neighborhoods to better and more
productively engage with the FAA. The legislation is geared
particularly towards communities that have not been recognized as
``impacted'' by the FAA's noise standard. It would require that the FAA
interface directly with and be responsive to residents and locally
nominated leaders on issues of aviation noise and environmental
impacts. Through the creation of local community boards, affected areas
will be empowered to more effectively work toward achieving relief from
the impacts of civil and commercial aviation.
More work needs to be done to ensure greater access to the FAA's
Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Many airports have opted to use the
AIP fund to pay for noise mitigation, however, there are many limits on
the program, including barring the use of AIP funds on the same home or
structure twice. This regulation prevents airports from ever replacing
or repairing sound insulation if the products become defective or cause
problems for the homeowner. Airports, including Sea-Tac, that started
in the 1980's and 1990's often did not have access to high quality
materials, and in some cases, contractors installed sound insulation
without proper ventilation or structural supports, causing structural
damage, mold, and other problems. It is incredibly expensive for
homeowners to replace or repair the sound insulation, especially for
lower income homeowners, leaving many individuals and families living
with deteriorating or molded structures. I introduced the Noise
Mitigation Repair and Replacement Act to help address this issue. It
would establish a process by which airports may apply for additional
AIP funding to repair or replace noise mitigation packages.
In addition to noise impacts from aviation, particulate matter,
ultrafine particles (UFPs), and other pollutants pose an outsize threat
to those living near airports and under flight pathways. UFP pollutants
are miniscule particles of less than one hundred nanometers in size
that are emitted as byproducts of petroleum fuel combustion in engines,
such as those used on vehicles and aircraft. Studies have demonstrated
that communities near airports and airflight pathways are exposed to
higher proportions of pollution and harmful particles from aviation
emissions. This can lead to increased risks of breast cancer, heart
disease, birth defects, asthma, and a variety of other lung and
cardiovascular conditions that impact adults and children. These
additional risks are on top of the many other environmental and health
hazards disproportionately impacting low-income communities and
communities of color.
I believe a fundamental problem with our current response to
aviation noise and emissions at the federal level is that it is almost
entirely led by the FAA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) should play a much more
active role in addressing this challenge as an environmental and health
issue. That is why I strongly support the reestablishment of the EPA's
Office of Noise Abatement and Control and additional actions by the EPA
and HHS to increase their engagement in affected communities.
I recently worked with impacted community members and organizations
in my district to introduce the Aviation Noise and Emissions Mitigation
Act. This legislation creates two new pilot grant programs at the EPA
for studies of air quality and noise and for mitigation projects in
communities, focused on communities of color and low-income
communities. The bill will help us to better understand the effects of
noise and emissions and fund initiatives driven by impacted communities
to mitigate the effects on the environment, public health, and quality
of life of residents living near airports and airflight pathways.
As the aviation sector has grown, with more people flying more
frequently, significant investments have been put toward airport
infrastructure. We need to make similar investments in communities that
feel the negative effects of aviation. This means not only investing in
new technologies to reduce air travel emissions and expanding other
forms of zero-emissions travel, but also directing funding to the
communities disproportionately impacted by aviation.
Residents living in aviation-impacted communities cannot wait any
longer for relief from the public-health consequences of exposure to
high concentrations of pollutants and high levels of aviation noise.
Congress and the federal government must establish new programs to
better measure the environmental and public-health consequences of
exposure to high levels of noise and emissions and invest in resources
to reduce those impacts on these communities. Millions of Americans who
live near aviation hubs--like my constituents in the 9th District--
deserve nothing less.
I appreciate the Committee's consideration of these priorities and
its ongoing work to improve our nation's environment and make our
infrastructure more sustainable.

Statement of Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, for holding a
hearing on the issue of aviation noise and progress made on addressing
community concerns. Conveyed with this statement are comments from my
constituents that I wish to have included in the record of this
hearing. I also support comments previously submitted by the San
Francisco Airport Community Roundtable (Roundtable). I work closely
with the Roundtable on this important matter.
I have long been concerned about the serious public health issue of
aviation noise.
The government's measurement of annoying noise was found by the
FAA's own research to be deficient. Noise contours, a benchmark tool
for federal noise policy, are identified using this deficient metric.
In the recent hearing, several committee members and witnesses noted
that the official tally of those heavily impacted by noise had
decreased by 94% over several decades to about 400,000 today. There's
no question that aircraft engines and airframes have improved over the
past decades, but the 94% reduction that the FAA touts is largely smoke
and mirrors because of the flawed nature of the metric.
As the FAA's Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES) indicated,
annoyance occurs much more frequently and at much lower levels than
previously appreciated.\1\ Because the noise standard is deficient,
tens of thousands of affected households exist outside the official
boundary formed by the deficient standard. I understand the FAA is
reviewing the current noise metric, and I would urge it to adopt a far
more nuanced and holistic measurement or sets of measurements that
actually reflect the experiences of local communities. It does not do
the cause of noise reduction any favor by using faulty official
measurements to guide policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/noise/
survey/#results
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from the deficient metric of annoying noise, our law is also
broken in part because statutory language creates an inadequate
prioritization of airspace management. No one takes issue with safety
as the FAA's first priority. However, efficiency is the only other
stated priority. In my district and surrounding areas, efficiency
trumps noise mitigation around the clock and in areas far removed from
the airport.
My first recommendation for the Committee's consideration is to
change the FAA's prioritization of airspace management to include the
reduction of aviation noise and environmental impacts. Adverse health
impacts from intrusive noise and environmental pollution fall on
households of all income levels, but often disproportionately impact
marginalized communities My bill, HR 4925, the F-AIR Act, would make
noise and environmental impacts secondary priorities, below safety but
on par with efficiency. I suggest this measure as a starting point for
the Committee to consider.
The second recommendation, related to the first, is that the
definition of annoyance from airport and aircraft noise be
significantly improved. For example, low frequency noise--such as
occurs with the backblast of an airplane taking off--is overlooked as a
problem using the current methodology. While efforts are already
underway to make changes in the wake of the publication of the NES, we
are now some seven years after authorization of that study, and the FAA
has still not taken any substantive action on the results. I also hope
that the FAA will inform its work by evaluating noise measurement
techniques from around the globe.
Third, and in my judgment, the FAA is not sufficiently resourced to
reduce noise. It seems to take an inordinate amount of time to
implement beneficial changes to flight paths. For example, after five
years of dialogue with the community, the FAA recently agreed to send
planes taking off from SFO and Oakland airports up the Bay and out over
the Golden Gate Bridge, largely skipping populated areas, from the time
of 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.
I want to thank the FAA for the accommodation that it made.
Allowing planes to avoid populated areas from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. will
provide meaningful relief to my constituents, at least for those hours
of the night. However, and as noted, this accommodation to human health
occurred five years after the community first identified this choice as
one way to reduce noise. Two of these years were impacted by the
pandemic, but three were not within the pandemic time period.
Fourth, the FAA's regulation that permits an airport to petition to
establish a noise-sensitive flight path puts the FAA in the position of
determining, in essence, if the requested accommodation would cost the
airlines more money by increasing fuel burn or would otherwise place a
burden on interstate commerce. Noise reduction as a public benefit
itself is not officially a priority of airspace management, so it isn't
surprising that efficiency-related factors override public health
benefits of noise reduction. It should be easier for an airport to
obtain approval for a flight path change.
My fifth recommendation is that the Committee amend our statutes to
again allow airports to create and enforce curfews. I acknowledge that
mine is a minority viewpoint in the context of current federal aviation
policy, but many airports around the globe have some version or another
of curfew policies. Few in the United States are permitted this tool of
public health.
I acknowledge the point made by some during the hearing that a
disproportionate number of complaints about noise are sometimes
generated by a tiny fraction of individuals. The number of complaints
about aircraft operations is, at best, an imperfect indicator of
annoyance in a community. On the other hand, I wish to point out that
most of my constituents concerned about noise tell me that they
complained a few times, and nothing happened, so they gave up. Many
residents simply don't have the time to submit complaints. The absence
of complaints is not a signal that all is well. In fact, it might be a
signal that our democracy is failing to provide resolution for a
significant public health issue.
Noise is a problem. I believe that we can have a comfortable
community and a thriving economy. I hope that the Committee will
support significant changes in the FAA's noise practices when it
considers the FAA reauthorization.
Attachment
[Editor's note--Comments of Rep. Speier's constituents are retained
in committee files.]

