[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]