After the Congress put an aviation industry-friendly categorical exclusion into the FAA Reauthorization of 2012, the FAA could not figure out how to implement the provision that stated that in order for it to use the categorical exclusion, there had to be a “measurable reduction” in noise “on a per flight basis.” So it handed the matter over to the NextGen Advisory Committee. They came up with a solution that, although innovative in its approach, assumed away the biggest legal challenge – that the noise was not reduced on a “per flight basis” but over an average using the FAA’s standard DNL metric. See http://bit.ly/1DPORoB. The FAA was not totally happy with that approach, so it put it out for comments. And now, at U.C. Davis’ annual Aviation Noise and Air Quality Symposium, the FAA unveiled its underwhelming response to the comments by proposing a third, even more deficient proposal. FAA Presentation to Symposium on 03/03/2015: http://bit.ly/1zEWKby FAA Presentation to NAC (02/27/2015): http://1.usa.gov/1ACFd47
Here, in a nutshell, is the FAA’s decision: “The noise determination for Catex2 will be met if proposed PBN procedures, when compared to existing procedures they replace, would result in a net noise reduction based on average DNL changes and would not significantly increase noise.”
First, the whole idea of using categorical exclusions for instituting RNAV procedures is not a good one. One of the primary problems that the FAA and airports have in dealing with RNAV procedures is the lack of transparency. That is, the affected communities do not feel like they have a stake in the decision about whether there will be aircraft flying over their heads. Yet, the FAA continues to use “categorical exclusions” when instituting RNAV and other PBN procedures, which avoids public scrutiny since no public participation is required. Thus, oftentimes the only notice affected residents have that the flight paths have changed is when they hear the aircraft rumbling overhead.
Second, the FAA’s new proposal does not resolve the legal issues raised by the NAC’s “Net Noise Reduction” proposal. Although the FAA claims that by focusing on aggregate noise instead of the number of the affected population, its version of net noise reduction will be “more consistent with the statute.” However, changing to a system that aggregates noise instead of counting the number of people affected by the PBN procedure does not get around the statutory mandate that the “measurable reduction” of noise be on “a per flight basis.” Since the system to be implemented by the FAA still employs an average, it is still out of compliance with the statute.
Finally, it should be pointed out that “CatEx2” is less a “categorical exclusion” and more of an amendment of NEPA’s requirements. It is a grant of an exemption from the environmental assessment process required under NEPA, which includes no requirement for public input. Categorical exclusions were intended to be used as broad categories of administrative tasks undertaken by a federal agency that do not have a discernible impact on the environment. The CEQ installed an escape hatch by stating that an activity that normally would be covered by a categorical exclusion could still have to go through the full NEPA environmental process if there were “extraordinary circumstances.”
However, categorical exclusions have been used by the FAA to “streamline” the NEPA process, particularly in the case of NextGen implementation, in order to avoid having to develop an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. This has had the effect of freezing a primary stakeholder – the affected public – out of the process. This is particularly evident from the fact that there is no provision for “extraordinary circumstances” in CatEx2 which, in an usual CatEx, would augur against the use of a CatEx. Under CatEx2, if the “measurable reductions” components are met, the “CatEx” can be used and the FAA can proceed to bypass NEPA requirements without regard to any extraordinary circumstances.
In the end, the FAA should not implement CatEx2 as it is currently proposed. This invites legal challenges based on sound legal precedent of statutory interpretation. Even if the FAA does decide to move forward with the implementation of CatEx2, it should do so only after ensuring that the affected public has had an opportunity to weigh-in on the proposed project for which CatEx2 is being used.
Reduction of noise based on the number of people affected is a misleading canard. If the flights are channeled into narrow NextGen paths, there will certainly be fewer people affected, but those who are under the paths will be very affected indeed.
Jon gets to the crux of the issue which is noise shifting. The FAA deployed RNAV for Runway 33L Departures at Logan Airport in June of 2013 after a full Environmental Review (EA) and using net noise reduction and DNL they were able to justify their actions not only as having “no significant impact” but as providing a benefit by reducing those exposed to DNL of 45 dB or higher by 65,000 people. What’s not to like about that? Well, tell that to the residents and neighborhoods that are now under the RNAV paths. The deployment of RNAV, by concentrating flight traffic, creates winners and losers. Here in our 4 sq. mile town about 9 miles from Logan, we now have 3 RNAV flight paths that cross our borders (more info here: http://bit.ly/Belmont-LoganCAC). Flights are generally at about 4000 ft.
To have anyone contend that taking what had previously been flights that were distributed across a region and narrowing them to a few narrow RNAV routes has no impact to those under those RNAV paths completely defies logic. The same thing happened last September at Sky Harbor in Phoenix. They commissioned an independent noise study over an 8-day period in Feb that provides some interesting insights (http://bit.ly/SkyHarborNoiseReport). A measurement site 12,000 ft. from an RNAV departure path had a greater than 10 dB difference in Lmax and SEL.
The “smelly fish” that needs to be put on the table is that few of these metrics being bandied about address the noise concentration impact RNAV to neighborhoods. This noise impact needs to be looked at on a much more granular level – like census tract and then assessed based on a metric like N70. By implementing a proposed new RNAV path, what is the geographic distribution of residents exposed to noise events 70 dB or higher compared to the existing procedure. How many people at seeing an increase in exposure an how big is that increase? That would paint a very different picture than the contours that are currently used. This is not rocket science to measure and calculate. The fact is that when the impacts of RNAV concentration were adequately measured and assessed – it makes it much harder to justify that there is “no significant impact”.
Hopefully the collective efforts of those now being impacted by RNAV will affect some change. There has to be a way with modern technology to achieve the efficiency and operational benefits of GPS routing and better defined arrival and departure corridors without shifting the noise burden in such a dramatic way to a highly concentrated subset of the population.
Thanks to all,
Len Schaier quietskies.net