Letter of March 31, 2022, from Hon. Thomas R. Suozzi, a Representative
in Congress from the State of New York, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Rick Larsen
March 31, 2022.
Chairman Peter DeFazio,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
2134 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman DeFazio,
Below are comments and concerns raised by Plane Sense 4 Long Island
in response to the March 17, 2022, Aviation Subcommittee Hearing:
Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns.
These concerns are the views of the individual and do not represent my
own.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Suozzi,
Member of Congress.
Attachment
[Editor's note--A letter from Elaine Miller, a constituent of Rep.
Suozzi's, is retained in committee files.]

Letter of March 31, 2022, from Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., Executive
Director, American Public Health Association, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Rick Larsen
March 31, 2022.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Larsen:
On behalf of the American Public Health Association, a diverse
community of public health professionals that champions the health of
all people and communities, I write to share APHA's policy statement
Noise as a Public Health Issue [https://apha.org/Policies-and-Advocacy/
Public-Health-Policy-Statements/Policy-Database/2022/01/07/Noise-as-a-
Public-Health-Hazard] which was adopted by the association in 2021. We
ask that this letter and policy statement be submitted to the
subcommittee's hearing record for the March 17 hearing Aviation Noise:
Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns. We appreciate the
subcommittee's efforts to explore this public health issue.
Human exposure to harmful noise levels is widespread. Some major
sources of noise include transportation, military aircraft and combat
operations, noisy recreational vehicles, industrial machinery, outdoor
power equipment and some consumer products. Loud noise can cause
hearing loss and tinnitus and can contribute to other non-auditory
health problems. Chronic noise, even at low levels, can cause
annoyance, sleep disruption, and stress that contribute to
cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, metabolic
disturbances, exacerbation of psychological disorders and even
premature mortality. Noise can also interfere with cognition and
learning, contributes to behavior problems and can reduce achievement
and productivity. It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans
are at risk from the health impacts of noise, with children among the
most vulnerable. Additionally, noise-related costs range in the
hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
We hope our policy statement will be helpful and informative as you
and members of the subcommittee continue to explore the issue of noise
and its impacts on our communities.
Sincerely,
Georges C. Benjamin, M.D.
Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Statement of Ed Bolen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Business Aviation Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick
Larsen
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of the
Subcommittee on Aviation, thank you for holding this hearing to focus
on the importance of addressing community concerns related to aviation
noise. On behalf of the National Business Aviation Association's
(NBAA's) 11,000-members, we are pleased to provide this statement for
the record.
NBAA's members rely on business aircraft to meet a significant
portion of their transportation needs. The majority of business
aircraft are operated by small businesses and are primarily used to
provide access to airports supporting communities that aren't served by
the commercial airlines. While the airlines serve only around 500
airports, business aviation can reach 5,000 public use airports across
the United States. These facilities are also economic engines for the
cities and towns that they serve and our members and the general
aviation industry have a great stake in the airports being good
neighbors to the surrounding communities and in ensuring their
viability and accessibility.
The United States leads the world in having the most robust and
diverse airport infrastructure capabilities, providing a critical
foundation for general aviation to thrive. In transporting people and
equipment, responding to natural disasters, providing air medical
flights for organs and patients, offering a place for flight training
and a base for the inspiration and inception of career paths essential
for all sectors of aviation--general aviation relies on the national
network of airports. To fulfill these roles, our airports rely on
unimpeded access by aircraft of all types and sizes. Operations of
these aircraft also support a vast variety of jobs at a broad range of
income levels across the country. Additionally, these operations are a
vital source of local revenue and thus help our general aviation
airports be self-sustaining. Continued federal support of airports, and
in particular protecting access, is critical so that airports can not
only fulfill today's demands, but also handle tomorrow's requirements
as well.
NBAA places great emphasis on Fly Neighborly initiatives and
community engagement, recognizing the importance of mitigating aviation
noise impacts to those on the ground. Through the collaborative efforts
of its Access Committee, NBAA has developed Noise Abatement Procedures
(www.nbaa.org/noise) that can be used by aircraft operators at all
airports that do not have a specific local procedure. NBAA partners
with local and regional aviation organizations and works closely with a
number of airports and surrounding communities around the country to
develop and promote voluntary noise abatement programs and procedures
to mitigate impacts of aviation noise.
The industry has a long history of working with airports and the
communities to develop and implement voluntary noise abatement programs
specific to individual airports around the country. These fly
neighborly programs embrace procedures for all types of aircraft and
include mitigations such as flying at higher altitudes and maximizing
flight paths over water and least populated areas as much as possible
and reducing operations during night hours. The programs are designed
to be evaluated and enhanced through continued collaboration on a
regular basis and consistently demonstrate very high participation from
the operators. We continue to be engaged in fly-neighborly efforts at
Van Nuys Airport (VNY), Santa Monica Airport (SMO) and John Wayne
Orange County Airport (SNA) in Southern California, Rocky Mountain
Metropolitan Airport (BJC) in the Denver, Colorado area, Teterboro
Airport (TEB) in New Jersey, Brookhaven Calabro Airport (HWV) as well
as East Hampton Airport (HTO) on Long Island and Montgomery County
Airpark (GAI) in Maryland to highlight a few.
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), the FAA-
led modernization of America's air transportation system, has become
another tool to manage impacts of aviation noise on the communities.
NextGen leverages new technologies and procedures to increase the
safety, efficiency, capacity, access, flexibility, predictability, and
resilience of the National Airspace System (NAS) while reducing the
environmental effect of aviation. Business aviation operators have
embraced these technologies and procedures and have invested in
equipping their aircraft with the avionics necessary to take advantage
of the benefits NextGen offers and to enhance their ability to fly
neighborly. Teterboro Airport (TEB) in New Jersey is a great example.
TEB has recently developed and is in the process of implementing a
NextGen instrument approach procedure that is an alternative to the
traditional Instrument Landing System (ILS) straight-in approach path.
The procedure can be used during certain times and in appropriate
weather conditions to offset the flight paths and offer noise relief to
the communities as the result.
Additionally, the general aviation industry has invested
significantly in developing quieter aircraft yielding substantial
accomplishments. Aircraft that are currently being manufactured are
quieter and more efficient than those in operation, as the industry
consistently has made strides in continued development and
implementation of noise reduction technologies.
Unfortunately, despite these efforts by the industry and operators,
a small number of communities have made attempts to impose restrictions
limiting access, such as curfews, weight and noise limits, on their
airports. Your continued support of federal grant-based and deed-based
obligations and compliance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of
1990 (ANCA), and of other aviation statutes and regulations, play an
important role in preventing these local patch-quilt operational
restrictions and even complete airport closures.
Notably, by enacting ANCA, Congress affirmed that aviation should
be federally regulated, and stopped the wide-spread of local noise
restrictions that had begun to threaten the efficiency and safety of
our nation's airports and airspace. ANCA provides an effective process
for scrutinizing noise and other access restrictions that is managed by
the FAA. ANCA and other laws and regulations currently in place have
proven successful over the last 30 years, allowing for public input and
for airports, air carriers and general aviation operators to thrive in
the safest and most efficient NAS in the world. Further, ANCA and the
extensive aircraft noise regulation and policy regime of which it is a
part, have resulted in tremendous noise reduction, with the number of
people exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in the United
States dropping by 94 percent since the late 1970s, even as activity
has increased. In addition to voluntary efforts mentioned above, ANCA
provides a framework for communities to work with the aviation industry
and the FAA to develop additional relief for noise impacted airports.
It is essential to the success of our entire National Transportation
System that these regulations are not allowed to be circumvented and
that the FAA continues to enforce ANCA and other requirements,
protecting access.
Today you have the opportunity to hear from Joby Aviation, one of a
number of new entrant manufacturers developing aircraft that will usher
in the era of electric and hybrid propulsion giving rise to new types
of quiet, on demand air transportation. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)
will allow communities around existing airports to further take
advantage of this valuable aviation infrastructure, as well as create
opportunities to build more facilities to support aircraft with
vertical take-off and landing capabilities. Aviation stakeholders
recognize that continued community education and engagement are
critical in facilitating acceptance and success of AAM.
NBAA supports continuing the commitment to working collaboratively
with the airport sponsors, communities surrounding airports and
aviation tenants and users in promoting fly neighborly initiatives and
voluntary noise abatement programs and procedures. We encourage
engagement from local, regional and national elected officials in these
initiatives as we all must ensure continued, unhindered access to our
national system of airports to meet the current needs and projected
growth.
We commend the Subcommittee for recognizing the importance of our
airports and look forward to collaboratively working to address the
aviation noise challenges to protect access to our Nation's greatest
assets--its airports--and ensure their accessibility and viability.
Protecting access and investment in general aviation airports, the
backbone of our air transportation system, is critical in ensuring
success of general aviation in the near term and for future
generations.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing.

Letter of April 1, 2022, from Jamie Banks, Ph.D., M.Sc., President,
Quiet Communities Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
April 1, 2022.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Larsen and Members of the House Aviation
Subcommittee,
On behalf of Quiet Communities and its Quiet American Skies
program, I am submitting the following statement in regards to the
March 17, 2022 hearing on Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in
Addressing Community Concerns.
I am the Founder and President of Quiet Communities Inc. (QCi), an
independent non-profit organization of medical, scientific, and legal
professionals dedicated to helping communities reduce health and
environmental harm from noise and pollution--our Quiet American Skies
program focuses on aviation noise and pollution. I also Chair the
American Public Health Association's (APHA) Noise and Health Committee
and was principal author of the APHA's recent policy statement, Noise
as a Public Health Hazard (2021) [https://apha.org/Policies-and-
Advocacy/Public-Health-Policy-Statements/Policy-Database/2022/01/07/
Noise-as-a-Public-Health-Hazard].
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) invests considerable
efforts into safety, efficiency, and economic well-being of the
country's aviation operations but has not matched this with investments
into protecting communities on the ground.
It is up to Congress to rectify this imbalance and
protect the health and well-being of the American people.

Noise and pollution from commercial, general, cargo, flight school,
commuting, and tourism operations cause suffering, impairments,
cardiovascular disease including hypertension, heart attacks, stroke,
and even early death. Aircraft noise impairs children's learning and
decreases workers' productivity. (These impacts are discussed in detail
in the APHA policy).
The external costs of hospitalizations, death, lower
educational achievement, and decreased productivity associated with
noise in the United States are estimated to range up to the hundreds of
billions of dollars every year.

Anger and frustration with the FAA and public officials are running
high, with economics prioritized over health, unresponsiveness on the
part of the FAA (which appears to be ``captured'' by the same industry
it is supposed to regulate), and elected officials who are well-funded
by campaign contributions from airlines and other vested interests.
Last year, we submitted a letter (dated March 2, 2021) to Chairman
Larsen, Department of Transportation Secretary Buttigieg, Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Congressman Tom Suozzi signed by forty-three
(43) local groups and five (5) national groups, calling on Congress to
create a safe, healthy, and quiet aviation system as former EPA
Administrator Russell Train so eloquently articulated in 1976.
Subsequently, we presented to Congressional staffers on the issue of
aviation noise. The letter and statement are attached as Appendix A and
Appendix B. (Please read them as they contain detail not repeated in
this statement).
I do not want to repeat what has already been stated in our
previous communications. Rather, I want to provide additional
observations and recent updates.

1. The FAA's 65 decibel (dB) Day-Night Noise Level DNL metric is
widely criticized and is also dangerously high. It is twice as loud (10
dB) as the 55 dB that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
considers safe for protecting health [1] and is at least 4-times louder
than the daytime (45 dB) and nighttime aircraft noise thresholds (40
dB) recommended by the 2018 World Health Organization based on an
exhaustive review of scientific evidence [2]. Heart attack risk may
start to increase at aircraft noise levels of 45 A-weighted dB [3].

US EPA ``Levels'' Document, 1974: Excerpt on Community Noise Levels to
Protect Human Health

Table 4
Yearly Average Equivalent Sound Levels Identified as Requisite To Protect the Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Outdoor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure To Protect To Protect
Activity Hearing Loss Against Both Activity Hearing Loss Against Both
Interference Consideration Effects \(b)\ Interference Consideration Effects \(b)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential with Outside Space and Ldn..................... 45 45 55 55
Farm Residences.
Leq(24)................. 70 70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(b)\ Based on lowest level.
Source: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974, Publication 550/9-74-004.

WHO Guidelines 2018: Recommendation and Strength of Evidence on
Aviation Noise

Aircraft Noise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation Strength
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For average noise exposure, the GDG Strong.
strongly recommends reducing noise levels
produced by aircraft below 45 dBLden, as
aircraft noise above this level is
associated with adverse health effects.

For night noise exposure, the GDG strongly Strong.
recommends reducing noise levels produced
by aircraft during night time below 40
dBLnight, as night-time aircraft noise
above this level is associated with
adverse effects on sleep.

To reduce health effects, the GDG strongly Strong.
recommends that policy-makers implement
suitable measures to reduce noise
exposure from aircraft in the population
exposed to levels above the guideline
values for average and night noise
exposure. For specific interventions the
GDG recommends implementing suitable
changes in infrastructure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Health Organization. Environmental Noise Guidelines for
the European Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe: 2018

2. The strong low frequency components present in most aircraft
noise [4] are underweighted by the 65 DNL. Strong low frequency
components allow harmful levels of noise to travel long distances and
penetrate walls and windows [5]. Low frequency noise is known to be
especially harmful to health, causing damage to blood vessels and a
decrease of 5-decibels for safety thresholds is recommended for sources
with strong low frequency components [6, 7].
3. Nighttime aircraft noise is now understood to be especially
hazardous when it comes to cardiovascular health. This is related to
sleep disturbance, increased stress hormone levels, and damage to blood
vessels. The damage to blood vessels incurred by noise exposure
predisposes individuals to ischemic heart disease, stroke, and death
[8, 9]. One large study found the risks of cardiovascular death from
nighttime aviation noise increased by 33% for noise levels between 40
and 50 decibels and by 44% for levels above 50 decibels [10].
4. Repeat exposure to noise--like that experienced by communities
subjected to up to hundreds of flights per day over their homes--also
appears to be especially hazardous to health. Research has shown a
``priming effect'' in which prior exposure to harmful levels of noise
make blood vessels even more susceptible to damage [11, 12].
5. By reducing noise, we can decrease adverse impacts of aviation
noise on health. This was shown by the quiet period in aviation we
experienced in the recent COVID pandemic [13] and by measures taken to
reduce impacts of aircraft noise in schools in the case of children's
learning [14].

Aircraft noise and air pollution are also negatively affecting
American competitiveness. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to
re-state a critical point covered in the open letter alluded to earlier
(Appendix A). We have lost our global aviation leadership. We need to
implement multifaceted approaches involving but not limited to
accelerated adoption of new technologies, modified flight patterns and
runways, greater local control of operations, adoption of meaningful
metrics (e.g., N above), on the ground remediation, and more. We urge
Congress to work with the FAA and stimulate innovation by enforcing the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 and by including additional provisions
in the 2023 Reauthorization Act to incentivize responsible behavior by
manufacturers, airlines and airport operators and accelerate the
adoption of quieter, fuel efficient technology like US-based Pratt &
Whitney's Geared Turbofan 1100 and alternative energy aircraft, like
that described in testimony from JoeBen Bevirt, CEO of Joby Aviation.
Above all, airport sponsors must be granted explicit authority to adopt
noise regulations, including limits on the number, type, and timing of
operations, to protect the health and well-being of their communities
and hold operators responsible.
Congress needs to act. We need to face the serious problem of
aviation noise and address it head-on, bringing in independent
engineers, health care professionals, innovators, federal health
agencies, etc. who can help develop and evolve effective solutions.
We recognize the intricacies and complexities of the aviation
system. At the same time, we live in a great country. We have the
means, the brain power, and resources to mitigate the health impacts of
aviation noise and pollution and support a vigorous national aviation
system that is safe, quieter, and healthier.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jamie Banks, Ph.D., M.Sc.,
President, Quiet Communities Inc.

References
1. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974,
Publication 550/9-74-004.
2. World Health Organization. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the
European Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe: 2018.
3. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, Brink M, Clark C, Janssen S, Stansfeld
S. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet.
2014 Apr 12;383(9925):1325-1332. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61613-
X. Epub 2013 Oct 30. PMID: 24183105; PMCID: PMC3988259.
4. National Academy of Engineering. Committee on Technology for a
Quieter America. Technology for a Quieter America. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, National Academy of Engineering/National
Academy of Sciences, 2010.
5. Johnson B. Health-Based Criteria for Use in Managing Airport and
Aircraft Noise. A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and
Environmental Management for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts
in the Extension Studies. Harvard University, May 2018.
6. Berglund B, Hassmen P, Job RF. Sources and effects of low-frequency
noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 May;99(5):2985-3002. doi: 10.1121/
1.414863. PMID: 8642114.
7. Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH (Eds). Guidelines for Community
Noise. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1999.
8. Hahad O, Prochaska JH, Daiber A, Munzel T. Environmental noise-
induced effects on stress hormones, oxidative stress, and vascular
dysfunction: Key factors in the relationship between
cerebrocardiovascular and psychological disorders. Oxid Med Cell
Longev. 2019 Nov 11;2019:4623109. doi: 10.1155/2019/4623109.
9. Munzel T, Steven S, Hahad O, Daiber A. Noise and cardiovascular
risk: nighttime aircraft noise acutely triggers cardiovascular
death. Eur Heart J. 2021 Feb 21; 42(8):844-846. doi: 10.1093/
eurheartj/ehaa984. PMID: 33367707; PMCID: PMC7898943.
10. Saucy A, Schaffer B, Tangermann L, Vienneau D, Wunderli JM, Roosli
M. Does night-time aircraft noise trigger mortality? A case-
crossover study on 24 886 cardiovascular deaths. Eur Heart J. 2021
Feb 21;42(8):835-843. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa957. PMID:
33245107; PMCID: PMC7897463.
11. Munzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Herzog J, Daiber A, Sorensen M.
Environmental Noise and the Cardiovascular System. J Am Coll
Cardiol. 2018 Feb 13;71(6):688-697. doi: 10.1016/
j.jacc.2017.12.015. PMID: 29420965.
12. Schmidt FP, Herzog J, Schnorbus B, Ostad MA, Lasetzki L, Hahad O,
Schafers G, Gori T, Sorensen M, Daiber A, Munzel T. The impact of
aircraft noise on vascular and cardiac function in relation to
noise event number: a randomized trial. Cardiovasc Res. 2021 Apr
23;117(5):1382-1390. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa204. PMID: 32914847;
PMCID: PMC8064430.
13. Hahad O, Daiber A, Munzel T. Reduced Aircraft Noise Pollution
During COVID-19 Lockdown Is Beneficial to Public Cardiovascular
Health: a Perspective on the Reduction of Transportation-Associated
Pollution. Hypertension. 2022 Feb;79(2):335-337. doi: 10.1161/
HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18607. Epub 2021 Dec 6. PMID: 34865503.
14. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Assessing Aircraft Noise Conditions Affecting Student Learning,
Volume 1: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.17226/22433.
Appendix A
Open Letter from Quiet Communities Inc. to U.S. Secretary of
Transportation, House Subcommittee on Aviation, Congressional Quiet
Skies Caucus, March 2, 2021, updated April 28, 2021
[Editor's note--Appendix A is retained in committee files and is
available online at https://quietcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/04/QCi-CQS_Open-letter-DOT-Congress_2021.03.04_update-2-
2021.04.28.pdf.]

Appendix B
Quiet Communities Inc. Congressional Staff Briefing, May 6, 2021
Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus: Staff Briefing
May 6, 2021
Jamie Banks, Ph.D., M.S.
[email protected]; 781-259-1717
President, Quiet Communities, Inc.
Chair, Noise & Health Committee, American Public Health Association
Good afternoon. Thanks to Representative Lynch's office for
inviting me to speak.
Quiet Communities is a national non-profit organization of medical,
scientific, and legal professionals. We focus on economic sectors where
noise and pollution adversely affect human and environmental health.
Our goal is to create enduring change that results in quieter,
healthier, more sustainable communities.
Our aviation program, Quiet American Skies, recently sent an open
letter, signed by forty-eight national and local citizens' groups, to
Secretary Buttigieg, this Caucus, and the House Aviation Subcommittee,
on the public health hazards of aviation noise. It covers NextGen;
helicopters; seaplanes; single engine, turbo prop, and cargo planes;
and Advanced Air Mobility--meaning drones and air taxis. All affect the
health of Americans in urban, suburban, rural, and remote areas.
Aviation is a major source of harmful emissions and noise. Both
affect human health, but today my focus is on noise. I want give
special thanks to Dr. Arline Bronzaft, honorary chair of our Quiet
American Skies program, for her five decades of research on noise and
health, including aviation noise. I also want to thank other program
advisors: David Sykes (QAS); Dr. Daniel Fink (Quiet Coalition); Warren
Schreiber (NYCAR), Barbara Brown, Maria Becce (NYCAR); Melissa Elstein
(Stop the Chop NY-NJ), Tracy Williams (resident, AL), and Kimberly
Gibbs (CQS) for their help with this statement.
This may surprise you. Noise was actually declared a public health
hazard fifty-three years ago. In 1968, Surgeon General William Stewart
stated ``noise is indeed a public health hazard, a matter of public
health concern'' noting that ``aside from hearing loss, it has been
demonstrated that noise from aircraft and other sources causes
physiological changes, including cardiovascular, glandular, and
respiratory effects reflective of a generalized stress reaction.''
These sentiments were echoed in 1976 by EPA Administrator, Russell
Train regarding aviation noise. In 1972, Congress passed the Noise
Control Act and the Office of Noise Abatement and Control was
established within EPA to fund research, education, product labelling,
regulation, and technical assistance. The defunding of that Office by
the Reagan Administration in 1981 halted federal progress on noise,
while the evidence on its health hazards continued to grow. Today, we
lag far behind other industrialized nations on noise to the detriment
of public health and global competitiveness.
In part due to that history, the FAA's decades-long reference to
aviation noise as simply (quote) ``an annoyance,'' (unquote) has gone
largely unchallenged. Describing aviation noise as ``an annoyance''
without reference to its serious health consequences trivializes the
problem, adding insult to injury to those affected. No one affected by
aviation noise describes it as ``annoyance.'' Rather, they use nouns
like ``assault,'' ``bombardment,'' ``onslaught'', and ``torture,'' and
adjectives like ``unbearable'' and ``intolerable.'' They describe
impacts like deteriorating mental and physical health, anxiety,
depression, anger, exhaustion, fear; disrupted sleep, work,
concentration, and communication; and an inability to bear being in
one's own home. One person describes aviation noise as having turned
his home into a ``living hell'' (santaclaritaforquietskies.org;
sounddefensealliance.org).
What makes aviation noise such a problem?
First, it is loud and intermittent, and has strong low
frequency components that carry it long distances and through walls and
windows--much like a boom box.
Second, it can be unrelenting in its intensity. Tens to
hundreds of daily flights may affect neighborhoods day and night,
minute after minute.
Lastly, those affected have no meaningful recourse,
leading to frustration, stress, anger, and a sense of powerlessness,
hopelessness, or despondency.

Of all sources of transportation noise, aviation noise is ranked
the worst.
For the public, the major concern is not hearing health. It is
cardiovascular disease and mortality. People living in affected areas
are more likely to have heart disease and be hospitalized (Correia
2013). Those probabilities increase as noise increases.
In thinking about aviation noise as a public health problem, there
are five important dimensions.
First, decades of research have dramatically strengthened
the evidence on what was already known in 1968--that noise is hazardous
to mental and physical health. Aircraft noise disrupts and fragments
sleep, and causes stress and annoyance. These responses activate the
autonomic nervous system and the endocrine system, causing the release
of stress hormones and neurotransmitters that lead to inflammation and
oxidative stress. The result is damage to the blood vessels and
increased risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, mortality, and
possibly even accelerated aging (Tawakol 2017; Daiber 2019; Hahad
2021). This cascade of physiological events has been shown to apply
specifically to aviation noise (Osborne 2021) and is now understood
down to cellular, subcellular, and molecular levels (Steven 2020;
Kroller-Schon 2018). Nighttime aviation noise is especially hazardous
(Munzel 2021).
Second, aircraft noise negatively affects children's
learning and cognitive development (Basner 2017; Bronzaft 2000). A ten-
year study of students from 6000 schools near 46 major US airports by
the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine found that
aircraft noise was responsible for lower standardized test scores.
Installing sound insulation in a subset of those schools reversed the
effect (NASEM 2014). Similarly, a large study of children in schools
near the airport in Munich, Germany (Hygge 2002) showed that exposure
to high noise levels was associated with cognitive impairments,
including poorer long-term memory and reading comprehension. Similar to
the US study, those effects disappeared once the airport was closed and
re-located.

The evidence for health and education effects meets the Bradford-
Hill criteria for causation. Based on the strength of this evidence,
the World Health Organization in 2018 issued stringent new safety
guidelines specifically for aviation noise.
Third, aviation noise is costly. Cardiovascular disease
and stroke cost the nation $350 billion annually in direct medical
costs and work productivity losses \1\ (Virani 2020). While not all of
these costs can be attributed to noise, lowering environmental noise
just 5-decibels generates annual savings of $4 billion in medical costs
by reducing the prevalence of hypertension and coronary artery disease
(Swinburn 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CVD and stroke, as of 2015: $350 billion/yr--$214 direct; $138
lost productivity/mortality; Virani 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, although aviation noise is in many ways an equal
opportunity offender, a good portion of the burden is borne by low
income and minority communities who have no influence over policy.
Finally, many options exist for creating a safer,
quieter, healthier aviation system. We just need the political will to
do so.

Urgent action is needed. The harms from aviation noise and
pollution must be acknowledged and stakeholders convened to develop
creative solutions. The yawning gap between research knowledge and
aviation policy in America must be closed (Bronzaft 2017). Public
health must be the top priority, not subjugated to vested interests. We
do not need more research to know that aviation noise is dangerous for
human health. As previously mentioned, a former Surgeon General and a
former (Republican) EPA Administrator both agreed there was sufficient
proof over four decades ago.
What should Congress do? Here are our suggestions.
Pass introduced legislation on aircraft noise--HR 389,
712, 1643, 5423
Re-examine federal preemption clauses that shield the FAA
and industry and prevent state and local action at the cost of public
health.
Use the $25 billion specified for airports in the
Infrastructure Act to accelerate the transition to fuel-efficient
engines and development of new technologies, like electric and
hydrogen. Many are already available from American sources.
Promote high speed rail for short commutes and allow
curfews on night flights.
Establish ``Buy Quiet'' programs (pioneered by EPA and
NASA) to encourage purchase or lease of cleaner, quieter aircraft.
As spelled out in past laws, insist on interagency
cooperation between the FAA and agencies like CDC, EPA, DOE, and HUD.
Demand that independent research form the basis of
decision making, not research funded by the FAA and vested interests.
Mandate Health Impact Assessments to ensure that aviation
policies, expansion plans, and other programs protect public health.
Insist that the FAA's next strategic plan (2023-2026)
addresses community concerns.

President Biden understands America has fallen behind in
international competitiveness. His appointment of five Secretaries to
the Jobs Cabinet shows that NOW is the time to act. We recommend the
Jobs Cabinet confer with the Secretary of Health and Human Services on
aviation policy. It's time to pivot toward policies that promote
health, jobs creation, and cleaner, quieter communities.
I would like to conclude by quoting the Honorable Russell A. Train,
President Nixon's EPA Administrator, who said this in regard to
America's aviation system: ``the present situation . . . does not
protect the interest of the general public, the homeowner, the
community at large, or the taxpayer. Most assuredly, it does not
promote the long-term interest of the nation in a healthy, vigorous air
transport system. We really know what needs to be done. We have simply
lacked the will to do it. Let's get on with the job.''
That was 1976. It is time to act!
Thank you.
References
Basner M, Clark C, Hansell A, Hileman JI, Janssen S, Shepherd K,
Sparrow V. Aviation Noise Impacts: State of the Science. Noise
Health. 2017 Mar-Apr;19(87):41-50. doi: 10.4103/nah.NAH_104_16.
PMID: 29192612; PMCID: PMC5437751.

Bronzaft, AL. Impact of noise on health: The divide between policy and
science. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2017 5, 108-120. https://
doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.55008 HG.

Bronzaft AL. Noise: combating a ubiquitous and hazardous pollutant.
Noise Health. 2000;2(6):1-8. PMID: 12689475.

Correia AW, Peters JL, Levy JI, Melly S, et al. Residential exposure to
aircraft noise and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases:
multi-airport retrospective study. BMJ. 2013 Oct 8;347:f5561. doi:
10.1136/bmj.f5561. PMID: 24103538; PMCID: PMC3805481.

Daiber A, Kroller-Schon S, Frenis K, Oelze M, et al. Environmental
noise induces the release of stress hormones and inflammatory
signaling molecules leading to oxidative stress and vascular
dysfunction--Signatures of the internal exposome. Biofactors. 2019
Jul;45(4):495-506. doi: 10.1002/biof.1506. Epub 2019 Apr 2. PMID:
30937979.

Hahad O, Frenis K, Kuntic M, Daiber A, Munzel T. Accelerated Aging and
Age-Related Diseases (CVD and Neurological) Due to Air Pollution
and Traffic Noise Exposure. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Feb 28;22(5):2419.
doi: 10.3390/ijms22052419. PMID: 33670865; PMCID: PMC7957813.

Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. A prospective study of some effects of
aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Psychol
Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):469-74. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00483. PMID:
12219816.

Kroller-Schon S, Daiber A, Steven S, Oelze M, et al. Crucial role for
Nox2 and sleep deprivation in aircraft noise-induced vascular and
cerebral oxidative stress, inflammation, and gene regulation. Eur
Heart J. 2018 Oct 7;39(38):3528-3539. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/
ehy333. PMID: 29905797; PMCID: PMC6174027.

Munzel T, Steven S, Hahad O, Daiber A. Noise and cardiovascular risk:
nighttime aircraft noise acutely triggers cardiovascular death. Eur
Heart J. 2021 Feb 21;42(8):844-846. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa984.
PMID: 33367707; PMCID: PMC7898943.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Assessing
Aircraft Noise Conditions Affecting Student Learning, Volume 1:
Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2014.
https://doi.org/10.17226/22433.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2008. Effects
of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Select Topics. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14177.

Osborne MT, Radfar A, Hassan MZO, Abohashem S, et al. A neurobiological
mechanism linking transportation noise to cardiovascular disease in
humans. Eur Heart J. 2020 Feb 1;41(6):772-782. doi: 10.1093/
eurheartj/ehz820. PMID: 31769799; PMCID: PMC7006229.

Schmidt F, Kolle K, Kreuder K, Schnorbus B, et al. Nighttime aircraft
noise impairs endothelial function and increases blood pressure in
patients with or at high risk for coronary artery disease. Clin Res
Cardiol. 2015 Jan;104(1):23-30. doi: 10.1007/s00392-014-0751-x.
Epub 2014 Aug 22. PMID: 25145323; PMCID: PMC4300412.

Tawakol A, Ishai A, Takx RA, Figueroa AL, et al. Relation between
resting amygdalar activity and cardiovascular events: a
longitudinal and cohort study. Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):834-
845. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31714-7. Epub 2017 Jan 12. Erratum
in: Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):804. Erratum in: Lancet. 2017
Feb 25;389(10071):804. PMID: 28088338; PMCID: PMC7864285.

Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, et al; American Heart
Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics
Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart Disease and
Stroke Statistics--2020 Update: A Report from the American Heart
Association. Circulation. 2020 Mar 3;141(9):e139-e596. doi:
10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757. Epub 2020 Jan 29. PMID: 31992061.

American Diabetes Association. Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S.
in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018 May;41(5):917-928. doi: 10.2337/dci18-
0007. Epub 2018 Mar 22. PMID: 29567642; PMCID: PMC5911784.

Swinburn TK, Hammer MS, Neitzel RL. Valuing Quiet: An Economic
Assessment of U.S. Environmental Noise as a Cardiovascular Health
Hazard. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Sep;49(3):345-53. doi: 10.1016/
j.amepre.2015.02.016. Epub 2015 May 26. PMID: 26024562; PMCID:
PMC4819987.

Letter of April 1, 2022, from Sam Hindi, City of Foster City,
Roundtable Chairperson, and Al Royse, City of Hillsborough, Roundtable
Vice-Chair, San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
April 1, 2022.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
House Aviation Subcommittee Chairperson,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives.

Re: Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community
Concerns Testimony

Dear Congressman Larsen:
Thank you for allowing the San Francisco Airport/Community
Roundtable (SFORT) to enter written testimony into the record for the
Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns
hearing. The SFORT is in its 40th year of providing community noise
reduction recommendations related to aircraft and airport operations
from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to airport
management, FAA staff, and airline representatives. The Roundtable
Membership consists of 24 appointed and elected officials from the City
and County of San Francisco, the County of San Mateo, and most cities
in San Mateo County representing nearly 2,000,000 people. As the Chair
and Vice-Chair of the Roundtable, we submit this information that we
feel represents the group to the best of our ability.
The topics listed below are only some of the items that are very
important to the members of the SFORT and the constituents that they
represent.
The reduction of nighttime noise exposure is a critical component
to the health of communities around the airport. Undisturbed sleep of
sufficient length is essential for daytime alertness and performance,
quality of life, and health. As aircraft noise is intermittent noise,
its effects on sleep are primarily determined by single event noise
levels. Repeated noise-induced awakenings can impair sleep quality
through changes in sleep quality including delayed sleep onset, early
awakenings, less deep sleep, and more time spent awake and in
superficial sleep stages. There are numerous studies discussing the
effect of sleep deprivation on health and on communities. During the
existence of the SFORT, and particularly in recent years since the
introduction of the Next Gen procedures, we have heard repeated and
numerous examples of residents impacted by aviation noise, and in
particular that of nighttime noise. These comments have increased
significantly in recent years. These comments include not just the
annoyance of being unable to sleep uninterrupted through the night but
of the effects on mental health, physical health, especially impacts on
children and their ability to function in school and elsewhere, and
just the enjoyment of life in general. We recognize and appreciate the
necessity of some nighttime aviation but would strongly suggest that it
be limited outside of defined hours, we would recommend 11:00 p.m. to
5:00 a.m., and be limited to that of necessity, e.g., medical,
emergency, and needed cargo flights. There is also an increased public
awareness of aviation noise, evidenced in part by both the creation of
numerous citizen groups that formed due to the concern over this issue
and of our legislator's failure to adequately act. More and more
citizens are becoming concerned over aviation noise and their
perception of a failure to address. There is an increased public
concern, which will likely only be more pronounced as passenger and
cargo flights increase as we return to normalcy post-pandemic. We
desire to have flight paths be more over water and less over land,
consistent with the mission around safety, efficiency (AND noise
reduction). With the advent of Next Gen, the paths changed and now are
increasingly over land versus water, at least around SFO, due to the
efficiency standard and reduced attention to noise impacts. However, if
noise is added to the considerations, higher use of water paths would
likely be the natural result. More opportunities are needed to work
with the FAA and airports to limit nighttime operations. As an example,
through ongoing advocacy by the SFORT, changes were recently made to
the hours of operation and the required path of the NIITE/HUSSH
departures from San Francisco International Airport and Oakland
International Airport that will benefit the residents of San Francisco
and the Bay Area Peninsula. But these changes do not go far enough. We
urge Congress to reinstate the ability for airports to institute a
nighttime curfew to provide quiet hours for communities.
The metrics used by the FAA to measure the impacts of aviation
noise do not accurately portray the effects of noise on communities.
The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric is currently used by the
FAA. The DNL measures the average sound generated by aircraft
operations over the course of 24-hours. Given the cumulative nature of
this metric, having a small number of loud aircraft flying overhead
through the course of a day can have the same DNL as multiple quieter
aircraft. Congress should require the FAA to use additional metrics to
account for the frequency of noise exposure, not just the daily
average. The FAA should replace agency-wide use of the CNEL/DNL metric
with a supplemental metric such as NA (Number Above) number of events
above a certain decibel level such as in NEPA, Part 150, and AIP/PFC
Funding of Noise Mitigation, consider duration within the agency
approved metric(s). Using a supplemental metric that factors in
duration, such as TA (Time Above), and break out noise metric standards
in terms of frequency (such as low and high frequencies) would give a
more accurate picture of what communities around the airport are being
subjected to. Priority should also be given to establishing a new
policy to employ the NES, rather than the FICON/Schultz Curve, to
better represent aircraft noise impacts to communities.
Congress should require the FAA to incorporate ground-based noise
metrics and standards into the overall analysis of aviation noise
impacts. Ground-based noise may have a greater impact than in-flight
noise on the quality of life for certain communities, especially those
located close to airports. Requirements such as all electric ground
equipment and time limitations on auxiliary power units used by
aircraft at the gates could lessen the impacts on the nearby
communities. The FAA needs to look at all noise from airport operations
including those from alternate flow operations and maintenance run ups.
The FAA needs to include low frequency noise measurements, the duration
of the noise and the fact that all departures add to low frequency
noise to close in communities. Failure to include low frequency
departure noise results in the FAA statistics on numbers of people
impacted by airport noise to be inaccurate and misleading and
undermines the impact of aviation noise on many who are the most
affected. The impact is not only noise caused by flight, but the
cumulation of every flight creating noise for greater duration and in
greater decibels due to the additive function of multiple noise events
happening at the same time.
Policymakers should pay particular attention to underrepresented
and underserved neighborhoods and communities throughout the country. A
disproportionate number of communities that are negatively impacted by
aviation noise are historically disadvantaged communities. Often,
aviation noise is exacerbated by environmental impacts of air travel
and can have a significant impact on quality of life particularly in
under-resourced communities. The underrepresented and underserved
neighborhoods and communities are generally the least able to mitigate
aviation noise and are often forced by circumstances to live closest to
airports and aviation noise sources. Even if not living within an
airport contour, they are often directly under flight routes. They
often don't have the resources to minimize the noise. Accordingly, we
recommend that in addition to the other noise measurement and reduction
recommendations, noise insulation programs should be significantly
expanded with federal funding to airports to accommodate added sound
insulation treatments on properties outside the 65 CNEL/DNL contours
but underneath a flight path.
NEPA needs to consider environmental noise as well as the
environment. Environmental noise is defined as unwanted or harmful
outdoor sound created by human activities, including noise emitted by
means of transport, road traffic, rail traffic, air traffic, and from
sites of industrial activity. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) establishes national environmental policy and goals for the
protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment and it
provides a process for implementing these goals within the federal
agencies. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential
environmental consequences of their proposals, to consult with other
interested agencies, to document the analysis, and to make this
information available to the public for comment before the
implementation of the proposals. Failure to consider noise as an equal
factor at least to that of efficiency does irreparable harm to public
health and fails to recognize that noise in and of itself is a form of
pollution that needs attention. We recommend that the FAA Office of
Environment and Energy be reinstituted to address community noise
impacts as part of the FAA process. Additionally, allowing the use of
Categorical Exclusions for projects that will have negative noise
implications for the public should be limited. NEPA should be followed
and should require all federal agencies, including the FAA, to assess,
consider, and disclose noise impacts and other environmental effects
when considering federal approval or funding of airport development
projects and airspace redesign. What and who is underneath a flight
path is just as important and crucial as the efficiency of that path.
FAA Community Engagement Officers (CEO) should be given greater
responsibility/authority to make decisions. While having a FAA
representative at public meeting is appreciated, the public deserves
more than just someone who listens. The FAA established the CEO
position within each of FAA's nine regional offices to serve as a
regional ombudsman and coordinate public outreach with the appropriate
FAA officials. These officials are required to make recommendations to
the Regional Administrator to address concerns raised by the public and
improve the consideration of public comments in the decision-making
process, among other responsibilities. In practice, though, the CEO is
merely the go-between for the community roundtables and the FAA. CEOs
only take information down and must rely on other departments and
branches within the FAA to get questions answered. This process takes
months, as questions asked at one public meeting will not be answered
until the next one. If CEOs were subject matter experts, or subject
matter experts were made available on a more timely or real time basis
(easier to do because most of our meetings are virtual or likely to be
hybrid meetings in which virtual attendance is available), public
questions would be able to be answered in a more real time way which
would make for a more productive interaction with the FAA.
Our SFO Airport/Community Roundtable again appreciates the
opportunity to enter our aviation noise concerns into the official
record.
Regards,
Sam Hindi,
City of Foster City, Roundtable Chairperson,
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable.
Al Royse,
City of Hillsborough, Roundtable Vice-Chair,
San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable.

cc: Congresswoman Jackie Speier

Statement of Melissa Elstein, Coalition Organizer, Board Chair, and
Secretary, Stop the Chop NYNJ, Submitted on Behalf of Hon. Jerrold
Nadler and Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Representatives in Congress from
the State of New York, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Congressmembers
of the Aviation Subcommittee, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives:
I am writing to offer our public comments regarding the March 17,
2022, Aviation Subcommittee Hearing: ``Aviation Noise: Measuring
Progress in Addressing Community Concerns.''
Progress in reducing aviation noise, especially from helicopters,
has NOT been made in our community.
Stop the Chop NY/NJ is an all-volunteer grassroots organization and
coalition formed in 2014. We represent community members, community
boards, coops, condos, rental associations, environmental groups, parks
associations, electeds, businesses and other groups and individuals
being negatively affected by helicopter noise and pollution over New
York City and the New York metropolitan area (including New Jersey,
Westchester and Long Island). Our website is below, and we list our
members (list in formation) on the ``About'' tab. We are also members
of the Quiet Communities Inc.'s ``Quiet American Skies'' committee as
well as the American Public Health Association's Noise Pollution
committee.
I joined the Stop the Chop NY/NJ Board in early 2020 in order to
help seek a solution to the growing problem of nonessential helicopters
(tourist, sightseeing, photography, commuter and charter) ruining the
lives of too many people, including my own, in this region due to their
loud and low flights over residential neighborhoods, parks, schools and
waterways.
Except on days with inclement weather, there are non-stop
helicopters roaring throughout the city and metropolitan area. Our
beloved urban parks that should be places of rest and peace, such as
Riverside Park, Hudson River Park, Central Park, Prospect Park,
Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Battery Park, and
Governors Island (to name a few) sound like war zones due to all the
helicopter traffic. Commuter helicopters tend to be large Sikorskys and
they roar at all hours of the day and night as they fly across NYC on
their way to the international airports or the Hamptons, among other
destinations. The tourist sightseeing helicopters tend to fly slower,
and they also hover and circle over their photographic targets. Such
photography hot spots are the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island, Empire
State Building, World Trade Center and 9/11 Memorial, Central Park, and
the Brooklyn Bridge--historic landmarks that are being destroyed for
residents and visitors alike due to all the helicopter noise. (Many are
the infamous doors off ``shoe selfie'' tours conducted by the NJ-based
FlyNyon company. I say ``infamous'' because in 2018, a Flynyon
helicopter lost power and 5 tourists drowned in the East River as they
were strapped into their seats so they would not fall out the doorless
helicopter. Outrageously, these doors off helicopter tours continue to
this day, 7 days per week, over NYC and northern NJ even though the
NTSB has recommended that the FAA end such flights). NYC-based tourist
helicopters have a different sightseeing path due to an industry-NYC
Mayoral agreement signed in 2016. 30,000 helicopter tours are allowed
from the sightseeing heliport based at the South Street Seaport (DMH)
and those flights are limited to the NY Harbor and the Hudson River.
Sound carries long distances over water, and unfortunately those who
live and/or recreate near the Hudson River, East River, NY Harbor, Long
Island Sound are subjected to endless helicopter sounds--often hearing
the stressful thwack-thwack of the blades long before the helicopters
are even visible to the viewers.
In emails, on Twitter, and in community meetings, our members
communicate the misery and angst all this helicopter noise pollution
causes. Their homes have become uninhabitable due to the noise.
Backyards, gardens and apartment terraces have become unusable.
The NY metro area has become over run with the loud and stress-
inducing sounds of incessant, low-flying helicopters (fyi, they must
fly below 2,000 feet so they do not interfere with the jet and airplane
traffic from our three international airports). For many long-time
residents, this noise pollution situation did not exist to this extent
in previous decades. It has exploded in volume as new companies have
begun offering helicopter tours and commutes. The community has
suffered at the expense of a niche industry that is unnecessary given
there are so many other cleaner and quieter commuting options.
Additionally, helicopter joyrides for sightseeing are dangerous, noisy
and polluting, as well as unnecessary--several tall observation decks
throughout NYC offer similar birds eye views!
Finally, we must add a comment regarding the climate issue in
addition to the noise problem caused by helicopter traffic. The
unchecked proliferation of gas-guzzling nonessential helicopters
contributes to our air pollution problem, increased carbon emissions in
the atmosphere, and a reliance on fossil fuels. As we face looming
climate change caused catastrophes, like super storms and coastal
flooding, we should be reducing (not expanding) our reliance on fossil-
fuel based modes of transportation--especially those that also
contribute to excessive noise pollution such as these nonessential
helicopters described above.
Community representation at the March 17 Hearing was inadequate.
Aviation-impacted communities around the country were not
adequately represented at the March 17 Hearing. The only speaker (one
of eight) who was there to speak for communities was from the
organization N.O.I.S.E. which does not represent the myriad of
communities negatively impacted by aviation noise pollution around the
United States.
Aviation noise pollution caused by helicopters is a serious public
health issue.
Studies have shown that repeated exposure to aviation noise
pollution is a public health hazard. Aircraft noise pollution has
negative health impacts on the cardiovascular system, including
increased risk of strokes and heart attack. It also harms the endocrine
and nervous systems, impairs cognition, and causes sleep disruption,
anxiety, and depression.
Congress must take meaningful action to address and curtail aviation-
caused noise pollution, including from helicopters.
For all the above reasons, we urge the Members of the Aviation
Subcommittee to take meaningful action to address the serious health
impacts of aviation noise pollution, especially nonessential (tourist/
sightseeing/amateur photographer and commuter/charter) helicopters, on
communities such as mine. As you know, the Airport Noise and Capacity
Act of 1990 (``ANCA'') stripped away most local control over aircraft
and aviation noise. ANCA needs to be amended to return control over
aviation-related noise pollution to local governments and to integrate
community concerns into the FAA decision-making process in a meaningful
way.
Members of the Aviation Subcommittee should cosponsor the below
Congressional bills introduced to address helicopter noise
pollution.
We urge the Aviation Subcommittee Members to cosponsor the
following important bills:
H.R. 1643: ``The Improving Helicopter Safety Act''--
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr1643 (We thank our NY
Congressmembers Maloney, Nadler and Velasquez for introducing this
Bill, and for inviting us to speak at their press conferences and Town
Hall).
H.R. 389: ``The Safe and Quiet Skies Act''--https://
www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr389#

I thank you for this opportunity to offer these public comments via
email in response to your March 17th Hearing on aviation noise
pollution and community concerns.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Heather Krause, Director,
Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Question 1. The GAO and other witnesses recommended that the FAA
identify additional metrics for assessing the noise impact of new
flight paths. Can you discuss some of these potential additional
metrics?
Answer. As we reported in 2021 \1\, using additional metrics to
assess the potential noise impacts of proposed Performance Based
Navigation (PBN) flight path changes may provide FAA with a better
understanding of such impacts. FAA currently uses the Day-Night Average
Sound Level (DNL)--which combines the effects of several components of
noise into a single metric--to account for the noise intensity,
duration, frequency, and time of occurrence for flights above a
particular location over an average day. However, we found that it does
not provide a clear picture of the flight activity or noise levels at a
given location. Since no single metric can convey different noise
effects, we recommended that using additional metrics in designing
proposed flight paths could help FAA identify and address potential
noise concerns. Similarly, we recommended that FAA use additional
communication tools, including other noise metrics, to better convey
potential noise impacts during public outreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, AIRCRAFT NOISE: FAA Could Improve Outreach through
Enhanced Noise Metrics, Communication, and Support to Communities, GAO-
21-103933 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2020 report, FAA identified a number of alternative metrics
for assessing the impact of aircraft noise, including: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Aviation Administration, Report to Congress: FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) Section 188 and Sec 173,
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound exposure level (SEL), which FAA already uses as one
of the components of DNL, provides information on the total noise
caused by a single flight overhead.
Number above describes the number of events above a
selected sound-level threshold over a given period of time, such as the
number of overhead flights that cause more than 60 decibels (dB) of
noise at a given location over a 24-hour period.
Time above describes the total time or percentage of time
that the aircraft noise level exceeds an indicated level, such as the
amount of time a given location is exposed to noise above 60 dB.

These metrics may provide insights that could assist FAA in
identifying community noise concerns prior to PBN implementation, and
communities in understanding the potential impacts of planned changes.
For example, considering the ``number above'' metric during the design
process or environmental reviews could help FAA identify areas likely
to experience a large increase in the number of flights overhead. In
some cases, even if the impact does not rise to the level of a
significant change in terms of DNL, FAA may be able to identify changes
to proposed flight paths that could mitigate potential noise impacts
while still supporting safety and efficiency goals. As of March 2022,
FAA said it is conducting a noise policy review and plans to consider
whether and under what circumstances supplemental, companion, or
alternative noise metrics are appropriate to inform research and policy
considerations. FAA plans to complete their initial noise policy review
by the end of 2022.

Question 2. The FAA collects a large amount of data on aviation
noise. Do you think they are effectively using this information?
Answer. In recent reports, we have identified several ways in which
FAA could better leverage data on aviation noise.
First, in our September 2021 report, we note that FAA policy
permits the use of supplemental noise metrics in addition to the
current metric--the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)--and that FAA's
current tool for analyzing noise impacts (the Aviation Environmental
Design Tool) has the capability necessary to incorporate such metrics.
However, FAA officials told us that the agency generally does not use
supplemental metrics in its analysis of noise impacts because the DNL
metric meets the legal requirement that FAA use a metric that
incorporates noise intensity, duration, and time of occurrence.
In our report, we found that using one or more supplemental metrics
in concert with DNL may provide FAA with a more holistic picture of the
potential noise impacts of Performance-Based Navigation projects. We
recommended that FAA should identify appropriate supplemental noise
metrics, as the use of such metrics could provide additional insights
on potential community noise concerns and offer opportunities to adjust
PBN flight paths prior to implementation. Further, we recommended that
FAA should update guidance to incorporate additional communication
tools that more clearly convey expected impacts. For example, using
supplemental metrics in outreach materials in addition to DNL to convey
information on potential noise impacts during pre-implementation
outreach for proposed PBN changes may help provide the public with more
understandable or meaningful information. In turn, such information may
improve communities' ability to communicate their particular noise
concerns during outreach. As of March 2022, FAA said it is conducting a
noise policy review and plans to consider whether and under what
circumstances supplemental, companion, or alternative noise metrics are
appropriate to inform research and policy considerations. FAA plans to
complete their initial noise policy review by the end of 2022. FAA also
said it plans to update guidance on community outreach by the end of
2022.
Second, in our January 2021 report, we found that FAA was impeded
in addressing helicopter noise issues in the Washington, D.C. area
because FAA and helicopter operators do not consistently or fully share
the information needed to do so.\3\ For instance, FAA does not
typically forward complaints about helicopter noise to operators, and
operators do not typically share complaints with FAA. As a result, we
found that operators have not consistently responded to residents'
inquiries about helicopter noise and activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, AIRCRAFT NOISE: Better Information Sharing Could Improve
Responses to Washington, D.C. Area Helicopter Noise Concerns, GAO-21-
200 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended that FAA develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter
noise information with operators in the D.C. area. Such a mechanism
could help FAA improve responses to individual helicopter noise
concerns and determine what additional strategies, if any, are needed
to further address helicopter noise. As of March 2022, FAA officials
said they were working to identify a mechanism to share complaint data
with helicopter operators in the area. FAA officials also stated that
they plan to conduct quarterly meetings in the area with local
helicopter operators to examine trends in helicopter complaint data and
discuss helicopter noise mitigation efforts. FAA officials said they
plan to begin holding and facilitating these meetings in spring 2022.

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Frank R. Miller, Executive
Director, Hollywood Burbank Airport, on behalf of Airports Council
International-North America

Question 1. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill allocated $15
billion towards Airport Infrastructure Improvements, which supplements
the $3.35 billion in Airport Improvement grants. What types of airport
infrastructure projects at airports might address noise concerns?
Answer. Hollywood Burbank Airport will continue its successful
noise mitigation program that is a residential acoustical treatment
program (RATP). Prior to, and then during the pandemic, federal funding
for the RATP was discontinued causing the airport to suspend the
program. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill contains funding that will
allow the program to be re-engaged. due to financial constraints and
the BIL will allow you to complete projects in process.

Question 2. You stated that airports need more dedicated funds to
implement additional noise abatement initiatives. Do you need any
additional flexibility in the AIP or PFC programs to more easily fund
these types of projects?
Answer. Additional regulatory flexibility with AIP and PFC to ease
the FAA approval of noise abatement programs would be helpful to
airports. Ultimately, though, the project needs around the country far
exceed the available funding through federal grants or local user fees.
We need to find additional resources through a combination of increased
funding for AIP and modernizing the outdated federal cap on the PFC in
the next FAA reauthorization bill.
Also, as I mentioned in my written testimony, it is imperative that
the FAA define the goal of its aircraft noise policy to appropriately
direct further research and frame solutions that are appropriate to
actual societal problems. Any changes to the FAA's noise significance
and compatibility threshold will affect a suite of different financial,
legal, and policy areas with noise programs at airports throughout the
country.

Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to David Silver, Vice
President for Civil Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association

Question 1. What other R&D initiatives on engine technology are on
the horizon that can further reduce aircraft noise?
Answer. Thank you for the question. Reduction in noise generated by
aircraft engines has been a fundamental part of the overall reduction
in aircraft noise over the last 50 years. Increases in bypass ratio and
more efficient designs, combined with improvements in noise reducing
treatments has greatly contributed to the reduced noise footprint of
aviation.
However, there is still progress in engine technology to be made,
some of which is in the plans for the NASA Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Phase III Flight Demonstration.
Improvements in efficiency and aerodynamic design of fan blades,
internal compressor and turbine designs along with new and innovative
noise reduction treatments in the inlet and exhaust of the engine offer
noise reduction opportunities.
Similar improvements in efficiency, increased bypass ratio, and
improved noise reduction treatments are in continuous development by
AIA members. These concepts will continue to develop and find their way
into future flight demonstrators and/or new engine designs for the next
generation of aircraft. Examples of R&D initiatives in current
development by AIA members include:
Pratt and Whitney Gen2 Geared TurboFan noise reduction
technologies targeting additional 3 EPNdB cumulative noise reduction
relative to current engines. New technologies include:
+ Additively Manufactured Acoustic Liners
+ Low-Loss Intra-Stage Liners
+ Low-Count / Low-Noise Guide Vanes
+ Noise Robust Swirler
GE Aviation advanced acoustic technologies including:
+ Novel Liner targeting 2 EPNdB cumulative noise reduction
relative to SDOF with neutral performance impactor
+ Fan Source Strength Reduction Concept targeting 1 EPNdB
cumulative noise reduction with performance neutral impact
Honeywell advanced technologies including:
+ Highly Efficient Fan Module targeting 1.5 EPNdB noise reduction
+ Efficient Green High-Pressure Core targeting 3 EPNdB noise
reduction
+ High Work High Lift Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) targeting 0.5
EPNdB noise reduction
Collins Aerospace advanced acoustic exhaust technology
targeting 0.9-1.5 EPNdB cumulative noise reduction
Safran-Nacelles LeAD project proposes an additional
acoustic surface in D-Duct area while supporting de-icing functionality

Many of these developments are focused on improved fuel efficiency
and reducing climate impacts of aviation. There are also significant
investments in engine design and supporting infrastructure around novel
power sources, such as full or partial electrification and hydrogen
fuel cells, which promise significant reductions in both noise and
engine emissions.

Question from Hon. John Garamendi to David Silver, Vice President for
Civil Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association

Question 1. Myself and other Members of the Committee have noticed
that global investment in developing technologies that decrease the
noise footprint of airports and commercial aircraft is increasing. Do
you feel like we are making adequate investments? If yes, please
elaborate. If not, please explain what more needs to be done.
Answer. Thank you for the question. AIA's member companies are most
appreciative of the investments in the Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program, the Center of Excellence for
Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment (ASCENT), the Airport Cooperative
Research Program (ACRP), NASA Sustainable Flight Partnership, and other
similar programs. These programs represent a significant investment in
improving the environmental performance of aviation in the future.
While we've made significant progress in decreasing the noise
footprint of airports and commercial aircraft, there is more to be done
to ensure we can meet U.S. and industry climate goals.
Improvements in operational procedures that reduce noise and local
emissions provide the most immediate relief, however that is mostly
incremental and often involves displacing noise from one community to
another. Technology demonstrators, such as those funded through
programs like CLEEN, offer the opportunity to quickly develop, test,
and prove technologies that can be applied to products and the move
into marketplace. Both CLEEN and ASCENT program funding increased
substantially in Fiscal Year 2022, providing more opportunities to
develop important near-term technologies to reduce the environmental
impact of aviation. This is an important step; but it is too early to
say whether this increase is adequate.
Substantial and growing investment in step-change technologies has
the potential to significantly reduce both noise and emissions from
aviation. While a substantial investment through ASCENT and NASA
sustainable flight programs has been made in step-change technologies,
there is more that can be done. Discovering and initially developing
step-change technologies that offer real reductions in both noise and
climate emissions is the first step. The existence of technology is
essential, but not nearly sufficient to bring it into a commercial
reality. Technology must continue to develop to the point it is
economically and commercially viable to manufacture and operate with
the highest level of safety and reliability. This is a key area for
additional investment--not only to discover a technology and build a
one-off demonstrator, but also to continuing to develop necessary
infrastructure to support emerging technologies, like electric or
hydrogen power, as well as new aircraft architectures and materials.

Question from Hon. Troy Balderson to JoeBen Bevirt, Founder and Chief
Executive Officer, Joby Aviation

Question 1. I believe it's important we work to expand our nation's
Advanced Air Mobility infrastructure. Nearly 100 companies are
considering concepts in this space. One of the concerns that has been
raised regarding AAM concepts is increased noise in urban environments.
Could you talk about what work Joby has done with government
stakeholders, especially NASA, and others on noise abatement in the AAM
industry?
Are there opportunities for the government, in consultation with
companies like yours, to do more basic research on AAM noise
minimization?
Answer. Thank you for that question. As I mentioned in my
testimony, electric propulsion is a game changer when it comes to the
way companies are able to design aircraft to prioritize noise at every
phase of the development process. This will allow our aircraft to take
off and land closer to where people want to live and work, but we must
also ensure that we are working with those communities early and often
so that this is a service that they believe will benefit their
community.
To that end, we were very fortunate to partner with NASA this past
summer on a two week test campaign which resulted in critical noise
data that we can then use with those communities to provide them a true
vision of our aircraft. With this data in mind, the government should
also look at how we can rethink permitting new aviation infrastructure
with more modern noise criteria. We are looking forward to working with
all levels of government to help provide a service that is affordable,
accessible and community friendly to the public.

[all]